For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 10, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Briefing Room
James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:40 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give you
a report on the
President's day, and then I have an opening statement I'd like to
make.
The President this morning had breakfast with Speaker Hastert,
Leader Daschle, Minority Leader Lott and Minority Leader Gephardt, to
talk about the importance of Congress taking action on the remaining
items on the congressional and presidential agenda in the short amount
of time that Congress has left.
The President then had -- that was a 7:00 a.m. breakfast, and the
President then had a CIA briefing, followed by an FBI briefing, and
then he convened a meeting of the National Security Council. And the
President earlier this morning made remarks to federal employees of the
22-some agencies which are affected by the proposal to create
Department of Homeland Security, in which the President thanked them
for their work to protect our country, and talked about the importance
of creating this new agency so we can further protect the homeland.
And the President, later this afternoon, will meet with several
former Coast Guard commandants, all of whom support the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security with the Coast Guard as a full and
intact part of the Coast Guard -- of the Department of Homeland
Security. And also this afternoon, the President will meet with House
and Senate Republican leaders to talk about action on the congressional
agenda.
As far as that action goes, on March 21st -- 111 days ago --
President Bush asked Congress for emergency funding for our troops in
the field and for homeland security. Four months later, Congress has
not finished its work on this important measure.
This is deeply troubling. Funding for our troops in the field is
running out. Our men and women who are fighting for democracy and
freedom in Afghanistan today are running out of funds. Funds for the
Transportation Security Administration, specifically aviation security,
are also expended. This bill is overdue. DOD will be unable to meet
the last two military pay dates in September, breaking our commitment
to the men and women in uniform, unless action is taken. Air Force and
Army depots that overhaul aircraft and vehicles won't be able to pay
the salaries of civilian personnel and may be forced to furlough some
or all of their 35,800 civilian personnel around the country.
In addition, 80 other major Air Force bases will be similarly
impacted; 2.5 million veterans may not receive their September monthly
disability checks if action is not taken. And without immediate
funding, the USSS Stennis, and aircraft carrier, will not be overhauled
as scheduled this month, in July. All of this impacts the readiness of
the entire battle group. This deferral, in turn, would disrupt the
planned 2002-2003 naval deployments worldwide. This is a very serious
matter.
The Transportation Security Administration has already required two
emergency transfers just to stay afloat. Secretary Mineta has told
Congress on June 27th that without Congress taking action on the
supplemental appropriation, aviation security deadlines imposed by the
Congress may not be met.
Secretary Mineta has also said that TSA would have to take the
following actions: suspend purchases of 800 bomb-detection systems,
and 5,370 explosive trace detection units, which are scheduled to be
deployed around airports across the country; suspend hiring and
training of passenger screeners; delay the rollout of new security
procedures at 429 airports. And the Federal Aviation Administration
could be in a position to soon issue furlough notices to 35,000 air
traffic service employees.
All of this is avoidable if the Congress acts and acts quickly.
Congress is the one who has labeled this, properly, an emergency,
because money is running out. If Congress believes this is an
emergency, it's important they finish their business, act, and send the
supplemental appropriation to the President so he can sign it into
law.
This is something the President discussed this morning with the
congressional leadership in a bipartisan meeting; he will discuss it
again this afternoon with the Republicans who come here to meet.
And with that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Q Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Campbell?
Q As you know, Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders at Halliburton, alleging accounting improprieties during
the time Vice President Cheney was chief executive. What's the White
House reaction?
MR. FLEISCHER: The suit is without merit. And as you indicate,
this is a suit filed vis-a-vis Halliburton, and it's appropriate to
address any further questions to Halliburton.
Scott?
Q Will government lawyers represent Cheney, do you know?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is vis-a-vis Halliburton.
Q Do you know whether they have -- investigators have
contacted Cheney yet?
MR. FLEISCHER: I do not know.
Helen?
Q Does the President see any contradiction between saying at his
news conference, telling us that the war on terrorism didn't depend on
the fate of bin Laden, depending on one man, at the same time he's
planning to use 250,000 Americans to go after one man in Iraq, Saddam
Hussein?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, I don't see a connection between the
two, other --
Q You don't? One man?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- than the United States is involved in a war
against terror. And two, vis-a-vis Iraq, as you know, I'm not going to
comment on anything that is or is not a potential military plan. But
the President --
Q There is no plan? Every day we read there is a plan.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has indicated that he's made no
decisions, and he's dismissed some of the recent speculation by people
who are not in a position to know what he knows.
