Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Dennis Hastert Makes Comments Regarding Mark Foley Scandal; Heathrow Evacuation; North Korea Threat

Aired October 10, 2006 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to CNN NEWSROOM.
I'm Heidi Collins.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, everyone.

I'm Tony Harris.

Spend a second hour in the NEWSROOM this morning and stay informed.

Diplomats studying sanctions against the North Korean regime. Careful, though, not to hurt a population already facing desperate days.

COLLINS: Washington looking at new ways to stop violence in the nation's schools. We'll talk live with the principal at Columbine High School.

HARRIS: First spinach, now lettuce, even beef. Some want a food safety czar in the kitchen this Tuesday, the 10th day of October.

You are in the NEWSROOM.

COLLINS: Want to quickly get to you Aurora, Illinois, where House Speaker Dennis Hastert just made some comments regarding representative Mark Foley.

Let's go ahead and listen to that for just a moment.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

QUESTION: Mr. Speaker, can you comment, please, on a statement by Representative Kolbe of Arizona about an incident in 2001 or 2002 where he says a former page came to him with complaints about inappropriate e-mails from Congressman Foley? And he says he reported those then to Congressman Foley's office and to the clerk of the page program. Can you comment about what you know about that?

REP. DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL), HOUSE SPEAKER: All I know is that Congressman Kolbe at that time was on the page board. I replaced him, I think, in 2002 or 2003. But he was on the page board.

That was his sense, his job to do that, that confrontation. I don't know anything more about it. If it was something that was of a nature that should have been reported or brought forward, then he should have done that.

You know, we have investigations going. We have the Ethics Committee doing an investigation. We have the U.S. attorney general or the -- and the FBI doing an investigation. And on Foley, we have the state of Florida doing an investigation.

If anybody's found to have hidden information or covered up information, they really should be gone.

QUESTION: How satisfied are you with how your staff has handled the scandal, though? And should anyone resign in your staff?

How satisfied are you of how your staff has handled the scandal so farm, and whether anyone should resign in your office?

HASTERT: Well, I -- you know, look at this -- I understand my -- I have understood what my staff told me. And I think from that response, they've handled it as well as they should.

However, you know, in 20/20 hindsight probably you could do everything a little bit better. But if there is a problem, if there was a cover-up, then we should find that out through the investigation process. They'll be under oath and we'll find out.

If they did cover something up, then they should not continue to have their jobs. But I -- but I -- but I didn't think anybody at any time in my -- in my office did anything wrong. I found out about these revelations last Friday. That was the first information that I had about it.

QUESTION: Mr. Speaker, as of last Friday, when the story first broke, had you been aware of any other contacts? I'm not talking specifically about the instant messages, but any other contacts, any other incidents, inappropriate contacts between Congressman Foley and pages?

HASTERT: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One more question.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... for the good of the country, if that's what it took.

HASTERT: That's a privileged conversation.

QUESTION: Mr. Speaker, what is it that your staff told you happened?

HASTERT: Well, you know, I've been in contact with my staff ever since last Friday. I was back a week ago last Monday. We spent a whole day going over it.

I asked for an internal investigation. Internal investigations are available to anybody that wants it, but has been printed as well. You know, we focused on the Foley situation, who knew when. And, you know, that's public information. That's all I know.

QUESTION: Well, did they tell you they knew almost three years ago?

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) that you're such a lightning rod in this whole crisis?

HASTERT: I'm not making accusations of what's fair and what's not fair. The reality is here. And I think what we're trying to do is to find somebody to make this page board better to bring in.

I asked Louis Freeh to do it. Nancy Pelosi rejected him for some reason. So we're going to continue to find somebody to head up, to do an investigation and make sure that we can make this page situation much better and -- if we have to do it.

The problem we have to do today is, you know, this didn't happen under our -- while pages were in Washington. It happened after these people left, in my understanding, left the page program, at least the ones we're dealing with now. Left the program, and they were contacted after they left the program.

We need to have a 1-800 number which we put in place so that parents or anybody that's concerned, grandparents, aunts, uncles, anybody else that's concerned about this, can have a way of contacting the Congress and then we can do something about it. But we need to expedite this process and we need to be able to find out, number one, if there's any problems in the past, people ought to be come -- come forward.

And secondly, we can assure that this problem doesn't happen in the future. And I think that's an important piece to this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

HASTERT: Thanks a lot.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: Congressional Correspondent Andrea Koppel on the Hill now waiting to weigh in on this situation with us.

When we listen to representative -- or, excuse me, House Speaker Dennis Hastert speak about representative Mark Foley and also Arizona representative Jim Kolbe, his latest comments, the whole thing boils down to timing, does it not, and who was in charge when?

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, exactly. And who knew what when, Heidi.

And so far, what we've heard from -- from Speaker Hastert and those around him is that his staff and the head of the page board knew about this. The first time they knew about it that they're acknowledging is about a year ago, in November of 2005. The reason that Congressman Jim Kolbe's comments are so important is that we had learned that a page, a former page contacted him back in 2000 -- so that's six years ago -- and alerted him to the fact that there were some inappropriate e-mails that he had received from now ex-congressman Foley. We have now just received a statement from Congressman Kolbe, who's been out of the country traveling. His staff has been trying to contact him.

