The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then, a major issue-and-debate segment on Iraq policy with former Secretaries of State Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger; excerpts from congressional efforts to fix the post-9/11 world of intelligence; and a science unit report on global approaches to air pollution.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Fierce fighting erupted in Baghdad today, as American military deaths in the war climbed toward 1,000. The latest combat was centered in a heavily Shiite slum. U.S. troops backed by tanks and planes battled with gunmen loyal to Shiite radical Muqtada al-Sadr. At least 36 people were killed, including one U.S. soldier. Both sides blamed the other for violating a cease-fire. The U.S. military also reported five more Americans killed around Baghdad in the last 24 hours. That pushed the total since the war began to 998; most of those have died in combat. In addition, three civilians working for the Pentagon have been killed in Iraq. In Washington, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said the spike in casualties showed the insurgents are getting desperate.

DONALD RUMSFELD: The progress in Iraq and Afghanistan has prompted a backlash, in effect, from those who hoped that at some point we might conclude that the pain and the cost of this fight isn't worth it. Well, our enemies have underestimated our country, our coalition. They have failed to understand the character of our people, and they certainly misread our commander-in-chief.

JIM LEHRER: Also today, U.S. planes and tanks hit targets in Fallujah. A U.S. Marine statement said up to 100 insurgents had been killed. Seven marines were killed just outside the city yesterday. The U.S. Army reportedly plans to break up a multibillion dollar contract for services to U.S. troops in Iraq. It's currently held by Halliburton. The Wall Street Journal reported today an army memo ordered the contract divided into smaller jobs, and opened to competitive bids. Under the current contract, Halliburton has faced billing disputes and claims of overcharging. The remnants of Hurricane Frances dumped heavy rain across the Southeast today. In the storm's wake, Florida struggled with widespread flooding. Nearly three million people in the state had no electricity, along with half a million homes and businesses in Georgia. At Cape Canaveral, the Kennedy Space Center suffered its worst damage ever. The storm was blamed for at least 14 deaths. The Congressional Budget Office projected a record federal deficit today, but it's not as large as first thought. The CBO said the red ink would total $422 billion for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. That's $55 billion less than estimated back in January, but it still tops last year's deficit of $375 billion. In the presidential campaign today, Democrat John Kerry blamed the deficit on the Bush economic policies. At a town hall meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, he said the president's tax cuts were the cause of the red ink.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: He had $5.6 trillion of surplus, right? He made a choice about what to do with that. A lot of us made a different choice. I voted against his plan. I thought his was the wrong choice, because I thought it would put us into deficit, rob us of the opportunity to be able to invest in children, have health care, and do the thing we need to do.

JIM LEHRER: President Bush did not mention the deficit as he campaigned in Missouri today. Instead, he criticized Sen. Kerry for opposing limits on personal injury lawsuits. He told a crowd in Lee's Summit the suits are hurting job creation.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: For 20 years he's been one of the trial lawyer's most reliable allies in the senate. We have a difference of opinion. He's consistently voted against legal reform that would protect workers and entrepreneurs. His fellow lawyers have responded with millions of dollars in campaign donations. I have another view. I disagree with his position. I am for ending junk lawsuits.

JIM LEHRER: Also today, Vice President Cheney warned Sen. Kerry would lead the nation back to reacting to terror, instead of preventing it. He said: If we make the wrong choice on Nov. 2, then the danger is that well get hit again. In response, Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee John Edwards accused Cheney of using scare tactics. He said: Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue Former President Clinton was doing well today, one day after having quadruple heart bypass surgery in New York City. Doctors took him off a respirator last night, allowing him to breathe on his own. The former president is 58 years old. He's expected to need several months to recover. Thousands of Russians took to the streets in Moscow today, to condemn terrorism. They marched as burials continued for victims of last week's bloody siege at a school in southern Russia. Officials have blamed Chechen rebels and other Islamic militants for the attack. We have report on today's protest from Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News.

LINDSEY HILSUM: This was no spontaneous outpouring of grief, but an orchestrated rally: Russia against terror, called by the trade unions of the Moscow municipalities. That didn't mean people had no genuine feelings. The tragedy of Beslan has touched millions of Russians, especially parents and teachers.

