Transcript of White House Daily Briefing

(President's schedule, report of arrest of Serbs, Enron/Senator
Waxman's comments, bioethics, President's meeting with labor leaders,
taxes/Senator Kennedy's remarks, Afghanistan/aid worker kidnapped,
Trade Promotion Authority) (6990)

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefed.

Following is the White House transcript:

(begin transcript)

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

January 17, 2002

PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER

INDEX

-- President's schedule
-- Report of arrest of Serbs
-- Enron-Senator Waxman's comments
   - Energy team discussion on energy policy
   - Outreach to those who lost money
   - Effect on elections
   - President's feelings about Ken Lay
   - Budget Director's comments/policy changes
-- Bioethics
-- President's meeting with labor leaders
-- Taxes/Senator Kennedy's remarks
-- Afghanistan/aid worker kidnapped
-- Trade promotion authority


THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

January 17, 2002

PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER

The James S. Brady Briefing Room

12:05 P.M EST

MR. FLEISCHER:  What happened to the front row?

QUESTION:  They're camera-shy.  (Laughter.)

Q:  That will be the day.

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me give you a rundown on the President's day, and
then I have a couple of announcements to make. The President this
morning called Prime Minister Blair to discuss the war on terrorism.
They also spoke about developments in South Asia, India and Pakistan.
The President noted and praised President Musharraf's speech over the
weekend, which has succeeded thus far in reducing tensions. And they
also discussed Prime Minister Blair's visit to the region last week,
and Secretary Powell's current meetings in India and Pakistan.

The President then convened a meeting -- was briefed by the Central
Intelligence Agency, the FBI, and then convened a meeting of his
National Security Council. He is having lunch with the Vice President
as we speak. And then the President will depart the White House to
visit a group of labor leaders, the Teamsters, the Carpenters, the
Seafarers, and the building trade's people of the AFL-CIO, to talk
about the importance of the Senate taking action on energy
legislation, which the President believes will create jobs for workers
in America, as well as provide greater energy independence to our
country.

Then the President will, later this afternoon, sign into law the Safe
and Stable Families Program. This bipartisan act of Congress will
strengthen families, promote adoption and help vulnerable children,
principally through a program that provides a brand new $25 million
federal grant to help mentor children whose parents, typically
fathers, are in prison. That's a program the President talked about
extensively throughout the campaign. The President believes very
deeply in the need for the government to help children of prisoners.
They've done nothing wrong, themselves, yet they need a helping hand
because they are among society's most vulnerable.

The President will then meet with the President of Lithuania, and he
will do a drop-by and visit with his Bioethics Commission, which will
have its first meeting today. And the President has charged that
commission with a high moral calling to review how those wonderful
breakthroughs in science and medicine will have an impact in relieving
suffering, curing disease, while at the same time protecting life and
human dignity.

That's a description of the President's day. Two other announcements
--

Q:  Coverage?

MR. FLEISCHER: No word yet. We'll have that announced by lower press a
little later.

Two other announcements for you. The President wants to express his
appreciation to the United Nations for the vote yesterday in the
Security Council which updated and expanded and focused the sanctions
against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and the Taliban. The resolution
requires United Nations states to expand financial sanctions or to
impose asset freezes, and to impose a travel restriction and an arms
embargo. The resolution also has the effect of lifting the ban on
Ariana Airlines, the Afghan national airline. The United States worked
hard for the passage of the resolution, and the President is very
pleased that the United Nations has taken a strong vote, once again,
with the United States and the rest of the world, against terrorism.

Finally, the President will welcome to Washington Uruguayan President
Jorge Battle on February 15th. With that, I'm happy to take your
questions.

Q: There's a report, Ari, that the U.S. special forces have arrested
two Bosnian Serb leaders, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. Do you
know anything about that?

MR. FLEISCHER: First I've heard on that report. So I don't have
anything on it.

