Text 2962, 743 rader
Skriven 2006-07-05 23:49:04 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0607053) for Wed, 2006 Jul 5
===================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 5, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
James S. Brady Briefing Room



12:19 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: All right, welcome. A couple little items of housekeeping. First,
the off-the-record. The President went to the Dunkin' Donuts at the Potomac
Mills Mall.* There we were taking a look at a program that is designed to
help employers determine whether the employees are legally immigrants to
the United States of America.

Interestingly enough, the two guys who own that and other Dunkin' Donuts
and other branches are Iranian Americans. The district manager was a
Guatemalan American, and the person running it is a Salvadoran American. So
what you ended up having was, as the President said, a pretty good example
of what happens in America as people come here seeking opportunity. So he
was taking a look at the Basic Pilot program, which has been adopted by
that company as of the 1st of July, which is a way of accessing Social
Security and other information to make sure that people are, in fact,
American citizens.

Also, since our morning meeting, a couple of other diplomatic developments,
of which I'm sure you're aware, on the North Korea front. Secretary of
State Rice has been meeting this morning with Abdullah Gul, the Foreign
Minister of Turkey. They will have a working lunch. After that she'll be
sitting down with the National Security Advisor of South Korea; Steve
Hadley also meeting today with his counterpart from South Korea. In
addition, the United Nations Security Council has been in an emergency
session and will return after lunchtime to an emergency session, as they
continue to figure out proper responses to North Korea's provocations of
yesterday and today.

That sort of closes it up. Terry.

Q Could I ask you about China's reaction? They say that North Korea's
launch was regrettable, but they indicate that they would -- that they
favor something weaker than a condemnation, a condemnation that Japan has
offered.

MR. SNOW: Well, a number of people have been talking about different
options, and as Ambassador Bolton just said, at this point, nobody is going
to announce anything. What they're doing is working together both within
the United Nations Security Council and also the parties of the six-party
talks -- which reminds me, Chris Hill -- once again, there's been another
schedule change -- Chris Hill will be leaving this evening. We do know that
he will be meeting with his counterparts from Russia, China, Japan and
South Korea. I do not know for certain exactly what the itinerary is. That
will be announced a little bit later. But I promised you that, so we do
know that.

Continue, Terry.

Q Well, does it appear that there is a lack of consensus?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. If you take a look at all the statements,
everybody regards it as a clear provocation. The end state is pretty clear:
What you want is a North Korea that renounces nuclear development, that
returns to the table, that no longer engages in this kind of activity, this
kind of provocative activity. And you also have got to keep in mind the
Chinese specifically asked the North Koreans not to do this; the Japanese
specifically asked the North Koreans not to do this; the South Koreans
specifically asked them not to do this; the Russians, the international
community. You had continuing efforts to try to reason with the government
of Pyongyang, and there will continue to be those efforts.

And the one thing that Ambassador Bolton said, and it's been our policy all
along, is that we do not act unilaterally, parties do not act unilaterally.
They will act in concert. And that's how we will continue.

Q Tony, all of this brings up the question of how you reach North Korea. If
you have their loan-trading partners asking them not to do something and
they do it, what can you sketch out as a sort of a general range of options
to --

MR. SNOW: I really -- Jim, I don't want to get into general ranges of
options. As you know, the Japanese have already taken a couple of
preliminary steps, and they've announced those earlier today. No North
Korean ships are going to be able to come into Japanese ports. They're not
going to permit transit into Japan from North Korea for diplomats and
others. I honestly don't know -- I think that they're discussing a whole
range of things.

You point out -- one of the most important things to remember is the
situation in North Korea. We don't want to punish the North Korean people.
They've been punished enough by their government. Here you have a nation
where as many as 2 million people starved in the last decade. You have a
nation, the infrastructure of which, was largely built in the period of
1910 to 1945. You have a government that commits regular human rights
abuses; that rather than having an economy, draws its income from arms
sales and also trafficking in counterfeit currencies and drugs. This is --
meanwhile, you have at least a third of the budget is spent on military
expenditures. You have the "Dear Leader" living in splendor while many of
his people live in squalor.

