US White House Press Briefing -- Demirel Visit -- 96-03-28
From: News Distribution Manager <email@example.com>
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release March 28, 1996
PRESS BRIEFING BY
The Briefing Room
1:30 P.M. EST
MR. MCCURRY: Thank you, Secretary Cisneros, and
Assistant Attorney General Dellinger. Other questions, other
Q Anything new on the budget?
MR. MCCURRY: We still don't have one for a large part
of the government. As I indicated earlier today to some of you, the
Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta, met with Speaker Gingrich and Majority
Leader Dole and Majority Leader Armey late last night, presented the
administration's view of reasonable effort to solve some of the
differences that remain in our approach on remaining issues
associated with Fiscal Year 1996 appropriations. And we expect
sometime today to hear back from them with a response to the
presentation that the Chief of Staff made. That hasn't happened yet,
to my knowledge.
Q Do you have a comment on line-item? And also,
there is some talk that the Senate may do debt; House is doing it
now. Is it your understanding that that they may go through today?
MR. MCCURRY: It's our understanding that sometime
before the recess both houses wanted to deal with the debt ceiling
issue and extend it, and we had certainly, very strenuously, called
upon Congress to do so. And the President is prepared to act on that
when it is -- the minute the legislation is available.
On the other issue, we're getting kind of conflicting
signals on appropriations measures. We've had good discussions with
the leadership, but we've got committees and subcommittees on the
Hill now that are taking actions that seem at variance with some of
the discussions we've had with the leadership. So it is a little
difficult to figure out what the Republican Congress is up to.
Q There is some discussion on the Hill apparently of
attaching the line-item veto to something so it arrives here tomorrow
as opposed to after the recess. Do you have any idea?
MR. MCCURRY: Yes, and coming back on line-item, they
are looking -- I mean, there is procedural things going on on the
Hill that will send it down here either as a stand-alone measure or
incorporated into some other piece of legislation. And I'm not aware
that there are any plans to attach it to something that is
problematic or that the President has concerns about. We, of course,
don't think they should do that, and they shouldn't make it
impossible for the President to sign a measure that he clearly wants
to sign because he wants to put the line-item veto to good use
cutting wasteful and unnecessary spending.
Q Do you care whether it arrives tomorrow or after
MR. MCCURRY: The effective date in the line-item veto
that is under consideration now in Congress is 1997, so it really
wouldn't matter whether they sent it before or after the recess.
Q So will the President make a big deal out of
signing it? I mean, do you envision it in the --
MR. MCCURRY: Absolutely. The President strongly
supports this, urged passage of a line-item veto, and will be happy
to take some of the credit for it.
Q But I mean, are you talking about the Rose Garden
-- a Rose Garden ceremony, that type of thing?
MR. MCCURRY: In this weather? I don't think so.
Q We're talking about --
MR. MCCURRY: Whenever we get it, the President will
want to sign it and acknowledge the role the Republican leaders
played in bringing it to the President, acknowledge the role that
Democratic members of Congress played in bringing to the President
what the President believes will be a very effective tool in cutting
and curbing unnecessary federal spending.
Q Any specific legislation that he has right now to
veto, put the line-item veto on? What would he like to snip out
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we've from time to time cited --
most recently, a good example was during the whole debate on
rescissions -- very specific things the President would have been
able to excise from pending spending measures. We also have got in
the whole discussion of the FY '96 appropriations process, we've got
areas where we would add back certain provisions, where we would
delete some funding or veto aspects of certain legislation, which the
President's priorities have not been sufficiently addressed.
But there will be a lot of different ways that the
President we elect in November will use this tool to the satisfaction
of the White House and we believe of the Congress as well. I think
more important is the availability of this tool -- will certainly
make it much more necessary for the legislative branch to work
cooperatively with the executive branch in fashioning appropriations
and spending measures. That's one of the positive effects of the
legislation in the first place, that it certainly makes the kinds of
budget deliberations you've seen take place here and seen take place
on the Hill much more reflective of the balance of powers in the
Q Do you have anything more specific on the -- you
said the examples of rescissions or things --
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we'll go back -- we can go back and
dig out -- we've from time to time cited specific things here as
examples of where the President would have been happy to have the
line-item veto because he would use it. And I don't have my head
filled with them right now, but there are plenty of examples.
