The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; June 9, 2006

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara has been provided by. There's a company that builds more than a million vehicles a year in places called Indiana. . And Kentucky. One that has ten plants from the foothills of West Virginia to the Pacific coastline. What company is this? Toyota. A company that along with its dealers and suppliers has helped create hundreds of thousands of US jobs, a company brought out to do its small part to add to the landscape of America.

The world's demand for energy will never stop, which is why a farmer is growing corn, and a farmer is growing soy, and why ADN is turning these crops into biofuels. The world's demand for energy will never stop, which is why ADN will never stop. We're only getting started, ADN, resourceful by nature. And by Pacific Life. C-I-T. And the Atlantic Philanthropies. And this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. The terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still alive. When Iraqi police arrived at his hideout near Bakuba, the US military made that clarification today,

a day after a US airstrike targeted the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. In Baghdad, Major General Bill Caldwell told Pentagon reporters what American troops found on their arrival. They had some kind of visual, facial recognition. According to the person on the ground, Zarqawi attempted to sort of turn away off the stretcher. Everybody re-secured him back onto the stretcher, but he died almost immediately thereafter from the wounds he had received from this airstrike. We'll have excerpts from that briefing right after the news summary. At Camp David today with the Danish Prime Minister, President Bush called Zarqawi's death a big deal. But he cautioned for work to be done. He beheaded people to kill people. The mastermind, the bombing of the hotel in Jordan, he mastermind the bombing of the U.N. headquarters early on in the liberation of Iraq.

Removing Zarqawi is a major blow to al-Qaeda. He's talking to end the war. He's not going to end the violence, but it's going to help a lot. President also tempered expectations of U.S. troop reductions in Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki has indicated his forces could take over in 18 months. On the heels of the airstrike, U.S. troops launched a series of raids based on intelligence gleaned from Zarqawi's hideout. They arrested at least two dozen suspects and found a cache of weapons. Fearing reprisal attacks, Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki opposed a driving curfew today. Back streets were for four hours during the middle of the day. Monitoring checkpoints about the capital. There was also a traffic ban in the Diallup. Zarqawi was killed. The attacks. The funeral procession. Come.

He governed in the capital. We'll have that interview later in the program. The leader of the Taliban mourned the attack we today, but in a recent, this didn't work. Come. Come. Come. Why

it 21-35, a seven-month low. For the week, the Dow lost 3.2 percent. The Nasdaq fell 3.8 percent. That's it for the news summary tonight. Now, details on the Al-Zarkawi strike, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Shields, and Brooks, the cervical cancer vaccine, and soccer's world cup. Here, Rock, after Al-Zarkawi, our coverage begins with a report on the latest details of the Al-Qaeda operatives killing, narrated by NewsHour correspondent Kwame Hohman.

It seemed unlikely anyone could have lived through the massive U.S. House airstrike north of Baghdad yesterday, but that's the news U.S. military spokesman Major General William Caldwell delivered to reporters at the Pentagon via satellite. What I can tell you is that, again, from the debrief this morning, which gave us greater clarity than what we had before, as Zarkawi, in fact, did survive the airstrike. The report specifically states that nobody else did survive, though, from what they know. The first people on the scene were the Iraqi police. They had found him and put him into some kind of gurney stretcher kind of thing, and then American coalition forces arrived immediately thereafter on site. They immediately went to the person in the stretcher, were able to start identifying by some distinguishing marks on his body. Sorry, did anyone render medical assistance to him? Did U.S. troops try and render medical assistance? They went into the process to provide medical care to him.

Sir, had he been shot? No, there was nothing in the report that said he had received any wounds from some kind of weapon system like that. Was Zarkawi able to speak? Did he say anything either to the Iraqi police or the American soldiers? If he said something to the Iraqi police, I'm not aware of it, according to the reports by the coalition forces that arrived on site. He mumbled a little something, but it was indistinguishable, and it was very short. How can you be sure that he died, that Zarkawi died as a result of the wounds he received from the explosion without a formal autopsy? And secondly, when you were cleaning him up, did you have to photoshop his face or anything to make him more recognizable for the picture? To take your second question first, yes, Jeff, his face was very, very bloodied, and we made a conscious decision that if we were going to take photographs of him and make them available publicly, like we did in the press conference, that we were going to clean him up. Despite the fact that

this person actually had no regard for human life, we were not going to treat him in the same manner, and so they did clean his face up for the shots that were showing publicly. As far as the autopsy goes, I know that, quote, wasn't a topsy done, but I'm going to go back to make sure that it was performed by whatever the certified kind of person that we're supposed to have, so we can call it a autopsy, and make sure I'm exactly correct before I tell you that. Was there any plastic surgery used to reconstruct his face to make him more presentable before yesterday's news conference? There was none that I know of. I'll verify that by going back and asking the question, but I did not see it stated anywhere that in fact that it occurred, so I don't think it did, but I'll verify that for you. In general, everybody's asking the question, how possibly could he have survived, seemingly intact, after two 500 pound bombs were dropped on that facility. Was he outside? Was he thrown clear? Is there any visibility on why he was able to survive those two bombs?

