The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

I'm Jim Lara, today's news, debating fuel standards, the Pakistani view, Bloomberg politics, and Bloomberg and via Regosa tonight on the news hour. Good evening, I'm Jim Lara.

On the news hour tonight, the news of this Wednesday, then the brewing battle in the Senate over tougher fuel standards. An interview with Pakistan's Foreign Minister on the Washington relationship, a look at the growing interest in the political possibilities for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a conversation with Mayor Bloomberg and Los Angeles Mayor via Regosa about governing. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by... 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. Some say that by 2020 we'll have used up half the world's oil. Some say we already have, making the other half last longer will take innovation, conservation and collaboration. Will you join us? And by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, the new AT&T, Toyota, the Atlantic Philanthropies, the National Science Foundation, and with the ongoing support of these institutions and

foundations 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. President Bush today vetoed expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research. General support is currently limited to cell lines that existed as of summer of 2001. Last year, Mr. Bush vetoed an almost identical bill. He explained today's decision by saying, in part, current research is already working. It's opening the prospect of new discoveries that could transform lives. Congress has sent me a bill that would overturn this policy. If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos.

I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line. There was no indication Democrats could muster the votes to override that veto, but Congresswoman Diana DeGet of Colorado said she and others would keep raising the issue. All of us will not let one stubborn person stand in our way, even if he is the President of the United States. We are committed to working with our Senate allies to make this dream a reality. And we intend to continue to add embryonic stem cell research onto must pass bills in both the House and the Senate, and we also intend to continue bringing this up until we have a pro stem cell president and a pro stem cell Congress. The President did issue an executive order today. It directed the Department of Health and Human Services to promote research into other potential sources of stem cells.

The Senate Labor today to craft a compromise on gas mileage. It's a major roadblock to passing an overall energy bill. The issue involved, mandating sharp increases in fuel efficiency for most vehicles. As talks continued, Majority Leader Harry Reid insisted he would not delay action on the energy bill until fall. We'll have more on the story right after the news summary. American troops in Iraq pursued al-Qaeda north and south of Baghdad today. A U.S. military spokesman said the security surge was now in full force. In bakuba to the north, U.S. officials said at least 41 militants had been killed and two days of fighting, Iraqi forces were also involved, some fighting, and civilian clothing. The Iraqis gave conflicting numbers on how many troops they deployed from 2,000 to 7,000. To the south, U.S. forces continued operations along the Tigris River trying to disrupt al-Qaeda operations there.

And in Baghdad, the death toll rose to 87, and yesterday's Shiite mosque bombings, Sunni mosque were blown up today in the south. In southern Afghanistan today, three Canadian soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing. They were fighting as part of NATO forces. 60 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001. And other clashes today, NATO and Afghan troops killed 21 militants. The Palestinian's political split grew even wider today. President Abbas, leading fata in the West Bank, insisted he'd have no dealings with Hamas now holding Gaza. But in Gaza, the desperation deepened, with most outside aid cut off. We have a report from Inigo Gilmour of Independent Television News. At the dialysis ward in Gaza's main hospital, the morbid mood is almost suffocating. Supplies needed to run these life-saving machines, have almost run out. Drugs, blood, and blood tubes are fast dwindling, and no one knows when resupplies might

come to Gaza, increasingly isolated since the Hamas revolution. The nurses say they may soon have to stop treatment for these patients. Musa gazes longingly at his sixth son, wondering who might come to their rescue this time. But young Muhammad needs more than a hand of comfort. I am very worried if my son does not get this treatment he's going to die. After the problem he recognizes is the ongoing squabbling between the two governments who are supposed to assist them. The disgovernment are fighting, and we are caught in between. We feel lost. Tonight, President Abbas called the Hamas government a bunch of murderous terrorists with whom they would be no dialogue. He said they too had plotted to kill him. But in Gaza, the other government says they're the ones under threat. The police cars in Gaza still carry the scars of this ongoing battle between Hamas and

Fatter. They once belonged to President Abbas's security men who vanished from the streets. Over at police headquarters, it appeared that only Hamas loyalists were showing up for work. Israel today launched its deadliest attacks on Gaza since Hamas seized control. At least four Palestinians were killed in strikes at militants firing rockets and smuggling weapons. An international court today convicted three men of war crimes in Sierra Leone. The verdicts were the first stemming from the West African nation's civil war. It ended in 2002 after 11 years and thousands of deaths. The men were former military officers who ruled Sierra Leone for a time. They were found guilty of murder, enslavement, and recruiting child soldiers. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said today he is not running for president next year, not yet, at least. He told reporters again, my intention is to be mayor for the next 925 days. His term ends in 2009.

