THE WHITE HOUSE




                     Office of the Press Secretary




________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                                       June 6, 1997






				    

			    PRESS BRIEFING BY 

			      MIKE MCCURRY

				    

				    

			    The Briefing Room    			     

	     






1:35 P.M. EDT

	     

	     

	     Q	  Vetoes?  Have you got any bills around?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Hasn't come down yet.  Double-check again,

because we didn't check for about -- double-check and see if the Clerk's

Office has gotten anything from the Hill.

	     

	     MR. LOCKHART:  I checked about 15 minutes ago, but I'll

check again.

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  And it hadn't come in.  All right.  That's

good enough.

	     

	     Q	  Do you expect it today?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Do you think?  (Laughter.)  Look, the House

took off for a four-day weekend.  Do you think they would give us the

pleasure of vetoing this thing and then all weekend long reminding them

that they should not have left town until they got this disaster

assistance passed?  I doubt it.  I think not.

	     

	     Q	Your credibility is good on the President's speech -- he

did write it.  (Laughter.)

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Thank you.  Thank you for that compliment,

Helen.  (Laughter.)

	     

	     Q	  Everything but the kitchen sink.

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Hey, we're going to ease into the briefing

today, sort of go slowly.  Make C-SPAN try to figure out when it actually

began and didn't begin.  I had a call -- Senator Russ Feingold called me

and he made a very good point.  He called to say, look, I want to be 90

percent complimentary for what the President has said on campaign finance

reform and the support we have gotten from you guys on passage of the

legislation, but there's just one little minor adjustment.  And then he

-- remember when we were talking about the petition earlier in the week,

and I said, look, this bill doesn't look like it's going to go anywhere,

so that's why we need to explore other options -- he said, we actually

have been doing hard work on trying to get momentum behind the

legislation.

	     

	     He pointed out that Senator Susan Collins from Maine has now

signed on as a co-sponsor, another Republican co-sponsor, and that

they're working to get additional sponsors.  And he remains very hopeful

that they can continue to press hard to try to move the legislation later

in the year.  So I told him I would go and eat crow and say I should not

have been so pessimistic about the legislation's chances.

	     

	     Q	  But obviously not July 4th. 

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Clearly, not July 4th, but he said, look, we

think we are making progress and engendering support for it and we're

going to continue to press hard.  And I think, obviously, the President,

as you heard from a number of us, in no way feels that pushing forward

with the Federal Election Commission diminishes the effort we can make to

enact this feature of campaign finance reform because it would be

preferable, as we said all along, to enact the legislation.

	     

	     Q	There are now three Republicans that support this

legislation?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  I guess so.  I mean, I think that's right.

They're working on getting additional co-sponsors.  They're up to, I

think, 32, the Senator said.  So they're working hard on it.  And I

appreciate it.

	     

	     Q	  He's not going to withdraw his bid then to the FEC?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  No, we will continue to pursue that, but we

see that as a complementary effort.

	     

	     Q	On the issue of campaign finance, what does the White

House think of dead people making contributions to the Democratic

National Committee?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Not much.

	     

	     Q	Would you like to enlighten us with any further thoughts

on the subject?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Dead people should not contribute to

campaigns.  (Laughter.)  They should not vote either.

	     

	     Q	What does it say about the appearance of these things

when, apparently, there are a total of some -- according to an eminent

newspaper -- some 20 checks from fictitious donors, both corporate and

individual?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Well, one thing, only because there was some

confusion about this earlier, these are contributions that were directed

by and large to the Democratic National Committee, so they can tell you

more about the whole audit procedure they went through and how they

screened the donations.  But it really would be -- they made an

exhaustive look, audited their contributions to try to find exactly this

type of problem, and they can tell you more about what they found and

what the circumstances suggest.  I don't think I can enlighten you much

more.




	     Q	Well, let me just ask this -- since these contributions

apparently came through the auspices of the President's friends John

Huang and Charles Trie, would the President consider asking those two

gentlemen to step forward and testify?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  I believe we've already done that.  We've

encouraged people to be supportive and cooperative.




	     Q	Would he personally try to do that if he could reach

them?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  I don't even know if he knows where they are,

but I think we've said generically and the President has said publicly

that we urge people to be supportive and to provide information.




	     Q	How about specifically, for those two men?  Is he willing

to specifically call -- usually people don't say no when the President

asks them to do something.




