The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Kwame Holman and Margaret Warner look at the new violence in the Middle East. Susan Dentzer reports on the effort to increase organ donations for transplants. Ray Suarez talks to Paul Robeson, Jr., about his father. And Gwen Ifill interviews the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The Israeli military launched an air, land, and sea attack into the Gaza Strip early today. Israeli forces seized a Palestinian-controlled area, the first time they'd done that in seven months of unrest. And tanks and helicopters rocketed Palestinian security bases, killing a policeman. It was retaliation for a Palestinian attack on an Israeli town late Monday. In Washington, Secretary of State Powell issued a statement through a spokesman, criticizing both sides.

RICHARD BOUCHER: The hostilities last night in Gaza were precipitated by the provocative Palestinian mortar attacks on Israel. The Israeli response was excessive and disproportionate. We call upon both sides to respect the agreements that they've signed. The United States remains prepared to assist the parties in taking steps to reduce the violence, seeking ways to restore trust and confidence, and to assist them in resolving their differences.

JIM LEHRER: Later in the day, the Israeli military said it had begun to withdraw from Gaza. On Monday, the Israeli air force attacked a Syrian radar station inside Lebanon. That was retaliation for an attack by Islamic guerrillas that killed an Israeli soldier. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. There were two upbeat economic reports today. The Labor Department said the Consumer Price Index rose just 0.1% in March. It was the smallest increase in seven months, and was largely due to lower energy prices. And the Federal Reserve reported industrial production rose 0.4% last month. It had fallen for five months in a row. More businesses will have to report how much lead they emit each year. The Environmental Protection Agency upheld the new disclosure rules today. They were issued in the last weeks of the Clinton administration. Industry groups opposed them. At the white house today, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman said it was important to reduce exposure to the toxic metal.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: We found out that the more information we have and make available about toxic releases, the more emissions have been reduced. And that is really where we want to get, is reducing those emissions. We have every expectation that this new reporting requirement will result in real decreases in the amount of lead released into the air, water, or land.

JIM LEHRER: Yesterday Whitman announced new rules for protecting wetlands that took effect today. They, too, were left over from the Clinton presidency. They require federal approval before digging in marshes, swamps, and bogs. Environmental groups welcomed the announcements. They had earlier criticized President Bush for rescinding new limits on arsenic in drinking water, and for deciding not to limit carbon dioxide emissions. We'll talk to EPA Administrator Whitman later in the program tonight. The federal government today opened a new drive to boost organ donation. The Department of Health and Human Services will encourage employers and unions to promote donation. HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson said an American dies every 84 minutes waiting for a transplant. His proposals include an electronic registry, making information available to families and hospitals anywhere. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight; also coming, the violence in the Middle East; the Paul Robeson story; and EPA Administrator Whitman.

FOCUS - MILITARY MOVES

JIM LEHRER: The Middle East story: Kwame Holman begins with some background.

KWAME HOLMAN: Overnight, Israel attacked positions in the Gaza Strip Israelis said were the source of Palestinian mortar fire that went three miles into Israel. Then this morning, after six hours of air, sea, and land assaults, Israeli tanks took control of the area in Gaza, the first time in nearly a year Israel has occupied an autonomous Palestinian area. Since the Palestinians began an uprising in September, at least 390 Palestinians and 64 Israeli Jews have died. But the latest round of fighting has seen the combatants turn to heavier firepower and harsher language.

YASSER ARAFAT: (speaking through interpreter) These raids are not just an escalation, but they are dirty, and they are intended to bring our people to their knees. Everyone should understand that our people are steadfast and will not kneel before these gangs attacking our people, villages, and refugee camps.

DORI GOLD: The Palestinians have decided on an unprecedented escalation by striking at the heart of an Israeli town in the Israeli Negev. Israel had to respond in order to put an end to this kind of mortar attacks which Israel is facing.

KWAME HOLMAN: The stepped-up violence began over the weekend on Israel's northern border, between Lebanon and the Israeli- controlled Golan Heights. Armed Islamic Hezbollah militias, who are backed by Syria and Iran, launched attacks that killed an Israeli soldier. Israel responded early Monday with mortar attacks that destroyed a Syrian-controlled radar station in Lebanon. Syria said three of their soldiers were killed in what was the first substantial Israeli attack on Syrian-controlled Lebanon since 1982. Yesterday, the Syrian government lodged a strenuous objection.

FAROUK AL-SHARAA: Israel has made a blunder and a mistake in attacking a Syrian post in Lebanon. It will pay a heavy price for that at a convenient and appropriate time. It will prove that she is not only killing Palestinians in the occupied territories, but also killing the peace process and expanding the tension and instability in the whole Middle East.

KWAME HOLMAN: It was hours later on Monday that Palestinians in the South fired mortar rounds at an Israeli town not far from Prime Minister Sharon's ranch. No Israelis were injured in the shelling, but Israel says Hezbollah forces in the North directed the Palestinians to launch the attack. Last night's retaliatory shelling by Israel struck several areas in Gaza, where the vast majority of residents are Palestinian. Overseas, several international leaders condemned the escalating violence.

