The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then, a Newsmaker interview with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; the latest on today's space shuttle return to flight; a Frontline/World report on the nuclear black market; and a look at the newest music payola scandal.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The shuttle Discovery made a successful launch into space today. It lifted off with its seven astronauts from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on the first shuttle mission since the Columbia disaster in 2003. Video showed two light-colored objects flying away. Engineers said they could be harmless paper covers from the thrusters. Other video showed an apparent chunk of debris coming off the external fuel tank. That raised questions about potential damage to the shuttle's heat-shielding tiles. Later, at a briefing, NASA's Wayne Hale promised Discovery will be thoroughly checked in orbit.

WAYNE HALE: So we are going to know, without a doubt, the status of the thermal protection system before the Discovery crew comes home. And whether there are questions -- of course, we haven't had a chance to look at all the film today, so no telling, you know, what might be there or what's not there. We hope nothing.

JIM LEHRER: Discovery is on a 12-day mission to re-supply the international space station. Crew members will also test new methods for repairing a shuttle in orbit. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. Police in Egypt today identified one of the bombers in the Sharm el-Sheikh attacks. They said he was an Egyptian, with suspected links to Islamic militants. Officials also said they have ruled out five Pakistanis as suspects. And the Associated Press reported there were warnings of the attacks. It said the Egyptians thought the targets would be casinos. Instead, the bombers struck a hotel and a market, killing at least 64 people. A North London apartment house became a focal point today in last week's attempted bombings there. Investigators also announced two of the four wanted men were legal British residents. We have a report from Sue Turton of Independent Television News.

SUE TURTON: Was this the London bomb factory? Today police revealed forensic teams have found components of explosives in a dustbin and in a flat at Curtis House in New Southgate, where the two named bombers were staying until last Thursday. Police can't yet confirm if there were any similarities between the bomb material found here and the parts of the five bombs recovered after last week's aborted attacks. Residents have told Channel 4 News that neither Hassan Omar or Said-Ibrahim actually lived at Flat Number 53. Instead, it's thought they stayed with two other men in Flat 65, directly above. Today, more details of the two would-be bombers emerged. Muktar said-Ibrahim is a 27- year-old Eritrean. He arrived in Britain in 1992, aged just 14. He claimed asylum, was given exceptional leave to remain, and given a full British passport last year. Yasin Hassan Omar is a 24-year-old Somalian whose 75-pounds-a- week housing benefit was stopped in May. He arrived in Britain in 1992, aged just 11, when he was given exceptional leave to remain. He was granted indefinite leave to remain last year. Much of the Finchley area of North London came to a standstill this afternoon as police seized a car thought to have been used by one of the bombers. The white V.W. Golf had been under surveillance. Today detectives decided to take it away. Hopefully, it might reveal more clues.

JIM LEHRER: British Prime Minister Blair vowed today not to give "one inch" to terrorists. And he again rejected criticism that Britain's role in Iraq has made it a target. At least 16 people died in separate attacks across Iraq today. The deadliest was in western Baghdad, where gunmen ambushed two buses, and al-Qaida militants threatened to kill two Algerian diplomats. The men appeared blindfolded and alive in a video posted online. They were abducted in Baghdad last week. Al-Qaida also warned Sunni Muslims to boycott a vote on the new Iraqi constitution, set for October. It said anyone who takes part will become a target. A draft of the constitution published today gave Islam a guiding role. It said: "Islam is the official religion of the state. No law that contradicts with its rules can be promulgated."

Anti-American protests turned violent in Afghanistan. More than 1,000 people massed outside a U.S. Military base at Bagram, north of Kabul. They demanded the release of eight prisoners accused of plotting attacks. The crowd chanted, "Die, America," and threw rocks. Guards fired into the air to drive them off. It was unclear if anyone was hurt. North Korea rejoined talks on its nuclear weapons today for the first time in 13 months. Delegates from both Koreas plus the United States, Japan, Russia, and China met in Beijing. The U.S. formally assured North Korea it has no intention of invading. North Korea had boycotted the talks since June of last year, blaming U.S. foreign policy. Republicans in the U.S. Senate pressed for a timetable today on confirming John Roberts to the Supreme Court. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Republican Arlen Specter, said he wants it done by Sept. 29. That's just before the court's fall term. Otherwise, Specter said, he might start hearings in August during the summer recess. Democratic Leader Harry Reid said there's no reason for that.

SEN. HARRY REID: I don't see, unless something untoward comes up, that we can't in the ordinary process, which would mean starting on this-- the hearings when we come back in September-- I see no reason that we couldn't finish this by the first of October. I don't really understand what the rush is.

JIM LEHRER: Democrats also contested a White House decision not to release all of Roberts' papers from his years in government. But White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said Roberts' work as deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration would be withheld. He said it's a matter of attorney-client privilege.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Future solicitor generals might as well put up a "need not apply" sign if people believe that they may some day go through a Senate confirmation process. And it would stifle the candid, honest, and thorough advice that solicitor generals depend on from their attorneys if that privilege was not protected.