TEACHER (translated): I'm a teacher and I suffer just only thinking about what has happened. And I think it was happened not in Islam but in Russia, in Moscow, in my house.

SERGEI SOLOVEV (translated):For the first time, the horror of terrorism has shaken our soul so much it's no longer important how far this is happening from Moscow.

LINDSEY HILSUM: The opposition said this was an attempt to divert attention from the government's failures in Beslan. But not everyone I met at the rally was an uncritical supporter of President Putin, neither of the way he handled the siege, nor of the policy in Chechnya.

WOMAN ON STREET (translated): If it weren't for the political situation in our country, there would be no terrorism. We should withdraw all troops and leave them to their own devices.

MAN ON STREET (translated): I think the terrorists are to blame. The government acted very well. It was a difficult situation.

WOMAN: I blame both sides, because I think the government had an opportunity to save all the people but they didn't take the opportunity.

LINDSEY HILSUM: At their Lubyanka headquarters, members of the security police, the FSB, gathered to mourn their officers killed in the siege. They have been criticized for allowing armed volunteers, local men, near the school. Some politicians are calling for resignations. Even President Putin has said the Russian security system needs a complete overhaul. But many Russians are still trying to find a way simply to express fellow feeling for the people of Beslan, taking gifts of clothes and toys to the Red Cross to distribute to the families with injured and surviving children.

JIM LEHRER: Last night, President Putin rejected any link between his policies in Chechnya and the school attack, and he dismissed western appeals to negotiate with the rebels. He said: Why dont you meet with Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace? In Washington today, a State Department spokesman said the United States still believes there must be a political settlement in Chechnya. Hamas vowed retaliation today, after Israeli air strikes killed at least 14 militants in Gaza City; 30 others were wounded. Hours later, some 30,000 people, including Hamas gunmen, joined in a funeral procession in Gaza City. Israel said the strike was in response to suicide bombings that killed 16 people last week. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained nearly 81 points to close at 10,341. The NASDAQ rose 14 points to close above 1858.

That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: Secretaries Albright and Kissinger on Iraq; intelligence proposals; and air pollution proposals.

ISSUE & DEBATE IRAQ POLICY

JIM LEHRER: Now to our issue and debate on Iraq, and the war on terror. We will get the views of former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright. They will flow from excerpts of speeches by President Bush and Sen. Kerry. Both candidates talked about Iraq and terror at veterans' conventions last month, and then again while campaigning today.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: After Sep. 11, I'm proud that all of our people rallied to president bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats, there were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. (Applause) But since then, you know it as well as I do, we've become a country divided over Iraq, and it didn't have to be that way. I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side, because that's the right way to get the job done in Iraq and bring our troops home. (Applause) And now with so much at stake in the struggle against al-Qaida, the American people want to hear in plain words the answer to a simple question: How are we going to get the terrorists before they get us? As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror.

We will deploy every tool in our arsenal, our economic as well as our military might, our principles as well as our fire power. And only then will we be able to tell the terrorists, "you will lose and we will win."

(Applause)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: After Sept. 11, one of the lessons this country must always remember is that we must take threats seriously before they fully materialize. Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that capability on to the enemy. And that was a risk we could not afford to take after Sept. 11. We will continue to work with friends and allies around the world to aggressively pursue the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere. You cannot talk sense to these people. You cannot negotiate with them. You cannot hope for the best. We must aggressively pursue them around the world so we do not have to face them here at home. We will win by staying on the offensive. In the long run, our security is not guaranteed by force alone. We must work to change the conditions that give rise to terror: Poverty and hopelessness and resentment. A free and peaceful Iraq and a free and peaceful Afghanistan will be powerful examples in part of the world that is desperate for freedom.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: I will tell you that of all the wrong choices that President Bush has made; his most catastrophic choice is the mess that he has made in Iraq. (Applause) It was wrong to rush to war without a plan to the win peace. It was wrong not to show statesmanship and leadership that build coalition to share cost and share burden. And it was wrong to put our young men and women in harm's way without the body armor and the Humvees and the equipment and the reinforcement that they needed. What I'm going to do, I will, through that proper effort, speed up the level of training, speed up the level of preparation for transformation. I've said yesterday and I've said it very clearly, my goal -- and it's a goal, its a legitimate goal-- if you do these things properly, we ought to be able to get our troops out thereof within four years. We ought to be able to get them home and that ought to be a stable place and we ought to be able to get them to survive.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaidas key members and associates have been detained or killed. (Applause) We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer. (Applause) Freedom is powerful, isn't it? It's powerful. In Iraq, there's a strong prime minister, there's a national council; national elections are scheduled in January. We will help the new leaders train their armies so that citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan can defend themselves against the few who are trying to stop the march of liberty for the many. We'll help them get to elections. We'll get them on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible, and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned. (Applause)

