Return to Transcripts main page
On the Story
Bush Undergoes Colonoscopy; Corporate America Takes Heat From Politicians, Public; Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional
Aired June 29, 2002 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATE SNOW, HOST: Good morning to Utah, the rest of the West, and all of our viewers across North America. I'm Kate Snow in Washington. With me, sorting through the week's big stories today, financial correspondent Christine Romans, justice correspondent Kelli Arena, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, and from the North Lawn of the White House, correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.
We're also just a few minutes away from the president's radio address. But first, this news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
SNOW: We begin this morning back at the White House. We're going to check in with Suzanne Malveaux. She's been following the president this morning.
The president out at Camp David, Suzanne, undergoing a colonoscopy. Tell us again, why is he having this procedure?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, Kate.
Yes, as you mentioned, he's at Camp David, and he is under the watchful eye of his physicians and a backup medical team.
And I want to tell you that we have been told we're not going to really get the information in terms of when the president is incapacitated and transfers his power over to the vice president for the issue of national security. But we have been told that all of this is just going to take three to four hours. We saw the vice president earlier today, at the White House, just before 7 o'clock, where he'll be briefed.
And the president said yesterday, when he was leaving the White House with the first lady on his way to Camp David, he said that this is really a precautionary measure, wartime precautionary measure; that because there are troops that are overseas, because we're on a high state of alert, July 4th weekend, that he really just wanted to make sure, during the brief time that he may be unconscious, that there is somebody who is able to make decisions in case something actually happens. But he did joke, saying that Cheney would not be president for long. SNOW: And how long -- or how does this all happen, Suzanne? I mean, he transfers the power officially, he sends a fax or something? Can you explain that?
MALVEAUX: Well, yes, that's right. Actually, what he does is that he invokes what is the Section 3 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, and he does that formally before he is sedated by signing a letter. This letter goes to the speaker of the House, as well as to the president pro tem of the Senate. That letter is faxed. This officially recognizes that he is transferring the power.
Now, after the procedure is done, about 30 to 60 minutes or so, that is when he -- when he comes to, then he can go ahead, and that's when he'll sign a second letter. That second letter will be faxed to the congressional leaders, and that marks when he resumes his power officially. SNOW: And didn't he joke -- or maybe he was serious -- that he's going to exercise later on this afternoon?
MALVEAUX: Well, you know, it's very optimistic, very hopeful, but, yes, that's what he wants to do.
When you know, actually, the procedure itself and you learn about it, you realize this is something that, yes, he could be up and around later in the afternoon. Whether or not his doctor says he should be jogging is another matter, but he certainly hopes that he'll be out there in Camp David hitting his favorite trail.
SNOW: Yes. Tell us a little bit more about the decision to transfer the power. Because my understanding is, from the legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was saying he doesn't have to do this, right? This is something he chose to do.
MALVEAUX: That's right. He legally does not have to do this. It's nowhere in the Constitution that he actually has to transfer his power. It is completely voluntary.
And this is really only the second time that this has happened in our history. As you know, it was 1985 when Reagan was undergoing surgery for colon cancer that he voluntarily handed the power over to Bush Sr. for about eight hours.
But no, there is nothing here that says legally that the president has to do this. This is really a precautionary measure that he thought was necessary. He confided and sought advice from his lawyers a couple weeks ago, and they thought this was a good idea.
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Suzanne, it's Kelli. How are you?
MALVEAUX: Hi, Kelli.
ARENA: I'm interested, will the White House make an announcement, have they or will they, as to when that signature is on the dotted line?
MALVEAUX: Well, the White House is definitely going to make an announcement. If we get interrupted by a page, it may be that announcement from the White House. They say they will only let us know when the power is transferred back to the president for security reasons. We're also going to be hearing from his doctor, who will brief us at the White House later this afternoon.
SNOW: Suzanne, stand by for one second. We're going to take a listen now to the president's weekly radio address.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning.
This week, we learned of another deeply troubling accounting scandal at a major American corporation. Reports allege that the company hid nearly $4 billion in expenses and reported profits when it may have actually lost more than $1 billion.
The Securities and Exchange Commission immediately filed suit against the company to preserve documents so that a complete and thorough investigation can take place and to ensure that the company cannot give massive payments to executives during the investigation.
Despite recent abuses of the public's trust, our economy remains fundamentally sound and strong, and the vast majority of businesspeople are living by the rules. Yet confidence is the cornerstone of our economic system, so a few bad actors can tarnish our entire free-enterprise system.
We must have rules and laws that restore faith in the integrity of American business. The government will fully investigate reports of corporate fraud and hold the guilty parties accountable for misleading shareholders and employees.
