The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the news of this Monday; then, dramatic outbursts at Saddam Hussein's trial: We have a report from John Burns of the New York Times in Baghdad; a debate between two former CIA officers over taking suspected terrorists for questioning overseas; and reaction to today's 9-11 Commission's report from two key House members.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: There were dramatic scenes of defiance today as the trial of Saddam Hussein resumed. The former Iraqi leader, his co-defendants, and even the lawyers peppered the court with angry objections. We have a report narrated by Brigid Nzekwu of Independent Television News.

BRIGID NZEKWU: "Long live Iraq, long live the Baath Party and the Arab nation," shouts Saddam and his co-defendants as their trial descended into pandemonium.

Within seconds of this emotional outburst, the entire defense team had walked out of court, leaving the trial at standstill. Moments earlier the lawyers had been arguing with the chief judge.

KHALIL DULAIMI (Translated): There are two points of dispute concerning the constitutional validity of this court and a very important issue: The protection of the Iraqi lawyers. The judge has promised that he would give enough time for these questions.

RIZGAR MOHAMMED AMIN, Judge (Translated): When it's the right time, the court has already responded to the issue of constitutionality. The court is constitutional and legal.

BRIGID NZEKWU: Infuriated by the judge's refusal to allow the lawyers to challenge the legitimacy of the trial, Saddam Hussein complained.

SADDAM HUSSEIN (Translated): The court is not allowing the defense lawyers to defend.

BRIGID NZEKWU: The defense team's concerns about security are well founded. Two of their number have been murdered. Returning to court about an hour after the war count, an American replacement for one of the murdered lawyers addressed the judge.

RAMSEY CLARK: The defense cannot participate in this case until there is protection in place for these lawyers and their families. Thank you.

BRIGID NZEKWU: The judge listened to the former U.S. attorney general and then allowed him and a colleague a short period to air their complaints.

RAMSEY CLARK: And this trial can either divide or heal. And unless it is seen as absolutely fair and is absolutely fair in fact, it will irreconcilably divide the people of Iraq.

BRIGID NZEKWU: Later the first prosecution witness to come face-to-face with Saddam gave evidence. Thirty-eight-year-old Ahmed Hassan told how he and his family were tortured after Saddam survived an assassination attempt in 1982 in the town of Dujail.

AHMED HASSAN (Translated): It was a terrifying moment, and obviously there were mass arrests: Women and men, even a baby, which was a few days old.

BRIGID NZEKWU: Mr. Hassan claims he had seen a meat grinder with human blood and hair in it. In response, Saddam Hussein denounced the trial as a show trial and told the court he wasn't afraid of execution. Execution, he claimed, was cheaper than the shoe of an Iraqi.

JIM LEHRER: Saddam is charged with killing more than 140 Shiites in that 1982 massacre.

Today protesters in the town called for his execution. Some were family members of those who had died.

But in Saddam's hometown, Tikrit, hundreds of people took to the streets supporting him and condemning the trial. We'll have more on what happened in court today, right after this News Summary.

Another foreigner was abducted in Iraq today. A French engineer was kidnapped on his way to work in Baghdad. His was the latest in a wave of kidnappings of westerners in Iraq. And the U.S. military reported another American soldier died Sunday in a roadside bombing.

A Palestinian suicide bomber killed five people today at a busy shopping mall in Israel. More than 30 others were hurt. It happened in the coastal town of Netanya. This was the third time since 2001 the same mall has been bombed. Islamic jihad claimed responsibility for today's attack. The group said it was retaliation for Israeli strikes at its leaders.

Secretary of State Rice headed to Europe today, facing questions about U.S. Handling of terror suspects. They involve reports the CIA has run prisons in Eastern Europe, and secretly transferred suspects to countries that practice torture. Before leaving, Rice did not directly address the prisons issue. But she did say this.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The United States does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture. The United States does not use the air space or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured. The United States has not transported any one and will not transport anyone to a country where we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.

JIM LEHRER: Rice also said the CIA has gathered information that prevented terror attacks in Europe. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Members of the former 9-11 Commission gave the government mostly failing grades today on improving security. They said the administration and Congress had not acted urgently on the panel's recommendations. Former Chairman Tom Kean said, "We're frustrated. We shouldn't need another wake-up call." White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said the administration has acted on 70 of the recommendations. He said others are up to Congress. We'll have more on this story later in the program.