JIM LEHRER: And to our debate. Henry Kissinger was secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Madeleine Albright was secretary of state in President Clinton's second term. Welcome secretaries both.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Good to be here.

JIM LEHRER: First, Secretary Albright, on this future issue of Iraq specifically: What now, what next? How would you describe the major difference between the approaches of President Bush and Sen. Kerry?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think the major difference is that Sen. Kerry has made it clear that we don't want to have bases in the area, we are not occupiers there; we want to be able to make sure that the Iraqis can run their own lives.

And the other major difference is that the things that are now in some way being done in Iraq are things that Sen. Kerry suggested a year and a half ago: Making sure that we have... are actually training some of this military, trying to get ready for elections.

But I think the thing that has to be pointed out here is Sen. Kerry is not conflating Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a different war, and we cannot and should not be persuaded that what we're doing in Iraq is fighting the same kind of terrorism that caused our Twin Towers to be destroyed.

JIM LEHRER: Well, that's a huge difference and we'll come back to that in a moment. But in specific terms if somebody's sitting out there tonight and says "okay, I want to cast a vote between these two men based on what they're going to do specifically in Iraq," what would you tell them the difference is?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I do think it's important to say that things would not be in quite this big a mess had we had a different president. And I think it's important to make that case because Sen. Kerry has to work with what is there now. But I think that is what is very clear is that he would be in a position to get a wider group of people to help us, not just the NATO allies, but go into other countries to help so that the coalition would be greater.

He has also said that he would let those in the region or invite those in the region to be part of the discussion, to have them at the table, a contact group, so to speak, or try to bring them in; then also, to make clear that we are not there to stay; and to try to figure out what the benchmarks are for being able to bring our troops home.

Everybody wants to bring our troops home, but the main difference here is that he would get much more international involvement in it so that the American taxpayers are not the ones bearing the greatest burden and that we don't have one deadly month after another. You do know that August has been deadlier in the number of people that have been killed and the number of casualties. And I think that is what would be different.

JIM LEHRER: Secretary Kissinger, how would you draw the differences? First of all, do you agree with the list of Secretary Albright and what would you add or subtract from that in terms of the differences specifically, what now, what next on Iraq?

HENRY KISSINGER: I have difficulty when Secretary Albright says that that Secretary Kerry -- Sen. Kerry recommended particular forms of weapons 18 months ago that were not adequately supplied.

If one looks at the record over the last period, in general it must be said that the Bush administration has been for a substantial increase in the military budget and Sen. Kerry's record on the whole has been to oppose many of the new weapon systems that have been... that have been approved in the last decade.

My major point, though, is this: I think President Bush has a... the current administration has a strategy that is difficult because it is a very difficult country. That has the components of security, a component of bringing about democracy, and a component of bringing in an international participation as this Democratic government becomes established.

I absolutely do not believe that it is possible to increase the number of foreign forces in Iraq, especially not from Europe, in any substantial... in any substantial manner. And I don't think that that's the current problem. This is yesterday's problem.

Tomorrow's problem will be how to create a political framework for the government that we are now creating there and that we are encouraging to emerge so that other nations give technical and political support. And as the forces of Iraq grow, the balance of forces between them and ours will automatically change.

JIM LEHRER: What about Secretary Albright's point that Sen. Kerry's in a better position to internationalize it, not only troops but in a more general way than President Bush is?

HENRY KISSINGER: I am. -- first of all, the comments about difficulties abroad usually apply primarily to France and Germany. Our relations with Russia, India China, Japan are solid and our relations with Europe are going to be in... as the situation in Iraq evolves and as we create the political framework for the new government, I think we will get -- President Bush is in a very strong position to obtain support even from France and Germany.

