The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of today's news, a Newsmaker interview with homeland security director Tom Ridge, a report on AIDS among children in the African nation of Zambia, a debate between Senators Leahy and McConnell over the confirmation of judicial appointments, and a new book conversation about America's public intellectuals.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Israel and the Palestinians agreed today to end the standoff in Bethlehem. More than 120 Palestinians, including several dozen gunmen, have been holed up there in the Church of the Nativity for 38 days. The foreign minister of Cyprus confirmed the deal in Nicosia. He said the key was the fate of 13 of the gunmen.

YIANNAKIS CASSOULIDES, Foreign Minister, Cyprus: Cyprus announces that it's prepared to host for a temporary period of a few days in transit the 13 Palestinians for which the Israeli authorities have been demanding either their arrest or, or the necessity for them to leave the country voluntarily. They will stay in Cyprus in transit until the European Union countries decide about their final destination.

JIM LEHRER: It was unclear when the deportees would leave. The Israeli army said another 26 gunmen would be sent to Gaza, and about 80 civilians would go free. Also today, Israeli armor and troops began a buildup near Gaza. The movements came after the government ordered a response to a suicide bombing Tuesday. That attack killed 15 Israelis. We have a report from Tristana Moore of Independent Television News.

TRISTANA MOORE: Any retaliation will most likely be in the densely populated Gaza Strip, home to the Islamic militant group Hamas, and it's believed, the suicide bomber who carried out Tuesday's attack.

DANIEL TAUB, Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman: This is going to involve whatever steps are necessary in order to take these weapons of destruction away from the hands of the terrorists, to destroy the terrorist infrastructure, and basically to do everything that the Palestinian Authority promised to do in the terms of receiving these terrorists over the past eight years, but didn't.

TRISTANA MOORE: Yasser Arafat, who's been quick to condemn the latest bombing, was today admiring a present from European Union diplomats. The Palestinian leader has ordered the arrest of 16 Hamas members in Gaza in the hope that this may be enough to head off any Israeli reprisals.

YASSER ABBED RABBO, Palestinian Minister of Information: The war against Gaza and against other parts of the Palestinian territories will only lead towards widening this vicious circle of violence.

(Singing in Hebrew)

TRISTIANA MOORE: Tonight, Ariel Sharon joined other Israelis in celebrating Jerusalem Day, marking the capture of East Jerusalem in the 1967 War. Israel is calling up more reservists, raising fears among Palestinians of a new incursion in Gaza, which until now has escaped the Israeli military operations.

JIM LEHRER: In Washington today, President Bush said the Palestinians faced a test. He said they must not only arrest terror suspects, but keep them in custody. In southern Russia today, a remote-controlled bomb killed at least 35 people and wounded 150. It happened in a port town near Chechnya. It was the latest in a series of terrorist attacks in the region. The bomb exploded during a parade celebrating the allied victory in World War II. The dead included a dozen children, plus elderly veterans and marching band members. No one claimed responsibility, but Russian officials blamed Islamic militants. Pakistani authorities cracked down today on suspected Islamic militants. Wire service reports said nearly 300 people were arrested. The roundup followed yesterday's suicide bombing in Karachi that killed 14 people. No one has claimed responsibility for the bombing. In Afghanistan today, British Royal Marines said they uncovered a large enemy weapons dump. Their commander said they found four caves with locked metal doors in an eastern province. The caves were filled with antitank and antiaircraft munitions. The British said al-Qaida or Taliban fighters may have been there recently. About 20 pieces of mail have tested positive for anthrax at the Federal Reserve in Washington. The Fed made that announcement today. Screeners detected spores during routine checks in a trailer outside the central bank's offices. At the White House, a spokesman said none of the letters and parcels contained anything unusual.

ARI FLEISCHER: The affected mail was routine commercial and business mail and did not have the characteristics identified by the FBI as suspicious, so as a result as has happened previously from time to time unfortunately, swabs were sent for additional testing. As I note, these are preliminary; this has happened before. The source of this possible contamination is not known. Subsequent tests of the mailroom surfaces and mail distribution points within the board's buildings have all been negative.

JIM LEHRER: Immediately after September 11 anthrax attacks by mail killed five people. No one has been arrested for those crimes. We'll talk with Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge about this and other things in a moment. President Bush renewed his complaint the Senate is holding up judicial nominees. A year ago today, he sent up his first 11 candidates for the federal appeals bench. So far, three have been confirmed. The President said it's because of bad politics by Democrats who control the Senate. Some Democrats said it has more to do with the quality of the candidates. We'll have more on this story later in the program. The governor of Maryland, Parris Glendening, imposed a moratorium today on executions in the state. He said it would last until the state completes a study on racial bias in the death penalty in September. Illinois is the only other state to take such action. In all, 38 states use capital punishment. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Tom Ridge, AIDS in Zambia, the Senate fight over judges, and public intellectuals.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: And now to Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania.

