The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; December 13, 2007

Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the news hour tonight, the news of this Thursday, then two major newsmaker interviews with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and with former Senator George Mitchell on the baseball steroid scandal. Followed by an update report on the September crackdown in Myanmar, the nation also known as Burma, and excerpts from the Saturnans Democratic presidential debate, the last before the January Iowa caucuses. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer is provided by the United States. Retirement.

It may be a long way off or another adventure waiting just ahead. Pacific life can help provide income you can enjoy for the rest of your life. Because retirement could be a very long ride. Pacific life. The power to help you succeed. Proud sponsor of the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl. Chevron. The new AT&T. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. 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. A report on steroids and major league baseball named names today and cast blame. Former Senator George Mitchell released findings of his investigation into the use of performance enhancing drugs. They reported identified some 80 players past and present. They included star pictures, Roger Clemens, and Andy Pettit, and home run king Barry Bonds, among others. Mitchell said baseball had a serious drug culture with plenty of blame to go around. Everyone involved in baseball over the past two decades. Commissioners, club officials, the Players Association, the Players, shares to some extent in the responsibility for the steroids era. There was a collective failure to recognize the problem as it emerged and to deal with it early on.

Mitchell called for an independent drug testing program for players among other things. In response, baseball commissioner Bud Selig said he accepts all of the recommendations. And he held out the possibility of punishing those named in the report. Senator Mitchell acknowledges in his report that the ultimate decisions on discipline rest with a commissioner. And he is correct. The discipline of players and others identified in this report will be determined on a case-by-case basis. We'll have more on this story, including an interview with Senator Mitchell later in the program tonight. The Senate headed toward passing a trim down energy bill today. It mandated the first increase in auto fuel economy in three decades. But it dropped Democratic provisions to tax large oil companies and forced utilities to use more renewable fuels. The revised bill would still have to win house approval.

Democrats also face the prospect of giving way to the president on other issues. They ranged from the alternative minimum tax to domestic spending and possibly to war funding. Now, Speaker Pelosi said today there weren't enough votes to get past presidential vetoes and Republican filibusters in the Senate. But she insisted that does not mean Democrats are giving up. This isn't about caving. This is again about setting a high-water mark of values that is fiscally sound and gets priority to those issues that are relevant to the lives of the American people. The House did approve another temporary spending bill today to keep the government running through next week. That buys time to hammer out a single bill funding 14 government departments for the rest of the fiscal year. She told the news hour today there is no chance of a government shutdown. She dismissed what she called fear-mongering on that point. We'll have that interview right after this news summary. The Senate Judiciary Committee moved today to site two of the

president's closest advisers for contempt. Carl Rove was Mr. Bush's chief adviser until September. Josh Bolton is his current chief of staff. Neither has complied with subpoenas for testimony and documents on the firings of federal prosecutors. The citation now goes to the full Senate. A major terror case involving the Sears Tower in Chicago crumbled today. A federal jury in Miami acquitted one man of plotting to attack the building. The jury deadlocked on six others. Prosecutors announced plans to retry those six men next year on terror-related conspiracy charges. She and Southern Iraq buried the dead today from a triple car bombing. The death toll in yesterday's attacks in Amara was lowered from 41 to 25, but officials warned it could climb again with scores of people wounded. There was still no claim of responsibility. Former Vice President Al Gore joined the fray today at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Indonesia.

He charged the Bush administration has obstructed talks on guidelines for negotiating a new global treaty. My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali. We all know that, but my country is not the only one that can take steps to ensure that we move forward from Bali with progress and with hope. Gore's speech came as the talks faced a possible breakdown. European countries wanted to give negotiators definite targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. opposed to going that far. We have a report on that dispute narrated by Sue Tertan of Independent Television News. The message on this Bali beach sought out this agreement or the fate of the baby turtle will be on your heads. Conservationists released over 200 of them

into the clear waters, hoping they would prick the consciences of the climate conference delegates currently in deadlock. But across the island, the mood at the conference was pessimistic. I'm very concerned about the pace of things. If we don't manage to get the work done in time on the future, then the whole House of Cards basically falls to pieces. There is a wrecking crew here in Bali led by the Bush administration and its minions. Those minions continue to be the governments of Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and others. The sticking point is over carbon emissions. The U.S. won't agree to the EU suggestion of a non-binding agreement where developed countries will cut emissions by 25 to 40%. But the U.S. is stressing that this conference was always designed to be