There are cases when people, in fact, can survive even an attack like that on a building structure. Obviously, the other five in the building did not, but he did for some reason, and we do not know, and I have looked through the reports as to whether or not it was because he might have been right outside or whatever, we just don't have that granularity. Caldwell also provided new details about the attacks aftermath. In addition to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, five other people were confirmed killed in the blast, but contrary to earlier reports, no children were among the dead. U.S. forces recovered a hidden cache of weaponry, ammunition belts, Iraqi army uniforms, and other materials near Zarqawi's hideout. Caldwell also told reporters about Abu Ayab al-Masri, the man the U.S. military expects to take over al-Qaeda in Iraq. What we do know about him is Egyptian born. We know that he and Zarqawi met each other the al-Farq training camp in Afghanistan probably sometime in the early 2001-2002 time period.

We know that al-Masri came to Iraq before Zarqawi did, probably located somewhere around the Baghdad area, some time in around 2003, established probably the first al-Qaeda in Iraq cell here in the Baghdad area, and that they've continued a very close relationship since that time. Today in Baghdad, worshippers headed to Friday prayers on foot because of the curfew. A small correction, the strike that killed al-Zarqawi occurred on Wednesday, not yesterday, as stated earlier. Next, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad. Margaret Warner talked with Zalme Khalilzad this afternoon. Ambassador Khalilzad, welcome. These two developments yesterday Zarqawi's death and finally naming the new Interior and Defense Ministers, how do you expect the new Iraqi

government or what do you expect it to do now to capitalize on these? Well of course this is a moment of opportunity for the new government, this government of national unity, and they task for the government is to emphasize unity, to emphasize reconciliation, to work hard, to improve the credibility of the security institutions, with Iraqi people, and to move to secure Baghdad, which is more insecure now than it was a few months ago because of the sectarian violence in the aftermath of the Samara tragedy. It is time for the leaders of various communities that are now inside the government to take responsibility and to encourage their leaders and their various groups to stop sectarian violence and to come together. The death of Zarqawi provides that opportunity and the government

of national unity is the right government to deal with the problem. The Iraqi government didn't pose this midday driving ban in Baghdad today, right about the time of midday prayers. Is this part or do you expect to see a new assertiveness on the security front now that these key security posts are filled? I believe that you will see a new security assertiveness, you will see a new plan for the security of Baghdad announced in the coming days. You will see also a plan being developed, how to deal with the militia issues, the militias are a security challenge for the government. There is a need for decommissioning and reintegrating them. At the same time, it's important as part of a reconciliation effort to reach out to those who needs, who call themselves the resistance to encourage them to lay down their arm and to have a balanced reduction in the militia forces

reintegrating them as well as in the so-called resistance forces. To unite everyone against the terrorists, Zarqawi and his friends, who, who, he himself is gone by this network, is still here to unite the people against them. On the reaching out to the Sunni insurgents, do you think that Zarqawi's death increases the chances that some Sunni insurgents may be more willing now to engage in back channel negotiations with the government, maybe that they don't have as much fear of reprisals? That's a very important point, Margaret, because some of them were intimidated by Zarqawi. He was exceptionally brutal and he intimidated people and there were Sunnis who were discouraged, just inclined to engage because of that. So we will have to see in the coming days whether his death and the subsequent actions against some of the other elements of Zarqawi based on intelligence collected in the process of going after Zarqawi could have a beneficial effect.

I anticipate that as being one of the big issues to watch for. Now these two most important new ministers, the Defense Minister Mifari is a Sunni Arab and the new Interior Minister Mr. Bolani is a Shiite, are they men of sufficient independence from their sectarian affiliations to do what has to be done? I believe they are. If you remember when we talked before, I emphasize that the these two ministers had to be independent people, people without ties to militias, unifiers, not polarizers. And I believe that based on what we know about them so far, that they meet those criteria, but they are facing a big challenge. They have to particularly the Minister of Interior. The Ministry has to be reformed and the confidence of the people in the Ministry has to be gained. But if the Interior Minister Bolani has to take on these Shiite militias, death squads that have infiltrated the Interior, the ranks of the Interior Ministry, I mean one, does he have the political

will to do it, but two, what tools, what authority does he have to do it in the face of how strong some of these militias are? Well, as I said before, with regard to militias, there is a need for a plan of a decommissioned reintegration. That will require a political agreement between the leaders of the various forces that form the government of national unity. They have to agree that these militias, as well as the insurgency, has to come to an end. A political agreement is the first step, the implementation of that agreement in terms of how many of the militia forces get integrated into security forces, how many get trained for jobs, how many get retired, those are the details that need to be worked out. The Prime Minister right now is, as I asked the group to develop a plan for the DDR or decommissioning and demobilization and reintegration of the militias, that is still being worked on, but it will require not only the support of the Ministry of

