|The White House
President George W. Bush
|Print this document|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 13, 2007
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room
12:04 P.M. EST
MR. SNOW: Let me begin with a statement by the President:
"I am pleased with the agreements reached today at the six-party talks in Beijing. These talks represent the best opportunity to use diplomacy to address North Korea's nuclear programs. They reflect the common commitment of the participants to a Korean Peninsula that is free of nuclear weapons.
"In September 2005, our nations agreed on a joint statement that chartered the way forward toward achieving a nuclear weapons free Peninsula. Today's announcement represents the first step toward implementing that agreement.
"Under the agreements reached today, North Korea has committed to take [several] specific actions within the next 60 days. Among other things, North Korea has agreed to shut down and seal all operations at the primary nuclear facilities it has used to produce weapons-grade plutonium and has agreed to allow international inspectors to verify and monitor this process. In addition to those immediate actions, North Korea has also committed to disclose all its nuclear programs and disable its existing nuclear facilities -- as an initial step toward abandoning all of those programs and facilities under international supervision.
"The other parties have agreed to cooperate in economic, humanitarian, and energy assistance to North Korea. Such assistance will be provided as the North carries out its commitments to disable its nuclear facilities.
"I commend Secretary Rice, Ambassador Hill, and our negotiating team in Beijing for their hard work."
Q Is the President confident that North Korea won't cheat on this agreement?
MR. SNOW: Well, if the North Koreans cheat on the agreement, they are still liable to Chapter 7 sanctions under U.N. Security Council resolutions. Furthermore, the way the agreements are structured, there are performance benchmarks, if you will. For instance, within the next 60 days the North Koreans not only have to take affirmative steps toward dealing with the facilities in Pyongyang [sic], they also have to disclose all of their nuclear operations, they have to be transparent about that.
So those are things that have to be done within the first 60 days. They are not going to get the full benefit of potential diplomatic or economic relations until they, in fact, demonstrate that they're up to performing.
Q Haven't we suspected, though, that North Korea has been hiding things and has not been dealing, you know, openly for years? Why would they do it now?
MR. SNOW: Well, the answer is -- one thing that they have discovered is that this is no longer the two-party process with the United States and North Koreans, where the North Koreans can try to leverage the United States against allies in the region.
Instead, what you have is a multilateral process in which the Chinese have a fundamental role to play; the South Koreans are going to be the chief supplier of energy; the Russians and Japanese are deeply involved, as well. In other words, now all of a sudden, if the North Koreans walk away, it's not simply that they've managed to score a debating point against the United States. They have directly insulted their neighbors, and there are ways in which those neighbors can express their disappointment.
Q Tony, talking to some people yesterday, they were saying the thing to keep the eye on is the difference between this being a freeze and something being done to permanently disable the reactors. So what's in there?
MR. SNOW: Permanently -- not only permanently disable the reactor, but all nuclear activities. That would include weapons, that would include reactors. There will be no nuclear industry at all within North Korea.
Under the agreed framework signed in October of '94 by the Clinton administration, there was a freeze. And as you know, what they were going to try to do is to swap out a plutonium reactor with a light water breeder reactor. There is no swapping nuclear technologies here. The endpoint of this is no nuclear program at all. Instead there will be other forms of energy supplied to the North Koreans.
Q Tony, one thing that's not in the agreement, if I'm correct, is that they don't disclose how many bombs they already have or get rid of those current weapons.
MR. SNOW: No, that's not correct. That is not what they're going to do initially. But, again, it will list all of its nuclear programs as described in the joint statement, which would include weapons programs, including plutonium extracted from used fuel rods that would be abandoned pursuant to the joint statement.
Q So if they have a bomb, they would have to disclose it.
MR. SNOW: Yes, they would.
Q And get rid of it?
MR. SNOW: Yes.
Q Along these same lines, Tony, more than one Asia hand commenting today has recalled the old Reagan mantra, "trust but verify." Given North Koreans track record, given everything that Kim il-Jong has done and has not done. Is either one of those things possible?
MR. SNOW: Kim Jong-il.
