The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; February 23, 2006

I'm Jim Lehrer. Today's news, the new violence in Iraq, lobby reform, running the ports, and a Clarence Page essay all tonight on the NewsHour. Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer.

On the NewsHour tonight, the news of this Thursday, then war or peace analysis of the surging sectarian violence in Iraq. A NewsHour report on congressional lobbying reform and in the storm over Dubai look at how U.S. ports really operate, and a Clarence Page essay on Uncle Tom's Cabin. Funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer has been provided by: 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. And ADM is turning corn and wheat,

soy and cocoa beans into your favorite foods. Somewhere in the hardland, a child is sitting down to breakfast, which is why so many work so long, and take their job to hard. ADM, resourceful by nature. And by CIT. And Pacific Life. This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. A wave of revenge killings and attacks swept across Iraq today. A sectarian violence exploded after yesterday's bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra. More than 130 people were killed in the 24 hours after that attack. And the Iraqi government imposed a daytime curfew in Baghdad and three provinces for tomorrow. We have a report on the day's events narrated by Lucy Manning of Independent Television News.

Shiites and Sunnis marched together in CUT, trying to lay fears that the two strands of Islam would clash in a civil war. But very little today suggested that words of reason would win over those desperate for revenge after yesterday's attack on the Askariya mosque, one of Shia Islam's most holy sites. The [Asin?] mosque in Baghdad was set on fire, and its dome destroyed. Other mosques have been attacked by Shiites armed with automatic weapons and grenades. A group of Sunni clerics said 168 Sunni mosques had been attacked, and 10 imams killed. But those figures couldn't be independently confirmed. But the bodies laid out at Bakuba Hospital left little doubt that the calls for calm were going unheeded. 47 people thought to be both Sunnis and Shiites were killed by a gunman after a joint demonstration against yesterday's bombing. The tensions were all dumped in a ditch by the roadside.

The tension and anger on the streets was given fuel by statements from Sunni leaders that top Shiite clerics were responsible for the sectarian violence. It was an unprecedented attack on the grandi Atala Ali al-Sustani, then they didn't mention him by name. And so as Sunnis buried one of their clerics killed by gunmen yesterday, their political leaders plunged the country into further turmoil. But the main Sunni bloc pulled out of talks on forming a new government, saying participating in the political process wasn't worth the blood of their people. But in Iran, it was the U.S. who were being blamed. The Iranian President tried to whip up the majority Shiites in his country by claiming that America and Israel were responsible for blowing up the Askaria mosque yesterday. American troops in Iraq were ordered to limit their movements to avoid the violence, but seven more U.S. soldiers were killed Wednesday in roadside bombings. And in Lebanon, thousands of Shiites marched in Beirut and chanted anti-American slogans. The leader of Hezbollah said the U.S. wants religious violence in Iraq to justify keeping troops there.

Both the U.S. and Britain have offered to rebuild the Golden Dome Shrine and Washington Today, President Bush called the bombing an evil act. And in London, British Prime Minister Blair said it was clearly meant to derail any hope of a unity government. The struggle in Iraq today is the same struggle the world over. It's democracy versus extremism and terrorism. And the very purpose of those who desecrated the shrine is to stop the will of the Iraqi people expressed an election which over 10 million of them voted. We'll have more on this Iraq story right after the news summary. Rioting between Muslims and Christians spread across Nigeria today, it started last week with the Muslim protests over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Since then, at least 138 people have died. Today, thousands of Muslims fled a southeastern city as Christian youths burned bodies and wrecked mosques.

It was retaliation for attacks on Christians in the north. President Bush will accept a delay in letting an Arab company take over shipping operations at six U.S. ports. At word came today from White House adviser Karl Rove. He told Fox News there's no requirement that the deal be closed immediately. Earlier, Mr. Bush again defended the agreement with the company in Dubai. More people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government. The more they'll be comforted that our ports will be secure for security. The United States will be run by customs, U.S. customs, and the United States Coast Guard. And so people don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America. Earlier this week, the President warned he would veto any attempt in Congress to block the ports deal,

but a top Senate Democrat, Carl Levin of Michigan, fired back today at a briefing on the issue. The President's threat to veto any legislation that even delays this sale. In order to give Congress more time to analyze it, shows how out-of-touch the administration is, with the public's and Congress's legitimate concerns about the vulnerabilities of our ports. It also demonstrates presidential disdain for outside views in general and congressional views in particular. We'll have more on the port story later in the program. A White House report today blamed poor planning and leadership in the handling of Hurricane Katrina. The document made 125 recommendations for future emergencies. And it called for 11 critical changes, mainly in better coordination, before Hurricane season starts in June. The Homeland Security Advisor, Francis Townsend, said federal officials have to cut the red tape and move quickly.

