*EPF202 02/27/01
Text: Powell Briefs En Route to Brussels on Iraqi Sanctions
(Discusses talks with Middle Eastern leaders; NATO) (4200)

Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters that during his February 23-27 talks with Middle East leaders he discussed restructuring sanctions on Iraq, and that he would report to President Bush on his consultations in the Middle East and Europe.

"The message I've consistently heard is that overdoing it with the sanctions gives him [Saddam Hussein] a tool that he is using against us and really is not weakening him," Powell said in a briefing en route to Brussels early February 26.

He said he viewed the restructuring of the sanctions not as weakening them but as pointing them "in a more sensible way" towards "weapons of mass destruction, not the Iraqi people."

Asked about his upcoming meetings with NATO foreign ministers February 27, Powell said he would meet with Carla Del Ponte, prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY); hold bilateral meetings with the foreign ministers of Greece and Turkey, and possibly other countries if time permitted; and attend an informal North Atlantic Council (NAC) meeting.

At the NAC, Powell said he would give remarks about the European Union's European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), "NATO enlargement, national missile defense and our commitment to having a consultative relationship, our commitment to NATO as an alliance, let there be no doubt about that."

Following is a transcript of the secretary's February 26 press briefing:

(begin text)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
(Brussels, Belgium)
February 27, 2001

Secretary Of State Colin L. Powell Briefing for the Press Aboard Aircraft En Route Brussels

February 26, 2001

SECRETARY POWELL: We've completed the Middle East portion of the trip, and I'm very pleased with it. I continued to have good conversations today with colleagues in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and what I believe was a very, very fine meeting with President Asad in Damascus. We spoke for an hour. It was frank, direct, open, candid. He sounded very much engaged, and we concentrated principally on the Middle East peace process. I reviewed for him the situation as I saw it, and you all have heard me speak about this.

We also talked a bit about the Syrian track. In our conversation we both, I think I can fairly say, came to the conclusion that there is no reason for the two tracks to not be tracks, where nothing happens until something else happens. It's possible if we get further down the road and get negotiations going again, they might go in parallel. It does not mean that they both go at the same rate and both reach the same destination at the same time. But if we can get the situation stabilized, why not start both sets going again? Of course, this is for the parties to decide, not for me; but it was a suggestion I made, and I was pleased that the President seemed to respond favorably to it.

But understand what I said now. Not that there are parallel railroad tracks reaching the same station at the same time, but it need not be that nothing happens until one or the other is done. That is the point I was making.

We talked quite extensively about Iraq. As you know, Syria has had a position for some time that said we should modify the sanctions regime; they've been on the record for some time now. We talked about that, and I told him that we were exploring ideas along those lines, and I've been talking to everybody in the region about that and will be spending more time talking to some of my colleagues in Brussels about it, and then would report to the [U.S.] President. In my discussion with President Bashar [Asad], I made the point, as I did yesterday with King Abdullah and with the Saudis today, that as part of such a strategy if we go forward, you really have to do something about the front-line states and Hussein's ability to ship things out that might not be under UN control.

Candidly, we then discussed the Iraqi-Syrian pipeline. Of course, as you know, the Syrians want to stay within the context of the UN Security Council resolutions to play their role and they have been on record with that. The President said to me in response to my query that it is their plan to bring that pipeline, and what is going through that pipeline and the revenues generated in that pipeline, to be under the same kind of control as other elements of the sanctions regime. I found that to be a very important statement on his part, and we have passed that information to President Bush; he has been informed of that, and he also was pleased.

So I'm very satisfied with the trip from that standpoint in that I'm getting a consistent message as I go through the region. We haven't decided a thing; there are still a lot of things we have to look at. We have to talk to people who will see this as "Aha; if you move in this direction, aren't you giving up something, aren't you letting him [Saddam Hussein] loose?" The message I've consistently heard is that overdoing it with the sanctions gives him a tool that he is using against us and really is not weakening him. It's not that he gets any more money; it's that he now can use more of that money to benefit more of his people under UN control. So I still view that if we move in this direction, as not weakening but in effect restructuring them [sanctions] in a more sensible way that keeps us pointed at the target I've been talking about for the past several days and several weeks: weapons of mass destruction, not the Iraqi people.

