THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
PRESS BRIEFING BY JOE LOCKHART The Briefing Room
2:25 P.M. EDT
MR. LOCKHART: Let me start with a couple things here. One is, the President today announced that Thomas Frazier, the Commissioner of the Baltimore City Police Department, has been named the Director of the Office of Community-Oriented Policing services, otherwise known as COPS, at the Justice Department.
Mr. Frazier is 54, has been the Commissioner of the Baltimore City Police Department since 1994. Before coming to Baltimore, Frazier was with the San Jose, California Police Department for more than 20 years. He is also the current President of the Police Executive Research Forum.
One other thing. I spoke yesterday at some length, and probably to your boredom, about the Republicans' appropriations plans and the fact that they will be spending the Social Security surplus, and I did not have at my fingertips the basis for making that claim. I knew that there was a CBO letter; I have it now.
I think what's interesting about this is, if you remember on September 14th, the leadership of the Republicans wrote to the President and closed their letter by saying, "Republicans are committed to stopping Washington's budget practice of stealing from the Social Security trust fund. We hope you, too, will join us in that commitment." So, clearly, from a public point of view, they would like people to believe that they have made a commitment not to do this.
Unfortunately, even their own CBO has looked at what they've done and judged that they have not met that commitment. The members wrote to the CBO earlier this month and asked them to look at appropriations action through the end of August. And Mr. Crippen, the head of the CBO -- and as you know, that's someone who has gotten a lot of criticism of what they've done as far as looking at the numbers from the point of view of the Republicans -- but he wrote back that the $14-billion surplus that he had projected on-budget for 1999, at the end of August, was now gone, and that he was looking at a $16-billion deficit, coming out of Social Security.
Congressman Spratt has written today to CBO to ask them to look -- now that they've had movement on all 13 appropriations bills -- to see how much further they've gone into Social Security. I think if you talk to the committee, you'll find that they're sort of back-of-the-envelope calculations, put the number in excess of $25 billion now.
So I think we're finding that the commitments that have been made publicly aren't worth very much at this point. And what is worth something is what Congressman DeLay told you, before they went home for the August recess -- that they were going to spend the on-budget surplus, and then they were going to go beyond that and spend the Social Security surplus.
So I think these letters back up the assertions I made yesterday, and also bring home the point that I think, as the President said, it's time for them to do a real budget, an honest budget, come clean, put aside the gimmicks. Yesterday was like an inventor's convention up on the floor of the Senate. They invented brand-new ways, setting new creative heights in accounting, for advancing appropriations.
And it's time to put that aside, come clean with the American public, talk about how we're going to pay for these things, make the right investments, and get this process finished with.
Q So you suggest they meet this up to at least $25 billion --
MR. LOCKHART: We have proposed offsets in the President's budget. They need to look at those. One in particular they can look at is the tobacco tax.
Q You suggest they keep --
MR. LOCKHART: Sure, but there's a whole other -- when we sent the Florida budget that is fully paid for for FY 2000, there's a lot of good ideas in there, there's a lot of loophole closings that can offset, and what we need now is a real commitment and the hard work that it takes to get to the point where we can make the investments we need and not spend the Social Security surplus.
Q The markups that you've seen, which are the bills that are outstanding and which are facing veto threats as they stand now?
MR. LOCKHART: I have a list here someplace. I know the VA, HUD and Interior face veto threats based on some environmental riders. I know that they're not that far along, I don't think they're far enough along on Labor H yet for OMB to take a hard look or others. But I think the President made very clear and Secretary Riley made clear where we are.
I mean, again, this is a question of measuring public statements against private action or the action on the floor. They have publicly said that education is a top priority, but yesterday and the day before, they moved to cut $1 billion off the President's request to slash the President's program for putting more teachers in the classroom, slashed the gear-up program, slashed America Reads, slash after-school programs, and when it came time to pay for even the stuff that they thought they could afford or the stuff that they thought they wanted, they decided to find some clever gimmick of doing an advanced appropriation on it so they won't pay for it next year, they'll put it on the credit card.
So it's time that we get to work, we start measuring the validity of some of these statements and figure out what it is they're going to do. I think that they have come well short of the public commitments they've made.
Q Why does he think he can get a compromise on taxes?