John?
Q Regarding the questions about the President and Harken Energy
Corporation and the sale of the stock there, has the President talked
to the White House counsel about this? Has he retained outside
counsel?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, I think, came to the White House
with outside counsel. But, no, nothing has been done differently
vis-a-vis this matter.
Q Outside counsel has not been contacted during this whole
hullabaloo in the last week or so?
MR. FLEISCHER: The only contact I can think of that involves
anything is, in an attempt to answer some reporters' questions, that
we've talked to the private accountants and private counsels who are
involved in the President's private transactions. That's the only
contact that I'm aware of, John.
Q And does the President feel at all the furor about Harken
Energy in any way detracted from his message yesterday, undermined its
effectiveness in any way?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, as he said to the members of
Congress this morning, thinks that this is an issue where Congress can
and should fulfill its duties and responsibilities to the country, so
we can have an administration and a Congress work together to fight
corporate corruption. The President told the members this morning that
if you take a look at what's been passed by, I think it was a 360 to 90
vote by the House of Representatives in terms of cleaning up corporate
fraud and abuse and compare it to what is currently moving through the
United States Senate, the President's words were the two measures are
very close. And that's how the President sees this. The President
sees this as a real issue where people in Washington can and should get
something done to fight corporate corruption. That's what the American
people expect and that's what he's working on.
Q My question was, does the President feel that the questions
raised primarily by Democrats in some way undermine the effectiveness
of his message yesterday, given the amount of criticism he got --
MR. FLEISCHER: No. That's why I indicated to you --
Q -- reaction of the stock market?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. That's why I indicated to you that's where the
President is focused.
Goyal.
Q A comment and a question.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q A comment, she asked me not to do but I'm taking the liberty,
the grand lady of the front row -- we had a great date at the Bombay
Palace Restaurant on Tuesday, in Washington. She had a lot of good
things to say about you. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Must have been a case of food poisoning.
(Laughter.)
Q I told him --
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, you don't have the floor. I'm very
interested in this. (Laughter.)
Q It's getting better.
Q Question -- according to reports, the U.S. war, as far as
the military is concerned, is over in Afghanistan. But the troubles
are still there because the Karzai government is in trouble, the
terrorists and guerrillas are back in Afghanistan. And his Vice
President was murdered. Now, what is the future of Afghanistan, as far
as the President is concerned? And is he really concerned about the
future?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Afghanistan remains a very dangerous place on
this earth. And the President is determined to continue to work with
Afghanistan as Afghanistan emerges from the terror and the turmoil that
the Afghani people have been put through, not only by the Taliban, but,
of course, by the war involved the Soviet Union prior to the Taliban,
and the harshness of the Taliban. It has left its scars on Afghani
society. Afghani society is rebuilding from that with the help and the
assistance and the care of the United States government and the
American people, as well as countless nations in the international
community.
President Karzai is demonstrating strong leadership in trying to
bring together various Afghani parties, but as the assassination of the
Afghani -- one of the Afghani Vice Presidents shows, it remains a
dangerous place and it remains a place the United States is committed
to helping to find stability as we fight the war against terrorism.
Q No, what I mean is -- I'm sorry -- what the President
thinks as far as the U.S. military war is concerned -- is it over in
Afghanistan, or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, it's not over. There remains danger
in Afghanistan. And as the President said in the very beginning of
this battle last October, this will be a war that is going to go in
various phases, some of which will be visible, some will not.
Obviously, the major military campaigns took place last fall and came
to the most visible conclusions over the winter, but it remains a place
of danger, it remains a place where the United States is committed to
helping. And there remain military missions ahead.
Q On the President's corporate responsibility speech yesterday,
the reaction -- the Dow Jones was flat, went down some, and Wall
Street yawned and Democrats had a field day, calling it a weak
initiative -- in light of the fact, too, that the Vice President now
is being sued by Judicial Watch. If you take all of this in its
aggregate, is there any concern from the administration that the
Democrats' message that this administration has no moral authority to
call for corporate reform in fact may begin to resonate with the
American people?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President looks at this as a time for people in
Washington to come together and demonstrate confidence in the economy,
confidence in our system of Congress and the administration working
together to fix the problems. It's very easy in Washington for
politicians, if they're interested, to point fingers and place blame
and work against the interests of the nation. What's harder to do is
to work together sometimes. But that's what the President has asked
the Congress to do. And he does think in this instance, ultimately
that will be what's done.
