MR. SNOW: In response of the news of the day, the President was briefed before and after -- before, during and after the bike ride on ongoing developments in London, and continues to be briefed during the day, regardless of where he may be. Phil Lago of the NSC has been communicating when necessary through the military aide. o

So the President is fully briefed up. He's also aware of the developments in Glasgow. What I told you yesterday continues to be the case. There is no indication of any specific or credible threat to the United States, no change in the overall security level.

However, at airports there are some alertness-raising measures that the TSA has invoked. You're likely to see those and the increased presence of some TSA agents outside terminals. There will some inconvenience to passengers in terms of longer wait times -- that's already being reported on some of the networks. Local police also have the option of invoking whatever measures they may deem necessary or appropriate. Again, the most you're going to see right now is some inconvenience, some increased inconvenience for airline passengers, more likely at large airports than small.

There is -- we have nothing to give you on Glasgow. As you can tell, British authorities are still trying to sort through that. We remain in communication. Nor is there anything significant to add to what we had yesterday on the situation in London. But again, for domestic purposes, it's important to know that we remain committed to being vigilant throughout the country, including at airports, and as I said, you'll be seeing some, in various places and locations, some increased presence of police or TSA employees, out at the curbside and so on. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I think it's really a result of just trying to make sure that we're -- when you're taking a look at developments around the world, that you're taking every necessary precaution. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The TSA, I think that's going out today. It's gone out this morning. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, I think it's probably -- I don't know for sure. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, actually, that's a good question -- the airports have been under an orange level since August. That is not going to change. They're not going to change the threat level at airports. But there has been heightened security at airports since August. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The broader threat level is not changing. The airport threat level is not changing, nor is the national broader threat level changing. Those are remaining the same. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It was an informational briefing. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No -- I know that there are meetings going on right now at the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, obviously they've been in touch. But, no. Again, what you had yesterday were -- it was a meeting that also had some people at remote sites joined by SVTS, just getting a detailed download of what they know, what we don't know, what we're hearing from the Brits, and so on. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: If there's any information, the NSC can pass it through the military aide to tell the President. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It's relayed to the military aide, again, by folks. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes. Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm explaining the process. I'm not entirely sure that there was a phone call. I think there may have been one passing on of information during the bike ride. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Any reaction? No, because at this point, again, the reaction is what you would expect, which is let's find out what's going on, let's find out, A, if there's anything we can do to help, and B, if there's anything we need to do, period. Obviously our intelligence agencies, both domestic and international, have been working very hard just to stay on top of things. That is their daily chore, and really has been a point of emphasis since September 11th, and continues to be. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It's really impossible to say at this point also. I would warn against trying to draw over-broad conclusions. We're still trying to figure out also, as are the Brits, who may be responsible. It is not clear that they're related incidents, and it's not clear what the provenance of the various incidents may be. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, but there, again, there have been high-level contacts -- there have been cabinet-level contacts between the British government and the U.S. government. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It's just -- it's reenforcing once again the importance of the visa waiver program. We've been trying to push that for some time. It's very important I think for a lot of our allies and it's something we clearly have heard, especially from Eastern European allies and the Koreans. The President believes that they've got an important point, wants Congress to act on it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, I think it also comes on -- as you noticed the other announcement that came out today refers to the fact that we do have a free trade agreement with South Korea. And the South Koreans also are part of the visa waiver. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The only information -- the one thing we can say with safety is that you're going to see in some places just enhanced police presence on the outside -- enhanced police and TSA presence. And when that happens it tends to slow down traffic. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, all airports are -- there are certain measures that are going to be appropriate for different airports, and also, especially on the local police side, it's really up to the discretion of the local police agencies. Therefore, they're going to have a lot to say about it. I think you're going to find it at certain small, isolated airports, or even some mid-size airports, there may not be anything in terms of visible difference. But it's clear and it's already been reported in New York and New Jersey there's been beefed up presence, and so you're going to see that in some of these places. And you would probably expect to see it in a great number of major metropolitan airports. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes -- well, the briefings on intelligence is pretty comprehensive in terms of what we have been hearing and what various people know and what they suspect on conclusions -- for preliminary conclusions they may be drawing. But on the other hand -- again, so it is not at a high-level generality, he's getting specific briefings. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't want to be characterizing the status of an ongoing investigation in Great Britain. Obviously, in Glasgow, they figured out who is at least immediately responsible because they've been apprehended. But in terms of London, we'll again let the British government take the lead in those announcements. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm not entirely sure about when it was decided. They were announced after Glasgow, but I'm not -- my sense -- I don't know exactly when they were -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: There are packages -- there are what we'll call alertness-raising packages, and different airports are going to have a different package based on a whole variety of considerations. Also, local law enforcement agencies who obviously have a lot of presence at airports, they have it at their discretion to put together whatever responses they deem appropriate. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: That is kind of a term of art -- I don't know if there is a complete term of art. What we were talking about yesterday is that it's important to have an enhanced level of vigilance and to make it clear that we are in fact being as vigilant as we can about trying to assess and make sure that we can keep -- do threat assessments and, at the same time, keep people safe.

What I also want to reiterate, because it's very important to do, is no specific or credible threats on the U.S., no changes in the threat levels at airports or nationally. It's important not to get people too spun up. It's also important, though, to reassure folks that at a time like this, when you're in a global war on terror, you want to make sure that you're not only reassuring the public by practicing every bit of diligence you can, but making sure that everybody is being vigilant about what may be coming up. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Because there is nothing -- because there is no intelligence to justify so doing. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, this is -- when you're talking about boosting the presence, that's exactly what I'm talking about -- that, I think, in some cases, tends almost to over-hype what's going on. What you're really trying to do is -- again, there is a way of being more alert and more present -- what this is doing is it's creating an up-front presence that, in and of itself, is a deterrence to anybody who may have anything in mind. So I wouldn't really place it at any higher level than that. I mean, it's a way of doing it -- we've seen this happen on a number of occasions, and so that's really what the TSA guidelines will do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to comment on any security arrangements in Kennebunkport. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Let me find out what our folks are comfortable with discussing. I mean, I know that there are and I'm just -- I'll figure out exactly how forward they want to lead on it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The talks? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: There will be a number of social occasions and there will be a number of private occasions, and the two leaders, I daresay, are looking forward to all of the above. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, I think there's a social dinner terrorism night, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. We'll give you -- we will try to find a recreational roster when one becomes available. I'm not sure that they're going to do boating. You've got a number of meetings between the President and -- the two Presidents and also the President and the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of State. You also have in the larger -- the "larger" social occasions would include the hosts, President George Herbert Walker Bush and Mrs. Bush. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Thanks, guys. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: All right, the President's schedule for the day: 8:00 a.m., normal briefings; 8:35 a.m. he made the announcement of the official nomination of Admiral Michael Mullen and General James Cartwright to Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

At 11:20 a.m. he will make remarks to the Naval War College. The President is going to give an update on Iraq. He'll talk about new offenses underway in Diyala. He'll talk about some of the fighting and targeting of al Qaeda, including going after car bomb factories in the Baghdad belt, and efforts to bring security to the population of Baghdad, which was one of the purposes of the surge. He'll also talk about what we're seeing in Anbar province, which was also a point of emphasis in the new way forward announced in January. He will discuss, as well, the Iraqi response to the latest attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra.

On the way toward the War College, the President will have an aerial tour of Tall Ships Rhode Island 2007; he'll fly over and take a peak.

The Department of Interior will announce today that the Bald Eagle has been recovered and is being taken off the endangered species list. Forty years ago there were only 400 nesting pairs; today an excess of 10,000 -- I'm sorry, nearly 10,000.

