The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: The news of the day; then, a look at the president's choice for secretary of homeland security; a science unit examination of the search for tsunami warning systems; and a debate about the launch to change Social Security.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Bush today nominated Michael Chertoff to be the next secretary of homeland security. He's a federal appeals court judge now in New Jersey. From 2001 to 2003, he ran the Justice Department's criminal division, and helped form legal policies in the war on terror. The president first nominated Bernard Kerik to the homeland security job. But he withdrew, citing immigration problems with a nanny. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. In Indonesia today, the tsunami death toll climbed again, to more than 105,000. That made nearly 153,000 killed across the Indian Ocean. But there were signs of hope today, as well. A young Indonesian man was found alive on a raft. He'd been washed out to sea when the disaster struck the day after Christmas. And a second airport opened near Sumatra Island in Indonesia, to handle aid shipments. We have a report on how the relief effort is going there, from James Mates of Independent Television News.

JAMES MATES: It is a lifeline without which the people of Aceh would be suffering not just floods and disease, but starvation too. This morning, we joined the airlift, flying for an hour down the coast of Sumatra, every mile wearing the same ugly brown scar that it's carried since Boxing Day. This, at the speed of a helicopter, for an hour... and that wasn't remotely half of it. For all the tens of thousands who died, there are as many survivors. Those who lived through the tsunami in the village of Loquat cannot be evacuated, and anyway prefer even this to life in a refugee camp. But all that's keeping them alive right now is the international air bridge. There will be no immediate letup in the need for these aid flights. Flying over here, you can see just how destroyed the road infrastructure is, even after all this time. Vast swathes of this coastline are still only accessible by helicopter. With the massive international effort of the last two weeks, the warehouses are filling fast. But it's less of a problem now getting the aid in than getting it out again. There are so few serviceable roads around Banda Aceh that traffic clogs every inch, great heaps of debris simply scraped to one side to clear space. Even the army, committed now entirely to relief work, struggles to get through. When an aid truck does make it through to a refugee camp, there can be no doubt about the need. These truly are people who have nothing, many having escaped with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. This delivery is of clothing, towels, plastic buckets. That they are so desperate for such basic items leaves little doubt about how much longer this aid effort is going to have to be maintained.

JIM LEHRER: Also today, the Indonesian military cautioned foreign aid workers about rebels in the Aceh region, and it offered a renewed cease-fire to the rebels. And in Geneva, officials from the United Nations and 80 donor countries met to discuss the $4 billion in pledged aid. The U.N. relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, promised a full accounting.

JAN EGELAND: We cannot afford any question marks being raised in whether or not there is an effective use of this unprecedented generosity by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of individuals, of private sector corporations, and of governments.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on the tsunami story later in the program. New violence in Iraq claimed 13 lives today, all of them Iraqis. A suicide car bomber killed six policemen in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown. And at least seven people died in another attack south of Baghdad. Elsewhere, explosions shut down at least one oil pipeline in northern Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi acknowledged today violence may limit voting in the Jan. 30 election. He did so as election organizers in the Fallujah region quit. They'd received death threats. In Baghdad, Allawi said: "Certainly there will be some pockets that will not be able to participate in the elections but we thin it will not be widespread."

JIM LEHRER: Israeli Prime Minister Sharon today telephoned Mahmoud Abbas, the new president-elect of the Palestinian Authority. Earlier, Sharon said he hopes to meet with Abbas soon. Separately, the Associated Press reported the Israeli army wants to dig a trench on the Gaza/Egypt border. It's designed to stop weapons smugglers from using tunnels there. It could also mean tearing down 3,000 Palestinian homes. President Bush pressed his plan today to add private investment accounts to Social Security. He told the Wall Street Journal he'd "provide the political cover" for lawmakers who support change. And at a Washington event, the president said he's hopeful about lining up support for the changes he wants.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Most younger people in America think they'll never see a dime, probably an exaggeration to a certain extent. But a lot of people who are young, who understand how Social Security works, really do wonder whether they'll see anything. Once we assure the seniors who will receive Social Security today that everything is fine, I think we got a shot to get something done.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on this story later in the program. Record rainfall kept coming in southern California today, raising new fears of mudslides and flooding. At least four people were killed in La Conchita yesterday, when a wall of earth cascaded down on 15 homes; 14 others were hurt, 27 were missing, as crews searched through the night. Elsewhere, firefighters had to rescue a toddler twice on Monday, once with a raft, and then a second time, after the raft flipped. Inspectors in western Canada confirmed another case of Mad Cow Disease today, the second this year. Officials said no part of the animal got into the human or animal food chains. In March, the United States plans to lift a ban on Canadian beef and cattle, imposed in 2003. A U.S. cattleman's group is now suing to block that move. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 64 points to close at 10,556. The NASDAQ fell 17 points to close below 2,080. Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean entered the race for party chairman today. He announced it in a letter to the Democratic National Committee. In it, he said: "We must be willing to contest every race at every level. We can only win when we show up." Six other candidates are already in the race. The DNC is to make its decision next month. Civil rights pioneer James Forman died Monday at a Washington hospice. He had colon cancer. In the 1960s, Forman became involved with the freedom rides through the South, pressing for racial equality. He also helped build the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. It was one of the leading activist groups of the era. James Forman was 76 years old. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to: Chertoff for homeland security; tsunami warnings; and Social Security reforming.