JIM LEHRER: Roberts helped write one brief in the solicitor general's office that said the Supreme Court case legalizing abortion was "wrongly decided." Two years ago, as a nominee for an appeals court, he said the case was "settled law." Cooler weather moved into parts of the West and Midwest today. But elsewhere, temperatures soared to the hundred-degree mark as a blistering heat wave moved East. The highest heat index reading was in Melfa, Virginia, where temperatures felt like 123 degrees. The heat wave is blamed for more than 30 deaths, including two dozen in Phoenix, Arizona alone. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 16 points to close at 10,579. The NASDAQ rose nine points to close at nearly 2,176. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Attorney General Gonzales, off goes Discovery, the nuclear underground market, and pay for plays.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: And to our Newsmaker interview with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. I spoke with him earlier this evening.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Attorney General, welcome.

On the John Roberts Supreme Court nomination, do you agree with today's White House decision not to release memorandums and briefs that John Roberts wrote when he was deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Jim, I'm not aware of any formal request from the Senate Judiciary Committee for these kinds of documents. I would, however, as attorney general have serious concerns about the release of these kinds of documents. We're talking about the lawyers for the United States of America. And I think it's very, very important that the lawyers be comfortable being very candid and open about their views on very sensitive issues affecting the United States. And I think this is a concern not held only by this attorney general and this administration but by previous administrations in connection with the Miguel Estrada nomination; there was a letter signed by --

JIM LEHRER: He was the nominee for --

ALBERTO GONZALES: For the D.C. Circuit.

JIM LEHRER: -- the D.C. Circuit Court.

ALBERTO GONZALES: There were seven former solicitor generals who signed the letter saying that the release of internal memos when Mr. Estrada served in the SG's office would be detrimental to the United States, would be detrimental to the efficient operation of that office. And for that reason, I would have very serious concerns as attorney general in releasing that kind of information. I think what we ought to be focusing on is that we are on path for the release of 75,000 pages of documents in connection with John Roberts' work in the White House, as in the counselor's office and as his time working as an assistant in the office of the attorney general. And so at the end of the day I'm very optimistic that there will be a lot of information that will be disclosed to the Senate so they can make an informed decision about this well- qualified individual.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, says -- asks the question, "What's the difference?" In both cases, John Roberts -- in all three cases, John Roberts was an employee of the United States of America, the taxpayers: Why is the public, why is the Senate not entitled to all of what he did?

ALBERTO GONZALES: But the Congress has made the determination that certain kinds ever information can be protected even though the American people may want to have access to information. There are, for example, exemptions in FOIA in which the government can withhold certain kinds of information, and the courts have recognized that there is certain documentation that do deserve protection, that certain privileges do apply and do deserve protection. And for that reason, we believe it is legitimate to look very carefully at the release of certain kinds of documentation that may harm the efficient operation of the government. But our objective here is to work with the Congress and to provide the appropriate information that members of the Senate need to make an informed decision here.

JIM LEHRER: For those who may not understand the technical thing about what the solicitor general does, the solicitor general and his deputy, which was what John Roberts' job was, they appear before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government of the United States, right?

ALBERTO GONZALES: That is correct.

JIM LEHRER: And they technically work for you, don't they? Don't they work for the attorney general?

ALBERTO GONZALES: They report up to the attorney general, who -- we all report up to the President of the United States. All of us work in the executive branch.

JIM LEHRER: Now the White House said today, in declining to release these, that there was an attorney-client privilege here between the solicitor general and his office and the President of the United States. And that's what Sen. Leahy says how can that be when they work -- they don't work for the president; they work for the government.

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, there is an attorney- client privilege here that needs to be respected, and it's a privilege that has been found to be worthy of protection by our courts. But, again, I want to focus on what we are going to be providing. The government is going to be providing, as I said, over 75,000 pages of documents from John Robert's work in the White House and in the Department of Justice. And I'm -- I feel very confident that that information should be sufficient for the members of the Senate to make an informed decision about John Roberts' qualifications.

JIM LEHRER: Are you confident that he's going to be confirmed?

ALBERTO GONZALES: It's very early in the process. I think early signs are good. There seems to be bipartisan support for Judge Roberts, but I wouldn't take anything for granted. We respect the role of the Senate. We respect the authority of the Senate to look at the qualifications of Judge Roberts, and at the end of the day I'm optimistic that if given a fair hearing and a fair opportunity, that he will be confirmed.

JIM LEHRER: In the run-up to the selection of Judge Roberts, critics on the conservative side had some less-than-favorable things to say about you if you had become the nominee, on the grounds that you were not conservative enough. Essentially, that's shorthand for that. Was that an unfair hit on you?

ALBERTO GONZALES: I'll leave it to others to try to determine whether or not that was unfair or not. I'm not the nominee. I'm focused on doing a very important job for this president and for the American people, and that's to serve as attorney general. And of course one of the things I'm also focused on is getting this well-qualified nominee, Judge John Roberts, confirmed as quickly as possible.

JIM LEHRER: Didn't upset you that people were talking about what you might do as a member of the Supreme Court of the United States?

ALBERTO GONZALES: In this job, you're going to make decisions. You'll say things that some people are going to love them, some people are going to hate them. It's just part of the job. And so I respect the right of individuals to have strongly held opinions and to express those opinions in our country.

JIM LEHRER: On the Valerie Plame-Wilson leak investigation, I want to follow up on something you said on television Sunday. You said, as White House counsel, you said you first told White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card about an official investigation that was being launched by the Justice Department of the leak. Why did you tell him first?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, first of all, let me say that -- let me remind your viewers that I am recused from this investigation, and what O said this weekend is not anything new. This is old information. It's been out there for several years. And so I want to be very, very careful about what I -- what more I say about this investigation. I did advise the chief of staff of the investigation, and I felt that was the appropriate thing to do as the chief of staff is to let him know that.

