Press Briefing by Michael McCurry

The Briefing Room

1:29 P.M. EDT

MR. MCCURRY: On to other subjects.

Q: Mike, can you tell us what the political benefit would be to having Chelsea Clinton speak at the convention?

MR. MCCURRY: No, I can't. I don't know. I haven't looked at that question. I think she spoke at our last convention in 1992. As you recall, she was featured in a film about her mom and her dad. But she's a very talented young lady, and I'm not aware of any plans currently for her to participate in any speaking role at the convention, but I'll let you know. I'll check with some of our convention planning folks.

Q: Helms-Burton waiver, where does it stand? Who's making the decision? Does the President have to okay it, and will he decide by tomorrow night?

MR. MCCURRY: The President took with him to Camp David this weekend a briefing paper on the Helms-Burton issue. Briefly, what is at question is whether or not the President should invoke a waiver on Article III of that legislation that would either -- could conceivably do a number of things -- it could set aside for six months the provision itself; set aside a legal right to claim; or set aside the ability of individual persons or entities to bring action in courts. All of those issues have been reviewed in a good memo that was put together for the President's review by his foreign policy advisers. He took it with him. He expects to follow up with it either late tonight or first thing tomorrow morning. And we'll have more to say on it tomorrow.

Q: Malcolm Rifkind says the EU will retaliate if the United States goes ahead and implements Helms-Burton as scheduled.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, I think all of you are well aware that many of our closest allies do not appreciate what are called the extraterritoriality features of this provision. Or that would be the claim that could be brought against a third-party enterprises as a result of the underlying claim to expropriated property in Cuba. We've heard from our allies on this. We know that they are distressed with the passage of the act and with the implementation of this act, but we would say to our allies, join us now in the effort to confine Cuban communism to the trash bin of history where it belongs. Join us in bring the kind of pressure to bear on Fidel Castro and on that system that will bring about market economics and democracy in Cuba.

What the President is looking at very simply is, one, what is in the national interest, what are in the national interest of the United States; and two, as required by law, what will expedite the transition to democracy in Cuba. That's what he must examine, and he has to make a determination of what is both in our interests as a nation and then what will bring about the kind of political change that the Congress and the President want to see in Cuba.

Q: Is it possible that he might make that announcement of his decision in the interview tonight?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't not believe so, because I do not believe he will have an opportunity to review that with others here prior to the interview that he is doing at 8:00 p.m.

Q: Mike, are you alerting the allies before the President makes -- if he does not give a waiver would you, would the administration notify some of these allies? And how have they communicated to him that they're concerned?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, as you know, there have been extensive discussions with our allies, both directly with the President -- this subject was raised at the G-7 meeting. It has been a feature in our diplomacy bilaterally with a number of our closest allies in the industrialized nations. We have heard from them even recently. Many of them have been outspoken publicly in just the last 24, 48 hours. And they are all anxious to hear what the President's decision will be. I can -- I imagine at some point prior to our announcement tomorrow we will do some notifications, but it won't be prior to tomorrow.

Q: Mike, before the G-7 you and other administration officials said that what you were -- you were going to send this message to the allies that they needed to do something to show that they were trying to isolate Castro and you were looking for signs that they were doing that. Have you seen any?

MR. MCCURRY: Haven't seen many. We have seen more complaints about our law, passed by a bipartisan majority in the Congress and approved by a Democratic President, and seen frankly more complaints about that than complaints about Fidel Castro. And we say to our allies, you've got it exactly the wrong way around. You need to understand that Cuba now almost uniquely is an outlier in the community of nations and refuses to see the historic change that is coming about in so many formerly communist totalitarian countries -- that market economics works, the political democracy works, that both together hand in hand can change the life of the people who have been incarcerated by communism. And until that message rings true loud and clear in Havana, pressed we hope by an assistance from our allies who join with us in that effort, the effect of this legislation will be one that we will see.

Now, there are other provisions of this act that remain now on the books that we've already started to implement -- the Title IV sanctions that relate to certain individuals. We believe those do have some economic impact on those that do maintain commercial ties with Cuba. But we will continue to stand firm that there has to be the kind of change that is not only embedded in the policy approach of the Helms-Burton Act, but even was so in the Cuban Democracy Act as well.