Q: Ari, a spokesman for Congressman Waxman, reacting to what you said
earlier, called it a disappointing reaction. He said, we had hoped for
better from this White House. And he said that he and the Congressman,
they don't want to draw conclusions, they would much rather have the
White House release the information they're seeking. So, a, your
reaction to Congressman Waxman's spokesman's comments; and, b, why not
release, to put any questions to rest about if Enron had undue
influence over the White House energy plan?

MR. FLEISCHER: On the second point, there's nothing new here. On the
first point, Congressman Waxman has produced a study which -- in which
he alleges that the energy policy review that was carried out by this
administration had provisions in there that somehow uniquely benefited
or benefited the Enron Corporation, as opposed to the country or the
nation, which is in need of a comprehensive national energy policy.

One of the provisions that Congressman Waxman cited in there is a
provision called PUHCA, which is a provision which the administration
believes should be repealed, because it prevents more efficient
operation in the energy market, as companies work with each other or
are able to purchase other electricity companies.

That PUHCA measure has been passed previously by House committees in
overwhelming bipartisan votes. So I think that alone tells you that
there is widespread bipartisan support for it, for good and valid
reasons, because it makes economic sense, it makes energy sense, and
that's why the President's energy policy recommended it.

The recommendations in the President's energy plan were made because
the President and the Vice President believe very strongly that they
are the best policies to help make America more energy-independent and
to reduce the likelihood, which all Americans have suffered, or many
Americans have suffered, of blackouts and brownouts.

We are a nation without a comprehensive energy plan. The allegation by
Congressman Waxman that anything was put in that plan for political
purposes is, of itself, a partisan waste of taxpayer money. Taxpayer
money needs to be invested in an investigation of criminal wrongdoing,
and that's why the President's Department of Justice is reviewing
whether or not anybody at Enron or anywhere else engaged in criminal
activity. That is a wise, good use of taxpayer money and the President
is dedicated to it.

Taxpayer money will be used to get the Cabinet Secretaries to complete
the review the President has authorized them to begin to determine how
other actions can be taken to protect people so this never happens
again and to protect people's pensions and review any changes that
need to be made on pension laws.

But if others want to pursue politics, if others want to play the
blame game, that is their prerogative. It happens in this town from
time to time, and it's always a waste of taxpayer money.

Q: Can I just quickly follow? They say it's not partisan, that they're
just asking questions. And the Vice President's office revealed there
were six meetings between either the Vice President or aides on the
task force and Enron officials, and so they're just asking for more
information about those meetings, again to answer the question with
Enron out there --

MR. FLEISCHER: If they're alleging that the PUHCA provision, for
example, was put in there at the behest of Enron Corporation, then why
did it enjoy such bipartisan support on Capitol Hill when it was voted
on previously by many Democrats? Is Mr. Waxman going to suggest that
those Democrats were influenced?

Q: Ari, but all that said, you know the political environment you're
operating in, given what's going on with Enron right now. So why take
the position -- and even if you're right, this is presidential
prerogative, why not -- why are you appearing in sort of taking the
same tack that the Clinton administration did on similar issues? Why
not fully disclose, put it all out there, and have it be resolved once
and for all?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, there's nothing new here. The administration is
going to continue to pursue this to get to the bottom of any criminal
wrongdoing at Enron or anywhere else that could have been involved --
and that's through the Department of Justice. The policy reviews will
continue, and the administration will continue to be forthcoming in
answering questions and providing information.

But I think everybody has seen the way this town operates. Washington,
D.C. must fully investigate what's taken place with Enron. Washington,
D.C. must fully move to protect people's pensions. But if Washington
goes down the usual path of partisan fishing expeditions, I think
they're going to lose the support of the public. The public wants to
know that people here in this town are focused on the wrongdoing where
the wrongdoing occurs, and not engaging in wasteful fishing
expeditions.

Q: I mean, why not, then, just say okay, there's no "there" there,
let's just put it out here and end this, so that we're not going down
this --

MR. FLEISCHER: You say why not put "it" out? Would you define "it"?