JIM LEHRER: And you told him - and you told him first, before you told the staff members who might have been subject to the investigation - a 12-hour lag in there, is that right?

ALBERTO GONZALES: I guess -- let me repeat once again -

JIM LEHRER: Right.

ALBERTO GONZALES: I answered this question this weekend; I would prefer not to get into that and provide any additional information. This is a very highly charged investigation. People are very interested in this, and we've got a prosecutor, a very well respected prosecutor who's been looking at this issue, this investigation for a long time. He has all the facts, or he's gathering up all the facts. He has all the information relating to what did or did not occur that particular night when I was notified by the Department of Justice. I have fully cooperated with the investigation and before the grand jury, and I'm quite confident at the end of the day that we'll know what facts are in this particular case.

JIM LEHRER: Are you quite confident that what you did that night was the proper thing to do?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Oh, Absolutely. I'm very, very comfortable with the actions that we took and there are a variety of reasons, which I don't want to get into now, --

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

ALBERTO GONZALES: -- but I feel very comfortable with the actions that we took. And there's been no indication, no evidence whatsoever that anyone was advised of the investigation early and that anyone did anything in response to that kind of information. And if something like that did happen, I'm quite confident that the special prosecutor will look into that.

JIM LEHRER: In a more specific sense as the Attorney General of the United States -- forget your involvement or whatever early on when you were the White House counsel - does it concern you at all that here we sit a couple of three years after this and months of aninvestigation, grand jury whatever - there's only one person been punished, and that's a New York Times reporter Judith Miller, and she didn't even write a story?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, we don't know whether or not that she will be the only person that will suffer some consequences for actions in connection with this investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald is a well respected prosecutor. I think he's being very careful, he's being very meticulous. It's a very complicated statute to prosecute under, and I think that he's --

JIM LEHRER: This is the release of a -- intentionally releasing the name of an under-cover CIA operative?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Exactly. And so, you know, I don't want to prejudge what the outcome of this investigation may be but we'll just have to wait and see.

JIM LEHRER: What is your own view about the right of reporters to protect a source?

ALBERTO GONZALES: I respect very much the role of the media in our society; I think they can be very, very helpful and they serve as a very useful check, sort of a watchdog over the actions of the government, and I respect that. But there is a competing interest, and that is the ability of prosecutors to get information that may be absolutely essential to assist them in the investigation of illegal wrongdoing. And so you've got these two competing interests. I believe that the current policy at the Department of Justice reflects a careful balancing of those interests. I would like to remind your viewers that under our current policy since 1991 I think we've solicited information from media sources something like 30 times and gone after confidential sources something like 12 times, so we have been very, very careful in going after confidential sources for the media because we understand, we respect the role of the media in our system of government. And so that's sort of my general feeling about it.

JIM LEHRER: You have been in public life in Texas and also here in Washington with the federal government. You've dealt with a lot of reporters. When you deal with a reporter, and you tell a reporter this is off the record; do you expect that reporter to be prepared to go to jail, as Judith Miller is, to protect you?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, first of all I normally when I talk to a reporter, I assume that it's on the record. I never assume that --

JIM LEHRER: I left out that phrase - if you talk to a reporter off the record, do you make it very clear it's off the record?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Do I expect them --

JIM LEHRER: Do you expect that reporter to do what Judith Miller is doing today?

ALBERTO GONZALES: I respect what Ms. Miller is doing today, but I also respect what the special prosecutor is trying to do, and that is we've got a very high profile case; there's a lot of pressure being placed upon this prosecutor to find out what happened, and he's doing the very best he can to do so under the laws that - under the tools that permit under our laws --

JIM LEHRER: On the terrorist attacks in London and Egypt, do you believe based on the information that you have gathered as Attorney General of the United States that those acts are related in some way and part of some kind of international plan?

ALBERTO GONZALES: It really is too early to tell. We do know this is a very serious issue, very serious matter. Our hearts and prayers go out to the people in London and in Egypt. We're very concerned about it. We are providing our expertise to aid in the investigation in London. We're going back and looking at old intelligence to see whether or not there's anything there that may be tied to what happened in London. We're also looking very carefully and watching and learning about the events in London because we want to take what we learn there and transplant those lessons here in the United States to ensure that we're doing everything we can do to prevent a similar attack from occurring here.

JIM LEHRER: Does that - because of what happened in London and Egypt - heighten the possibility of suicide bombings here in the United States in your professional opinion?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, it makes me -- it confirms in me the belief that I've long held, and that is we have an enemy that is still out there, a very patient, a very diabolical enemy, and constitutes a very serious threat to the United States, and, yes, am I worried about additional attacks in this country, of course, I'm worried about it. We expect the American people to go on living their lives as normally as possible. But it is a post-9/11 world, and the United States Government is doing everything we can do to ensure that another terrorist attack does not occur here in this country.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think that what the New York City government is doing in inspecting backpacks and other packages and valises and that sort of thing going in and out of subways and train stations is a good thing?

ALBERTO GONZALES: I think that, you know, state and local governments play a critical role in the protection of this country and the protection of certain systems like our mass transit system. And we share information daily with our state and local officials. I think it's one of the reasons that we are safer today and I have every confidence that in developing its policies that the New York transit authorities have considered the legal considerations they should be considering in making these kinds of decisions and in formulating this policy.