Interior and the Ministry of Defense, but a political decision by the leaders of Iraq. Now, President Bush has announced that he's going to have these meetings at Camp David Monday and Tuesday to review Iraq policy, and that the Maliki government will be included by teleconference on Tuesday. How wide a review will this really be? Is everything on the table? Yes, I think all the key questions are on the table. It's going to be in two parts. Part one will deal with where we are in Iraq. To do a survey of the scene in terms of the key issues, and then where do we need to go? What do we need to adjust in order to get to the goal of an Iraq? That is increasingly self-reliant in Iraq that is increasingly more prosperous and in Iraq that's increasingly secure. And does the Maliki government as far as you know and you're in close contact with them? Is there something they're looking for in the way of an adjustment as you put it in U.S. policy, U.S. tactics, the U.S. approach? Well, they're developing their own ideas and plans

and they will present them in the course of these discussions, and I will not be surprised if they ask for greater emphasis here, lesser emphasis there, but I don't want to speculate or to announce those to you via the media before they have had a chance to present them to the president and my other colleagues in the government. What are the benchmarks that you'll be looking at for the next three to six months that would signal that it was time really for the Maliki and Bush administrations to announce a time payable for withdrawal? I think the key thing is what happens in terms of conditions in Iraq. The impact of the unity government, the impact of its effort, in terms of reconciliation, in terms of unity, and in terms of the levels of violence and the Iraqi capability to deal with those, we are beginning soon a discussion with them on a road map in terms of conditions and the level of support that they would need,

I think we will reach an understanding with them in the course of the coming months. Ambassador Zamik Helisa, thank you. Thank you. Coming up, a new cancer vaccine and the World Cup, but first, shields and brooks, that syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks in Mark, when Saddam Hussein was captured, when his sons, Uday and Khusay were killed, even when elections were successfully held, there was a spike in a bump, at least in a public opinion, at home. Does the killing of Abu Musab's al-Kawi carry that possibility? I don't think so, right? I think in a sea, an interrupted sea of bad news, it's good news, an eyelid of good news, but I don't think it's going to be provided that lift. I thought just the contrast with the way the administration, particularly the president handled it, there was no

flying up to the aircraft carrier, there was no self-congratulatory, it was very measured, very restrained, I thought. Plus I showed a certain willingness to share the credit with the Iraqi government, which didn't exist, but here we call at the time of the capture Saddam Hussein, Howard Dean, now the Democratic Foundation, the candidate of the president said, we are not more Americans are not safer as a consequence of his being captured. He was savaged, not only by his Democratic opponents, John Kerry and Dick Caphart, Joe Lieberman, but by every conservative, every Republican, major newspapers and everything else, and is absolutely right. Since that time, the Americans understand that, the violence has grown and dimension and extension, and apparently in intransigence. David, what do you think? I think we were safer without Saddam organizing, and we're safer without Sarkawi, that doesn't mean the cycle of violence he set off is going to continue there seems to be consensus about that.

I think one of the things he introduced to this war was first the understanding that you could build on aspects of racial superiority to really stir up a sectarian war between the Shia and the Sunni, and he really self-consciously tried to set that off and very successfully. He did set that off, and then the second thing was the awareness that with a certain sort of really horrible killing, you could destroy a civil society, make violence pervasive, and so his death doesn't end the violence he set off forces, which now are rampant in Iraqi society. Nonetheless, it's an opportunity, and as Carlos had was saying more specifically, the creation of the interior minister is an opportunity, but nobody's expecting anything dramatic to change quickly. Well, Locke referred to an island of good news in a sea of bad news. Aren't there things happening like the completion of the cabinet that do mean forward progress and do mean that maybe the president is right when he says things are definitely headed in the wrong direction and the public isn't getting the right idea? There have always been a lot of bad things happening,

and then an undercurrent of good things happening in Iraq, and I'd say if I had to pick out the good things, they would be the creation of the cabinet, the training of the military, the possible cleaning up of the police force. But the question to me has always been talking about islands, does what happened in the green zone where Khalizat is affect what happens outside the green zone than so-called red zone? You get the government working together, and they do seem to be working together now reasonably well, but is that going to affect the militias? Are there ties between the Sunni leaders inside the green zone and the Sunni insurgents outside? And that's still unproven. Well, is there time for the war to look very different by fall? Well, I don't think so. I mean, I really doubt the administration went to great lengths to tell us that this did not, in any way, give us a chance to bring troops out and was not going to do that. And I think, I think, the sectarian strife that David referred to, the Sunni in the Shia, he built upon it, but it's there. I mean, it's not going away simply because he's gone away. I mean, it's the outside agitator, the column, what you want. This man was evil incarnate. I think that stipulated. It's

