THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

                             PRESS BRIEFING BY 
                                MIKE MCCURRY

The Briefing Room

1:15 P.M. EST

Q Tell us about Bob Hope.

MR. MCCURRY: I think it was still going on a little while ago. They had a very nice visit with Mr. Hope and his family as the President signed the bill. Do we have a bill signing statement or anything that's coming out? Check on that for me. It was very nice. His whole family was gathered there and people were reminiscing, having a good time. I'll see if I can get some specific things on that.

Any other subjects?

Q Mike, Ann McBride of Common Cause said that this fundraiser over the weekend proves that the President is being bought out by special interests. Do you have any comment on --

MR. MCCURRY: I think she says that anytime we have a fundraiser, so there's nothing new there.

Q This one is a little bit different, she says, because you had some intimate relationships going on with special interests, with corporations and the like.

MR. MCCURRY: Look, there were heads of corporations here at the state dinner last night, they have been at our fundraisers. I don't believe there's anything new about that.

Q Is the U.S. threatening to use force against Saddam for breaches of a deadline?

MR. MCCURRY: The United States is insisting that Saddam Hussein comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions that would force him to make clear that they have discontinued any efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and that they have fully complied with all of the stipulations that have been placed upon them by the international community, and more importantly, the entire world is insisting that Saddam Hussein comply with these mandates from the international community. The U.N. Security Council was very clear last night in insisting on compliance, and very clear in condemning any decision to thwart the work of the U.N. sanctions committee that checks for compliance in Iraq.

Q And if he doesn't?

MR. MCCURRY: If he doesn't, there will be serious consequences. Some of those consequences are spelled out in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1134.

Q What does that say?

MR. MCCURRY: It says that there's -- got a whole series of things that can be contemplated by the international community, and we would work closely with the Security Council to determine what consequences should pertain.

Q Mike, what's the U.S. analysis of what's going on here? I mean, I don't suppose you presume to know his motives, but I mean, what's --

MR. MCCURRY: It's impossible to understand what his motives are because he acts most often based on illogic rather than common sense.

Q Would you say that he's tried to split the alliance?

MR. MCCURRY: If that was his aim, he certainly miscalculated, because last night the Security Council acted unanimously to condemn his decision and to enforce full compliance. So if that was his objective, he certainly once again shot himself in the foot because he succeeded in uniting the world community in insisting upon compliance.

Q Iraq says that the America inspectors on the team are actually going beyond their brief and using the opportunity to carry out espionage against the state.

MR. MCCURRY: That is a laughable charge.

Q Is it untrue?

MR. MCCURRY: Of course. They're working within the parameters established by the sanctions committee itself.

Q Mike, he's backed down every time that he's tried to force our hand. Is there any reason for the White House to think that this would be any different?

MR. MCCURRY: At the end of the day, we expect full compliance. You're correct, that he has usually backed down when faced with the strong will of the international community, as he faces it again this time. But we will certainly not hesitate in continuing to consult with others at the United Nations and others in the international community to assure that we've got the means at our disposal to carry out the mandates that exist.

Q Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read some wire copy that said that the head of the U.N. team had urged another American to leave who wasn't being requested to leave, that there seemed to be some --

MR. MCCURRY: There was a rotation going on, if I understand correctly, with members of the team. They rotated in and out of Bahrain on a regular basis. I think there was a scheduled rotation occurring. But I'd have to check -- you might want to check with our mission up in U.N., they might know more.

Q Are these inspectors staying put?

MR. MCCURRY: The vote of the Council last night has suspended their operations until the conditions exist that they can do the work that they're assigned by the international community to do. So the Council placed the monitoring mission on hold until they understand more fully whether or not Saddam Hussein will allow the committee to do the work it's supposed to do.

Q So it's staying in there in the meantime or are they coming out?

MR. MCCURRY: That's my understanding.

Q -- inspectors were prevented from entering this morning, so it doesn't seem like he'd be willing to --

MR. MCCURRY: It only makes clearer Iraq's disdain for the work the United Nations is doing. But at the end of the day the will of the international community is quite clear and he will have to comply with the resolutions that have been ordered by the Security Council.

Q What's the next step?

MR. MCCURRY: The next step is to continue to consult with others at the Security Council to determine what type of measures are warranted if there is a failure to comply.

