The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MUSIC I'm Jim Lehrer. Today's news, the armored visit, the immigration bill,

Al Gore Movie Maker, and evacuating New Orleans. All tonight on The News Hour. ... Good evening. I'm Jim Lera. On the news hour tonight, the news of this Wednesday, then

a look at the prospects for peace in the Middle East as the Israeli Prime Minister visits the United States. An update report on the Senate's progress toward passing an immigration bill, some perspective on Al Gore and his new global warming movie and a NewsHour report on Hurricane evacuation drills in New Orleans. Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lera has been provided by... There's a company that builds more than a million vehicles a year in places called Indiana and Kentucky, one that has ten plants from the foothills of West Virginia to the Pacific

coastline. What company is this? Toyota, a company that along with its dealers and suppliers has helped create hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, a company proud to do its small part to add to the landscape of America. The world's demand for energy will never stop, which is why a farmer is growing corn and a farmer is growing soy and why ADN is turning these crops into biofuels. The world's demand for energy will never stop, which is why ADN will never stop. We're only getting started. ADN, resourceful by nature. And by Pacific Life. C-I-T. And the Atlantic Philanthropies. And... This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions

to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. The Prime Minister of Israel urged the Palestinians today to join peace talks while they're still time. Ehud Almert addressed the U.S. Congress, and he said, with a genuine Palestinian partner, we can reach an agreement on all the issues that divide us. But Almert warned his government cannot wait forever. He said, again, Israel will draw its own borders on the West Bank if need be. And Jerusalem, the Israeli Justice Minister, said the Palestinians have until the end of the year. We'll have more on this right after the news summary. In Gaza today, a car bomb killed a security chief, loyal to Palestinian President Abbas and his Fata party. No one claimed responsibility, but there's been growing violence between Fata and Hamas, which controls the Palestinian government. And in Ramallah, four Palestinians

died in clashes with Israeli troops. Dozens more were wounded. Drive-by shootings killed eighteen people in Iraq today. And the U.S. military announced an American soldier was killed on Tuesday. Despite the violence, Prime Minister Almert said Iraqi forces can take over entirely within eighteen months. That issue will top the agenda tomorrow when the British Prime Minister Blair meets with President Bush in Washington. The U.S. military apologized today for civilian deaths in an air strike in southern Afghanistan. Sixteen villagers were killed in the attack Sunday night, along with at least twenty Taliban fighters. Today, an American spokesman in Kabul said U.S. forces did not know the civilians were there. The ultimate cause of why civilians were injured and killed is because the Taliban, knowingly, willfully chose to occupy homes of these people in the area. They're the ones without any regard for the civilians. It's a common tenet of international law that people have a right

to protect themselves. When our forces are fired on, we will defend ourselves. The Colonel also acknowledged a Taliban resurgence in the South. He said the group is gaining in strength and influence in three provinces with hundreds of fighters operating there. At least twenty-four Taliban were killed in new fighting there today, along with five Afghan soldiers. U.S. officials today rejected direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program. The Washington Post reported Iran made overtures by way of third parties. So far, European states have done the negotiating with Iran. A White House spokesman said that won't change unless Iran gives up any activity leading to nuclear weapons. The head of the National Guard announced today units will start moving to the Mexican border next week. 800 troops will deploy across four states, California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, 200 in each state. Ultimately, President Bush has ordered 6,000 guard members to support the border patrol. Today, his Mexican counterpart, Vicente Fox, addressed

the Utah legislature and called for cooperation. Inforcement only measures will not solve the challenges posed by the migration phenomenon. And that comprehensive reform is in the interest of both nations. In Washington, the Senate voted today to limit debate on its immigration bill, clearing the way for final passage. It still has to be reconciled with a more restrictive House version. We'll have more on the Senate debate later in the program tonight. The Senate also voted today to improve safety at coal mines. It mandated more underground emergency air supplies and better communications and tracking devices. Action in the House is still pending. 32 U.S. coal miners have been killed on the job so far this year. Officials at the House demanded the return today of documents taken from Congressman

William Jefferson. FBI agents went through the Louisiana Democrats' Capitol Hill office last Sunday. They were looking for evidence in a bribery scheme. Today, Speaker Dennis Haastard said the FBI should give the material back and reassign the agents. We are not trying to protect any individual, but we want to protect the travelers of the House as far as the Constitution. We think those materials ought to be returned. We also think that those people who are involved in that issue ought to be frozen out of that just for the sake of the constitutional aspect of it. Later Haastard repeated the demand in a joint statement with House Minority Leader Pelosi. They also urged Jefferson to cooperate with the investigation. Attorney General Gonzalez said Jefferson ignored his subpoena, so the FBI had no choice but to search his office. The search was unprecedented and Republicans and Democrats alike said it violated the separation of powers. The Veterans Affairs Secretary blasted his own agency today over

stolen data. Computer discs on more than 26 million veterans were taken on May 3rd in a burglary at a department analyst's home. Today, Secretary Jim Nicholson said he was not told for nearly two weeks. He said he's outraged by the delay. He also promised an internal investigation. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial average gained nearly 19 points to close at 11117, the Nasdaq rose 10 points to close at 2169. And that's it for the new summary tonight. Now, Omert and Peace, Immigration in the Senate, Al Gore's movie, and preparing for next time in New Orleans. Margaret Warner has our Middle East story. Israel's new prime minister, Ahood Olmer, came to Washington this week seeking U.S. backing for the plan on which he won election eight weeks ago to unilaterally redraw Israel's border with the Palestinian West Bank.

