Text 5071, 798 rader
Skriven 2007-08-02 23:30:52 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0708023) for Thu, 2007 Aug 2
===================================================

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

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

Press Briefing by Tony Snow James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

˙ /news/releases/2007/08/20070802-3.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio

˙˙˙˙˙ Press Briefing Slides (PDF, 1.2mb, 6 pages)

12:44 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: Good afternoon. Let me begin by just summarizing some of the
points the President made today in his comments after the Cabinet meeting.
Much of the Cabinet meeting was, in fact, devoted to talking about future
priorities for this administration, the President saying that he's
certainly eager to continue the work between now and the end of this
administration.

One of the key items is to make sure that the budget is sound and the
economy is strong, and there are big differences between the two parties.
Now, we have laid out what our spending priorities are, not only for this
year, but into the future, and let me just give you a glimpse of what we're
talking about, in terms of bringing the budget into balance.

There in the dark bars you see where we stand to date; the lighter bars are
the projections for the future. You will note that in the year 2008, the
projection goes from $205 billion this year up to $258 billion for next
year. A lot of that reflects add-ons in the budget supplemental last year
for defense, where Democrats insisted on adding a considerable amount of
money. Some of that is also the reflection of some increases in mandatory
spending.

But it gives you a sense what happens, sometimes, when people say, well,
we're just going to add a little bit to the budget. Quite often those have
explosive long-term effects, in terms of what's going to happen to the
long-term budget picture. Before we get into great depth about that, let me
give you a compare and contrast about the President's budget versus the
budget that has been proposed by Democrats in Congress. There you see in
the blue bars the administration proposals, in terms of non-defense
discretionary spending; the red bars, the congressional proposals.

Now keep in mind, these are the congressional Democratic proposals, and
this is without adding in a number of the spending items that the President
says he will veto this year, such as S-CHIP and other items in the budget.
If you add those in, you have a budget implication of as much as $300
billion in extra spending by Democrats over the next five years, which
would raise the per-second increase in spending from $1,300 to close to
$2,000, using the method that the President used after the meeting earlier
today.

And you've got to ask yourself, Democrats say we're going to balance the
budget -- how are they going to do that? Answer? Gouging the taxpayer,
significant tax increases -- in many cases, simply by letting tax cuts that
are now in effect expire. You will see that the President's proposals for
tax increases remain at zero, but if you take a look at a five-year tax
increase proposed by Democrats, it's $392 billion, and over a 10-year span,
that rises to $1.8 trillion.

Now the business of leadership, and also the business of handling budgets
is one where you have to make decisions and you have to step up and honor
your responsibilities. As the President pointed out, Democrats won both
Houses of Congress fair and square in last year's elections. One of the
things they promised was that they were going to step up and they were
going to take immediate action to get bills done on time and to do it in
such a way as to honor the people's business.

Well, here's what we have in terms of a track record for this year. As you
can see, it look as though the House of Representatives will have four
votes on all the appropriations bills; the Senate will have had a vote on
one bill; and precisely zero of them will have gone to conference. When
Congress returns from its vacation, it will have 19 legislative days before
the end of the budget year. As the President said, if you want do
everything fair and square, you want to do it in a way where the American
people can measure what your priorities are and what your policies are, you
do that by putting out each and every one of your appropriations bills in
order so people can take a look at it, and they can take a good, sound and
thoughtful look at what's going on.

Having said that, one other note -- ethics legislation pending right now.
There are a couple of interesting items here, too. At the beginning of the
year, members of the House and Senate all agreed that it would be very
important to make all earmarks transparent. In other words, identify an
earmark, say who requested it, say what the purpose is and who would
benefit from it. Now all of that is basically gone. As a matter of fact,
the language has been considerably weakened. And furthermore, the reporting
requirements have been reduced basically to no requirements at all. For
instance, when it comes to sponsors of amendments who are going to put in
earmarks, they will be required under the new legislation to print the
earmark "as soon as practicable." You tell me what that means.

