View Header


Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 8, 1997
                            PRESS BRIEFING BY
                              MIKE MCCURRY

The Briefing Room

1:36 P.M. EST

Q For nothing going on, why are you so late?

MR. MCCURRY: I apologize for being tardy. My general rule is 10 minutes late, it's okay, but if you're a half an hour late I owe you an apology. I owe you an apology. I've been goofing off today.

Q What's going on?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the President did those tapings I mentioned to you. They went very well. He's taking some photos. Anything else you'd like to know about?

Q Do you have anything on Yeltsin's medical troubles?

MR. MCCURRY: On that, if I'm not mistaken, the Russian Federation had indicated that President Yeltsin had been suffering from some flu. I don't have -- we don't have anything beyond that officially communicated to us on his condition.

Q They say he's been hospitalized for pneumonia.

MR. MCCURRY: There are press accounts to that effect. I don't believe the government spokesman, if they put anything out on that.

Q Doctor says early signs of pneumonia.

Q Would it be customary for the government to inform this government of that fact if he had been hospitalized?

MR. MCCURRY: We inquire from time to time about his health and wish him well for a speedy recovery, particularly in the aftermath of his recent surgery.

Q But do you know if he has been hospitalized?

MR. MCCURRY: We do not have independent confirmation of those accounts.

Q Are you seeking it?

MR. MCCURRY: I said from time to time we inquire, when we hear that he has been hospitalized, obviously, we express our concern and our best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Q Anything new on the Wyoming high school? (Laughter.)

Q Americans want to know.

Q Another tragedy.

MR. MCCURRY: The President saw that story this morning and the President wants that story to have a happy ending. And the presidential Inaugural Committee is working furiously to make sure there will be a happy ending to that story. The band will be here and the band will do something that will make them proud while they're here. And the Inaugural Committee is working on that now. Actually, I suggest that you call over to the Inaugural Committee later today; they're working on that now.

They had, by the way, about 165 different bands apply, but only 24 will actually be in the parade. So we did have to say no to people, and obviously kids get excited and enthusiastic about wanting to come. In this case we think, unfortunately, the band leader and members of the band and the parents and the community itself were misled, not by anyone connected to the President or to the Inaugural Committee, and that's unfortunate. But they are coming because they've got non-refundable tickets. And as I say, the President hopes for a happy ending to the story.

Q Misled by whom?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, you read the story today you can see a lot of likely culprits indicated.

Q Well, they aren't necessarily in the parade, correct?

MR. MCCURRY: Not necessarily, no. They're looking for a mix of different types of bands in the parade. Not every unit is a big marching band unit. There will be some jazz bands, some mariachi bands, different types of bands that will lend a cosmopolitan flavor to the march up Pennsylvania Avenue.

Q How did the President make it -- to whom did he speak about this? What did he say?

MR. MCCURRY: I believe he said something to Leon and then Leon asked Mr. Ickes, who's been supervising some of the Inaugural activities from here, to look into it, and that's what Harold's been doing.

Q Are you convinced it was simply an oversight and not partisan politics of any kind being played?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm convinced that people get exuberant.

Q Oh, there goes the market. (Laughter.)

Q Overly exuberant.

MR. MCCURRY: Which, by the way, calls to mind -- I don't want you to get irrationally exuberant about the following, but the President did see Alan Greenspan today.

Q Why?

Q What did they talk about, Mike?

Q Did he congratulate him on his engagement?

MR. MCCURRY: To answer the query from NBC News, the President did wish the Chairman well for his pending nuptials to one of your former colleagues.

Q When are they?

Q "Former"?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know. I actually don't know. She indicated something about a --

Q Have I been fired? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: To one of your former colleagues. I wasn't aware that you and the Chairman were planning to get married, Mick. (Laughter.) I thought it was your former -- the former occupant of that chair.

Q Why did come in and who invited him?

MR. MCCURRY: As he does periodically, the President and his economic team met with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to discuss the state of the economy and issues related to the economy. The participants were the President, the Vice President, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Bowles, Secretary Rubin, Deputy Secretary Summers -- he's Deputy Secretary, not Under Secretary, right? Deputy Secretary newly enhanced, newly fortified with new positions -- Frank Raines and Gene Sperling, all participated. And for reasons that everyone here well understands, that's about all I'm going to say about the meeting.