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Look, they have all got lawyers, they're being

represented by lawyers.  We have said we think people ought to cooperate.

We are cooperating.  We have provided thousands and thousands of pages

worth of documents from the White House.  We've worked with the DNC.  The

DNC has provided thousands and thousands of pages worth of documents.




	     The problem we've got right now with this whole subject is

the Republicans are seemingly unwilling to get into the other side of the

equation, which is what was going on with Republican Party abuses.  And

you heard Senator Glenn, who I can tell you personally is fairly

mild-mannered and not the most partisan individual on the face of the

Earth, get exercised to the point of really making a very angry comment

about this yesterday.  So what we want -- we want fair, balanced

hearings.  We want people to cooperate.  We want them to get on with it.




	     Q	Do you think the White House operators could find Charlie

Trie?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  I have no idea.  




	     Q	Mike, you spoke to the audit, but in making such an

audit, doesn't this sort of speak to an issue of intent on the part of

those who are raising money on behalf of the party, in terms of whether

or not there were any sort of misleading motives with the use of "dead

donors" and mystery money?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  I have not a clue what you're asking.  What

are you trying to ask?




	     Q	I'm asking you, do you think that now that this is coming

to light again with the dead donors and the mystery money, so to speak,

that there's a question of whether or not there was intentional bad

tactics in fundraising on behalf of the party.

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  I don't -- it's not "coming to light again."

There's been one story today and it's the story that covers the whole

general subject now -- we've talked about the whole thing in general;

that question has been long ago answered.

	     

	     Q	Mike, Trent Lott seemed to indicate -- he didn't say

specifically, but he seemed to indicate on this CR and census sampling

issue and the supplemental spending bill that if the President vetoes it

they're going to send it back with those provisions.  But he kind of

hinted that they might not be the exact same provisions that they have in

there now.  What kind of compromising --

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  It's inconceivable to me that the Majority

Leader would just turn right around and pass the same legislation the

President has vetoed.  And as I said earlier today, that just is a

formula for gridlock, it doesn't make any sense.  So something is going

to have to give after the President vetoes this legislation and it pretty

clearly will be their insistence on attaching these completely

objectionable and extraneous measures to a disaster relief bill.

	     

	     Q	  How do you know that? 

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Because I just have a great hunch that that's

what's going to happen.

	     

	     Q	What's the progress?  Are you talking to them about a

possible compromise after he vetoes --

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  They have tried to -- they've floated some

ideas and they've been -- and we're always available to talk and try to

resolve these things.  It's our obligation as the Executive Branch to

work with Congress and to get on with business.  But they knew exactly

what was going to happen and the delay now is not only the delay as a

result of not failing the act before the recess, but now to pass

something that clearly is going to be vetoed.  So it's going to be well

into next week before they can get back -- I believe Senator Daschle said

earlier today it's going to take most of next week to grind through some

kind of compromise on this.

	     

	     And it was all unnecessary from the beginning.  That's the

point.  And we are pretty confident that the public understands why the

President is acting this way and we're pretty confident the public

understands that the census and squabble about government shutdowns that

look very partisan has nothing to do with helping communities and people

who need disaster assistance.  So I think the public has gotten the

message here, and maybe the majority in the Congress will sooner or

later, too.




	     Q	What about the rights of way and law enforcement

provisions?  That's something else that the administration --




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Look, when the President vetoes this

legislation there will be a long recitation of some of the objectionable

features, and there all addressed item by item.  I think the ones that

are principally of concern to the President because they really fly in

the face of everything we've been trying to do to work together to

accommodate the views of the Congress are the provisions regarding the

automatic CR and the census.




	     Q	Mike, what are the tactical reasons as to why the Clinton

administration told the Supreme Court not to take up the New Jersey

school board case?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  As the Solicitor General said at great length

in the brief and as he has said subsequently to some of you, it's just

not the right case to settle such momentous matters.




	     Q	Isn't it kind of controversial just before the speech at

the University of San Diego?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Not at all.  We've worked very closely with

civil rights, and I think many of them understand our thinking on this

issue.  And I imagine a great number of them share the view that this is

not the case to bring before the Court as well, on these matters.