Similarly, bills -- committees reporting bills containing earmarks must
identify earmarks on a congressional website "as soon as practicable."
Oops, webmaster has a bad cold -- we'll be back in two years. Or earmark
requests -- who requested them and why. They must be posted "as soon as
practicable." This is one of these things where -- and furthermore, the
people making the decisions in the United States Senate will be the
parliamentarian and the Senate majority leader.

All of this is a way of saying that there is important business to be done
before Congress. One of the most important and solemn responsibilities of
Congress is to deal with the people's money. Obviously we are encouraging
members of Congress to act swiftly.

And finally, on a pending matter, Jim Nussle as the budget director. His
nomination has been up for six-and-a-half weeks. Members of the House and
Senate know Jim Nussle. They know he's competent, they know he is capable
of working in a professional and bipartisan manner. You've had testimony
with House Budget Committee chairmen and subcommittee chairs who have
worked with him and served as co-chairs on a variety of committees. He
needs to be confirmed before Congress leaves town.

Rob Portman is going to head back to Cincinnati after -- at the close of
business tomorrow. If Congress is talking seriously about budget matters,
and they say they want to, they've got to have somebody to talk to. So we
do believe it is important and incumbent upon Congress to go ahead and
nominate a good man that everybody knows is competent and capable, and that
is Jim Nussle.

Questions.

Q Is the bridge collapse in Minneapolis prompting a reevaluation of other
bridges across the country, and a look at whether deficiencies that have
already been noted are being addressed?

MR. SNOW: Well, there are two things. First, this is a unique catastrophe.
But on the other hand, there is also a vigorous program of doing
inspections already around the country. The Department of Transportation
sets standards for doing inspections and states carry out those
inspections, and they do so on a regular basis.

I think I would have to leave it to the various states to answer your
question, Terry, because they're the ones taking a look at the structures.
But I think it is safe to say -- and this is an important point to make,
because there will be lots of "who's responsible," "who could have done
what." The fact is if anybody has knowledge that something like this can
happen they're going to act on it. Public servants -- this is a horrible
time for the families of those who lost loved ones yesterday, and it's also
a very trying time for anybody in public service. And so, as a consequence,
the most important thing to do with this particular situation is, first,
provide comfort for those who are grieving today and, second, move as
rapidly as possible to restore that vital transportation artery. And Mary
Peters today made it absolutely clear that this administration is going to
work arm in arm with the state of Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis to
get that restored.

The forensic work is going to take, as we heard today from NTSB, maybe a
year to figure out the precise cause. Meanwhile, again, I'm sure that state
and local officials all around the country will try to assess whether they
need to revisit their own inspection procedures.

Q You said this morning that on a 120-point scale that it was evaluated at
50. So was the -- was corrective action being taken?

MR. SNOW: Well, I will again get back -- the first thing I will do is refer
you to what was discussed earlier today. And here is Secretary Peters, she
says, "What a rating of 50 means is that the bridge should be considered
for replacement at some point in the future. Had the bridge been unsafe,
Governor Pawlenty would have shut the bridge down immediately. None of the
ratings meant there was danger." Scheduled rehabilitation was in the future
for Minnesota DOT. As a matter of fact, the Governor then continued and
said, because of the assessment by national officials of structural needs
-- that's not the same as it needs to be closed down or torn down or
replaced immediately. But there were inspections in 2005 and 2006 that
incorporated the ranking, and they were working on figuring out the proper
methods and maintenance.

If you want technical answers to these, again I would refer you to DOT or
NTSB to try to give you a precise marker on that. But that's how the
Secretary of Transportation answered it today.

Q I think people, though, are going to want to know is this a unique
tragedy? And when you say it's a unique tragedy, what do you mean by that?

