The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of today's news; three perspectives on President Bush's Korean trip, and "axis of evil" rhetoric; a look at a school voucher and a death penalty case before the U.S. Supreme Court today; and the debut of Tom's Journal, a conversation series on the travels of "New York Times" columnist Tom Friedman.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Bush today said the United States is not planning to attack North Korea. But he said again the communist state is "evil." He spoke in Seoul, South Korea, and at the demilitarized zone that divides the two Koreas. The President accused the North of starving its people to build a massive army. He also praised the South's efforts at reconciliation. We'll have more on this story in a few minutes. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld today denied the Pentagon had plans to feed false stories to foreign media. The "New York Times" had reported the new Office of Strategic Influence proposed such action to promote U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. Rumsfeld said the military does not give out disinformation to reporters, at home or abroad. He spoke in Salt Lake City.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Government officials, the Department of Defense, this Secretary and the people that work with me tell the American people and the people of the world the truth. And to the extent anyone says anything that at any time proves to have been not accurate, they correct it atthe earliest possible opportunity. I've read some of these articles that are floating around, and my advice is to think of it the way I've just described it. That's the way it works. That's the way it has worked. That's the way it will work in the future.

JIM LEHRER: But the Secretary said the Pentagon might use deception on the battlefield, but to confuse the enemy. Afghanistan's top leaders split today over the murder of the aviation minister. He was beaten to death at the Kabul airport last week. Today, Foreign Minister Abdullah said it now appears he was, in fact, killed by people angry over flight delays. But interim leader Hamid Karzai has said it was an assassination planned by senior officials. The education minister said today he supports Karzai's view. Israeli troops killed at least 16 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza today. Air raids, tank fire and machine guns blasted offices of the Palestinian Authority. The targets included Yasser Arafat's compound in Gaza and his headquarters in Ramallah. The attacks were reprisals for a Palestinian raid that killed half a dozen Israeli soldiers. Arafat today appealed to President Bush to intervene. In Egypt today, fire swept through a crowded passenger train, killing more than 370 people. We have a report from Kevin Dunn of Independent Television News.

KEVIN DUNN, ITN: This was the worst rail disaster in Egypt's history. Seven carriages of an 11-car train were reduced to a smoldering burned-out wreck. The death toll was so high -- it might reach 400-- because the train was overcrowded, packed with people traveling to Luxor for the Muslim Eid religious holiday. The blaze was made worse because the train hurtled on for three miles before stopping, wind whipping up the flames, and bars on the windows trapped many passengers inside. Those who survived hurled themselves out of carriage doors. "The train kept going for a long time," this man said. "The driver didn't realize there was a fire." This man said the smoke was coming at them, so they opened a door and jumped out while the train was still moving. Investigators say early indications are that the fire was caused by a gas cylinder or stove exploding. Many Egyptians carry portable stoves with them on long journeys, even though regulations forbid it.

JIM LEHRER: Officials said all of the victims were believed to have been Egyptians. The U.S. Supreme Court today heard arguments in two major cases. One, from Virginia, will decide whether the Constitution bars the states from executing mentally retarded killers. The Court upheld such executions in 1989. Today, 18 states have banned them. The other case, from Cleveland, could determine whether states may spend tax dollars on vouchers for private or religious schools. We'll have more on both cases later in the program. Prices at the retail level climbed a bit last month for the first time since September. The Labor Department reported today the Consumer Price Index rose 0.2% in January. The rising cost of gasoline was one of the factors. At the Olympics in Salt Lake City, the U.S. today won the first skeleton races at the winter games in 54 years. That sport involves going head- first down the bobsled chute on a tiny sled. American Jim Shea won the men's gold medal. His grandfather was an Olympic speed skater in 1932. He was killed in a car wreck just last month, at age 91. Americans Tristan Gale and Lea Ann Parsley won gold and silver today in the first-ever women's skeleton race. And last night, American bobsledder Vonetta Flowers became the first black athlete to win a gold medal in any winter games. Again, video of today's competition was not available due to the Olympics' television contract. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to calling North Korea evil, two important Supreme Court arguments, and the debut of Tom Friedman's Journal.

FOCUS - KOREAN VISIT

JIM LEHRER: The Korea story; Spencer Michels begins.

SPENCER MICHELS: President Bush wrapped up his trip to South Korea today, mixing criticism of North Korea with renewed calls for dialogue with the communist state. At a news conference in the capital, Seoul, President Bush and South Korean President Kim Dae Jung said their talks today had been "frank," a diplomatic term reflecting their differing approaches on how to deal with North Korea. President Kim, who met with his North Korean counterpart, Kim Jong Il, almost two years ago, has persisted in his "sunshine policy" to reunite with the North, while President Bush has included North Korea in a so- called "axis of evil." Mr. Bush said today he backed the sunshine policy and explained why he has been so critical of North Korea.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We're peaceful people. We have no intention of invading North Korea. South Korea has no intention of attacking North Korea, nor does America. Some in this country are... obviously have read about my very strong comments about the nature of the regime. And let me explain why I made the comments I did. I love freedom. I understand the importance of freedom in people's lives. I am troubled by a regime that tolerates starvation. I worry about a regime that is closed and not transparent. I am deeply concerned about the people of North Korea, and I believe that it is important for those of us who love freedom to stand strong for freedom and make it clear the benefits of freedom. And that's exactly why I said what I said about the North Korean regime. I know what can happen when people are free. I see it right here in South Korea. And I'm passionate on the subject. And I believe so strongly in the rights of the individual that I, Mr. President, will continue to speak out. Having said that, of course, as you and I discussed, we're more than willing to speak out publicly and speak out in private with the North Korean leadership. And again, I wonder why they haven't taken up our offer.