MR. LOCKHART: I think partly because of the conversation we're having right now. I mean, they are moving forward in a process whereby at some point they'll have to come clean to the American public and say, we wanted to give you a tax cut we couldn't pay for, we're not going to be able to do anything on Medicare and Social Security, which is your priority, we're going to cut education, which is your priority, but we've got a bunch of other things we want to do. We're going to go ahead and do them and we're going to use the Social Security surplus to pay for it.
Yesterday on the floor, we once again -- the Senate Republicans moved to provide a $64-million windfall for the oil companies. We have -- the Interior Department, for three years, has been trying to get a rule put through that it would allow market royalties to be paid by oil companies when they take oil from public and federal lands. And for three years, the Republicans have found a way to stop it.
Q They don't have to pay any royalties?
MR. LOCKHART: Not on oil -- yes, they pay it, but it's not at the market rate if they were taking it from someplace that is not federally controlled. We have a story of the Senate Majority Leader, who received the best advice from the Pentagon about what they needed on a ship that's being built, or would be built in his hometown. They said they didn't need to start building it until 2005, they didn't need it until 2011. Well, Senator Lott sent an answer back saying wrong answer, you need it now and I'm going to give you the money to build it now
What makes this thing harder to understand is, we went sometime ago to Senator Lott and said we have a real challenge on embassy security. We want to be able to appropriate money, sign these contracts, get the embassy security work done. So we want to appropriate money this year, and then we want to do an advanced appropriation for the out-years so that we know that it's there and we can do this in the proper way. And he said, oh, no, we can't do that, that's not how we work. But when it comes to building something in his backyard, well, then an advance in appropriations is in order.
Q Joe, this sounds like gridlock. What makes the President optimistic that there's going to be a deal?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, you know, I read the papers every day. You read the papers every day. I think they read the papers every day. And people, here and, I think, increasingly in the country, are catching on to the games that are being played here, to the gimmicks that are being wrought, to the blue smoke and mirrors that they proudly talk about.
And I think one of the things that the President was trying to get at yesterday was that we have, in his view, changed the way we operate. And the results are unassailable, as far as the impact on the economy, the impact of fiscal discipline, the benefits of fiscal discipline. And I don't think the country's in any mood to have people in Washington cooking the books and taking a U-turn on what's worked for the last seven years.
Q So are you saying, then, that if the Republicans end up trying to fund this with the surplus rather than using the tobacco tax and corporate subsidy -- ending corporate subsidies, that the President will veto?
MR. LOCKHART: I'm saying that we're going to look at all of these bills coming down here, but what we're asking them now is to cut out the gimmicks, come clean, put the numbers on the table. We can work this out. We can pay for the investments we need. There are a variety of ways to do that, and we don't have to spend the Social Security surplus.
Q Joe, don't you still have several emergency spending bills that you need to put forward, including Kosovo among others?
MR. LOCKHART: There may well be some emergency spending. I think much of what we've talked about, we're going to find a way to offset. But there is -- you know, we talked about this yesterday. There's emergency spending, and then there's emergency spending. There's the census, that comes along every ten years, that the Republicans were surprised came along this year, so they designated it an emergency. I mean, the $25 billion I'm talking about excludes the $3.5 billion for the census, because that was such a surprise.
But then there's also things like -- look at the LIHEAP program. Last year, the Republicans tried to zero out -- the LIHEAP program is a good program that provides assistance for low-income people when the weather gets cold, and they need extra help to heat their houses. Last year, the Republicans tried to zero that program out, saying that the program had no merit, shouldn't be funded.
This year, it is so important they've designated it an emergency. Well, what happened? I doubt that there was a policy conversion of monumental and biblical proportions. It's a gimmick; it's a game. And I think what we're saying is, let's end the game. Let's deal with this seriously. It's what the American public is expecting and demands. And we can get this done. And we can get this done in a way that the President believes can meet our priorities, can deal with the big-picture issues -- Social Security, Medicare, education -- and do it in a way that doesn't put Social Security at risk.
Q Would the American people feel right, or the U.S. feel right, in feeling betrayed if the Kosovars do secede? We went in there for humanitarian reasons, not to promote whatever political cause was there. And if they did, wouldn't that sort of put a sour note on --
MR. LOCKHART: I don't know. I think there's -- as the U.N. resolution notes, there's a process by which they will deal with that issue. Let me take issue, though, with the reason I think you asked me that question. There is a report in a paper today that cites an unnamed person saying that the U.S. policy has changed. Two paragraphs down, that same story cites on the record the President's National Security Advisor saying the policy hasn't changed. And then the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, on the record, saying.