Yesterday Bloomberg announced he'd left the Republican Party to become an independent. That move raised speculation he's laying the groundwork for a third party presidential run. We'll have more on the story later in the program tonight. On Wall Street today, stocks were down sharply on concerns about rising interest rates, falling oil prices and growing problems at two major hedge funds. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 146 points to close at 13,489. The Nasdaq fell more than 26 points to close just below 2600. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now raising my lead standards. The Pakistani Foreign Minister, Bloomberg possibilities, via Regosa and Bloomberg on governing. Raising fuel standards for cars and trucks, Ray Suarez, has our story. It's been more than two decades since fuel economy standards were raised for cars in the

U.S. Cars are required to get 27 and a half miles per gallon on average, like trucks, including SUVs, minivans, and pickups must meet a fleet average of just over 21 miles a gallon. But one provision of the energy bill being debated in the Senate would change the corporate fuel economy standards, or cafe standards as they're known, and it has backers from both parties. That measure would require all cars and trucks on average to get 35 miles a gallon by 2020 and keep raising standards for years after that. That week, a different bipartisan group of senators introduced an alternative amendment that's more favorable to the industry. It calls for cars to get 36 miles per gallon on average by a later date, 2022. The requirement for trucks is less stringent. They need to get 30 miles a gallon on average by the year 2025. For a closer look now at the two competing measures and the views behind them, we get

two views from the Senate, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who's advocated law tougher standards for a long time, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri, a co-sponsor of the alternative plan. Senator Durbin, let's start with you. What's the measure that your sponsoring meant to accomplish? It's been 22 years since we've increased the fuel economy of cars and trucks in America. We've become more dependent on foreign oil. We're burning more gasoline this year to drive the same miles we drove last year. I think it's time to step into this debate again. We put together a bipartisan coalition in the Commerce Committee that's going to call for an increase in the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks up to 36 miles a gallon by the year 2020. It'll mean a dramatic savings when it comes to the oil that's being burned, the pollution that's being emitted, and our dependence on foreign oil. This is really a test of how sincere we are, but our dependency on foreign oil and our concern about global warming.

Senator Bond, let's take a look at your amendment. How does it differ from what Senator Durbin just described? Frankly, we're all going in the same direction. We want to increase the average mileage that cars get and trucks get. But we also are living in a practical world where we have a domestic auto industry and we now have foreign auto manufacturers who are building cars here. And they're making cars that the public wants to drive. We have crafted a bipartisan alternate, as you described, which says, by 2022, cars have to meet a 35 mile per gallon standard. And we recognize that trucks are different. If you have the same standard for cars and trucks, you're going to knock out truck production and light truck production and SUVs completely in the United States. And we will see farmers having to carry their hay bails to feed their cattle and glorified golf carts.

We think that we can make significant improvements. And that's why we set the standard of 30 miles per gallon for light trucks by 2025. But the automatic escalator in the underlying bill that my colleague from Illinois supports raises it to 52 gallons, and that means we're all driving around in little European shoe boxes. The American consumer does not want that. American consumer is buying less gasoline, taking measures to cut down on usage because the price is making it more expensive. We want to push as fast as we can to get the technology in place so that we will be able to get cars and trucks manufactured. Here in the United States, it can meet the standards, give the consumers what they need, whether they be families wanting to haul their kids to various events or farmers and our other workmen who need to have the trucks to haul either feed for cattle or equipment

that they need in their operations. We believe ours is doable, it's a stretch, it makes the industry bend, but it does not break it. Senator Durbin, what do you make of your neighbor from Missouri's critique, that the domestic production industry just couldn't handle the standards that you propose? We've heard this song before, 1975, facing an oil crisis. We said it's time to have fuel efficiency standards in American cars. And when we made the proposal, we heard exactly what my friend from Missouri just said. Why it's technologically impossible? These cars will be too light. They once served the needs of America. There'll be too many imports. We'll lose jobs. Well, we ignored it and we said we've got to push forward. We owe it to our consumers across America and we did it. All of their concerns and all of their worries notwithstanding, we raised the average fuel economy of cars from 14 to 27 and a half miles a gallon in a matter of 10 years. And now 20 years later, it is time for us to challenge again, to say to the industry,

if we can build that kind of a vehicle in Japan, we can build it in America. If we have in Europe today a 37-mile per gallon requirement and we have Ford and GM building to that requirement in Europe, why can't they build to that requirement in the United States? I know it's a challenge, but it's a significant difference. If we take the approach, which my friend Senator Bond has proposed, the amount of oil that is going to be saved is one-third by his approach over the approach, which our bipartisan approach is going to try to do 10 miles per gallon improvement over a 10-year period of time. This is a significant test. I feel sorry for our friends in Detroit, they have fallen behind, they're falling on hard times, but they have to accept the challenge, the rest of the world has accepted. To come up with more fuel-efficient cars to serve the needs of families and businesses and farmers and trucks as well and to do it in a sensible fashion. I think America can meet this challenge.