talks about talks. We don't have to resolve all of these issues, these last items that I've mentioned to you here in Bali. What we need now is a solid Bali road map, one that sets the stage for robust, constructive, and groundbreaking negotiations in the months ahead. The U.S. plans to wrestle the initiative back next month with its own climate conference of major economic nations in Hawaii. A conference the EU countries are now threatening to boycott, unless America signs up to their emissions target. The climate talks in tomorrow. In a related development, U.S. government scientist reported 2007 was one of the warmest years on record. The annual temperature nationwide was expected to be just over 54 degrees. Meanwhile, the deadly ice storm that ravaged the Midwest, moved into the Northeast today up to a foot of snow was expected to fall across parts of the region.

Scores of flights at major airports were canceled. There were dozens of highway accidents. The storm is blamed for at least 35 deaths in the Midwest. More than 330,000 homes and businesses in Oklahoma are still without power. The state legislature in New Jersey voted today to abolish the death penalty. It was the first time a state has taken that step since the 1960s. The vote today substitutes life in prison without parole. Governor John Corzine has said he will sign it. Rupert Murdoch's bid to buy Dow Jones and company won approval today from Dow shareholders. It was the final step needed for the $5 billion deal. Murdoch's news corporation now gains control of the Wall Street Journal and other Dow properties. He already owns the Fox News Channel and the New York Post, plus major media outlets in Australia and the United Kingdom. An economic news inflation at the wholesale level rose in November by the most in 34 years. The Labor Department reported producer prices were up more than 3%.

Driven by sharply higher gasoline prices. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial average gained 44 points to close just under 13,518. The Nasdaq fell two points to close at 26, 68. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now speaker Pelosi, Senator Mitchell on the steroids report, a Burma update and the Democratic debate. And to our newsmaker interview with Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. When I will spoke with her this afternoon at the Capitol. Madam Speaker, welcome. I pledge you to be with you. As we speak this afternoon, you've just come from a leadership meeting with Democrats and the House and the Senate trying to come up with some sort of compromise. I presume on this big budget bill. Any luck? Well, we've had a number of items on our agenda as we come to the end of this session. But I'm pleased the direction we're going in.

I'm especially pleased that we're going to be bringing the energy bill back to the floor for its final passage. It's really landmark legislation that would change. It takes us in a new direction, and it's pretty exciting. I want to point out to you. I'm sure you've seen them. Page one of today's Capitol Hill newspapers. Dems cave. Another one says Democrats set to cave on a rock on the budget. What do you say to people called this a cave in Democratic Congress? Well, I guess they're trying to sell papers, but the fact is that I will never confine the hopes aspirations of the American people as reflected in the legislation and the House of Representatives to what the President of the United States, which W. Bush will sign. We set a high watermark. We negotiate. We compete. We debate for our position to be held. And I'm pleased that when we come out of this process, our priorities will be largely intact. It won't be funded to the levels that we want. But I'll never stop at the President's bottom line.

We'll always start at a high watermark. Seems like there are a series of stand-offs going on right now, not only within Congress, but also with the President. We want to run through a few of them. The budget compromise is the government going to keep on running. Is there a real compromise in sight? Well, I don't know if there'll be a compromise, but there will be legislation that will go to the President's desk, and we're working through the details of that now. And the government will, let me assure everyone, the government will be running, and people will be getting their IRS check refunds in a timely fashion. There's some fear mongering going on, but actually things will be done on time. What do you mean by fear mongering? Well, those who are saying people will be fired if this doesn't happen in that, especially in Department of Defense, because of our talk about war funding. But the fact is, we've given the President what he asked for with conditions that he didn't ask for when it comes to Iraq. The fact is that our domestic agenda that we will bring to the floor,

hopefully Monday or Tuesday, will meet the needs of the American people. I think it's important, though, when you see these articles and you ask this question to know that we want to do more, we know that what to do to further meet the needs of the American people with this President and the obstructionism in the United States Senate, we can only do so much. But when we have the election, it will make all the difference in the world. You had started this time as Speaker saying that one of the things he wanted to do was hold the President accountable for the war. One of the things he wanted to do was not funding Iraq. Is that what this bill is going to end up doing, between what you call the obstructionism in the Senate and what it is that you can actually accomplish? Well, we will not have any funding for the war in our bill. As we have said, we have sent the President our proposal to use the funds to begin the redeployment of the troops out of Iraq. That is our marker. We will see what the Senate sends back.

