USIA - Transcript: White House Daily Briefing, 97-02-21
From: The United States Information Agency (USIA) Gopher at <gopher://gopher.usia.gov>
TRANSCRIPT: WHITE HOUSE DAILY BRIEFING, FEBRUARY 21, 1997
(Clinton letter to Yeltsin, NATO expansion, NATO-Russia charter, The
Aegean/Turkey, Saudi visit, Hubbell, Herman, Cuba, Levin/lobbying, welfare,
Ickes, Mexico, radio address, President's schedule) (4090)
White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry briefed.
Following is the White House transcript:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
February 21, 1997
PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY
The Briefing Room
MCCURRY: All right, let's get down to work here. The Secretary of State
delivered to President Yeltsin, after her own very good meeting with
President Yeltsin today, a lengthy letter from President Clinton that
follows up on an exchange of correspondence the two Presidents have had,
previewing subjects that they expect to discuss in Helsinki. Most of the
substance of the President's letter dealt with issues related to European
security, specifically the future of Europe, the future of NATO, the
obvious question of NATO expansion, and Russia's relationship to NATO as we
move forward.
You've seen the Secretary of State engage seriously with her counterpart
and with President Yeltsin and others in the Russian government today on
exactly that subject. The report that she's given on the status of those
discussions is right on the money, that there's a lot of hard work left on
this subject and part of that hard work is reflected in the correspondence
the President exchanged with President Yeltsin.
I'll say that he also added a personal note at the end just saying to
President Yeltsin that he was glad to see that he was up and at work and
feeling better, which is consistent with the report, obviously, delivered
by Secretary of State Albright.
Q: What was in the letter?
Q: Reporters say he looks very white. Pale and waxen.
MCCURRY: I thought he looked thin from the television picture I saw. What
do you think, Wolf?
Q: He looked like he lost some weight.
MCCURRY: Looks like he lost some weight. That was my assessment as
well.
Q: Mike, on NATO expansion, next week the White House is releasing a report
on the cost of what it's going to be, and I imagine it will also be
starting to rally support in the Senate for NATO expansion. Do you expect,
do you anticipate any opposition?
MCCURRY: Well, it's very premature to anticipate opposition to a Senate
ratification debate on a treaty that has not yet been amended. We've got a
long ways to go in this process. It won't be until the Madrid summit that
the leaders of the Alliance take on the question of how NATO will expand
and who it will expand with. And that's the point at which we would then
need to submit amendments to the North Atlantic Treaty to the United States
Senate. So we are talking about a debate that occurs more later this
year.
However, the future of an undivided democratic Europe at peace is such a
high priority for the President as he thinks about his foreign policy
agenda in a second term that we've already had extensive consultations with
members of Congress on this general subject. One aspect of that is
reflected in a report that will try to eyeball some of the estimated costs
of NATO expansion and begin to put context around what the general
parameters are of what the Alliance would do.
But remember, a lot is going on diplomatically that might affect that
equation. I think you've seen some of the reporting from Secretary
Albright's trip, that one of the things she is talking about is the status
of forces in Europe and how they might be reconfigured under the Conventional
Forces in Europe Treaty. That might have implications as well as to
resource allocations.
So a lot will go into the mix, but we will be working closely with
Congress. We will be looking for bipartisan approaches to what is arguably
one of the most important items on the United States of America's post-Cold
War agenda, which is to maintain an undivided, peaceful, secure European
continent.
Q: Has the President read George Kennan's piece in opposition to this?
MCCURRY: The President is very familiar with the arguments, pro and con,
and has been for some time, having embarked on this course, in reality, in
1993. The recent debate and those who have written extensively about that --
and there are good credible arguments that are put forward, but they are
premised on the notion that somehow or other the expansion of NATO
represents the drawing of a new line somewhere else in Europe than along
the line of the old NATO-Warsaw Pact divide. That is not the way we
approach the issue of NATO expansion. We look at the issue of NATO
expansion as a way of taking that continent from the United Kingdom to the
Urals and keeping it in an undivided, secure, peaceful, democratic
status.