There may be a few lonely voices out there who are partisan, who
are shrill. But most people in Congress want to get something done,
and that's who the President is going to work with on this.
And as I indicated, the President told the congressional leaders
this morning that the House and the Senate bills are very close. And
from the President's point of view, this is a chance for Washington to
get something done for America. This is a chance for our nation to see
that the system works, that Congress and the President will work
together to restore confidence. That's what the American people are
looking to have happen.
And in this case, on the substantive specifics of the legislation,
from the President's point of view, there is about 95 percent agreement
between the administration and Congress on the various pieces of
legislation. And the President's focus is on working through that 95
percent and getting something done. If there are people who are
focused on 5 percent differences, who complain that we can't get
anything done, the President will work with the people who think
there's 95 percent agreement and therefore can get something done.
That's his focus, and that's where he is.
Suzanne?
Q Is the sticking point on the role of the SEC and the
independent regulatory board -- is that what --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't think it's fair to say there is a
sticking point. I think you see the House of Representatives, as I
indicated, in a huge bipartisan vote -- unusual for the House --
pass the reforms that the President asked the House to pass. And
you're seeing tremendous progress in the Senate.
And the President is not a rubber stamp for the Congress, and the
Congress is not a rubber stamp for the President. And so what you're
seeing is the system in work. And the ultimate test of it will be when
this goes to a conference committee, as the President urges it to do,
and then to put it together.
Q What's the 5 percent that you keep pointing out? Is 5 percent
left?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are a couple -- Helen --
Q Why isn't that a sticking point?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a sticking point if people want to focus on
how to draw opposition and stop things from happening and getting
done. It's the way the process works, if you're like the President,
who sees this as a way to work together and get things done.
Q There are still differences?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are some real differences, but these
are all bridgeable, in the President's opinion. I'll give you a couple
specifics. In the legislation as it's currently constituted before the
Senate, the legislation does not give the Securities and Exchange
Commission the unilateral authority to remove corporate leaders or
board of director members who engage in malfeasance. They have to,
under the current law and under the current Senate bill, go to a judge
or to a court system in order to get permission to take action against
these corporate individuals.
The President thinks the SEC should have more authority, a
strengthened hand, to take unilateral action against these type of
leaders. That may get fixed as the bill moves through the Senate; the
President hopes it will be. That's one example.
There's another example involving both of us agree there should be
a board to oversee the accounting profession. The Democrats want to
have a board that's set up -- I shouldn't say the Democrats -- but
the bill that is moving through the Senate includes legislation that
would have a board set up that can have an overlapping jurisdiction
with the SEC. The President thinks that there should be clear lines of
authority and responsibility and, therefore, the board that the
President sets up is done under the jurisdiction of the SEC. The
President wants to have more enforcement and less turf battles.
Overlapping jurisdiction often leads to turf battles.
And I do want to note, this morning, when you talk about the SEC
and other areas of disagreement where there's been with the Congress,
Arthur Levitt, who was appointed by President Clinton as the Chairman
of the SEC prior to Harvey Pitt, said this morning, quote -- "I think
Harvey Pitt is one of the most experienced security lawyers in the
history of the country. He's diligent, intelligent and fully qualified
to handle the job as Chairman of the SEC." And he was asked, "So he
has your full vote of confidence?" And Arthur Levitt said, "Yes."
So I think you're seeing bipartisan voices of support for the
Securities and Exchange Commission's vigorous actions on the
enforcement. And this issue is a test of Washington. The ability to
fight corporate corruption will be tested by whether people in
Washington want to work together to get something done or they'd rather
point fingers and place blame. The President sees a way to get
something done.
Q Following up, there's movement in the Senate to take the
penalties that the President proposed in his Wall Street speech
yesterday and put those penalties directly into the Sarbanes bill.
Does that move the President, the White House, closer to endorsing that
bill --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President proposed doubling criminal
penalties for people who engage in fraud from 5 to 10 years. The
Senate also wants to get tough on people who engage in fraud. And I
think as you look at any piece of legislation, the exact number of
categories subject to the definition of fraud is an issue that will get
debated between various senators. And then, ultimately, I'm sure an
agreement will be reached on that.
