For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 16, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
Listen to the Briefing
- Personnel
announcement
- China
- Cincinnati
- Tax
cut
- Budget
- Fast track/trade promotion
authority
- Middle
East
- Russia
12:10 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
afternoon. I hope everybody had a very happy Easter.
I have one personnel announcement to make, and
then I am all yours. The President intends to nominate Bennett William Raley to be Assistant Secretary of Interior for Water and
Science. And we will have more paper on that coming out
later this afternoon.
With that, I'm prepared to take questions.
Q When is that decision
expected on the Taiwan arms sale?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no hard and
fast deadline for when that decision will be made. The
President has indicated that he will review that matter in accordance
with the Taiwan Relations Act and will determine what the defensive
needs of Taiwan are. And he will make his determination.
Q Is he leading toward
or against the Arleigh Burke class destroyers with the Aegis radar, at
this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: John, he's made no
determination at this time.
Q Does the President
believe it's necessary now for reconnaissance flights over near China
to be escorted to avoid the kind of near, or actual collision
confrontation we had?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me make two
points on that, David. Number one, the United States will
always reserve the right to operate over international waters and
international airspace to protect the needs of our neighbors, to
promote regional stability and secure peace; which is why our nation,
and many other nations, fly reconnaissance missions.
Specifically, in the context of where we are
today, the Secretary of Defense will be making a recommendation to the
national security team for the President and to the President, about
what he recommends, as far as reconnaissance flights, as well as other
items and the timing of those flights, other associated missions that
may or may not go along with those flights. So that's a
recommendation that the Secretary of Defense will make. The
President has not yet received such a recommendation.
Q Does he not have a
view on it, just based on going through this past experience?
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, a matter
like that is a matter the President would ask the Secretary of Defense
to make a recommendation on, given the fact that it's directly a
defense-related question.
Q Ari, what's the
message that we're going to send to the Chinese on Wednesday, in these
meetings in Beijing?
MR. FLEISCHER: The agenda for the
meeting Wednesday is basically fourfold. One, is for the
United States to provide clear understanding to the Chinese about the
cause of the accident from our point of view. Two, is to
discuss any such accidents can be avoided in the
future. Three, as the President indicated last week, to ask
tough questions to the Chinese about the manner in which they have
dangerously intercepted United States reconnaissance
flights. And, four, to make the case that plane is United
States property and the United States would like to have the plane
returned.
Q How tough will those
questions be?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think
they're going to be very direct. I think that, obviously, in
the wake of this accident in which a Chinese pilot has lost his life
and in which the lives of 24 American servicemen and women were
endangered, tough questions are required. It is dangerous to
operate in that manner, and for the safety of not only our American
crews, but for the Chinese crews involved, it is important that tough
questions be asked so that any such incidents can be avoided in the
future.
Q But then
what? You ask the tough questions -- every indication so far
from China is that their conduct won't change. So what
then?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't think
that's quite right, David. The Chinese have lost a pilot
over this. They've lost a life. And I don't think
it's accurate to say that they're not going to make any changes.
Q Well, he's being
celebrated as a martyr, so, presumably, it's a noble mission.
MR. FLEISCHER: I understand, but
I'm not certain -- I don't think that either nation wants to have a
repeat of an episode like this. And that means flying
differently. And, hopefully, that message will be received
by the Chinese so that this can be avoided in the future.
Q Well, Ari, the
presumption in what you're saying is that the Chinese government has
ordered the pilots to fly in this manner. Is that correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm not saying
there's an order there, but we obviously have the United States point
of view, which is a very strongly-felt view, about what caused the
accident. And I think it goes without saying that both
nations should have an interest in making certain that this does not
happen again.
Q What I'm getting at
is whether or not the Chinese government in some respect, therefore,
would be responsible for the accident that occurred, if there is --
MR. FLEISCHER: That will be a
matter of discussion. But as you could see from Secretary
Rumsfeld's news conference last week, with the release of the videos,
this is a problem that has persisted, and has gone back many months,
into the previous administration. And it is a topic that is
ripe for discussion and needs to be discussed in a forthright fashion.
Q Ari, when the Chinese
are told at this meeting that the U.S. plans to resume these flights
soon, will they also be told that their conduct --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I did not give
any indication that they would be told that at this
meeting. I said that it's a recommendation from the
Secretary of Defense, and no determination has been made.