Q: But you're still keeping a major country out of it.
MCCURRY: Well, we're not keeping anybody out. The expansion of NATO is not
an exclusive process. It's designed to be an inclusive process. Indeed, all
of those who are currently Partners for Peace and the Russian Federation
itself have all been invited to participate in consultations and briefings
related to the expansion of NATO. We had specifically with the Russian
Federation a very detailed conversation about how we would establish a
parallel relationship defined by a charter that would represent NATO's
engagement with the Russian Federation.
Look what's happening in Bosnia where we have the Russian Federation
currently engaged with NATO forces in conducting the stabilization mission
there that the international stabilization forces is conducting. That's not
excluding Russia from anything. It's including them in the very important
work.
Q: Why won't you take Russia in?
MCCURRY: Because there is a very deliberate -
Q: Is it because of the cost?
MCCURRY: It's a very deliberate process. And to my knowledge, they've not
indicated a desire to join, among other things. We have very patient,
deliberate, disciplined discussions with the Russian Federation, as
reflected in the Secretary of State's visit.
Q: Mike, what about the NATO-Russia charter? Do you hope to make progress
on that by the time of summit?
MCCURRY: We hope to make progress on that by the time that the Madrid
summit, yes. That's one of the subject explored.
Q: But I mean the Helsinki summit?
MCCURRY: Oh, by the time of the Yeltsin -- I imagine that will be a subject
the Presidents will take up and address at their summit.
Q: The deputy of the Turkey Joint Chief of Staff --and the Secretary
General of the Turkish National Security Council -- with unusual polemic
statements here in the town threatened openly -- Cyprus militarily, warned
specifically with new -- do you have any comment on that?
MCCURRY: I don't have comments on their public statements. I'll say that
we've had in various places in our government meetings with them while they
are here. They reflect the close relationships we have with the government
of Turkey, consistent with the close relationships we have with government
of Greece, consistent with our desire to ameliorate tensions that might
exist in the Aegean over disputes on borders, which you are well familiar
with. We also explored other bilateral relationships with them, talked
specifically about the situation in Cyprus and dealt with a range of
regional security and political issues that you would expect us to deal
with, with a close friend and ally.
Q: One more question, please. I just returned from a Turkish seminar on
U.S. military aid to Turkey -- was an outcry for more U.S. military aid,
criticizing members of the Congress including Senator Paul Sarbanes who are
opposing it. Nothing, however, was said that this aid cannot be used
against Cyprus, in violation of the existing U.S. foreign aid. It is
possible for you to comment regarding your policy to this effect?
MCCURRY: Our policy with respect to the military needs of both of our
allies are well-known. They are conducted transparently in the bilateral
discussions we have with them, and we are conscious always of the need to
remove sources of tension between two highly valued allies.
Q: If I could just switch gears for a second, now that Huang and Mr.
Hubbell are pleading the 5th, what kind of public image do you think that
creates as far as the White House is concerned?
MCCURRY: I don't know. You are the ones that create public image, so you
get to comment on that yourself.
Q: You don't think there's any kind of political effect?
MCCURRY: I answered that question earlier today and said I don't know
enough about the situation, nor do we know enough about the situation here
at the White House to comment.
Q: Can you give us any rundown on the visit of Prince Sultan next week,
particularly in relation to his visit to the White House to talk with
President Clinton?
MCCURRY: We look forward to a close meeting with him. We've got a number of
regional security issues with respect to the Gulf and the Middle East that
we will have on our agenda. We'll be very keen to know things about
cooperation with respect to the investigation of the Khobar bombing and
other security measures that the United States government will take in
cooperation with the Saudi government to protect forces that are deployed
in Saudi Arabia.
Q: Any discussion of F-16s?
MCCURRY: The Prince has already indicated publicly that that subject will
not be on his agenda, so I do not expect the issue to arise.
