The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release April 9, 1996
Press Briefing
By Mike Mccurry
The Briefing Room
1:30 P.M. Edt
Mr. Mccurry: A little bit of news. Earlier today,
President Clinton had a good, productive 40-minute phone conversation
with President Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Federation. President
Yeltsin began -- well, President Clinton began by thanking President
Yeltsin for a personal letter of condolences that President Yeltsin
sent on the occasion of Secretary Brown's death, along with the
others who accompanied Secretary Brown on his mission. And they
chatted briefly about Secretary Brown, who President Yeltsin had come
to know, and reminisced a little bit about him.
They also reviewed Secretary Christopher's meeting with
Foreign Minister Primakov in March, which really in many ways set
some of the stage for the upcoming meetings the President will have
in Moscow both for the Nuclear Safety Summit and for our bilateral
meeting with President Yeltsin. They agreed that the two foreign
ministers had done a good job addressing many of the issues that are
on the bilateral agenda, and identified those that now need attention
at the highest levels from the two Presidents.
They did talk about the Nuclear Safety Summit, reviewing
some of the items likely to come up on the agenda; also raised some
security issues of concern both to us and to the Russian Federation
-- specifically, flank limits for the Cfe Treaty and also the
question of demarkation related to the Abm Treaty and the
applicability of that treaty to certain theater missile defense
systems, a subject of great concern to the United States.
Good, useful conversation, continuing the pattern of
dialogue between the two Presidents as they work on bilateral issues
of concern.
Second, I'll give you just some notes on --
Q Did they get into Chechnya at all?
Mr. Mccurry: They did not, to my recollection --
Mr. Johnson: It was mentioned.
Mr. Mccurry: It was mentioned -- that's right --
mentioned very briefly in a reference to the comment that -- the
public comment that we had made on President Yeltsin's offer of a
peace initiative.
Q No talk about chickens?
Mr. Mccurry: That subject is now, following President
Yeltsin's meeting with President Clinton in Sharm el-Sheikh, was
referred properly to the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission where they're
working. And that's a source of great concern to us -- over 30
states in this union -- very heavily involved in exports of poultry
products; $600-million a year business involving some 20,000 U.S.
jobs. So, of course, is a source of concern to this President. But
that did not come up in this call since it's now an issue that's
being addressed in the context of the work that Vice President Gore
and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin do in their commission.
Q Was there any agreement on the two arms control
issues that you mentioned?
Mr. Mccurry: There was a discussion of the issue and
discussion of where negotiations are on those issues. And they
agreed that they would continue to look for solutions that are
appropriate for both sides. No resolution of the issues, however.
Q Did they talk about the political campaign and
Yeltsin's seeming comeback?
Mr. Mccurry: As they do sometimes in these calls -- it
was about a 40-minute conversation -- they spent a couple of minutes
just reviewing politics, mostly President Yeltsin offering some
observations on his own campaign for reelection.
Q Is there a reason they seem to always talk for 40
minutes?
Mr. Mccurry: It works out about -- it's coincidence,
but it does seem to work out that as they work through whatever
they've identified for that particular conversation as issues that
they need to address, and when you work in the translation time,
that's about the time it takes to cover those specific items they
identify for conversation. And the agenda varies from call to call.
They sort of highlight those issues that need the most urgent
attention of the two leaders.
Q Could you elaborate a little bit about what they
discussed on the political observations?
Mr. Mccurry: No, they just -- President Yeltsin offered
up some notes about his own campaign, most of which I think I've seen
reported here in American newspapers.
Yes. Anything else? Okay, let me move on.
The President also completed, as you know, a short while
ago a meeting with Greek Prime Minister Constantine Simitis; once
again, an opportunity for the President to underscore the importance
the United States attaches to very close and warm bilateral relations
with one of our closest allies, not only a Nato Treaty ally, but a
nation with which we share enormous coincidence of security, economic
and political interests, as we work on matters pertaining to the
future of Europe, the future of the Balkans, indeed, so many of the
issues that are key to America's position in the world as we look
ahead to the 21st century.
They reviewed that bilateral relationship, talked a bit,
as you know, based on their comments at the photo opportunity, about
the dispute between Greece and Turkey involving the Imia-Kardak
islet. The President, just to reiterate, told Prime Minister Simitis
that the United States was deeply concerned about the situation in
the Aegean generally, and that we wanted to be helpful in finding a
solution. The President said that the United States favors -- as he
indicated to some of you publicly -- favors having the ownership
question of the islet referred to the International Court of Justice
or other arbitration forums that would be appropriate.