Executives who commit fraud will face financial penalties. And when they are guilty of criminal wrongdoing, they will face jail time.
In March, I unveiled a 10-point plan designed to enhance the economic security of Americans by providing better information to investors, making corporate officers more accountable, and delivering a stronger, more independent auditing system.
Among other measures, the plan would give the Securities and Exchange Commission two critical tools to hold corporate officers accountable. First, corporate officers who personally benefit from false accounting statements should lose all the money gained by their fraud.
An executive whose salary or bonus is tied to his company's performance makes more money when the company has done well. That is fair when all of the accounting is done above board. Yet when bad accounting practices make the company appear to be more successful than it actually is, corporate executives should lose their phony profits gained at the expense of employees and stockholders. Second, corporate leaders who violate the public's trust should never be given that trust again. The Securities and Exchange Commission should be able to punish corporate leaders who clearly abuse their powers by banning them from ever serving again as officers or directors of publicly held corporations. Since my call for action, the Securities and Exchange Commission has sought to take away the profits of senior executives from four different companies. And in this fiscal year, the SEC has sought to bar 54 officers and directors.
On Thursday, the SEC ordered the CEOs and CFOs of the thousand largest public companies to certify that the financial information they submitted in the last year was fair and accurate.
In addition to bringing a new measure of accountability to American businesses, my administration is committed to protecting the retirement savings of American workers. The plan that I unveiled in February would give workers greater freedom to diversify and manage their own retirement funds. It would ensure that corporate executives are held to the same restrictions as workers during blackout periods, when employees are prohibited from trading in their accounts. It would give workers quarterly information about their investments, and it would expand workers' access to investment advice. These measures should give American workers confidence that their investments will not fall prey to unethical executives.
America is ushering in a new era of responsibility, and that ethic of responsibility must extend to America's board rooms. I want every American to know that the vast majority of businesspeople are honest individuals who do right by their employees and their shareholders.
The unethical actions of a few should not be allowed to call into question our whole free-enterprise system. No violation of the public's trust will be tolerated. The federal government will be vigilant in prosecuting wrongdoers to ensure that investors and workers maintain the highest confidence in American business.
Thank you for listening.
MALVEAUX: That was the president's weekly radio address. You will hear a lot of that over the next coming weeks and months, about accountability and trust, public trust, and credibility of businesses, because this really is going to become the mantra of the Republican Party. Why? Because they feel that they are really vulnerable, the president as well as his party.
Why is this? Because of their close associations, close ties with corporate America. The president having managed a baseball team, as well as a energy company. Also the fact that the vice president and his secretary of the treasury were both former CEOs of major corporations. And also the fact that the party itself has run on deregulation. This is the kind of thing that they realize may actually put them in the position of associating them with some of this corporate wrongdoing.
And really, what this is all about is the November mid-term elections. Who is going to get around this issue, who is going to hold on to it? Is it going to be the Democrats that are able to blame the Republicans? Are the Republicans going to be able to pin this on the Democrats or at least get it off their back? The Republicans clearly want to take over the Senate, get that extra seat in November, so this is an issue that is very sensitive. And the Bush administration is on the defensive.
SNOW: Yes. And, Suzanne, we're going to talk more about that later in the show. We're going to talk about this theme of corporate responsibility, also get some insight on what went wrong at WorldCom. That's why we've got our financial reporter here.
Also, what's Martha Stewart been up to? But first, just ahead, we'll talk more about the test President Bush is undergoing this morning. And for a matter of hours today, it is President Cheney.
More when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION comes right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: The doctors recommended I have another because, the last time, they found some benign polyps. And so this is a kind of routine physical examination.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: President Bush, yesterday, talking about the colonoscopy that he is undergoing today.
Joining us from Atlanta with some insight into just what that procedure is all about is CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen.
Elizabeth, let me start off this discussion with you, because you know a lot about this. What is exactly being done to the president today? I understand you can do it being sedated or you can have this procedure without sedation, but he's choosing to have it with sedation.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and that's what most people choose, Kate. In fact, a doctor said yesterday, "You know, you could do it either way, but not many people would want to do this without sedation." There is no reason, really, to do it without sedation.
Now, sedation is different from anesthesia. The president is not being sort of put under, as must people understand it. He gets a sedative, IV. He can tell them, "You know, I'm still uncomfortable with all of that stuff you're doing in there. Can you crank it up a little bit?" Or, "I'm fine, leave it where it is."
For example, you see there, pain medication and a sedative are usually given, and then a thin flexible scope with a small light and a camera attached is used to see inside the colon. And it just travels through the colon and looks for polyps, looks for any signs of anything abnormal.