STAFFAN DE MISTURA: This is a spiral that we need to stop, because it could become dangerous, and there's certainly no positive outcome out of it.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today in Washington, the U.S. Secretary of State's words, read by a spokesman, carried a similar warning to the MidEast parties.

RICHARD BOUCHER: The situation is threatening to escalate further, posing a risk of broader conflict. We have called upon all sides to exercise maximum restraint, to reduce tensions, and to take steps to end the violence immediately.

KWAME HOLMAN: Late this announced its forces were withdrawing from the newly reoccupied parts of the Gaza strip.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes it from there.

MARGARET WARNER: For more on the escalating violence, we're joined by Talcott Seelye, a retired career Foreign Service officer who was U.S. Ambassador to Syria from 1978 to 1981. Edward Abington also retired from the Foreign Service. He was the American Consul General in Jerusalem during the Clinton administration, and is now a consultant to the Palestinian Authority. And Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Washington think tank.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Rob Satloff, beginning with you. In the last few days we see Israel getting reengaged militarily in two areas from which it had withdrawn. Give us the big picture. What's going on here -- why two fronts at once?

ROBERT SATLOFF: Well, there are two very different situations going on. First, the North: Over the last year, Israel has withdrawn its forces completely from Southern Lebanon, and there is now an international line across this border that the UN has certified. Under Prime Minister Ehud Barak, when Hezbollah, the Lebanese Islamic militia attacked over this line, the Israelis held their fire because of the peace process. Barak promised to hit the Syrians because the Syrians are the major benefactor of Hezbollah. Arms that Hezbollah uses comes through Damascus into the Bekka Valley and then hits Israel. When Sharon took over as Prime Minister, he promised that he would follow what Barak said he would do but didn't do, and we've just had the first attack, an Israeli soldier died. The Syrians who are the warlord of Lebanon will be held responsible. That's the northern front. The Southern front, the Gaza situation, is very different. There, we've seen an escalation of magnitude in the sort of violence that we see between Israelis and Palestinians, not just the targeting but at the level and the type of violence; not just car bombs, not just shooting, but mortar fire from within the Palestinian areas into Israel Proper. Against this Ariel Sharon had to react in a very strong way. The Israeli public elected him precisely because he wasn't Ehud Barak, and he did go into the areas. He has said he would not reoccupy them, and he has now begun to leave them.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Abington, how do you see the big picture here -- why this violence has suddenly escalated this way?

EDWARD ABINGTON: Well, I think that it's, you know, it's very complicated but it basically stems from the breakdown of negotiations at Camp David -- I think a real sense of Palestinian frustration that the peace process was not yielding benefits for the Palestinian people, economically the Palestinians have suffered during the peace process. Israeli settlement activity continued throughout this period. And I think you had a very explosive situation. What we're seeing now is, quite frankly, violence on both sides that I think is out of control. And neither side knows... has the answer to deescalate the situation and get back to the negotiating table. Nor do I think that in the current circumstance that either side has a particular incentive to deescalate the situation.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you see it, Ambassador Seelye?

TALCOTT SEELYE: You know, I think that the proposal by the Jordanian government offers a possible way out.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, let me just interrupt you. You're talking about a proposal that actually the Jordanians brought to Jerusalem yesterday.

TALCOTT SEELYE: To Jerusalem in order to stabilize the situation and the violence. Now it's unacceptable at this point to General Sharon, but what it spells out is not moving toward a peace settlement right away but rather Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian towns, lift the siege that the Israelis have posed on Gaza, and also allow the Israelis to read the cease settlements, in which case the Palestinians would stop the violence, you would stabilize the situation and then you move later to the peace process. This may sound unrealistic, but to me it's the least best or the least worst of the possibilities to resolve this.

MARGARET WARNER: I want to get back to possible solutions, but also let's analyze a little more what's happened in the last 48 hours. Rob Satloff, last night was the night that the Israelis went in to Gaza and reoccupied part of it. And, in fact, today the general in charge of it was quoted as saying they'd stay for months if they had to, to end these mortar attacks you're taking about. Late today, the Israeli government announces they're going to withdraw. What happened?

ROBERT SATLOFF: I think the General spoke out of school. Ariel Sharon laid down very few red lines for his government's policy when he took over as Prime Minister. One of those red lines was Palestinian Area A, it's theirs....

MARGARET WARNER: This is their part of Gaza.

ROBERT SATLOFF: This is parts of the West Bank in Gaza which are under total Palestinian security and civilian control. That's theirs. We're not going in to reoccupy. So what happened was they did go in, they went in about I think a mile. They spent the night and now they're leaving. I think the General spoke out of school.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Two questions. One if that was the case, what did they accomplish by going in for a day and taking this territory? And secondly, are you saying you don't think it had anything to do with Secretary of State Colin Powell's criticism of the Israeli government that was issued this afternoon?