Governor, welcome.

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Jim, nice to be back.

JIM LEHRER: What can you add to what Ari Fleischer said, we just saw in the News Summary on this anthrax finding at the Fed?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Well, actually we had a conversation about that a couple of hours ago. There are a minimal number of spores; the origin of course is unknown. Obviously, additional tests will be conducted to determine whether it's a downstream perhaps from the post office in the distribution center where we had the earlier more significant problems, but right now they're just conducting quite a few tests and we'll make a decision based on whether or not they need to do anything else. Right now it seems to be a very, very limited number of spores and no need for anyone to be concerned about their health.

JIM LEHRER: Nobody is in danger, nobody was put in danger as a result of that?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Based on what we understand but again we've learned a lot doing the earlier anthrax crisis so we have much more aggressive testing and much more aggressive follow-up. And if there is the slightest hint that there is a potential health problem, then we move in immediately with antibiotics and treat those who have been exposed to that mail.

JIM LEHRER: It hasn't been ruled out, has it, that this is a new batch of anthrax? Is it likely to have been a new batch or just part of the old that just now suddenly turned up in the machines?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: There has been no analysis to determine whether it's part of the old batch or new batch. And I think it would be foolish for me to conjecture. My sense is, is that with a limited number of spores there is a good possibility it may be related to an old batch. But it would be really inappropriate for me to draw a final conclusion until all the tests are conducted and all the results are known.

JIM LEHRER: What is the state of the investigation about the old batch?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Well, we talk to FBI Director Bob Mueller about this just about every day and he continues to have several hundred people working along with the postal authorities and working along with state and local police, but they have also undertaken at different labs around this country a series of very complex tests on the spores themselves with the hope that the more they find out about the anthrax spores that there maybe some evidence or some conclusions they can draw about the individuals involved or where the tests - or where the anthrax was made. So, again, they're pursuing human intelligence on a day-to-day basis, but there is a group of very complex tests, scientific tests that are being conducted. Hopefully one of these days there will be an intersection of information gained by both that will enable us to find the perpetrator or perpetrators.

JIM LEHRER: We talked about this when you were on our program a few, several weeks ago now, and the, the puzzlement over why it's so difficult to locate this -- I mean this guy, whoever these people were sent the letters to the U.S. mails to several prominent people, all that sort of thing, and the assumption was at the beginning, well, this will be an easy one to solve. Why has it been so difficult?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: I think reflects, first of all, the openness of our system. We think we have an idea obviously where the letters were deposited but literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people on a daily basis use these post offices or mailboxes. And this individual was very careful not to leave any signature that -- in terms of fingerprint evidence or the like to enable the FBI to draw down more completely and a lot sooner on potential perpetrators. So it's been a very complex investigation from the get-go. The FBI has devoted hundreds of agents and millions of dollars. It's one of the most aggressive ongoing investigations that they have ever conducted, and hopefully, that coupled with scientific tests -- but it's a complex puzzle; they're doing everything they can. I'm convinced they'll get to the bottom of it but it's a tough one.

JIM LEHRER: Are they close at all?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: I can't tell you we're any closer today than we were yesterday. But then again I don't know what they learned today with regard to the tests; they have the leads that they've been following. And they've been led down a lot of blind alleys but they're pursuing every conceivable lead.

JIM LEHRER: Now, are you kept abreast of all of these investigations -

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Oh, yes.

JIM LEHRER: -- on a regular basis?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Oh, absolutely. And one of the opportunities and responsibilities I have is from time to time to just sit down with those conducting the investigations to get a full and complete status report as to where they are. Of course the President stays very much involved and very informed on these things as well.

JIM LEHRER: Now, there was another homeland security issue this week, and those were the pipe bombs in Texas and the Midwest. What... was your office involved in that?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Oh, yes. It was interesting we just opened up a coordination center on Nebraska Avenue so we can connect the federal government with...

JIM LEHRER: Nebraska Avenue here in Washington?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Yes. We connect our office to the state and local governments and ultimately to many places around this country. But our... the homeland security advisor for that state was in contact with our office almost immediately. The FBI was on top of it immediately. Now, here's an instance where the individual did leave tracks in the sand and they were able to follow a bit of trail. It showed great cooperation between the FBI, the state police, the local police and they managed to apprehend him rather quickly.

JIM LEHRER: Who makes the decision to call Tom Ridge? When does the Homeland Security Office involved in these kinds of things, somebody fines a pipe bomb, somebody finds anthrax, how does that work?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: It's really interesting; it's a wonderful question to ask because the President directed our office to develop a national strategy, which means that he hoped that we could develop a plan and work with not only federal agencies but state and local agencies and almost simultaneously in this instance the Homeland Security Advisor from the state gave us a call, the FBI gave us a call, so we received information very quickly from a variety of sources and were able to monitor it throughout the entire investigation.