Q: Mike, it sounds like you're signaling a hard line here. Is that your intention?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the effects of the Helms-Burton Act, setting aside just this issue of waiver, it is a hard line on Cuba because it requires the United States to take steps we've already taken regarding certain individuals, their visas, their ability to travel in the United States. We do that because this is a very serious matter. It was made all the more serious by the outrageous conduct of the Cuban government when it shot down two innocent civilian aircraft, murdering four people. And the response by the Congress, by the President, by the American people was very swift to that outrage.

Q: Is there any middle ground --

Q: Given what you said to Mara's question, would you say that some of our allies are putting short-term profits ahead of what's right politically?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we believe that what's right politically and what is right economically is to bring about the kind of change that will liberate the people of Cuba. That is the purpose of the Helms Burton Act and the Cuban Democracy Act. That is the policy that we have pursued, that, frankly, every President for well close to three decades has pursued in bringing about the kind of change that we desire to see in Cuba.

And as we often say, sometimes the desire for economic and commercial gain can be shortsighted, especially when it does not produce the kind of change in political dynamic, in human rights, in fundamental access to freedom of expression and religion and debate that ought to go with that liberalized commerce, and that type of economic intercourse.

Q: Bringing down this communist regime in Cuba is what the embargo was supposed to do, and that was an awfully long time ago.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, embargoes work best when they are joined by the community of nations. We believe our embargo against Cuba should be joined by the community of nations. As you know, we have a different point of view than other members of the international community. But the United States government, the people of the United States, the President of the United States, and the Congress of the United States feel very strongly on this.

Q: What's this going to do what the embargo doesn't? How is this going to make that change?

MR. MCCURRY: It will require certain economic entities overseas to question whether they can continue to traffic in expropriated property, property, that is, that was stolen by the Castro regime.

Q: These people are terribly hungry and they still haven't overthrown the regime. Are they just going to get hungrier?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the people of Cuba suffer not because of U.S. economic policies or embargoes, they suffer at the hands of a totalitarian economic system that is an utter failure. Just as everyone else who has to live under that type of system has suffered. The source of the suffering of the Cuban people are the dreadful policies pursued by the Castro regime. And that's what we seek to change, using this form of pressure and using pressure that we hope others in the international community would join.

Q: Does the President have some latitude that he can just -- in what he can decide to do tomorrow? And will he simply just decide to live with the economic punishment that comes from the Europeans, the other allies?

MR. MCCURRY: The latitude that he has is expressed in the act itself. He must account for the national interest and those steps that will expedite the transition to democracy in Cuba.

Now, he can assume that there will be some consequences to the national interest if allies to retaliate, but he must, simultaneously, consider what we believe to be most likely to promote the type of change we desire to Cuba. Within the act itself and within the waiver provision, if he sets it aside for six months, there is some flexibility as to how a waiver can be applied, and that's defined in the act.

Q: And what about the allies' threat to take this to the World Trade Organization for adjudication?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we are aware of that and we have heard that and know that that is likely a step that we would have to defend in that body.

Q: We are duty-bound to ask to what extent political considerations, domestic political considerations, are a factor in the President's thinking.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the provision of law requires him to assess the national interest and what will expedite their promotion of democracy in Cuba. That -- as with most every decision the President makes, there are certainly political consequences. There are political consequences here domestically for the President, for those who support the President's position. There would be political consequences for aggravating very close and very deep relationships with some of our closest allies. So no matter which way you go, there are probably both positive and negative political consequences. But the President very clearly has to assess what he is required to assess by law, and that's the provision I just indicated.

Q: If the allies go ahead and impose retaliatory steps, such as requiring visas for Americans who want to visit those countries, which would make it inconvenient, obviously, for a lot of Americans to go to those countries, or to launch their own encouragement of boycotts against tourism in Florida, are those the kinds of interests the President has to take into consideration as well -- the inconvenience and the economic pain that this kind of step might cause to American citizens?

MR. MCCURRY: He can weigh those factors just as he can weigh the anger the American people feel at the outrageous conduct of the Cuban government and the longing the American people feel for the liberty and freedom of the people of Cuba.

Q: Is the President equally committed to relegating Chinese communism to the trash bin of history --

MR. MCCURRY: He is --

Q: -- and the tyranny in other countries?