SPOKESMAN: Sir, there's a joint security area...

SPENCER MICHELS: President Bush made a lunchtime visit to the demilitarized zone, or DMZ, between the two Koreas. One of the world's most heavily guarded borders, it has divided the peninsula since a 1953 armistice ended the Korean War. (Gunfire) That conflict began half a century ago when the North invaded the South. More than 30,000 American soldiers and more than one million Korean military and civilians were killed. Since then, the two countries have remained technically at war. Today, President Bush met some of the 37,000 U.S. soldiers who help protect South Korea from its northern neighbor. They told him a story about a 1976 attack by North Korean soldiers, which killed two U.S. servicemen. The President talked of that incident.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: They have a peace museum there, and the axes that were used to slaughter two U.S. soldiers are in the peace museum. No wonder I think they're evil.

SPENCER MICHELS: Later, the President spoke at the Dorasan train station, the last South Korean stop on a North-South railway line severed since the Korean War. He said he hopes to see the peninsula reunited one day.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: President Kim has just shown me a road he built, a road for peace. And he's shown me where that road abruptly ends right here at the DMZ. That road has the potential to bring the peoples on both sides of this divided land together.

SPENCER MICHELS: While President Bush was traveling through Korea, in Seoul, scores of protesters demonstrated against his tough stance on North Korea. President Bush travels from South Korea to China on Thursday.

JIM LEHRER: More now from James Lilley, an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the first Bush Administration, U.S. Ambassador to South Korea during the Reagan Administration; Wendy Sherman, special advisor to the President and to the Secretary of State for North Korea Policy during the Clinton Administration; and Selig Harrison, former journalist; he's written extensively about Korea. His latest book is "Korean Endgame: A Strategy for Reunification and U.S. Disengagement." It will be published in April.

JIM LEHRER: And how well do you think the President did today in handling this North Korea evil issue?

SELIG HARRISON: Well, he's made it worse. Until there's some indication that the United States is ready to negotiate with North Korea in a productive way, that is, not just laying down ultimatums about what they have to do but indicating what we might be willing to do to cooperate with them to solve the problems we have, I think there's going to be a lot of tension in South Korea because there won't be... between South Korea and the United States because there won't be a resumption of negotiations with North Korea, and there will always be a danger of drifting into tensions over nuclear inspections and over the missile issue. If the President wants to... if he doesn't like North Korea, what he should be doing is trying to open up dialogue with North Korea. And although he says he is, if you look at what he is saying and what other people in the administration are saying, they're really not talking about a negotiation; they're talking about a court proceeding, a trial in which North Korea is the defendant at the bar and, you know, the United States is the judge, the jury and the executioner all wrapped up into one and the verdict is already in: They're bad guys. So there's been nothing to suggest that we're willing to carry on the process of normalizing relations that Wendy Sherman helped to begin to negotiate. And so I think that his visit, while it dampened down some of the tension between the U.S. and South Korea and Kim Dae Jung didn't want it to be serious, so he played it very cool, I think that things are not going to be good.

JIM LEHRER: Not going to be good?

JAMES LILLEY: No, I think they're going to be good. I think this has started us off on a new track. The agreement between President Kim Dae Jung and President Bush was outstanding. The joint statement showed no light between the two. This has been the case when they met in Shanghai and in the case when they met in Washington last year in March. I know it's been blown up by people saying there was insults. That was not the way it happened.

JIM LEHRER: But on the North Korea issue specifically the use of the word "evil," the axis of evil thing in the State of the Union, his use of it again several times today or in this trip, is that a good thing or is that a bad thing? Does that make things worse or better?

JAMES LILLEY: I think he calls a spade a spade. I know that if you actually went to the South Korean population and asked them this, do they think the North Korean regime is evil I would say probably 80% would say it was. I think 70% would think the use of the term right now isperhaps inappropriate, a very soft word. They know the North Korean regime very, very well. They know the track record of murder, assassination, sabotage, killing. It went on and on and on. They are now willing to go with them and President Bush has given 100% support for President Kim Dae Jung's sunshine policy. He did it in March last year.

JIM LEHRER: Explain the sunshine policy.

JAMES LILLEY: Sunshine is engagement with North Korea. It's five points linking up the railroads, setting up an industrial zone, reunification of families, and there's two others. But it's a whole business of getting together and Bush says I'm behind you 100%. In addition to strengthening your position, I'll sit down with them any time anywhere and talk unconditionally.

JIM LEHRER: You disagree with Selig Harrison that the evil statements walk on that and hurt that effort rather than help it.

JAMES LILLEY: The whole momentum of the relationship is way beyond the little... the term "evil." It's a real flourishing relationship we have with South Korea. Under Reagan we started the modest initiative in North Korea. We had the first meeting with them in January of 1992. I was up there in '95 and met them and reaffirmed what I was... what I was going to do. I gave them all of Kim Dae Jung's writings on reunification in Korean. So I can say we want to move on this thing. We want to be positive. We want to deal with them. Bush said we are not going to attack; take that off the table. So I mean a lot of positive things are going to come out of this.