Q Well, how often does the Chairman meet with the President?

MR. MCCURRY: Occasionally. They get together, I think, every several months. They share views about their outlooks on the economy and since both of them publicly address themselves to that question, I'll leave it to their public comments to describe their respective views of the economy.

Q What kind of coverage arrangements are you setting up for Saturday, for those of us who have to cover that Cabinet meeting?

MR. MCCURRY: We can -- we don't plan any coverage. It's a working session that obviously will be then reflected in the public work that the Cabinet and the President do later on this year. So I imagine we will let people catch the President waving on the way in, catch him waving on the way out; and then we will provide some type of readout at the end of the day so you don't have to camp here all day long. You can plan to show up late in the afternoon, probably around 4:00 p.m. or 4:30 p.m. and get the general drift.

Q Why time might they get started?

MR. MCCURRY: They are scheduled to get started at 10:00 a.m. What time might they get started? No doubt sometime thereafter. (Laughter.)

Q So Camp David is out, it's a one-day deal?

MR. MCCURRY: One-day deal on Saturday, here, Blair House.

Q Mike, how long was the Greenspan meeting and did they discuss the budget?

MR. MCCURRY: It was about an hour. About an hour.

Q Did they discuss the budget in the --

MR. MCCURRY: They discussed the economy and issues related to the economy, as my statement said.

Q Did they talk about the Fed vacancy?

MR. MCCURRY: They discussed the economy and issues related to the economy, as my statement said. No further details to be provided.

Q As long as she asked the question, though, what's the status on replacing Janet Yellen?

MR. MCCURRY: On the --

Q The Fed vacancy?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know, I'd have to check. I don't know that that subject came up.

Q Were you able to find out any more about the origin of the President's strong opposition to right-to-die legislation?

MR. MCCURRY: I looked into it. It goes back to the public position he took during the course of the 1992 campaign. He indicated in July of 1992, during a campaign appearance on a Seattle talk show, that he was asked about the activities of Dr. Kevorkian and said that he did not share the views of the caller, that people should automatically have an opportunity to be assisted in suicide. He cited his own experience with family members who had Alzheimer's disease.

So he traced it to some personal concern himself about particularly elderly relatives who get into a position where their ability to make judgement about their own health care needs might be impaired. And then several other times during the campaign it came up. He said he did not support doctor-assisted suicides on several occasions during that campaign.

Now, that is among the reasons that the Justice Department, of course, entered the case in an amicus brief filed in the case heard today in the court, Acting Solicitor General Dellinger argued that fairly forcefully, as some of you know, earlier today and the views of the government and the equal protection issues that arise under the 14th Amendment were set forth in the brief the Justice Department filed in November in the case.

Q And it is accurate to say that the arguments that Dellinger made he was making because the President dictated this as the position of the federal government?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the President is interested anytime the United States government takes a case in a constitutional argument like this. The argument, of course, was crafted by the Justice Department, but they reflect the underlying view of the President that doctor-assisted suicide is not an acceptable policy.

Q Why can that not be seen as inconsistent with the President's statement a year ago that the era of big government is over when what could be more a sign of big government than telling a person who is ill and wants to end his life that he must continue to live?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, for exactly the reasons set forth in the brief filed by the government. They make a very strong and powerful argument about the concern a member of a state legislature might have in drawing a distinction between assisting in death and allowing death to occur. So it's a well-reasoned argument, and I suggest that you look at the argument set forth in the brief, which provides a compelling answer to that question.

Q As a constitutional scholar, does the President offer advice to Justice Department officials in a situation like this?

MR. MCCURRY: They consult with the Legal Counsel's Office here and they take into account the President's views when they make judgments about how to enter cases. They certainly did that recently with respect to Proposition 209 in California. The Justice Department does reflect the thinking of the President in making decisions about cases of this nature.

Q But not specific legal precedent advice?

MR. MCCURRY: No, the President doesn't sit down and write the brief with the Justice Department, if that's the question. He is interested in that because of his own very keen interest in the Constitution. But he routinely allows the Legal Counsel Office here to work with the Justice Department to actually measure out the briefs that are submitted.