We also learned from the private sector that they have stat of the art systems in supply chain management, inventory tracking, and real-time delivery of commodities. We will work with them on all of these. FedEx can track a package anywhere in the world real-time. FEMA should be able to do the same thing for ice, water, and food. Last week, a report from the U.S. House went further and blamed specific officials. Also today, Hurricane evacuees in hotels got another extension. The federal emergency management agency said it will keep paying for 7,400 rooms in Louisiana and Mississippi through March 15. Evacuees in 3,000 rooms in other states have until March 1. A major challenge to legalize abortion moved closer to reality today in South Dakota. The state House moved toward final passage of a statewide ban on nearly all abortions, except to save the mother's life. The bill is designed to spark a new Supreme Court test of Roe v. Wade.

In 1973, that decision legalized abortion nationwide. Health South agreed today to pay $445 million to settle lawsuits over financial fraud. The chain of rehabilitation clinics nearly went bankrupt in 2003. It stock fell to $0.9 a share, and major investors sued to recoup their losses. The company's former chief executive, Richard Scrushy, has since been acquitted of criminal charges. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial average lost nearly 68 points to close at 11,069. The Nasdaq failed more than three points to close at 22.79. At the Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy today, the high point was the finale of the women's figure skating competition. A Japanese skater won the gold, American Sasha Cohen, settled for silver after falling on two of her jumps. And that's it for the new summer tonight. Now, crisis time in Iraq, lobby reform in Congress, operating ports in America, and re-reading Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Shia, Sunnis, and the future of Iraq, we start with some background narrated by NewsHour correspondent Spencer Michaels. No one was killed in yesterday's attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra, but more than a hundred have since died across Iraq after the destruction of one of the most revered mosques of Shiite Islam. Though Shia religious leaders called for restraint, dozens of Sunnis have been killed in one of the most violent rounds of sectarian clashes in Iraq since the American invasion three years ago. That violence came despite an appeal for peaceful protest by the country's leading Shiite cleric Ayatollah Sistani. Today, a Sunni clerical group said it points the finger of blame at certain Shiite religious authorities for calling for demonstrations.

But one Shia cleric said today the violence was political, not motivated by theology. Why did they bomb the dome at this time? Why wasn't it hit before? Beware, I swear by God it is a political game not a religious one. Beware of sectarian war through which they want to humiliate you and divide you. A U.S. military spokesman insisted civil war was not imminent. We're not seeing civil war igniting in Iraq. We're seeing a competent, capable Iraqi government using their capable Iraqi security force to calm the storm. Modern Iraq has been largely secular since its founding in 1921, but there have been long-standing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. While Sunni Arabs make up only about a fifth of Iraq's 26 million people, they have long controlled the country's political institutions before and during the decades of Saddam Hussein's rule, and they also held much of the country's wealth.

The Shia became a majority in the 19th century, but only since the ouster of Saddam Hussein have they begun to coalesce into unified political groups and parties, which in turn provoked anger and anxiety among many Sunnis. Sunnis overwhelmingly boycotted elections for an interim government a year ago, paving the way for Shi'as to dominate. Sunnis turned out in large numbers in December's parliamentary elections, but Shiites maintained their political dominance. Politicians from Shi'as, Sunni, and Kurdish groups have been negotiating over a possible coalition government, and American officials have been strongly pushing for a national unity cabinet. Most Kurds, another 20% of the population, are also Sunni, but have a separate political agenda from the Sunni Arabs.

But Sunni leaders have now broken off political talks with the Shiites and the Kurds. They said they won't return until the revenge attacks end. For more on this, we're joined by Thabit Abdullah, a Baghdad Navy, who's an associate professor of history at York University in Toronto, and Vali Nasr, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and an adjunct senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Professor Nasr, what's it going to take to stop this, to calm the storm before all out civil war is triggered? Well, that is not going to be easy, because the magnitude of what happened yesterday presents a psychological shock for the Shi'as, a major turning point has occurred. It's important that the Shi'as realize that the national unity government would actually present security to them. It actually will safeguard their future, and the task right now is to be able to bring security to Iraq very quickly, and make sure that the politicians at the center are able to cobble

together a united front. That's a heavy menu you just outlined. Is it possible to happen? Is it possible that it will happen? Well, it's not likely that it will happen, or it will not happen very easily. I think yesterday what happened in Samarra has been a major turning point for the wars in Iraq, and now going back to the situation even before yesterday is a very tall order for Iraqi politicians as well as for the United States. Professor Abdullah, do you agree there's first of all that this is a turning point, and that, well, do you agree it's a turning point? Yes, I do, actually. Generally speaking, I agree with what Professor Nasr said, though there are some hopeful signs. One, as a historian, I'm always encouraged by the fact that there's never been a sectarian war in Iraq, though there have continuously been tensions. Secondly, just a couple of weeks ago, there were some very positive signs toward reconciliation between the different groups.

