THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
PRESS BRIEFING BY JAKE SIEWERT The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:20 P.M. EST
MR. SIEWERT: I think you just saw former Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili, so I'll start with a statement from the President on his meeting.
"Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, and I met this morning to discuss his report concerning the comprehensive test ban treaty, CTBT. The report argues persuasively that ratifying the CTBT would increase our national security and that the security benefits of the treaty outweigh any perceived disadvantages.
"The report's recommendations address concerns raised during the October 1999 Senate debate over CTBT. I urge Congress and the incoming Bush administration to act on them. I also hope the Senate will take up the treaty at an early date as a critical component of a bipartisan nonproliferation policy. CTBT is supported by our friends and allies overseas and designed to reduce existing nuclear dangers, as well as those that might emerge in the future.
"I commend General Shalikashvili for his thorough and rigorous report and his continued service to the nation." That is a statement by the President.
Q Jake, do you know if the President mentioned this issue when he met with President-elect Bush?
MR. SIEWERT: I do not know. But they certainly talked about proliferation generally; I don't know if he specifically raised this, but I'll check on that. He's tended to want to keep that conversation private, but that's a question I could probably put to him, whether he specifically raised that one.
Q Keep it private, like the conversation with the Palestinians? (Laughter.)
MR. SIEWERT: Yes. A lot of conversations in private around here.
The President next week will take a couple of trips and he will take the opportunity to travel a bit around the country to some places that have mattered a great deal to him over the years, places that helped him become President, get reelected and build a tremendous record here over the last eight years.
On Tuesday, he will travel to East Lansing, Michigan, make remarks at Michigan State University and will made an additional stop in the midwest, returning to Washington that evening. And on Thursday, the President will travel to a state where I spent a lot of time, New Hampshire. He will be going to Dover and Manchester and Boston, Massachusetts, on the way back.
And he will make, in Dover, one of a series of speeches that he's been making about the challenges the nation confronts. That one will focus primarily on his record and his achievements on domestic policy, but also on the sort of continuing work that the nation has in front of it. So he will also, I expect, return to Washington that evening.
As you remember, East Lansing was the site of one of the presidential debates. It's also near the bus tour that he took in 1992. In New Hampshire, Dover was the place where the President gave his now famous "last dog dies" speech, on February 13th in 1992. And Manchester is a place that he spent a lot of time walking the streets talking to the citizens in New Hampshire, and he wanted to take this chance to talk to and thank some of his supporters in both those places, and talk about not just the past, but about the challenges the country has in front of it today.
Other than that, I don't think I have anything, other than the fact that in another -- it's unremarkable, I suppose, but it's remarkable that it's unremarkable that the unemployment rate is at 4.0 percent today, a rate that many economists thought unthinkable when we took office. It's now been there well over a year, and we, in the year 2000, had the lowest unemployment rate since 1969.
And as we move forward, as we said before, we leave the incoming administration with a very solid employment picture -- 22.5 million new jobs and a tremendously low unemployment rate, one below what most economists thought was achievable. Most economists thought that NAIRU, the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, was in the neighborhood of 5 percent, or thereabouts, and we've actually been well below that for a long time now. So, by any measure, that's a good number.
Q Jake, we keep hearing from the Bush folks that the economy may be faltering, it may not be in as good as shape as it should be. How do you reconcile that with the unemployment numbers?
MR. SIEWERT: The unemployment numbers show that the economy remains in relatively solid shape. What we've seen is a slight decrease in the rate of growth. But the economy is growing and the economy remains in very solid shape. What we have also is we have, aside from an unemployment rate that was unthinkably low just eight years ago, we've had 22.5 million new jobs. And we now have, instead of a $290 billion deficit that we inherited, we now have a surplus that's over $200 billion.
Most importantly, the incoming administration has a lot of tools that were not available to this President when he took office. He took office when the unemployment rate was at 7.2 percent, and he had huge budget deficits to deal with, which obviously limited his options. Whereas, this incoming administration has a lot of new options, a strengthened budget picture, a strengthened IMF, a strong economy that's 50 percent bigger than it was when he took office. So they have a lot of levers to deal with problem spots as they crop up, and we'll see how they deal with it.
Q What happened on the Camp David trip this morning, and why was Bruce Lindsey along on that trip? Was it just a packing trip?