He also made it clear that the United States believes
that disputes between Greece and Turkey should be settled without
force or threat of force, and that both sides should abide by
relevant international agreements that respect the territorial
integrity of either side.
That said, the Prime Minister then made a presentation,
which President Clinton found enormously encouraging, and I believe
that the Prime Minister is discussing that publicly now.
Q Did the U.S. side offer any mediation to the other
side?
Mr. Mccurry: We offered, as we have in the past, to be
helpful if there's a way in which we could be helpful with either
side.
Q Are you optimistic now after that meeting that
there is going to be a movement towards the Greek and Turkey
relations?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, we hope that both sides will find in
the presentations they have made publicly a way in which they can
advance their dialogue. Again, we would be ready to be helpful if
that is indicated. But fundamentally, both sides need to address
their issues of concern through an appropriate forum to seek
resolution of the boundary and territorial disputes that do exist
between them.
Q Did they get into Cyprus? And
what's the status of that now?
Mr. Mccurry: They discussed the question of Cyprus.
The President indicated that the Acting Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs John Cornblume would be available in coming
months to visit the region, to discuss with parties ways in which we
might attempt to generate some new momentum in those discussions.
And we do hope that that mission, if it occurs later this summer,
could lead to a renewed dialogue on issues related to Cyprus.
They also discussed Greece's relations with its
neighbors and others in the Balkans. The President -- President
Clinton has been encouraged by the improvement in relations between
Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, for example.
There have been discussions of other bilateral relations that Greece
has in the Balkans, and, of course, they discussed the peacekeeping
effort in Bosnia itself.
Q Has President Clinton approved or been informed of
the evacuations from Liberia?
Mr. Mccurry: The President has been very closely
monitoring the situation involving American citizens currently at the
embassy compound in Liberia. It's a source of enormous concern to us
that their safety is in question. But, of course, it's of enormous
concern to the United States that the safety of the citizens of
Liberia is now at risk because of the outbreak of fighting between
military factions in that country.
We have put in place some assessment teams from the
Department of Defense that are in a position to take action if
necessary. The United States will act to protect American citizens,
American dependents and others in the embassy and in light of our
concern about their security situation, I'm not going to get into any
more elaborate detail on what steps we might likely take.
Q On the Simitis visit, did President Clinton convey
a message from Turkish President Demirel to Mr. Simitis on the fact
that the two prime ministers should come together?
Mr. Mccurry: Certainly President Clinton reviewed his
recent meeting with President Demirel, suggested that there should be
ways that two close allies of the United States could arrive at
mutually satisfactory means to address the disagreements that do
exist. He didn't share any previously secret aspects of that
conversation, but did provide the Prime Minister some nuance about
his conversations that we hope will be helpful in helping both sides
to arrive at mutually satisfactory procedures for addressing their
disputes.
Q Mike, I've got a couple of questions on line item
veto. Number, were Dole and Gingrich invited for the signing, and,
number two, can you give us some specific examples of spending or tax
items that the President would have deleted had he had that
authority?
Mr. Mccurry: On the first question, yes, both the
Speaker and the Majority Leader were invited. Of course, we're in
the midst of a congressional recess now and, not a surprise to us,
they had other schedules or were in other places. But they would
have been warmly received here at the White House for the signing
ceremony. The date of the signing was solely contingent on when we
actually received the legislation as passed from Congress, and there
wasn't a way, by the time we received it, to hold the signing
ceremony at a time in which Congress was actually in session and
either the Speaker or the Majority Leader would likely be here in
town.
On your second question, let me just give you several
examples. As we said on October 27 last year in a signing statement
on H.R. 1976 there were $58 million included in that overall
appropriations measure which designated funding for university
research facilities, in a sense, were earmarked provisions that put
money into research facilities at universities. The President much
preferred that that type of funding be distributed for economic
developments efforts in rural areas. This was a targeted provision
that really sort of designated specific recipients of research
funding.
The President felt that it would be much more useful to
have that money generally available for economic efforts in rural
areas. That was a very good example of a case in which the line item
veto could have been used successfully to not only either strike that
funding, put it into deficit reduction or find a way with Congress to
reorient the funding efforts that would lift the economic fortunes of
all rural areas. Then again --
Q What appropriations bill was that?
Mr. Mccurry: It's -- H.R. 1976 was the Agricultural
Rural Development Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 1996. We also had on the Defense Department
Appropriations Bill last year a lot of provisions in that
specifically that we could have used for reorientation of funding.