JIM LEHRER: And yet I read that when the decision was made to end military surveillance flights over New York recently, you all were not consulted at all, your office wasn't even told about it until after the decision was made, is that correct?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Well, initially there had been reports that the Pentagon, the Department of Defense had made an internal decision and that was somehow linked and somebody got a hold of that. We were working on the same issue within the Homeland Security Office, and as things are normally arranged we got together with the Secretary of Defense and others responsible for the decision and reached agreement and as to what we would do regarding the air space in the corridor from New York to Washington.

JIM LEHRER: A Defense Department official was quoted in the "New York Times" saying, quote, we don't tell the Office of Homeland Security about recommendations, only about decisions. End quote. Is that true about all of the federal agents?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: I think that's an unfortunate characterization because the Secretary of Defense and I have had some wonderful conversations about the relationship between the office. We have continued conversations about how the new unified command plan, where they're going to have a North American Command, will work with the Office of Homeland Security. So that may have been his version but I would say that the collaboration has been pretty good so far.

JIM LEHRER: When the announcement was made about a terrorist attack against banks recently, the announcement was made by the Attorney General, not by Tom Ridge, is that the way it's supposed to be?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Yes. As a matter of fact after both the Attorney General and I made similar announcements not quite with the same kind of specific information attached to them last fall and early winter, we worked with the Homeland Security Council, which are the principles of major departments in government, and developed a national threat advisory system. You remember, you've probably seen, it's a five color-coded system and we're hoping that's one half the program. The other half of the system is that the public sector and the private sector will develop precautionary measures, protective measures consistent with the level of threat. But in addition to making that recommendation to the President that we adopt that, we also recommended that the Attorney General be responsible in the future, so that there is focal point for making those kinds of announcements, so it was very appropriate for the Attorney General consistent with the recommendation that the Homeland Security Council -- not our office but the Council made to the President.

JIM LEHRER: As you know some members of Congress, and the Brookings Institution study and some others have suggested that your office, whether you had the job or not, should be elevated to cabinet level so you are more involved not just as one of the informants, not just as a coordinator but one of the decision makers. Do you think that's right, after several months now on the job, do you need to be a cabinet officer?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Well, first of all I think our office has been very much involved in a lot of the decision-making relative to homeland security issues. But one of the things that the President told the Congress - and I have reiterated his message over the past seven or eight months -- because these ideas were vetted shortly after I was sworn in -- the President asked and I've asked him to give us some time, as we take a look at our office and we take a look at the Executive Branch, and I have said to them based on what we conclude is necessary for a national strategy, there may be a reorganization of the Executive Branch recommended. I mean, we're reviewing all options now. But even if we would consolidate some of these many, many agencies over which homeland security would have some jurisdiction and some interaction, a President would still need an advisor because even if you had a new agency, you would still have the Attorney General's Office you're working with, you would still have the Department of Defense, you would still have Tommy Thompson at Health and Human Services. So whether or not Congress proceed unilaterally or based on a recommendation that we might make to strengthen and create a cabinet office, you would still need a homeland security advisor.

JIM LEHRER: So you're comfortable being an advisor now, not an implementer, not a cabinet office who has got a big team and turns around and orders people to do things?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Well I'm comfortable with the job the President has assigned me to do. And the job was very specific. It was to design and then coordinate the implementation of a national security strategy and we're in the process of doing now - and some parts of the strategy have emerged in the President's budget with bio defense and help our first responders, and the police and the firemen, and the EMT, and the border initiatives that we've undertaken; the national advisory is part of that strategy; working on cyber and physical infrastructure in the private sector as part of that strategy, but long term there could be and again we have told everybody we're working on it now. I personally think that you take a look at different functions of the government, there could be a re-organizational effort to bring it into the 21st century, if we believe this is an enduring vulnerability, and I do - and whatever the President decides after that is up to the President. But I'm comfortable being a special assistant to the President and Director of Homeland Security.

JIM LEHRER: You're working on these recommendations?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Correct.

JIM LEHRER: And you're supposed to have them to the President by midsummer sometime?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Well, I volunteered publicly to the President that we could get a blueprint for future action to him by midyear on or about July 1 and we're still aiming to make that commitment to the President.