But there is no question ending the war is a high priority for us and a big disappointment to many people that we weren't able to do it. I assumed incorrectly that the Republicans would respond to the wishes of the American people, shown a new direction in Iraq, but they have stuck with the President with his tenure war, war without end trillions of dollars. Of course, the most important part is the loss of life and the serious injury to our troops, cost and reputation to our nation, and the undermining of our military to meet any threats to our security wherever they may occur. You said this morning at your news conference. Republicans like this war, that this is the Republicans war. Well, when I said like I used a poor choice of words, the fact is they support this war. They support the President's execution of it, even though any objective observer of it would say that a war that we've been in much longer, more than a year longer than we were in World War II, without going in on a false pretense,

without a strategy for success, without a reason to stay against the wishes of the American people does not deserve the support of the Congress of the United States. One of your priorities this year was to fix the expansion of the alternative minimum tax, which you say, affects 23 million, could affect 23 million middle class tax payers. Yet, I wonder if you're on the verge of breaking a promise that is coming up with a fix that's not paid for. We passed on the floor last night for the second time was an alternative minimum tax relief for middle income families. 23 million families will benefit from this. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that they would rather give tax breaks to 5,000 people in our country. Imagine this, 5,000 people of the wealthiest people in America who are sheltering their income off shore to the tune of billions of dollars. They would rather keep that intact for them

than to pay for tax relief for 23 million families. 5,000, 23 million. And what they're suggesting is that instead, we should have our children pay the tab so that these 5,000 people don't. So, passing a $50 billion debt increase onto our children plus interest. 5,000, 23 million, 50 billion paid for by these, by these offshore folks or by our children and our grandchildren. What is your plan for paying the tab if, indeed, you were able to get this passed? The plan for paying the tab is to increase the taxes. The evasion of taxes of those CEOs of certain hedge funds and other private equity firms who are sheltering their income off shore. That brings us a huge amount of money to that and other related revenue raises to make this to pay for tax relief for 23 million Americans.

Has it been frustrating to you at all that these kinds of solutions like you suggest for this and on energy and on the budget and any number of issues, health insurance for poor children, that the president and Democrats in the Senate are not on board with your desire to get these things done? The senators voted every Democratic Senator voted to pay for the alternative minimum tax relief. They voted for it the last time. It didn't get the 60 votes in order to be heard and sent to the president. We'll send them another. But you about the energy bill. On the energy bill, well, I'm very pleased with the energy bill. As I said, we set a high watermark here, combining initiatives that the Senate initiated to their credit, the cafe standard and the renewable fuel standard. These are very important advances and it's been 32 years since we've had emissions standard set here. So we're pleased with how it's come out.

You don't get everything you want in just one bill, but we signal change with taking big steps and we're going forward to do more. The president can do it the most if we had a new president. The president has said that the House is wasting Congress's wasting its time by sending him bills, which he has said upfront he's going to veto. Well, I don't know whether he thought he was King George that we would just be here to enact the will of the President of the United States. This is called the legislative process. We have to show the way of a new direction. We may succeed on the first bill or we may not, but we will be faithful to taking the country in a new direction where we're protecting our country, growing our economy, strengthening our families, putting our plan in a way that is fiscally sound, no new deficit spending, living up to the highest ethical standard with an eye to the future. It's all about the children. Different subject.

The CIA tapes, which were destroyed in 2005, which no one knew existed. Were you briefed on those? No. So do you didn't know what that they existed or that they were destroyed? No, I did not know. They just kept claim that they had briefed Congress, but I don't believe that that is consistent with the facts. Are you satisfied that this administration is preserving all the records it should on these and other issues? Well, I think this incident raises the question as to whether they are, and I think that we should have a thorough look into this by the committees in the Congress, and I know that the intelligence committees in both houses are looking into this now, but it's very important because this is about who we are as a country and the integrity with which we protect the American people. I want to ask you about Iran. We heard the National Intelligence estimate last week in which it was suggested that Iran was no longer producing nuclear weapons and hadn't been since 2003. Should U.S. policy toward Iran change? What's significant about the intelligence estimate

coming out with that information is I was briefed on this in the fall, and the President earlier of that, and even though he had that information, President Bush still used the reference to World War III and Iran knowing full well that the intelligence community had strong consensus that this program had been stopped. That doesn't mean that Iran is not still a country to be watched. They threaten the safety and the existence of Israel, but I do think there's an opportunity with engagement and dialogue for us to improve the security situation in the region, which is important to us. You mentioned engagement and dialogue, and I want to talk about engagement and dialogue right here in Washington, not only on Capitol Hill, but also both the ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. One of the relationships with Vice President Cheney, he gave an interview in Politico last week in which he criticized some senior leaders