Q Will they be told
then that if -- if and when these flights -- or if these flights
resume, that their conduct will determine whether the United States
changes the manner in which these flights are flown? If they
continue to fly so closely, then we would have to consider something
else?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't commit to
that. That will be part of the determination or
recommendation made by the Secretary of Defense about the timing and
other matters that relate to P3 flights.
Q Ari, two follow ups
on this, please. First of all, will there be an implicit
trade link between -- in the talks, will trade be held out as a weapon
if the Chinese do not --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the
President made it clear on Thursday, in the statement he made in the
Rose Garden, about the constructive value of trade for both
nations. And as the President has indicated for more than a
year now, in regard to our relationship with China, the President sees
many areas with China where we can cooperate, and trade is one of
them.
He sees other areas where there are problems
with China -- human rights, religious persecution are two, to mention
them specifically. This recent incident is also another
cause for concern. So the President has identified areas
where we can continue to make progress with China, and there are other
areas where we have items that need to be discussed forthrightly with
China. And that will be the manner in which the President
proceeds.
Q And on your first
statement, you said the U.S. reserves the right to operate over
international waters or airspace. How is that resolved, when
you have a country like China, that has an extension of what they
consider to be their space?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's the
purpose of having a meeting, to air those issues, to listen to the
Chinese, to hear what they say. The Chinese need to hear
what we have to say, as a government. And that's the purpose
of having meetings.
But if you presume that neither nation wants
to have a repeat of this episode, then you can hope that these meetings
will be constructive.
Q Ari, if, as you say,
both nations have an interest in making sure this doesn't happen again,
is the United States prepared to do anything differently on its end to
ensure that? And, secondly, you mentioned the Chinese lost a
pilot and may, therefore, have an interest in changing its
behavior. But the United States also nearly lost a crew of
24. Would that have made a difference in how you're
approaching things from here on out, if that crew had actually been
lost?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going
to -- take that as a hypothetical, obviously, if the crew had
been. Thankfully, they weren't, thanks to the flying
abilities of the pilot. So that's a hypothetical that I'm
very pleased I don't have to get into.
Q The first one, is the
United States prepared to do something differently on its end if, as
you say, both nations have an interest in --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me
reiterate that these reconnaissance flights help protect the
peace. They serve as a very vital role in securing regional
stability. The United States is not the only nation that
engages in reconnaissance flights around the world. There
are many, many, many nations that engage in reconnaissance flights
around the world, for the reason that they do help protect the peace.
And so long as these flights are over
international waters and in international airspace, they're in accord
with international law. And we are a law abiding nation.
Q How do they help
protect the peace?
MR. FLEISCHER: Without getting into
too many details, Ron, about the information that they gather, the
ability of the United States to be able to monitor events around the
world, to be able to make certain that there are no surprises that
could threaten any of our allies or threaten the United States forces
helps secure the peace. The ability of the United States to
know if there are any hostile threats to our men and women, to our
servicemen and to our allies helps keep the world free and
strong. And that's why these missions are important.
Q When you say many,
many nations fly these flights, can you point to some that China -- I
know that Rumsfeld mentioned last week that China is among the nations
that fly reconnaissance flights in Asia. Can you give us
some more detail on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, I didn't bring
the list with me of all the nations that fly these reconnaissance
flights, but there are many. I'd be happy to get that for
you post-briefing. You can get that from DOD, as
well. But it's an accepted, given part of international law
that nations have flown reconnaissance flights over international
airspace for many a year.
Q And China does engage
in that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I did not
bring a list with me.
Q The right wing of the
Republican Party, at least certain members of it, have been very
vociferous in the criticism of the way the President handled the China
event or this issue. Is the President reaching out to them?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I differ with
your premise. I'm really not aware of very many people who
have said anything like that. There --
Q The Evening Standard
--
MR. FLEISCHER: Anybody
else? It's a very small number of people who have anything
like that to say. Frankly, I think the President is
gratified by the support he has gotten from Democrats, from
Republicans, for the manner in which this accident has been
resolved. And I think it's a sign of American unity, and
that's what the President has seen.
There will always be somebody on either end of
the party who has something to say, but I think when you look at it in
perspective, you've seen a very unified America behind what the
President has done.
Q Ari, can I ask about
the account that we've heard from the pilots? Very clearly,
they're saying that the Chinese pilot was at fault for this
collision. Does China -- does the President think China owes
America an apology?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has
not gotten into that, no. This matter has been resolved in
the course of the letters, and we'll have ongoing discussions with the
Chinese to make certain that it does not happen again.
