Angered Bush to Give Speech on Corporate Reforms.

June 28, 2002 10:02 AM

Angered Bush to Give Speech on Corporate Reforms. Bush will devote his Saturday radio address to the subject of corporate responsibility and will travel to New York on July 9 to stress the need for better governing at the top level of American businesses.
posted by Ty Webb (77 comments total)

are you absolutely sure it's the same bush we all know and diss?
posted by mcsweetie at 10:27 AM on June 28, 2002

No kidding, mcsweetie. If Bush follows through with this I will kiss his white texas ass.

-Bush Hater
posted by McBain at 10:30 AM on June 28, 2002

The next day, on July 10th, an angered fox will give his much awaited speech on henhouse security.
posted by euphorb at 10:33 AM on June 28, 2002

Doesn't it seem irrational to punish existing businesses with regulations which are being put in place ex post facto? What I mean to say is, most businesses probably have decent accounting practices, or they would otherwise implode in the way Enron (which was receiving lots of government help) and WorldCom have. This is an example of punishing the group for the sins of the few.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:39 AM on June 28, 2002

I'd be pissed too if I were him.. pissed all my buddies got caught.
posted by PrinceValium at 10:40 AM on June 28, 2002

I can't wait to hear what he has to say. After all, Bush must be an expert on the issue of SEC investigations, given that a SEC report concluded that he violated security laws four times.
posted by miguelbar at 10:40 AM on June 28, 2002

"I am shocked, shocked to learn that gambling is going on in this establishment!!"

"Your winnings, sir....."

Anybody got a nice bottle of Vichy Water we can use to toast Dubya's speech?
posted by briank at 10:42 AM on June 28, 2002

What I mean to say is, most businesses probably have decent accounting practices, or...
We don't know if this assertion is true. It might be. But Wall Street feels nervous that accounting problems are pervasive. Bush will be doing the right thing if he speaks forcefully on this issue.
posted by Holden at 10:56 AM on June 28, 2002

oh no, he must be "mad as heck" again. and i'm sure a few choice words from some speechwriter'll fix everything up right nice.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 11:02 AM on June 28, 2002

He's doing the right thing, but it's also pretty slimy. He should have come down hard on Enron, but oops! That wouldn't have looked right.

So now he's got Worldcom to beat up on, and when elections roll around he can appear to be practicing tough love on companies. It's smart, and it's what he has to do, but - bleh.
posted by jragon at 11:03 AM on June 28, 2002

I wonder if he'll read this to his veep, head honcho of Halliburton while it pulled an Enron...
Lying SOB
posted by aacheson at 11:14 AM on June 28, 2002

He's just pissed because they won't be around to contribute to Bush '04.
posted by owillis at 11:23 AM on June 28, 2002

Ok, what politicians wouldn't. I think we can all agree their pockets are being hit, too. Why do you think?, or how do you think? these books get cooked. What expenses or payouts are being covered, or as Xerox, copied over.
I remember his executive buddy, Cheney when the truth broke on Enron, say to Larry King, CNN, about someone will surely do "jail time." Then Larry chimed back are you serious, like, can we get that again for the record, and with that stutter of his. And I'm thinking, what block do you go around Larry, your friends' wives. Now lets see action, words are just words. This has nothing to do with politics, other than the lining of the one in control at that time. No not all politicians are crooks, look at your community( I live in Dallas bad example.) They do exist. It's a sad fact, the downing or dumbing to all good things.

What will be next, FBI CPAs, thanks for ruining it, you big shots.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:29 AM on June 28, 2002

Let's hope he follows through with the executive accountability proposal - very interested to see what he has to say.
posted by birgitte at 11:29 AM on June 28, 2002

Bushie's speech:

"Blahblahblahblah...you dummies...blahblahblahblah...you have to be more careful...blahblahblah...when you cook the books...blahblahblahblah...or the average investor...blahblahblah...will catch on...blahblahblah...and there goes our golden goose...blahblahblah"
posted by eas98 at 11:31 AM on June 28, 2002

It is convenient that World Com is a left coast based business, can't Bush blame the liberals or something?

