For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 16, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:23 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President this morning had his
usual CIA briefing, which was followed by an FBI briefing. And then
the President met with members of Congress on the Department of
Homeland Security to discuss the importance of Congress moving to take
action to vote to create a Department of Homeland Security at the
Cabinet level, to protect the American people from the ongoing
potential threats of terrorism.
Later this afternoon, the President will welcome to the White House
Judge Priscilla Owen, Justice Priscilla Owen. The President nominated
Justice Owen to serve on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 9,
2001. She has waited more than one year to be confirmed and to have a
hearing in the United States Senate. And a hearing that had been
scheduled for Thursday of this week has now been postponed by the
Senate.
Justice Owen is one of 32 nominees to the circuit courts by
President Bush. Since the first nominations on May 9th, only 10 of
those nominees have been confirmed -- this despite the judicial vacancy
crisis in the courts. The American Bar Association unanimously rated
Justice Owen as well qualified, the highest possible rating that can be
given to a judicial nominee. The President knows that she is a well
qualified jurist and he hopes that the Senate will take action and
confirm her and put her on the circuit court.
With that, I'm happy -- oh, one final announcement and then I'll
take your questions. The President also looks forward to welcoming to
the White House King Abdullah of Jordan on August 1st.
Q Just to answer a lot of the questions that have been out there
and to show, back-up your claims in the past that this is an open
administration. Why not just ask the SEC to release all the documents
behind the Harken investigation -- just to get it out there.
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, you know, the SEC took a look at all the
questions that were raised in the context of Harken and they have come
to their conclusions. They have made their determinations and they
made their judgments and they made their call. It's all been shared
with you. And you have what they determined.
Q Why don't you want to have shared with us the basis that they
used to come to that conclusion?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Ron, you know, the lesson in Washington,
there's no end to that type of question. It doesn't matter that the
SEC has already looked into this in its entirety, shared its finding,
shared its results with you and come to the conclusion that there's no
"there" there.
Q Let me follow-up --
MR. FLEISCHER: The premise that you're asking is any time we ask
for anything, we want to have full access to everything in a file. And
that's just the precedent that is lacking in sense or merit, and
especially in a case here where you know the conclusions, you know the
reasons, you have everything you need, and it's all at your disposal.
Q Can I ask one more question? The President's accountant said
yesterday that a Texas bank freed up $130,000 -- 130,000 shares of
Harken stock that were being pledged for the loan the President took
out for the Texas Rangers. Do you happen to know what the President
did to get the collateral free?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, Ron, I'm not the President's accountant.
Q On Halliburton, Ari, you said from the podium that the Vice
President believes that the lawsuit against him is without merit. I
realize you're not going to comment on an ongoing SEC investigation.
But isn't it also true that because of these things that one of the
most experienced former CEOs in this administration has become
something of a political liability, in that at the time when you're
cracking down on corporate responsibility, the Vice President is not
heard from, he's not talking about these issues. He can't be used as a
vital spokesman of the administration.
MR. FLEISCHER: I thought I saw him on TV just yesterday or the day
before giving a speech about corporate governance. So I just differ
with your findings and with your premise.
Q That was a fundraiser, right, and we'd all stipulate that
those don't get a lot of coverage, right?
MR. FLEISCHER: I saw him on TV, so obviously he got covered.
Q Wait a second, is that your only answer?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, what was your next question?
Q I mean, that was -- so he's not a liability at all that he
can't speak out about these issues?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Vice President of the United States continues
to be a powerful asset not only for the country, but for the
President. I think the American people recognize in Dick Cheney a
distinguished leader, a man of integrity, a man who has sound judgment,
who has been doing and continues to do important and very powerfully
important things for this country, and continues to give the President
sound judgment, good advice. We're honored that he is serving this
administration.
John.
Q Just one more -- can I just do one more on this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, you may.
Q Thank you. Is the -- was he aware of circumstances or
problems within Halliburton that could ultimately affect the financial
position of the company prior to his selling of stock?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, these are issues that if the
Securities and Exchange commission deems them appropriate to look into,
they will look into.
Mr. Cochran.