His most important meeting came yesterday with President Bush at the White House. Olmer outlined his plan to finish building the separation barrier between Israel and the West Bank, withdraw 60,000 Jewish settlers from isolated outposts beyond the barrier, and permanently annex the larger settlement blocks with some 175,000 residents. Olmer described his plan at a press conference after the meeting. This process of realignment would reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians, ensure territorial contiguity for the Palestinians, and guarantee Israel's security as a Jewish state with the borders it desires. President Bush praised Olmer's vision, but stopped short of endorsing a unilateral redrawing of the Israeli-Palestinian border. Today Prime Minister Olmer shared with me some of his ideas, I would call them bold ideas. These ideas could lead to a two-state solution if a pathway to progress on the road map

is not open in the period ahead. The President urged Olmer at first to pursue a negotiated settlement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Prime Minister Olmer said he would try to negotiate with Abbas, even though the radical Hamas party now dominates the Palestinian government, but he warned he would only wait so long. I intend to exhaust every possibility to promote peace with the Palestinians, according to the road map. Despite our sincere desire for negotiations, we cannot wait indefinitely for the Palestinians to change. We cannot be held hostage by a terrorist entity which

refuses to change or to promote dialogue. If we come to the conclusion that no progress is possible, we will be compelled to try a different route. Today, Olmer was greeted by a rousing reception on Capitol Hill, where yesterday the House voted to eliminate virtually all funds to private aid groups, working with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Before a joint session of Congress, the Prime Minister made this offer to Abbas. From this podium today, I extend my hand in peace to Mahmoud Abbas, the elected President of the Palestinian Authority. But he had harsh words for Abbas' Palestinian rival Hamas. Olmer's visit comes amid renewed clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinians in Gaza

and today the West Bank. There's also been fighting between the security forces of the two main Palestinian factions, Abbas's fattop party and Hamas. The clashes intensified recently after the Hamas-led government deployed a new 3,000-member paramilitary force into the streets of Gaza. At the same time, living conditions in the Palestinian territories continue to deteriorate. After Israel and major Western donors froze all tax revenues and aid to the Palestinian Authority. And for more on all this, we turn to Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to both Israel and Egypt. He's now a professor of Middle East policy studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. And Khalil Jashan, former president of the National Association of Arab Americans, he now lectures in international affairs at Pepperdine University. Welcome, gentlemen. Ambassador Kurtzer, beginning with you, how did you read the exchanges and the body language between President Bush and Prime Minister Olmer? Do you think that

Olmer got what he wanted from this visit on the Israeli-Palestinian front? Well, I think Margaret that he got exactly what he wanted. Even though these visits are very well scripted, Olmer wanted three things. He wanted an endorsement of sorts of his disengagement plan. And I think the President's statements, even though they were caveated, gave him what he needed to move ahead. Secondly, he got a strong statement from the President about the need to deter Iran from going nuclear. And third, he was looking for the kind of warmth, the body language, the images that get sent back to Israel that suggest to the Israeli people that his personal relationship with the President is sound. And I think he can go home in firm in the belief that he achieved all three of those objectives. But on this disengagement plan, did you feel, in terms of the unilateral, the threat to do it unilaterally, or the promise he made to voters? Do you think Bush was giving him a red light, an amber light, or a green light there?

Well, I think the President was not asked to give a full endorsement, and therefore he didn't have to. He certainly would have told Omer privately that he would like to see a serious effort made to engage with Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority. And he'd like to see that effort try to reach fruition. But the President is going to be realistic. The roadmap has not been implemented, even in better conditions than we have now, with Hamas in power. And therefore, the President's use of the words bold and his recognition of the fact that if the bilateral process doesn't work, the Prime Minister had told him that he may move unilaterally, would suggest that this is not just a yellow light, this is yellow flash and green. How did you read it, Kalalcishan? Well, the judgment on these types of highly scripted summits are in, basically, this type of judgment is in the eye of the beholder. I mean, the all-mort camp has declared victory that they got 100% of what they want. And basically, the administration is saying they have applied

breaks on certain issues that were of concern to them. I think that may be an issue that was of concern. Definitely was the issue of the unilateral policy or the realignment idea that the Israeli Prime Minister talked about. He definitely got what he wanted in terms of the photo up, the blessings, the chemistry, if you will, with the American leadership that every new Prime Minister in Israel has traditionally sought to establish his bonafides in the eyes of the Israeli public. But with regards to the realignment, I don't think he got really what he wanted, but he was advised in advance directly by the administration and indirectly by some leaders in the Jewish community and others in the think-tank community at least here in Washington. That may be, this is not the time to do that. The administration is not willing to give its unconditional blessing to that because they still have the present to the unilateral aspect of it, because the administration still believes rightly or wrongly that there is still some life left in the roadmap and they would like for him