Also, what ever happened to the conservative theory that businesses know business and they will do what's right, keep your regulations out of corporate America.
posted by jonah at 11:43 AM on June 28, 2002

I'm sure if he really gets mad and huffs and puffs a lot, all those bad businesses will get scared and run...to Bermuda! Where it's nice and sunny, and they don't have taxes! Or regulations! And everyone will live happily ever after! (Except Joe Shareholder...)
posted by cvanhasselt at 11:52 AM on June 28, 2002

As well they should move to Bermuda, if it means they don't have to pay taxes on their international business.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:53 AM on June 28, 2002

Someone must have thought "angered" meant "trying not to laugh his ass off". If he can deliver the entire speech with a straight face, I'll be much impressed.
posted by RylandDotNet at 12:00 PM on June 28, 2002

It isn't that important, but WorldCom is based in Clinton, Mississippi. As far from the typical liberal bastions of the Northeast and West Coast as Enron.
posted by donkeymon at 12:03 PM on June 28, 2002

Bush will give his usual speech chock full-o-hypocrisy. The dim and gullible American public will applaud. What else is new?
posted by quirked at 12:05 PM on June 28, 2002

Oh no! Clintons! *foams at mouth, collapses*
posted by darukaru at 12:05 PM on June 28, 2002

Yet another MetaFilter "Can't win for trying"® thread. See also (1) agreement to compensate gay partners of WTC victims, (2) U.S. payment of compensation to Afghan victims, (3) U.S. humanitarian and food drops on Afghanistan.

[obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a republican, never voted for one, don't love Bush. I just hate these threads. Thank you.]
posted by pardonyou? at 12:06 PM on June 28, 2002

Amen, pardonyou.
You don't have to like Bush personally, or admire him politically, to recognize when he does the right thing. Bush has been ahead of Congress on this issue. He understands the importance of corporate accountability to our economy.
The White House has said that Bush has expressed anger over the scandals. It doesn't matter whether he really did feel angry. What matters is that the White House says he's angry, and wants corporations and executives to tell the truth in their financial statements. Corporate America doesn't want to piss off the president.
The loyal opposition doesn't have to become a blind opposition.
posted by Holden at 12:31 PM on June 28, 2002

I'm just sad that the SEC chairman didn't push back the refiling of reports to 1999 and select Haliburton as one of the companies in the hot seat.

Ah, but that would be too easy a way to get rid of Cheney.

Wong
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 12:39 PM on June 28, 2002

Talk is cheap. Let's see some action.

Will Dubya and the RNC return the $100K that WorldCom donated just 2 weeks ago in their $30+million fund raiser?

I bet that $30+ million from the greedy corporate types made a lot of them real mad! Probably even pissed off Dubya mr. holden!

And another thing, where's Worldcom's favorite little politician, Trent Lott? I bet he's real mad too! No more millions for him looks like.

Newsflash...!!! Rush says it's all Clinton's fault. Nothing to see here folks, just move along.
posted by nofundy at 12:45 PM on June 28, 2002

There's a huge gulf of difference between calling for increased accountability and facilitating the actual creation of legislation that makes it mandatory. Wait for his actions, because his words are so very cheap.
posted by websavvy at 12:46 PM on June 28, 2002

Nofundy: are you me? Am I you?
posted by websavvy at 12:46 PM on June 28, 2002

It doesn't matter whether he really did feel angry. What matters is that the White House says he's angry

Yeah, because that "truth" thing is, like, SO overrated....
posted by rushmc at 12:50 PM on June 28, 2002

Rush says it's all Clinton's fault.

I do not! Meet me at dawn with your seconds, sir.
posted by rushmc at 12:51 PM on June 28, 2002

websavvy...we're us independently together. And you're good if you must say so myself!

rushmc...gee, i'm sooo sorrrryyyy. Please don't beat me...I should have said Fats Limbaugh. I don't even have a firsts...
posted by nofundy at 12:58 PM on June 28, 2002

what time is dawn on metafilter? i'd like to watch.
posted by th3ph17 at 1:01 PM on June 28, 2002

From a Reuter story:

In March, Bush outlined a 10-point plan that would require chief executives to attest personally each quarter to the accuracy of their financial statements and disclosures.
To punish accounting-related abuses, top executives would be forced to forfeit their bonuses and other compensation. In extreme cases, they could be barred from serving as officers or directors for other publicly held corporations.
And, under Bush's proposal, accounting firms would be subject to unprecedented oversight.