FOCUS - SECURITY CHOICE

JIM LEHRER: The president's new choice to head homeland security, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: If confirmed by the Senate, Michael Chertoff would replace Tom Ridge, the first secretary of the homeland security agency created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. President Bush touted his new choice, currently an appeals court judge, at the white House this morning.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Mike has shown a deep commitment to the cause of justice and an unwavering determination to protect the American people. Mike has also been a key leader in the war on terror.

MARGARET WARNER: As head of the Justice Department's criminal division after 9/11, Chertoff helped craft the administration's legal anti-terror strategy, including the controversial Patriot Act. He also spearheaded prosecutions of corporate wrongdoing at Enron and Arthur Anderson.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: It will be my privilege to serve with the thousands of men and women who stand watch across the country and overseas, protecting our security and promoting our freedom.

MARGARET WARNER: The 51-year-old Chertoff graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1978, and clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. After a stint in private practice, he became an assistant U.S. Attorney in Manhattan. He was named the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey in 1990. After returning to private practice, Chertoff served as the Senate Republicans' chief counsel in the Clinton-era Whitewater investigation. When President Bush took office, Chertoff became Attorney General John Ashcroft's criminal division chief. He was appointed a judge on the U.S. Court of appeals in Philadelphia in mid-2003. Today, the president said Chertoff's experience and personal qualities made him an ideal choice to head the huge homeland security agency.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: In the days after Sept. 11, Mike helped trace the terrorist attacks to the al-Qaida network. He understood immediately that the strategy in the war on terror is to prevent attacks before they occur. His energy and intellect put him at the center of many vital homeland security improvements, especially increased information sharing within the FBI and with state and local officials.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: I pledge to devote all my energy to promoting our homeland security and, as important, to preserving our fundamental liberties.

MARGARET WARNER: The president's first choice for homeland security director, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, was forced to withdraw last month over his housekeeper's immigration status. There were also questions about his extramarital affairs and ties to figures allegedly linked to organized crime. Today, the president noted that the Senate has already confirmed Chertoff for three previous positions. And, indeed, Chertoff's nomination was greeted warmly on Capitol Hill today, by many Republicans and some Democrats.

MARGARET WARNER: For more on the president's choice for homeland security chief, we turn to three people who know Michael Chertoff. George Terwilliger was deputy attorney general for the first President Bush during the years that Chertoff served as a U.S. Attorney, and he has maintained a personal and professional friendship with Chertoff since then. Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 Commission, squared off against Chertoff during the Whitewater hearings, when Ben-Veniste was chief counsel for the Senate Democrats. And Elaine Shannon has covered the Justice Department for years as crime and national security correspondent for Time Magazine. Welcome to you all.

George Terwilliger, give us some insight into Michael Chertoff. What does he bring in a sort of personal professional qualities to this job?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: I think Mike is a great choice for what is one the more difficult cabinet jobs in Washington, because he has the energy, the integrity, and the background in the substantive things that homeland security is about to get the job done. I think he'll do a great job and people will be happy he's there.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you as high on his choice, Richard?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: I think it's an interesting choice, I have a very high regard for Mike Chertoff's intellect, and his capacity for hard work. He knows these agencies, and I think he knows what needs to be done.

MARGARET WARNER: When you say he knows these agencies, meaning like at Justice he's had to deal with what, FBI, immigration, some of the agencies that have to either intersect or interact with Homeland Security?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: Yes, there are 22 different agencies that comprise the Department of Homeland Security. The reorganization that put all these agencies together was the biggest reorganization our country has seen since World War II.

MARGARET WARNER: Elaine Shannon, I'm not going to ask you to give your opinion of Michael Chertoff as a choice, but tell us how he was regarded inside the Justice Department during the years when he was head of the criminal division, how much of a force was he in Justice?

ELAINE SHANNON: Well, he was the brain behind the whole 9/11 strategy, except for some of the Supreme Court arguments. He's the guy who said we're going to go spitting on the sidewalk strategy now; that means that if you're an illegal alien, they happen to find you, maybe you were not connected in any way with terrorists, still if you are illegal they would take you in and would hold you and then you'd end up facing deportation proceedings,. If they thought you were a terrorist, they would use any law they could to get you off the streets. It's an old term from mob prosecution days, and Mike Chertoff is an old mob prosecutor, and it was very effective but very controversial.