MR. MCCURRY: He is, and that's precisely why, through the promotion of our political and economic engagement, we've seen an encouraging transformation towards market economics in China. Unlike China, which has begun to modernize and liberalize its economy, Cuba is stuck on the wrong side of the historical tracks. And that's what we want to do, is get them on the right side of the tracks and get them moving forward.

Q: Wait a minute, you're talking about historical --

Q: But the administration would argue that China started along that course of reform because of engagement, and yet, you've sought to completely isolate Cuba.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we've helped to accelerate and, we believe, channel that transformation by remaining engaged. But the point is that there is -- the transformation in a command totalitarian model had begun because of the reforms instituted by the Chinese leadership. We have tried at various times in the promulgation of our policy on Cuba to nurture and promote that type of transformation, and there's been nothing but backward movement by the Castro regime.

Q: Are you talking about transformation economically or in terms of democracy and being right?

MR. MCCURRY: Economically. There's no one that would suggest that the type of political liberalization that you've seen in China is satisfactory with respect to human rights or fundamental democratic rights. But we believe that if we remain engaged with them economically, we can indeed promote that type of transformation, as you know.

Q: Just to follow up -- I mean, President Clinton was a reluctant supporter of Helms-Burton, certainly, before the shootdown, at least. Does he believe that the other provisions in the law accomplish its aims enough so that this one particular article or title, if he waives it, that it won't diminish the force of the law itself?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, there are other tools within Helms-Burton that are useful. But the President supported the law because it was going to pass, there was no point in suggesting otherwise. and Congress clearly would have overridden any veto by the President. What the President did achieve in final passage of the legislation was exactly the waiver provision we're talking about. Now he is required by that law to assess what the impact would be of the waiver, and that's what he is reviewing.

Q: Are you suggesting that since he fought so hard for the waiver that he is likely to use it?

MR. MCCURRY: No, I'm just suggesting that he is -- he has a waiver provision in this act that wasn't available to him otherwise, which was, in fact, one of the reasons why he opposed the legislation prior to the shootdown. But with the shootdown, the anger the American people feel about the conduct of that government, and the desire to bring greater pressure to bear to bring about a transformation of that government grew, and it grew immeasurably, and it should have because of the conduct of that government.

Q: Do you expect the President to make a statement tomorrow, a public statement on this, or will it be a release -- what form?

MR. MCCURRY: I expect that we will let you know as early in the day as we can what his plans are. At this point I expect him to make a written statement. I'm not aware of a venue that he would have to discuss it publicly. But we will also arrange some type of briefing here so you can know more about it.

Q: Did any advisers go with him to Camp David on this to discuss it? Did any advisers go to Camp David with him?

MR. MCCURRY: No. He took the material with him and I know that he has been looking at it and know that he is prepared to follow up with some questions that he has either late tonight or sometime tomorrow.

Q: Did he have any guests at Camp David with him this weekend?

MR. MCCURRY: Not that I'm aware of. I'd have to check, though.

Q: Mike, Prime Minister Bruton made some statements over the weekend regarding the violence in Northern Ireland, kind of pointing the finger in the direction of Prime Minister Major, which caused something of a furor. He wasn't alone in doing that. Also, Cardinal Daly, who generally doesn't get involved in these things, also accused the British of kind of backing out on agreements that had been made. Does the President feel disappointed that Prime Minister Major has reneged on agreements that had been made in the light of the Northern Ireland peace process?

MR. MCCURRY: It is not the position of President Clinton or those in the United States government to render judgment on those with responsibilities with respect to Northern Ireland. Our role is to encourage and facilitate a process of peace that did so much to lift the hopes of the people of Northern Ireland. We condemn the outrageous violence that has now put that process in jeopardy. We have called upon everyone with influence, including leaders of governments, leaders of parties, those with special responsibilities, to urge calm and to urge a restoration of the process of talk, which we think can be so much more effective than bombs and bullets and violence.

It is a tragic moment for the people of Northern Ireland, who lose so much when they see the violence and the troubles recommence. And one hopes that everyone together marshaling their influence in this process can do what they can to influence parties that would otherwise resort to violence when the prospects of peace are so abundantly there and so ultimately advantageous to the people who are otherwise affected.