Q When you say, it has
been discussed -- he's discussed it with aides and decided not to ask
for an apology?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the
President is less interested in finger-pointing and placing blame than
he is on moving forward and having resolved this
issue. That's where the President's focus has
been. And I remind you that during one of the conference
calls with General Sealock and Secretary Powell, the President said
that we don't need to be pointing fingers, is how he put it during that
phone conversation.
And we're going to have a meeting with China
in two days, and during that meeting I think you can expect some
forthright conversations about these flights and about what took
place. And as the President said in the Rose Garden on
Thursday, both nations have to make a determined choice about the
future of our relations. And the first evidence of those
determined choices will come in that meeting on Wednesday, and the
President wants to hear what the Chinese have to say. He
hopes that what they say will be productive and will lead to a
diminution of difficulties in the region.
Q Ari, first of all,
how can you say that there is no finger-pointing when you said that
it's clear that the Chinese have been taunting American flights since
before this administration, into the Clinton
administration. How can you say that? And, two,
is there a time line for America to get this spy plane back that we
had? And if there is not a time line and it just keeps on
going, are there some kind of ramifications that the government will
take --
MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of,
I think you used the word, finger-pointing. I think you have
to recognize that there is a legitimate difference between
finger-pointing for the purpose of assigning blame and withholding
important facts from the American people about an important matter that
took place and the reasons why it took place, and a history of flights
that have been challenging reconnaissance aircraft.
That's why the President said that he was
going to authorize his representatives at the meeting to ask tough
questions. There are verifiable facts that are in the
possession of the United States government. That doesn't
mean finger-pointing. But it does mean that the United
States has an obligation to release those facts so that the American
people have an understanding about what took place and what has been
taking place over a period of time.
Then I know that's backed up by Clinton
administration officials, as well. They can testify to the
same history that we have seen now that President Bush is in office.
You had a second part to your question,
April?
Q Right. Is
there a time line for America to get this spy plane
back? And, if not, what could China face if we don't get
this plane?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we should
allow the meeting to take place Wednesday. And we're going
to ask for the -- the United States representatives will ask for the
plane to be returned.
Q But America was
seeing President Bush pressure China, saying, it's time for it to stop
now; we want the 24 detainees back, we want the plane
back. We got the detainees. And you also said
that there could be some damage to U.S.-China relationships, and you
specified what that could be.
What could the damage be if America doesn't
get this plane back?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to
speculate. Let's allow the diplomats and the members of the
Defense Department to have the meeting on Wednesday and then we'll
see.
Q Why was Beijing
chosen as the site of the meeting? And secondly, you say
that there are verifiable facts in position of the U.S. government.
Verifiable in what way?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, for example,
the video that you all saw, released by Secretary
Rumsfeld. I think that's rather clear about the proximity of
the Chinese flights to the United States reconnaissance
planes. The audio --
Q You mean in a general
trend way, not --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Do you have any
evidence on this specific collision? MR.
FLEISCHER: None that I'm at liberty to get into, Jim.
Q What about Beijing as
the site of the meeting?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the choice of
Beijing, I think that was just a matter of the discussions that took
place with Chinese officials during the period of our servicemen and
women being kept behind in China. And it was the insistence
of the Chinese government that allowed for the meeting to take place in
Beijing, and we agreed.
Q Ari, in the
President's discussions about possible options in resuming these
flights, has there ever been concern voiced that flying fighter escort
might represent a much more aggressive posture on the part of the U.S.
Navy, that could actually precipitate another event in the future?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to
speculate about a condition that may or may not be
realized. That is part of something that the Secretary of
Defense will take a look at when he makes his recommendation to the
President and to the NSC and to the national security
team. I'm going to withhold on answering
that. Let's see if the Secretary comes out with any such
recommendation.
Q The White House made
clear last week that in the diplomatic talks over the return of the
crew that any side issues, such as the Taiwan arms sale, were not part
of those talks. Is the U.S. taking that same approach going
into Wednesday's meeting, and do we just expect that they'll listen to
our point of view, stop flying so close to our planes?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've walked you
through the agenda, from what the United States has on its agenda for
the meeting. And the question of selling arms to Taiwan is a
separate topic, separate subject.
Q There are no other
outside issues that we expect will be raised? The only leverage point
that we have is, we don't want this incident to be repeated at any
time?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know that
the United States is looking at it as leverage points to be
raised. As the President said, both nations have to make a
determined choice about the status of our relations. The
Chinese look at the United States and say they have an awful lot that
lies on the line. They have an awful lot of interests in
having good relations with the United States.