Seems he has done more than talk. He has asked Congress to make these changes and Congress has dragged its feet. I agree with Bush hardly ever, but in this case he deserves political support instead of cynical inaction.
If people want to use the Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom scandals to score political points against Dick Cheney for things that he did when he was at Halliburton, then the problem of corporate inaccountability will continue. Is that what you want?
posted by Holden at 1:23 PM on June 28, 2002

If people want to use the Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom scandals to score political points against Dick Cheney for things that he did when he was at Halliburton, then the problem of corporate inaccountability will continue.

Why do you assume that it is impossible to hold both the Enron et al execs AND Dick Cheney accountable for any malfeasance they may have committed? Why the "either/or" dichotomy?
posted by rushmc at 1:29 PM on June 28, 2002

Chicago Tribune, 3/8/02

The same day that Bush introduced his ten-point plan, Securities and Exchange Commissioner Harvey Pitt testified on Capitol Hill requesting more funding for the SEC - Pitt requested an additional $91 million to increase the SEC's staff and pay. "Because of recent events, we need to restore full confidence in our capital markets and I believe we cannot do that without additional personnel. At this critical time for the nation's financial markets, we must rely on our most experienced, talented, valuable and productive employees. The only way to do that is for us to be able to provide our staff with pay parity at levels comparable to those with whom they regularly work at the other federal financial regulatory agencies," Pitt said. Bush's budget advisers have refused to give Pitt the requested funding, instead agreeing to only a $15 million increase. Additionally, Bush's budget introduced last month proposed a "zero growth" budget of $467 million, proposed last month, would not be enough to monitor corporations.

posted by zoopraxiscope at 1:32 PM on June 28, 2002

I wonder if it has occurred to any Bush-bashers that if these companies are constantly under SEC scrutiny and investigation, they can no longer leisurely donate to the Bush reelection fund. Of course Bush has an agenda when he asks them to clean house and follow the rules. He benefits because he will continue to receive large donations and the people (citizens of the US) will benefit because their retirements will be more secure.

Bush didn't win anything with the collapse of Enron. He lost a generous contributor.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:33 PM on June 28, 2002

Rushmc, I make that assumption because I doubt the Republicans will go along with proposed reforms if they believe Democrats will use the issue to punish Cheney and, by extension, Bush. Because both houses of Congress are so evenly split, any reform will need bipartisan support.
posted by Holden at 1:38 PM on June 28, 2002

So... the market can't regulate itself after all?

Say it ain't so, George! Say it ain't so!
posted by Dirjy at 1:42 PM on June 28, 2002

To punish accounting-related abuses, top executives would be forced to forfeit their bonuses and other compensation.

Isn't this like making thieves give back what they stole?


In extreme cases, they could be barred from serving as officers or directors for other publicly held corporations.

Yup. You guessed it: no jail time. Even in extreme cases.
posted by electro at 1:49 PM on June 28, 2002

If he doesn't send his ol buddy Ken Lay to the clink, this is more hollow rhetoric.
posted by raaka at 1:54 PM on June 28, 2002

WorldCom, the telecommunications giant, revealed $3.8 billion in accounting irregularities this week and Xerox Corp. on Friday discovered a $2 billion revenue gap in its books.

he said "discovered"... uhhh hehehe

i know pretty quickly when i've misplaced 5 bucks, how do you suddenly realize your checkbook is off by a couple billion?

these are the same corporations we are told to trust to monitor themselves not only financially but environmentally too.

"now where did we place that other 6 tons of toxic waste??? oh well, i'm sure it'll turn up sooner or later."
posted by ggggarret at 1:54 PM on June 28, 2002

Talk is cheap. Let's see some action.

Will Dubya and the RNC return the $100K that WorldCom donated just 2 weeks ago in their $30+million fund raiser?

Will the DNC and Democrats return the money they have received from WorldCom? Does it matter to you? I guess political contributions are only dirty when they go to the GOP, right?
posted by ljromanoff at 1:56 PM on June 28, 2002

All hail the Peoples Socialist Republic of America.