JIM LEHRER: On the political point, you're saying that it really... the main factor of the future has to do with what's happening on the ground within the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government. Why do you believe President Bush and his approach would be better than Sen. Kerry's, Secretary Kissinger?

HENRY KISSINGER: I believe... I'm not here really to make partisan comments so much.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

HENRY KISSINGER: I believe that President Bush's approach is good, it is solid, it creates a vision of the future, and I don't see that Sen. Kerry has offered any alternative that would justify the change of administration.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Let's go back to another point - Secretary Albright -- that you made, and also Sen. Kerry has made more than once, and again today. He says this is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think that, you know, you have two former secretaries state here who have spent a lot of time analyzing the international situation at our various times when we were in office. And we obviously will see things a little bit differently. But I believe that, in fact, this was a war of choice, not of necessity and that we should have been paying much more attention to what happened in Afghanistan, because, after all, those who attacked us, did not come from Iraq, they came from Afghanistan. And we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan.

We don't have Osama bin Laden, and there are people, Americans and others, still dying in Afghanistan and democracy is very fragile there. That's why I think the war of necessity was the one that was in Afghanistan.

And what Sen. Kerry's been saying is that the way this war has been pursued has made it all wrong because of the miscalculations which, by the way, President Bush admitted, and it was a war of choice in many ways, not the one of necessity. And therefore, we have squandered a lot of our resources and, I would say, as a former secretary of state, that we have squandered our credibility abroad.

And we don't have to be popular abroad, I think none of us believes that anymore. But the United States' credibility is at stake with the way that it was described why we went into this war over the weapons of mass destruction which have not been found and the whole story changes every time. And so I just think that's our problem.

Now, I think we have to work this backwards. I agree with Henry about the fact that there has to be a political framework. There is no military solution, even though our military is the most brilliant in the world. But work backwards here. The U.N. has been mandated now to set up the elections. They said that it would probably take them about eight months and President Bush has now said that we'll have them in January. That doesn't make for eight months.

The U.N., in order to do its job needs to have security. In order to have security, some forces other than the Americans have to be there to protect the U.N. -- and so it is vitally important that we get some international help for this. And I don't see that really happening, though I fully agree with Secretary Kissinger that we have to get the political framework right.

JIM LEHRER: Secretary Kissinger, several issues there. Let's go back to her first point that this was a war of choice not of necessity. We... the war of necessity was against Afghanistan and al-Qaida not against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. How do you feel about that?

HENRY KISSINGER: The first thing to understand is what we call terrorism as the 9/11 Commission has very correctly pointed out, it's not... terrorism is a method; it is an attack by radical fundamentalist Islam against the values that we believe in and that our allies believe in and that moderate Muslims believe in. So it is a war that affects the attitudes of the whole region.

In Iraq, we were dealing with a country with which we had made a cease-fire in 1991 in which there were 17 violations certified by the United Nations that had the largest military force in the region, that was working on weapons of mass destruction and, as we believed and as President Clinton publicly stated in a television address in 1998, had weapons of mass destruction. Under those circumstances, it was important to... not to permit that country that was run by a dictator and whose successors were two crazy sons to be in a position where they could use all these resources at their choice against us as they had already done in some terrorist situations by paying suicide bombers in the Middle East.

So I think it was a war that needed to be fought and it now presents us with the problem of how to build a peace. When you fight these wars, you get into situations that my friend Madeleine experienced herself, when the United States went into Bosnia, President Clinton said it would take a year and we're still there. So Iraq is also... and I don't criticize him for that. I think it was the right decision.

Here we are in a situation in which the internal complexities of the country were greater than we had fully recognized so we are in a difficult situation which we are, however, in the process of working out and in which the various stages that I have described are in the process of being undertaken.

Now, with respect to credibility around the world, you know, this is a statement Madeleine says -- as secretary of state says we don't have it; I'm a former secretary of state, I think we have what we need to pursue the policy that I have outlined. But that will be tested by how this policy works out and I have confidence that the Bush administration is under way to working it out under difficult circumstances.

JIM LEHRER: Secretary Kissinger, when the president says that the world is safer now because of the military action in Iraq, do you agree with him?