And what he is saying he's confirming that going back to 2000 he did get, his office did get contacted by a former page and that -- said that this e-mail made him feel uncomfortable. He says he wasn't shown the content of the messages, but he said, "Forward it to the head of the page board. Forward it to the House clerk. Let them take care of it."

So, the question is, just how far up the chain of command did this information go, Heidi? Did it stop with the clerk of the court? Did they pursue it any further?

That is the question that the House Ethics Committee is going to try to get to the bottom of. And, in fact, that's what this investigation that the Justice Department, the FBI is undertaking as well as trying to get to the bottom of.

COLLINS: Yes. And actually, as I read this statement from Representative Kolbe, I don't see 2000 on here. I see, "Sometime after leaving the page program an individual I had appointed contacted my office," and so on and so forth. That's why I keep mentioning the timing, because who was in charge of the page program at the time?

KOPPEL: Well...

COLLINS: Was it Kolbe or was it Hastert?

KOPPEL: ... let me tell you, because since I last spoke with you last hour, I actually called his office and spoke with the -- with Congressman Kolbe's spokeswoman. She clarified that for me.

She said that her understanding is that when Congressman Kolbe says, "Sometime after leaving the page program, an individual I had appointed as a page contacted my office," he is referring to the time that this young page left the program, which was about the year 2000.

COLLINS: I see. OK. Understood.

All right. Boy, it's more confusing every day, isn't it? We are trying to nail it down and stay on top of it. And thanks so much for your help with that.

CNN's Andrea Koppel, part of the best political team on television.

HARRIS: And just want to get you the latest information on the Heathrow Airport situation in London. Authorities evacuated Heathrow Airport's terminal 2 after a man ran up to the Air Algeria desk, dropped off a package and ran away. Can you imagine the reaction of folks at that counter, in that terminal at that moment when this guy runs up to this counter and drops off a package and then runs away? About 2,000 people were ordered out of the terminal, and the package is being investigated. And all travelers are being advised to check with their airlines before traveling to the airport.

The airport's bomb squad is on the scene, as well. And, of course, this brings up the incident two months ago when police thwarted that alleged plot to blow up airlines traveling between Britain and the United States.

We will of course continue to follow developments on this story and bring you the very latest.

To North Korea now.

Was it real? The world still doesn't know for certain whether North Korea carried out a nuclear test. Here's what we do know right now.

A senior U.S. intelligence official says the reported test was unusually small for a nuclear detonation. That's led to questions about North Korea's claim. Experts say we may never know whether the North has a functioning nuclear weapon.

And for the United States, a time to push diplomatic penalties. The Bush administration pressing the United Nations to put tough new sanctions on the North Korean regime.

At the U.N., diplomats are hashing out a plan to deal with North Korea. The U.S. supporting tough sanctions.

Details now from Senior U.N. Correspondent Richard Roth.

Richard, good morning.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Japan, are huddling right now on that proposed resolution. And it's a get tough resolution with North Korea as the ambassadors huddle in a conference room down along U.N. hallways.

The resolution would slap an arms embargo on North Korea, maybe a travel ban on senior government officials, a weapons ban, various asset freezes. All designed to curb North Korea's proliferation program.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton says North Korea is just trying to intimidate the United States and the world with what it did the other day, testing a nuclear device. As for sanctions, John Bolton says they're necessary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN BOLTON, U.S. AMB. TO U.N.: Our aim in the sanctions we've proposed is precisely not to do anything to worsen the terribly oppressed condition of the North Korean people who have suffered for decades under this regime. These sanctions are aimed at the North Korean programs of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, biological, their ballistic missile program, and their other illicit activities, the sale of drugs through diplomatic pouches, counterfeiting our money -- to cut off their supply of resources that they use to keep these programs going.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: It's not easy to get instant comment from the North Koreans. The only outlet, the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations. But he has to be chased down the sidewalks of New York. Pak Gil Yon did comment briefly on the sanctions threat his country now faces.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAK GIL YON, NORTH KOREAN AMB. TO U.S.: In any way sanctions will not solve the problem at all. This is my view.

QUESTION: So you are not going to accept any sanctions?

PAK: I said sanctions will not solve the problem at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: The U.S. needs China and Russia to be aboard with this resolution. In the past they've opposed cracking down with sanctions on countries, at least at the outset. The Chinese ambassador just moments ago said some sort of punitive action is needed against North Korea. When as described what kind, he said it is punitive. That implies something.

There won't be a resolution vote today, and probably all week. The British are hoping by the end of the week, but we've seen that drag on in the past.

Back to you.

HARRIS: Richard, any thought as to how difficult it would be to carry out such an inspection program as is being proposed here? It might give us a sense as to chances for passage of this resolution.

ROTH: Well, that would be an elaborate process in the seas. And I wouldn't want to hazard a guess right now as to the nature of it.

That would certainly be getting tough with North Korea, a country which has millions of people starving, gets most of its food and energy from China. And China would have to be aboard this. A lot of the supplies, though, go over land and not through the seas. And we've countries like Iraq, when sanctions were imposed, get stuff in despite the ban.

HARRIS: At the U.N. for us, Richard Roth.

Richard, thank you.