to spend the next six to nine months to 12 months trying to explore that, which he committed to do. So, do you feel that as a result of this visit, Omar is now, I don't want to say under pressure, but now has committed himself to more vigorously pursue negotiations than he was before the visit. Clearly. And as a matter of fact, some of his critics in Israel already voiced their opinion and that they felt that he succumbed to pressure on this issue, that he won't be able to fulfill the promises he made during the election campaign and that the U.S. basically applied breaks to his plans. Dan Kirchner, how serious do you think Prime Minister Omar is about the prospects of negotiating with Abbas? Well, I think Omar is most serious about his determination to draw Israel's boundaries during the course of his term as Prime Minister. I don't think he has a lot of optimism that Abbas has the political strength at home to be a real partner in negotiations.

These Israelis know Mahmoud Abbas well and they respect the fact that he opposes violence, he has spoken out against it. But on the other hand, it's not a Abbas-led government. It's a Hamas-led government and it will be very challenging for him to articulate a position that Hamas then would undermine. So I think Omar is going to be realistic. He will do over the next nine months what he's committed to the President and that is reach out to Abbas, extend his hand, as he said. But at the same time, he's going to get his government into advanced stages of planning for what will be a very complicated set of withdrawal plans. Moving Israeli settlers, settlements in the Israeli military, we saw how challenging it was when Gaza was evacuated. The West Bank is going to be tenfold as difficult. Is Mahmoud Abbas, who is Dishan, is he up for this? And does he have the standing, given the fact that Hamas controls not only the legislature but the cabinet at this point, does he even have the standing to negotiate a deal that

would stick? Of course he does. And if you read between the lines in terms of even some of the statements that came out of Hamas' camp, even today, that they are establishing some sort of a task force, Palestinians task force, that is diverse, representing all the different political perspectives, to kind of give the credibility to the President to pursue if there is any serious offer from these. So they're not against this? They're not against it. But you see, the problem is, I think with all due respect, Mr. Omar is speaking from both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he extended his hand of peace to Mr. Abbas, to Abu Mazin, yet he has been undermining him every step of the way. I mean, even as recently as yesterday, he said he's too weak to deal with and he is not a serious partner. So he's either a serious partner or not. One of the two, I think it's time for Mr. Omar to make up his mind. So Dan Kerchard, do you think that does Omar see Abbas as, in fact, a strong enough incredible enough partner to actually make a deal with it?

Or is he going to go through the motions, that is Prime Minister Omar, because he promised President Bush he would do so, and he needs to show that at least he tried? Well, I think he's going to have to demonstrate to at least the President that he's done more than go through the motions, but realistically, he can't be very optimistic that Abbas will muster the courage to do now what he has not been able to do before. You have to recall, 2003, Abbas was Prime Minister, the roadmap didn't succeed. There was time after Abbas was elected President when major changes could have been affected in Palestinian policy and it didn't occur. Now that doesn't absolve Israel of its responsibilities as well. I think this has been a minuet in which both partners have been looking for ways out of the dance. But I don't think at the end of the day that Omar is going to have a lot of optimism that a dialogue with Mahmoud Abbas will succeed, and that's why he will be pursuing parallel tracks.

On the one hand, to probe and to discuss and see what Abbas can deliver. But on the other hand, to get into advanced planning for a very challenging and logistically demanding exercise of withdrawing Israeli settlers. Hello, Zashan. What do these developments do to the internal power struggle that we're seeing played out in the streets, in fact, certainly in Gaza, between the Hamasled government and Mahmoud Abbas? I think there is an ominous character to these developments, particularly in Gaza. When you see the collapse of law and order, you see the different factions going to the street in an armed fashion and going after each other. That doesn't, I think, both well for the Palestinians in general. But in terms of Abbas, there is no doubt about it that it kind of weakens him. In addition to already the war of words against him by the Israelis and already to the policy of benign neglect from Washington, I mean, all this, Abu Mazin certainly was, or Mahmoud Abbas, was a heck of a lot stronger a year ago than he is today in terms of his ability to reach

an agreement with the Israelis. But does the fact that now the Israelis are at least going to make these overtures? Does that give him any kind of renewed standing in that power struggle he's engaged in? It could. It definitely could. And I think that's where Israeli policy went wrong several months ago by trying to basically isolate him, which contributed to the victory and dismiss him and also deprive him of what he needs in terms of like a success at the negotiating table to be able to win the elections. But at any rate, let's say now if they were serious and they really offer him some serious gain. And that could influence a Palestinian public opinion, which did not vote for the international agenda of Hamas voted for the domestic agenda of Hamas. And meanwhile, keep telling pollsters that actually they still support an agreement with Israel. So they'll figure, Dan Kurtzer, does the U.S. do you think have to get involved now in this negotiation in an active way for it to have any prospect of going anywhere?