But if you take a look at what differences have existed on previous
legislation between the House and the Senate or the Congress and the
administration, you've seen giant chasms. On this bill, you see very
small differences. Literally, the differences come down to how many
classes of fraud do you want defined as fraud, is it two or is it
four? Is it 5 years to be doubled to 10 years, or should it be 12
years? You're really seeing small differences around the margins, and
sometimes in cases like this, people who want to divide and who want to
point fingers want to play up those differences in an effort to pretend
that one person is tougher or weaker than the other. The President is
not interested in that.
The President has made it clear to the leadership of the Congress
he wants to find a way to bridge these small differences, to bring
people together. Everybody in this room has seen big differences
before; you don't see them on this bill.
Q Just following up, if I may?
MR. FLEISCHER: Follow up, and then we'll go across.
Q You're obviously banking on a lot of remedies coming out of
the conference. But you know from your experience that, the majority
of the time, when legislation goes into conference, it gets watered
down, it does not get strengthened. What makes you think this time,
when both sides come together, that they're actually going to work out
something that's going to be able to protect middle class Americans'
401Ks, for instance, and also strengthen the SEC, but, at the same
time, create a board where there is sort of an oversight or checks and
balances?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because, Ken, when you look at the substance of the
issues that are being debated, those that already are in agreement and
those where there is disagreement, you have the following three
factors: The President has proposed a strong bill that's tough; the
House has passed a strong bill that's tough; and the Senate wants to
pass a strong bill that's tough. By any measure, corporate America is
in for some big changes that are going to strengthen the ability of the
government to regulate them and halt corruption.
Q Ari, after September 11, a lot of things have come to light,
errors that have been committed and a lot of weakness in the security
as far as entering this country. Now there's a story out there that 70
visas were issued illegally in the capital of Qatar, Doha, through the
U.S. embassy there. Thirty-one persons have been apprehended and
they're looking for the others. Two of these people are supposed to
have roomed with some of the terrorists. How does the President feel
about this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the State Department has been taking action
on this matter. As you know, this was announced, I believe, by the
State Department. The State Department has moved forcibly on this;
they have had a strike force that has participated on this, and they
have moved on this matter aggressively. And they have the full
details. They are briefing this afternoon, and they have already
addressed much of that.
Q I have another question, if you don't mind, Ari, please. This
has to do with Iraq. Is the U.S. government having contact with Arab
countries and Persian Gulf countries, trying to get military support
for any military action the United States may undertake against Saddam
Hussein?
MR. FLEISCHER: I am not going to speculate about the potential of
any military actions. As the President has said on numerous occasions,
the President is, of course, consulting with nations around the world
about all America's plans, diplomatic and otherwise, in the war against
terrorism, and we'll continue to do so.
Jean?
Q Ari, last week, the signals being sent from the White House
were much stronger in opposition to key portions of the Sarbanes bill.
While they may be only 5 percent, they are the core of the bill. Now,
it sounds like the White House is sending different signals, signals
that are more willing to negotiate over these differences. Has the
President moved, in terms of where -- what he's willing to accept in
the Sarbanes bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the characterization has been
consistent, and I would refer you to the statement of administration
principles which has been released, and which I know you've seen. And
the President said, and I said last week, that we share the goals of
the Sarbanes bill.
Clearly, I walked through a couple of the technical differences
this morning about the composition -- not the composition, but the
independent review board and whether or not it should be separate and
apart from the SEC, or whether it be overlapping jurisdiction. We've
talked about the ability of the SEC to take action against people in
corporations without going to court. These are not the things of big
disagreements unless people want them to be disagreements.
Q Well, is the President willing to accept an independent
board?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President --
Q I understand his concerns about jurisdictional overlap, but
--
MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants to make sure that what is
passed allows for the maximum enforcement and the maximum action and
the least turf struggles. And the President does have a concern about
something that would set up a body that would engage in turf struggles
at a time when there should be one goal, and that's a unified
government working together to target people and corporations that try
to take advantage of the rules.
Q I understand that. But concern is one thing, but an adamant
objection to it is something different. Is he taking any hard stance
--
MR. FLEISCHER: Jean, as you know, whether it's this bill or any
other bill, the President is going to let the process continue and he
will be involved deeply in the process. The House has passed its
version; it's up to the Senate now to pass a version -- ultimately,
in conference all these issues will get resolved once and for all and
finally. But not before that. I'm not going to speculate or rush to
any conclusions about something that is still being worked on and will
likely be amended on the Senate floor, as well.