And sedation does different things to different people. I've talked to some people who have had colonoscopies who said, "Yes, I was awake and I was looking at the TV screen and I saw my colon, but I was so relaxed that nothing was bothering me." I know other people who fell asleep at the beginning and woke up when it was over.
(LAUGHTER)
So it really depends on each person.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Elizabeth, it's Barbara. I have a question I think most Americans are curious about, those who know about these medical procedures. Why is the president having this done at Camp David? Most people go to a hospital. They don't have this done at their weekend home.
(LAUGHTER)
COHEN: I certainly wouldn't have it done at my weekend home -- well, I don't have a weekend home. But I wouldn't even if I did.
(LAUGHTER)
Actually, it's -- people don't go to a hospital for this usually. Usually it's done in a doctor's office or some kind of like an outpatient clinic kind of thing. I recently accompanied a relative to a colonoscopy, and it was just a plain old doctor's office. There was nothing fancy about it.
The equipment that you need could easily be brought in to Camp David. Camp David, I'm sure, has some kind of medical facility since he's there often, heads of state are there often. Of course, I don't know exactly what's there.
When I first heard it, I thought, "God, that's weird that they're doing it at Camp David."
(LAUGHTER)
But you know what, it's really not so weird. It doesn't take all that much to do it.
STARR: But could there be complications?
COHEN: There can be complications with colonoscopies. It is really quite unusual. There can be bleeding. The scope that looks inside your colon could nick the side. You could have some bleeding. But these are not, you know, immediate emergencies. I mean, God forbid, if something were to happen, they would have, you know, probably days to figure out what to do. But those kind of complications are rare. And I'm sure they're being extremely careful.
ARENA: And I think -- Suzanne could address this. I think that president's physician has said that they've got a plan.
Suzanne, didn't the president's doctor have in place, you know, in case something went wrong, God forbid?
MALVEAUX: Well, sure. And as was mentioned before, it's a full facility. I mean, there is nothing that they don't have that's there at Camp David. So they are quite prepared.
I did want to ask Elizabeth a question. We understand that Marvin had, Marvin Bush, the president's younger brother, had a condition, a colon condition, colitis I believe. Does that make any difference at all? Is it hereditary? Does it put the president at greater risk for having colon cancer.
COHEN: Well, colitis does sometimes tend to run in families. And some types of colitis, not all, put you at a higher risk for getting colon cancer down the line.
So when doctors are trying to figure out, should we do a colonoscopy on this person or shouldn't we, you know, one of the things that would come into play is their own history, plus family history.
Everyone is supposed to get a colonoscopy, men and women, if you're age -- starting at age 50. And some people get them younger. For example, in the Bush family they might say, "You know what, we've got this person with colitis, tends to run in families, may perhaps be a condition that puts you at a higher risk of cancer. Let's give colonoscopies to members of this family at a younger age."
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Elizabeth, this is Christine. I'm wondering, I didn't know that women were supposed to get colonoscopies at the age of 50. I thought this was something that really just was predominantly affecting men.
And if you have a history of this in your family, how young is maybe too young to be having this procedure?
COHEN: Well, let me answer your first question first. Everyone has a colon.
(LAUGHTER)
Men have colons and women have colons. And for some reason, maybe because the president is male, this really has -- a lot of people are saying, "Oh, I thought this was man thing," and it's not at all. Everyone is supposed to get colonoscopies starting at age 50, or younger with a family history.
I don't think that there is any such thing as really too young. I mean, you would only do it in someone younger than age 50 if you had a real reason for doing it -- family history or some kind of symptoms that make you think that something's going on in there and you need to check it out.
ROMANS: And your doctor presumably would tell you that in that case.
COHEN: Exactly.
MALVEAUX: Elizabeth, I have a question. We know that the president before had benign polyps in the last two colonoscopies. Is there a reason for that? Why do some people develop these polyps and other people don't? And does that present a greater danger, a greater risk this time around of finding other polyps?
COHEN: Yes, I mean, I don't know that it's completely known why some people get polyps. For some people, it runs in families. I think for most people, it just kind of happens. And a lot of people get these benign polyps.
Now, benign polyps do not mean that you're going to go on and get colon cancer. It does put you at a somewhat higher risk for going on to get colon cancer. And that's why they just take those little things right out of there while they're doing your colonoscopy. They don't even wait.
So benign polyps can possibly, in the future, turn into something cancerous, but you also can just have benign polyps all of your life, and it's nothing.
ARENA: Elizabeth, it's Kelli Arena. How are you?
How -- what's the rate of success with colon cancer?
COHEN: If it's caught early, the rate of success is very, very high. If they catch it in the early polyp stages, something like 80 to 90 percent of colon cancers can be prevented.