So it's the great Washington game where a blind quote is worth a lot more than someone who's willing to put their name on it. But I guess that's beside the point. The policy hasn't changed.
Q Yes, but by the same token, would that quote be there if somebody weren't trying to change the policy?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, when I was in school and I learned about journalism, it was about reporting the facts, not someone's agenda. And being party to pushing someone's agenda is not what should lead a major newspaper.
Q Joe, what sort of feedback are you getting on the tobacco tax from the Hill?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, we're going to keep pushing it. You know, the Republicans have made clear last year, when we tried a comprehensive approach, where their interests were. But we think as we move down, and it becomes evident that the letter to the President isn't worth much, saying that they're committed to not using the Social Security funds -- and the public focuses in on the fact that after making all these promises, they're now going right to doing exactly what they said they wouldn't do -- they'll be looking for some way to maneuver out of this. And the tobacco tax would be, from our point of view, a good public policy way of doing that.
Q On these taxes, is there any evidence that George W. Bush has influence over the congressional Republicans to get a deal here?
MR. LOCKHART: I don't have the slightest idea.
Q I mean, have you heard any feedback from your statements yesterday on Bush?
MR. LOCKHART: No.
Q Joe, would the President sign a three-week continuing resolution? The Republicans are talking about that on the Hill.
MR. LOCKHART: The conversations I've heard have all centered around a two-week. It's important that we don't just punt this down the road, kick this down the road. We've got work to do, and it's important that this comes down. It's important it comes down in a way that isn't loaded up with other ideas.
Q Joe, how do you respond to the argument that neither side would be facing this gridlock now if, in the '97 agreement, both sides hadn't winked and nodded and set an unrealistic spending cap agreement, which results in unrealistic spending limits right now?
MR. LOCKHART: I would say that if you put the '93 economic --
MR. LOCKHART: -- I know -- the economic plan together with the '97 balanced budget, those two things have a lot to do with the strong economy that we enjoy. I think that fiscal discipline is important. It's important that we impose restraints on ourselves. We have abundant evidence of what happens when restraints are not imposed. But I think as the President's budget indicates, that if we're willing to tackle these big issues; if we're willing to look at Social Security and Medicare and, in the same context, the investments we need to make, we can go beyond what was done in '97, but it's not going to -- the President's point of view is, is let's not make ourselves feel good on the spending and not tackle the difficult issues that we have to do.
Q Isn't this a false argument? Shouldn't you be undoing spending caps that were unrealistically set two years ago?
MR. LOCKHART: I think it's actually quite helpful in the argument if this forces one person to go back and look at the important issues we face. It's too easy to say, well, we can't really decide here, so let's just spend more. There's ample evidence of the damage that that kind of thinking. What we should understand coming out of the last seven years is the benefits of being fiscally disciplined.
Q If you like the spending cuts and they're part of the caps and they were part of the strong economy, why not just stick with them from here on out instead of breaking them next year as you plan to do?
MR. LOCKHART: Because we think there are important priorities and investment to make, particularly in the field of education, in the field of medical research and in other areas, and we think we can do that in a fiscally responsible way if we tackle the large issues of Medicare, Social Security and spending all at once in a way that pays down the debt and provides compounding savings over the next 15 years.
Q Back to the issue of the status of Kosovo. During the bombing and maybe possibly before the bombing campaign, did the administration foresee the possibility of what we have right now where the United States and NATO are essentially responsible for the political future of Kosovo, and did you have a plan for that contingency?
MR. LOCKHART: Sure. I mean, I think that we always knew that there was difficult work to be done in the reconstruction of Kosovo, difficult work in moving into a free and self-governing autonomous place. We've always known that it was difficult. The entire structure was set up in a way where KFOR would provide help, but would transition to the U.N. authority, which would transition to the civilian government of Kosovo. No one is under any illusion that this is easy work. The difficulties in Kosovo and in the Balkans are legendary in their complicated nature and how hard it is. But we have a plan which is in place with the international community that is moving toward the ultimate goal of an autonomous, self-governed Kosovo.