You all know that Congress wanted to designate millions of dollars
into research projects that our Defense Department has not deemed at
this point high priority in terms of scarce resources they have
available.
And as the President indicated at the time, he
identified specific measures that he later proposed for rescissions
as they related to the Defense Department funding bill. Star Wars
could be an example. This Congress now is intent on spending large
sums of money for an effort that our own Defense Department, our own
intelligence analysts don't -- can't say with certainty will actually
exist. So we prefer to put that money into more highly targeted
types of missile defense research and development that effect a more
proximate threat which are theatre missile defenses.
Then, again, in October of last year, another good
example on the Military Construction Appropriations Act measure,
there were $70 million in that measure for projects, again, that the
Defense Department had said were unnecessary. And the President
indicated very specifically at the time that had the line item veto
been available to him at that point, he would have stricken those
projects because that funding was not necessary.
Those are just a couple of examples, random examples
that we've picked. There are others, but, for example, there was a
-- on the energy and water appropriations bill last year about $4
billion of water resources programs or water projects essentially
that the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation deemed
unnecessary and that there were areas in which we think we could have
reoriented some of those projects so they would have been used more
effectively.
Q Mike, just to follow up, each of your answers, you
mentioned that the President would rather have reoriented the money
to something else. I thought the whole idea behind the line item
veto was to save money, to reduce the deficit. But your indication
is that you would have spent as much as Congress did except different
priorities.
Mr. Mccurry: Well, there are some cases, for example,
on the Star Wars funding, where it would lead to deficit reduction.
The President would just cut the spending as being unnecessary. The
money itself, because of the lock-box provision in the line item
veto, would go generally into deficit reduction. The President
accepts that as a feature of the program itself. But as he suggested
earlier to you, one of the things that having this tool available --
will increase his leverage as he bargains with Congress so that we
can get appropriations measures that are to the satisfaction of the
President. That's an important aspect of the bill.
In fact, the President, as he said, over time imagines
that the use of the line item veto will be fairly scarce because
Congress knows that it must adjudicate with the Executive Branch
differences that it has on these types of appropriations measures.
Q Mike, has the President spoken to Dan Rostenkowski
in recent days? And what does he think about the prospect of this
prominent Democrat going to jail?
Mr. Mccurry: I don't know whether he has talked to the
former Chairman; I'd have to check. And I haven't heard him state an
opinion on the subject.
Q To return to Russia for a second -- the preliminary
schedule that's out shows that except for the nuclear summit, the
President is only meeting with Boris Yeltsin and not doing any of the
meetings with intellectuals or other party leaders. Why is that?
Mr. Mccurry: I think we're having -- aren't we having a
reception at Spaso House?
Mr. Johnson: It could be that the schedule at this
point is not complete.
Mr. Mccurry: Yes, we may have some -- there are some
things that we have tentatively planned. What the President has done
in the past, what Secretary Christopher and others have done when
they go to Moscow is, from time to time, have receptions that reflect
the political diversity of the political culture in Russia. And I
had heard that some such session like that was in the planning, and
it just may not be finalized at this point.
Q Does that include the meeting with Zyuganov?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, we include a mix of people
representing the cultural, religious, political diversity within the
Russian Federation.
Q Will there be a visit with the opposition?
Mr. Mccurry: Yes, they're including members of the --
there have been routinely members of the opposition.
Q Do you yet have a date to veto the partial birth
abortion ban, and are you concerned about reports Republicans plan to
now make this a campaign issue?
Mr. Mccurry: We don't have a date, and the Republican
Party has a very strongly pro-life position reflected in their party
platform. They have been -- they want to criminalize abortion for
women who make that choice and for their doctors. Their position on
that is well-known, and I expect they will raise that during the
campaign.
Q When did you actually get it, though?
Mr. Mccurry: We got it on Friday. Friday, late Friday
afternoon.
Rita.
Q Mike, just back on Monrovia. Is there anything the
U.S. can do to try to cool down the situation there, to try to get
some kind of a peace discussion going?
Mr. Mccurry: The reason why this outbreak of fighting
is so perplexing and so unfortunate is the United States had invested
a significant quantity of effort in the Abucha peace process, which
brought the parties together, structured the council on which both
General -- Mr. Taylor and General Johnson serve prior to the
resumption of fighting over the weekend. That was the structure by
which we hoped that the factions within Liberia would address their
differences peacefully and provide some type of coherent civil
structure for self-government.