The question of how you get through and how you influence that behavior is
something that everybody in these talks is taking very seriously. I don't
have an answer for you right now. I'm sure that they are trying in very
practical terms to figure out the best way to have influence on that
government, or to have influence with people who are going to have
influence with the government.

Q One follow.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Last week in the East Room, the Japanese Prime Minister said that he'd
been in consultation with the President in talking about what they would do
should the North Koreans launch, hoping they wouldn't.

MR. SNOW: Right, right.

Q Now that they have, can we get a little more detail on what that
conversation was all about?

MR. SNOW: No, it's -- the President has had a number of general
conversations. I was not in there -- there was one small restricted
meeting. I have a feeling that some of those details were discussed in that
restricted meeting of which I was not a party, and I have not gotten a
readout on anything specific.

But I know that what has been discussed -- and there was extensive
diplomatic activity before this. As I said this morning, it was anticipated
that something like this might happen. So there were ongoing efforts by the
United States and its allies, A, to try to avert this and, B, to start
gaming out some things that would happen. As I said earlier today, given
what happened -- I don't think anybody had a specific scenario for seven
missile launches on the 4th and 5th of July -- but I am wary of trying to
get into sort of specific things that the leaders may have discussed. I
think right now, as Secretary Rice has said, and also Ambassador Bolton,
all parties now are trying to figure out realistically how to make a
positive difference through diplomatic means.

Q Tony, if I could just -- it's probably similar to your question, as well
-- but you've been talking about this for a month. You anticipated this
launch for a month, whether it was one missile or whether it was 10
missiles. And yet you still don't have a clear idea of what options there
are. Why not? Or you just don't want to discuss it.

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't want to discuss anything that is going on behind
the scenes because part of what's going on is that the parties through the
six-party talks are now working to come up with something in unison.

Martha, as you know, it's an enormously -- you've got a society that is
anything but transparent. You have a society that already runs the kind of
economy that I've described and subjects its people to human rights abuses.
And so you do have the practical issue that has been discussed much, but
now it has been joined for people to figure out how to move together. It is
not like you have a simple off-the-shelf, let's go to option C, surely this
will make a difference. If we had had something that simple, it probably
could have been deployed effectively to have prevented the launches.

Q Did you at anytime think that they were backing off? Or this entire
month, were you quite certain they were going to launch? I know it's not a
transparent society, but --

MR. SNOW: I cannot speak -- I know that there was always the hope that they
would not launch. But when you do this, when you're looking at a situation
like this, you always have to anticipate that something may happen. And
that is what's going on. And I must say, even now there is continuing
analysis of the launches and the telemetry from the launches to try to
figure out what one may be able to determine about the aims and intents of
those launches themselves. And the experts over at DOD and at NORCOM and
other places are still trying to go through that.

Q But can I just get one definitive, then? North Korea launched seven, or
possibly more, missiles in the last 24 hours.

MR. SNOW: So far, we only know seven, yes.

Q What's the U.S. response?

MR. SNOW: The U.S. response is we're working with our allies to figure out
how to try to get North Korea back to the table, back to the six-party
talks, and to figure out some way to establish their credibility so we can
move forward.

Q -- each government involved in this has issued a statement calling it a
provocative act, whatever -- how important is it to have a united statement
condemning what has happened here?

MR. SNOW: Well, inasmuch as you're operating as five parties in six-party
talks, it's something that we very much expect to have. You expect to be
speaking with one voice -- not five, not 10, not 15. It's also one of the
reasons why, within the confines of the Security Council, there's also a
very strong effort to reach consensus on how to proceed.

Suzanne.

Q Tony, it was four years ago that President Bush labeled North Korea a
member of the axis of evil. But under the President's watch, you have --
North Korea has increased its nuclear arsenal. You've got it abandoning the
six-party talks, and now these missile tests are going on. What do you say
to Americans, how do you convince them that this is not a policy that is
basically a failure?

MR. SNOW: Well, let me -- it's an interesting question.

Q What can you point to that actually shows that any of the U.S. objectives
have been met?