Q: Mike, what's the state of play on Saudi cooperation in the bomb investigation?

MR. MCCURRY: The cooperation continues. The degree to which it continues is really up to those who are responsible for the law enforcement effort to address. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has just been to Saudi Arabia to ensure that we will continue to do everything we can to bring to justice those responsible for the attack. And I really will leave it to those conducting the investigation to comment on the status of the investigation.

Q: Any marching orders from the President to Dick Holbrooke?

MR. MCCURRY: The President concurs with his senior foreign policy advisers that believe that we are in a very critical moment prior to the September 14th elections in Bosnia. We are at a moment in which we need to see the full implementation of the Dayton Accords. We're in a moment in which the people of Bosnia need to be allowed to express themselves freely in elections. And that certainly is made much easier if those responsible for war crimes are no longer a part of the political dynamic in Bosnia.

Ambassador Holbrooke is being sent to the region to deliver that message very directly, I'd say in a very tough manner, to those who are in a position to exercise some influence over Karadzic, Mladic and those who should be in the dock at The Hague.

Q: What tools have you given Holbrooke to be tough?

MR. MCCURRY: Effective ones.

Q: Thank you.

Q: If Holbrooke's mission fails and Karadzic is still playing the same role, does the President still believe the election should go forward?

MR. MCCURRY: The President believes that the election must go forward because that is the -- holds the hope for transition in Bosnia. As people begin to develop both the capacity to rebuild their lives, they need to rebuild the political institutions that will help govern their lives. And that's why elections for all the reasons that we've articulate are central to the future of the peace process.

Now, we also recognize that there needs to be a dynamic, a political dynamic that allows those elections to be free, fair and meaningful, and that's the purposes of the diplomacy that we are now pursuing.

Q: Right, but what I'm asking is can they be free, fair and meaningful if he's still in --

MR. MCCURRY: They are much more meaningful if those who are responsible for war crimes are not exercising direct influence over the political life certainly of the Serbian Republic as we've indicated.

Q: To follow up on Mark's question, is Holbrooke taking something beyond the Dayton agreements? Because the Dayton agreements have appeared pretty ineffective so far in forcing Mladic and Karadzic --

MR. MCCURRY: He's taking with him arguments that we hope will be very persuasive.

Q: Is the administration going to put off the decision on the Wisconsin waiver indefinitely while it makes a push for legislation on Capitol Hill?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, as I said Friday -- not put it off. As I said Friday, we've got a unique moment with the prospects of passage of bipartisan welfare reform legislation, and we are focused on that and getting that done. And we think that a bill will likely be up on the House floor this week, and maybe even this week on the Senate floor. So as you can imagine, a lot of our welfare reform experts are concentrating on that.

Now, they have not -- they are continuing to work on the last remaining issues on the Wisconsin waiver and they are down to several points that they are still addressing. But the bulk of the work is done, and they will judge where they are in that process depending on where they are in working on the legislation.

Remember, the legislation itself would render moot the whole waiver process that states use currently, and would make it possible in the case of Wisconsin to implement welfare reform earlier than would otherwise be the case. Under a W-2, that state law that's been passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor, welfare reform doesn't really begin -- well, the welfare reform under W-2 doesn't begin until October of 1997. Now, we could actually liberate Wisconsin to move ahead much more quickly with passage of federal welfare reform legislation.

And, of course, our priority is passage of bipartisan federal legislation. It would do what many governors have urged upon President Clinton and Congress for sometime, which is to give them the flexibility to move ahead without being encumbered by the waiver process itself. And we've always maintained that's preferable. But, at the same time, we've gone ahead and continued the work to reform welfare as we know it using the waiver process at the state level.

Q: But in the short-term that's going to be your focus over the next week or perhaps longer than that, rather than the Wisconsin --

MR. MCCURRY: We do not want to fail to miss any opportunity to do something truly historic, which is to pass bipartisan welfare reform legislation soon -- this week perhaps, this week or next week perhaps. But it certainly seems to the President well worth the attention of the White House and the administration to try to get that job done if it can get done.

Q: So, in other words, you're not going to give Wisconsin a reply until you know whether or not the House and Senate will pass the legislation in the next couple of weeks?