That was a message that I found resonated in the region and it's the message I will be carrying back to Washington to discuss with the President, Dr. Rice, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and others. I'm sure I'll have conversations with people on the Hill about it. So this is part of the instruction I had from President Bush: go out and consult, come back and tell me what you found out.

Q: You have described to us how you would modify the sanctions so that they would not hurt the Iraqi people as much, but we haven't understood how you would modify the sanctions to tighten the controls over imports of stuff that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction. How will you tighten those?

SECRETARY POWELL: As part of this, as we move forward, we get agreement and we make a judgment and frankly, if we also get the support of the Arab League when they meet in two weeks' time -- there is a lot more work to be done, and I have people working on this.

As to how would we modify the list, what additional controls should we put on the money in the escrow account, how should it be monitored in a more effective way, what more work should we do with the front-line states, I think it gives us a stronger position to go to nations that might still be tempted to send in prohibited weapons or prohibited materials when we can give them a unified position that says look, we have all decided this is not the thing to do and there will be consequences of such behavior.

Right now the consequences have less currency because things are in a state of, I must say, disarray. I think you all would agree with that. I've been reading editorial after editorial. I arrived on the 21st of January to discover cables coming at me from our Ambassadors saying we have to do something. This is that something if we move in that direction. What it does, I think, is gives a much stronger position with which to deal with the financial controls, deal with the leakage, and deal with the question you raised about people who have chosen to put in bad things. But there's a lot more work to be done at a very detailed level.

I also want to report all this to Secretary General Annan so that he can take it to the Perm 5 and others. Maybe I'll have to go back to New York and meet with them at some point. But as I say, please see this for what it is: one quick trip for consultations -- how long have we been on the road; three days, or three weeks? I can't remember -- we've only been at this seriously for three days and this is where we are. There will be a lot of people who want to hear more. They will want to hear why this isn't weakening. The charges will come that it is weakening. I understand that.

Q: Would you go into dual-use a little bit? We were told there may be some easing of dual-use; we don't have many examples: water pump, refrigeration. Are you willing to frankly begin asking very candidly "are you willing to risk a possible military application for the sake of easing the pressure on the people?"

SECRETARY POWELL: That's a judgment call by the Committee that is currently led by Norway that we'll have to make on every one of these items. If something is clearly high-risk dual-use -- and I'm fudging with you now a little bit because I don't know. A water pump? I don't know what the committee would say. My own inclination was, a water pump, that's pretty hard to say. It's so useful for military purposes, but I'm not going to let a water pump not go to a well to fill up water to help a village that might be having cholera or other kinds of epidemics. Eggs: I've heard eggs used as an example; yes, because you can do certain things with eggs that can create a biological weapon. And we also have to face the clear reality that a lot of these items, no matter what kind of regime you have -- you know, they've been known to smuggle in Mesopotamia, and they've been doing so for a couple of thousand years.

But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying "look what I've got." He hasn't been able to do that. So even though there are these complications, and they'll have to work their way through the dual-use question, I have reason to believe that when you're able to keep a box as tightly closed as the box we have for the last ten years, without receiving on our shoulders all the baggage that goes with it that frankly has been causing the whole thing to start to unravel.

Q: Can I ask you about the Syrian pipeline? Did President Asad agree to stop selling or allowing oil to go through the pipeline immediately? Was this a deal that -- or did he say he was going to wait until after the new sanctions policy?

SECRETARY POWELL: In this first meeting, I got the commitment I described. We didn't get into details as to what the pipeline's being used for now -- is it being used for testing or more, and exactly how to operationalize this.

As you know, the controls come up for decision every six months, so we'll have to talk to the Syrians to see how they want to handle it. Do they want to move right away? Do they want to wait for the June review period? But I can tell you this: I have high confidence that that will work out because we went back to this point with the President three times -- I did not want to leave -- and three times there was solemn agreement on what I just said to you. So I think the Syrians are serious about this, but of course the ultimate test of seriousness is when we see something happen. But I don't think I would have gotten that kind of assurance from that level three times unless they were serious. But we will test their seriousness.

Q: A senior official told us all the information the US has makes them believe it's true that they are importing enough to sell more than they can produce themselves. Did you hear anything to make you believe they weren't doing that, even though you didn't press him on it?