MARGARET WARNER: Speaking as his days as a mob prosecutor, George Terwilliger, and this is when he was a U.S. Attorney and you were number two at the Justice Department, what did he really accomplish then? I don't mean a litany of all his cases necessarily, but how effective was he, and what was his operating style?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Well, that's a great question because it does go to Mike's ability and his background to do this job well, I think, Margaret, because what Mike's mark was that he could work with a wide variety of people from a wide variety of agencies and not just federal agencies, but state and local as well. Mike was extremely well respected in New Jersey as giving everybody a place at the table and an opportunity to participate.

MARGARET WARNER: But fair to say very aggressive, hard nosed?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Absolutely aggressive and very hard nosed, but also in a very measured and balanced way. Mike has got a great intellect and it's easy to be a tough guy. It's more difficult to be a tough and fair guy, but Mike can do that.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, in the Whitewater hearings, Richard Ben-Veniste, he came under some criticism from those who thought the whole things was a political witch hunt. Do you feel that he operated that way, or was he fair minded?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: I think the client in that case was more aggressive than perhaps counsel might have been under other circumstances.

MARGARET WARNER: The client being?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: The senators on the majority side. As we know, Whitewater discovered neither impropriety, much less illegality on the part of the president. But Mike is a hard charger, he's aggressive, and I think the knock on him is, if anything, over aggressiveness. Now, that was almost ten years ago. So he's had some time to mature, I think, and this is a much different assignment. And so I was pleased to hear that he talked this morning about balancing the need to protect civil rights and privacy, because that is an essential part of this job.

MARGARET WARNER: Going back to the post 9/11 era, Elaine Shannon, talk a little more about, I mean, is it fair to say that he really was one of the major architects of all the different, including the controversial portions of the Patriot Act, for instance enhanced FBI surveillance powers, holding people as material witnesses, all those different elements?

ELAINE SHANNON: Yes, I think he was very much taking the point on those. Now, if you look at the larger actions that the administration did, I don't believe that he was on the side of military tribunals. He'd come up in the criminal justice system as we've traditionally known, and I believe that he thought that process could work fine; George can tell you more about that. Also I don't know where he stood on the issue on Geneva Conventions. The torture memo that we heard about last week that came out of the White House and out of Alberto Gonzales' office, that never went through Chertoff's office; very interesting that the people who had been in jury trials and the Justice Department never got to see that memo; it was sort of off to the side there.

MARGARET WARNER: And, in fact, Mr. Ben-Veniste, didn't he, after he left Justice, he was quoted at a couple of conferences actually being somewhat critical of some of the detention policies?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: I think so, Margaret. He'd seemed to distance himself somewhat from some of the more aggressive aspects both of the Patriot Act and the roundup policies.

MARGARET WARNER: Can you shed any light on that, Mr. Terwilliger, as a friend of his, as to where he sees the balance?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Not perhaps so much as a friend of his but as somebody that had the opportunity to converse with Mike and other people immediately in the time after 9/11. I think it's important that we keep in mind that this wasn't a one-phase type of reaction. There was a phase and a reaction that was entirely appropriate immediately after 9/11 when the country seemed, and I think was in extreme danger. And there was an aggressive use, taking the law to its limits to make --

MARGARET WARNER: As Elaine was describing.

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Exactly, to keep the country safe. Then we turn to a more long-term solution. And I think that's where Mike probably made his greatest contribution was in looking down the road; as the president has said time and again, this is not a one-year or two-year problem, this is a very long term problem and we need some long-term strategies to deal with it. And I'm glad Mike will be back in the mix on policy to help with that.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Elaine, what does the choice of Michael Chertoff tell you about what President Bush islooking for in this new head of Homeland Security? I mean, he's certainly just in personality, and somewhat in background, very different from Bernard Kerik or Tom Ridge.

ELAINE SHANNON: Well, number one, he can get confirmed in a heartbeat. This guy has been through that process three times, he leads a rather austere life, as far as I can tell. I think he works almost all the time, and when he is not taking care of his kids and running, he's in the office. I don't think he sleeps. Number two: he is a very decisive man. I've never heard anybody call him a bully or unpleasant, but he likes to get in there, he's a man of action, he doesn't like to chew the fat for hours; in other words, I think he likes to fish or cut bait. And that will be, I think, his management style at the Department of Homeland Security, where there's a huge, huge management problem there.

MARGARET WARNER: The inspector general, Mr. Ben-Veniste, of the Homeland Security Department issued a report in November saying there are huge management challenges, quote unquote, in this behemoth agency of, what,180,000 people. Does the background of being a prosecutor and a Justice Department official, and a judge prepare you for running a huge agency like that?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: Not particularly, I don't think. And that's the area of skepticism with respect to this. But Gov. Ridge had Adm. Lloyd, I'm sure Mike Chertoff will supplement his skills and abilities with able administrators. But this is a challenge beyond that, which anybody has faced in getting these 22 agencies working together, singing from the same song book, and using the same IT.

