For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 22, 2001
By Senior Administration Official
on the G7-G8 Summit
Press Filing Center
12:27 P.M. (Local)
OFFICIAL: I'm going to give you an overview of the entire
summit. Today, you know, was not a substantive day, per se;
there was just one short meeting in the morning where the leaders
approved, formally approved the communique, and that ends the
summit. So what I'd like to do is review the entire summit
for you very quickly, just focusing on the highlights.
And let me just say at the outset that the
President and all of the leaders, the G8, collectively, had a very
successful, very productive summit. They had important work
to do, they came to do it and they got it done, and I can quickly walk
you through some of the highlights, as I said.
Again, the entire context of this summit
was attacking poverty, alleviating global poverty. It was
the focus of the G7/G8 Summit. It is a priority of U.S.
foreign policy, it's a passion of the President's. He
committed the United States to developing real partnerships with
developing countries to address their development needs, ranging from
hunger to disease, trade, to education. It's a partnership
based on mutual respect and mutual responsibility.
To achieve those ends, the President and
the G8 leaders agreed upon a series of actions. And I'm
going to walk through these largely in order in which the summit itself
took place. Remember that the G7 was the first session,
focusing on the global economy, and then we moved to the G8 -- I should
say the G7 focusing on the global economy and trade, and then we moved
into the G8 setting, where we focused on a lot of the social sector
First, the world
economy. President Bush, of course, believes that a dynamic,
growing global economy is the ultimate poverty reduction strategy, and
if each of the G7 countries committed to putting in place pro-growth
policies, the U.S. of course is showing the way with dynamic and
flexible markets, decisive action, both the rate cuts and the tax cuts,
those tax cuts, recall, will inject about $40 billion into the U.S.
economy in the third quarter alone.
Second, the new trade
round. The President believes that one of the most important
things we can do to ignite a new era of global economic growth is
expand world trade, opening markets worldwide. Thus, he and
the other G7 leaders pledged to engage personally and jointly to ensure
the successful launch of a new global round of trade talks under the
World Trade Organization, and that meeting is scheduled, or that launch
is scheduled for November in Doha.
Third, the leaders collectively, the G8,
agreed to form a new partnership with Africa, focused on poverty
alleviation. They welcome the so-called new Africa
initiative, which embraces many of the same principles that the
President has emphasized: responsibility and a sense of
ownership for policies. And you will recall that the notion
here is that these nations need to step forward, take ownership of the
policies and the programs they have in place, put the right ones in
place, and the developed world, in turn, responds to provide -- help
them acquire the tools they need to take advantage of trade, of aid, to
building the education infrastructure, address the issues of infectious
disease, et cetera.
The President has made Africa a priority
of his administration. He's met with seven of the major
African leaders in his first half-year in office. He's
instructed the Secretary of State, you will recall, shortly before he
left Washington to develop an education initiative focused on Africa,
focused on improving basic education and in particular teacher
training; teachers, having been disproportionately impacted by the
ravages of AIDS. Some countries losing as many as 10 percent
or more of their teachers.
And he will inaugurate in October the
first U.S. sub-Saharan African Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum
involving the 35 African nations that currently participate in the
African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.
In addition, another major accomplishment
of this summit was the formal establishment of the Global Fund To Fight
HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. The President, you will
recall, in May, together with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and
Nigerian President Obasanjo, pledged U.S. support for a global fund to
fight the AIDS pandemic. At the same time, he laid out a set
of principles to ensure the effectiveness of that fund, and he
announced a founding contribution of $200 million.
And at the time, Kofi Annan also spoke and
noted that that day, today, he said, may be remembered as the day we
turned the corner. And in point of fact, since that time,
the G8 was working very hard to develop a fund along the lines of the
principles that the President had articulated. And that fund
is what was unveiled at the summit, on the first day of the summit on
Friday evening in a press conference.
In addition to the fund being a
public-private partnership and the G8 collectively contributing some
$1.3 billion to it, as well as other parties contributing an additional
$500 million, so the rough estimate is that we're at about $1.8 billion
now for the fund.
In addition, and importantly, the leaders
committed to ensuring that the fund was operational by the first --
before the end of the year. And in order to do that, they've
put together a start-up team that will be tasked with making the fund
operational. And the United States is going to help manage
and fund the secretariat for that start-up team to ensure its success.