Q Does the President think that the Democrats are in some kind of blue funk? Because from his two speeches today -- all seemed designed to lift spirits as though they were all in a downer mood in terms of the next election.
MR. LOCKHART: I don't think so. I think the President believes the Democrats are in a very good position. The Democrats -- let's look at where we are right now. The Republicans centered their agenda this year around a tax cut that the public has, by and large, rejected. They're now in a box of not being able to pay for what they need to run the government.
The Democrats have stood up and said let's do something on Social Security. The Democrats have stood up and stood behind the President on a specific plan for reforming Medicare and providing a meaningful prescription drug benefit. The President was the person who staged this debate, and the Democrats have been with him on the value of paying down the debt and fiscal discipline. So I think the Democrats -- and finally, and perhaps most importantly, with many voters is, the Democrats have demonstrated time and time again that education is their top priority. And if you look at what happened in the House and Senate in the last two days, it's clear that the Republicans -- it's one of their lowest priorities.
Q Joe, did the President last night mention to President Shevardnadze the case of Lauren Willey (phonetic), the American aid worker who is being held in Georgia?
MR. LOCKHART: No, the President didn't specifically mention that, although we had had previous assurances and meeting where it was raised by Secretary Cohen and Secretary Albright in meetings with Shevardnadze about this case. Mr. Shevardnadze assured us that he would make sure that justice was done in this case.
Q The President did not discuss it with President Shevardnadze either last night or yesterday afternoon?
MR. LOCKHART: No, the President did not.
Q Why not?
MR. LOCKHART: The President knew that it had been brought up in two meetings with Secretary Albright and Secretary Cohen, and we received assurances from the Georgian government.
Q The Secretary of Commerce said last night that privatizing any portion of the Social Security account is a non-starter from the administration's point of view, but that's a fairly fundamental point of view from the Republicans. How do you get out of this box, or how do you get out of this box, or how do you get off ground zero of this compromise you're talking about?
MR. LOCKHART: I think we've put forward very thoughtful plans for how to raise the rate of returns in Social Security, but continue to provide a wide-ranging benefit to all of America, because I think we've been very clear on this but we need to keep working with them.
Q You're not willing to give at all on any of these points? Does the compromise barely mean the GOP comes over to your point of view?
MR. LOCKHART: No. I think there's lots of areas within Social Security and within here that we can work, and we can look forward to working. I'm not going to do a counter-offer here based on something that somebody said. The President made very, very clear where he is, and, frankly, we just need to get to work on it.
Q Joe, how's the White House dealing with the issue of the Senate and the House versions of the CRA trying to come together, and the fact that civil rights leaders, as well as community development leaders, are not happy with the Senate version? How are you guys handling that?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, the President's made very clear that he believes that CRA's a very important and vital program, and has opposed the efforts of Senators, led by Senator Gramm of Texas, to try to eliminate the program. And he's made it very clear it's his priority, and it's something that he needs to see continued, in whatever legislation they send.
Q Joe, on a lighter note, I'm wondering if you can tell us if you or the President saw NBC's new drama, "The West Wing," that premiered on Wednesday, and whether or not you guys have any comment on how accurately it may have portrayed life in the West Wing.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, let me go to the week ahead and talk about the Sunday morning radio address. (Laughter.) No, the President didn't watch it as far as I know. I haven't really --
Q Did you have a chance to look at it?
MR. LOCKHART: I saw it. What did I think? As far as its accuracy, as far as the physical layout and everything, you know, I got the impression from watching it that they were not trying to mimic the building here, as evidenced by, they know the radio address is on Saturday, and they put it in the script Sunday. I mean, I think that they've made an attempt to make it visually interesting, which most television shows should be to be successful, and not try to mimic everything. And I think from a public point of view, most of the public has probably only been exposed to this building to probably this room and the Oval Office. And I think both of those rooms looked like they did.
Beyond that, there's not much comparison between what they portrayed. There seemed to be a lot more people milling around in the program, all looking important and busy and --
Q And all the spacious offices.
MR. LOCKHART: -- and lots of spacious offices, lots of --
Q What about content?
MR. LOCKHART: Oh, content? Oh, you know, this is fiction, and it's a drama. But I think what I've told some of you is this can be marginally useful if they do this in a serious way, if they deal with issues seriously, and if the people seem to be well-meaning hard workers. So there are -- like it or not, television and popular culture has an enormous influence on young people -- and on all people, but particularly young people. And I think we've seen that some of the most successful television series have had the influence of positively impacting other fields -- lawyers and doctors.
