Press Briefing by Barry Toiv

The Briefing Room

1:35 P.M. EDT

MR. TOIV: Have you all seen the letter -- in case you haven't seen the letter, we've put out the letter the President sent to the Speaker a little while ago urging support for the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform legislation. As you all know, although have not necessarily been taking note of, the House may actually be very close to passing this landmark legislation. And the President is looking forward to that. So he has sent a letter urging them to pass this. And you all should have that letter.

Any questions?

Q: Yes. Can you tell us any more about whether the President is going to stay to his story, the one he's told that he said was the truth, that he had no sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

MR. TOIV: The President told you that he is going to testify truthfully, and so that is -- he's already spoken to that.

Q: But is that the truth? Or is there some other truth to which he will now testify?

MR. TOIV: I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

Q: Did he do any preparation today for his testimony? Has he gotten into any kind of -- not rehearsal, but discussions with lawyers about how to handle this?

MR. TOIV: I don't know if he has spoken with his lawyers today or not. I'm sure that he will spend a fair amount of time talking to his lawyers between now and the 17th. But whether he has spoken to them today, or how he is preparing, I don't have any information for you on that.

Q: Well, that's actually what I'm asking, is how is he preparing?

MR. TOIV: I'm sure he will spend time talking to his lawyers and doing whatever he thinks is necessary and that they think is necessary to prepare. But I don't have any detail for you on exactly how he is going to prepare.

Q: Will any of that require a change in his travel plans next week?

MR. TOIV: No. He is traveling from the 8th through the 10th, through --

Q: The 10th through the 12th.

MR. TOIV: The 10th through the 12th, I'm sorry -- through a number of states, a number of cities, and we fully expect that he will make that entire trip.

Q: Barry, is he still thinking about leaving right after his testimony for Martha's, or has he made any plans for that?

MR. TOIV: No, we don't know exactly when he will leave for Martha's Vineyard. I don't know if he'll leave that day or the next day. I think it will just depend on what he prefers at the time.

Q: Barry, why go directly to the Supreme Court on the attorney-client privilege?

MR. TOIV: I think I'd rather refer you to Jim Kennedy for questions like that.

Q: You don't have anything you could give us on camera here?

MR. TOIV: Not on a question like that, no.

Q: Has the President taken note of this outpouring of advice publicly to him to come -- if, in fact, he lied earlier -- to come and recant?

MR. TOIV: Let me come back to that. If this is of any help, the President's Counsel believes this to be an extremely important issue for the institution of the presidency. And you have his statement as to the exact reasons that he has appealed -- that the White House is going to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. But he does view this as a very important issue for the institution of the presidency.

Q: Has the President noted all that?

MR. TOIV: I believe he's aware of some of it. And as I said this morning, we'll have -- he'll receive all kinds of advice from people inside, from people outside, from outsiders who were insiders, insiders who were outsiders. We'll hear it all and take note of it.

Q: For a brief time Mr. Clinton was a law professor. Does he think it, from a legal standpoint, a wise course to confess to committing a felony?

MR. TOIV: I don't know why that question comes up.

Q: Well, if he changed his testimony I take it he would be admitting he lied under oath in the Paula Jones deposition and he was talking under penalty of perjury there.

MR. TOIV: I don't think I have anything that could go beyond what I've already said.

Q: Barry, does he see it as legitimate advice, or is it just politics?

MR. TOIV: Well, it probably depends on the individual who is giving it, but I don't think I'm going to get into who is giving which.

Q: Oh, come on.

Q: Why is he fielding all this advise? Why is he spending so much time -- you said this morning that you expect him to spend a fair amount of time with Mr. Kendall and he's going to be doing daily sessions. Why does he need to do all that preparation if he's simply going to stick to his original story?

MR. TOIV: I don't recall saying he's going to do daily sessions.

Q: No, but that was suggested.

MR. TOIV: I said that he would probably spend some time with his attorneys.

Q: But why all the preparation if he's just sticking to his story? How complicated can it be?

MR. TOIV: I think that anybody who is going to testify before a grand jury spends some time talking to attorneys. They're not very wise otherwise.

Q: Barry, do you think that since the President is testifying voluntarily and the subpoena has been withdrawn that Mr. Kendall has an obligation to share any results on this dress that may be made available August 17th?

MR. TOIV: I think that I'll leave that to Mr. Kendall.