Q If that's the case, Mike, why didn't the President
propose rescissions out of '96 funding other than out of the Pentagon
before the add-backs?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, the -- you're talking about a very
narrow question here, which is how do you pay for the add-backs that
we want to see in the FY '96 appropriations process. We identified a
series of offsets, and they are not all in the defense area. In
fact, the most important one is in the banking regulation area. So
Q That's not a rescission.
MR. MCCURRY: Well, no -- you're asking for the offsets
for the --
Q Right. I'm just saying if the President is in
Fiscal '96 funding, appropriations, the President would have liked to
have rescinded, found waste, why didn't he propose that as offsets
for the add-backs he wants?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we did propose offsets for the
add-backs that we already have under consideration now, and those are
areas where we would have addressed budget priorities differently.
Some cases, not just lopping off the funding, it's -- the issue is
how the President would array federal spending to match what the
President believes are the country's priorities.
Q Do you have any response to Dole and Gingrich today
talking about the legislative agenda, criticizing the President?
MR. MCCURRY: I didn't hear them talk about a
legislative agenda. I thought we were going to get that today, but I
think they had a little pep rally on the Hill. It sounded like their
legislative agenda was mostly unfinished business, and the President
would like to get on with that business and finish it.
Q They had a lot to say about the President vetoing
everything that was good and --
MR. MCCURRY: The President's been bending over
backwards to try to accommodate some of their concerns so we can get
work done. I think they've been having a little trouble getting
together on how they want to proceed, quite frankly.
Q Something they did act on, of course, was
partial-birth abortions. How are you going to handle that?
MR. MCCURRY: We will handle that consistent with the
President's letter, and they are well aware of what the President
argued in his letter.
Q So you all stick with the language, the Boxer
language on the --
MR. MCCURRY: This is another example of where the
President, at great length, gave them the precise language necessary
to protect the life and health of a mother, and how we could do so
consistent with the Constitution. And we, at great length, engaged
in discussion with them about how we could tailor language that would
make this a measure that the President could support, because the
President doesn't believe in this procedure as an elective procedure,
as our letter stated. But there was no seeming interest in trying to
deal with a real measure; they simply wanted to send something to the
President the President would have to veto.
Q Mike, your letter stated the language that the
Senate had already vetoed. Was there anything after the Boxer
MR. MCCURRY: That's not correct. The language the
President put in his letter was substantially different from the
Senate-passed language and substantially different from the prior
veto, and it was an effort to in fact bridge some of the differences.
It was a good-faith effort to provide constitutionally acceptable
language. But the effort by the President was spurned by the
Q Two questions. First of all, when he does get that
bill, do you plan to veto it with a piece of paper or have some kind
MR. MCCURRY: He will veto it in some fashion and we'll
let you know. We have not received it and it's not quite clear that
we'll get it any time soon.
Q Just to follow up about the pep rally the
Republicans had today. It was like a campaign event, and there was a
lot of talk about the President there. Does he feel the need to
answer some of those charges?
MR. MCCURRY: No. The President answers their
unfinished business by continuing to work to fashion responses to
those measures on their agenda that they've failed to address. This
Congress is approaching the abysmal when it comes to establishing any
record of competency in dealing with this nation's business. They've
failed to write budget measures for important parts of the federal
government, they've put a lot of ideas out there and haven't produced
much final passed legislation.
In fact, the only things moving toward final passage are
things that the President has had to kind of coax out of them and
urge them to produce, with the exception of those measures that we
clearly have got objections to, and that we object to.
Q I mean, more generally, now that the presidential
campaign against him is being waged not very many blocks away, does
he feel the need to respond?
MR. MCCURRY: The President hasn't felt the need to do
much other than continue to work on the nation's business. The
President believes that much later this year in the fall there will
be plenty of time for campaigning.
Q When you said that they simply wanted to pass
something the President would veto, did you mean to suggest that they
were not voting their consciences?
MR. MCCURRY: No, I think -- I'm not going to speak for
535 members of Congress, but there did not appear to be a willingness
on the part of those responsible for shepherding the legislation
through Congress to engage with the White House in a discussion of
language that would be acceptable to all sides in this debate so that
we could get a measure that would enjoy the support of the Executive
and Legislative Branch.
Q In that same vein, can you lay out how you see the
White House legislative agenda? What are the priorities?
MR. MCCURRY: The President's legislative agenda is
quite clear, and you've seen them talk about it over and over again.
