The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Thursday; then, two stories on the Southern California fires, an update from the scene, and a look at causes; excerpts from today`s new House debate on a children`s health insurance bill; the administration`s new sanctions against Iran, with Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and Senator Jim Webb; and on the second day of the 2007 World Series, a poem about the one in 1993.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Fire crews labored to turn the tide today in Southern California as the death toll rose. Search teams found two burned bodies north of San Diego. That made 10 deaths blamed on wildfires that erupted last Sunday.

The fight today focused again on San Diego County and to the northeast, near Lake Arrowhead in San Bernardino County. Officials said 16,000 homes were in jeopardy there.

Amid the battle, President Bush arrived in the region. He met with officials and victims, but brushed aside comparisons with Hurricane Katrina.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: All I can tell you is when the government calls, I answer his phone. When the governor says, "We need this help, think about sending these troops here," I got on the phone and called the appropriate people.

I`m interested in helping him solve problems and helping the folks here at the county level. There are all kinds of time for historians to compare this response or that response, but those of us who are here from government, we`re -- our hearts are right here with the Jeffcoats. That`s where we are.

JIM LEHRER: We`ll have more on this story right after the news summary.

The U.S. House today passed a new bill expanding S-CHIP, a children`s health insurance program. The president vetoed the first version. He said it was too expensive and went beyond the mission of helping the poor. Democrats made several changes, but the new bill failed again to win a veto-proof majority. We`ll have more on this story later in the program.

Key House Democrats also unveiled a $1 trillion tax plan today. Among other things, it would ultimately repeal the alternative minimum tax to protect middle-income families. To pay for that, the plan would raise taxes on better-off individuals and married couples. House Republicans quickly branded it "the largest individual income tax increase in history."

The U.S. imposed new economic sanctions on Iran today. They were designed as punishment for Iran`s nuclear efforts and its support for insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere. The sanctions targeted companies owned or controlled by Iran`s Revolutionary Guard Corps. They also singled out three of the country`s largest state-owned banks.

Secretary of State Rice and Treasury Secretary Paulson said Iran should be cut off from the world financial system.

HENRY PAULSON, U.S. Treasury Secretary: As awareness of Iran`s deceptive behavior has grown, many banks around the world have decided as a matter of prudence and integrity that Iran`s business is simply not worth the risk. It is plain and simple: Reputable institutions do not want to be bankers to this dangerous regime.

JIM LEHRER: The penalties were the toughest since Iranian militants seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979. But Secretary Rice said the United States is still committed to a diplomatic solution instead of military action.

In response, the head of Iran`s Revolutionary Guards insisted the sanctions won`t work. He said, "The corps is ready to defend the ideals of the revolution more than ever before."

And Russian President Putin also objected. He said any new sanctions on Iran would lead to a dead-end. We`ll have more on this story later in the program.

Turkish leaders issued new warnings today about attacks by Kurdish rebels based in Iraq. The country`s president said Turkey is running out of patience. And Prime Minister Erdogan vowed U.S. objections would not stop his government from acting. In Romania, he said, "The decision on this belongs to us. People would ask, `What are the Americans doing in Iraq, 10,000 kilometers away from home?`"

Also today, an Iraqi delegation arrived in Ankara to discuss closing rebel offices. They called again for a political solution.

Corruption in Iraq dominated a U.S. House hearing today. Secretary of State Rice sparred with Democrats, led by Congressman Henry Waxman of California. Waxman cited an edict by Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki. It gave him the authority over investigations of senior officials, including Maliki himself.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), California: We have this order from al-Maliki himself saying that, unless he personally approves, no one may be investigated. You said you know of people in Iraqi government who care about corruption. Is Prime Minister Maliki one of the people that cares about corruption in the Iraqi government?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. Secretary of State: Prime Minister Maliki has made the fighting corruption one of the most important elements of his program. But I will repeat again, Mr. Chairman: The United States of America does not support any policy that would make immune from investigation or prosecution any member of the Iraqi government, no matter how high.

JIM LEHRER: Rice also said it is damaging and wrong to level unconfirmed allegations against the prime minister.

Defense Secretary Gates had his strongest words yet for NATO today on Afghanistan. Some of the European allies have promised to send extra forces, but have yet to deliver. In Heidelberg, Germany, Gates questioned their commitment to winning the war and to the alliance itself.

ROBERT GATES, Secretary of Defense: If an alliance of the world`s greatest democracies cannot summon the will to get the job done in a mission that we agree is morally just and vital to our security, then our citizens may begin to question both the worth of the mission and the utility of the 60-year-old transatlantic security project itself.

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. has 26,000 troops in Afghanistan. The non-U.S. total is 23,000.

The energy giant BP agreed to a deal today in several major federal investigations. It will pay $373 million under the agreement and plead guilty to criminal and civil charges. The cases involved: propane overcharges in 2004; a deadly refinery fire in Texas in 2005; and an oil spill in Alaska last year. Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler spoke in Washington.