And that's what's so, really, so sad about colon cancer, in many ways, is that people don't get colonoscopies when they're supposed to, so at age 60 or whatever, they're diagnosed with colon cancer. Well, if they had had a colonoscopy at age 50, it could have been caught as a polyp and gotten rid of. It's a very, very treatable disease if caught early, but if you don't get the colonoscopy, there's no way to catch it early.
ROMANS: All right.
Just ahead, we're going to turn to the string of financial scandals that has corporate America taking heat from both the politicians and the public. And later, the flap over the Pledge of Allegiance.
CNN's SATURDAY EDITION will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROMANS: Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Christine Romans.
Financial and political shockwaves following the announcement by WorldCom this week that it had improperly accounted for nearly $4 billion in expenses. That had the head of the nation's second-largest long-distance phone carrier engaged in major damage control.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN SIDGMORE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, WORLDCOM: This company is absolutely committed to operating in accordance with the highest ethical standards. And of course, I and the other members of executive management are shocked about these developments. But I still remain optimistic about WorldCom's future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Naysayers on Wall Street are starting to call it "World Con," and there was plenty of other negative news on Wall Street to shake investors up. We've got the markets down six weeks in a row, a terrible first half of the year. It just -- one after another, they come here. And this WorldCom story very big.
ARENA: I'm speechless; that doesn't happen all the time. I listen to these people. I'm -- you know, he said he was shocked. How are you shocked? How do you not know?
ROMANS: Yes. What's going on? I know. It looks as though -- $4 billion is a lot of money.
ARENA: Yes, how do you hide $4 billion?
ROMANS: What happened here was the company had orders going forward and was booking the revenue as if they already got the money for their orders, and -- but they didn't pay anything out. It didn't cost them anything to fulfill those orders, so it boosted their profit. And so, this went on for a period of years, $4 billion worth. And an internal auditor at the company, after the succession of this man to become the CEO, found this $4 billion error.
ARENA: But, Christine, when you have something that is so massive, how is that kept quiet? How...
ROMANS: The problem is, the late 1990s was a boom in corporate America and a boom on Wall Street, and creative accounting and aggressive accounting proliferated. And as long as companies were showing really good earnings, the stocks were growing, the executives were getting a lot of money, the shareholders were being rewarded.
Now we're in a recession. Suddenly -- we're out of recession, I guess, now. But, you know, suddenly the tide has turned, the table has changed, and now you've got people digging into these numbers and they're...
STARR: That's the question. You called it "aggressive accounting," and that's what they call it on Wall Street. Isn't it illegal? Are these people going to go to jail?
ROMANS: In some cases it is. And the SEC, Harvey Pitt, this week came out swinging, and he said, "You can call it an accounting mistake; in Brooklyn, we call it fraud, and people are going to go to jail."
Now, why haven't they yet? Why is it internal auditors that are finding these things and not, for example, the auditors who've been hired by the company, who say that these -- I mean, these are public companies with public records that, every quarter, are being released. And some of these numbers are just plain wrong.
SNOW: I read something really interesting this morning. "The New York Times," on the front page, has this article, which, I guess, to you, Christine, is probably something you know, you know, just innately, because you cover Wall Street.
But I didn't realize that, you know, securities analysts will project earnings and will say, you know, GE is going to make a certain amount, we think, this quarter. And then there's this incentive for the company to meet that, to say, yes, yes, we did make those earnings. So that's sort of the incentive that's there.
ROMANS: Exactly. And even if a company has double-digit earnings growth but it tells Wall Street it's going to make a different double -- you know, Wall Street can react very volatily (ph). And these CEOs and these CFOs want to make their earnings numbers, and somehow they always manage to do it.
Now, some people say that's where the creative accounting comes in. And you've had people who follow these, you know, Standard & Poor's and First Call, responsible financial journalists, for years, who've been saying, "You can't count numbers like this."
SNOW: Suzanne, the politics of this. The president, we just heard his weekly radio address just a few minutes ago at the top of the show. Obviously he's seizing on this, trying to get out ahead of what I think they see as a wave coming of bad news -- well, I guess we're already in the wave.
Tell me about that. Is the president concerned, is the White House concerned, that they're somehow going to get blamed for this?
MALVEAUX: You know, they're concerned on a number of fronts. First of all, as you mentioned before about the state of the economy, they don't want to be hit again with another recession because they believe it could make the opinion polls, the very popular opinion polls, of Bush actually go down. They want to make sure that they go into the mid-term elections really very strong.
And that is -- one of the key elements, of course, is that the Republicans want to take over the Senate in November. They certainly do not want to be tied to these scandals, to a close association with some of these corporations.