MR. SIEWERT: The President was -- no, actually I checked on that. But the President was traveling to Camp David just on some personal matters. I think he wanted to take care of a couple things up there, packing and the like. He will probably be going back to Camp David one more time, but he wanted to take the time that he's there next to enjoy it with some family and friends, and not have to deal with some of the minutia of daily life.
So Bruce was simply along because he had some work to do, and he was going to take the opportunity to talk to the President on the trip to Camp David, on the trip back. So Bruce was talking to him about some other matters, and matters that involved Bruce's work here, and he was just simply along for the ride, as it were. As you know the President's --
Q You make it sound like he's got something stashed up there. (Laughter.)
MR. SIEWERT: I actually -- I've never really seen his quarters up there, so I can't speak to that. But I think -- no, this is pretty routine housekeeping, as he said.
Q Is there going to be a farewell address? Is he planning anything?
MR. SIEWERT: I'm not sure whether we'll do a farewell address. But we'll certainly -- the President has taken the time to give some speeches over the last month or so, and we'll give another speech next week in New Hampshire. And we may have other opportunities to talk to the nation, but we have not yet decided whether he'll do a farewell address. But we'll let you know if he does decide.
Q Will the speech today at Ft. Myers be a farewell address to the military?
MR. SIEWERT: That it certainly will be. The President appreciates the work that Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs have done in putting together an event that honors him for his work as Commander-in-Chief, and he wants to pay tribute to the work that they've done, the hard work that they've done over the last eight years for the American people.
He'll obviously cite the work that they've done as we transitioned out of a Cold War footing and created a new and ready fighting force. He'll also certainly celebrate some of the work that they did in trouble spots, like the Persian Gulf and in the Balkans over the last eight years.
Q Jake, are more pardons likely, and, if so, how soon?
MR. SIEWERT: I would not expect anything until towards the end. I expect that -- he's asked to review some more; Counsel's Office is looking at them and I think they'll probably present a package to him at some point. But I think that would be very much towards the end. I wouldn't expect anything at the early part of next week or over this weekend.
Q What about the President's meeting today on the Middle East, this evening? Can you give us an update on his mood and on the situation? Is he more optimistic today?
MR. SIEWERT: He's been kept apprised of the discussions by Sandy Berger and he is determined to keep working at this. He's dedicated some time tonight to meet with the Israeli negotiator, who is in town. They'll meet in the Oval Office around 5:30 p.m. They obviously have agreed, in principle, to the parameters the President has laid out. They've expressed some reservations, as have the Palestinians, and the President will take the opportunity to talk to them about how we might reconcile the interpretations so we can move forward.
But the President believes that it is critical that in his last days that he do everything he can to try to make his best effort to see whether we can put the parties in a place where they can begin to talk. But, ultimately, it's up to the parties to make that decision.
Q Will there be more activity, Jake, this weekend, do you figure?
MR. SIEWERT: I don't know that we have anything planned, but the President always has the ability to pick up the phone and talk to someone. But I don't think we have anything scheduled other than the negotiations today. We're obviously expecting at some point that a Palestinian negotiator will come in and do something similar that we've done with the Israelis.
Q What about the New York speech Sunday night?
MR. SIEWERT: Well, I think, inevitably, the President will address the work that has gone on on the Mideast peace process in that speech, and probably have a little bit to say about where we are today.
Q On the Middle East, how quickly would this Palestinian negotiator come in?
MR. SIEWERT: I don't think there's anything planned yet, but I think we'll decide -- the President today will take the opportunity to meet with the Israeli negotiator, assess where we are, and when we're done with those discussions we'll let you know how we're going to proceed from there.
Q How much time is planned for that?
MR. SIEWERT: It's slated for a half an hour, 45 minutes, I think.
Q Coverage -- photo, anything?
MR. SIEWERT: We'll put out an official photo.
Q Can you confirm that he Director of the CIA will go to --
MR. SIEWERT: I'd refer you to the CIA on that.
Q On the environmental announcement, a couple of things -- Alaskan Republicans are really unhappy about it, and are trying to push to have it overturned. Senator Murkowski's spokesman is saying, nobody has done this much environmental damage going out the door since Sadam Hussein torched the oil fields.
MR. SIEWERT: I find it hard to believe that this could be characterized as damage. What we are doing is protecting a great deal of pristine wilderness area from logging and from other exploitative uses. We're actually protecting that land for the American people, for their enjoyment. And we've consulted very heavily on this process.