PETER KEISLER, Acting Attorney General: The tragic explosion at the Texas City refinery and the pipeline leaks in Alaska were sad reminders that our environmental laws exist both to protect the lives and safety of the public and also to preserve our natural resources. Businesses that ignore those laws and endanger their workers and communities must be held accountable. Today`s announcement shows that they will be.

JIM LEHRER: Four former BP traders were also indicted in the propane overcharging case.

A battle over water rights heated up in the southeast today, with the region locked in a long drought. Florida Governor Charlie Crist joined the fight in a letter to President Bush. He argued the state of Georgia should not be allowed to curtail the flow of water to Florida. Georgia`s governor, Sonny Perdue, has sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to try keep more water in north Georgia.

Alabama also complained about Georgia`s move. The three states have argued for years over how to share the region`s water supply.

On Wall Street, stocks had another day of swings partly due to a new surge in the price of oil. In New York trading, it gained well over three dollars to finish at another record high above $90 a barrel. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up and down, before ending with a loss of just three points to close under 13,672. The Nasdaq fell nearly 24 points to close at 2,750.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: more on the Southern California fires; the return of S-CHIP; sanctions against Iran; and a poem for the World Series.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Day five of the fires disaster in California, we begin our coverage with NewsHour correspondent Jeffrey Kaye of KCET Los Angeles, with this report from San Diego.

JEFFREY KAYE, NewsHour Correspondent: The winds calmed in Southern California today, allowing firefighters to make major progress. In San Diego County, the flames moved eastward away from urban areas, and many of the estimated half a million evacuated residents were let back into their neighborhoods.

RON LANE, San Diego County Emergency Services Director: Our major focus now is repopulating the western part of our county.

JEFFREY KAYE: Shelters are emptying, but about 1,000 evacuees remained at Qualcomm Stadium, down from a high of several thousand.

CHIEF KEVIN CRAWFORD, Carlsbad Fire Department: We still have fire conditions out there that cannot be taken lightly, and so our efforts are still being put forth to control raging, out-of-control, large-scale fires.

JEFFREY KAYE: Those large-scale fires have moved to more rural areas of the county, this one in Jamul, near the Mexican border. None of the fires are more than 40 percent to 50 percent contained.

FIREFIGHTER: Our biggest concern, safety concern is the winds shifting patterns, but it`s getting better.

JEFFREY KAYE: By this afternoon, at least 15 fires continued to burn across more than 750 square miles, from north of Los Angeles to the Mexican border. There was also word of more deaths connected to the fires. At least 10 have died and more than 65 have been injured, about 40 of them firefighters.

President Bush arrived in smoky Southern California this morning to view the damage. He toured Rancho Bernardo, a fire-ravaged suburb north of San Diego with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The community is home to about 75,000 people; more than 250 homes were destroyed here.

Along the way, Mr. Bush stopped to comfort Jay and Kendra Jeffcoat, whose home was destroyed. Mr. Bush also met with firefighters and toured a one-stop assistance center. He later spoke to reporters.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: It really is important for me to come out here and see firsthand the situation. And there`s no question a lot of people are suffering, and there`s no question there`s been terrible losses.

I also am out here to make sure these firefighters behind me and the first responders know how much I appreciate and how much the country appreciates their courage and bravery. We`re not going to forget you in Washington, D.C.

That we want the people to know that there`s a better day ahead, that today your life may look dismal, but, tomorrow, life`s going to be better. And to the extent that the federal government can help you, we want to do so.

JEFFREY KAYE: The president has declared seven Southern California counties major disaster areas opening the way for increased federal aid.

POLICE OFFICER: When we get to a barricade, I`ll go in front of you and get you through the barricade, OK?

JEFFREY KAYE: In Rancho Bernardo, residents began returning yesterday evening, but under strict guidelines. Police Sergeant Bill Davis briefed a team of officers assigned to escort residents to their homes for short visits.

POLICE OFFICER: Stay with the people. They`ve got 10 minutes. Take them out to the nearest public exit, you know, a place where the public is allowed, come back, and pick up the next one.

JEFFREY KAYE: Some people got back to undamaged residences to retrieve possessions and pets. For others, coming home was more dramatic.

GORDON WOOD, Fire Victim: We left without shoes on our feet. There was embers falling on our heads when we tried to get into the car.

JEFFREY KAYE: Gordon Wood returned with his wife, Marilyn, to find their house destroyed.

Some residents found their homes turned into impromptu television studios with the arrival of the national and international media. Some in San Diego have criticized news reporters for exaggerating the scope of the disaster.

This morning, the line of people in cars waiting to get back into Rancho Bernardo stretched about a mile.

COUNSELOR VOLUNTEER: If there`s anything I can do at all...

JEFFREY KAYE: Outside the assistance center, counselor volunteer Kishie Bushnell (ph) offered compassion and consolation to evacuees.

COUNSELOR VOLUNTEER: And your home, do you know anything about it?

FIRE VICTIM: I`m pretty sure it`s gone.

COUNSELOR VOLUNTEER: Oh, I`m so sorry.

JEFFREY KAYE: Jenifer and John Groeling already knew their home and belongings had been destroyed.