JIM LEHRER: Wendy Sherman, do you agree, we're beyond evil?

WENDY SHERMAN: I think we took some important steps with the President's trip to South Korea, but I think quite frankly, Jim, we don't know yet exactly what's going to happen. I think it was quite critical that the President go to South Korea, stand next to President Kim Dae Jung who is really a historical figure, who's really thought about how to bring about reconciliation of the Korean people between North and South. It was important to stand with him, to stand by him, to affirm the engagement policy. It was quite critical I agree with Ambassador Lilley, to say that the United States was not about to attack North Korea, to say we didn't have an immediate hostile intent toward North Korea. I think all of those things are quite positive. And the President saying we're ready to dialogue at any time, any place, anywhere, anyhow; but I have a little bit of "Sig" Harrison's wariness because the North Koreans haven't heard the message the way the President thinks it has been delivered. What the North has heard is that, yes, the United States will talk with us but only if we're willing to act on all areas all at once and give up all of our chips all at once on conventional weapons, on missiles, on nuclear inspections, on human rights, on religious freedom-- all of which are very serious and fundamental problems. Negotiations don't exactly work that way to put a grand package together, and we put in a huge process led by Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry to talk with these gentlemen and many, many, many, many more men and women around the world and here in the U.S. to think about the best way to approach North Korea. I still think the Perry process, which is based on the engagement process, is the best way to go.

JIM LEHRER: What about the idea that the President laying the law down to them, calling them and putting them in the same league with Iraq and Iran and calling them part of this axis of evil helps the situation or hurts it? Do you feel like it helps?

WENDY SHERMAN: I don't think it was particularly helpful.

JIM LEHRER: Why not?

WENDY SHERMAN: It was very understandable as a rhetorical device to rally the American people to cause against terrorism and to the cause against weapons of mass destruction, which none of us want. What I think was wrong about it in terms of North Korea is North Korea has negotiated successfully with us. We have a 1994 framework agreement that stops the production of fissile material, which is the plutonium, the kind of plutonium needed to build nuclear weapons. They agreed to that framework agreement. They have principally kept to that agreement and taken the steps that were necessary for it to take. It's not finished yet. We still have a ways to go, but they do and can follow through. We need to hold them to it. Our agreements have to be verifiable. They need to be tough but it can be done.

JIM LEHRER: Ambassador Lilley, how do you feel about the use of the word in terms... you've dealt with the North Koreans as you've said. How do you think they are reacting to that? Do you think that makes them more likely to sit down with us and make a deal and get this thing behind us or the opposite or do you know?

JAMES LILLEY: Well right now they have not commented on President Bush's trip to Seoul. What they have done is to stream out if usual vituperation against him: Rogue, murder, all these things, which they've used all the way. They've never stopped. They've used it on him and they're using it again. To me words are words. You get on with the action. I think Bush has said -- I think Wendy is right in many ways but I think Bush has not laid any kind of conditions on this thing. He wants to talk with them. He wants to... they can have their agenda items. We have ours. We reach a common agenda and we start dealing with it.

JIM LEHRER: Let's go through... what is it that we want North Korea to do?

SELIG HARRISON: One of the things the President is emphasizing the most is missile export, stopping their missile exports.

JIM LEHRER: Do we know they're doing it?

SELIG HARRISON: Sure. They're doing it. One of our dear friend Pakistan is getting most of them. The President doesn't point that out. They were getting some from the... Iran was getting some. Now most of the ones they're getting they're exporting to Pakistan. Now there's a missile export deal ready to be made. If instead of all this evil talk we had a little sweet talk. You know, they are willing to stop their missile exports. I think the Clinton Administration found that out. All they really want is some more food aid, some electricity assistance. They're all sitting in North Korea shivering tonight because they have an energy crisis. So we can make a deal on missiles. The President talks about conventional forces as if it's evil. One of the reasons they're evil he says is that they've deployed conventional forces far forward along the border with South Korea. Well, the reason they are there is because they regard us as a threat to them. They're trying to deter us from a pre-emptive air strike. On September 17, 1999, Bill Perry was on the NewsHour -- had just come back from North Korea. And he was asked by Margaret Warner why are they making missiles? And he said well they have many reasons but the main one is security deterrence. Who are they deterring? They're deterring us. And he said, we don't think we're a threat to them, but they think we're a threat to us.

JIM LEHRER: Where do you come down on this Wendy Sherman based on your talks with them? Are they making... whether it's conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction, are they making them for their potential own use, either as a defensive thing or to attack South Korea or are they trying to go into the business? What is it we're really after them to stop?

WENDY SHERMAN: I think it's many things. I think first and foremost it is because they see us as a threat to their survival. And regime survival --

JIM LEHRER: In what way?

WENDY SHERMAN: When we visited the first time, Dr. Perry and I to North Korea, we were bombing in Yugoslavia at the time. And every person we met with said we are not going to be Yugoslavia. And what they meant by that is we are not going to sit here defenseless and not have missiles to return to the United States should you attack us. Now some of that is hyperbole, but some of that is a real feeling of we are this tiny little country and they've closed themselves off from the world but it makes them feel embattled. I don't want to make excuses for the terrible things North Korea has done but nonetheless it's the psychology of how they operate. I think, too, that they do this for hard currency. Certainly the exports are so that they can get money, yes, to support their military, which is terrible, and to have some economic basis for going forward because their economy is in complete and utter shambles.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read that, Ambassador Lilley, as to what it is that we want them really to do and why they're doing what they're doing.