Q: I mean Mr. Starr.

MR. TOIV: Oh, I'm sorry. Say again.

Q: Do you think Mr. Starr has an obligation to share the results of the FBI tests on the dress with the President, assuming that the test results are known before August 17th?

MR. TOIV: Different question, same answer. I think I'll leave that to Mr. Kendall.

Q: Barry, is it a problem with all this sort of TV chatter, especially from people like Jack Quinn and others who are essentially administration proxies, sort of saying two things -- one, at the worst case scenario, it's only sex; and two, he's sort of hinting that there might be some sort of further explanation? I mean, implicit in all this sort of talk is that they don't believe the President, and these are people who are ostensibly on his side. I mean, what to make of that?

MR. TOIV: You would need to ask them. They're making those statements and you just need to ask them what's the basis of those statements.

Q: But the President doesn't mind all these people talking with the sort of implicit assumption that somehow he didn't tell the truth?

MR. TOIV: I don't think the President pays a lot of attention to what goes on on the Sunday morning shows.

Q: Any plans for the President to address the American people on this in conjunction, perhaps with this testimony --

MR. TOIV: Now, the Sunday afternoon shows, maybe that's a little different.

Q: Any plans for the President to make an address to the American people on this in conjunction with his testimony, either before or after --

MR. TOIV: No plans that I'm aware of. As for before, I mean, the President has already spoken to that. As for after, no plans that I'm aware of.

Q: So you've absolutely ruled out a --

MR. TOIV: Well, the President said -- on Friday I believe the President said that, you can understand why I will not be commenting in the interim.

Q: Right. But he said other things like, I want to -- you know, sooner rather than later, more rather than less. What I'm asking, are you ruling out an address to the nation before the 17th?

MR. TOIV: I'm only telling you what the President said. And I have no reason to expect that he will change his mind about that.

Q: Do you have any guidance on this or are you just --

MR. TOIV: I have no reason to believe he will change his mind about that.

Q: Does the White House think that David Kendall misled the press when he announced that the President would give testimony on the 17th, but failed to tell us that the grand jury would see a live television feed of it?

MR. TOIV: Well, it appears to me that Mr. Kendall and Mr. Starr reached an agreement, apparently a very complicated agreement, about how the testimony would take place and about how the testimony would be spoken about by Mr. Kendall. And Mr. Kendall has now issued two statements. I don't think that I'm in a position to go beyond that. First of all, I don't know the nature of the agreement between the two of them, but Mr. Kendall was fairly clear about giving his reason for issuing a slightly different statement on Saturday than he had previously. And I'm going to leave it at that. I'm not going to go beyond that and I'm not in a position to know what the agreement was.

Q: Do you know if the President or anyone else as the White House agreed with Kendall's decision initially not to reveal that part of the agreement on grand jury testimony?

MR. TOIV: I don't know.

Q: Could you please clarify, will the President be able to answer direct questions from members of the grand jury?

MR. TOIV: I don't know the answer to that. You would have to ask Mr. Kendall that question.

Q: To follow up Mara's question, will the President give a national address after his deposition?

MR. TOIV: I'm not aware of any plans at this time.

Q: Is that something you might want to take into consideration and suggest to the President?

MR. TOIV: Me, personally? (Laughter.)

Q: Barry, in the two weeks before the testimony that the President will be giving, does he feel there has been a chilling effect already by these court decisions on attorney-client privilege and executive privilege in terms of restricting his ability to consult with some of his closest advisors and aides here at the White House?

MR. TOIV: Well, the President has really relied very heavily on his Counsel to work through the decision-making process on this issue and whether to appeal it. And his Counsel, Mr. Ruff, believes very strongly that this is a critical issue not only for the White House, but for the entire government. And that is why the issue is being appealed.

But as far as -- I don't think I can -- I have not asked the President himself whether he feels that there is this kind of effect right at this moment.

Q: So you can't tell us if it's already had a chilling effect on the President as he reached this major decision?

MR. TOIV: No, I cannot answer that question.

Q: But it's true there are some things he doesn't discuss with aides because they are subject to subpoena -- I mean, that's true, isn't it?

MR. TOIV: Well, that's always been true. In this case, that's been true.

Q: Even with people who were on the Counsel's staff, right?

MR. TOIV: I would need to take that question.