Q Does the President consider this a legal issue or a moral issue?

MR. MCCURRY: It's, in effect, both. The legal issue arises in what power does the state have to separate out the consequences of assisting in suicide, and that's a 14th Amendment issue that arises under the equal protection clause as a legal matter. But it also is a moral ethical issue as well, and the President recognizes that and in his public comments which we can provide you, he has reflected concern, deep concern, for the agony that patients go through when they're suffering with a terminal illness, but also the concern that one would have for families and others who are in difficult positions of making judgments.

There's an argument, and I think a compelling argument here about what the state takes on as responsibility if you move from the act of assisting in the death as opposed to allowing the death to occur. That's the nature of the argument that's set forth in the brief.

Q The President does sometimes use his position, his public platform, to speak out on moral questions like this. Is he sufficiently concerned because the rate of these assisted suicides seems to be increasing to start using his bully pulpit to speak out on, just on the moral questions?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know on this particular issue that that's when he -- he is satisfied with the argument that's now been made by the Justice Department before the Court, but he agrees with the argument that they've set forth and that they've reasoned out in the brief, that there are consequences here and dangers and risks associated with changing the climate in which a doctor makes moral judgments about treatment of a terminally ill patient. And I think that's -- again, that suggests the brief is the best place to look to get the full flow of that argument.

Q Does the President have a position on looking the other way, not prosecuting the doctors who do assisted, but don't say much about it, the don't ask-don't tell policy --

MR. MCCURRY: The brief doesn't speak to that point. I don't know the President's thinking on that issue.

Q Has the President talked to Speaker Gingrich since he was sworn in yesterday?

MR. MCCURRY: He did call Warren yesterday and wished the Speaker well, had a good congratulatory call, and said he looked forward to working with the Speaker to address matters on the national agenda and to do the work that the American people have sent the Speaker of the Congress and the President here to Washington to do.

Q But the President liked what he heard from what the Speaker said yesterday?

MR. MCCURRY: Much about the Speaker's remarks yesterday in the House reflect concerns that the President himself has raised publicly, and indeed, on several of those issues it was clear that the thinking of the Speaker about at least the particular matters that have to be addressed is very similar to the President. Obviously, they have different approaches on many of these issues, but they have identified a common set of problems that are going to be on the agenda as we go into the work of the 105th Congress. And the President was encouraged especially by the tone of bipartisanship that the Speaker reflected in his remarks.

Q Does the President expect smooth sailing for all members of his Cabinet, or does he think he's going to have to weigh in and lobby?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, inevitably, nominations will proceed at different paces and some will raise more questions than others. The President has strong support for those that he's sent to the Senate and will be in a position to argue the merits of those cases. But so far we are encouraged by the support that we're seeing for the nominees that he has named.

Q Mike, is the President monitoring personally Madeleine Albright's hearing today, or is he just going to get some updates later on?

MR. MCCURRY: He'll be getting some updates from time to time. Folks here and at the State Department are keeping an eye on it. She's doing swimmingly, in the opinion of most of us who have watched some of it.

Q Following the strategy session this week doesn't the President have any plans to have the Republican leadership come and meet with him, get started?

MR. MCCURRY: We don't have specific plans, but certainly an intention to meet early with the bipartisan leadership after they come back to town, because as you probably know, most of them have now left and will be out of town until the Inaugural, so sometime shortly after the Inaugural we do foresee a bipartisan leadership meeting. It has not been scheduled yet, but we will look for an opportunity to do that early in the calendar.

Q What about more meetings with committee chairmen like Archer?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we'll have active contact, to be sure. As a matter of fact, just FYI, John Hilley, our Legislative Affairs Director, and Sandy Berger are up on the Hill today; I think they plan to see Majority Leader Lott to talk about getting some action going in the Senate on ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. So just as an example. There will be ongoing contact with the leadership, with the leadership staff and with other members as we begin to work through the agenda items that are now before the President and the Congress.

Q Any specific lengthy meetings like the one he had with the Ways and Means chairman?

