The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; September 24, 2007

I'm Jim Lara, today's news, the GM strike, the M16 rifle, and Democrat Bill Richardson. Tonight, on the news hour. Good evening, I'm Jim Lara.

On the news hour tonight, the news of this Monday, then two perspectives on the auto-workers strike against General Motors. The second of Paul Sommen's reports on military equipment priorities, tonight, the M16 rifle, and the next of our conversations with presidential candidates, Democrat Bill Richardson. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by... I'm saying that by 2020, we'll have used up half the world's oil. Some say we already have, making the other half last longer will take innovation, conservation,

and collaboration. Will you join us? The new AT&T. Pacific Life. The National Science Foundation. Deal 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. The United Auto Workers went on strike today against General Motors. Some 73,000 workers were affected. It was the first national walk out against an American automaker since 1976. The UAW said it was all about job security. President Ron Keppelfinger complained GM conducted one-sided negotiations.

GM denied that. It said it was fully committed to working with the UAW. Despite the strike, the two sides returned to bargaining today, and we'll have more on this story right after the news summary. The President of Iran got a hot reception today in New York City. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced protests before speaking at Columbia University, then he listened as the school president called him a petty and cruel dictator and blasted him for questioning the Holocaust. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you quite simply ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. In many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect regretfully. Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media, and the political sort of mainstream line that you read here.

The Iranian leader went on to question who was really involved in the 9-11 attacks, and he dismissed claims that homosexuals in Iran are punished. He said, in Iran, we don't have homosexuals. Tomorrow he'll address the opening of the UN General Assembly. In Iran today, authorities closed major border crossings to northeastern Iraq. An Iranian news agency said it was to protest the U.S. military holding an Iranian official in Iraq. He was allegedly smuggling weapons. President Ahmadinejad denied those charges. He also said the border closures were to safeguard religious pilgrims. A suicide bomber in Iraq struck today at a meeting of Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders. He killed at least 15 Iraqis and wounded 30 more. The attacker blew himself up at a mosque compound in bakuba. The local police chief was among the dead. Also today an American soldier was killed north of Baghdad. By the thousands, protesters and Myanmar marched today against the military government.

The South Asian country, also known as Burma, has been ruled by generals for 45 years. We have a report on the protests narrated by Bill Neely of Independent Television News. It's a red tide and it's edging toward revolution. Nothing like it has been seen here for 20 years, months today leading 100,000 demonstrators against one of the most repressive regimes in the world. And the world is watching. Each day it has got steadily larger and yes, it does seem to have a certain momentum to it. It takes us into largely uncharted territory into what terms of what might happen next. It may be the perfect storm, months braving the elements and their military rulers to give voice to the frustrations of 50 million people who've seen their country become one of the world's poorest. The protests began with anger over fuel prices but they've escalated and this was the turning point. The first sight in four years of the woman who won an election landslide long ago

and has been a prisoner almost ever since, greeting the protesters. A man sang sushi has been under arrest behind her gate or in prison for 12 of the last 18 years. She has demanded democracy and now the monks are marching for it. But the Oxford educated Nobel laureate knows there have been false dawns before. 19 years ago, protests were crushed when the army killed 3,000 people. Now the army is threatening action against the monks. They plan more marches, the stage is sent for a showdown. Tomorrow President Bush is expected to announce new sanctions against the regime in Myanmar in his speech to the UN General Assembly. Violent crime across the United States was up last year for the second straight year. The FBI reported that today. It said murders, robberies and other violent offenses rose nearly 2 percent in 2006. That amounted to 1.4 million crimes nationwide, just short of a record reached in 2002.

The Justice Department has blamed the increase on gangs, guns and youth violence. Police arrested a teenage suspect today and the shootings at Delaware State University, 18-year-old lawyer Braden was charged with attempted murder and assault. It was unclear if he was a student. The attack last Friday wounded two students. There was no word on the motive. The UN Secretary General appealed today for greater action on climate change. Ban Ki-moon addressed world leaders at the first UN Climate Summit held in New York City. He told them the time for doubt has passed and he urged countries to ban together to cut greenhouse gases. National action alone is insufficient. No nation can address this challenge on its own. No region can insulate itself from this climate change. That is why we need to confront climate change within a global framework. One that guarantees the highest level of international cooperation that is necessary.

In December, a climate treaty conference will discuss proposals for a new agreement to cut emissions. President Bush has opposed negotiated limits. He favors voluntary cuts and research. The president will host his own climate talks later this week. The famed MIME, Marcel Marcell, died over the weekend at his home in France. His career spans 60 years and took him around the world. He was best known for the character BIP. In white makeup and wearing a white sailor suit and a hat adorned with a red flower. Marcel Marcell was 84 years old, will have more on his art at the end of the program tonight. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 61 points to close at 13,759. The Nasdaq fell three points to close just below 2668. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now the strike against General Motors, Paul Simon on the M16 rifle, and a conversation with Bill Richardson. Judy Woodruff has our coverage of the GM strike.

