The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 26, 1995
Press Briefing
By Mike Mccurry
The Briefing Room
1:10 P.M. Edt
Mr. Mccurry: All right. Today's White House briefing.
We will open with the following: How many of you have some interest
in business? Right? Some of you do, some of you, mathematics,
science and engineering.
Q Are you selling something different than usual?
Mr. Mccurry: I get lots of questions here on education.
You ask me frequently about the environment. Some of you, I think,
although I'm not quite sure, might be capable of teaching English as
a second language, and skilled trades. The last I checked,
journalism was one. Knowing that all of these interests and career
pursuits might be yours should you choose to volunteer for the Peace
Corps, I happen to have applications here and we have the latest and
best Peace Corps recruiter --
Q Who runs the Peace Corps these days?
Mr. Mccurry: -- will be sworn-in to his new position at
2:20 p.m. today, an even that many of us here at the White House are
looking forward to.
Q Are you trying to get rid of us?
Mr. Mccurry: Should I suggest for some of you as a way
to get out of the funk that many of you are often in --
(laughter) -- you might seek an opportunity to enhance your own
skills and contribute something to this ever-changing world in which
we live in by leaving here and going there? Would I suggest such a
thing? Yes.
All right.
Q Congress has sent you --
Mr. Mccurry: Yes, Gearan is, I think that's the other
way of saying we've changed the schedule, so that will be a pool on
that when Mr. Gearan is sworn-in.
Q How old do you have to be to get in the Peace
Corps?
Mr. Mccurry: Sarah, you're eligible. (Laughter.) In
fact, some of the -- some of the most amazing stories of Peace Corps
volunteers include people who, in their retirement, even in their
'80s and I think I've seen one story of someone in their '90s serving
as a Peace Corps -- Miss Lillian Carter was another example of that.
We also have got a statement from the Press Secretary
that gives a readout on the President's very good and constructive
meeting with President Iliescu of Romania, the subject matter covered
in the meeting was much as I described it to you earlier -- the
President expressed support for Romania's progress towards
integration with the growing Euro-Atlantic community, secure and free
market democracies. The President -- both Presidents reviewed the
good and developing relationship between the two countries. And the
rest of it in detail is available in a statement we will have
available to you at the conclusion of the briefing.
Q Two appropriations bills are being sent here by
Congress. Will the President sign them? One on the legislative --
for the Legislative Branch, the other on military construction.
Mr. Mccurry: Both the military construction bill and
the legislative appropriations bill will be reviewed properly by the
President and by our staff here, including the Omb. We'll have more
to report to you later on the President's action related to those two
bills.
Q Did he earlier say that if the legislation
appropriations was coming down first that he wouldn't sign it?
Mr. Mccurry: That is correct. The President's view
was, with absent progress on the underlying budget issues, it seemed
a little strange for Congress to be taking care of its own funding
before worrying about the needs of the rest of America.
Q So is that good? I mean, so he won't sign it,
right?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, we also are in an environment now
where we're right up against the end of the fiscal year. As I said
yesterday, we've got a real problem now because Congress has not
finished work on the vast majority of these bills, including the ones
that represent the largest share of federal spending, and it doesn't
look like they will complete action on those bills prior to the end
of the fiscal year at the end of the week. So we have got a real
bind that we're in now, and we're going to have to look at these two
conference reports, along with the other issues that would surround
the development of a continuing resolution.
Q Can it be that he's going to cave already on the
one thing he said he wouldn't accept?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, he's indicated there are a lot of
things that are not acceptable about the direction that Congress is
taking with the budget.
Q So this was late enough, though, so -- this is so
late that he may have to sign it? Is that what you're --
Mr. Mccurry: Well, we'll have to see how it fits within
the terms of discussions that are going on now about a continuing
resolution that would make up the difference in the balance of the
rest of federal spending, which is not addressed by these two
appropriations bills. I can say substantively that there were not
that many issues in dispute on the military construction bill or the
legislative appropriations bill, it was just in the President's
disposition that Congress ought to work first on those appropriations
items that are most important to the resolution of the overall budget
impasse; they have not done that, clearly.