So the fact that that has, in a sense, broken down now
over this past weekend is of enormous concern to us, and we will do
as we did in the past, attempt to piece it back together at a point
in which we can have some reasonable assurance of security and be
assured that the parties themselves are stopping their fighting.
At the moment, there seems to be some -- the fighting
itself has subsided somewhat, but we'll have to monitor the situation
and clearly we'll have to deal with any dangers that exist for
American personnel and American dependents and citizens there in
Monrovia now.
Q How is the President keeping abreast of what's
going on there?
Mr. Mccurry: He's been briefed regularly throughout the
morning by National Security Advisor Tony Lake and by Deputy Press
Secretary David Johnson.
Q On the line item veto, had a more elaborate
ceremony been planned, and was it scaled down because of the plane
crash?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, we would have done something,
depending on timing, we might have been able to do something a little
more elaborate. It was scaled down somewhat, but we're delighted to
have those members of Congress who were there, representatives of
other groups who were in attendance, and of course, Governor Romer
representing those governors who strongly support the line item veto
and use a variance of that in their own dealings with their own
legislatures.
Q Mike, a great concern has been expressed on the
part of Mexican authorities and the Mexican media regarding those two
notable incidents in California, and there's great complaint about
the treatment of illegal immigrants. Is there contact between the
White House and the Mexican government, and what is the position of
the U.S. government?
Mr. Johnson: Those contacts are through the State
Department.
Mr. Mccurry: Yes, there are ongoing contacts,
diplomatic contacts, between the United States State Department and
the government of Mexico. We devote substantial quantity of time in
our bilateral relationship to issues related to immigration, lawful
and safe immigration. And we have always enjoyed the cooperation of
the government of Mexico in addressing those issues in the times we
meet together both in the format of the binational commission in
which this is always a topic annually, and in the ongoing dialogue we
have with them. We certainly will address their concerns in that
context, but we have our concerns, too, related to doing everything
necessary to stem the flow of illegal immigration across the border,
which endangers the lives of those Mexican citizens who attempt to
cross illegally.
Q On the economic security conference that had been
scheduled for tomorrow, is that definitely going to be rescheduled,
or might it be scrapped?
Mr. Mccurry: It is being postponed. We don't have a
date set for holding it, but it's the President's intent to proceed
at some future date with the conference.
Q Can we go back to the Simitis meeting for a second?
Did the broader concept of Turkish-Greek relations come up in the
meeting; specifically, did the President talk about Turkey's
integration into Europe?
Mr. Mccurry: Why don't you hit that?
Mr. Johnson has got a little more detailed readout on
the meeting.
Mr. Johnson: There was a detailed discussion of the
ideas that Greece was putting forward in its relationship with
Turkey. I think Mike's gone over the high points of those from our
point of view, but included among that from the Greek government's
point of view would be some action with respect to Turkey's
integration and acceptance into the custom's union -- with the
European Union. I'll leave it to the government of Greece to
describe exactly what sequencing that they envisage there.
Mr. Mccurry: Take any more on Greece?
Q Did the issue about the security in Athens Airport
come up, and is the U.S. considering to remove the warning about
that?
Mr. Johnson: The issue of the Athens Airport did not
come up. I believe the Department of Transportation has put out
several notices on that as to what exactly is required before, by
law, the notification can be removed. And we're working with the
government of Greece and with authorities at the Athens airport in
order to move forward on that.
But while we are on this topic, I would make the point
that terrorism did come up. There was a brief discussion of
terrorism and our desire for further cooperation on terrorism and for
some prosecutions to move forward.
Q About the November 17th terrorist organization or
the Turkish --
Mr. Johnson: The discussion was general in nature. It
did not talk about specific groups. It did, however, refer very
specifically to the incident directed against our embassy in Athens.
Q Mike, there is a report that Iran is offering the
Bosnian government $100 million. What does the United States
government think about that kind of a financial relationship in light
of the peace process?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, we have been specifically concerned
about their security, or attempted security, relationship with the
Bosnian government. And as you recall, at the time we assist in the
negotiation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, we specifically required
the removal of foreign elements, foreign militia, from Bosnia as a
precondition for taking some of the steps that are outlined in the
Dayton Accords themselves.
The government of Iran is not interested in the
beneficial improvement of the lives of the people of Bosnia. They
are interested in establishing a presence in Europe from which they
could continue to support and foment terrorism in Europe, on the
continent. And the United States has made that position quite clear
to the government in Bosnia-Herzegovina and has enjoyed cooperation
from the Bosnian government as we attempt to limit the influence of
foreign militia and foreign security apparatus -- apparati -- within
Bosnia.