JAMES LILLEY: I think we're looking for a number of things. We're looking for a peaceful Korea, a unified Korea and Bush spelled this out today. Number two, we are looking for a Korea without weapons of mass destruction. The Chinese agree with us on that. Three, we're looking at Korea where the North and South Korea take the lead and the United States steps back. On the agreed framework and the missile deal, I would respectfully disagree with my good colleague Wendy. I do not think the framework and the light water reactors was a good deal at all. I think we paid through the ears for it. I think they are not allowing inspections. We cannot install the machinery, and also the light water reactors, I am told by Vic Galinski of the National... I'm sorry Nuclear Regulatory Commission that these can produce weapons great plutonium. And you have not solved the problem at all whether they do it or don't do it. Second on the missile deal I was told by Torkel Patterson who went public on this thing, the deal was a long way from being done. Verification was not in there and the pay-off package was much bigger than we think. We do not think you can buy these guys off. We think you sit and develop a negotiating strategy with them where we have our points and we have theirs.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think we can buy them off?

SELIG HARRISON: Yes, I think that....

JIM LEHRER: In a word, yes?

SELIG HARRISON: There's no question about it, if the price is right. And if you're willing to... you not only buy them with money, you also have to recognize that they do consider us a military threat. So if you're talking about something, which is very important, which is getting them to pull back from the border with South Korea where they are in a threatening posture, they're there for defensive reasons but they're still posing a threat. If you want them to do that, we have to be prepared to talk about our forces in Korea and what they're doing there and whether we're willing pull back from the DMZ also. The President doesn't talk about that. You says to the North Koreans you guys pull back. If you don't you're evil.

JIM LEHRER: Well, there's a lot more to talk about but we're out of time. Thank you all three very much.

FOCUS - SUPREME COURT WATCH

JIM LEHRER: And still to come on the NewsHour tonight, major business at the U.S. Supreme Court, and the travels of Tom Friedman.

Gwen Ifill has the Supreme Court story.

GWEN IFILL: The Court heard arguments in two major cases today: One, a death penalty challenge on behalf of a mentally retarded man; the other, on the constitutionality of an Ohio voucher program that makes government money available to religious schools.

For more on today's debate, are joined by NewsHour regular Jan Crawford Greenburg, Supreme Court reporter for the "Chicago Tribune."

Jan, let's start with the death penalty argument. The basic case that was being mat the death penalty is cruel and unusual when applied to people who are mentally retarded.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right, that it would violate the constitution's 8th amendment, which prohibits punishment that's cruel and unusual to execute the mentally retarded. That's what the Justices took up today. This case comes from Virginia. It involves an appeal by a convicted killer named Daryl Atkins whose lawyers say is mentally retarded and who has an IQ of 59 when the cut-off would be about 70. On appeal after he was sentenced to death, he argued that his death sentence was disproportionate under Virginia law because the state had never executed anyone with that low of an IQ. And last year the Supreme Court agreed to get involved to see whether the death sentence in his case would violate the federal Constitution.

GWEN IFILL: Hasn't the Court spoken on this issue before about the idea of the death penalty being extended to the mentally retarded?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: It did. It wasn't that long ago. It was in 1989. In that case the court ruled in a narrowly divided opinion, 5-4 written by Justice O'Connor, that there was no national consensus on whether or not the 8th Amendment prohibited this type of punishment. Now, to determine whether there's a national consensus, the Court said then that you had to look at the states and state laws to see if there had been any kind of evolving standards and evolving standards of decency. It noted that in 1989 only two states prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded, that allowed death penalty in other cases.

GWEN IFILL: So what has changed since then?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, the lawyers for Mr. Atkins argue that a lot has changed. And they say now 18 states prohibit this practice. 12 states prohibit the death penalty entirely, so taken with those states, they say a majority of the states would not allow the mentally retarded to be excused. And that, they say, is a national consensus and should indicate that the 8th Amendment prohibits the practice.

GWEN IFILL: When you say consensus, are they taking into account public opinion or just public laws?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, that came up in Court today. The Chief Justice, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said how do we decide? What's a national consensus? Do we look at the state laws. He later said are you looking at polls. Justice O'Connor in the argument said no we need to look at the states, the state laws, what the state legislatures have spoken on this issue.

GWEN IFILL: So take us inside the courtroom today. What was the conversation that was going on back and forth among the Justices and with the attorneys?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, the lawyer for Mr. Atkins said the evidence is clear and he pointed to all these states that since 1989 have outlawed this practice. A lawyer for the state of Virginia said these laws are just a blip on the radar screen of public opinion, as she put it. And she said that's not a consensus. Most of these have been on the books for five years, about average, and so it's not enduring. It's not good enough. This was a hard case, I think, to get a read on in the Justices. They seemed a little frustrated particularly in the second half of the argument when the state's lawyer was making her case. I think some of the more conservative Justices seemed reluctant to strip the states of their authority to make these kinds of calls. But others, the more liberal Justices on the court, suggested that perhaps it was time to rule that this punishment was unconstitutional. Of course the Justice that we're all looking to in this case like we do in so many cases is Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who, as I mentioned, wrote that 1989 opinion saying no national consensus then. So, of course, everyone wants to know does she see a national consensus now.