MR. MCCURRY: I would not rule out the President getting together from time to time with individual members, as he did yesterday with Senator Moynihan. He'll be reaching out to this Congress and looking for opportunities to work with this Congress to do the things that he has set out as his agenda because, as we saw yesterday, there are some things that are certainly in common with the agenda of those who are now leading the Congress.

Q Mike, at the end of last year, President Clinton spoke of having more press conferences. Is there one being scheduled soon?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, as he told you, he plans to have one sometime this month. We haven't scheduled it yet, but we're working on scheduling one. And I think he's already made good on the notion of getting together more regularly with you.

Q Any reaction to Senator Lott's remarks on the speech today at the Chamber of Commerce event which seemed to suggest that they would be willing to accept lower tax cuts and that perhaps the White House was willing to accept some deeper Medicare cuts?

MR. MCCURRY: I think there will be a lot of comments in and around the budget season about how we can move forward. And, so far, most of the comments coming from a lot of different places have been positive and have been aimed at suggesting there's room for agreement here. This is something you've heard the President say over and over again -- that we can balance the budget; we can do so consistent with the priorities and the values that the American people have embraced. And there is certainly room for agreement between what the Republican leadership has put forward as their priorities and what the President has put forward as his.

So we're encouraged by the atmosphere. Obviously, it's going to take a lot more work. Obviously, we have to complete our obligation to submit a formal budget document to Congress. But we remain hopeful that the environment for discussions about the budget will lead us to the goal that the President and, we believe, the Congress embraces -- balancing the budget by a date certain, doing so in a way that protects Medicare, protects Medicaid, makes the kinds of investments in education that will keep our economy strong into the next century and takes care of those priorities the President has identified.

Q Wouldn't you have to put off the budget submission until February 10th?

MR. MCCURRY: We're talking to the Hill and -- we're still talking to them about dates for State of the Union and for the budget, and I'm not certain whether we announce or whether they announce, but when we've finalized the dates we'll make them public.

Q When will we get the President's schedule for the Inaugural, exactly what he's going to be doing and --

MR. MCCURRY: In advance of next weekend. And it's starting to come together. We can probably ON BACKGROUND give you a little sense of some of the things he'll be doing, but he'll have a very active schedule both at the White House and in and around some of the events here in Washington as we celebrate --

Q Did you know Greenspan was coming in this morning?

MR. MCCURRY: I didn't know until after he arrived, but I took the opportunity to say hello and to wish him well on his choice of brides.

Q You said it was a routine day.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, that's pretty routine.

Q Mike, is there some discussion about changing the State of the Union from the 5th to the 4th?

MR. MCCURRY: There may be, sure.

Q What does that mean, there may be? Is it being discussed? What would be the reason?

MR. MCCURRY: What would be the reason? Schedule. Make sure you get a good schedule.

Q Would the reason be so that he could send up a budget?

MR. MCCURRY: No, it would be lots of different reasons. We're just working with Congress to figure out when that week we're going to do various things and when we've got a schedule, we'll announce it.

Q Would a news conference be before Inaugural or after?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know yet because we haven't announced it.

Q Oooh! (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: My strong suspicion would be probably in between Inauguration and State of the Union. That would work better from my point of view, but we'll see. We've got a lot of -- obviously, a lot of competing demands on the President's schedule, but he had said he would look forward to getting together with you early in the new year, and I want to make early in the new year sometime this month.

Q We do, too.

MR. MCCURRY: He's with you, Helen, on that subject.

Q Back to the Blair House meeting for a second. Could you be a bit more specific on Erskine Bowles' ownership interest in the Carolina Panthers?

MR. MCCURRY: I sure can, because it turns out in fact he doesn't really have one. (Laughter.) But let me -- Mr. Toiv did some good research here on this. Apparently, before he came to Washington, he had an interest in a limited partnership that were exploring some opportunities to bring a team to North Carolina, and they did some exploratory discussions. They never actually invested in any entity that ended up being the Carolina Panthers, but Erskine's wife, Crandall, does have an interest in a partnership that's got -- in two limited partnerships that have investments in the Panthers. I guess her portion of the investment represents an ownership interest of about one percent of the Carolina Panthers. And we're all now inquiring whether that's a sufficient interest to access tickets. (Laughter.) In case there is a Super Bowl appearance or something like that.