Q Let me follow Brit's question and take an opposite
tack, my good friend. Are you trying to say that the President would
actually consider vetoing a bill he has no objection to so that he
can say that these guys should have worked on these other bills
first? How would that be productive?
Mr. Mccurry: We are interested in trying to do
everything we can to get Congress serious about the business of
resolving these budget issues that are fundamentally important to the
people of this country. So far, they are adamantly pursuing a course
that they know is not going to result in the type of compromise that
would allow the nation's business to be done in an orderly fashion.
Q How would vetoing either of these bills contribute
to that process, with bills that are much tougher on the Hill?
Mr. Mccurry: It would serve as a reminder to the
Congress that everyone, including congressional staff and committee
staff, ought to pay the price for a budget impasse when there is no
funding available for the work that the government must do.
Q Mike, are these bills becoming bargaining chips for
the continuing resolution --
Mr. Mccurry: Well, we'll see. There are, in fact,
productive discussions underway at a staff level on the continuing
resolution, and we'll have to see how they go over the next 24-48
hours.
Q Do you have a sense that they're backing off the
priorities that Congress was trying -- was talking about as being
part of the Cr?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, they know very clearly what the
President's views are on the scope and parameters of a continuing
resolution. And they know that we are not interested in the approach
that would put the lowest of enacted levels of committee marks into a
continuing resolution. We've been very clear on that, and I think
there's no surprise on their part now what the President's view is
towards an overall continuing resolution.
Q Is Mr. Panetta directly meeting with the leadership
on this, or how is this working?
Mr. Mccurry: He met over the weekend with the chairs of
the two appropriations committees, and they directed staff to follow
up. Staff has followed up yesterday and today.
Q So what do you mean by progress? What --
Q When do we anticipate Panetta talking with the
leadership again?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, when it's necessary.
Q Well, it's obviously necessary to craft something
before Saturday.
Mr. Mccurry: Right.
Q The House leaders, I guess, today are saying they
may have something out of conference tonight or they may have
something out of their committee?
Mr. Mccurry: We will see.
Q This is strictly from ignorance, but does the
President feel that if his health proposal had gone through that we
wouldn't be having this problem now with Medicare and Medicaid?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, he cited -- one specific example of
that, just at the end of last week in Los Angeles, where we had a
very severe crisis with the county medical hospital that had to be
resolved, the President did make the point that taking huge chunks of
money out of the Medicare-Medicaid system at this time are going to
put a lot of health care facilities in that type of jeopardy. And he
did point out that structural reforms in health care reform would
have made a real difference.
Q Mike, could you tell us why the dinner, the private
dinner, tonight he's having is not open at least to pool press?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, we've been doing a variety of --
some of you have followed the President's travels last week -- now,
we've had a real -- a host of fundraising events this fall, and
events that I have described as preparation events for future
fundraising events, smaller dinners, that sort of thing. This is a
smaller dinner; we have not in recent weeks been opening those to
press coverage, but the larger event later this evening, which is a
larger fundraiser, is open.
Q Mike, I know you have not opened it; I asked why
have you not opened it.
Mr. Mccurry: Because we don't routinely make every
small dinner event that the President has open for coverage.
Q Can I ask a follow-up, too? This comes out of last
week's report in The Washington Post about the telecommunications
organization in which they obviously had the opinion that by giving
the President $100,000, they will have some effect on his --
Mr. Mccurry: I understand --
Q -- determination -- I know that you all have said
that --
Mr. Mccurry: I believe that the person that left you
with that misimpression has now clarified that and has apologized for
those remarks.
Q My question is, is, do you all feel that you should
give back this money?
Mr. Mccurry: Do we feel --
Q -- to make sure that no one has any --
Mr. Mccurry: The President's views on
telecommunications were stated publicly prior to the event in
question. I don't see any reason why that would complicate the
fundraising that was done at that dinner.