And thirdly, there is now greater weight being played by the secular group that is headed by Ayad Allawi. Help us understand, is it in anybody's interest, in terms of the major groups, the Sunnis and the Shi'as, for there to be a civil war? Do they have any interest in this violence going on? Professor Abdullah. Of course, absolutely not. And I believe that the far majority of Iraqis understand this very well. I was in Iraq about a year after the American invasion. And this was what was on everybody's lips, that a civil war would be disastrous for everybody. It would be a fire that would consume all. But, you know, these things can spin out of control. There are various groups, both domestic and regional. And I would point the finger directly at Iran here, and other groups also, that find in its interest to whip up this kind of hysteria to put pressure on the United States.

Well, Professor Nasr, how do you analyze? Who is pushing this? And who has something to gain by their being a civil war? Well, a marginal element on both sides, the extremist elements on both sides have something to gain from the violence. And it does not require the majority of Iraqis to want peace and harmony for this to happen. In other words, as we've seen in Yugoslavia, we've seen in Rwanda, in all of these cases, it is not those who have common relations with the other side that would define the violence, it's marginal groups that define the violence. I do not believe Iran is alone involved in Iraq. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria. They're also involved on the Sunni side of this. And it's actually not to Iran's interest at this point in time for Iraq to descend into sectarian violence. Because Iran's game planned for the past month in confronting the United States has been to present itself as a Muslim force to rally Muslims behind Iran around issues such as as the [inaudible], or by its attacks on Israel, Iran does at this point in time does not want to be defined as a Shia power, but the Muslim power.

And in fact, what happened in Iraq is very damaging to Iran's overall stance vis-a-vis the United States. But you say differently, Professor Abdullah, you think Iran does have an interest in making this thing blow up. My reading of it is that there are various interest groups among the elite of the Iranian state, and that there are some within that elite who have been pushing for greater involvement in Iraq and taking sides in the sectarian divide, actually. This is most noticeable in Basrah, where the Iranian influence is greatest. Where when I was there, people were saying that Basrah was now transformed into an Iranian province, actually. And there we see the greatest pressure being put on Sunnis, on Christians, on others. And it's hard for me to believe that the Shia militias that receive enormous amount of aid from Iran are not affected by Iranian designs. Professor Abdullah, how do you read the decision by this large group of Sunnis today to not participate in the summit discussions about forming a new government?

Is that a major setback? It's definitely a setback, though it could actually be a form of pressure on some of the Shiite leaders to take a more active role in trying to calm them up. I wish they hadn't backed out, but they did need to make some strong statements, because a lot of the top Shia leaders, I was rather surprised, because Sistani and Hakim and Jafarim, the other important Shiite leaders have in the past, taking extremely responsible role in trying to calm the sectarian tensions. But after the bombing, and to a certain extent, this is understandable. This is one of the most sacred sites that one can imagine for Shia's. It houses two imams, and these are sacred figures for the Shia's. But the immediate response of the Shia leaders was not to tell people to stay off the streets, to calm down,

rather it is to play into the violence. Nobody actually said go out and attack Sunnis, and they did condemn some of the attacks against the mosques, but nevertheless, they have not specifically come out very strongly in trying to calm them out down. Professor Nasr, how do you assess the leadership on both sides in trying to calm this thing down? First of all, what they've done, and what they could do to make it better. Well, I think the Shia leadership did not have any choice. I mean, one cannot overemphasize the blow to Shia's of the destruction of the shrine. The relationship of Shia's, particularly average Shia's to their faith, are through these saints and the shrines. This was an attack on the very existence and the very meaning of Shia's. No Shia leader would be worth his salt if he did not flex his muscle somehow. And one could have expected that they could have called for far more than they actually did. Secondly, there is a perception among many Shia's that the United States and the Sunnis,

and particularly the United States, takes Shia calm, or the peace in the South, the fact that the Shia's have not joined the insurgency for granted. And periodically, we've seen that Ayatollah Sistani did this also. Obviously, when Paul Bremer wanted to push for a caucus system in Iraq, that he brings the mobs into the streets in peaceful demonstrations. In order to show that the United States, that the Sunnis, that the other players should not take the Shia's position, and the Shia force in general, for granted, that it's not only important to placate the Sunnis. It's not only important to make sure that the Sunnis are pleased with the political process. Also, the Shia's have interests, they have fears, they need security, they have a vision of the future. And that has to be safeguarded as well if Iraq is to work. It's not enough just to see what it takes to bring the Sunnis in. It is important to look at what it takes to keep the Shia's in the process as well. And that's the signal that Sistani is sending by calling the mob into the streets. However, it is what is very worrisome about what happened today is that there is an indication that Sistani may no longer be able to

control the mob, that the force is now within the Shia community. The anger and the fear are such that his call for restraint may not be holding much longer. And Professor Abdullah, that brings us to the United States' role in this now. Is there anything at all that the U.S. could do to help calm this thing and keep this thing from blowing out of control? I was hoping you wouldn't ask me that question, actually. But the United States has not been very helpful. I must tell you that I was one of those who rejoice that the overthrow of the dictatorship, though I was like the majority of Iraq, is extremely suspicious of U.S. intentions. I believe that the U.S. has missed one opportunity after another to play a positive role. From the beginning, they started to play the sectarian game in a country that has a very long history of secular politics, as you noted. The lack of effective security, the Abu Ghraib scandals, the joke, that is the reconstruction,