	     Q	You probably discussed this earlier, but I just want to

understand, notwithstanding any separate decision about whether General

Ralston should or should not be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, does the

President agree with Secretary Cohen's analysis that the adultery issue

on its face should not disqualify him?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  I think the President believes the Secretary

is correct that the issue is good order and discipline and not

necessarily adultery.  And if you looked at what they briefed at the

Pentagon yesterday, they went at great length through that and Ken Bacon

did a good job I think of explaining what the real issue is.




	     Q	But can I just have the answer to my specific question --

does he agree that on its face this issue and the General's behavior

should not disqualify him from consideration --

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  The President has not evaluated the facts and

Secretary Cohen is doing that.  And we've got a lot of confidence in his

ability to do it and get it right.

	     

	     Q	  What do you see -- 

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  -- issue over there.

	     

	     Q	What do you say to critics, though, who are concerned

that they see a double standard?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Look, I really encourage you to take a look at

Ken Bacon's briefing yesterday, because double standard in that

allegation are made by people who don't recognize that each and every one

of these case have got their own separate facts and they need to be

evaluated based on facts.  We don't just sort of lump everything together

and make judgments based on perception -- particularly when it comes to

sensitive matters that involve justice.  Justice in this country is a

case-by-case proposition.  We have to look at facts and look at the

underlying facts of any situation.  And that's what they're doing at the

Pentagon.

	     

	     Q	But I think the argument -- the broader issue around the

double standard question is that some of the women in the military and

people who consider themselves to be gay and in the military feel that

they've been subject to a witch hunt for years and there was no concern

about that.  There are a number of women in the military who believe that

their sexual lives are under constant scrutiny and that if they rebuff

advances then they're subject to these rumors, and there hasn't been any

concern about that.

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  It's incorrect to say there's been no concern

about that.

	     

	     Q	What does the President think of the call by a group of

women Congress House members to have a high-level review of the military

code as far as sexual behavior?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Well, I think as Secretary Cohen, himself, has

said, there needs to be an examination of standards and they ought to be

exacting standards, high standards, and they ought to be fairly applied.

I think how you arrive at that is something that the Secretary will deal

with and we believe will deal with very appropriately.

	     

	     Q	When do you think he'll get Secretary Cohen's

recommendation?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  He said yesterday, and I think Ken said on his

behalf, not for another week or two.




	     Q	Mike, two questions.  Is Marine General Sheehan now the

front runner?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  I'm not going to speculate on individual

candidates.  We've had one public discussion of a candidate, a leading

candidate.  I'm not going to get into other names.




	     Q	Does the White House believe that the military should

revise its rules on adultery?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Asked and answered.  That was just that

question.




	     Q	Mike, Indonesia has cancelled orders for F-16s and pulled

out of U.S. military exercises in protest over criticism from Congress on

their human rights record.  Do you --




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Well, it's from Congress, and as you know, the

administration itself has been somewhat critical in our annual human

rights report.  We regret the decision by the government of Indonesia.

We have a bilateral relationship in which we cooperate in a number of

areas, but we do have some disagreements with respect to human rights,

worker rights issues.  But we stick by our concerns.




	     Q	Are you going to try and get them to reconsider this?  Is

anybody putting any --




	     MR. MCCURRY:  I think at the moment, I think the State

Department can tell you better about how we will proceed, but my guess is

that they will try to find some other purchaser for the planes.

Remember, this is a transaction in part that alleviates the obligation we

have to the government of Pakistan, which originally purchases the

planes.




	     Q	Back to the military for a second.  I think what the

congresswoman said was that there should be a moratorium on any further

action vis-a-vis adultery cases while a review were to take place.  You

seem to have signaled that you would support a review.  Do you also think

that there should be a moratorium?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  I think it would be better for Secretary Cohen

to address that.  He's ultimately responsible for those types of reviews

within the Department.  He has been on the Hill today talking to members

of the Armed Services Committee.  I think he wants to make sure that we

see the standards correctly drawn and fairly applied.




	     We go through these episodes occasionally when we go through

a feeding frenzy or a very highly controversial crisis and the rules of

the road are reestablished.  And it feels like we're going through a

moment like that now.  But I think that the President is confident that

the Secretary is the right person to drive that process to make sure that

we end up in the right place.




	     Q	Mike, is there concern at the White House that if Ralston

is nominated, the battering that the Pentagon make take during hearings,

the issue is sure to come up at hearings, and given these fights recently

on the allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination and the

Pentagon's poor handling, can they afford to take another beating?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  It's a question based on hypothesis because it

assumes a recommendation from the Secretary that the Secretary has not

made.  And I'm just not going to get into it.