And just another reminder. This evening, 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joins Wolf Blitzer in "THE SITUATION ROOM" to talk about the North Korea threat. You don't want to miss that. Once again, this evening, 7:00 p.m. Eastern, Condoleezza Rice, one on one with Wolf Blitzer in "THE SITUATION ROOM".

COLLINS: Another very big issue that you are likely going to want to hear more about, stopping violence in schools. There is a school safety summit under way right now. We are going to talk with the principal of Columbine, a man who certainly knows an awful lot about the issue.

That story coming up in the NEWSROOM.

HARRIS: More bodies found in Iraq. Dozens of them. Live with the latest from Baghdad, that's ahead.

You're watching CNN, the most trusted name in news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: No end to the violence in Iraq. Dozens more bodies found in the capital and across the country. And, of course, more bombings.

CNN's Arwa Damon is in Baghdad -- Arwa.

ARWA DAMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Tony. That's right. And for many of the Iraqis that are living with this violence every day, they really cannot find any reason behind it.

If we look at just one of the attacks that happened today, it was in southeastern Baghdad in the neighborhood of Aldora (ph), known to be volatile. In this attack that happened at 1:00 p.m., a bomb was placed underneath a civilian vehicle. The apparent target, according to the Iraqi police, a bakery. In that attack, 10 civilians killed, four more wounded, leaving many asking, why would anyone want to target a bakery?

And again, the Iraqi police finding in just a span of 24 hours. Sixty more bodies in the capital of Baghdad alone. That brings us to a total of at least 280 bodies found just in Baghdad, believed to be the country's latest victims of sectarian violence.

And it's been a very deadly month for U.S. troops here as well. Thirty-two have been killed just 10 days into October.

Many Iraqis right now are saying that they see no end in sight to the violence that's happening all around them -- Tony.

HARRIS: OK. Arwa, if we could, let's sort of widen the view of all of this violence. I'm thinking back to June. And has a single major Sunni insurgent group or Shiite militia accepted the amnesty plan that was offered in June by the prime minister, al-Maliki?

DAMON: Well, not quite, Tony. And let me say this first, though. Back when that plan was put forward, when amnesty was being offered to insurgent groups, the conditions were a little vague. And many people here had issues with it, to include the politicians.

What the government said back then, and what it is still saying right now, is that they have received "positive signals" through intermediaries from some insurgent groups. The issue back then, though, was that in this amnesty, this offer of amnesty, the government specifically said this amnesty was being offered to groups that have no blood on their hands.

That begs the question of, well, if a group doesn't have blood on its hands, how does it end up being an insurgent group? And in fact, the government has come under harsh criticism for that plan.

Even when it was announced back in June, many Iraqis here were saying, "This is just a plan and we don't want to see plans anymore. We want to see action taking place" -- Tony.

HARRIS: Arwa, vague or not, since the plan was announced, the fact of the matter is, is that the violence has done nothing but spike, but go higher.

DAMON: Exactly. Just that. I mean, even if we look at when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki first took office and we look at the number of attacks back then, and we look at the situation that we have throughout the country, especially in Baghdad right now, there has been an incredible uptick in violence. And a lot of people here are saying that they want the government to take affirmative action, they want them to go out and deal with the militias, not to keep talking about forming committees, about looking for a political solution.

While a lot of people here would want to see a peaceful solution to ending the violence, many are coming to terms with the fact and saying that the only thing that is really going to end the violence here is precise action. Precise action to disarm the militias. Precise actions to bring down these terrorists or insurgent groups that are carrying out a lot of the violence. Action taken to stop the sectarian violence that is really paralyzing everybody's lives here.

People, Tony, are just tired of everything. They're tired of living every day.

HARRIS: CNN's Arwa Damon for us in Baghdad.

Arwa, thank you.

COLLINS: Gunmen in schools and children killed a parent's nightmare. Just in the last two weeks alone, there have been four school shootings across this country. Right now, the Bush administration is sponsoring a school safety conference, sharing ideas in an effort to end this type of violence.

Joining me now to talk about that, Frank DeAngelis. He's the principal of Columbine High School, the scene of one of this nation's worst school shootings.

Principal DeAngelis, thanks so much for being here with us.

We will never forget the day in April of 1999. And every time I see you, I'm reminded of all of the issues that come before students, parents and schools.

You, as an administrator, what are your reactions to this latest -- the four shootings that we just mentioned over a very short time?

FRANK DEANGELIS, PRINCIPAL, COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL: Well, Heidi, thanks for having me on.

It re-traumatizes us. The shooting in Bailey, Colorado, was so close to home. We're about 40 miles from Platte Canyon High School. And when we saw footage of the coverage of what was transpiring up in Bailey, Colorado, at Platte Canyon High School, it definitely triggered some emotions for myself and for the members of the community, and I'm sure people around the nation. We were taken back to April 20, 1999 as a result of what was happening up at Platte Canyon High School.

COLLINS: I'm sure that you were. They're so geographically close, and so close to your heart as well.

Has there been enough done as far as changes to school safety policy?

DEANGELIS: I think what happened after Columbine High School, discussions started. I think there are programs and systems in place now that were not in place on -- prior to April 20, 1999. But I think we cannot just sit still. We need to continue to work on plans that make our schools the safest as possible.

COLLINS: What is the biggest challenge, though, Principal DeAngelis? Are we talking logistics? You know, security at the front door, security on the perimeter of the school? Are we talking more about some psychological challenges?