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way. Let me quibble with your assumption
beforehand. North Korea also had talked to the previous administration,
which had put together an agreed framework that was designed to ensure that
there would be no nuclear development. It was this administration that
discovered that nuclear development and brought it directly to the
attention of the North Koreans. It was this administration that also,
working with our allies, brought the North Koreans to the table for the
six-party talks.

Is it going to be possible for a policy or a President to try to make a
leader who seems determined not to care about his own people, and also to
defy the will of his neighbors and the people of his neighborhood -- is
there a simple policy option that will change that? I don't know.

But to say that somehow the policy of this administration has made a
tangible difference for the worse in North Korea I think is not accurate.
Furthermore, this is North Korean government that's been behaving much the
same way for a very long period of time. And what the United States has
done is create within the neighborhood a kind of diplomatic consensus that
did not previously exist, and also now has a unity of purpose among the
members of that community to try to make sure that North Korea's ambitions,
whatever they may be, if they're hostile, get bottled up so that it is
possible for that region to enjoy security and peace.

Q Just a follow-up here.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q While the behavior of those involved in the six-party talks has changed,
they've gotten more aggressive toward North Korea, how has the six-party
talks -- that process -- changed Pyongyang's behavior? We haven't seen a
change in --

MR. SNOW: Let me back up. I would hesitate -- you've just described the
behavior of people who have been offering diplomacy as aggressive. Wrong.
The people who are practicing aggression are the people who are firing
missiles into the sea.

Now, in this particular case, again, when you build international consensus
of this sort and you have the chief trading partners and those who are --
do a great deal of commerce with the North Koreans involved, that's an
important step. And whether -- at some point things are going to change in
North Korea. We don't know how, but we do know that it is absolutely
imperative on the peninsula to build the basis and the prospects for peace.
And if you have a man --

Q But if we --

MR. SNOW: Look, what do you want me to say? Do you think that there is some
special way to sort of send a secret message and Kim Jong-il suddenly is
going to practice rationality. If so, we'd love to hear it, and we'll
accept all suggestions.

Mike.

Q Do you have any plans to have the President reach out to his counterparts
in an effort to forge this --

MR. SNOW: The President has spoken in recent weeks with these counterparts.
What we're doing right now is conducting negotiations at the appropriate --
and that is the diplomatic -- level. Secretary Rice now has spoken with the
other four parties, her counterparts in Japan, Russia, South Korea and
China within the last two days. We also have Chris Hill, who is going to be
going directly to speak with this counterparts there, to make an appearance
in the region. So I think you've got very aggressive diplomacy before and,
now, after the fact, and we'll continue to do that. Let me say "assertive,"
since I quibbled with "aggressive" a moment ago -- assertive diplomacy.

Q On that line of questioning, you've gone out of your way to point out
that the President has not called world leaders today, and in fact, his NSC
briefing was on Cuba. Do you think that the North Koreans were trying to
get this to a presidential level?

MR. SNOW: I don't know, but if that was their desire, they failed. If it
was the desire of Kim Jong-il to turn this into a two-party negotiation or
standoff between the United States and North Korea, he blew it. Instead,
what has happened is that the United States continues to work with its
allies in the region, including those in the neighborhood who have profound
and vested interest in their own safety and security to work with the
United States to try to come to a happier resolution.

Q If I could follow real quick. Have you heard concern from allies,
including China, that if there are harsh sanctions, that perhaps this
regime would crumble, and that would not be a good thing for the region?

MR. SNOW: I have not been privy to any of those discussions, Brett, so it
would be presumptuous of me to say. I am sure that people are discussing
any and all scenarios trying to figure out the proper way forward. But I
honestly don't have an answer to your question.

Kelly.

Q Do you have any expectation that there would be any additional launches
that might be imminent?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I'll go back to what Steve Hadley was saying
yesterday, which is that there appear to be at least potentially a
launchable -- a small number also of Nodongs and scuds, the shorter,
medium-range missiles, that may or may not be launched. We don't know. But
there is not immediate expectation -- again, we're watching this with
interest and keeping on top of it. But there certainly is the potential
there. We don't know if they're going to act on it or not.

Q And what's the minimum threshold that you want to see come out of the
U.N. Security Council?