A Texas judge threw out conspiracy charges today against Republican Congressman Tom DeLay. The judge left money laundering charges in place. They stem from alleged violations of state campaign laws. Delay wanted the entire case dismissed so he could reclaim his post as House majority leader.

In Venezuela today, supporters of President Hugo Chavez claimed they won all the seats in the national assembly in Sunday's elections. The opposition boycotted the vote, saying it was rigged. Only one-fourth of eligible voters turned out. Chavez has allied himself with Cuba, and harshly criticized the United States.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 42 points to close at 10,835. The NASDAQ fell more than 15 points to close at 2,257. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Saddam Hussein trial; moving terror suspects overseas; and the 9-11 Commission and Congress.

UPDATE - ON TRIAL

JIM LEHRER: The Saddam Hussein trial: We have a report from John Burns, the New York Times Baghdad bureau chief. Ray Suarez talked with him earlier this evening.

RAY SUAREZ: John Burns, welcome. Today after many weeks of waiting, the first live witnesses took the stand in testimony against Saddam Hussein and his fellow defendants. What story did they tell?

JOHN BURNS: It was really the most extraordinary day. You have to remember that this trial has been 20 months in preparation since this special Iraqi court was established. It's been in session, the court, for seven weeks but has only managed to meet three times, the third time today. They've never got, until today, to the heart of the matter, the case against Saddam Hussein, the case that is the first of many that is going to tell us the story of how as many as two million people died here during his 24 years in power.

And it was the most wrenching experience to hear this first live witness speaking of the torture, speaking of babies being thrown out of windows, of human grinding machines at the headquarters of the secret police, of fathers watching their sons being tortured.

I'm sure much of this is in the evening television news in the United States but the effect has been quite electric across Iraq as we can measure it. People who have until know - people that I know who have until now seemed indifferent in some ways to the terrible things that were done here under Saddam Hussein-- I'm talking for the most part about Sunni Arabs who were the principal beneficiaries of Saddam's rules -- were absolutely mortified by what they heard today.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, as these wrenching details were being revealed, what was the former president of Iraq's demeanor?

JOHN BURNS: Well, that was very much part of the drama. As we have seen on his previous appearances in court: Defiant, indignant at the indignities, as he sees them that were visited upon him.

In the midst of the witness telling this tale so difficult for him in the telling that he broke down and sobbed several times, Saddam was continuously complaining that he didn't have a paper and pen, that he had to write his notes on his hand.

His attitude seemed to be in effect how dare you, Mr. Mohammed, and who are you anyway, to make these kinds of accusations against me? The other person who was notable in this respect was Saddam's half brother,

Bazan al-Takriti, who was in some ways being more defiant today. He's the former head of the secret police at the time of the events charged in this trial which was an assassination attempt against Saddam in 1982 which was followed by the execution of 148 men and teen-aged boys from the town Dujail where that happened.

And the attitude seemed to vary on the part of the defendants, Saddam and his half brother in particular, from indifference to indignation. But at no point did you see anything reproaching pity or remorse.

RAY SUAREZ: Are these witnesses able to be cross-examined either by the defense attorneys or by the defendants themselves?

JOHN BURNS: Well, to the western eye, to the American or the British eye, this is a very strange proceeding. It's a civil law proceeding similar to one that you find in France, for example. They call it a truth-seeking process. It's not adversarial so the court summons the witnesses, not the prosecution or the defense.

We started today with the complaining witnesses, they are so-called that, that is to say the surviving victims of the atrocities that are charged in the case. And there is an opportunity for the defendants and their lawyers to intervene.

Today it was mostly the defendants themselves. The lawyers were eventually sidelined in this. And the judge was extraordinarily-- and some people might say excessively-- tolerant of their intervention so it became an adversarial process as between Saddam Hussein and Rizgar Mohammed Amin, the judge, with for long periods of time, the witness standing at his microphone waiting for Saddam in effect to end his postulation and rant.

RAY SUAREZ: Is the judge in control of the courtroom?

JOHN BURNS: Well, it certainly is a question as I'm sure anybody who has seen this trial and particularly today's proceedings would ask. He's a very experienced, a very sober, very even-tempered man, Mr. Mohammed Amin. And he's trying to do something that is extremely difficult.