MR. SNOW: Well, there have been very few situations where you've had a
catastrophic bridge collapse like this. Don't hold me to it, but the last
one I can remember is in Gallipolis, Ohio some years ago. When I was kid, I
remember that that bridge collapsed. There may have been some in the
interim, but there --

Q One in Florida --

MR. SNOW: Yes, that's right. So you have these incidents that happen from
time to time. You know, Jim, I honestly -- these are things where, again,
it's a unique -- sort of uniquely catastrophic situation. I don't have, and
I don't think anybody can tell you exactly -- an evaluation of each and
every bridge in the country. On the other hand, there is a system where
there is constant evaluation, and people do make recommendations about how
to maintain them.

Q I'm sure every citizen driving over a bridge today is thinking, whatever
wasn't picked up about the Minnesota bridge, I wonder if any of that is
applicable to the bridge I'm driving over.

MR. SNOW: What you do have is a system where the states, in fact, do the
inspections and do the maintenance. And so if you're trying to ask the
questions about bridges, in many ways that's a question that you're asking
of the states. Again, I will tell you -- it's a matter of common sense. An
elected official, one of the things that everybody spends a lot of time
thinking about is transportation and road arteries, and the safety of
structures is always a real priority. But, again, I cannot answer on the
part of 50 governors and transportation departments in each of those
states.

Q Tony, I know it is a state or a sometimes municipal responsibility to
deal with those bridges, but should the federal government take a role in
really urging them to reassess their practices right now, and perhaps
accelerate some type of inspections?

MR. SNOW: Again, I don't -- that's making assumptions that people are not,
in fact, treating this as a priority. I'm not sure that's the case.
Furthermore, an incident like this, I'm sure, has a galvanizing effect on
people all over the country; they're going to take a close look at their
needs.

But keep in mind, there is a vigorous program of inspection; there always
is. It is something that occupies a great deal of time in every
transportation department -- every state I've worked in, and I've covered a
lot of transportation departments in a lot of states; it's always been a
priority. And it's also been something that a lot of local reporters cover
for a living. So the structural integrity of bridges and roads, and so on,
is obviously a constant and ongoing concern for all the states.

Q Tony, the President said the federal government has to respond robustly,
and so far it has quickly sent -- the administration has quickly sent a
number of top officials to the scene. Is the administration putting into
action lessons that have been learned from the much-criticized response to
Hurricane Katrina?

MR. SNOW: I don't know how quite to answer that. It's a different kind of a
situation. What has happened is that people have moved very swiftly to get
to the scene, folks who are involved. This is not one where you have a dam
collapse and you have tens of thousands of people placed into harm's way,
and that sort of thing. But on the other hand, this is something where the
government has responded as rapidly as possible, and has made clear its
determination to help.

Again, I'll just give you the line, because it's one of the things that
Secretary Peters really made clear -- and I think it's important -- is, at
this point, it is our view that the thing we need to do is to work, as she
said, arm in arm with local officials. This is a situation where you've got
-- there are two main bridges that connect -- that go over the Mississippi
in that area of Minneapolis. Now one of them is gone, and it is going to
have dramatic economic implications and dramatic implications on the lives
of many people there. And we need to work as quickly as possible with the
state to provide remediation.

Q Tony.

MR. SNOW: Yes, April.

Q A report came out not long ago talking about the nation's bridges, how
many of them were substandard and how old they were. At that time, you did
not hear about federal oversight, and yes, people have said that this
country's infrastructure is poor -- going back to the issue of the levees.
That was a situation where the infrastructure of the levees were in
somewhat of a compromised position. And now you have the nation's -- many
of the nation's bridges over 100 years old -- this bridge 40 -- and the
infrastructures are not right. What about federal oversight, as it comes to
this?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you have -- the federal government sets the
standards, and the local officials, those who should be most answerable --
what you're assuming is that local officials are not competent to build
bridges or to inspect them. I guarantee you, that is not the view of local
officials, and --

Q Tony, I'm not saying that they're not competent. I'm talking about --

MR. SNOW: So what you're asking for is an extra layer of oversight?