I'm optimistic. I think if some of the Detroit manufacturers spend a little more time with their engineering department, rather than their legal department, that they could meet this challenge. Well, Senator Bond, you heard Senator Durban talk about how this almost postponed the day of reckoning, that the domestic industry has been allowed to slide in the past and now in many respects, they're behind-produced foreign producers who are actually building their cars and trucks in the United States. First, let me point out how the car manufacturers had to meet their standards initially. They reduced significantly the weight of the automobiles and caused safety hazards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figures between 1,200 and 2,500, probably roughly 2,000 lives a year were lost because of the smaller cars. We did include, and over the last year, years on a bipartisan basis, we've told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to increase that mileage as technology became available and make no mistake about it.

The auto industry, the manufacturers, our colleges and universities are pushing to increase mileage and we provide in our measure that to the extent that additional technology is developed, then the NHTSA can increase that mileage. What you're talking about now is providing vehicles that may work well in crowded European cities, but don't serve the needs of the people in America. And to crush all of the auto industry, the auto parts suppliers would have not only an effect on many states like Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, where the autos are made, but all of the other states where auto parts are produced, it would affect jobs, it would affect our economy, and it would have a very significant impact on the choices that American consumers to make. Senator Bond, we need to make fuel standards higher and tougher, but we need to make them achievable.

Senator Bond does the domestic auto industry support your approach to raising these standards? Are they signal to you that they'd be willing to live with your software targets? They thought they would try to meet these. They think it's a reasonable target, one that the technology advances that they envision can meet, but they do not believe that they have any chance of meeting by 2020 the requirement that they have 35 miles per gallon for cars and trucks, and they also are required to meet flexible fuel vehicles 50% of them, and the car companies, even the foreign car companies, manufacturing cars here are already planning their models, and in no way can meet those standards for flexible fuel vehicles that quickly. Senator Durban, what about that? You've got an industry both foreign makers who are based in working in the United States and American-based companies that are saying, this is just too hard.

It's impractical. I don't accept it, and I can tell you that we've built into this bipartisan approach which we're bringing to the floor and off-ramp if we find that it's impossible, if they can't do it from a technological viewpoint at some later date, then they're going to be absolved from increased fuel efficiency. But the goal that we're trying to reach here is a significant one. Currently, the administration, the Bush administration and NHTSA have set a goal of 29.2 miles a gallon for trucks. It's interesting that the proposal that Senator Bond and others will offer only reaches 30 miles per gallon. You really aren't putting the effort into it. Now the National Academy of Sciences tells us there's ample technology, and I want to address the issue of safety for a moment if I can. We have seen over the past 10 or 20 years significant improvement in the safety of cars and trucks. We're talking about seat belts, airbags, side protection, things, any lock breaks, things that didn't exist in the past, new technology that make our vehicles safer. We do not have to sacrifice safety or convenience in order to provide the kind of fuel

efficiency which reduces gasoline costs for families and businesses, and also reduces the pollution which is causing havoc in many parts of our world with climate change and global warming. Very briefly, Senator Durban, have you gotten any signals from the White House as to their attitude toward your version of the bill? Well there are certain elements in our bipartisan approach which they have endorsed, namely we're not lumping all vehicles into one category, but separating them out according to size attributes and weight, I think that's a reasonable approach that gives our manufacturers a fighting chance, but there's no question about it. They're going to have to rise to this challenge, and I think they can. I have a great deal of confidence in our automobile industry once challenged, they'll meet it. And very quickly, Senator Bonne, before we go, what's percolating up through the House? And is there any version there that your bipartisan group can actually make common cause with and get a bill out of the legislature? I'm not an authority on the House, but I understand there's no percolating, there are several pots boiling, and there are some very divergent views.

I think somebody who's better watching the House more closely would tell you that there seem to be some real differences in the leadership in the House, so we're not counting on them. We want to pass a bill that does improve miles per gallon, and it does treat trucks and cars differently. That's why we hope we can get our approach adopted and perhaps the House would go along without. Senator Bonne, Senator Durban, gentlemen, thank you both. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Pakistan under pressure. We start with some background narrated by NewsHour correspondent Spencer Michaels. It was one of the more remarkable scenes in Pakistan's 60-year history as an independent nation.