the one disaster after another. I believe the United States does not have much credibility in Iraq anymore, especially after the Abu Ghraib scandal. If I'm really pushed to answer this question, I would say, the only thing that the U.S. ambassador can do is try to provide good offices for mediation right now. Try to provide backup for Iraqi security if the situation spills over into violence. Professor Nasser, what would you add or subtract from that, about the U.S. role? Well, I would say in the realm of security, the military, I feel a great deal of danger facing the U.S. position. Namely, we're already over stretching Iraq just dealing with the Sunni insurgency. If we have to deal with trouble among the Shia demonstrations, agitations, attacks, even anti-American demonstrations, we simply won't be able to cope with both Sunni insurgency and Shia anger at the same time. Politically, I agree with my colleague that the U.S. role right now is to help to bring mediation,

and at least help a government in Iraq form sooner rather than later. But unfortunately, given how quickly the sectarian tensions are aspiring out of control, I see very little that the U.S. can do at this moment to veer Iraq in a new direction. Gentlemen, on that down note, I'm sorry we'll leave it. Thank you both very much. Thank you. Now, a congressional correspondent, Kwame Home, and updates what's happening in Congress on lobby reform. That image of Jack Abramoff, wearing the black fedora, emerging from the courthouse last month after pleading guilty to, among other charges, conspiracy to bribe public officials, was the first time most people had seen the one-time super lobbyist, and it left a lasting impression. Much like Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North did for the Iran-Contra fair,

and the physically imposing savings and loan owner Charles Keating did for the Keating Five, Jack Abramoff has put a name and face on the world of Washington influence peddling. It has exposed a series of abuses that Americans just can't stomach. House Republican Deborah Price of Ohio. And it's gone too far, and we need to put the brakes on him. Washington's K Street corridor is famous for its high-priced lobbying firms, but in fact lobbyists are spread all across town. There are more than 27,000 people registered to lobby the federal government. They've become such an integral part of politics and policymaking in Washington that lobbying often is called the fourth branch of government, and Congresswoman Price says that's not necessarily a bad thing. Well, it's important that we make that distinction. There are lobbyists that represent almost every person in this country, whether it's the lobbyists for the AARP, or the lobbyists for the Children's Hospital Association,

or the lobbyists for the soybean growers. They have organizations, and they come in, and they don't always serve in no purpose. But even if Jack Abramoff is the exception, he's had a profound effect on some of Washington's most powerful people. For instance, Ohio Congressman Bob Nay, who is referred to in Abramoff's indictment, resigned as chairman of the House Administration Committee and could face his own legal problems. Then there's Tom DeLay, whose close relationship with Jack Abramoff might have contributed to his decision not to try to reclaim his post as House Majority Leader, when and if his legal troubles go away. Meanwhile, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who accepted $68,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff's Native American tribe clients, continues to deny news reports he had closer connections to Abramoff than he's admitted. And there are dozens of others in the Congress, and in the White House as well, who've had to explain their past associations with Jack Abramoff. At the very least, it's an image problem

that congressional leaders initially rushed to repair. We have a duty to do everything we can to keep the trust and confidence of our constituents. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rules Committee chairman David Dryer stepped out first, offering a list of lobbying reform proposals on behalf of Republicans in the House. And I believe that we are in a position today where we can come forward with some bold things. Meanwhile, John McCain, one of five senators, reprimanded 15 years ago for his dealings on behalf of Charles Keating and Rick Santorum, once considered case streets point person among Senate Republicans, announced they would work together in pursuit of lobbying reforms. We've reached a tipping point now where the American people are saying enough. And Democrats from the Senate and House appeared together at a partisan rally for lobbying reform. Democratic proposals will lead this country in a new direction, put an end to business as usual, and make certain that these nations, the nation's leaders serve the people's interest,

not the special interest. It's been more than a month since that first flurry of proposals encircled the Capitol since then. Jack Abramoff has disappeared from public view. Other issues have gotten attention, and some members of Congress no longer believe lobbying reform needs to be rushed. There was the usual overreaction that we see happen quite often in Washington, the media is a part of that frenzy. And then, of others, I have to sort of step in and say, okay, now wait a minute now. Let's think this through. Mississippi Republican Trent Lott has spent more than three decades dealing with lobbyists on both sides of the Capitol, 16 years in the House, and the last 17 in the Senate, including six years as the Republican leader. Are things more quote unquote corrupt as respects lobbying practices now versus years ago? It's a lot cleaner now than it was years ago. When I first came to Washington as a staff member,