Fuck it, I'm moving to Bermuda, do what you like.
posted by insomnyuk at 1:57 PM on June 28, 2002

Dubya to corporate execs: "Dammit, what do you people think - you're the government?"
posted by blackholebrain at 2:02 PM on June 28, 2002

Fuck Bermuda. I'm gonna go to college for FREE in my new Socialist Republic of America. And you know what? I'll take the fucking train.
posted by password at 2:13 PM on June 28, 2002

You don't have to like Bush personally, or admire him politically, to recognize when he does the right thing. Bush has been ahead of Congress on this issue. He understands the importance of corporate accountability to our economy.

...Or realize he knows that politically he has to be seen as "oh so against" corporate shenanigans when his whole life he's been knee deep in it.
posted by owillis at 3:37 PM on June 28, 2002

insomnyuk: the free market cannot function unless all the participants have the information necessary to make intelligent decisions about price and value. the "aggressive accounting" used by many of the largest companies in the U.S (ever heard of General Electric?) has no purpose other than to distort the perceptions of investors about these companies' value and profitability.

I don't happen to think that corporate america is the source of all evil, and i don't think it's necessary to believe that in order to support government action here. most of these companies are using these accounting techniques because their competitors are using them. It's the accounting version of the arms race--a classic collective action problem. government regulation is the only way to break the deadlock by making everyone follow the same standard.

Assuming that you oppose any government action here, how exactly would you solve the problem of getting accurate information to investors about the financial health of companies? Or do you think is okay for companies to raise their stock price through clever accounting rather than solid business practice?
posted by boltman at 4:09 PM on June 28, 2002

"I'm gonna go to college for FREE in my new Socialist Republic of America."

That sir, is a lie. Nothing is free. Someone pays for your education, and if it is via tax dollars, then you are being educated on stolen money. But thats fine, as long as we're honest about it.

"Assuming that you oppose any government action here, how exactly would you solve the problem of getting accurate information to investors about the financial health of companies? Or do you think is okay for companies to raise their stock price through clever accounting rather than solid business practice?"

The fact is, there are always going to be dishonest businesses. Unfortunately it happened with some pretty big ones, at least in their accounting practices. Bush, however, is just playing a political game here. What will most likely happen is that whenever there is an accounting faux pas, this new government oversight board will find out, give the company a slap on the wrist, and the consumers will generally be left in the dark. However, the market has already punished, and will continue to punish companies like Enron, WorldCom, and especially Arthur Andersen. That accounting firm will cease to exist, and large companies will probably take care to have honest accounting, so that they do not implode in the way Enron, Global Crossing, or WorldCom did. None of those companies exist anymore. They paid the price for their failure by losing the trust of consumers and business partners. Ken Lay, the Arthur Andersen firms, and other dishonest executives will no longer be in those positions. The same cannot be said for free-wheeling government agencies which harass and kill citizens for any number of things, fight an unjust drug war, and consistently play God with the economy (thanks to the Federal Reserve's boom and bust game they play with inflation, for example).
posted by insomnyuk at 4:37 PM on June 28, 2002

Someone pays for your education, and if it is via tax dollars, then you are being educated on stolen money. But thats fine, as long as we're honest about it.

Start with yourself, matey: taxation isn't theft, while your little party's out of office.
posted by riviera at 4:47 PM on June 28, 2002

However, the market has already punished, and will continue to punish companies like Enron, WorldCom, and especially Arthur Andersen.

Oh, the market will punish them. That's reassuring. Who is the market punishing? The middle- and lower-echelon employees, the small stockholders, the consumers who go without power because of rolling blackouts. What do the upper management get, the people who instigated and profited from the whole mess? Millions of bucks. That's a hell of a punishment from the market. Oh, and they get a stern talking-to from the President, ooooh scary. These guys should be in jail, not back at the country club dividing up the loot. You can call me a socialist all you want, these guys are criminals, not entrepreneurs.
posted by RylandDotNet at 5:03 PM on June 28, 2002

What, no colon jokes yet?
posted by adampsyche at 5:05 PM on June 28, 2002

Damn. Upon reading the MeTa thread, it seems I missed a whole thread about it. 'Tis a pity.
posted by adampsyche at 5:09 PM on June 28, 2002

[Rush says it's all Clinton's fault]

It can't be Clinton's fault that the 'Clinton Boom' is turning out to be a scam perpetrated by corporations on investors just because it happened on his watch, can it?
posted by revbrian at 6:34 AM on June 29, 2002

Depends how you define 'his watch', revbrian: after all, the people with the real power to legislate during the boom were Republicans.
posted by riviera at 8:11 AM on June 29, 2002

It can't be Clinton's fault that the 'Clinton Boom' is turning out to be a scam perpetrated by corporations on investors just because it happened on his watch, can it?