Q Well, Mike, this is a public office, and I think
the American -- doesn't the President feel that the American people
are entitled to know who is helping him get money to obtain that
office?
Mr. Mccurry: Absolutely, and that's why, by law we have
to disclose -- by law, we have to disclose every single contribution
made to the Clinton-Gore '96 committee, and do so on a regular basis
as you know. You can go down to the Federal Elections Commission and
read the names of every contributor and determine who they are and
what their interests in public policy might be.
Q Well, then, why don't you let these -- why --
Q There are two pieces in The Washington Post today,
which suggests that some of the financial problems that the country's
having could be cured if the Cpi was figured differently. I wondered
if that's something that has reached the thought process level in the
White House and if there is an opinion on that.
Mr. Mccurry: It has been looked at by the President's
Council of Economic Advisors. Their view is there is great academic
debate about the Cpi and about measuring inflation and what type of
index best does that. Our sense has been any adjustments that
represent an equation something like Cpa minus-one is too large an
adjustment, but it's something that, frankly, the President prefers
that the experts look at carefully before they make any
recommendations.
Clearly, Senator Moynihan is something of an expert
himself on those types of questions.
Q Is there any high-profile push to -- is there any
high-profile push to move on that?
Mr. Mccurry: I haven't detected one.
Q Hadn't you made a recommendation for .2? I mean, I
thought there was a number --
Mr. Mccurry: There are a range of estimates that I
think go from .7 to .2, and I think they represent different
thinking, but there's apparently an advisory board, the membership of
the advisory board is something that we're looking at, and there are
a lot of issues associated with that. Again, I'd stress that the
President feels that it's in large part a question that is a
technical question and how you measure inflation ought to be looked
at first and most carefully by experts and by his own Council of
Economic Advisors.
By the way, a good reason why you have an independent
expert academic Council of Economic Advisors on the premises to
render the President that kind of advice in response to those who
would try to terminate that type of council. (Laughter.)
Q Nicely done.
Q After the President made his brief comments about
Ross Perot and a third party, he said., "I think that will play in
Peoria. What did he mean by that?"
Mr. Mccurry: I didn't hear him make that remark. I
have no idea what he meant.
Q It was kind of an aside to Charlie Rangel.
Mr. Mccurry: I think he was responding to Congressman
Rangel's comment. Congressman Rangel --
Q Rangel who said, let the campaign begin.
Mr. Mccurry: I would have to go ask the President.
Don't have an answer.
Q Michael, Ins has conducted some sweeps to collect
illegal workers in nonborder states recently. And some immigration
policy advocates are suggesting that election year politics may be at
work here. Why are those raids now? And is there any reason to
believe that election-year politics --
Mr. Mccurry: -- that's the answer to that charge, to
say I have absolutely no idea. And you should ask at the Justice
Department.
Q Is there a nonpartisan -- bipartisan leadership
meeting this week?
Mr. Mccurry: Not that I'm aware of, although the
President is looking for an opportunity to see some members of
Congress on the subject of Bosnia at some convenient early day.
Q Mike, to follow that up just quickly. You didn't
mean to say you have absolutely no idea whether politics is playing a
role in immigration --
Mr. Mccurry: No, no, no. I was saying I don't -- you
asked me -- the question was why now, and that's a question that
should properly be directed to law enforcement officials at the
Justice Department.
Q Is there any reason to believe that -- I mean, have
you heard anything here that suggests --
Mr. Mccurry: No, there's no reason --
Q -- that the President would like to see this
done --
Mr. Mccurry: There's no reason to believe that. And I
can't imagine why anyone would suggest that.
Q Can you tell us what's coming down the pike on
federal research and development, what we can expect from the
President in terms of --
Mr. Mccurry: I can't, but we can put you in contact
with some people who can talk about that. We had a good event last
week where we talked about the role that science and technology can
play in national security policy and unveiled our strategy on science
and technology as it relates to national security issues that we'll
face in the post-Cold War era. And that -- you might want to go back
and look at some of the things that were said about R&D funding in
that context.