And as the President said, China is a
strategic competitor. But part of that is the ability to get
things done together. When you get things done together
internationally, it doesn't only involve leverage, it involves goodwill
and the resolve of both nations to act in their own interests, which
can often coincide, in terms of mutually beneficial agreements.
So, again, to the question of leverage, I
would differ with. There is an important meeting going to
take place on Wednesday to try to address many of the issues that have
come out as a result of the accident and the detention of our crew.
Q Ari, has the
President's support for providing China normal trade relations changed
in any way as a result of what has happened so far?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not that I'm aware
of, Keith. I have not put that question directly to the
President. The President, of course, has been a strong
supporter of permanent normal trade relations with China.
Q Well, why
not? I mean, does their willingness to hold American
servicemen as long as they did, doesn't that say something about their
willingness to play by international rules, to submit to a rules-based
system like the WTO?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the
President indicated on Thursday, trade is an area that is mutually in
the interest of the United States and China. The President also views
trade as a way of bringing about change in China. That was a subject
that was addressed repeatedly in the Republican primary, where there
were many people in the Republican primary who were critical of the
President for his approach. But his approach, the President
believed in then because he thinks we can bring about constructive
changes within China. He believes those are the benefits of
trade.
Q Okay. If I
can ask one more on that. During the crisis, you indicated
in a certain manner that his support for NTR may be contingent on how
things worked out with this. Is it still contingent on what
happens in the meeting and what further happens with this issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think as
with any issue, with any decision that the President makes, he's going
to take into account recent events -- whether it's a domestic decision,
an international decision; whether it's China, in this case or anywhere
around the world.
The President will, of course, take into
account any recent developments that need to be factored into any
decision he makes. But his approach to this decision is one
based on his belief that trade helps create freedom, that trade helps
create opportunity, that trade helps liberalize a society and leads to
more democracy and openness.
Trade is also in the interest of the United
States: it's in the interest of United States farmers; it's
in the interest of United States consumers. So that's the
President's mind set. That's why he took the stance he
did. Obviously, he'll evaluate all events leading up to the
time when he has to make a decision on PNTR.
Q What about -- and
human rights? Is there --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's obviously a
concern for the President. That's why he cited it on
Thursday, in his remarks in the Rose Garden.
Q Are you even -- even
as the crew was being held and then, obviously, since they were
released there were discussions, not only in the Congress, but in this
building and throughout the administration that there would have to be
some consequences. Some used the term, pay a price,
ramifications; that China -- there would have to be something
demonstrable to China that you cannot do this; you will suffer if you
do.
If the President -- if it's not trade, what is
it?
MR. FLEISCHER: John, I think it
will play itself out. If there is anything that is to be
done, you will know it. The President is not at that point
yet.
Q Ari, on another
subject. I'll yield to anybody that wants to continue on
this one. Two racially segregated and anti-Semitic groups,
the Nation of Islam and the new Black Panthers, as well as Kweisi Mfume
and Al Sharpton, have curiously denounced the Cincinnati
police. The Fraternal Order of Police chairman was quoted by
the New York Times as noting, "if we give one inch to these terrorists
in the form of negotiations, then we've got no one to blame but
ourselves." And my question, does the President have any
word at all of support for the police who stopped the mass looting in
Cincinnati? And I have one follow-up.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is
very concerned about events in Cincinnati.
Q He supports the
police, doesn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is
very concerned about events in Cincinnati. Certainly, the
President is a supporter of law enforcement. The President is also
sensitive to the causes in the community, the problems in the community
that have created the flash point that it has in
Cincinnati. That's exactly why he called the Attorney
General, directed the Attorney General to be on -- get in touch with
people on the ground in Ohio. And as you know, the
Department of Justice has sent in two mediators immediately; they sent
in an additional two people from the Civil Rights division over the
weekend; and the Attorney General is reviewing matters now.
But it's a very sensitive time -- sensitive
for law enforcement, who the President is a strong supporter of; and
it's sensitive for people in the community who have a lot of concerns
that they don't believe were being addressed.
Q And page one of the
Washington Times quotes Jefferson scholars at Harvard, Yale, Stanford,
Brown, Virginia and George Mason, as concluding in a year-long study,
550 pages, "We are asked to believe that Jefferson would have entrusted
his reputation to the discretion of a 15-year-old child. If
he did this, he was essentially a child-molesting rapist, and that is
far from what we know of him." My question is, does
President Bush believe that his predecessor, President Jefferson, was a
child-molesting rapist, or not? They raised it, Ari, from
two of his alma maters, Harvard and Yale. They raised it.
