U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING JULY 14, 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING I N D E X Thursday, July 14, 1994 Briefer: Michael McCurry ANNOUNCEMENT Secretary to Brief Press Tomorrow ............... 1 Secretary's Trip to Middle East/ASEAN/Other ..... 1,11,12 HAITI Prospects for Cedras' Resignation ............... 1-2 Boatpeople Interdictions/Processing/Repatriation 2-4 Safe Havens ..................................... 4-5 Peacekeeping Troops ............................. 5-6 Secretary's Discussions with Congress ........... 10 BOSNIA Peace Proposal/Timing of Response/Peacekeepers .. 7-10 UKRAINE Status of NPT ................................... 13-14 NORTH KOREA Status Kim Jong-Il .............................. 14 Third Round of Talks with US .................... 15 -- Discussions re: Resuming Talks ............. 15 RWANDA French Call for Security Council Discussion ..... 15-16
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1994, 12:53 P.M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. McCURRY: Good afternoon everybody. Since I will be a font of little information today, I will start by announcing to you that the Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, will be here tomorrow at 12:00 noon to talk about his forthcoming trip to the Middle East, Asia, and perhaps elsewhere. So many of the questions on the trip that you probably are interested in, I'd prefer to hold over until tomorrow. That's probably the best way to handle a curtain- raiser on the Secretary's trip. I thought you would enjoy that occasion. That's a nice way to end the week. We can do a nice, short briefing now, if Mr. Gedda will begin by asking me a question.
Q Do you have any comment on Cedras' offer to resign immediately if his Excellency, President Jonassaint is accepted internationally?
MR. McCURRY: That's a variation of similar statements he's made in the past that we have never found very impressive. He knows what his obligations are. The sooner he lives up to his obligations, the better. Trying to string out the world community with various scenarios such as this one, doesn't seem to us at this point to be useful.
Q Well, there still might be a question left there. You seem to have a double objective, and we're hearing mostly the first for good reasons.
You want the military rulers to go out, but you also want democracy restored. Would you, for the time being, settle for half a loaf -- have them exit and then take things from there?
MR. McCURRY: No. They are the obstacles. General Cedras and his allies are the obstacles to democracy, and their presence there remains an obstacle to the return of democracy to Haiti and that's why it's time for them to go.
Q Didn't he say that he would step down under certain conditions?
MR. McCURRY: Jim, he said under certain conditions last year he would step down in October of 1994, and then he had some new conditions. It's all highly questionable, and it's not particularly useful to speculate about its meaning.
It's very clear what he needs to do. He needs to honor the obligations that he made. He needs to make good on the promises he himself delivered, and he needs to depart.
Q So there's no negotiations of any sort that's going on over the terms. Your position is, get out, and you have nothing further to --
MR. McCURRY: There is worldwide condemnation of the acts of this regime and growing international pressure on General Cedras to do what he must do.
Q Can I ask one about Bosnia?
MR. McCURRY: Sure.
Q Can you give us yesterday's figures on --
MR. McCURRY: You want to run through that. They were down. We still don't know, really, definitively why they might be down. Let me get my sheet here.
Interdictions: The Coast Guard picked up 178 Haitians in five boats yesterday. That runs the running total since June 15, and it is up to 20,350.
Q What is the number of --
MR. McCURRY: Let's see, 178 would be, if my recollection is right, probably the lowest since June 20. There were various reports of very high seas yesterday and for lots of things that might go into the calculation of why people would leave at a certain time, so we're not certain at this point that we have a definitive understanding of what seems to make the numbers fluctuate.
I believe Christine (Shelly) reported to you 700- something the day before, so the numbers do seem to fluctuate somewhat.
Q Could it be that they're running out of people?
MR. McCURRY: Running out of those who would feel a need to do that. That's possible. I'll suggest to you something else. Interestingly, there's been a reported increase in the number of applications at the in-country processing centers. As you know, that's something we've been encouraging Haitians who do seek the opportunity to come to the Untied States, to go through the procedure that exists within the country. They have noticed an increase in that since the announcement of the safehaven policy.