Q A follow up. Then why did the President release
this statement on research and development yesterday?
Mr. Mccurry: I'll have to check, or maybe we can get
some people who know more about it.
Q Your answer to Helen's question never got quite
finished. You said some bipartisan leaders are coming in to talk
about Bosnia?
Mr. Mccurry: Yes, the President is looking for an
opportunity to do that at an early moment.
Q Dole, in regard to his complaint?
Mr. Mccurry: Those who would be interested, and I
gather from Senator Dole's letter that they might have some interest.
Q Do you all have a time on that, or a day or
anything?
Mr. Mccurry: No.
Q Has a response been sent to him?
Mr. Mccurry: It didn't look to me like a letter that
was written with the intent of getting a response from the President.
They were asking perfectly obvious questions that we, of course,
would ask within the United States government as planning goes
forward at Nato and as we do our own military planning to implement a
peace agreement. The Congress and every signatory of that letter
knows full well what the status of negotiations are, and they know
that at this moment we are trying to achieve a peace settlement that
we then might properly enforce, and trying to make sure that we have
good-faith agreement by all the parties involved, that's been the
thrust of our diplomacy, the work the President's been doing on this
issue today and that they're doing in New York as they meet with the
parties.
As to what the general contours of our commitment on
ground troops are, every signatory of that letter knows exactly where
we are. The fundamental dispute is this: The signatories of this
letter believe, as Kay Bailey Hutchison has said, that "Bosnia is not
a place for U.S. leadership."
Q Did it say that in the letter?
Mr. Mccurry: The President believes that Bosnia does
represent an instance in which United States leadership is vital,
because it is vital to the future of Europe, and we do have an
interest in the collective security of the European continent.
Q Are you saying that Dole believes that? Because
this morning --
Mr. Mccurry: Dole should address himself -- he should
either disassociate himself from Senator Hutchison's view, or
indicate that is the thinking of those who signed the letter. She
signed the letter, it's his letter, he should either clarify her
remarks or clarify his own thinking.
Q This morning, you said that he is accountable for
what she said. Since when?
Mr. Mccurry: I think he should be accountable. This is
a subject where she has now said very clearly that Bosnia is not a
place where the United States should lead. She is a signatory of
this letter, and I think it's proper to ask the Majority Leader
whether or not that represents his thinking.
Q So what are you going to do? Hold your breath and
not respond to the letter until you get the proper response from Dole
on Kay Bailey Hutchison?
Mr. Mccurry: Our response to the letter is occurring
right now in New York where we are attempting to end this conflict by
getting the parties to agree to peace, and that will then represent
the commitments we make thereafter, would be in furtherance of
implementing that peace.
Q But is the meeting in response to the letter, they
want more consultations?
Mr. Mccurry: I think the meeting is a very effective
answer to that letter, yes, the part of the letter that suggests --
Q No, I mean the meeting they're going to have the
end of this week -- no, no, no --
Mr. Mccurry: -- that, instead of peace, what we need is
more war, by lifting the arms embargo.
Q I'm talking about the meeting that you want to have
later this month.
Mr. Mccurry: That is a very proper response to that
letter, yes.
Q The letter has got a lot of --
Q Nick Burns -- I think Burns has said that there is
going to be an announcement in New York at 3:00 p.m. Do you expect
to have a major announcement today on Bosnia, and would the President
be making any statements?
Mr. Mccurry: If the parties make progress and if they
do agree -- I mean, remember, this is a step-by-step progress. We
don't have a peace treaty in hand, we didn't expect to get one today,
we are working through all of the very tough issues that are embedded
in the dialogue that they have going on in New York.
It would be a significant achievement if we could make
some forward progress on constitutional arrangements that preserve
the territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if we achieve
that, the President might have something he should say about that, of
course.
Q I just want to make sure you were answering the
question that I was asking. I'm saying, is the meeting you want to
have --
Mr. Mccurry: Probably not, but go ahead.