Q Don't you think that needs to be done in the wake of --

MR. SNOW: I think what needs to be done --

Q -- reports that come out and this bridge collapse?

MR. SNOW: Again, you've got a system right now where there are regular
inspections, and the states do it, and they do it according to -- if you
want federal oversight, that comes in the form of putting together
standards that ought to be used and a way of measuring it.

Anybody who understands how local politics work and state politics work
understands that these are issues -- the "pothole" issues are always very
important, and they're the ones that tend to generate fairly quick
responses from local authorities.

Q This is bigger than a pothole.

MR. SNOW: Well, I know it's bigger than a pothole, but what I'm talking
about is infrastructure needs. At this juncture, I think it is way
premature to talk globally, in terms of some sort of overarching dramatic
change in the situation. We're still -- right now, they are still trying to
deal with families who want to know where their loved ones are. Let's find
that out. Let's figure out how to get the artery restored. Let's figure out
what happened. And then we can figure out proper responses.

Q At what point do the states have -- the local government, the state
government --

MR. SNOW: No, we're not pointing the -- no, we're not pointing the finger
at anybody --

Q You're basically saying that they're supposed to investigate, and they're
supposed to investigate, and they're supposed to -- so are you --

MR. SNOW: No, April, this is a classic mistake at a time like this. This is
not a time for finger-pointing at all. This is a time for dealing with
those in grief and also working to assist the state in getting that artery
put together as quickly as possible.

Q So I guess the question is, in light of what has just happened -- you
talk about it being premature and finger-pointing, but what should
Americans look to to have any measure of confidence that this is not about
to happen again somewhere else in the country?

MR. SNOW: Well, I mean, look, this is something where you have very rare
occurrences like this; people trust their own experience and they know
what's going on. I don't want to get up here and try to act as if I'm the
chief engineer of the United States, because I'm not going to give you a
survey of each and every bridge. But I can tell you that there are people
who devote their lives to doing this stuff and they're serious about it.

Q Doesn't it raise questions about something in the system being broken?
You talk about vigorous inspections, but obviously something was overlooked
in this situation.

MR. SNOW: I don't know what's obvious, Elaine. Why don't you wait until
somebody finds out, rather -- again, I think there's always a temptation to
leap to conclusions, to look for a global one-size-fits-all solution. The
most important thing is to be responsible and figure out what the facts
are; then you can draw a conclusion that are actually responsive to the
facts.

Any questions on this topic? Questions on this topic, hands up, and then
we'll go to other topics.

Q I guess it comes down to, is there any consideration in the
Transportation Department, the Highway Administration, any other federal
agency of doing a review of these bridges? All these federal officials
today have talked about the deficiencies. Are you telling us that there is
no notion at all now --

MR. SNOW: Peter, I'm telling you we're 18 hours away from a bridge
collapse. Let's figure out what went on --

Q But this is an alarm bell. Many of these experts see this as an alarm
bell.

MR. SNOW: I know. Let's -- right now the first response of this government
is to help. It's to help.

Q But it's also investigating already.

MR. SNOW: Well, it is investigating, but I think what you're asking right
now is for a snap decision about national policy 18 hours after cars hit
the water. And I think at this juncture, let's first deal with the
humanitarian situation and the immediate transportation needs; there will
be time to take a full assessment of what's going on and we'll be able to
answer questions like that in the future. But 18 hours after the bridge
collapsed, without profound knowledge of what went on, I think is just
premature.

Same topic or different? Keep your hands down until we're exhausted with
the topics. Go ahead.

Q Tony, there are conclusions one can draw from this, where you do have
reports that maybe thousands of bridges are in bad shape at this point. And
every time you give an economic briefing you would think that this was the
greatest, most prosperous economy in the world. How much consideration do
you take in your estimates about the physical economy of the United States,
including the transportation infrastructure?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think you will find, for instance, there was a great
debate not too long ago about a highway bill that was the most expensive in
U.S. history. You take a look at state budgets, and there is always
considerable amount of appropriations for transportation. These are always
a budget priority.