Q: How close does the President remain with Web Hubbell? Do they continue
to be social friends?
MCCURRY: To my knowledge they have not had any contact anytime recently.
Q: And would it be appropriate calling on at least their former friendship
to say, look, there's a public interest to you speaking, and therefore, I
appeal to you as a friend -
MCCURRY: I don't have anything to add to my previous answer.
Q: What was that? I missed that.
MCCURRY: I said I'm not sufficiently familiar with the discussions that
they have underway to comment.
Q: What is the President's position on cooperation with the various
investigations?
MCCURRY: The same one we've always said, we think people should cooperate.
Q: Mike, has he had contact with Web since he left his job, since he went
to jail? I mean, when you say recent, what does that mean?
MCCURRY: I asked the President if he's had any recent contact with him; he
said, no. I didn't specify what recent, how recently. I'm not aware of
any.
Q: Is the White House running out of patience on hearings for Alexis
Herman?
MCCURRY: As the President indicated yesterday, we are. We are inclined to
want to work closely with Chairman Jeffords to get a date scheduled. But
the President was quite emphatic yesterday in saying we need to schedule a
date, we need to move on. This department needs to have a Secretary, it
needs to have Secretary Herman in place, and that will happen once there's
a hearing and we can move forward with confirmation.
Q: What was the purpose of the meeting today between Mr. Bowles and the
supporters?
MCCURRY: Well, there are a number of people in a range of organizations
from organized labor to business, from women's groups to civil rights
groups and others, who are strongly supportive of her nomination. They
wanted to hear from us on what our assessment of the situation is and also
wanted to know what they could do to be helpful to her because many of them
wanted to express their support. And we encouraged them to do what we're
doing, to publicly say it's time to move on and get a date and proceed with
the confirmation.
Q: What is your assessment?
MCCURRY: It's very positive, and we think that once she has this hearing --
and we expect that will happen and we expect that will happen soon --
she'll be able to dispense with any remaining questions and will move to
confirmation.
Q: And why do you expect it to happen soon? I mean, obviously, it's been a
long time now and -
MCCURRY: Because we consider Senator Jeffords a fair and honorable
person.
Q: The White House doesn't have any question at all about the delay in
scheduling the hearings?
MCCURRY: Well, sure, we've got questions about the delay, which is why
we've addressed it publicly, and the President went out of his way to
address it publicly.
Q: I mean, Senator Jeffords is the person who has delayed it, but, on the
other hand, you say that he's honorable and he's done the advice and
consent thing honorably. So I'm trying to figure out where the difference
is here.
MCCURRY: I don't know that there's a difference. We're trying to be helpful
in encouraging him to schedule a hearing soon.
Q: Well, are there a lot of unanswered questions? Isn't that what his stall
is?
MCCURRY: Not in our view, and we believe she's satisfactorily answered the
questions that have been raised.
Q: -- he met a group of people that -- wanted to meet. Did that new policy
just -- why he went this time.
MCCURRY: I'm not familiar with the trip. I'll have to check, or maybe
someone from the NSC can check for you.
Q: A Cuban exile group called the Democracy Movement has recently purchased
two British warplanes called Provos and they plan to fly into the same
airstrip in Cuba where the planes were shot down last year. What's the
White House reaction to this?
MCCURRY: Well, our only reaction is that we encourage anyone who is flying
there to fly consistent with the guidelines and the restrictions that have
been placed down by the FAA. And we've work closely with groups down there
that wish to commemorate certain anniversaries, take note of the tragic
death of those who lost their life in the shootdown incident, and we've
encouraged them to work closely with U.S. authorities, specifically the FAA
and in some cases the Coast Guard, so they can have appropriate commemorative
celebrations. And we hope any group planning to fly in that area would do
so and would respect the restrictions that exist on airspace and on travel
in that region.