Also, Mrs. Bush is keeping an online journal during her trip in Africa. She's posted journal entries and photographs about her trip and experiences on Ivillage.com. We encourage people to take the opportunity to learn about ongoing efforts to fight HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, provide clean water for African communities, and improve access to education for all Africans.

In addition, as you know, Fred Fielding, White House Counsel, has informed the Chairman of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that the President is asserting executive privilege with regard to subpoena requests, four of which are due today, and one of which is due on July 12th.

Questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It's premature to talk about court. Really what we have talked about all along is working to accommodate the need for information by members of Congress. We've provided more than 8,500 pages of documents, as well as access to key players. We have expressed our willingness to give the information necessary for Congress to do its deliberations. And it's really up to Congress now. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: We are responding only to the subpoenas which refer to document requests. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No. All the offers are off the table. Subpoenas -- if the subpoenas come off the table, the offers go back on the table. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, keep in mind, that is a one-day old request and, furthermore, it is not due for some time. But let's just say it's an outrageous request. What you have is a program that was briefed to members of Congress. Members of Congress were kept fully informed all along the route, as well as on the legal justifications and the legal findings behind them. At this juncture, we don't have a formal reply, but on the other hand, it is pretty clear that, again, members of Congress here are engaged in an attempt -- apparently since they have been unsuccessful in passing key legislation -- to try to do what they can to make life difficult for the White House.

It also may explain why this is the least popular Congress in decades, because you do have what appears to be a strategy of destruction, rather than cooperation. We've made it clear that we are willing to share information with Congress so that they can do their jobs, but on the other hand, we think it is essential, as a matter of principle, to protect the prerogatives of the presidency, especially when it comes to being able to have privileged and confidential communications with key staff members and key executive branch officials. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The Fielding letter replies only to the document requests -- again, for those they needed a response today. There is an additional one where I believe Chairman Conyers, in the case of Harriet Miers, has a July 12th date. The President has instructed both Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers -- that is, their attorneys -- that he is asserting privilege and would want them to withhold any document production. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: That's not one of the issues that's raised by the subpoenas today. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, we aren't talking about the subpoenas -- I'm simply discussing -- I'm not going to talk about testimony. I'm telling you what we are responding right now to the request for document production. That is what is in the subpoenas, but we're responding -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Because what we're doing is we're responding to the precise subpoenas that we're responding to today. They are only request for document production; that's what we're responding to. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It doesn't mean anything. It just means -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It means that when we have subpoenas -- we will respond to subpoenas appropriately and in due course, and that's what we've done in this case. Again, the subpoenas we're talking about today do not refer to testimony, they refer to document production. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It's in Fred's letter. We have informed them that the President is asserting executive privilege and that they should not turn over documents. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The White House is not instructing them. You can ask their attorneys.* Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm not going any further. Again, I know you want to talk about testimony. We're talking about document production today. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I understand that, but I am limiting my answers to documents. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Because what you're trying to do is to draw in issues that are not before White House legal counsel today. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Because in the subpoenas there are document requests, and we're responding to that specific request from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: They have different dates in which they are supposed to be produced, that is responded to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: TSP. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: No, I'm just telling you what our reaction is to what appeared to be a bit of showmanship yesterday. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: What the President is going to do, as I said, is give you an update on what's been going on in Iraq. Whether that can be construed as responding explicitly or not, this is not a speech that was written for Senator Lugar. This is a speech that has been in the drafting for a considerable period of time, and will give people an update; a sense of what's going on in Diyala and Anbar and in Baghdad, as well as the Iraqi response to the latest al Qaeda provocation with the Golden Mosque of Samarra, because obviously that was a pivotal event in 2006. We're going to tell you how the Iraqis have responded and what they've learned this time. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can I just clear -- I think there's a little bit of a contradiction in two things you said. First

MR. SNOW: Well, again -- you know what, I was confused because I was responding to the document request. (Laughter.) So to your original answer, I was actually answering a question about documents. So thank you. And I'm not going to talk about any conversations they may be having. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, we'll find out. I mean, there's going to be a vote within an hour or so. We'll find out what's going on. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, we have been in contact with members of Congress over the last couple of days, and the President has made it clear that this is very important to him. This is an issue that everybody agrees is of national importance, and therefore it is a key test of leadership to see if Congress can respond to something that the public has said overwhelmingly it considers a priority and needs addressing. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Because we don't choose to share that information. It doesn't matter. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, I'm not answering it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I'm hoping to have some, but I don't know. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't know if he has any. I suspect he does, but on the other hand, there's a lot of stuff going on today, so business before pleasure. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: You know, I don't know who -- I'll have to take a look at who's going on to Kennebunkport. I'll be going to Kennebunkport, I know Joe is; Phil Lago; Brent McIntosh, of the Staff Sec's Office. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, we won't have a separate briefing of it, but obviously we'll be making ourselves available tomorrow. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, there was a backgrounder yesterday by a Senior Administration Official. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: We'll figure it out. I don't know yet. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, if there is, we'll get out. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: So, we'll certainly plan on trying to get out -- do a briefing tomorrow, but -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No. They've got plenty of things to do back home, including swim meets and so on, unfortunately. I wish they were going to be here. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, it's really not a program. Again, you're having conversations between the two Presidents. This is a chance for them to talk about a whole bunch of stuff. They'll do it, but again, we tried to make it clear -- you know, don't expect communiqu s and formal announcements and that kind of thing. This is a chance for them to continue a personal relationship that's valuable, not only because of the importance of the two countries but also the candor and respect with which they conduct their conversations. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. I know that's been asked and I haven't had a good answer for it. I'll try to find out, but I don't think so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Don't know yet. I mean, that's -- I'll go ask Candi what she thinks. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Do you know when the First Lady gets in? MR. DECKARD: I believe tonight. She comes in tomorrow. But I'll double-check and get you that. MR. SNOW: Yes, we'll get back when we get the schedule. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't believe so. Keep in mind, he's on his way to South America. This is -- he's sort of stopping here on the way through. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

* * * * *
seen at 10:10, 28 June in Whitehouse Press Briefings.

MR. SNOW: Very quickly, again, if you take a look at Fred's letter today, we are responding to the request for documents. We are not discussing requests for testimony. What, again, we are trying to do is to try to preserve the prerogatives of the presidency, the confidentiality of advice to the President; but we also think that it's important to try to work in a spirit of accommodation, which we have been attempting to do. And we hope that Congress will choose in time to do the same thing.

There you go. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, no -- that's right, that is correct. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: But there's a good way to recover the public faith. There's a good way to recover public faith, which is to show an ability to work constructively with the White House, rather than destructively. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, no. No, I wanted to be precise because there was a request for -- I wanted to be precise on how we deal with documents and testimony. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: This is Tony Fratto, Deputy Press Secretary at the White House. This is, as the operator said, a senior administration official call. So that's your sourcing. I'll turn the phone over to my colleague. He'll make some opening remarks, and then we will open it up to questions. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good morning. Before we take your questions, I'd like to just give you a little background, so we're all working from the same page. As you know, the Senate and House Judiciary Committees issued a total of five subpoenas. Two of the subpoenas to the White House for documents to be produced no later than today. A third subpoena was issued by the House Judiciary Committee to Harriet Miers for documents and testimony, and the response and hearing date is simultaneously set for July 12th. The fourth and fifth subpoenas were issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee to Sara Taylor for documents and for testimony, and the documents subpoena called for response this morning as well.

In response to those subpoenas, the President has asserted executive privilege over the requested document relating to the subpoenas, and has directed that none of them be produced pursuant to subpoena. This morning the chairs of both committees were notified by telephone and also are now in receipt of a letter from the Counsel to the President setting forth the President's decision. That letter is accompanied by a letter from the Department of Justice in which the President is advised of the propriety and legality of such an exercise of executive privilege in this instance.