Q How much time does he have to comply? A couple of days?

MR. MCCURRY: That's really up to the Security Council, but they made their will quite clear last night.

Q What's the primary job of the inspections now, to see if he's dismantled what we thought he had, or to make sure that he hasn't purchased --

MR. MCCURRY: There's a whole -- if you look at Security Council resolutions 1115 and 1134, there are a list of things that he is required to comply with. Most of these date back to post-Gulf War sanctions ordered by the U.N. that would assure the world that Saddam Hussein was not pursuing or had discontinued any existing programs in the area of biological weapons, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. And there is an ongoing monitoring effort there to assure that they have destroyed whatever capacities that they had prior to, during the war or anything they might be doing after the war to enhance programs that we discover.

Q Why would we have allowed him to keep these weapons for five, six years now?

MR. MCCURRY: What we're doing is assuring that he has not concealed anything that we don't know about. The purpose of the inspections that have been ongoing are to determine whether there is anything that's being concealed -- was not aware of. Now, they have, from time to time in fits and starts indicated some compliance, destroyed some capacity that they have. But we continue to monitor, and obviously because of the record, and because of his lack of compliance, it's important to continue a monitoring mission to be sure that there has been compliance.

Q The UNISCOM report put out covering 1996 said that too often Iraq has actually complied in various areas and not been encouraged -- been praised, encouraged. This was actually in the language itself. Does the U.S. take that position at all that Iraq does not get credit when it's due?

MR. MCCURRY: We take the view that the requirements of the United Nations placed upon Iraq are quite clear, and there has been a lack of compliance. We should not congratulate or reward Saddam Hussein for failing to fully comply with the resolutions that have been ordered in effect.

Q When does Iraq ever graduate from this program?

MR. MCCURRY: When there is full compliance with all the terms of existing resolutions, and that hasn't happened.

Q But if there's a notion that they could always be hiding something, for all we know --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, one purpose of this inspection's regime is to determine what type of program activity they have underway and to assure that it is not continued.

Q On IRS restructuring, Senator Roth yesterday rejected Secretary Rubin's request to take up the IRS restructuring bill this year. Is the White House going to try to change his mind?

MR. MCCURRY: We have been trying to change minds up there. It's important we go into a new tax season. Not too long from now, forms will start being mailed out soon. And we would like to proceed under a new regime of reform such as the one that we have endorsed. We think it's ironic having made an issue of the need to reform and change practices at the IRS that some in Congress would not seek to thwart or delay a measure that has broad bipartisan support that the President has endorsed, that we could now easily pass, that would make life easier for the taxpayer and make that a better functioning agency.

Q Why do you think they're doing that?

MR. MCCURRY: It's very hard to understand. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Q Part of his rationale, he said, was that they want to wait until they see or can act on the outcome of the IRS hearings, and if they were to act on this bill now, they would have to end up doing a second bill next year as well.

MR. MCCURRY: I believe it's more accurate to say that there's a strong consensus that -- based out of the hearings they already had, of some of the things they need to do. You can always go back and adjust, fine-tune, add to measures if it's deemed necessary, but there is now a package of reform measures that has been agreed to by the White House, by the congressional sponsors, that are endorsed by members on both side of the aisle. It's a perfect case where we could have some bipartisan progress before the end of this session of Congress. And why anyone would want to miss the opportunity to tell the taxpayers that we are going to restore some trust and confidence in our tax collection agency is mystifying.

Q On a related subject, if the nomination for IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti is put on hold, is the White House --

MR. MCCURRY: To my knowledge, there is no indication a hold has been placed, given the need to have superior quality leadership of the IRS and, given the broad support Mr. Rossotti has already received, we can't imagine that the Senate would want to delay action on his nomination.

Q Mike, did anyone inside or outside the White House on behalf of the administration call MGM and ask for a delay --

MR. MCCURRY: No, we've checked that and even asked the President about that, and that's just a report in error that I believe has been corrected by the wire service that was carrying it earlier.

Q Did the President say anything about the experience of yesterday's press conference after the fact? Did he comment on it?

MR. MCCURRY: He said immediately afterwards that he thought it was useful and good for the President to hear those questions, to see how in a functioning democracy leaders face criticism, face questions, are challenged and probed and how that is a thing that strengthens civil society and not weakens it. I think in short, he thought it was a good experience for the President of the People's Republic to have.