	     Q	  Can you give us any color from the graduation?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  I won't because I was not there, as you know.

But your pool, I am told by Marcia Berry, has gotten a pretty good color

readout.  They are due back here -- I understand the President and the

First Lady were greeting people who attended the ceremony and they were

still up there visiting with Chelsea and her friends and her friends'

parents.  So they should be back soon and there is a pool report that's

got some of that color.




	     Q	What is the President doing this weekend?  Does he have

any plans?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  We don't know, do we?  We'll check later on.

I'm not aware -- I think he's got some family and friends in town.




	     Q	  Algerian election reaction?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Did you get anything on that?  Why don't you

find that.  Come back to that in a second and I'll do something for you.




	     Q	Mike, just one thing on the graduation.  Do the Clintons

feel like they have successfully protected her childhood from media

scrutiny and so forth and allowed her to grow up in a normal fashion.




	     MR. MCCURRY:  The President has very often complimented all

of you for your willingness to give her the privacy to let her go through

her teenage years and reach a proud moment that in many ways and many

respects is the beginning of adulthood in a real way.  And they're very

grateful for that.

	     

	     And I think it's not so much that they protected her or

shielded her, but they just tried to create circumstances in which in

this very unusual setting she could live as normal a life as possible.

And I think, to your credit, to Chelsea's credit and I think to her

parent's credit it worked.  And that was good news.  And I think that

today, in part, she gets launched off to the next part of her life in

fine fashion as a result.

	     

	     Q	Well, they did let her speak abroad, but never around us

and we've had no sense of who she is, what she is, but she does make

public appearances when she goes to Asia and Africa.

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  She's a very capable, beautiful young lady,

probably in part because of that.

	     

	     Q	  Because she doesn't speak to the United States?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Because she doesn't sit down and do interviews

with Helen Thomas every morning at 7:00 a.m.

	     

	     Q	  Gee, that's too damn bad.  (Laughter.)

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  But I want you to know since I sit there and

talk to you every morning at 7:00 a.m., I have grown through the

experience.  (Laughter.)

	     

	     Q	Senator Daschle says we hear from our Hill folks that the

flood bill won't get to the White House until Monday.  So do you think

you'll negotiate over the weekend and see if you can affect the timing?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Of when the bill comes down here?

	     

	     Q	No, henceforth -- what are you going to do after Monday,

how are you going to handle it when it gets here?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  They'll send it down Monday so that they don't

have to sit there with the President's veto message ringing in their ears

all weekend.  But the President will veto it on Monday and we'll get back

to seeing -- I don't think the House comes back in until Tuesday, anyhow,

and we'll get on with seeing if we can't work this out.

	     

	     Q	No, no, no, my question is, you could talk over the

weekend to see if you could figure out what to do after --

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  They left town.  There's not anyone around to

talk to.

	     

	     Q	  What's the radio address on tomorrow?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  The radio address will be about the repugnant

crimes that occurred based on bigotry, intolerance in this country, and

the effort that we need to make to deal with that.  And the President has

some ideas on how in the coming year we might better address the question

of hate crimes.

	     

	     Q	Is that related to the church burnings report that's

coming out this weekend as well?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  In part, because it is a related topic, not

necessarily directly related, but as part of an ongoing effort this

President is going to make to combat intolerance, bigotry, prejudice and

racism in our society.

	     

	     Q	Mike, since you're rolling up for the race relations

commencement address and speeches are being written, do you have any

information that you can give us on the initiative that's coming out?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  I think Joe laid out pretty much where we are

yesterday, a little snapshot.  I will tell you, we are going into a

period where we're consulting more closely with a wide variety of people

outside the White House now.  And so we're going to fine-tune and perfect

some of the -- mostly some of the process that the President will present

next week.  I think substantively the President's got a good sense of how

he wants to address issues next weekend, but we will be sort of fine

tuning aspects of our initiative as we go into next week.

	     

	     Q	Following up, has the White House decided if there will

be a White House Conference on Race?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Well, the President, as I may have just

hinted, will have some thoughts about a specific question related to that

in the radio address.  And he, of course, will be outlining a way in

which we can use the coming year in a very positive way to address

questions of diversity, tolerance and coming together as one America as

we prepare for his speech in San Diego.