Q -- is the meeting you want to have with
congressional leaders later this week on Bosnia a response to the
letter? Are you talking about the meeting in New York?
Mr. Mccurry: No. Look, we have consulted throughout
the conflict in Bosnia. We have consulted very closely with
Congress, still Congress wouldn't understand the thrust of U.S.
policy, what we are attempting to achieve both at the negotiating
table, what we're attempting to achieve through our projection of
force, using Nato.
At staff level and sometimes involving the President,
very often involving the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
State, at the sub-Cabinet level, at the White House staff level,
working with congressional staff, working with members, working with
committee chairs -- there has been a very active and constant
dialogue on the question of Bosnia and how we might best address it.
The signatories of this letter know that, they know the
parameters of our policy, and they are trying to create, I believe, a
diversion, and it fits with a larger objective that they might have.
Q Did you say the President might have something to
say on --
Q What larger objective?
Mr. Mccurry: To further the congression -- the
resolution that many of them supported, which is to adopt a war
policy towards Bosnia instead of a peace policy by lifting the arms
embargo.
Q That wasn't in the letter.
Mr. Mccurry: It was, too, in the letter.
Q That they might still --
Q A change of subject, Mike. The President and the
administration have railed against the Republican capital gains tax
as being the part of the tax policy that would disproportionately
help the wealthy and the well to do. Yesterday at the Sperling
lunch, the President seemed much more open to capital gains, and in
fact, tried to make it seem like he didn't know what their proposal
would do. Where is his thinking now? Is he evolving his thinking?
Mr. Mccurry: No, it was just exactly as he described it
yesterday. The President has supported the use of targeted capital
gains tax relief as a way to stimulate small business creation and
entrepreneurial activity in the private sector.
Q Wouldn't that fall disproportionately on the
wealthy?
Q You said that the test would be if it created jobs
and raised incomes, which is what Republicans say that capital gains
would do.
Mr. Mccurry: I'm sorry, say again?
Q The President said his litmus test for capital
gains would be, does it create jobs and raise incomes, which is
exactly what Republicans say capital gains does?
Mr. Mccurry: There are disputes about the degree to
which the Republican tax proposals would do that, because you have to
measure them in the aggregate against other aspects of tax code
changes they would make.
Q But I thought that the administration's research
into this had already established some decision about that -- and he
just sounds much more open.
Mr. Mccurry: Well, look, the President was indicating
that this is not likely to come to him as a separate, stand-alone
bill, as you well, know; it's going to come as a part of a much
larger measure that you would have to look at -- looking at all of
the elements within the -- both revenue side and spending side that
are likely embedded in whatever resolution comes forward.
He is open and has been open to the idea of targeted
capital gains tax relief, he's indicated support for the -- for
example, the measure Senator Bumpers put forward, and we just don't
know at this point what fashion tax relief will come to the President
in any final measures adopted by Congress.
The President's preference for tax relief, as you know,
is for the kind of education and training incentives that are
embedded in the Middle Class Bill of Rights. That's the best way to
provide tax relief to average working families, it's the best way, in
the President's view, to stimulate overall economic growth because
it's a long-term strategy. But we are realists enough to recognize
that we're likely to get tax measures that come to us in a somewhat
different form from the Congress, and the President said simply that
he would have to look at it.
Q Do you expect the President to have something to
say on Bosnia today, and in what forum? Just a statement, or --
Mr. Mccurry: I think I answered that already, and I
have made it pretty clear that we would if there was something that
was significant enough to warrant, and you indicated you had some
guidance from the State Department that sounded pretty close to me.
Q Are you sure you want your statement to stand that
the Republicans want to adopt a war policy toward Bosnia?
Mr. Mccurry: Yes, because that is what lifting the arms
embargo is. Lifting the arms embargo is to -- putting them back into
a situation where they try to gain on the battlefield what we believe
right now they might be able to achieve at the negotiating table. So
it's war vs. peace, and they are suggesting in this letter that they
prefer a policy of war as opposed to a policy of peace. And we're
trying to negotiate a peace settlement in Bosnia, and they're
suggesting that the answer is to lift the arms embargo and let the
parties continue and the conflict, to let the killing continue, let
the dying continue, and we think that it's time to bring that to an
end.