Q Did Jiang give any indication that the experience of having a public debate with the President in any way modified their young and developing relationship?

MR. MCCURRY: Not at all. In fact, immediately afterwards, the two of them were engaged. The President bid farewell to him for the afternoon yesterday and there didn't seem to be any animosity.

Q It went in one ear and out the other. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know. I can't speak for those ears.

Q In Jiang's toast last night, he said that if a difference can't be resolved, it ought to be set aside. Does the U.S. have any intention of setting aside any of these fundamental differences the President spoke about yesterday?

MR. MCCURRY: No. As we have repeatedly made clear, we will continue to raise those issues because they are of deep concern to us, and they will be a factor in this relationship until we can successfully resolve our concerns. And as we've said often, the full benefit of this engagement and the full benefit of the kind of relationship we want to build will not be attained while there is a major impediment to the relationship, such as our deep disagreement on these issues of freedom, human rights, individual liberties.

Q Mike, the President didn't get answers yesterday, but does he feel he has any leverage to get Chinese political prisoners out of jail?

MR. MCCURRY: I think the President feels that raising these issues can send the right message to the People's Republic. But our goal is to try to gain freedom for those who are incarcerated, and we are pursuing that in the ways that we feel will be most likely to succeed.

Q Do you feel that today you have more leverage than you did two days ago?

MR. MCCURRY: I think today we have the benefit of a very productive set of meetings with the Chinese leadership and they have the benefit of hearing more from our concerns as expressed at the highest levels.

Q Can we just follow up on that? I mean, he was clearly reluctant to say anything specific about what he said about individual prisoners, and that seems to be the policy. Do you have indication that if you don't do that, it will actually help?

MR. MCCURRY: I will say what I just said again. We are pursuing these issues in the way that we think will be most successful in making clear the fundamental concerns we have about freedom and human rights and the treatment of those who are incarcerated, and also in a way that we think will most likely lead to freedom for those who we believe are incarcerated only for the expression of their political beliefs.

Q To return to Eileen's question, how did this summit affect that game plan?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, as I already answered, they have the benefit of hearing from us, how we think about this issue, they have the benefit of seeing and not only hearing the deep concern that people in the United States have about this issue. And we hope and believe that will have some measurable impact.

Q In a positive -- obviously you mean in a positive way.

MR. MCCURRY: It will have some impact. I don't want to predict.

Q What does the President plan to discuss tomorrow with respect to fast track in the speech tomorrow morning?

MR. MCCURRY: He'll be taking advantage of setting that really dramatizes some of the importance of trade in the American economy to make a case once again for the freedom to negotiate agreements that will open foreign markets to goods and services from the United States. We've got some background that can tell you more about the port facility he will visit, but I think you'll hear the President make an argument based not only on economics, but on foreign policy, how important it is for American prestige in the world to be a leader in the attempt to open markets and to encourage free and open trade and not to be a laggard when it comes to taking advantage of the opportunities that exist in this hemisphere and around the world.

That's been part of the theme of the week of meetings here related to China, but it's also part of the ongoing work we're doing to attempt to open up new markets overseas and create a world that is more interdependent and that gains from the kind of commerce that we seek to enhance.

Q Is he going to offer any specific inducements for Democrats to support other measures, such as he going to talk about the possible expansion of the trade adjustment assistance program to get Democratic support?

MR. MCCURRY: He's going to talk about ways -- the positive reasons why free and open trade is good for all Americans and how it encourages others to look at the U.S. -- the role the United States plays through different eyes as well. So, again, I'll suggest it's going to have a little more of a foreign policy element to it, but I think he's also been -- we have been on the Hill simultaneously making a lot of arguments on the Hill as we think about the vote next week to see how we can best position and make an argument that will be effective at the end of the day.

Q Will there be any specific measures outlined tomorrow?

MR. MCCURRY: There will be some specific things you haven't heard before, so you may want to tune in.

Q Mike, is there anything now that the vote is set that he's going to do differently than what he's been doing? Is there anything that --

MR. MCCURRY: He's going to continue -- he's had people here he's been meeting with. We've been meeting both collectively with groups and talking to some people individually. I expect he'll be very active in doing all manner of outreach to the Hill looking ahead to the vote next Friday.

