Press Briefing by Mike McCurry

The Briefing Room

1:05 P.M. EST

MR. MCCURRY: All right, ladies and gentlemen, it's Monday and we're briefing -- for better or worse.

Q: Has the President been in his office today?

MR. MCCURRY: Sure has been, working hard.

Q: On what?

MR. MCCURRY: Oh, he's visiting with international visitors and talking to a major news organization for a televised interview.

Q: Really? Which one is that?

MR. MCCURRY: I just said that to get you worried. (Laughter.)

Q: You bit so quickly, too, Wolf.

MR. MCCURRY: He granted an interview to Mr. Brian Lamb, of C-Span, for the award-winning program, C-Span Book Notes.

Q: When is it going to be shown?

MR. MCCURRY: You'll have to check with C-Span when they're going to air it. I'm not sure. But C-Span airs many things, many times.

Q: Today? Will it be today?

MR. MCCURRY: And they air me talking to you right now, and I am eternally grateful for that.

Q: You weren't interested in when it was going to be aired?

MR. MCCURRY: When is it going to be aired? Sunday, I think -- beginning Sunday. We'll check with you on that. It's an interview about his book and other subject philosophical. And very provocative, very thought provoking, but nothing that I would rush out and file on right away. It wasn't that type of interview. It was a good interview. (Laughter.)

Q: The President told Barbara Walters that his two main priorities in the first 100 days are education and something else -- what did he say?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, he's got two specific things -- to continue this country's march toward more prosperous relations with other nations around the world and to raise the standard of living for Americans here at home; and, secondly, to keep America the strongest force for peace and democracy on this Earth -- a subject that will occupy a great deal of his time early in this second term as we look at some of the global issues we're facing. And to do that, to build that bridge to the 21st century, to provide that type of opportunity requires a government willing to ask of the American people some responsibility as they work in their communities to address the problems that we face. I think you heard this speech before. In fact I think you heard this speech often.

Q: Has he started his work on the inaugural address?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes.

Q: What is he going to say?

MR. MCCURRY: He will talk about building that bridge to the 21st century. He's going to talk about preparing America for the 21st century, doing those things that we need to do to reform education, reform welfare, help Americans earn better livings, help Americans create better, stronger, communities, help the American family face the challenges we face in the 21st century so that America gets set, gets ready and goes into the future as the most prosperous, bountiful, plentiful, wonderful nation on Earth.

Q: Have you seen that thing they're building out there? I mean, that doesn't look like any kind of temporary structure. I shutter to think what it costs. Has it occurred to anybody that this is a lot of stuff to happen to swear in this President, somebody who is already the President?

MR. MCCURRY: He's already the President and he won reelection, and since we all knew that was going to happen anyhow --

Q: I don't mean to say that he's not as entitled as anybody else to have a big deal, but I just wondered if it doesn't seem at times like a little much.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we are doing an appropriately down-scaled reinauguration.

Q: Oh? How so?

MR. MCCURRY: Toiv, it's your chance. They had a press conference on this Friday, talked a little bit about it over at the Inaugural Community and there's some more on that.

C-SPAN will air their interview with the President beginning Sunday, December 15th, and will air it early and often, I hope.

Q: What did the President have to say to the Chinese Defense Minister?

MR. MCCURRY: Do you want me to do this or do you want to do it? Why don't you take it away. This is a good one for David. He had a very good bilateral meeting with the Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian. And David Johnson, the Deputy National Deputy Press Secretary and Grand Puba of press at the National Security Council, will brief you accordingly.

Mr. Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON: The President and Defense Minister Chi met for about 20 minutes this morning. It was a meeting which takes place in the context of the meetings that Secretary Perry is having with the Defense Minister during a multiday visit to the United States. Chi was in -- at West Point I believe, before the football game, and he will be -- he had a welcoming ceremony and a series of meetings today at the Pentagon, and will, after today -- I believe tomorrow -- goes on a tour of several military installations in the south and southwest, which will conclude with a visit to the Commander in Chief of the Pacific in Hawaii. And at that point, Secretary Perry and he will have a final meeting. It will take place by video teleconference.

The President's meeting was really to set the stage for this overall visit. He talked to the Defense Minister -- as he has said to you all and also in his discussions with the Chinese President, that he views our engagement with China as a way to further our cooperation where we can, on areas, for example, such as nonproliferation, and to address our differences where they exist on issues such as human rights.