Q There was unhappiness at the White House yesterday over the
coverage of the President's Birmingham speech and relating it to the
stock market. Does the President feel that he is being treated in a
different way in terms of this kind of coverage? Does the President
feel that this kind of coverage has a negative impact on the markets,
and that it's a disservice?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, the President really doesn't spend much
of his time worrying about the coverage that he gets; he leaves that to
others. But the President's focus is on the economy, on long-term
solutions to keeping the economy growing and strong. The proposals
he's made to Congress to clean up corporate governance, the need for
Congress to pass a tough bill to get tough on corporations prior to
their leaving on the August recess. That's where the President has
focused on, that's what he works on and that's what he works at.
Q Well, within the White House itself, I gather there's
unhappiness for this kind of coverage?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you know, I can't pick quarrels with the
press on an hourly basis. If there's something that I think I need to
share with you about the way the press covers that information or news,
I'll be happy to do it.
Q Two questions. One, again, this time another massacre in
Kashmir, and this time was worshippers at a Hindu temple, 35 of them
were injured or killed. Any reaction by the President? Because,
again, India is saying that enough is enough.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President continues to be deeply concerned
about the violence in Kashmir. The President, as you know, has been
working very hard with quite a bit of success, along with other members
of his administration and the international community, to reduce the
amount of tension between India and Pakistan over this disputed area.
It continues to be an area of great concern and volatility, and it
remains an area of active American diplomatic engagement.
Q Just to follow up? What Indian government has been saying for
the last three months, now German intelligence is saying really the
same question I asked last week of President Bush, where is Osama bin
Laden? He said he doesn't know if he's dead or alive. Now, German
intelligence is saying that he is, in fact -- Afghanistan-Pakistan
border. So what do you think he has to say now?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States has nothing conclusive. The
answer remains the same, that we do not know whether Osama bin Laden is
dead or alive. I think you're going to continue to see numerous
reports from all different places around the world because nobody seems
to know. But that doesn't change for this President what this war is
about, what the fundamental mission is about.
Nor does it change on a day where the President announced his
strategy for homeland security the fundamental mission at hand, which
is the continued protection of the American people. Because whether
Osama bin Laden is or is not alive, there are still people who are
doing their best to infiltrate our borders, to enter America, to bring
harm to American citizenry in any way that they possibly can.
Now, the President hasn't talked about it for a little bit of time,
but the President continues to receive a threat matrix each morning
that arrives on his desk that details several of the threats in
whatever general forum or information we have about them.
And so that is, to the President, what this war is about: the
continued protection of the American homeland, the American people and
our interests abroad from people who would seek to do us harm and have
continued to look for ways to bring harm to our country.
You only get two. I promised two -- no, you don't get a follow-up
to the follow-up to the follow-up. Kelly.
Q Can I have two? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Depends what they are. If I like them, you can
keep going. If I don't -- so obviously you're going to get stuck with
two.
Q All right, we'll see how it goes. First, though, I believe
the current head of Halliburton told Newsweek Magazine that the Vice
President was aware of the practice of having these construction costs,
these higher construction costs counted as revenue before the customers
agreed to pay them. Is that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, as I indicated earlier, as David pointed
out, if there is anything the Securities and Exchange Commission is
going to take a look at and review, they are the ones to do it and I
will not have anything further to add or subtract.
Q So you won't be saying what the Vice President knew or did not
know, you're leaving that to the SEC's investigation?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've addressed it as fully as I will.
Q Why won't the President come out and endorse the Sarbanes
bill? Senator Lott, House Speaker Hastert both believe that at the end
of the Conference Committee, the bill is going to look very much like
the Sarbanes bill. Why won't the President come out and endorse it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because this is the beginning of the process, and
the President wants to bring it to a successful close and he wants to
do so quickly. And the President views this as a case at any time --
and you have seen this on a million pieces of legislation -- any time
there's a House bill, a Senate bill, the best course for a President,
any President, is to work in the conference to get an agreement between
the two bodies, something that is good and tough and strong that cracks
down on corporate wrongdoing. And that's where the President is, and
that's what his focus is.
Q He seems to be signalling, though, if a bill like the Sarbanes
bill gets to his desk, he would most likely sign it.
MR. FLEISCHER: What the President has said unequivocally is that
the House has passed a strong bill, the Senate has passed a strong bill
and he wants to sign a strong bill. And, frankly, I think it's fair to
say that the notion has been well served by the debate in the House and
the debate in the Senate and the actions of both the House and the
Senate.