SECRETARY POWELL: I heard nothing because we did not get into that detail as to what might be in the pipeline. I elected that we should take one thing at a time, and I took up one thing, got a pretty good response; and if that response is acted on, then your question becomes moot.

Not to dodge you, but I'm giving you a perfect answer because if I don't get the first step I just described, then whatever is in there just keeps going.

Q: (inaudible) tomorrow, with the NATO Foreign Ministers?

SECRETARY POWELL: Another long day. The morning will begin with a meeting with Ms. Del Ponte to talk about the international court on Yugoslavia. Then I'll have bilaterals with my Greek and Turkish colleagues, whom I have not met yet. Then we'll have an informal NAC meeting. I may have other bilaterals as they come along with other colleagues I haven't met yet. I hope to at least have a few minutes with all of them if I can get it done.

Within the NAC meeting, as I understand the set-up, Lord Robertson will say a few words of introduction, and then I'll be asked to be the first speaker. I will brief them on much of what you know I've been doing for the past few days. Beyond that, I will also talk about some of the issues that are uppermost in their minds right now, with respect to NATO: the ESDP, NATO enlargement, national missile defense and our commitment to having a consultative relationship, our commitment to NATO as an alliance, let there be no doubt about that. I will talk about the usual things one would expect a Secretary of State to speak at a first NAC meeting of a new administration.

But since I'll only have about ten or twelve minutes, since everybody's going to want to say a word or two -- NATO's getting bigger and bigger -- I can't cover it all. I will talk about those things that have been somewhat neuralgic, ESDP and national missile defense.

Q: Can I just follow up on this question of dual-use. Isn't ultimately the decision that the US is facing whether or not to effectively raise the threshold for what constitutes dual use if you're hoping to free up some of these contracts?

SECRETARY POWELL: The United States has been very, very strict in the application process. I think you all know the number of holds we have are a factor of four or five times higher than the second largest number of holds and in some cases ten times higher than what other countries are holding, using the same standards.

So there has to be a way to get through that. I don't want to get into the details because I'm not expert enough to do it and I don't want to mislead you; and I also want to return to the point that we're putting in place a concept to see whether it is going to be approved. The President has made no decision on any of this. I have not had a chance to brief him. For some reason he's very busy this evening working on some speech he has to give tomorrow night, and so he did give this information, he's very pleased with it. On Wednesday, I hope I'll be able to find time to speak to the President.

Q: Will you be talking about the Balkans, will you be talking about the no-go zone and the Presevo Valley with your colleagues, and perhaps, getting rid of it so that the Serbs can come right up to the border? Will you be proposing that?

SECRETARY POWELL: I'm not sure we'll have enough detail to get into, and I think I will identify for them something they already know, let them know we're concerned about the problem in the Presevo Valley and the ground safety zone and we need to start moving down a track that removes this very irritating situation that is causing a renewed level of violence in the region. Whether it's the Covic plan or some modification of the Covic plan, and what kind of forces -- military, civilian, from where -- might ultimately be needed to bring the violence under control. I haven't been following that closely the last couple of days, I don't sense that it has gotten much worse than it's been, but it's a source of concern.

Q: In return for the modifications in sanctions which you're proposing, is there anything the Iraqis have to do in exchange?

SECRETARY POWELL: I haven't proposed quite anything yet, but we're studying it.

Q: You're considering -- is there anything the Iraqis have to do in exchange? I mean, for example, is 1284 still valid, do they have to let the inspectors in before any new regime comes into effect.

SECRETARY POWELL: I'm not going to raise anything with them, they're at the UN today speaking to Mr. Annan, so perhaps this is all for naught, perhaps they will say something to Mr. Annan that will solve the problem. I think that most unlikely.

So we're still within the context of 1284, and I think I laid out to you in one of our conversations a model that says here we are, we're not after the Iraqi people, this is a concept, this is how we're going to go forward, everybody agrees to it. The way to get out of this box is to do what you're supposed to do, and the only way for us to know whether you are or not is to let the inspectors back in. But I don't think the international coalition and all the others who I hope will come together on this, should be in the position of begging the Iraqis to get out of the box that I hope we'll be able to put them in.