And the other participants in the meeting included individuals such as the Vice President, the National Security Advisor-designate, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sasser, and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Mr. Slocum.

Yes, ma'am.

Q: Did the Minister bring any more details about the B-24 that went down? And was there any discussion about the U.S. team that is supposed to go over there and inspect the site?

MR. JOHNSON: We expect that at some point today during the discussions which are taking place at the Pentagon that there may be some additional developments on the aircraft that has been found and was first made known to us shortly after it was done, when the President was in Manila. That wasn't a subject of this morning's discussion, but I would point you to the Pentagon for some additional information that may come out today, including potentially some work together to recover what remains might be there.

At this point we -- I do not believe that we've been able to make the kind of determination which will allow us to notify the next of kin of those who died in this aircraft incident. So we're not going to be doing things like releasing television footage until that takes place.

Q: So it won't come out today?

Q: -- human rights?

MR. JOHNSON: I think I just mentioned that that was one of the subjects that was mentioned by the President, talking about how he viewed the visit that the Defense Minister was taking here as part of our effort to both work together where we could, and cooperate; and also address those items of difference. And he specifically did mention human rights.

Q: What did he say about them? Human rights are important and we care about them, or what? He mentioned human rights -- what, on a long list or how did he -- what was the context?

MR. JOHNSON: I thought I described it about as best as I could, that he talked about how we viewed the engagement with China and the meetings that take place with Chinese officials, including this meeting, which is really -- with the Defense Minister -- which is really to address military-to-military ties, which are very important to us and to the Chinese for security and stability in the Pacific. But we viewed this in the context of engagement with China, where we could cooperate where we can, work together where we can and also address the differences that we have, including differences on human rights. But this was not a session devoted to negotiations on human rights, this is a Defense Minister.

Q: I understand that, David, but could you give us some sense of the context in which -- how long it took him to get his human rights spiel out or what -- if he mentioned any specifics in connection with it, or are you saying that because of the nature of this meeting it really didn't come up except in passing?

MR. JOHNSON: I think it came up more than in passing. It came up as part of the President describing how we view this visit, how we view our meetings with Chinese officials across the board. But this was a meeting to set the stage for a defense ministerial discussion.

Q: Did he mention any specific cases on human rights?

MR. JOHNSON: No. No.

Q: Did he mention Tiananmen Square, specifically?

MR. JOHNSON: I think I've told you how this discussion took place.

Q: Was this meeting originally scheduled for tomorrow?

MR. JOHNSON: It has been scheduled off and on, on several days, and the Defense Minister is going to be here a few days and the President's schedule has moved around a bit.

Q: The question being the result of tomorrow being International Human Rights Day, the President is going to be involved in some activities to make that point. Was the meeting moved to today so it wouldn't coincide with International Human Rights Day?

MR. JOHNSON: The meetings moved around a little bit for various reasons.

Q: That's not a no or a yes.

MR. JOHNSON: It's right. There were some scheduling issues involved and --

Q: Did Human Rights Day have anything to do with them?

MR. JOHNSON: I'm sure that the President's schedule tomorrow had a lot to do with it. The President has things to do tomorrow with respect to Human Rights Day and other issues, but this meeting didn't become fixed until late last week.

Q: But that still doesn't answer the question, David. The question is whether the scheduling of it today instead of tomorrow was a result of not wanting to have this meeting with this man on Human Rights Day.

MR. JOHNSON: This meeting was scheduled as part of plenary meeting with the Secretary of Defense and the Chinese Defense Minister. He's here for two or three days. This is the day it ended up on.

Q: What do you see doing on human rights, for human rights?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir?

Q: Did nonproliferation issues also -- were they also raised?

MR. JOHNSON: Keep in mind that this was not a negotiating meeting, this was a relatively brief meeting. It was a meeting to set the stage. Proliferation was mentioned, but this was a meeting, really, where the President had an opportunity to tell the Defense Minister how important he thought it was that he was here, and the work that he was doing really with Secretary Perry.

Q: Along with proliferation, were weapons sales mentioned? I know that he's not talking specifics, but did he hope that he --

MR. JOHNSON: There was no discussion of weapons sales.

Q: What does he have on tomorrow for human rights?