Well, I'm very concerned that we didn't see much creativity or innovative thinking come out either before or even as a result of Omar's visit here. And I just wonder whether or not the administration believes that it has the capital, both at home and abroad, to take any kind of bold moves in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, you know, the challenging problems in Iraq, the difficulty in now trying to curb Iranian influence and its nuclear program, as well as other problems on the international agenda, suggests that the administration may be looking to manage the Israeli-Palestinian dimension rather than jump into it. And I think this is not a time for major peace-making efforts by the administration, but I do hope that we can get some creative juices flowing to see whether or not we can translate what will certainly be a dialogue between Omar and Mahmoud Abbas into something that might produce a measure of success.

Very briefly. Do you agree the U.S. would have to get involved? I agree with Dan 100 percent on this one. However, what is missing is really political and amoral will not just creativity. All right. Well, we'll see. Thank you. Thank you both. Coming up, movie maker Al Gore and a New Orleans drill. But first, the Senate's immigration labors. The Republican-controlled Senate is on the verge of passing the most ambitious immigration reform bill in two decades, and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham said political urgency is the reason why. Much is at stake for our party. We have the White House, we have the Senate, and we have the House. If we can't solve this problem because it's politically too hard for us, people are going to turn to another group to solve this problem. Both Republicans and Democrats agree there is a problem, and a majority of senators from both parties support the bill, which would strengthen border enforcement, create a new

guest-worker program, and provide an eventual path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. Throughout two weeks of debate, some members have tried to make major changes to the bill. Changes supporters have warned would wreck the bipartisan coalition holding the bill together. One frequent target was the three-tiered approach to citizenship included in the bill. It allows for those here more than five years to enter immediately a legalization process that would require an estimated 11 years to obtain citizenship. Those in the country less than five years, but no more than two would have to return to their native countries and reenter through a guest-worker program before being able to apply for legal status. Those in the U.S. less than two years would be required to leave the country immediately. California Democrat Diane Feinstein, however, urged colleagues to clear the way for all undocumented immigrants in the U.S. before January 1, assuming they met certain criteria. I think it says to everybody, you have to earn this legalization.

You have to get out there and you have to work for at least six more years. You have to report in, but you have a card that identifies that you are in adjusted status. You are not subject to deportation. Texas Republican John Corman, one of several conservatives who believes even the current language is too lenient, objective. While I agree with her on the diagnosis, I don't agree with her prescription. And the prescription alleged cure here for the diagnosis is that basically we throw our hands up and say that we cannot enforce the law. Feinstein's amendment was defeated with the help of many of her fellow Democrats who wanted to preserve the bipartisan compromise. Republican Arlen Specter opposed it as well. He too, anticipating that Feinstein's amendment would have upset too many of his conservative colleagues.

If this amendment were to be adopted, the very delicate fragile coalition which we have for this bill would, I think, fail. Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss suffered a similar rejection when he tried to convince colleagues that legal farm workers holding temporary visas and illegal farm workers should be paid the same wage set by the federal government. He said it would benefit the undocumented. All are here to earn money to support their families and improve the quality of their lives. Many will work in the same occupations. Should they not be treated the same? I believe they should. But Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy argued that many farm workers' wages already are above that federally established level and the Chambliss amendment actually would cut their pay. Let's talk about fairness when I listen to the senator from Georgia. Let's talk about fairness. Let's talk about equity. Let's talk about treating everyone the same. Well, they'll be treated the same, but they're going to be treated mighty shabbily. Chambliss's amendment was the subject of fierce lobbying on Capitol Hill from Labor Unions

and the California Farm Bureau, who argued its passage could cost Senators political support. The amendment was narrowly defeated. Another southern Republican feeling the pressure from the farm lobby was Alabama's Jeff Sessions, who has stood out among his colleagues for his opposition to the guest worker provision in the bill. That's how I've said it should never pass. And I have said that these actions are unworthy of the great Senate of the United States. I've said, and I think correctly, we should be ashamed of ourselves. But the leaders of the state's farm federation told Sessions that without a new guest worker program, growers would have to search out workers to replace those who would get deported, potentially devastating the industry. Sessions responded to a question about it yesterday. That's their leader's big agribusiness, big chicken processing plants. They won't cheap labor, and they're not considering the interest of the United States of America.

I've been hired to try to consider that, and that's what I'm trying to do. So we're not going to, again, I'll just repeat, the big, strong man argument out there is that those who are opposing this bill oppose immigration into America, and that's not so. Reporter Mary Orndorf covers Sessions for the Birmingham News. She sat in on a meeting the senator had with the farm federation in March. They're with him on a lot of other issues, but they impressed upon him that they want a guest worker provision to come along with the border security. They have a need for agricultural workers, and it's their contention, and I've reported them saying this over and over again, that these are the kinds of jobs that they would not be able to fill if it weren't for immigrant labor. And they've expressed that opinion to him very directly, and this is one of those situations where I think they're going to agree to disagree. Not willing to back down from pressure and risking the ire of President Bush, who supports the parameters of the Senate bill, Sessions actually has stepped up his attacks in successive