This appears to be an instance of where Washington is coming
together in a bipartisan way to learn from some of the excesses of the
past and to change the laws so that corporations are more accountable
and that the arm of the law hangs over these corporations, in case any
of them engage in wrongdoing again. And this is -- it remains to be
seen whether that same good, bipartisan spirit will continue in the
conference. But the President is doing everything in his power to make
sure that happens.
Again, the President calls on the Congress to complete action so a
bill cracking down on corporate America can be signed into law and
Congress passes it before they leave for August recess.
Q Ari, following on the Sarbanes corporate crime bill, the --
there seemed to be a stampede yesterday. You had a 97-to-zip vote.
Are there any fears that there's a movement now towards regulation that
runs counter to what the President has said? He's been very clear that
he fears overregulation.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I've just praised the House and I
praised the Senate for the actions they've taken here. And I did that
based on the bipartisan way the two have approached the issue and on
the merits of what they've passed. Certainly, the Senate legislation
reflected the very issues that the President went up to New York and
called for. The President called for a doubling of criminal penalties
from five to 10 years for people who engage in corporate fraud. Wire
fraud investment passed by the Senate. The President in New York
called for strengthening the laws that criminalize document shredding.
That's been passed by the Senate.
The President called to strengthen the ability of the SEC to freeze
improper payments to corporate executives while a company is under
investigation, so they can't transfer corporate money to their own
personal account. That was passed by the Senate. And the Senate
empowered the SEC through administrative action to bar directors and
officers from continued service if they engage in misconduct.
Q Specifically on the issue of overregulation, though. You
haven't answered that, you haven't addressed --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly, any time the Senate or the House
passes so much of what the President asks for, the President doesn't
consider that overregulation or underregulation; he considers it just
right amount of regulation.
Q An unrelated follow-up? Senator Clinton has proposed
extending unemployment benefits by 13 weeks. Originally, it called for
extending those benefits for people who were victims or related somehow
to the tragedy on September 11th. The bill now calls for an outright
extension for anyone who continues to suffer from unemployment. Where
does the President stand on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Congress just passed and the President signed into
law earlier this year an extension of unemployment benefits by a period
of 13 weeks. And so that is already law of the land. The President
thinks one of the most important contributions Congress can make to
fighting unemployment is to pass trade promotion authority, which will
create jobs in the country. That's currently stuck in a conference
committee in the Congress. He thinks passage of energy legislation
will help create jobs in the United States.
The President also calls on the Senate and the Congress to pass
terrorism insurance, which is hurting particularly the construction
trades, denying them the ability to create more jobs. There are many
things Congress can do this session before they leave for the year to
create jobs in this country, and the President is going to continue to
call on the Congress and hold their feet to the accountability fire to
make certain they get those bills passed into law.
Q Is that a no?
Q Ari, two questions, please. The first one, is the President
going to announce today the appointment of a new Ambassador to Mexico,
the nomination of a new U.S. Ambassador to Mexico?
MR. FLEISCHER: As always, the personnel announcements are
published and feel free to read it. I don't know off the top of my
head about that personnel announcement, though.
Q It was not on the wires, but it's all right. Next question.
Does the President feel -- I know the President has been backing Harvey
Pitt as president of the SEC -- does the President feel, though, that
some of the criticism, some of the questions the Democrats have and
John McCain have, does he feel some of those arguments are valid?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. The President listens to Arthur Levitt, for
example. Arthur Levitt, the former Chairman of the Securities and
Exchange Commission appointed by President Clinton has commended Harvey
Pitt for the superb job he is doing at the SEC; for the enhanced number
of corporate wrongdoers who Harvey Pitt has now banned from serving as
members of board of directors of corporate companies or in corporate
positions anymore; for the amount of money that Harvey Pitt has taken
back from business executives who took that money as a result of filing
phoney books.
He is receiving bipartisan acclaim from some of the best experts in
the business, such as Arthur Levitt. And the President knows that
Harvey Pitt is doing an excellent job, a superb job. And the President
looks forward to him continuing in that good job.
Q Ari, reaction to the latest attack in the Middle East and --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President condemns the latest violence in the
Middle East. This is another reminder of why it is so important, in
the President's judgment, for all the parties in the Middle East to do
their utmost to focus on peace, to stop the terrorism that is plaguing
the people of Israel, and to take every action possible to bring peace
to the region.
Q -- hear you saying anything one way or the other about whether
you think Israel should be careful about --
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't hear you, Deb.