MR. MCCURRY: No. We've more than given them a reply. We've been working very closely with state officials to work through some of the complex issues in the waiver request. And they're down to all but a handful of issues now and can easily get it done and proceed. But at the moment we need -- it is -- suffice to say, some aspects of that waiver process would be affected by passage of federal welfare reform legislation. Some of the issues we're grappling with right now would be moot depending on how the federal law comes out.

Q: Would you anticipate that there might be some statement on the Wisconsin waiver tomorrow when the President addresses the NGA?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm not certain of that. He may mention it in passing. Obviously, I figure Governor Thompson is in Puerto Rico, is he not, so it might fit in naturally. But I'm not expecting him to make any news on that subject tomorrow. I'm expecting him -- he might address it in the context of welfare reform.

What I certainly expect him to say tomorrow, much as he said Saturday, we have a historic moment now to do something that governors have pressed upon the Congress and the President, which is to reform welfare as we know it, to allow some of these state experiments to continue embraced by a federal welfare reform statute. I expect the President will also discuss a number of the things that he's done to promote better quality education, to improve the climate that exists on school campuses for learning and to, as usual, talk about the very strong performance of the United States economy, which has helped so many governors meet their own budgetary needs and the climate of a growing and thriving economy.

QQ: Who's been invited to the President's summit on children's TV at the end of the month? And what do you hope to accomplish there?

MR. MCCURRY: My understanding is that, in addition to types of industry leaders from the entertainment and media industry that gathered for the first summit, the list has expanded somewhat. There's a growing interest in the summit. I expect it to occur sometime towards the end of the month. Some have suggested that July 29 might be a likely date and I haven't heard anything that dissuades me from that.

Among the other things they can do to address the question where do we go now that we've done things like the V chip; where can we go now in giving parents more useful tools in protecting the learning environment for their children as they encounter America's most popular entertainment medium -- specifically, the television. I think he will press them hard on things like three hours of children's programming, which we have already taken a position on before the Federal Communications Commission. He'll probably address other ways in which we can work together -- policymakers from the public sectors, leaders in the private sector -- to encourage the goals of family-friendly entertainment, viewing and learning.

Q: Has the White House asked the Department of Health and Human Services to undertake another study how many children would be placed below the poverty line under this new welfare reform legislation going through Congress?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm not aware that they've requested a specific study, but the poverty impacts of welfare reform legislation has been something almost under constant discussion and review as Congress deals with this very important issue. Certainly we've looked at that a lot within the administration. It's been looked at on the Hill. You heard me on Friday say what some of the inexactitude of the science of estimating when it comes to poverty estimates related to welfare reform.

We're interested in doing something now to create a situation that gets people off of welfare dependency, into work situations, and takes care of kids who are going to need child care, health care, make sure they have resources available to them so that they prosper from that changed environment.

Q: Let me rephrase that --

Q: Have you asked them not to do a study? That's what --

Q: That's what I meant.

MR. MCCURRY: Have we asked them not to do a study? No, I don't think -- I think we've always encouraged anyone who are experts on federal welfare policy to look at the consequences of pending legislation to figure out how we can best address the needs of the American people in devising that legislation. I'm not aware that anyone said, don't study something. It wouldn't make a lot of sense.

Q: Well, that was reported in Saturday's New York Times.

MR. MCCURRY: I saw that.

Q: So was that report inaccurate?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't believe that -- I think it may have been overstated a little bit. But I can check a little further with HHS people.

Q: Does President Clinton have greater reason to fear for Boris Yeltsin's health since today's meeting with Gore was put off?

MR. MCCURRY: Do we have greater reason to fear? Not based on any information that I have.

Q: Do you have any information considering he's out of Moscow and he's not --

MR. MCCURRY: I have the same information that's been reported by the Vice President and his delegation.

Q: To what do you attribute the delay in the meeting?

MR. MCCURRY: The only explanation we have is the one that was made available to us by the Russian government.

Q: Well, do you see this as a discourtesy to the American Vice President?

MR. MCCURRY: No, I see it as a desire by President Yeltsin to begin a vacation because that's what they said. I don't have any information that would dispute that characterization.

Q: And there's no reason to believe that it's anything more serious than campaign fatigue?