I know there's been a lot of comments from people who opposed this move on the merits, saying that there's been no process here -- we have had over 600 public meetings, 25,000 people came to those meetings. We've received a million comments on this rule, predominantly favorable ones, urging the President to take action. And so we've had a very open process. The President announced this originally October 1999, so he spent more than a year discussing with the public. Everyone has known what the parameters of the discussion were. And so what we're moving to do is to try to protect wilderness from commercial exploitation.
Q -- are particularly upset because Tongass was not included in that original rule, and they think that this is unfair because it wasn't part of the rule-making process.
MR. SIEWERT: We indicated some time ago that was part of the process. There were some people who were upset when we issued the first rule that Tongass was not included, and we actually went out of our way to listen to commentary that we received from a number of different people urging us to protect that land. And we tried to -- now we're treating it the way we treat every other national forest, with a little bit more leeway for some of the logging there, given that it was included in the rule later.
But it's been an open process, and we've had commentary from a lot of different people urging us, actually, to protect that land in Alaska. And that's actually part of what came out of the public review process.
Q What about concerns of the economic impact, the timber industry fearing a loss of jobs? Any sense of how many jobs would be eliminated and how these communities would be compensated?
MR. SIEWERT: Well, the logging that's under contract now that people have already completed contracts for will go forward. And there is -- remember, this only covers land that's protected in the national forest system. Logging that has been signed on and contracted for will be completed and those jobs will be supported as those contracts are carried out.
Q Jake, with respect to this action and the other actions the President has taken in recent weeks with executive orders or other administration initiatives, how worried is he that the new administration is going to make an effort to undo them when it comes in?
MR. SIEWERT: Well, those are decisions that are best left to them. He understands that they have a different point of view on this. But the President is the President until January 20th and he's going to use his executive authority to protect the environment and to do everything he can to protect worker safety and people safety.
So through this rule-making process on this particular rule, we've tried to be as open as possible and listen to as many concerns as possible. If they have a different point of view, they're welcome to it and they can go through a similar process when they take office. But that's up to them.
On the monuments, I know, particularly, no administration has ever undertaken to undo a monument designation. And Democratic and Republican administrations have both used those to protect wilderness areas. And no administration has ever tried to do that. So it would be unprecedented in that case if they were to try to do that. I've heard some talk about that. But I don't -- we obviously wouldn't think that was wise, because we thought these lands were worth protecting. But those are decisions that a future administration will have to undertake for their --
Q Jake, you're not saying the rules haven't been reversed -- rules have been reversed, haven't they?
MR. SIEWERT: Rules have been reversed and modified, but there's a process that has to be undertaken.
Q -- the monuments, right?
MR. SIEWERT: The monuments has never been undone by another administration. Obviously, both -- Teddy Roosevelt started that process, a Republican President, and both Democrats and Republican Presidents have used it.
Q Jake, have you written these actions in such a way as to make it difficult to reverse them?
MR. SIEWERT: I think in any rule, it's a relatively difficult process to undo it, because you need to go through the entire process again. But it's fairly arcane, and they're not written in any particular way that makes it difficult to reverse, other than that the process itself is a cumbersome one. And it's a lengthy one.
Q In spite of that, and the fact that you're protecting 78 million acres, or thereabout, this is a very sweeping proposal. Why not just leave it to the next administration? This is a fairly controversial decision that you're doing unilaterally.
MR. SIEWERT: Well, but we made -- first of all, I think one thing is very clear. We would have done this one way or the other, whether the President was President Gore or President Bush. We made this proposal in October of 1999, and we've moved forward with it in a public way -- a million comments, 600 hearings. We've moved forward in a way that was very public, and that allowed people to comment and, in fact, took a great deal of time, over a year, that we spent putting this together.
And we had every intention, and we said so at the time, in October of 1999, of getting this work done before the President left office. He said that when we announced this initiative in the first place. So he's keeping his commitment, that he made then, to finish this up. We would have done this one way or the other.
Q What do you say to critics, though, who say the President, in all this flurry of activity over the past several weeks, is doing too much, too fast, trying to shore up a --
MR. SIEWERT: It's all work that we had promised to do at some point or another. And the President, as I've said before, the President's one of the hardest working Presidents in recent memory. He's going to stay busy, working right up to the last day. That's the way the Constitution envisioned it, and that's the way we're going to conduct our business here.