This court in its inception and ever since has been heavily criticized both in Iraq and of course outside Iraq by legal monitoring groups as being in effect an American puppet creation, as being the wrong place and the wrong time to hold a trial in the middle of a war.

There have been many who said it should be an international tribunal at The Hague like the one that is trying Slobodan Milosevic. So he's trying very hard to impress the latitude that is being given to the defense.

On the other hand, he needs to get this trial moving because there are many millions of people in Iraq who want to see justice here. They want to see justice done not justice delayed.

And up until now it's been justice delayed even in the context of the trial itself because the defense lawyers have been extremely effective in the first three days in inhibiting, in effect, any real progress toward the core of the matter.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you talk about the people of Iraq wanting justice. What do they make of this whole spectacle that they're able to see on TV?

JOHN BURNS: I think I'd have to say that they, like us, find it is most astonishing spectacle. And I'm talking here not just the communities that were the principal victims of Saddam: The Shiites and the Kurds and the Turkmen and others but also the Sunni-Arab minority that ruled for Saddam Hussein, in fact, ruled here for centuries.

I think they find it extremely arresting. I would say the net of it all today after listening to this gut-wrenching testimony, the most important thing that happened today was there was finally after all this wait, there was an accounting of sorts.

The horrors through which people were subjected by Saddam's secret police were finally being laid out to the evident astonishment even of people who until very recently were telling me that Saddam Hussein was a hero and hoped for his restoration.

RAY SUAREZ: John Burns in Baghdad, thanks for being with us.

JOHN BURNS: Not at all. It's a pleasure.

FOCUS - SNATCHING SUSPECTS

JIM LEHRER: Moving terrorist suspects overseas: Margaret Warner has that story.

MARGARET WARNER: It was on this street in Milan, Italy that CIA agents reportedly abducted an Egyptian terror suspect in February 2003. Italian authorities said the suspect known as Abu Omar was taken to the U.S. air base at Aviano, Italy and flown to Egypt. He claims he was tortured there.

The CIA hasn't publicly acknowledged snatching Abu Omar but it's been widely reported that the agency has conducted some one hundred to one hundred and fifty of these abductions, officially called renditions. They involve abducting and transferring terror suspects, usually to third countries, without a trial.

Several European governments and the EU have protested these renditions if they involve European nationals or are facilitated through U.S. bases on European soil. Today before leaving for Europe, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued the administration's first vigorous public defense of the tactic.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: One of the difficult issues in this new kind of conflict is what to do with captured individuals who we know or believe to be terrorists. The individuals come from many countries and are often captured far from their original homes. Among them are those who are effectively stateless, owing allegiance only to the extremist cause of transnational terrorism. Manyare extremely dangerous and some have information that may save lives, perhaps even thousands of lives.

The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice, which were designed for different needs. We have to adapt. Other governments are now also facing this challenge. We consider the captured members of al-Qaida and its affiliates to be unlawful combatants who may be held in accordance with the law of war to keep them from killing innocents.

MARGARET WARNER: Secretary Rice said previous administrations and foreign governments have also used renditions to immobilize major terrorists.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: For decades, the United States and other countries have used renditions to transport terrorist suspects from the country where they were captured to their home country or to other countries where they can be questioned, held or brought to justice.

MARGARET WARNER: Among them Ramsey Yousef snatched in Manila and brought to the U.S., where he revealed a plot to blow up a dozen airliners over the Pacific; he was convicted for master minding the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

Another case cited by Rice, terrorist "Carlos the Jackal;" French government snatched him in Khartoum in 1994. He was tried and imprisoned in France.

More recent news accounts have reported CIA renditions of suspects to third countries like Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan that are suspected of torturing prisoners. Rice today insisted the U.S. does not transport suspects to countries where they are in danger of being tortured and seeks assurances that they won't be.

Nonetheless, this issue and the separate one of reported secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe is expected to come up during her five-day European tour.