Q He wouldn't have to put this in the blind trust or divest himself?

MR. MCCURRY: No. The partnership he was in that was looking at the ownership opportunities he did divest himself of when he went to the SBA when he came to Washington. The Legal Counsel has looked at what his wife's ownership interest means in terms of the divestment that he is now doing. As you know, he is going through some divestment now, and they're trying to figure out whether his wife will have to divest that. They're thinking as probably not, because that type of limited partnership is difficult to get out of. There is also -- that's not a situation that the Legal Counsel's Office apparently believes will occasion many conflicts of interest, although if they do win the Super Bowl, apparently Erskine cannot play any role in scheduling the ritual appearance here at the White House.

Q It could be of interest if the Panthers ever play the Redskins.

MR. MCCURRY: Not for Erskine.

Q How about Hebron? The talks there seem to have significantly faltered. Is there any reason at all for optimism or is it --

MR. MCCURRY: There is still reason to be hopeful in the view of Ambassador Ross, and he's communicated that here and he continues his work. He's made it clear to the parties that he will stay in the region, continue to work with the Palestinians and the Israelis so long as his presence there is useful in providing the facilitating, mediating roll that the United States brings to the Palestinian-Israeli talks. So he's there. That means that he is hopeful that the parties will bridge their differences. And he has been working intensively towards that end.

Q I mean, at one point we had talked about or thought there might be one as early as New Year's Day. The attack, obviously -- is that the reason why at this point --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, I'm not going to comment on how the parties approach their own dialogue. They do that themselves. Both Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu have addressed themselves to the issues and to their own view of the status of the discussions underway. And I don't think it's useful for us to add too much to that, other than to say that we will work hard to do our part to help them bridge those differences. And there are differences that remain, but as Ambassador Ross has said several times now, they are very close.

And we all remain hopeful that they will be able to reach those -- bridge those differences because that aspect of implementing the declaration format is really, in a sense, a way that you can cross a hurdle and move into other issues that will still be within the context of the issues that the parties themselves have identified for deliberation in the future.

Q -- I'm unclear. The President spoke personally to Speaker Gingrich yesterday after the vote?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, he gave him a call.

Q What time?

MR. MCCURRY: Late -- probably around mid-afternoon or so, sometime after the Speaker had sworn people in. And then he talked to -- a little bit earlier in the day he talked to Majority Leader Lott, as well. He also placed calls to Minority Leader Daschle and Minority Leader Gephardt.

Q I'm sorry, this may be irrelevant, but you seemed reluctant yesterday to say that he would call, and it just seemed like a routine protocol to offer those congrats. I'm just curious why --

MR. MCCURRY: I was reluctant to say it was going to happen until I knew for certain it would happen, only because then if it hadn't happened then people would have made a big deal out of that, to be honest with you. Yes, why didn't it happen, so forth --

Q Who would have done that? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: A petulant press corps with nothing else to do. (Laughter.)

Q Ooh.

MR. MCCURRY: Oh, you're saying you wouldn't have done that? Oh.

Q Those are our evil twins.

MR. MCCURRY: Forgive me, those are the evil twins?

Q You put a negative spin on it yesterday so we didn't think --

MR. MCCURRY: Negative spin? Oh, you mean because I said -- I wanted to make the point that he already talked to him before.

Q The Charles Ruff announcement of the appointment came quite late yesterday. I don't suppose there's any heads-up you could give us on anything planned like that today or --

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know. Just tell me -- if any story starts the break and we want to get an official confirmation out there for everyone's benefit, let me know. Anyone planning on breaking any stories? Anyone on background have anything good? Wolf? (Laughter.)

Q Let us know if Ruff's already quit. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: Cynic. What about George going on Spin City?

Q Yes, that's all right.

Q That's huge.

MR. MCCURRY: Now, if you were Michael J. Fox, would you let George come on your set?

Q No.

MR. MCCURRY: Run the risk of taking the lead away?

Q Nobody's ever seen the two of them in the same room, have they? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: Well, apparently they're not going to be together at the same time, which does raise an interesting question, does it not?

Q Doesn't it?

MR. MCCURRY: Are there, in fact, two humanoids -- (laughter.)