GWEN IFILL: If the court were to overturn this lower court ruling what would be the ripple effect on other courts in other states?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: A dramatic effect. Of course it would mean that the 20 laws that don't speak to this issue, that presumably still would... the 20 states that presumably still would allow this practice could no longer do it. It would be flatly unconstitutional. Justice Scalia seemed concerned about that today because he said once the court makes this decision, the states can't... we can't go back. The states can't come back in and say, well, we've changed our mind.

GWEN IFILL: Okay. Let's move on to the other big case before the court today. That had to do with the school voucher case in Cleveland. First describe the case to us.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, this involves a challenge to an Ohio program that was created in 1995 to address what was then called a crisis in the Cleveland public schools, an education crisis. The state legislature came up with this program to give students in these failing schools a way out. And what the state legislature did at that time was say, you can make yourselves... we're going to make these grants, tuition grants available, up to $2500 per student generally available to all children in failing school districts. A group of parents and teachers immediately sued to block this practice. They argued that because the grants could be used at schools that were affiliated with religious institutions that that violated the Constitution's establishment clause, which, as you know, says that the government cannot establish a religion.

GWEN IFILL: So they are arguing that there is automatically a connection between vouchers and religion?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, in this case because the vouchers are being used as schools with religious affiliations they argue that that amounts to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The government, they argue, is basically handing over money to religious schools in violation of the First Amendment.

GWEN IFILL: And how many of the schools involved in the program in Cleveland are religious schools?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: It's a substantial number. Out of fifty-one participating in the program nine are not religious. As it came out today in Court, the vast majority, up to 99%, of these children are going to religious schools. But the voucher supporters very strongly argued-- and they seemed to get quite a lot of sympathy, I believe, in Court today from the Justices-- that this is not unconstitutional because there's almost a circuit breaker. This is not a case where the state is writing out a check to a religious institution. This is a case where the state -- this is their argument -- where the state is making these tuition grants available, and the parents choose what to do with that money.

GWEN IFILL: So the concept is one of private choice, that as long as the parents are the ones making this choice that it's okay. What is private choice precisely?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, that is exactly what the Ohio Assistant Attorney General said was... I mean a cornerstone of her argument today. Private choice is the choice that parents have on where this money is going to go. Is it going to go to a religious school or is it going to go to another private school? That's critical or that was critical in her argument today, that this program was not... was not unconstitutional. She also said that the program was neutral. That was another important part of her argument.

GWEN IFILL: Now back to our favorite swing Justice, which is Sandra Day O'Connor. Why is she key in this one as well?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: She's very important in this case too because four Justices two years ago all but gave the green light in a ruling in a totally unrelated case but gave the green light for school vouchers. In that case they upheld the constitutionality of a federal program that permitted loans of computer education... computer equipment to religious schools. Justice O'Connor agreed with the outcome in that case but she wouldn't sign on to their rationale. The rationale in that case by the four more conservative Justices led by Justice Thomas then said that this kind of program was available as long as it was administered neutrally -- again that neutral language. So O'Connor wouldn't go along with them. So now, you know, of course we're all trying to see where she's going to come down here too.

GWEN IFILL: Thank you, Jan.

GWEN IFILL: The voucher debate has also been played out in state capitals, the White House and in Congress. For more on the pros and cons of the idea, we are joined by Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State; and Clint Bolick, legal director of the Institute for Justice.

Mr. Bolick, if as Jan just described, so many of these schools are religious schools at this... that this voucher money is going to, how can you say this is not a religious program?

CLINT BOLICK: Well there's two reasons. First of all not a single dollar of public funds crosses the threshold of a religious school unless a parent has chosen to remove her children from the Cleveland schools or not send them to the Cleveland schools in the first place -- and to choose... this program among a competing array of choice programs in Cleveland and then to choose a religious school. In fact, non-religious schools do participate in the program, and no one who has wanted a non-religious school has been turned away. The second thing is the explanation for why there are so many kids in religious schools in this program. And that is two-fold. First of all, suburban public schools were invited to participate in the program and received three times as much money as the private schools in the program. They all said no, we don't want these kids coming to our schools. But private schools -- mainly religious schools -- said we will take them. The other reason is that nonsectarian private schools can become charter schools in Cleveland. The two largest nonsectarian schools in the scholarship program became charter schools and now get twice as much money as in the scholarship program. That's why there's so many kids in religious schools but they are all there by choice.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Lynn as long as parents are choosing to send their children to these private schools, to these religious schools, what's wrong with that?

BARRY LYNN: I think we have to get back to first principles which is that in this country the government does not force taxpayers to subsidize religion. That is to say, we don't have tax dollars paying for churches, temples, mosques or synagogues. Consequently, we also should not be forcing taxpayers to support the religious ministries of those parent organizations. And time after time when we depose, that is, we go in and ask people why they start these private religious schools, they are primarily designed to promote the faith. I don't think that the taxpayers of Ohio ought to be asked to support through involuntary payments, payments that go overwhelmingly, 96% of the cases, to religious schools. The parent in this case is not a circuit breaker. The parent is simply the person who signs over the check, which has been mailed from the treasury of Ohio, to the private school -- the parent goes in and signs it over to the school. It's really direct payment, no different than the kinds of programs that the Supreme Court rejected in the 1970s that said even if parents are reimbursed for tuition, it still... it is still money that is flowing into the coffers of religious schools.