Q Now, you haven't mentioned the Leahy amendment. And yesterday
the White House was sort of -- well, didn't really comment about it.
What is the position now --
MR. FLEISCHER: On which aspect of the Leahy amendment?
Q Creating a new criminal category.
MR. FLEISCHER: Criminal category for what?
Q For fraud and securities.
MR. FLEISCHER: And as I indicated, that the President has proposed
a provision that has fraud and mail fraud and the most prevalent
actions of which there has been corporate wrongdoing. If there are
additional categories that are being suggested we look at, we'll take a
look at those categories. But now we're into whether it should be two
classes or four classes of fraud -- again, these are all differences
that are bridgeable, in the President's opinion. If people want a
bill, we'll get one.
Ken?
Q Ari, you quoted Arthur Levitt's statement of support for
Harvey Pitt. Does Harvey Pitt support, and more importantly does
President Bush support, what Arthur Levitt tried to do three years ago,
unsuccessfully, which was to enact new SEC rules that would prevent
auditors, auditing companies from simultaneously acting as the
accounting firm, the auditing firm for a company, and a consultant?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I said, at the morning briefing the President
does, the President proposes, and the proposal includes allowing the
Securities and Exchange Commission to write new rules that would create
a distinction between corporate consulting and corporate auditing, and,
therefore, create a difference, so you cannot engage in both, subject
to the rule-making of the SEC. There can be cases in which smaller
companies, for example, may not be covered by that; that's up to the
SEC to determine through rule-making. But generally speaking, the
President does see merit in that approach.
Larry?
Q Ari, on your statement earlier about the serious concern about
the supplemental, was there any reason that the President didn't raise
any kind of concern when he had kind of the ideal forum to do it this
morning?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President did at his news conference on
Monday. The President did talk about the urgent need to pass a
supplemental. The President raised this directly in his meeting with
the congressional leaders this morning, and the President's going to
raise it again in his meeting with Republican leaders this afternoon.
This is a serious issue. It's called an emergency supplemental because
money is running out. Congress asked for it, and Congress is late in
getting it done.
Connie?
Q Ari, just to follow up -- I do appreciate your full
disclosure about the supplemental, but is it wise to let our enemies
know that we're in such a dire situation? And also, there was a report
about an American plane down in Pakistan. Do you have anything on
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I do not have anything on the second part; that's
the first I've heard of this.
But this is the reality, and this is why it is important for
Congress to take action. The Transportation Security Administration
has twice had to rob Peter to pay Paul. It's wrong, and it's because
Congress is not providing the funds necessary to fund the very agency
that they created, with the very deadlines that they created. And the
House has passed legislation that met with the President's approval.
The Senate has passed a bill on the supplemental appropriation that
includes, as usual, billions of dollars for pork that many people on
both sides of the aisle have found to be wasteful. And the President
hopes that the Congress will get this done and wrapped up quickly, so
this can be signed into law. This fiscal year is almost over.
Q On the -- you were talking a moment ago about the Leahy
provision, a new thing. I mean, this is not a new idea; it's been
floating around. So I'm sure the White House was aware of it before it
came up here this morning. The question is, what is the view of that
proposal? A lot of people who follow securities law suggest that it
is -- that you need a specific statute to go after fraud by corporate
officers in a more effective way. Does the White House agree with
that, or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President proposed -- the President proposed
in his announcement yesterday taking action involving those classes of
fraud, which I explained. Whether or not they'll be --
Q You're talking about --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. Whether or not there will be a
need for additional categories is something the administration is going
to look at, talk to the Senate about, and work closely with them on.
Q So you have no position at the moment on whether or not that
is a better idea than the President's proposal?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're continuing to listen to and work with the
Senate.
Q Now, on that, on Sarbanes, on all of the other issues, the
differences, even though they're 5 percent, how will the White House
get its views into the mix? Will you ask Republicans to propose
amendments to Democratic bills? How do you plan on proceeding?
MR. FLEISCHER: For example, I cited specifically the one instance
in which the SEC is not given as much power as it needs to be given to
take action without going to court against some of these corporate
people who deserve to be thrown off boards and never to get on a board
again in their life. Currently, they have to go to court to do that.