Q: Before David goes -- I just wanted to follow up before you leave on this issue of the B-24. You said "other developments." For those of us who are interested in this and cover the White House, and since this tape was provided to the President, maybe you could -- and it was announced at APEC that a U.S. team would be going over there, maybe you could give us a little bit of a heads-up on what it is that they're going to be doing.

MR. JOHNSON: As we came out here, the meetings with the Chinese Defense Minister were still going on. So I don't know what else to tell you.

Q: Do you think they'll be releasing the videotape?

MR. JOHNSON: I do not know. No, I wouldn't anticipate that until after we get a little further along in this process and can notify next of kin.

MR. MCCURRY: She doesn't want to let Martin have the story.

Q: He's the boss now, it's not a problem.

MR. MCCURRY: Do you want to do it tomorrow? Do you want to do this tomorrow? I don't know anything so, you would be better than that.

Q: Mike, could I just ask -- the Chinese in the past have been wary about the U.S.-Japan security alliance and whether it's targeted to contain China in Northeast Asia. Did the subject of the U.S.-Japan security alliance come up?

MR. JOHNSON: Not in this meeting.

MR. MCCURRY: It did not come up in this meeting, David tells me, but there has been bilateral dialogue and we've assured them that our security commitments to Japan are part of a peaceful strategy we have for the furtherance of democracy, economic progress throughout the Asian Pacific.

Q: Mike, I just wanted to follow up on something David said. The notion is there might be an announcement of joint prospective salvage efforts? Not that U.S. teams have already been there doing something, right -- that's not what you mean?

MR. JOHNSON: No, U.S. teams have not been on the ground at this site.

MR. MCCURRY: But they're working through those issues over there today, and we have to send you over to the Pentagon because they're doing the bulk of that work over there today, obviously.

Q: One more China question. This isn't defense-related. It has to do with a story that was in the FT yesterday that said China had decided to delay sanctions it was going to level against the U.S. for another month. Can you confirm that story?

MR. MCCURRY: I can't.

MR. JOHNSON: USTR may be able to help you.

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, USTR I think would be better to go try.

Q: Mike, I have one final question on China, a question that I was asked this morning. Explain once again to us why constructive engagement is good with China, but constructive engagement is not good with Cuba?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the principal difference is the nature of the commitment to economic reform, trade liberalization and commerce with other nations among others. Cuba remains a totalitarian command and control economy. Fidel Castro has shown very little interest in democratization, in providing a greater freedom, greater access to markets by even a small agricultural producers in this country. In short, he's on the wrong side of history. There is some level of commitment to economic liberalization in China, reflected in decisions that have been taken at the highest levels in the Chinese government, and it creates a different opportunity.

The magnitude of economic engagement with these two countries is, of course, a key point of difference as well. We're talking in the case of China about one of the largest emerging markets in the world. I don't hear anyone describing Cuba in that fashion.

Q: I have one more question on China. Did the issue of Taiwan come up during the meetings?

MR. MCCURRY: No, other than a recitation of the nature of our bilateral relationship which is fully consistent with the communiques and with Taiwan Relations Act.

Q: Did the Minister press President Clinton to continue arm sales to Taiwan?

MR. MCCURRY: I believe Mr. Johnson indicated the subject of arm sales did not come up.

Q: On Hong Kong, do you have any assurances from either this official or other Chinese officials on the nature of the transition? And have you asked for any additional assurances?

MR. MCCURRY: Did Hong Kong come up?

MR. JOHNSON: It wasn't discussed.

MR. MCCURRY: Hong Kong was not discussed in this meeting. We've made clear our views on the need for orderly transition in 1997 and, as Hong Kong goes through its transformation we've expressed some of our concerns about things indicated regarding the legislative council, other issues, in past opportunities to raise those types of issues with the PRC.

Q: Does the White House view Chi as the architect of Tiananmen Square crackdown, or as a guy who was just following orders?

MR. MCCURRY: If you check back in the briefing last week, I dealt with that subject at great length.

Q: Prime Minister Chi is still a general, presumably. Was he in uniform or civilian?

MR. MCCURRY: He was in military uniform.

Q: Mike, another foreign policy. Over the weekend, Representative Kasich was kind of beating drums about getting us out of Bosnia in March. Do you have any reaction to that? Did the President observe those comments?