What do you hope to get here?

JENIFER GROELING, Fire Victim: Well, there`s a car that survived. One of our cars is there. That`s pretty much -- I think that`s probably going to be hit. I think we`ve got maybe a wall.

JEFFREY KAYE: Inside the aid center, community representatives sat at tables ready to help residents with loans and emergency assistance. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, can provide up to nearly $30,000 per victim for expenses not covered by insurance.

The insurance companies were also on hand here, setting up shop to arrange for compensation and claims.

Although this neighborhood remains under an evacuation order, one sign of the diminished threat was that firefighters assigned to protect it were coming come off a 24-hour shift and taking a break, before being reassigned back to their stations.

Some communities are rapidly coming back to normal. Poway was one of the very first cities to evacuate, but this morning, you wouldn`t know this place had been in any danger. Stores are open, traffic is flowing, and mail carriers are catching up on their deliveries. City officials are helping out those whose homes have been damaged.

Poway`s recreation center is still serving as a shelter and is a place for people to come for essentials. Red Cross officials running the shelter say it`s being used mostly by Latino immigrant families.

To the north, some fires still rage on. In San Bernardino County, east of Los Angeles, firefighters struggle to contain two fires that have destroyed more than 300 homes around Lake Arrowhead; 6,000 more structures remain in its path. In Santa Clarita, north of Los Angeles, some residents described how they took matters into their own hands.

JOHN JOSEPH, Southern California Resident: I have my own pump that I`d pull out of the stream, 130 gallons a minute, and I was up on the roof wetting everything down. When you think you`re about to lose everything that you have, you freak. You don`t eat; you fast; and you pray.

JEFFREY KAYE: Now that the fires have largely moved out of urban areas, authorities are issuing new warnings about respiratory health.

DR. JAMES DUNFORD, Medical Director, City of San Diego: We`re going to be seeing a rise in this over the next couple of weeks in our emergency departments.

JEFFREY KAYE: These problems took as long as a year to surface after the fires four years ago in San Diego. In general, many here are saying that the firefighting response to this week`s fires were much better than in 2003.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner picks up the story from there.

MARGARET WARNER: In the wake of the fires, there are growing questions about whether public policy decisions, ranging from land development to public spending, may be making the fire danger worse.

We get two perspectives. Bodie Shaw is with the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, the government`s mobilizing center for coordinating firefighting efforts across the country in times of emergency. And Glen Sparrow is a professor emeritus at San Diego State University`s School of Public Administration and Urban Studies. He`s been a staff member on the San Diego City Council and worked at the California State Assembly.

Mr. Sparrow, has a consensus emerged as to why the fires in Southern California, particularly in San Diego County, were so virulent this time?

GLEN SPARROW, San Diego State University: It`s a question of too much brush and dry tinder, forest, the lack of rain, and the Santa Ana winds that just whipped through here, whipped that up, and moves it in a westward direction.

MARGARET WARNER: And what about the role of development? We`re hearing a lot of criticism about how close development is now to the wilderness areas that burn every year.

GLEN SPARROW: That`s, of course, a problem, is that people are building in the wrong places. They`re building way too close to the brush and the forests out there, because they want to get in a lovely place so they can live and feel good about it.

But the places are not properly built; they`re not properly fireproofed; they`re oft times surrounded by brush; they aren`t properly cleared. And when these fires come through, they just rip right through there.

Up through canyons, people living on top of hills and on canyon edges that they want to see the view and have that pristine environment, it just doesn`t work in the fire season.

MARGARET WARNER: Bodie Shaw in Boise, what do you think has contributed to making these fires this year so voracious and so hard to fight?

BODIE SHAW, National Interagency Fire Center: Well, I really think we`re looking at a combination of factors that really contribute to the complexities of these fires. I think the complexities of the wildland- urban interface and all that it contributes to really does play quite a big role and factor into what we`re seeing now. We have to even open the door a little bit on discussing climate change and the effects and impacts that it has.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, when you talk about the wildland-urban interface, then you`re talking about what Professor Sparrow was talking about earlier, that development now just continues marching in right up next to these wilderness areas? If that`s what you mean, how does that complicate your job?

BODIE SHAW: Looking at the challenges that were faced by firefighters, wildland firefighters back in the `60s and `70s, we just didn`t have the encroachment that we now see within that urban interface. And, really, what that presents, one, is a safety factor by all means, by putting our firefighters in harm`s way, something we try to avoid at all costs.

But another, really, you`re talking the structural complexities. You`ve now changed from those forest or vegetative chaparral types to now having to deal with structures and the hazards that those pose, when our wildland firefighters have not been trained in how to deal with those.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me get Professor Sparrow back in. Professor Sparrow, after the 2003 fires in San Diego, they had this same conversation. Why does building continue in that way?

GLEN SPARROW: It continues because we`ve run out of space to put people. We`re built out, essentially, in San Diego, so they`re moving out into the wildlands with usually very expensive homes, I might add. And we have 18 cities and a county here that essentially all have different standards.