Well, you're right in that the last part of the last economic cycle was a speculative bubble (one that we're still in by some accounts). But there was a real boom that precipitated it. Whether you want to credit that boom to Clinton or Greenspan (some True Believers actually credit Reagan!) is up to you.
posted by electro at 10:55 AM on June 29, 2002

What gets me is that during the 90s boom, the right wing was claiming that President Clinton had very little to do with it. Rather, it was the Republican-led Congress that deserved the credit. Anyone care to guess when they will step up and accept the blame for the after effects?
posted by Dirjy at 1:57 PM on June 29, 2002

Meanwhile : "Bush is trying to appoint the man who drafted the infamous "Enron exemption" — a law custom-designed to protect the company from scrutiny — to a top position with a key regulatory agency. "
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:24 PM on June 29, 2002

(some True Believers actually credit Reagan!)

Well, the current economic turnaround did begin in 1983. Whether or not one wishes to give sole credit to Reagan is another matter entirely.

Anyone care to guess when they will step up and accept the blame for the after effects?

¿Qué? Are you trying to claim that fraud only happens during ecomonic booms? Furthermore, I fail to see how private individuals committing crimes is the responsibility of any politicians, whether Democrat or Republican.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:19 PM on June 29, 2002

Something to make you chuckle:

When Soviet production units, or the economy as a whole, fell seriously short of the plan, managers and their advisers responded by making the numbers up. It is a wry paradox that today's failures of capitalism so closely resemble yesterday's failures of socialism.

It's worth reading on. Yes, legislators don't have much to do with individual crimes, though something like the 1996 Telecoms Act can count as 'aiding and abetting'. And this piece by Greg Palast is a bit eerie to read in hindsight.
posted by riviera at 7:31 PM on June 29, 2002

Isn't George "Huge Tax Breaks For The Ultra Rich" Bush giving a speech on corporate reform pretty much like Bill "I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman" Clinton giving a speech on marital fidelity?

At least when Bill gets a hummer, the rest of us don't get screwed.
posted by mark13 at 8:11 PM on June 29, 2002

Isn't George "Huge Tax Breaks For The Ultra Rich" Bush giving a speech on corporate reform pretty much like Bill "I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman" Clinton giving a speech on marital fidelity?

No, not really - but it's amusing to see that the stale and empty classist arguments like the tax cuts were only for the "ultra" rich are still making the rounds.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:56 AM on June 30, 2002

it's amusing to see that the stale and empty classist arguments like the tax cuts were only for the "ultra" rich are still making the rounds.

Yeah, pointing out the fact that working families might need a tax break more than millionaires do, that's classist alright. In the best way.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:27 AM on July 1, 2002

Yeah, pointing out the fact that working families might need a tax break more than millionaires do

Good thing they got one, then, eh?
posted by ljromanoff at 10:08 AM on July 1, 2002

But if you accept the "classist" premise, what's your problem, then?
posted by Ty Webb at 12:39 PM on July 1, 2002

But if you accept the "classist" premise, what's your problem, then?

The classist premise is that the tax cuts were only for the "ultra rich" (and I'd sure like to get a definition for that term - when does one stop being just regular rich and become ultra rich?), which is false. Furthermore, the premise that tax policy should be based on who needs the cuts more, or who can afford taxation the most, is also classist.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:08 PM on July 1, 2002

The classist premise is that the tax cuts were only for the "ultra rich"

no, the premise, which you agreed with, is that working families need a tax break more than a millionaire.

(and I'd sure like to get a definition for that term - when does one stop being just regular rich and become ultra rich?)

when they enter the top 5%.