Q: The task force information, the documents they have requested. I
mean, why take on the GAO? Why allow this to happen if that's what
it's all about, is partisan politics?

MR. FLEISCHER: So you're asking that uniquely about the energy review
that was taken on by the administration. Is that correct?

Q:  Yes.

MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. On that topic, there is a very important
principle involved here. And that is the right of the government and
all future presidencies, whether they're Democratic or Republican, to
conduct reviews, to receive information from constituents regardless
of their party or their background in a thoughtful and deliberative
fashion.

And it has always been the right of people in our country to petition
their government, to talk to their government, no matter what their
background or who they are. The suggestion that any contact with the
government is somehow sinister and, therefore, it should be examined
to determine exactly what conversations that you have with anybody on
any topic in conducting an energy review, which is a vital policy
issue and a legitimate one in the eyes of, I think, Democrats and
Republicans alike, is a principle that has big implications beyond
what we're talking about today.

The White House is keenly aware of the political demands from some.
But there are also principles involved in having a government that is
able to thoughtfully, fully and deliberately gather information from
all types of concerned Americans.

Q: And at what point is that principle outweighed by the need to
reassure the public that everything has gone on the up-and-up?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the public is very uneasy about what happened
with Enron and they want it investigated. And it will be. This Justice
Department has announced a criminal investigation of Enron, and that
will be pursued fully.

I think the public is very uneasy about their pensions. The public
wants to know if what happened to Enron can happen to them. People who
work in other companies who have pensions worry about their 401Ks.
Properly so. And the President directed a review of the Cabinet
Secretaries to see if anything could change.

Bill, I really think the public does not share the judgment that there
is somehow some political malfeasance here. I think the public has
heard that cry from politicians in Washington where politicians turned
to partisanship, one-party investigations, the blame game. What they
have seen in the Bush administration is, whether it was former Clinton
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin or Ken Lay ask for something similar,
this administration did the right thing for the right reasons because
they acted on the basis of policy.

Q: If the public were to be reassured that nothing that happened
behind closed doors in the meetings of the energy policy deliberative
committee, whether it was with Enron officials or the officials of any
other public company, wouldn't that simplify your job of reassuring
the public that nothing untoward happened?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, Bill, because I think really you're asking to prove
a negative. And I remind you that as part of what is going on, the
Department of Justice is investigating from a criminal point of view,
from a wrongdoing point of view, so the reviews are being done. And if
there were to be something, there is an avenue that people could look
into that is a thoughtful, deliberative government angle. Nothing like
that has taken place here.

So the answer is to the release, nothing new. You're asking for us to
prove a negative, and that's a road that we're not traveling.

Q:  So you won't release the records?  I mean --

Q:  When you say nothing new --

MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing new. That's what we've always indicated. We'll
stand on that principle.

Q:  In other words, you won't release the records?

Q: That's actually what I want to ask -- there's no way you're going
to bend from it? You guys have made a final decision and are no longer
reviewing the question of whether or not you release the records? You
won't release them, period, because of what you just outlined?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, Ron, there's nothing moving now to do that. That's
correct. We will always continue to work with the Congress and work
closely with the Congress. I can't make to you one hundred percent
guarantee blanket predictions about all events in life to come, but I
can answer your questions faithfully about the status today.

Q: Ari, just to follow on Kelly's original question. Are you saying
specifically that nothing was put in the energy plan at Enron's
request?

MR. FLEISCHER: What was put in the energy plan was put in at the need
to help address an energy shortage in America, not as the result of a
request of any one company or any one person. It was done because it's
the right policy for the country. In fact, if you really want to take
a look at some things, some of the things that Enron wanted the most,
they didn't get, such as a global warming agreement by the United
States. The previous administration, of course, did enter into an
agreement on global warming, which I think was very pleasing to Enron.
This administration took a look at that matter and, on policy grounds,
decided that would not be the most helpful step to protect America's
workers, America's economy.