We need to get, first and foremost, agreement on a balanced budget.
This President is fighting hard to get an agreement with this
Congress on something that will balance the budget by a date certain.
The President believes that's in the interest of the American people
and in the interest of the American economy.
He just happens to have a somewhat different way of
doing it than the Republican Congress, because we believe it's
important to protect Medicare and Medicaid, to take care of the
commitments that we've made to the nation's elderly. We think it's
very important to continue to make those priority areas in
environment stick, and we will continue to fight for adequate funding
to protect this nation's environment at a time the Republicans want
to cut that back, and we will continue to press for investments in
education and technology that will make this economy grow.
It's a fundamental premise of this President that we've
got to make the investments in the work force of the 21st century if
we want to see their incomes rise and if we want to see a strong and
growing economy. And he'll continue to press for that, and he'll
continue to resist efforts by this Republican Congress to shift the
burden to the lowest-income working people by raising their taxes; in
effect, by taking steps that they have advocated that has that
One thing we are going to press for very hard is to
encourage Speaker Gingrich and Senator Dole to live up to the promise
they made in 1989 when they raised the minimum wage. They both
supported a minimum wage increase in 1989 and the value of that
increase has now been lost because of the effects of the economy in
the time since, so they need to restore that same value to it and go
back and honor the pledge that both of them repeatedly made to the
working poor and working people in this country to raise the minimum
wage. So we've got a long list of things that we'd like to see get
done, and the sooner that we stop giving speeches and the sooner we
write legislation, the better off we'll be -- me included.
Q Why is the Turkish event closed tomorrow to the
MR. MCCURRY: We'll have to ask the NSC staff. We
occasionally receive foreign leaders here and have a variety of ways
of doing so. My understanding was there was going to be a photo
session with them tomorrow.
Q A photo, but no reporters?
MR. MCCURRY: I think it's currently listed as an
opportunity for still photos.
Q Is he willing to sign another short-term continuing
resolution when some in the Senate don't want it -- some Senate
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to predict. We gave them
yet another effort to bridge the difference. We set out some very
specific ideas last night on funding levels and on ways of resolving
some of the legislative language issues in which there is a dispute,
and we're waiting to hear back from them and I don't want to predict
what happens if they remain hard and fast on the position thereon.
Q That's a change from what you said yesterday, or
the day before yesterday you said there was no question he would sign
a short-term if that's the only way to keep the government going.
MR. MCCURRY: We want to keep the government open. But
I'm not going to predict where we will be this time tomorrow night,
because we've got a long ways to go.
Q Are you backing off from that now? Is this a new
weapon you're using?
MR. MCCURRY: No, I'm just saying I'm not going to
predict what's going to happen between tonight and tomorrow, when we
hope the Congress will finish work on these necessary measures. We
remain hopeful that they're going to recognize that they can't go
through another endless cycle of continuing resolution after
continuing resolution. They've had, I think this will be the 12th
time that they've passed a continuing resolution, and that's just no
way to run a government, and we don't want them to do that again;
we'd like to see a full appropriations that will carry us out through
the balance of '96.
Q Is there any question that the President will sign
MR. MCCURRY: Sure, absolutely. There is a question
because -- I mean, there are questions because we don't know what's
going to come from the Hill. We can't get a good read on what
they're up to up there. They've got committees and subcommittees,
they're all over the map; many of them acting contrary to what we
hear. You talk to one leader and then you've got a committee doing
something differently. I mean, they don't seem to have any command
and control right now.
Q Mike, President Bush just returned from a visit to
the Middle East where he had meetings with President Assad and
others. Was the Bush trip coordinated in any way with the White
MR. MCCURRY: My understanding is that the former
President had discussions with senior officials in our government
prior to his departure. I don't believe he's been in a position yet
to provide any analysis or summary or thoughts based on his own trip
that I'm aware of.
Q Do you expect that he will?
MR. MCCURRY: As you know, he has good, close relations
with many in our administration, at least one in our administration
that is very vital to the Middle East peace process who worked for
President Bush, and we do have from time to time good opportunities
to have contact with him and to share thoughts with him.
Q Mike, can you outline what investigations may have
been set in motion as a result of the information that came out about
the Clinton-Yeltsin conversation?