MR. FLEISCHER: That is not a view
the President holds.
Q That's
good. Then why did he --
Q Can we talk about the
Middle East?
MR. FLEISCHER: April. Go
ahead, April.
Q Back on Cincinnati
real quick, because Les did bring up a good point about
Cincinnati. With this situation with racial profiling,
President Bush is trying to put an end to it. I mean,
couldn't he just use this situation -- I mean, it's blatantly obvious
in the things that have happened -- couldn't he just stop this
study? Even former President Clinton even admitted that he
racially profiled when he was in Arkansas. Why can't these studies
stop, and with this kind of situation, just come out with --
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me actually shed
a little light on -- you said, use this situation. And this
is kind of a window into how President Bush operates. The
President does not believe that out of a flash point of something very
sensitive and very emotional, government leaders should rush to action
and rush to decision on something like that. It's reflective
of his style, which is to be deliberative, to be thoughtful, and not to
seek to exploit events to force actions on something that needs to be
thoroughly and carefully walked through, I think time to bring about a
national consensus on how to get things done.
I will refer you to the fact that the
President, of course, has directed the Attorney General to undertake a
review on exactly how we can eliminate racial profiling. It
was a call to action that went beyond anything the previous
administration has said and done.
The Department of Energy has just announced,
Secretary Abraham, that the Department of Energy is going to take
action within its own jurisdiction, to make certain that nobody at DOE
engages in racial profiling. I remind you that DOE has a
rather large police force under its direct jurisdiction. So
this administration is already carefully walking through a series of
steps, a series of actions, so that we can eliminate racial profiling.
But the President is not going to do it -- to
use any one incident. He will do it as a result of a thoughtful,
careful manner, that unites Americans in how to get it done.
Q Ari, a follow up to
that. This has been going on, I mean nationally, for
years. And then in Cincinnati, it's been going on for a
while. And then, yes, there was a flash
point. But how can you say that he doesn't want to have a
flash point now, when it's just -- it's blatant, and many
African-Americans have been hollering about this. They've
had a civil rights and a law enforcement meeting about this a couple of
summers ago. It's evident.
MR. FLEISCHER: As you say, it has
been going on for years. And that's why the President is
pleased that he's taking more action than people had in recent years to
address it and stop racial profiling taking place.
Q On tax cuts, by next
tax day, given the realities of whatever the final number is, when it
would get phased-in, what does the President expect the taxpayer will
experience, by way of relief, by this time next year?
MR. FLEISCHER: Today is tax
day. Today is the day that Americans are filling out their
forms, if they haven't done so already, so they can hurry to get them
in by midnight, so they can pay an awful lot of money in taxes to the
United States government.
The President's objective on tax day is to
lower the tax burden on working Americans, so they will pay less in
taxes, so they can receive the tax relief they need. He
believes it's one of the most compassionate actions you can take as a
leader, is to let people keep their own money, so they can make their
own decisions on how to use it for their child care, for their
education needs of their children, to take care of ailing
parents. That's the President's purpose in securing tax
relief.
And, in addition, the President recognizes
that the Senate has taught us that if you don't cut taxes, that money
is not going to go to debt reduction. It will be spent by
the politicians in both parties. And on tax day, it's a
reminder that the greatest risk to the surplus is government
spending. That money will be spent.
Q I didn't mean to just
hit the play button. (Laughter.) What I meant to
ask was that by this time next year, in the first year -- assuming a
tax cut is actually enacted by later this year -- what can taxpayers
reasonably expect by their first year with a tax cut? What
will the relief actually look like?
MR. FLEISCHER: If you're asking me
for the phase-in rates, that's something that we are working on with
Congress right now. And the ultimate bill we will see will
be a phased-in tax cut. And the amount of phase-in will be
determined by congressional leaders in negotiation with the White
House. That should take place sometime most likely early
summer -- late spring, early summer.
Q But is there anything
you can point to of real value that can either have a stimulative
effect on the economy or make a measurable difference in taxpayers'
lives?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's no
question about it, because one of the first changes that the President
sought and the Congress has agreed to is making the tax cut
retroactive, to the point where taxpayers in this current year will
receive by some estimates $300, maybe $600 for couples; immediate tax
relief for this year and this year alone. That's a lot of
money in people's pockets. I think that's something that
most Americans would welcome.