Bullying was a very big issue with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

DEANGELIS: Right. I think originally when that question was posed to me after the Columbine shootings, questions such as, "Would metal detectors have made a difference? Would surveillance cameras have made a difference? Armed guards at the doors?" And I truly believe that those things would not necessarily have made the difference in the shootings that occurred at Columbine High School.

Klebold and Harris had the weapons at home. They came on to the school grounds. The metal detectors would have done nothing on that particular day to stop the shooting spree. I think when you're talking about surveillance cameras, unless if you have someone who is sitting in front of the TV every day, monitoring, 24/7, that the surveillance system is not going to stop the shooting.

Some of the questions that I think you would ask in talking to the principal in the shooting that occurred at North Carolina, the gunman actually went by campus security that day and started firing into the school. You touched upon it briefly at the very beginning of the question. I think that we need to educate our students. There's anti-bullying programs out there.

The question that I continually ask is, what caused so much hate in the heart of Klebold and Harris that would allow them to carry out such a terrorist act? And I think it needs to continue. I think there have been major strides made since Columbine High School that people are more vigilant in reporting threats that are made to a particular school or to individuals. But we need to continually monitor to make sure that we're doing the best we can for our students and children.

COLLINS: Do you think there are enough open doors? Enough open doors for children who may feel bullied or who may have these psychological challenges to walk in and to talk about these things? And do you think students are vigilant enough?

DEANGELIS: Most definitely. One of the things that I instituted after the Columbine tragedy is I have an anonymous tip box in which students will put notes in my mailbox. I have an open door policy.

I think there are things that are available. In Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation has a tip line. But I think the most important thing is to set up those avenues or those venues that students have an opportunity to talk.

Just recently in Jefferson County, in which Columbine is part of the school district, we did a "make your voice heard" survey. And we looked at the statistics that were -- or the survey results from two years ago compared to now, and students are feeling safer than what they did a few years ago.

COLLINS: Right. Very good to know.

Quickly, before we let you go, there has been talk about having armed guards in our middle schools, our elementary schools and our high schools. Your thoughts on that?

DEANGELIS: Boy, that's a fine line. And I think the thing we need to remember is that it's a place for educating our students. And to have armed guards at the front door, that we turn these schools into prisons. And I'm not sure that's what the students want and the parents want at this particular point.

However, we do need to make our schools as safe as possible. Are there alternatives that we can do just short of having armed guards standing at all the entrances of the doors?

COLLINS: Columbine Principal Frank DeAngelis, nice to see you again. Thanks so much for your time here today. We know you were invited to Washington today to go to the school summit. Just unfortunately not enough time to make that happen.

DEANGELIS: Right. COLLINS: So we appreciate it so much here today.

DEANGELIS: Thank you so much, Heidi.

HARRIS: Well, greens going away again. A new food recall prompts new calls for better oversight.

That story coming up in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: Live in the CNN NEWSROOM, Heidi Collins and Tony Harris.

COLLINS: A Capitol scandal, a closely watched investigation. Just a short while ago the House speaker spoke out again on the Mark Foley probe. Dennis Hastert says he will dismiss anyone on his staff if they covered up concerns about the former congressman's conduct with former pages.

As the House Ethics committee tries to figure out who knew what and they knew it, there is also this -- just this morning, Arizona Republican Jim Kolbe issued a statement, confirming as early as 2000, his office was contacted by a former page. He said he received e- mails -- the page said he'd received e-mails from Foley that made him feel uncomfortable. Kolbe said he did not see the messages, nor was he told they were sexually explicit, but he did recommend the complaint be sent to the supervisor of the page program. Kolbe says he never discussed the matter personally with Foley.

The Mark Foley e-mail scandal every day seems to bring something new. That's causing political problems for the GOP during this midterm election countdown. But Republicans say don't count them out just yet.

CNN's John Roberts now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN ROBERTS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Each new day a new revelation about former Congressman Mark Foley. Every new revelation taking the famously disciplined Republican Party farther off script.

CHARLIE BLACK, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, it has certainly thrown us off message and it's been a huge distraction from the message we would like to get out there.

ROBERTS: So instead of campaigning four weeks before the election, Republicans are focused on undoing the damage. The Foley scandal is an unfortunate twist, but not a death knell says Republican strategist Charlie Black.

BLACK: Oh, it's not fatal. There's plenty of time, four weeks to go. You wouldn't want to have the election today if you were a Republican. But with four weeks to go, the pendulum would swing back and forth a couple of times between now and election day.

ROBERTS: And to help swing the pendulum back, Republicans are presenting a united front on the Sunday talk shows, trying to put behind them intraparty sniping politicals call the circular firing squad.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to focus on the facts of this case and investigate it and get the facts out there.

ROBERTS: But Republicans have more to worry about than just the Foley scandal.

STUART ROTHENBERG, CNN POL. ANALYST: Well, the Mark Foley scandal has obviously added to their problems, but their problems predate that. It's about the war in Iraq. It's about the president's performance and reputation. It's about the administration's response to Katrina. A series of problems, ethics and performance. And right now, the voters seem to want change, an that means Democrats.