agreed upon. And it was the anti-democratic, totally anti-democratic. He said, and he drew the line between Muslims who participated in democracy and said that was violent over there, a religious beliefs. But the problem for the administration is Americans are still dying. It isn't simply the carways killed. Americans still die. 1,400 people were killed in Baghdad in the month of May. I mean, so, you know, we can talk about things to be in better. That is chaos and anarchy in a civil sense, the dimensions of which we're never known. David, let's move to domestic politics in San Diego County. The 50th congressional district has a new Republican congressman. What do you make of that? Well, there was some fear they would lose. It was a Republican district. They're not a huge Republican district. There was a normal Republican district. There was some fear that the national tide was so strong that it'd sweep away the Republicans in this case. And it doesn't, it's the national tide clearly is strong against Republicans, but not as strong as some Republicans

feared. So that's some good news for the Republicans. And then there were two issues which I think really grew out of the California election. The first of the power of the immigration issue, and the power of the people who are hard core, build a wall. That's a powerful issue there, right now. And I wish it were not the case, but it is the case. And then the second thing that's strong, and I think it's important nationally about what happened in California, was the defeat of a couple of referendum on childcare and funding libraries. These were one of them would attacks the rich to pay for universal childcare. And I think that's part of a national sense that we can't risk increasing the deficit. We don't want new spending. We probably don't want to cut taxes anymore. We want to take care of the deficit. So there's going to be resistance to any new spending and tax cuts. So, Mark, what is a Democrat in a up for grabs district to take away from that? It's a let's take away from it. First of all, Ray, that close Democrats learn painfully only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and slow dancing. I mean, you don't get any silver medals for finishing a good second in a Republican district. I think it also is that

here's a district where the predecessor, the reason there was an opening, the fellow had gone to jail for collecting antique commodes for stealing Rolls Royces through bribery for taking two million dollars and the culture of corruption. If it doesn't work there, it's not going to work in racing Wisconsin or Kenosha. So I think that's the second thing. I think David's right on the immigration. I think the message that it will be taken by Republicans in the House is, we're not going to buy the Senate bill. But Brian Bilbray, the moderate Republican who is a lobbyist, as a matter of fact, former member of Congress, who did win the seat, ran against President Bush's immigration bill. And John McCain, who was going to campaign for him, canceled his visit because he was against the Senate pass bill. And I think Democrats better learn to hurry. They got seats up for grabs in New Mexico, in Arizona, in Colorado, where

immigration is also. They better figure out what their position is on it because otherwise on a one by one basis, this could be a lethal issue for Republicans. Well, Brian Bilbray arrived in Tom Delay departed, former House Majority Leader Tom Delay officially resigned from the Congress. He's under indictment at his home state of Texas charged with laundering campaign money. Delay gave his farewell speech on the House floor yesterday and true to his nickname, the hammer, went out swinging. Here's some of what he had to say. In preparing for today, I found that it is customary in speeches such as these to reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across the aisle camaraderie. And to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy. Well, I can't do that because partisanship, Mr. Speaker, properly understood is not a symptom of democracy's weakness, but of its health and its strength, especially from

the perspective of a political conservative. Here on this floor, I have caught and thrown spears of every sort. Over the course of 22 years, I've probably worked with and against almost everyone in this chamber at least once. I have scraped and clawed for every vote, every amendment, for every word of every bill that I believed in my heart would protect human freedom and defend human dignity. I have done so at all times honorably and honestly, Mr. Speaker, as God is my witness and history is my judge. And if given the chance to do it all again, there's only one thing I would change. I would fight even harder. So, a lot of remorse there. No, a remorse for his own. You give him credit for honesty, he believed in partisanship. And to some extent, I have no problem with partisanship. My problem

with Tom DeLay was sometimes he could be partisan at the expense of conservatism. And especially what he did was he turned the majority into a fundraising and spending machine in order to get more Republican families in those seats. And that's fine, but the spending was not Republican was supposed to stand for. The earmarks was not what they were supposed to stand for. So, in some ways, he was an old-fashioned party boss who built a majority by betraying some conservative principles. He ran a corrupt political operation. Two of his top staff aides have already confessed to major crimes involving lobbyists and political corruption and payoffs and turning states evidence. This is a man who obliterated the difference, the wall between public interest and private interest. He brought private interest in from K Street to right legislation has never been done before. It was sort of a, what do you want? What do you need? His money is going to cost you, and that's what it was. I mean, Tom DeLay was a great counter and all of that, but I mean,