floor speeches. I do remain troubled, Mr. President, that the Senate is moving steadily, like a train down the tracks, to pass an immigration bill that is deeply flawed. The Birmingham News Orndorf says Sessions has proven to be particularly passionate about this issue. The U.S. Attorney General and a lot of things for senator Sessions come back to the issue of the rule of law, and you've heard him say this several times, people who came into the country illegally should not be afforded any benefits of illegal status, because in his mind it's violation of the rule of law. This afternoon, Sessions used a procedural maneuver to try to derail the bill, claiming the cost of implementing it would violate budget rules. This bill, indeed, is a tremendous budget buster. He did not succeed. Sessions stance against the Senate bill puts him squarely in the camp of many House Republicans, who last year helped pass an enforcement-only bill that criminalizes illegal status,

cracks down on the hiring of the undocumented, and steps up border security. It contained no guest-worker program. Though he may lose the battle in the Senate, Sessions is likely to have another chance to alter the bill when negotiations begin with the House. With the two chambers so far apart, compromising on a bill will be difficult, and South Carolina's Graham wants dissenting Republicans to get in line. As to the Republican dynamic here, our president has chosen to lead on this. He has embraced the concepts of the Senate bill. I don't want my own party to marginalize the president on an issue of great national importance. But with President Bush's approval ratings at all-time lows, many House Republicans already upset with the Senate's approach to reform may be reluctant to push for a bill that could upset their constituents five months before the November elections. That report was by NewsHour, Congressional correspondent Kwame Holman. Now the return of Al Gore, when I full has that story.

And now my friends, and a phrase I once addressed to others, it's time for me to go. His 2000 presidential defeat was excruciating, razor-thin, and hotly contested. For years afterward, Al Gore simply fell silent. But step-by-carsha-step Gore, who introduces himself these days as the man who used to be the next president of the United States, has returned to the limelight, speaking out in 2004 against President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. When you boil it all down to precisely what went wrong with the Bush-arach policy, it's actually fairly simple. He adopted an ideologically driven view of Iraq that was tragically at odds with reality. And launching new business ventures, including current TV, an independent cable network aimed at young adult audiences. Now with the release of the film, an inconvenient truth, the former vice president has found a new platform for one of his old passions, the threat posed by global warming.

The film's launch has landed Gore on red carpets, as well as on magazine covers, New York, Wired, Vanity Fair, with Al Gore in the role of exorter in chief, the full-length feature film focuses on the science and the politics of global warming, and on Gore himself. If you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured, they've all occurred in the last 14 years, and the hottest of all was 2005. Gore's multimedia presentation, which he has toted around the world on his laptop, grabbed Hollywood's attention last year. But it is not Gore's first foray into the topic. His 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, was the best seller. If we listen carefully and clearly to what the scientific community of the entire world is saying, not just saying, they're shouting it now, they're saying, hey, wake up. We're facing a planetary emergency here, and we're not used to hearing phrases like that,

or encountering alarming messages like that. We have to tear the mask away. Labeling this a political issue is just another way of saying it's insignificant. This is the most crucial challenge that any of us have ever faced, and it's happening in our lifetimes. Some critics have called Gore alarmist as in this ad, released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. Carbon dioxide, they call it pollution, we call it life. But the critics have not slowed Al Gore's big comeback, appearing this morning on NBC's today's show, Katie Couricass, the inevitable question, what will Gore do in 2008? I don't intend to be a candidate ever again. Never, never, never. Well, look, I know plans to be a candidate and no intention of being a candidate. I've said that I'm not at the stage of my life where I'm going to say never in the rest

of my life will ever think about such a thing. An inconvenient truth opens in select cities today. For more on Al Gore, the man and the movie, I'm joined by Roy Neal, former chief of staff to the vice president, and currently a senior adviser to Mr. Gore. And John Highlamin, contributing editor at New York Magazine, he authored the magazine's cover story on Mr. Gore. John Highlamin, 11 years ago, you wrote a story about Al Gore, in which you said that what any sensible person does in preparing for a sustained piece of oratory by Al Gore is to order a cup of coffee black. Has that changed? Yeah, what a difference, 11 years makes, I mean, you know, I've seen this movie now three times and have been around the country with Gore watching him give it the 10 screenings of the film. And the overwhelming reception to it is, first of all, that the science in the movie is very scary and very persuasive.

And secondly, that this is a new Gore. I mean, a Gore that we don't remember from the 2000 campaign. He is a funny and loose and passionate and full of conviction, kind of utterly authentic. And that is leaving a lasting impression on everybody who sees it in the theaters. And I think that's going to continue. I'm older than I'll remember when people talked about a new Nixonist. They're really such a thing as a new Gore. Most Americans don't remember a positive outcome from that last election. Yeah, well, I think that's right. I mean, certainly it's true that Al Gore did win the popular vote as we sometimes forget six years ago. So there were millions of people who did vote for him. But I think even people who voted for him in 2000 did so in the knowledge that he was not the most compelling political candidate they'd ever seen. Whether this Gore is a new Gore entirely, I don't think that's true. I mean, certainly the passion that's on display now about the environment is something that he's exhibited for many, many years. But what's different is that he feels liberated, I think, from the kind of political calculations that a candidate for office, or at least an out-front candidate for office, is constantly weighed down by.