HENRY KISSINGER: If we succeed in creating a government there that is moderate, that looks after the interests of the people, it will be safer. And in any event it is safer than it would be if Saddam Hussein were in power there with the income, with the working on weapons of mass destruction, and with the choice up to him when he would throw his resources against us fully as he already had done in a number of situations and as he was already doing partially.

JIM LEHRER: How do you answer the safer question, Secretary Albright?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I personally do not feel safer. I think that the people of Iraq are probably... I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone, but when the president says that we have destroyed three quarters of the known al-Qaida leadership or terrorists, how many more have been created? Those are the questions, and the extent to which Iraq in many ways is a training ground or a magnet for everybody who hates us.

And I would very much like to agree with Henry about a lot of these issues. But I do think-- to use a diplomatic term of art-- Iraq is a mess. And, in fact, it is not getting better. And every month is deadlier than the month before and we look at... they blow up in front of... in Baghdad suburbs or what's happened in Fallujah and so I... you know, we've got to tell it like it is. It just ain't so. It does not look better to me and there's a big "if" in what Secretary Kissinger said, that we will be safer if they could have a moderate government and all those things. I wish it, but I am very concerned about what is happening in Iraq and how it spreads out into the rest of the region.

And I do think that Saddam Hussein was awful and I personally did believe he had weapons of mass destruction programs. But I did not think it was an imminent threat and I do think that we had other things that we should have been working on, which was Afghanistan. And I think taking our eye off the ball there was a major mistake.

JIM LEHRER: Secretary Kissinger, what about her response to the safer issue?

HENRY KISSINGER: To which issue?

JIM LEHRER: To the idea that this is... this has created as many terrorists as it may have destroyed, by going into Iraq?

HENRY KISSINGER: Going into Iraq has certainly brought enough... a number of the terrorists out of the places where they were, and it has forced the battle to some point. I do not think it has made terrorists out of people who would not have been or who were not already terrorists.

And I have great difficulty conceiving how we would have conducted the war against terror leaving Saddam Hussein in that position and concentrating on Afghanistan where we had substantially destroyed the terrorist network and were to create... if we had tried to occupy all of Afghanistan before we did anything else, that was an enterprise that was a... that many other nations have attempted and that was hugely extremely, extremely difficult. Yes the situation in Iraq is complex. Yes, it has difficulties and I don't like the... I don't like casualties when they are reported.

The question is whether in fighting radical fundamentalist Islam we did the right thing, whether this is a place where the battle can be brought to a head and where the outcome is in the fundamental interest of the American people and of the world.

JIM LEHRER: What about Secretary Albright's use of the word "mess"?

HENRY KISSINGER: It is... you have... in Iraq you have three different ethnic groups,... not ethnic groups but religious groups: You have the Kurds, you have the Shiites, you have the Sunnis; you have a country that has been under... that has never been a democracy, that has been under one of the most ruthless dictatorships in the world, and that the world has seen for 30 years, suddenly that government is removed.

All these forces now are maneuvering against each other, against us, and they have to learn to cooperate, and we have to restore... we have to help restore some of the infrastructure that was destroyed. This is... on any one day, this can look like a mess. But one also has to ask oneself what was the alternative? And where would we be if Saddam were still in place and if we were to revert to a policy of just waiting for them to strike us?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think there were alternatives, Jim, and some of it had to do with letting the inspectors do their jobs, which is something that Sen. Kerry had advocated. The interesting part is that President Bush won a big victory when he got the inspectors back in. And then they didn't take advantage of it in terms of letting them do their work while they built up an international coalition. And both Henry and I believe in diplomacy. I don't think they that they used it properly here and that is one of the reasons that we are in the mess.

And the other part here is I fully believe in democracy and in the fact that everybody in the world would prefer to make choices about the way they live. But you can't impose democracy. Imposing democracy is an oxymoron. You have to offer it. And some of what's happening in Iraq is that we have to stand behind the people, not in front of them, and block things that they want to do.