	     

	     Q	Mike, you touched a few minutes ago on Senator Glenn's

anger, but didn't delve into the part that -- the whole bipartisan

process on campaign finance or investigations seem to be falling apart.

Could you elaborate on what the White House's thinking is on that?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  As I said before, we have believed all along

that it's important to fairly and impartially review the facts and

circumstances surrounding campaign finance issues in the 1995-'96

election cycle.  Or even more generally, the question of how we finance

campaigns in our country -- because, among other things, the President

believes the conclusion will be abundantly clear that we need to reform

campaign finance laws.  And that's why, in a sense, we've already put

forward the President's thinking on that by endorsing the

McCain-Feingold/Meehan-Shays legislation.

	     

	     It's important, if the American people are going to have any

confidence in the process of looking at the campaign, that it be done in

a fair and balanced way.  And what seems to be breaking down now on the

Hill is any sense that hearings in either the Senate or the House are

going to be fair, because they clearly are going to be designed to suit

the whims of the majority.

	     

	     Q	More to the point, do you see a rescue strategy, so to

speak, to try to keep a very fragile process together that the White

House would be engaging in?  If it's falling apart, what are you going to

do to put it back together?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Well, it's not the responsibility of the

Executive Branch to hold together fragile Senate and House hearings.  I

mean, that's the job of committee chairs working with ranking members.

And that's where the process is falling apart now, is at the committee

chair level and that requires leadership and it requires the

congressional leaders to be directly involved.

	     

	     Q	  But do you agree you have a vested interest in it?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  In having them fall apart or come together?

	     

	     Q	  Either way.

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  I think we have a vested interest in making

sure the facts come out, that we continue to cooperate and that the truth

be learned about the '95-'96 campaign cycle.  We've actually already

tried to do our part by being as forthcoming as we can, by providing

documents when we can, by trying to answer as satisfactorily as we can

questions from you when we're in a position to do so.  So we're going to

continue to do that work.  That's how we'll proceed.

	     

	     Q	You say it's the committee chairman -- it's falling apart

at the committee chairman level.  So you're faulting Senator Thompson for

not maintaining a bipartisan process?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  No, I'm just saying it appears from our

distance down here that they're having trouble keeping this fair and

balanced, and that's the point that Senator Glenn was making yesterday.

And I think those of you who know them, know that he would probably do so

somewhat reluctantly.




	     Q	Yes, but the key relationship here, in addition to how

he's getting along with Democrats, is how he's getting along with you.  I

mean, there is regular correspondence.  How is it from your perspective?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  From our perspective, we continue to

cooperate.  We've had some disagreements, but we tend to try to resolve

those disagreements.  I think that our ability to cooperate will probably

be similarly affected as the minority side has been affected, as the

hearings -- if they do take on a more partisan cast.




	     Q	What's your understanding of where the process stands

with this advisory commission on cloning?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  That they meet tomorrow.  Among other things,

they are preparing a final report to the President that I think,

depending on the outcome of their deliberations tomorrow, would come to

the White House sometime fairly soon.  I'm not that they've set a

deadline.




	     Q	  -- what happens?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Whatever their recommendations are, the

President will duly consider them.




	     Q	Based on what you know about what they're considering,

the private research can go forward, but not to actually make humans out

of the embryo research --




	     MR. MCCURRY:  I wouldn't make any -- I wouldn't rush to

judgment about what their conclusions are.




	     Q	So would you say that the reporting on what their

preliminary conclusions are is incorrect?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Well, I don't know that it's incorrect.  I

just think the thrust of their recommendations I don't think are going to

be too surprising, given the widespread concern expressed in both the

scientific and the ethical community about human cloning.  It's likely

going to be a recommendation that we not start cloning human beings.




	     Q	Right, but is there anything in those recommendations

that you would object to so far?  Or are you waiting for the final

report?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  We're going to see it and evaluate it, but I

think the general headline I just gave you is pretty obvious.




	     Q	Back on disaster relief just for a second, accepting for

the moment that the Republicans are making mistake, let's say,

hypothetically, someone has got to rise above this and go forward.  I

mean, some sort of compromise has to be forged, right?  Do you see a way

for the White House to encourage that process?  Is there anything he can

do?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Yes, I think -- under our Constitution, that's

what a veto is designed to do, and that's exactly what will help this

situation, is when the President makes it very clear to Congress that we

need to get disaster relief to the communities and people who need it.