MR. SNOW: I don't think you talk about minimum thresholds, because I don't
even know how you measure it. I don't quite know what the question means. I
think what you are going to see -- it's not even minimum threshold, it's a
necessity, which is the kind of diplomatic consensus that is going to make
it possible to put whatever appropriate pressure on the government in
Pyongyang to try to make sure that it steps back from these acts of
provocation, it steps back from being an arms supplier to terrorist regimes
-- including Iran and Syria -- that it steps back from the use of drugs and
counterfeiting and arms proliferation as a way of making money, and that
steps back from making life miserable for its own people while the small
elites live in relative luxury.

Q Thank you. Tony, my question is on Cuba. Why did the NSA meeting -- NSC,
excuse me -- meeting this morning focus on Cuba? Is there anything new
about Castro's health, or is the administration conducting a new policy
towards Cuba?

MR. SNOW: None of the above. It was a regularly scheduled meeting. As you
know, the State Department has been producing a report -- it produced one a
couple of years ago, and it was for the purposes of reviewing that and they
were going through it. I suspect -- and I apologize, I had asked -- I had
told you that I was going to see some guidance on what, if anything, they
discussed about Iraq at that meeting and I did not get it, so I will attach
it to the transcript, any additional information that I may get.

Q May I ask another question?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q North Korea. Congressman Brad Sherman of California says unless China
agrees to stop shipping petroleum products to North Korea, sanctions
against North Korea will not work. Is the military option still on the
table?

MR. SNOW: Well, we thank Representative Sherman for his input.

Q Tony, as diplomacy is being sought by this administration and around the
world as relates to North Korea, a senior administration official here said
in recent weeks that all options are on the table. Does that put this
administration in a precarious position if it comes to military might?
Because many have said the U.S. military is stretched too thin right now
with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

MR. SNOW: No. Again, we have been -- we leave all options available in all
circumstances because that is the way you do this. You do not conduct --
you don't negotiate against yourself. On the other hand, it is the clear
interest of the United States -- and I think the movements of Chris Hill,
the meetings of Secretary Rice, the ongoing operations or the ongoing
consultations at the United Nations make it very clear that the United
States is interested in diplomatic resolution here.

Q Well, how would you classify the U.S. military might in Asia right now,
in that region?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into classifying because you're trying to
lead me down a path I simply --

Q No, no, I'm not leading you. If that is an option that is still on the
table among many --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you're taking a month-old quote from a senior
administration official.

Q That's not a month-old quote.

MR. SNOW: Two-weeks old?

Q Yes, two weeks.

MR. SNOW: Two-week old, okay. So the point here is that as we take a look
at this, diplomacy is what we're talking about right now.

Q But that administration official also said that military might in that
part of the world is robust. But you still say that --

MR. SNOW: The U.S. military might globally -- the United States has a
robust and mobile -- robust and mobile military capabilities. But again, I
want to steer you away. There are attempts to try to describe this almost
in breathless World War III terms. This is not such a situation. This is a
situation in which people are working with a regime in North Korea, trying
to reason with a dictator, to step back from provocative activities. That
is the most important thing.

Richard.

Q Tony, the President seems to be putting out a renewed push for
immigration, since there is activity, obviously, in Congress right now in
terms of hearings. What is the President's -- where does he want to see
this bill go in the next two weeks? Is he still optimistic he's going to
get a bill --

MR. SNOW: I think determination is probably the more appropriate way to
describe the President's view on immigration, which is he wants
comprehensive reform. You saw a little piece of it today with the Basic
Pilot program.

One of the complaints about immigration has been that people get here
illegally, they get to work, they're either exploited by employers or
they're breaking the law. And one of the key gaps in immigration law in
recent years has been that there has been no good way to verify the status,
legal or illegal, of people who have come across the borders.

Now with Basic Pilot, that is one of the devices by which employers not
only can ascertain the legality of the people that are working for them,
but also by which prosecutors can go after those who knowingly hire
illegals. And if they don't have the ability to step forward with proof,
they're going to face a different set of circumstances in a court of law
than they've been facing previously.