ROBERT SATLOFF: Well, it may. But I think the overall Israeli government policy is not to stay in Area A. I think what Colin Powell was doing was he saw thresholds being crossed and he put down a marker. Now, it is very interesting that he uses the term "disproportionate," given that the Powell doctrine itself requires the disproportionate use of force to achieve an objective. But that being said, I don't think that the Israeli government pulled out just because the Americans told them to. I think it was their policy to get out and Powell-- perhaps appropriately from the American perspective-- took this opportunity to say, look, this goes beyond what you, General Sharon, said you would do, so don't do it.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Abington, the other Israeli generals, whether they were speaking out of school or not, said today their purpose was to end these mortar attacks from Gaza into Israel proper. What do you think will be the effect of what's happened over the last 24 hours? Will it be taken by the Palestinians as some kind of warning? Will it lessen the attacks or not?

EDWARD ABINGTON: No, I think it will have little or no effect upon that. I mean, the problem is that the Israelis have a security agenda. The Palestinians have a political and economic agenda. And they're sort of like two ships passing in the night. Neither seems willing to seriously address the concerns of the other. And in order to deescalate the situation, I think you have to have a parallel diplomatic process in which the Palestinians address legitimate Israeli security concerns while at the same time President Arafat knows what the Israelis are going to do in terms of returning to negotiations and easing economic conditions on the Palestinian areas.

MARGARET WARNER: But what Prime Minister Sharon says he won't even start talking until the entire uprising stops.

ROBERT SATLOFF: Well, I think there is a road map out there and while I don't like all the details in the Jordanian and Egyptian proposal they do have the sequence right. The sequence is security, economics and then diplomacy. They have a lot of things in them, which are problematic, but I think the sequence is pretty clear. I think the Americans support that sequence. I think that's a logical approach. I think many Palestinians recognize that that sequence is the approach that needs to be followed.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Mr. Seelye, let's turn to the situation in Syria. Are the Israelis right when they say-- and as Rob Satloff also says that the Syrian government is responding Hezbollah, is sponsoring these attacks into Syrian proper and if so why?

TALCOTT SEELYE: There's no questions that the Syrians are tolerating the Hezbollah presence in Southern Lebanon. That's clear. Iran, however, is the primary support for the Hezbollah, as far as inspiration training and arms for Hezbollah. But the Syrians feel that this is their perspective, that by enabling Hezbollah to operate against Israelis in Southern Lebanon or along the border, they somehow are putting pressure on Israel in the political sense to force Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. They see this....

MARGARET WARNER: Which Syria claims.

TALCOTT SEELYE: And the interesting aspect is that fundamentally and ideologically, the Syrians are opposed to the character of Hezbollah, which is a hard-line Islamic group, whereas the Syrian government is secular. So... But that is secondary at this point to the first consideration of putting pressure on Israel.

MARGARET WARNER: And so, what impact do you think this attack on the Syrian radar position will have...

TALCOTT SEELYE: Well, the first....

MARGARET WARNER: ...on the Syrians?

TALCOTT SEELYE: In the first instance, we have heard a lot of rhetoric out of Syria already. I think if there are no more Israeli attacks on Syrian positions, we can expect no Syrian military response. Hafas Al Assad and his son -- Bishar - have always recognized Israel's qualitative military superiority. So they've never wanted rationally to risk a war. The trouble is if Hezbollah continues attacks against the Israelis, Sharon will then respond, as he said he will, and he's been waiting for an opportunity for a long time to take a whack at installations in Syria.

MARGARET WARNER: In Syria itself.

TALCOTT SEELYE: Yeah, Syria itself. So therefore it seems to me that if we have more of these attacks, then you have a risk of escalation because even though the Syrian government knows that they get a bloody nose, as a matter of national pride and honor-- and honor is very important in the Arab world-- also pressure is building up in Arab nationalist circles for Syria to do something. Today in the press in the Arab world there have been criticisms not only of the Syrian government but of other Arab governments for failing to... for being supine, as they called its to face this challenge.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Abington, how great is the danger of this conflict widening?

EDWARD ABINGTON: Well, I think that there's no doubt that Israel has the far superior military in the region. And without Egypt in the Arab circle, there cannot be an Israeli-Arab war again. I think the danger is that the violence is liable to escalate between Israelis and Palestinians. It could escalate with the Syrians and with Hezbollah, and this in turn will put serious strain on moderate Arab governments and it will have an impact on U.S. policy as we try to reshape sanctions towards Iraq, and it will put our friends in the Arab world under serious political pressure.

MARGARET WARNER: Danger of a wider conflict?

ROBERT SATLOFF: I think that the Israel- Lebanon-Syria triangle is one of the hot spots in the world today. We need to-- the United States, the United Nations, which is responsible for implementing security along that border, the United States-- we need to take measures now to ensure that this doesn't get out of hand.

MARGARET WARNER: How great a danger do you think there is that if the UN or the U.S. doesn't get involved, it will get out of hand?

ROBERT SATLOFF: I think that Iran and Hezbollah have every interest to create a major conflict, and we have a huge question mark in the new leader of Syria and I think the potential is very real.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you all three gentlemen very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Organ donating; Paul Robeson, Jr.; and EPA Administrator Whitman.