We regret that we were forced to take this step. We had very much hoped that accommodation could be reached and this could be avoided. Please note this exercise -- assertion, excuse me, of executive privilege applies only to documents today, but in reading the Counsel of the President's letter, you should note that although it relates only to documents today, which is the only thing in issue today, the President has also advised that consistent with his view and the Department of Justice advice, that would be a valid exercise of executive privilege, as the testimony that he is prepared to exercise executive privilege as to testimony at the appropriate time if this matter is not resolved.

Please note further that the President wanted and also instructed Counsel of the President to confirm to both committees that he is willing and the White House is willing to revive the pending offer of accommodation if there is a withdrawal of the subpoenas or it would not be -- if it would not be under compulsion. As I say, we again regret that we had to reach this impasse, because we hoped that there could be accommodation. Unfortunately, that has not occurred.

Our system is a system, obviously, of separation of powers. Each branch has its prerogatives. And the constitutional design of our system, the President must be able to receive unfettered advice and counsel from the people working around him and their deliberations and in the performance of their executive branch duties, as they relate to the President's constitutional obligations and duties.

And executive privilege protects from compelled testimony and forced disclosure of those things. It's a principle the President feels very strongly must be protected for the institution of the presidency and for future Presidents.

I'll be happy to take any questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I have actually two questions. First, you said the President is prepared to exercise, or assert

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me answer your first question as to transcripts. Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion back and forth in that regard. The position that the President took and conveyed to the committees and the offer of compromise did not include transcripts. The accommodation was designed to provide information, not to appear to be having testimony without having testimony. One of the concomitants of testimony, of course, is transcripts.

As far as the debate goes, often cited is that a transcript is not wanted because otherwise there would be a perjury trap. And, candidly, as everyone has discussed, misleading Congress is misleading Congress, whether it's under oath or not. And so a transcript may be convenient, but there's no intention to try to avoid telling the truth. The transcript issue has been debated, as I mentioned before, but we've not been able to resolve that as far as the committees are concerned. The President felt that he made an offer which was a generous and historic offer, if you will, and that he hopes that it would be accepted. He still hopes it would be accepted.

And the second question was? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We've been advised and we're confident that our position is sound. I'm not going to speculate as to whether it ends up in court or where it ends up. I can just advise you that the President and his advisors are confident in the soundness of our decision. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Our response to those subpoenas will be the same as our response was before. We would like to accommodate and we will seek ways of accommodating. But if the subpoena is insisted upon, we will have to deal with that at the time we discuss and make our decision. I'm not going to speculate at this point. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. The position stated in this letter and in this exercise of executive privilege is only with regard and in regard to documents; that's the only thing at instant issue.

However, the President has advised that he would exercise executive privilege in regard to the testimony of both of those individuals if it gets to that point and the subpoenas are not withdrawn and they're still (inaudible) at the time they're due. The fact that they are no longer present employees has nothing to do with the principle of executive privilege and the information protection that that affords. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm sure we could provide that for you. I'm searching right now, I'm looking across the table. Does anybody have one -- yes. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In, I believe, the early 1950s, material was sought from the Eisenhower administration pertaining to conduct at State in the Truman administration. And former -- then former President Truman, himself, wrote a letter objecting to the attempt to obtain such material, and it was resolved, I believe, without turning anything over. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Don't know the answer to that, I think that's right. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Good morning. I had a couple of questions and one is, what happens next? Has the Senate given

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me take your second question. The opinion of the Department of Justice is attached to the Counsel of the President's letter to the chairs of both the committees, and obviously that is a result of the request from the President for the advice and counsel of the Department of Justice. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's entirely up to Congress. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay. And can I ask you, in terms of testimony -- I know this only directly covers documents --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The subject matter of the subpoenas relates directly to the performance of the duties within the executive branch within the White House in this instance. So we have to take them at their word on the subpoena, and the subpoena covers that, and that's why executive privilege would obtain. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We're only responding to the subpoenas. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q For any of you, I have a question about -- as a non-legal scholar. My understanding is the evolution

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh no, no, that would be a misconstruction of the breadth of the executive privilege. What is related -- deliberations, formulation of advice, performance of executive branch duties consistent with the President's constitutional obligations. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q So he is still maintaining that he had nothing to do with the actual discussions between White

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, there's no change in our prior position at all. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, state it again. I'm going to make sure -- I don't have a transcript. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Maybe you should get one. That would help. No -- in this case, the President is saying that he

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He has no personal involvement. Our position has never been any different than that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: We wanted to give you all an opportunity to get more detail and context on the substance of our position and Mr. Fielding's letter, which you have, and can quote from extensively. So this is for your benefit, and if it's something that you can't do, we understand. But we think it's helpful to reporters covering the story. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay, thanks. With that, I would like to run a couple of quick things by the senior administration

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The time that this controversy will take is totally dependent upon the actions of Congress. And we're not doing it for design of anything, we're exercising a privilege that the President feels is very important.

Let me give you a little context, which I probably should have mentioned earlier. This is a principle. This is a principle of protecting executive branch prerogatives. This will be the second time this President has exercised executive privilege in his administration. The first time was also on a matter of principle, strictly principle. If you will check, I think -- I'm sure it was 2001. He exercised privilege -- had a request to turn over documents relating to the Department of Justice in the Clinton administration, and communications to and from the Attorney General Reno. This is not a mere exercise relating to a particular event, this is an exercise in an attempt to protect the prerogatives of the President for this President and for future Presidents. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay, thank you for that. And also, I just wanted to clarify on the earlier question about the

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We're not going to comment and speculate on anything except what we're dealing with today, with all due respect. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right now it stands that negotiations are not taking place and the Counsel's letter reflecting the President's direction is an invitation if they wish to resume negotiations and reopen them, that the President has directed that Counsel to the President do that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I'm not going to comment on any direct conversations with the counsel for both of those. But I can advise you and assure you that we have communicated with them. We have also communicated to both of them, through their counsel, the direction of the President that these documents and any documents they may have in their possession that are covered by the subpoena are not to be produced. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You're welcome. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The last time that we had any discussion with them it was basically a rejection and the characterization of our offer (inaudible) take it or leave it. It was tendered as an accommodation and the only other mention of any facts is something that's been mentioned earlier today, which was, I believe, Senator Specter urging that we might want to consider transcripts as part of our -- excuse me, as part of the President's offer and an accommodation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We offered it. It's in the four corners of our offer. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I talked to Senator Leahy this morning - talked to some congressmen last night, but it was not in (inaudible) courtesy, advising them that the President was about to take this position. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Good afternoon, everyone. This is an opportunity we wanted to make sure we had for you following the meeting and remarks that the President had this afternoon on health care. A number of you we talked to after the State of the Union address on the President's proposals on health care, and as we move into discussions and debate on Capitol Hill on S-CHIP and health care broadly, we wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to talk about where the President is and remind you of the policy goals that we're trying to achieve and some policies that we're trying to keep from occurring also.

So we're very happy to have Al Hubbard, Director of National Economic Council here at the White House, and Secretary Leavitt from HHS. I'm going to ask each of them to just make a few comments and maybe even talk a little bit about the meeting today that the President had, and then open it up to questions. SECRETARY LEAVITT: Thank you. In referring to the meeting, let me just say that it was a very thoughtful conversation between a group of people who have spent a lot of time over the course of many years examining this. And the discussion boiled down, as almost any conversation like this does, to the fact that there is a widely held aspiration that every American have access to an affordable basic insurance policy.