Q The President said a few days ago in his speech that he was going to create some kind of a safety net for people who are displaced by things like trade agreements, and he said he was going to consult with Congress on that. What's the status of that, and when are we going to hear more about it?

MR. MCCURRY: We've been consulting, and we may have some more specifics for you very shortly.

Q Did Gingrich have any prediction on the vote when he was over here the other night?

MR. MCCURRY: They talked about it and talked -- I think both the President and the Speaker talked about their assessment of what the prospects for passage look like, sure.

Q And, to give us a hint --

MR. MCCURRY: No.

Q Mike, for the record, could you tell us why the President is not happy with the compromise proposal for national standards testing in the House and Senate?

MR. MCCURRY: Say again.

Q The compromise proposal for the national standards testing --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the President -- look, the President wants to improve America's schools. He believes that we can do that by setting measurable standards that allow us to know where we are related to performance of school children around the world, and that we then have ways of testing whether we're meeting those standards. And that's one way to kind of make sure that if you set challenging standards and then work hard to meet them, you're more likely to see success an improvement in schools. That is our goal and objective.

At the end of the day, if we can get legislation that moves us to that end, I think this President would be happy to support it. So far, what we are getting is attempts to compromise and work out this issue that falls short of the mark, that would not allow us to kind of go out and do what the President wants to do. Now, we're working this very hard. The conferees, I think, are even meeting -- still meeting right now, I believe. So -- and there are a lot of different ideas that are being discussed and are moving around and about. But that's our test. As it moves to a place where we know we've got standards for our schools and we've got a way of testing to make sure we're going to meet them.

Q There were some D.C. residents, including the former Mayor, Sharon Pratt Kelly, who made the correlation between lack of democracy in China and the lack of democracy in D.C. In fact, she actually even got arrested. The President has been sort of a stranger in the midst of D.C. I heard there were preparations for him to give a speech about D.C. to D.C., for D.C. in November, this coming month. Is that true?

MR. MCCURRY: Mark, I think that's true, but I don't have anything as I'm here -- there's been some discussion of doing exactly that event, but I don't know of anything that has been definitely scheduled yet.

MR. TOIV: It's not definitely scheduled.

MR. MCCURRY: There certainly is some discussion that's been underway, and in fact --

Q Will that happen by the end of the year?

MR. MCCURRY: I think there is a good chance that it will happen and a good chance that it might happen sometime next month rather than December. But we'll have to keep you posted.

Q Mike, on fast track, has the President been talking to Bill Richardson on the phone or meeting with him since he named him specially --

MR. MCCURRY: As you know, Ambassador Richardson has just completed a trip to Africa and he's obviously been working at the United Nations as well and keeping close touch regarding the Iraqi resolutions that have been considered by the Security Council. But I do expect him to be sharing some assessments with the President next week as we get closer to the vote on Friday.

Q Mike, is the President getting ready to exercise his line item veto power again, and will he do that today, tomorrow, Saturday?

MR. MCCURRY: He's kind of warming up and stretching the pen hand, but I don't think it will likely get used anytime before Saturday.

Q Mike, getting back to the D.C. issue, can you at least speak to that, the fact that Sharon Pratt Kelly and --

MR. MCCURRY: I'm not familiar with the circumstances of the former mayor. I can say I think that anyone that would make any comparison between the denial of fundamental human rights and liberties in the Communist People's Republic of China and the freedoms that are enjoyed by residents of the United States of America who live here in the District of Columbia are really missing a pretty stark contrast that should be obvious, I think, to any person who stops and thinks for more than a second.

Q They say it's a lack of democracy here.

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, if they want to compare that to the situation that citizens face in the People's Republic of China, I think they are sorely lacking in their understanding of the freedoms that they enjoy here in the United States of America.

Q Mike, the President's going to a school tomorrow. What will he be saying?

MR. MCCURRY: We just did that. We just talked about -- oh, the school -- I'm sorry, no. He will be going -- he is visiting the school. We're doing the speech about fast track and then he'll also be visiting the school that he was scheduled to visit the day after he injured his knee, so he's making good on a trip that was scheduled. And of course I think he will be talking a bit about standards and efforts to improve schools.