MR. MCCURRY: I didn't realize that -- I'd seen Congressman Kasich quoted on other subjects. I have to confess I didn't see him on the subject of Bosnia. But our views on that subject are well-known. There's a North Atlantic Council meeting underway in Brussels beginning tomorrow at which Secretary Christopher will be working with other ministers to look at the status of planning being done by NATO, to look at the issue of a follow-on force now that the International Implementation Force mission is expiring. And our views on that subject are fairly well-rehearsed and will be done consistent with the policy the President articulated to you here recently.

Q: Are you expecting some resistance on the Hill? Kasich says he's going to get together a bipartisan group to try to get the troops outs by spring. Are you expecting some resistance?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm expecting intense oversight of this question as has existed for the most part throughout our consideration of how to help bring peace to Bosnia.

Q: But you need funding, right? I mean, you're going to need Congress' okay for funding?

MR. MCCURRY: They have the purse strings and they do the appropriating, that's correct.

Q: CBO numbers -- have they arrived yet? When do you expect them to arrive?

MR. MCCURRY: I haven't heard anything further on that. Maybe check tomorrow.

Q: Mike, when you say you expect intense scrutiny over the Bosnia troop follow-on force, do you think that's going to be happening during Albright's confirmation hearings?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to predict what individual senators may wish to raise. I can't imagine that that subject would not come up. That's a very key element of this administration's foreign policy and, indeed, a point of success for this administration of which Ambassador Albright played a leading role.

Q: Do you have any new assessment of what's happening in Belgrade in terms of the demonstrations and the crackdown?

MR. MCCURRY: Nothing new. We continue to monitor it very carefully. We've expressed our views with respect to the right of peaceful demonstrations, with respect to freedom of the press. And we continue to watch very carefully how President Milosevic deals with the civil disturbances and the issue of lawful representation by the opposition.

Q: Iraq oil sales -- Boutros-Ghali is saying today that they're back on. Are we satisfied with the arrangement?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we had already expressed our views on that when the Security Council authorized the new regime for implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 986 oil sales. We had indicated our preferences on the structure of that regime and the nature of the tranche that will develop to produce humanitarian aid for the suffering people of Iraq. We see this as a humanitarian issue, as a way to -- for Saddam Hussein to, however begrudgingly, meet his commitments to the international community to provide for his own civilian population. So we supported the sales. We were aware that the Secretary General was preparing a final report. Those sales now go forward and there will be very careful and strict monitoring of the proceeds of those sales so that they arrive to the people and produce the types of supplies and materials that oil sales were intended to generate.

Q: Bill Richardson has been hop-scotching the world freeing hostages left and right.

MR. MCCURRY: He's an amazing guy. Amazing guy. I'm not going to speculate on what he's going to do next, so forget it. (Laughter.)

Q: Mike, can you tell us if the President has scheduled a meeting with Janet Reno, speaking of Cabinet --

MR. MCCURRY: He hasn't scheduled one yet, but I anticipate one to occur, along with the other Cabinet members he hasn't had a chance to visit with, sometime soon.

Q: Have you any comment, Mike, on Ukraine selling missiles to Libya?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, you're referring to an alleged intelligence report. We don't comment here in public settings on intelligence reports. In fact, we tend to say we don't comment on intelligence matters whatsoever, although that sometimes is not necessarily true. But on that one, suffice to say we have very real concerns about the nonproliferation obligations that have been expressed by the government if Ukraine -- indeed, any country -- and very real concerns about the actions of the government of Libya. And you can imagine that we would raise those concerns very directly.

Q: Mike, now that some names have started to come out in Africa for possible U.N. Secretary General, is the U.S. consulting with allies about some of these names? Are you waiting for groundswells to build, or what?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we've been actively consulting with other members of the Security Council, other members of the region and the United Nations for quite some time on this difficult personnel issue related to the future of the United Nations. That consultation will continue. We are encouraged that there are a number of candidates coming forward and we will continue our deliberations in New York, along with other nations.

Q: Does the White House have any reaction to the suggestion by Senator Domenici that the budget cycle go to a two-year budget cycle? This is an editorial that was published yesterday.

MR. MCCURRY: Somewhere along the way -- have we ever had an official opinion on two-year budget cycles?

MR. TOIV: Actually, RIGO has said we ought to consider --

MR. MCCURRY: I think that's right. I think within the Vice President's performance review they have looked at that issue from time to time and expressed some interest in the idea, but nothing directly apropos of Senator Domenici's thinking.