But there are two competing philosophies about how that should be accomplished. One is a Washington-run, government-owned plan, where government makes the choices, where government sets the prices, where government then taxes the people to pay the bill. The other is a state-organized private market where consumers choose, where the insurance plans compete, and where innovation then drives the quality up and the cost down.

S-CHIP and the reauthorization debate is a center court match between the philosophies of government-run health care and organized private health care markets. There are obviously things on which we agree, and then there are things on which there is disagreement. I'd like to at least frame those for you.

What do we agree on? Well, we agree that S-CHIP, the program for low-income children, should be reauthorized. There is no disagreement on that point. However, there is disagreement on whether S-CHIP should be used as the vehicle to shift millions of people who have good incomes and private insurance to a publicly assisted government insurance. The proposals that are being made now would increase those who are eligible from 200 percent of the federal poverty level to nearly twice that, which would mean that families making over $81,000 a year would have children eligible for public assistance. It would mean that 71 percent of all children in this country would be eligible for a program that was designed for low-income children.

There is agreement that over the next five years S-CHIP reauthorization will require more money than it did in the last five years. There is disagreement on the point that it should be $50 billion more. There's agreement that it's not just children that need health insurance -- it's every American that needs insurance and that we ought to be focusing on not just the problem of children, but every American, and that, again, government -- there's disagreement on the fact that government shouldn't be the vehicle.

Now, let me just say that in the context of our conversation today we talked about those two competing philosophies. There are those who clearly advocate that Medicare should cover everyone, or the federal government. And then there are those who believe that government's role is to organize an efficient and a fair market. And there are really three steps to making every American -- or to providing every American with access.

The first is to recognize that if you're in hardship in this country -- if you're poor, or if you're elderly, or disabled -- Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP are there and need to be there as sustainable programs. Second is that everyone who isn't in hardship deserves to live in a state where there is an organized market providing them with access to an affordable basic insurance policy.

The third step is that we need to end the discrimination between those who are able to buy insurance in the private market through an employer -- I should say -- let me restate that -- we need to end the discrimination between those who are not able to purchase insurance through their employer and those who have to buy it on their own. The President, earlier, had made a proposal involving a standard deduction. And we had a very robust conversation about that today, and the President and many of those who were there talked about alternatives that were being suggested to solving the problem. Sic* One is an earned income credit. The President was very interested in that; it was part of our discussion. And I'll ask Al to discuss the conversation related to the credit. MR. HUBBARD: Thanks, Mike. As you know, the President, last January in the State of the Union, talking about the importance of addressing health care, proposed the standard health care deduction of $7,500 for individual, single-purchase health care, and $15,000 for family-purchased health care, and making that available to everyone in America, no matter whether you get your insurance through your employer or whether you buy it on your own.

You should know that leading up to that, as we went through the policy process -- which takes, literally, months -- leading up to the State of the Union, and with multiple meetings with the President talking about health care, he considered both the tax credit, refundable tax credit, as well as the standard deduction, and saw a lot of positives in both. And to be perfectly frank, it was a very close call which way he went, but eventually -- and saw benefits to both, saw that both were major steps forward in dealing with the systemic problems with health care, but ultimately decided the standard deduction was what he would propose to the American people and to Congress.

Congress, as they have considered this, had -- I think you will find, we have certainly found that a number of them are very interested in a tax credit. And in the meeting today with these six experts, some of them supported the standard deduction and some of them supported the tax credit, the refundable tax credits, and there are good arguments for both. And the President made it clear in his presentation today that although he supports the standard deduction, he is open to the refundable tax credit, and what's most important is that we deal with the fundamental problem -- the systemic problem facing health care in America and create a system that makes health care, as Mike said, accessible and affordable to every single American.

And we think either approach -- and to be perfectly frank, in our meeting -- and I've heard proposals on Capitol Hill that actually combine the standard deduction with a tax credit -- but any of those three approaches is a major step forward in addressing the major problems facing the private insurance market. And when you combine that with giving governors and legislatures more flexibility in the way they use federal dollars, encouraging the states to address the challenges of the chronically ill so they have affordable and accessible health insurance, as well as addressing the problems of those who are extremely poor, so health care -- private health insurance is affordable to them, the President believes that, again, with either approach we can end up with a system, organized basically at the state level, that would make it possible for every single American to have affordable and accessible health care. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Is the President hoping that by expressing openness toward a tax credit that he can bring more

MR. HUBBARD: As I said, it was a close call. The signal he wanted to send is he wants to encourage the debate and encourage Congress -- and, obviously, nothing gets passed in Congress if it's not bipartisan -- but encourage both sides of the aisle to very seriously look at -- both sides of the aisle to be committed to fixing the problems of health care, and doing it through private insurance and the private sector, preserving the freedom of choice and the important doctor-patient relationship that exists in the private sector.

And what he's saying is, either way works; it's a major step forward, but what's important is that we address it and we address it now, and we fix it for the American people. SECRETARY LEAVITT: Can I add something to this? In the State of the Union the President basically said two things. The first was, we've got to solve this tax discrimination problem. And the second was, I'm assigning the Secretary of Health and Human Services to go out and talk to all of the governors. Well, I've talked to every governor; I've been in every -- virtually every state, talked to state legislatures. There is a torrent of activity happening right now in the states. The states have a significant challenge, however -- they cannot deal with this tax discrimination problem on their own. States have to depend on Congress to do that.

Now, when you look at the dilemma between whether you use a credit or a standard deduction to do it, what you find is that the standard deduction has -- influences more of the equity issue, treating everybody with exact equity. The credit tends to be more helpful to those at the lower income. So what you see is the struggle between those two very high priorities.

Now, as Al mentioned, there are people now who are beginning to say, could you blend those two and find a balance? And for that reason, the President is saying, look, I want the problem solved so that this torrent of activity in the states can unfold and allow states to solve the puzzle of how you make certain everyone has access to an affordable, basic policy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HUBBARD: You make the credit -- basically, you work -- what we presented to the President was what Treasury told us was a revenue neutral number of $4,500 for family coverage and $2,500 for individual coverage. I think others, it's my understanding, have come up with other combinations, but that -- because what you're doing is -- right now, these numbers aren't perfect, but we can get you the close to perfect numbers from OMB. The Treasury gives up about $230 billion a year from the tax inclusion, the fact that those of us who get their insurance through their employer don't pay taxes on -- either payroll taxes or income taxes, and that amounts to about $230 billion.

If you take that $230 billion and you start charging people -- so you would start paying taxes on that benefit you're getting from your employer, but then in place of it -- so you would pay taxes, but then you would get the tax credit. And that $230 billion divided equally among everyone purchasing insurance, it spreads out equally at $4,500 and $2,250. Again, that's the Treasury's numbers. By the way, when joint tax does it, they always come out with different numbers. But those are ballpark numbers of what is a revenue neutral number. SECRETARY LEAVITT: Can I take another -- oh, go ahead, you wanted to follow up on that. I was just going to say that what the credit constitutes is a trade for those who have employee -- those who have employer-sponsored insurance now, they currently get a very prominent tax break, and they're simply trading it for a tax break of a different kind that is extended to more people. And because there is that trading, it makes it more fair and, frankly, it benefits about 80 percent of those who currently have insurance.

We want to emphasize that under either of these proposals, employers would be treated precisely as they are now. Employer-based insurance will continue to be, under any of these proposals, a very important, prominent part of the way people buy insurance, and employers would continue to be able to deduct the cost of health insurance that they pay on behalf of their employees. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I am sure that what you say is true, that there are certain people in Congress who would much prefer

SECRETARY LEAVITT: We contemplate that health care as a subject will be raised in the context of the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. It's clear to us that the conversation needs to be not just about how we assure children in low incomes have insurance, but how we assure that every American has access to an affordable basic plan. And we believe that this conversation will mature now, as we move toward reauthorization. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: I've made very clear, I think, in unambiguous terms, that we support the reauthorization of S-CHIP, and will continue to work actively for its reauthorization. It's a very important part of how we assure that low-income children have care. But we believe that the debate should include not just children, but all Americans. The President made clear today that every American needs access to an affordable plan.