The U.S., of course, in addition to the
$200 million, the emergency supplemental that recently passed contained
another $100 million for the global fund, so that's a $300-million
total founding contribution by the United States. And in
addition, collectively, the United States spends about $1 billion a
year internationally on its AIDS efforts, and I think the number is
about $10 billion, international and domestic as well.
So this was a major accomplishment of the
summit, and it follows the structure of accountability, and the focus
on prevention and a continuum of treatment and care that the President
outlined in May.
Debt relief, of course, the President
believes and the G8 believes that debt relief is
important. It's important to ensure that the poorest
countries don't labor under an unsustainable debt
burden. The communique notes how pleased the leaders are,
that 23 of the countries currently participating in the
heavily-indebted poor countries initiative are going through the
process of debt relief, and have been relieved of some $54 billion
worth of debt as the total stock.
They also pay particular attention and
want to focus on countries in conflict and have asked those countries
to lay down their arms, to put an end to the violence, and when they do
so, we've said that we will be there to vigorously implement debt
relief for them as well.
The President, however, went beyond debt
relief. He notes that debt relief can often be merely a
temporary solution. And, therefore, in his World Bank speech
before leaving for Genoa, he proposed that the world bank make up to 50
percent of the resources that it provides to the poorest countries
available in the form of grants rather than loans, the notion here
being that grants, unlike loans, will permanently stop the debt.
Cardinal Bernard Law of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops has welcomed this
initiative. So, too, has Jubilee Plus, the successor
organization to Jubilee 2000, which was one of the motive forces behind
the debt relief initiative in the first place. Furthermore,
the G8 took up this proposal, and you will see in the G8 communique
that they have agreed to explore the increased use of grants for
priority social investments, and in particular highlighting education
In a related development, the President
and Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill have both been arguing that the
multilateral development banks, the World Bank and the other regional
development banks, need to do a better job of focusing their efforts on
key activities that contribute to increases in the standard of living
and increases in productivity growth.
One of those key things is
education. The President believes that literacy and learning
are the foundations of democracy and development, and he believes that
the multilateral development banks need to spend more of their
resources on education. The United States has increased its
bilateral development assistance for education by 20
percent. He's called on the multilateral development banks
to increase theirs as well.
In addition, he's called on the
multilateral development banks to do a better job and a more effective
job of providing assistance. And to that end, you will see
in the communique a series of reform proposals, including enhancing the
accountability and transparency and governance of the multilateral
development banks themselves. And in so doing, the G8,
picking up on a notion that the President has urged the development
banks to sharpen their focus on education.
Biotechnology: At the outreach
session which occurred on the first evening of the summit, we heard
from a cross-section of leaders of the developing world, from Africa,
Asia and Latin America. Several of them spoke rather
eloquently to the issue of hunger, that that is the fundamental issue
when it comes to development.
The first thing you've got to do is feed
the people. There are 800 million hungry and malnourished
people in the world, 250 million of them children, and several of the
leaders spoke relatively eloquently about that problem. And
in response, the President believes that the world needs to utilize
better the enormous potential for feeding the hungry of
biotechnology. Biotechnology can help developing countries
double, triple crop yields, while using less pesticides, fewer scarce
resources like water and land. And the G8 communique
acknowledges these benefits and commits the G8 to facilitate the use of
biotechnology to meet the needs of the developing world and the food
security needs, in particular, of the poorest countries.
This is the strongest and most positive
statement ever about the benefits of biotechnology. And the
President, himself, urged -- raised the issue and urged that greater
use be made of these new technologies, in particular, biotechnology.
An environmental issue also arose -- the
so-called environmental standards related to export credit agencies --
export credit agencies being entities like the U.S. Export-Import Bank,
and Coface and Hermes and some of the other export credit agencies in
Europe and elsewhere.
The export credit agencies have a
potentially huge impact on the environment. They provide
about five to six times the amount of project finance capital that all
of the multilateral development banks combined provide. The
U.S. Export-Import Bank, like the World Bank, follows a set of
environmental standards in export credit financing
activities. It requires environmental impact assessments to
be made before it provides financing. It requires the
release of those assessments prior to the financing, among other
The United States has been pushing other
countries to agree to that same set of
standards. Negotiations have been proceeding in the OECD,
but we believe that that agreement is a weak agreement. And
in the G8 communique you'll see that the G7 partners have agreed to
continue to negotiate with a commitment to try to conclude an agreement
by the end of the year to establish strong environmental guidelines for
export credit agencies.