If you look down the list of things, several things that were sought
by Enron that the administration did not include because it was
reviewed for policy reasons, things that were in there were all put in
there because they were the best energy policy for our country that
has severe energy problems.

Q: Okay, and also, do you deny the assertion that for whatever reason
a provision might have been put in the policy, that one or more of
them may uniquely benefit Enron?

MR. FLEISCHER:  I don't know about uniquely benefit.

Q:  Primarily benefit --

MR. FLEISCHER: I have no idea how to measure it. Our nation is a
nation that has energy needs and there are regions of the country that
have blackouts, that have brownouts. There is a need to move to change
the infrastructure in the United States. Certainly, when California
was suffering from the brownouts and blackouts it had last summer, one
of the steps that could have been taken to alleviate California's
problems was to make it easier to move energy from one region of the
country that has surplus to California, which had a deficit. That is
designed to help people in California. If anybody else would have
benefitted as a result, that's tangential. There is a problem that had
to be addressed.

Q: Can I just follow up on a couple things? First of all, you said you
would work with Congress. But this is Congressman Waxman's report. He
says he identifies 17 specific Enron lobbying proposals which he says
ended up in the energy plan that the President rolled out. Now, are
you saying you would call this a waste of taxpayers' money? It is
completely illegitimate for a United States congressman, in the wake
of this gigantic bankruptcy by a company apparently acting in a rogue
fashion when it came to accounting and other matters, it's completely
illegitimate for that member of Congress to inquire whether or not
this company, which had given a lot of money to the administration,
got anything in the return?

MR. FLEISCHER: I would never use that word in describing the actions
of a member of Congress. What I have said is when you take a look at
what the facts are in this case, that we are nation that does indeed
have energy problems -- particularly last summer where the fears of
blackout and brownout were most pronounced, and last winter as the
Clinton administration worked with California officials to begin
addressing their energy problems -- there is a recognition that the
country has an old energy infrastructure which needs to be modernized
to help consumers, to help the public.

When you take a look at the things that this administration has done
in saying no to things that would have definitely been sought by
Enron, such as global warming, such as elimination of carbon dioxide
as part of the pollutant strategy, and which Enron would have wanted
to trade carbon credits -- and then you take a look at the things that
were included in the energy plan, based on policy and based on energy
needs, I think the conclusion is that the administration acted on the
basis of sound policy because our country has an energy problem.

It put things in and it left things out based on a policy review,
again just as the administration acted when it got a phone call from
Bob Rubin or Ken Lay. The reaction was policy. The review that Mr.
Waxman has suggested, which ignores the facts that many of his
colleagues voted to support a repeal of the PUHCA provisions that he
cited were put in here, is a partisan waste of money.

Q: So the answer it sounds like to Congressman Waxman's inquiries is,
we're good; we discharged the public trust in accordance with the
highest standards of morality, and trust us on that. And you don't
need to look into any of the actual context, the content of the
conversations between Enron executives and members of the task force,
who, from Enron, actually showed up and talked to members of the task
force. Trust us.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the American people want this invested fully
and entirely. They want to know about any criminal wrongdoing. They
want to know what can be done to protect their pensions. As I said
before and I'll say again, we're pleased to leave the politics to
others.

Q: Ari, not releasing the documents from the GAO you said is the right
of the government and all future Presidents to conduct reviews in a
thoughtful manner. Can you just articulate why you think releasing it
would hinder that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because I think on any number of issues on which there
are reviews being done by the administration on anything, if the
standard was that anybody and everybody who comes in to talk to
anybody in the White House, any conversation they have must be
released, I think it has a potential to tell people, well, you know, I
want to go in there and just talk to the government, I want to go be
able to meet with my congressman, give my thoughts to the congressman,
but if a new standard is put in place where to do so would require any
conversation, anything that anybody ever says to anybody in government
life must be publicly reported, I think people will say, I -- you
know, I'll keep my advice to myself.