who he said marched the tune of Nancy Pelosi to an extent I had not seen, frankly, with any previous speaker, and he went on to say, I'm sure you know, they are not carrying the big sticks I would have expected. Well, as I said then, the statements of the Vice President, and more than you just said, are beneath the dignity of the Office of Vice President, and certainly beneath the dignity of the Office of the Speaker of the House. Did you find it to be a sexist statement? I didn't pay that much attention to it, because the fact is, is that I, a speaker, have led my caucus by consensus, and where we go is where the caucus has joined together with the boldest, pop-most positive initiatives and working with our distinguished chairman. I guess that democratic process is one that may be unknown to the Vice President, and he doesn't recognize it. When John Martha says he believes the surgeon or rock is working, is that part of the consensus is thought as well? Mr. Martha said that the search was working militarily, and God bless our troops any time they're engaged in military activity,

we want them to succeed. He also said that the purpose of the search was to make a create a political, a secure environment in which the political change could occur, and it has not. As a matter of fact, the generals there in Iraq, our own generals, not former generals, have said the biggest threat to security in Iraq is not the al-Qaeda, terrorist, the Iranian militias, or the Sunni insurgents, the biggest threat to peace there is the Iraqi government. The entranges of the Iraqi government. Another one of the members of your leadership, Barney Frank was quoted in one of the papers today as saying he felt that the Senate and the House are out of phase with one another. Is that what's happening up here on Capitol Hill now, among the Democrats? No, no. What he was talking about, he was talking about elections. When we won the election last year, 100% of the House was up,

and we won a Democratic majority. In a Senate, only one third of the Senate was up, so we only won, when we won, it was among people represented one third of the Senate. So now when we have the next third, then we'll be in sync. I work very closely with Harry Reid. There are very few people in politics that I can think of that I respect more for his leadership, his commitment to the values of our country, and we have one of the best working relationships. The rules of the Senate are different from the House in that you need 60 votes in order to have a bill be heard. That's frustrating. There's no question about it, and the Republicans use it to obstruct. The American people don't want to hear about that. They want the job to get done for them. They can help them address the concerns. They have about the economy, and I'm more into spending time talking to economists, academics, labor leaders, workers about how we can meet the economic needs of America's families, and process here.

If that's true. If all is happiness and light with you on the Senate, and agreement to disagree with the White House, why is it that 60% for 8% of Americans in the last and BC Wall Street Journal poll, so they disapprove of the job that Congress is doing? Well, I think largely that's because of the war. The biggest hope and expectation for this new Congress was that we would be able to end the war, and we haven't. And for that, I'm disappointed in the Congress as well. We thought we would be able to persuade our Republican colleagues to support a responsible, honorable redeployment of the troops out, but they have stuck with the President. I'm pleased, though, with the numbers that the Democrats receive overwhelmingly on almost every issue that you can name, health, housing, education, public safety, even fighting terrorism, so many issues dealing with the economy. The Democrats are overwhelmingly favored by the American people. We have to work to improve the image of Congress, but I go into this next year,

very confident about the fact that we have done what we promised. We had our six-row six to make us safer and more secure in every way. But for one, they have all been signed into law by the President and with strong bipartisan majorities. So again, the legislative process is not all sweetness and light. It's not for the faint of heart because it's a struggle. It's a debate about ideas and priorities. So I'm confident that we'll be able to lift Congress's ratings, but I'm very interested in the fact that Democratic ratings are very high. Nancy Pelosi, thank you very much for joining us. My pleasure. Thank you. Now, George Mitchell and baseball's steroid scandal, Jeffrey Brown begins with some background on today's official report.

In a strongly worded 400-plus-page report, former Senator George Mitchell laid out a decade-long pattern of use of bond-by-owners and officials. The evidence we uncovered indicates that this has not been an isolated problem, involving just a few players or a few clubs. Many players were involved. Each of the 30 clubs has had players who have been involved with such substances at some time in their careers. Among the 80-plus players named are some stars of the game, including Yankees, pitchers, Roger Clemens and Andy Pettit. The 2002 American League most valuable player, shortstop Miguel Tejada recently traded from Baltimore to Houston. Detroit Tigers and former New York Yankees slugger Gary Sheffield and Barry Bonds, the seven times nationally on B.P. and holder of the career home run record, which he broke four months ago.