MARGARET WARNER: What's your view of that?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Well, I think Mike will be a really hands-on manager. I mean, he ran a large U.S. Attorney's office, running the criminal division of the Justice Department is a national responsibility. I don't think Mike will have any difficulty taking the next step up to a cabinet position. And I have no doubt that people throughout the Department of Homeland Security from top to bottom will know exactly what the secretary wants.

MARGARET WARNER: As Elaine said. Mr. Ben-Veniste, finally, draw on your experience as a 9/11 Commissioner. And of course the period you were looking at we know was a period where the Department did not exist.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: Right.

MARGARET WARNER: But when you look at the whole problem of protecting this country, you must have thought about what was needed in this job. What are the biggest challenges facing it, and does he seem suited for that?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: Aside from the administrative job of melding these different agencies in one cohesive agency, the job entails prioritizing, assessing our vulnerabilities, and then making decisions as to where the dollars need to go to protect our homeland: Border security, transportation, beyond airline security. We've got rail, and port security to deal with. And then there's the issue of prioritizing the funds from national, from this Department to the states and cities. It's a mess now; it's pork barrel now; and it's got to change. New York City, which has been the target of I think six terrorist attacks, is 49th out of 50 states in terms of per capita dollars that they are receiving. So there's got to be some strength and leadership there in terms of prioritizing that process.

MARGARET WARNER: What would you add to that in terms of what's on their plate?

ELAINE SHANNON: We've got to get the Europeans and other foreign countries to go along. They need to start telling the United States who's on the airplanes and the other conveyances coming into this country before they get up in the air, or they take off because there's just not enough time to run down their backgrounds without date of birth, a passport number and other information. This last Department tried and was not able to get that kind of information early on, and they need to work on this now.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Mr. Terwilliger, isn't it also a big part of this job working with state and local officials, that was supposed to be Tom Ridge's great strength when he was brought in. How well suited -- first of all, talk about that a little -- and how well suited do you think Chertoff is for that?

GEORGE TERWILLIGER: Well, it is a big part of the job, and it's really the Homeland Security Department I think is on the forefront of a totally new relationship between the federal government and the states and localities. The need for cooperation and joint effort is as if never, it's never been before. I think Mike is well suited to that; when he was a U.S. Attorney in New Jersey he ran an organization from his office that was designed to coordinate law enforcement activities in areas like drugs and violent crime and gangs and so forth. So he knows how to get it done. And I think when a person who has been a U.S. Attorney has had the opportunity to be on the ground and listen firsthand to police chiefs, mayors and other state and local officials who really communicate what their needs are, can't always meet them, but I think they'll find a friend.

MARGARET WARNER: George Terwilliger, Elaine Shannon, Richard Ben-Veniste, thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: The science of tsunami warnings; and the politics of reforming Social Security.

FOCUS - TSUNAMI ALERT

JIM LEHRER: The difficult business of warning people about tsunamis before they strike. It's a subject that's been much discussed since the disaster of two weeks ago. Betty Ann Bowser, for our science unit, reports on how those systems could work.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: It was just before 3 PM at the tsunami warning center in Honolulu last Wednesday. An aftershock from the Sumatran earthquake was detected.

SPOKESMAN: It would take about nine.

SPOKESMAN: This is - it says five, nine, three stations --

SPOKESMAN: That's right.

SPOKESMAN: Okay.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Scientists from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration turned to their computers.

DR. CHARLES McCREERY, Director, Pacific Tsunami Warning Center: We've probably responded to 50 earthquakes of this size or bigger over the last week and a half. And this will continue for a long time. We would start getting concerned about some kind of a -- the possibility of a tsunami if the earthquake gets above about magnitude-7.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The quake turned out to be a small one. But if it had been big, the scientists here would once again have been unable to tell if the quake had triggered a tsunami, because the Indian Ocean has no tsunami detection devices or warning system. NOAA geophysicist Stuart Weinstein was on duty Christmas Day when he saw there had been a major earthquake. Colleague Barry Hirshorn raced to the center to join him. (Screams) Common sense told them there would be a tsunami. But with no measuring equipment in the Indian Ocean, they were unable to detect it. Even worse, they had no idea who to call and warn in the region.

STUART WEINSTEIN, Geophysicist, Pacific Tsunami Warning Center: I think the "holy cow" moment didn't occur until we started getting the first preliminary reports over the wire services that, in fact, a damaging wave struck Phuket, Thailand, and Sri Lanka.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Were you frustrated?