GWEN IFILL: If the Cleveland schools are failing schools, what should be done instead?

BARRY LYNN: Well, first of all we shouldn't be taking $11 million a year and transferring it away from disadvantaged young people in the Cleveland public schools and moving it into these private schools, which by the way aren't even performing academically any better than the public schools. But there are things we can do. And we know what they are because in many other American cities at-risk young people have been helped by specific programs that are tested, tried, true and workable developed at Johns Hopkins, the University of Pennsylvania. Now they cost money. So the question is do we really want to divert money to private religious schools through this side show of vouchers or do we want to spend the $11 million and more, if necessary, to buy programs that work, that make an academic difference, that literally change the lives of disadvantaged students? If we follow Clint's plan, we will get sidetracked away from what ought to be the fundamental guarantee and has been since Brown Versus Board of Education: A quality public school, free education that works for every child in America.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Bolick, if the de facto result of this program is that most students end up in religious schools, they end up saluting the Christian flag as well as the American flag, is that the goal?

CLINT BOLICK: Oh, absolutely not. The goal here is education. And what the state did was to look for every possible option for these kids. It made tutors available for kids in public schools. It created charter schools that can be nonsectarian private schools or public schools. It invited the suburban public schools to try to help solve the problem and it extended the choice to religious schools. Now if you look at all schools of choice within the Cleveland school district, only about 16.5% of the kids are in religiously affiliated schools. Other kids are in magnet schools or charter schools, which are non-religious. But the point is this is aneducational rescue program. An alarm bell was set off. And it turns out that religious schools disproportionately answered that alarm bell. And the parents who choose it-- and I represent these parents-- they are not sending their kids there to salute the Christian flag. They're sending them there because it's a place where they know their kids will be safe and receive a high quality education. It seems to me this fulfills the goals of public education. We should worry less about where a child is being educated and worrying more about whether a child is being educated.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Lynn.

BARRY LYNN: Well, I do think we have to worry though about what's going to work. We have to find systems that work. And we also have to recognize that this program is to help private schools. Now it turns out that this has also turned out to be a bailout of the religious school system in Cleveland. They were closing schools. All of a sudden now they have some more income, which does allow them to be bailed out. So to look as this as if the history of this program was simply to help students I think belies the history of this whole program. It is to help, among other things, the major parochial school system in the City of Cleveland.

GWEN IFILL: If this program were instituted and as it happened most of the participants were not religious schools, would you support it?

BARRY LYNN: No, I wouldn't, because I don't think that they should be ever endorsing by forcing taxpayers to support religious ideas with which they disagree. How religious are they? I mean one of these schools literally has on its admission form that you should not feel comfortable sending your child to the school unless you're a Christian or expect to become one. I mean this is a tremendous pressure. This belies the notion that this is just a kind of feel-good system open to everyone. Most of these schools have as their principal mission -- and believe me as a minister myself, I understand and accept and support the notion that religious schools should have a religious purpose -- but I do not think that the answer, and in fact I think the moral answer as well as the constitutional answer is not to take money away from public school students and divert it into these private religious academies. It's sad to say this, but the history of vouchers didn't begin yesterday. It didn't begin with Clint Bolick. It began after the Brown Versus Board of Education decision requiring integration of schools. Private white academies in the South said, you know, we think it would be a good idea for us to try to get vouchers, state- supported taxpayer funded vouchers. Then we can send our kids off into white schools and have the government pay for it. Ultimately we're going to end up with the same thing, not integration but....

GWEN IFILL: Let me let Mr. Bolick respond to that.

CLINT BOLICK: Well, if you accept Barry's logic, then of course the G.I. Bill and Pell grants would also be unconstitutional because you can use those grants to go to a divinity school to study for the ministry, which obviously advances the mission of the religious organization. Barry has already lost that battle and so he's trying to draw a new battle line here. What is totally offensive about what Barry just said comparing this to the segregation academies after Brown Versus Board of Education the overwhelming majority of parents in the school choice programs around the country are Black and Hispanic. They are overwhelmingly low income. These are the kids that the public school system in many instances has given up on. This is their life preserver.

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask you this. Who is... if not the government, who is to rescue failing public schools?

CLINT BOLICK: Well that's exactly right. The government does need to rescue failing schools. But in the meantime, you know, we keep talking about all of these wonderful programs that Barry is talking about, but every single urban school system in the United States remains lousy even though many of them are now spending 13 or 14,000 dollars.

BARRY LYNN: That's simply not true.

CLINT BOLICK: The fact is that these parents are saying I can't wait until Barry saves the schools. They want a money-back guarantee.

BARRY LYNN: The truth in most of these programs after a few years what happens is more middle class parents end up starting to get these vouchers. It stops being just a program that even in theory helps only the poor and it begins to balkanize communities further along what turn out to be racial and religious lines. I don't think that's the solution. I think when Clint accuses people in the educational reform movement of not succeeding, it's because he's not looking at these programs. It does cost a little money but in the long run it doesn't even cost as much as his voucher program, and it works...for all kids.

GWEN IFILL: A final question to you both: How much hinges on the Supreme Court decision for your movement?