We'll see if any senators make an amendment to strengthen it to reflect
what the President has asked for, which is the unilateral authority of
the SEC to take that action. That's possible in the Senate.
But you know the Senate as well as I do, and it's impossible for
the White House to predict, anticipate every amendment that's going to
get offered, to predict what their process is going to be. It's often
a convoluted one, given Senate rules. And that's why we'll continue to
work closely with the Senate and hope that they pass something that is
strong and we'll get to conference and see if we can't work something
out that allows it to be signed into law. The President thinks we
can.
Q The Democrats are also working on something on pension
protection. Has the administration taken any position on Democratic
ideas on pension protection, and where do you stand on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, pension protection goes right back to what
the President announced in March as part of his 10-point plan, when the
President offered a whole series of specific initiatives to protect
people's pensions, including allowing investors to have quarterly
access to information so they have better and more information and
education on judging financial performances of companies; the blackout
rules, meaning that if a worker is prohibited from trading his or her
retirement program, a corporate leader should be prohibited from
trading their retirement program for the same period of time. These
are all issues that the President has asked the Congress to pass, and
Congress is working on that. So, yes, on pensions we share an
interest.
Q If I could, one other thing. There is a Democratic ad now
running, talking about the fox guarding the henhouse, obvious reference
to both the Vice President, Haliburton and the President and the Harken
allegations. What does the White House make of this ad?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we don't know what to make of this.
Obviously, on the merits, the ad is total nonsense. But it's hard to
make something of something that's so secretive. It's not clear at all
who's behind this ad, where the money came from. We're in an era now
in which people have expected people who run advertisements to indicate
who they are, who they're contributors are, where they come from. This
seems to be -- have an ad that they will not announce who has paid
for it, which is -- cuts against the whole spirit of campaign finance
and the recent trend that's been taking place. It's more of a
secretive ad.
Q Ari, going back to the President's urging Congress to move
forward with his agenda, including the supplemental, could it be that
it's not just politics which is holding things up, but an unusually
heavy agenda? I mean, this is a unique year, we're dealing with a war
on terrorism, we're trying to create an entirely new government agency,
we're dealing with investor confidence and corporate scandal. There's
a lot of things that are priorities that have to be done right away.
So is part of this simply just a hugely full calendar?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are a lot of issues that are pending in
the Congress. But, unfortunately, what's happened is many of these
issues have gotten bottled up, and time has run out or is running out.
If the House of Representatives was able to pass the supplemental
appropriation 111 days ago, you just have to wonder why it takes this
long. When Congress itself declares this an emergency, you would think
that if it's an emergency, there would be a willingness to act quickly
to address the emergency. Instead, it's been a question of a great
deal of time.
But there are many issues that are still being debated in the
Congress, that were passed by either the House and/or the Senate months
ago, if not last year. And the President's very concerned -- if you
remember, he held a news conference Monday, and he began it by going
through the agenda that remains: the need to make America more energy
independent, the need to pass the faith-based legislation to bring hope
to people who live in communities where they lack hope and
opportunity. The patients' bill of rights remains before the
Congress. Ban on human cloning remains before the Congress. Trade
promotion authority remains before the Congress.
This is a real test of this Congress, to see whether or not they'll
be able to get these things done. Last year, the Congress was able to
take action, particularly early in the year, to pass tax cuts and
education.
Q Last year we didn't have a war on terrorism, we didn't have a
homeland defense department, we didn't have an investor confidence all
over the place --
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think that it's fair to say that these are
the reasons for the congressional lack of action.
Heidi.
Q Back on Harken, the President is urging corporate America to
take responsibility for their actions, yet he hasn't taken
responsibility for the series of late stock filings that he made when
he was at Harken. So, in light of the current environment, wouldn't
this be an opportunity for the President to come out and set an example
of responsibility?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President has already addressed that,
and addressed it fully.
Q We had three different explanations, actually, and the most
-- the latest from the President was that he just didn't know what
happened.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think the President has addressed it, and
addressed it fully.
Sir?
Q Mr. Fleischer, is the President aware about the Greek
investigation in the recent days in Athens, vis-a-vis to the terrorist
organization November 17th, since a lot of U.S. federales are involved
with this affair? Any comment?
MR. FLEISCHER: There was nothing given to me on that topic; I'm
not familiar with that.