Q Kim Jong-il. Trust but verify --
MR. SNOW: Absolutely right. And that's the way these negotiations proceed. This is not something where the moment the North Koreans sign, they get everything. Instead, in the first 60 days, for instance, they only get 5 percent of the potential 1 million tons of heavy fuel oil. They get 50,000. So the fact is that they get only a small portion up front, and they are going to have to justify further increments based on their good behavior.
Q Well, that's justified, but how do you achieve trust or verification with all of these tunnels and all of these secret labs that they have?
MR. SNOW: Well, one of the things they're going to commit to is full and open inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. And the IAEA -- look, there are going to be a lot of people very interested in making sure they know what's going on. The other thing is, if there should be a discovery, the North Koreans are going to know that there will be consequences; that if they once again try to cheat on an agreement, they are still liable under Chapter 7 sanctions under the U.N. Security Council. And the parties to the six-party talks have made it pretty clear that when the North Koreans cheat, they're going to take action against them.
Q John Bolton is up on the Hill, and he just said that the agreement -- firstly, that he's not a fan of the agreement, and that the North will be re-writing it every day it's in existence, it's a fantasy, it's rewarding the North and sending a horrible message to the world about the U.S.' stand on weapons of mass destruction.
MR. SNOW: Well, we stood by John Bolton in his time at the United Nations, including when he advocated the six-party agreement -- the September 2005 agreement that, in fact, has been enacted today. One of the things that John Bolton did note is that there are carrots and sticks in the agreement, and as he said in October of '06, which was just a few months ago, the carrots have been there, in a sense, for North Korea of the possibility of ending its isolation, ending the terrible impoverishment of its people. It's the leadership that can't seem to find the carrots that are out there. We think that the leadership has begun to find the carrots. We're going to discover in due course whether they, in fact, are going to fulfill their part of the agreement. However, as we've already said up here, it is a trust-but-verify situation. This is not something where we are simply going to give things to the North Koreans on a timeline. This is all conditioned on their behavior.
Q In what way is this not rewarding the North for bad behavior?
MR. SNOW: Mainly because what we have said all along is, you guys have got to come back to the table without preconditions and, furthermore, you'll have to agree to get rid of the nuclear program. That has always been the condition that was laid out. This was something they agreed to back in September of 2005. What we have now is that the North Koreans basically fulfilling their own word a year-and-a-half after the fact.
If they really want rewards, the way that's going to happen is that they are going to continue not only to shut down Pyongyang -- I mean Yongbyon, sorry; Pyongyang is their capital, Yongbyon, the reactor. But in addition, they're going to go after -- they're going to declare all nuclear activities and facilities, and they're going to shut them down.
Q Would you like to see this agreement serve as a model for negotiations with Iran?
MR. SNOW: Yes, with a clear exception that we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we don't want it to have nuclear capabilities. It provides a template in the following way: This is the result of concerted diplomatic effort on the part of interested parties, especially the South Koreans and the Chinese, who stepped up and have made it clear that ultimately very good things can happen, not only in terms of the international community, but also in terms of the North Koreans, themselves.
The United States is going to focus primarily on humanitarian aid. But this also makes the world a more peaceful place, because what we're talking about in the context of extended negotiations is human rights -- performance on human rights, dealing with conventional weapons, with proliferation. Those are also ongoing concerns, all of which are now going to be addressed in follow on sessions both with all parties to the six-party talks and bilaterally with various partners.
We see that kind of diplomacy, effective diplomacy, where a party has come back to the table because the international community asserted pressure, they felt the pressure, and they understood that we were serious. And, you know, we hope the Iranians are similarly going to return to the table, because we have offered some real opportunities for them.
Q Tony, on Iran, General Peter Pace is now saying that he was not aware that this briefing was going ahead in Baghdad, where military officers were talking about Iran's influence in Iraq this past weekend. How could the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs not know that military officers would be briefing in Baghdad?
MR. SNOW: I'll refer that back to General Pace, frankly. But I'll tell you, what General Pace --
Q But did the White House loop him in? Did the White House loop in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
MR. SNOW: I believe that this was a Pentagon briefing. Again, it typically is something that when the Pentagon is doing it, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs knows about it.