JIM LEHRER: Let me read you a quote from the "New York Times" a few days ago. It said, quote, instead of becoming the preeminent leader of domestic security Tom Ridge has become a White House advisor with a shrinking mandate, forbidden by the President to testify before Congress to explain his strategy, overruled in White House councils and overshadowed by powerful cabinet members reluctant to cede or share their limelight, end quote. True or false?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Well, I think it's false. I just don't think they have spent enough time with me on a day-to-day basis. We have accomplished a great deal, have a tremendous opportunity to have impact on the decision making process, worked in collaboration with agencies, working with the EPA and the chemical industry, working with Tommy Thompson on dealing with potential bio terrorism threats, right now an emphasis on small pox and getting vaccines and preparing a distribution plan; working with the technology community on cyber security and then working with a broadest section, I they have we have met with a couple hundred trade associations and companies talking about physical infrastructure, developing best practices of being prepared to offer some plans to deal with that, so on a day-to-day basis we're not only advising and counseling and coordinating, we're helping drive decision making. I think it's an inappropriate characterization of what we do and what we have done. But they don't spend every day of the hour with me.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking in terms of what you have done, what you would say tonight the status of our homeland security is post September 11, are we in better shape, are we safer?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Across the board, I mean across the board if you're concerned about bio terrorism defense, we learned a lot of tough and difficult lessons with anthrax but the pharmaceutical companies engaged, NIH is engaged, the Center for Disease Control is engaged; we've been concerned about border since 9/112. There have been changes, I think the Congress with its bill, border bill, some meaningful reform, we're going to start having biometrics on visas. The President has said we need to develop an entry and exit monitoring system. We're working on border accords with our friends in Canada and Mexico. You go across the board to working with first responders, and you've got 50 states and territories that now have homeland security advisors; you've got Dick Clark working across the board both with public and private sector cyber security. So just about everywhere you look we have pushed forward very aggressively. That's not to say we still don't have more work to do. But I think we've made a lot of success. This is a multiyear plan and we will get it done, I'm confident of that.

JIM LEHRER: You mentioned the alert system. What level of alert are we on now?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: We have been and still are at the third level, and the color code, it's yellow, but it's an elevated level of risk, and what we have said with this, and the national system was really embraced by the law enforcement community, I mean, they helped us write it. It was embraced by the 50 plus homeland security advisors because we all think we need a vocabulary, a standard vocabulary that says to the country what level of risk we're at, but also within the same matrix if we get credible, corroborated information that say a particular site, a particular company, a particular venue, it may be under greater stress, under greater risk, then there is enough flexibility to go back to them and say you'd better adopt even more protective measures because we have pretty serious, pretty credible information that you may be a target of an attack. I think the system is working very well.

JIM LEHRER: Has the situation in the Middle East enhanced or is there anything new as a result of what's going on in the Middle East?

GOV. TOM RIDGE: You know, unfortunately we watch the death and the destruction and terror over there but that has - we are at still a pretty substantial - we're at an elevated level of risk and nothing over there has given us reason to modify that.

JIM LEHRER: All right, Mr. Ridge, thank you very much.

GOV. TOM RIDGE: Nice to be with you again. Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Thank you.

FOCUS - YOUNG VICTIMS

JIM LEHRER: At the United Nations yesterday, a 13-year-old Bolivian girl told an international assembly, "We are street children. We are the victims and orphans of HIV/AIDS." The scene was the first special UN session devoted to the problems of children around the world. Nowhere is the problem of AIDS and children more acute than in southern Africa. We have a report from Zambia by special correspondent Jonathan Silvers.

JONATHAN SILVERS: Since the AIDS pandemic began 20 years ago, the disease has claimed more than 15 million lives in sub-Saharan Africa. In Zambia, one of the countries hardest hit, the Ministry of Health expects that half the population will die of AIDS. The impact on children has been devastating. In Zambia, 40,000 children under age 15 are believed to be infected; 650,000 children have been orphaned or left with one parent.

DR. STELLA GOINGS, UNICEF Zambia: It's very hard to find a family in Zambia that hasn't been personally touched. It's very hard to find a child that hasn't seen or witnessed a death related to HIV/AIDS. The extended family in the community structure, they've really broken under the weight of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and poverty, and when the burden becomes too great, families are unable to cope anymore, and so we're seeing tremendous numbers of orphans and children who are no longer able to be cared for by their extended family. And in the midst of all that, we are seeing within the communities themselves and within extended families truly heroic efforts to absorb the children, to work with them, to give them the nurturing and caring in the environment, in their own communities that is so necessary for this next generation.

JONATHAN SILVERS: As the toll mounts, Zambia's elder generation is struggling to preserve its traditions. In the village of Kamponde, Ndiliaha Mwila and her husband, Steven, took in two grandchildren in 1999 after losing their son and daughter- in-law to AIDS. With work and food scarce, the Mwila family subsists on one meal a day, a meal for which granddaughter Queen is grateful.

QUEEN MWILA (Translated): My brother and I were brought here after staying with relatives in different towns. My grandfather took us in because we weren't going to school. None of my other relatives thought to send me to school. They made us work all the time and didn't feed us.