Now, when you start looking at either the deduction or the credit, that clearly not only helps those who have no insurance, but it helps those who have insurance being purchased through an employer to have them -- to get it less expensively. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: We expect that the S-CHIP debate will enliven the entire discussion over health care. And we desire this discussion not to be just about children, it needs to be about all Americans having access to an affordable basic plan. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Secretary, if what you all support in the S-CHIP reauthorization is to continue it for kids, therefore

SECRETARY LEAVITT: Let me be clear that our position on S-CHIP is that any person, whether they are adult or a child, who is currently eligible for S-CHIP would continue to be eligible. We do not believe that new populations of adults or children should be eligible. Those adults that have been put on S-CHIP by states, frankly, for the most part were put there because they got a better reimbursement. If you take a look at the populations, they would almost all be eligible for Medicaid.

So why did they put them on S-CHIP? They put them on S-CHIP because they got a 70-percent match, as opposed to a 50-percent match. This isn't a question of whether those adults should be eligible, it's a question -- it's a dispute between partners as to who ought to pay the most. And if you're a state, then you're interested in having them pay the highest amount. And what we're saying is, this is a program for low-income children, and that we should be focused on the bigger picture, which is all Americans, and we want the S-CHIP conversation to be done in the context of all Americans, not just focused on children. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q You're having a hard time, though, getting financing to pay for the S-CHIP expansion in and of

SECRETARY LEAVITT: Our goal is to have every American have access to an affordable basic plan. And S-CHIP is an important part of it. But we can't get to everyone else unless we solve this problem. You've got a literal -- dozens of states -- I mean, you've got dozens of states right now, literally dozens of states, that are working to develop the strategies to cover -- or to provide access to every one of their citizens. They cannot solve that problem without Congress acting. And so we want to give states the tools they need for S-CHIP. But we also need to give them tools for every American. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HUBBARD: I think it's an important point, though, when you talk about, doesn't this make it more difficult -- well, from a financing perspective, this is much less difficult. The Democrat proposal, based on what we understand, is $50 billion or $50-plus billion over five years. What we're talking about is revenue neutral when it comes to the tax reforms, revenue neutral when it comes to giving flexibility to governors to use federal dollars. Our S-CHIP proposal costs $4.9 billion over five years above the baseline. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: We believe this debate will mature in the context of the S-CHIP discussion, and that there are groups all through Congress now working on different strategies that, in time, will consolidate into what I think will be a fairly focused proposal. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: We believe that we should be focused not just on S-CHIP, but we see that as a very important part. We believe that we should be finding ways to extend access to health insurance to all Americans, and that a very important part of that is solving this tax problem. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: No, we ought to be taking on the discussion of every American and how we provide access, at the moment when states throughout this country are struggling to find ways to solve this problem. This is the moment that it could be done, and we ought to be looking at not just children, but all Americans. Now, I want to emphasize, we see S-CHIP as a critical part of that. MR. HUBBARD: Let me amplify one point that Mike just make about the governors and this flurry of activity that's going on. If either the tax credit or the standard deduction were passed, it would enhance their ability to deal with their uninsured dramatically. I mean, you're talking about literally for a -- I was trying to remember -- for a state, we could give you the numbers, but you're talking about for a state the size of Georgia, better than $1 billion a year, if all of their uninsured actually participated in one of these two programs. So in terms of assisting the governors, as Mike said, they really can't deal with their problems until the tax code is fixed. And that's why it's so important that Congress deal with the tax code, and deal with it as soon as possible. SECRETARY LEAVITT: In order for the states to -- in order for us to have -- in order for every American to live in a place, or in a state where they have access, the states have to solve three problems. The first is, they have to create a pooling mechanism, to assure that the hard-to-insure and chronically ill are part of this. The second is, they have to conclude how to subsidize or assist those who still can't afford insurance after they have the tax help. And third, they have to assure that there is a safety net for those who still don't buy. The problem they can't solve is this tax piece.

Now, the President mentioned in his statement today that early actuarial indication is that were either of them, and particularly the credit, were to be implemented, more than 20 million people would buy insurance. Think about that for a minute. If you assume right now there are 40-plus million who don't have it, of those, 8 million to 10 million are people who are eligible for the current S-CHIP, Medicare or Medicaid program. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: There were a number of different estimates, and I think we've got to reconcile that offline, because I'm not able to give you the exact number. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HUBBARD: Well, our position is that S-CHIP shouldn't be expanded the way the Democrats are proposing. S-CHIP should deal with, as Mike has said, as the President has said, deal with its original -- with the originally targeted group of people, which are children from families under 200 percent of poverty. And that would cost $4.9 billion. That's paid for in our budget, and doesn't require any tax increases. SECRETARY LEAVITT: This is an important point. Can I reconcile this number for you, because I -- you want to follow. At some point -- ask me to reconcile these numbers today. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: That sounds like the question I was looking for. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: We don't think we need a tobacco to do it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: We don't support it. I'm not the President, I don't speak for the President, but I have not heard him make any reference to this. So you'll have to get that from people -- MR. HUBBARD: A tax increase is not needed if you pursue the policies of the President. Our budget accommodates addressing kids from families under 200 percent of poverty, and there are no tax increases necessary to take care of those folks. SECRETARY LEAVITT: I'm itching to tell this story about the numbers, so I want to -- this has been bothering me. Look, there are -- what is the universe of eligible S-CHIP children -- that's at the heart of this -- who don't have insurance? We asked, through a contract we have with the Urban Institute, for them to go out and help us determine that. They came back and said this: If your question is, how many children who are under 200 percent of the poverty line who have not had insurance for the last year, the number is 690,000 people -- children. Now, if you ask the question, how many children are eligible for S-CHIP in all of the states who currently do not have S-CHIP, the number is -- and did not have S-CHIP`-- let me restate that, let me make this right. If you ask the question, how many children are there who did not have health insurance for any part of the year, one day or 11 months, the answer is 1.7 million. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: Of those who were eligible for S-CHIP. Now, in some states it may be 235 percent, in some states it may be 200 percent, some states it may be less. If you take all of the states, take their eligibility, ask the question, how many children at some point during the year did not have health insurance, the number is 1.7 million people.

Now, just for a minute with me, let's assume that you could find all 1.7 million of them on the 31st of December of a given year, and you could enroll them all in S-CHIP, and that none of them would leave S-CHIP through that entire year, so you would keep them on S-CHIP the entire year -- I think that's about the most conservative estimate you can -- now, take that 1.7 million and multiply it by the cost of S-CHIP. It's $1,152. You do the math. What you'll find is that it is slightly less than $2 billion a year. Now, we're doing five-year budget estimates here, so just under $2 billion a year times five is just under $10 billion.

Now, where do they come up with $50 billion? The only way that it can be coming up with $50 billion is if you expand the population from 200 percent to 400 percent, or some other number. And so when we say the President's budget accommodates that, the President's budget is $34 billion. There's a $25 billion baseline, and there's a $5 billion piece in the President's budget, and there's $4.9 billion left in unallocated resources. That is just under $10 billion. That's how the President's budget does this. Where does the $50 billion come in? It has to be a dramatic expansion.

There's another point -- while I'm on a roll here -- if you look at the people who are going to be added in a higher income, the higher the income the more likely they are to have existing insurance. At least half of the people who would be added to the rolls of S-CHIP have private insurance right now. By some estimates, it's as high as two-thirds. So if you're going to add 4 million people, and they're higher-income people, the likelihood is 2.5 million of them already have insurance.