From Michigan to Indiana and Texas, thousands of United Auto workers walked off their jobs at General Motors plants and joined picket lines. Today is like, I guess, just a boiling pot. You know, because for the last four years, we've given up so much trying to help the company itself. And we've just got nuttin' in returns. Representatives from the Union and General Motors fail to reach an agreement for a new contract. Nobody wins. Nobody ever wins. It's a shame that growing people cakes that across the table from one another and not trying to take something from somebody else. GM's contract with the Union expired 10 days ago, but was extended hour by hour. Both sides were mum on specifics, but talk centered on job security and on health care benefits. Those benefits cost the company more than $5 billion a year, or about $1,500 a car. GM has been pushing a so-called health care trust.

Known as the voluntary employee's beneficiary association, or VBA, that would allow the company to move $51 billion in unfunded health costs off its books into a trust to be managed by the Union. For its part, the Union sought more job security for its workers. Ron Gettelfinger is the president of the UAW. We're talking about investment and we're talking about job creation. We're talking about product being committed into the plan. We're also talking about what our workers deserve out of this contract from an economic standpoint. We were very disappointed in this round of negotiations to discover as we moved forward debt. It was a one-way set of negotiations. It was going to be General Motorsway at the expense of the workers. General Motors did not hold a news conference. Instead, they issued a written statement and expressed disappointment with the Union's decision. It said,

the bargaining involves complex difficult issues that affect the job security of our US workforce and the long-term viability of the company. For now, Union workers, picketing GM's 82 plants will receive $200 a week from the UAW. Officials on both sides returned to the bargaining table this afternoon. Now we get two perspectives on the strike and its possible impact. Rebecca Lindlin covers the auto industry at global insight and economic and financial analysis firm. And Harley shaken as a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He specializes in labor issues. Thank you both for being with us. Rebecca Lindlin, to you first GM said they were disappointed that the Union has chosen to strike. The Union is saying it was pushed into this. What's your sense of why this happened? Well, thanks for having me on duty, first of all. I think that any time that you're talking about the two different sides, they're both going to say it's the other ones fault. But when we really

look at it, it's a situation where GM needs, requires, for its long-term viability, to have flexibility in terms of maximizing its plant utilization. They want to be able to make their vehicles at different plants, depending upon how efficient it is. So that's what they're looking at. That's in the best interest of the company. Ron Gettle fingers, President of the UAW's responsibility, is to protect his constituents. And so he's looking and saying we want job security. So when new programs come on board, when new vehicles are going to be built, he wants to be able to say, you know, let's keep the Chevy Cobalt at Lordstown and not move it to Mexico. And that type of discussion, and that's where they're having the issue. Harley-Shaken, Mr. Gettlefinger, who is the head of the UAW, said at one point, he said, you could be pushed off a cliff. And he said, that's what happened here. What, how do you read this? Well, I think he's actually probably correct. The union went nine days in tough negotiations, hour by hour, past their deadline. They've never done that in their history. My sense is Ron

Gettlefinger, the top leaders of the UAW, wanted to avoid a strike. They realize the condition that GM is in. But for them, there's a core issue here. Will a recovery at GM translate into middle class jobs for UAW workers? And in that sense, job security has become the lynch pin of the negotiations. But that issue really goes well beyond the table in Detroit. The issue of middle-class jobs is central to the whole economy, not just to Arlington, Texas or Flint, Michigan. And the ability of the auto industry historically with the UAW to drive generations of American workers into the middle class resulted in economic growth. For that to be unwound today is a real fear the union has, and it's a strong enough fear to push them onto the picket line today. Rebecca Lindlin, let's pose that question that we just heard from Harley-Shaken. If the union is saying, we want to know that those jobs you're creating are going to result in jobs and salaries for

us. What's the answer on the part of GM? Well, I think in a very strategic move, GM announced today that they've come to an $800 million agreement with GM Shanghai to export to China the Buick Enclave that's made in Lansing Delta Township in Michigan. So this is a good example of where it's not just about moving jobs overseas. It's about building product in the most efficient plant. And the Buick Enclave is one of their large crossovers, a huge success story and gaining momentum, and Buick is actually one of the best-selling brands in China. So this is a situation where GM is saying, we're not just moving jobs offshore, we're just looking to build in the most efficient place. They're going to be building the Buick Enclave here in the US and shipping them to China, starting in 2008. The very strategic move for GM to make this announcement today, but I do think it needs to be called to the attention that this is an example of where they're maximizing their plant utilization and in turn saving jobs for the union. So how would the union

