THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

                           PRESS BRIEFING
                           BY MIKE MCCURRY

The Briefing Room

2:24 P.M. EST

Q Is it true?

Q You just took the President's crutches.

MR. MCCURRY: I didn't miss anything, did I?

Q No.

Q How bad is the injury, Mike?

MR. MCCURRY: I think I'll survive it.

Q I think he does a very good job of briefing.

MR. MCCURRY: I thought he sounded pretty authoritative there. I was just going to let him go, keep going.

Well, happy April Fool's Day. And thank you to CNN, which just carried that live. (Laughter.)

Given the President did most of the readout earlier on the meeting with King Hussein, I don't have a lot I can add to that subject.

Q There was a question, though. He said that Arafat had made some moves indicating that he would not resort -- encourage terrorism. Do you know of anything that you can state?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we have had contact with the parties, and of course Ambassador Ross met with them. The Chairman has reaffirmed his abhorrence of terror. He has made it quite clear that he will take steps to ensure that terror subsides in the territories. What we have said, and repeatedly said to all the parties, is that they need to do everything they can in both word and deed to make good on that commitment, that this is a time when a maximum effort has to be expended to curb terror and those who espouse there. And there is more that, certainly, the Chairman could do, more that we all could do in the fight against terrorism.

Q Mike, has the White House done anything, or anybody in the administration sent any messages to any of the countries that are considering this renewed boycott, economic boycott of Israel that I guess the foreign ministers have been talking about?

MR. MCCURRY: The Arab foreign ministers, having just taken this action yesterday, we have certainly commented on it and we will be pursuing our strong concerns diplomatically as we follow up with them. We don't think it is helpful at a moment in which we're trying to build confidence between the parties to go back to the days in which there was an attempt to either ostracize or isolate Israel in the international community and in the region. This has been one of the productive things about the peace process -- that's been the growing ties that have nurtured commerce between Israel and other Arab states in the region, and we want to see that continue and accelerate. But that has to be done obviously on the basis of mutual trust and that's what we need more of.

Q Do you know if the President raised that issue with King Hussein?

MR. MCCURRY: I didn't get any indication that they talked about it. Let me explain a little bit about the meeting. They met for about 45 minutes just one on one -- a new diplomatic term -- "four eyes."

MR. JOHNSON: Under four eyes.

MR. MCCURRY: Under four eyes. I had never heard that one before.

Q Under, why? Is one missing?

MR. MCCURRY: In other words, two guys, side by side, no note takers or anything like that.

Q They both speak English, don't they?

MR. MCCURRY: Absolutely. And then the President and the King invited their delegations to come back and they came back in for about 15 minutes of an expanded meeting, and the indications we had from the session was that that -- I mean, I didn't hear that that subject had arisen directly, although we have explored that in some of the contacts we've had with other leaders in the region and you know from the State Department briefing yesterday that they've indicated that we've made some representations that we didn't consider that a helpful step.

Q What were the ideas that the President said he wanted to float by King Hussein?

MR. MCCURRY: They were unspecified, both before and after the meeting. I think you heard the President say this is a moment where we had best conduct our diplomacy quietly, make an effort to build bridges between the parties, explore different avenues of contact that could be productive. And that is a delicate enough process that, as the President said, is best left unspecified and commentary on it left to a minimum.

Q Given the gravity of the situation in the region, would it make sense to float these ideas sooner rather than later? What's holding up the ideas becoming full-blown and becoming visible?

MR. MCCURRY: Nothing is holding up the exchange of views and the exchange of ideas; it's just a question of when you make that a more transparent process.

Q Mike, what are the prospects of a summit in the Middle East? Is the President looking forward to something like that or calling the parties together?

MR. MCCURRY: Summits in that region have been built around moments of crisis in the process, and we certainly are at a difficult moment in the process, but I don't know that I would describe it as a crisis, and there are a number of different avenues that we're pursuing. And I don't see -- haven't seen a discussion related to a hypothetical summit emerge.

Q Is there a meeting arranged?

Q Could you just clarify what you said earlier about Arafat? I mean, President Clinton said he's made several moves, but we want this commitment to zero tolerance and we want to see that he's making the best effort. Now, does he think that Arafat is or isn't meeting those two --

MR. MCCURRY: I just said I think we always believe there's more that people can do and more that they can do through actions and deeds that complement the words that are uttered.