when you wanted to get campaign contributions to a member of the Senate, you took a two-minute cigar box or a brown paper bag, and that was legal. And it was cash, and it wasn't reported anywhere. So, you know, the allegations that things have gotten worse or just outrageous. Still, on the first day of the new congressional session three weeks ago, the House of Representatives revoked floor and gymnasium access for former members now registered as lobbyists. This resolution is designed to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that members of former members of Congress who are registered lobbyists do not have any kind of advantage over the average American when it comes to access to members of the United States House of Representatives. The vote in favor was overwhelming, even though members from both parties scoffed at the impact. The rule, frankly, has always been that there's no lobbying on the floor of the House,

and, frankly, in my 24-plus years here, I've never had that experience. Even since I've been in committee chairman, so to some extent, we're somewhat tilding at windmills. Clearly, former members of this body who lobby should not have special access to lawmakers on the floor or the gym, but let me be clear that this rule's change is so minor in relation to the magnitude of the problem that it doesn't amount to a drop in the ocean. Among other proposals, Congress is considering increasing from one year to two the amount of time a former member must wait before he or she may lobby former colleagues. Further limiting or eliminating gifts members may accept from lobbyists, and restricting or prohibiting members from accepting free meals and privately funded travel. It was extravagant travel packages that first raised suspicions about Jack Abramoff. He offered all expense-paid golfing trips to Scotland to several members of Congress, including representatives

Nay and DeLay. I want to give... During our recent rules committee hearing on lobbying reform chaired by Senator Locke, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, described a travel invitation once offered by cellular phone company, GTE. A quote congressional field trip, unquote, sponsored by GTE to Tampa and Clearwater Beach, and the invitation reads, quote, to take advantage of the terrific location besides Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Will demonstrate that you can place a cellular call over water, either while dining aboard a boat or fishing for that night's dinner. Mr. Chairman, enough. If members of Congress can't justify spending taxpayer money to do a fact-finding trip, they shouldn't go and neither should their staff. There appears to be wide agreement among Democrats and Republicans that rules governing congressional travel have been abused, but Senator Locke argues many congressional trips obviously are justified. What's wrong with a non-partisan group taking you to a conference to meet with European parliamentarians

to talk about immigration policy? Do you want to stop that? Or what about if a senator is invited to fly out to Denver to speak to the National Home Builders Association? Is that wrong or something? Senator stir about that? The question comes in, how do you set up a system where you can tell the difference? Marty Mean of Massachusetts is pushing a package of lobbying reforms on behalf of House Democrats. Often times what happens with the American people, they don't want to split here as they say, why don't you just be in privately paid for a travel and if in fact the trip is in the interest of the country or in the interest of an individual's home state, a home constituency, then the taxpayers should pay for that trip. Well, why should the taxpayers pay for that? You know, I still worry about, you know, some people say, well, the answer is for the government to do it all. You know, let the public financing the campaign. So let the taxpayers pay for all flying. Let the taxpayers pay for everything.

And where does this end? House Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin offers these solutions. Band the junkets, band the lobbyists paid and the corporate paid travel, but the alternative to banning non-profit trips that are purely educational is either members don't travel and don't learn about the world and other communities or the taxpayers pick up the tab. Either of those are bad alternatives. We ought to have some credible third party that pre-approved these kinds of trips to make sure that these are educational that these are non-profit foundations. At the Senate Rules Committee hearing, Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota said his solution is simple transparency. In my case, and I put all my travel, you go on to my website. You can see every trip that I've taken, you can pay for the description of what the organization is all about. Let people know what you're doing and who's paying for it. But Illinois Democrat Barack Obama argued this closure doesn't always work. When Tom DeLay went to Scotland to play golf, that was under the ages of a 501c3 that sounded like it was educational.

And it didn't look like there were too many serious seminars taken place on that trip. So I think it's important for us to be able to distinguish those two things. Finally, many members of Congress say they're determined to reform the practice of ear marking, the process of inserting individual spending items into appropriations bills without the benefit of a vote, without debate, often without notice to other members, sometimes at the request of a lobbyist. I don't like these deals where leaders or subcommittee chairman go into late-night meetings somewhere and the caverns of the capital and add things that could be worth millions or even billions at night, not in either body, not, you know, not no hearings, no nothing. Senator's lot, McCain, Obama and Democrat Diane Feinstein of California all have proposed changes to the practice of ear marking. And when Congress returns next week, at least two committees will begin the potentially difficult process of writing lobbying reform legislation.