This record is not tainted at all. Bonds' name has become synonymous with the issue. He is currently under federal indictment for lying about his use of performance-enhancing drugs before a grand jury. Mitchell also said there was widespread use of human growth hormones, which cannot be tested for her presently. The report relied heavily on several sources of information, including Kirk Rodomski, a former clubhouse assistant and batboy for the New York Mets. But, Tomski cooperated with the probe after pleading guilty to federal charges of distributing illegal steroids. Mitchell made a series of recommendations, including having the drug testing regimen strengthened, making it a year-round and random program, and having it conducted by a truly independent agent. Commissioner of Baseball Bud Sealy said late today that the report was fair, if painful. His report is a call to action. And I will act. I will continue to deal with the issue of performance-enhancing substance abuse.

Sealy has come under fire for lack of action throughout what became known as the steroids era in baseball. The record shattering 1990s and early 2000s. The era of Mark Maguire and Sammy Sosa's home-run derbies and the juiced baseball. Baseball is America's pastime because of the trust place in this sport by its fans. I'm proud to say baseball has never been more popular. Proud to say that our tenants continues to break records year after year and our fans continue to love the game. But our fans deserve a game that has played on a level playing field. We're all who compete. Do so fairly. So long as there may be potential cheaters, we will always have to monitor our programs and constantly update them to catch those who think they can get away with breaking baseball's rules. The Major League Baseball players union was also harshly criticized in today's report.

The group's executive director Donald Gior spoke late today at a separate news conference. We haven't had an opportunity to review and study the report in any detail whatsoever. So for now, we can only say the following. Many players are named. Their reputations have been adversely affected, probably forever. Even if it turns out down the road, that they should not have been. The report advises against disciplining active players surpassed use of performance enhancers unless otherwise deemed necessary by the commissioner to, quote, maintain the integrity of the game. And we're joined now from New York by the reports author George Mitchell. He launched this probe at the request of Commissioner Sealegan 2006. He serves as a director of the Boston Red Sox, but has been on a leave of absence from the team and its payroll since taking this on.

Senator Mitchell, you write of a decade of, quote, widespread illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs. How widespread is this? There have been many estimates. There are impossible to verify. We know, of course, that the minimum is five to seven percent of players because that number tested positive in the survey testing in 2003, that probably understates the case. I think it's a minority, but it's a substantial minority. Now, in the report, you do name names. I want to bring up one Roger Clemens. I had a chance to read that section carefully. And you have sections on individual players. In the Clemens case, much of it relies on the testimony of one person, a trainer named Brian McNamee. Clemens today, you may know, has, through his lawyer, denied the allegations. You have a lot of experience as a judge, as a prosecutor. Are you saying in this report definitively that Roger Clemens, in this case, use steroids?

Well, I invited Clemens through his attorney to meet with me before I published the report as I did with every player about whom allegations were received. And I said that I would show them the information that we had, tell them what the allegations were, and give them an opportunity to respond. Almost without exception, the current players declined to meet with me. Several of the formal players did meet with me. Now, in the case of Brian McNamee, he was interviewed in the presence of federal law enforcement officials. I asked him, as I asked all witnesses, simply, to tell me the truth, nothing more, nothing less. And he was informed through his lawyer who was also present. He had his personal lawyer, President, at all of the interviews that if he did not tell the truth, he would be subject to prosecution criminally for making false statements to federal officials. So we did everything we could to determine what the truth is.

And we made every effort to give the players an opportunity to review the evidence and to respond to it. But you heard what Donald Fair just said in our little setup. You had to make decisions to put out names. Now, you've put out a name with an accusation by this magnum, the trainer. Why decide to do that if you're, if it's still based on his and Clement says that it didn't happen? Well, of course, Clemens did not tell me that it didn't happen. That's the point. I asked him to do so, as I did all of the other players. You see the position that Mr. Fair has taken and that you have just now echoed is that a player who used performance enhancing substances could keep his name out of the report by simply refusing to talk to me. And since everybody refused to talk to me, there, of course, would be no names in the report, and there would be no report.