JONATHAN SILVERS: Queen's grandfather, Steven, is a disabled copper miner. 65 years old and blind in his left eye, he now repairs chairs to support his extended family.

STEVEN MWILA ( Translated): I'm an orphan. I lost my parents when I was young, and my relatives rejected me, so I was raised by my village. I have strong feelings about people who reject orphans. They don't deserve to live on this earth. It is a blessing to take in these children. My only worry is what happens to them when I die. In my condition, I can't find work, and food is scarce. The house is in bad repair and may collapse. I'm not sure how long I'll be here to help them.

QUEEN MWILA (Translated): I think about what will happen to us if my grandfather dies. If he dies while I'm in primary school, I'll find work to pay school fees. If he dies after I finish school, I'll take a job and care for the other children.

JONATHAN SILVERS: Zambians once prided themselves on their devotion to children; the tradition of extended family care giving held that orphans be taken in by relatives. Foundlings were adopted by neighbors and accorded privileged status in the community by way of compensating them for the loss of their parents. But as millions of children are discovering, AIDS and economic turmoil are destroying social traditions, leading relatives and neighbors to reject them when they're at their most vulnerable. Boas Mobela has known little but rejection since his mother's death. For the past three years, he's cared single-handedly for his sister and three brothers on this remote compound. The nearest neighbor is a two- hour hike away.

BOAS MOBELA (Translated): I remember my mother fondly. She provided us with everything, whatever we needed. I miss that most. Now my brothers and sister turn to me for everything.

JONATHAN SILVERS: In 1999, at age 14, Boas had already been caring for his siblings and ailing mother, Margaret, for three years. Abandoned by their father, forsaken by neighbors, Boas and the children kept vigil over their mother. AIDS is often misunderstood in rural areas, where victims of the disease and their families are thought to be bewitched, the consorts of evil spirits. Margaret's death effectively severed the children from their community.

BOAS MOBELA (Translated): Neighbors in the village didn't help us at all. They urged us to move away from them. This is our parents' land. There was nothing here but bush when we came. I brought the smaller children here and built huts for each of us. We decided to live in one house so we could be together. I wasn't intimidated. If I didn't build the huts, no one else would.

ALICK NYIRENDA, Executive Director, Copperbelt Health Education Project: Boas has been ushered into adulthood with very few skills to cope with adult life, so he has been ushered into this cycle of new needs, new challenges. He has to engage into new ways of thinking and he has to engage into new ways of doing things in order to cope as an individual, and also to help his siblings to cope, as well. The impact of the epidemic is so great. You will find families where children have been fed, they have been clothed, and they have a roof on top of their head. But emotionally they are starved, and also you have children who are emotionally fed but they have no clothes. They have no shelter and they have no food.

DR. STELLA GOINGS: There is an increasing proportion of under-15 population that finds themselves orphaned now. Zambia, a country with only 10.3 million people, may actually be facing as many as 2 million orphans by the end of this decade.

JONATHAN SILVERS: But responses are few. Increasingly Zambia's AIDS orphans attempt to escape their suffering by taking to the street. The capital, Lusaka, is flooded with children from the rural provinces.

ROGERS MWEWA, Executive Director, Foundation of Hope: It's very difficult for them to survive on the streets. They have to be in a group for them to survive. And when they are in a group, they learn tactics like begging. At the same time, they take different kinds of drugs that take away the shyness to beg. So the drugs really helps them to survive on the streets.

JONATHAN SILVERS: Rogers Mwewa is executive director of Fountain of Hope, a residence for Lusaka street children. In the absence of a coordinated government response, the task of aiding orphans and vulnerable children has fallen on charities and nongovernmental organizations.

ROGERS MWEWA: Children, when they come here, they're exposed to the activities that are around here. They're exposed to sports, they're exposed to skills training, they're exposed to education, and it's up to these kids to decide what they want to do and what they think is good. A good number of them are in education, and some of them are building the building that you saw there. Most of it was done by the children from here.

JONATHAN SILVERS: The goal is to make the children self-sufficient by the time they leave the center. With 6,000 children on the streets and space for only 300, demand far exceeds the center's resources. (Singing and clapping) While most of its activities revolve around boys, the center recently opened a separate residence in response to a surge of girls on city streets. The 16 girls here range in age from three years to fourteen. All lost a parent to AIDS; most were abused after their parent's death. 13-year-old Janet Mumba was beaten by her brother and uncle a year ago. The wounds have yet to heal.

JANET MUMBA (Translated): My parents broke up and my father died. The other children and I went to live with my uncle, but he treated us badly-- he shouted and beat us. A friend told me that it was better living on the street, because there you could beg for money and food. At night we slept in a drainage ditch. I don't think about going home. I'm better off here.