It's a principle. It's a principle, Bill. And once the principle
changes in one case, it makes it easier to change in the next case,
not only for the President. Congress, of course, has its own rules.
People can always go in and see their congressman about any issue,
about any grant, about any proposal, about any legislation. And I
think if you were to ask those members of Congress, will you release
every conversation you had, will you release every email you had, will
you release every piece of paper you had about those meetings, they
would suggest to you that absent a compelling reason, a suggestion of
wrong doing, they probably would not.

Q: First question. Have you discovered any new contacts recorded by
any other governmental agencies between Enron and members of the
executive wing? And I have a second question for you.

MR. FLEISCHER:  No, I have nothing new to report.

Q: Second question I have for you, this morning you said that the
economic team had discussed among themselves when the Enron situation
started getting dire, I think you said, and after it became public
that Enron was really in deep water, and you said -- what is it
exactly that they discussed or analyzed and did not inform the
President?

MR. FLEISCHER:  I'm sorry, what's your question?

Q:  My question is, what did the economic analyze --

MR. FLEISCHER: That was put out at length in writing last night. You
have the statement from last night that described it all.

Q:  Did they inform the President at all of their discussions?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. Larry Lindsey was asked that on CNN's show, Evans,
Novak, Hunt and Shields last Saturday, and he said no, there was
nothing -- no determination made, because, he said, as it were, the
impact more broadly on other markets was a non-event. There was no
impact on other markets.

Q: I know the administration has said that the President wants to make
sure that no one ever loses their pension again in 401Ks. But has the
administration done any kind of outreach to the people who have lost
their pensions, or has Larry Lindsey or anybody taken a look at what
can be done to help those specific people?

MR. FLEISCHER:  The specific employees of Enron?

Q:  That's right.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Immediately upon the declaration of bankruptcy,
the Department of Labor sent a team down to Houston to meet with Enron
employees and to provide them information about benefits that they're
entitled to under the law. That was an immediate reaction by a team at
the Department of Labor.

Q: Has the President done any outreach, or anybody else here, to them,
to follow that?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, that would be done through the President's agency
here, which is the Department of Labor.

Q: I wanted to follow up on Ellen. We think the same way. How strong
is the administration's commitment to doing this quickly, without
having the litigants go through long, expensive legal trials? Can you
immediately freeze the assets of those who made millions and somehow
channeled the money to those who were defrauded?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's all being reviewed, anything of that nature, by
the courts. Bankruptcy proceedings are in the hands of the courts, and
that's where those matters will be solved.

Q: But are you asking them to speed it up? This could take months or
years.

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think it would be appropriate for the White
House to direct a court to speed up or slow down any actions that are
legal.

Q: Ari, did Enron come to the administration during its review of
energy policy and make specific proposals about what should be
included?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think you need to address that question directly to
the people who were involved in the policy. I can't tell you if they
did or if they didn't. As you know from the letter that was released
by the Vice President's office, they were met with on several
occasions.

Q:  Right.  But how would we get an answer to that question?

MR. FLEISCHER: Just pose it to the people on the review. I'll try to
ask that, as well.

Q: Any results on the meeting between President Bush and the Greek
Prime Minister Costas Simitis last Thursday, January 10th?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that was reported after the meeting. Yes, there
was a readout given by the spokesman for the National Security Council
after the meeting took place.

Q: Ari, a number of politicians in both parties are disgorging the
contributions that they have received from Enron and, in some cases,
from Arthur Andersen, as well, and contribute them to the fund that's
been established to help Enron employees. Is the President going to do
that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, what many of them are doing is in the
context of the current election cycle, and the President, of course,
running for a presidential office is under a different set of rules
from the Congress. The President receives federal matching funds for
his race, so if reelection were to become the issue, that is all
through federal matching funds, no private contributions.

Q: But he received, before he got the matching funds from the general
election, he received large amounts of Enron money for the primary --

MR. FLEISCHER: And that's why I drew your attention to the analogy
that most Congress members are doing it for their upcoming election.