Apparently the word is getting through in Haiti that if you take to the high seas, your best available option is going to be stay somewhere in the one of the safehavens because you're not likely to make your way to the United States. That message may, in fact, be taking hold in Haiti and account for both the drop in numbers and the increase in the in-country processing. But, again, that's not a definitive judgment at this point. We just don't know enough about the trend lines yet to be certain of that.
Q Do you have definitive numbers on in-processing --
MR. McCURRY: In-country?
Q -- and also do you have numbers on Guantanamo? How many are opting to be repatriated back to Haiti?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. I'll do in-country first. This is information as of July 8. They start with just under 60,000 preliminary questionnaires that have been filled out. That's 59,500, to be precise. That's as of July 8.
Going back to October '92 or -- I'll double-check that. We said in the past, there's a timespread. I can't remember off hand the timespread of that.
I think, as you know, a lot of those are walk-ins at the centers. Many of them -- in fact, the bulk of them are people who just make an inquiry about, hey, how do I get to the United States? They say, it's an elaborate procedure and you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution. In many cases, they sort of either self- screen themselves out or they are told that they're not likely to make it into serious consideration.
So of those that the INS then processes for serious review, that number is about 17,400. So we're dealing with a universe here of 17,400, the others having been told that they're not likely to make it beyond that initial walk-in phase.
So dealing with that universe of 17,400, of that number 4,269 have been approved by INS for admission to the U.S.; 13,130 have been determined not to be refugees; 2,933 of those approved have completed their processing at this point and have arrived in the United States. In fact, a further group of some 170 were scheduled to depart Haiti yesterday on Air France, presumably one of the last flights out.
Many of those remaining are not yet travel ready. The majority are family members of approved refugees. In many cases they did not appear at the interview with the principle applicant and INS now has to go back and verify that the family relationships do, in fact, exist before they're allowed to travel on.
Over the last two months the rate of those applying at the in-country facilities has risen about 30 percent. Of that universe that I described -- those who are being considered through that process -- about a quarter are being approved now for refugee status; approximately 24 percent.
Q What is the status of Grand Turk? Has that --
MR. McCURRY: The facility there? I think it's completed, and they working on -- they were clearing up a couple of things before they could actually open it, Mark. I had something on it.
I had a lot of Haiti papers. Let me do Guantanamo. And then, Mark, remind me, I'll come back and do that.
There are 7,600 Haitians at Guantanamo who have already been processed for either voluntary repatriation or for temporary protection. Of that 5,269 have been approved for temporary protection. Some 2,300 have volunteered to return. Most of those have already been repatriated to Port-au-Prince. I think 2,088, total, have been repatriated.
The Grand Turk site is completed. We anticipate using it as the initial processing site where Haitian boat people will be interviewed for temporary safehaven or for voluntary repatriation. No one will be interviewed for admission to the United States, as you know.
There are personnel from the U.S. agencies that are going to be involved in this and also from the United Nations. We've been working, as you know, with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees through this process.
What they've got to complete, apparently, before they can actually begin to operate on Grand Turk is there must be some legislation within the Turks and Caicos regarding immunities for United States Government and other civilians, as well as certain other necessary legal provisions. I'm looking into finding out exactly what those are.
One question that arose when we initially negotiated the Memorandum of Understanding with Turks and Caicos on the facility, they were negotiated under the terms of the previous policy before we moved to the safehaven policy, so they were adjusting the memorandum, and I do believe that they've done that.
But it's some things like that that have to fall in place now to begin processing there, but we do believe that processing will begin at that facility soon.
Q One more on Guantanamo. Was anyone who actually asked for temporary protection turned down? In other words, forcibly repatriated rather than voluntarily?
MR. McCURRY: It's a voluntary program. I'm not aware of any, but I can check and see whether they've had any specific personal incidents like that.
Q What's the population on Guantanamo now? Do you have that?
MR. McCURRY: It was 15,700 now at Guantanamo. Approximately 9,700 of those are awaiting processing for voluntary repatriation.
Q Can you tell us anything about the efforts to recruit other countries to join in a U.N. peacekeeping force in the event that the military withdraws?
MR. McCURRY: There have been discussions underway, both within the region and in New York, about how to constitute UNAMIR -- what type of configuration it would have -- and those will proceed. I don't want to really get into the specifics of that, but there have been some positive discussions about contributions to the force itself that would go in.