Last March, judges and lawyers took to the streets in protest in the capital, Islamabad, and other cities. Their upset sprung from the decision by President Provez Musharraf to fire the country's chief justice, if the car trodry, on allegations of corruption. Ordinary Pakistanis appeared shocked and angry at the assault on the judiciary, an institution they were counting on to help restore civilian rule after eight years of rule by the military. Bill Musharraf came to power in 1999 after staging a military coup and made himself president. His term expires in October. Now many Pakistanis believe he wanted to remove the independent-minded justice before the Supreme Court began considering the constitutionality of his plan to run for reelection this fall while maintaining his role as the army chief. Musharraf promised in 2003 to give up his army position and to move Pakistan back to

civilian rule, but has done neither. Protests have gone on for months and have often been met with harsh government response. Forty people were killed when a protest march took an ugly turn in Karachi last month. Despite his political troubles at home, his support from the Bush administration has remained strong. American officials called Musharraf a key ally in the war on terrorism. He backed U.S. efforts to overthrow the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan after 9-11. Since then, Pakistan has received more than $10 billion in U.S. aid. But last year, Musharraf made a deal with tribal chiefs in areas bordering Afghanistan, ostensibly to crack down on the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the region. Many critics, including Afghan President Hamid Karzai, say instead, the arrangement has given the Taliban sanctuary.

In February, Vice President Cheney visited Musharraf to warn that he risked losing U.S. support unless he did more to crack down on al-Qaeda and Taliban elements. Still high-level U.S. officials also regularly reiterate their support for him. The latest, just this week, was Secretary of State Rice. We have to recognize that Pakistan has come a very long way since 2001, in its commitment to try and root out extremism, to try to make reforms, educational reforms, reforms on concerns of women and the like. Later that day, Rice met with Pakistan's foreign minister, Khashid Qasuri, who is in Washington visiting top administration officials and members of Congress. And Margaret Warner talked with the Pakistani Foreign Minister yesterday at his Washington hotel. Foreign Minister Qasuri, thank you for being with us. It's a pleasure to be with you. People here are watching with some concern the rising protests in Pakistan and the way President

Musharraf is handling them. How serious a challenge to his authority is the situation right now? Well, this is an election year, and things will happen in an election year all over the world. As far as the robustness of our democratic system is concerned, you can judge from the fact that there's been going on for more than two months. People are allowed to protest. How many other countries are there in the Muslim world where people will go out on the issue of a judge, where the government doesn't mind? But was your government surprised by the depth of the protests? And in retrospect, was it a mistake to have sacked the Chief Justice? Because it was a mistake or not, you know, one has to have the facts. I'm not the minister for law. But the government has put up a case, which it finds is pretty strong, but that's not the issue. The issue is public reaction that you're talking about. Now as far as public reaction is concerned, probably the government had underestimated because the government thought it was acting according to the Constitution.

But this is an election year, and government has various options available to it. And I will not go deeply into that, and I think that this will be resolved in a manner that Pakistani democracy becomes stronger. So is President Musharraf, do you think, ready to concede on any of the points that the activists are demanding? For example, that before he run for re-election, he give up his general's uniform, or that he let his leading political rivals, or at least leading opposition figures, return in time for the elections? Well, there have been talks have been going on with various political parties, and according to media reports, because I'm not the minister in charge, I will not pretend to speak more than my own portfolio would suggest on the issue of the uniform that you asked me. The Constitution allows the President to wear his uniform until the end of 2007, and he has said on many occasions that he will abide by the Constitution, any more concrete answer

has to be asked of the President. If he makes no concessions, can he ride this out and get himself re-elected somehow without imposing martial law or a state of emergency? Well, I mean, I hope we will never resort to martial law. Martial law is unconstitutional. So when he has repeatedly said that he will work within the confines of the Constitution, I have no reason to doubt that. So we will have to operate within the constitutional framework that exists, and don't forget President has an international stature. He is an asset for Pakistan, and I'm sure he's aware of it. And we live in a globalized world what happens in America's reported in Pakistan, what happens there is reported here. Let me ask you a slightly personal question. You were in the political opposition for years. You were even jailed. You were a major pro-democracy advocate during the previous military government. Do you personally think it is time now after eight years of rule by a military figure,

for General Musharraf to open the door to a more civilian government again? I strongly believe so, but so does the President. I mean, you asked me a personal question, I'll respond very honestly. The President when he came, you know, he was welcomed, and there must have been something wrong with our civilian, democratic, et cetera. I won't go into that because I was a part of it. It's not for me to start judging that. Historians will judge, and a lot of Pakistani commentators will give their judgment. The question is when you run a country like Pakistan, look at an environment, China on one side, India on the other, Afghanistan, Iran, Gulf and Central Asia, we have bang in the center. One of the flames anywhere, there are ramifications in our country, and under those circumstances to have taken the economy to where it is today, our GDP has doubled during the last four or five years.