STUART WEINSTEIN: Very frustrated. Frustrated and to a certain extent humiliated. It's humiliating for me as a geophysicist working for a tsunami-warning program to learn first of a tsunami from a wire service than from a tide gauge. That -- it doesn't get any worse than that, quite frankly.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Thousands of miles away at NOAA's Pacific Marine Research Lab in Seattle, tsunami researcher Vasily Titov was also frustrated. It took him until 4 AM in the morning of the next day to run this computer model, because he didn't have tsunami readings either.

VASILY TITOV, Researcher, NOAA: It already swept across the Indian Ocean and it was propagating toward the Atlantic at that time. So, yeah, if you think about it, by that time, thousands and thousands of people are already dying.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Now, nearly two weeks later, with more data, Titov has expanded the model, and is the first scientist to show that the tsunami was a worldwide event and went way beyond the Indian Ocean Basin.

VASILY TITOV: We are just starting to have the data. The data just started to come in from all over the world that's showing that the tsunami actually propagated all across the ocean. And in the Pacific, in the Atlantic Ocean there are tide gauges or sensors that picked up tsunami waves-- small, but they were -- they detected it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: With such international implications for future tsunamis, and with the death toll now well over 150,000, the scientific community is coming together to call for a global tsunami warning system. It would be modeled after the only one that exists, NOAA's Pacific tsunami warning system. Over the past 55 years, it has detected killer tsunamis all the way from the northwest coast of the United States to Japan, and south to the west coast of South America. The Pacific Center was established after a tsunami hit the Hawaiian Islands in 1946, killing 159 people. Seismologist Dr. Charles McCreery is its director.

DR. CHARLES McCREERY: We have a destructive tsunami in the Pacific almost every year or every couple of years. And that's why, really, the system had been developed for the Pacific. In these other oceans it can be hundreds of years between these big destructive tele-tsunamis. And what we found out on Dec. 26, unfortunately, was that by not being prepared even for such a rare event, there was a high price to pay.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: All earthquakes do not trigger tsunamis; even big earthquakes on the ocean floor do not always cause tsunamis. But any time the center knows there's been a major earthquake, they take it seriously. First, they look at seismic readings that come in from multiple stations.

BARRY HIRSHORN, Geophysicist, Pacific Tsunami Warning Center: We get signals from about 120 seismometer around the Pacific Basin. They're measuring ground motion all the time in real-time and sending us the signals of the ground motion as it's occurring, only 20, 30 seconds behind real-time. We come in here, as quickly as possible we sit down at a terminal behind me here, and we... as soon as we have enough stations reporting, seismic stations, we locate the earthquake.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Once they determine the size of the earthquake, they will then look at whether it will cause a tsunami. They first look at readings for more than 100 shore-based tide stations located around the Pacific Basin, near the shorelines. The best equipment to detect if there is atsunami are a series of deep-ocean monitors called "tsunameters;" developed by NOAA, that give readings from several locations around the Pacific Ocean Basin. Each tsunameter consists of an underwater platform and a buoy on the ocean's surface. The platform contains equipment that measures changes in water pressure.

SPOKESPERSON: Let me show you this computer here.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: NOAA engineer Chris Meinig is one of the inventors of the system.

CHRIS MEINIG, Engineer, NOAA: This is the only system that can measure either the presence or absence, perhaps no wave. There's many instances where you get an earthquake and no wave is generated, and that's just as important to notice, to say, "hey, the population isn't at risk, don't sound the alarms, don't clear the beaches of Waikiki, everything is okay." But this is a physical measurement of the actual wave.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: This computer triggers an acoustic signal that is sent to the buoy, which sends that data to a satellite, which beams it back down to the tsunami center in Honolulu. If they determine a tsunami is likely, they issue a warning. If big waves are headed toward the Hawaiian Islands, civil defense officials enter the picture. These sirens go off, alerting people to go to their TV sets and radios, where instructions for evacuation will be given. Along the beaches, tourists are moved into hotel buildings. Dr. Laura Kong is director of the International Tsunami Warning Center.

DR. LAURA KONG, Director, International Tsunami Warning Center: Especially in Waikiki Beach we do have what's called vertical evacuation, so that for any structure that's more than six stories in height, any steel-reinforced structure, our official evacuation procedures, if there is no time, would be to go move people above the third floor.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Even the phone books in Hawaii contain evacuation maps for every neighborhood along the coastline. The system worked well in 1952, and again in 1957, when tsunamis hit Hawaii.

DR. CHARLES McCREERY: In 1952, we had another big destructive tsunami. And because of the warning system there were no casualties. We had no casualties again in 1957, a magnitude 9.1 earthquake. In 1960, the largest earthquake in recorded history, a magnitude 9.5 off the coast of Chile, produced a very big tsunami. We had a warning in Hawaii, but we did end up with 61 casualties here.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The ultimate test of the Pacific warning system will come when a powerful earthquake takes place off the northwest coast of the United States.