Two final issues. One is the
so-called DOT Force, which is the digital opportunities task force that
was created at the Okinawa summit. That was a unique combination of
private and public entities coming together to try and wrestle with the
issue of how both the developed and developing world can do a better
job of using information technology to spur development. And
they produced a series of nine action plans, a number of which
correspond to priorities of the President's. For example,
there is one action plan that deals with using information technology
to train teachers, as well as to provide basic educational
materials. Another one of the action plans deals with how to
use information technology in the fight against AIDS, for example, in
terms of disseminating information.
That report was endorsed, and in fact, in
addition, the G8 asked the DOT Force to develop another action plan,
one related to the issue of e-government, which we believe can
reenforce not only democracy by empowering citizens to deal directly
with their governments, but also improve the administrative efficiency
of many of these governments.
Finally, on climate change, you'll see
that the communique contains a positive statement about the G8 being
united in the goal of reducing concentrations of greenhouse gases,
being united in the commitment to work together to seek solutions to
the problem of global climate change. And in addition, it
talks about how they are determined to work together, as well as with
other countries in that effort.
And, of course, the President on June 11th
in his Rose Garden statement about climate change, noted that he
intended to engage actively and lead internationally on this
issue. And since then, the United States has agreed to
cooperate with Italy on climate change science and
technology. That was just announced a couple of days
ago. The U.S. and Japan recently held the first of a series
of high-level consultations on climate change. And the U.S.
and the EU have agreed to similar consultations. And
finally, the U.S. and Central America have agreed to intensify their
cooperation on climate change through the CONCAUSA Declaration
The final thing that I'll note is that if
you all have the communique, you'll see that it is significantly
shorter than in past years, and hopefully, a little bit more readable,
in an effort to ensure -- or try and improve the communique with
respect to its ability to speak to a larger audience.
So those are the major accomplishments of
the summit: the global economy; the new trade round;
partnership with Africa; establishment of the global AIDS fund; debt
relief moving forward; embracing the proposal to pursue grants as a way
to permanently stop the debt; a focus on education and multilateral
development bank reform; acknowledging the benefits of biotechnology;
calling for environmental standards for export credit agencies;
reaffirming the commitment at Okinawa that was made; hailing the action
plans produced by the Digital Opportunities Task Force; and agreeing to
work cooperatively to address the issue of climate change.
Happy to take questions.
Q On the summit for
next year, Canada is -- very small. What has been the
President's view, what's your sense of what needs to change in the G8
summits, besides the delegation? Berlusconi just announced
that they will be smaller, no more than 30 people per
country. And in terms of the kind of Rambouillet spirit, can
you speak to that?
OFFICIAL: The spirit of Rambouillet?
Q The idea of a
smaller, more informal summit.
OFFICIAL: Well, this was one of the --first of all, let me
say that I think that's an objective that's -- the informality of the
summit is an objective that all the leaders share. This is -- all the
leaders I think view this as an opportunity to really build
relationships with one another among the G8, and if possible,
demonstrate leadership on a few key global issues. And the
more informal, the better.
I mean, the discussions at this summit
were very informal. There were not -- they don't go around
the table and call names in order of protocol. It is completely
unstructured discussion with a lot of give-and-take. And I
think they found it -- and I know the President found it -- very
So the informality is something we all
share. In terms of the size of the delegations, as I said
yesterday when asked this question, the truth is since the only people
in the rooms are the leaders, or the leaders and the sherpas, there's
always very few people in those discussions, which is important in
order to ensure a substantial amount of give-and-take. So
the size of the delegations has more to do with logistics and things
like that, than the quality of the dialogue that takes place.
Q What's the size
of the U.S. delegation here -- 800 or 900?
OFFICIAL: I have not a clue. Not a
clue. It depends on if you're counting communications and
press and all sorts of things. From a substantive
standpoint, it's a very small number of people.
Q There's a couple
broad areas of global warming that your counterparts have been very
eager to share with their press corps. I was hoping you
could help us out. First of all, which leaders expressed
disagreement about the President's global warming stance, and what
exactly did they say to the President about these
disagreements? And as close to verbatim as you can give us,
what did he tell the leaders about the timetable for presenting an
OFFICIAL: Let me answer the second question first, which is
about a timetable. I think Ari and others have already
answered that, and I answered it yesterday, as well.