Any clearer? Does it need to be any clearer than that?
Q After the signing ceremony, you have a series of
bilateral meetings with the different leaders of the Middle East --
Mr. Mccurry: Before and after, I believe, yes.
Q Is it to tie up loose ends for this part of the
deal, or is it to make fresh ground towards another deal? What is
the need for --
Mr. Mccurry: It is an indication that in the Middle
East peace process, there are significant -- we have seen enormous
significant events over the last two years. This is one of them,
because the interim agreement will now begin the implementation
process for those things agreed to in the declaration, and that is an
historic achievement.
But there is a lot more work to do as we attempt to
reach the goal of just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the
region. From President Mubarak to King Hussein, including,
obviously, the government of Israel and the Palestinian authority,
there are important views on those larger issues. It's also
important, in our view, to consult very closely with the Palestinian
authority and the government of Israel on how best to provide
international support for the agreements that they have now made face
to face.
And so there is -- I wouldn't describe it as loose ends
to tie up, but a lot more work to be done as we deepen the roots of
peace now growing in the region.
Q Do you anticipate having some sort of communique on
Friday, or are you moving towards some sort of other announcement by
the end of these two days of talk?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, no, I wouldn't suggest that. I
think that obviously the parties are here to celebrate this
achievement, this agreement. But you will hear us talk a lot in
coming days about all the steps that are being taken by the
international community,by the government of the United States to
nurture the peace process broadly throughout the region; to help
Israel the goal of peace with her Arab neighbors; and also make sure
there is support sufficient to make these agreements reached between
the parties long-lasting.
Q Mike, what is your view of Mr. Perot's announcement
last night -- its possible impact and his ongoing dissatisfaction
with political choices?
Mr. Mccurry: The same one the President expressed
earlier.
Q If this Middle East agreement to be signed Thursday
is so significant, why is it that all these events are pool only or
closed, instead of that massive South Lawn ceremony we had in
September of '93?
Mr. Mccurry: Because I believe it would be accurate to
say we are engaged in a peace process that now we hope will
accelerate. This is an important milestone on the path to a deeper
peace. But there will come a time, we hope, as we look back, where
these types of ceremonies marking important achievements between the
parties become almost routine. That would be a very hopeful thing
for this region.
Q What does that have to do with having it open or
closed?
Mr. Mccurry: Say again -- it is open. All of these
events are open to the press, as I described this morning.
Q What does the administration think about
legislation that's now apparently being discussed that would require
the Irs to use some commercial entities for debt --
Mr. Mccurry: I'm sorry, say again?
Q The legislation that's apparently now being
discussed that would require the Irs to use some commercial entities
for debt collection?
Mr. Mccurry: Yeah, we've got a -- I've got a copy of a
letter, and I haven't had a chance to look at it in depth. But there
is a letter the Treasury has made available that outlines the
Secretary's thinking on that. He, I think, at some length sets
forward some of the administration's concerns on why this
privatization would represent, to him, a troublesome direction. That
came out, I'm sorry, came out from the Commissioner of the Irs. We
can get you a copy of that.
Q Didn't the administration itself favor something
like that?
Mr. Mccurry: No, I think our views are set forth in
this letter we can make available to you.
Q You're having a meeting down here sometime this
week on Indians. Who's attending, and what's the problem? What's
the --
Mr. Mccurry: I'm aware that we had a meeting recently
on proposed cuts for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but I don't know
of any event this week. Maybe we can have someone check.
Q -- recently something this week.
Mr. Mccurry: We can have someone check for you, Sarah,
yeah.
Q Yeah, Mike, when you were talking about nurturing
the peace process broadly and providing more support in the Middle
East, were you talking about more money, basically, and how much?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, it's -- there are commitments that
now have been made by the international community, going back to the
International Donors Conference that occurred in October of 1993.