Q: Well, but they're saying that they're doing this, in some cases --
Schumer, for example, said he was doing this to clear the air and to
make sure that no one could question his motives. Is the President not
interested --

MR. FLEISCHER:  Ken, if there's any action on that, I'll report it.

Q: Ari, we hear a lot of stuff from the podium about the political
ramifications, the legal ramifications about Enron. The President is a
man of means who has had means. These people who lost their money
through Enron have no life savings now. What has the President said
privately to you on a human standpoint about these people?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, frankly, what he has said privately is the same
thing that he's said publicly. If you will recall, he was asked that
very question at the ranch when General Franks was visiting him in
December and early January, and the President said that his heart goes
out to the employees of Houston.

These people who worked for Enron have not only lost their paychecks,
but they have lost a considerable amount of their retirement checks.
And that's why this is such a serious matter, and that's why the
Department of Justice is investigating how it could have come to be
that people were unsuspecting, had no knowledge, the price dropped and
the blackout period was imposed. And the President wants to make sure
that any action is taken so that others can be protected so it does
not happen to them.

Q: Has he tried to reach out to any of these families or any of these
people? I mean, we've heard stories of people who are having it hard
to go to the grocery store, to calculate how much money they have to
spend.

MR. FLEISCHER: Through the Department of Labor -- the Department of
Labor is the appropriate agency that is --

Q:  No, has the President reached out?

MR. FLEISCHER:  Through the Department of Labor.

Q: On bioethics, certainly the council will have a number of subjects
to address. But on the issue of human cloning, what does the President
hope that the council can accomplish, given the fact that both he and
the council's chairman are opposed to that procedure?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is looking forward to having his
first meeting with his bioethics panel today. And the President is
opposed to human cloning. He thinks that it is wrong, and he thinks
that as the breakthroughs take place in science and in medicine which
have the potential to cure diseases, it is vital for the nation to
have a full understanding and a rich reflection and a discussion of
the ethical implications of some of the breakthroughs.

Diseases are going to be cured. People's deepest problems have the
potential to be solved that have really haunted many a family. But in
so doing, the President thinks it's essential for the fabric of our
country to listen to the ethical considerations, the ethical reasons
that at all times have to guide the progress and the path of science.
And that's what the President looks forward to hearing from this
commission as they conduct their works.

But there is no -- make no mistake about it, the President has taken a
position on human cloning. He stands by it. He opposes human cloning.
And he believes the nation will benefit from a review of a diverse
group of ethicists, so that all the implications of it can be
discussed in a thoughtful fashion.

Q: Are you satisfied there is enough diversity on the panel to have
that sort of discussion?

MR. FLEISCHER: He is. He believes that the panel represents that
diversity.

Q: Tomorrow the Republican National Committee is going to elect
Governor Racicot as Chairman of the Committee. Governor Racicot has
done some lobbying for Enron. Is the President concerned that this
revelation, or this connection would taint the Republican Party, going
into an election year?

MR. FLEISCHER:  No.

Q: What has the President said in private about Ken Lay? Does he still
consider him a good friend? And would he take money from him in the
future?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think he was asked that question -- a similar
question in the Oval Office. Ken Lay is and was a supporter of the
President. And it doesn't matter. A criminal investigation is going to
proceed. And the President wants to make sure that that criminal
investigation will take itself wherever it needs to go, and that
justice should be done. And it doesn't matter who was involved,
whether they knew the President or didn't know the President. The
Department of Justice is undertaking a criminal review.

Q:  In 1984 -- it seems just like yesterday -- (laughter).

MR. FLEISCHER:  What year was that -- '84.

Q: Walter Mondale at the Democratic Convention, said that if elected,
he would raise federal taxes. Don't you see a distinction between that
kind of a statement and what we heard from Senator Kennedy yesterday?