Q President-elect Bush the other day commented on the Fed's decision to reduce rates by half a point. Could you comment on that and explain what your policy has been toward commenting on Fed actions?
MR. SIEWERT: I won't comment on his comment, because I don't see any utility in that. It is our policy to respect the independence of the Fed. And throughout this administration, we've been very careful not to comment on the Fed's actions, and generally not to comment on any movements in the market, as well.
That's something that Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, former NEC Director Bob Rubin, thought was very important. It was something that Larry Summers and Lloyd Bentsen and Gene Sperling and others enforced with a great deal of discipline throughout the administration because we find that comments one way or the other don't do a whole lot of good.
Q Let me ask you about the one other thing the President-elect said earlier this week, about the economy needing a recovery. Can I construe from your remarks earlier about the jobless rate that you don't think the economy needs a recovery?
MR. SIEWERT: Look, the economy was growing at a torrid pace early last year, around 5 percent. It is now growing at a lower pace. Most private economists -- not administration economists, but private-sector economists surveyed by the blue chips, surveyed by the Wall Street Journal -- think the economy will continue to grow this year, it will continue to grow. That does not constitute a recovery. It constitutes a slowdown in a economic growth rate that many thought was unsustainable.
So the reality here is the economy is growing. It is something that's just an indisputable fact and most economists project that it will continue to grow.
Q Well, is 2 to 2.5 percent growth a good thing?
MR. SIEWERT: It's higher than it was during the previous Bush administration. We have had a higher rate of growth. We have averaged about 4 percent growth --
Q -- the Reagan administration, 2 to 2.5 growth --
MR. SIEWERT: Our growth rate is higher overall than under the Reagan. But the bottom line -- growth has averaged, throughout the Clinton administration, around 4 percent, which is a very strong rate and it's been sustained over eight years.
And I'll remind you that we're in the longest expansion -- economic expansion in the history of the United States. It's somewhat unprecedented. But there's no reason why it can't continue if policymakers and economic decision-makers make the right choices.
Q Jake, with respect, if the President-elect uses the word "recovery," he's wrong?
MR. SIEWERT: It's just not an accurate statement of the current reality of today's economy. The economy -- unemployment is at 4 percent, something that was unthinkable in the past. And the economy, even in a slightly slower growth rate, is continuing to generate jobs. We generated over 100,000 jobs just last month.
Q So this growth rate, 2 to 2.5 percent, is that an acceptable rate of growth or not?
MR. SIEWERT: I'm not going to get into acceptable rates of growth -- this isn't the Soviet economy here, we don't project growth rates. (Laughter.) We have averaged about a 4-percent growth rate -- we don't do 10-year plans with 4-percent projections and things like that.
Q It's becoming the Soviet economy.
MR. SIEWERT: Oh, please. (Laughter.) This debate has been clouded by some rather silly rhetoric coming out of the other side, in that, as I said the other day, the tax cuts that they have proposed do not offer stimulus in the near term. And yet, they're talking about them as though they do. They simply do not. Their stimulus occurs in 2002, which is, as you all know, a little ways away. And dealing with the slower rate of growth is something that's a challenge that confronts policymakers today.
So that charge is largely exaggerated. And when the economy was growing at 5 percent, last spring, they said then that they wanted a tax cut. They wanted a tax cut when the economy was growing at 5 percent, and now they want one when it's growing at 2.5 percent. It's not about the growth rate, it's about the tax cut itself, which is debatable on its merits. But it's not about increasing the economy's rate of growth in the near term.
Q Jake, is the President going to invite Governor Davis and the representatives of the California utilities to the White House to talk about energy in California?
MR. SIEWERT: Not exactly, no. The President's economic team, Gene Sperling, Larry Summers and Bill Richardson will meet with California utility executives and the FERC Commissioner, sometime next week, along with Governor Davis, in Washington, at a place TBD. I don't expect it will be at the White House. But the idea there is to try to create some sort of framework that could help to alleviate the supply crunch that California is experiencing now in energy.
Q Is the President inclined to ask regulators to cap wholesale power prices?
MR. SIEWERT: I don't think that we -- the FERC is independent, and I don't think that I would -- I don't want to get in to that.
Q What role should the federal government play in this crisis in California?