Also, just the past week at the G-8 summit I attended, the president really -- the administration in an embarrassing position to actually discuss this in front of world leaders. He addressed it in front of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, also in front of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, discussing -- saying -- trying to say, "Hey, you know, we have integrity. You should believe in our system. It is not falling apart."
But this comes at the same time that other countries, countries at the G-8, were really questioning some of the policies, economic policies of the United States, including some of these huge farm subsidies, arguing that, "Hey, this isn't about free market, this isn't about free trade. You really need to change your ways, change these policies, listen to what we're saying." ARENA: Yes, the United States has long made that transparency argument for it's -- you know, "Come on, you know, we want those records open. We want to see what's going on." And this doesn't look good.
SNOW: I can tell you guys, politically, Capitol Hill was, you know, was all a-buzz about this this week. The Democrats that I've been talking to, the strategists, they think that this is their -- this may be their ticket for November.
I mean, they see this corporate-responsibility message -- I don't know if you guys heard Dick Gephardt this week, the minority leader in the House. I mean, he has been hammering this -- not just this week, he's actually been hammering it for weeks.
And one Democratic strategist said to me this week, well, in a way, this is a lucky break for them. Terrible story, obviously, people being laid off, but in a way, politically, they think they can use this to their benefit.
ARENA: Do they really, do they really think, though, that people make that connection? I mean, most people that I talk to do say, "Well, you can't trust the politicians and you can't trust the peole that are running the businesses." I mean, do they really make that connection?
SNOW: They're hoping, they're hoping that they can pin this on the White House, which I think is why, you know, Suzanne was talking about the White House trying to get ahead and say, "No, no, no. We're not for any kind of corporate mismanagement either."
STARR: But this could spin out of control, I think, for all sides of Congress and all sides of the political spectrum. These companies are global companies -- Enron, WorldCom. They have operations across many states. They have international operations. That's certainly got to be concerning to Europeans. This is not really just a Wall Street story anymore, is it?
ROMANS: No, it's not, it's not. And another issue here is you've got 22 million consumer users of MCI. You've got all of this Internet traffic for WorldCom. You've got 17,000 employees who are going to be laid off. So the tentacles of this go pretty far.
And the amount of mistrust that it breeds in other companies. The president said it in his address this morning, the vast majority of companies are run by, you know, virtuous CEOs and they're doing...
ARENA: Are they?
(LAUGHTER)
ARENA: I mean, you know, who can believe this anymore?
ROMANS: Well, it's the cockroach theory, if you've got two, you've got 100 in the walls, you know. ARENA: You've got Xerox, for crying out loud. You know, one would expect that you would hear this from these high-tech companies. This is Xerox. This is a Dow 30. This is the bad business...
SNOW: We could talk about this all morning. We have a lot more to get to, though, you guys. We're going to take a little break.
Just ahead on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, the latest on the president's colonoscopy, as we pause for a news alert on that. And then Congress gives a court ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance a big thumbs down. And later, why al Qaeda is proving to be such a tough enemy.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
SNOW: From TV and radio talk shows to office water coolers all over the country, you could not get away from the Pledge of Allegiance this week after a federal court in California ruled it unconstitutional because of that phrase known to every grade-school student, "one nation under God."
On Capitol Hill, where bipartisanship is often fleeting, there was no daylight between Republicans and Democrats on this one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: This decision is nuts. This decision is just nuts.
REP. RICHARD ARMEY (R-TX), MAJORITY LEADER: It's got to be one of the most asinine things I ever heard of. I'm sure America is going to applaud this court. It's just ridiculous.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
SNOW: Did I mention there was no daylight between any of these guys?
(LAUGHTER)
I tell you, I could not find -- I mean, of course -- I could not find a single person on Capitol Hill who would say to me, even privately, that this was a good decision or that they believed in the separation of church and state and thought that this was a good thing.
I want to play you guys something that happened this week. On Wednesday night, after this ruling came down, take a look at what they did. I was standing near the House chamber. They were taking a vote, and you could see them all sort of talking to each other and conspiring to do something. And then they went out on the front steps of the U.S. Capitol. It's about 100 House members, mainly Republicans, because it was the leadership that was talking about doing it. And you can see in the pictures, if we can roll that video, you can see some of the House leaders standing right at the front. But they are saying the Pledge of Allegiance, but I tell you, this was a made-for-TV moment.
I mean, they were talking to us right before they came out to the steps. They said, "Are you all going to have your cameras out there?" And then they came out, they said the Pledge, and then they sang "God Bless America," which they've done, of course, once before. It was a more impromptu thing when they did it right after September 11. But, I mean, clearly, they all see this as -- you know, they seized on this ruling.