This is, as you know, envisioned to be in the permissive environment of transformations that have already taken place in Haiti. There have been some developments in negotiations on getting some help on taking some refugees. Suriname, I think many of you may know, has agreed to provide a safehaven site for some 2,000 Haitian boat people, subject to negotiating a memorandum of understanding. That was announced by President Venetiaan yesterday.
Q On the peacekeeping force, is it correct that the United States will provide 7,000 troops, and that few, if any other, countries have offered to supply troops. I mean, sort of like as trainers.
MR. McCURRY: I saw something like that reported in a newspaper this morning, and that's contrary to some of the things I've seen. But I'm not prepared at this point to talk about numbers or the size of that force. They're still working on that. They're working on it in the context of discussions at the U.N. and also in the region.
We've had a considerable diplomatic effort aimed at getting those who agree with our analysis of the situation and our policy to help as we envision a future for Haiti that is a future without Cedras and the de facto regime; and I think there is a willingness within the hemisphere to participate in that type of effort, and we'll develop that diplomatically as we have been doing.
Q As long as you're discussing newspaper reports, is there any truth to the report in the Post that Christopher told Congress yesterday that any invasion of Haiti would be done by the United States alone?
MR. McCURRY: I talked to the Secretary and then also heard some feedback from those who were in that session, and the Secretary was describing where we are in our policy in a manner much consistent -- in fact, exactly consistent -- with what he's been saying publicly in these cases. I think there's no change in where we are on that option, and I don't believe they got into that type of discussion.
We've been working to build multilateral support for our policy in the region, and the Secretary briefed -- what I understand was a very good session -- exactly along those points.
Q But will you be seeking U.N. approval for such sort of military action?
MR. McCURRY: George, that just kind of walks us right into speculating on the military option, and the military option is on the table, and the President has not taken it off. I'm not going to speculate on how we might consult at the U.N. for a possible invasion or a possible military option. It's just not useful for me to do that. In fact, the less I say about that, probably the better.
Q Mike, Mr. Gray said up at this podium that any action -- all action up until now has been multilateral in Haiti, and he would expect any other type of action would be multilateral.
MR. McCURRY: We have been working effectively with our partners in the hemisphere to address this problem. That's absolutely correct.
Q Everything you say seems to confine it to the hemisphere, and yet you're going to the U.N.
MR. McCURRY: No, it's only because so much of the work we do on this, Barry, is within the OAS, but the United Nations has also been a participant in the efforts. The U.N. has a special envoy who works under the jurisdiction of both the United Nations and the OAS, so we have, in fact, been discussing this within the United Nations as well and will continue to do so.
Q Can I ask about Bosnia?
MR. McCURRY: Yes.
Q Can I have a last question on Haiti?
MR. McCURRY: Sure.
Q Is it true that (inaudible) yesterday that Canadian Defense and Foreign Ministry officials are here today having discussions with the Haiti unit at the State Department?
MR. McCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. I'll take that question. They may very well be, but I just wasn't aware of it.
Q Bosnia, trying to look ahead, should the 19th come by without the Serbs saying yes to the plan. You gave them two weeks, and you have all sorts of threats hanging over their heads, but what literally happens? I mean, is it at the end of two weeks something is immediately set in motion or is there some sort of a -- is it a rough deadline, and it might take a week or two to decide what to do next?
MR. McCURRY: Barry, I'll describe for you -- I mean, if you remember or recall the statement that the Ministers issued in Geneva, they envisioned a two-week period in which the parties would consider the proposal put before them, and then they indicated that they were prepared to reconvene, if necessary, by the end of the month for further ministerial consideration of the diplomatic process.
That suggests that there is a period there beyond Monday where the parties, depending on the type of answer they've given -- the Ministers are in a position or the Contact Group is in a position, to review those consequences that the Ministers have approved for a decision by either one of the parties not to adopt the proposal.
So my own speculation is that the Contact Group will consider the response of the parties. In fact, I think they are going to formally receive those on Tuesday, I believe.
MR. McCURRY: No. They expect to meet in Geneva on July 20th, I'm sorry, to receive the responses of the Bosnian parties, and they will then probably meet beyond that to consider what steps follow on from that. But there have been some steps suggested, as you know, by the Ministers, and those are the ones that would be reviewed as we move into any situation in which one of the parties -- and, obviously, we're talking about the Bosnian Serbs - - for whatever reason, have not accepted the proposal.