So what are we accomplishing here? What we're accomplishing is we're moving people from private insurance who have good incomes to government insurance, and we're moving people toward -- rather than having a system of private insurance, a government insurance. That's why we talked about this collision. When you look at those numbers, you can, in fact, cover people -- children who are eligible for S-CHIP with the President's budget. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: I was not there when the waivers were issued, but I do know this, that they were on children -- we did not have any authority to disapprove the states' movement up because they had an allocation, they had a block -- they had a grant, rather, an allocation, and they could spend it any way they wanted on children. There were a limited number of places where the Department provided for limited demonstrations on adults. That was before we had Medicaid flexibility. And they were all given -- we had an agreement with them that if they ran out of money, here's how they would do it: They would put those people back on Medicaid. We now have Medicaid flexibility. They can do exactly with Medicaid what they were doing before with S-CHIP. It was a noble effort to learn something, and second of all, to try and help the states with flexibility. Gratefully, the Congress has now granted that into Medicaid, and we won't need to be doing what we did before. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Just to follow on Laura's question earlier. The President's proposal for the standard tax deduction

SECRETARY LEAVITT: The President asked me to visit with all the governors; I've done that. He also asked Al and I to have a lot of conversations with Republicans and Democrats who are interested in this issue. I can just report to you that there is a robust interest in this in various quarters in Congress. They need to speak for themselves at the time they choose, but the reality is I believe this debate will mature as the health care discussion unfolds. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SECRETARY LEAVITT: The President has a budget. He has funded S-CHIP in a way that will reconcile to that budget. He believes that all Americans ought to have access, and he's made a proposal for that. And we're anxious to have both discussions. MR. FRATTO: We have time for maybe one or two more questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Did the question of a one-year reauthorization come up in this discussion or any other discussions

SECRETARY LEAVITT: I fully anticipate that S-CHIP will be reauthorized; it needs to be reauthorized. We support reauthorization. I don't know anybody in the Congress who doesn't. Therefore, it ought to be achievable. I think that one of the other things we have in common is that we -- there is this widely held aspiration for every American to have access to an affordable insurance policy. To me, the opportunity -- I didn't get a chance to finish what I was talking about. You take 40 million people who don't have insurance, and if you figure 8 million of them are people who have eligibility for S-CHIP or Medicaid or Medicare, but haven't done it yet, that gets you down to 32-plus million. If you look at the balance of it, about 10 million of the people here who are here on an undocumented basis and aren't eligible for those programs, that leaves you in the 22 million to 25 million range. We're within striking distance of having every person have access to an affordable basic insurance policy. And Congress ought to act on that, and they ought to do it in a way that creates equity where equity currently does not exist. MR. HUBBARD: Just to follow up, and it's really answering you all's questions, with Congress having this opportunity, it will be astounding that they don't move on it. And if they're truly interested in making health care affordable and accessible to all Americans, then there is no reason for them not to address the systemic problems of the tax code, either through a credit, or a deduction, or a combination of the two, and through more flexibility for governors in using federal dollars. SECRETARY LEAVITT: I might add -- if you look back among many of the proposals that are being put forward by Democrats and have been voted on by Democrats and Republicans, you'll find that the credit is prominent in a lot of those plans. This is a proposal -- fixing the tax problem is a proposal that has been widely supported by members of both parties at different times. This is a place where a lot of people could come together. MR. FRATTO: Last question. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Feeling nostalgic? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Our last on-camera briefing at this lovely facility. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I like it here, but only because of the company. So I will be happy -- (laughter) -- so I will like it when we're in Room 450 and I'll really like it when we're in the new briefing room.

Questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, first, let's try to get this thing through the Senate first. There were also some 70 Republicans who were not part of that vote. I think if we get the Senate bill passed, which we feel confident we will, it creates an opportunity for people to spend a lot of time talking about what the bill does and does not do, and frankly, how it also addresses a lot of the concerns that House Republicans have, such as how can we trust you to enforce the borders? What do you have here that creates credibility in a system that in the past has not been credible in enforcing borders, or trying to hold to account those who crossed over the border illegally? What do you do about employers?

In other words, there are a lot of very practical questions that are of concern, and I think it gives us an opportunity to spend time talking with House members, and also making clear that we share not only their concerns, but reassure them we share their goals in a lot of ways, in terms of border security, in terms of restoring the rule of law, in terms of making sure that citizenship means something. All of those elements are in place. So -- and finally this: If House members do, in fact, have concerns with things that they think can be used to improve the bill, to strengthen it, they're going to have an opportunity to do it, because whatever happens in the House will move from subcommittee to committee to the floor, and offer a chance, I think, for a very full and detailed debate. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No. I mean, we understand -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: An overwhelming majority of those who voted. But there are going to be opportunities to speak to them and to hear their concerns. There are going to be some who are not going to vote with us, we understand that. But on the other hand, we believe, on a bipartisan basis we'll be able to put together the vote -- well, we hope that in the House we'll be able, on a bipartisan basis, to put together the votes we need. But it is going to require a lot of conversation and a lot of opportunities for us again to talk about what the bill does and does not do, because, frankly, there have been characterizations out there that don't reflect what the bill does, nor do they reflect the thinking of the administration. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not going to -- what I will say is that he is making phone calls and will continue to be making phone calls. There have been opportunities also to speak individually with members, and we'll continue to do that.

And the President does that -- he does it on immigration; obviously, we do it with Iraq. So it's the normal practice -- sometimes he'll do it from the Oval, sometimes he'll do it from the residence, sometimes from the small office -- it sort of depends where he is at the time, but he makes sure that he is -- there will be continued outreach, but I'm not going to go into details about how, who, what, when, where, why. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, we certainly are going to have conversations with them. We're going to be talking to them. You know, it's interesting, because I've been going back again over the Senator Lugar speech. Really, when you take a look at it, the one thing he rules out very quickly is the idea we just get out -- don't fund the troops, don't have precipitant withdrawal. What he's really talking about is the over-the-horizon strategy -- and the President has used that term before -- that once you have created the space in which the Iraqis, in fact, have stepped up, they've made the political progress, they've made the military and training progress, where do you go? And you get to the point where U.S. forces withdraw -- again, over the horizon is the term the President has used -- and it sounds like that's a lot of what Senator Lugar is discussing, as well.

We think it's important to allow the Baghdad security plan to work. But if you take a look -- and what Senator Lugar is trying to figure out is what configuration is going to be conducive in the long run to success, and also build a greater -- bipartisan support. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, first, ultimately, this is going to be up to the Palestinians and the Israelis. An outside politician is not going to be the person who creates peace or a settlement in the Middle East.

On the other hand, Tony Blair is not only enormously capable and well-respected as a world leader, he is somebody who has personal skills that are going to be able to get people to talk with one another. And, frankly, the President is delighted that the Prime Minister has agreed to lend his considerable talents and energies to the task of trying to advance the peace process.

But, as we've said, people are going to have to be making choices and they're going to have to make choices in the direction of peace. And obviously the first step is getting people on the Palestinian side to adopt the Quartet principles. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, I think you've seen a number -- you've seen moderate voices coming forward and especially -- take a look at what's going on, for instance, in Iraq right now where you have leaders -- Sunni and Shia now really focusing a lot of their efforts and also their rhetoric on al Qaeda. When you're talking about an organization that is trying to use Islam as a shield for terrorist activity, al Qaeda really is your perfect example of it, and you do see people standing up for it.