ROBERTS: Democrats smell blood over the latest ratings that show control of both the House and Senate within striking distance. A rise in the president's poll numbers has stalled. Some conservative leaders are predicting many evangelical values voters will stay home on November 7th.

ROTHENBERG: It will be all about Republican turnout. If Republicans are disillusioned, embarrassed, depressed about the state of things, they won't vote. And then the Democrats will have a terrific chance to take the Senate, as well as the House.

ROBERTS: Analysts point to new states in play, the Senate race in Tennessee and the tightening contest in Virginia, where incumbent Senator George Allen's campaign has come all but unglued, with charges of racism and denying his family's religious background.

But not so fast, says, Charlie Black.

BLACK: Nobody could have been more full of holes, even if he did do some of it to himself, than he was over a three-week period, and he's still ahead in the polls. The best is yet to come for Allen.

ROBERTS: If Republicans are thankful for anything it's that the Foley scandal erupted now and not November 1st. Already it's being pushed out of the headlines. And as party faithful like to point out, the election is still a month away. In a business where a day is a long time, a week forever.

RONALD KESSLER, NEWSMAX.COM: Well, it clearly has depressed the polls. It certainly has taken some of the momentum away, but a lot of this is femoral; it's something that, you know, I think will go away in a week or so. In the end, all these people did take appropriate action. It's not a scandal that I think has legs.

ROBERTS: John Roberts, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE) HARRIS: We want to get to you some breaking news now of a rescue situation in California. Our T.J. Holmes is following that from the NEWSROOM.

T.J., what do you have for us?

T.J. HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tony, we have people being rescued from an area people actually shouldn't be. They're stuck. This is Otay Mesa, which is in Southern California on the border there. This is a community within San Diego down there, and they're on the border. Seven people were trapped in a storm drain. Two have been taken out at this point, according to San Diego fire, but apparently five people still trapped in this storm drain, and again, this is a place where people shouldn't be.

We're going to try to get more info about exactly who these people might be from Lauren Mack, who's on the phone with us from ICE, Immigration Customs Enforcement, a spokesperson there.

Thank you for giving us a moment here and explain to them what's going on. Can you give us an update about exactly what's going on in the storm drain.?

LAUREN MACK, ICE SPOKESWOMAN: Yes. Early today, the agents that work on the San Diego Tunnel Task Force in San Diego responded to information they'd received that a group of undocumented immigrants who were attempting to illegally enter the United States, using an existing storm-drain system east of the Otay Mesa area were yelling and appeared to be trapped inside the drain, which was full of water. So they are on the scene. There appears to be seven. The Mexicans have been notified and are working to get over to U.S. authorities right now, presently attempting to rescue the individuals.

HOLMES: Just how common is this? How often are you seeing -- like you said, you've got a whole division there that monitors these tunnels. I guess this is a pretty common thing?

MACK: Well, the tunneling activity, yes, it's definitely been on the increase since 9/11. We've seen a number of tunnels in that area, and most recently, we have been aware of and responding to a situation where more and more of the migrants were attempting to access an existing storm drain system on this side of the border, on the U.S. side, by digging very small, primitive gopher holes on the Mexican side. So we have been investigating that area with the Mexican authorities. But this is the first time that I'm aware of an actual situation where it involved rescue with people stuck inside.

HOLMES: Now, what could have possibly, this time, gone wrong? It happens a lot. But you've got some that actually got stuck in there this time around. What possibly went wrong with their operation?

MACK: Well, it's a very dangerous situation. And it's probably a miracle that nobody has been stuck yet. It's dangerous. It's very small, enclosed area. And what I believe is different this time is the fact that the water had risen in a nearby canal, and that water level is probably going to, you know -- is making it much more dangerous and could have led to be the reason that they're lost or stuck inside. We just don't know yet.

HOLMES: Do you have you any word on injuries, anything serious going on with them medically or anything?

MACK: Preliminarily, no. I don't have information; I don't have all those details yet, no.

HOLMES: All right. And finally here, what happens to them once they get out of the tunnel, and what do you do with them?

MACK: Well, first of all, the first thing would be to evaluate any injuries or health concerns, and then the second thing would be to process them for immigration on -- if they have -- once they're here in the United States, we will process them for deportation back to Mexico.

HOLMES: All right. And one last thing here, is it pretty tough to police these tunnels? Are there a lot that you're having to keep an eye on?

MACK: Well, we do have a task force responding to the situation, where the model program for the entire southwest border and the task force has been very, very effective in uncovering a number of tunnels recently, including the largest one ever, which was discovered earlier this year. It ran for about three-quarters of a mile across the Mexico/U.S. border here, and very near this area. So yes, we have a complete, dedicated team responding to this ongoing problem, and will continue to do so.

HOLMES: All right, Lauren Mack from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, thanks for spending time with us and getting us updated on the situation. Again, for our viewers there -- again, seven people trying to get across the border, getting through a storm drain, a tunnel, and got trapped, got stuck and had to yell from help. Got at least two out now. Doesn't look like serious injuries. But still, I guess the Border Patrol there is doing their job. And this time around, they're going to send some folks out trying to get into the country illegally -- Tony.

HARRIS: OK, T.J., appreciate it. Thank you.

COLLINS: A draft resolution being looked at by U.N. Security Council members regarding North Korea and their latest apparent nuclear test. Stiff weapons sanctions are possible. Other restrictions against the country. We'll have the latest right after the break.