Let me tell you what -- I think a lot of people are trying to whomp up a fight here that doesn't exist. I spoke with General Pace a bit this morning, as well. And there is a core of information that everybody agrees upon. Number one, there is weaponry that is of Iranian manufacture that's in Iraq killing Americans. There are Iranians involved, there are Iranians on the ground. Our intelligence indicates that the explosively formed penetrators, the EFP, in fact, are directly associated with Quds forces, which are part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which are part of the government. The Quds force is, in fact, an official arm of the Iranian government and, as such, the government bears responsibility and accountability for its actions, as you would expect of any sovereign government.
And I think that's pretty clear. I mean, General Pace, again, if you go through his --
Q No, you didn't say that, though -- that's where you said "people are trying to whomp up a fight." With all due respect, it's General Pace's comments, not anyone else's, where he said --
MR. SNOW: No, go back --
Q Well, he said -- let me just say, he said, "It is clear that Iranians are involved and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved. But I would not say but what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." Are you saying that you, from this podium, know more than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
MR. SNOW: I am telling you that -- I'm telling you what the intelligence indicates.
Q So is he not in the loop? I'm just trying to understand why there's a contradiction, where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs --
MR. SNOW: I'll tell you what -- I just know that there's -- Ed, calm down. I know you're excited, your voice is rising, your pace is increasing --
Q I don't need to calm down. I'm telling you that he is saying this; I'm not.
MR. SNOW: Well, I'm telling you I talked with him. Okay?
MR. SNOW: And I've talked with him --
Q Well, we'll follow up with him, as well.
MR. SNOW: You better, because I think you will find out that the intelligence does indicate, as he said, this stuff was -- let me pose you with two possibilities. But first, the intelligence indicates that the Quds forces, which are part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, are associated with this.
Now, let me ask a second question to you. I don't know what's more frightening, the fact that the Quds forces would be operating with the knowledge of senior officials or without the knowledge of senior officials. What is beyond dispute, and what is of primary importance here -- and General Pace hasn't disagreed with it, and we don't disagree, and frankly, again, I think you'll find upon further conversation -- he's going to be in the air for about 23 hours, so give him a day -- that, in fact, we generally agree on the basics of the situation here, which is there are armaments that have made their way from Iran into Iraq. There are Iranian forces in Iraq. These weapons are being used to kill Americans; we're going to do everything we can to protect our people.
Q Right. But on the substance of it, the briefers over the weekend said that these parts are sent to Iraq with the approval of senior Iranian officials. And the bottom line is he seems to be contradicting that.
MR. SNOW: Well, I think what General Pace may have been saying -- in fact, I know what he's saying -- and this is where we get to the rhetorical question I was asking you before -- do we have a signed piece of paper from Mr. Khomeini or from President Ahmadinejad signing off on this? No. But are the Quds forces part of the government? The answer is yes.
So the question is, I think this ends up being a semantic dispute about senior levels of the government or the government. And the fact is, the government knows about it.
Q Okay. But isn't it really a question about whether or not you have strong evidence? When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seem to be saying something different than the White House, does that raise questions about how solid this evidence is?
MR. SNOW: No, because you've got -- you have explosively formed penetrators. He says they exist, correct?
Q I didn't see that in this particular quote, but --
MR. SNOW: Well, no -- he said that there are weapons --
Q He says that there are projectiles manufactured in Iraq.
MR. SNOW: Okay, all right. So, okay, so there's no doubt about that, correct? There are Iranians in Iraq. There's no question about that, correct?
MR. SNOW: All right, so where's the credibility problem, in terms of -- are you saying --
Q In terms of the Iranian government being behind it. That's not -- nobody's disputing whether it's manufactured in Iran. That's what -- you keep changing what my question is.
MR. SNOW: No, no, I'm trying to clarify your question, because I think this is a --
Q I don't need it clarified, I'm trying to tell you -- I know what my question is, and basically, he's saying that he doesn't see evidence that the Iranian government is clearly behind it. That's my -- I've asked that three or four times. You haven't answered that. You're saying the Iranian government is behind it.
MR. SNOW: Okay, let me put it this way -- I'll say it one more time. The Quds force is part of the Iranian government. The Quds force is behind it, is associated with it.
Q Okay --
MR. SNOW: All right? Thank you.
Q Let me follow up on this, because we have a situation where right now, a lot of the American people are hearing a lot about Iran and whether the government is involved in sending the weapons across or not. And now it would appear that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the administration seem to be on two different pages.