Q: Mike, what about -- speaking of senators -- of Trent Lott's indication that he characterizes your relationship as "trust, but verify." How would you --

MR. MCCURRY: I think he borrowed that from somewhere. (Laughter.) I think that works both ways.

Q: Following up on Rubin's comments about the CPI yesterday, he was talking about getting this panel of experts report and then going out and getting other expert opinions. What's the process within the White House to do this outreach that he says is needed?

MR. MCCURRY: Pretty much just what he said. We kind of look at the report, talk to people --

Q: Who in the White House is going to do that?

MR. MCCURRY: I imagine, given the nature and the technical difficulty of the issue, just about everybody. I don't know who all -- it will be done principally within the National Economic Council, obviously, but all the key economic agencies and the Cabinet level agencies have got an interest.

Q: On the same subject, Rubin also said he agreed exactly with what was in Boskin's report and called for coming together in a bipartisan basis. Does that mean that at least --

MR. MCCURRY: You're taking some liberties with what he said. I think he said Boskin got it right, meaning that they looked at the issue, they tried to measure it.

Q: -- come together on a bipartisan basis.

MR. MCCURRY: I think that's exactly right. We need to come together on a bipartisan basis. (Laughter.)

Q: But in that light then, does that mean at least for a portion of that adjustment that it will have to be done legislatively during budget negotiations?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, not necessarily during budget negotiations. We are looking for the best broad, technical, statistical answer to the question how best to measure inflation, and what the effect of the measure of inflation is on federal spending. And we will consult with a number of experts on that, and how that impacts policy remains to be seen. We don't know.

Q: Will you ask the BLS on this? I mean, we've been waiting for them to come up with their own adjustment?

MR. MCCURRY: They are looking at the same sets of issues and there has been some testimony on it. My guess is that the Labor Department and BLS will be on the Hill as we go through coming months looking at those same sets of issues.

Q: What about the President's meeting with the Crown Prince of Morocco this morning?

MR. MCCURRY: It was a very good meeting in which they reviewed the current status of the Middle East peace process. They looked at a number of issues that are of particular concern in North Africa. A short, I think 15, 20-minute meeting. The Crown Prince delivered a letter to the President from his father outlining some of King Hassan's concerns and thinking about the peace process. It was a good exchange of views.

Q: As the President continues to work on personnel matters, is he having personal conversations or face-to-face meetings with any candidates?

MR. MCCURRY: I have not been told of any job interviews today. I know that he began about a half-hour ago a session with Mr. Bowles -- I believe Mr. Panetta planned to participate, too -- in which they would just continue to work through personnel and Cabinet selection issues.

Q: How about over the weekend?

MR. MCCURRY: He spent a little time by phone on those questions with both Mr. Bowles and Mr. Panetta.

Q: Is there any scheduled time for his get-together with Attorney General Reno yet?

MR. MCCURRY: No. I said we know that they'll be some.

Q: Asked and answered.

MR. MCCURRY: Asked and answered, Mr. Hume says.

Q: Is it true that the lawyers are falling all over themselves to try to be the counsel on the Whitewater for the White House?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know the answer to that, but if any of them want to fall over this way and provide resumes, then I probably can send them along.

Q: Is the President going to deliver a big speech or a little speech at the DLC on Wednesday?

MR. MCCURRY: Medium-sized. (Laughter.)

Q: Is that a luncheon speech, or what time is it?

MR. MCCURRY: It's a noontime speech to the Democratic Leadership Council. He'll talk about the role the Democratic Leadership Council has played in reinvigorating the Democratic Party and talk about those issues the President put before the American people in this past election, which describe the way in which we can move America forward.

Q: This is pretty slim pickings here. Have you got anything at all -- (laughter).

MR. MCCURRY: I've told you, you know, this would have been a good day to brief.

Q: I know it's the holidays and it's after the election and there's a lull, but come on, man, can't you help us out a little bit? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: I put up Christmas decorations myself yesterday, so it's appropriately quiet here on Monday. We've got a speech on Wednesday, press conference on Friday.

Q: What time is the press conference?

MR. MCCURRY: Not aiming at making a lot of news in between then, might make a little bit here and there.

Q: Cabinet appointments on Thursday, do you expect?

Q: What time is the press conference?

MR. MCCURRY: Don't need a big breaking, big story every single day, do we?

Q: What time is the press conference?

MR. MCCURRY: I answered that for guidance purposes at the gaggle; I'm not going to do it on the record.