FOCUS - GIFT OF LIFE

JIM LEHRER: A medical gift of life: Our report is by Susan Dentzer of our health unit, a partnership with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

SINGING: As seasons come and go and I'm weary from the change

SUSAN DENTZER: A recent service at a church in Washington, D.C., honored the families of people who'd died and donated their organs to others.

SINGING: And I will light a candle

SUSAN DENTZER: On hand to thank many of the still-grieving families was the nation's Deputy Surgeon General, Dr. Kenneth Moritsugu.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: Today we celebrate the memory of our loved ones. We remember sometimes in sadness, and we rejoice at their legacy: The gift of life.

SUSAN DENTZER: As the nation's second-highest public health official and a veteran of 30 years with the Public Health Service, Moritsugu is helping to lead a campaign to increase organ and tissue donation. Although nearly 23,000 organ transplants were performed last year, the need is far greater.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: There are 75,000 people on a waiting list, on the national waiting list for a solid organ alone, and there are thousands more waiting for bone marrow and corneas and other tissue.

SUSAN DENTZER: In fact, demand for transplants is rising, in part because the operations are more successful than ever. Dr. Jimmy Light is a transplant surgeon.

DR. JIMMY LIGHT, Washington Hospital Center: The good news is that the advances in transplantation have been such that it works almost every time today. And that's a result of some improvements in surgery and technique, but primarily because of improved antirejection medications.

SUSAN DENTZER: Someday, organs and tissues for transplant may be grown in animals or in a lab. But for now, the only source is human donors-- either living donors, such as those who contribute a kidney to a relative, or deceased donors who've suffered brain death. Last year there were just 6,000 of these deceased organ donors, while another 9,000 who suffered brain death could have donated organs and tissues, but didn't.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: Every day before we go to sleep, 15 people die waiting for a transplant that doesn't come in time.

SUSAN DENTZER: Moritsugu says increasing donation rates would eliminate the transplant waiting list; it would also forestall the fights that have taken place in recent years over how to distribute donated organs. Under federal rules adopted two years ago, organs generally go to the sickest patients on transplant waiting lists. But some states and medical centers have resisted this system, since it often means that organs donated in one state are taken to another. Today Moritsugu's new boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced a broad initiative to boost transplants, including a model organ donor card and new efforts to sign up donors at U.S. workplaces.

TOMMY THOMPSON: It is an issue that is so simple and yet so important. As one woman said, why put organs in the ground when they can save someone's life? Why hesitate to donate, when no one hesitates to receive? One organ and tissue donor can actually help up to 50 people.

SUSAN DENTZER: Aside from Moritsugu's official interest in tissue and began donation, he has a deep personal concern.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: She was a wonderful person, a wonderful friend, a wonderful wife.

SUSAN DENTZER: Moritsugu's wife, Donna, was seriously injured in a car accident eight years ago. Taken to the hospital, she was subsequently declared brain- dead.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: The neurosurgeon walked out of the room with me and asked me what I wanted to do, and it was at that point that I recalled the conversation that Donna and I had had about wanting to be organ and tissue donors.

SUSAN DENTZER: Moritsugu decided to go ahead and donate Donna's tissues and organs. At least seven people benefited from her heart, liver, kidneys, pancreas, and corneas. Such an episode could have such an episode could have been enough to make Moritsugu a fervent advocate of organ and tissue donation, but fate struck again four years later when his daughter Vicki was struck by a car while crossing the street. Moritsugu was overwhelmed when Vicki died at age 22.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: The total loss of any ground under you, and trying to find some sense of stability at a time where here again is grief and tragedy reprised, or then trying to find the energy to consider the decision - knowing that there's nothing more than you can do or anyone else can do to save your daughter's life.

SUSAN DENTZER: Amid the anguish, Moritsugu and his family made that decision: To donate Vicki's organs and tissues as well.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: Shortly after, while we were still in the hospital, my older daughter, Erica, came up to me and said, "Dad, you know, we did the right thing." "Why, Erica?" Because unbeknownst to me, my two daughters, they had talked about this themselves, and they had decided that they wanted to become organ and tissue donors when they died.

SUSAN DENTZER: As with Donna Moritsugu's organs and tissues, many others benefited from Vicki's.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: I think of it in terms of a pebble that's thrown into a pond. The ripples of life just go on out and continue to expand.

SUSAN DENTZER: To get a sense of just how far the ripples extend, we asked if we could interview someone who had received organs from Moritsugu's family members. Moritsugu suggested the widow of the man who'd received his wife's heart, with whom his family had been corresponding for several years. The woman, Carol Thomka, met with us in Moritsugu's office.

CAROL THOMKA: I can't believe this.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: God, this is fabulous.

SUSAN DENTZER: Thomka's husband, hank, a retired police officer living in Florida, suffered for years from coronary artery and congestive heart disease. Placed on a transplant waiting list, he nearly died before receiving Donna's heart in 1992.