MARGARET WARNER: So are renditions necessary and effective in fighting terrorism? To explore that, we turn to two former intelligence officials. John Brennan was director of the CIA's National Counterterrorism Center until his retirement this fall from 25 years at the agency. He's now head of the Analysis Corporation, a security consulting firm. And Reuel Gerecht focused on the Middle East during a decade as a CIA operations officer. He left in the mid-90s. He's now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Welcome, gentlemen. Welcome to you both. Before we get into debating how you feel how effective this practice is, you're both intelligence professional. Tell us, Mr. Brennan, when did this practice start in earnest and why?

JOHN BRENNAN: Well, it's been in practice for the past several decades. And I think over the past decade it has picked up some speed because of the nature of the terrorist threat right now but essentially it's a practice the United States and other countries have used to transport suspected terrorists from a country, usually where they're captured to another country, either their country of origin or a country where they can be questioned, detained or brought to justice.

MARGARET WARNER: And the assumption is that they cannot be questioned or detained in the country where they're captured?

JOHN BRENNAN: Well, sometimes that is the case because there could be an outstanding warrant for someone's arrest in another country or they need to go back to the country of their origin because the local government and service can in fact question them more effectively in that country than in the place where they had been captured.

MARGARET WARNER: What would you add to that in terms of when and why this practice really got underwayin earnest at the agency?

REUEL GERECHT: Well, I think it was built upon the close relationships the agency built particularly with Egypt and Jordan in the mid 1980s. I mean, counterterrorism bureaucratically takes off at Langley around 1984-1985. And you have relationships develop.

I think the pivotal moment might be 1995-1996. I mean that's what you usually hear from people who work at Langley, that that's when a rendition came into the form more or less that you know it today.

MARGARET WARNER: And because?

REUEL GERECHT: Because of the growth of terrorism, because of the concerns about Islamic extremism arise, of what later became bin Ladenism. I think it became a growing concern, and I think they thought at that time and still do that you need foreign assistance in the fight against it.

MARGARET WARNER: So was Secretary Rice correct today when she called it a vital tool in combating terrorism?

JOHN BRENNAN: I think it's an absolutely vital tool. I have been intimately familiar now over the past decade with the cases of rendition that the U.S. Government has been involved in. And I can say without a doubt that it has been very successful as far as producing intelligence that has saved lives.

MARGARET WARNER: So is it -- are you saying both in two ways -- both in getting terrorists off the streets and also in the interrogation?

JOHN BRENNAN: Yes. The rendition is the practice or the process of rendering somebody from one place to another place. It is moving them and the U.S. Government will frequently facilitate that movement from one country to another.

MARGARET WARNER: Effective?

REUEL GERECHT: Well, I think I would have to trust those in the government who say that it is. I would question, however, the utility of it. I would suggest that if you're going to render someone to a foreign country to be interrogated, it would be far better off if the United States retained control of that terror suspect and did the interrogations itself.

A number one rule in the intelligence business is not to lose control of your asset, not to lose control of the individual you want to interrogate. By definition if you are giving someone over to the Egyptians or Jordanians or Pakistanis, you are losing control. You no longer control that environment. The intelligence is much more easily compromised.

MARGARET WARNER: How about that point?

JOHN BRENNAN: Quite frankly I think it's rather arrogant to think that we are the best in every case in terms of eliciting information from terror suspects. So other countries and other services have a long experience in dealing with this challenge because they are confronting terrorism on a day-to-day basis.

So, again, the U.S. Government looks at this in terms of the case-specific requirements. Is it in the best interest of the United States Government to retain control or, in fact, should they be handed over to a country that in fact might be more effective or have, in fact, a greater legal and judicial case against those individuals?

REUEL GERECHT: If Hosni Mubarak or King Abdullah or King Hussein or Musharraf of Pakistan would be thrilled to lend the United States whatever assistance it would need in those debriefings.

MARGARET WARNER: In other words, have the CIA retain control.

REUEL GERECHT: Sure and maintain -- it increases the closer secret relationship between those governments and the United States. It fortifies their position in Washington. So again I don't think that's a terribly serious position.

Now, whether these countries have stronger judicial cases I'm not sure when you think of Egypt or you think of Jordan or you think of Pakistan that first and foremost you're thinking about judicial proceedings they may have against these individuals.

I think we need to be honest here and say that one of the reasons we're sending them there is because they tend to be a little bit rougher in their interrogations and we are not objecting to that.