The Bush administration has said, next to nothing publicly, about this whole question of General Musharraf and the protests and what he should do to respond. Privately, is there any different tone? Your question suggests that they are playing a double game. No, they're not doing that. The content doesn't change at all. They are full faith in the leadership of President Musharraf, and they've told me repeatedly that they believe when the President says that he is the man who's leading to a transition to civil democracy. We still have democracy. What does a democracy mean? A free press, an independent judiciary. How many countries are there in the world where people will come out for three months and protest over the sacking of a judge, and then our civil society organizations, human rights organizations, they don't spare our government. I'm not saying our government is perfect, but which government is, but there are in-place organizations, civil society organizations, constitutional procedures, to check the government. Let's turn to terrorism. President Musharraf has turned over certain border regions to local tribal chiefs and leaders.

And the critics say that that has turned these regions into more of a haven for al-Qaeda and Taliban elements. What evidence can you offer that that's not the case, that actually it is working as President Musharraf had intended? It's Pakistan, the only country that has done it. What did your own NATO commander say, General David Richards? He himself had an arrangement of a similar nature at Musakana. Number two, can you win a military battle and lose the battle for hearts and minds? The answer is no. So our strategy is well thought out, and I will say it is working. You will say, how my response is, we had peace with the tribal elders. The tribal elders took on foreigners, they, in fact, about 300 or 400 Uzbek were killed, because people said, lay down your arms, don't cross the border. That is a part of the agreement, well, it's not 100% effective. Then are you 100% effective in Iraq or Afghanistan, we are trying our best.

Now you also face a new mood on Capitol Hill with the Democrats in control. What do you say to critics on Capitol Hill who argue that Pakistan is not doing enough to fight terrorism? Do you have too many elements in the Pakistani military sympathetic to the Taliban? What I will tell them is, it's deeds, not words that are important. We've lost about 500 or 600 soldiers dead, which is more than the combined losses of NATO ISIS, we've got 90,000 troops in an area, 120th the size of Afghanistan, and you have half that number. We have 1,000, we used to now we have 1,100 inspection posts on the border to stop cross border movement, you've got about 100. If people come from Mexico to United States and vice versa, is Mexico responsible for both? You want Mexicans to stop coming from there, and you have no responsibility. So what are we saying? We are saying, we are doing our best to stop people coming from Afghanistan into Pakistan, although it's primarily the responsibility of NATO, Azerbaijan, and we are also trying to

stop people going from here. When we say, here is a poor man's solution, we are going to mind the entire border. You said, don't do it. Then are you serious? Do you really, or are you trying to find a full guy to use the American expression? Things are hot, but it will become worse if we start distressing each other. We have to look at our sacrifices and our actions, and this will be the words of a friend to other friends at the Congress. Foreign Minister Kasuri, thank you so much. Thank you very much, the pleasure talking to you. Now New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg suddenly a politician without a party. New York correspondent Kwame Holman begins our coverage. New York Mayor Bloomberg tried today to dampen speculation that he would run for president. I'm not running for president, and I'm going to be mayor for the next 925 days.

Bloomberg insisted that he would see out his second term, but added, I do think, the more people that run for office the better. The 65-year-old multi-billionaire businessman turned mayor fueled the speculation yesterday when after six years as a Republican, he changed his political status to unaffiliated. In a statement, he said, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led, and will continue to lead our city. This isn't the first time Bloomberg has switched his political affiliation, the long-time Democrat jumped to the GOP to run for mayor in 2001. Bloomberg made his billions with a steady rise through the ranks on Wall Street, a culminated in his giant financial news and media empire, Bloomberg LP. He spent a reported $70 million of his own money in his first try for elective office narrowly beating Democrat Mark Green. Taking over with the endorsement of popular predecessor Rudy Giuliani after the September

11th attacks, Mayor Bloomberg took unpopular stands on some issues. He raised property taxes to boost the city's battered post-9-11 economy. He took over its public school system, enacted a smoking ban, and a city ban on trans fats in foods. But in 2005, Bloomberg went on to win a second term by a wide margin, and his efforts to reduce crime handle a citywide transit strike, and jumpstart plans for the ground zero site increased his popularity with many New Yorkers. Today, Bloomberg enjoys nearly his highest approval ratings, about 74%. Bloomberg has garnered attention on the national stage for his calls to combat global warming and crack down on illegal guns. Yesterday, after a conference in Los Angeles aimed at bridging the partisan divides in American politics, Bloomberg and Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaragosa spoke with the news hours Judy Woodger.