Q I said, I don't hear you giving any guidance to Israel about
whether you think Israel should be careful about how it responds to
this particular incident, or any indication of whether you're holding
Chairman Arafat responsible.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's -- the President's reaction is just as I
indicated.
Q Can you -- Ari, does the President still have confidence in
Army Secretary White?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, he does.
Martha.
Q Has the President ever expressed an opinion on whether he
thinks that the corporate executives who have been taking the 5th up on
the Hill have the right to do that, or if that's wrong, they should
actually be --
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard the President weigh in on that
topic. Obviously, everybody has constitutional rights, but I have not
heard the President weigh in on that topic.
Q Ari, you talked last week, and I think a little bit yesterday
about the question of how the President talks about the economy versus
the markets. I'm wondering if you can explain how he separates this in
his mind? Obviously yesterday he was talking about economic
fundamentals and the long-term -- trying to restore long-term
confidence in the economy. Does he also expect that his words will be
reflected in the short-term confidence that's voted on each day in the
markets, or does he pretty well ignore that, and design his speeches so
that --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's focus is on policy. And policies
impact principally the economy, and they do so in a number of ways.
For example, take the tax cut that the President passed into law. The
bipartisan tax cut reduced rates, encouraged growth, gave a stimulus to
the economy and gave a boost to the economy, and that manifests itself
mostly through the first quarter, as you saw, which had growth in
excess of 6 percent, as the stimulative effect of the tax cut went into
effect, as well as last fall with the rebates.
Education is another example, for instance. That's something that
affects long-term the strength of our country. The policy changes made
to have better education, children with a brighter future, broadly
impacts the economy as businesses, as employers have a better educated
work force. Trade promotion authority, I alluded to it earlier, by
enabling the United States to enter into more trade agreements with
different nations around the world, it creates more jobs for the
American people, often sector related. All of those create more
employment, more employment creates more growth, more growth leads to
more revenues, more revenues leads to a sounder economy and better
fiscal discipline in Washington. That's the President's focus.
All of the above influences market behavior, but the President does
not seek, nor would he seek, to try to announce any policy that would
try to affect fluctuations on a daily basis in markets.
Q As you design his comments, do you design them with an eye
toward how the markets may react in the short-term? Or do you just
focus on those longer-term issues?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President focuses on policies that impact the
economy, that impact the American people, and then the markets make the
decisions they make based on whatever variety of reasons markets make.
That's why they're called markets.
Q The President's counter-terrorism strategy, give us a sense of
what the new elements contained in the strategy -- how that will impact
his Department of Homeland Security, whether some of the laws he's
called for changing should be folded into the legislation that creates
this Cabinet level department.
Also give us a sense of the costs of what some of the new
provisions called for today might come to. And how much of the Rose
Garden appearance today was aimed at putting pressure on lawmakers who
still have questions about the viability of some of the elements of the
President's Cabinet level department?
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. Let me work backwards on your questions.
From the day the President went on national TV and addressed the nation
to announce that he wanted to create a Cabinet level Department of
Homeland Security, communication with members of Congress has been
vital, because they're the ones that this nation is looking to and
relying on to get this job done. The President can only propose, but
it's up to Congress to do this.
And to get this enacted into law it's going to be very important
for many people who have diligently, waited years in the Congress to
serve on committees that give them jurisdiction over the needs of their
constituents to be able to say, I may have to give up something that
I've worked for a very long time to arrive onto this committee to serve
the nation because we're in a new era.
And the Coast Guard is one example. The President believes now
that the primary mission of the Coast Guard has got to be the defense
of our homeland. The Coast Guard indeed does have many other vital
missions, such as maritime safety, such as inspection of boats to make
certain that they catch the fish that they are supposed to catch in the
quantities in which they've agreed to catch. That's part of our laws.
But the President believes that given the fact that we have
terrorists who are still trying to infiltrate our borders, the number
one mission of the Coast Guard needs to switch and become the defense
of the United States of America. And the President believes, though,
as members of Congress work through all these various issues they, too,
will come to the same conclusions he has. And that's why he has worked
so diligently with members of Congress. He respects the differences of
opinion that they may have, and he understands why there may be reasons
as a result of seniority or as a result of various parochial interests
that members of Congress may initially react differently.