read that move? Harley-Shaken. Well, it's got a lot of different implications. Just mentioning China in the context of the auto industry is something that's very frightening to the union. But the union has made with General Motors major strides in the efficiency, the utilization, and the quality of their plants. Some of the highest quality auto plants in the world are now UAW plants within the United States. Some of the most productive plants are also UAW plants. This is a very new story. So from the union's point of view, there's a sense, look, we have made major strides forward. We want to continue that. We want to see a more competitive GM, but we want that to translate into something for auto workers, something for their communities, something for the whole US economy. The danger from the union's point of view is GM could become very competitive by being the Nike of the automobile industry that is a company based in the US that does its manufacturing elsewhere. That's only not only not good for the UAW,

that's not particularly healthy for the US economy. So what the union is seeking to do is to ensure that a more competitive GM does mean something for communities and for the economy here in the US. And Rebecca Lindlin, how hard is it for GM to give them that assurance? It's dangerously close to impossible. I mean, because if the strike goes on for an extended period of time, GM is not healthy enough as a company financially to really survive a long-term strike. So nobody's going to win if the strike continues. And GM really, I mean, everybody would love job security. When we all love that, but it's just not possible anymore. If you look at the aviation industry, the Pause Association has had to give in a lot. The flight attendant association, the unions are a very antiquated way of doing business. So GM is not really in a position right now to be able to say, absolutely, we're going to be able to support all 73,000 of you. Similar to their white collar non-union workers that have had to take tens of thousands of

people have lost their jobs at GM on that white collar non-union side. Harley-Shaken, it sounds like she's, Rebecca Lindlin, is saying what the unions asking for is something that's almost impossible for the company to grant. Oh, I think it's just the opposite. It's necessary for the company to grant. I think to make this a realistic partnership. Otherwise, it's just a one-way street. What motivation do people have to get the boat upright again if they're being asked to jump over the side? The UAW had over 350,000 members in negotiations in 1990. They now represent 73,000. They have made some tough, bitter sacrifices just to drive through Detroit or Flint or many other towns in the Midwest. We'll give you an idea of that. They understand the fragility of the company. They understand how critical it all is. Both sides do. Both sides want to see a more competitive company. The issue isn't guarantees out of thin air, but rather a commitment that if the UAW steps up to the plate in some very uncharted directions in this set of negotiations,

there will be jobs at the end of the day. That goes beyond something that's unrealistic. It's something that's decent. It has been the key to economic growth and to the growth of the middle class in this country's history. And to go on to another path today is more than an issue of the UAW in GM. It's a very different society. We will all be living in, if competitiveness does not translate into well-being for workers. Does either side Rebecca Lindlin have the upper hand at this point in these talks? That's an interesting question. You know, neither figure is particularly sympathetic. I mean, on the UAW side, you could say that they are asking for a lot and they're asking for reassurances that the majority of American workers don't enjoy themselves. On the other side, you can certainly look at GM and say, well, they got themselves into this predicament. So it is hard to say who's really in the lead or has the advantage here. But in the end, nobody wins if GM goes bankrupt and there won't be a boat to jump off if GM is bankrupt because it's

going to be completely on its side. And so, you know, in the end, it's in everybody's best interest to get this settled and to get back on track and to get back to producing cars and trucks in the U.S. Early shake, and you see it the same way that it's in everybody's interest to get this settle? Oh, absolutely. I think there's a strong motivation on both sides to get it settled. No one wants a strike, but what comes out of this could be a model for the kind of society we become for the ways in which the United States competes in the global economy today. We all know that famous statement often misquoted from a GM executive 50 years ago that what's good for the United States is good for general motors and vice versa. Well, it's important to make that prophetic to say that what's good for general motors ought to benefit the United States. It ought to benefit auto workers, but also be a part of a vibrant, healthy economy that creates jobs and creates well-being for ordinary Americans. Without that, essentially, we're asking workers

to sacrifice to provide caviar in first class while their tendency, even in coach, remains very problematic. That's not the kind of society we want to see. And I think that's not the kind of competitiveness that needs to come out of this. There are better alternatives. So quickly, Harley-Shagan, you're saying neither side has the upper hand here. In a real sense no, but the union has considerable leverage. The overwhelming consensus among analysts going into this was the strike was an impossibility. The union didn't want to use it, but having struck, it creates considerable leverage against GM to settle sooner rather than later. Final question, then, to both of you, how long before this gets resolved, Rebecca Lindlin? As soon as possible, some estimate within the week, it's really hard to say, though. I saw a report associated press report that the Canadian officials saying there could be 100,000 Canadian workers laid off just in the next few days.