Q I want to ask you this again because I'm not clear because you said that we are pursuing these issues in the way which we feel most successful. I guess what I'm trying to get to is, how do you feel the summit has moved the ball -- do you feel the summit has moved the ball farther down the field in terms of human rights? And what do you do differently if at all, concretely differently in trying to put forward the issue on human rights?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, and nothing, because we've been pressing it hard and I do believe that the argument was clearly heard. But we've been pressing it very hard and we'll continue to do so.

Q Mike, does the President still have full confidence in Babbitt?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes.

Travel pool needs to go now if anyone is going to that event.

Q When you say press it hard in terms of human rights, how do you define that specifically other than just saying human rights as a generality is --

MR. MCCURRY: I think you had lots of readouts yesterday about how this subject came up. You'll continue to hear reports on how these issues are raised when senior-level Americans meet with their counterparts from the People's Republic, and we have a very broad and extensive dialogue on that issue.

Q Is the President likely to make the line item veto the topic of his Saturday radio address?

MR. MCCURRY: That remains to be seen; don't have a topic yet.

Q One more time on the DNC retreat -- if contributors are paying upwards of $50,000 a piece to spend a weekend with the President, why is that not a case of buying access to the President? Or selling access to the President.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, why is -- you could say that same thing anytime there is a fundraiser, anytime there is any event in which the President seeks political support for his party. And most of you do say that, and every time there's an event -- that's the nature of the system; it's the way in which fundraising works. The President sees this as an opportunity to share views with those who are supportive of the party. It's a setting -- obviously, it's not as customary as a normal fundraising setting, but it's one that the President thinks will be enjoyable for him, enjoyable for the people who are participating and will lead to the kind of interesting discussions that are going to be held that you will cover.

I make one point -- you all are going to be there; you could all see for yourself whether you think there's anything untoward about the access. That's a stark contrast from Senator Trent Lott and his Republican fundraisers when they journeyed to Florida on a similar kind of retreat and charged three times as much money as we're charging for the weekend and denied the press any access at all. Will you give us any credit for at least having this thing fully covered by the press? Probably not, but that's the way it goes.

Q In about five weeks the Kyoto climate change conference opens and the final negotiating session is underway in Bonn. Various delegations have been reported to say that the main obstacle to an agreement at this point is the U.S. insistence on the inclusion of developing countries in making efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and that it goes against the Berlin agreement putting limits on their requirement to reduce greenhouse gases. Does the White House feel that there's any prospect of getting an agreement?

MR. MCCURRY: Our view is that our insistence on the inclusion of developing countries is not counter to the Berlin mandate. We do believe that developing countries have to be a part of any international regime if it is to be effective and realistic in achieving the kind of results that we want. And third, is there some prospect that that might be a barrier to success at Kyoto? The answer is, yes, there is a chance that there won't be any successful outcome to the discussions in Kyoto. But at the same time, the reasons why we are insisting on those -- insisting on inclusion of developing countries are very clear from the arguments you've heard the President make.

Q But by acknowledging that just now, what you're saying is that the prospect of no deal and that no one, developing or developed, reducing their emissions is better than the developed industrialized countries at least agreeing to reduce their emissions. Does that make sense?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, no, no. Countries, regardless of whether you negotiate an international regime at Kyoto, individual countries will continue the kinds of things that we're doing through joint implementation, that the Europeans have been doing, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That's a mandate that is placed upon individual countries that were signatories at Rio. So that continues.

It would be much better to get an international regime, but it has to be one, in our view, that will work. And you can't, in our view, get one that works that excludes developing countries that will likely replace today's developed countries in the next century as primary sources of gases that will continue the problem unless they are included in some type of workable regime.

Q But if you accept the President's argument which is that binding limits are the only thing that will work, that the voluntary limits haven't worked, and if you accept you might get no deal as a result of this developing country argument, aren't you worse off from that perspective?

MR. MCCURRY: No, you're at status quo. And the status quo are countries that have commitments because of the Rio treaty and they'll continue to have to work to meet those mandates. Now, the problem is that we are looking for a ways to make those binding targets that will assure success now because, in a sense, the voluntary scheme of Rio* hasn't been successful. But the mandate still exists for those who are signatories to the treaty to do something to reduce emission.

Q Mike, just to follow up on your answer to Mark's question, I get the point you're making about press access to the Republican retreat versus this one, but what does the ticket price have to do with it? You said they're charging three times as much.