Q Apparently, Specter sent a letter to Janet Reno about a news report that the Israeli intelligence says that Yasser Arafat had prior evidence of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and he's asking for an investigation. Do you know anything about that?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know a thing about that, no.

Q Mike, there are conflicting reports on whether or not Netanyahu will be in Washington this weekend. Can you help us out on that?

MR. MCCURRY: I can't. At this point, it's pretty much as the President indicated earlier, that we have heard some indications that he might like to be here early next week for the meeting of AIPAC, but as the President indicated, depending on what his travel schedule is as it develops, we'll have to let you know as soon as we know whether or not there is a formal meeting. It would be early next week, given what we understand about the schedule that AIPAC has for their conference. And that is, I think, a fairly almost annual presentation that the Israeli Prime Minister makes.

Q Does the President think it's impossible to stop the Israelis from building a new settlement?

MR. MCCURRY: The President knows how strongly the government of Israel feels about the issue of development in and around Har Homa, but at the same time you know the views the United States government has expressed on that development.

Q How does the President feel about these two suicide bombings?

MR. MCCURRY: As he indicated earlier today at the photo opportunity.

Q What I'm trying to gauge is to what extent this dovetails with the President's insistence, which is not new, for Arafat to do more to prevent these things. Does he see this as a sign that validates the President's call for Arafat to do more?

MR. MCCURRY: We just don't know enough at this point about those incidents. There have been specific denials of responsibility that are now being made and we're going to have to develop more information about those events this morning in Israel. But they are troubling because they are in the context and in the environment of parties that are losing confidence in each other, rather than building confidence in each other, which is what should be happening at this point.

Q Mike, a question off the Middle East --

Q Is the idea to have a two- or three-week cooling off period in some way, and then consider sending somebody out there to start --

MR. MCCURRY: Look, for good reason and for the reasons the President already told you, we're not going to specify what steps we might contemplate taking. The President said within the next two or three weeks we need, as a matter of urgency, to address the need of the parties to resume contact, resume dialogue, and to deal with those very difficult issues that fundamentally underlie the final status aspect of the talks foreseen under the declaration. You can suspect and imagine that our diplomacy is aimed at that effort.

Q -- describe this as personal efforts on his part, Mike, or diplomatic efforts by the Secretary of State or --

MR. MCCURRY: The President said that he's willing to take significant steps and willing to be personally involved and he does not choose at this time to detail what shape that will take as we continue consultations with the parties and as we continue a very active dialogue in the region and with the parties themselves.

Q On the announcement that the President just made, the distilled liquor association is saying that it would be the FTC, not the FCC, that would make a ruling on this, and that if the White House were serious about it they would be going to the FTC instead of the FCC. Do you have any understanding of why the decision was made on the FCC? And if not, who does?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the President is not initiating a rulemaking. The President is asking for more information and he believes the FCC is in the best place to judge what the effects of advertising are on alcohol consumption by young people. Then he has also asked them, of course, to look and see if there are any actions that suggest themselves based on that understanding. I think we're at a stage, first and foremost, where we're looking for more information rather than directing that a rulemaking process commence.

Q Doesn't the industry have a point? What's the difference between whiskey or beer or wine?

MR. MCCURRY: I think the President gave a good answer to that.

Q But the issue is still out there. The Distilled Liquor Council points out that a serving of anything still contains exactly the same amount of alcohol. At this stage, you know, beer is something that's inexpensive that's far easier for teenagers to get a hold of and consume.

MR. MCCURRY: That may be true, but there's a reason why the industry itself drew some distinction between distilled spirits and beer and wine in the 50 years that they had a self-imposed moratorium on that type of advertising.

Q Excuse me, just a follow-up. But if you're in a situation where the President is concerned about what teenagers are doing, what young people are doing, why wouldn't he be at least as concerned about how much beer they consume as how much whiskey they consume?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, he obviously is concerned about that and we're addressing that in a number of different ways. We've got General McCaffrey working with the Department of Transportation now to look at zero tolerance for drug-induced driving, which can include alcohol-impaired driving. There are a number of policy steps that suggest themselves with respect to alcohol consumption of any variety by young people and we are pursuing those aggressively.