Oh, the ripple effect is dreadful, and the ripple effect will be heard throughout the world, because parts come in from all over the world and throughout the U.S. economy also, and then it filters into U.S. and Canada and Mexico and everywhere else. And Harley-Shagan, how quickly resolved do you think? Impossible to predict. These are complex issues and strikes can take a life of their own. There's one bit of good news for an earlier settlement. Both sides are back in negotiation today that indicates a desire to get this settled, that may indicate sooner rather than later, but much beyond that, it's very difficult to say. We appreciate both of you being with us. Harley-Shagan, Rebecca Lindlin, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now, number two, in our series on military procurement, economics correspondent Paul Solomon looks at the guns used in combat. M16 semi-automatic rifle. With its shorter version, the M4, it's the gun of our troops in combat,

that has for the sun, by the way, the ear muffs for the noise. Jim Sullivan helped design this rifle during the Eisenhower administration. 50 years ago, 50 years ago, we started on it 50 years ago this month. That's 1957, the year the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. In the half century since, computers shrank from houses to handhelds, polio was cured, man made it to the moon and Mars, and what kind of advance was there in our combat rifle? They're right exactly where they were when we gave them the M16 in 1960. They have an advance to the edge. Meanwhile, the competition says Sullivan, the Soviet-designed automatic Kalashnikov AK-47, is in its third generation as the AK-74. That AK-74 out hits the M16 by two-to-one on full automatic.

And the reason that there was 100 million AKs made wasn't to equip the Russian Army. It was to give to the third Arthur of the world opponents of the United States can't win ground wars anymore. It's the rifleman and he's rifled. That's what decides ground wars. The rifle Sullivan would have his own son using Iraq today, the opposition. He should have an AK. Really? Yeah. In fact, as Iraq vet Todd Bowers, if I'm going to a rifle range with my friends, I'm more than likely going to reach for the AK-47, A, because I know it's not going to jam, and B, because I know it's going to function in a proper method. The M16, it turns out, is still plagued with problems it experienced from the outset. A finicky device. It has jammed from the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of Iraq. The suburbs of northern Virginia. Just last month, I was actually on the rifle range to qualify

with the Marine Corps and my weapon jammed twice while I was on the range. And this is in the most simple conditions. This is laying in the prone position on a knee, not violently shaking the weapon, and it still jams under those conditions. Still jams 50 years after its birth. So why hasn't the US stayed on technologies cutting edge and rifles? Well, says Sullivan, the rifle is a low ticket item around $600 and big ticket items get the lion's share of the money and attention. Big contractors, the bulk of the business. But more important may be the sheer size of our system for procuring weapons. A function of what President Eisenhower dubbed the military industrial complex. A system that, said Ike back in 1961, already worked against techy tinkerers like Jim Sullivan. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists. Partly because of the huge cost involved, a government contract becomes virtually

a substitute for intellectual curiosity. Though he's now 74, Sullivan's intellectual curiosity is still his long suit. In the years since the M16, he's debuted a new rifle, something called the Ultimax to rave reviews. He didn't make it in or for the United States, however, but the country of Singapore. He's also invented a 100 round magazine for the Ultimax, the M16 and M4. It's being used by England, Germany, even famously neutral Switzerland. But the US army doesn't use this thing. They don't use it now? No. I mean, our soldiers are still limited to 30 shot magazines. That's what they're trying to fight with over there and Iraq. This is emptied in full auto in three seconds. Takes him about five seconds before he can fire the next shot. That's just like a giant malfunction. Okay. During that time, man's helpless. Now, of course, we asked the army for a response to all this. But instead of an interview,

they sent us what they call their M4 talking points, which don't address the new Ultimax or 100 shot magazine at all. What they do say, in a survey of soldiers who fought in Iraq last year, 89% reported satisfaction with the M4, just a shortened M16, remember, and only 3%, experienced a weapons stoppage that caused an inability to engage the enemy. Ah, I see. Moreover, when we were shown new army technology at the Pentagon recently, sent the feedback to the soldier. We saw some areas in which change was clearly embraced. The results, quite tasty. Brigadier General Mark Brown runs the procurement system for what our troops wear and carry. He also cares about what they eat. This is Hoppin' John, this is Bacon and Black Eyed Peas. Hoppin' John is one of 24 different meals ready to eat. MREs, four of them vegetarian, all in packs that heat themselves with a three-year shelf life.