Q Just one more question, please? Yesterday, the President met
with the Greek Orthodox Archbishop Dimitri and some other church
leaders here in the White House. I was wondering what was the purpose
of this meeting?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, from time to time, has had meetings
with different religious communities and religious leaders, as part of
his agenda to have faith-based solutions to some of the difficult
issues in society. And that meeting was in that vein, yesterday
afternoon.
Katie?
Q Does the President support the House committee vote yesterday
that would ban federal contracts going to companies that reincorporate
outside of the United States for tax purposes?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take a look at the specifics of that vote.
I'll have to take a look at that.
Q What does he think in general of closing that -- what some
call a loophole?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is something the Treasury Department has taken
a look at and has come to the conclusion that there are real problems
with the laws and their impact on corporations, that has created a
disincentive for them to remain in the United States creating jobs.
And it is a serious problem with the current law. Let me take a look
specifically at what was passed.
Paula?
Q On the Sarbanes bill, although you've made clear that the
President would like stronger enforcement authority by the SEC, if
conferees come out with a bill that does not bridge the gap the way you
would like, does the administration feel the bill would still be strong
enough for the President to sign?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not going to speculate. And you know, as
a rule -- you know this -- on any issue moving through the House
and the Senate, the President is going to allow the process, and work
the process, through the House and through the Senate, and reach no
final conclusions until it emerges in the conference. That's the best
way for Presidents to have influence and authority over what the
Congress is acting on.
Q What are the plans for the mid-session review this year? Are
we going to see that next week or --
MR. FLEISCHER: Mid-session review is due out next week. And I
think you will get all the information on that from the Office of
Management and Budget, as they analyze the most recent trends, the
effect of the war on spending, the effect of the recession on
revenues. All that will be out next week.
Q On the supplemental, you mentioned pork as maybe being one of
the reasons why it's being delayed. But what about the debt ceiling
issue? Is that something that the White House is still pushing to have
attached?
MR. FLEISCHER: A debt ceiling increase has already been signed
into law. Congress did pass that, the President signed it into law a
little over a week ago.
Sir?
Q In addition to the pork, what does the administration see as
the main stumbling blocks to the passage of the emergency
supplemental? And if it isn't passed by the end of the week, would the
President consider going directly to the public and appealing for them
to pressure Congress to pass one?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to speculate on anything that
may or may not happen in terms of how to help Congress take action.
But the President doesn't -- he hopes it's not necessary for that to
happen. The President thinks it's important for Congress to act, and
act now, given the fact that this is an emergency and given the fact
that the year, fiscal year, is almost at an end.
Q The SEC has some vacancies. Could you tell us why they
continue to have vacancies when we have these problems with the
markets?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'd have to take a look at anything specific to the
vacancies. And, of course, you can talk to the Senate about their
confirmation rate. There is an ongoing issue involving the Senate in
terms of the votes to confirm presidential appointees.
Q The President today was talking about a homeland security bill
and he said Congress is reacting positively. I just wondered what his
assessment about getting a bill through Congress and what sort of
timetable?
MR. FLEISCHER: There were, I believe, four mark-ups yesterday in
the House of Representatives on homeland security, another three will
be happening as soon as today or tomorrow. So Congress is moving
forward and making progress on homeland security. And the President
this morning expressed his thanks to the congressional leaders for the
congressional pace and for the congressional action on homeland
security.
Members of Congress have said to the President they would like to
have it passed in both the House and the Senate prior to September
11th. But all of this means Congress does have a very busy agenda, and
for every day that goes by without the House or the Senate, and
particularly the conferences taking final action to pass the numerous
bills that remain stuck in the Congress is one less day for Congress to
act. The House will be going out for the August recess in
approximately three weeks, the Senate in approximately four; time is
running out.
John.
Q On Harken Energy, you said earlier that the President has, I
believe, gone to private accountants and lawyers to try to get some
answers?
MR. FLEISCHER: I said the staff, in an attempt to answer a
reporter's questions --
Q The staff has. And obviously, he didn't get all the answers
he wanted because he said he still doesn't know why some of these forms
were filed late. Are they continuing to work on that? Is the
President dissatisfied, and he said, go back there and ferret this out
and let's give these people answers?
MR. FLEISCHER: John, I think we've given you every explanation --
the explanation possible.
Q I'm just saying, is he still trying to ferret out those
answers? I understand you say he's told us what he knows.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think when you have a case where there's a mixup
with attorneys, it remains a mixup with the attorneys.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:15 P.M. EDT
|