Q Nobody has
answered what the President said to the leaders about --
OFFICIAL: I'm not going to get into characterizing what
individual leaders said in those sessions. What I can tell
Q Well, you do
know, though, that the other delegations are saying that the President
told their leaders that he'll have a proposal in October. I
need to know what the President told the leaders.
OFFICIAL: The President told the leaders exactly what I
believe Ari said earlier.
Q Ari didn't tell
us what the President told the leaders. Ari didn't tell us
what the President said, he told us what the U.S. position is.
MS. COUNTRYMAN: Ron, Ari took
your question and he's working on that, okay?
OFFICIAL: It's been asked and answered, and it was posted up
Q In all due
respect, the question is simply: What did the President of
the United States say to leaders about the timetable?
Either tell me what he said, or tell me you can't answer the
question. But don't say it's been answered.
OFFICIAL: I can tell you that I'm not going to get into
characterizing what people said. What I can tell you is that
it was a good discussion. There were other discussions that
were equally as in-depth. And what came out of that
discussion is what's reflected in the communique, which was a
cooperative spirit to work together to find ways to address this
Q You won't
characterize his conversations -- go past that. Can you tell
us which leaders expressed disagreement with his global warming
position, and what did they say to the President about it?
OFFICIAL: There was a good discussion of global
warming. It wasn't a question of people -- the focus of the
discussion was how we can work together to advance this
issue. And, in fact, there was -- I shouldn't say a great
deal of consensus -- there was consensus on the objectives; there was
consensus on the need to work together cooperatively and actively; and
there was a consensus on the need to draw on the power of markets and
technology in doing that.
Q Can we report
that you declined to characterize what the President said about
timetable, and you're declining --
OFFICIAL: The issue --
Q -- to
characterize who criticized and what they said?
MS. COUNTRYMAN: I'm just going
to interject, because Ari did take your question, Ron, and he's working
on it. No one is declining to answer your question.
Q He is --
MS. COUNTRYMAN: Ari -- no,
he's not declining to answer the characterization of what the President
said. Ari's trying to get the verbatim from the President,
Q Okay. On the second question, you
may not be able to tell me because maybe you weren't there or didn't
hear, or maybe no criticism came up. But the question I
would like answered, one way or another, is which leaders raised
criticism of the U.S. position on global warming, and what did they say
about it? I'll take a "no comment;" I'll take an "I don't
know." I just would like an answer.
OFFICIAL: The answer is, this was not a contentious debate
and there was not criticism. There was a focus on what the
G8 could do together to advance this issue.
Q Thank you.
Q A couple of
things. The WTO round -- is that now a done deal, or do a
number of other countries besides the G8 countries have to agree to
OFFICIAL: Do you have more?
Q Yes. I
do. On the debt relief, you said that $54 billion has
already been relieved, in essence, but I thought what we were being
told was that $54 billion was on track. I'm curious, because
this theme is antipoverty, I'm curious as to how much that money has
actually been forgiven at this point.
OFFICIAL: Is it all now done, or is that expected at the end
of the process -- the $54 billion?
We'll get back to you on the $54 billion;
I'll clarify that. On the new round, no. As you
know, the U.S. and the EU and the G8 need to come together on an
agenda, but that's only half the equation. That has to be an
agenda also acceptable to developing countries. And in fact,
if you look at the communique, you will see that a large part of the G8
discussion was directed at what could be done to bring those developing
countries more into the process and how to respond to their concerns.
They have a series of concerns regarding
market access, increased market access, implementation of the Uruguay
Round agreements, capacity-building, and there was a series of
initiatives that are highlighted in the G8 that have to do with drawing
the developing countries, integrating them better into the global
trading system, and giving them the tools to do that.
So that's part of that whole
process. But those discussions on the agenda, sure, they are
going to proceed. The G8 alone can't launch a
round. The round can only be launched by the
WTO. We believe, however, that substantial progress has been
made in -- or, I should say that there has been
increasing convergence between the U.S. and the European Union in
particular that was announced in Washington shortly before the
President left by Ambassador Zoellick and his EU counterpart, Pascal
Lemy. We believe that that will give significant impetus to the launch
of a new round.
Q Does launching a
new round require a majority vote within the WTO?
OFFICIAL: I believe it requires a consensus.
Q And, thirdly, why
wasn't the President able to get agreement on his call for the World
Bank to shift into a 50-50 formula for loans and grants?