And there`s money to be made. There are people who want those houses out in that environment. And the encroachment puts them right up against the chaparral and the eucalyptus, and it`s like being next to a gasoline tank.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, a professor at UCSD, Steve Erie, has been widely quoted as saying, you know, after the 2003 fire, San Diego made certain changes but really nothing that cost any money and pointed out that San Diego taxpayers turned down tax increases to help beef up its firefighting capability. Do you think that`s a valid criticism?

GLEN SPARROW: This region is tax averse. Yes, I`d agree with Steve all the way. We did some things here, but we didn`t buy equipment and we didn`t get resources.

We met some technical changes, the reverse 911. Communications is better. They`ve made some organizational changes. I think this is being handled much better by the local governments, along with state, the national government.

But we still are out of equipment. We had a fire chief in the city of San Diego who quit because they wouldn`t buy him the equipment he needed, that he felt he needed after the 2003 Cedar Fire.

MARGARET WARNER: And how about getting firefighting help from outside the county? How well has that worked?

GLEN SPARROW: That happens. In the west out here, we move firefighters to where the fire is from throughout the western states, and that`s happened here. There are firefighters from throughout California, but also out of Oregon and Montana and Arizona and so forth. That happens; they come to these massive fires.

But eventually that`s going to have to be paid for. After this is all cleaned up and everything`s done, there`s going to be bills that are going to have to be paid for.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Bodie Shaw, back to you, do you think firefighters -- do you agree with Professor Sparrow that the firefighters haven`t had everything they`ve need?

BODIE SHAW: From what I`m hearing -- and this is coming from the National Interagency Fire Center -- some of the confusion, or if we were to state that some of the resources weren`t available, it would have to be aviation assets. But as everyone`s already heard, due to the high winds, they were not able to fly for retardant or water drops.

But in terms of assets currently on the ground, in listening to the governor and then the president earlier today, we`re hearing about the high numbers of resources. That`s both personnel, aviation, and a lot of our fire engines, as you alluded to, that have come throughout the west that are currently arriving on scene.

MARGARET WARNER: And would you recommend that communities like San Diego, Bodie Shaw, do something through zoning? California Senator Dianne Feinstein suggested this yesterday on the Senate floor, saying really there just have to be some restrictions placed on zoning.

BODIE SHAW: And I think a lot of us, current and former firefighters, are glad to hear that this has been raised to that national level of discussion. We really think it has to occur. Zoning needs to be taken a hard look at, in terms of unfettered expansion into the wildland-urban interface, not only in California, but it`s across the west.

It`s becoming and posing tremendous challenges to our firefighters, once again, putting them in harm`s way, something we absolutely try not to do under any circumstances, but it`s becoming more and more prevalent as we continue to hear about, as the fire seasons continue to escalate.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Mr. Shaw, I did read of some communities in San Diego that have imposed something or adopted something called shelter-in- place that homeowners do around their homes and that those communities were spared. Is that a potential model? Can you briefly describe it? And is that a potential model?

BODIE SHAW: Sure. In describing the shelter-in-place model, this is a concept -- a number of us went to Australia last year for their bushfire season, and it was a concept that they have in doctrine into their public setting.

And, really, what it boils down to, and it must be what you`re referencing with the San Diego communities, the communities and the homeowners themselves have taken it upon themselves, not only are they cognizant of the natural settings in which they live in or choose to live in, but they`ve decided to do something about it.

And what they`ve decided to do is much more in lines of what we call our fire-wise concepts: clearing vegetation, hazardous and flammable vegetation from around your homes; removing debris, woodpiles; giving the firefighters a chance, if and when a wildland fire comes through the community.

And taking it from the San Diego communities, those that have decided to shelter-in-place, it really is a concept that needs to be discussed a bit further. And I`m glad to hear some examples of communities who have taken it upon themselves to be proactive in protecting their communities and actually helping firefighters when wildland fire does come knocking at the door.

MARGARET WARNER: Bodie Shaw of the National Interagency Fire Center and Glen Sparrow of San Diego State University, thank you both very much.

JIM LEHRER: San Diego Public Television`s KPBS has been tracking the fires with an interactive map and real-time updates. You`ll find a link to their coverage on our Web site at PBS.org.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Next, Congress tries once again to extend the children`s health care program. NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: House Democrats today tried to pass a ramped-up version of the state children`s health care program legislation the president vetoed earlier this month. It would extend government-funded health insurance to 10 million children whose families don`t qualify for Medicaid at an increased cost of $35 billion over five years.

REP. JOHN DINGELL (D), Michigan: The bill makes changes to accommodate the president`s stated concerns.

KWAME HOLMAN: But a solid group of Republicans, including Florida`s Ginny Brown-Waite, dismissed the bill.

REP. GINNY BROWN-WAITE (R), Florida: You can take horse manure and roll it in powdered sugar and it doesn`t make it a donut.

KWAME HOLMAN: Republicans first tried to postpone the vote because several California Republicans had returned home to their fire-ravaged districts.