Previously, you got fines. Now what you have are criminal sanctions and
forfeitures, which really do raise the level of punishment much higher. And
that has been the case for the last two years. That's a switch that this
administration made a year ago before a lot of these debates heated up.
It's a way of trying to make things credible in terms of not only figuring
out whether employers are behaving properly, but whether people are here
illegally.

Helen.

Q Do you accept the premise that was set forth here that the missile
launching is bait because they want one-on-one talks? And if they did, what
would be the objection? Surely the other five members would not object to
the U.S. keeping them informed.

MR. SNOW: As a matter of fact, if you think about it, the other five would
object, because they -- the other four, frankly, because you have four plus
North Korea. Let me --

Q -- they trust us.

MR. SNOW: Of course, they trust us. But on the other hand, it is their
neighborhood, and they are the ones -- the missiles all landed in the Sea
of Japan. The Japanese have an interest in it, the South Koreans have an
interest in it, the Chinese have an interest in it, the Russians have an
interest in it. So the key here --

Q I'm saying --

MR. SNOW: No, what you're saying is, set them aside as negotiating
partners.

Q No, I'm saying --

MR. SNOW: Sure you are.

Q -- be a basic spokesman for the other five countries.

MR. SNOW: The other parties have long agreed to working as a unit, because
when somebody tries to divide off -- and we've seen a little bit of this
with Iran -- when you try to --

Q No, we have --

MR. SNOW: Please, let me finish, and then you could do the follow-up.

Q -- not at war with North Korea.

MR. SNOW: Okay, let's -- to continue, when somebody tries to drive a wedge
in a negotiating -- in a coalition, the idea is not to strengthen it, but
to weaken it. And the United States is not going to permit its ability to
negotiate as part of a team to be weakened. Nor are we going to allow the
Chinese voice to be weakened, or the Japanese voice to be weakened, or the
South Korean or the Russian voices to be weakened. As a result, there
really is strength in numbers as people with differing relations -- some
official, and we, obviously, not official -- with the government of North
Korea, can work together to figure out the smartest and best way to achieve
what we hope will still be a peaceful and happy result.

Q I think they would trust us to negotiate and have their input.

MR. SNOW: They may trust us, but they have already agreed upon the
formulation and we agree with it, too.

Lester, is this on North Korea?

Q No.

MR. SNOW: We'll save it. Let's do North Korean questions and --

Q North Korea has fired multiple missiles at the time of the United States
Independence Day celebration. Why do you think North Korea did it on
Independence Day?

MR. SNOW: You must ask the "Dear Leader." He alone knows why this happened
on the 4th of July. Many people have noted the timing and we have, too, but
the idea of somehow trying to be able to read his thoughts, we're unable to
do it. So I don't have a good answer.

All right, anybody else on North Korea? Okay, Lester.

Q Yes, two questions, Tony. National security studies professor Bob Zelnick
of Boston University has just detailed the 1942 Chicago Tribune's reporting
of the top secret U.S. breaking of the Imperial Japanese code, which came
only months after President Roosevelt, during a news conference, awarded
the Iron Cross to another reporter after The Tribune published another top
secret contingency plan for getting U.S. troops to Europe. And my question:
Has President Bush considered any al Qaeda or other terrorist group award
to The New York Times, or does he believe the Attorney General is preparing
legal action against that newspaper?

MR. SNOW: We will leave awards to the journalistic community, which will
come up with what awards and plaudits they deem appropriate. As for --

Q Do you think that President Roosevelt was wrong?

MR. SNOW: As for prosecutions, that is something that independent
prosecutors must decide. The White House is not going to hand down an edict
saying "investigate this." You leave it in the hands of independent
investigators and prosecutors to come to their own determinations.

Q But you're not suggesting that President Roosevelt was wrong to pin the
Iron Cross on that reporter, are you?

MR. SNOW: I'm just not interested in even talking about it. (Laughter.)

Q Financial Review Magazine recommends that the White House pull the
credentials of The New York Times, while nationally syndicated columnist
Cal Thomas recommends that you "refuse to speak with Times reporters on
grounds that they can't be trusted." Since Cal Thomas quotes you, Tony,
admiringly, could you tell us why The New York Times was invited to the
dinner for Japan's Prime Minister, when almost all of the rest of the White
House reporters were not invited?