MARGARET WARNER: What about that point, Mr. Brennan? I mean, why would you not, if this -- if you have a suspect who is a danger to the United States, keep him in United States' custody? Is it because we want another country to do the dirty work?

JOHN BRENNAN: No, I don't think that's it at all. Also I think it's rather arrogant to think we're the only country that respects human rights. I think that we have a lot of assurances from these countries that we hand over terrorists to that they will, in fact, respect human rights.

And there are different ways to gain those assurances. But also let's say an individual goes to Egypt because they're an Egyptian citizen and the Egyptians then have a longer history in terms of dealing with them, and they have family members and others that they can bring in, in fact, to be part of the whole interrogation process.

MARGARET WARNER: But what about Mr. Gerecht's point that the CIA could bring them in to help?

JOHN BRENNAN: Well, you can be transporting people all over the world, bringing family members and professional colleagues and others.

Again, it has to be looked at in the instance -- the case-specific requirements, and a lot of times it makes more sense to have that person in a country where the local service, the intelligence and security service can in fact have a long process that's going to be able to elicit that information.

MARGARET WARNER: Is there from what and I know you've been out of the agency for almost a dozen years now or close. But is there a kind of line certain people, certain suspects are kept within CIA custody from which you understand and others aren't? And where would you -

REUEL GERECHT: Sure, it does appear that those individuals that you might call the primary category like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are rendered unto us. We actually do want to have control of those that are "the" most valuable.

The type of rendition we're talking about here, which I think the administration usually uses the term "extraordinary rendition," which means we give an individual to a third party, those seem to be more what you might call secondary or tertiary. They're not on the very top of the totem pole.

Again I would just have to say, you know, we're not talking about rendering people to Sweden, Norway or Denmark where they do respect human rights.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying despite the assurances you think they are tortured or they are abused?

REUEL GERECHT: I think it has to be a reasonable assumption that if you were rendering someone to Egypt or to Jordan or to Pakistan, countries not known for following the Marquis of Queensbury rules in interrogation, that the tactics that are going to be used are -- how do I want to put this politely -- rough.

JOHN BRENNAN: There are different ways to gain those assurances. You can have periodic observations, periodic visits. There are ways you can make sure in monitoring in fact how that local service is handling the individual. So it's not as though we just turn over somebody and then forget about them.

No, the United States Government follows up very thoroughly as far as what is happening, what information are we getting from them --

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, why if as Secretary Rice said today and we didn't run obviously all her remarks, if the Europeans themselves have engaged in this practice, why are the Europeans now, some of them, exercised about it?

REUEL GERECHT: Well, because I think it's just a very good anti-American leverage tool. It's a way also of punishing the Eastern Europeans who supported us in the Iraq war.

MARGARET WARNER: You're saying that because even though it's a separate issue it's in Eastern Europe that, what, air bases are used or that some of these secret, so- called secret prisons --

REUEL GERECHT: What we've heard is that they are in Eastern Europe. And certainly it would not be at all surprising to find the French or the Germans who quite staunchly opposed the United States in the Iraq war to use this as a means of continuing that battle.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying the two issues have become conflated maybe on purpose.

REUEL GERECHT: Yes, I think that's fair to say.

MARGARET WARNER: Why do you think the Europeans are exercised?

JOHN BRENNAN: I think all politics are local and there are a lot of elements in Europe that are opposed to the different practices and policies of their government services so I think what it is, is the people are seeing is that there are internal politics that are playing out.

MARGARET WARNER: So if European governments -- and Condoleezza Rice is obviously going to have these discussions -- were to say, we don't want you to anymore practice rendition or whatever the verb is, render sounds like something you do in a meat factory - but in any event, practice rendition on a European national, snatch someone from European soil, use an American installation or one of our air bases in Europe or a European air base or even over-fly Europe to do this, how much of a crimp would that put in the entire program?

JOHN BRENNAN: I think that their discussion on these issues is very important, and the United States Government along the European governments, as well as other governments, need to understand what the rules that we'll all play by.

So I don't see it's going to crimp our ability to do these things. I think we have to make sure that we understand what the different guidelines will be and the rules that we will all follow.