JIM LEHRER: There's some people have raised a question about whether or not these random searches are constitutional; any question in your mind about it?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Again, I don't know the specifics. I have not had any discussions with the New York authorities, but I know they're professionals; they're very careful in what they do, and I have every expectation that they've taken these kind of considerations into account in developing their policy.

JIM LEHRER: Finally, Mr. Attorney General, on another subject entirely, you made a speech a few days about what you'd call the epidemic - a meth epidemic in this country. Tell us what you're talking about and the extent of this because you said it was a very, very serious problem that people aren't paying much attention to. Tell us about it.

ALBERTO GONZALES: It's not a problem that's been identified by me as a serious problem. We know that in talking to state and local officials they have identified this as a number one drug problem that they are confronting because it's not a problem that's related to just the user. It's highly addictive and destroys lives, but also in developing meth, these mom and pop labs that we're seeing springing up all over the country, these are very toxic and so it pollutes the home in which these labs are constructed; oftentimes there are children and they are exposed to hazardous materials. It creates a toxic waste site in the neighborhood. And so they are very, very dangerous. And I think that we're seeing local officials respond to this threat by the passage of laws in various states to deal with it. And there's ongoing a debate now whether or not, should there be national legislation to deal with it; I think - I haven't made up my own mind yet - I don't think the administration has developed a policy yet, but certainly at the state level, the local level, they recognize that this is a serious problem, and we're doing everything we can today even without national legislation to provide resources and to learn what we can from the various states to see what works effectively.

JIM LEHRER: I was stunned to read what you said in your speech about the extent of the use. There's more meth being used than all of the other - heroine, cocaine, and all the other problem drugs combined.

ALBERTO GONZALES: It's very -- it's a very, very serious problem, and we're focused on it in the Department of Justice. I gave that speech to let the state and local officials know that we understand their problem and that we're there to try to work with them and help them deal with this.

JIM LEHRER: But you don't think it's a national problem yet?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, it's a national problem to the extent that it's not limited to one state; it's not limited to one region of the country. As to whether or not it requires a national solution, I'm not sure we're there yet, but that's something that's certainly being debated on the Hill; it's certainly something that we're discussing within the administration and that will continue.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much.

ALBERTO GONZALES: Thank you.

FOCUS - RETURN TO SPACE

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the shuttle returns to space, the nuclear black market, and a new payola scandal.

Gwen Ifill has the shuttle story.

GWEN IFILL: Two-and-a-half years after the Columbia disaster, which took the lives of seven astronauts, Space Shuttle Discovery headed smoothly into space today without any apparent problems. The launch had been delayed once, after NASA discovered a faulty fuel gauge sensor last week. The fuel sensors worked properly today, even though scientists say they still don't know what went wrong before. But NASA officials were jubilant today, even as they reminded reporters afterward that liftoff is just the first step.

MICHAEL GRIFFIN, NASA Administrator: The first thing you learn as a student pilot is that the flight's not over until the engine is shut off and the airplane is tied down. And we have 12 more days-plus, before we achieve that state. And that's when we'll know that this was a safe flight.

BILL PARSONS, Space Shuttle Program Manager: You know, I have to add, this is a difficult mission. We still have a lot of complex maneuvers to do. We still have a lot of test objectives to meet, and we still have a lot out in front of us. This team -- although we were very proud and very elated to see the launch today and see how well the countdown went and everything else, there's still a lot of work in front of us.

GWEN IFILL: For more now on today's launch and Discovery's mission, we are joined by Keith Cowing, editor of NASA Watch, an online space news publication.

So how significant was this apparently successful re-launch today?

KEITH COWING: Well, they launched it. It showed that NASA can take a disaster, move through an advisory panel's nips and tucks and changes and eventually get this machine back into space again. And it's no easy task to do it under normal situations. When you've got the whole world watching, it's even more difficult.

GWEN IFILL: Especially after last week's false start.

KEITH COWING: Yes.

GWEN IFILL: Last week, the false start was about fuel gauge sensors, and they never exactly fixed that problem, did they?

KEITH COWING: Well, the problem here, it was alittle sensor at the bottom of a tank, after the Challenger accident, they needed three to be working. They added a fourth, and one of them wasn't quite working right. They couldn't really nail it down. They went back and looked at what exactly the problem is that it would be sensing and how many sensors they had. They isolated it down such that they figured that if this problem happened again, they understood all the ramifications and they had two layers of redundancy, which is what you really need in the first place.

GWEN IFILL: So if one thing went wrong, there was another backup and another backup?

KEITH COWING: Exactly. And this other one had provided a fourth level, and they felt that -- even though they are sort of skirting the issue, whether they're bending the requirements -- they still do have the required two levels of redundancy.

GWEN IFILL: But it is, again, a moot point because none of the fuel sensor and gauges failed today?

KEITH COWING: Exactly.

GWEN IFILL: So that was -- it was a caution but not a caution that had to be tested.

KEITH COWING: Such is the change in many of the things that NASA now does' they're much more cautious than before the accident.

GWEN IFILL: However, there were all these fancy cameras attached to the outside of different fuel tanks and things and we saw in slow motion- - they talked about it this afternoon, today -- a couple of unidentified pieces of perhaps debris coming off the side of the fuel tank or not hitting the orbiter, or maybe, whatever. Do we have any clue what any of that could have been?