BARRY LYNN: Frankly, even if the Supreme Court were to uphold vouchers, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that, except in the minds of some voucher promoters, vouchers do not work to enhance academic achievement in any substantial way. I think state legislators and Congress will continue to reject it as just a bad idea. If it doesn't work let's not spend money for it.

CLINT BOLICK: What hinges on this decision is whether the promise of Brown Versus Board of Education of an equal educational opportunity is going to be realized. If we have to go outside the public sector, then that's what we have to do.

GWEN IFILL: Clint Bolick, Barry Lynn, thank you very much for joining us.

SERIES - TOM'S JOURNAL

JIM LEHRER: Now, we launch a new NewsHour feature, Tom's Journal, keyed to the many travels of "New York Times" foreign affairs columnist Tom Friedman. Each time Tom comes back from an overseas trip, he'll stop here for a debriefing on what he saw and heard. Margaret Warner does the launching.

MARGARET WARNER: And with me now is Tom Friedman. He's just returned from an eight-day trip to Saudi Arabia. Welcome, Tom.

You have since 9/11 written a lot of columns very critical of the Saudis saying essentially they contributed to the rise of bin Ladenism. How were you received when you went?

TOM FRIEDMAN: It was interesting. Saudi Arabia has basically been closed to journalists since 1990, since the end of the Gulf War up until 9/11. And I asked for a visa basically out of the blue. They surprised me frankly by giving it to me immediately. How was I received? Well the average reaction of Saudis who weren't prepared by the government to receive me was like this. You have to understand one thing. My column actually runs there in Arabic in one of the big Arabic dailies so people there knew what I had been writing, the criticism I had been making. This is the average reaction. Hi, I'm Tom Friedman. The Tom Friedman who writes? That Tom Friedman. You're here? Yeah, I'm here. They gave you a visa. I didn't come illegally. I'm here. You know, I hate everything you've been writing. Would you come to my house for dinner? I'd like to tell you about it. People really, really wanted to talk. They really, really wanted to get some things off their chest. I came to listen. But I also came to talk myself.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. What did they want to say to you?

TOM FRIEDMAN: What they wanted to say to me most, Margaret, was they feel that... two things, I would say: One is that Saudi Arabia, to be a Saudi Arabian was a pretty good deal. You know, you vacation in America, you send your kids off to America. You had a Saudi passport. It really was respected around the world. And some people said they felt just the shame and the anger that some of Saudi Arabia had been tarnished obviously by 9/11 and the fact that 15 Saudis took part in it. They felt that was unfair and they wanted to express that. The second thing they wanted to express was about Islam, their conviction that their religion had been smeared or their curriculum was wrongly being branded as breeding terrorists, that they were being depicted as a factory for terrorists. So I heard all of that. I heard their, you know, their anguish in that regard. But I came with one question. And my question to them was, who were these 15 Saudis? Who were these people? I understand you're telling me they don't really reflect Saudi Arabia. They don't really reflect who you are. Well then tell me who they are. Well, I didn't really come away with satisfactory answers. I heard that they had been ordered by the CIA, by the Moussad by American Jews that they were educated in America. I heard every form of denial really, but I didn't hear anyone say exactly who these people are. That still troubles me.

MARGARET WARNER: Did you have these conversations mostly in the privacy of people's homes?

TOM FRIEDMAN: I had them in all sorts of places. People were enormously welcoming, I must say. I had them in people's homes, in ministry offices, and at newspapers. In one case I was at the Okaz Newspaper, which is the biggest Saudi daily. They had me sitting at the head of a table. They had a horseshoe with about 20 Okaz journalists, academics and businessmen. They had people connected by Internet and by telephone calling in questions. It was rock 'em sock 'em basically because frankly they're not used to people getting in their face -- or vice versa. They're polite people. All these years, Margaret, basically they've been because of their oil wealth, they've been able to negotiate the entry of people into their country. And the people who got in were often businessmen who told them what they wanted to hear or approved journalists who told them what they wanted to hear. Well, what happened with 9-11 is the world just punched a hole right through that door and said we are here; we are mad and we want answers. So there was that kind of a dialogue. They wanted to tell me things and I gave it right back. At Okaz, just by example, you know, they were saying to me why don't you call Sharon a terrorist. You say we're breeding terrorists. Why don't you call Sharon a terrorist. I said let's make a deal. Let's have a contract right now. I Tom Friedman of the "New York Times" promise to ever more call Ariel Sharon a terrorist in my column if you, the Okaz Newspaper, will call Palestinians who blow up Israeli kids in a pizza parlor terrorists do. Do I have any takers? No takers.

MARGARET WARNER: One thing you've criticized a lot is the education system. In fact you once wrote an open letter to the Saudi education minister.

TOM FRIEDMAN: Actually Minister of Islamic Affairs.

MARGARET WARNER: Excuse me.

TOM FRIEDMAN: Who asked to see me.

MARGARET WARNER: Did you see him?

TOM FRIEDMAN: I did see him.

MARGARET WARNER: Any changes happening there?