FRANK GONZALEZ, Oceanographer, NOAA: How long did it take to reach the U.S. Coast, do you remember?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Scientists like NOAA's Frank Gonzales say it's not a question of whether the earthquake will take place, but when. And the similarities between the earthquake zone off the northwest coast and Sumatra are frightening.

FRANK GONZALEZ: Each possesses what's called a seismic subduction zone, in which an oceanic plate is forcing its way underneath a continental or land plate, and that forcing does not occur smoothly. The plate sticks - both of them stick because you've got rock on rock - and the pressure builds up for decades or centuries -- and eventually it breaks, as it did off of Sumatra. This coast will receive both a devastating shaking during the earthquake, which will destroy a lot of buildings, and so forth, and that will be followed by a very large, destructive tsunami.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: NOAA scientists are developing new technology that will not only improve the Pacific warning system, butcould make a global tsunami warning system more affordable. Current cost estimates are in the billions. NOAA's tsunameters cost $250,000 a piece to put into the ocean. But when this new prototype is ready for mass production, it will be smaller and will cost one-half that amount. And scientist Vasily Titov says when there are more tsunameters in the oceans of the world, his computer model will be able to forecast tsunamis the same way the Weather Service does hurricanes.

VASILY TITOV: The way the tsunami warning system works now, it's a, if you will, a reactive system. They see what happens and they react to that. They see a tsunami... I mean, earthquake happens, it may generate tsunamis, they react to that; they issue a tsunami watch. It may be small, it may be large. That they don't know for sure right now, and that's what we're trying to change.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But even with more technology, scientists say no warning system will work unless communities have a comprehensive evacuation plan and educate their residents.

DR. LAURA KONG: It's not only the technology for it, but it's when a warning gets out, you want to make sure that governments and local agencies and emergency responders are able to act on that information instantly. And so they have to be the ones to translate that message of a warning into an evacuation, and then get those people out of harm's way.

DR. CHARLES McCREERY: When the sea withdrew, they went into those dangerous areas out onto the sea floor to... just out of curiosity. If they just had had that little bit of knowledge about the tsunamis to know that's a natural warning sign and don't go out there. These are basic things that we teach in public education about tsunamis.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Scientists from all over the world will meet next week in Japan to start laying the groundwork for a global tsunami warning system.

FOCUS - CAMPAIGN FOR CHANGE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight: The launch of a big campaign to change the Social Security system. Gwen Ifill has our story. (Applause)

GWEN IFILL: President Bush, stepping up his effort to revamp the Social Security system, today made the political case for immediate action.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, I know this is an issue that some would rather not be talking about. It's an issue that is kind of... I think some think it's got too much political danger attached to it. That's not what I think. And today I want to talk about why we have an issue with Social Security, why I believe those of us who have been elected to office have an obligation to do something about it. By the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now.

GWEN IFILL: Social Security's actuaries estimate that by the year 2042, the system will only be able to pay beneficiaries about 72 percent of the benefits currently promised to them. That's because the system will begin paying out more than it takes in by the year 2018. The president has argued that part of the solution is allowing younger workers to invest a portion of their benefits in private accounts.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: A personal savings account which would earn a better rate of return than their money currently held within the Social Security trust, a personal savings account which will compound over time and grow over time, a personal savings account which can't be used to bet on the lottery or, you know, a dice game or the track, in other words, there will be guidelines.

GWEN IFILL: Powerful interest groups like the AARP have opposed that approach, arguing it would put the poor at risk. But today in Washington, in front of an audience of invited supporters, there was only agreement.

JOSH WRIGHT, Dairy Farmer: I've spent my whole life-- my younger years, I guess-- being taught to be independent, to be... to provide for myself and my wife now and my little two- year-old son. And this personal retirement plan would offer me a little bit more stability for myself and my family, whereas with the Social Security now I don't know where it would be when I retire.

SPOKESMAN (Ad): It took courage to create Social Security.

SPOKESMAN: This Social Security measure.

SPOKESMAN: It will take courage and leadership to protect it.

GWEN IFILL: An aggressive campaign is now under way to win support for the president's approach. This ad, airing in select markets, was produced by Progress for America, a pro-Bush political group. Even callers to the Social Security administration headquarters hear this recorded message:

RECORDED MESSAGE: Did you know that the 76 million strong baby boom generation will begin to retire in about ten years? When that happens, changes will need to be made to the Social Security system, changes to make sure there's enough money to continue to pay full benefits. Most experts agree, the sooner those changes are made, the less they are going to cost.

GWEN IFILL: The cost for the changes the president proposes has been pegged at $2 trillion or more over ten years, which some within the administration have suggested be paid for by cutting the rate of growth for future benefits. In Congress, Democrats have resisted the president's proposals, and the prospect of cutting benefits has unsettled some Republicans as well. President Bush is expected to release the details of his proposal to Congress by the end of next month.