So I asked you whether you think it's fair or your listeners that players who did in fact use such substances could be protected by the mere device of refusing to discuss the issue. Now, you refer to this as a collective failure. Are you saying that everyone knew what was going on? Well, obviously not everyone. And I don't say that. What I said was, and you have to read the report to get the context. There were numerous public accounts, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, even some books, indicating what was going on. And there was a collective failure, commissioners, club officials, players association, and players to recognize the problem as it emerged and to deal with effectively early on. So an environment was created in which illegal use became widespread.

But are you suggesting, because you do cite cases where club officials seem to know something, are you suggesting that this all took place while authorities either decided not to look or acquiesced with a wink and a nod to explain a little bit more about that culture and how it actually worked? Well, I explained in a great detail in my report. And I did not use the words that you've just used. What I pointed out that there were numerous public indications, newspaper articles, as I said, and a variety of others, and yet no action was taken. It was collective in nature in that everyone involved in baseball should share some part of the responsibility. I listed some of the recommendations that you've come forward in the setup. What do you think is the most important thing going forward that baseball must do to address this? I believe it's to accept the package of recommendations that I've made.

The first is to begin to investigate aggressively allegations of use that are outside of the drug testing program. That's the current best practice in programs around the world, and it's very much needed here. The second is to significantly improve their education program, and the third is to improve the drug testing program itself. While no drug testing program by itself is a sufficient comprehensive effort, it is a linchpin, or at least a central part of any comprehensive effort, and so it can be improved by accepting the recommendations that I've made. And you do write a lot about drugs that are currently undetectable. Are you confident now that, as we sit here today, that current players are still using drugs? Well, I think that's almost certain within just the past few weeks, a number of players have been identified publicly through other investigations, not minds, ongoing state and federal investigations, which are focused on pharmacies and so-called rejuvenation centers, who sell these drugs over the internet.

And in my judgment, it's likely that continues and perhaps other users as well. I made very clear in my report. I stated explicitly that I repeat, I emphasize that I didn't get every name, I don't know every supplier, I identify reported on those that we identified and learned about, but almost certainly there are other suppliers and other users. Your report advises against punishing players. Why? Well, first, because under the law, and that covers baseball, the action, any discipline must be applied as of the state of the law at the time the action occurred. All of the offenses that I discussed in my report occurred from two to nine years ago, at that time there was not a penalty for a first positive test under the program. Secondly, more than half the players are no longer in baseball,

and therefore they are not subject to the disciplinary authority of the commissioner. Third, the most important thing is to look forward to get everybody in baseball together behind a comprehensive and a meaningful effort to deal with this problem. You're not going to be able to do that if you spend the next couple of years in controversial disciplinary proceedings hashing over the past. I think what's needed is everybody turning the page and looking to the future, and I think the commissioner can get that off to the right start by saying that we're not going to impose discipline except in those rare cases where the action is so serious in order to protect the integrity of the game, he must do so. But is there not the possibility that in spreading the blame as widely as you have, if no one is punished, there is no particular incentive for anyone to change their behavior in the future where you want everyone to be so focused?

No, just the contrary. The fact is, of course, that over 250 professional baseball players have already been publicly identified as having used steroids illegally through the drug testing program. Now, they weren't prosecuted criminally. The authorities, the prosecutorial authorities, department of justice and state prosecutors don't concentrate on the end users in these cases. They go after the suppliers, the manufacturers, and the distributors as they should do so. And so now the way to do this, I think, is to turn everybody's attention to the future, to focus on getting agreement on a comprehensive program. Then I think the commissioner would have a very strong basis to impose strong discipline on anybody who violated in the future. You were quite critical, though, in the report of the Players Association. You said that they have delayed things in the past. You said that most of the players you tried to talk to did not talk to you for your report.

Are you, do you have any confidence that looking, that moving forward, the sense that the players now get it, that there will be more cooperation? Well, I also pointed out in my report that the Players Association has, in fact, cooperated in the past. In 2002, they ended many years of opposition to a mandatory random drug testing program by agreeing to one. They should get credit for that. They also agreed to improvements in the program over the past five years. I think that they can, and I hope that they will, continue that attitude of progress to improve the program because it's in their interest and the interest of their members to do so. Remember, if you will, that the minority of players who will easily use these substances are wrong. But the principal victims are the majority of players who don't use them. They are faced with the awful choice of either having to become illegal users themselves, break the law, and base ball policy, or being at a competitive disadvantage.