MR. SNOW: We're not. And that's why I'm going to let General Pace speak for himself. We're not on a different page.
Q But you talked to him --
MR. SNOW: I know, and that's why I'm saying, because Ed's question -- Ed is citing a quote that he said earlier. I'm going to let him -- he'll be able to put it all together, because Ed's not going to believe me when I tell him what my conversation was.
Q But he's in the air for 23 hours. And these are the --
Q Let's hear it. (Laughter.)
MR. SNOW: I already laid it out for you, man.
Q But it seems to be a reasonable expectation the American people can have, to get some kind of explanation for how you can have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the administration on two separate pages.
MR. SNOW: We're not on separate pages. The explanation --
Q Certainly, we seem to be, from what was said.
MR. SNOW: I know, because everybody is trying to get into semantic --
Q But yesterday you said the administration is confident the report on Iran is accurate and the weaponry is coming with knowledge of the Iranian government.
MR. SNOW: Of the government. And I still --
Q But now you're saying that the Quds forces, which is part of the Iranian government -- you're sort of parsing.
MR. SNOW: Well, I was parsing yesterday. I'm trying to be careful about how we do this. The question is, do we know that some particular senior official signed off? No, it's an opaque government; it's not a transparent government. But on the other hand, this is part of the Revolutionary Guard, which is part of the government, and therefore you do hold the government responsible.
Q So somebody who reads General Pace's quote, and says, hmm, that's different than what Tony Snow said yesterday -- they're wrong?
MR. SNOW: Yes. Yes. And I think what's -- again, we'll let General -- here's the --
Q So did Pace retract what he said when he spoke to you?
MR. SNOW: No, he didn't retract because what he said was accurate, as well. What he was thinking is, are you trying to lay this at the feet of members of the Supreme Governing Council; are you trying to lay this at the feet of particular individuals? The answer is, no, we don't have the intelligence that makes it that specific. He was trying to be very precise in how he answered the question. And I was being careful in how I answered it yesterday, as well. We know the Quds forces are involved. They're part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That's part of the government. Just not going to go any further than that.
Q A deputy assistant undersecretary of agriculture is part of the government. Would you say that that -- if somebody was involved at that level, that that's a top level --
MR. SNOW: If you had somebody who was operating with an elite military unit, operating inside the United States, committing acts of violence, would you say that the sponsor government had some -- bore some responsibility for that elite military unit? We're not talking about deputy assistant secretaries of agriculture -- cute question, but it doesn't get to the point that people have moved armaments into Iraq and are killing Americans.
Q Yesterday you said, "In that regime there are not freelancers."
MR. SNOW: Right.
Q Do you stick by that statement, and thereby drawing it to the larger --
MR. SNOW: Again, let me just -- here's your rhetorical question: What's more frightening, the notion that they are freelancing or that they're not?
Q So they might.
MR. SNOW: No, I'm just posing a question for your consideration.
Q But then how solid is the information, though? I think the bottom line question still is if the Chairman --
MR. SNOW: Ed, the information is --
Q He's expressing doubts. He's a General. He knows this better than any of us in this room.
MR. SNOW: There are two things you need to understand. Number one, you guys have been constantly -- I did see what may be the dumbest lead of an editorial I've seen in a long time today in The New York Times, which is, "We need to declare ourselves on Iran." We've declared it over and over -- we're not going to war with them. Let me make that clear. So anybody who is trying to use this as "the administration trying to lay the predicate for a war with Iran" -- no, we're committed to diplomacy with Iran. But we are also committed to protecting our forces.
Let's go back through what we understand. We understand that these weapons came from Iran, no dispute about that. We know that Quds forces have been within Iraq, no dispute about that. We know that the Quds forces are, in fact, part of the Revolutionary Guard; they're an instrument of the Iranian government. Nobody doubts that. So the question therefore becomes, who wrote the orders -- I'm not going to -- we're not going to be able to tell you who signed the orders. But we do know that the Iranian government at that level has been involved.
The important thing is we're trying to do this, and what's interesting is that the Iranian officials -- if they deny it, that's fine. Let's make sure that they, therefore, become engaged in trying to make sure that none of that stuff comes across the border is being used to kill Americans or innocent Iraqis.