I think, yes, you do have a bustling economy, but you do make the point,
which is the transportation infrastructure is always a vital and important
part of that, and that is why state, local and federal governments are
always attentive to those issues.

Q Was this bridge -- or is this bridge a federal interstate bridge, or is
it state responsibility? And why did you announce this morning that the
President is sending in FBI teams, is there some thought that --

MR. SNOW: No, that was -- they did that immediately because, again, you
were trying to figure out whether there were terror links or that sort of
thing. Those are the -- what you want to do is to cover every possibility.

To get back to what it is, it's an interstate highway. It is something that
is -- where the Department of Transportation sets the standards for doing
inspections and the states, in fact, conduct the inspections and conduct
the repairs. That's the way it works.

Q Tony, you said that this bridge was a 50 on that scale, and that
Secretary Peters said that that meant that the bridge needed to be replaced
at some time --

MR. SNOW: At sometime in the future.

Q What does that mean?

MR. SNOW: You're going to have to -- I don't -- again, don't try to get me
to play engineer, because I'm just not going to do it.

Q It just sounds like that wishy-washy wording, like you talked about
"whenever practicable" --

MR. SNOW: Well, what she -- no, she also said --

Q -- "whenever practicable," when you talk about Democrats and all that --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, the Democratic Governor of the state made the point
that he thought --

Q Republican.

MR. SNOW: That's right, the Republican Governor, you're right, thank you. I
was thinking Minnesota. But the Republican Governor also made the point
that scheduled rehabilitation was in the future and they both attested to
the fact that this was something where someplace in the future -- and it is
indeterminate, you're right, it doesn't say six years or 10 years.

But I think if you are looking for -- again, if you want to get nuanced
answers and technical answers about that, please don't ask me. Ask the
Department of Transportation, ask the NTSB, because they're going to be
able to give that to you. I mean, I can give you the general outlines.
They're very legitimate questions; they're just beyond my competence to
answer.

Q Should members of the Minnesota congressional delegation, should they
have been requesting funds to repair this bridge, given the fact that it
was a 50 and should be replaced sometime in the future?

MR. SNOW: Well, once again, you're going to have to ask them. What you're
engaging in is 20/20 hindsight. This is something where, again, the state
had the responsibility for moving on this. And I honestly don't know what
the state was planning. They were, in fact, in the middle of doing some
cosmetic work on the bridge, and they were doing regular inspections on the
bridge, as the Governor mentioned today.

But again, a lot of times you don't have to ask the federal government if
you already have a state budget that's devoted to these things.

But let me just stress again, everybody is trying to do the forensics from
right here in the White House press room, 18 hours after a tragedy, where
people are still trying to get their minds around it in Minnesota. Let's
help the families, let's get working as rapidly possible on replacing it.
People have already started, as I've been pointing out, getting to the
scene and trying to figure out what happened.

There will be time to gather facts and to draw conclusions. But the one
thing you don't have to wait for is reaching out and showing compassion,
and also showing a determination to fix the problem.

Q Tony, but don't you think giving answers will help the families? And not
only that, many people in this nation, you could not help -- last night and
this morning, all you saw was coverage on the bridge. Many people are
concerned about riding to work, coming home from work, over bridges --

MR. SNOW: So what do you propose?

Q I'm asking you the questions. We're talking about the interstates --

MR. SNOW: I don't know what the question leads to --

Q Federal oversight, federal oversight. I'm asking, what responsibility
does this government, this administration have, in looking over --

MR. SNOW: This administration.

Q Any administration.

MR. SNOW: Federal Highway Administration --

Q Tony.

MR. SNOW: April, April, again --

Q Over the highways, the byways, of this nation.