Q: What's the President's Christmas plans? What are they?

MR. MCCURRY: To enjoy a merry, merry Christmas with his beloved wife and daughter and no doubt family members as well. When we get more details we'll provide them.

Q: Is he going to make any news tomorrow at this human rights thing?

MR. MCCURRY: He's got some -- one thing he will talk about, and I actually, given the blistering questioning of Mr. Johnson, I'd remind you, our approach to human rights is not defined by one issue, one nation. We raise this in the context of discussions with governments around the world. We raise it in a formal way. The State Department devotes an annual report to the subject, follows up the very good work that the bureau at the State Department does, reviewing the human rights record around the world. And I think it's important to remind ourselves from time to time that that is not the only test of how we advance our interests in human rights, freedom and democracy.

Q: That's right, and if you have trade relations with a country, of course, the human rights issue becomes secondary, doesn't it?

MR. MCCURRY: Au contraire. There have been many occasions when we have raised those direct kinds of concerns much to the consternation of our closest trading partners. One example comes to mind, of course, is the Helms-Burton Act.

Q: Yes, but there are other dictatorships that we do business with, as well as Cuba.

Q: Is he going to make any news tomorrow, or not?

MR. MCCURRY: Mary Ellen goes like --

Q: Mike, will he take the occasion in the remarks tomorrow, for example, to explain why he thought it's important to meet with the Defense Minister today --

MR. MCCURRY: Boy, the pickings are slim enough today, do you want me to give up tomorrow's news now? Come on. (Laughter.) Let's save it for tomorrow.

Q: -- put in context some of these engagements that we have, like with China, for example, and say we cannot turn our backs on --

MR. MCCURRY: I think he might very well suggest that we have a broad-ranging interest in human rights -- the Universal Declaration, the advancement of human rights and democracy. We raised them in a whole host of diplomatic encounters the world over, and our interest in that issue is not confined to one nation and one region.

Q: Is the President focusing in on a new chairman for the Democratic Party?

MR. MCCURRY: He's eyeing it out there on the horizon, but to say he's riveted and focused might be a little bit of an overstatement. But if that's enough for you to run off and speculate, go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q: Is this a job that somebody who is not going to get something else is going to be left over with?

MR. MCCURRY: No, he has not offered me the chairmanship of the party yet. The President has not offered me the chairmanship of the Democratic Party. I deny that. You can get it on CNN. Come on.

Q: What kind of a speech, or, what kind of an appearance is the President making on human rights tomorrow? I mean, is it a speech that he's getting somewhere, or what?

MR. MCCURRY: Mary Ellen is going to do a little advancer on that at the end of the briefing. I'm just doing that to give her time to think about it.

Q: Is the President going to break any new ground on human rights?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, Paula. Another question that I won't be able to answer. Go ahead.

Q: Also, yesterday, Secretary Rubin was asked about capital gains and he said, well, it isn't really a priority of the administration. He acknowledged that it will be part of the discussions in the future in the budget talks. What is the administration's view of this idea of paying for capital gains with reducing corporate welfare?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, I think the Treasury Secretary is making clear that there's enormous interest in that idea in some parts of Congress, and I think he was acknowledging that, as part of good faith discussions about the future of the economy, the future of the budget, we would want to listen carefully to the views of key Republican members of the Congress.

Q: -- paying for it by reducing corporate welfare?

MR. MCCURRY: He is very interested how you pay for it. As Treasury Secretary, you can image that.

Q: Never mind. (Laughter.)

Q: Thank you.

MR. MCCURRY: Look, that's all part of extensive discussions related to budget and -- that come after we formally submit the budget proposal in February. But there's nothing that I am aware of that jump-starts that discussion now.

Q: Not to steal the FBI's thunder, but what is the White House view on the reward that is going to be offered in a few minutes for the Olympic bombing?

MR. MCCURRY: I think they are making that announcement not for another 25 minutes, so I will hold off until then. But, obviously, we encourage those that have information related to the bombing during the Olympics in Atlanta to come forward. That's an unsolved case and the FBI would like any American that has valuable information to step forward, and this, hopefully, will be a positive inducement to do so. Human rights -- just when and where and what -- do you have anything further? Mary Ellen -- you can see Mary Ellen after the briefing. She can fail to further enlighten you.

Thank you.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END 1:35 P.M. EST