OFFICIAL: Because you can't get agreement in the G8 for
that. I mean, in other words, that's going to be taken up in
the context of the replenishment negotiations and, in fact, that's the
context in which the grant proposal is talked about in the communique.
There are ongoing negotiations for the replenishment of IDA, which is
the facility within the World Bank that deals with the poorest
countries. And the issue of how much of IDA lending will be
in grants versus loans is obviously an issue that will be taken up in
the context of the IDA replenishment.
Q -- G8 clearly
endorse the idea?
OFFICIAL: The G8 did endorse exploring grants as an
alternative to loans. And in particular, with respect to
education, very precisely what the President had proposed.
Q In the previous
G8 meetings, G8 communiques used to address that security issues as the
importance of CTBT and ABM Treaty. But this communique
doesn't mention those things at all. Do you think it's a
reflection of conflicts between the United States and the other
countries over those issues?
OFFICIAL: No, I don't. There were discussions at
some of the sessions I didn't attend that dealt with political issues
and regional issues. However -- and there have been separate
statements issued on those. But at the sessions I attended,
those issues did not come up.
Q An Italian
newspaper report says that the President indicated to his G8
counterparts while here in Genoa a concern about strengthening the
dollar. He apparently said that the dollar is creating
problems for U.S. manufacturers, and he also expressed dissatisfaction
with European central bank monetary policy. Did the
President say either of these things here?
Q So you're
rejecting the Italian newspaper report on --
OFFICIAL: I'm telling you that to my knowledge, he didn't
say either of those things here.
Q I didn't hear the
question before last, so maybe you answered it. I'm puzzled why the
communique is silent on issues like the Middle East, like Macedonia --
OFFICIAL: There's a separate statement on those issues, a
separate statement was issued on Macedonia, and there's a separate
statement on the Middle East. That's
traditional. We should have copies. Yes,
traditionally, the regional political statements are issued in a
separate communique from the larger G8 communique. And, in
fact, there's also a separate statement on Africa that was issued last
night, as well, I believe.
Q How confident are
the leaders that the worst is over in terms of the
economy? And is there a risk of being over-confident now?
OFFICIAL: All I can tell you -- I mean, you can interpret
the statement for itself. It's a consensus
statement: While the global economy has slowed more than
expected over the past year, sound economic policies and fundamentals
provide a solid foundation for stronger growth.
Q The LA Times said
this morning that President Bush at one point suggested that the final
communique make no reference to the Kyoto protocol. And on
the same topic, Prime Minister Chretien, among other leaders, said the
U.S. would present a plan, modification, or improvement of Kyoto before
November; Ari said that's not true. I wonder how that
OFFICIAL: I don't know how the miscommunication
occurred. What I can say -- the first part of your question
was the President never suggested that it not deal with
Kyoto. We've spoken frankly about Kyoto and the President is
-- always speaks frankly and candidly about his positions on all
issues. And is not in any way reluctant to do
so. So the issue of the communique not speaking to that or,
frankly, any of these other issues never arose.
Q On the same
topic, does it concern you that these other world leaders, speaking on
the record, misunderstood what the President said about when the U.S.
would present the planned modification or improvement of Kyoto?
OFFICIAL: I haven't heard what they've said or seen what
Q To follow on
that, we're on background here, obviously. We have three
world leaders who are telling their delegations on the record they all
had the exact same interpretation coming out of the exact same sessions
with the President. Now, how is it that they're saying that
and you can't verify?
And secondly, on a broader point,
obviously this is about alleviating poverty; they talked a lot about
that. But the President, himself, and Condi before we came
over here also talked about his eagerness to discuss Kyoto and discuss
missile defense. And there doesn't seem to have been much
movement, based on the communique, on either of those
points. So in the context of that, on those
points, would you classify this summit as a success for the President,
given the terms he, himself, set?
OFFICIAL: Well, first of all, missile defense is not taken
up in any of these documents, and never was intended
to. And, frankly, I was not present for any discussion
involving that. You will have to talk to the folks that
attended the bilaterals, or whatever. In terms of this being
a success, I think it was a success for President Bush, absolutely, and
a success for the G8, collectively. There is a very positive
statement in here about climate change. There's a very
strong statement about being personally and jointly involved an engaged
in the launch of a new round. There is the establishment,
finally, of a global fund to fight HIV/AIDS.
I mean, this was a gleam in people's eyes
in May when the President made his announcement, and now you have a
start-up team getting ready to pull it together and get it up and
running. You have the most powerful statement to date on the
benefits of biotechnology to combat hunger and
malnutrition. You've got a very powerful statement about
reforming the multilateral development banks.