That's pork crunita. What would we weigh now? Yeah. Well, this is really good, actually. It is. In the mountains of Afghanistan, it tastes really good. Especially compared to what food in the field used to be, the notorious K-Rashans. Even M16 critic Todd Bowers loves this program. Our country has the most outstanding meals ready to eat possible. Won't lie to you, I ate one on Saturday. I had an extra one, and I had it for dinner. So the military procurement system can sometimes work wonders it seems for our troops at the front. And the military insists it has made improvements to the M16 and four. This is what all infantrymen are equipped with today. Three-star Marine General James Metis. Okay, you notice the rail here that allows us to put on various different appliances, whether it be a flashlight. Here's a way of putting a red dot on an enemy

and firing based on that. Here is a scope of four-power scope that every infantryman has the option of putting on based on what kind of combat he's in. This is a much more capable weapon system. But Winslow Wheeler, who's been a staffer for four senators, three of them Republican, says a recent study shows the M16 add-ons may do more harm than good. The more you hang extraneous stuff on the gun, the more likely it is to Jim. It's reached the point of absurdity of these site systems. A walking man can't use sites very well. So you fire from the hip full automatic in the assault, and that's where the word assault rifle came from. But says ex-marine Colonel Jim McGee, who's worked inside the Pentagon and out as a military contractor, the procurement system is interested in sticking with and improving a product it knows and understands. Procurement guys, they want a long-term contract. Why? Because that's their metric for success. The fact that technology changes,

that's not their issue. Once it's in procurement like the M16 or the M4, long-term program, been here forever. Help has been here when I came on active duty, the M16. It's been improved incrementally over time, but it's a 41-year-old weapon. Come on, guys. You know, you tell me something better is not out there? High 0.56 millimeter. In fact, back in the 60s, the M16 itself was considered such an outside-the-box product that the Army resisted it. So stubbornly, it actually sabotaged it by using the wrong gunpowder. Gunpowder had been using for years and didn't want to give up. According to a famous house report in 1967, the Army's resistance quote bordered on criminal negligence. 40 years later, it's the M16 that represents the status quo. Stability. The main drive isn't to come up with something new, says Sullivan. Instead, it's simply all the thousands of people that are, you know, in there working on these programs

and spending hundreds and millions on. All of them don't want their job to be threatened. I think that's it. They want program longevity to never have a conclusion, to always get, you know, follow-on contracts to keep these programs alive. So at the end of the day, say Sullivan and others, the military procurement system has become so big and bureaucratic, it's very nature may be to resist innovation. The result, troops with critical products, like the M16 M4 rifle, that hasn't changed much in 50 years. Paul Sommen's next and final report will look at a vehicle designed to protect troops from IEDs and other attacks. And to another in our ongoing series of conversations with Democratic and Republican presidential

nomination contenders, tonight, race Juarez talks with Democrat Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico. Governor, welcome to the program. It's nice to be with you. Now, your campaign has announced a one-point program, in this season of debate, what to do about Iraq, a one-point program, what is it? It's get all our troops so that the war can end. And I have a difference with the other Democratic candidates, Senators Obama, Clinton, Edwards, all who want to keep residual troops anywhere between 50 to 75,000, after withdrawing all combat troops. And my position is that the war can only end. Peace can come to Iraq with a compromise or an all-Muslim peacekeeping force or a donor conference, a political compromise can only happen only if we get every one of our troops out because they become targets. They become the cause of the al-Qaeda, the terrorists, and the insurgents fighting each other. And our kids are dying. I mean, it's the bloodiest three

months we've had. Iraqis are dying twice as many since the surge started. There is no military solution. I think there's a political solution, but the window is ending. You know, General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, but also a lot of the other candidates in the presidential race have talked about chaos, terrible violence that would follow the United States departure from Iraq. Would that be blood that's on America's hands? There is violence now. There is sectarian conflict. There is chaos now. Our policy has bred that chaos. I know the region. I was you and Ambassador. I went hit the head with Saddam Hussein, got prisoners out. I know the Sunni, the Shia, the Kurds. In my judgment, the only way that you get the Maliki government in Iraq to forge a political compromise, to get a division of oil revenues, to have a possible partition is by getting all of our troops out. And I don't understand the reasoning of my democratic opponents who say they want to take all the combat troops out,

but leave troops behind that are non-combat troops. I say how they could have to defend themselves. So my point is not that I'm trying to attract the anti-war vote. What I want to do is diplomacy, bring Iran and Syria in for possible diplomacy that will allow stability in the region. And all Muslim peacekeeping force headed by the UN, get Turkey in there, get Jordan, get Egypt. This is a Muslim war. Find a way to have U.S. leadership in a Bosnia type agreement in Iraq, where you divide oil revenues, you divide the land, a possible partition, and you share power. But that can't happen, Ray, until all American troops are out. And in the meantime, the casualties of American troops, they're tired, the National Guard, I'm a governor. They want to get, they're going to get deployed again. I just believe this is a morass, a quagmire, and I want to differentiate myself