Part of what the work we're doing is to make good on those pledges.
That was a pledging conference. A lot of donors have been asking for
certain understandings before that money is properly committed.
That's true of international financial institutions, as well, who are
trying to assist with the development that's going on now in Gaza and
the West Bank.
And what we're attempting to do is to try to encourage
those in the donor community to come forward with the amounts that
they have pledged, and also to assess what additional amounts are
going to be necessary as they begin to build an economic
infrastructure in the territories.
Q Mike, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this
President has offered opinions on who the best basketball coach was
at the University of Arkansas in history; what the bigger meaning was
of Cal Ripken's streak; precisely how long children ought to play in
public school; who ought to be the mayor of New York. Now, there's a
third political party --
Mr. Mccurry: All significant developments.
Q Now there's a third political party being formed in
the United States, and are you actually telling us the President has
no thought about it at all, doesn't want to even talk about it?
Mr. Mccurry: The President talked about it earlier
today. (Laughter.)
Q But, Mike, he didn't. And you -- is there
something I'm missing? What's the secret?
Mr. Mccurry: It was right at the end of that -- see
that transcript? Go right to the very end there.
Qq Yeah, he doesn't want to talk about it, just like
you did.
Mr. Mccurry: No, he said -- what did he say there?
Q He says, I try to balance the budget. (Laughter.)
Mr. Mccurry: He said, look, I'm -- he said he's
working, balancing the budget. He's been a strong and ardent
advocate of political reform, and the significance -- you're asking
me to comment on the significance of a development that Mr. Perot
addressed himself to last night, and the President suggests and I
suggest that that's ultimately up to the American people. I mean, I
don't know how else you can do it.
I'm not -- you know, if someone wants to put me on as a
political pundit after I'm long gone from the White House, I'll
provide all kinds of analysis and ribald comments. But that's, you
know, that's your business, not our business, as the President
suggested yesterday. You're in the business of analysis, and
reporting the news and figuring out what things mean politically.
That's not what we're up to here.
Q Now, wait a minute --
Q Give us a break here --
Mr. Mccurry: Alright, that's it. New subject. Connie,
yes. You can always be relied upon for a new subject.
Q She's going to ask you about Perot --
Q Has Syria been --
Mr. Mccurry: I don't know what they think of Perot down
in New Zealand.
Q By the way, that ski field is pronounced --
Q What?
Mr. Mccurry: Thank you.
Q Listen, I'm serious. Has Syria been -- on peace
talks?
Mr. Mccurry: No. The importance of making progress on
that track is well-known. The Secretary of State has devoted
enormous work to that goal. Ambassador Ross has been in the region
working with the parties. And we have said repeatedly that the goal
of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace cannot be achieved until
we make progress on the Syrian-Israeli track.
But the government of Syria has also spoken publicly and
you know their views. They say much the same: that there needs to
be progress on their dialogue and by no means do the announcements
and celebrations that are to occur in Washington in any way inhibit
the importance -- or limit the importance of making progress on the
Syrian-Israeli track.
Q New subject, sir. Is the President, before his
term expires in the White House, planning to get Turkey and Greece,
like the Arabs and the Israelis, to sort out their differences in the
Aegean and in Cyprus? They are two Nato allies and yet, there at
each other's throat for so many years.
Mr. Mccurry: Those would be two laudable goals that we
have been pressing through very patient diplomacy and through the
work of a special presidential envoy. And that work will continue.
We consider an effort to bring a resolution to those conflicts to be
very important because they do involve the interests of two very
close and important Nato allies.
Q The President repeatedly says that he is for a
balanced budget. Is he necessarily whetted to a nine-year plan or
would he be willing to be flexible and go along with the seven years
if the Republicans in turn are willing to cut back dramatically on
Medicare --
Mr. Mccurry: Well, we've said often that when the
President looked at how best to achieve the goal of a balanced budget
-- which he strongly favors -- the important thing was to structure a
policy that would get us to that goal and represent both a sound
investment in the future of the American economy, a smart economic
policy and a policy that would achieve those goals in a way that
protected the American people.