Furthermore, the premise that tax policy should be based on who needs the cuts more, or who can afford taxation the most, is also classist.

it's also generally accepted and completely reasonable, on top of being just plain old common sense.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:05 PM on July 1, 2002

no, the premise, which you agreed with, is that working families need a tax break more than a millionaire.

Yes, I agreed with that, but that's not the classist premise. Again, the classist premise is that the tax cuts only went to the "ultra" rich.

(and I'd sure like to get a definition for that term - when does one stop being just regular rich and become ultra rich?)

when they enter the top 5%.

Top 5% of what? And what difference does that make, anyway? Furthermore, where exactly are you getting this definition - or are you just amking it up?

it's also generally accepted and completely reasonable, on top of being just plain old common sense.

Arguing that something is "common sense" is about as meaningless an argument as one can make.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:22 PM on July 1, 2002

Arguing that something is "common sense" is about as meaningless an argument as one can make.

okay, we can leave it at generally accepted and completely reasonable if you like.
posted by Ty Webb at 5:26 PM on July 1, 2002

Arguing that something is "common sense" is about as meaningless an argument as one can make.

okay, we can leave it at generally accepted

That's a vague claim at best.

and completely reasonable if you like.

Also debatable. By what rational standard, since you are making an appeal to reason, do you judge that one person should be obligated to pay a greater proportion of their income than another for the same service?
posted by ljromanoff at 5:33 PM on July 1, 2002

If they were simply paying for a service, they shouldn't have to pay more, but that's obviously a gross oversimplification.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:51 AM on July 2, 2002

If they were simply paying for a service, they shouldn't have to pay more, but that's obviously a gross oversimplification.

Not really. Government is a service. It provides services.

You haven't answered my question.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:42 AM on July 2, 2002

You haven't answered my question.

Because it's based on a false premise. Yes, governments provide services, but government itself is much more than simply "a service," rather it's a system, one which the wealthy depend more on for maintenance of financial systems and investment protections which make their wealth possible, not to mention police protection from angry mobs.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:53 PM on July 2, 2002

Yes, governments provide services, but government itself is much more than simply "a service," rather it's a system, one which the wealthy depend more on for maintenance of financial systems and investment protections which make their wealth possible, not to mention police protection from angry mobs.

So you're suggesting that the wealthy make greater use of the government than the poor? That contradicts about 35 years of Democrat ideology and also happens to be false.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:08 PM on July 2, 2002

So you're suggesting that the wealthy make greater use of the government than the poor?

No, I’m insisting on it.

That contradicts about 35 years of Democrat ideology

That’s pure straw.

and also happens to be false.

Well, if you say so...
posted by Ty Webb at 2:34 PM on July 2, 2002

So you're suggesting that the wealthy make greater use of the government than the poor?

No, I’m insisting on it.

Great. You insist. Woo hoo.

Answer the question: by what rational standard, since you are making an appeal to reason, do you judge that one person should be obligated to pay a greater proportion of their income than another for the same service (or system, if you prefer)?
posted by ljromanoff at 3:22 PM on July 2, 2002

I already adressed it here, pointing out that your premise is flawed, but I can speak slower if that helps: the wealthy necessarily make greater use of the systems of finance protection which are maintained by the government. They create wealth in a legal environment guaranteed and maintained by the government (that is, by the collective). They do not expect or receive the same "services" as the poor, they expect, and receive, more.
posted by Ty Webb at 4:53 PM on July 2, 2002

but I can speak slower if that helps

Speak as slow as you want, I'm reading what you write - not listening to what you say. Seems an obvious distinction - sorry you missed it.

the wealthy necessarily make greater use of the systems of finance protection which are maintained by the government

Yes, you've claimed that, but you haven't proven it - or even made any sort of argument in favor of it. The government protects everyone's property rights. In the case of the wealthy, they have additional private options for the literal security of themselves and their property, and additional options for the protection of their intellectual property above and beyond the government. The poor do not - they have ONLY the government.

Furthermore, the poor rely on the government for insurance (unemployment, welfare), health care, housing in some cases, etc., etc.

You haven't pointed out a flawed premise, you've merely ducked the question.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:46 PM on July 2, 2002