MR. SIEWERT: Well, Bill Richardson has already taken some moves that have helped, and that the Governor requested, and that the utility companies have recognized. The FERC is obviously very critical, but it's an independent agency. But they'll be involved in some of these discussions. But the President's economic team thought it might be useful to sit down with the regulators and with the industry and with the Governor to sort of check in and see what the lay of the land was, and see if we could maybe coordinate and agree upon some sort of framework that could help alleviate the supply crunch.
Q Are there proposals that you're going to review at this meeting? Anything concrete that we could talk about now?
MR. SIEWERT: I think I'll leave that for the parties that are involved in that discussion.
Q The Israeli media is reporting that there's going to be a scaled-back plan, as opposed to the plans that have been talked about. Do you have any response to that declaration of principle?
MR. SIEWERT: I haven't seen that report.
Q What does the California crisis crunch say about the future of electrical deregulation in America?
MR. SIEWERT: Well, I don't -- there are obviously -- I think it may offer some lessons, but it -- we have supported nationwide electricity deregulation, and I think that a nationwide deregulation could very much increase the efficiency in the system, maximize efficiency in the system, and lower costs for consumers over the long term. But it may work -- a lesson that one state undertook may not have applicability for a broader nationwide reform, because some of the problems that crop up in one state when they're trying to do it on their own may not apply as easily to a nationwide effort.
Q -- thinks that deregulation in California has been a colossal failure. Do you all agree with that assessment?
MR. SIEWERT: I'm not going to get into that. Obviously, there's a problem now and we're trying to do what we can to help solve it.
Q Will this problem in California make it politically more difficult to pursue deregulation on a nationwide basis? I mean, who's going to want to volunteer their --
MR. SIEWERT: Well, look, we put a proposal up, Congress didn't act on it. We thought it would have helped save consumers money and create a more efficient distribution of energy around the country, bring more market incentives to bear on the process. But Congress didn't act on it. It's up for a new Congress, a new administration to decide how to move forward.
Q Jake, what's the goal of this new counter-intelligence board and why does the President think it's needed?
MR. SIEWERT: It's needed because the world has changed a little bit and we've moved away from a system where -- we've moved into a world in which threats are more diverse and diffuse and we need a counter-intelligence capacity that recognizes the realities of the changing world. As I was telling some of you this morning, a threat today can as easily come from a laptop as it could from an old cloak-and-dagger spy, and we need a counter-intelligence capability that matches that new globalized reality.
Just for example, in the wake of some of the viruses that struck last year, the President met with high-tech officials and talked to them about the problems of cyber security. That's a new threat and one that we need to address, one we need to have an ability to work across agencies in a collaborative process to address. And that's something that the President heard directly from high-tech CEOs when they were here.
Because the virus that was spread, I believe, in Southeast Asia ended up affecting the private sector, but in a way that had an impact on national security by taking down the on-line capabilities of a lot of the nation's leading financial providers.
Q Jake, does the President envision a board or an individual czar of intelligence --
MR. SIEWERT: This is a little bit of both. There will be a new counter-intelligence executive. There will also be a board. But the idea, primarily, is to create a process through which the agencies that are charged with the responsibilities for counter-intelligence -- primarily the CIA, Department of Defense and the FBI -- can work together in a way that's more coordinated and looks at new threats, assesses them and decides how to protect our secrets.
Q When will this executive be picked?
MR. SIEWERT: I assume he'll be picked by the next administration.
Q In response to the Wen Ho Lee case and the lack of sharing of information between agencies --
MR. SIEWERT: I think this work was well underway before that particular case came to the public eye. But, obviously, this reflects the work of a lot of different agencies and 18 months of work. I'm sure they took a look at that case and made an assessment about what they could do to improve their system.
Q Jake, going back to rule-making. Other Presidents, as they've gone out the door, have pushed through rules. Jimmy Carter was famous for that in the late '80s. But no one has had pushed through so many sweeping changes, rules, as this President has, and people who count these things say no President throughout his administration has ever put as many rule pages into the federal register as President Clinton has.
Is this a record he's sort of proud of?
MR. SIEWERT: Well, I can't speak to whether it's a record or not. I'll let you do your own research, I'm not a historian of rules.
But the President is proud of the record that we've done to protect the environment, certainly. And he's proud of the work that we've done to protect worker safety. And he's proud of the work we've done to improve food safety, the new organic labeling requirements.