MR. MCCURRY: No, I'm just saying -- I just threw that in for gratuitous purposes. (Laughter.)

Q Are you saying the President's a bargain? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: No, I'm just pointing out -- I was just trying to get people interested to remind people that the Republicans had a similar fundraising event that benefitted them, and if there was squawking about access, the squawks should be the same in that case as they are in this case. The difference is that you will be able to see for yourself whether you think there's anything that's particularly unseemly about this. You couldn't when the Republicans held their event. That was my point.

Q Since global warming is such a high priority for the President and the Kyoto conference may be in danger of not achieving anything, is he considering going himself in order to put prestige --

MR. MCCURRY: I haven't heard anything that would suggest that.

Q What about the Vice President?

MR. MCCURRY: I haven't heard anything that indicates we've made any decision on the nature and composition of whatever delegation goes to Kyoto.

Q Will the White House be receiving trick-or-treaters?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know. It's pretty ghoulish around here enough as it is.

Q Well, speaking of that, there are all sorts of stories about this place being haunted --

MR. MCCURRY: I believe it.

Q Do you?

MR. MCCURRY: Sure.

Q Why?

MR. MCCURRY: I just believe that --

Q Let me ask you this. Have the Clintons ever reported any contact with the -- which supposedly haunt this place?

MR. MCCURRY: They sort of stay confined to Eleanor Roosevelt and safer territory. (Laughter.)

Q Any reports -- seriously -- have there been any reports of -- (laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: Seriously? There are, from time to time, reports that the White House is haunted. From time to time, mysterious appearances of figures from history, there are tales and legends of a former White House usher now dead who appears from time to time.

Q Have you spotted him?

MR. MCCURRY: There have been serious people who have serious --

Q Do you believe these stories?

MR. MCCURRY: -- tales to tell about --

Q Do you believe the stories?

MR. MCCURRY: -- these encounters. No, I haven't heard the President or the First Lady tell any of these tales, but there are people who seriously believe --

Q Like you?

MR. MCCURRY: -- that there is a haunted quality, a haunting quality to the White House.

Q You mean, Jody Powell and Marlin were not real, they were ghosts of the past?

MR. MCCURRY: Ghosts of the past? They looked to me like they were doing okay. They looked pretty prosperous and successful to me. They looked pretty good. (Laughter.)

One thing I had forgotten to talk about. The Secretary General of NATO, Secretary General Solana will be here today with other -- I think all 16 Perm reps, ambassadors to NATO are in town for a series of meetings. They'll be meeting with National Security Advisor Berger this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. -- correct? So he will be here --

Q -- for what?

MR. MCCURRY: Mostly going to be doing a full review of issues that will prepare for the December ministerial meetings that are traditionally held in Brussels. Clearly, Bosnia will be one subject on their agenda as well as NATO expansion -- the calendar for expansion, and other questions that have been part of the ministerial dialogue at NATO for some time, different things.

Q Iraq?

MR. MCCURRY: Iraq is most likely not going to be a subject at that venue.

Q What was the first one you said?

MR. MCCURRY: Bosnia.

Q Will they be at a stakeout -- will Solana be coming out?

MR. MCCURRY: They're not planning to, apparently because they've got other meetings. They're moving around town and seeing folks at Pentagon and at State, too -- correct? I believe they were at the Pentagon for breakfast with Secretary Cohen this morning, if I'm not mistaken.

Q Will you have a readout on the meeting?

MR. MCCURRY: Ms. Luzzatto will -- if you want to get in touch with her, she can tell you.

Q Following up on Bill's questions, is there a Ghostbusters unit that gets called in? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know. That's one of those -- you know how I refrain from discussing security issues. But you may want to see if the Secret Service will be willing to comment on their paranatural division. (Laughter.) You know, they've got the Uniform Division; they've got the paranatural guys.

Q And Ghostbusters.

MR. MCCURRY: Dan Aykroyd.

Q What are you going to be wearing tomorrow? What's your costume? What's your costume tomorrow?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm going to dress as a journalist tomorrow. (Laughter.) I'm going to trick-or-treat as a journalist. Disheveled looking, half awake, spill a little coffee on the front of me. (Laughter.)

Q So you're not going to change?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, that's right. All right. See you all next week.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END 1:50 P.M. EST

#425-10/30