Q Mike, can you say anything more about the
President's remarks on the retirement income benefits for Thursday,
and whether that's in any way related to what he would have done
tomorrow in the corporate responsibility conference?
Mr. Mccurry: The President has, throughout the last
three-and-a-half years, spent a lot of time working on the issue of
economic security as it pertains to retirees. You'll recall, we've
made some improvements in retirement income security, the protection
of pensions, and/in* legislation passed last year.
The President is interested now in seeking ways that we
can expand the affordability and availability of pension coverage for
private sector employees. In the private sector, if you work at a
medium-sized, large-sized company about three-quarters of all
employees in the United States are covered by some type of qualified
plan, some type of pension beneficiary plan. But if you look at the
fastest growing, most dynamic part of our economy, which is small
business, then pension coverage is not nearly as widespread.
That's a problem that the President -- needs to be
addressed. He'll have some ideas on that and on securing pension
benefits for today's and tomorrow's retirees when he addresses the
subject Thursday.
Q When he addresses the subject of trade on Friday,
will there be any new initiatives about the auto imports from Japan?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, there's not any new initiative
required. This will be an opportunity to review the success of those
trade agreements we have put in place and the ones that are working
on behalf of the United States and its economic interests, protecting
those that are involved in exports, those whose livelihoods depend on
commerce overseas.
Q What, if anything, can you tell us about the eulogy
the President is scheduled to deliver tomorrow?
Mr. Mccurry: It will be appropriate and poignant, and
tomorrow afternoon.
Q Does he have any particular points or message that
he wants to make with it?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, he's working on it. As he has in
addressing the loss of his friend in recent days, it will be personal
and I'll leave it to the President to address it.
Q A little bit more on the Friday trade. Is this
meant to be kind of a scene-setter for the trip next week? And is he
going to start talking about Mfn, which is coming up in a month or
two?
Mr. Mccurry: We're not going to China, last time I
checked; but he'll be talking about --
Q I know, but we're going to Asia.
Mr. Mccurry: He'll be talking about our trade relations
in the region, and talking about the success of the trade agreements
that we have put in place specifically with the government of Japan.
Q I'm sorry, Mike, what's the venue for that speech?
Mr. Mccurry: It's an event on Friday morning in the
East Room.
Q Do you know the time?
Mr. Mccurry: No, we'll do the schedule for you later.
Q Mike, a couple of questions. One is, doesn't it
make it kind of difficult now that you've allowed Iran to get its toe
in the door on giving arms to Bosnia?
Mr. Mccurry: What do you mean we've allowed Iran to
have a toe in the door? I don't understand what you mean by that.
Q As far as giving arms to Bosnia.
Mr. Mccurry: Giving arms to Bosnia?
Q Yes.
Mr. Mccurry: As you know, the United States did not
give arms to Bosnia.
Q No, but they blinked their eyes -- I think that's
been acknowledged that that happened.
Mr. Mccurry: That is not correct. What happened is
that when the question arose in a high level meeting between U.S.
diplomats and officials of the government of Croatia, our
representative had no instructions on how to respond to that issue.
Q That having happened, doesn't it make it more
difficult now to say, don't take the money?
Mr. Mccurry: No, because that's exactly what we did.
We told them in the Dayton Accords that they could no longer accept
assistance -- this was related to military assistance -- but our
concerns would be obvious in the case of economic assistance -- and
the presence that such economic assistance would bring with it,
because that could in very and many cases be another way in which
Iran would support the kind of activity that it supports elsewhere in
the world, which is contrary to our interests and we believe contrary
to the interests of the international community.
We did successfully suggest to the government of
Bosnia-Herzegovina that they needed to de-limit their contacts with
the government of Iran and that's what has happened.
Q This is a follow-up -- not quite a follow-up, but
in the same area. This is regarding the question of safety and the
plane crash. Has the White House asked the Pentagon to review the
safety concerns that were raised by Colonel Albright and to review
the entire policy of whether to fly and when to fly; and is there,
sort of, pressure, as they say, "get there-itis" among these pilots?
Mr. Mccurry: Well, we don't know what safety concerns
were raised by Colonel Albright. There have been conflicting
accounts about what they were. But we have been assured by the
Pentagon, without finding it necessary to ask, that all aspects of
travel as they relate to official parties transported by the
Department of Defense will be reviewed if warranted, as a result of
the accident board that's been empaneled here. If this accident
board determines there are further steps that are necessary, the
Pentagon immediately assured the White House that they would take
appropriate steps.