But in the end, the President believes that Congress will put our
nation first and will put homeland security first. And that's why
he'll continue to meet with members of Congress, as he did today.
On the cost question, Wendell. The President, in his budget for
fiscal year '03, proposed significant increases in spending for the
various agencies associated with homeland security. And as a result of
those increases and then the savings that will accrue as a result of
some of the duplicative missions that will now be united at the
Department of Homeland Security, this can be done in a cost-neutral
manner. There may be some transition costs depending on some of the
ultimate decisions that the Congress makes, but given the fact that the
President has already proposed all these spending increases, he thinks
all this can be accomplished within those previously proposed
announcements.
And, finally, on your question about the mission of the department,
the President believes that this new Department of Homeland Security
will make the nation safer by improving our intelligence and our early
warning capabilities, by toughening our borders and our transportation
security arrangements, by strengthening our efforts to prevent domestic
terrorism, by affording more protections for critical infrastructure,
by defending against weapons of mass destruction, and finally, by
improving the ability, particularly at the first responder level, to
apply to emergencies.
Q If I could follow-up. In fairness, you continue to
characterize all opposition to the President's proposal, even the
individual elements of the President's proposal, as matters of turf.
But there are lawmakers who feel that there are fundamental problems
here and they have nothing to do with turf. They have nothing to do
with congressional oversight. They have to do with whether or not the
focus should be on retraining elements of homeland security now, rather
than focusing on putting them under other bosses, if you will. Don't
you kind of gloss over some of the fundamental concerns lawmakers have
about posse comitatus, about other constitutional elements and other
elements of the effectiveness of homeland security when you brush aside
arguments or concerns as matters of turf?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can reiterate what I said -- for example, on the
Coast Guard, that wasn't about turf. That was about the legitimate
ongoing needs and missions of the Coast Guard in matters that are not
directly related to homeland security.
Q -- set it up, you talk about lawmakers waiting years to serve
on various committees --
MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly they're both factors. They're both
factors, and I think everybody recognizes that. Just as I indicated
on the Coast Guard, there are valid reasons that the Coast Guard has
other missions, for example. But the point the President is making to
members of Congress, the primary mission of these agencies needs to
change, and the primary mission needs to be the defense of our
country.
Connie.
Q Just to follow-up, one more on the Middle East, Ari. Would
the White House accept Yasser Arafat as some sort of emeritus position
in the Palestinian Authority? And is there a growing split between the
State Department and the White House on this issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as both the President and Secretary Powell
have said -- Secretary Powell most recently in his interview with Mr.
Koppel -- it's not the place of the United States to determine what
position any individual holds; it's up to the Palestinian people to
ultimately decide what role Chairman Arafat should play. That's what
Secretary Powell said last night, and that's again what I have
reiterated this morning.
Q Ari, under the homeland security strategy that he announced
today, what does the President have in mind for a domestic role for the
military, for the U.S. military?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is nothing that I'm aware of that suggests
any change in that. So no changes from the domestic role. Now, as you
know, the Department of Defense earlier announced just as part of their
internal reorganization, an internal focus on the defense of the United
States, but no changes beyond that.
Q What about an increased federal authority to call up the
National Guard?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take a look and see if there's anything on
that. I'll try to advise you.
Q Doesn't it at least call for a review of how the military can
be used in the future?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take that and try to get back.
Q Quarantines?
Q It looks like the House is going --
MR. FLEISCHER: Sarah. Ann, you're in the on-deck circle.
Q Ari, the Pentagon Comptroller says the Pentagon will run out
of money next month unless the Congress appropriates $14 million in the
supplemental. With America's military playing a key role in homeland
security, is the President going to lean on Congress to supply the
money?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is an important issue that is of great
concern. Secretary Rumsfeld has sent a letter up to the Hill about the
timing of passage of this emergency funding legislation the Congress is
currently considering, because the more time goes by, the more likely
it is that people will end up being furloughed or that the
Transportation Security Administration will not be able to purchase
some of the detective equipment and bomb detecting equipment, screening
equipment that it needs to protect our airports.
It is a serious problem. Congress is aware of it. Time is running
out, and there may have to be other steps taken if Congress does not
act, and act quickly.
Ann.