Q Can I follow up on
that, about concerns about the level of spending in the Senate
budget. Is the White House open to any kind of deficit
spending just to get a big tax cut out there, that there is
an agreement on spending?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's just not
necessary. The size of the surplus is so big that there's no
need to have deficit spending.
Q A couple of weeks ago
when the Senate voted on the budget outline, I believe one of the
things they did was to bump up that $60 billion this year, rebate idea
up to $85 billion. Is that something that the President
supports?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Absolutely. The President is very
pleased with that. He believes that the more tax relief, the better in
this case. And it was an interesting outcome of that
debate. If you remember, the question used to be for maybe a
day or two, to have tax relief immediately, separate and apart from the
permanent tax cut the President sought, and it looks like the American
taxpayer got the best of both worlds. They're going to have
a bigger immediate tax cut, and it still will be tied to the permanent
tax cut, which is the outcome the President supported. So
he's pleased with that result.
Q And the rebate
-- is okay with him, too?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that has to
still be figured out, the exact manner in which a retroactive tax cut
can be delivered. There are a series of tax consequence that
are very practical about how best to deliver that tax relief in a
retroactive fashion, through adjusting withholding tables or through
some type of rebate. That remains an item of discussion.
Q Does the White House
have a position on that, or are you still -- is it still let a thousand
flowers bloom on Capitol Hill? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President is
still open to that discussion, Jim. There are some real
practicalities on how the manner in which you can get that done,
either, again, through adjusting the withholding tables or through a
rebate.
Q But have you
communicated to the Congress what your preference would be, what you
think would work most efficiently?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. The
President has not indicated that yet.
Q But not just the
President, what about Treasury, OMB? Have they indicated to
Congress what would work best?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's still a
discussion item.
Q When the President
meets with the Chilean President this afternoon, will he have any news
for him on timing of a fast track bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is
going to continue to work on fast track legislation or trade promotion
authority, as it's now know. There is no immediate
determination about when such legislation will be sent up to the Hill.
Q Will that be
discussed in the meeting at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would anticipate
it would be.
Q Anything else?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think trade
promotion in general will be discussed. Whether it's the specific time
table, I'd say hold off, wait until the meeting. Are we
going to have a read out after the meeting?
MS. COUNTRYMAN: Do we need a
readout? Okay, we'll have a readout.
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll try to get you
a background briefing following the meeting
Q In the Middle East,
the situation seems to be getting worse now, spreading to Lebanon and
Syria. Is the administration taking any steps to avoid an
all out war?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me just say that
in the last several days, there has been a dangerous escalation across
the line of withdrawal. And the United States condemns this
escalation that was initiated by Hezbollah, in a clear provocation,
designed to escalate an already tense situation.
And the President calls on all parties to
exercise maximum restraint at this time, to refrain from further
actions across the line of withdrawal, and to respect and to implement
United Nations Security Council Resolution 425.
Q Ari, can I follow up
on that? So you say it was initiated by
Hezbollah. So then the Israelis are justified in what they
did, to retaliate?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the
President's -- that statement speaks for itself. There's
been an escalation, and the President is urging all parties to use
restraint at this time. And as I indicated, the United
States does condemn this escalation. And I point out that it
was initiated by Hezbollah.
Q Are the Israelis also
guilty of participating in the escalation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the United
States -- the President urges all parties to exercise restraint.
Q Have the Israelis --
are the Israelis also culpable? Are they also to blame for
this?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President urges
all parties to exercise restraint.
Q On a different
subject, the summit with the Russians. Colin Powell and Igor Ivanov, the two foreign ministers, discussed that in Paris, and said
that the two Presidents may meet even before the general summit of the
G-8. My question is, is this just stating the obvious that
it may happen, or is it a goal now that the White House is working
for?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know,
with all meetings with foreign leaders, we're working on timetables to
meet with a variety of people across the world, of course, including
President Putin. And there's no set schedule yet for -- the
Secretary was reflecting on the reality of the fact that the President
will be traveling to Europe in both June and July and those could be
potential times for meetings. But there's nothing to
report.
Q Okay. And
another subject. Do you have anything to say on the 40th
anniversary of the Bay of Cochinos operation, the invasion to Cuba?
The Cubans are saying that the Americans still want to do that
again. So what's your reaction to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I've got nothing
to offer on that.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
1:41 P.M. EDT
|