REP. PETE SESSIONS (R), Texas: They`re not fighting the fire, but they do have a strong belief that what they have done is the right thing, and they would wish to participate fully to their constitutional duties.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Majority Leader Steny Hoyer respectfully refused.

REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD), House Majority Leader: The objectives of the members who are not here are understandable and appropriate...

CONGRESSMAN: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. STENY HOYER: ... but what is not appropriate is for me to be put in a position, or anybody who schedules on either side of the aisle, to be put in a position of having our legislative process stopped when we essentially have only a few hours left to go and important legislation to consider.

KWAME HOLMAN: Several parliamentary delays and three hours later, the debate was joined, and was colored by partisan disagreements over what actually was in the bill. New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone said the president`s concern that it cover only low-income children had been addressed by setting an eligibility cap at 300 percent of the poverty level.

REP. FRANK PALLONE (D), New Jersey: ... that if you go over 300 percent, OK, other than those that are already grandfathered into the program, you`re no longer going to be able to cover those kids at that $82,000 or the other levels that they suggested.

Now, we`ve made an honest effort here to accomplish this. And all we`re asking is that a few more of you come over to our side and join the Republicans in the Senate to vote for this legislation.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Mike Rogers of Michigan read the same bill differently.

REP. MIKE ROGERS (R), Michigan: You didn`t change anything. As a matter of fact, you made it worse. You actually made it worse. So you know that same $83,000 family that we all agreed and the speaker stood right on this floor and said is a problem? It`s still a problem in this bill.

KWAME HOLMAN: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued the revised bill made clear no illegal immigrants would qualify for the program.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), Speaker of the House: And the undocumented are not allowed to receive benefits from this initiative. It was clear in the first bill; it`s even clearer in the second bill.

KWAME HOLMAN: Louisiana Republican Jim McCrery saw it otherwise.

REP. JIM MCCRERY (R), Louisiana: Despite some window dressing on this, it appears that illegal immigrants will be able to use fraudulent Social Security numbers and still be able to get S-CHIP and Medicaid benefits.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Texas Democrat Gene Green said the new proposal would phase out current coverage for childless adults.

REP. GENE GREEN (D), Texas: The bill is clear on childless adults. For one year, they get coverage, and these adults actually got a waiver, these states got a waiver to cover these adults. So they`re going to have one year and then they`re off of it.

KWAME HOLMAN: Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn argued that wasn`t good enough.

REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R), Tennessee: What you`re talking about is getting childless adults off the program, not all adults, just childless adults. Madam Speaker, I think that we, as parents, expect our children to grow up and expect them to take responsibility. This is not Never Never Land, and all adults need to be removed from this program.

KWAME HOLMAN: When Democrats brought out the extension of the S-CHIP program to the floor last month, 45 Republicans voted to approve it, 13 short of a veto-proof majority.

But the revisions Democrats made in today`s bill didn`t appear to change any minds. In fact, it lost ground, attracting only 43 Republicans. It`s unclear whether congressional Democrats will send this bill to the president for an expected veto.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, the Iran sanctions story, and to Judy Woodruff.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The new U.S. sanctions announced this morning are the first ever aimed at the military of a foreign country. They are directed against Iran`s Revolutionary Guards, the Ministry of Defense and Logistics Agency, as well as against three major Iranian state-owned banks and eight individuals.

For more on the sanctions and what they`re meant to accomplish, we`re joined by Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.

Secretary Burns, thank you for being with us. First of all, tell us, what are these sanctions designed to do?

NICHOLAS BURNS, U.S. Undersecretary of State: The sanctions are designed to focus on two big problem areas. The first is that Iran is seeking a nuclear capability, this enrichment and reprocessing research that some people fear might lead to a nuclear weapons capability.

And part of the sanctions today are designed to make it difficult for Iranian government agencies to support ballistic missile research that would accompany a nuclear device and a nuclear program itself.

The other part of the sanctions, Judy, are focused on the Quds Force, which is an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard`s core command. And that`s the organization that has been funneling arms to Hamas in Gaza, to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the Shia militants in Iraq -- and some of those weapons have been used to attack American soldiers -- and to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So Iran is aiding, and funding, and giving arms to all the Middle East terrorist groups that are opposed to the United States, and we felt, to defend our interests, we had to take this action to isolate these organizations.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And why are you doing it right now?

NICHOLAS BURNS: We`re doing it now because we are trying to seek a diplomatic solution to this problem. We do not believe that a conflict with Iran is inevitable; it is certainly not desirable. We want to have a chance to get to negotiations.

And to do that, you`ve got to increase the cost to the Iranian government of its present behavior and hope that we`ll soon see a third Security Council sanctions resolution and we might see other countries, most principally the European Union, take sanctions actions of their own so that the Iranians understand they`re increasingly isolated and alone in the world because of their policies.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you`re sanctioning both the Revolutionary Guards, the Quds Force, as you just mentioned, and these banks and individuals. What`s the connection here?

NICHOLAS BURNS: The connection is that three major Iranian banks, the three major Iranian banks, which were sanctioned today by the Treasury Department, are all involved either in the financing of terrorism or the financing that goes into the nuclear program.