Q But that doesn't touch television commercials.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, it doesn't. But as the President suggested to you just a short while ago, we've had a step backwards. And so he wants to take a look at the step backwards and see if there isn't something that we can understand better about that step.

Q Are you leaving it open that he could initiate rulemaking at some point?

MR. MCCURRY: The President only asked of the FCC that they look at the issue, they see what the effect of advertising -- of resumed advertising for hard liquor would be on young people, and also what actions, if any, the FCC might need to take on it. That's all we've said at this point.

Q Mike, it's been suggested by some people that the most effective thing the President could do on this issue would be to appoint a fifth commissioner to the FCC. They've been deadlocked on this issue for about six months and there's been a slot open there for about a year.

MR. MCCURRY: I believe there are two vacancies, if I'm not mistaken. And we are actively recruiting candidates for those two slots. I believe there's one Democrat and one Republican position available and we will have nominations and we'll consult closely with Congress on those nominations, with the expectation that we'll make them sometime later this spring.

Q Mike, does the President make any distinction, or have one in his own mind, between broadcast TV commercials and cable TV commercials for hard liquor?

MR. MCCURRY: He did not in the letter the he directed to the chairman of the commission.

Q He said, "broadcast" media.

MR. MCCURRY: He was -- our understanding is that so far, liquor advertising has appeared on some commercial broadcast stations and also on cable providers. So I think he didn't draw any distinction, he just asked them to look broadly into the question of advertising on television.

Q One more thing. The President clearly supports a ban. He's asking the industry to voluntarily go back to its own ban. Why did he stop short of saying we ought to have a ban on this if the industry doesn't do it on its own?

MR. MCCURRY: Because I think he wants to make sure, as you would with any directive of that nature, that you do so based on sound evidence and on information that is reliable. And I think what we've done --

Q It doesn't sound as though he has any doubts about the evidence.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, having a good hunch and having some scientific or other expert means of proceeding, based on an analysis of the issue by the Commission is the step that he thought was warranted.

Q Will the FCC look at the effect of beer and wine advertising on kids, as well as hard liquor advertising?

MR. MCCURRY: He asked that they look specifically at the industry's decision to discontinue the ban on advertising related to distilled spirits. Obviously, if the Commission then chose, in structuring an inquiry, to look at other issues that would be within the province of the Commission.

Q Well, why call on them to continue the voluntary ban if he's not sure yet if it has an effect?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, because, I mean, clearly the President preferred the situation that existed prior to the discontinuation of the ban. He thought that was the right policy on behalf of the industry. He preferred that policy and he would like them to reinstitute it. But that's a far cry from saying we're going to initiate a federal rulemaking proceeding that would require it.

Q Did the President discuss with King Hussein specific rule in the meeting between the Palestinians and the Israelis? And did the President talk to any other Arab leaders? And did he have any reaction to the Arab League decision in Cairo yesterday?

MR. MCCURRY: Most of that was asked and answered earlier. The State Department did respond with respect to the Arab League's pronouncement. The President did have a good exchange of specific ideas with the King, which he declined to elaborate. And, yes, he intends to continue to be in contact with the parties and our peace team will be in contact with the parties as we exchange views about how to advance the diplomacy.

Q Mike, was there a meeting between the President and leaders of the auto industry set for tomorrow that was canceled within the last day or so?

MS. GLYNN: Talked about, canceled but not last week. We're going to reschedule it, I think, in the next two weeks.

Q Well, what was the reason for the cancelation -- the postponement?

MR. MCCURRY: Don't know. There was -- they had talked informally about getting together with some of the leaders of the auto industry and had originally scheduled a meeting, I thought, for Thursday. Right?

MS. GLYNN: Thursday.

MR. MCCURRY: For Thursday. And then they are looking to get that back on the schedule in some future date.

Q Mike, the President, in answer to a question, said that he believes there is a distinction -- in his liquor announcement -- he appears to be referring to a distinction between hard liquor and beer and wine. What is that distinction in his mind or in his thoughts? Do you know?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, I'd have to -- I mean, it's the distinction that exists in the minds of the industry that treated those alcoholic beverages differently when it came to advertising for 50 years.

Q Mike, the hard liquor industry clearly believes that if they wrap themselves around the beer and wine part of it, if they can meld that together, it will be too big, that the President or the FCC would be afraid to try to knock off those beer and TV ads, too. If the FCC came back and said, it's not the distilled spirits, it's the beer and the wine that's the real crux of the problem, would the President then say, if there's a problem with teenage drinking and it's beer and wine, then we ought to act overarchingly?