However, the House of Representatives now is expected to move much slower in response to the Abramoff scandal. This all happened when we were home on our district work period over the month of January. Members weren't here altogether in Washington, D.C. But John Boehner was running for leadership and he was on the phone with every member and he was hearing about it one member at a time in his phone calls and his bid for the leadership race. And so he probably had a little different perspective than the speaker might have had. Now John Boehner, the new majority leader with his own history of close ties to K-street lobbyists wants to take a go-slow approach. The speaker has a package that was developed along with Mr. Dreier. Certainly a very good start. I think that we need to continue to talk about this. We need to figure out how to bring the transparency to this relationship, and I'm confident that we will. While it appears lobbying reform in Congress will fall back to the pack with other legislative priorities, it could move again to the front of the line,

should new revelations about Jack Abramoff and his dealings with members of Congress come to life. Still to come on the news hour tonight, more on the ports, and a Clarence Page essay. [MUSIC] Margaret Warner has our port security story tonight. This wouldn't be going forward. If we were certain that our ports would be secure, but early today, President Bush again defended the administration's OK for a United Arab Emirates company to take over management of six US seaports, now operated by a British firm. What I find interesting is that it's OK for a British company to manage some ports, but not OK for a company from a country that is also a valuable ally in the long term. The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the long term. A lot of goods are shipped from ports to the United States

managed by this company. But at a briefing on Capitol Hill, by Bush officials who'd initially reviewed the deal, New York Senator Hillary Clinton said her concerns remained. We've heard from numerous administration spokespeople that those of us who are raising concerns are somehow out of place. Because after all, it was a British company that was engaged in these activities, selling to the Dubai company. For many of us, there is a significant difference between a private company and a foreign government entity. The company in question Dubai ports world is owned by the UAE government and currently manages ports in 12 countries around the world. It has offered $6.8 billion for the British company PNO, which manages 27 port terminals worldwide, including six in the U.S. in New York and New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans.

Politicians from both parties have charged the deal could put the U.S. at greater risk from terror. But Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmett said today, that risk had been fully addressed in the interagency review process known as CFIUS. We're not aware of a single national security concern raised recently that was not part of the CFIUS staff review. Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph said the UAE is an important ally against terrorism. And I would just emphasize that the UAE is a long-standing friend of the United States. But Democrat Carl Levin pressed the point, noting that renegade Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan had used Dubai as a hub for his illicit nuclear trade. It was the main, the main transshipment point for A.Q. Khan, who ran the world's largest nuclear proliferation ring from a warehouse, warehouses near the port, and ship centrifuge equipment from there to Libya.

Can you confirm that or deny that? Well, I can certainly confirm, and again, it's part of the public record, that a number of the centrifuge parts, large numbers of centrifuge parts that were manufactured in Malaysia, were shipped and did transit Dubai. Clinton and Kimmett remained at odds on whether this and other national security concerns were ever fully considered. The process used to review this transaction, appears to be cursory at best. It doesn't suggest that security concerns were not raised. They were raised. They were resolved. We moved on. Clinton said afterwards, she will press for legislation, imposing 45 days of additional review. And late today, White House adviser Karl Rove made his comment suggesting the president would accept a delay. And for more about the management of U.S. ports that set issue in the current controversy and how it relates to security.

We turn to Stephen Flynn, retired Coast Guard commander and an expert on transportation, border, and infrastructure security. A senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He's also author of the 2004 book, America of the Vulnerable. And M.R. Dinsmore, Chief Executive Officer of the Port of Seattle, the eighth largest container port in the U.S. He formally worked for a private terminal operating firm that since been acquired by a foreign company. Welcome to you both. Mr. Dinsmore, this Dubai Ports World is commonly referred to as a port operator. What does a company like that actually do? Margaret, thank you. Terminal operators really run the terminal. They lease the terminal from the Port Authority and R.B.F. Port of Seattle. And if they're a terminal operator and stevator, they actually load and unload the containers from the vessel. So what you're saying is, of the port is really the geographic area, and you may have many terminals within a port, say New York.

I am, and many times I've listened to the news and talking about six ports. They clearly have about six ports. They bought terminals within a port authority. Okay, so Stephen Flynn, tell us more about what the responsibilities of the port or terminal operator versus say the shipper or the container companies or the security apparatus that the government security that is involved. What we're talking about here is the terminal operator is basically acquiring a lease to load and offload cargo and to move it around the yards and make it available for trains and trucks that come in and out of the port. It's a fairly straightforward proposition where you're going here, much like British Airways wants to have its own terminal in an airport so that it knows there's a gate for it when it's plain show up. Most of our container ships are foreign flag vessels and ships don't make money unless they're at sea.