MR. MCCURRY: Cannot, no. You'll have to ask the
Justice Department. We properly and in a very precise way referred
this matter to the Justice Department, the way we have in the past
and the way previous White Houses have, and it's up to them to tell
you how they handle the information.
Q Who at the Justice Department has it been referred
MR. MCCURRY: It has been referred through the proper
channel that we use which is the legal advisor to the National
Security Council to the proper official at Justice.
Q Could you tell us why people should not include the
President and Yeltsin are talking about a relationship in which they
would try to help each other politically, domestically?
MR. MCCURRY: Yes, because they didn't have that
conversation. I was there.
Q And so that the information that came out about
that was, what, misleading, inaccurate, out of context? What was the
problem with it?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, there was a report on a classified
cable that represented a summary of the meeting. And as I told a lot
of you yesterday up in New York, that was a conversation about how,
in a time in which there was a presidential election underway in
Russia and a presidential election underway here in the United
States, it is important to effectively manage issues that arise in
our bilateral relationship so they don't do damage to the bilateral
relationship, so they don't have a negative impact.
This is -- as much as I discussed with all of you when
we were in Egypt, and I indicated to you at that time, I believe,
much of the same substance area of this document that was reported
yesterday, but our concern is -- actually, in addition to the story
that we're talking about now, there was another story in there, too,
that represented the leak of classified information that was sent to
a negotiating team in Geneva. And it's just -- these are highly
sensitive documents that we can't allow to have in public domain if
they're properly classified.
Q What's the propriety of putting poultry in that
rarified category of items that need to be discussed?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, that was among the issues that could
easily become something that, in the context of domestic politics,
either there or here, could get blown out of proportion and cause
damage to the relationship. This is a half-billion-dollar-a-year
industry. You already know, probably, that Chairman Helms is getting
ready to cut off all aid to Russia precisely because of that
provision. That's not an insignificant matter.
Q Well, I know, but doesn't it raise the question
about the President's interest in the domestic industry that's
essential to his home state?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, central -- there are a lot of states
involved in the poultry industry, and you can ask the U.S. Department
of Agriculture more about it. That is an important industry in
Arkansas, but it is in quite a number of Southern states. That's why
Senator Helms is very interested in it. There are number of members
of Congress that are very worried about what the impact of that
restriction would be on our exports there. That is a very important
source of commerce.
Q Do you expect this will come up again when the
President and Yeltsin are sitting down in Moscow and when we're
briefed on that you'll run us down on all the poultry considerations?
MR. MCCURRY: It depends on whether we've made progress
at that point. I will certainly raise it if comes up in the meeting
as I did in Egypt when I told you in Egypt that it had come up in
this meeting because it's an important issue.
Now, in the meeting in Egypt, the two Presidents
referred this to the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission for discussion.
There have been follow-up meetings. As you know, we announced on
Friday that we had reached some accommodation in the short-term, but
there are underlying trade issues that are going to have to be
debated, and I believe we've got trade -- we have tariff discussions
that are ongoing on that. And if they are not resolved by the time
of the meeting between President Clinton and President Yeltsin, I
strongly suspect the issue will come up again. If so, I'll brief.
Q Mike, since you were at the meeting, is the quote
attributed to the President about 40 percent of the poultry industry
coming out of Arkansas, is that correct?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't recall him in that meeting saying
that. I think he indicated that he knew the impact in his home
state, but he pointed out that it was a very real source of concern
in the very important component part of our domestic agriculture
Q When did the ABM leak occur?
MR. MCCURRY: That was in the same newspaper, same
Q Same day?
MR. MCCURRY: Yes.
Q Mike, you did talk about some of these issues in
Sharm el-Sheikh. Why was this memo even classified? Candidate
Clinton in '92 decried the government of classifying so many
documents because they might be embarrassing or whatever reason --
MR. MCCURRY: Right. And we have followed through on
that. We have -- this administration has compiled a record on
declassification and on handling of issues like this that I think is
extraordinary. We've probably declassified -- I've personally
declassified hundreds of documents and put them in the public domain
for exactly that reason.
We're talking here about a confidential conversation
between the President of the United States of America and the
President of the Russian Federation. And that is the kind of
document that is sensitive and ought properly be classified. I don't
think there's any question about that.
The other document happened to be confidential
negotiating instructions to a team in Geneva getting ready to
negotiate an arms control issue. That is vital to the protection of
the American people.