KEITH COWING: There are some ideas and of course the whole thing is the more cameras you have watching, the more things you may see, and shuttles always shed little bits and pieces and in the case apparently hit a bird. Once they got into space and one of the solid rocket boosters came off, something flapped away. They're not sure what that is, and apparently a little bit of a tile came off. They're investigating this, and, again, as you said, there are many camera angles to look at. But before the accident, they really didn't have a way to look at the stuff; now they do. And we'll see how good that analytical system is.

GWEN IFILL: And we'll know as the mission goes along when they begin to look at that more closely --

KEITH COWING: Absolutely.

GWEN IFILL: -- what that really is.

KEITH COWING: As a matter of fact, one of the reasons, one of the prime things about this mission is the ability to go out and test new procedures in space to examine the entire outer surface of the spacecraft to see if there's any damage, and actually to practice repair techniques. So you've got to hope that they don't have something to fix, but that's what a good part of this mission is about.

GWEN IFILL: Two years ago, when we saw Columbia, upon reentry, just disintegrate before our eyes, we knew at that time -- we didn't know at the time that it took off there was going to be any subsequent problems. What has NASA learned in the years since that would apply to this launch today?

KEITH COWING: Well, not to assume that just because something happened ten or twenty times before and nothing bad happened as a result that when you see it happen again, it's not going to be an issue. I know that's foremost in everybody's minds today. The moment any of us heard "something came off the shuttle," ding, you go back into -- of course, back then, they said at first, "It's only a piece of foam." Well, we found out later it didn't take much to do the damage.

GWEN IFILL: So is it fighting the last war to go back and look at the exact same problem again?

KEITH COWING: They're much more concerned -- not only concerned about things that have come off, but they've developed far better ways to be certain that they understand what is coming off as soon as it happens and that they have plans in place in case it's something that's deleterious to the vehicle or to the crew.

GWEN IFILL: So what is this shuttle flight? What is Discovery going up to do?

KEITH COWING: A couple of things. First of all, it's in essence a validation that again NASA can take an old vehicle -- it's 20, 25 years old -- that's been through two accidents it's had an advisory team go through it with a microscope, heap a bunch of changes on it, that they can take those changes, integrate them into the vehicle, and launch it again after not doing it for two and a half years. So it's a test flight. It's as if this is a brand new spacecraft. The second thing is they're up there looking at these tiles and how you can examine the spacecraft and fix problems. And, by the way, they're going to go to the space shuttle and deliver a whole bunch of stuff that these guys have been waiting several years for.

GWEN IFILL: It's almost beside the point in the great scheme of things, the future of the shuttle.

KEITH COWING: The interesting thing about the shuttle, this mission will probably have one of everything. There will be space walks, and robot arms and big things being moved around. But unlike Challenger, when they came back and there was an infinite number of shuttles ahead, now the White House is afraid they can't afford to fly the shuttle as often as they felt, and there's only maybe 15 flights ahead. So it's kind of like, "Yahoo, we're back in space again," but it's the beginning of the end.

GWEN IFILL: So the space station is an important goal here, but the larger goal for the future of the space program, is that also at stake?

KEITH COWING: Well, before, under Sean O'Keefe, when they came out with the president's space vision, they said we're going to finish the space station roughly around 2010. We need to retire the shuttle so we can put something new in place. But the driving goal was to finish the space station. Now they've decided that the shuttle is too expensive. They have got a very large cost overrun that they really haven't identified yet that has to do with the return flight, and now it's sort of flipped over that they only want to fly the shuttle maybe 15 times and whatever space station is built, it will be a result of that limited number of flights.

GWEN IFILL: After the Columbia disaster, there was a lot of discussion, introspection afterward about NASA culture, safety culture, and how that was at the root. People had seen problems but they didn't feel they could call the bosses on them. How has NASA culture, if it was a problem then, how has it changed to allow this to take off today?

KEITH COWING: Well, I worked there, and of course the first thing you do when you hear "culture," is you sort of sigh, but you know what it is. You've had Wayne Hale up here, and I think he's the perfect example how NASA has learned and moved on. I mean, he was there; he said he never wants to see his name on another accident report. And if you talk to the guy, and he's very, very eloquent and very down to earth about things, NASA has really not changed a lot of stuff. They're just paying closer attention to their safety requirements. But it used to be that you'd go into a review and they'd say "Prove it's not safe." Well, now you have to say "Prove to me that itis safe." It's starting to percolate through the system. The fact that it's taken so long for this vehicle to finally get into space, I think is evidence of the fact they are really, really, really, serious about safety.

GWEN IFILL: I read a term today I hadn't heard called "go fever."

KEITH COWING: "Go fever," "launch fever." You know, the closer you get to the launch, you really want it to happen, and you really do everything you can to make it happen. But at some point, you sort of get on a knife edge, and that is, am I making decisions now because I really want to launch today, or do I want to stand back and say "I want to be real safe?" And you're always skating on the edge of that and you always see a little bit of it somewhere. But I think these guys now are far better at fighting the urge, because you really want - I mean, I worked there - you really want to see that thing go, and it's all you can do to stop and say, "I can't do it today."

GWEN IFILL: Is it going to be possible to declare this mission a success even one second before it returns safely to Earth?

KEITH COWING: You need to see those folks crawling down the stairway, smiling and waving. That's just the only way I think everybody is really going to sort of viscerally understand that these folks are back home, we did it, NASA did it once again.

GWEN IFILL: And if NASA does it once again this time, it will be back as if nothing bad happened, or --

KEITH COWING: Oh, no.

GWEN IFILL: -- things are changed forever?