with the other candidates who I believe are earnest about wanting to end the war, but you can't do it leaving troops behind a perform a mission that 160,000 American troops and untold others are unable to do. It's been pointed out that a decade after our involvement or coming up on a decade after our involvement in the former Yugoslavia, 50 and plus years after the armistice in Korea, there were, there are, American troops in those places because there was still work to be done after the shooting stopped and after the bulk of the troops left. You can't see any role for American arms in that part of the world? No, but those are different situations, Ray, and Bosnia. First, there was a peace, and then there was peacekeeping forces. In the Korea, it's a totally different situation. We have close to 30,000 troops. Right now, there's a negotiation between

the United States and North Korea that will lessen tension, and those troops have been there because we have coalition support other nations in Asia that are allies, the same with NATO, in Bosnia. You know, in Iraq, we're there alone with a British, and the president says 20 other countries, 20 other countries with a few thousand troops. We're in it alone, it's totally different, and I believe that you cannot have a peace. In other words, there can't be a political settlement, peacekeeping force, the ability in the region until you get our troops out. Now, I would put some troops, American troops, for a contingency in Kuwait where they are needed. I would also expand the number of troops in Afghanistan where Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are getting stronger, but this war is bleeding. Our ability is a country to have a military that is ready, that is properly equipped, and it takes away our focus, this war in Iraq, from what really

should be the priority of American foreign policy, threat of international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, a little nuclear weapon, nuclear material this size possibly causing a border. Energy independence, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, tribal and ethnic conflict, dealing with the Third World more effectively. I just believe this war is is detracting from the real threats of this country. I'm a Dina Jean in Iran, the North Koreans. I think we still need more discussions. Peace in the Middle East, the situation with Israel and Palestine, the fact that we don't talk to Syria, the fact that we don't have a Middle East peace on, boy, the fact that we're just reacting and saying, we don't talk to our enemies, we don't talk to Iran, we don't talk to Syria, we barely talk to North Korea when we did, we got some results. Well, let's talk about those nations in particular. Earlier in the Democratic campaign season, there was a lot of back and forth between the candidates about when and whether and under

what circumstances to talk to the Syria's, the Koreas and so on. When, what rules do you put in place for that kind of engagement? The only point I want to make is I have talked to many of these leaders already in my career. I talked to the North Koreans. I was there five months ago, we got the remains of six of our soldiers back. I think we help push them towards taking down their nuclear reactor. Here's when you talk to them. You talk to them, I believe, without preconditions, but only if you're going to get something out of the talks. You don't just talk to them like I think the debate with Obama and Clinton, would you do it the first year? Would you commit to doing that? There should be no commitment. It may be sooner, but would I be afraid to meet with Ahmadinejad? No, with the North Koreans? No, if I'm president, with the Syrians? No, with Ben Laden? No, you don't meet with him. I mean, he's a terrorist, but I remember very much what Yitsakra being said. He won the Nobel Prize, the Prime Minister of Israel. He said, you don't make peace with your

friends. You make peace with your enemies. I would do that as president. Ahmadinejad is in New York today, and there was a lot of argument about the circumstances under which he would be welcomed by the city and the United Nations. He wanted to go to ground zero. He's visiting Columbia University. When there are leaders who the United States doesn't see eye-to-eye with, should they be welcomed to the United States? Well, how is home of the UN? Yeah. As home of the UN, yes, those are multilateral agreements that any world leader can come to the United States, as long as there are members of the United Nations and New York is the seat of the United Nations. But I wouldn't have allowed Ahmadinejad to go to ground zero. I'm glad the New York police said, no, that would have been an insult to the families. Speaking at Columbia, I wouldn't have invited him, but Columbia did, and was this platform. The guy, Ahmadinejad, he's a total propagandist. I mean, here the guy talks about having a debate

with President Bush in front of thousands of people. I believe we need to talk to Iran, but not necessarily Ahmadinejad. They're moderate clerics there. They're sworn ministry individuals that I know are moderate. 40% of the Iranian people vote for a moderate president. I would be reaching out to Iran through various other entities, students, business leaders, cultural exchange, visits. In my judgment, you have to deal with Iran. And the way not to deal with Iran is what this administration is doing, saying their axis of evil, leaking military actions. If they do this, we're going to take military action. I would get international support for our goals. I'd get the Russians. I'd get the European Union to come together in an effective coalition that I believe can pressure Iran. I think they're susceptible to sanctions, the pressure. They've got one refinery. They import their gasoline. They import one half of their food.