Q: In the year since the lobby reform bill went into effect the number of
lobbyists registered has more than doubled and the amount they said they've
spent has about quadrupled. Senator Levin sent a letter to the President
asking to have the law tightened and expanded in terms of reporting by
computer and other things. I was wondering what your view is of the
effectiveness of the law so far and what the President might back in terms
of expanding it.
MCCURRY: I think Senator Levin's letter more accurately reflects the
success we've had with the Lobbying Disclosure Act since it was passed, and,
in fact, Senator Levin compliments President Clinton for his strong support
of lobbying reform and notes some of the things that you said, that we've --
obviously the number of lobbyists in Washington have not doubled; what's
increased and tightened are the standards that exist for full disclosure.
You didn't have an increase in one year of some 4,800 lobbyists up to now
10,000. What you have is a new regulatory scheme in which we have much more
disclosure, much more access to information on behalf of those who are
looking to see what lobbyists do and what they spend.
And the reported increase in expenditures likewise -- there was only $250
million roughly of reported lobbying expenditures in 1995. There is almost
$1 billion now, by the estimate of Senator Levin. And that reflects, I
think, something about how much pressure is brought to bear on those making
public policy by those advocating on behalf of whatever interests they
represent.
The important thing here is that we have created a climate where there is
more disclosure and, as Senator Levin said, they're looking for ways of
streamlining reporting practices so that it's not a burden on those who
have to fill out these reports, but nonetheless provides a way the
information can be available and that members of the press and members of
the public can access it and understand what is being lobbied on and by
whom.
Q: Is the White House going to set an example now and hire welfare
recipients?
MCCURRY: We're not at that point, but we are making some progress. We are
now -- have received from the Office of Personnel Management an analysis
and some options have been prepared by the Director, Jim King, that really
look at what prospects are for the hiring of welfare-dependent people
within the federal work force. And, of course, that would be guidance to
the White House on what we could do here. Our Domestic Policy Council
Director Bruce Reed now has that report. They're examining it and they're
looking to both applications for federal hiring policies generally, and
then what specifically we can do here at the White House. We'll keep you
posted.
Q: What's the -- have you taken a position on a specific prosecutor for the
fundraising issue?
MCCURRY: No, we have not had any comment on it.
Q: Are you opposed to it?
MCCURRY: We have not had any comment on that.
Q: And what do you think about outside groups --
MCCURRY: We have not had any comment on that.
Q: -- for example, Forbes is going to start running ads next week --
MCCURRY: We have not had any comment on that, either.
Q: Mike, on the welfare thing, this question came up I guess a couple of
months ago -- it seems like you're always saying, well, we're studying that
and we'll get back --
MCCURRY: John, I just gave you a good progress report. We asked the OPM to
look at the issue. They've studied it. They've given us a good analysis of
options. We have to look at that now and we have to see what we could do
here.
Q: My question was, if I could ask it -- the President has said that he's
encouraging private companies to do this, it should be relatively easy. I
mean, does your own experience, where apparently it's not so easy, suggest
that it's going to be more difficult for others?
MCCURRY: I don't know that we have said it's easy or not easy. We've said
we need to do it by the book. So we've got the analysis of the regulations
and --
Q: In the church the other day he was saying that if every company of 800,
000 should be able to hire one or two of these and the problem would be
over with.
MCCURRY: Well, I think that we -- remember that there is a policy
implication here. We are not creating public service employment for welfare
dependents. And that's not what this is about. We're looking at ways in
which, consistent with federal employment guidelines, we can be part of the
solution. And that was the purpose of the tasking that we gave to OPM,
which we're now looking at and which we will review.
Q: Would one of the positions, if a welfare recipient does work here, be
white collar versus blue?
MCCURRY: I don't know that -- I haven't seen the study. I don't know
whether it addresses any differences between grade levels or classification
levels within the federal work force.
Q: Do you have anything on the supposed deadline today for Harold Ickes to
submit his papers to the House committee investigation?