KEITH COWING: This was a scarring event. Challenger was bad enough, but Columbia was sort of like a kick in the stomach and a kick in the pants. We're going to see if Dr. Griffin is able to kind of keep the team spirit together. Unfortunately, the team that is bringing this shuttle back to flight, as soon as they landed, about a week later, he's more or less fired the top two people in the space shuttle program. Whether that is good or bad, whether you're going to bring new people in, I mean, it's all about -- it comes down to the people. The rocket science is difficult, but it's straightforward. It's the people, and that's your biggest challenge at NASA.

GWEN IFILL: Okay, well, so far, so good. Keith Cowing, thank you very much for helping us out.

KEITH COWING: My pleasure.

FOCUS - NUCLEAR UNDERGROUND

JIM LEHRER: Now, the black market for nuclear weapons parts. We have a report produced by the PBS series Frontline/World, in association with the Center for Investigative Reporting. The correspondent is Mark Shapiro.

MARK SHAPIRO: Cape Town is famous for its spectacular setting, at the tip of Africa where the Atlantic and Indian Oceans meet. It lays claim to being the most beautiful, relaxed city in South Africa. It's one of the last places you'd expect to find a nuclear black market. But this Cape Town businessman, Asher Karni, is at the center of one of the biggest nuclear smuggling cases uncovered by the U.S. Government. He has pled guilty to violating U.S. export control laws in what the U.S. Government says was a plot to export nuclear weapons parts from the U.S. to Pakistan.

Karni came to South Africa from Israel 20 years ago and worked here at Eagle Technology importing high-tech electronic equipment. The company's lawyer, Michael Bagraim, says they discovered that Karni was making secret deals on his own.

MICHAEL BAGRAIM: These electronic components were sourced, a lot of it in America, in the United States, and then in turn sent on to other countries. We also then investigated and we found that the other countries were India, Israel, and Pakistan. And that, to us, was a turning point. It was like having a viper in your bosom. And you couldn't have that viper in your bosom. You had to remove it before it bit you, and we did remove them straight away at that point.

MARK SHAPIRO: After he was fired, Karni moved to a mansion in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Cape Town. He set up his own company, Top-Cape, and continued doing business from home. The nuclear smuggling deal began in the summer of 2003 when Karni received an e-mail from a longtime business associate in Pakistan, Humayun Khan. Those e-mails were disclosed by federal prosecutors in their indictment against Karni.

Khan wanted to buy 200 triggered spark gaps manufactured in the United States. These are highly specialized electronic devices. They can be used in a high-tech medical machine to break up kidney stones, or they can be used to detonate a nuclear weapon. Khan asked Karni to make the purchase from a sales agent in France. His e-mail advised, "Please do not disclose the end destination."

A few days later, the French agent sent a fax saying that Karni would need an export license to ship to a country like Pakistan; it was a U.S. requirement. Karni told Khan he would not be able to complete the deal. But Khan persisted. "I know it is difficult, but that's how we came to know each other," he wrote. "Please help to negotiate this from any other source." Nine hours later, Karni sent his response, "Will do."

What Karni didn't know was that his e-mail traffic was being forwarded to officials in the U.S. Commerce Department by an anonymous tipster in South Africa. The Commerce Department regulates the export of U.S. goods and technology that may be used by rogue states or terrorists to make weapons of mass destruction. The Department monitors a list of some 3,000 dual-use products that can be used for civilian or military purposes. Peter Lichtenbaum is the acting under secretary for industry and security.

PETER LICHTENBAUM: The triggered spark gaps in the Karni case are a perfect example of an item that has a perfectly appropriate civil use in hospitals, but also can be used in a nuclear weapons program as the triggering device for nuclear weapons. So our job is to identify those items that do have that potential for a bad end use, and then set policy for their control.

JOHN McKENNA: We began the Karni case in July of 2003.

MARK SHAPIRO: Special agent John McKenna began investigating Karni after the South African informant called the Commerce Department hot line.

JOHN McKENNA: He identified Asher Karni as attempting to secure U.S.-Origin goods, and goods that were not going to stay in South Africa. They were going to be sent on to other proscribed end users. Initially, that information was it may be going to Pakistan, India, and at one time we thought maybe North Korea.

MARK SHAPIRO: The informant revealed that Karni would use a middle company in Secaucus, New Jersey, to order the spark gaps from the manufacture, Perkin Elmer, in Massachusetts.

JOHN McKENNA: So his information was accurate and it was up to the minute, almost daily.

MARK SHAPIRO: This is quite an informant.

JOHN McKENNA: Yes. Yes.

MARK SHAPIRO: The South African informant told the Commerce Department that Karni was trying to evade U.S. export control laws by claiming that the triggered spark gaps were destined for an acceptable end user, a hospital in South Africa. Baragwaneth Hospital in Soweto is where Karni declared the spark gaps were headed. Lloyd Thompson is a doctor in the Urology Department. Ishowed him Karni's case file.

LLOYD THOMPSON: End users. Okay, I see.

MARK SHAPIRO: End user. And what does it say there? It says...

LLOYD THOMPSON: Baragwaneth Hospital.

MARK SHAPIRO: Yeah, right here. But the idea that this man, Asher Karni, was sending 200 spark gap triggers to Baragwaneth Hospital.

LLOYD THOMPSON: No, no we don't have that kind of... no. They definitely have never arrived here, and they sure as hell are not wanted here.