We don't know at this point and probably can't characterize what their view is. They've said some things publicly, but Dr. Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, has also indicated that they will put that before the Bosnian Serb Parliament in Pale.
Q But that's sort of my other question. But to back up, you mean the Ministers, indeed the Contact Group, doesn't have to sort out again whatever measures might be in the offing. They're there, and it's up to the Ministers to press buttons and decide to go for one or the other.
MR. McCURRY: They're there, but I think the discussion amongst the Ministers is very much -- you know, we then moved into a page where the consequences are those that must be addressed and how we deploy those, and how we ratchet the pressure on whichever party is in the need of pressure, is something I suspect the Ministers will discuss further.
Q The early line seems to be that the government has approved. I mean, leaders have said favorably.
MR. McCURRY: President Izetbegovic has said -- I mean, he indicates, as we acknowledge, there are aspects of this that he would certainly find difficult, for reasons that we are all familiar with, having discussed them here often. But he has indicated that he would put that forward before the Bosnian Government's Parliament, and he expects some type of approval coming from that.
Q Does the Administration see any indications that Milosevic is pulling back from his support of the (inaudible) project on the Bosnian Serbs?
MR. McCURRY: There has been speculation from time to time to that effect, reports from time to time to that effect, but it's probably easier to ask Milosevic and Karadzic directly what their relationship is.
Q At what level will the Contact Group meet on the 20th?
MR. McCURRY: I think it's at the Redman level, those that have been working directly, I believe. I'll double- check and make sure that's correct. But I understand Chuck (Redman) does plan to be over there.
Q We have to at least consider the possibility that the Serbs will sign, and Prime Minister Silajdzic was quoted last week as saying that he had been given guarantees that American forces would participate in the NATO implementation force.
Given the conditions that the Administration has attached to this back here domestically, there seems to be kind of a gap between these positions. Can you say exactly what commitment has been made to the Bosnian side on that question?
MR. McCURRY: I know, having been there through some of these discussions, that the discussion with the Prime Minister has been very consistent with what we have long said publicly: that we do see that there would be a NATO implementation force in which the United States would likely be a very significant participant, but that has to be done consistent with our constitutional principles and with the type of consultations that you've heard us discuss in the past. And that's been conveyed directly to the Bosnian Government.
I don't think there could possibly be any misunderstanding of that, but there is certainly an expectation that the United States would participate in that implementation force.
Q Would you characterize how hard you will fight in Congress to get that approved?
MR. McCURRY: It may not necessarily be a fight. I think you're all aware that disposition within Congress to see this war addressed effectively and the prospects of some type of peace settlement that is being implemented by the parties, my guess is that it's something that Congress would surely welcome.
Q Even if it meant American soldiers going to a war zone?
MR. McCURRY: They would need to have a lot of consultations, and indeed that type of consultation has been a regular feature of this Administration's efforts on Bosnia, including the session that I gather -- this was addressed in one of the two sessions yesterday, if not both.
Q Which remark -- which takes me back to Haiti. A question on the trip last week was whether Congress should be consulted before an invasion, and the answer was -- and I forgot if it came from the President or the Secretary of State -- that there are instances where the President can act for the best interests -- you know, the notion of responding to an emergency.
Can yesterday's briefing of the House and the Senate in any way be considered consultations with Congress, should there be an invasion? I'm not saying did you lay out an invasion for them, but will this serve as the consultations after the fact?
MR. McCURRY: We consult closely with Congress, as we did in fact yesterday, and we very much expect we will continue to do so as we address the Haiti issue.
Q How do I ask the -- how do I get an answer without asking you whether you're going to invade? I'm not asking you that. Was yesterday's session a consultation about invasion?
MR. McCURRY: Yes, yesterday's session was a consultation.
Q But not a notification?
Q (Inaudible) not need notification.
MR. McCURRY: Yesterday it was a consultation about the situation in Haiti in which the Administration, I think, candidly talked about its approach and reviewed options. And you all know what those options are and what options have not been ruled out.