MR. FLEISCHER: I thought Senator Kennedy's statement yesterday that he
wanted to raise taxes was an echo of something from 16 years ago. It
reminded me very much of Walter Mondale's statement at the convention
that he would raise taxes.

Q: Let's draw a distinction. As a consequence of getting elected in
1985, Americans would have seen their federal tax bill go up, assuming
Congress would have agreed with Mondale's plan. As a consequence of
Congress agreeing to what Senator Kennedy said yesterday, isn't it
fair to say that no American would see his current federal income tax
liability go up?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think there is no question about it, what the
President -- what Senator Kennedy called for yesterday is a tax
increase, plain and simple. When the government promises somebody
there will be more money in your upcoming paycheck, and the government
says we didn't mean it, we're taking that money back from you, that's
a tax hike.

Q: Ari, yesterday, the President's Budget Director made a comment
about the need for corporate statesmanship in this country. That was
in response to a question he was asked about Enron executives cashing
in $1 billion of stock while the workers got nothing. I was wondering
whether the White House was thinking about this topic at all,
especially since we're in a recession -- whether there was a message
going to be coming out from the President about the need for chief
executives, themselves, to be an example to forego salary increases
and bonuses and all the other wonderful perks they get, and not only
just to talk about sympathizing with workers, but to require sacrifice
among the country's chief executives.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one of the things that the President has asked
the Department of Labor, Treasury and Commerce to review as far as
what policy changes can be made, learning the lessons of Enron, is to
take a particular look at the blackout period that is imposed, and to
determine whether or not workers should be given an advanced notice of
the blackout period coming so they're not just slammed down on so they
can't diversify or sell if they so desire. And the President thinks
that the way to help people is to make sure that people who are
punished through no action, no fault of their own, cannot be put in a
similar position, and that's where the President has directed the
review.

Q: Ari, after Mr. Lindsey's panel determined that Enron would have
little impact on the markets, who did he report that information to,
beyond the members of the Economic Council?

MR. FLEISCHER: I couldn't tell you fully who he reported it to. Larry
is on record himself as saying he did not inform that to the
President. Again, as Larry said on CNN last Saturday, some five days
ago, he said that the review showed that they would not have any
broader impact on overall markets. I think he said it was, as it were,
a non-event, because it did not have such an impact.

Q: So there were no internal communications, either written,
electronic, or spoken?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I didn't say that. The economic team surely talked
among themselves.

Q: Shouldn't he have reported to the Chief of Staff, for instance,
just to at least say this is not going to be a problem?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have no idea if he did or if he didn't. The point of
the matter is, as he said, it was a non-event.

Q: In the meeting with the labor union leaders, is the President ready
to disclose to those guys the -- position to the -- and also their
position on legalization of Mexican immigrants in the United States?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is going there with a certain
list of items that he wants to talk about and that includes job
creation for America. But it is going to be an open session. I think
he is going to hear what's on their minds. The President and these
unions don't agree on every issue. I won't be surprised if some of the
union leaders bring up some issues with which they disagree with the
President. After all, that's the purpose of getting together with
them.

The President wants to convince them to agree with him in the issues
he believes in; they will probably want to convince the President to
agree with them on their issues. That's why they're having the
meeting.

Q: Are you worried that the frustration on the Hill over Enron is
going to hurt your ability to get votes on the energy report when it
comes out next month, since it's going to be out at the same time
there's hearings going on on Enron?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the frustration on the Hill about Enron is
wisely and properly focused on Enron, on the people who are associated
with Enron in terms of the auditing and how it could have happened,
and on policy reviews.

Q: Has the President questioned the legitimacy of claims that Clark
Bowers is being held hostage in Afghanistan?

MR. FLEISCHER:  Of who, now?

Q:  Clark Bowers, the Alabama man?  His wife claims he is being --

MR. FLEISCHER: The State Department is looking into that. I asked for
an update yesterday and the State Department is looking into that. I
have not received an update since yesterday.