Q: Well, here's a question -- is Bruce Lindsey out of the loop now?

MR. TOIV: He's out of the loop and in bed. (Laughter.)

Q: As the President prepares for this decision, what he's going to say on August 17th, has he restrained himself from --

MR. TOIV: I don't know if he's spoken with Bruce or not.

Q: Well, at the moment, this decision that you've asked the Supreme Court to review --

MR. TOIV: At least on substantive issues. I think he has spoken to him about -- just sending him his good wishes. I don't know if he's spoken to him on substantive issues.

Q: Well, this decision also then applies to Mr. Ruff and every other member of the Counsel's Office?

MR. TOIV: Does the decision apply to them?

Q: At the moment.

MR. TOIV: As far as I can tell.

Q: What is the President doing this afternoon, Barry? What's he doing?

MR. TOIV: He has phone and office time. How he's using the time, I don't know. I haven't seen him.

Q: No golf?

MR. TOIV: Not that I'm aware of.

Q: Has the President received a request or a subpoena to provide DNA samples to --

MR. TOIV: Not that I'm aware of.

Q: Barry, Ruff's statement talks about seeking a stay of the court's decision.

MR. TOIV: Yes.

Q: Is that being sought with Judge Johnson or is it being sought with the appellate court?

MR. TOIV: No, it was an appellate court decision and it would be a panel of the appellate court that would hear that request.

Q: Hear the request for the stay?

MR. TOIV: Yes.

Q: When does he actually file with the Supreme Court?

MR. TOIV: That has not happened yet. I don't know exactly when that -- but I'm pretty sure they have to do it by today.

Q: What about the stay, is that done?

MR. TOIV: I don't think it's done yet. I'll have to check on that.

Q: Your old boss, Leon Panetta, is among the former officials who have now come forward and said the President should directly address the American people. Is it your view that he's just wrong about that?

MR. TOIV: He's not right or wrong; he has given his opinion.

Q: Can the President refuse to give DNA samples if ordered to do so?

MR. TOIV: Not a lawyer, don't know the answer to that question.

Q: There is a lot of speculation in the papers and on TV that the President's ability to govern has been damaged by this case. What does he make of this speculation?

MR. TOIV: I don't know. The President is very much looking forward to signing a piece of legislation that he has been working for now in one way or another since before he became President, and that's the G.I. bill for worker training that passed the Congress last week. He's been pushing very hard for that. It has now been enacted. It's something that's going to revolutionize worker training in this country. He's looking forward to signing that.

You saw him today. He's looking forward to a pretty good fight in the fall over -- if the Congress continues down the path they're on right now in terms of investments in education, in job training and other areas. He's hoping that the Congress will see the light early rather than late, and not take us until the end of the fiscal year in a situation where they try to get out of town, passing a bill that does not provide those investments, as he said in his speech today. But I expect you'll see him continue to be working very hard and be just as effective.

Q: Barry, is he threatening to veto any continuing resolution and thereby trigger another government shutdown?

MR. TOIV: Well, what he is hoping very much is that he has now given the Congress a fair warning. Let's be realistic here. The House is moving down a path, deliberately, with an appropriations bill for education and health and labor and job training and those issues. They have deliberately passed a bill that they know is unacceptable. So they're the ones creating this issue.

There's two months, though, between now and the end of the fiscal year. There's time for them to fix that, and the President is very hopeful that they will. He hopes that they will do their job and pass 13 appropriations bills by September 30th that he can sign. Frankly, though, they are way behind schedule compared to where they usually are at this time of year. And so they have a lot of work to do when they come back from recess. The House is still in, but the Senate has already gone out for their August recess. They're going to have a lot of work to catch up on. But the President hopes very much that they will not try to create that kind of confrontation at the end of the year.

Q: Barry, are you saying that the President would be willing to shut the government down --

MR. TOIV: Well, it seems that you're asking the wrong end of the -- you're asking that question at the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue, because the House Republicans are clearly moving -- clearly went with legislation that they knew would be unacceptable. I'm not sure whether they're trying to -- who they're trying to appeal to with that legislation. But they know it's unacceptable. They know they're going to have to fix it. They know they're going to have to provide these key investments for education and other areas that the President has asked for. And the only question is whether they intend to do it now or in a reasonable time, or wait until the very end of the process to do it.