Secretary Perry has already indicated that they're very
interested in getting the most sophisticated and advanced technology
related to guidance and navigation aboard some of these aircraft. We
would expect nothing less of the Pentagon and, of course, they acted
immediately to do exactly that.
Q Can I follow on that? Are there any
recommendations from within the Pentagon to scuttle the entire
Bosnian mission?
Mr. Mccurry: Say again?
Q Are there recommendations from anyone within the
Pentagon to scuttle the Bosnian mission as a result of this tragedy?
Mr. Mccurry: No, and they were very active and
important participants in developing the mission, defining the
mission, and in an unprecedented way were actively involved in
negotiating the mission, because they participated in the
deliberations that led to the Dayton Peace Agreements, which included
very elaborate and specific military annexes that covered many of the
points of concern raised by the Joint Chiefs and by the civilian
leadership of the Department.
Q But as a result of this accident, in the wake of
this accident?
Mr. Mccurry: No. If anything, I think the Defense
Department and the Pentagon remains committed to bringing about --
having done so much to create the safe and secure conditions that
will give peace a chance to prosper, they understand the importance
of those efforts that are underway on the civilian side to nurture
that peace, which is precisely what Secretary Brown was doing as he
made his mission to Bosnia.
Q Mike, on next week's summit in Japan, you have said
in the past that in addition to important security issues the
President was going to bring up a number of trade areas, for example
semiconductors, insurance, and air links. Given that there has been
quite a bit of progress in recent weeks on each of those areas, and
also given the increased tension on the Korean Peninsula, do you see
security talks sort of pushing out trade? Or does the President
still plan to bring those issues --
Mr. Mccurry: Well, I dispute the premise of the
question a little bit. We have always indicated, and I believe I
have indicated here before, that because we have successfully put in
place many measures that are now effectively managing our trade
relations with the government of Japan, that this is likely going to
be a bilateral meeting that focuses more on security issues.
In fact, if anything, I think that one of the outcomes
the United States is looking for is for a strong reaffirmation of the
importance of the U.S.-Japanese security alliance and a great deal of
preparation had gone into making that in a sense the centerpiece of
this coming meeting. Trade issues are always on the agenda, as are
our common political and world concerns that are covered under the
U.S.-Japan common agenda framework, which has been such a useful way
in which we cooperate with the government of Japan in addressing
global issues.
But I strongly suspect that this will be a series of
meetings much more devoted to security-related issues and less so to
trade issue, not to take away the importance of trade issues, but we
have in place a series of agreements now that are working, that are
returning benefits to the people of Japan but, importantly, benefits
to the people of the United States. And the President certainly is
going to address that subject exactly on Friday.
Q To follow up on Leo's earlier question, do you have
an example of an individual tax item that the President would have
vetoed --
Mr. Mccurry: We've got some material here. In the
interests of time, you can check with us here with that later.
Anything else?
Q Mike, has the President personally been kept
abreast of the situation in the Korean Dmz? And has your evaluation
of any security threat that might exist there because of the North
Korean forays, changed over the last day or so, since you spoke to it
yesterday?
Mr. Mccurry: I'm not aware of anything that has changed
in our analysis of the situation since yesterday. And the President
does get regular updates as necessary from the National Security
Advisor related to what we see as the unnecessary provocations that
have occurred in recent days along the Dmz.
Q Did the President make any arrangements, or was it
necessary to make any arrangements, for staffers who want to attend
Secretary Brown's funeral to do so?
Mr. Mccurry: We are making arrangements. Those who --
there are many here who would like to go, and we're going to help
cover for each other as those who want to go go.
Q Here and elsewhere throughout the government?
Mr. Mccurry: Here and elsewhere in the government,
particularly at the Commerce Department. In fact, it's been -- one
thing very nice has happened. A lot of agencies have volunteered
when they can to make people available if they wish to go to Commerce
tomorrow for those from Commerce who would like to participate in
some of the memorial services. So people are trying to help each
other out at a moment in which everybody needs a little help.
Q Is that the only public event on the schedule
tomorrow?
Mr. Mccurry: That's all that I'm aware of on his
schedule tomorrow. There was one other thing. I guess that's it.
Thank you.
The Press: Thank you.
End 2:04 P.M. Edt
#205-04/09