CAROL THOMKA: He felt a closeness to her that he couldn't explain but he definitely did. She was very much a part of him. We have her picture along with the rest of the family pictures.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: Oh, that's wonderful.

CAROL THOMKA: It's still there, and it always will be.

SUSAN DENTZER: Thomka livedanother seven years after the operation, and even went back to work as a private detective. He died in 1999 of an unrelated condition. His donated heart was doing just fine.

CAROL THOMKA: He got to see not only his grandson, but his granddaughters from Chicago as well, who were little at the time. And he got to see them grow up quite a bit over those years.

SUSAN DENTZER: Armed with knowledge gained from his own experience, Moritsugu now devotes much of his time to explaining how people can become organ donors. One way is by indicating one's willingness on a driver's license or donor card. But Moritsugu cautions that may not be enough.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: It's important for those individuals, for those of us who make that decision one way or the other, to communicate that decision to our next of kin, because, very frankly, if we're in the emergency room, our driver's license may be someplace else.

SUSAN DENTZER: Moritsugu is also working to clear up some of the myths around organ donation. He frequently teams up with Lisa Kory, whom he married five years ago. She's a former transplant nurse who now heads a nonprofit organization for organ donors, recipients, and their families. Kory says donor families typically have the same questions.

LISA KORY: Will he really be dead before they recover the organs? How do we know that? Will we still be able to have an open-casket funeral? What will happen? What will it look like? How will he be?

SUSAN DENTZER: The people best positioned to answer such questions are those like Moritsugu, who've been through the experience. One is Maryland resident Gerard Huffman III. Together with his mother and sisters, he decided to donate his 67-year-old's father's kidneys after he suffered an aneurysm ten years ago. Huffman says the hospital where his father died handled the process with compassion.

GERALD HUFFMAN III: They explained the procedure to us, basically telling us that there was no difference between the harvesting of the organs and a regular operation. All of the necessary precautions and procedures would be followed, as if my father was alive.

SPOKESPERSON: This is Bonnie from Maryland.

SUSAN DENTZER: At that recent church service in Washington, Marilyn Essex got her first chance to tell Huffman and his family in person just how grateful she was.

MARILYN ESSEX: We thank you very much.

WOMAN: Thank you.

MAN: Thank you.

MARILYN ESSEX: Thank you for your wonderful gift.

SUSAN DENTZER: Essex has hereditary kidney disease and was on dialysis for nearly a year before receiving Gerard Huffman, Sr.'s kidney.

MARILYN ESSEX: I think about him every day.

MAN: Kind of have to. ( Laughter )

MARILYN ESSEX: I have him... His picture with my family.

SUSAN DENTZER: Later, during the church service, the Huffmans were among the donor families honored. As pictures of their loved ones flashed overhead, Moritsugu and others offered praise for the departed.

DR. KENNETH MORITSUGU: They are the heroes. They did the right thing. They have made a difference.

MAN SINGING: I can count on God.

SUSAN DENTZER: As part of the new government initiative to boost organ donation, plans are also in the works for a new national medal to honor donors' families.

CONVERSATION

JIM LEHRER: Now, another of our conversations with authors of new books, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The book is "The Undiscovered Paul Robeson: An Artist's Journey, 1898-1939," the first of a two-volume biography about the singer, actor, and activist by his son, Paul Robeson, Jr. The book traces the early career of an early black American superstar, all-American football player, and international singing star renowned on stage and screen.

Paul Robeson, Jr., Welcome.

PAUL ROBESON, JR.: Thank you very much. Nice to be here.

RAY SUAREZ: For many in the audience for whom maybe the name is familiar but they can't necessarily place the man, tell us who Paul Robeson was.

PAUL ROBESON, JR.: One of the early pioneers in the concert field, theater and film, as a black actor and singer -- also a star black athlete, scholar athlete -- I would say one of the most extraordinary and dominant cultural figures, both in the U.S. and worldwide, this century. Of course his career spanned from 1917-1918, when he was an all-American football player until about 1950, when he was blacklisted during the McCarthy era, so that for 50 years he sort of has been in obscurity. And that's why so few people, relatively, know about his achievements.

RAY SUAREZ: But wasn't it also that unwillingness to stop talking about politics, to hide his own convictions? Didn't that handicap him in a way that leaves us sort of with a truncated Robeson? Instead of ending the last century looking at him as one of the greats, we have to search our memory for who he was?

PAUL ROBESON, JR.: That is ironic. It's also ironic because he's better known in half a dozen other countries than he is here, including the United Kingdom, Russia, China, India, and lots more. What was fascinating at a major exhibition about his life in New York City, a Queens... A group of Queens school kids, high school kids, was touring the exhibition, and it was two Russian kids and a Chinese kid who were explaining to the African Americans who Paul Robeson was. So there is an extraordinary juxtaposition, which brings me back to the McCarthy era. I think there is little understanding today of the degree and intensity of cultural and political suppression in that decade from about the beginning of the Cold War until 1955-56.