STARR: But that -- you know, that seems to me, what's going on here this week is it an issue of political emotion again. Whether the judge was right or wrong -- perhaps in a strict sense you could say the judge was right in the very strictest sense of the Constitution. But clearly, what seems to be happening is there's no appetite for this in the American public, with the American public right now.
And the question in my mind is then, does mean if the American public has no appetite for it, then it is not the law?
ARENA: Well, there is some tradition though. There is legal precedent for things that have become part of the tradition and the culture that that's OK. We have "In God We Trust" on our currency. And so there is some legal precedence for things like that.
This is over a half century that we have been saying, "One nation under God." And so there is strong legal precedent for that.
(CROSSTALK)
ARENA: And there are larger, much larger church-state issues to deal with. And a child doesn't even have to say a Pledge of Allegiance. They can just sit down and be silent.
Suzanne, I'm sorry?
MALVEAUX: Oh, no, I was just saying I think, too, it's a rather volatile situation, considering the time we're in, that there is a surge in patriotism, that the White House, President Bush, really it was a no-brainer for the administration saying, "It was totally out of step with the history of Americans," but particularly during this time, during war time that you see all of these -- everybody, really, a lot of people raising the flags and this surge in patriotism, that this is even more emotional for American people.
STARR: And I think what we should remember is that it's half a century old, but it was put into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 at the height of the Cold War to challenge the, quote, "godless communists." So it was actually put into the Pledge of Allegiance as a point of political emotion.
MALVEAUX: By the U.S. Congress.
STARR: Exactly.
ARENA: But that was the time, that was the time then to raise the issue. You want to bring it to court, bring it to court in the 1950s. This is...
STARR: Except, Kelli, the...
ARENA: ... half a century later.
STARR: ... American society was not quite as religiously and politically diverse as it is in the United States today, a half a century later. There is great religious diversity in this country. And there may be people that have quite a different view than the U.S. Congress.
SNOW: Take a listen, take a listen -- in fact, here is one. Take a listen to the guy who brought this suit in the first place, Michael Newdow, who is out in California, brought this suit on behalf of his daughter. Here's what he had to say about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL NEWDOW: I took it up on my behalf as a parent who has a right to allow his child to go public school without the nation and the government throwing religious dogma down her throat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SNOW: And that's a pretty clear point from him.
ARENA: But, you know, I spoke to some our interns this week about this, and many of them said they didn't even say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because the teachers can't force you to say it. And so the classroom was so unruly with these kids sitting around and not saying it, that they just decided not to say it.
So no one is jamming anything down anybody's throat here.
ROMANS: It's an interesting point that you make about the fact, as well, that this is -- come on, this is just the Pledge of Allegiance. It's not a big issue. There must be bigger issues to take on than this...
ARENA: It trivializes it to me. It trivializes the separation of church and state argument, I mean, when you spend time on something like this.
SNOW: Well, I don't know, though. I mean, go back to what this parent is saying. I mean, he's saying that he has a right on behalf of his daughter to press this one. And I guess this is going to go all of the way -- we don't know yet -- but this appeals, the federal appeals court is now going to review the decision.
ROMANS: Right, it's been staid. SNOW: Exactly. And you know more about that than I do. So I gather it will go all of the way up to the top probably.
ROMANS: You don't know, you don't know.
SNOW: It depends on what the federal appeals court does.
ROMANS: Exactly. And the Ninth Circuit has a long and storied history of being overruled mostly.
ARENA: How in the world would you enforce something like this anyway? I mean...
STARR: Well, it's just one of a number of issues that came up this week along the same lines.
Later on SATURDAY EDITION, drug testing for the drama club and the chess team.
But first, the long, tough grind on tracking down the enemy in the war on terrorism, why al Qaeda fighters are proving to be formidable foes for the United States.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STARR: Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Barbara Starr.
Nearly nine months into the war, the Pentagon says that the U.S. is making headway but that the al Qaeda still poses a significant threat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN W. ROSA JR. (USAF), DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, JOINT STAFF: I mean, when you come up on these folks and you detain them, they don't raise their hand right off the first day and say, "Yes, I'm al Qaeda." They're a little craftier than that.
But the large pockets of people, as we saw back in March, we haven't seen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STARR: But except this week, something very interesting did happen that General Rosa is not quite alluding to here, and that's that Pakistan finally made its move against the al Qaeda. The Pakistani military moved into those tribal regions, which they themselves don't even control. They got into a huge fire fight with the al Qaeda. Ten Pakistanis soldiers were killed.
And U.S. intelligence is now saying there's anywhere from 400 to 1,000 al Qaeda fighters still hiding out in Pakistan close to the Afghan border. So there's still plenty of enemy forces out there. And the military looks -- the Pakistani military now looks like they're moving against them. ARENA: But, Barbara, doesn't this put Musharraf in a very difficult situation right now?