in the final analysis, that's his legacy. Is that obliteration in Washington to a considerable degree? Go back and forth between public and private. Job on Capitol Hill, Job on K Street. Lobby, come back. And I'm going to tell you, that's a change. And I'd say the other thing, it's going to be a test for the Democrats if they do win the majority. Whether, in fact, they will be vindictive and try and do what he did, which was to exclude the minority from any participation in the legislative process. And he did it quite effectively. Well, for the record, that's what Republicans said Democrats did to them all during their time in the wilderness. And, interestingly, since you brought up the K Street project, DeLay noted in his speech yesterday that that's one of the things that he is proud of, as he de parts as leader. They have a different meaning. When he says K Street project, it means what the rest, differently than what the rest of us mean. This week, also, we had debates over the estate tax and gay marriage, both which went down to defeat, but why were they debated it on the first place? Well, I happen to think they're both legitimate issues. I'm sort of not with

the Republican majority on either of these, but, you know, on the gay marriage thing, everybody poo-pooze it as this political distraction, but less the structure of the family is kind of an important deal. And I am as pro-gay marriage as it's possible to be. Nonetheless, I don't fault it as an issue. In the same way, the estate tax, I don't fault it as an issue. I'm against, I'm for keeping the death tax or estate tax when they call it. But many Nobel prizes are against it. They think it's a stupid tax. But let me interject this. Often, parties in power, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, wait to introduce something until they know they've got the noses counted and they're going up there and they only introduce it when they know they're going to win. I didn't get the sense that that was the case. Well, there are two things going on there. The substantive thing is that, you know, you promote the things you believe in, and they believe in these issues. And that's politics. I have no problem with politics. That's what it's about. The second thing is they're in trouble. And they're trying, especially with the gay marriage thing, and then also with some flag-burning stuff that came up, they're trying to stoke up the base. And that was done so clumsily and so stupidly. I doubt it'll work.

So, you know, there's some politics, but politics is the nature of the business. Monk? The idea that you get a lifetime of private food stamps for coming out of the right womb strikes me as basically unfair and un-American. Those are the words of war and Buffett, one of the great American investors, is opposition to the tax. With this, the Herdens taxes about an assabulation is essentially created in American aristocracy. I mean, the Bush administration is bound and determined and committed to the abolition of all taxes on dividends, stocks and bonds. So, presumably, you can be born, this is a party that prizes achievement, entrepreneurial, the old American way, up for the bootstraps. You can be born, Ray, into it with a silver spoon, with a trust, with a trust, and never pay a dime of tax and never do anything worthwhile. And, you know, I come back to the Adam Smith value that the only reason that you've been able to make this, other than being blessed by a mysterious providence with the talents and

energy involved, it is because you've lived in a law abiding society and government, where those laws are enforced, where your property is safe, where the courts are honest and open, where the system is fair. As far as the gay, David makes a point, there are people who genuinely and authentically believe in this, but if the Republicans believe in it, if they really believe in it, why, for the first time in American history, what a party, the Republicans in the House, bring up a constitutional amendment, which had just been defeated in the other body. You know, is that an act of legislative leadership, or is that just a hoax and a sham and a pretense? Let me first celebrate Mark's suspension of Adam Smith, which to me, I can die happy now, the Republicans. But listen, I'm, I'm for keeping, as I said, but there are legitimate arguments against it, and Nobel Prize winning economists make their arguments. Basically, on the idea that this tax encourages a lot of crazy economic behavior. If you're rich under this tax, you've

encouraged to spend a lot of money and not get taxed rather than save and invest and do get taxed. It encourages an enormous amount of rich people of hiring accounts and lawyers to get out of the tax. A lot of money wasted on evasion. So there are all sorts of perverse incentives. I'm in favor of keeping it for two reasons. One, I think we need the revenue, but two, I think it really does encourage people to give to charity. And so on balance, I'm in favor of keeping it, but I do understand their serious arguments against. Why no, it'll come up again, and we'll talk about it again. Fellas, thanks. Now, a new vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Jeffrey Brown has that story. cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide, killing more than a quarter of a million a year. And while widespread use of pap smears has reduced its total, its toll in the U.S., it still causes more than 3,700 deaths a year here.

Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first vaccine to prevent the disease. And here to tell us about it is Dr. Elizabeth Garner, a gynecological oncologist, at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. For the record, she has no affiliation with Merck, the company that is marketing the new vaccine called Gardasil. Dr. Garner, I think it would help first to explain to us how cervical cancer is caused so we can understand how the vaccine itself works. Certainly, the vast majority of cervical cancers are caused by a virus known as human papilloma virus. This is a very common virus by the age of 50, probably about 80 percent of women have been infected at one point in time during their lives. Most women don't get any problems from human papilloma virus, but a minority of women, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, develop precancerous changes on the cervix, which if left untreated, will develop ultimately or can develop ultimately into cervical cancer. So, the vaccine blocks the infection that in

some cases leads to cervical cancer. Right. And the vaccine is made of these small particles, they're called virus-like particles, that to a woman's immune system look exactly like the virus. So, as if she has been infected, but they don't actually contain any of the actual viral material. So, when giving the virus-like particles, one can elicit an immune reaction that can prevent the changes that develop in the cervix. And how effective is this new vaccine? This vaccine is very effective. In a recent trial, it prevented pretty much 100 percent of the infections of HPV, the human papilloma virus, and also prevented about 100 percent of the precancerous changes that can develop on the cervix. It also is important to note that this vaccine also treats or prevents the changes caused by a couple of other types of human papilloma virus, which don't cause cancer, but which can cause genital warts and other problems. And the

vaccine was also very effective at preventing those. Now, the vaccine was approved for girls and women age 9 to 26. But the big question at the moment is, at what age should it be given, explain to us the issues here? So, the main issue is that the vaccine is going to be most effective. If it's given to a girl or a young woman, before she has become exposed to human papilloma virus. And, excuse me, that means before she would be sexually active in age 9. Exactly, because this is a sexually transmitted infection. And a recent study actually showed that by the age of 13, about 7 percent of girls will report that they've been sexually active at some point. So, certainly by age 13, there's a significant number of girls who are already engaging in sexual activity and who already are likely exposed to human papilloma virus. So, one needs to try to target girls before they've been exposed. And this is because, again, just to clarify, it's not as effective once a woman has been infected. Correct. Okay. Now, another big question then

is whether the vaccine should be made mandatory or remained voluntary. And I guess in particular, whether it should be required for schools, for children going to schools. Yes. And I think that's going to end up being a rather complicated question. Because it's a sexually transmitted infection, it's going to be a somewhat different situation than for other vaccines, such as chicken pox and so on, that can be transmitted through something as simple as a sneeze. Human papilloma virus is not transmitted that way. And so, it might be a little bit more difficult to make the argument that it needs to be mandatory for school attendance. And here, in fact, there are some social conservative groups who are raising questions about it. Well, certainly, because I think similar to, for instance, oral contraception, one could be concerned that if one tells a young girl that she's now prevented from getting cancer, or at least cervical cancer that she will then interpret that as meaning she can have sex at a younger age. And so, Mark, as I think,

going to specifically market this vaccine as a cancer prevention vaccine and not a vaccine for sexually transmitted infection. But how will the decision be made as to whether it is mandatory? Who makes that decision? The states will decide that. There's a National Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is a CDC organization. And that organization will decide what the recommendations will be in terms of scheduling and age and those sorts of things. But in terms of whether the vaccine will be mandatory for girls to attend school will be a state decision. All right, next issue is cost. My understanding is this requires three doses over six months for a total cost of $360, relatively expensive for a vaccine. So is it expected that it would be covered under most private insurance plans? Well, certainly, if it's a mandatory vaccine, I think it will be covered. Whether it's going to be covered, if it is voluntary, I think it's definitely

yet to be determined. There certainly are a lot of arguments for making it, you know, a covered vaccine. This is something that is being given to, you know, to prevent a potentially lethal problem. So I do think there are arguments towards making it something that's covered, but, you know, that's definitely yet to be seen. But that would also weigh on various state programs that would have to provide it, I guess. And of course, also for the uninsured, it's a big cost. Yes. Now, cost also is a factor. Let's tell we've been talking mostly about the U.S., but as I said, this is a larger problem worldwide. In the developing world, cost would no doubt be an even bigger factor. We'll tell us about the situation there and what kind of programs either a plan or might be planned to help. Sure. I think that Mark has indicated that they have several ideas in place. One is that I believe they've been in contact with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who have certainly expressed some interest in helping and vaccine distribution. I think that also the company has indicated that they will be willing to, you know, think about

and consider differential pricing and perhaps selling the vaccine at cost. And these are, I think these are potential ways to make it more available. And we mentioned, I mentioned earlier that the incidence is down in the U.S. because of Pap smears. Isn't the situation in the developing world as bad as it is because Pap smears are not used as much? Yes. In fact, in this country when the Pap smear was introduced as widespread screening, we saw the incidence of cervical cancer drop about 70 percent. And so, but those Pap smear programs are not available in many parts of the developing world. And so we still see high rates of cervical cancer. And I noticed that officials are still telling women, are telling women that they still should get Pap smears, even with this vaccine. Now, why is that? Well, part of the reason is I think that it's not quite clear in fact how long what the longevity is of the protective response from the vaccine. Initial studies suggest that there's certainly as protection up to about five years. But, you know, if you're giving the vaccine to girls at the age

