View Header


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.


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