If you feel so strongly about these issues, why not run as an independent, as some have done in the past, at the very least, to get those issues out there, and in the national debate? You don't have to run for president to get the issues out there. The only reason to run for president is to win and be president and try to affect not just the dialogue, but to change things. So you would only run if you thought you could win? Oh, I think anybody that runs for anything should want to run to win. I can't imagine why you would run to lose. And to Dan Baltz, Chief Political Reporter for the Washington Post, and as the Bloomberg affiliated decision, deserve all the attention it's receiving from the press and elsewhere. I think it does, Jim. I think it's a signal on his part that he's going to look hard at whether he wants to run as an independent. I think that what he said to Judy in that interview is important. The reason to run is to run to win and to do something. I think he is a long way from having made a decision. I think he wants to continue to raise his visibility, move around the country in a way that he hasn't been able to do, begin to explore to see whether there's a receptivity.

We know there's a receptivity to the general message he's talking about, which is that the political system in Washington is broken. I think he wants to find out whether there's real receptivity to Michael Bloomberg as the person to fix that. Judy talked to Bloomberg again today on the telephone, and he told her that running for president as an independent is a very, very difficult task. Do you agree with that, what are the obstacles that would face Bloomberg or anybody else at this stage of the game and running for president? Well, this is a country that is inclined to vote for one of the two major party candidates. Independent candidates come along, particularly when times are difficult. Ross Perot in 1992 got 19% of the vote. That's the second highest anybody's ever gotten. What any independent has to look at is whether there is a real chance of winning or whether you are running simply to send a message or to be a spoiler, and it doesn't sound to me as though Mayor Bloomberg wants to do it that way, that he wants to run. They've got a kind of a checklist in their own minds at this point, which they will begin

to take a serious look at, but not for a long time, probably not until it's clear who the major party nominees are going to be early next year. And if the stars align for him, I think he might do it. But the scenario that we cause him to run would require, what? A weak Democratic ticket and a weak Republican ticket that he felt that he could slip over? They've got a kind of a four point test that they are mulling about in their minds. The first is exactly, as you said. Do the two major party nominees emerge from the primaries, battered enough that they have fairly high negative ratings. A second thing that they will look at, which already exists, is the general level of dissatisfaction in the country. We're seeing it now at roughly 70% of the public saying the country is going in the wrong direction. That's an important ingredient for him to be able to get in. A third element would be, what is the overall receptivity to an independent candidacy? I think they would want to see that well north of 50%, maybe closer to 60%. And finally, I think they want to see how popular would Mayor Bloomberg be starting out

as a candidate and would it be possible for him to grow from where that is to, in the neighborhood of 40%, which you would have to think you would have to get if you wanted to win the election. He can't start out this race if he gets into it next year at 5%, it's too much distance to go. So I think part of what he will do this year is just try to inch himself up and see whether that's possible. But he's a hard-headed business man, Jim, and he's not going to jump into this blindly. As a matter of expectation, would his candidacy tend to take more votes from Republicans or Democrats? I think it's very hard to tell at this point. I think until you can see who the major party nominees are, it's very hard to know that. Some of the early polling that we've looked at suggests that he draws sort of from both parties. But I think that I think we can't evaluate that intelligently until we see what the two tickets look like. I mean, it's possible that let's say Barack Obama were the candidate of the Democratic Party.

His message is very similar or likely would be very similar to Mayor Bloomberg's, which is we need a new kind of politics. Republicans are broken, we've got to try to make Washington work better. In that case, maybe he wouldn't run. So I think he would have to look at who's actually on the two tickets. What do you make of the conventional wisdom, Dan, that way, hey, if he decides to win, the one thing he's got going for him is a lot of money. He could spend billions if he needed to, is that a reality and how important is that? I think everything begins for him with the fact that he would never have to worry about what it would cost to run this campaign. There have been huge figures thrown out who knows whether they're accurate, but that go up to a billion dollars of his own money that he'd be prepared to spend on this. I think it's fair to say if he gets into this, knowing what he did in New York. He spent 150 million in two campaigns just in New York City that he would spend certainly north of half a billion dollars and maybe more. But that certainly makes it possible. I don't think he could think about this as seriously as some of the people around him are thinking about it were it not for the fact that he has all that money, Jim.