RAY SUAREZ: But also during the earlier years of your father's public life, I think a reader of the book is struck again and again by how much race shortened the horizon of talented people; no matter how much they would rail against it, fight to break the bonds, it was tough. If you think about somebody being an all-American, a phi beta kappa, a recording star, a movie star, a stage star, and yet still being hemmed in by race, that kind of America is forgotten to us in a lot of ways today.

PAUL ROBESON, JR.: In a way -- certainly in that way. What's interesting in my father's case is that for 12 years, as I described in the book, from 1927-1939, he was based in London and traveled all over Europe, learned a dozen languages, absorbed cultures from all over the world. It broadened his perspective enormously and enabled him to grow on all levels as an artist in a way he couldn't have if he had been solely restricted to the United States. And when he came back to the U.S. in 1939 permanently, he came back with this wonderful arsenal of equipment, and also a spiritual centeredness in the sense that he was no longer carrying the black man's burden; that is, he knew that there were white people of goodwill everywhere, and that all white people were not the same, and that many "white cultures" had elements of Africa and Asia in them, so that with this immensely broadened horizon he was able to cope with racism, still segregation then in this country, on a level that most other African Americans couldn't possibly do because they hadn't had the experience. I, in part... part of my education as a childwas abroad. I had the same experience. That is, I was... the burden of having to look at all whites with suspicion was just removed. It doesn't mean that you lose your wariness when it's appropriate, but you don't carry this terrific burden if you have to distrust every white face. And most African Americans certainly in those times never had that opportunity. Those who did again were able to expand as both personally and artistically because they were relieved of that immense pressure.

RAY SUAREZ: Is there a burden for a biographer in being Paul Robeson, Jr.; having to be true to the biographer's task and show a man, warts and all, and also have him be your pop?

PAUL ROBESON, JR.: Yes. You touch on a... on an important point. That's why I waited so long to do the book. I felt I had to achieve a certain distance, not just in time, but in... not an emotional connection, but in degree of objectivity, so that I could make this book-- and I hope I succeeded-- more his book than mine; to show him as himself, for himself, in real time, in his own context, rather than to make it my vision of my father; and that's difficult to do. That's why I took so long before I attempted it. I thought long and hard about the very subject you raise, and that was the most difficult part to do well.

RAY SUAREZ: Isn't familiarity also a burden, though; stories that you think you know, and you're mining the archive? Were there any surprises about your own father?

PAUL ROBESON, JR.: Not really. There were some fascinating details that I uncovered, but in terms of who he really was, his character, not only my own recollections but over the years I've probably talked to at least a hundred people who were quite close to him at various times in various ways. And it's the composite of all that that revealed virtually everything of significance about him to me. It's the specific and contextual things that I was able to put together in this book, adding my own recollections to it, that hopefully gives the reader more insight than normally could be given. By the way, he was a great guy to be around. In other words, he was a friendly person, the life of the party. One enjoyed his company, things like that. He wasn't always a serious, you know... well, he was always public-image serious and dignified because of the stereotypes he was combating. But he was a fun guy. He could be very, very funny and playful, and that comes through in various places of the book.

RAY SUAREZ: Now that America has changed and your father's been dead about a quarter of a century, is America ready to reembrace Paul Robeson for who he was?

PAUL ROBESON, JR.: I think they always were. I really believe that if they can see and hear him, and now there's video and audio, which is the most effective of all, and now if they can read his story in context; that once he's able, in a sense, to present himself, he doesn't need any help, in that he's very compelling and that people will embrace his legacy and him, you know, after his death as they did during his lifetime. I think whenever he was able to make contact with people directly, even at the times when many people were taught to be totally hostile towards him, to hate him, any time he actually came in contact with them, interestingly enough, he generally won them over because he was such a compelling personality and he was pure in the sense that he conveyed what he really felt. So agree, disagree; that's him. That's the genuine article.

RAY SUAREZ: Paul Robeson, Jr., Thanks for being with us.

PAUL ROBESON, JR.: Thank you.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, an interview with the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and to Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: Christine Todd-Whitman came to the job as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency after being elected to two terms as governor of New Jersey. She stepped directly into the cross hairs of a highly charged debate over the future protection of the nation's air, water and land. In recent weeks the administration has begun outlining its environmental policies to mixed response. Administrator Whitman joins us now. Welcome.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: It's a pleasure. Good to be with you.

GWEN IFILL: Everyday Administrator Whitman it seems to be something. Today you announced it would be the release of the upholding of a Clinton administration regulation on lead.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Right.

GWEN IFILL: Could you tell us what it is and why now.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: What we're doing, the why now is because that's when the process, that's the dates when these regulations are promulgated, there are dates that drive them. This is when we needed to respond to this one. It's one that we had been looking at closely that obviously the previous administration considered good but hadn't been able to implement and hadn't gotten out there. And we think it's worthy of promotion. What it is -- is it's going toll require companies that use or store or emit a hundred pounds of lead to register. And that's really what it is. It's requiring the registration of anyone who is storing or using or emitting lead, 100 pounds of lead or more, to emit it. That's going to capture about... to put this on a registry, that's going to capture about 3600 small businesses that haven't been subject to this before. And what they're just going to have to do is list it on the inventory.