Obviously, what you want is, the dialogue continues for people to speak out more forcefully against the abuse of a religion of peace for those who want to use it as a shield for terror that that religion does not condone. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q What is the horizon of this administration to stop the killing in Iraq? And does the President

MR SNOW: What the President -- I think what you -- you focus on exit, Helen. The thing that we're trying to focus on is success. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: Well, take a look again at what Dick Lugar talked about. Dick Lugar did not talk about exit. What he talked about is reshaping the way the forces are. But the one he rejected is exit. What he is talking -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: No, what he's talking about is a strategy for pulling people, again, over the horizon. Take a look at the speech and also his public statements and you're going to find that what he's not talking about is getting out. What he's trying to come up with is a way of engaging regional powers and also Iraqi powers and the allies in such a way that has to deal with the ongoing problems they've had in terms of violence, but also build the institutions that are going to be absolutely necessary to have a safe and free and democratic Iraq. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, the first thing you do is you start working with the Palestinian government. President Abbas has appointed a Prime Minister; that is the government, it's a constitutional government, you begin working with them. And the other thing you do is you continue to pour in humanitarian aid to people who need it, and you send a strong signal to Hamas that the way of terror is not going to do it.

Again, Tony Blair is not the person who comes in and says, aha, I will solve it. It's going to be up to the Palestinians. And it's going to be up to Palestinians to say to Hamas, sorry, the way of terror is not, in fact, in the best interests of the future of this country.

Now, Tony Blair is going to have the opportunity to work with and in support of those who support democracy and peace in the region, and that's what he does. He's not Superman, he doesn't have a cape. He's not designed to be doing that. What he is designed to do is to work as an aggressive facilitator between the Quartet and interested parties to try to look for ways to make progress where in the past we have not seen the kind of progress we'd like. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, at this juncture I leave any of those decisions -- that is a tactical question that I leave to -- now, the one thing we've said is that we believe in -- we're not talking about -- what you're really discussing would be a partition, and we're not talking about a partition. We think that the Palestinian area encompasses Gaza and the West Bank, and that's got to be part of the solution. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Right. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not -- I was not addressing specifically -- I gave you a very general answer for a reason. We're going to take a look at what Democrats have to offer. As you know, we already have a couple of veto threats out on that energy bill. We'll take a look at tax provisions, as well, but I'm not going to get into that -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to give you -- I gave you a very general comment. Let's see what the House does and then we will give you a specific comment. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: We're not inclined to be in favor of tax increases. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, back on immigration. Some are saying it has to be done, all of it has to be done by August

MR. SNOW: Boy, what a negative way of framing it. First, I think as a practical matter, you're not really talking about July or August, simply because for something to work its way through the House is going to take some time. So if you get a Senate bill, then you move to the House -- you're talking into the fall, anyway. What we're working toward is, again, getting through the Senate and making a vigorous case to the American people -- Democrats and Republicans -- for this to succeed.

Again, April, you take a look -- everybody agrees that it's a problem that has been unaddressed for 21 years; needs to be addressed. Everybody agrees on the importance of border security. Everybody agrees on the importance of restoring the rule of law. Everybody agrees that citizenship ought to mean something.

We think that this bill, when people do have a chance to look at it -- I'll give you an example. A lot of folks say, well, why don't you go ahead and take care of border security? Well, you take a look at the triggers, we're talking about a $6 billion investment over a three-year period, unparalleled in American history, that is the most aggressive, the most assertive, the boldest and most ambitious proposal anybody has put forward. And yet, a lot of times folks say, oh, well, I didn't understand that, how do you prove it to us? Well, the answer is we say that by the end of next year, we have to meet these triggers. It's one of those things where I've said before, don't trust, verify.

So a lot of times, there have been expressed concerns and qualms that we think are actually answered by the legislation. People in the Senate and also here in the White House, we have worked to address concerns of conservatives, especially dealing with the White House, about a lot of items in the legislation, and we think that these are strong provisions that are going to help us with security, and help us also with our long-term economic progress, and do it in a way that is consistent with our traditions and will make us proud. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: But, April, you know I never answer questions like that. I don't even want you to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, but I don't do "what if X, Y, and Z don't happen between now and the end of the year." We think it's -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Okay. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, I think it's important to get it done this year. April, to say, oh, yeah, we'll do it next year, immediately the headlines springs up, "White House writes off immigration" for the -- we're not going to do that. We're not writing off immigration reform. It's important, it's vital, it's important for the country. The President has shown real leadership on this. He's taken a lot of heat from a lot of people, but he believes very strongly that this is the right way to proceed. And we are going to continue to work hard to make sure that comprehensive immigration reform becomes law. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: What we want to do is get it done. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: More than a million people have been detained in those times. You obviously regret any time somebody dies in detention, and you take a look at ways to make sure that, if it's preventable, it is. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, we'll have some opportunities -- there will be some opportunities -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, what you are going to have is the kind of exchanges that you would expect. There are a whole series of issues that are of concern to the two nations, and it is likely that they're going to come up. Again, if you're expecting some sort of grand initiative, a bold announcement -- no. This is a consultation between two leaders of very important nations on a host of issues that would include North Korea, that include the Middle East, that include Iran, that include the ongoing challenges that are being faced throughout the region. We're going to talk about -- I'm sure there's going to be an opportunity to discuss the future of missile defense, and all those things. You would expect them to come up.

But I would caution against expecting grand, new announcements. This is, in fact, an opportunity for two leaders to talk honestly and candidly with one another, and they get to -- they're the ones who are going to control the agenda. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to -- what the President -- the President was encouraged that President Putin thought it was important to talk about missile defense, recognizing that if somebody -- if a hostile power, a rogue nation gets the capability of putting nuclear weapons on a missile, everybody in Europe and Asia is going to be in jeopardy, and it is important to provide that kind of a shield for the Europeans, as well as throughout the region.

And this is why the President is heartened by President Putin's acknowledgment of the fact. I'm not going to get into any particular details. I'll leave that for the two of them to discuss. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to get into assessing it. I'll let them have their conversations. One of the things that has happened is that individuals on both sides have been tasked to take a good, thorough look, which you would expect them to do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I just think it's an acknowledgment of the importance of the relationship, and also I think the importance of having an atmosphere that is going to be conducive to relaxed, but candid discussions of important issues. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't think so, but I don't know. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, you talked about the recent arrival of troops in the surge, and you also talked about the

MR. SNOW: No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, you'll have to take a look, but, no, this is not a way of setting up a lack of progress. We're 12 days into the most ambitious military operation really since the intense combat hostilities, and you have seen reports from General Petraeus and General Odierno and others about significant actions on the part of our forces at Baquba, obviously in Anbar, and in Baghdad, as well.

I would expect there to be a progress report about what's going on and what we've achieved not only militarily, but also what sort of things have been accomplished on the political side and the economic side. It is not merely General Petraeus, but also Ambassador Crocker who are going to be contributing to the report. What we're trying to condition people for is a report that is going to tell us what has been happening. Again, 12 days in to the most significant military action in a very long time, and at the same time, just now getting all of our forces into place -- it's worth giving people a granular look, a detailed look at what has been accomplished and what will have been accomplished by the date. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, look, we have agreed to make reports in July and September; we're going to do it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. First, in just the past few weeks, there have been reports of

MR SNOW: Well, those are your conclusions, Les. That is -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. What would you -- what you have done is you have insinuated a conspiracy to dump these things on the American marketplace. Obviously, when you have problems with the safety of things, you deal with it, including the recall of 450,000 tires. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay. This morning's Washington Post headline "After Speech, Aides Scramble To Cover Bush's 'Amnesty

MR SNOW: I did, and I don't discuss -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: I believe so. I mean, look -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: -- the President misspoke. It was a -- you recall we issued a statement by the Press Secretary. What was interesting is that Fletch wrote that story; meanwhile I was getting a lot of people saying, what took you so long? So we were getting it from both sides. The fact is that anybody who knows what the President's policy is knows that that was a slip of the tongue. It was overplayed on Drudge. We thought it was important to go ahead and puncture that balloon, which we did, and to move on so that people who actually knew the issue could discuss other things. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: You're welcome.