There's domestic unrest, high unemployment. If necessary, we push them because we can't allow them to have nuclear weapons. We can't allow them to continue helping terrorists in Iraq. But the way to deal with that is to seek common ground and find ways to meet with them and be tough with them and negotiate with them. One of the most complex relationships the United States has right now is with Mexico, a country where you did a lot of you growing up, a country you're very familiar with. What do we do now that this country is caught up in a debate over immigration and how we're going to move forward from where we are? Well, the first thing you do is have a foreign policy discussion with the president of Mexico. Just as I talked about being tough with our enemies, sometimes you've got to be tough with your friends. Mexico's a friend. If you're the president of Mexico, Ray, I'd say, Mr. President, you've got to do something to give jobs to your people to reduce poverty there. At the very least, stop handing out maps on the easiest place to cross.

Now, having said that, I think you also have to have stronger border security. You've got to find ways to have more technology, to detect some kind of nuclear material at the border. I'd keep the National Guard there longer, but would I build this wall? No. That is foolish. This country is not a nation of walls. Plus, if you build a wall that's 12 feet tall, a lot of 13 foot ladders are going to happen. It doesn't work. What you also do is those that knowingly hire illegal workers need to be punished. Then finally, there's got to be a legalization program. What's the alternative? Round everybody up and deport them? That's not going to happen. Or the current status, which is leave the problem and not deal with it. I think that's unacceptable. A legalization program, not amnesty, not citizenship, but based on principles that they can stay if they follow the following conditions. If they pay back taxes, they pay a fine pass a background check, learn English,

embrace American values, get behind those that are trying to get here legally. Is that messy? Yeah, it's messy. Is it bureaucracy? Yes. Is it going to be screwed up by somebody in the US government? Possibly. But it's a tough decision that we have to take. What's the alternative? The deportation of 12 million people? That's not America. But can we, you say, yes, they're going to be bureaucracy and you answer your own question. Yes. But can this country really get its arms around 12 million people figure out where they are, where they're working, where they're living, who should stay, who should go, and get some sort of durable solution that lasts out into the future? The Senate and the President tried to come up with a plan, but because they got so much political heat they didn't, it shows that the President and the Congress have a dysfunctional relationship. Nonetheless, I believe there are barometers of being able to do what is sensible. For one, you shouldn't divide up families in the way you do that. Secondly, I think you got to be compassionate,

but recognize that we're also a nation of laws that are laws are broken. There are certain punishments like, you know, a fine for having come here legally, paying back taxes, passing a full background check or you're gone, embracing American values. But, you know, we're a nation of immigrants. A lot of these individuals are working in jobs that Americans don't want. But if there are jobs, for instance, and the guest workers that Americans want, those jobs first should be posted and offered to an American. I think there's a way to do this. It is, I'm just being honest. There's going to be bureaucracy. There's going to be, we're going to have to increase the budget for immigration. I mean, we have to raise the quotas for legal immigration, H1B visas. We have to have that in this country to be more competitive. But at the same time, the immigration bureau is full of backlog cases where legal immigrants can't get in. A huge backlog. I mean, try to get a passport now. It takes months.

Do you think really coming here to live here full-time, not until you were in the eighth grade, gives you an insight into this and maybe other candidates don't have? Well, I believe that having been bicultural, my mom would only speak to me in Spanish. My father wouldn't speak to me. No, I'm kidding. I think being bicultural, being brought up in two languages has given me a perspective of respecting other points of view of being a negotiator, being a diplomat. I believe that diplomacy is key and that if you talk and try to resolve problems through negotiation, through diplomacy, that you can fix problems, that you've got to be bipartisan, that this country needs somebody that can bring us together, that we need to heal, that we're so divided over immigration in Iraq and a middle class that is straining the pay, health care costs and college loans for their kids and pensions that are disappearing with bankruptcies. I think more than anything, the fact that I have been brought up in two cultures that

I have foreign policy experience that I have CEO experience as a governor gives me an edge, but that's going to be up to the voters, but can all Americans hear that from you, or are there going to be some who assume that you're in the tank for the other guys, because you can see their point of view in a way that they're not ready to open up to you. My sense, when I speak to voters in the small states, the Iowa's, New Hampshire's, Nevada, South Carolina is the first primary states. They want somebody that inspires them. They want to come together as voters. They're tired of this divisiveness and the partisanship in the Congress and the dysfunctional relationship at getting nothing done. They're ready for a Kennedy type leadership, and I'm now John F. Kennedy, but they want somebody to tell them, we're going to have to sacrifice to become energy independent. We're going to have to do something about this debt, which is $9 trillion that Japan and China and commercial banks control. We've got to do something about this crisis with the home ownership