Q: Barry, we're in about the tightest job market in 25 or 30 years. Can you explain why the federal government would need to spend $870 million on summer jobs in that kind of a job market?

MR. TOIV: Because we all know that there are some areas where unemployment remains high. It's particularly difficult for young people. And the summer jobs program provides an opportunity for young people to be employed, to have the experience of having been employed. And even in a market like this, that's not going to happen to the extent that it should without the summer jobs program.

Q: Barry, on the situation in Kashmir, I wonder if you could tell us what the latest guidance you have on that is.

MR. TOIV: Yes, P.J. will help you with that. But let me -- I was just handed a note. The Supreme Court papers probably will not be filed today. But today -- the motion for the stay will be filed today.

Q: So when will the Supreme Court papers be filed?

MR. TOIV: Obviously, since I didn't know the answer to the first question, I don't know that answer. But we'll get that for you.

Q: They will still be filed, though?

MR. TOIV: Yes, they will.

P.J., do you want to --

Q: Are you coming back?

MR. TOIV: I'm not going away.

COLONEL CROWLEY: Kashmir.

Q: Kashmir, what about that?

COLONEL CROWLEY: There is no question that the fighting -- I understand the fighting has tapered off somewhat today, but the fighting over the weekend underscores the tensions that we have seen for sometime in Kashmir. The nuclear tests that both countries made earlier this year raises the stakes in terms of Kashmir being a flashpoint, which is why, over the last few weeks, we have continued to press the Indians and the Pakistanis to meet, to talk, and through that dialogue to try to resolve their differences.

We're encouraged by the fact that they have, at both the prime ministerial level last week, foreign ministerial level last week, conducted some negotiations. And we hope that they can use this dialogue to help defuse tensions in the subcontinent.

Q: And is the President still leaving open some time in November, after Malaysia or before Malaysia, to visit India and Pakistan, if it would be helpful?

COLONEL CROWLEY: All decisions on the trip to Malaysia and other destinations are -- well, the APEC, we'll do APEC in November. Will the President visit any other countries? Those are decisions which are yet to be made.

Q: Kosovo.

COLONEL CROWLEY: Kosovo?

Q: They're fighting some more, once again. Is the U.S. now going to press toward a U.N. resolution? Is NATO going to do anything?

COLONEL CROWLEY: We continue to think that the violence that has continued in Kosovo will not lead to any resolution of that conflict; that the only outcome should be a political settlement. Ambassador Chris Hill has been fully engaged in recent days and weeks with the situation in Kosovo. We've made some progress in terms of the Kosovar Albanians agreeing in principle to conduct negotiations. Chris Hill had a meeting on Friday with President Milosevic; he also indicated a willingness to negotiate. Obviously, the fighting suggests that they aren't quite there yet.

The Kosovar diplomatic observer mission has had some greater access over the weekend to various parts of Kosovo. It continues to be a very serious situation and we believe that ultimately the two sides have to negotiate a settlement that will bring greater autonomy to Kosovo.

Q: On Iraq, this report about the U.S. preparing to unify the opposition, how serious is that and is this a change of policy? Because there's always been some U.S. policymakers who said it's better to keep Saddam Hussein in and keep Iraq intact.

COLONEL CROWLEY: We have for sometime been working with the Iraqi opposition trying to develop ways to make that opposition more effective. As we've said many times, we look forward to having a new government in Baghdad. Right now I think we're aimed at seeing how we can most effectively use the resources that Congress has provided for working with the Iraqi opposition.

Q: What about the Kurds? Would the U.S. ever consider a Kurdish entity?

COLONEL CROWLEY: We continue to believe in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. It's not our belief that Iraq should be dismembered.

Q: Can I ask you something about fast track, Barry?

MR. TOIV: Sure.

Q: Is there any way the President would contemplate discussing fast track this year, or is he still --

MR. TOIV: I'm sorry, contemplate what?

Q: Fast track. Discussing with the Republicans, because they seem interested in giving it to him, he seems interested in not wanting it at this time.

MR. TOIV: Well, they're suggesting that they're interested in giving it to him. It may be, though, that what they're really interested in is a political issue right now. The President is very much interested in passing fast track. We believe that the best opportunity for passing fast track is to bring it up next year, as we've been saying, because right now, as far as we know, we're not aware that the votes are there now any more than they really were when the bill was pulled in the House. So the concern here is that they're creating a political issue. If they're really interested in passing it, they will wait until next year.