STARR: Well, it does because certainly there's a huge element in Pakistan that does not support the United States and doesn't support the war. But he's -- he is the man between the rock and the hard place, because the U.S. has made it very clear that they will give him no choice, that he must go after the al Qaeda.
And Pakistan is becoming vital because the al Qaeda aren't turning up in Afghanistan anymore these days.
ROMANS: What about the progress of tracking these guys down? I mean, given how far we've come into this operation, some folks I guess would think that we should be farther. We haven't heard anything from bin Laden or about him for some time, as well.
STARR: Well, there's a couple of points there. That's right. The U.S. has not heard from Osama bin Laden this year at all. The official word is they still have no idea -- dead, alive, in Afghanistan, outside of Afghanistan, somewhere.
But now, of course, as Kelli has reported this week, the question they're beginning to look at is, besides the al Qaeda not being in Afghanistan and maybe in Pakistan, what is going on in the United States? Are there al Qaeda cells in the United States? And the conclusion is, absolutely. If you've got 220 million people in this country, somebody out there is an al Qaeda sympathizer.
MALVEAUX: I have a question about bin Laden, how important, how significant you think that is, and finding him. Because, you know, just a couple of weeks ago when the news came out over the weekend about this audio tape from a bin Laden spokesperson being played on Al-Jazeera, and a very strong reaction of -- the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee saying that, in fact, "Yes, that's consistent," that Osama bin Laden in fact be alive.
We heard from Senator John Kerry, who just outright blasted the administration's efforts to this war on terrorism, particularly military efforts inside of Afghanistan.
I mean, do you really think that -- is it as important to capture bin Laden, have bin Laden, have that as a feather in the cap for the administration? Or do you think it's more important that they go after al Qaeda? What is the -- what does Secretary Rumsfeld say?
STARR: Well, again, it's a political equation. The president, Secretary Rumsfeld all tell us publicly they don't focus on bin Laden day-to-day. Rumsfeld said he doesn't even ask anymore. It's not important to the war on terrorism.
But my sense is that most American people believe it is vital. That they'll not feel safe, they will not feel this war is over until Osama bin Laden is caught, found dead or alive. And I think the really interesting question is, what on earth is the administration going to do if they do find him alive? SNOW: Exactly. What are the soldiers going to do? And strategically, what happens on the ground?
STARR: What is the plan? What is the plan? How do you put this man into custody? Where do you put him? Do any of us really envision bin Laden, you know, at the Norfolk Naval brig along with the other Taliban...
(CROSSTALK)
STARR: Right. This may be their worst nightmare, who knows.
ARENA: Right. Two things to follow up on what you said earlier. First, al Qaeda -- and we have to keep talking -- al Qaeda is not a fixed number of people. It is not an identifiable group like a criminal organization. This is a very loosely bound organization of individuals all around the world. So, you know, they can do what they want in Afghanistan. They can do what they want in Pakistan. Al Qaeda is worldwide.
STARR: That's right. You're talking about changing the state of mind of -- and the political affiliation of thousands of people around the world. You don't do that with bombs.
ARENA: And investigators are convinced that they do have some al Qaeda operatives here. You have domestic intelligence intercepts, according to our sources, that have investigators fairly convinced that you have al Qaeda operatives here in the United States, so-called sleeper cells waiting for instructions.
SNOW: OK. Hold on. Because that's the scariest thing that, you know, that you can say. So, what does that mean? We're going into the July 4th week. What does that mean to everybody, to all of us? Does that mean that we have to be extra alert? Is there some threat blooming here? There's been a lot of rumors about the 4th?
ARENA: You know, since September 11, we have been on the same -- you know, we have been on high alert. Law enforcement has been there. You can't get any higher than where they are right now.
But there's nothing specific. I mean, we've heard July 4th a lot, and I think that people are really playing that up, but the truth is, there's nothing specific regarding July 4th. There's no information that's come in.
The prisoners, al Qaeda prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have talked about July 4th in general, saying, you know, gee, wouldn't it be great if we could launch an attack on your Independence Day? But nothing concrete. We have that guy in Las Vegas who said that he heard it on his cell phone. Turns out he didn't pass the polygraph. Further investigation showed that that was bogus, that that was not true. He didn't hear that. So July 4th, nothing. But security is high and it has been.
SNOW: I want to interrupt for one second. Suzanne -- Suzanne, yeah. Go ahead. MALVEAUX: ... breaking news from the AP wires saying that the president has resumed his presidential powers. We will get an independent confirmation as soon as we can, but just coming off the wire now is that the president is back in power and that that has been transferred successfully.