REUEL GERECHT: I agree with that. I think the administration now is taking the right approach and being quite adult on this and sort of challenging our European critics on this issue because certainly if you cannot transfer individuals over European air space essentially the Europeans have taken themselves out on the war on terror and aligned them selves against us.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. We have to leave it there. Thank you, gentlemen.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Congressmen Markey and King on the 9-11 Commission criticisms.

UPDATE - REPORT CARD

KWAME HOLMAN: Now the 9-11 report card: Kwame Holman begins.

KWAME HOLMAN: Last year as one of its final official acts, the ten-member bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued 41 recommendations aimed at bolstering national security against the threat of terrorism.

Gathering today as a privately funded group, the former commissioners issued a report on progress made on those recommendations. Their bottom bottom-line conclusion was despite pressure on policy makers to prepare for another attack, homeland security still is not a government priority. Former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton.

LEE HAMILTON: Given the potential for catastrophic destruction, our current efforts fall far short of what we need to do.

KWAME HOLMAN: The commission's main concerns were inadequate communication among first responders at disaster sites, continuing problems with information sharing across government agencies, and flawed efforts to secure loose nuclear weapons abroad.

Commissioners also cited both the Congress and the president for failing to funnel sufficient homeland security money to those areas most at risk of attack by terrorists.

Former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean.

THOMAS KEAN: It is scandalous that we still allocate scarce homeland security dollars on the basis of pork barrel spending and not on risk.

KWAME HOLMAN: In response to that, White House counselor Dan Bartlett placed the blame on Congress.

DAN BARTLETT: They are funding things based on old models, pre-9/11 models. We think it's important that homeland security dollars go to where the threats are. That's something that we'll be constantly pushing the Congress to change.

KWAME HOLMAN: The commissioner too pushed Congress to make changes, urging them to adopt some of their recommendations before members head home for the holidays.

JIM LEHRER: Reaction from key members of the House Homeland Security Committee: The chairman, Peter King, Republican of New York; and Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts. I talked to them a short while ago.

JIM LEHRER: Gentlemen, welcome.

Congressman King, first in general terms, are the 9-11 Commission's criticisms correct in your opinion?

REP. PETER KING: I think some of them are valid. I think it's important to note though I believe country is much more secure now than it was on Sept. 11 or Sept. 12. A lot has been done. More has to be done. Some of the criticisms I fully agree with.

For instance, on the funding formula, I think that the Senate has been irresponsible in keeping the current formula so they're 100 percent right on that. That's such a clear line of demarcation. They give the Senate legislation and after they give the House legislation, which is bipartisan by the way, an A, so that's a clear line.

And the more important issue, an overriding issue to me I think the main purpose their report serves is as a wake-up call to the country and to the Congress because my concern is every day we go past 9-11 members of Congress in both parties recede further into their minds the horror of the tragedy of that today.

So this is - again -- I have specific agreements but on balance I think it's a good report. And most importantly of all it wakes up the American people and more importantly than that the Congress that this is an ongoing war against Islamic terrorism that's going to go on for decades to come.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Markey, in more specific terms, the commission said and then a White House spokesman, Dan Bartlett, said that the real blame for the shortcomings are really more to Congress than they are to the administration. Do you agree with that?

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: No, I don't agree with that at all. The commission report is really a blistering, scalding indictment of the Bush administration. Without question, Congress deserves some blame as well, some significant blame. Again it's a Republican House and Senate so I think they are working in coordination with the Bush White House.

But the criticism of the lack of securing of nuclear materials overseas, the lack of funding for first responders, having a coordinated communications system for terrorists list that can be checked at any airport in the United States, the list goes on and on. The criticisms go on and on. This is four years after 9-11. The Bush administration has given a blank check to fight a war in Iraq but it's nickel and diming homeland security. That's what the 9-11 Commission has just reported.

And I think that principally the blame lies at the top at the White House.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Congressman King?

REP. PETER KING: No I don't. I think it's wrong to make this a partisan issue. For instance, on the issue of homeland security funding some of the main opponents of the proper bill are leading Democrats in the Senate, but I'm not saying it's a partisan issue. Most of them are from smaller states, and I think it's more of a regional issue than it is partisan because some of the leading Democrats, Sen. Leahy, Sen. Rockefeller, for instance, Sen. Lieberman, they all oppose the funding formula changes which I think are absolutely essential.