TOM FRIEDMAN: There are changes going on. I actually interviewed the Minister of Islamic Affairs. We had a nice meeting. And I promised in the future I would communicate with him through Federal Express but I also interviewed the head of a curriculum development in the Ministry of Education. They are working on the curriculum. They were working on it before 9/11 because they have their own employment problems, their own problems trying to prepare their young people for the modern world. They were moving English education, which started in the 7th grade down to 4th grade and teaching more about the world beyond the domain of Islam, and he said something to me a little bit intriguing. He quoted a study. I couldn't track it down -- that said 85% of the curriculum in Saudi textbooks on the issue of Islam and tolerance in the world was fine. Don't hold me to these figures but this is what he said. I couldn't find the study. 10% he said was questionable and 5% he said might be misinterpreted. And he said that they were working on it. A lot of people, I have to tell you, Margaret, took me aside and said I hate every word you've written but keep it up, okay, because without the outside world knocking on the door -- but they also tried to explain to me that in this society it's very hard. They feel under siege right now and they don't want to be perceived as making changes just to satisfy some American, some newspaper, whatever.

MARGARET WARNER: Now one thing there's been a lot of fascination with here is the role of women. What did you find on that in that regard?

TOM FRIEDMAN: I sort of saw every end of the spectrum of Saudi women. An American acquaintance of mine there told me a remarkable story. He was driving down in Aseer Province which is the rocky mountains of Saudi Arabia along the Yemen border. He was in a four-wheel drive truck and he got lost. So they came down the highway and they saw a van truck in front of them. They tried to catch up to it to get direction. Every time they got close to it, it pulled away farther. So they were honking - it kept pulling away. Finally they almost chased it around a building. The driver got out. As soon as the driver got out they discovered it was a woman dressed as a man in full Saudi robe and head dress because women, of course, are banned from driving there. They have 500,000 foreign chauffeurs. So that's kind of one end. Obviously there are a lot of stories in the naked city -- I mean things going on underneath the surface that you wouldn't expect. I toured a Saudi hospital. Remarkable. King Abdullah's Aziz National Guard hospital, ultramodern hospital. Cutting-edge technology where they took me to the intensive care ward and I saw an elderly Saudi woman whoa they said just suffered a heart attack taking oxygen under her veil - the veil was covering the oxygen. It was a conservative elderly woman. Then I was sitting just a couple nights ago with friends of mine in Jeddah, a modern couple. The wife was telling me, you Americans you've really let us down. You never push for political reform here. You never push for women's reform -- kind of going along those lines that harangue. Then her husband raised to me an issue I hadn't noticed. He said did you realize that the religious police, the "Muttawa," on Valentine's Day, which for some reason is widely celebrated in Saudi Arabia, by Saudi youth -- on Valentine's Day went into all the flower shops and took out all the red roses so young people couldn't give themto each other on Valentine's Day. He said that's an outrage. I asked his wife, well what do you think; she said she thought it was great. Because Valentine's Day is a foreign holiday. It's not an Islamic holiday or a Saudi holiday. It's about globalization coming in and you're basically undermining our culture and our society. The same woman who's hitting me on political reform on one hand is defending the religious police taking away all the roses on the other because she feels it's something that undermining her culture and cultural authenticity.

MARGARET WARNER: Did you have a chance to get out in the countryside?

TOM FRIEDMAN: I did. Actually the first day I got there I accompanied the oil minister who was taking the Norwegian oil minister to the empty quarter. Now the empty quarter is in the south eastern corner of Saudi Arabia. It's the largest sand desert in the world. It's the definition of the middle of nowhere. In fact you go an hour-and-a-half by plane over nowhere to get to nowhere. At the center of it is this new oil station very modern that they were showing the Norwegians. We got there and the oil minister - Ali al-Naimi -- is an exercise buff. And he insisted that we go for a hike on to sand dunes. They are 100-foot high sand dunes to watch the sunset. And he just -- we took off our shoes rolled up our pants, walked on the top of these sand dunes. It is one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen. This is a "National Geographic" centerfold kind of thing -- absolutely spectacular dunes. The sun is setting. And I got two insights sitting up on that dune, you know, looking out on to nowhere: One was you can see how a kind of austere puritanical monotheistic religion could have been born there because when you sit on that do you know, Margaret, there ain't nothing between you and God. There isn't a tree to pray to. There isn't a rock to pray to. Buddhism would never have been born on that sand do you know. The second thing I got an insight to though is how isolated this country is. The first westerner only entered Saudi Arabia in 1906. And it's a much more insular country in many ways. Yes they have got telecommunication now. Yes Jeddah has always been a port. But this is a country that's really been involved in an internal dialogue with itself for a long time and geography has really reinforced that.

MARGARET WARNER: Final and unfortunately briefly what's your bottom line conclusion having been there about our relationship with the Saudis, the U.S.-Saudi relationship?

TOM FRIEDMAN: Well, on my last night there in a meeting with friends, I really felt that the cultural-political gap between us is so wide sometimes I feel it's almost unbridgeable. I'll tell you after this evening I told them I leave here a little bit depressed. In fact I said could somebody find me a drink somewhere -- moonshine anything. I know liquor is banned here -- because I really wish that gap was bridgeable -- but I'm still not sure it is -- not unless we both look in the mirror.

MARGARET WARNER: Thanks, Tom.

TOM FRIEDMAN: A pleasure.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day. In South Korea, President Bush said the United States is not planning to attack North Korea. Israeli troops killed at least 16 Palestinians in a series of strikes across the West Bank and Gaza. And the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two major cases, one on capital punishment for convicted killers who are mentally retarded, the other on school vouchers. And before we go, a correction: Last night in an Enron story we said the California public employees retirement system entered into two partnerships with Enron companies, but one of them was not LJM, as we reported. We regret the error. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.