Sarah. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: You're welcome, as well. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR SNOW: I would refer all questions to Fred Thompson's policies to Fred Thompson. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Hello. How may I help you? (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Good afternoon. I'm feeling well, thank you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't know if he watched the vote, but I daresay most of us did. So we are happy that the motion to proceed has passed. Now we get into the business of debating the amendments and we're looking forward to passage in the Senate. We know that there's a long and -- a long debate ahead when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform. We hope the House of Representatives will take it up. Anybody who has improvements, we're certainly interested in those, but we are certainly pleased with the early vote on the motion to proceed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'd ask him. We certainly were not aware that there -- we were not made directly aware that there would be a statement at that time. But again, it's consistent with things he said. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Look, Dick Lugar is a serious guy, so obviously you take it seriously. But on the other hand, again, he voted against the original -- he voted against the surge. He's somebody who has had reservations. We take seriously his point of view because he is a serious guy. On the other hand, we also take seriously the efforts and the advice that the President has gotten from his commanders on the ground, and also the continuing cooperation not only with the commanders on the ground, but also Ambassador Crocker and working with our colleagues in the Iraqi government. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But most Republicans have said they're willing to wait until September -- and obviously you need

MR. SNOW: Well, again, obviously we disagree with him on that. On the other hand, we also agree with him when he was taking some of the critics to task for some of the things that they've said. Here is -- "it is a complex situation of war" -- duh. On the other hand, we also know that there are going to be reports to Congress in the middle of July and the middle of September about how this is going -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No. But again, this is Dick Lugar repeating a position. I think if you take a look at what his own people have said, they said it's consistent with what he said in the past. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, what we've been trying to do is to be straight with everybody about the difficulties of proceeding, and trying to make sure that people are getting information in a timely fashion about what's going on. Again, we have just completed getting the forces on the ground. Some of them are still getting integrated into units. They're working with their Iraqi counterparts. And you know the points that we've been making in recent days, Martha, but this is not a time for snap judgment, but on the other hand, we do expect that people are going to be asking tough questions about militarily, how is it going; what's going on on the civil side; what's going on in terms of the political situation in Iraq; how are the Iraqis doing.

We believe that democracy can, must, and will succeed in Iraq. We know that the Iraqi people are the ones who are going to have to shoulder the heaviest burden on that. And it is the purpose of American policy to build capability at all levels so that the Iraqis can do so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, I will let the Iraqi government -- what you're going to ask me to do is to tell what the Iraqis have said what's going on. We do know that they are obviously working toward oil law and distribution laws, and they've also talked about de-Baathification, but it's a parliamentary process and they'll have to make whatever -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It may not, but on the other hand, it could. What I'm telling you is call over there and ask them to give you the characterization. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, it is pretty clear that there is strong willingness among all major partners in the government to move forward on an oil law and on all the key areas of reconciliation. Furthermore, when you talk about the commitment of the Iraqis -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Martha, let me continue. There is other evidence in the fact that you have seen, for instance, Iraqis willingly risking their lives and, in greater numbers, joining up, to try to work in the military so that they can go after the people who have been deliberately trying to blow up democracy. You've seen people placing their lives on the line constantly in support of a whole variety of activities. And you have the public statements of folks who have been involved in the Iraqi government. Furthermore, you know that the government is going to stay in session; the idea is to get the legislation passed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q So are you willing to accept from the Iraqi government, if you have Iraqi security forces still

MR. SNOW: No, we obviously want to see -- we want to see the legislation passed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, you said now when it comes to the immigration reform measure, we move to the amendments.

MR. SNOW: Look, I'm not going to go through all the amendments on the tree. But, obviously -- we're going to remain engaged working with Democrats and Republicans to try to get the votes to get the bill passed, so that we have a comprehensive immigration reform package put together that the Senate can present to the House of Representatives as a basis for moving forward on this. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to rank order them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, we believe that the way you -- we believe that in supporting the Iraqi government you help to create the space and also try to create conditions that are going to make it not more difficult, but easier, for that government to move forward on the political tracks and also the economic tracks. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, first, what he's talking -- if you listen to it, the surge has just now been put in place. When you talk about "long-lasting, persistent surge," that's not a surge, correct? So we agree with him on that. The fact is that I'm not sure that there is that much discontinuity with our position.

You do not want a surge that's going to go months and months and months and months. What you're trying to do is you're trying to focus forces in such a way as to create conditions for creating greater safety in Baghdad and also areas like Anbar, so that the government will have more freedom and more space in which to go ahead and make the political and other accomplishments that are going to be necessary for their success.

And you go back to the beginning of the debate about this, it's precisely what we said at the time. What the President is talking about is we are eager to get those accomplishments as quickly as possible, for obvious reasons, so that the Iraqis are in the lead and at some point you are in a position to be able to do these so-called over-the-horizon activities and, at the same time, not create a power vacuum that's going to make it easier for al Qaeda or for terrorists to come in and not only destroy what's going on in Iraq, but also to make it a safe haven for terrorism and a source of a greater danger and instability not only in the Middle East, but throughout the world.

Jim. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, so I guess, in terms of the Lugar comments, is there any concern in the White House that

MR. SNOW: I think Republicans -- no, what you're asking me is, have Republicans decided right now what they're going to think in September? I think it's -- no, that's the embedded assumption. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's kind of the assumption. What you're saying -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes, please. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, those are futile questions: What are you going to do in three months, if. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, we also think that it is important for members of Congress and everybody else to take a look at the facts on the ground between now and September. We constantly try to reiterate the point that we are examining the facts on the ground at all times. It is not as if you put the stamp on it, say, okay, put our feet on the desk, we'll come back, we'll check up on it in July, and then we'll take a couple of months off and we'll look at it again in September.

The fact is you have an obligation at all times. And you continue to have consultations. It's one of the reasons why the President is not only in regular contact with the Prime Minister and also the Council of Presidents, but also with the key leaders -- the Ambassador, General Petraeus and others -- to try to figure out what's going on, because you will always be continuing to make adjustments based on the facts on the ground. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: We'll have to see. We certainly hope so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, the President has put a lot of emphasis on September. So Senator Lugar is wiping that out

MR. SNOW: Senator Lugar didn't support this policy when it was put in place. So -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Right, but there have been disagreements on Iraq. So, no, I think what you're saying is, are people going to rush to judgment? We hope people are going to rush to contemplate what's going on here, and not only think about the importance of giving this operation a chance to succeed, but also the real dangers of creating a vacuum, because nothing will more surely not only make that region more dangerous, but also make life more dangerous for Americans by empowering the terrorists here and around the globe. So we think it's very important to go ahead and allow this plan to work and to give -- for people to have an opportunity to take a close and careful look at what they see happening. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, BAA Systems announced today that it was under investigation by the Department of Justice.

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, you're talking about an ongoing investigation, which means we are not at liberty to talk about it, and you can draw what conclusions you -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: As you know -- look, the President makes the decisions in the White House; the Vice President is an advisor. We also make a careful point, as we've said many times, to allow those deliberations to remain confidential. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, at this point -- that's a nice way of getting me to answer a question that I'm not going to answer. We are aware that there have been rumors around and -- who did you have in mind? (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, when there are announcements to be made we will respond with our hopes and our analysis. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Oh, that was good, though. Read more Comment (0), Email this.