And, of course, what we`re trying to do to avoid the use of military force, which we want to do at all costs, is to try to dry up the ability of these financial institutions to extend capital to the agencies that are organizing both the terrorist apparatus, but also the nuclear program inside Iran.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So you`re trying to put the banks out of business?

NICHOLAS BURNS: Well, I think the reputational risk for the Iranian firms now is that they`re completely cut off to the U.S. financial system. That will have repercussions in the Arab world; it will have repercussions in Europe. It`s going to be much more difficult for these banks to exist.

I`ll give you an example. The Security Council sanctioned an Iranian bank, Bank Sepah, back in March. And Bank Sepah has had a very difficult time doing business all over the world, because all of the nations of the world are imposing sanctions on it.

So these kind of financial sanctions can be very effective, and they don`t -- we don`t mean them just to be punitive. There is an end result here. We`ve actually offered negotiations to the Iranians three times over the last year-and-a-half.

We, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Europeans, together have said, "Meet us at the negotiating table. Let`s see if you could suspend your nuclear research, and let`s see if we can help to provide for civil nuclear power for electricity production for the Iranian people."

But we don`t want to give them -- and we will not give them -- assistance, obviously, towards a nuclear capability. And Iran has turned down those negotiations. We`d like to make sure the Iranian government knows how isolated it is, and hopefully they`ll reconsider this refusal to negotiate.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But why not give them more time to reconsider?

NICHOLAS BURNS: Well, we`ve given them a lot of time, Judy. The first offer was made on June 1, 2006. That was a year-and-a-half ago. We`ve reissued the offer in June of 2007 and just a couple of weeks ago.

In fact, Javier Solana, the E.U. foreign policy chief, met in Rome on Tuesday with Iranian officials and said the United States wants to negotiate. Secretary Condoleezza Rice she said she would be at those negotiations and that would be the first such meeting since before the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

So the Iranian government seems to be in a mindset where they want to race ahead with the nuclear program, and they`re continuing to support the terrorist groups. And obviously we have got to do something to try to stop them, and that something is diplomacy and sanctions together.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, the point was made today that the United States has had economic sanctions in place against Iran for decades. That hasn`t caused them to lay down their nuclear ambitions. What makes you think these new sanctions would?

NICHOLAS BURNS: What has changed, Judy, is that Iran now is living under two U.N. Security Council sanctions resolutions, Chapter VII. One passed in December of 2006, and one passed in March of this year. So you have now all the countries in the world implementing sanctions against Iran.

We want to strengthen those sanctions by the actions that the U.S. took today so that they`ll be more effective and, therefore, more likely to cause Iran to reflect on its isolation and turn back towards negotiations.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Secretary Burns, how do you respond, not only to the citizens of Iran who were quoted in news reports today, and to Democratic lawmakers in this country who say this is really just a prelude to war? You said a moment ago this is not a run-up to conflict, but people are looking at it, and that`s what some of them are concluding.

NICHOLAS BURNS: I`ve heard the charges. Our policy is to -- and we`ve been at this for two-and-a-half years -- is to patiently follow a diplomatic path, not to choose war, but to choose negotiation and to try to get a peaceful resolution of this dispute.

But to be effective, diplomacy often has to be accompanied by tough measures, like sanctions. And so I think, if we just tried to talk, well, the Iranians would do what they`ve been doing for a year-and-a-half: refuse to talk.

We need to make it very difficult for the Iranian government, hopefully not so much for the Iranian people, but for the Iranian government. And we are joined in this, by the way, by a lot of countries around the world who are also sanctioning Iran.

The European Union began a debate a week ago Monday about its own sanctions, independent of a Security Council, and we are very much synchronizing our policies with those of Britain and France and many of the other countries. And we`re actually working with the Russians and Chinese in this larger effort in the Security Council itself.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you say you`re working with the Russians, but Vladimir Putin, the president, was just quoted today as saying -- and I`m quoting him -- he says, "Why should we make the situation worse, corner Iran?" He said, "Running around like a madman with a blade in one`s hand is not the best way to solve such problems."

NICHOLAS BURNS: That`s, obviously, an unfortunate quote and highly inaccurate. Why doesn`t the Russian government stop arming Iran? They`re sending arms to Iran. I think the Russians need to focus on their own behavior.

Now, we don`t always see eye to eye with the Russians, but we do agree that sanctions and the offer of diplomacy are the way forward. So, Judy, I`d say to those people who fear that this might somehow lead the United States to war, that is not the intention of these steps. In fact, we want to make diplomacy stronger and more effective so that we have a greater chance at a negotiated settlement down the line once Iran decides to join us at the negotiating table.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You don`t have a concern that this strengthens the hand of those hard-liners inside the Iranian government who were saying, who are looking at this and saying, "See, this is what happens when you deal with the United States"?

NICHOLAS BURNS: I think it`s just too -- frankly, I think the people -- some of the critics who say that we are doing that, it`s just too simplistic to say that.