And we can't gum up that bill with things that are clearly going to be

objectionable and are going to remain objectionable.  Congress will

hopefully get that message and act accordingly -- send us a bill that the

President can sign.  That's the way the process works, and it works

pretty well.




	     Q	Which is not necessarily a clean bill?  I mean, are you

saying you can accept some things?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Look, the disaster all along -- with

bipartisan agreement, the disaster bill has also included some

peacekeeping funding for our forces in Bosnia, because they need to have

the financial support that's been requested, too.  So there are other

measures that are in there.  But we're talking specifically about things

that are not germane to the subject of disaster relief that are being

attached to this bill because it's a fast -- supposedly fast-moving

legislative vehicle that don't have -- that are controversial enough that

they shouldn't be there holding up a bill that needs to pass.




	     Q	But, Mike, what is, therefore, the greater good --vetoing

objectionable elements that you may or may not be able to live with, or

getting the disaster relief out and running?  What's the greater good in

terms of where you want to go, as far as accepting or rejecting the bill?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Well, the greater good is to do business

efficiently and in a bipartisan way the American people elected a

Republican Congress and a Democratic President to do.  And we've had some

success in doing that this year.  That's why this is kind of a bizarre

setback, because it goes back to more the climate of the 1995-'96 budget

disagreements, which we think -- we thought was largely settled and

largely settled in ways that would have prevented a recurrence of that

type of partisan bickering.

	     

	     Q	Mike, getting back on the race issue, Reverend Jesse

Jackson says that his comments are falling on a deaf ear here at the

White House.  He's calling for more minorities and women to have power

positions in the White House, judgeship positions.  What doe you say

about that?  What does the President say?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  I think he's right.  We need a new Press

Secretary, for example.  (Laughter.)  No, look he's --

	     

	     Q	  Who are you going to get?

	      

	     MR. MCCURRY:  He's advocating -- April.  (Laughter.)  Look,

there is a -- he has forcefully and in a very articulate way made that

argument.  He's made that argument for a long time.  We've responded

saying we think we have done well on that criteria that he raises in

those criticisms.  But we have always respected his voice and always

listened very, very carefully to him, and not necessarily always agreeing

with everything the Reverend says, but a lot of us -- and the President

included -- admire his guidance, and we listen and hear him out and try

to do the right thing -- not always doing exactly what he wants, but

doing what the President thinks is in the best interest.

	     

	     But without any doubt, broadly speaking, I think the

President and the Reverend share the same vision of what we want to see

happen in this country with respect to diversity, minority empowerment,

the advances that we want to see all Americans make together as one

America.

	     

	     Q	But you reject those specific criticisms that he made the

other day after meeting with the President?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Well, I don't know that --

	     

	     Q	Specific criticisms about the EEOC and the senior White

House staff?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  I mean, on the EEOC, we -- look, we have

reduced a backlog that was well above 100,000 cases.  We cut it in half.

The President wouldn't say that he is at all satisfied with the progress

because there is still a backlog of cases.  But remember, we've gone out

and sought additional funding for the agency to try to retire that

backlog, and Congress has said no every time we've requested it.  So

we're managing to reduce the backlog even though it's not perfect.

	     

	     I think -- look, there is -- and the Reverend, I think,

understands this well.  There is advantage in having pressure coming from

that side all the time because it makes it possible for us to advance the

argument that we have to try to move forward.  It sometimes ends up being

compromised, but it's not at all out of line for there to be criticism

because I think that helps create an environment in which we can address

some of these issues more effectively.

	     

	     Q	Does the White House agree that there needs to be more

minority women?

	     

	     Q	So you're saying you value his input, but you disagree

with the specific --

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  We disagree with some of his -- I mean, we

have a different interpretation of some of the specific areas he raises,

put it that way.

	     

	     Q	  What about the White House staff?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  We think the White House staff -- 

	     

	     Q	  Senior positions.

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  In senior positions, we can work up numbers

and everything for you, but we are very satisfied that in terms of

diversity we've compiled an exemplary record.

	     

	     Q	  He says Frank Raines is not enough.

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Well, he's not alone.  That's the answer.

Look around.  I mean, he may not know some of our new people who are

working in high-level positions, too.