So the work we've done, it's not about making rules for rules sake. This is about making rules that protect the environment, protect worker's safety, and protect Americans on the job and at home. So it's not about creating paper for the sake of having more paper, it's about what the rules will do, and who they'll protect, and protecting pristine wilderness land.
Q Sources are telling our folks that at least two senior Clinton advisors advised Secretary Mineta not to take the Secretary of Transportation job in the Bush administration. Do you know of these objections, and why would they object?
MR. SIEWERT: I do not, and for eight years here, people have been saying a lot of different things in the administration on background, and it's not going to change, I assume, in the last 14 or 15 or what is it -- 15 days, I guess, and counting. But the reality is that the President talked to Norm Mineta, who is a friend of his, before he took the job, several days before he took the job. Vice President talked to Norm Mineta before he took the job. Both of them could not have been more encouraging about at least exploring the idea of taking this job. They said ultimately the choice is his, but they said that he should do what he thought was right, and they said that they thought it would be good if he could serve in some capacity. But it was a decision that was his to make.
Q So you're not aware of any --
MR. SIEWERT: I'm not aware of anyone, and the President and Vice President encouraged him to make his own decision, but certainly didn't discourage him from going ahead.
Q Any reaction to the independent counsel saying he will decide within weeks of Mr. Clinton leaving office whether he should be indicted?
MR. SIEWERT: No. He's been saying that for some time now, so I don't have any further comment on that.
Q Any idea where the President's going to go the afternoon of January 20th?
MR. SIEWERT: To --
Q Andrews. (Laughter.)
MR. SIEWERT: He will leave the east front of the Capitol in a helicopter and we'll go to Andrews and we'll take off and --
Q We've got him to Andrews. Now where is he going?
MR. SIEWERT: Where next? (Laughter.) We'll let you know. I actually think we have a better idea than maybe we did yesterday or the day before that, but we're not prepared to announce anything yet.
Q He is not staying in town, right?
MR. SIEWERT: He is not seeing it. No, we'll leave on January 20th. He'll be back from time to time, but his primary residence, as I've said before, will be in Chappaqua.
Q Will the First Lady wave good-bye to him as he leaves?
MR. SIEWERT: I expect they'll leave together.
Q Is the radio address taped this week?
MR. SIEWERT: Yes, it has been taped.
Q And it is on?
MR. SIEWERT: Health care.
Q Might the President make two stops after leaving? I mean like go to a couple of states in the same day?
MR. SIEWERT: He'll go to Maryland, and then -- no, I'm kidding. No, I don't think so. I think he'll go --
Q He wouldn't go to Arkansas and New York in the same day or something?
MR. SIEWERT: I don't think so, I don't think so. I'll let you know if that changes, but that's not what we're planning.
Q Thank you.
MR. SIEWERT: Thank you. Do we need a week ahead? We don't even need a week -- the week ahead is really just the travel that I announced. I guess there's a little bit in here, so I should probably do it. Tape the radio address -- we'll put that on paper as soon as we can.
He goes to New York on Sunday and will attend the celebration of the swearing-in of Senate Hillary Rodham Clinton at Madison Square Garden. That is a thank-you to the volunteers and people who helped on her campaign. It's sponsored by the New York State Democratic Party. He will also speak at the Israeli Policy Foreign Tribute Dinner at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel; spending the night in Chappaqua, returning the next day.
On Monday, he will speak at the dedication ceremony for the new or refurbished AFL-CIO building in Washington. D.C. and give the Presidential Citizens Medal to 20 prominent Americans, including some journalists, for their lifetime of service and contributions to society. We'll put a list out today so you can get working on that. That is the second highest honor the President can bestow on a civilian after the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
He goes to Michigan and another Midwest stop on Tuesday. Wednesday he'll be here and speak at the dedication of the completion of the FDR Memorial. As you remember, they were doing some more work on that memorial, and the President wants to go down there on Wednesday, and will do so. And he will also speak at a lunch honoring Senator Max Baucus. And travel to New Hampshire and Boston on Thursday. And that's it.
Q Will he have a news conference before he leaves office?
MR. SIEWERT: Possibly. Possibly. We've actually been discussing that very possibility. But I don't have anything locked down yet.
Q When is he going to try to get back up to Camp David, since the snow stopped him today?
MR. SIEWERT: I don't know, actually. He may go next weekend.
Q What's he got up there? (Laughter.)
MR. SIEWERT: He left his toothbrush. (Laughter
END 12:52 P.M. EST