Iran has a highly divisive government. There are various power factions who are clashing with each other. It`s not at all monolithic. And what the Iranians need to understand is that there`s a sense of unity in the Security Council about the strategy, and there is that unity towards negotiations.

We simply can`t calibrate this policy to appeal to one or two or three groups when there are four or five struggling for power within Iran itself. I think we have to have enough self-confidence that what we`re doing is the right thing, and that is applying pressure towards Iran.

But the end result, diplomacy, not a recourse to war, if we can possibly avoid it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, we`re going to leave it there. Secretary Nicholas Burns, we thank you very much.

NICHOLAS BURNS: Thank you, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Appreciate it.

NICHOLAS BURNS: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, a different perspective now, and it comes from Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia. He`s the author of legislation prohibiting the Bush administration from funding military operations in Iran without congressional approval.

Senator Webb, thank you very much for joining us.

SEN. JAMES WEBB (D), Virginia: Good evening.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You just heard, I believe, Undersecretary Burns basically say that Iran has brought this on itself.

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Well, I think what we have right now is a lot of different rhetorical balls in the air here in the United States. And there is, I think, legitimate reasons to have some concerns about what other motivations might be in place with this move, not sanctions per se.

I mean, I`m not someone who is opposed to sanctions. I think that, by all reports earlier this year, some of the sanctions that we put into place before were having a good effect.

But when you start pushing the envelope as far as you have now into the military areas of Iran, you could well be setting up a situation, by blurring all of these lines and these definitions between terrorist organizations and sovereign nations, and these sorts of things, that it makes a lot of sense for the Congress to step forward clearly, with language such as I have in this bill that I put forward, to say that there are limitations to the power of the executive branch to move unilaterally in this situation, that they need to come to the Congress for a specific approval if they are going to go beyond the sorts of things that they`re doing right now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And I`ll ask you about your proposal, but, again, back on the sanctions the administration announced today. I mean, essentially they`re saying they`ve tried diplomacy, it hasn`t worked, and they felt they needed to step up the pressure.

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Well, I don`t think they have tried diplomacy in the sense that they`re capable of using diplomacy. It`s been the greatest regional failure since the invasion of Iraq.

There have been low-level attempts at diplomacy. I think, for instance, Ambassador Crocker attempting to bring Iran into the table and over in Iraq is evidence of some movement, but, as Zbigniew Brzezinski was saying last year, we`ve kept the bar so high for Iran moving into serious large-scale diplomacy that we can`t really say that we`ve tried diplomacy.

And if we`re not careful here, one of the things that we`re going to be seeing in the regional diplomatic environment is a further strengthening of the relations between Russia, as you were pointing out in Iran, and also between China and Iran. China is actually increasing its trade with Iran right now, in spite of the fact that these sanctions have been in place, lower-level sanctions have been in place for some time.

And actually, right after 9/11, I was giving a speech to the Naval Institute conference down in Virginia Beach. And one of the things that I said then -- if you`re going to watch long term the impact of what happened in 9/11 play out, you need to watch China, watch Iran, and watch China with Iran.

And the strategic errors that we have made by invading Iraq and in some of these other areas have actually strengthened China`s hand. It`s not good for us.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, again, on these sanctions, do you think they could damage? Is that what you`re saying? You said the administration hasn`t sufficiently tried diplomacy.

SEN. JAMES WEBB: I think this is a major change in policy. And, in fact, when Secretary Burns and his undersecretary were having the press conference earlier today, they made the point that this was the biggest change in relations between or in the situation between the United States and Iran in the last 28 or 29 years. And part of that is the notion that we are pushing toward the military elements in Iran.

The United States Senate passed an amendment, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, a couple of weeks ago which specifically stated that the -- it was the sense of the Congress that the Revolutionary Guards were a foreign terrorist organization, which gives the administration -- according to some interpretations -- the ability actually to take military action under the same rubric that we use to take military action against terrorists in other places.

This sanction today did not go that far; it went to the edge of it. It used the term "specially designated global terrorist entity." It`s a one step back, but it`s still enough of a concern that I think the way for us to really clear the air and take some of this skepticism off the table is to pass legislation that specifically says what my bill says, which is, the administration may not take unilateral action against Iran, other than in certain precise situations, such as repelling attack, without the explicit consent of the Congress.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So your legislation wouldn`t interfere with what the administration has done today? You`re moving in a different direction?

SEN. JAMES WEBB: No, it would not, but I think we need some clarity, because what the administration is saying today does not necessarily mean this is what it is intending to do in the near term or in the mid term. And we saw that, really, with all the rhetoric that came out in the invasion of Iraq.

We know now from history that the administration had decided to invade Iraq by September of `02. It got the authorization to invade Iraq in October of `02. And all the way up until March of `03, it was saying that it still wanted to use diplomacy. So let`s clear the air here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, what exactly -- I mean, what evidence do you have, Senator, that the administration has something else up its sleeve, which I gather that`s what you`re saying?

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Well, I think we can look at the pattern of behavior since 9/11 and how the rhetoric goes one way and so much of the action go another way. And what is the disadvantage of clearing the air on this and specifically stating the intent of the Congress?