You're in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: One day after North Korea's announced nuclear test, questions still persist. Here's what we know. The U.S. has been able to confirm a nuclear device was tested, and American experts say we may never know exactly what type of weapon was detonated. That's because of the size of Monday's explosion. It was very small. Makes it pretty tough for sensors to detect radioactive emissions.

Fears of an arms race in the region are lessening, though. Japan's new prime minister says his nation has no plans to build a nuclear weapon. Shinzo Abe says he wants a diplomatic solution instead.

The U.N. Security Council working on that angle right now. Council members are meeting behind closed doors to come up with a package of sanctions against North Korea. Diplomats say the draft resolution is based on existing sanctions imposed by the U.S. and some sanctions added by Japan.

HARRIS: And before heading to the U.N. today, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton stopped by CNN's "AMERICAN MORNING." He told Miles O'Brien any U.N. sanctions would be aimed at North Korea's regime, not its people.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN BOLTON, U.N. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Well, the way the North Korean regime works is they engage in all these illicit activities, earn hard currency and use it to support the elite and the lifestyle they're accustomed, as well as their WMD programs. So one of our sanctions will be against the importation of luxury goods for Kim Jong-il and his counterparts.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: There's a lot of military analysts who tell you there really isn't a viable option military option here. Would you agree?

BOLTON: Well, we keep the military option on the table because North Korea needs to know that. But President Bush has been very clear for quite some time here he wants this resolved peacefully and diplomatically. That's what our objective is in the Security Council today.

O'BRIEN: So the military option is low on the list at this point?

BOLTON: The clear preference is to solve this peacefully.

We had every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or certainly that he was going to pursue them. And he had a 12-year record of defying the U.N. Security Council.

It wasn't really a question of which end we started at. I think that's why President Bush labeled the axis of evil as he did. We had problems with all of these countries pursuing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

O'BRIEN: But given what we've seen unfold in Korea, isn't there more of a clear and present threat?

BOLTON: I think that the North Korean threat was really uncovered during the Bush administration. You know, the North Koreans signed an agreement in 1994 called the Agreed Framework, where they were supposed to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for some tangible carrots. They never did.

As far as we can tell now, they probably began violating that agreement before the ink was dry. President Bush and his administration uncovered that, confronted the North Koreans with it, and we've been on a path for more pressure on them ever since.

O'BRIEN: I want to ask you personally, though, have you talked to your North Korean counterpart?

BOLTON: No, the North Koreans won't talk to me. You know, Kim Jong-il issued a statement some years ago calling me human scum, but -- which would make me a good partner to talk to him, actually, if we ever did. The North Koreans can talk to us any time they want, on a bilateral basis, if they'll come back to the six-party talks, which they've been boycotting for 13 months.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARRIS: And for more analysis on the North Korea threat, Wolf Blitzer sits down with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in "THE SITUATION ROOM," 7:00 p.m. Eastern time this evening.

COLLINS: Greens going again. A new food recall prompts new calls for a better oversight. We will give you that story in just a moment, right here on the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: A lettuce recall in the West, and new concerns today about the safety of our food. CNN's Bill Tucker has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Lettuce selling under the brand name Foxy pulled from grocer's shelves. The company responsible, Nunes, voluntarily recalling its leafy green lettuce after testing its water and learning some of the lettuce was contaminated with E. coli bacteria.

BOB NUNES, THE NUNES COMPANY: What we're trying to do is just do the right thing, come out earlier, not wait, taking care of business the right way.

TUCKER: The company says it has already been able to pull back 97 percent of the product in question. There have been no reports of anyone being made sick from eating the lettuce which was sold in Arizona, California, Nevada, Washington State, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. The lettuce scare comes a week after it's been said it's safe to eat spinach again.

And lettuce is not alone. Bottled carrot juice from Bolthouse Farms is being pulled from stores after consumers suffered botulism poisoning from the juice. Fifty-two hundred pounds of ground meat from a small meat packing company in Iowa, Jim's Market and Locker, was recalled after the meat was suspected of being contaminated with E. coli. Officials say there are no reports of any illnesses from eating the meat. Food experts say these sorts of outbreaks underline the need for consumers to be more vigilant about their food.

DOUG POWELL, FOOD SAFETY NETWORK: We all eat. We have enormous power about where we spend our shopping dollars. Ask questions. Ask people where they are getting their lettuce or spinach. What are they doing to reduce dangerous microorganisms being that product?

TUCKER: There is legislation calling for the creation of a new government agency, the Unified Food Safety Agency.

Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARRIS: "YOUR WORLD TODAY" coming up at the top of the hour. Michael Holmes, we haven't seen him in a good long time now, here with a preview.

Michael, good to see you.

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, back from Baghdad. Good to see you both. Yes, six glorious weeks.

Well, I'm back now, and YOUR WORLD TODAY is coming up. We're going to look at North Korea, of course, as the political toing and froing goes on. We're going to talk to some anxious and upset neighbors as well. We're also going to look at this murder of that Russian journalist. This is a dangerous place to be a journalist. We're going to talk to someone from the Committee to Protect Journalists about how tough it is to be a reporter in Russia.