I've got no fault with your newspaper printing what they
get. This administration strongly supports the Constitution and the
First Amendment. When we go to work for this government, we put up
our hand, we take an oath, and we say that we will protect the
Constitution and obey the laws and defend the laws of the United
States of America. And giving national security secrets outside the
realm of those who are authorized to receive them is a violation of
law. And that violation ought to be properly prosecuted.
I'll turn this around a little bit. If this White House
knew a law had been broken, and we had not taken any action to deal
with that, how many in this room would be quick to accuse us of cover
up? That's the issue.
Okay. Other questions? Yes.
Q Can I just clarify, back on appropriations? Did
Mr. Panetta last night have an agreement with the leadership about a
particular level of funding -- $5.1 billion is enough --
MR. MCCURRY: Yes. The President -- as I indicated this
morning, we laid out -- we said, look, we'll take the Senate levels
in the $3.8 billion, provided that you also include the contingency
fund, the 1.3 billion. So you get a total of 5.1 billion. We would
array them, in most cases, at the Senate-passed level. And then we
also went through the 41 legislative riders that are still at dispute
and indicated how we could -- what we were looking for and what we
needed in each of those areas to be satisfied.
In short, what we basically said is,Senator Dole got
this measure through the Senate; he is now the leader of the
Republican Party, so fall in line behind the Republican leader. And
we challenged the rest of the Republicans to say, just accept what
the Senate Majority Leader has already been able to pass in the
Senate. And we will live with that provided that you add in the
contingency funds and you deal with these legislative riders.
Q Isn't there an agreement in principle about some
additional offsets that would have been needed for that 1.3?
MR. MCCURRY: Yes, well, I don't whether they agree or
not. They will have to tell you. We gave them very precise ways in
which we would pay for the 1.3 billion, so there were good offsets
for that whole package. Now, whether or not they will take it or
not, I don't know. There was not -- it was not entirely clear to us
whether the House leadership would fall in line behind Senator Dole.
So you might want to follow up on that.
Q General McCaffrey is ending his meeting --
high-level meeting in Mexico on drugs. When will the President meet
with him and his delegation?
MR. MCCURRY: He is going to try to see him. At least
we have heard a report back already from the general as he is en
route back to the United States. They had a very successful meeting
and found some specific areas of cooperation with Mexican law
enforcement officials, very encouraging to us, and it looks like we
will find may ways to forge a common front in the war against drugs.
And he will come back, report further within our government and here
at the White House on some of the results in the meeting.
Q To clarify the CR question, under what
circumstances would the President veto another extension?
MR. MCCURRY: Under what circumstances -- well, if it's
one that is unacceptable to him and, in his judgment, he deems worthy
of a veto, obviously.
Q If it's simply a continuation of the current CR,
would there be any circumstances under which he would veto it?
MR. MCCURRY: I just don't -- I want to -- at this point
we have made a very detailed presentation to the Republican
leadership about what we need to to resolve the remaining FY '96
appropriations measures. We need to hear back from them, and we're
hopeful that we can resolve these issues and get something the
President can sign and support. I think we're not -- at this point
have any reason to believe that there would be a need to consider a
veto. And the President certainly doesn't want to that, because then
that puts everything in a precarious position as we go into the
Q Beyond the Turkish meeting, what has the President
MR. MCCURRY: He has got -- we'll be looking at some
issues related to drugs and how they can be used in combating cancer,
and we've got the meeting with President Demirel. And the Vice
President will be talking at some length about a very exciting new
technology that could create 100,000 new jobs in this country by the
end of this century.
Q Anything in particular on the agenda --
Q Is that the policy directive on the --
MR. MCCURRY: Bingo. Alexis wins a prize. There will
be more on that. This is the use of technology that was initially
developed by the U.S. military for global positioning -- 24 global
satellites that can tell you wherever you are precisely, and to a
meter or two. And that technology is now being used in the private
sector and for commercial purposes. It's about a $2-billion a year
industry. And as a result of the things the Vice President will tell
you about tomorrow, it will probably be about an $8-billion a year
industry by the end of the century.
Q We get one of those with our beeper, right?
MR. MCCURRY: Your new White House pager will tell us
right where you are. (Laughter.)
Q Could be dangerous.
MR. MCCURRY: Maybe even when you don't want us to know
where you be.