And so they want to turn themselves around as quickly as possible so they want to be able to manage the cargo movement operations and by leasing real estate on both sides or all the ports that they may visit at, if they can. And so the terminal operator is basically the person who does a coordination for that. The people are actually in the port picking up the containers, working in the cranes, moving the carts around and so forth. These are all longshoremen, the American citizens and they don't change no matter who is in charge of who is the owner of the lease in the port. So what you're saying is the port operator's employees do have proximity to these containers but they're the same whoever is actually the terminal or port operator. Basically what we see, the terminal operator often has an office that looks like an industrial part kind of office that you might imagine inside the port and they're doing a lot of the paper shuffling and call making and other kinds of things

to facilitate an incredibly complex activity, moving containers from all over the world and getting them to the customers that only end up on our shelves or in our manufacturing plants. Now, virtually all those folks are Americans as well. Typically if it's a foreign owned company who leases this terminal, there will be a few senior managers who report from the home office but they are not having any contact physically with the box. That is done by only the longshoremen. So on the west coast, those are members of the ILWU, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union on the east coast is the International Longshore Association. These are pretty red-blooded Americans who get these jobs. They're in the cranes, they're driving the carts and basically anything that happens in the terminal is in the union's hands wisely. So Mr. Dinsmore, say at the Seattle harbor or port that you that you oversee, let's say containers are offloaded off a ship but the trucks aren't there yet to take them off to wherever, Wal-Mart or wherever. Who stores them and who's responsible

for the security of the storage of those containers? Well, as Stephen alluded to, the terminal operator actually puts them in a location within a container yard. They stay there until they either, if they're inbound, they go out on rail or out on truck. Now, the piece that got left out of Stephen's overview, I mean, you have customs, border patrol actively involved in all security, you have the U.S. Coast Guard actively involved in all security, you have port authority, we're involved in all security. So his point is very accurate. The inner movement of the containers in the container yard is done by the terminal operator. If they are a steeper than they load and unload the ship but it's a concentrated effort of security by many, many different parties, some of which are federal government. So Stephen's Lynn, what would you add to that? In other words, how good is the security at the port and what role the terminal operator plays in that, if any?

Well, my overall assessment, if I had to rank, you know, from 1 to 10, the things I'm most worried about about port security, and I'm somebody who's quite concerned about the state of port security, about a container security overall in the system in place, I put this near the bottom of my list of my concerns, who owns the terminal. What's the more important question, are there adequate security standards in place that safeguard our interest? Are there sufficient oversight of that? Do the agencies who play this role have enough resources to make sure that people are playing by the rules? And the central issue is we still haven't arrived with nationals. We still don't have today national standards that define what security should be in terminals, yet we're delegating to private property on as no matter where they're from, whether it's Des Moines or Dubai, saying you take care of the security. We have port authority, but traditionally, there's not a lot of police. You'd see almost the same amount of police as you might see at a good commercial bank, totally representing a huge piece of geography. You have the Coast Guard and Customs, but they didn't get a whole lot of new bodies after September 11th for port security.

This wasn't our biggest emphasis. There's a lot that has been done to improve the situation because we started from virtually nothing before, or is almost a state of nature. And we should be having a conversation about that, setting the standards, make sure the resources are in place, we have the best practices in place. Most importantly, this is a global network. And a lot of our effort is trying to do things overseas to try to avert problems before they arrive on a shores with a bit too late. And we have to therefore work with the foreign-owned companies there, obviously, in their environment. It's a total system, it's a very complex system. But let's be clear here that in terms of owning a terminal, owning a lease inside a terminal is not something that is basically owning the port and operating the port. As Mr. Dinsmore made clear, as a Coast Guard is there, the customs is there, I make a case, they just need a lot more resources to do this job, a good bit better, given the stakes. And so Mr. Dinsmore, in terms of foreign ownership of these leases,

and particularly what seemed to bother many members of Congress now is that it's foreign government ownership in the case of this Dubai company. How unusual is either of those factors in terms of at American ports and at American terminals right now? More market, let me start by saying, I concur with Stephen's comments in an answer to your question. I believe strongly that the U.S. government, this administration needs to do a good job of due diligence in making sure there isn't any loopholes on behalf of any company coming in to be a terminal operator. Now, that being said, in our port, there's three major terminal operators. One is SSA Marine, a very large U.S. corporation, a very large customer, another is American president lines in O.L., Singaporean company, and part of that company is owned by the government. Another is Hangean Shipping, an internal operator, and that is South Korean company.

So I think after we do our due diligence, we need to move on and make sure that issues like this do indeed go forward and ultimately get approved. And Stephen, what would you add to that in terms of foreign government ownership? You could hear from the questions today. They seem to be worried about the possibility that this one Dubai company would control the point of origin and Dubai and the point of offloading. I mean, is there any way in which the ownership of the terminal operator could increase the risk of terror? Like with any company, if you have an insider who basically penetrates us access to the information base and has some access to some of the controls, there should be a worry, which is all the more reason why the standards we put in place need to be global standards and we need to put teeth in them, and we need to have essentially government people who are overseeing them. And that's where I think that's what we've been doing breaks down. We don't have a very good system for all the information we should have, an effective screening system