Also, and newly minted millionaires, billionaires from YouTube expressing their thanks, where else, on YouTube. We're going to speak to a financial expert on what it means, not just to them, but to the good old days perhaps of high-tech entrepreneurs. That's coming up on YOUR WORLD TODAY.

Heidi, Tony, back to you guys.

COLLINS: All right, Michael. We'll be watching.

Right now, though, we want get you straight to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow giving a White House briefing. Let's listen in.

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: ... exactly what did occur.

Nevertheless, as they continue to study it, and as they feel comfortable in making statements, we'll pass them on. I don't know whether DNI's office is going to be the proper venue or we will. But in any event, I'll make sure that the press office gets out to anybody any statements that are made to try to assess precisely what happened.

QUESTION: Tony, does the administration believe that North Korea has the capability to put a nuclear weapon on a ballistic missile?

SNOW: Don't know.

QUESTION: Can you address this threat from North Korea today that they would fire one at the U.S.?

SNOW: Again, it is not unusual and not new for the North Koreans to be provocative. That's what the real takeaway has been from the last few days.

And furthermore, they've been provocative in the face of direct attempts to influence their behavior on the part of the Chinese and the South Koreans and others. So this does fit a pattern.

And we have seen the pattern of making statements that are designed to be provocative, presumably in order to get concessions. And in the past, that sort of behavior has worked.

But it appears now that the parties in the six-party talks, other than North Korea, are unwilling to go that way. The Chinese today have called for taking actions against the North Koreans. You've had the South Koreans out with a tough statement, the Japanese out with a tough statement.

The point is that this is a pattern of behavior that has worked in the past for the North Koreans, but it appears it may work no more.

QUESTION: Tony, in 2003, the president said very clearly that, "We will not tolerate North Korea with nuclear weapons."

QUESTION: And here we are in 2006 operating on the assumption, as the government is, that in fact they tested a nuclear device. So what went wrong?

SNOW: I'm not sure anything went wrong.

The failed diplomacy is on the part of the North Koreans, because what they have done so far is turn down a series of diplomatic initiatives that would have given them everything they said they wanted, which was the ability to have adequate power for their country, to have economic growth, to have diplomatic ties with other countries and to have security guarantees. All of that was included in the September 19th agreement of last year and yet they've walked away from all of it.

So if there's a failure in diplomacy, it's on their part.

But what also has happened, is that over that period of time you've seen the six-party talks continue to evolve, and the United States and allies working together, trying to figure out what is the proper way and the effective way diplomatically to put leverage on the government of North Korea that in the past has been able, as I was just saying -- has been able to use bluff and bravado as a way of exacting concessions. And that appears to be something of declining utility at this point.

So rather than having something going wrong, what you really have is the emergence of a process now, in which the people who have the most leverage over the North Koreans -- and let's face it, the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Japanese, they all have more direct leverage over the North Koreans than we do. The people who have the greatest ability to influence behavior are now fully invested as equal partners in a process to deal with the government of North Korea.

So what really has changed now is not only the method by which you approach it, which is now a multilateral method, but also, I think the determination and the unity of the parties that are involved.

QUESTION: In 2002, though, and since then, this president likes to focus on results. So here's the result: In 2002, the president said that he didn't want the so-called axis of evil, the worst regimes in the world, to get the most dangerous weapons, WMD.

Here we are in 2006, this president has invaded a country that had no nuclear weapons and there is a country that in that process has been able to acquire more nuclear weapons.

SNOW: Well, it's an open question about what the status is. You know, there was speculation even back in the Clinton years, did they have six, did they have eight nukes?

SNOW: And the intelligence on that, I think, has always been a little varied.

The fact is that the North Koreans...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... that they have more today than they had when you came to office?

SNOW: I don't know. I honestly don't know. And I think intelligence analysts will tell you that they're teasing through the question as well.

You'll have to ask a technical question of whether they've had the capability to build additional weapons since they unlocked Yongbyon a couple of years ago. Don't know.

So let's set a couple benchmarks.

Number one, going back to the 1990s, it was clear that the North Koreans were attempting to try to put together a nuclear program. That is why you had the agreed framework back in 1994 under the Clinton administration. The idea was, you provide the carrots, maybe they'll back off. You know, it made a lot of sense, but it didn't work because the North Koreans cheated on it and were trying on the sly to enrich uranium.

So what has happened in recent days, at least in terms of an announced desire by the North Koreans to develop a nuclear weapon, that's not new. They've been trying to do this for years.

What is new is that you do have, I think, a much more effective mechanism, or at least a more promising mechanism for dealing with them. Because the people who have direct leverage, the people who can turn the spigots economically and politically, are now fully engaged and invested in this. That was not the case in the 1990s, it was not the case earlier in this decade. It is the case now.

QUESTION: But, Tony, results. I'm trying to get you to focus on results. You invaded a country that had no nuclear weapons and all the while a country further developed their nuclear capacity.

SNOW: You may have better intelligence than I do.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I think intelligence is not as unclear as you're projecting it as.

SNOW: Well, no, I think it is. People have been trying to assess.

You know what? I'll take the worst-case scenario as you've placed it, OK?

Number one, we invaded a country that was directly involved in the war on terror, that was paying off terrorists, that was making direct threats. That was one thing. And we went ahead and we dealt with a terrorist threat. And, frankly, the world is safer off without Saddam Hussein.