MCCURRY: No, I know that he plans to and he's got some documents that he is
prepared to deliver responsive to the request. The only thing I know is
that here we will have to look at anything that is deemed to be a White
House document to make sure that any constitutional prerogatives of the
presidency are protected. But I have not heard of any problems with respect
to that review.
Q: Is he still a member of the White House staff?
MCCURRY: No.
Q: What is his relation? He's in charge of the G-7, planning for that -
MCCURRY: His status is the one that we announced when we made the
announcement last week.
Q: What is that? Could you refresh -
MCCURRY: We can get you the paper -- whatever it was.
Q: On the issue of Mexico and certification, why should the public not have
some question about the credibility of the process considering the action
last year in which Colombia -- sanctions were imposed on Colombia and not
Mexico, and as Pete Stark said yesterday, Mexican leaders are up to it in
their armpits as well?
MCCURRY: Well, I don't -- I'm not going to comment about (what) the
Congressman said. But we've got a process. It's one that's very carefully
done, and it's done at the State Department. The State Department makes the
recommendations. And if you're questioning the process, you should really
go over and ask them.
Q: Was Foreign Minister Gurria back here today? And if so, who did he see
and what -
MCCURRY: He was back here. He saw the National Security Advisor Sandy
Berger today. They had, again, a review of issues related to the upcoming
summit meeting between President Zedillo and President Clinton, binational
issues that are of concern to both governments, further discussion of the
matters that have been in the news this week, and a review of other
regional issues.
Q: When the certification recommendation is formulated over at State, what
goes into the making up of that? Can things other than strictly law
enforcement things -
MCCURRY: It's a very, very detailed criteria that is defined in some
respects by the statue and now by the practice of having done this. You
should contact -- I guess, Assistant Secretary Gelbard is the person to do
that, and I imagine they will be planning to do briefings and other things
at State next week, as they do annually when they do the certification
report.
Okay. See you all next week.
Q: Oh, radio address.
MCCURRY: Radio address. The radio address is about the general good news
we've had, related to the economy -- the strong performance of an economy
that's growing and producing jobs at low rates of inflation and expanding,
and probably encouraged by prospects of balancing the budget. So there will
something about the importance of balancing the budget. And then I think,
if I'm not mistaken, that the Senate is taking up the constitutional
balanced budget amendment next week and I imagine he might have a word or
two to say about that -- in opposition, obviously.
Q: Live or taped?
MCCURRY: Taping today and airing tomorrow.
Q: What's he doing tomorrow?
Q: Yes, the weekend.
MCCURRY: The weekend? He has the weekend off. On Monday he will be
celebrating Black History Month with an event involving some of the
Historically Black Colleges from around the country; and then expand the
education theme later, meeting with the America Council on Education, where
he will advance our education agenda.
He may have some public event with some discussions Tuesday about our
effort to combat drugs here in the United States and globally. Wednesday
the Chilean President, President Frei, is here, so he's here for a state
visit, state dinner -- South Lawn arrival ceremony, meetings, photo ops,
joint press conference. Two guys, two flags, as we used to call it.
Thursday we may have an event, may not have an event. (Laughter.) Doesn't
really seem to be clear at this point. And there's some question about what
the family's personal plans are for the week. I don't have any yet -- or
for the end of the week, next weekend -- I don't have an update on that for
you.
We'll have two of these sort of foreign leader press conferences during the
month of February, but I insisted that didn't count against my quota, so
we'll have a formal press conference on Tuesday, March 4th.
Q: What time?
MCCURRY: Same time as usual, some time in the afternoon.
Q: Two o'clock?
MCCURRY: Whatever. (Laughter.) Are we doing any of this other stuff, this
travel? Have we announced any of that?
DAVID JOHNSON: Just the Hawaii trip. (Laughter.)
Q: Is he beginning to enjoy them?
MCCURRY: Is he? Yes, he enjoys them. He always enjoys them.
(end transcript)
From the United States Information Agency (USIA) Gopher at gopher://gopher.usia.gov
|