MR. SNOW: Well, as you know, those are hot tickets and David Sanger has a
long history with the Japanese, he even speaks fairly passable -- according
to him; I don't know -- (laughter.) Do you think Sanger's Japanese is okay?

Q He says his wife's Japanese is much better than his. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Okay. And, frankly, what Sheryl and Jim and the White House
correspondents -- we think they do their jobs; they do it fairly, they work
hard and they try to get it right. So I'm not going to kick them out and I
still love Cal.

Q Tony, on another subject. President Bush, in 2000, attended the NAACP
convention and he said civil rights would be the cornerstone of his
administration. And in 2006, he has an invitation -- he's been invited,
verbally and by letter. Has the President, indeed, lived up to his promise
of making civil rights the cornerstone of this administration? And is he
going to address the NAACP?

MR. SNOW: Civil rights has been an ongoing interest and, as you know,
April, heck, I've told you I'd let you know -- and I'll let you know.
(Laughter.)

Q -- House Majority Leader John Boehner that it may be necessary to hold a
vote on the minimum wage so that the Democrats don't use it against the
Republicans in November -- this is what Boehner has said.

MR. SNOW: We'll see what happens. If there's a proposal that arrives at the
White House, we'll analyze it and the President will make the appropriate
determination.

Q -- do you think that it might be necessary?

MR. SNOW: I'll leave that to Representative Boehner. I'm not going to make
the political judgment on that. That is his view; I don't know if he's
right or wrong.

Q One other quick question. What has been the President's reaction to the
death of Ken Lay?

MR. SNOW: I really haven't talked to him about it. I'll give you my own
personal reaction, which is when somebody dies you leave behind those who
grieve and I think they deserve our compassion. But I don't know, what do
you think would be the appropriate thing to say?

Q I don't know. I don't know him. The President was his friend, not me.

MR. SNOW: No, the President has described Ken Lay as an acquaintance, and
many of the President's acquaintances have passed on during his time in
office. Again, I think -- it's sort of an interesting question, but not
answerable by me.

Q Tony, could you describe what the President would consider in the form of
a trigger for immigration legislation? Would he be willing to consider
having Congress pass an enforcement-only bill first, and then maybe next
year coming back for comprehensive legislation?

MR. SNOW: I don't think that fits the description that we have talked
about. "Comprehensive" means addressing all parts, and this administration
already has dealt with the issue of immigration, especially border
security. Neither am I going to negotiate against myself or against the
President's interest from here.

Congress has an obligation to act on this. Members of Congress continue to
tell us that this is a top priority for them. If you ask the American
people, do you want a comprehensive plan that addresses all of the aspects
of immigration, or do you just want to do one now and wait until later, the
overwhelming answer is, do it all now. That's the President's view. We'll
have to see what happens as members of the House and Senate -- keep in
mind, they have not yet even appointed conferees on the matter. But to the
idea, will he accept enforcement only and then something later, I'm not
going to get into doing negotiations. His position has been clear, which is
he wants comprehensive. It's not comprehensive to do one thing and say do
something else later.

Q But his Legislative Affairs Director said that the President is willing
to look at a trigger. I'm just trying to figure out what --

MR. SNOW: A trigger -- keep in mind that a trigger is something that also
-- if you pass a bill that says you've got all these things together, and
you have made your -- you have made a commitment to working on these
issues, and that is an ironclad commitment to moving forward, obviously, we
are interested in looking at any and all propositions that will lead us to
doing that effectively.

As a number of people have said, in some ways you have a staggering anyway
of what you can do because it takes time to develop some of these things
such as biometric IDs. Border security, as I've pointed out -- and I've
pointed a number of times -- we've spent $1.9 billion right now which, to
remind people for the umpteenth time, is what the House of Representatives
proposed spending over five years. So when you want to ask who is serious
about border security, it's the President, who has not only put money, but
assets on the border immediately. But he wants comprehensive reform. He
wants comprehensive reform this year. And he looks forward to working with
the House and Senate and is interested in entertaining any ideas that will
lead us effectively toward that goal.