Q It's not Iranian officials denying it -- that's not -- again, it's about General Pace --
MR. SNOW: Well, actually, Jessica -- no, Jessica has pinged me many times in the last two days saying they have been denying it on her network.
Q Okay, but, again, when we're talking about -- can you clarify, though, did General Pace -- you said he had a phone conversation with him.
MR. SNOW: Yes.
Q Was he aware that this briefing was going to happen? That his own --
MR. SNOW: I actually -- I did not ask him whether he knew -- I did not ask the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs whether he knew that a Pentagon briefing was going to take place in Baghdad. Forgive me. I didn't ask the process question.
Q Well, he's the one who told reporters that he didn't know about it.
MR. SNOW: Okay. But what I said -- I think -- I asked him about the specific -- he said he wanted to be very precise, because he did not want to be making allegations that could be construed as saying that some senior official within the Iranian government was directly responsible for signing an order. I think that's right. I think he's right about that.
Q Is any of this the reason why the briefing over the weekend became on background, not on camera, because you're concerned about how -- whether --
MR. SNOW: No, what happened was the -- no, the reason it was on background -- the reason it was background -- I'm getting my exercise -- the reason it was on background was that one of the briefers otherwise would not have been able to do it. You guys understand how background briefings work. And that was the ground rule that was laid out. Now, I'm sure that you don't want to rule out background briefings now or anytime in the future. The fact is, we went public with the evidence, and you got the pictures -- again, nobody denies the armaments, nobody denies where they come from, nobody denies the importance of protecting our guys.
Q If I could just come at this one other way. Beyond the evidence of the involvement of the Quds forces, there's no other evidence of ties to the Iranian government?
MR. SNOW: I don't want to lay out -- for one thing, I don't have access to the full chain of intel. But I can tell you the intel community believes that the Quds forces was involved, and I don't want to get into any further characterizations. There I would direct you to the DNI.
Q But as far as you know, when you suggested -- the Iranian government --
MR. SNOW: As far as I'm going to say here, I'm not willing to go any further. I think that's appropriately answered by DNI.
Q Do you think that the off-the-record, low-level Iran briefing has backfired? The reason I ask that is because on the one hand you avoid the comparison with Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations, but at the same time, what you've ended up with is the sense that no one senior in the administration seems to be willing to go on the record. And I understand that one of the people -- not all of the people, but one of the people would have been unable to brief; the other people wouldn't have been unable to brief.
MR. SNOW: No, look, again, I think what's happening is that everybody is trying to create a narrative here of something that's -- look, the problem before, nobody found weapons of mass destruction. You cannot say that nobody didn't -- nobody found explosively formed penetrators. You've got pictures of the things. You know where they came from. There is no doubt about the central fact here: that you have an explosive device that's being used to kill Americans.
So what everybody is trying to figure out now is what General Pace meant -- it's now being devolved into a process argument that overlooks the key fact, which is that weaponry made its way from Iran into Iraq and it's killing Americans, and we're going to try to stop the killing of Americans.
Q Well, isn't the key fact really not only that, but the key fact is, who is sending the weapons into Iraq?
MR. SNOW: Well, again, there is evidence that links Quds force to it. Now, again, the question --
Q Direct evidence?
MR. SNOW: I'm not going to characterize -- let me put it this way, I will push all the evidentiary questions to DNI, but the finding of the intelligence community is that it's, in fact, linked to the Quds forces.
Q That's kind of a "no."
MR. SNOW: No, it's not. It's one of those -- because what you're asking is for the nature and quality of classified evidence. I get my hands tied when I get -- I don't want to get too far in front of this, trying to give you any kind of characterization beyond what's already on the public record.
Q Tony, could I go to a domestic -- two domestic questions?
MR. SNOW: Yes, you may.
Q I'll yield to anybody else.
I have never heard you or any of your 10 predecessors -- whom I have covered at that podium -- use the obscene words for feces, fornication, semen, anus, and vagina, all of which words were used publicly by Melissa McEwan, who is still on the John Edwards presidential campaign staff because he refused to fire her. And my question, first: Surely the President would never put up with such public obscenity like former Senator Edwards is doing, would he?
MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know about that, but the President expects his aides to behave in a seemly manner.