GWEN IFILL: Yesterday another announcement, and this one having to do with the regulation of wetlands. The same question, why that one and why now?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Again, this is driven by court dates and it's driven by regulatory processes, and so when it's ready for a decision we make the decision just the way we made the decision back in the beginning of my tenure as administrator on diesel fuel, on cleaning up diesel fuel in those motors, as we made the decision on going ahead with the pesticide review. Those things are done when... They're all time sensitive and they're done when the time is ripe for a decision.

GWEN IFILL: As you well know, you've come under attack or at least some criticism since you've been running... since you've had this job about the administration's stand on global warming, on the Kyoto global warming agreement on arsenic standards in water, on logging in forests. Let's go through a couple of them one at a time. Let's start with arsenic in water, which at least the late night comedians have really seized on to. Can you explain what the administration's position is on this standard and whether what you're reexamining is the science or reexamining the onerous regulations, the burdens it puts on business.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Well, first and the most important thing to say is we will be lowering the standard of arsenic in drinking water. It is currently at 50 parts for billion. It's been there for 50 years. It will be lowered and people will be safe and have safer water within the same time frame of the original proposal. We haven't changed that yet but we have said we're going to take another look. It's really driven by two things: One is that there is no definitive scientific study thatsays at 10 parts per billion you're safe and at 11 you're not. I wish there were. But there isn't. So what I have asked -- the National Academy of Sciences came to us when they looked at this and said 50 parts is too high and didn't refine it any further than that. I want to see a refinement of that so we're better able to make a good scientific judgment and at the same time arsenic is naturally occurring particularly in the West and Southwest. You find concentrations of very high naturally occurring arsenic. I want to make sure that we have done everything that we need to do to understand what we're going to be requiring of water companies out there and the burden we're going to place on individuals relative to their water bills and their ability to access clean water so that we have everything in place to help and we avoid unintended consequences, which we have seen in the past of water companies going under, people being forced to drill their own wells and drinking water that had higher incidence of arsenic than they were getting before. That's not helping public health and what we want to do is ensure that we help public health.

GWEN IFILL: It seems like in so many of these domestic issues you're trying to balance out these unintended consequences against the science. How do you do that?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Well, we do it incrementally. We do it on each one of these decisions. The thing that you're seeing on this administration's record relative to the environment is that we are very environmentally sensitive but we don't have an overarching political agenda that's driving us. What we're trying to do is ensure that we are protecting people in a way that allows them to continue to enjoy a quality of life which they've come to expect, and we're enhancing environmental protection. And each issue is being judged on its individual merits. That's how we're going to make these decisions.

GWEN IFILL: I want to come back to the question of the political agenda in just a moment. First I want to ask you about global warming and the Kyoto global warming treaty, which this administration has stepped back from, at least for now. You've come under some criticism from foreign governments for pulling out of that treaty. What is your response to them?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Well, what we have said and what this President has said is he takes global warming very seriously. It's an issue in which he wants to be engaged with the international community. But it's no secret that when that treaty was first proposed to the Congress of the United States the Senate voted 95-0 against it; that even though there were 54 nations that signed the Kyoto protocol only one, Romania, has ratified it; that every other nation that was part of those initial discussions has serious problems with the protocol. It isn't just the United States that has problems here and it isn't just the United States that was unable to reach agreement in the Hague over a year ago. So we are just part of a number of countries that really 54 of the, 53 of them, that have serious concerns. We want to be engaged with the international community. We believe this is an important issue. The President wants to see market-based solutions. He wants to see technology transfer issues discussed. He wants to see ways in which we can encourage the developing nations to be more active participants in this because without them, we are not enhancing the goal, which is to start addressing the issue of global climate change. You can't leave out a huge part of the world and make improvements. He wants to see real improvements.

GWEN IFILL: Let's go back to what you said a moment ago about a political agenda, that you said the Bush administration does not have. Do you suggest that the Clinton administration in promulgating many of these regulations had a political agenda or do you think that perhaps a lot of these regulations came about because of last-minute procrastination or to put the Bush administration in a bind just like this one?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: No. I think what you see when I say political agenda, there are a lot of groups that have political agendas that want to see for whom any kind of compromise is no good, there's no ability to try to find a middle ground because it just won't satisfy them. And that makes it very difficult to try to judge things on their merit and we are going to continue to do that. I can't speak as to why the previous administration didn't move these regulations sooner. They certainly knew about them. In fact on the arsenic one, they had asked for a year's extension from Congress on reaching this number a year ago. And then they put it out at the very last minute. I am sure they were just trying to get something done. But for eight years they had been unable to get it done; the same thing with the diesel-sulfur rule. Some of them take time in promulgating. I don't mean to imply that nothing happened at all. But obviously we're now having to deal with what was left behind. As a new administration we reserve the right, as we should, to take a look at all of these to make sure they fit with what we think is in the best interest of the country.