of nine or ten, that only takes them to their teenage years. So I think there's still some questions about the durability of the protective effect. Also, the vaccine covers types, HPV type 16 and 18, but there are certainly other high risk types of HPV that also are known to call cervical cancer. Type 16 and 18 cover or protect against or I should say cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer. So you've still got about 30 percent of cancers that are caused by other strains of HPV. And when might this new vaccine be on the market? Well, certainly Mark has indicated that they will do everything to have it out and available within about a month of FDA approval. So I think it will be available quite soon. Alright, a lot of questions, but I guess a very exciting development. So Dr. Elizabeth Garner, thank you very much. Thank you. And finally tonight, Soccer's World Cup. We start with a look at today's opening day in Germany. Every four years the world comes together around the little black and white ball. A carnival scene

of mixing sport and revelry with a not-so-subtle undertone of nationalism. The World Cup, 2006 edition began today across Germany, 32 teams from all around the world. Mexico, Brazil, the U.S. or all here. Even the team from Togo in West Africa qualified this time, they brought along a voodoo priest to help. And the host country has worked hard to accommodate the peculiarities of soccer fans in celebration. Security at games and events is tight, as Germany expects some 40,000 English fans to descend on Frankfurt on Saturday. So far, there have been no major problems. But Germany has called these games a time to make friends, a welcoming motto meant to ease any tensions, before it's zuberance gets out of hand. For fans and organizers alike, there's a lot at stake.

The biggest upset of the World Cup this year, Costa Rica won in Friday, June 9th, Costa Rica won, Germany zero. Alas, that fan's hopes were dashed. In the first game of the Cup, Costa Rica lost to home-field Germany four to two. For more on the history and culture of the tournament, we turn to Franklin IV, editor of the new Republic magazine and author of the book, House Soccer explains the world, an unlikely theory of globalization. And Sean Wilsey, editor at large of the literary journal, McSweeny's quarterly, and co-editor of the book, The Thinking Fans Guide to the World Cup. And Franklin IV are Americans immune to World Cup fever? Well, there's certainly a subculture of us who are paying attention to what's going on in Germany now. And I think we are a growing subculture. I mean, alas, we're not swept up in World Cup fever the same way the rest of the world is. And American soccer fans tend to be somewhat boost-ish in describing the future of the game.

We sound like kind of one of those crazy radicals on a street corner in Berkeley, predicting that the revolution is always about to happen. And it never seems to happen right away. But the game is growing very slowly, very steadily. Demographics are on its side, thanks to immigration. And a lot of the kids who grew up playing the game may not follow it passionately between World Cups. But when World Cups come around, they pay attention. Sean Wilson in the world that does pay very close attention to soccer. There are national league tournaments. They're continent-wide tournaments. There are various levels of cups and international competition. What makes the World Cup so different? The World Cup is different because every continent is involved. Every country is involved. Players who play for league teams may not be from the country that that league team represents. So you've got players who are playing for

money in these league games and they play well and they care about their teams. But it's for the paycheck and whereas the World Cup, it's for your country. And so it's deeply symbolic and meaningful. And it can really unite nations. I think Ivory Coast is a great example of a country that's been in a civil war for a number of years now. And when the team qualified for the World Cup, President Laurent Bagbo, who has been persecuting the north, very anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, embraced the whole team, gave them all villas and commendations, a very mixed Muslim team. And the two sides in the civil war said that this could be an opportunity to actually put it behind them. So it's deeply significant, not only sporting wise, but politically as well. So that national idea, as opposed to a club idea, Valencia or Manchester United, is what transcends the already great enthusiasm for this war? Exactly. I think that there aren't so

many, and especially in Europe, there aren't so many outlets for nationalism where people can feel good about feeling patriotic about their country. And the World Cup is one of the rare occasions that people feel that way. I think one of the fascinating things about the World Cup is that it is in a lot of ways the ultimate expression of globalization. The entire world is united speaking this common vernacular of soccer. The event is tied together by multinational corporations. And yet, despite all this globalization, it is still this incredible festival of nationalism. And a lot of people thought that globalization would smush nationalism, but the World Cup in a weird way shows that the two can coexist. Well, that's kind of the paradox, though. I mean, we were told for a long time by big thinkers that countries would matter less in the 21st century, as currencies became common, as borders were being erased. You've got the rising EU. And here,

countries matter a great deal. Yeah. Try telling that to England fans who are living and dying for what happens in this tournament and are walking around with their country's standard. Sean, when you look at the club sides, the players come from all over. I mean, the players for a famous side in France or Italy might not have very many Frenchmen or Italians on it, is that part of the attraction to have a unified national side? Very much is one of the funniest pieces in the thinking fans' guide is by Nick Hornby. And Nick writes about how when he was young, his idea of a fantasy team would have been the national team, because that's when all the English players who played for all the different league teams would come together, and all the best ones would be on the national team. Whereas now,

it's almost in the nostalgic and different kind of experience while the most star-filled team in England is a club team. It's all foreigners, not all, but largely foreigners, it's called Chelsea, and it's owned by a Russian, and it is dominant. It's just one in the English league. So now, you only really do see English players playing together, and they're not always the best players in the English leagues, because a lot of them are foreign, but you do get to see an all-English team on the national team. So those two things have switched in the last 10 years. Is there an ugly side or a darker side to that nationalism and what it brings out during an event like the World Cup? Yeah, sure. I mean, over the course of the next month, I guarantee you, we'll see fans from losing teams go on rampages across their country. They may even beat up some immigrants who are living within their mix and this happens in every tournament, and I'm sure in some of the stadiums, we may see some traces of racism. But on the other hand,