MARK SHAPIRO: In the summer of 2003, Karni finalized the deal with Parkland, Humayun Khan's company in Pakistan. Two hundred spark gaps would be sent in three shipments from the United States. But what Karni didn't know was the first shipment of 66 triggers was being followed by special agents from the Commerce Department. The U.S. had set up a special sting operation, assisted by the anonymous tipster in South Africa. The triggers had been disabled before they were sent to Pakistan.

Then Karni made his fatal mistake. On New Year's Day, 2004, he flew into Denver, Colorado, to go on a skiing holiday with his family. As Karni stepped off the plane, U.S. Customs agents arrested him. After spending months in federal custody, Karni pled guilty to five felonies and is now cooperating with U.S. investigators.

Karni's confession led to an indictment against his partner in Pakistan, Humayun Khan. The U.S. hopes to extradite khan. If found guilty, he would face up to 35 years in prison.

MARK SHAPIRO: Good morning, Mr. Khan.

HUMAYUN KHAN: Good morning, yes.

MARK SHAPIRO: After many attempts, I finally reached Mr. Khan in Islamabad. He had been importing U.S. technology for years, but denied he was involved in importing nuclear weapons parts.

MARK SHAPIRO: That's not what it looks like in the correspondence between you. And I have to ask you...

HUMAYUN KHAN: I know, everything is pointing right at me. I mean, I think I will... I am being made a scapegoat, you know.

MARK SHAPIRO: Khan said he would never do business with an Israeli, and had no idea Asher Karni was Jewish.

HUMAYN KHAN: It is very unfortunate that he introduced himself as a Muslim.

MARK SHAPIRO: Uh-huh. He told you he was a Muslim man?

HUMAYN KHAN: Yes, because you see, if you... I'm sure you must have heard that Asher Karni is a Muslim name.

MARK SHAPIRO: I asked Khan who in Pakistan wanted 200 nuclear triggers.

HUMAYN KHAN: You can imagine yourself that a country like Pakistan cannot order 200 bombs, you know. (Laughs)

MARK SHAPIRO: Well, I don't know how many bombs Pakistan has. How many do they have?

HUMAYN KHAN: (Laughs) That is a good question.

MARK SHAPIRO: Yeah, can you give me an estimate?

HUMAYN KHAN: (Laughs) No. I don't know. I really... we actually try to stay away from such... such customers. We don't touch fire.

MARK SHAPIRO: The case of nuclear smuggling uncovered in Cape Town is still under investigation by U.S. Commerce Department agents. They say it may reveal more secrets about the illicit trade in nuclear technology.

MARK SHAPIRO: How big do you think this case is?

McKENNA: Certainly in its significance, this case represents certainly one of the largest nuclear black market cases out there. There's no question about that. And there again, there are leads that are ongoing that we are pursuing that are... as part of this investigation.

SPOKESMAN: We are gathering the facts, interviewing key people involved in the case.

MARK SHAPIRO: Commerce Department officials still wonder where those nuclear triggers were ultimately headed.

SPOKESMAN: Were they going to the Pakistani military? Were they intended for onward proliferation to al-Qaida nuclear weapons program? We will follow the trail wherever it leads, but I don't think that work is yet complete.

MARK SHAPIRO: For now, the U.S. Government will pursue its case against Humayun Khan, who remains in Pakistan. Meanwhile, Asher Karni, who has pled guilty, is due to be sentenced on Aug. 4 in a case of nuclear smuggling uncovered, thanks to that anonymous source in South Africa.

JIM LEHRER: For more on this story, visit our web site at pbs.org.

FOCUS - PAY TO PLAY

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, Ray Suarez looks at the newest form of an old scandal in the music business, known as payola.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, music industry giant Sony BMG Music Entertainment has agreed to pay a $10 million fine in a settlement over allegations of illegal payola, or pay-for-play transactions between its representatives and radio station programmers. The fine was announced yesterday by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who said the practice is widespread throughout the music industry.

Joining me now to discuss payola and the frequency of this practice is Professor Chris Sterling of George Washington University, a radio historian and editor of a three-volume encyclopedia of radio.

And Professor Sterling, what kinds ever things are we talking about that live under that umbrella called payola?

CHRIS STERLING: Anything that involves giving what lawyers often call a consideration-- it can be money, it can be drugs, it can be women-- or I suppose men, let's be equal here. Anything that is a service and/or useful or desired by programmers on radio stations can be asked for and is often given.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, promotion isn't always illegal. What's difference in law between having a commercial for the next ludicrous or 50-cent release, or being paid to play Ludicrous's new song?

CHRIS STERLING: A crucial difference: Congress said in 1960 in a modification of the law after a huge blow-up about payola, the first big one about radio payola, that payola in broadcast stations was illegal. It was not in the public interest for things to be done that the public didn't know about, that listeners didn't hear. We all assume that an advertisement on television or radio is paid for. So that's overt, and that's obvious. But when money is paid and, therefore, results are skewed, and Song X is on top of the charts, when in fact it would not, perhaps, normally be on top of the charts, the commission holds that's misleading the public.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Sony BMG agreed to pay a $10 million fine in the context of a $300 million promotion budget. Is it a big fine?

CHRIS STERLING: No, it's a big fine to any of us, thinking about $10 million, but, no; it's pocket change. It's a cost of doing business. It is, in fact, much less than they've been spending, and the other firms have been spending, on payola, if Spitzer is right, on payola on a yearly base. It's an old problem. It's gone on for a long time. Little crises bubble up periodically. This is the latest bubbling up.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, record labels have for a long time given away free things -

CHRIS STERLING: Right.