If you recall, over the last several years
a lot of the focus of the G7 has been on the International Monetary
Fund and reforms. Here, you have very concrete proposals,
and then you add -- on multilateral development bank reform, you add to
that the President's proposal to shift to grants for the poorest
countries for needed social services. You've got a powerful
statement about a commitment to put in place pro-growth polices in the
G8, in the G7 countries to stimulate a new era of global growth.
I think when you go through this list and
you look at the summit and you say to yourself, did they accomplish
what they came to do; did they address the issue of poverty alleviation
in a meaningful, concrete way -- the answer has to be,
yes. And then top it all off with the establishment of a new
partnership to alleviate poverty in Africa based upon the new African
initiative and principles of responsibility and ownership with a focus
on capacity building -- the capacity not only to take advantage of
trade, but to put in place an independent judiciary, rule of law, human
And finally, if you look at the commitment
in the Africa statement, the separate statement that was put out on
Africa, you will see on the bottom of page one a whole series of very
specific topics listed with the commitment that action plans will be
developed on those topics between now and the next
summit. It's hard to argue that anything but significant
progress was made here on all of these issues, including, frankly, some
of the most difficult ones. Trade, for example -- the launch
of a new trade round. We have been discussing that for some
time. Significant progress made on that, and significant
impetus given to it.
So, for the President, I would say a very
successful summit; for the G8, collectively, a very successful
summit. I suspect you will find that view shared by all of
the leaders because that certainly was the sentiment
in the room today.
Q Well, I don't
think anybody here is -- can I follow up?
OFFICIAL: Could you just hold on for a second. Let me just
add, also, on background, that the summit was a part of the Europe
trip, okay? There wasn't an implication that we're going to
get progress on missile defense at the summit.
And I'd also like to refer you back to Dr.
Rice's background briefing of the trip before we left, where she made
the suggestion that you shouldn't consider international meetings with
leaders like a football game, where there is a score at the end; what
did we win on missile defense, did we lose on missile defense --
because that's not the way diplomacy gets done; that there's
incremental progress; that the process of our relations with leaders
such as President Putin is just that, a process, it takes time.
Q Understood, but
he, himself --
OFFICIAL: The only other point that I would make is one of
the other objectives of these summits is, as I said, to build
relationships. And the quality of the conversations and the
feeling among the leaders clearly, that, too, was a success from the
standpoint of this summit. All you had to do was watch the
leaders up on the podium for the photo, or sitting around the table
chatting with each other before the sessions began and you could see it
Q Does it concern
you that a President who prides himself on being plain-spoken has
apparently been misunderstood by at least three of his colleagues at
OFFICIAL: I can tell you -- all I can tell you is the
President is a very plain-spoken guy, and he spoke candidly about his
position on all the issues. And he spoke frankly and he
spoke respectfully and he spoke constructively. And that was
the atmosphere in that room, whether the issue was climate change or
foreign aid or the new trade round or the issue of grants or debt
It was -- at least in the sessions that I
attended -- a very, very constructive and, in many cases, detailed
exchange. There were a lot of issues on this
agenda. We've given you the highlights; there were others
that were obviously addressed at less length. That's a lot
of issue to cover in about a day and a half for eight
leaders. And the depth of the discussion on those issues and
the knowledge displayed by everyone was something that I think also
contributed to the outcome. And the outcome is concrete --
concrete, it's tangible. You can see it in the communique.
You can write your check to donate to the global AIDS fund -- though I
can't solicit it. I can tell you, you can do it, but I can't
solicit it. And these are real things.
You know, there's a sense -- those of you
who were at Quebec for the Summit of the Americas may recall that one
of the themes of that was democracy, trade and real results for real
people. There's a sense that it's important that -- that
these summits produce more than just words, that they produce tangible
results that can impact people's lives. And certainly from
that standpoint, this was a successful summit, as well. The
AIDS fund, the DOT Force initiative, the initiatives in terms of
capacity-building to give developing countries the ability, the tools
they need to put in place the things that we know are essential for
growth and economic development -- these are real deliverables.
Q So these guys are
making it up, then?
OFFICIAL: Making what up?
Q When they say
that they understood the President to say it would be developed by
OFFICIAL: You have --
OFFICIAL: I think you really do.
END 1:07 P.M. (Local)