MR. SNOW: Again, let me -- look, these are the kinds of questions that,
first, invite finger-pointing. I don't want to engage in that. Secondly,
what you're suggesting, I suppose, is to erect -- I don't even want to get
into what it might be suggesting. It's important to figure out the safety
of all structures, and people understand that and this is what state and
local officials do. They do it all the time.

Okay, are we --

Q Is the First Lady --

MR. SNOW: The First Lady will be going tomorrow. Her office will have
details about the trip.

Have we exhausted questions on Minnesota?

Q Is the President?

MR. SNOW: We will let you know if there are any --

Q Are there --

MR. SNOW: Wait, hang on. Again, we'll let you know if there are any
additions to the President's schedule.

Q Also, in regards with Minnesota, is there any plan to support financially
the families of the victims?

MR. SNOW: Again, please, let's figure -- at this point, we're 18 hours into
this. There's going to be plenty of time to work things out. What we're
trying to do is to get people on the ground, to figure out what took place
and to figure out how to deal with the structural problems.

Helen.

Q Iraq.

MR. SNOW: No! (Laughter.) From Helen? (Laughter.)

Q You know down to the penny what all the overruns are on the budget. How
much does this Iraqi war cost? Who is going to pay for it? And my other
question is, yesterday you spoke of many successes in Iraq. I went back to
the office and I found out that 140 persons were -- bodies were found in
Iraq yesterday. Do you call that success?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't. And it is also one of the things that was pointed
out at the beginning of the surge. What you are seeing is the move from
terrorists away from U.S. targets to so-called soft targets and civilian
targets, and that's a matter of concern. Civilian casualties were up
considerably last month. And it remains a -- now, what you see is in some
areas where the local populous has risen up and worked against al Qaeda,
there's been a dramatic reduction. But you see in some areas of Baghdad,
for instance, where you had a vehicle-borne IED yesterday kill 70 people,
that there are efforts to try to intimidate the public by terrorists. We
certainly do not say that the battle against terrorists is over, and it
does remain a concern.

In terms of the cost of the war, obviously that is something that the
generals constantly try to calculate, and they will continue to try to
calculate. The cost of defeat are catastrophic and, frankly, insupportable
by this country.

Q Who's going to pay for it?

MR. SNOW: The taxpayers do pay for it.

Q Also on Iraq, the Kurdish Deputy Prime Minister is calling the Sunni
pullout from the government the gravest political crisis they've had since
the constitution was adopted. Now, yesterday you seemed to pretty much play
down the seriousness of this development. And I'm just wondering, doesn't
the President, in fact, see this as a major blow?

MR. SNOW: This is -- I mean, this is an interesting situation. And again,
I'll repeat to you what the Prime Minister said yesterday, which is, what
you have is you have a number of ministers who have pulled out of their
ministerial portfolios in the government. The parliamentarians have stayed
in; some of the other key members, such as the Minister of Defense, the
Vice President, they've stayed in the government.

It certainly is something where you've got to address it. And if you've
listened to statements by the Sunni party, what they've said is they've got
some questions with the government and with the Prime Minister and they
continue to press their concerns. The Prime Minister said that he is
interested in listening to and dealing with those concerns. So there are
conversations about it.

So, as I said yesterday, I don't want to try to make predictions about
what's going on, but it is clear that the Prime Minister and the government
remain engaged with Tawafuq, the Sunni party, to try to bring the ministers
back into the government. As I said, the parliamentarians still remain
engaged in the council of representatives when they return for business. So
let's just wait and see. I mean, we're going to have to see how this plays
out.

Q But considering the importance that this development has for whatever
progress is cited in the Petraeus-Crocker report, isn't --

MR. SNOW: Well, you're assuming --

Q -- are U.S. diplomats getting involved to push the two sides towards
compromise?