So when you say he had people around him are thinking about this seriously, define what you mean? Well, they believe that there is a receptivity to the kind of message that he is preaching. We've heard it again this week on his trip to California, which is to say, Washington is broken. The two major parties have engaged in partisan and polarized politics for so long that the country is not getting at the big problems that it's facing, that somehow we need to bring a different style of politics. What he would talk about is the kind of competence that he thinks he's brought to New York City, a non-ideological style of politics, post-partisan politics as Governor Schwarzenegger in California likes to call it. I think that's what they see that there is already some hunger for that, at least among a significant slice of the American people. So they believe that some of the ingredients already exist, I think what they want to see is what things really look like next year.

Okay, Dan, thank you very much. Thank you, Jim. And finally tonight, more from New York Mayor Bloomberg and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio V. Regosa, they talk together with Judy Woodruff yesterday in Los Angeles as we said earlier. I talked with them about the challenges of running big cities and what they can do that the federal government isn't. This was before Mayor Bloomberg announced his change in party affiliation. And for the record, I host a monthly interview program for Bloomberg Television, part of a multimedia company of which Michael Bloomberg is majority owner, but as Mayor does not involve himself in its operations. Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor V. Regosa, thank you both for talking with us. We appreciate it. You both represent the two largest cities in the United States, 3,000 miles apart. In many ways, your polar opposites, one of you comes out of the international business

financial community. You come out of Latino politics. And yet, when you look at your views on the issues and on the things that problems you've got to solve, it's very similar. How do you explain that, Mayor? Because cities all have the same problem. Big cities have the same problems, whether it's immigration or education or crime in the streets or creating jobs, balancing the budget, helping our cultural institutions competing for tourists. We do exactly the same thing for virtually identical markets. Just happen to be 3,000 miles away. How do you explain that? I think Mayor's, big cities and small cities are much closer to people. They're not as distant from people's elected officials in Washington might be, for instance. I think there's you're more practical because you have to be. You recognize that people want you to get things done and that you can't just focus on

the ideology, but ideas and more importantly, results. Let's talk about some of those issues. The environment, Mayor Bloomberg, you first, you've launched this big program, cut carbon emissions by what, 30% by the next quarter of a century. Were you really forced to do this because the federal government wasn't doing anything? Well, the federal government is not doing anything. I was forced to do it because it's the right thing for the people that live in New York City. There are neighborhoods where the kids go to hospitals with asthma attacks at four times the national average. We have an economy that can't expand because the roads can't handle any more cars. We have a place where people aren't comfortable breathing the air. They don't get enough power in the summer or the surge system overflows. It's those kinds of environmental things that I have to address. There are reasons to do it to stop global warming or mitigate the problems. But for the local needs of our city, I have to do it.

And what I've tried to say is we're not going to do it as you point out for 20 years from now. 30 years from now, we're going to try to do some of it a lot quicker, get the things going. And the city, as opposed to the city government, as opposed to the city, is going to get it done while I'm still in office. As somebody who comes out of the business community, you're not worried about the cost to the economy and to grow. Oh, quite the contrary. It's a net benefit. And I think that's one of the secrets of addressing these issues for companies and for cities and for the country. It is a net positive. It costs you have to make investments. But from our point of view, a better environment, it's great for business, less traffic is great for business, fewer hospital business visits is great for the taxpayer. Forget about the cost. Just take a look at the benefits and they overwhelm the cost. May and via regosa with all due respect. The smog in Los Angeles has been something, I guess, the late-night comedians have talked about for a long time, is what Mayor Bloomberg is doing a model for you?

Where are you getting your ideas for dealing with the environment? Well, you just said it. Los Angeles has the dirtiest air in the United States of America. And yet, we've reduced our carbon emissions over the last decade, but we still have a long way to go. Yes, there's nobody reinvents the will. You look to other great leaders. You look to people who are getting things done. New York is one city. Mayor Bloomberg is certainly a great leader who's getting things done on this area. But you should know with respect to this issue of greening the environment, California's leading the way. We're moving to 20% renewables by the year 2017. LA is moving to 20% renewables by the year 2010. That, in a way, raises, again, this question of what local and state governments can do versus the federal government, no matter how good a job you do here in California, here in Los Angeles, if Bakersfield, California isn't doing its part, or Las Vegas,

or other cities, can you really make a difference if the feds are not going to do the same? First of all, let's be clear about this. More than 500 cities have signed on to the Kyoto Accords, even though the federal government hasn't approved those accords. In the case of Los Angeles, by the year 2012, you have to, according to Kyoto, you have to reduce your carbon emissions by 7% of 1990 levels. We'll have reduced our carbon emissions by 17.5% two years before that by the year 2010. New York will be doing something similar. Cities across the nation, coming together, are solving many of these big challenges because there's a vacuum left by a federal government that has been in gridlock and partisan warfare and refused to address many of these problems. And this question, Mayor Bloomberg, of state, of local, state versus the federal government, it spills over into so many other areas that you're now in Boston.