Q Are we done on this line of questioning?
MR. McCURRY: It wasn't going much anywhere fast.
Q Well, I feel tempted to pursue it actually, but suspect I'd get nowhere. For those of us whose publication schedules won't allow us to wait until tomorrow's briefing with the Secretary on his upcoming trip, could you briefly, colorfully preview the Secretary's forthcoming efforts to bring peace to the Middle East, particularly the somewhat dormant Israel/Syria track?
MR. McCURRY: So you want me to stand here now and tell you what my boss is expected to tell you tomorrow at noon.
Q No, I just want you to stand here and tell me - -
MR. McCURRY: Just give you a little bit?
Q -- what the prospects are --
MR. McCURRY: All right. Just in a general fashion, because I'm sure the Secretary can be much more precise and elegant and eloquent tomorrow.
In general, the context of this trip is a point at which there has been enormously positive developments within the region -- the implementation of the Declaration, the careful assistance that is now going to the building of peace structures. So this is an opportunity for the Secretary to review that progress. It is also an opportunity to review progress on the other tracks.
It is not, as you know, would not be a surprise if there was some type of trilateral meeting that occurred within the context of this trip on the Jordanian track, nor is it a surprise to you that there will be some very careful and intense work on the Israel/Syria track. I'll leave it to the Secretary tomorrow to describe how optimistic he might be going into that, but I suspect very much that he will indicate that this step-by-step process will only take one more step, hopefully forward, as a result of this trip.
We can't anticipate at this point that type of breakthrough, because the distance between the parties is great. Attempting to bridge that distance is the purpose of the Secretary's trip to that region.
In addition, Lee, as you know, we are then on to Bangkok for the ASEAN Ministerial meetings, and we go there when, Mary Ellen? (To staff) 23rd.
Q Leave the region on the 23rd?
MR. McCURRY: Yes. We will leave Sunday morning, be in the region from early Monday morning, when we arrive, until Friday evening when we leave.
Q You want to get there a little earlier. You can't get to an ASEAN meeting too early. Probably a lot of ministers there.
MR. McCURRY: Great deal of work to do there.
Q You're going to be in Bangkok all week?
MR. McCURRY: No. We'll be in Bangkok for some of those Ministerial meetings and then we may go elsewhere afterwards. You never know.
Q Does the Secretary expect to --
MR. McCURRY: Pack extra socks?
Q -- expect to be present at a meeting of King Hussein and Prime Minister Rabin?
MR. McCURRY: It wouldn't be entirely a surprise, the Foreign Minister of Israel having so indicated. We'll leave more on that to the Secretary to describe tomorrow.
Q Back to the Caribbean, do you have any --
MR. McCURRY: You wanted a Friday off? Did that ruin a Friday off?
Q Back to the Caribbean. There was an incident off the Cuban coast yesterday in which a tug boat was supposedly fired on. Do you have anything?
MR. McCURRY: I don't, I don't. I'll check.
Q A side question, really. Vladimir Zhirinovsky is saying that he has U.S. approval at the highest levels, including the State Department, for a trip he's planning to make to Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein. Has the State Department received any inquiry or communication from him? And has there been any response from this building?
MR. McCURRY: That is beyond mystifying. But the best reaction to that is one that I heard Foreign Minister Kozyrev once indicate, that Mr. Zhirinovsky's problems are not so much political as they are medical. (Laughter)
Q Mike, on Ukraine. The new President has indicated that he wants to hold back a little bit on signing the NPT. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR. McCURRY: President-elect Kuchma has also given affirmations in the past that Ukraine will abide by those international arms control agreements that it's negotiated, particularly the trilateral agreement, between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine, which is so central to the efforts to our de-nuclearization efforts.
We don't have any reason to believe that Ukraine will not proceed to full accession to the NPT. That has been envisioned in everything that Ukraine has done, including moving forward very satisfactorily with the implementation of the trilateral agreement. We're going to continue to work with Ukraine to fulfill those commitments, including by providing the assistance that we do under the Nunn- Lugar money. But we just don't have any reason to believe at this point that they are not on a path that would not lead them to accession of the NPT, as they have so indicated in the past.