There is a lot of activity going on and I... in my various lives, I'm chairman of the National Democratic Institute. We have people on the ground there, Henry has had affiliation with the International Republican Institute; they're on the ground, too. I think that there are -- is a lot of political activity. But we look like the heavy footprint at the moment and are making it more difficult, I think in many ways, to get what I think both of us would like to see is a way to moderate what is going on in Iraq because even though Henry used more elegant terms, it's a mess.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Speaking of the word moderate, Im going to -- yes, sir, you wanted to respond to that, Mr. Secretary?

HENRY KISSINGER: I don't agree that it's a mess. I agree that it is an extremely difficult situation that was inherent in the problem that I think the administration deserves a lot of credit for the willingness to face the issue, and I believe that with --within some reasonable period of time we're going to see larger Iraqi forces

JIM LEHRER: All right.

HENRY KISSINGER: -- and that -- and a political structure emerging there that will gain international support. That, in any event, has to be our objective and a t consequences of having a radical fundamentalist government in Baghdad for the whole region and for the whole world would be absolutely catastrophic, so we have to be willing to face what Madeleine calls a mess, but which is a challenge that we simply have to overcome.

JIM LEHRER: All right. And we're going to leave it there.

Secretaries both, thank you both very much.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Thank you.

FOCUS TIME TO ACT

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Post 9/11 fixes; and global air pollution.

Kwame Holman has our 9/11 story.

SPOKESPERSON: Hi, there. Hello.

KWAME HOLMAN: Many members of Congress spent a good part of their August recess right here at the Capitol, in the hearing rooms of various House and Senate committees, those that hold oversight over the nation's intelligence-gathering agencies. Their summer plans changed in late July, soon after the commission investigating the 9/11 disaster issued its final report. The report quickly became a bestseller. 9/11 family members demanded swift action on the Commission's calls for reform. And the presidential candidates, each careful not to yield political advantage on the issue, asked Congress to act as well. So, 14 committees and their subcommittees held two dozen hearings during the month of August, calling more than 100 witnesses.

SPOKESPERSON: The Democratic leader is recognized.

KWAME HOLMAN: And as the full Senate reconvened at noon today, Minority Leader Tom Daschle was the first of several members to renew the call for action.

SEN.TOM DASCHLE: The ideas are there. The leadership has been lacking. It is up to us with the time we have now to provide that leadership.

KWAME HOLMAN: Soon after that, Senators McCain, Lieberman, Specter and Bayh, Congressman Shays and Congresswoman Maloney, appeared together to introduce a new bipartisan approach to intelligence reform, legislation that adopts all of what the 9/11 Commission has recommended.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: By, among other things, creating a national intelligence authority as an independent agency outside of the White House with a strong director and real budget authority. The bill also creates a national counterterrorism center, second major recommendation of the commission, to pull together the missions of our many different intelligence agencies. The bill would establish a far-reaching information sharing network to promote the sharing of intelligence and homeland security information throughout the federal, state, and local governments. Develop an integrated system to ensure adequate screening at the nation's entry points internal transportation systems and critical infrastructure; make it harder to acquire fraudulent birth certificates, driver's license and other forms identification terrorists hind behind; put in place a structure to make sure that civil liberties and privacy are protected as we necessarily increase the role of government to protect the American people from terrorism; and, finally, enact congressional reorganization to provide better oversight of intelligence and homeland security by Congress.

KWAME HOLMAN: 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Keane was pleased.

TOM KEANE: This is a dream that all of us had on the Commission as we were meeting and talking with each other, five Republicans and five Democrats. We recognize the fact that a lot of commissions have been there and we had no problem that we could tell the story of 9/11. What haunted us was the possibility that we'd make recommendations to make the American people safer and, like other commissions, nobody would do anything about them. So this is our dream.

KWAME HOLMAN: And at mid-afternoon, the first hearing of the just-reconvened session was held by the Senate Intelligence Committee, again on the issue of intelligence reform. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts:

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: If we don't make the hard choices now, I fear that after yet another series of intelligence failures, we may be right back in this hearing room listening to the national intelligence director testify that he still lacks real authority to control budgets, to manage personnel, to transfer funds, and mandate intelligence- sharing procedures and technology.