We then -- so in a sense, defined the policy, then
worked on what the calendar would look like -- or what the timing
would look like. It worked out at the time the President initially
put together his proposal, a ten-year path. And then economic
forecast and assumptions were adjusted, it looked like you could
achieve that goal within nine years. The important thing is the
policy. Is it possible to match the President's priorities and the
thrust of the President's policy and do it on a seven-year track? It
might be. We think it would be hard to do that, but it might be
possible to do that.
The important thing, though, is to acknowledge the
priorities that the President has put forward. It's important to
balance the budget; it's important to provide tax relief to average
working families in this country; it's important to protect our
commitment to preserve America's environment and to make investments
in education that will allow this economy to grow in the 21st
century. If you can do that and fit it into a seven-year timetable,
there's no theoretical reason the President would oppose that. I
just don't believe that the Congress is working on that type of
approach right now, unfortunately.
Q Mike, there's a possibility that the train wreck
will take place around the time of the trip to Japan. Is that a 100
percent commitment of the President to make that state visit, or is
there a chance he would stay home?
Mr. Mccurry: I don't want to speculate on that.
Q Can you describe how you think the ceremony will
proceed on Thursday? I mean, will all these people make statements,
or --
Mr. Mccurry: We'll let you know, give you our best
understanding as we get into Thursday. I think it will proceed
pretty much as you would imagine. And I do believe that you will
hear from each of the five leaders that will be present. One last
one.
Q For the record, Mike, this is a state visit
scheduled for Japan. Is that not an iron-clad commitment to Japan,
regardless of what happens here?
Mr. Mccurry: Look, the President has an iron-clad
desire to go to Apec. The work of Apec is important, but we
obviously have to be cognizant of what's happening here on the home
front. And the approach of a debt ceiling limit and the damage that
would do to America's standing in the international economy, if, as
the Speaker suggests, we just let the United States government go
into default is a source of very real concern. That would present
the President with a fairly urgent crisis, and it might require him
to adjust his plans accordingly.
But obviously, we don't have any plans to do that now,
because the President is unwilling to assume that anyone in the
United States Congress would allow that damage to be done to the
United States government and its good faith and credit in the world.
Q How is he going to get the money for the trip,
Mike?
Mr. Mccurry: From you, the American taxpayers.
Q Last Thursday, on Larry King, there was a call-in
show. The President indicated that he would be willing to support an
across-the-board deficit reduction every year if the target is met,
which sounds very similar to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Why is the
President volunteering an endorsement of the old Gramm-Rudman?
Mr. Mccurry: I don't know, I'll have to ask him. I
recall that answer, and I had meant to ask the President about that.
He referenced, as you remember, his own experience in Arkansas and
the way they structured fiscal matters within the state budget. And
if I have an opportunity, I'll try to follow up with him on that.
Q Are you now saying that the Republicans'
unwillingness to move on the debt ceiling and budget may jeopardize
the President's visit to Japan?
Mr. Mccurry: No, I'm just --
Q It's a very sensitive time --
Mr. Mccurry: It's very sensitive timing, and that would
suggest timing -- I mean, we are unwilling to believe that anyone
would put the United States of America in that position. So we
intend to be optimists, as the President has said, that we won't face
that type of consequence. But everybody in this room knows what the
timing of these matters are, and you all know what the President's
schedule is, related to Apec.
What is this? Late-breaking news -- it's always
perilous when someone hands you a bulletin. Chairman Livingston has
just had a press conference up on the Hill. And he says that he
hopes Congress and the White House will reach a Cr resolution on the
continuing resolution as early as Tuesday afternoon. I wouldn't rule
that out, but I'd have to check and see.
We've had, as I said, staff negotiating. And I'll check
and see with Leon whether he has swung back in action. Thanks
everyone.
The Press: Thank you.
End 2:48 P.M. Est