Q Let me just follow up here, if I could; two questions. Do you have the numbers of how many missiles they've actually shipped back, if any? And, secondarily, does signing the NPT become a moot point, if they ship back all the missiles anyway?
MR. McCURRY: No, it doesn't become a moot point because there are security assurances and other things that take into effect once they have fully acceded to the NPT. Those have been envisioned since the three Presidents signed the agreement in January, so that is of some consequence.
On the warhead removal rate, I don't know whether that is something that we discuss publicly. I've got a rough idea of where we are but I'm not sure if we've done that publicly or not.
Q It was in Europe that they were ahead of schedule.
MR. McCURRY: Yes, that's right. A senior U.S. official backgrounded the press when we were in --
Q Which stop?
MR. McCURRY: -- Warsaw, indicating that they are moving ahead of schedule in their deactivation of the warheads and moving them back to Russia where they're being dismantled and processed.
That is very encouraging, and it's one of the things that points towards the denuclearization of the Ukraine and the types of things consistent with adherence to the NPT.
Did you have another one.
Q I have another one. There was a meeting yesterday between Ambassador Miller and the President- elect in Belarus, Kuchma. Can you tell us anything about what the U.S. feels about this change of government and what the feedback has been?
MR. McCURRY: I don't have any guidance on it, but I have heard that it was a very positive meeting, at President Kuchma's request, reaffirming the importance of the Ukraine-U.S. relationship and a --
Q President Kuchma -- I meant --
MR. McCURRY: I will have to check on that. Let me check on that.
Q (Multiple questions.)
MR. McCURRY: I'll check. Let me check on that because I don't have anything. I didn't see anything.
Q On North Korea.
MR. McCURRY: North Korea.
Q There's a report in the Washington Post that says North Korean radio is saying that Kim Jong-Il is the leader. Have you heard anything officially?
MR. McCURRY: I don't think they have said anything officially nor have we heard anything officially. You're correct, there have been various reports using the word "leader." I believe that they're using different derivatives of "leader," or at least different adjectives -- between "great, dear, and worthy." So that all is, in fact, significant, as we acknowledge. There doesn't seem to be anything at this point inconsistent with a succession that point to Kim Jong-Il. But they have not indicated publicly that that is, in fact, the succession.
I believe I heard that they are not likely to do so until after the State funeral on July 17. But, certainly, we have not seen anything nor are we aware of anything that is inconsistent with the pattern that points to a Kim Jong-Il succession.
Q Some of those reports also said that the U.S. would meet at a low level in New York on Monday. Is that something you can confirm?
MR. McCURRY: Why not. This is actually -- before Ambassador Gallucci left Geneva, they did indicate that they would be willing to go back to the New York channel to discuss arrangements for the resumption of talks and I do believe they've decided that they will have come contact in New York next week to discuss those arrangements. That's certainly what we had expected.
We're looking forward to re-establishing just the arrangements for the continuation of the third round of high-level talks.
Q He indicated before they left Geneva that they would -- they would set up this meeting next week before they left Geneva --
MR. McCURRY: They said that they would meet through the New York channel to discuss the arrangements for resumption of the talks.
Q They said they would meet in the New York channel next week in Geneva?
MR. McCURRY: No. They said, in Geneva, that we'll get together in the New York channel to work out the dates. They've now, I think, come back and said let's get together in the New York channel next week. So "next week" is new.
Q So you have communicated with the North Koreans? There has been some communications with the North Koreans?
MR. McCURRY: We have informal contact with them from time to time just on things like this -- when are we going to get together and take a meeting.
MR. McCURRY: They just do it by phone, I think.
Q By phone, in New York, or by phone from Washington to Pyongyang?
MR. McCURRY: From here to New York, I think.
One more. I'm a glutton for punishment.
Q The French called today for an urgent meeting of the Security Council to discuss the humanitarian situation in Rwanda. Can you comment on that one? Is the U.S. prepared to do anything else?
MR. McCURRY: We have been very supportive of the French efforts in Rwanda. I just learned before coming out here that they had arranged to call for that meeting, but I'm sure we would welcome an opportunity to review the humanitarian situation and the refugee problems developing there and look for an opportunity to address that with other members of the Security Council.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCURRY: Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:27 p.m.)
- PAGE 1 - Thursday, 7/14/94To the top of this page