MR. SNOW: I don't think that diplomats have to get involved. The Prime
Minister brought it up yesterday. I mean, it's clearly a concern for him
and it's clearly a concern on the Sunni side. And the fact is they're
engaged in it. What you're making -- what you're trying to do is a straight
line projection based on a two-day story that nothing is going to change
over the next six weeks or whatever. It's pretty clear that the Prime
Minister certainly hopes it does.

And if you've listened to some of the statements out of the party, they're
still in the process of trying to talk to the government as well. So we
will see. I'm not going to try to project out to the time that General
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker put together a report, because the
situation could change dramatically for the better, who knows. And the
President certainly made it clear that he expects, and the American people
expect, action, not words, in terms of passage of important law. So we will
see what happens between now and the time the council of representatives
reconvenes.

Q Tony, yesterday I think it was you had said that there was a
constitutional requirement that the Iraqi parliament take a break. You've
been very critical here today about the U.S. Congress taking exactly the
same kind of break in the summer. Why is it okay for the Iraqis to take a
break, when it's not okay for the U.S. to take a break, before the business
is done?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I will cite to you what the Iraqis say, which they
have a constitutional requirement and they're abiding by their
constitution. What is important is that it is a break -- it's a working
break, in the sense that you have the leaders of the three main parties
staying in Baghdad, and in fact talking about key pieces of legislation and
how to move forward. During the time leading up to the break they doubled
their work week from three to six days, they were working six days a week.

Again, we're not backing off. We made it clear that obviously it is
important for that parliament and for the political process to move forward
in Iraq.

John.

Q Thank you, Tony. Going back to the comments you made, you've been very
clear about what the President is going to veto in terms of appropriations
bills coming from Congress. Now, he very strongly signaled and followed up
on a veto of the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, which is an
authorization bill, not appropriations. Why did he not consult the former
chairman of the Environment Committee and current ranking member, Senator
Inhofe? And does he consult with the ranking members in the Senate before a
veto?

MR. SNOW: Well, how do you know he didn't consult Senator Inhofe?

Q Senator Inhofe told me.

MR. SNOW: Oh, I see. (Laughter.) The fact is -- what would Senator Inhofe
have recommended?

Q Well, he would have recommended that he veto an appropriations bill, and
not an authorization bill.

MR. SNOW: Well, let me just -- well, let me just tell you our position on
WRDA. It's a classic case of what goes on in Washington. The Senate
recommended a $14 billion increase for the Water Resources Development Act.
The House recommends a $15 billion increase. They get together and they
compromise on a $20 billion increase. Only in Washington do you split the
difference between $14 billion and $15 billion by raising it to $20
billion. And I think the President wanted to make a pretty strong point
about fiscal discipline.

Q So will he veto other authorization measures before appropriations?

MR. SNOW: Well, we'll take a look. We'll take a look.

Q Tony, on that line, you made a passionate plea for Nussle's confirmation
before Congress leaves.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Is there a thought that that is being used as a negotiating tool?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I mean, it's -- let's find out what happens. We're
expecting the Budget Committee to vote him out today. Frankly, what you've
seen are a lot of people who have worked with him in the House and some
members of the Senate who had experience with him in the House talk about
what a good guy he is, what a competent guy he is -- these are key
Democrats. And one would expect on that basis that you have enough goodwill
to move forward. Certainly you hope that somebody would not use this as a
cheesy bargaining chip at a time when, in fact, you've got the necessity of
getting a budget director confirmed, and a budget director whose personal
qualifications, and also whose personal maturity is not in doubt.

Q Did the President get a sense of that from lawmakers in that meeting
yesterday morning?

MR. SNOW: I'm sure -- I was not in the meeting, but I don't get the sense
that it was raised to a high level there. But there are continuing
conversations between the White House and members of the Senate about this,
and we are hopeful that he will be confirmed before we get to recess.