MR. MCCURRY: I think the President would find the results of any undertaking that he's directed by the FCC to be compelling. I mean, that's why he's asked them to look into it. If they came back with that answer, I'm sure he'd want to look at that very carefully.

Q Mike, is the President planning to see Leah Rabin while she's here?

MR. MCCURRY: It's a good question. I don't know. I haven't -- I believe that they were planning to get together. Do we know when? Tomorrow? Tomorrow.

Q And there's a second question -- he will see her tomorrow?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes. He's had, I wouldn't say extensive contact, but a fair amount of contact with her since her husband's assassination.

Q They will meet tomorrow?

Q She suggested just now at the press club that they should put off settlements until a time of less stress and crisis. I wondered if King Hussein had said anything of that nature to the President.

MR. MCCURRY: I know that the President and the King reviewed and exchanged views on the question of settlements. I think that our position was familiar to the King. We have suggested that the settlements and the building around Har Homa does not lend confidence to the parties as they try to deepen a peace process. I'm not familiar with Mrs. Rabin's comments. It sounds like she might take that point of view as an accurate one. And, of course, we would appreciate that.

Q Mike, does the President now believe that the best way to get fast track trade authority through Congress is to drop out requirements for labor and environmental agreements and to make those side agreements?

MR. MCCURRY: The President believes that the pursuit of free trade has to be consistent with goals with respect to worker rights and protection of the environment. And beyond that, I'm not going to get into the specific issue.

Q But he would not insist on making them part of the trade deals --

MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to suggest how that might affect the passage of legislation that would clear the way for the President to use fast track authority to pursue free trade. Free trade is not inconsistent with the goal of supporting the rights of workers and the need to continue to protect our environment.

Q Did he discuss this with labor leaders when they were here last week?

MR. MCCURRY: I'd have to check. That was not a subject that I thought was going to be on their agenda and there are, of the unions that were present beyond Mr. Sweeney's -- of course, there are other unions that have been more active on that issue. So I'm not certain that it didn't come up. But I'd have to check on that, I don't know.

Q Is the White House planning to release the rest of the Harold Ickes documents tomorrow?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, as I indicated -- well, as I indicated, we will do it sometime tonight. I hope that they can get the work done so that they can be prepared to go on it tomorrow.

Q And why have you waited so long --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, mostly because we've been working an exhaustive number of issues. And, in fact, most of the -- I think a lot of the news value of those particular documents has already been explored through a variety of national, technical means. (Laughter.) And, frankly, the lawyers have been working on other issues primarily associated with the production of our own documents. These are third-party documents produced by Mr. Ickes. We've got to produce our own documents for the committees and they've been working more on those issues. But, understanding the interest here, they have now gone back, looked at those Ickes documents. They're trying to prepare Mr. Davis so he can do follow-up questions if they arise.

Q When are they going to be put out?

MR. MCCURRY: If they get the work done tomorrow, tomorrow, I hope.

Q About how many pages are they?

MR. MCCURRY: Thousands, I think.

Q Details -- you mean -- by the preparation. As you point out, they're third-party documents. So, I mean, what review is there? I mean, you could just get a copy machine or send it to Kinko's and they'd be ready. What takes so long?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we want to be in a position -- you might want to look at them and then you might want to ask questions, correct? So we'd like to be in a position to give you good answers if you have questions about the documents. And that takes a lot of hard work sometimes. And that's the kind of work they've been doing on these. And it's not something you do, you know, as quickly as some would like.

Q Mike, you mentioned that a major purpose of U.S. diplomacy in the next few weeks and months in the Middle East would be to try and restore mutual trust and confidence. On the Israeli side there have been numerous complaints about Palestinian evasions of the Oslo Accords by fielding a police force that's greater than permitted under Oslo, by not completing the revision of the covenant, by having Orient House and other Palestinian entities in East Jerusalem that are disallowed it under Oslo. Is the administration in any way prepared to also publicly criticize those evasions of Oslo and have you taken this up with Arafat to get him to also build confidence and trust with greater respect for all obligations under Oslo?