Q: Mr. Secretary, on your two-track thought, going back to Syria, two track, did you get the impression with Sharon, and for whatever reason, and we could speculate about the reasons, that he might be inclined to pursue the Syrian track while there's a holdup, because he doesn't have the violence problem as we all know, as long as Lebanon stays quiet.

SECRETARY POWELL: Since I hadn't talked to the Syrians at the time I talked to Mr. Sharon, Mr. Sharon and I really did not talk about it, because the Syrian track had been put aside for the moment, it just didn't come up in our conversation with all the other things. We'll see. If you'll find this interesting enough to report, maybe it will draw a reaction, I don't know.

Q: Yes, it would.

Q: Mr. Secretary, did you in your conversation with Crown Prince Abdullah, get into the Kobar Towers situation and the question of whether or not any indictments might be forthcoming?

SECRETARY POWELL: I discussed Kobar Towers with Saudi officials but I don't wish to say anything more about it.

Q: Can I just ask you, how will it work with these smarter sanctions when the, for instance, air restrictions are lifted, and visa restrictions, how do you make sure that things aren't getting across the border that shouldn't be? You know, you can have various border crossings, and there's a lot of ground to cover.

SECRETARY POWELL: That's an essential part of this whole concept, if we can get everybody on the sheet of music, everybody will have responsibilities. Some will pay a financial price to come into line, and we may have to help them with that price. We have found some very interesting ideas, or we've come up with some interesting ideas in the last few days. They want to comply. In some cases, it's economically difficult for them to do so, and we've come up with some ideas that will help them, but as I think I've also mentioned in our previous conversations that you have to control the front-line access. But you know, even with all the slop and the system and with all the smuggling, I suspect that has only produced 10 or 15 percent over the amount that he gets from the UN anyway, through the UN. And, it's not as if he is cash poor, I mean, it's just a way...

Q: (Inaudible) stop making more weapons and fissile material and things that would do exactly what you are trying to keep from happening.

SECRETARY POWELL: It is a problem, but it's not a new problem. It's a problem that will, I think, always exist. Fissile material does not come in tons, it comes in small packages. And we just have to understand the nature of the world and not expect that you can stop every single thing that someone has the money to go out and look for. The best answer to your question is to get all of us working together again so that those nations that have control of fissile material and who produce fissile material make sure they keep the best control of that so that it never goes on the marketplace.

And that now takes me to another part of our new strategy and that is talking about nonproliferation all the time. And I think you heard me when I talked about, to show you how the stuff all links together, is when I talk about missile defense, I always talk about offensive weapons and nonproliferation. If you don't want to worry about missile defense and you don't want us to worry about missile defense, let's all work together to make sure that these nations we're worried about never get access to the kinds of material they need to create these weapons. So nonproliferation becomes a part of it. So if we start out on this track we've been talking about, on sanctions in Iraq, and get this coalition back together, get us all talking together, the same sheet of music, and get center stage where the problem is -- the problem is not with the United States having nuclear weapons or the Soviet Union having nuclear weapons, the problem is radical, irresponsible regimes getting nuclear weapons, and we could do something about that by never giving them access to the materials needed to develop those warheads, and the materials and technology needed to send those warheads on a missile.

Q: Are you exhausted? Is this job as much fun as you thought it would be?

SECRETARY POWELL: Oh, yes.

Q: How are you going to deal with the anger, if there is anger on the Hill, or elsewhere in Washington, about the notion that you're going weak?

SECRETARY POWELL: I'm quite sure that there will be people who are unhappy, and I will have to answer their concerns. I hope that I can make the case.

Q: Give them pushups.

SECRETARY POWELL: Only works at the State Department. (laughter) Thank you for sticking with us this far.

Q: Can you just give us a sense of the kind of support that you've had for this approach? Are the Arab nations that you've spoken to, are they interested in it, are they enthusiastic about it?

SECRETARY POWELL: Nobody tossed me out. I kept getting coffee at every stop.

Q: Well, so did we.