MR. MCCURRY: I have no reason to dispute what we've been told by the Russian Federation as reported by the Vice President's delegation in Moscow.

Q: How about suspicions? Do you have suspicions? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: I tend to deal in what we know, not what we think.

Q: What does your gut tell you?

MR. MCCURRY: It's a good thing because we don't really think very much very often, right?

Q: Does the President have a position on the Eleanor Holmes Norton tax cut plan for D.C.?

MR. MCCURRY: We are interested in helping the District of Columbia and we have worked actively with District leaders to help. We'll certainly look at ideas that come forward. That's not one that we've expressed a view on, but we would certainly be willing to consider and look at an idea like that.

Q: My understanding was that President Clinton admired Senator Dole's record in his career in the Senate on deficit reduction, which, of course, includes some support of tax increases. Why did he approve an ad which seemed to criticize him for taking some of those votes on tax increases?

MR. MCCURRY: You should ask our campaign folks. I don't believe it's fair to say the ad criticizes Bob Dole for voting the way he did on certain measures that were pending. A lot of people including Democrats voted the same way on some of those measures. What the President was complaining about was the hypocrisy of raising a charge against the President for doing things that in many cases Senator Dole himself in his own record in public life had done as well.

The issue was more, you know, you can't have it both ways. You can't criticize the President for taking what are prudent steps, although, as you all know, the way in which the ad characterizes the President's record has now been repudiated by the very organization, that tax foundation that the Republican campaign relied upon for its ad. They basically said that they've misused the information that's in the ad and that they've called the RNC on that. But the President just points out accurately that says, look, here's a list of things where he voted to raise taxes, too, so what gives? It was a question of hypocrisy in our view.

Q: Talking about Dole, a new poll shows his support has dropped seven more percentage points. Any advice for him?

MR. MCCURRY: Just don't read the polls. We don't. Or don't believe -- I shouldn't say that -- (laughter) -- we read them. We read them. Just say don't believe everything you read in the polls -- that's what I should say. I mean, look, you've heard us on this subject ad nauseam. That campaign's a long ways away. Maybe even take heart from that.

Q: Where are the FDA proposed rules on tobacco? Are they under review here now?

MR. MCCURRY: They're under review, and my understanding from FDA is that they're evaluating the public comments that were given in the comment period. They can give you a better sense of what their timing is. I'm promulgating a final rule. I don't have anything here to indicate.

Q: Does the President have anything tomorrow for the NGA? Is there anything specific?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, I mean, he will want to take an opportunity in front of the nation's governors to say, look, we need your help. This is a moment where, if we pull together, Republican and Democrat, we're going to reform welfare in a truly historic way. And he certainly will address that. But he will talk about all the other things the President likes talking about -- the strength of the U.S. economy, 10 million new jobs created over the last three and a half years, cutting the federal deficit by half, and maybe even a little bit of news about how much we have cut the deficit tomorrow.

Q: Mike, Mike --

MR. MCCURRY: May do a little on that -- the general performance of the economy, the President's strong, tough, successful budget politics. Thank you for asking that question, Mara. You got another one like that?

Q: No.

Q: When will you release the mid-session --

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, yes, Paula, you've got it, bingo. That may be it. Maybe the guys -- maybe the budget weenies at the OMB are going to produce the mid-session review tomorrow. (Laughter.)

Q: Good news? Are there good news?

MR. MCCURRY: They won't like me saying that, but that's maybe what will happen. (Laughter.)

Q: I thought it was today.

Q: I just have one on Bosnia. Grumblings on Capitol Hill are building about the time frame of the U.S. troops over there. Are you still saying, we firmly believe the troops will be out at the end of the year?

MR. MCCURRY: There has been no change on the timing of the mission. The current mission, the international force there was deployed by the Commander-in-Chief for about a year, and they remain on that timetable.

Q: Mike, is there anything on North Korea except hints of four-party talks?

MR. MCCURRY: I haven't seen anything new. There have been discussions that Mr. Lake had on that subject with the People's Republic of China, and you've seen the report from him about the nature of those conversations. But I'm not aware of anything newer than that.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

MR. MCCURRY: Thank you, Mr. Hunt.

END 2:00 P.M. EDT