GWEN IFILL: The debate over Social Security's future is a one of long standing in Washington. So how urgent is the problem the president is now describing? For that, we turn to: David Certner, director of federal affairs for AARP, a membership organization that serves people age 50 and over; and Pat Toomey, president of the Club For Growth, a membership organization that backs economically conservative candidates.

David Certner, we just heard what the president said and it seems that there's a basic disagreement here about exactly how big a crisis this is or how big a problem, to use the president's chosen word, it is. What would you say?

DAVID CERTNER: I don't think there's really any disagreement over the fundamental numbers, we have the Social Security trustees and the Congressional Budget Office, the two score keepers hotel us what the system is really doing financially. And those are the numbers we all work off. Now both of them say that Social Security has sufficient money to pay full benefits for about four more decades and three quarters of benefits after that time. We know we have a long term challenge with Social Security and it's a good challenge, because people are living longer, but we're certainly not in any crisis today. Social Security is bringing in over $150 billion more this year than is necessary and that will continue for at least another decade. So we have a long term problem, and the sooner we deal with, of course, the easier it will be to deal with.

GWEN IFILL: Pat Toomey, a long term problem but not an urgent one?

(No audio)

PAT TOOMEY: Right now we've got a system that's promising young workers often a neglect tough rate of return or a very modest zero or one percent, and it's a promise that we know the system cannot deliver on. We know that within just 14 years, the revenue from the system will not be enough to pay promised benefits, and we know that if we look over the next 75 years, the difference between promised benefits and anticipated revenue is a short fall of $12 trillion -- four times our national debt. I think that constitutes a crisis we need to act on now.

GWEN IFILL: Is it more of a crisis than the Medicare prescription drug plan which costs more money than that, or the tax cuts that the president has proposed?

PAT TOOMEY: Well, I mean, let's look at the tax cuts. The tax cuts have helped us get to this really strong rebound in our economy. The economy has been performing extremely well. Housing starts are strong, homeownership is tremendous, unemployment is down, job creation is up; productivity is growing. Thank goodness we got the tax cuts; that's helping our economy to grow. Medicare is a big problem unto itself, and in fact one that has a real urgency to it as well. But you know there's a tremendous benefit that we haven't talked about that much so Social Security reform and that is to give younger workers the opportunity for the first time in our country, low and modest income younger workers, the opportunity to accumulate wealth that they would own and control. I think there's tremendous up side in this.

GWEN IFILL: David Certner, what about that, this idea, this chance to create wealth among younger less economically advantaged workers, the sort of thing the president is talking about, what's wrong with that?

DAVID CERTNER: Well, there's nothing wrong with saving and investing for retirement, we strongly support large private retirement systems we've put in place today. We have trillions of dollars today in 401-K and IRA accounts; these are systems that we've supported and expanding. We have a safer tax credit for moderate income people. We think these savings are a necessary and important for secure retirement. The problem is here some are proposing that we take away from Social Security in order to incur additional savings.

GWEN IFILL: How does this take away from Social Security?

DAVID CERTNER: Well, what we're talking about here are taking payroll tax money away from Social Security and putting it into private savings. We think that's a mistake, we think we already know that Social Security is running a long-term shortfall. The last thing we want to do is start taking money away from Social Security. We're going to need that money to pay current benefits. We need to encourage saving and investing on top of and in addition to Social Security so we can have a secure retirement. Social Security is about security, and making sure you have a predictable source of income. That's what that system is about. The higher private retirement system, IRA's and 401-Ks, and other savings plans that's designed to build wealth and have additional monies on top of Social Security.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Toomey.

PAT TOOMEY: Well, if I could, the problem is that half of all Americans don't make enough money and save enough to be able to have 401-K and retirement plans, and I wish they could, but the reality is we take so much in taxes that they have nothing left over after they've paid the bills. As far as what we're guaranteeing in Social Security, what we're guaranteeing to younger workers is that they will get back less from the system than they put into it. Now, that's just unconscionable. The average person works for about 40 years, sometimes 45 or longer. And to suggest that a person ought to be made to pay into a system each and every year and then get back less than they put in, I think is just terribly unfair. It's an opportunity --.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Toomey, let me ask you about a political reality here. We've debated private accounts many times on this prom program, but I'm curious about the political reality at work here. Even people who support your notion of private accounts have said that won't be enough to fix the problem that the president has outlined and that benefit cuts, or at least restraint in the growth of benefits, are going to be necessary, and that's where you begin to get people peeling off.

PAT TOOMEY: Well, this is to a significant degree, I think this is a red herring issue. First of all, everybody agreed, everybody agrees that anyone who is at or near retirement gets the full benefit package as is with no changes, nothing contemplated. This big debate about the rate of growth of future benefits, mind you, nobody is talking about cutting future benefits, it's a question of whether they grow as fast. But we're only referring to the government guaranteed portion. The fact is if young workers get a chance to make investments over the course of their working careers, they're going to have much more in accumulated savings, really several hundreds of thousands of dollars for even a low income worker -- that this is all a moot point. Those folks are going to have a much more generous retirement benefit than what Social Security currently promises and can't deliver.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Certner, is it a moot point? These two - it seems to me almost warring ideas, this idea of restraining future growth versus allowing people to invest on their own now?