	     

	     Q	A disaster relief question.  I don't understand why -- if

the President has an interest in delivering this aid to these people, why

wouldn't he make a phone call over the weekend to reach out to the

congressional leaders to say how can we get thing --

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  We have had ongoing consultations with them --

senior members of the staff.  The President has said I'm on standby if

there's something that's going to move this.  But you've heard the

Majority Leader speak and you know that there's not likely going to be

movement on this issue over the weekend.  We're here, we're available.

If they wanted to stick around in town and try to work something out this

weekend, I think the President will be more than available to do it.

	     

	     Q	Dick Morris is probably on standby, too.  (Laughter.)

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  To do more commentary on CNN, no doubt.

	     

	     Q	  Ooooh.  (Laughter.)

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  Ooooh.  That was fair.  Come on, how often do

I shill for you?  (Laughter.)

	     

	     We don't have anything good on the Algerian election results

because we're waiting for reports from international observers in our

embassy on the election before we comment on the results and the fairness

of the voting.  That's why there wasn't anything brilliant to say on top

of the briefing.

	     

	     Q	  Mike, do you have what's coming up next week?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  I can put that out in a minute, and tell you

that we've got a couple of pieces of paper coming.  We've got still the

radio address we've not put out, right?

	     

	     Q	  You're going to put the radio address out today?

	     

	     Q	  That was taped or live?

	     	  

	     MR. MCCURRY:  No, it was taped.  It was already taped, so we

can put that out on an embargoed basis.

	     

	     Q	  What's the labor thing?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  We'll try to get that out early.  We are doing

the -- are we finalizing -- remember that whole question about executive

order versus a memoranda on the project labor agreements?  I think we've

now finalized -- it's been reported by many of you already where we are

going with that memoranda.  I think they finalized that memoranda.  So

let's try to get that out relatively quickly.  Anything else for the

afternoon?  And that will pretty much be it, so we'll try to get everyone

out of here reasonably early.

	     

	     Q	Mike, is there any substantiation to a report that the

U.S. is planning to hold military -- joint military operations with

Taiwan?

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  No.  We do not conduct joint military

exercises with Taiwan.

	     

	     Q	Mike, I had heard that the President may be meeting with

labor leaders from some of the G-7 countries on Monday.  Is there any

truth to that or is that --

	     

	     Q	  Labor ministers or labor leaders?

	     

	     Q	  Labor leaders, not labor ministers.

	     

	     MR. MCCURRY:  That's interesting.  What is that?  Oh, that's

right.  There is a -- has been traditionally a discussion, growing out of

both the -- I think it began -- maybe it came out of Tokyo or it came out

of the Naples meeting -- a convention that there is a general discussion

of labor and employment issues early on.  That would certainly be

consistent with the President's view that employment issues and expanding

job creation.  And by the way, I'm sure you all reported dutifully on the

fact that unemployment is at 4.8 percent and 12.3 million jobs have been

created since Bill Clinton has been President of the United States.  I

know that was probably right up there in the leads on everything you

filed.




	     But job creation and how we do job creation is something

that the President and Prime Minister Blair agree ought to be a focus

both of the Denver summit and then the Birmingham summit next year.  So

we'll keep you posted on it.




	     Q	Are labor leaders going to attend the Summit of the 8?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  We obviously don't know yet.  Oh, some of them

do, because in some countries the labor minister, in some cases, has the

economic portfolio, along with finance ministers and others.  But we'll

check further.  It doesn't sound like we're announcing it, and I did not

see it on the week ahead.  But if we formalize that, we'll let you know.




	     Q	  Is there anything on the week ahead other than -- 




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Nothing except what you guys already know

about the Emir of Qatar is here on Wednesday.  The President is going to

address a juvenile justice conference on Wednesday.  He's got the annual

meeting of the Business Roundtable, the President will address Thursday

afternoon.  And Friday we head out to California for the graduation

speech at UCSD.




	     Q	Anything specific on a juvenile justice speech that he's

going to focus on?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  He'll have some specific ideas, but it will be

designed to promote the President's juvenile justice strategy and our

legislation.




	     Q	Can you reconsider and give us a news conference here

before the President goes out to Denver?




	     MR. MCCURRY:  No, it's not going to be possible.  And we

will be able to do a full-scale press conference in Denver, as I told you

earlier.  That's the 22nd.

	     

	     THE PRESS:  Thank you. 




	     MR. MCCURRY:  Bye.  Happy weekend. 




             END                          2:08 P.M. EDT




	                                                      

#368-06/06