But more importantly, they're missing what should really be their first priority here when it comes to international trade and helping the U.S. economy through international trade, and that is to pass the full funding for the IMF that the President has been asking for and which they have now left until after the recess. This is something that needs to get done, and that really should be their first priority.

Q: Barry, at the time fast track failed in November, there were lots of professions of optimism from Erskine Bowles and others that this would be brought up in 1998, as early as February, at the latest in the spring. Why did those predictions end up not being true?

MR. TOIV: I think the votes just weren't there.

Q: Was there an attempt to get the votes there?

MR. TOIV: There were discussions in the aftermath of the vote being polled, but we never really saw it develop. And then, in the meantime, the IMF has moved in front as a top priority for us, over fast track, because of the immediate considerations with respect to the economy, with respect to, obviously, the Asian economies, which are very important right now to our economy.

Q: Let me make just one more try on the CR. The President said today that if he was sent a bare-bones budget, that was unacceptable. That would seem to say that if he is sent a CR, he'll veto it. Is that interpretation wrong?

MR. TOIV: A bare-bones CR? Well, no, not necessarily. A CR that -- there are all kinds of CRs. His point is, if they send him legislation that does not provide the investments that he is asking for, that that will not be acceptable.

Q: Has the absence of fast track this year had any tangible effect on the administration's negotiations?

MR. TOIV: The absence of fast track? Well, that's sort of a P.J. question, but I think it's fair to say -- but I'll try it anyway. We have moved ahead -- moved ahead with Chile, at least, in setting the basis for a fuller trade relationship with Chile. We're hopeful that that can move forward even without fast track. But ultimately, the President is going to need fast track to complete some of these major trade agreements.

Q: But so far, the fact that there hasn't been a vote this year -- or that it hasn't passed, has not had any kind of effect?

MR. TOIV: Again, I could only tell you with respect to Chile, which, of course, was one of the most important negotiations that we wanted to move forward on, we are starting to set that in motion. And that happened, as you may remember, back during when we visited back in conjunction with the Summit of the Americas.

Q: Barry, since nobody seems to have been successful in getting a return phone call from David Kendall on this subject, could you take the question and try and get us an answer as to whether the President would be willing to provide DNA evidence?

MR. TOIV: I'll be happy to take the question. I doubt very much that you'll get an answer from anywhere other than David Kendall.

Q: But as you know, he's not giving it.

Q: Why not, Barry?

Q: So you call him.

Q: Yes, you call him.

Q: Maybe he'll take your call. (Laughter.)

MR. TOIV: I'd like to think he'd take my call.

Q: Why not, Barry? Why --

MR. TOIV: Because that's an issue for the President's attorney to address.

Q: Well, you could ask the President.

Q: Why?

MR. TOIV: It's an issue for the President's attorney to address, as he has addressed other issues of this kind in the past.

Q: Does the White House believe that he even has a right to deny a DNA sample to the court? The experts say that there's absolutely no right to deny it.

MR. TOIV: You're discussing a hypothetical issue at this point that I have no reason to even seek an answer on because it's purely hypothetical.

Q: Because there's been no request, no such request?

MR. TOIV: I'm not aware of one.

Q: No, but you said this morning you didn't know one way or the other.

MR. TOIV: I said I'm not aware of one.

Q: Would you be aware, ordinarily?

Q: Sooner or later you will be --

MR. TOIV: Debatable.

Q: Are there any plans to replenish the low-income energy assistance funds to states such as Texas who are running out of them? Do you know if there is anything in the works on that?

MR. TOIV: Well, the President announced some emergency funding several weeks ago.

Q: -- additional on low-income assistance?

MR. TOIV: I'll have to check on that. But you notice that one of the issues that the President talked about today was the fact that that is one of the programs in the appropriations legislation that the Republican House is significantly under-funding. And it's particularly difficult to understand that at a time when the South is experiencing such an extraordinary heat wave and a lot of people are really suffering.

Q: Barry, on the CR, by definition, doesn't that just mean funding at last year's level? And if that's the case, how could that request --

MR. TOIV: Well, maybe I'm betraying my professional origins here. Let's just -- a CR can do a lot of different things, but the kind of legislation you're talking about that continues funding at previous levels is not something that's acceptable -- is something that is not acceptable here.