for cargo when it's loaded. The kind of thing that would help address this issue, for instance, is to pilot this underway in Hong Kong right now where every container coming into the busiest container terminal in the world, Hong Kong International Terminal, the trucks are driving through a gamma image to take an x-ray base with some side, radiation, signature to see if there's no radioactive material, taking a picture of the back and top and capturing the numbers and putting in a database, 300 trucks an hour, it's being put into a database. It's possible to do this kind of thing, but it takes some resources and it takes you as government leadership setting the standards. And if you actually had somebody back in North Virginia and our targeting center could sit there and look at any boxes worried about, it wouldn't matter who owned it. So this is why it's so important, I hope, that the conversation moves away from this narrow ownership issue and says, well, I think the core profession is that Americans should be concerned about this. This is national security infrastructure. It's in areas and cities, particularly in Seattle where Mr. Dinsmore is from. He's right on top of that port. These are vital assets, so you don't just want to rely

on the private players to take care of themselves and not give them any standards. What we need to do is raise the bar of the standards and make sure we have adequate resources and we need to push those borders out. We need to get other countries to play by these rules. They'll take a lot of US leadership and we haven't had that much of it yet, frankly, in this area. All right, Steven Flynn and more Dinsmore, thank you both. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Finally tonight, S.A.S. Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune on Uncle Tom's Cabin. You can just barely see it tucked away behind the trees along a busy highway near the shopping malls in Bethesda, Maryland, just outside Washington. On Martin Luther King's birthday, the state of Maryland purchased that historic house because of the little log cabin attached to it. Almost two centuries ago, that cabin was the home of a slave named Josiah Henson before he escaped to Canada. Harriet Beecher Stowe used his memoir as a basis

for her classic American novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin. Like a prairie fire, Stowe's tragic depiction of slave life, published in 1852, inflamed abolitionist sentiments in the years before the Civil War, only the Bible sold more copies. When Abraham Lincoln met her in the 1860s, he's reported to have said, so you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war. As a child, I was impressed by Uncle Tom's Cabin for its power of the printed word. But among my fellow African-Americans, I soon learned, Uncle Tom had become a paradox, transformed in less than a century from a hero into an insult. His name has become an epithet to describe subservient Negroes, too eager to please the master. Stowe's noble characters were badly recreated over the years as ugly menstral show stereotypes of dark-skinned mammies and wild-haired picaninnes.

That's sadly ironic, since the Tom and Stowe's book is not a traitor. He's a man of deep Christian faith who dies of martyr's death, refusing to reveal the escape routes of two slave women who fled their cruel overseer with his dying breath. Tom proves himself to be the moral superior of his masters by forgiving those who fatally abused him. Ironically, it was Tom's generosity of spirit and Christian forgiveness that moves his new owner, George Shelby, to release all of his slaves after Tom's death. Look to Uncle Tom's Cabin, he tells them, so they can remember Tom's sacrifice and lead a pious Christian life just as Tom did. Today in Maryland, we can look at Uncle Tom's Cabin and also remember the real man who inspired him. Josiah Henson defied stereotypes. He escaped to Canada, opened a school for other former slaves and published an autobiography in 1849

that became a bestseller. Years later, a prosperous Henson returned to visit his former owners here in Maryland. Say, you're a gentleman now, his former owner's wife said with surprise to which Henson replied, ma'am, I always was a gentleman. History lives with the Henson's. Years later, Josiah's great-grand nephew, Matthew Henson, with a company Admiral Robert E. Perry on his 1909 expedition to the North Pole. Their story is an American story, an example of how Black American history is the history of America. Here in Maryland today, Harriet Beecher Stowe might again tell us to look to Uncle Tom's Cabin, not just as a symbol of slavery with a symbol of strength and freedom, a relic out of our past, to help us face our future. I'm Clarence Page. Again, the major developments of this day

revenge killings and attacks swept across Iraq in the wake of a bombing of a Shiite shrine. And there was word President Bush will accept a delay in letting an Arab company run shipping at six U.S. ports. White House adviser Karl Rove said the deal does not have to be closed immediately. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields and David Brooks among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer has been 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.

Sometimes success needs to be nurtured. Sometimes it wants to be pushed. Sometimes success takes everything we can give and then demands more. And sometimes all it takes is someone who sees what you see. At CIT, we're in the business of financing great ideas so you can take yours all the way to the top. And by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. To purchase video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

call 1-866-678-News We are PBS. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the news of this Thursday,

then war or peace analysis of the surging sectarian Vvolence in Iraq. A NewsHour report on congressional lobbying reform and in the storm overdue by look at how U.S. ports really operate and a Clarence Page S.A. on Uncle Tom's Cabin. Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer has been provided by Somewhere in the Heartland, a child who's 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 who's sitting down to breakfast, which is why so many work so long, and take their job to heart. ADM, resourceful by nature. And by CIT. And Pacific Life. This program was made possible

by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. A wave of revenge killings and attacks swept across Iraq today. Secretary and violence exploded after yesterday's bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra. More than 130 people were killed in the 24 hours after that attack. And the Iraqi government imposed a daytime curfew in Baghdad and three provinces for tomorrow. We have a report on the day's events narrated by Lucy Manning of Independent Television News. [chanting] Shiites and Sunnis march together in [inaudible], according to a wave.