MR. MCCURRY: We have encouraged both parties in a variety of ways to take steps that build confidence as they deal with these issues with each other. Now, without going through your exhaustive list there, sometimes the parties characterize the positions of each other. Publicly, we refrain from entering into their public debate, because our effort is aimed at helping them bridge their differences, not accentuate them.

Q Well, the reason I've raised these specific ones is, you've not -- and the President hasn't been reluctant to criticize Har Homa. I'm wondering why the President, to be equally fair to both sides, has been reluctant to mention some of the Palestinian evasions.

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know that there has been a reluctance. I know that when these issues have arisen in the course of our diplomatic work, we have from time to time encouraged both parties to take steps that ameliorate differences rather than exacerbate them, and in some of those that you mention we have taken some issue with the steps the Palestinian Authority has taken, but we've tried to do it in a way that encourages them to look for ways to accommodate their differences and to get back on the track of negotiating their differences within the Oslo framework.

Q Mike, there was a report this morning that Patsy Thomasson told Congress she didn't know anything about DNC-paid volunteers, yet she had a memo she had gotten a few weeks before this testimony telling her about some DNC-paid volunteers. Since she was, I believe, Director of the Office of Administration at that point, who was running this DNC-paid volunteer program and can you explain the discrepancy?

MR. MCCURRY: I'll tell you, I'm just not in a good position to go back and answer that for you. I'd have to go and do some more research and homework. I can if you need that, but I can't do it here right now.

Q Do you know if the President has taken his concerns about liquor advertising directly to his good friends in the Bronfman family?

MR. MCCURRY: He has had discussions with the industry, to be sure. I don't know whether he's talked with them directly or communicated with them directly. He may have exchanged correspondence with them, but there is a difference of opinion there, and a pretty obvious one.

Q Mike, has the White House find anything either improper or uncomfortable in the fact that George Tiller was being solicited for money by the DNC at a time when he was getting very valuable U.S. Marshal protection?

MR. MCCURRY: I saw that story, Deborah. I haven't had a chance to look into it. I don't have any comment on it until I look into it.

Q Mike, will the President be making any decisions on ambassadorial appointments this week, and when would we expect to hear the first round?

MR. MCCURRY: He's made a number of decisions already. There are some appointments that are in different stages of being cleared, and of course we would have to project who the government's involved for agrement individual names before we can proceed with any public announcement.

But I don't expect that to take -- there will be a variety of -- a different timetable in the case of different countries, and I expect there will be appointments announceable in the near future.

Q What do you know about how these documents are going to be released when they're released?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know a lot about them. I think we'll try to -- my own preference is to take care of news organizations that have breaking news needs and then try to get folks working together to pool their resources as we make copies available for you to make copies.

Q Is this going to satisfy your desire not to do it on a piecemeal basis?

MR. MCCURRY: No. There will be -- these are Mr. Ickes' documents. We've got times 20, times 30 -- I don't know how much beyond that -- of documents that will be produced at some point by the White House in connection with this. It's not -- there will be many more documents.

Q Why do you say they're his documents? Weren't the President's --

MR. MCCURRY: These were documents in his possession when he left, and in many cases they are his personal notes.

Q Well, was he right to take them?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, and we've reviewed all that and answered questions on the impact of the presidential record of management.

Q I don't see why they would be his personal papers.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we can get you the transcript of the half-hour I spent on that issue some weeks ago.

Q Yeah, you still didn't give an adequate answer, though.

MR. MCCURRY: Do you want me to do it again? I'm happy to do it again if you need it.

Q Well, just one line. How does he have the right to papers that belong --

MR. MCCURRY: Under the Presidential Records Management Act, I believe is the official title of the statute, there is a specific exemption for documents that are connected to the political activity of the President, and they are not deemed to be presidential records. So an individual has the right to take those. The Counsel, upon reviewing those, viewed that he had a right to have in his possession those documents at the time he left his service here.

Q With the President's acquiescence?

MR. MCCURRY: The President didn't indicate any concern about Harold taking his documents that were properly his with him when he left.

Q Mike, this sorting and screening process of both the Ickes documents and White House papers that will go the Hill have been going on for, what, weeks now. What impact can you tell us it's had on the legal shop here and on other areas?