And like it or not, true or not, I think popular culture generally portrays Washington in a cartoonish way, and in a very negative way. Not that we don't do things from time to time to give them ammunition, but by and large, people are here for the right reason, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, whether we're working together or working against each other. They're here and important work is being done.
So I think the people in this room, the people in this building will probably tune in to find out that we don't have coffee cups that color, or some other marginal detail. But the general public I think will look at it to see if it's an interesting program. If it is, and it's done in a serious way, it could have the benefit of having people look at Washington a different way.
Q A follow-up, though. What about the last part, with the religious right and the anti-Semitic attacks? Any statement on that?
MR. LOCKHART: I will refer all questions to whatever her name is in the television show.
Q Joe, on another subject, is there going to be movement any time soon on the MLK murder investigation, who actually killed him, from the Justice Department?
MR. LOCKHART: I know, as we've talked about a couple times in the past, I think the Justice Department some months ago agreed to take a look at this. I haven't heard anything, but let me look into it. I just haven't checked lately.
Q MLK III was here a couple weeks ago, with Walter Fontroy. And I was wondering if they were trying to give him --
MR. LOCKHART: I haven't heard. I'll just have to check. I mean, Justice is the most direct place, but we'll look into it.
Q Joe, back on the spending bills, just to clarify. On the three that he hasn't signed that they've sent over, do you see appropriations, the pay raises for Congress and the President -- he is going to sign those -- is he, do you know? And if they do pass a two week continuing resolution next week --
MR. LOCKHART: I think I indicated yesterday that the right continuing resolution with the right time frame and the lack of unnecessary provisions would be looked positively upon here at the White House.
As far as other pieces of legislation, when they come down here we'll tell you what we're going to do with them. There are several that there are threats out on, that have been out for some time, that are still in the process and --
Q D.C. appropriations?
MR. LOCKHART: D.C., there's a veto threat on that. There is certainly one on Interior, VA and HUD.
MR. TOIV: Treasury-Postal, we haven't said what we're going to do. It's come up, but --
MR. LOCKHART: I don't have a specific threat on that.
Q What's the radio address about and do you have the week ahead?
MR. LOCKHART: I do have the week ahead. The radio address policy sweepstakes has yet to be decided. There are still several ideas in the mix and one of them is going to win sometime in the next hour and a half.
Q Joe, I tried this about Moynihan before -- any impact on Moynihan's endorsement of Bradley -- the assessment, rather?
MR. LOCKHART: No, I think that, obviously, those of you who follow Capitol Hill know that Senator Moynihan and Senator Bradley worked very closely together for a long time on the Finance Committee. They have a good relationship. He made a decision that that was the way he wanted to go politically in this year's election.
From the Vice President's point of view, if it made such big news every time a Senator endorsed, he'd take that deal, because I think he enjoys wide ranging support in Congress as well as around the United States.
But I think, ultimately, the voters will look to whether either of the candidates -- and on the Republican side, the many candidates -- can address the particular issues that they're concerned with and lay out some credible, specific plan for dealing with them. And that's how they'll make their decisions.
Q Joe, beyond his relationship with Bradley, he seems to be saying that Vice President Al Gore isn't electable. Now, he's the same guy who says that Hillary Clinton is electable. How sound are his political prognostications?
MR. LOCKHART: My general view -- and you're going to get me in trouble with one, so let me decide who I want to be in trouble with less -- my general view, just from having been around these things for a long time, is prognostication, either way, 16 months before an election is worth less than prognostication made closer to the time. (Laughter.) Nobody is mad at me, right? Thank you. (Laughter.)
Q Are you sure you want to be that extreme? (Laughter.)
Q Sorry -- anything new on East Timor? The Pentagon is saying they're sending a helicopter carrier, or they're thinking about sending a helicopter carrier --
MR. LOCKHART: I don't have anything new. I would go there. I'm not aware of any change in our commitment. There are -- as you know, of the resources that were provided, they were going in in waves. So this may just be the latest movement. But I'm not aware of any change in our commitment.
Q Week ahead?
MR. LOCKHART: One more.
Q The administration's reaction to Lott and Specter forming a Waco task force?
MR. LOCKHART: Let me give you -- I really don't know the details of that. I think as I've said from here at the podium, there are some questions that need to be answered on the subject. Congress has a right to know; the President has a right to know; the public has a right to know. So I don't know how this differs from what the Judiciary Committee is already doing.
If this, though, is another attempt to define themselves as the party of investigation and the party of oversight, I think it, again, just tells us the corner they've boxed themselves in as far as their agenda. And it, to me, kind of shows that the learning curve is pretty flat and slow on the fact that the American public wants us to do their business and they don't want us to spend all of our time and what's now hundreds of millions of dollars on looking at what they can find on the President.
Week ahead. On Saturday, the President will travel to Bethesda Naval Hospital for his physical examination, his fifth since becoming the President. He will depart the White House at 8:00 a.m., via helicopter.
I expect, in talking to Dr. Mariano, that the physical will last until probably about 3:00 p.m., maybe a little bit sooner. Following the physical, I'll have a chance to talk to the doctors involved, and Dr. Mariano and I will come out and brief the pool out at Bethesda. There will be a place for them to set up. And I think the general way we've done this in the past we'll stay with, which is, we'll do a general readout of the physical from both myself and Dr. Mariano on camera, and then we'll do a short Q&A session on the record and off camera.
Q The pool will go up from here?
MR. LOCKHART: Yes -- I don't know how we're doing this, but this will be for the pool.
We'll do the radio address, obviously, which I've indicated I don't know what it's about.
On Monday, September 26th, the President will have a departure statement prior to leaving for New Orleans. That will be roughly 8:00 a.m. -- 8:00 a.m. -- The President will then depart --
MR. LOCKHART: We'll let you know. The President will depart for New Orleans at 8:15 a.m. He will participate in an education event, and attend a luncheon and dinner for Representative Bill Jefferson, returning to D.C. about 11:10 p.m.
Q What time does he go to the hospital?
MR. LOCKHART: 8:00 a.m.
Q Anything more on the education event, Joe, that you can tell
us? Is this -- are we going to hear about what you talked about earlier?
MR. LOCKHART: I think you'll hear about some of the budget cuts. I think you'll hear also about the importance of the Congress moving forward on school modernization.
Q Is he staying here on Sunday?
MR. LOCKHART: Yes.
Tuesday, the President will host the annual White House Religious Leaders Breakfast, which is pool coverage for the remarks; and will meet with the Turkish Prime Minister in the afternoon. We'll do a pool spray.
Wednesday, the President and the First Lady will host the annual National Medal of Arts and Humanities, 11:00 a.m., South Lawn, open press; and Medals of Arts and Humanities dinner, which there's no coverage notation, so we'll have to figure that out.
Thursday, the President has no public schedule. Friday, the President will depart for Las Vegas mid-morning, attending a DSCC lunch, traveling on to Palo Alto for a DNC reception that evening. He will overnight in Palo Alto, and I suspect, looking at this schedule, will probably do something before we leave on Friday.
Q And on Saturday?
MR. LOCKHART: I don't have the schedule Saturday. I know we end the day in Los Angeles. Right? Saturday? We finish in Los Angeles? We're in northern California, then go down to Los Angeles.
Q We're not coming back until Sunday.
MR. LOCKHART: No, we're not coming back Saturday. Back Sunday or Monday.
Q I think -- well, Rangel's supposed to offer an alternative package to the Archer extenders bill, that includes school modernization. Is that something the President's going to address on Monday?
MR. LOCKHART: We'll address the overall issue. I'm not sure. I think what Representative Rangel has put forward is both that and an overall look at extending tax provisions. And, you know, I think what makes Representative Rangel's approach, by far, better than what has been put forward by the Republicans is, he's offered a way to pay for these tax incentives.
You know, we had a long and sometimes tedious discussion of going into the Social Security surplus and things not being paid for. Well, if you look at the tax extenders that Chairman Archer's put out, they're not paid for. And he has told the leadership that, you know, we've got to take this out of the surplus.
So this just keeps adding up. It may seem, each day you add a little bit to it, but you go on for a couple months like this and it adds up to a lot of money and a lot of money that shouldn't come out of the Social Security surplus.
Q Thank you.
MR. LOCKHART: Thank you. See you tomorrow.
END 3:00 P.M. EDT