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