GWEN IFILL: So you're not suspicious of the Clinton administration's timing on these.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Well I wish they had been able to get some of them out a little sooner than they did. I always worry when I see ones that were pushed out the door on the 19th of January. That really was not necessary. We probably could have handled those ourselves.

GWEN IFILL: On another subject, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge the president has suggested that he doesn't think the Congress is going to be able to support his pledge to drill there for oil. As a member of Vice President Cheney's Energy Review Commission, do you agree that's not going to happen and do you think that maybe drilling will happen in other public lands instead?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Well I know that as we go forward as part of the energy task force that what we are doing and what it's very clear we have an energy crisis in this country, we need to address it. It is real. And it is going to require that we look at a multitude of energy sources. We are going to need a diversity of energy sources. We need to look at where we can find that domestically as well as internationally but we want to try to avoid; we've seen some of the worst spills coming from tankers bringing oil to this country or anywhere. That's where you see the majority of your spills that have done such huge environmental damage. So there's a balance that needs to be struck here using the 21st century technology and understanding our energy needs. We're going to be presenting the President with a very comprehensive series of options for him to use, for him to present to the public as a national energy policy which we desperately need.

GWEN IFILL: What do you think is the realistic chance politically that Congress is going to approve drilling in Alaska?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: I don't know whether drilling in Alaska per se is entirely off the table with the Congress. As you look at what the real impactwould be-- and certainly it rests with Congress though -- they're the ones who are going to have to make the final determination. I do believe that they are going to have to look at what our energy needs are and how much of those needs we can and should be meeting domestically. That will ultimately drive their decision-making.

GWEN IFILL: If not Alaska, where? Great Lakes? The Gulf Coast?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: There are a number of sources where we think there is energy. We know there is energy to be had -- either gas or oil. There are places off the coast that can be drilled and again modern technology has made the drilling much safer. We do have to understand that we need to get our energy from somewhere. And if we don't like fossil fuel combustion and coal, which is 51% of our energy now, if we don't like gas because of pipelines we don't like oil because we can't drill for it, it's dangerous -- we won't talk about nuclear and even, you know, even we found with windmills they tend to be in flyways. And that kills birds. We're going to have to understand that modern technology, 21st century technology has allowed us to do some of these things in a way that is protective of the environment. We need to be willing to focus on that and talk about it.

GWEN IFILL: Should we be talking about nuclear?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: We should be talking about all the potential energy sources because we really need to have them all on the table and make informed decisions based on what modern technology tells us we can do in a safe way, in a way that really protective of human health. At the same time, as you know, we need and we all demand as citizens that when we turn on a light switch the lights come on, that we have heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, we want our computers to start right when we want them to start. We don't want rolling blackouts. What we're seeing in California now unfortunately is very real. There's little that we can do from an administration's perspective short term. What we're working toward is trying to solve this problem long term. But as we continue to increase energy demand and not increase energy production or bringing new power sources online, we're just building in an even worse problem for the future.

GWEN IFILL: What is the chance in the trade off to find this balance there is going to be some interest in the environment, interests in the environment, sacrifice the need of energy in exchange form energy production?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: See, I wouldn't talk about environmental sacrifice. I don't believe we need to sacrifice the environment. For instance, we have clean coal technology. It makes a huge difference on what's being put out there. There are other ways to recapture down the line some of the things that are... That might be emitted, for instance, in California they have to go to emergency generators that are diesel fuel combustion -- most of those. What we have done from the environmental protection point of view is to work out a way that allows them to do that because they are dirtier -- but have agreements to capture even more emissions a little further down the line which will be more environmentally protective but allows them to meet the current emergency. That's the kind of flexibility that we need to have here -- always mindful that our primary obligation at the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect the environment. And we will do that.

GWEN IFILL: Your critics -- and I'm sure you've heard plenty from your critics since you've been in this office. But yourcritics also say that the Bush administration is doing... is upholding current law but not necessarily creating new protections. What is your response to that?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Well, right now we've got our hands full going over what was left behind. I can't wait for the day when I don't have any other regulations that were promulgated in the last 24 hours of the previous administration to have to make decisions on and we can really start focusing on the new challenges that are in front of us and the things that we want to do. And I know that's true in every other agency. They were very, very busy in those last couple of weeks, in the last couple of months for whatever the reason. And I would say that one of the things though that's important here to understand is each one of those decisions is, in fact, policy, that it is our policy when we talk about going ahead with cleaner diesel fuel, that's a very real decision that's been made by this administration that has very real impacts on industry and is going to have a very real benefit to the environment.

GWEN IFILL: Secretary Whitman, thank you very much for joining us.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: It's a pleasure.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: And again, the other major story of this Tuesday: Israel forces launched an air, land, and sea attack into the Gaza Strip and seized a Palestinian-controlled area. It was retaliation for a mortar attack on an Israeli town. In Washington, Secretary of State Powell criticized the Palestinian attack, but said the Israeli response was excessive. Later, the Israelis began withdrawing from Gaza. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.