DAVID CERTNER: Well, there's a fatal flaw in the math here. If you take money out of Social Security and then at the same time promise you're going to continue benefits for those at or near retirement, you have a hole because most of the money today that's paid into Social Security goes to pay those current benefits. If you take that money out, you're going to have to make that money up. It's an estimated $2 trillion of additional debt over the next ten years. That money has to come from some place. And right now there is no plan in place besides perhaps floating more debt to pay that. So you're not dealing with the Social Security issue at all. You're actually making the Social Security solvency problem worse, while at the same time instead of having a good predictable secure Social Security benefit, you are in essence by changing the Social Security formula, slashing the future Social Security benefit by as much as in half, and hoping that people will be able to make that up in the stock market. Now, many people may be able to make that up, but we think this is going to create a system of winners and losers, that's not what the Social Security system is all about. We think that we can take on risk in the private markets for those who want to enter the private markets, but we shouldn't be forcing low income people into the stock market to try to get returns to make up for a largely slashed Social Security benefits.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Toomey what do you say to good Republicans like Kemp and Gingrich who also have problems with this proposal?

PAT TOOMEY: Well, let's keep in mind that Newt Gingrich and Jack Kemp, that their proposal that they're advocating, there's an awful lot they agree with me and many other Republicans. The most important thing is to allow all workers who choose to, especially young workers, the opportunity to accumulate real savings and have significant personal savings accounts. As I said, the other points I think are much less important, because, you know, some people I guess don't seem to want to acknowledge this, but over long periods of time the American financial markets always generate positive returns, they always have, for over 200 years. There's no reason to think that's going to change and giving young workers and lower income workers who are currently denied that opportunity the chance to cash in on that is the most important thing. And, you know, there will be differences of opinion, if some of the mechanical elements to this and some of the formulas that get used. But the important thing that most of us agree on is give workers the opportunity to accumulate real savings.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Certner, both you and Mr. Toomey spend a lot of time on Capitol Hill, talking to people about this, trying to get your point of view across. Right now as you lay out the puzzle before you as you debate this issue in the next few months, what are the challenges and what are the things you need to head off or the alternatives that you need to propose?

DAVID CERTNER: What we see happening right now is where is the American public on this issue, because that largely will determine the outcome of this debate. We know that the Social Security system has a very long track record and is hugely supported by the American public of all ages. What the problem is today is that younger people in particular do not have confidence that the Social Security system will be there. There's been a lot of scare tactics to frighten people into thinking that Social Security is going broke and won't be there. That's not the case. There's a long term shortfall that we think we can deal with, with modest changes. We need to make sure that people understand what kind of shape Social Security really is in, what the changes that will need to take place to make sure the benefits will be there because the American public wants Social Security to be there for them. No one is demanding change in the Social Security system; what they're demanding is that the obligation that we have both to current generations and future generations are met and as long as we can make sure that that obligation is met, we don't need to have any kind of radical changes like are being proposed today.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Toomey, what do you think about that lack of confidence of Americans? I guess there was a new USA Today poll out today that supported that notion that people are a little, especially younger people are more prone to support the idea of investing their own money, older people are not. There's a lot of ambivalence that these polls seem to show.

PAT TOOMEY: But there are clear majority of the American public that supports the idea of personal investment accounts. But, look, you know, a 30-year-old, it's just a rationale decision. If the system were able to honor the promise it's making to him, it's a promise that he's going to get about a one or a zero percent rate of return on all of his money put in, and as David has acknowledged, the system will not be able to honor that commitment. So what are we going to do? Are we going to raise taxes on that person to make the return even worse or --

GWEN IFILL: That is my question, what are you going to do in the next few months as the debate rages to convince people of your pointof view, especially with the political landscape as it is right now?

PAT TOOMEY: I think there's probably a majority in the House today that would be willing to support the president's proposal, they need to see the specifics and the president's leadership is critical. It doesn't happen without the president stepping up and providing this leadership, and he's doing that. As he communicates what this is all about, I think we'll have the votes in the House, we will have a struggle in the Senate, but I think we can get it done there, and I'm very bullish on this, I think before the year is out we'll see Social Security reform.

GWEN IFILL: Pat Toomey, David Certner, thank you both very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the other major developments of the day. President Bush nominated Michael Chertoff to be the next secretary of homeland security. The tsunami death toll climbed again, to nearly 153,000. And Iraq's prime minister acknowledged violence could limit voting in the Jan. 30 election.

JIM LEHRER: And again, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are six more.

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.