Q On another issue, Inspector General Robert Skinner admitted at a hearing that his deputies falsely told lawmakers that the agency had documentary proof that then Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean were rouge cops, "out to shoot Mexicans." And my question, is the President assured that Attorney General Gonzales is investigating this?
MR. SNOW: I don't know. Did you read the fuller Inspector General's report?
Q I have not read the whole thing.
MR. SNOW: It's worth reading. I think that questions about the Inspector -- see, the thing about Inspectors General is they actually do operate independently of the agencies, as you understand. But on the other hand, Mr. Skinner will have to answer for characterizations he's made.
Q The House has taken up its resolution of disapproval today. Does the administration envision that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq as a stabilization force for years, if not decades to come, if --
MR. SNOW: I don't think at this point -- no -- go ahead.
Q -- if Iraq doesn't throw us out or Congress doesn't cut off the money?
MR. SNOW: Again, I think it's presumptuous for us to look on that long a timeline. The one thing we are committed to doing is having democracy succeed in Iraq. We're also committed to having Iraqis in lead and leadership roles as soon as possible. As far as whatever the long-term commitments, I mean, that's --
Q But don't you look down the road, don't you have a --
MR. SNOW: We do look down the road, but as you know, there is vast amount of uncertainty from one month to the next, let alone one year to the next. And, therefore, to try to make a characterization of what's going to happen one, two, or five years down the road is the sort of thing that almost certainly is going to be inaccurate, if I'm lucky. So I think at this point we'll just stick with the characterizations of what we're trying to achieve.
Q And is the White House working against -- to stop this resolution?
MR. SNOW: No. I mean, it's -- we've made our views known, in terms of what people have to keep in mind. But members of the House and members of the Senate have the freedom to go ahead and write their resolutions and do what they want with them.
The one thing we do expect is, we do expect those who say they're going to support the troops to support them. And there are going to come times when they're going to have an opportunity to vote on continued support for the forces in the field -- and this is something that we will be discussing with members of both houses and both parties, as well -- in terms of providing the support so that those who are reinforcing forces on the ground and a new and redesigned mission, in terms of dealing with the problems of violence in Iraq, are going to be able to be there for their comrades to help finish the job.
Q A question on the record $764 billion trade deficit. House Democratic Leaders sent the President a letter today, including the Trade Subcommittee Chairman, asking for a change in trade policy, which they say is a link to "failed businesses, displaced workers, and lower real wages." And they ask for the Bush administration to give Congress within 90 days a plan to change or eliminate trade deficits with China, the EU, and Japan.
MR. SNOW: Deb, I haven't seen that at all. We just got an economic report of the President yesterday that talked about a booming economy -- we've got reports now of revenues gushing in first quarter a surplus -- the fact is that the most important thing is to build a strong economy that's going to have opportunities for everybody.
But I don't want to even try to answer to a letter I haven't seen. My guess is it sounds to me like they've got a pretty heft series of concerns that's probably not amenable to a one-sentence answer, let alone a five-page answer. So --
Q Can you address the issue of the trade deficit in the President's policy?
MR. SNOW: No, I'll just -- let me take a look at what they've got. Anything I would give you would be less than you deserve.
Q I wanted to ask you, there have been some stories lately about an ICE detention facility outside of Austin, Texas, where asylum-seekers have been kept in prison-like conditions -- it is a converted prison, although the bars are not kept closed, as it would be in prison. Women and children are kept in garb that is likened to prison outfits. Is the President comfortable with the idea that asylum-seekers, particularly children, are kept in conditions --
MR. SNOW: Well, as you probably know, in the past, children had been separated from their families. What we're actually trying to do is to keep them together. We also have been concerned about making sure that they're kept in humane and sanitary conditions and they're clothed and fed. And all that is as you would expect. But one of the things we're trying to do is to keep families together. When you have a large number of people in a facility like that, it does create challenges, and we're trying to do our best with it.
Q Wouldn't it be better to find another type of facility?
MR. SNOW: Such as?
Q Dormitory --
MR. SNOW: Sports stadium?
Q -- I don't know.
MR. SNOW: The point is, it's difficult to find facilities, and you have to do the best with what you've got.
Q Thank you, Tony.
END 12:32 P.M. EST