Q: During his trip to East Asia next month, how hard is the President
going to work for the promotion of free trade in the region, in the
interest of creating more jobs in this country?

MR. FLEISCHER: Free trade is always an issue that the President raises
when he meets with people, particularly in an area as important
economically to the United States as Asia, as Korea, as Japan. And
interestingly, now China, China being a member of the World Trade
Organization, the President views that as an essential to job
creation, to growth and to economic health.

I also want to raise -- you mentioned Japan. And, of course, there
will be an important conference this weekend led by the United States,
the European Union, Saudi Arabia and Japan on the reconstruction of
Afghanistan, a very important meeting on the future of developing a
peaceful and stable Afghanistan, and I think there will be an
announcement there about assistance from Afghanistan from a number of
these nations to help Afghanistan be free from terror.

Q: Can you clarify what you said about the release of documents to the
GAO? When did the administration decide to definitively not release
that? You had been telling us you were reviewing it.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, there has been no change. The Vice President's
office is the one who has been addressing this issue. There has been
no change in that to report.

Q:  Are you still reviewing it or you aren't going to release it?

MR. FLEISCHER:  There is no change in our status on that.

Q:  Clarify the status.

Q:  Is there a review underway or not?

MR. FLEISCHER: It means that the administration will continue to stand
by the principle that I enunciated earlier.

Q: And, as you know, frequently these standoffs are resolved through
the principle of comity between the branches; that if there is a way
without harming future -- this administration or future Presidents'
right, as they see it, to candid advice, they may be able to share it.
GAO specifically requesting the documents seems to be one of the
sticking points with the Vice President's counsel who says GAO doesn't
have the statutory authority. Is there some way, perhaps, to work
around that if it was a member of Congress, him or herself or a
committee, rather than the GAO which seems to be an institution that
the Vice President --

MR. FLEISCHER: There was a similar question that came up earlier in
the briefing and I answered that question, saying there is a principle
here and the administration will continue to adhere to the principle.
There is no change today. I told you that I can't speak for every
action conceivably that could possibly ever be taken in the future.
But there is no change to be reported today. There is no change today.

Q: Can you clarify something for me? The average American, if they
receive a lot of money from someone in support of something, they
consider that person a friend. Does President Bush consider Mr. Lay a
friend, or just someone who --

MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question, Ken Lay is and was a supporter,
friend of the President's. But I think it also is no surprise to
anybody that companies like Enron Corporation play both sides of the
street. They give money to candidates and politicians in both parties.
That is what Enron has done in many cases, and I think the numbers are
half the Senate and three-quarters of the House, or vice-versa, have
received funding from Enron.

Q: When you say "supporter, friend," what does that friendship entail?
Hanging out, Rangers games, what?

MR. FLEISCHER: Hanging out -- that's not something I've really seen
President Bush do very much.

Q:  Oh, yes, he has, trust me.

MR. FLEISCHER:  It's hard to hang in a bubble.  (Laughter.)

Q: I mean, you know what I'm saying. But what does it mean? What does
his friendship entail?

MR. FLEISCHER: April, I don't know how to make a linear description of
friends.

Q: Ari, can I ask you about free trade? The speech the President gave
last night at the OAS, have you had any reaction out of the State
Department so far?

MR. FLEISCHER: There is nothing that has crossed my radar screen. That
might be something that State has put a closer ear to the ground than
I have this morning.

Q: The second part has to do with he said the Senate needs to give him
free trade authority or permanent trade authority. What is he going to
do about it? The House has already approved it. He has had a little
fight with some of the members of the Senate, but he ratified Otto
Reich or gave him the recess appointment. Does he still expect to have
the votes in the Senate for passage of world free trade?

MR. FLEISCHER: Based on the history of the United States Senate, you
would expect that the votes would be there in a healthy, bipartisan
way for free trade to pass. The President hopes that will be the case
this year, as well.

Thank you.

END   12:42 P.M. EST

(end White House transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)