At the same time that all this was going on, the United States was also working on the Korea problem. Having learned from the mistakes, having learned from the inability of prior administration efforts to try to deal with the North Koreans, we thought: "You know what? If we go it alone, we don't have the leverage. We need to come up with a much more practical way of trying to deal with a regime that sometimes does not seem to respond to rational incentives. And we have to find a way, from every possible angle, to look for a diplomatic solution to this problem."

The North Koreans have made it clear. For a very long time -- you can go back and look at what members of the Clinton administration said or what we have said. They've made no bones about it.

So you look for the most effective diplomatic method of doing this. The North Koreans have proceeded -- absolutely right. Given.

But now what has happened is that the people, again, who are most directly capable of influencing their decisions, have stepped up and said, "You know what? The old policy of appeasing these guys apparently ain't going to work anymore."

So you have to look prospectively now and say, "OK, what is going to be happening in the future? Do we think it's going to enable us to modify the behavior of the North Koreans?" QUESTION: Just one more. I just want to be clear: You're suggesting the Clinton approach was appeasement?

SNOW: I am -- no, what I'm saying is that in the past what has happened is the attempt to say to the North Koreans -- because I think the Clinton administration, again, tried something and it was worth trying -- which is to say, "OK, we're going to give you a bunch of carrots. You guys renounce -- we're going to try to give you light water breeder reactors, we'll give you incentives." And the North Koreans took it and ran away with it.

What has also happened is that in response to bad behavior in the past, people have said, "You know, what we'll do is we'll increase aid and we'll increase trade."

So rather than using the term "appeasement," what I will say is that you had a primarily carrots-oriented approach.

Now you've got carrots and sticks. The sticks would be economic pressure on the government of North Korea, but the carrots are even more important, because you got millions of people there who are starving, who are in agony, who have been living under an oppressive regime who deserve better.

And what the United States and the allies have been offering are ways in which those people can enjoy a better quality of life, North Korea can enjoy more security and the region generally will be able to enjoy security.

QUESTION: And your belief is that the march to war against Iraq in no way limited this administration's ability to dissuade North Korea?

SNOW: Absolutely right. Absolutely right. Absolutely right.

The two are, in fact, separate issues that are worked on by separate people. And, as I pointed out, the administration was working on the six-party approach completely independent of what's going on.

The fact is that it has been a difficult process -- and will continue to be -- for people in the region to figure out how do you deal with these guys?

It is not something that has a simple answer. So what you try to do is to use new approaches and look for something that's going to be effective.

And right now it seems a lot more likely to be effective if you got the Chinese and the South Koreans and others who have the most direct influence stepping up and trying to assert it.

QUESTION: Tony, if the intelligence eventually suggests that this was not a nuclear detonation, does that change anything in terms of the urgency that the diplomatic process...

SNOW: No. No.

Because you still have a deliberate act of provocation that has the aim of in some sense either trying to frighten or destabilize the region. And it also makes it clear that the region will be a lot better off if nobody has to worry about whether North Korea has nuclear weapons, knowing that it does not have nuclear weapons; and furthermore that there are closer ties, politically, diplomatically and economically and in terms of security, that give the North Koreans an incentive to be a force for peace in the region rather than a force for instability.

QUESTION: Can you give us a sense of how this diplomatic effort may unfold over the next 24, 48 hours?

SNOW: I honestly don't know. You can read as well as I can what's going on on the wires, which is that there are ongoing conversations with the U.N. Security Council.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SNOW: Yes, but not a whole lot more. Because what's going on here is that there are conversations within the U.N. Security Council.

It does seem now that the major parties are agreed that there needs to be some appropriate punishment for the North Koreans for doing this.

Nuclear or not, they've made a statement that they have developed a weapon. They made a statement -- and a celebratory statement -- that they had fired one. And that in and of itself is one of those markers that I think has persuaded the other members in the five-party talks -- all the members in the five-party talks -- to say, "We need to work together."

So now they're having conversations and trying to coordinate which steps to take next.

QUESTION: The president didn't say anything this morning in the photo op. And he's been quiet since his statement yesterday. So what's he thinking?

SNOW: What he's thinking is, "Let's see how the talks proceed."

Again, we have received signals from the allies -- and most of these have now been made public -- that they're determined to take a different approach when it comes to North Korea.

So trying to figure out the proper way to set up the inducements, the sticks, so that the North Koreans will sit down at the six-party talks again, in circumstances under which they renounce and verifiably so nuclear ambitions both in the civil nuclear power business and also the weaponry business and avail themselves of a series of benefits that would be good for the country, good for the government and good for the people.

QUESTION: I don't think that the other five parties would object to face-to-face talks between the U.S. and North Korea.

SNOW: Actually they do.

And the point they've made is that -- yes, they've made the point that, in fact, there is strength in numbers and it's more important to work with a united front.

If you have a negotiation like this and somebody says, "Well, wait a minute, you guys stand aside and I'll talk instead," that gives the North Koreans an inducement to try to figure out ways to chip away at the partners, to break up the coalition.

It's much smarter from a negotiating standpoint not to give them the option of trying to cherry-pick or try to find ways of dividing. And instead, if you have a united front that says, "This is our position," it forces the North Koreans to stop trying to probe for weakness...

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com