MR. MCCURRY: It's a significant drain on resources for the Counsel's Office because they have a number of lawyers and paralegal types who have to go through all this, and it's all done at taxpayers' expense. And that, in the end of the day, will be fairly considerable, but it's done to satisfy the inquiries that are being made by members of Congress and in some cases by the Justice Department, and it's a necessary aspect of providing public information about the matters that are under review.

It just has to be done. It's tedious work in many cases, because it has to be done by hand, and it's voluminous. I think most of you by now have seen the document requests that have come from the committee, so you know that they're very expansive and they could conceivably generate maybe hundreds of thousands of pages of material. I don't want to hazard a guess, but that's conceivable to me, and that has to each time be reviewed and properly reviewed by White House Legal Counsel.

Q Just to clarify, these papers you're releasing tomorrow -- hope to release tomorrow -- are these documents that have already gone to the committee? Is it a preemptive thing, what?

MR. MCCURRY: These are documents that were provided by Mr. Ickes' attorney in response to a document request issued to Mr. Ickes, and they are the second batch -- some of those documents having already been released publicly, and of the second batch to be released, some of them will not be released pursuant to the confidentiality agreement that the Democratic National Committee has negotiated with Mr. Burton's agreement, because there is material deemed to be proprietary to the interest of the Democratic Party.

Q Are these going to the committee at the same time?

MR. MCCURRY: They went to the committee long ago and I think some of those that you might consider newsworthy have already appeared in your possession.

Q Mike, could you take the question on Tiller specifically, whether the President or the White House Counsel's Office finds anything improper about the fact that he was solicited while getting Marshal's protection?

MR. MCCURRY: I'll take the question and if we have anything to say, post it.

Q You mentioned that the White House had also received some inquiries from the Justice Department for some documents. Can you give us a sense of what that was about or when that took place?

MR. MCCURRY: I would prefer not to. I think really the Justice Department should comment on the status of their investigation.

Q Mike, just one more quick thing on the liquor announcement. Can you give us a sense of what the genesis of it was, and was it something that came from the Office of Drug Control Policy from HHS? How did that come about?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, really, the genesis of that goes back to the President's concern at the time the industry announced that they would drop the ban, the voluntary ban. The President addressed that in a Saturday radio address -- is that right -- on Father's Day last year, and then we have monitored since then what the impact has been of dropping that ban. It was their -- advertising -- has not been extensive and the President credits some broadcast news organizations, or broadcast organizations that have not accepted advertising revenue for those types of ads, but there's ample evidence that there are some advertisements that are appearing. And as we have monitored it, the President deemed it appropriate to surface the issue and ask the FCC to examine it.

Q Was there anything that triggered this particular timing of it right now?

MR. MCCURRY: Not that I know of. I know that there's been discussions back and forth about how to pursue the issue, and I think they wanted to make sure they had the right steps outlined for purposes of the directive to the FCC.

Q Is there some next step envisioned that would specifically take on beer advertising that is aimed at young people similarly to the campaign that he's mounted against cigarette advertising around schools or that sort of thing?

MR. MCCURRY: Draw a distinction there first. There is a formal rulemaking procedure that we went through with connection to nicotine as an addictive substance, in determining that the cigarette is a delivery device for that addictive substance, and then how do you control that addictive substance through advertising. That was an FDA rulemaking procedure. That's a far cry from, in this instance, a request to the FCC to examine what the impact is of advertising.

Now, as to what we foresee as a result of that, I'm not aware of anyone foreseeing --

Q I'm talking specifically about beer. Not what he's asking the FCC --

MR. MCCURRY: I'm not aware of anyone foreseeing a next step that suggests that you look at beer and wine. I think we're just taking it one step at a time and the step that's been asked for is for the FCC to look at the issue.

Q What about a voluntary ban of beer and wine advertising? Wouldn't it be fair for that as well if you're asking --

MR. MCCURRY: Didn't hear the President address that.

Q What's up for tomorrow, Mike?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know. I'll have to do tomorrow later on, unless you guys know. Do you know what we're doing tomorrow? We'll try to brief you later on that, or Mary Ellen can help you out afterwards.

Q Mike, I notice that Senator Kennedy dropped by. Any special reason? Did he visit the President --

MR. MCCURRY: He came to whisk Kathy away. (Laughter.) I don't know. His new press secretary. He escorted -- I'll have to check and see. I don't know. Okay, thanks.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END 2:55