Q Anything in particular on the agenda for the
MR. MCCURRY: Do you want me to do a little quick
preview on that? I can fake it. We are looking forward to a good
bilateral meeting where we review some of the urgent issues on our
bilateral agenda. Obviously, it's an opportunity to reaffirm the
importance of the U.S.-Turkish strategic cooperation. They are a
valued partner and ally in NATO, and we work together with them on
many issues of bilateral concern when it affects our security
We will have a discussion about the issues related to
the Dodecanese Islands and finding a resolution to some of the
disputes that surround the islets in the Aegean that we have
discussed earlier this year. We'll be talking about efforts to
resolve the question of Cyprus and how we can press forward what has
been one of the more intractable problems in global democracy.
We'll also review Turkish efforts to protect itself
against terrorist organizations like the PKK, and how we do so of
course in a way that's consistent with the political and human rights
of the Kurdish population, especially in Southeast Turkey and
Q I'm surprised you didn't mention Bosnia.
MR. MCCURRY: Bosnia -- on the traditional bilateral
issues that would be on our agenda at a time when we are working
through NATO to implement the peace in Bosnia will certainly be
addressed. The President I'm sure will want to take the opportunity
to thank President Demirel for the excellent reception that the First
Lady has just enjoyed in Turkey. I'm sure they will also review
other bilateral issues that might arise.
Q Is the President concerned that the Muslim Croat
Federation seems to be falling apart and other efforts to get the
civilian side of this effort growing apart?
MR. MCCURRY: The Bosnian Muslim Federation is not
falling apart. It is a newly-formed entity, and like many efforts at
political cooperation between diverse ethnic populations, it's going
to require nurturing. But it was a key ingredient of the success in
Dayton in getting peace accords put in place in the first place, and
it will be a valued part of the future of Bosnia Herzegovina as they
reel from the devastating effects of civil war.
Encouraging Croat Muslim cooperation and alliance has
been a key part of our strategy for the Balkans. We have to build on
the relationships that exist there. By no means is it a failure.
Are they encountering some difficulties, if you look at a place like
Mostar or elsewhere, of course. But there are other steps that we
are taking to try to firm up that alliance and make sure that it's a
useful and long-lived one.
Q The House Republican version of health insurance
contains a lot of provisions the White House finds objectionable.
Would the President veto that bill, if that's the case?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to talk about veto at this
time. We're going to challenge Senator Dole to stand with Senator
Kassebaum. Senator Kassebaum has done, I think, an heroic job of
putting together a measure now that provides us the kind of
incremental reform that this Republican leadership of Congress
indicated they were interested in, and we can pass that
Kassebaum-Kennedy bill now. But if it gets loaded up with a lot of
controversial provisions that they know are unacceptable, then we're
going to go down the wrong path, which is the path towards a veto.
So the President will encourage the Republican
leadership and Senator Dole to take the right path, which is the one
that Senator Kassebaum has already outlined, and to resist the
efforts of those like Senator Lott and Senator Nickels who seem to be
trying to divide the Republicans in the Senate. This is a great
opportunity for Senator Dole to lead his own caucus in the direction
of health insurance reform for Americans, and we certainly challenge
him to do so.
Q So you're making this a litmus test for his
MR. MCCURRY: Well, there are a lot of great
opportunities that open up now for Senator Dole. I heard the Speaker
declare him today to be the undisputed legislative champ up on
Capitol Hill. So that's good news for us, because it means we can
get some work done.
Right now, we look up there, and they all still are
somewhat divided on these issues. Today, you've got Senator Lott and
Senator Nickels going one direction on health insurance reform when
Senator Kassebaum and Senator Dole are going the other direction. So
they need to get their act together.
Q What's the cancer drug --
MR. MCCURRY: It will be the news you cover tomorrow.
Q Mike, did you find out if the President is going to
attend the Muskie funeral on Saturday?
MR. MCCURRY: I did not get any answer to that, and you
can follow up with --
Q Who is he going to the game with on Monday? Do you
MR. MCCURRY: We'll have an event with Joe Garagiola and
some others prior to going to the game. Now, some of the folks who
are at that event may go up with him.
Q Garagiola because of his tobacco thing?
MR. MCCURRY: He's been doing some very impressive work
to try to discourage spit tobacco use on the part of the ballplayers
who obviously are role models for young kids in this country, and the
President is going to commend his work.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 2:02 P.M. EST