RAY SUAREZ: -- records themselves, trips, promotional junkets, food-- and periodically there are attempts to crack down on it. Does it just shift where the action is?

CHRIS STERLING: In many ways it does. Two decades ago there was a flap that was also partly centered in n New York about these independent promoters who were between the record firms and the radio industry, and the record companies said they would no longer use independent promoters. Well, funny thing, they've been saying the same thing over the last couple of years. Part of the agreement-- I haven't seen the actual copy -- but part of the agreement apparently says the same thing now. People find new ways to do the same thing. The music industry is under terrific pressure. There are lots of firms, despite consolidation. There are still lots of firms, there are lots of labels. There are a huge number of artists. There are an awful lot of records and the records will not survive if they don't get air play. That's what it's all about. But what makes it complex is the intertwining of the record industry and the radio industry. Neither could successfully survive without the other. And that kind of a relationship, which has been there for nearly 80 year, 85 years, leads to this kind of thing. It's going to be very hard to stamp out.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, here was a case where the New York state attorney general was going after a big record label, but radio stations are regulated by the federal government. Is the FCC interested? Has the FCC been enforcing these laws?

CHRIS STERLING: In the last ten years the FCC has issued one fine on payola for $8,000, which isn't even pocket change. It doesn't mean they're not paying attention. The FCC acts when complaints are brought to it. Commissioner Adelstein has said over the last day or so, based on what he's been hearing about New York's findings that the Commission should look into this. Now, let's remember something crucial: Politics is almost as important as money in all of this. Spitzer is running for governor of New York next year. That's not to say laws haven't been broken. But that's an issue. He's clearly also looking for attention. The commissioner is well aware Congress is unhappy-- several people in Congress have already talked about introducing new laws. And it seems rather likely that Congress may make noise, sort of clear its regulatory throat. The Commission is a creature of Congress. Everything in this town is political. The commissioner may well be thinking very honestly that he's very concerned about the issue-- that's not to denigrate that, but clearly politics is playing a huge part. And it's following on last year's crisis about indecency. Ironically, 40 years ago, when the payola thing first came up, it followed a crisis a year before about setting-- about television quiz shows. It was a huge crisis, turned the industry upside down. So it's rather odd that in both cases payola has come in second.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, since those big payola scandals you were talking about-- Alan Freed in the 1950s

CHRIS STERLING: Yes.

RAY SUAREZ: -- radio station consolidation has gone on, so more and more stations are owned by fewer and fewer companies.

CHRIS STERLING: Right.

RAY SUAREZ: Did it change how payola works. When you want to get Reba McIntyre on-air play, you now go to one person to get it on 60 stations?

CHRIS STERLING: Not in basis. Not in basis, no. Consolidation is an issue on both sides of the table. There has been consolidation, substantial consolidation in the music business. The same thing has happened in radio. That is not central. It's affected the issue. It's probably modified some of the patterns, but it would have happened anyway, just as it did 40 years ago; just as it came up again 20 years ago. And as it will probably come up again.

RAY SUAREZ: Is this policeable?

CHRIS STERLING: It's almost impossible. We're talking about a culture in the music business-- and let's be fair: It happensin a variety ever industries, and it's not illegal. It happens in the grocery businesses. The number of facings of Kellogg's cornflakes in the grocery store is not set up because the manager thinks he likes Kellogg's and he's going to have three facings instead of just two; it's set up as part of an agreement with the distributor. There's nothing illegal about it. It's part of promotion. Look at doctors who go on wonderful cruises to learn about new drugs from drug companies. Again, there's nothing illegal about it. It's illegal here because it deals with radio and television, which is, as you say, regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and again, specifically, in 1960, Congress modified the ruling Communications Act to say it cannot-- should not-- happen in radio and television, and if it does, you could go to jail. You could get fined. You could lose your license.

RAY SUAREZ: It didn't look, did it, from the memos released by Eliot Spitzer, as the fruit of his investigation, like these people thought they were doing anything wrong, did it?

CHRIS STERLING: It's amazing what people will put on e-mail and think that nobody will find it. I think some of them clearly knew it was wrong. Certainly the higher folks in both the music and radio business are well aware of this. Many broadcast stations have agreements you sign if you're a programmer-- certainly if you're a DJ -- that speak to this kind of thing. Some folks have been fired on both sides of the aisle in the last few days. I think they're tokens, I really do. I think they're sort of taking a hit for a larger issue.

RAY SUAREZ: Will this change practice in the music business?

CHRIS STERLING: Briefly, briefly but only briefly. It will come back. Spitzer has gotten a payment, an agreement, a settlement, with one of the big players. There are three or four more, and the question swill they fall in line and simply pay to make this go away, or will they fight it?

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Sterling, thanks a lot.

CHRIS STERLING: My pleasure.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day. Space shuttle Discovery made a successful launch into space. Police in Egypt identified one of the bombers in the Sharm el-Sheikh attacks. They said he was an Egyptian, with suspected links to Islamic militants. At least 16 Iraqis died in separate attacks across Iraq. And the U.S. Military announced four more Americans were killed on Sunday. Nova Science Now, tonight on most PBS stations, will examine advances in fuel cell technology. Please check your local listings for the time. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with a Newsmaker interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, among other things. Until then, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.