KWAME HOLMAN: Roberts has called for a complete overhaul of the intelligence community, stripping the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Department of most of their intelligence gathering authority, and reorganizing it under a national director and four assistants. But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner has said he's reluctant to have the Pentagon give up its intelligence-gathering control, and Congressman Porter Goss feels the same way about the CIA Goss is the president's choice to head the CIA His nomination will be considered by Pat Roberts and the Senate Intelligence Committee during an all-day hearing tomorrow. And when the House of Representatives convened today, Majority Leader Tom DeLay took a go-slow approach to intelligence reform.

REP. TOM DeLAY: You know, when the commission issued its report, many rushed to either condemn or rubberstamp their recommendations. But we in majority took a novel approach: We actually read them. Congress cannot in good conscience satisfy itself with a watered-down, politically convenient bill, that just scotch tapes over a few vulnerabilities.

KWAME HOLMAN: But the biggest hurdle to intelligence reform, repeated by several members today, could be battles fought by committees unwilling to give up the oversight authority they hold over the current intelligence structure. Sen. John McCain:

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: In normal times, nay sayers would caution that the fact alone could paralyze the senate. These are not normal times. International terrorism poses a real and present danger and it is our responsibility to take action on the commission's recommendations, regardless of committee or party or jurisdiction or turf.

KWAME HOLMAN: And on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Bill Frist.

SEN. BILL FRIST: Our national defense requires no less than a new unified effort, bipartisan effort, to transform the Senate to meet these new threats.

KWAME HOLMAN: Congress meanwhile has six weeks, at most, to turn all of the recommendations and testimony into legislation both Houses can pass and the president will sign, before members leave again to campaign for the November elections.

FOCUS TRACKING POLLUTION

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a science unit report on efforts to prove air pollution is a global problem that demands a global solution.

Betty Ann Bowser has our report.

(balloon launch)

SPOKESPERSON: Here we go.

SPOKESPERSON: One, two, three.

SPOKESPERSON: Here we go.

SPOKESPERSON: All right!

BETTY ANN BOWSER: As part of the biggest scientific study of air pollution in history, a weather balloon was recently launched from a research ship off the coast of New Hampshire. On another part of the vessel, graduate student Jeff Leach took readings from the balloon.

JEFF LEACH: And it's giving us the relative humidity, ozone pressure and the ozone mixing ratio.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: A few moments later, a NASA research plane flew overhead with three sophisticated instruments onboard to take readings. Though the technologies were different, they all focused on measuring one thing: Air pollution. According to Cameron wake at the University of New Hampshire, air pollution contributes to some 60,000 deaths a year.

CAMERON WAKE: We know that when there's an air pollution event that the people that need to go to the emergency room for pulmonary problems increases. If you want to put it into economic terms, we're talking something on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars per year that it costs our economy -- air pollution-- because people have to go to the hospital, because of mortality, and because of lost work days.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: This summer, hundreds of scientists like Wake took part in a massive air pollution study involving six countries, 25 universities, NOAA, NASA, and private foundations. They had three satellites, 55 ground stations, 13 planes, and the NOAA ship "Ron Brown" to make air pollution measurements. It's all part of the International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation, or more simply put, ICARRT.

The scientists were especially interested in the chemistry of one of the newest discoveries of modern atmospheric science; that air pollution is not just a local problem. Huge plumes of bad air can be generated half a world away, and transported across oceans and between continents. Dr. Berrien Moore is a University of New Hampshire scientist.

BERRIEN MOORE: What happens in Beijing will affect Boston, what happens in Boston will affect Paris, et cetera. And I think that that's something that we will have... even as we begin to solve local problems, this connectivity of the planet will come back at us time and time again.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Atmospheric scientists want to understand the chemistry of those connections, and what impact that has on global climate change. And in order to gain that knowledge scientists have to be able to track the plumes. Daniel Jacob of Harvard University has developed a computer model to follow one pollutant, carbon monoxide.

DANIEL JACOB: What you're going to see in this movie is the transport basically around the world of this gas, to the point where emissions from Asia affect North America, emissions from North America affect Europe, emissions from Europe affect Asia, and you have this dance of pollution around and around the world. We're all breathing each others' exhaust.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In fact, the U.S. part of the study was done in New England because it's been described as "the tailpipe of America," where much of the pollution flows from the Midwest and Southeast, then out to sea. In order to track that kind of movement, Greg Carmichael from the University of Iowa has developed another computer model that locates the plumes, then tells the planes where to fly, and the "Ron Brown" where to go at sea.