SECRETARY POWELL: See? No, I found pretty solid support, not for all the specifics, but I did not visit a single place, and I did not talk to a single leader in the region who said you're going down the wrong track. In fact, everyone I spoke to said you've got to go down this track, it is the right track, without specifying exactly what the destination is going to look like yet, and recognizing that I was not giving them the final answer yet. So that encourages me, and we'll see. But there will be others who have other points of view, and all of that has to be accounted for.

Q: Are you going to be incorporating of the ideas that you've heard? Have you heard any ideas from any of these people that you didn't have before you went?

SECRETARY POWELL: A couple, yes. Good ones.

Q: Thank you

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

*EPF203 02/27/01
Transcript: President Bush Meets With Colombia's Pastrana
(Two discuss Plan Colombia, narcotrafficking, free trade) (1790)

President Bush and Colombian President Andres Pastrana met February 27 at the White House, pledging to strengthen their cooperation against narcotrafficking in order to ensure the welfare of both countries' citizens.

Addressing reporters in the Oval Office shortly after their private meeting, the two leaders agreed to work together on a wide range of issues, such as curbing the illicit drug trade and pursuing opportunities for economic growth in the Andean region. Bush praised Pastrana as "a courageous leader who is dealing with very difficult problems," and expressed support for Plan Colombia, Pastrana's strategy to combat drug trafficking and restore civil order in his nation.

For his part, Pastrana thanked the United States for assisting his government in its struggle to negotiate a peace settlement with guerrilla factions in Colombia's decades-old civil war, and voiced his hope for rebuilding the Colombian economy by "creating new jobs and better jobs for our people."

Bush also fielded questions about his upcoming State of the Union address, which he said will focus on the agenda and budget priorities of his administration. Arguing that his tax-relief proposal will invigorate the U.S. economy, Bush declared that "the sooner we get money into the pockets of our taxpayers, the more likely it is that our economy will even out."

Following is a transcript of the Bush/Pastrana remarks:

[Note: In the transcript, "billion" equals "thousand million."]

(begin transcript)

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

February 27, 2001

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BUSH AND PRESIDENT PASTRANA OF COLOMBIA

The Oval Office

2:10 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's my honor to welcome a friend of our country to the Oval Office, President Pastrana. We've had a very good discussion about Colombia -- Plan Colombia -- the renewal of a Trade Preference Act for the Andean nations to help their economies grow. President Pastrana is a courageous leader who is dealing with very difficult problems. I'm confident that with his leadership his nation will be better off.

And, Mr. President, I can't thank you enough for taking a lead in your country, for having the heart that you have and the compassion for the Colombian people, and the ability to make tough decisions.

I explained to the president that we're fully aware of the narcotics that are manufactured in his country, but also told him that many of them wouldn't be manufactured if our nation didn't use them, and we've got to work together to not only help Colombia, but help our own country.

So, Mr. President, you're welcome to come -- if you'd like to make a few comments, you're welcome to.

PRESIDENT PASTRANA: Thank you, Mr. President. Once again, it is a great pleasure to be back with now-President Bush. We had the opportunity to meet in 1999 when President Bush was governor. So, once again, Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity in which we could exchange a lot of ideas of what's happening in our country and how can we deal with a common enemy that is narco-trafficking; that in the end that is the one that is financing the violence in my country and maybe also in part of your country. And that we are going to put all the efforts to continue our fight, as we have done in our commitment against narco-trafficking, trying to reach a peace agreement in our country and strengthening our economy, creating new jobs and better jobs for our people.

So I want to thank you publicly, also, Mr. President, for all the help that you are giving us and the U.S. to get forward in this process. Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT BUSH: A couple questions.

Q: Mr. President, would you be part of the negotiation table -- will the U.S. be part of the negotiation table as President Pastrana --

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, we will not be.

Q: Why?

PRESIDENT BUSH: This is an issue that the Colombian people and the Colombian president can deal with. We'll be glad to help Colombia in any way to make the peace. We'll be glad to help the Colombian economy through trade. But I won't be present for the discussions.

Q: Mr. President, on the budget, your chief economic advisor is saying that your administration will not seek to retire all of the outstanding federal debt, which is something that President Clinton had promised. Can you explain why that is --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes.

Q: -- and what you would suggest doing with the hundreds of billions of dollars that would be left over in the Social Security surplus that would have gone to retire it?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes. Mr. President, I'm giving a speech tonight on the budget. I don't know if you have to give budget speeches, but sometimes it's hard to make those budget speeches very poetic. (Laughter.)