Another concern, by the way, is if you look at the presidential signing statement, on the October `02 authorization from the Congress to take military action in Iraq, the president, when he signed that statement, didn`t simply say, "All right, I accept this resolution as it regards Iraq."

He basically said in that signing statement that he was not giving up his authority to take action anywhere else as it related to his constitutional functions, international terrorism, et cetera. It`s very broad, the presidential signing statement is. And unless we clear the air, it could be argued by the administration, if there were some provocation from Iran, deliberate or otherwise, that they had the justification to go into Iran.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, your legislation is aimed at the administration. Is there anything else you would do to get the Iranians to do as the U.S. wants them to do, which is to give up their nuclear program, to scale that down, and to scale back the terrorist support?

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Well, again, as I said -- first of all, I don`t think that it`s appropriate, in terms of how you conduct foreign policy, to label a military of a foreign government as a terrorist organization.

I think it is appropriate to have concerns about any foreign government aiding terrorism, but that`s different than labeling the military of a foreign government as a terrorist organization.

Terrorist organizations, organizations that conduct terrorism, are extra-state. They`re outside the different state functions. They work along the seams of international law. So there is a real concern in that area.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you`re saying that`s what they`ve done today?

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Well, they have been doing this over a period of months. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which the Congress, the Senate passed, made that definition, and so we need to get the air clear.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, Senator Jim Webb, we thank you very much for being with us. We appreciate it.

SEN. JAMES WEBB: Thank you. Nice to be with you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, with the World Series under way, we have a baseball poem. The poet is Karen Zaborowski Duffy. She teaches poetry to adults and high school students in New Jersey. Her first book, "Giving in to the Smoke," comes out early next year.

KAREN ZABOROWSKI DUFFY, Teacher and Poet: My name is Karen Zaborowski Duffy, and I live in Ventnor, New Jersey, which is just a couple of blocks from the Atlantic City line and a couple of miles from Atlantic City High School, which is where I have taught English for 20 years.

So a kenning is typical of Anglo-Saxon poetry is a two...

I grew up in Philadelphia. And every summer, we would come down the shore, as it`s called, which, of course, is the Jersey Shore, and one year I didn`t leave. I stayed.

Philadelphia is still just 50 miles away, and I still have a lot of ties with Philadelphia. And one of those would be the Phillies.

There was always a lot of baseball in my house when I was growing up, whether it was on the television or going to one of my brother`s Little League games, my dad and his friends going over every single play, even my dad and my grandmother arguing over who was a bum.

Back in 1993, which was the last time the Phillies were in the World Series, we had gotten two tickets to each game, and we were sharing them in the family. And game five was my turn to take my daughter. She was just starting fourth grade at that time, and I was very conscious of the fact that it wouldn`t be long before she would lose interest in baseball and in going anywhere with me.

It was very exciting to be at a World Series game in Philadelphia. The enthusiasm in the stadium, the cameras, the crowd of thousands of people, all come together on a weeknight to see a game.

DAUGHTER OF KAREN ZABOROWSKI DUFFY: The game was so exciting, because I was with my mom, but also just to be 10 years old and experience that. Veterans Stadium was on fire. And to have it be midnight on a school night, like she says, it was just a lot of fun and a fond memory.

KAREN ZABOROWSKI DUFFY: When I wrote the poem, all of this came together, and I was keenly aware of the importance of capturing moments in poetry and in life.

World Series, Game 5 Even God, I think is here, so high up in the stands with my 10-year-old daughter and me we can almost touch the X from Schmidty`s old homerun, probably the two worst seats at the Vet but right where the whole world wants to be. I let her drink real Coke, eat Milky Ways and dance with strangers at 11:30 on a school night and still 90 minutes from home. I hold her sticky hand. The Phillies and we are in control. For now, the world has stopped worrying about players who might be traded, moods that might swing and miss. There are no thoughts about new uniforms and the boys who will wear them. Tonight she is here and finds it easy to love me for this end-of-season home game. We are those jumping red dots in the center of the universe, my daughter and me and a baseball game that is perfect and no more meaningless than anything else.

JIM LEHRER: For the record, the Phillies won that game five, but lost the series four games to two to Toronto. And, yes, for those who follow baseball, that was, indeed, a young Curt Schilling pitching for Philadelphia back in 1993. He`ll be on the mound for the Boston Red Sox in tonight`s World Series game.

To see and hear other poets and to sign up for our Poetry Podcast, visit our Web site at PBS.org.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the major developments of this day.

Fire crews labored to turn the tide in Southern California. Thousands of homes were still in jeopardy. Searchers found two more bodies. President Bush visited the fire region today, but he said he would leave it historians to compare this disaster with the way he handled Hurricane Katrina.

The U.S. House passed a new bill expanding S-CHIP, a children`s health insurance program, but Democrats failed again to get a veto-proof majority.

And the U.S. imposed new economic sanctions on Iran over its nuclear efforts and support for insurgents in Iraq.

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.