And he's able to speak his mind. And as someone I quoted in the piece said, you know, he seems to have found his voice out there in the wilderness. Right. Neil, you have known Al Gore for decades, and you're still in touch with him, talking with him, working with him. What has he been doing since last America was paying attention? Well, he's been out there making this same presentation, he's been doing it somewhat quietly, but hundreds and hundreds of times all across the world. And this film that just came out today an inconvenient truth. And by the way, the book that was also released today by the same title is really just a culmination of this new public interest in Al Gore's work on global warming. Well, when Earth and the Balance was published in 1992, even though it was a popular success, it was also widely considered as a companion piece to his 1992 race. Is this, in any way, time, this release of this movie, the hype, the magazine covers, the book, to Al Gore's re-emergence as a different kind of candidate? Well, this is not a political campaign he's involved in.

It's a campaign for America's attention to this issue, and I'll remind you that he wrote this book in 1991 after he had opted out of the 1992 campaign, and he threw himself passionately into that issue then after his son's accident. And now I think there's a parallel. He has been working hard on this issue. He's almost without anyone noticing other than the audiences that have seen this presentation. So I don't know that we're seeing a new Al Gore. I mean, I think John's description is pretty good in that regard. But this is the same Al Gore with the same passion I've seen for more than 30 years on the same issue of global warming, and I think we're now seeing, and I think the public is beginning to see that he's been right all the time about this. So this is not an Al Gore radicalized by his loss in 2004? Oh, I don't think so at all. I think it has been liberating to be doing this without the same kinds of concerns or pressures from consultants or the same sort of electoral issues that come into a political campaign

for elective office. And I think that's one reason it's been received with such credibility over the last few months and as the people have been turning their attention to it, and now that the movie is coming out. John Highlamin, if this is a different kind of campaign, has Al Gore gone Hollywood? Well, it's interesting. I mean, Roy just said that Al Gore hasn't been radicalized by his loss, and I'm not sure that's exactly right. I mean, certainly putting aside the questions of style, Al Gore was historically kind of seen as a centrist moderate Democrat, and certainly since his defeat in 2000, he has emerged as a champion or as a hero to the left wing of the Democratic Party. I'm starting with his opposition to the Iraq War, much ahead of the rest of the Democratic Party on the questions of warrantless wiretapping on his criticisms of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. He has become a hero to people out in Hollywood, who are certainly on the, tend to be on the left-ward edges of the Democratic Party.

In San Francisco, in the green community, in the anti-war left, out in the liberal blogosphere, these are now the constituencies that are most excited about the prospect of Gore's rehabilitation, his reemergence, and the prospect of him running again in 2008. And that is a very different kind of constituency than he had previously. John, you said you've seen this film three times. I've seen it once. What does this film do that eight years as Vice President didn't accomplish? Well, I mean, certainly, I think, you know, the timing of this movie is crucial and exquisite for not just in the political context, but in terms of the issue. I mean, I think, you know, having this movie come out a year after Hurricane Katrina, which has really changed, I think, a lot of people's views and made people more aware of the importance of this issue. It's very different from where we were even 15 years ago where there wasn't the same kind of scientific consensus about global warming. And so, Gore could not get as much traction with this issue, even as Vice President, than he's able to get now. Brian Neal, he was Vice President.

You were his Chief of Staff. He had eight years and a pretty powerful position. I remember at the time he was described as the most powerful Vice President in history, of course, that was in the nostalgic pre-Chainy days. But I wonder if people can't fairly ask why he didn't do what he's talking about now when he had the power? Well, he did all he could do. And you have to remember that the times were very different then. We had a whole different situation in terms of public awareness of this issue. The Congress was way behind on this issue. And it was way down the list of public concerns. Al Gore did a great deal to advance environmental issues within the Clinton-Gord administration. He went a long way in that regard. He moved the country towards getting involved in the Kyoto Treaty, and tragically the Bush administration stepped back from that and rejected it afterwards. I think it's his credentials and accomplishment as an environmental Vice President were second to none ever. And I would like to point out one other thing, though. You're suggesting that Al Gore has been a radicalized.

If you look at where he's been on these issues since the 2000 election and the compelling speeches he's given on the Iraq War, on the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping and so on, that's exactly where the country is right now. He's not way out on the left on these issues. He's exactly where the majority of the people in this country are. And I think with this initiative on global warming and his passion and this film coming out at this time, I think we're going to see that he's been not only a prescient on these issues, but he continues to be visionary on them. John Holliman, what about the charges that he is alarmist on these issues that he is inaccurate in some of the details in the movie that he is holier than thou? Well, I mean, I think that you can't help but come away from the movie with a certain sense that Gore has kind of messianic streak about this, you know, that you must listen to me or else the world will end. At the same time, I mean, the charges that he's alarmist, I mean, increasingly ring incredibly hollow about this. And I'm not a partisan in this battle, but the science on this has become incredibly incredibly clear.