ROGERS MWEWA: The problem is big, and will do a lot of harm to our mother Zambia if definitely people don't invest in children. Today a big number of people in Zambia are affected. They are infected by HIV, and they are likely to die any time. The only people that are free from H.IV/AIDS are those that you are seeing here. This is the same group of children that are neglected, and let's not make them go on to the streets of Lusaka and do whatever they have to do in the streets of Lusaka, and kill themselves in the streets of Lusaka.

JONATHAN SILVERS: At night, Rogers Mwewa often walks the street of Lusaka monitoring the children, offering tips for survival, hoping to help some of the thousands left alone by the scourge of AIDS.

JIM LEHRER: Participants at the special UN Session hope to produce a plan to address the plight of children orphaned by AIDS. It's expected to call for more programs to increase community support and protections from abuse and exploitation. That UN session ends tomorrow.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the judicial scrap, and public intellectuals.

FOCUS - BENCH BATTLE

JIM LEHRER: Picking the judges. Kwame Holman begins.

KWAME HOLMAN: It might have been called "Judgment Day." Senators spent hours today trading accusations over the alleged refusal by Democrats to confirm federal judges nominated by President Bush.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL, (R) Kentucky: If you've seen this man, you might want to report him to the judiciary committee so he can get a hearing.

KWAME HOLMAN: The day of partisan sparring was orchestrated on the one-year anniversary of President Bush's sending up his first judicial nominations to the Senate for confirmation. It was May 9 last year when Mr. Bush personally introduced 11 nominees to the federal bench. Three have been confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate. In all, Mr. Bush has nominated 99 candidates to the federal appeals and district courts. The Senate has confirmed 56. Things got started today before 10:00 A.M., when some two dozen Republican Senators convened a news conference.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM, (R) Pennsylvania: We do are a crisis in the courts, it's a crisis that's created by obstructionism of the President's judicial nominees, here in the United States Senate.

KWAME HOLMAN: An hour later, Senate Democrats fired back at their own news event, presenting people they said were victims of bad decisions by federal judges.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) Massachusetts) Republicans don't understand that the issues at stake here go far beyond partisan games. This debate is about lifetime appointments to the court that decide case that's shape of lives of all American people.

KWAME HOLMAN: Simultaneously, the Democratic chairman of a judiciary subcommittee presented some evidence of his own-- a group of people nominated to federal judgeships by Bill Clinton. They never got a Senate vote when Republicans controlled the chamber. New York's Chuck Schumer:

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER, (D) New York: We have heard such indignation from the other side about judges being held up, when the same thing was done a year or two ago. I don't understand that. I can understand saying, "that was wrong," and, "this is wrong," but to be on such a high horse when just in a short time- - not in distant historical memory-- the same thing was done. That bothers me.

KWAME HOLMAN: Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions:

SEN. JEF SESSIONS, (R) Alabama: I don't agree. I think the ground rules have been changed. I think this is an unprecedented slowdown of judicial nominations as the chart Senator Hatch put up there displays and shows that President Clinton overwhelmingly got the nominations that he wanted confirmed.

KWAME HOLMAN: All day long, it was a battle about numbers.

SPOKESMAN: That would be ten out of thirty. That's one out of three.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: The vacancies rose almost by 75%, from 63 to 110.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Get ready for the truth. There were 41 such nominees. Let me repeat, 41, which is 13 less than the 54 the Democrats who controlled the Senate in 1992 left at the end of the first Bush Administration.

KWAME HOLMAN: This afternoon, President Bush himself weighed in, calling the pace of judicial confirmations "bad for the country."

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Because of vacancies, good, honest Americans aren't getting their hearings, and this isn't right. For the good of the country, the Senate needs to act and act expeditiously on the nominees I've sent up. It's important that our judiciary be full.

KWAME HOLMAN: Senate Democratic leaders also chose today to call up four more judicial nominees. Each was confirmed unanimously.

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez takes it from there.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, how all this looks to two key members of the Senate Judiciary Committee; the chairman, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Senator McConnell, when you look at the work of the committee over the last year, what's your conclusion?

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Well first I want to comment my good friend Pat Leahy the think the chairman has done an excellent job moving district court nominees. He was particularly fair in my own state of Kentucky where we had three vacancies at the district court level, which he managed to process in an expeditious way. The issue we're trying to highlight today are the circuit court nominees. One year ago today President Bush sent up 11 extraordinarily well-qualified nominees for the circuit courts. Three of them have been acted on, the other eight have not even received a hearing. I think it's important to note that President Reagan, the first President Bush, and President Clinton all had their first 11 circuit court nominees confirmed within a year. And so we're asking of the Senate Democratic majority that they process these nominations, at least give them a hearing, if there is something wrong with them, maybe that will come out in a hearing. These are an outstanding group, including an Hispanic American, Miguel Estrada who has an incredible story coming to America and learning the English language and going on to great success. We have a judge in the sixth circuit, my own sixth circuit, which is 50% vacant who if nominated a nominee from Michigan would be the first Arab American on any circuit court in the United States in history. These folks are entitled to a hearing and some action. And that's what we wanted to highlight today.

RAY SUAREZ: Senator Leahy, as chairman how do you defend the work of the committee over the past year?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Well if I wanted to just defend it I would simply say look at the committee during the six years previously, when it was under Republican control. Look at it during the last ten months, when it's been under Democratic control. We did more in that ten months then the Republicans did in any of the six years before and considerably more than they did in a number of the years. If all it was was a number game and wanting to defendant l defend, we are moving much faster, confirming President Bush's nominees, than the Republicans ever did for President Clinton. But what bothers me is when it turns into - taking the impartial, nonpartisan court and turning it into a political football. Somebody comes to me and said the President announced today you only confirmed three judges, we confirmed fifty-six, nine of them courts of appeals judges. They said what about the blockade, if it's a blockade, it's a pretty porous one, because his nominees are going through a lot faster than President Clinton's nominees went through. In fact, in the first six months of last year when the Republicans controlled the Senate, even though the President had a number of nominees appear, they didn't even bother to hold a hearing on them. I started setting up hearings within ten minutes after becoming chairman of the committee. So that's easy to defend on that point. But then you look at the further question: What were the federal court be? The federal courts would be available to everybody, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, no matter what the political ideology. And when a President tries to stay, no, I want to shape it into a particular narrow political ideology that can't be done. The Senate didn't allow Franklin Roosevelt to do that; he was a popular war time President that tried to pact court. Fortunately for history's sake the Senate said no. We'll say no now.

RAY SUAREZ: Many Republican Senators made the point today that things are a little different during the opening months of a new administration and pointed out the confirmation rates in the early times of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. How do you measure up using that as a yardstick?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: I use the yardstick, the best yardsticks we could find, President of one party and Senate control of the other, we've done a lot better for President Bush than the Republicans ever did for President Clinton. But I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact... I chuckle when I see a number of the Senators up there saying, we have to go faster. I've tried not to embarrass them putting up on the screen they're letters they wrote to me and say, thank you for moving the judges from our state so much faster than we ever would have for you. I don't play that game. I want a court. We had a number of these circuits where President Clinton made nominations; they sat there for year after year after year -- never got a hearing. Never got a vote. I expect that all of the people are going to get a hearing, provided the Senators sent back the blue slips -- they'll get hearings. And they'll get votes. So we're not going to do the things in the past. But I have to tell you right now, be very serious, if a President nominates somebody so that he thought it would shape the court, very ideologically to the far left or very ideologically to the far right I'm going to vote against that person. I want the federal court to be open to everyone.

RAY SUAREZ: Well let's go back to Senator McConnell because many of the Democrats today in response to the critiques from your side of the aisle have said, well it's not just about numbers but it's about what these men and women stand for. Is that a change?

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: I think it is when -- it's been a factor in Supreme Court nominees from time to time but that is a different thing when it comes to circuit court nominees. Again let's focus on the first two years of each of the last Presidents. President Reagan, President Bush and President Clinton all got their first 11 circuit court nominees confirmed within a year. All we're asking for here is fair treatment. Then let's focus on the 6th circuit, the circuit in which my state is located, 50% vacant and that's not because Republicans were stone walling nominees backing them up. Two of those vacancies just occurred since President Bush, four of them occurred right at the end of President Clinton's period. So these vacancies didn't get created because there was a refusal to act on the part of a Republican controlled Senate. What we have got is a 50% vacant 6th circuit; it's dysfunctional.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Those numbers are wrong, Mitch. For the last three years President Clinton's administration, there were nominees and the Republican controlled Senate refused to hear them -- nominees for the 6th circuit.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Well, let's assume Pat is correct. What possible defensible basis is there for leaving the 6th circuit 50% vacant? Seven nominees for eight vacancies are up here, we have had a hearing and a committee vote on one of them. We had hoped that that 6th circuit nominee might be approved on the floor of the Senate today but she was not. Let's just put fault aside. How can you argue that it's appropriate to leave the 6th circuit 50% vacant any longer when seven nominees, two of the nominees of a year ago were for the 6th circuit not even a hearing?

RAY SUAREZ: Senator Leahy, when you put together calendars for your hearings, because you say you have been scheduling hearings regularly began scheduling them right after why you took over as chairman, does the calendar respond in part to the need in various circuits in appellate districts around the country?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: We're trying very hard. There are a whole lot of areas where there is a judicial emergency and the district courts for example, and the President is not sending any names.