Well, guns in the streets of our big cities, illegal guns are clearly another good example. But I think, Judy, that just because the federal government isn't doing it or perhaps another country isn't doing it, it doesn't take away the responsibility that Antonio has or I have to make our cities better. And some of the things that we do would be better off if done at a national level, would be better off if others followed us. But again, if you make a difference in New York and you make a difference in Los Angeles, and the federal government doesn't do anything. And in the end, have you really changed it? This is New York and Los Angeles, the two most vibrant economically powerful cities in the United States of America. As we do it, Chicago, Houston, Miami, San Francisco, all of these cities begin to do many of the same things. You create a force, the federal government to act. That's what's occurring currently. We're seeing that cities and states are leading the nation, but the nation is following.

And to the extent that we're doing that, we're creating a force to move us beyond the inertia that we currently have. If you take a look, President Bush proposed some goals or objectives rather than some requirements. I think that's no way is near strong enough. But in all fairness, a year ago, he probably wouldn't have done that clearly as trying to do it. Is it even influencing the federal government, influencing the president? I think they can't help but see the press, they can't help but listen to their constituents. And the more constituents say, I want it, they are responsive and they will follow along. They should be leading, but they'll be there anyway. I want to bring up the conference. You're here together in Los Angeles conference looking at potentially bipartisan, it's called bridging the political divide. Both of you govern cities that are largely democratic. You're Republican. You're Democrat. Republican bipartisanship are working across political differences. Why does it seem to be easier to do in cities than in Washington? Because I think mayors are held to results.

If Antonio makes a decision this afternoon, people see it on the streets of LA tomorrow and they have a chance to get directly to him to tell him whether it works or not, whether they like it or not. He is being held accountable all the time. And so he's got to focus on the issues and the merits of ideas rather than whether they come from one party or another, whether they'll help one party, the next election cycle and raising money or getting votes. He doesn't really have much choice if you think about it. And if the public doesn't like what he does, they can know that it's his fault and they can throw him out or if they like it. They know it's because of him and they can re-elect him, same thing for New York. That's the fundamental difference in Washington, I think it's very hard to pin blame. They vote for things what nobody can understand what the real impact is and it's down the road. They vote for things that have both sides of any issue in the bill so that they can say to both constituencies, I was in favor of it and I was against it.

But Mayor Vergosa, in Washington, they're also dealing with some issues where there are very, very deep divisions over the war in Iraq, for example, isn't that a completely different universe, if you will, if you're dealing with something like that where you have intractable differences. I don't think so. I mean, look, reasonable people, patriotic Americans can disagree on whether we should be at war in Iraq. Reasonable people can disagree about how we bring back our troops. I think the problem with the partisanship that we see in Washington is that it's a one upstman ship. When you don't, you're a warmonger, if you're for the war, you're not a patriot, you're an American, if you're against it. This lack of civility in our debate, this attempt of one upstman ship that you see, that's what's wrong with the partisanship.

It's not that we disagree on issues. I dare say that if Mayor Bloomberg and I were to discuss 80 issues, there may be a number of areas of disagreement. The problem with the partisanship is they're not focusing on the commonalities. They're not getting enough done. Mayor Virgosa, thank you very much. Mayor Bloomberg, thank you both very much for talking with us. We appreciate it. Again, the major developments of this day, President Bush vetoed for a second time, expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research, American troops in Iraq pursued al-Qaeda fighters north and south of Baghdad in new offenses, and Palestinian President Abbas insisted he'd have no dealings with Hamas. The militant Islamic group now holding Gaza. And again, to our honor role of American service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan,

we add them as their deaths are made official, and photographs become available here in silence are 10 more. Thank you. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lara.

Thank you and good night. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is 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 U.S. jumps. A company proud to do its small part to add to the landscape of America. Somewhere in the heartland, a child is sitting down to breakfast, which is why a farmer is rising for a 15-hour day and a trucker is beginning a five-day journey. An ADM is turning corn and wheat, soy and cocoa beans into your favorite foods. Somewhere in the heartland, a child is sitting down to breakfast, which is why so many work so long and take their job to heart.

ADM, resourceful by nature. And by Chevron. Pacific Life New AT&T The Atlantic Philanthropies The National Science Foundation and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. 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. We are PBS.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, I'm Jim Lara. On the news out tonight, the news of this Wednesday, then the brewing battle in the Senate over tougher fuel standards, an interview with Pakistan's Foreign Minister on the Washington Relationship, a look at the growing interest in the political possibilities for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and a conversation with Mayor Bloomberg and Los Angeles Mayor

via regosa about governing. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by 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.