It does not make sense to pay down debt prematurely and, therefore, have to pay a premium on the debt that you pre-pay. And so we've calculated the amount of debt that our nation can pay off over the next 10 years, and that's $2 trillion, leaving about $800 billion unpaid.

The second follow-up question to that was Social Security. And tonight during my speech, I will lay out the part of the vision for modernizing the Social Security system.

We have an issue in this country, Mr. President, because people my age, affectionately known as "baby boomers," will be retiring soon. And in my case, later rather than sooner, I hope. But anyway, we have trouble enough -- there won't be enough money being put in the system to take care of the baby boomers when we retire. And therefore, the question is how do we make the system work.

And I want to give younger workers the opportunity to manage some of their own money in the private markets. And to answer your question, some of that money could be used as part of a modernization plan.

Q: Do you and your economic advisors think that maybe some of this -- on the table - short-term or long-term --

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, we don't at all. As a matter of fact, we think it's the wise, wise thing to do. Again, American people have got to understand that we'll be paying down the debt as it comes due. But the idea of pre-paying debt at a premium to the taxpayers makes no sense to do that.

Q: But no impact on interest rates because of the consequent --

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I don't think so. As a matter of fact, the interest rates would more likely be affected by monetary policy. The economy would be affected by good, sound fiscal policy because one of the things -- I don't want to give you the whole speech, because I, of course, want you to pay attention to it. But I do believe we ought to accelerate the tax-relief plan. The sooner we get money into the pockets of our taxpayers, the more likely it is our economy will even out.

We've got an economic problem, Mr. President, that is of concern. It should be a concern to our neighbors. I discussed this with President Fox. We've got a mutual friend in President Fox, the President of Mexico. And he is concerned about the nature of the U.S. economy, as well. And we're going to do everything we can to make sure our economy recovers quickly, which will be beneficial. As our trading partner, it will be very beneficial. Si.

Q: Did you discuss anything about the TPS for the Colombia --

PRESIDENT BUSH: We did. And the president made a very strong case. He was very plain spoken. He brought up the case, the concerns of over a million Colombians who live here in the United States, mainly in Queens, New York, and in the state of Florida, and I listened carefully.

Q: (Asked in Spanish.)

PRESIDENT PASTRANA: (Answered in Spanish.)

Q: Do you expect Democrats to give your speech a fair chance tonight? Or do you suspect that they're just ready to pounce? (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: I, of course, will be giving the speech in the Chamber and there will be Republicans and Democrats, but I'm really speaking to the American people. This is a speech -- hold on a second -- this is a speech that I want to make it clear to the American people that I have a reasonable plan for the budget.

I'm going to make it clear we meet priorities, and I'll explain what many of those priorities are; that we make sure that Social Security, the money aimed for Social Security goes only to Social Security; that we pay down debt and it will be the largest repayment of debt ever; that we've got money for contingencies in the budget; and, that there is still money left over for the tax-relief plan.

The problem we have oftentimes in America is that people will be asked the question, do you want tax relief or do you want somebody not to get their Medicare check? I'm going to be making the case that with the right leadership, the right priorities, and the right focus, that we will fund important programs and have money left over for tax relief.

And it's important -- it's important for the American people to get some of their own money back. One, it will help the economy. Secondly, it will help the American taxpayers pay off their own personal debt.

One of the issues we have, Mr. President, in the United States is high energy bills. The cost of energy is going up because we haven't had enough exploration relative to demand. And this cash that people will get back through tax relief will help the American families manage their budgets.

I really am looking forward to giving this speech. I hope you're looking forward to listening to it.

Q: -- most important speech so far, sir?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Every one of them [is] important.

Q: (Inaudible.) --

PRESIDENT BUSH: For trade? Absolutely. It's a very important treaty. She is asking about the Free Trade treaty of the Andean nations. Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am, I'll be pushing it. I'm a free-trader.

Q: -- to help the economy?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Through trade, absolutely. And the president made a very strong case for broadening the trade agreement. I will bring up the matter with Ambassador Zoellick, who is my trade negotiator.

Adios.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN