View Header


Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release October 6, 1999
                           PRESS BRIEFING BY
                              JOE LOCKHART

                           The Briefing Room

1:12 P.M. EDT

MR. LOCKHART: Following today's briefing we'll be instituting new policy -- coming to the briefing will earn you frequent flyer miles that can be use on any major airline. (Laughter.)

Q Even on Air Force One?

Q The charter?

MR. LOCKHART: There you go.

Q Do you promise to eliminate delays?

MR. LOCKHART: If I could figure out a way to eliminate DeLay, I might think of it. Oh, you said "delays." Sorry, I can't do anything about that. (Laughter.)

Questions? I've got no announcements for you.

Q Do we get double miles --

MR. LOCKHART: Anything for you, Mark.

Q Free ticket anywhere on the system?

MR. LOCKHART: Yes, you can go wherever we go, any time you want. (Laughter.)

Q Are you going to go ahead and have the 3:00 p.m. event, or is there any agreement --

MR. LOCKHART: There's no agreement that I know of. The President is very much looking forward to having this event this afternoon with a distinguished group of Nobel laureates and national security officials and former national security officials.

Q Joe, Senator Daschle says that before the treaty went down in defeat the President would prefer to have the vote delayed. Is that or is that not the case?

MR. LOCKHART: I think we've made the case all along that we thought that eight or nine days was inadequate for a real debate where senators would have the chance to be briefed, to look at the issues, to understand the complexity of the issues. We continue to believe that to be the case. I think this upshot of last night's dinner here at the White House with Republicans and Democrats was a general consensus that this process is inadequate. But the process is the process and the Senate has put it in place. The vote is set for next Tuesday, and we're going to work as hard as we can between now and next Tuesday to get as many votes as we can.

Q In retrospect, was it a mistake to accept this deal for a vote on Tuesday?

MR. LOCKHART: I think, in retrospect, it was a mistake for the party in the majority to move forward in a process that didn't do justice to the importance of this serious and important issue. But as far as how they are going to do their business, that's up to them to talk about.

Q Joe, it's clearly your belief, or the White House's belief, that given enough time a sufficient number of Republicans senators may come around on the merits --


Q Let me finish the question. If that's your belief, do you think that their resistance to do what you think is the right thing on this treaty now is another part of the legacy of bitterness from the impeachment battle, that you simply cannot --

MR. LOCKHART: See, I think I tried to address this yesterday, that if any senator in any party is using some personal resentment of the President to thwart the national security interests of this country going into the future, that raises serious questions about why they're in public service and why they're in the Senate. I can't tell you that that's the case. But if you keep asking me this every day, someone must be telling you that. I can't speculate. And it's very disappointing and unfortunate if that is, indeed, the case.

Q Joe, if you don't line up enough votes in the next five days, will the President ask for the treaty to be withdrawn?

MR. LOCKHART: That question started with "if," so I'm not answering it.

Q Joe, I don't understand what your actual position is here. You're saying that there's not enough time for this to get a proper hearing.

MR. LOCKHART: That's correct.

Q Which means that you believe that you need more time.

MR. LOCKHART: That's correct.

Q But the vote is scheduled for next Tuesday, so do you want a vote on Tuesday or would you be happy if the Republicans were to delay it?

MR. LOCKHART: We have indicated all the way through this process over the last three or four days -- you can go back and look at the transcript, you can look at what the President said, you can look at what the National Security Advisor said -- that we don't think that the process is adequate for a treaty of this importance and of this complexity.

I can tell you that the senators have said to us privately that they don't have enough time to do the normal -- watching the hearings, getting the briefings in order to make a judgment. In the absence of that, they feel that they would need to vote no because there are unanswered questions for them. It's a process that, judging from the group that came to the White House last night, that no one is happy with.

But the process right now is the process and the leaders of the Senate, the majority and the minority, are in discussions to talk abut the process and we'll see where that goes.

Q Does that, then, suggest that if there isn't sufficient time to educate people about the importance of the bill, why not just suggest doing it again next year?

MR. LOCKHART: Listen, the Senate has to decide on the calendar in the Senate. There are discussions going on which I'm not going to prejudge or try to preview or critique. They are talking amongst themselves. We believe the process is inadequate. I think there's a bipartisan belief at this point that the process is inadequate and we'll just have to see where they go.

Q Are you committed to arguing through and fighting through to the vote on Tuesday with a vote taking place?

MR. LOCKHART: Without a change in the schedule, we're committed to making the best case we can. We plan to do it. We've already done it today, we'll do it again today, we'll do it tomorrow, we'll do it the next day, we'll do it through the weekend, and we'll take the vote and we'll get as many senators as we can.

Q Having a vote on Tuesday, if they don't delay --

MR. LOCKHART: The Senate sets their schedule. On the Senate schedule right now is a vote next Tuesday. Unless you all know something that I don't know, we're going to continue to move forward. If they change the schedule, we will adjust accordingly.

Q Daschle said he doesn't think it should come up until there are the votes to pass it. Is that what you're saying, or you just want it to come up when you get the week-long of hearings that you --

MR. LOCKHART: No, I think it's our belief that once there is a full and informative process, two-thirds of United States senators will support ratification -- when there are hearings, when there are briefings, when they've had a chance to look at the issues. All that can't be done in eight days.

Q There are members of the arms control community who say that you guys have had two years to make a public case for this. Clearly, the other side got the no votes lined up; you could have done more to get yes votes on that even before the week's worth of hearings --

MR. LOCKHART: Let me just say the President has talked about this on numerous occasions about how high a priority it is. But I think everyone in this room understands how arms control, the process of arms control treaties work in this town. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility on a two-thirds basis to approve treaties. With that responsibility comes the further responsibility to look at the issues, allow for public hearings, allow for members to be exposed to all of the different facets of the arguments, allow their constituents the chance to talk to the members about their views. That is a process that has never before in history been done in nine days.

Now, we have made public statements, will continue to make public statements -- you can go back and look at the record -- but the process, historically, has always begun in earnest with the Senate taking up their responsibility. In fact, what's happened is just the opposite here. The Senate has proudly from the Foreign Relations Committee boasted about how they would never do this. It was, we'll do this over my dead body. That is not -- I don't think that is an attitude that the people who wrote the Constitution were thinking of when they gave the Senate this responsibility.

Q Are you saying the White House does not have the power, that the rules do not allow for the White House to ask the Congress to withdraw the treaty --

MR. LOCKHART: The sole power for scheduling a vote rests with the leadership in both parties.

Q For scheduling the day. I'm saying, does the White House have the right to ask that it be withdrawn?

MR. LOCKHART: I have no idea.

Q Does the President intend to give any signal, public or private, that he would rather have a delay than a defeat?

MR. LOCKHART: Listen, let me try to be even clearer than I have been this morning and just before this. I have made it exquisitely and excruciatingly clear that the President believes this process is inadequate. And I think the President, for his part, has made it clear how important this issue is for the future of this country. Now, the majority and minority are discussing ways or looking at the process to see if they believe it's adequate, but if they cannot reach an agreement and they believe that -- if Senator Lott believes this is an adequate process, that this is a proper way for the Senate to deal with this, then we'll move forward and have the vote.

Q Would the President be opposed to what Lott was talking about last night, which would be he would agree to bring it up again in the next Congress, with a new President, but not next year?

MR. LOCKHART: This is a treaty that has great importance for the future security of this country. No one can in any way predict what happens in the next 16 months. We ought to find a process that allows for senators to be fully informed and briefed, make an informed and intelligent decision on this -- whether it's positive or negative. And it shouldn't become hostage to any partisan maneuvering or the political calendar that may face us.

Q And it should take place during this administration?

MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think to argue that it should take place in the next administration is an argument that is subject to the political calendar, not the national interests of this country.

Q What kind of postponement would the President agree to?

MR. LOCKHART: I don't know. I think that, traditionally, you've seen -- I think I read a long list to you the other day, which I'll spare you, but committees have taken weeks and weeks and weeks to look at this and the Senate floor has been one or two weeks of debate. So I'm not --

Q If they were to schedule a vote several weeks from now, the President --

MR. LOCKHART: Listen, the one thing that I certainly don't have any control over is what they do in the Senate schedule. There are conversations going on there; I'd suggest if you want more information on that you can go up to the Senate and talk to them.

Q Joe, the ramifications of the defeat of this treaty has been talked about at some length. Is the President concerned enough about those ramifications that he would disavow ownership of this treaty to allow the next Congress and the next administration to pass it through?

MR. LOCKHART: I think that's a false and political choice.

Q Some people in the nonproliferation community have suggested that a delay might actually help the treaty's chances, specifically if India and Pakistan were able to sign on in the interim. How does that reasoning --

MR. LOCKHART: I think that there's no one in the arms control community, there's no one here at the White House, there doesn't seem to be anyone in the Senate who believes that we ought to go forward with a process that's inadequate; but here we are.

Q Joe, Warner came out this morning --

Q Sorry, could I get an answer on the India-Pakistan thing? Is that an ultimate goal of --

MR. LOCKHART: We've had positive statements there and I think you'll see that there have been some mixed statements in the last couple days. The world is watching. The world looks to the United States for leadership. They want to know that we're going to stand up and take a stand against testing. And I think it's hard to expect or to condition our decisions based on what others would do. That's not how the United States leads in the world. We lead, we don't follow.

Q Joe, you say you want hearings and more consideration and that would take some time. There's not a lot of time this year. Could you just at least give us what you would like, what the best scenario would be for when a vote could be?

MR. LOCKHART: Listen, we want what senators want, which is adequate time to do this process correctly. I think if they want to sit down and talk about what that is, we're glad to do that. But right now, the majority and minority leaders are talking and when they've got something to say, they'll say it.

Q Joe, isn't this, though, extraordinary brinkmanship? I mean, the White House is arguing that the ramifications of defeat would be enormous. If, in fact, it's clear it's going down in defeat, doesn't the President have the responsibility to try to withdraw this treaty or delay the vote?

MR. LOCKHART: You are giving on to us authority that we don't have. The Senate leaders are talking about this, they will continue talking about this. And I'm not going to do a running commentary based on every meeting.

Q Joe, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and John Deutch wrote an op-ed piece this morning, in which they say a lot of things, but one thing they said was that that were no fans of the treaty. Doesn't that undermine a bit the argument that you've been putting forth all week, that basically on the facts of the treaty it's pretty much a no-brainer that you should support it? I mean, these are --

MR. LOCKHART: You know, I think -- I've certainly said that there are some who dissent, but the vast majority of those people in this field support this overwhelmingly. And you'll see that at the event today. And, frankly, the argument put forward by some that we should continue the moratorium on testing, but we shouldn't do anything to constrain others, boggles the mind in its naiveness. That somehow we -- accepting the idea that it's okay for China, Russia, Iran, others, India, Pakistan, to go ahead and test and modernize their nuclear arsenal while we don't just makes no sense.

Q Senator Warner said that after the closed-door briefing he was quite disturbed and that he would like to see a study take place, report back to the Armed Services Committee before the end of the year on the ability to monitor. He says he's more concerned, beyond what's been reported publicly about the CIA and low yield --

MR. LOCKHART: John, that's fine. And I believe Senator Warner is putting that forward in good faith and it's the kind of proper question you should ask. It's one of the reasons why two years ago they should have taken this up. And it's one of the reason why in eight days you can't conclude this process. That is a legitimate question. That is a question that deserves an answer and, frankly, I don't know that anyone can give the Senator an answer on that question in eight days.

But it's why you can't expect a United States senator to make a decision of this import based on a week. It's like asking someone to critique "War and Peace" by reading the book cover synopsis. It's just not the way we do things.

Q So if it did require a report coming back by the end of the year -- that would obviously mean you couldn't have a vote this year -- you would have no objection, then, if it had to slide over so that people could study it further?

MR. LOCKHART: If senators, in their wisdom, believe they need more time, they need more months to look at this, then we will certainly be open to looking at their concerns and looking at what the schedule is. Again, they have the power in the Senate to set the schedule to bring this on the floor on a day that they agree. I think that there is a consensus among senators, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, supporters or opponents, that the process here is inadequate, and they are having discussions about how to deal with that situation.

Q Joe, one of the other things that Henry Kissinger and Deutch said today in the op-ed piece is that they don't think any harm would be done by waiting until the next administration. I mean, it's a little over a year. You could get more information about how it would work and see if other people would sign it -- I mean, what would be so bad about that?

MR. LOCKHART: Let me respond to what would be so bad. I stood here sometime ago, many months ago, and answered questions about whether we thought we were going into an uncontrollable, escalating arms conflict between India and Pakistan because they tested. I can't stand here and predict that there's an 18-month grace period between now and January, 2001 while we take no action. I don't know that anyone can make that prediction. We ought to do this as quickly and as properly as we can.

Q Right, but -- I understand if we defeated the treaty why your argument is that could spark a new arms race, but what if it was just delayed?

MR. LOCKHART: Again --

Q -- effects are the same?

MR. LOCKHART: The effects are the same. We have not moved the process forward. We have sent a message around the world that the U.S. is not going to exercise leadership on testing and, in effect, there is a green light that's been put up.

Q But if the President, himself, ends up agreeing to a delay, are you saying the delay itself is a green light for more testing?

MR. LOCKHART: No, I think if we do this in a way that gives senators the amount of time, and not artificially decide, well, let's wait until after the next election, I don't know that that sends the same message.

Q Joe, you've made clear today that a vote on Tuesday is not in the interest of the treaty and it's not what the White House wants. Senator Lott made clear yesterday that if the President asked that the bill be pulled, he would do so. I'm adding one and one, but I'm not getting two. Why not simply do that?

MR. LOCKHART: Again, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle are engaged in discussions and we ought to let them have their discussions and come to a view.

Q Are they talking weeks, months?

MR. LOCKHART: I would suggest you ask them what they're talking about.

Q One of the things Republicans are talking about today and a little bit yesterday is things that have been said by Al Gore and Bill Cohen when they were both in the Senate -- one, that Al Gore objected to the '89 defense bill because it limited tests to one kiloton, not zero, saying that it was unverifiable; and that Colin Powell also said as long as we have nuclear weapons, we have to conduct testing. Do you know that Colin Powell, Bill Cohen and Al Gore have changed their views since those --

MR. LOCKHART: I know that Bill Cohen was up on the Hill today testifying in support of this treaty. I know that the Vice President supports this treaty, and my understanding is the former National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs supports this treaty.

Q Is the President planning any secondary action on Ronnie White?

MR. LOCKHART: Let me say one more thing on that. There's a difference between where we were in 1989 and where we are now. We have the technological ability to not need testing. We have a locked-in advantage on the rest of the world.

So the question is, are we going to lock in that advantage and secure it for the next generation, or are we going to keep the development of nuclear arsenals something that's wide open, that countries that we have concern about their nuclear arsenals -- so that they can test and close that advantage?

Q New topic?


Q Any back-up action on Ronnie White? Recess appointment?

MR. LOCKHART: I have no information about where we'll go, beyond trying to elicit some straightforward statement from the Senate about what they're doing. I mean, here's a guy who was nominated, is a distinguished judge, the first African American judge on the State Supreme Court in Missouri, who had the support of Republicans in the Committee -- Senator Hatch, Senator Specter -- was recommended to the Judiciary Committee by Senator Bond; who all of a sudden when the Republicans got a judge they want or it was time to play more games on judicial nominations, three Republicans decided all of a sudden they had had a last-minute change of heart and they were going to vote him down on a straight partisan vote.

I think as the President said, it's disgraceful. There are studies out there that show it's harder, women and minorities wait longer, it's harder for them to get through. We have nominees who have been waiting now for almost four years for a vote. So I think the Senate Republicans have a responsibility to explain why they have been unable to meet their responsibilities under the Constitution and their advice and consent.

Q Joe, both in what you just said and what the President said earlier today, which I believe was that the Republican-controlled Senate is adding to the perception they treat minorities unfairly, comes very close to suggesting that Republicans are racist.

MR. LOCKHART: No, I think the numbers are there, and the days and those numbers speak for themselves. If you're a woman, if you're a minority, it takes an average of 60 extra days to get your confirmation done; if you're a minority, it's 65 days.

There was no -- the idea that a distinguished jurist, the first African American to serve on the State Supreme Court, would go through this process and be voted down and the Republicans' response was, we never even knew what his race was -- it's hard to believe.

Q Is the President considering a recess appointment to at least let him serve at the end of the term?

MR. LOCKHART: We don't get into what we're considering or not considering on recess appointments.

Q Joe, calling people racist essentially is a pretty serious charge. Don't you think you should have specific evidence that race played a factor in this before you start --

MR. LOCKHART: First of all, I didn't call anyone that.

Q But it's pretty close to it. It's basically --

MR. LOCKHART: You can decide what's pretty close and I'll decide what's pretty close, and I haven't said it. I have used evidence here, compiled by an independent group, of how it's more difficult as far as statistical evidence -- that's what most evidence is -- on how it's more difficult. And I think it's incumbent upon members, particularly members who change their vote, to explain what was at the root of that change because it's certainly not this silly argument that somehow, this judge is pro-criminal. Go talk to his colleagues back -- and see if they believe that.

Q Joe, on the patients' bill of rights, both the President and your statement earlier this morning fell short of a veto pledge against the Coburn-Shadegg alternative. Would he veto that bill if that's --

MR. LOCKHART: I think the most likely outcome since the rule just passed is that nothing's ever going to get here, that the Republican leadership and the insurance lobbies got what they wanted. They went, they sat down over bacon and eggs and they hatched a plan to make sure that the majority of Americans were thwarted in their belief that they should have more rights in dealing with their HMOs.

This bill adds poison pills, it completely eliminates the ability to put the pay-fors on, and I think has doomed all of these pieces of legislation.

Q That breakfast that you mentioned, one of the leaders of the coalition that favors the Dingell-Coburn bill was present, and there were plenty of people who supported it, and it was a fairly small group. Why are you so convinced that this was some sort of right-wing cabal to --

MR. LOCKHART: Well, I didn't say a right-wing cabal. I know who was there, and I also know that yesterday they were working on the rule. And by the end of the day, the rule was one that guarantees that an up or down vote on a patients' bill of rights is not going to happen in this Congress.

Q If I could follow up, if that bill were to reach the President's desk, would he veto it? I mean, it does have some protections in it.

MR. LOCKHART: It does have some protections; they don't go far enough, they don't have adequate enforcement. The President supports Norwood-Dingell. The Republican majority -- we all know they have the power to thwart the will of the American people. The time has come to see if they actually are interested in enacting the will of the American people.

Q If you get Norwood-Dingell, if you like that so much, why wouldn't you negotiate on some of these access provisions? Some of them you don't like, like MSAs, but there are others that would be --

MR. LOCKHART: If they want to negotiate on some of the access issues and they can send up a separate bill and there are things in there we can support, clearly we're not going to support MSAs because of the way we think they'll segregate the insurance market. We've talked about that at length over the last two years. They know that. That's why it's there.

Q Joe, are you suggesting that the Speaker of the House was bought off at yesterday morning's breakfast?

MR. LOCKHART: I'm suggesting that it was probably a pretty productive meeting.

Q Could I just ask one more on what you just said? So you would negotiate some of the access provisions, but only if it was sent separately?

MR. LOCKHART: If they want to do real work on access to health insurance in this country, which is clearly an issue the President's been concerned about since the day he came here, we look forward to working with him. There are clearly things that we've talked about that we could not support. But they ought to do that in a separate bill and they shouldn't load it up, because right now, what it is is a poison pill.

Q Joe, the President was pretty harsh today in his criticism of House and Senate Republicans on judges, patients' bill of rights and the treaty, he vetoed their tax bill. How bad is the relationship between the White House and Congress right now? Don't his remarks today poison the atmosphere even more?

MR. LOCKHART: I think the remarks today indicate that the President is upset, particularly on the issue of the judges and on patients' bill of rights, because here is a situation where on patients' bill of rights there is a clear majority for a piece of legislation and the country wants this to happen. And just like guns, just like campaign finance, the will of the House is thwarted through a procedural technique.

And there's no doubt that the Republican leadership have the sleight of hand available to them to get this done. But it becomes frustrating, I think, for people watching to understand why this has to continue to happen on issues that there is such strong support from the American public.

Q Is that what it was today, that the President's frustration boiled over on all --

MR. LOCKHART: No. I think the President made points on each of these issues and was quite clear that Congress should change the way they're doing these issues. I think there's a lot of other work that we're doing. We're going to continue doing it. We're going to get a budget -- or we're going to get the appropriations bills done at some point. We're going to continue working on Medicare and Social Security. And, for one, I know the President is certainly able to put aside differences and work with Democrats and Republicans alike on the Hill.

Q Joe, on the candidates the President puts forth for judicial nominations, it's not a random cross-section of the population. Is it possible that the minorities that he selects are more liberal overall than the general --

MR. LOCKHART: No, I think -- really, the only way to judge that is to look at what the ABA -- because as part of the process, the ABA looks at these and recommends them. This administration's judges have had the highest ratings from the ABA in the last 40 years. So at least the experts, the people who judge these jurists on their qualifications, believe that this President has done a better job than any President in 40 years.

Q But their politics also sometimes get them into trouble on the Hill. Isn't it possible that they may be more liberal and that's why they run into more trouble?

MR. LOCKHART: Well, what example do you have? I mean, I'm glad to discuss any judge that we've nominated.

Q Well, I'm just saying across the board, is that a possibility or not a possibility?

MR. LOCKHART: I think we've put forward highly qualified judges. This is not an agenda or political agenda based appointments. I think if you go to the ABA they'll tell you that that's their view. And if there are any issues or any questions, we're glad to take them and we're glad to debate them; rather than having what happened on the Senate floor yesterday, where a fine judge's record is terribly distorted for partisan political reasons.

Q Joe, did the White House make any effort to intervene or contact senators when it saw that the tide was turning, despite what happened in the committee?

MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think we've got some talented people here at the White House. But to expect Senator Bond, Senator Hatch, Senator Specter, who voted for or recommended this gentleman, to switch is a pretty tough trick. I think you can generally count on someone when they vote in committee or they bring the candidate and recommend them to the committee that they'll support them. Or when they tell the NAACP, this is my candidate, I'm going to vote for him -- that you can count on that.

So I don't think that -- it does not appear to me there could have been anything we had done once the Republican majority made up their mind that this was going to be a party-line vote.

Q It was a surprise to the White House?

MR. LOCKHART: Certainly a surprise that three Republicans switched their votes, yes.

Q Joe, why is the President meeting tomorrow with James Hoffa, and would presidential politics be involved?

MR. LOCKHART: Mr. Hoffa is the elected leader of the Teamsters, which is a large labor union. The President looks forward and enjoys meeting with union leaders around the country. We've been trying for some time now to set up this meeting. It just happened they were both in New York tomorrow night and it was good for both schedules to set it up for tomorrow night.

Q No presidential politics involved?

MR. LOCKHART: We've been trying to set this meeting up now for a couple of months. We talk to union leaders on a wide range of issues that affect their members. Politics may come up; may not.

Q Well, is it true that the President's going to be asking him to stop blocking an endorsement of Al Gore?

MR. LOCKHART: I'll let you know if he does.

Q Hey, Joe, there was a newspaper today that suggested that in taking shots at the leadership, the President has been helped in the past week by George W. Bush. What about his remarks about the congressional leadership? Has the President been heartened by that? (Laughter.)

MR. LOCKHART: I think the President addressed that last weekend. He said, you know, whenever someone comes along and accepts the view we've been espousing for a long time, those conversions are welcome.

Q Joe, the Teamsters are interested in getting rid of the federal supervision of their union. What's the President's feeling on that? Senator Bradley has indicated that he thinks it should be relaxed.

MR. LOCKHART: Well, I don't know that the President has taken a view. This is something that I think is done at the Justice Department. I do know that the President has no intention of raising that subject -- and I see, through Mr. Hoffa's spokesman, that neither does Mr. Hoffa -- at tomorrow's meeting.

Q What about the new rules that would allow Mexican trucks pretty much free transit around the United States -- which is going into effect in January, I believe -- which the Teamsters have great reservations about. Does the President still believe that that date is the proper date to --

MR. LOCKHART: I'm not aware of any change.

Q Joe, on the extenders package, apparently the Finance members this morning have agreed to scale back their $70 billion package to something that's more 1-2 years and, apparently, fully paid for. And I just wondered what the White House reaction is.

MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think if they've moved in the direction of putting forward extenders that are paid for, we've got a very constructive basis to move the discussions forward. And I think we've made clear from the beginning that it's important in -- whether it's a very large tax bill or a small tax bill, you talk about how you're going to pay for it. And if that's the case, that's a positive development.

Q Thank you.

Q Sounds good to me.

MR. LOCKHART: Thank you.

END 1:42 P.M. EDT