Their members of the Players Association as well. And I think the best interest of all concerned would be if people now turn the page on the past, look to the future, and come up with the best possible program to eliminate, or at least significantly reduce the number of illegal users, and thereby level the playing field for all of the players. And speaking of victims, you also talk today a good deal about how this goes beyond major league baseball. You talked about hundreds of thousands of high school athletes that use steroids and other performance enhancing drugs. You say, or you connect that to what goes on at the major league level. It's an alarming figure. The estimates are from three to six percent. Even at three percent, it is hundreds of thousands of young Americans, our children, who are using steroids. This is not just baseball players. They're about that. The kids don't just look up to baseball players. They look up to all professional athletes. And when they use these steroids, because they see the

professional athletes doing it, it has tremendous risks and dangers for young people. More than for adults. Remember, teenagers are going through a period in their life when they're subject to severe hormonal changes. The psychological and physical risks to them are much greater than they are to mature adults. And the most shocking thing to me is this whole investigation. The most alarming figure is not that dozens of major league baseball players use steroids. It's that hundreds of thousands of American children use them, placing themselves, their lives and the futures at risk. That ought to shock everybody, not just baseball fans. All right. Senator George Mitchell, thank you very much. Thank you. You can ask your questions about the Mitchell report and the use of steroids and baseball, the sports writers John Feinstein and Lance Williams. Williams is the co-author of a book that broke the very bond, steroids story. To participate, just go to PBS.org. Next, an update on the suppression of anti-government

demonstrators in Myanmar, also known as Burma. The United Nations Special Envoy for Human Rights was in the Southeast Asian nation. Recently, we have a report from Inigo Gilmour of independent television news. The crackle of gunfire, protesters carrying in terror. Three months on from this, Pala Piniero has delivered his damning report. The security forces are used in my opinion. Excessive force against civilians, including a necessary and disproportionate little force, for Burma's representative, it was uncomfortable reading with Mr. Piniero challenging the regime over its severe reprisals and the scale of its crackdown. Reliable sources believe, however, that many more monks who have detained or disappeared.

The monasteries are still under surveillance by their authorities. And it's not just the monasteries. We met with this man who recently fled Branggun after his house was raided. He smuggled out these previously unseen images of the crackdown, evidence which taddies closely with Mr. Piniero's own findings about the excessive use of force. They show heavily armed, psyched up soldiers arriving to confront the unarmed protesters. These men are from the Ranggun military command. Suddenly, they advance. This is a fire. This is a rubber bullet. After rubber bullet, yes, you didn't agree with it. After the rubber bullet, they shoot the real one.

Into the crown. Into the crown. And you saw them shooting into the crown. Yeah, people on the side of the shooting or people are running. The soldiers go straight to street, hunting down protesters, some coming ominously close to his camera. And he witnessed how hired thugs were brought in to help rough-up protesters. Echoing the UN envoy's report, which says these men contributed to the excessive use of force against peaceful protesters. Their handiwork was soon in evidence. This man among many who were brutally beaten. Certainly, Mr. Piniero, here during his fact-finding mission to Ranggun, believes those killed are many more than the official total of 15. Among the reports disturbing findings, accounts of bodies with serious injuries being wrapped in bags and burned

in the middle of the night, dead months, probably among them, and of dozens still unaccounted for. So he's demanded a full commission of inquiry to establish what happened. Something Burma's military regime is unlikely to agree to. Finally tonight, the Democrats debate one last time before the Iowa caucuses news our correspondent, Kwame Holman, reports. The most recent Iowa polls show Barack Obama surging Hillary Clinton's sliding and the two now in a statistical dead heat. That was the backdrop to today's debate in Des Moines, moderated by Carolyn Washburn, editor of the Des Moines Register. She began with questions on fiscal and trade issues. When our tax increases necessary and appropriate then, and given the current deficit, which of your priorities

would be worth asking Americans to pay more for? I think the truth of the matter is that the tax policy in America has been established by big corporations and the wealthiest Americans. That's why we have tax breaks for the top one and two percent. It's why the profits of big corporations keep getting bigger and bigger while most working middle-class families are struggling. So what we ought to be doing instead is getting rid of these tax breaks for big, the wealthiest Americans, big tax breaks for companies that are actually taking American jobs overseas. This is insanity when we're losing American jobs at the rate we are today. Most of the candidates said higher taxes on the wealthy were justified to fund healthcare education and other programs and that balancing the budget would take time. Senator Clinton. Well, I think it's important that we recognize how people feel and Iowa and across America. They feel as though they're standing on a trap door. They are one pink slip, one missed mortgage payment, one medical diagnosis away from falling through. I want to restore the tax rates that we had in the 90s. That means raising taxes on corporations and wealthy