where over a million people or many more could lose their homes. They're ready to come together and be inspired, because we've had a lot of politicians, Ray, that have been saying to voters, you can have a war, and we don't have to fund it through the regular budget press. You can have tax cuts, even if you don't want it. Here, we're going to spend, spend, spend. Now it's $9 trillion, so future generations that want to do something about greenhouse gas emissions or improving science and math and schools or training or affordable housing are not going to be able to have these resources for the next generation. But can the guy who's sitting here saying he could be the cold water in the face of that, that you can't just spend, spend. Can you get elected president when you're the guy who says, you know, we actually have to burn less gas and spend less money? Absolutely. I've done it as a governor, Ray. New Mexico is the clean energy state. We brought, we're an oil and gas state, but we're moving towards solar, wind, biomass, greenhouse gas emissions reduction. In addition to that, I've balanced by budgets. You know,

we've got to be fiscally disciplined. I am for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget over four or five year period. I want to get rid of those congressional earmarks that, you know, prevent this bridge and Minneapolis from being repaired. I want to also get rid of corporate welfare. We have to pay as you go policies. We got to deal with Social Security and Medicare. I would name my cabinet. If I'm the nominee, I'll name my cabinet before the election so that the American people know what team it is. I'll have independence, I'll have Republicans in my cabinet. I won't overdo the Republicans. But I just think that we need bipartisanship and we need not just talk about it. We need to show how we're going to do it, how we can govern. Is the horizon a little less bright? Because a lot of money has been spent that the country has had to borrow. Will the next president have his hands tied in ways that your colleagues up on the stump are talking about yet? Yeah, we're going to have some real tough times. But that doesn't

mean we can't resolve problems. I'm optimistic about this country. I'm patriotic. I believe problems are resolvable. If you join, if you build coalitions, if we get the public sensitized to what is important to this country, if you work with the Republicans, I think we can do it. You know, we got to do three things off the bat. If I'm elected president the first week, I would say, one, we got to end this war. It's got to be bipartisan. Because I suspect the president is going to get his way most of the next two years. Secondly, we got to reduce the debt. We got to end this debt. And third, we got to do something about the viability of social security and Medicare. And then the other priorities, we do get out energy, becoming energy independent. I think that's going to take an Apollo program, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, shifting away from fossil fuels. And then universal healthcare. It's not going to be easy. There's going to be huge lobbies fighting it. But I think we have the ability today to come together as a country if we get some leadership that is willing to govern, make tough choices, but also call the best

of the American people, which is their generosity and their fairness in the common goals. I think it is doable. Governor Richardson, thanks for joining us. Thanks, Ray. For more on Governor Richardson, you can visit our VOTE 2008 website at pbs.org. All of our candidate interviews and campaign updates are also available there. And finally tonight, an artist who worked in silence, Jeffrey Brown, has our remembrance of Marcell, Marcell. Marcell Marcell told stories without words, reviving the ancient art of pantomime while performing around the world for six decades. He was born to a Jewish family in Strasbourg, France in 1923. During World War II, his father died in Auschwitz and Marcell worked in the resistance. Early on, Marcell created his

most famous character, Bip, in his white face, top hat, and red rose. Always silent on stage, offstage, Marcell often talked about his art, including to Elizabeth Farnsworth on the news hour in 1999. I like to reveal to the essence of the weight of our soul the inside of our self. And this is why I think that I like to show the depth of our feelings. In that sense, even simple people understand it. It has to be very clear. I try to bring complete silence in the theater because I think it would show that revealing that the body, the essence of life, like walking and the wind at the beginning, like struggling with push and be pushed, like the struggle between

life and death, which show the best in silence, the depths of our self. Because we are a silent certain moment, writers before writing, singers before singing, atlets before sports, concentration is a most important measurement. Only once in his performing career did Marcell speak in Mel Brooks's 1976 film Silent Movie. No! Marcell Marcell died this weekend at his home in France, it was 84. And again the major developments of this day, the United Auto Workers Union went on strike against General Motors, the president of Iran, ran into protests and heavy criticism during an appearance at Columbia University in New York City, and up to 100,000 protesters marched in Myanmar against the

country's military government. A reminder you can download audio versions of our reports and listen to them on your computer, iPod or other MP3 player to do so, just visit the online news hour at pbs.org. And we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer is provided by the United States. What Susie and I retire will be taking trips like this whenever we want. It's a good thing we've been planning. At Pacific Life, giving you the right tools to help you meet your financial goals is what we're all about, as you look to the future, look to Pacific Life, Pacific Life, the power to help you succeed, and by 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. To purchase video cassettes of the news hour with Jim Lehrer, call 1-866-678-News.

We are PBS. Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the news hour tonight the news of this Monday,

then two perspectives on the auto workers' strike against General Motors. The second of Paul Simon's reports on military equipment priorities, tonight the M16 rifle, and the next of our conversations with Presidential candidates, Democrat Bill Richardson. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer is provided by