Q: Barry, is Bruce out of the hospital?

MR. TOIV: You know, I don't know if he's out of the hospital. And to tell you the truth, they're asking to provide a little bit of privacy for Bruce. But the only thing that I can report to you is that surgery went well and that he is recovering nicely.

Q: Do you know how many bills are under veto threat now?

MR. TOIV: Well, as a matter of fact, I have that here. Let me see if I can find it. Veto threats. Well, first of all, just to give you an idea where the Congress is right now, the Congress has completed conference; only one bill has made its way through conference. None of the appropriations bills -- the 13 appropriations bills that they need to pass by September 30, none have been presented to the President or will be presented during the August recess. And again, no bill has actually been completed. Six bills have been passed by both the House and Senate and await conference action in September.

Let's see, in terms of veto threats -- oh, boy, I don't have a number of veto threats here. It is -- I have a list of all the bills and you surely don't want to hear that. It's several. Oh, no, that's not true. Seven bills currently have veto threats attached to either the House or Senate version.

Q: Now, these are veto threats, not veto --

MR. TOIV: No, these are bills in which the administration has communicated in writing with the Congress that either the President will veto the bill -- that say the President will veto the bill or that his senior advisors or a particular Cabinet member will recommend that the President veto.

Q: That's over half.

MR. TOIV: That is over half. And they haven't even --that's seven bills that they're headed in the wrong direction on, and they haven't even taken action on a few.

Q: These are bills that haven't gone to conference --

MR. TOIV: That's right. That's seven bills on the House side, three on the Senate side.

Q: Oh, I see.

Q: Including today's, Barry?

MR. TOIV: Let me tell you about the Congress --

Q: No, no -- (laughter.)

Q: Does that seven include today's veto?

MR. TOIV: Today he had already -- we had already issued a veto threat on this bill.

Q: Wait, could you just clear this up? You're saying seven on the House side, three on the Senate --

MR. TOIV: Yes, seven and three, not necessarily mutually exclusive. But there are seven bills on the House side, and I guess -- doing the arithmetic, there are three of those bills on the Senate side that are also under veto threat.

Q: Very hard to believe.

Q: But it's a total of seven subjects, if you will.

MR. TOIV: That's correct. Sorry to be confusing.

Q: Is the welfare reform event still on schedule for tomorrow, welfare reform?

MR. TOIV: Yes, that's right. Tomorrow we celebrate the second anniversary of the signing of the welfare reform bill.

Q: The Rose Garden?

MR. TOIV: No, I don't think so. Where's that going to be? East Room, that sounds right. I actually have that.

Q: Could we ask for stills only? (Laughter.)

MR. TOIV: I'm afraid that's open press, Sam.

Q: I withdraw that. We want open press on everything.

Q: When are you going to put out a list of the people coming tonight?

MR. TOIV: Did we ever get an answer to that?

Q: What's the topic?

MR. TOIV: I'm sorry, we never got a -- wait, tonight? Well, Terry's asking me another question. Tomorrow, welfare reform, he's going to talk about the progress we've made in welfare reform. I think it's fair to say that there will be welfare reform related news and we may just have to wait for tomorrow to find out what that is.

And the dinner tonight, I'm sorry, I did not get an answer. I did try, but I have not yet gotten an answer to the question of whether we'll be able to put out names of, actually, a very interesting list of people. (Laughter.)

Q: Sure, tease us.

Q: If you wouldn't mine, Charles LaBella and Louis Freeh are testifying on the Hill tomorrow about the '96 campaign finances. Do you have any report, or do you have anything you can tell us, any comment on the Wall Street Journal's report that LaBella has uncovered evidence of malfeasance at the highest level?

MR. TOIV: I have no information on that. I know the report you're talking about. I have no information on that.

Q: Is Janet Reno going to finally -- they say she needs to obey the law by going the route of an independent counsel for the whole business.

MR. TOIV: We believe that she's going to make that decision based on the law and based on the facts. And others may choose to apply political pressure -- we're not going to do that.

Q: So she's not responding to political pressure by not --

MR. TOIV: Not any from here that I'm aware of --

Q: Is she just being obstinate?

MR. TOIV: -- as Mike has said in the past.

Q: Thank you.

MR. TOIV: Thank you.

END 2:08 P.M. EDT