The ads, the competitiveness enterprise institute have put out are literally, I mean, just a joke. And I don't think there's any serious scientist who wouldn't look at them and sort of crack up at the absurdity of the claims they're making. I mean, I don't think that there's any question, but the Gore is where the scientific consensus is in the academy on where, on the threat that global warming poses or on the contributions that we, both as individuals and in the corporate world, have made to the problem. Roy Niel, is Al Gore over 2000? I think so. He dove into this work on global warming and building two successful businesses and engaging in an awful lot of activities and giving a number of compelling speeches. He worked hard at it. It was a very, very difficult thing. It would be extremely painful for anyone. He got over a lot faster than I did. I will tell you that. So do you think he's thinking about 2008? No, I don't. He's working so hard on this global warming initiative. He's doing nothing to put that together.

What he said is exactly what I sense is that he has no intention of mounting another political campaign. And certainly what he's doing now is not the conventional way you go about running for president. And I don't think that it should be mistaken as such. What do you think, John Highell, then? I think that that is true and not true. I mean, I think, first of all, it is not the conventional way you run for president, at least be the way that people have run for president. But in fact, in this particular moment in American politics, it may be the best way to run for president, to appear to be not a politician, to appear to be above politics and beyond politics. And that creates an aura, as I said before, of authenticity around him that makes him incredibly attractive. The other thing that I think that Roy slightly underplays, I mean, is that Al Gore is hearing from everybody he knows that there are lots of people in the country who want him to run. And from coast to coast, there are people who come up to him at screenings, who come up to him at public events, his old allies in Washington, who many of whom desperately want him to run, and who are hearing from people all across the Democratic spectrum that they

would be open to the notion of him running. So the notion that he is not aware of the surge in interest in him running, in particular in light of the sense of kind of foreboding and disquiet that a lot of people in the party have about Hillary Clinton as the presumptive frontrunner, I think the notion that he's not thinking about it and is not in fact in some ways deeply torn by the notion, I just don't think that's right. I think he is a man who thinks he should be president, would love to be president, but who hates the idea of having to go through the process of getting there. Well, I think that would apply to a lot of people, John Highland and Roy Neal. Thank you both very much. Thank you. Finally tonight, New Orleans gets ready for the next big evacuation. New's our correspondent Tom Bearden has our report. Currently, Hurricane Watch is in effect for the entire Louisiana coast. The emergency operations center in Baton Rouge running a full-scale simulation of a fictitious storm named Alicia about to make landfall in southeastern Louisiana.

Currently we are estimated 48 hours from landfall. The exercise started on Friday and runs through today. The idea was to allow first responders and public officials throughout the state, like New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagan, to test their plans for reacting to a category 3 hurricane. New Orleans is definitely in the cone of probability as far as it hit us. As per our new plan, we will be calling tomorrow, most likely, it looks as though we may have a mandatory evacuation. New plans outlined by the mayor and the governor call for a mandatory evacuation when a category 3 or higher hurricane is predicted to strike the city. As before, officials expect most citizens to use their own vehicles to get away. They hope to speed the evacuation by converting most major highways into one-way routes out of the city, and there are plans to activate 6,000 National Guardsmen to protect people's property while they're gone.

The goal is to avoid the deadly consequences of Hurricane Katrina, which killed more than 1,000 people in the state. Thousands of others who remained in New Orleans during the storm were crammed into the super dome begging for food and water. In a sharp break with the past, Nagan said this year, New Orleans will not provide any shelters for people who don't have transportation. Instead, people will be evacuated as early as three days before projected landfall. Governor Kathleen Blanco explained. When hurricanes threaten, the best way to save lives is we all know very well is to get people away from the danger zone before the hurricane strikes. Our citizens must know and understand that that is the safest way they can protect themselves and their families. While the exercise volunteers played the part of evacuees, the plan calls for people to be picked up by city transit buses at various locations and assembled at the New Orleans Convention

Center. Each person would receive a wristband and be added to a computer database. Retired Marine Corps Colonel Jerry Sneed runs the operation for the city's Office of Homeland Security. That band is identified to a family member, a person, and then we add the children and when they get on the state bus, it's re-scaned, we're able to send the technology straight to the state to let them know who's on what bus and eventually the state would actually send back word to us telling us which citizens are at what shelter. If they have to move them, they update their system and data and we will know they'll tell them where their citizens are. But it's still not clear where all those buses would actually go and where evacuees would find shelter. The city says that's the state's responsibility and the director of New Orleans Homeland Security Office, retired Colonel Terry Ebert, says it's also America's responsibility. Our biggest problem and I feel very strongly that to evacuate one potentially 1.5 million

people from Southeast Louisiana and expect a low population state like Louisiana to house 40% of its population is not practical. We need to have a national sheltering plan with major mega areas where we can transport people to. It's not only the buses but a single mother with three children, $10.5 a tank of gas. How can I put her on the road and say just drive and listen to the radio and they'll direct you to a shelter? She can't do that. When her tank goes dry, she can no longer move. She can't feed her family, she's out in the middle of nowhere. So the issue of destinations is very important. The destination issue is complicated by the fact of two cities, Baton Rouge and Houston, where thousands of Katrina evacuees were sheltered, are reluctant to volunteer their facilities in the future.