GREG CARMICHAEL: This blue color that we see here is actually the New York plume. So this would be identification of where the pollutants from the New York area are going. The brown cloud here indicates the Midwest, the green is California. So this way we can isolate source areas. So, a computer model like this would say that if we wanted to look at the really dirty stuff, then we could fly to... on this particular day we could fly to the southeast U.S. If we wanted to look at the really clean material, we could fly out east over the ocean.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: One of the planes NASA used was a DC-8 fitted with multiple air intake ports along the outer body. On the inside are dozens of custom-built instruments to take measurements of up to 180 different chemicals. The equipment can detect concentrations as low as ten parts per billion.

SPOKESMAN: What we're looking at is a gas called formaldehyde, which is one of the many constituents that are important in trying to understand pollution chemistry.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: NOAA adapted its hurricane-chasing P-3 plane for closer-in flights, such as this mission up the coast of New England. The exotic technology let scientists isolate specific chemicals and see how they mix in the atmosphere to form substances like ozone, which can be a health hazard in high concentrations. While the planes are in the air and the research ship "Brown" is at sea, people like Fred Fehsenfeld, NOAA's chief scientist, are following events on land.

FRED FEHSENFELD: The warmer colors down here indicate that the aircraft was flying at lower elevations. And it was flying through the plume of material associated with the urban centers and the industries out here. And then as the plane moved to the North, you can see the colors turning to cooler colors. And this is where it intercepted the plume of smoke that's coming from the Alaskan forest fires.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: One of the first practical applications that will be made with the ICART data is to human health. Cameron Wake and his students asked 600 volunteers to blow into an instrument called a spirometer that measures lung capacity. Then they compared the data to see if there were more lung problems in places where the planes also turned up more pollution. Sometimes they were able to match the data down to specific zip codes.

CAMERON WAKE: We're building on previous studies, so our expectation really is that when we do have air pollution events, we're going to see a reduction in pulmonary function. So one of the things that we hope to be able to do from this study is begin to pull apart different types of fine particles, and how those different types of fine particles might be affecting human health.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Wake believes we can better combat the health problems of pollution if we can find, and then attack, those pollutants which are having the most negative effect. Another application of the data will begin this fall, when the NOAA will start doing daily air quality forecasts for New England. It won't be as accurate as weather forecasting, but it is a start.

GREG CARMICHAEL: I think we're making good progress. I think over the next two to five years that we will have very, very good predictive capability.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Scientists want to predict air quality because, unlike the weather, if people know air pollution is coming, they can do something about it.

GREG CARMICHAEL: Let's say the news person comes on, the weather person comes on and says, "tomorrow, here's the snapshot of what the air quality will be tomorrow. But here's what the air quality would be if 50 percent of the people decided not to drive. And so, if 50 percent of the people don't drive tomorrow, the air quality's going to get much better."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Ultimately, the data collected by ICART may influence public policy. Tim Bates is NOAA's chief scientist on board the "Ron Brown."

TIM BTES: I think as we have more and more scientific information, as we can state with higher certainty that this is the way that our emissions and our pollution is affecting health and climate -- that decision- makers will have the information that they need.

They have some difficult decisions to make. They certainly are going to cause some economic hardships to make cleaner air, and to reduce our influence on the changing climate.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And because atmospheric scientists now know air pollution is a global problem, they believe it will also demand global solutions. For example, Jacobs says that problems in the U.S. can never be solved unless the dramatically rising levels of pollution in Asia are also attacked.

DANIEL JACOBS: We have right now on the books from EPA a regulation that says our national parks have to get natural visibility conditions by 2064. We'll never get back to natural visibility conditions because of pollution from Asia. In other words, either you engage with the Chinese in reducing their emissions, or you say, "Well, natural visibility isn't achievable."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And atmospheric scientists say even with better science, the key to better air for everybody on the planet is cooperation between the nations.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: Heavy fighting erupted in Baghdad, as American deaths in the war approached 1,000. The remnants of Hurricane Frances dumped heavy rain across the Southeast, and Florida struggled with widespread flooding. And the Congressional Budget Office projected the federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion this fiscal year, but that's not as large as first estimated. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.