Q And just one more. As suggested by an anonymous source in The New York
Times story who suggested that he ultimately would abandon a path to
citizenship --

MR. SNOW: I believe that was an "anonymous source close to the White
House." Apparently not close enough.

Q Tony, on Gaza, do you have any insight into the situation now in Gaza? Is
Egypt helping the U.S. and Israel try to locate the soldier? And does the
U.S. think Israel should release some Palestinian prisoners?

MR. SNOW: Our position has been clear from the beginning, and I will repeat
it. I'm not going to talk about what behind-the-scenes diplomatic
initiatives may be taking place because to do so compromises the
effectiveness of any ongoing things. But the United States will welcome any
help, especially because the first priority -- and something that everybody
in the neighborhood agrees -- is to return the kidnapped Israeli soldier.

The Israelis have already made it clear that they have no intention of
engaging in prisoner swaps. The other thing that's happened is Hamas
apparently now is developing a new weapon, a two-engine rocket, which
continues to be in escalation. And the threat -- it's already hit the city
of Ashkelon and a school there yesterday. So it is important, once again,
to stop the attacks, to stop the terror, and in the best of all possible
worlds, create a negotiating partner in the Palestinian Authority who
agrees with the preconditions that long ago were set by the Quartet, which
is to acknowledge Israel's right to exist --

Q Which Israel?

MR. SNOW: Which Israel -- thank you. Israel's right to exist. Also to
renounce terror, which clearly has not been the case when you come up with
new generations of weapons. And finally to abide by prior agreements. It
would be that Israel.

Q Tony, two on immigration. Was this morning's doughnut run a direct
response to the notion that the President may be wavering on comprehensive
--

MR. SNOW: No, actually, this was planned last week, so this is not a
reaction to anything. What the President is really trying to do in a number
of ways -- and you will see this -- is to illustrate what you mean by
comprehensive reform. Again, the President talks about immigration also
being a reflection of the soul. You want to make sure that in this country
you have safe and secure borders. You also want to make sure that this
remains a land of opportunity. You have two Iranians who own a number of
business enterprises in this area. The district manager is Guatemalan; the
fellow who runs it is a Salvadoran; they have a number of people who have
come from other lands seeking work in the United States through legal
means. And that is the way it is supposed to work.

And so what the President is doing is -- in some ways, this provides not
only answer but illustration to those who say, well, wait a minute, you let
employers get away with X, Y, and Z. Now there are increasingly effective
ways to determine whether people are here legally, and therefore,
increasingly effective ways to go after employers who break the law.

Q All these people you mentioned came here legally?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Last week, after meeting with the President, Representative Pence said
the President seemed particularly interested in his plan which includes
something -- a departure from what the President has been proposing, where
people would have to return to their home countries before coming back. Is
the President interested in that kind --

MR. SNOW: Actually, the Pence proposal is not that they return to their
home countries, but that there would be just across the border a series of
centers where people could go and they would fill out appropriate
paperwork, but also there would have to be employee sponsors to bring them
back into the country.

Is it an interesting idea? Yes. Representative Pence -- you would hardly
expect him to say the President yawned and fell over in complete stupefied
boredom, but -- (laughter) -- but point of fact, the President -- he's
interested. The President is not going to be in the position right now of
saying this bill or that bill. What he's interested in is comprehensive
reform, and anybody who comes up with proposals that are going to be able
to break the gridlock, those are going to be welcome. So the President will
look at any and all proposals.

But it is now the business of Congress to put together conference
committees and to put together comprehensive reform. And at that point --
obviously, we're in constant conversations. Going back to Sheryl's piece
today, you also had Senator Specter talking about comprehensive reform.
There are numerous discussions going on between members of the House and
the Senate, let alone within the House and Senate caucuses, and within and
between parties to try to do this. There are a lot of very bright people in
Washington trying to figure out how to get this done.

Q But the concept of having to leave this country to, in effect, get right
before you can come back is acceptable to the President?

MR. SNOW: It's interesting to the President.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: All right, thank you.

END 12:55 P.M. EDT

* Potomac Yard
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060705-3.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)