Another uncertainty is whether enough transit authority workers will stay on the job long enough to drive all those buses, operators like Keith Stevens. If I have to stay here until 24 hours before the storm, help people evacuate and that poses a tough question. In the past, he's always evacuated early and driven his family to safety. If he stays to drive a bus, his wife and son will be on their own to make a 12 to 20-hour drive. We had to talk about that this morning, you know, I say, you're going to have to make that drive now, you know, and that's one of our concerns, you know, and where are we going to be going and all those types of things. The city believes that an early evacuation that would have employees out well before a storm will be enough to persuade people to keep working. New Orleans also wants to avoid a repetition of another Hurricane Katrina tragedy, nursing home residents abandoned to drown when the city's levees broke. People with medical problems will be bussed to the Amtrak station, where they'll be put aboard trains to take them to properly equip facilities inland.

Everett says, probably, to other states. I think they need to look very seriously at converting some rail cars to be a evacuation of medically needy people, because there is no capability to move people on stretchers, terminal patients, and that is a real problem. Small towns, like Baker, Louisiana, north of Baton Rouge, were part of the drill scenario too. Baker is home to FEMA's largest trailer park, 500 campers housing about 1,500 people, and there are more than 200,000 people statewide living in unfinished homes and mobile homes. Authorities say the trailers can't provide adequate shelter and strong winds, and will have to be evacuated. In the morning, Baker's mayor Harold Rodos said things were going pretty well. The key to any operations is communication, and I feel like we are on top of it with communicating each department, and we've actually done this before in reality, so I have a lot of confidence in the people of City of Baker, and that we can actually do this and

do it well. But Baker's police and fire departments stood around for most of the day, because the order never came from Baton Rouge to stage the mock evacuation. Instead, Baker was ordered to conduct exercises freeing hostages, and to respond to a mock fire at a power plant. The city then canceled the whole thing in disgust. While local officials praised first responders on the ground, they blamed the state and federal governments for a communication breakdown. And as we stand here today, there is no plan. If you're asking me, you're having gone through Katrina and Rita from a law enforcement standpoint and been able to see all of the entities involved from what I experienced today, in regards to this, I don't see that we're much better off now, if any, than we were last year.

So, how are we going to give the information as to where the bus is departing to? Meanwhile, inside a temporary emergency operation center in New Orleans, officials from various agencies were working together to address problems very likely to occur in a real emergency. This is only a triage for transportation at the specific request of the state. What we're identifying here is that's a problem. Right, you keep loved ones together, but the medical needy one goes to the medical needs shelter. But beyond the city center, in neighborhoods like Viwater, some residents wondered whether the city and state plans are adequate. The city may make all the grand plans in the world, but if it's not brought to the person who needs to know and needs to know where to go, it's going nowhere. So Patricia Meyer and Phyllis Perrin decided to go door-to-door passing out information booklets on the evacuation plans. The longtime neighborhood activists believe that despite all the planning, many people will stay here and ride out future storms. They will stay even if that is evacuated.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Why would they defy that order? Because it's their property, they want to protect it, they don't trust the city. That's exactly the scenario that Homeland Security officials fear most. Again, the major developments of this day, the Israeli Prime Minister addressed Congress and urged Palestinians to join peace talks while they're still time, and the new Iraqi Prime Minister said his forces can take over entirely within 18 months. We'll see you online. And again, here, tomorrow evening, I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lara has been provided by. Each person has a unique way of seeing the world. That's why Pacific Life offers portfolio optimization for its variable products. A service that helps you and your financial professional identify an investment strategy

that's right for you. And Pacific Life offers a full palette of investment choices to help you achieve your vision of your future. Pacific Life. The power to help you succeed. At CIT, we provide the financing to keep health care strong and healthy. We help energy companies find new resources. We work with communications companies to make the world smaller and life bigger. We offer financial aid to make college possible for more students. At CIT, we help finance the future because that's the place to be. See it with CIT. And by the Archer Daniels Midland Company. Toyota. And the Atlantic Philanthropies. And...

This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer.

On the news hour tonight, the news of this Wednesday, then a look at the prospects for peace in the Middle East as the Israeli Prime Minister visits the United States. An update report on the Senate's progress toward passing an immigration bill, some perspective on Al Gore and his new global warming movie, and a news hour report on Hurricane evacuation drills in New Orleans. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer has been provided by... There's a company that builds more than a million vehicles a year in places called Indiana and Kentucky, one that has 10 plants from the foothills of West Virginia to the Pacific coastline. What company is this? Toyota.

A company that along with its dealers and suppliers has helped create hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, a company proud to do its small part to add to the landscape of America. The world's demand for energy will never stop, which is why a farmer is growing corn and a farmer is growing solid.