On the issue of first responder funding, again, there's a billion dollars that hasn't even been spent by local governments. It's in the pipeline. And, again the president and the House strongly support changing the funding formula to make sure that it goes to the areas that do face the greatest threat so, listen, we can have disagreements here or there as to what should be done or not done.

I think it's wrong to make it a partisan issue because the president is absolutely committed to this as are many Democrats. I've never made this a partisan issue.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Partisanship aside, let's step back and take one issue that the commission highlighted and you've mentioned it, Congressman King, Congressman Markey, let's start with you on this, and this is the idea of how you allot homeland security funds, whether you do it based on the cities and the states that are more -- considered more vulnerable to terrorist attacks or whether you do it according to what the commission said, just routine pork barrel politics as before.

Why is that happening, Congressman?

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: Well, this is one area where I do agree that the Congress is at fault and that it is bipartisan. The House is largely a body that represents larger states and the Senate smaller states. And ordinarily for transportation or health care or educational purposes, there's a tension between the two bodies. And we resolve it.

In homeland security, however, it's clear that every terrorist expert has listed where al-Qaida is most likely to attack. And those targets principally are in larger urban areas.

And yet senators that represent smaller states want to create a homeland security funding formula that distributes money to more rural parts of the country that does not represent where al-Qaida is most likely to attack.

So this tension between the House and the Senate is something that we have to resolve. The president should use the bully pulpit in this final two weeks of Congress to break the Gordian knot but it's something that really doesn't belong in partisan politics.

In the tension between the House and the Senate, senators from smaller states should accept the fact that New York, that Washington, that Boston, that LA, that the ports of the country and other locations are where al-Qaida says they want to hit.

JIM LEHRER: But Congressman King, nothing gets done. Why not, why can't this be resolved?

REP. PETER KING: Well, the House did pass a bill 409-10 last May with strong bipartisan support which did set up a threat-based funding formula. The Senate just basically wants to maintain the status quo.

Right now as part of the Patriot Act, we in the House did attach our bill as an amendment to the Patriot Act. And, quitefrankly, we were only one vote away in the Conference Committee from getting that portion of the legislation enacted. Unfortunately, it appears to be bogged down. Let me agree with my friend, Ed Markey. The vote we're looking for right now is a Republican vote. And he's holding back even though he comes from a state which would benefit from this because he has some other reasons he's trying to protect in the Senate.

So this comes down to a regional issue. Again, I do hope the president does get more involved in this. Once we -- if we can't do it this month -- once we get into next January and February, I would hope the president will get actively engaged and we can make this a bipartisan effort where the leaders in both Houses will get with the president and we'll make sure this gets through because this is really a disaster waiting to happen.

JIM LEHRER: Another issue, Congressman King, a specific issue, is what's called the cargo gap on airliners, that everything else is checked except cargo that goes into the hold. Why can't that be fixed?

REP. PETER KING: I'm probably a little closer to Ed Markey on this than he might realize. I think much more has to be done. Now, again part of it is prohibitive cost in coming up with technology; also the time that would be taken would cause tremendous cost because many of these products or many of these items being shipped have to be done within a brief period of time.

Having said that, we do have a known shipper program, which is a step in the right direction. There are random checks that are carried out. But I think more should be done, but, again, it's not as big as the commission says it is but more can be done. I'm sure Ed will, you know, tell us exactly what has to be done.

JIM LEHRER: Will you, Congressman Markey?

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: I will try. There are approximately six billion pounds of un-inspected cargo which goes on passenger planes in the United States.

JIM LEHRER: Like what? What kind of cargo?

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: Well, you know, when any of your viewers go to an airport, they take off their shoes. They put their bag through and their computer through the screening. They check their bags. Those are screened as well.

As they're sitting in their seats assuming that everything on the plane has been inspected over will come a truck, a cargo truck which will unload cargo and place it right under neat the feet of the passengers on that plane -- six billion pounds of it.

JIM LEHRER: This is just routine air express? Somebody wants to ship something and they take it like any other kind of --

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: Someone wants to ship a Christmas present for this season, they just send it by cargo. It will go on the plane and almost every instance it won't be screened at all.

JIM LEHRER: Why not? Why won't it be screened?