Q It looks like the House is going to pass this afternoon some
provisions stiffening the criminal penalties for corporate wrongdoing,
bringing it even closer to the Senate bill. I'm wondering what the
White House's role has been in prodding them to do this, and generally
what the President's reaction to that is?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the biggest role that anybody has
played is the country. The country has sent a clear signal to the
Congress and the Congress has listened, both to the country and to the
President, that we need to toughen the laws. I remind you the
President made proposals back in March and April on several aspects of
this, particularly involving corporations and pension laws that need to
be reformed, and then the recent scandals have given rise to a speeded
up action in the Senate on some of the criminal penalties against
corporations engaged in wrongdoing.
So I think the country is speaking, the Congress is listening, and
the President hopes Congress will continue to listen so that he can
have something to sign before Congress leaves when they go home in
August.
Q But has the White House done anything specifically to
encourage them to speed this up and to bring it a little closer toward
the Senate --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ann, I don't know if Congressional Affairs has had
any conversations with them. They very well may have. I don't know
about every conversation they hold.
Dick.
Q Ari, the President has said repeatedly over the last couple of
weeks that he thinks the wave of corporate malfeasance is limited to a
couple of bad actors, a few bad apples. We have a couple weeks down
the road a deadline for the biggest companies in the nation to certify
the CEOs of those companies, to certify their financial statements.
Based on what's coming into the government at this point, will the
President's assertion hold, or is the problem going to turn out to be
more widespread?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does believe that most of these
problems are limited to a small number of people who are engaged in
malfeasance. And it doesn't matter what the number, those who do it
need to know that the federal government is prepared to take tough
action against them, including imprisonment, if that becomes
necessary.
As you point out, under the leadership of Chairman Pitt, the
Securities and Exchange Commission took the action of making -- I think
it's the 964 largest corporations in America go back, re-look at their
books, and certify the accuracy of their books. And they have until
August 14th to do so. I cannot prejudge what they will found, but the
Securities and Exchange Commission has asked for that as part of the
diligence that this administration is engaged in, in keeping
corporations accountable.
Lester.
Q Does the President believe that those two State Department
officials who e-mailed their insults of Congressman Ben Gilman should
have been merely reprimanded, rather than fired, with not even a
reprimand for whoever it was that ordered the State Department police
to detain reporter Joel Mowbray as extensively reported in both the
Post and the Times?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not familiar with the e-mails, Lester.
Q What about Joel Mowbray? That was reported, you must have
been familiar, because both of Washington's dailies reported this. How
does the President stand on that? Does he feel that reporters should
be detained by police?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President understands that the law is a law,
and the law should be enforced, and that reporters have a right to
report.
Q Does the President believe that felons who break the law
should be allowed to vote for those who make the law?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that's a matter for each
state to look at their own laws, which jurisdictionally --
Q How did he feel in Texas? Did he -- did he --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'd to take a look at the law in Texas, Lester. I
don't know it off the top of my head.
Q What do you think of Greenspan's assessment of the economy?
And do you think that the markets react to his statements perhaps in a
way they react to the President's --
MR. FLEISCHER: On the markets, far be it from me to try to divine
what markets do or why they do it. There are plenty of people of spend
a lifetime -- principally they work in areas where the markets are
located, not Washington, D.C. -- who do their best to ascertain what
makes markets go up or down. And three-quarters of the time, they
themselves will recognize that they don't know very much what makes
markets go up or down.
I do think there is a phenomenon in Washington where part-time
analysts do think they can tell people what makes markets go up and
down and, as often, Washington gets it wrong.
Q So you don't think Chairman Greenspan's comments today had any
impact on the market behavior?
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't had a chance to assess Chairman
Greenspan's comments; I was giving an answer about market watchers in
general located within the Beltway of the District of Columbia.
Q Does the President agree with Chairman Greenspan's assessment
of the economy right now?
MR. FLEISCHER: You heard from the President yesterday about his
assessment of the economy and the President's assessment is upbeat.
Q Ari, do you think other traditional, old-style companies
should follow the lead of Coca-Cola and other major firms in trying to
-- deciding to expense stock options?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's a determination that those companies
will make. What the President believes about stock options is that,
one, stock options need to be fully disclosed. The President believes
that there needs to be simpler reporting on stock options that provides
more details. Two, the President believes that shareholders should be
required to approve the issuance of stock options. Right now,
shareholders are not necessarily involved in the approving of stock
options. He thinks that both those changes need to be brought to the
treatment of stock options.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 12:55 P.M. EDT
|