SNOW: So in other words, the colonoscopy has already been performed, he'd already had his sedation and it's over now?
MALVEAUX: That's right. That the president has come out of the sedation, that he has written that second letter, signed that second letter and sent it to congressional leaders confirming formally tat he has resumed his powers and his duties as president.
SNOW: OK. Suzanne, thank you for that. Sorry for interrupting everybody here. A lively discussion about al Qaeda, but we're going to move on to another topic when we come back.
ARENA: We are. Up next on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, the Supreme Court says before high school students can march in a band, they can be tested for drugs. That's straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SNOW: Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Kate Snow.
A bit of breaking news coming in. The president has now officially retaken control. He's already undergone his colonoscopy. We're hearing from the Associated Press wire. Let's go to Suzanne Malveaux on the White House lawn.
Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: Well, Kate, that pager that you hear going off now is the White House pager, and that is what we were told that we would get a page from the administration when, in fact, President Bush resumed power. The AP wire reporting just moments ago that that has happened and that White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said that there were no polyps discovered, no abnormalities. As you know, he actually went through a colonoscopy two other occasions where they did find benign polyps that were removed. This time around, there were no polyps that were discovered.
This happened at Camp David earlier this morning. This is where the president with a medical team underwent this colonoscopy and transferred -- officially transferred his power over to the vice president, who's been here since about 7:00 in the morning. He did that through invoking section 3 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which formally transfers his power to the vice president. He did that before sedation by signing a letter, a letter that was faxed to the speaker of the House, as well as the president pro tem of the Senate. And that once they received that letter, he went through this operation about 60 minutes or so, and then that is when after coming to, he sent and signed a second letter, and that would formally indicate that he has resumed power.
SNOW: OK, Suzanne Malveaux, reporting the very latest from the White House there. Thanks, Suzanne. Stay with us.
Kelli Arena taking us into another discussion now about some big news out of the Supreme Court this week.
ARENA: That's right. Before adjourning for the summer, the Supreme Court this week ruled that schools can expand drug testing from student athletes to all students involved in extracurricular activities. Now, the decision stemmed from an Oklahoma case. Before the decision was rendered, Oklahoma's governor came out in support of expanded drug testing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOVERNOR FRANK KEATING (R-OK): To attack the problem at the youngest level is to assure, at least we hope we can assure, that the problem will be less significant when those people become adults.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARENA: Well, you heard it. So now, the chess club and the -- those were always the druggies when I went to school. I don't know about you.
STARR: So this can be done even if there is no suspicion of drug activity? And don't children have rights? I mean, you can't do this to adults.
ARENA: Apparently not.
STARR: I think this is ridiculous.
ARENA: The Supreme Court said for health and security, that this was very doable. And if you were...
(CROSSTALK)
SNOW: Well, the court decision was that when you're at school, the school -- you may be, you know, you may be an individual with rights, but not when you're in that school building and you're under a certain age. You are the responsibility of that school. And so, one of their responsibilities may be to make sure that you're not, you know, abusing drugs (inaudible) impaired.
ROMANS: But doesn't this seem to be going after -- this is for extracurricular activities. Isn't going into extracurricular activities is what parents are supposed to encourage their children to do to keep them off of drug and to be doing things that are -- I think that they're the wrong kids to be targeting.
ARENA: That's one of the arguments, that one of the things that keeps kids off drugs is keeping them in school and involved, and this may, in fact, dissuade some children from joining the clubs after school.
The Supreme Court sees it in an another way. They said, look, you know, we're responsible for our children's health and safety, and in the same way you don't want these kids dropping dead on the basketball court because they've taken coke, God forbid, before they went to go play, we need to make sure that kids involved in other extracurricular activities, regardless of what they are, should be monitored as well.
STARR: Is there an age limit on this?
ARENA: High school -- this is...
STARR: High school students. OK. So what about the kid who doesn't join the extracurricular activities and just goes to class and goes home and is a good citizen and all of that? Isn't that discrimination?
ARENA: It's not mandatory. It's only for extracurricular.
SNOW: That's something that the majority pointed out. Didn't say that there is an option about this. In other words, it was part of the argument, was that if it was an all-encompassing everyone has to take the test and there was no way out of it, that's a different story, but in this case in Oklahoma, you could choose not to be involved in extracurricular activities, and thereby you choose not to be tested.
ARENA: No one expects that when kids show up for school in September that this is going to be widespread. Athletes have been, you know, you have been able -- you have been given a right to test athletes for a long time. Not many schools do.
SNOW: We're going to leave it at that, ladies. Thank you very much for being with us.
And thank you very much for watching SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Kate Snow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