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: Well, the airline industry doesn't want to do it. The cargo industry doesn't want to do it and believe it or not the Bush administration opposes having a mandatory screening requirement.

The reason it's so important is it took only one pound of explosives to bring down the Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. So six billion pounds going on un-inspected --even as people's bags are checked -- makes no sense whatsoever.

And they're saying they want to now no longer screen for scissors in the passenger compartment so they have a little more money to screen for bombs. But why would you take money away from scissors that could be used as weapons the same way that Mohammed Atta used the box cutter just to screen for a small percentage of bombs in cargo when we should be screening for all of it, scissors and bombs? It's a false choice and it's four years after 9-11.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman King, why can't this be solved? What's the problem here?

REP. PETER KING: Again, it is primarily a question of money.

JIM LEHRER: It is money. In other words it costs a lot of money to do this.

REP. PETER KING: Certainly if you find the technology it would be extremely expensive. Having said that I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. In fact, legislation we passed last year calls on TSA to dramatically increase the number of cargo that is screened.

And along those lines there's no cargo that's unscreened in that there are known shipping programs or manifests and inventory lists are given as to what's on board. I agree with Ed, it's not enough, but it's not anywhere near as bad as I think Ed is making it out to be but it is significant.

As far as the issue of scissors I haven't made up my mind on that either. But I will point out that even the Washington Post, which is no friend of the Bush administration, did an editorial yesterday saying they think it was the right thing to do -- that since the cockpit doors are now secured that it is no longer a threat that it used to be and the money can be better spent elsewhere.

So, again, that is going where the risk is. I'm not definite -- I agree with that but again there is a real debate out there and even people like the Washington Post think it was the right thing to do.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Markey, another issue that you have raised and also that the commission raised and others have raised is the use of radio frequencies for first responders. Now, that's not something that costs money. Why can't that be done?

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: Well, you know, I tried back years ago to telescope the time frame it would take to shift the spectrum over. We're now --

JIM LEHRER: Shift the spectrum means to take a bunch of radio frequencies that are available and make them available by flipping some switches and making them available to first responders, meaning local police, local fire departments, et cetera, right?

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: Yes. In other words, when the next terrorist attack occurs, people don't call Washington D.C.; they call their local police and fire departments. The local police and fire departments have been complaining that they don't have adequate spectrum, that is, the ability to use radios, cell phones, whatever, to be able to communicate with each other. And they're missing the equipment as well. So what the Democrats have been trying to do is to provide an additional $5 billion worth of equipment --

JIM LEHRER: So it is expensive. It would cost some money.

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: It would cost some money but again this is -- these local police and fire are heroes, but heroes need help. They've been crying out for the extra equipment and the extra spectrum. But thus far five years in, we still have yet to see the adequate resources dedicated to this local problem which, since planes were hijacked in Boston that flew into New York it's a common issue that Peter and I share because we know that these police and firemen will risk their lives but why have them endangered unnecessarily especially with the proper telecommunications equipment they can save more lives.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman King, why has that not been done?

REP. PETER KING: First of all, we have appropriated $2.3 billion in the last two years which has gone to local governments, in terms of interoperability of radios. And a lot of progress has been made. I know in New York City it's a situation that's pretty much under control.

As far as the spectrum we have passed legislation in the House which I believe it will be implemented by 2008 or 2009, which will make spectrum available. I wish that could be moved forward; I agree with Ed on that.

But, again, it's not as if nothing is being done -- over $2 billion in the last three years in grants to local police and fire departments for interoperability.

JIM LEHRER: Finally, just a yes or no. The wake-up call, do you think today's report by the 9-11 Commission is another wake-up call and will be heeded, Congressman King, in general terms?

REP. PETER KING: I certainly hope so. We have no alternative. This is life and death.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Markey?

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: The country had a heart attack on 9-11. The 9-11 Commission today said if we don't put in better prevention unless we change our habits, we'll have that second heart attack, a second terrorist attack. Let's hope that the country listens.

JIM LEHRER: Gentlemen, thank you both very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the other major developments of this day: The trial of Saddam Hussein resumed, and the former Iraqi leader peppered the court with angry objections. A Palestinian suicide bomber killed five people and wounded more than 30 in Israel. And a Texas judge threw out state conspiracy charges against Congressman Tom DeLay, but left money laundering charges in place. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.