I think that what the World Cup shows is that nationalism is not a pure evil. That it can also be a wonderful, beautiful sort of thing and not at all harmful. Sean, what about on the field of play itself rather than in the stands when former imperial powers play one of their colonies, or a former invader plays a former occupied country? Well, there's a potential for a lot of games that fit that description. Trinidad and Tobago are going to be playing England, and so that's colony versus colonizer. And as Frank actually pointed out in a piece he wrote for the book, surprisingly enough, you would think that the colony would actually tend to be more inspired to actually best their former colonizer. But the way it often works out historically is that the former colonizer really has a lot to prove. And throughout the past World Cups, colonizers have usually actually defeated their former colonies. Trinidad and Tobago does not have

a very good chance. They are the longest odds in the entire tournament at a thousand to one. So it's England thinks they're going to win that one. But you never know, underdogs, do try it in the World Cup, and Trinidad and Tobago could be surprising this year. I hope they are. Well, long odds, but also the smallest country in the tournament at the same time in the back kind of any place. Franklin, the cup being played for the first time in a unified Germany. How is that important? Well, Germany has actually used soccer as a way of reintegrating themselves into the community of nations. After the war, they won the 1954 World Cup surprisingly, and this was a great psychological boost to the country in where it felt like they were able to feel good about Germany in a publicly internationally acceptable sort of way. Then in 1990, they won the World Cup again, which was a triumph that occurred just after the fall of the Berlin

Wallen. There was a certain sense of national euphoria that came with this. And this World Cup is, I think an example of a very mature Germany that really doesn't have a lot of angst about the past showing itself off in a very modern, proud way. And quickly, a pick, do you have one? Listen, I hate going with you over dog all the time, but I got to say Brazil. And John? You know, I'm a, this is a totally embecilic pick, but I actually think the US has a real chance of going all the way, and it would be shocking, but it could happen. Sean Wellsey, Franklin IV, thank you both. Again, the major developments of this day, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still alive when Iraqi police reached his hideout, according to the US military. And US ambassador Zalme Khalilzad told

the news hour, the Iraqi government will soon present a new plan for security in Baghdad. Washington Week can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online. And again, here, Monday evening, have a good weekend. I'm Ray Suarez. Thanks for watching. Good night. And life bigger. We offer financial aid to make college possible for more students. At CIT, we help finance the future, because that's the place to be. See it with CIT. What does the future hold? Will you have the choices to make your world better?

To live the life you dream of? At Pacific Life, planning for a better tomorrow is what we're all about. That's why for over 135 years Pacific Life has offered millions of people a world of financial solutions to help them live well now and plan well for the future. Pacific Life, the power to help you succeed. And by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, Toyota, and the Atlantic Philanthropies, and this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. Who do you trust to tell all sides of a story? Who do you trust to let different voices be heard? Who do you trust to teach your children? Who do you trust to help make sense of it all?

Americans trust PBS more than any other television network. I am PBS. The

them in the house, the wise, and the strategy leading to an attack that officials hope will turn the tide in a rock. While on this side of the Atlantic, Canadian officials disrupt a planned home-grown terrorist attack. This attack wasn't aimed at the United States, it was aimed at Canada, so they've got their own problem, and their problem could easily spill over the border. Was there A's our colleague connection, and what does this tell us about border safety? On Capitol Hill this week, talk turned to two reliable, cultural, hot buttons, taxes and same-sex marriage, but it was only talk.

We explain why. Covering these stories tonight, Martha Raditz of ABC News, John Hendren of National Public Radio, Pete Williams of NBC News, and Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times. Live from our nation's capital, this is Washington Week with Gwen Eiffel, produced an association with National Journal. What the funding for Washington Week is provided by the following. As a source of energy, wind power alone can't do it all. Because just to power a city like Paris would take 20,000 turbines. We believe that meeting all our energy needs will take innovation, conservation and collaboration. Will you join us?

Many of the materials we rely on every day come from the ground, and modern mining technology brings them to us. You can learn more about America's natural resources at NMA.org, the National Mining Association. Corporate funding is also provided by Boeing. Make sure funding for Washington Week is also provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and by contributions to—