individuals. I want to keep the middle-class tax cuts. Senator Joe Biden. It's my dad used to say, it's all about priorities. What are your priorities? I would fundamentally change the Republican priorities of rewarding only the wealthy, wasteful government programs and defense department as well as dealing with a more rational policy to promote jobs. Only six Democrats participated Dennis Cucinich and Mike Grovel were disqualified because neither has established a campaign headquarters in the state. The remaining candidates were asked how they would pay for new programs given costs associated with the ongoing war in Iraq. Senator Obama. Every proposal I put forward during this campaign, we have paid for and we have specified where that money is going to come from. But let's just look at our tax code because it's a great example of how we could provide some relief to ordinary citizens who are struggling to get by. Right now we've got a whole host of corporate loopholes and tax havens.

There's a building in the Cayman Islands that houses supposedly 12,000 U.S.-based corporations. Now that's either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world. And I think we know which one it is. If we close some of those loopholes, that helps me to pay for an offset on the payroll tax that affects all Americans. Governor Bill Richardson said some spending is required now. Well, I detailed $57 billion in military reductions, which involve a missile system's procurement reform. But we've got to recognize that the Iraq war has drained our military. And what we need to do is we need a couple of more divisions in the Army. In the Marines, we've got to take care of our veterans, the VA system needs guaranteed funding. Our veterans coming back with mental health problems with trauma are not properly being taken care of. And we need to recruit and retain to keep the volunteer Army going. We need to improve our readiness. On the issue of trade,

Senator Chris Dodd complained that the U.S. doesn't hold China to a high enough standard. I don't mind competing with someone, but as long as we're all operating by the same rules. We don't have the same access to their shelves, to our services that we'd like to sell in their country. They're very, very restrictive here. We need to get a lot tougher on this, fair, not loud, but fair, if we're going to have a better relationship, or before long, this will no longer be the most desirous market for them. And we will have disadvantaged our country substantial. This a major, major issue that needs to be addressed with a lot more thoughtfulness than it's getting today. For her part, Hillary Clinton said she was in favor of revamping the North American Free Trade Agreement championed by her husband. I want to be a president who focuses on smart pro-American trade. I will review every trade agreement. I'm going to ask for revisions that I think will actually benefit our country, particularly our workers, our exporters, and I'm going to go to the international community and get the kind of enforceable agreements and standards on labor and environment that we have been seeking

as Democrats, because we need to make it clear to the rest of the world that we are at open society. We believe in trade, but we don't want to be the trade patsies of the world. We want to have an equivocal balanced relationship. A light moment of the debate came when Washburn asked Obama why so many of former President Bill Clinton's foreign policy advisors were working for him. With relatively little foreign policy experience of your own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisors and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you're promising voters? Well, the, you know, I am. I want to hear that. I will. Well, Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well. I want to, I want to gather up talent from everywhere. Each of the candidates was given 30 seconds of free time and like Senator Biden, they all made one last appeal to the statewide television audience. Well, you know, folks talk about this election being about experience or change. It's really about action and pragmatic solutions.

And that's what I've done my whole career with. The fact that I've done my whole career with the President is that I've done my whole career with the President. I've done my whole career with the Violence Against Women Act, the crime bill, the Balkans, helping stop the genocide there. And ladies and gentlemen, you know, leadership is also about knowing who you are, what you believe and what your priorities are and what you'll do. In my case, I'll start by ending that war in Iraq and also trust the American people. They're ready. They're ready to get up. This final debate signaled that Iowans who plan to participate in the caucuses now have three weeks for a holiday shopping before coming together to vote on January 3rd. Translations. We all know what you're about. Again, the major developments of this day. I report on steroids and Major League Baseball, named some 80 players, past and present. They included star pitcher Roger Clemens and home-run King Barry Bonds, among others.

The Senate approved an energy bill that mandates higher gas mileage for new cars and sport utility vehicles and former Vice President Gore charged the Bush Administration as blocking progress at the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields and David Brooks, among others. I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by Every day, it seems, talk of oil, energy, the environment. Where are the answers? Right now, we're producing clean, renewable geothermal energy. Generating enough energy to power seven million homes. Imagine that. An oil company as part of the solution.

This is the power of human energy. The new AT&T. Pacific Life. The Atlantic Philanthropies. 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. Thank you.

To purchase video of the news hour with Jim Lara, call 1-866-678-News. We are PBS. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.