Q It's another conspiracy.

MR. MCCURRY: It looked that way. Another conspiracy -- well, there's plenty of conspiracies to follow here.

Well, we're just babbling away here. Anything else anyone wants to do while we're just hanging around?

Q How's your fan mail these days?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't get any.

Q Really?

MR. MCCURRY: I just get -- I'd describe it more as anti-fan mail. (Laughter.)

Q What's going on tomorrow, Mike?

MR. MCCURRY: Tomorrow, we've got -- the President will be talking about college education opportunities and how we can help kids finance college educations. And the proposal is going to sound similar to the Hope Scholarship concept.

Q When is this?

MR. MCCURRY: He'll do that on the occasion -- talking about the progress we've made in reducing the student loan default rate. You'll recall back at the last, end of the 1980s we had student loan defaults in the neighborhood of 22 percent, 22.4 percent, right?

Q What is it now?

MR. MCCURRY: Lower. You can get the most recent statistic, but we've done a good job of bringing that loan default rate down. It's partly through things that we've done and procedures we've tightened up and, frankly, partly because the economy has gotten stronger. Kids coming out of college are getting jobs, reflected in the growth of employment opportunities that the growing economy has created and they're in a position, better position to pay back the money that they borrowed for their college education.

So we'll be making the point tomorrow that we've got to continue to make college education opportunities available; ways of doing that and ways that we can make sure that when money is borrowed from the government, kids are in a position to pay it back.

Q Where is he going to make that statement?

Q Where?

MR. MCCURRY: At 10:00 a.m. in the Oval.

Q When he talks about that, Mike, is he going to talk about how he proposes to finance the Hope Scholarships now? Because I believe the funding source he identified in Princeton has since been used for other purposes and they're technically unfunded.

MR. MCCURRY: I don't think he'll be in a position to do that. We were very scrupulous during the campaign period about doing pay-fors as we made proposals. You're right, I think -- I don't know specifically --

Q The Spectrum sales were used for the '97 budget, I think.

MR. MCCURRY: I think some of the -- I seem to recall that someone suggested that there were still little bands in the Spectrum that were available for Hope Scholarships. (Laughter.) They hadn't been used up. That Spectrum is pretty good. Todd, to answer the question, I don't think he will try to attempt to do that tomorrow because that's now folded into the overall work on the budget.

Q Is he going to be surrounded by college kids or something? I mean, what's the --


Q Mike, is the evidence that students were defaulting because they couldn't repay the loans, or I thought word was out that they could get away with it, that the federal government was not --

MR. MCCURRY: The combination of not having tight enough enforcement, not having colleges that saw any consequence. You know, we started making colleges a little more responsible for doing some of the work of helping students understand their obligations. So there was a little of that type of job-owning that occurred. But part of it was also the status of the economy. They were just -- kids were having a hard time finding jobs during a time in which the economy was not growing as robustly as it is now after four years of brilliant economic leadership by this President and this administration.

Q Any reaction to this AMA study, announcement today at the National Press Club that doctors seem to have found three specific Gulf War illnesses and, in contrast to the presidential committee, say that stress does not appear to be a factor?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, I think Dr. Lashof and others did a good job yesterday at summarizing what they found in the report. The key thing they stressed was the need for ongoing epidemiological research into the health effects that the veterans are surely experiencing. And they were the first to say they had not found the causal link to those health effects, but that work needed to continue. And we welcome any of those who can come forward with research and can continue the work that the commission will now do, and that other agencies of government will do in the next nine months and, obviously, beyond that, because there's going to be an ongoing effort to attend to the health care needs of those who served in the Gulf.

Barry reports to me that the original exploration -- the original exploratory group that Erskine was part of did, in fact, get involved with the Panthers, but that was after he got out of it. So he was in the limited partnership that actually, eventually ended up bringing the Panthers to Carolina.

Q But he doesn't have any now?

MR. MCCURRY: He considers himself -- the key thing is, he considers himself a founding partner of the Carolina Panthers.

Q And bailed out too early?

MR. MCCURRY: He probably thinks he did, sure.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

MR. MCCURRY: You're all welcome. Good-bye. See you tomorrow.

END 2:07 P.M. EST