Q This morning, the President used the same figures you presented
yesterday, breaking down the --

MR. SNOW: Well, he added minutes and seconds. But, you know --

Q But breaking down figures like this -- $4 million an hour. Why is that an
appropriate course of action? Have you ever broken down the cost of the
Iraq war, per hour?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think -- no, but we can certainly do that. But what we're
talking about here is a difference in spending. At a time -- keep in mind,
what Democrats were saying, look, there's only 0.7 percent difference
between our proposal and the President's. And we're saying, no there isn't,
because what you're really talking about is a program which, in typical
Washington fashion, starts with a little wedge and the spending rapidly
increases. So it's perfectly appropriate to explain to taxpayers out there,
who are asking themselves, should they be spending this much more money;
what is it going to mean for me. There is no secret, I don't think, about
the costs of the war. Those have been made public and people have had an
opportunity to think about them.

But on the other hand, when you're also talking about add-ons to a budget,
where the President is exercising fiscal discipline, it's perfectly fair to
compare and contrast what the differences are. And those are all bills that
-- by the way, the war is something that has, in fact, been financed on a
bipartisan basis by both Houses of Congress.

Q And do you have any idea what the Iraq combat costs per hour?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't.

Q Tony, we're about to brush up against the limit on the national debt. Is
there going to be a move to raise the limit?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I mean, typically that happens. Obviously at some
point you have to, when you hit the debt limit. But I don't have anything
for you on it, Jim.

Q Tony, could you talk just a little bit about the politics of a recess
appoint of Nussle, if it came to that? I mean, is there an upside to it at
all?

MR. SNOW: No. No, I'm just not going to play.

Q Tony, can you explain why the legal minds here thought that it was okay
for Scott Jennings to testify today, but not -- I should say, appear today
-- but not Karl Rove?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it's actually a legal theory that goes back some decades.
William Rehnquist first propounded it in the 1970s. Which is, when it comes
to executive privilege, those who are not required to testify are those who
meet on a regular basis with the President. That would include people like
me. Scott Jennings was not somebody who met on a regular basis with the
President. Same with Sara Taylor. As a consequence, the Department of
Justice, in reviewing the laws that govern such things has come to the
conclusion -- this was a DOJ/Steve Bradbury opinion -- the Department of
Justice has come to the conclusion that, in fact, they must appear. On the
other hand, when matters of executive privilege do come up, they're not
compelled to give testimony or hand over documents.

Q Beyond the legal thinking, was there any political concern here that
there was a specter of this guy being sort of a sacrificial lamb, sitting
there today the way he --

MR. SNOW: No. No, what we're doing is we're obeying the law.

Q Tony, two quick questions. One, yesterday Congressman Gary Ackerman,
also, head of Committee on Foreign Relations, has been in South Asia,
conditions in South Asia. And this weekend President Karzai from
Afghanistan will meet with President (inaudible). What do you think they
are going to talk about, as far as the situation in the region is
concerned, because so much has been written about it?

MR. SNOW: What do you think? I mean, they're going to talk about increasing
security and economic cooperation.

Q (Inaudible) solution, as far as problems --

MR. SNOW: Solutions --

Q -- Afghanistan and each country is concerned, al Qaeda --

MR. SNOW: Goyal, I think you understand that these are complex issues and
you don't sort of march up the driveway and say, good news, we've got it
solved. Instead what you do is you demonstrate that you're working together
in a very determined way to address a series of very complicated issues.

There should be no mistake of our commitment to a successful democracy in
Afghanistan. And there are a whole series of concerns -- everything from
Taliban activity to al Qaeda and Taliban incursions; matters of security,
economic development, poppy fields -- I mean, all of those things remain
concerns. And we will continue to do what we can to support the government
of Hamid Karzai.

Q Two Presidents will have --

Q Tony, tomorrow at all, are you prepared to talk about tomorrow? Is he
going to --

MR. SNOW: Again, we've got nothing to announce.

Q Can you talk about the Lebanon seizure order?

MR. SNOW: You can come up and I'll give you that.

END 1:20 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070802-3.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)