RAY SUAREZ: And tell people what a judicial emergency is.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: The judicial emergency is that there has been a vacancy so long, the court load is so high that they announce it as a judicial emergency and must have more judges. Those I would look at very, very quickly. We are moving, again, we're moving so much faster. But it's a little bit difficult for me to hearing about the 6th circuit where President Clinton had nominees who were never even heard and circuit after circuit. The District of Columbia Circuit and others the Republicans refused to even have hearings for President Clinton's nominees. It's sort of like an arsonist who burns down a house and then says to everybody why don't we have better housing in this community, we have a lack of housing, why didn't somebody build more houses? Well we're trying to, trying to and I brought down the vacancy level completely. When I came in the Senate -- or came as chairman, there were around 110 vacancies. Approximately another 30 or 40 more vacancies occurred almost at once from resignations or whatnot. I brought that down into the 80s.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me get a quick reply from Senator McConnell before we go. Senator, you hear him saying he's going a pretty good job; do you expect the logjam to break in the next couple of months - briefly please?

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: I think what I heard the Chairman saying is that he may have ideological objections to some of the nominees, and I think my answer is that -- let's have a hearing and ask them about their views and size them up. These are eight nominees, outstanding nominees with great ABA ratings sitting there a year today with no hearing. I think the best way to make a decision whether one is somehow inappropriately too far to the right or left is to have a hearing and hear from them. I hope we'll be doing that and there is still a chance to have a great record on confirmation of circuit judges before the year is out and I hope the chairman will do that.

RAY SUAREZ: Senators, thank you both, very much.

CONVERSATION

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a conversation about a new book, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: The book is "Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline." The author is Richard Posner, a judge on the U.S. Court of appeals for the 7th circuit. He's also the author of more than 30 other books on topics ranging from aging to AIDS to the Clinton impeachment. Welcome, Richard Posner.

RICHARD POSNER: Thank you. Pleasure to be here.

MARGARET WARNER: First, let's start out by defining your term. What do you mean by "public intellectual"?

RICHARD POSNER: Someone who uses general ideas, you know, the cultural tradition, political theory, economic theory to address issues of public concern and to address it... address themselves to the general audience.

MARGARET WARNER: In other words, not a specialized or academic audience, but just the sort of educated public.

RICHARD POSNER: Right.

MARGARET WARNER: So what is your evidence that this whole field, this discipline is in decline?

RICHARD POSNER: We don't seem to have today the kind of public intellectuals who loomed so large in history. You go back to John Stuart Mill in the 19th century, and you can back to Socrates. But just in the 20th century, it's people like George Orwell and Edmund Wilson and Raymond Aron and Gershwin Russell, people who were... had real intellectual distinction, were outspoken, addressed many issues, off... sometimes a little offbeat or off... but you know, people who could... who had a distinctive voice. Or often they had distinctive life experiences. Now, people like that-- highly intelligent people-- are almost all academics. Most of them are specialized academics, and they don't -- have neither life experiences nor the articulateness to address the general audience and comment on a wide range of current issues.

MARGARET WARNER: What would you say their greatest shortcomings are?

RICHARD POSNER: The issues that tend to arise are extremely complex or involve, you know, paralyzing uncertainties. They're not clear black and white issues. So they're hard to address. And on the other hand, the most intellectually ablest people tend to be narrow specialists, and they can't really port their specialized knowledge to some fast-breaking current crisis. That doesn't prevent them from, you know, talking, so we've had a lot of... when I first got interested, extraordinarily uninformed academic commentary about the Clinton impeachment, which raised many complex issues that academics addressing them did not... did not know. And we saw it with the election deadlock in 2000. And we're seeing it now in the wake of the September 11 attacks, a lot of uninformed comments about this extremely difficult political, military...

MARGARET WARNER: Now, what do you think are the reasons for this? Is it the appetite of television?

RICHARD POSNER: In part, there's... it is easier for academics who want to moonlight as public intellectuals to get access, yes. Television and radio has a sensational demand. And especially when there is a crisis, something new... I mean, a crisis generally... yeah, it's anticipated, and that means the journalists aren't up to speed on it. So there's a huge public appetite for commentary on the crisis. There is enormous television time to provide that commentary, and the journalists who don't have a specialized knowledge turn desperately to the academy for people who are thought to be able to speak with authority to these issues, but very often they're people of intellectual distinction maybe in some unrelated field and they are intelligent people-- very self- confident and they're glib, they think they are smarter than anybody else-- and so they offer their two cents' worth about issues about which they know very little.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, some of the reviews of your book have been critical.

RICHARD POSNER: I would say the majority of them have been quite negative, yeah.

MARGARET WARNER: And one of the things they've been critical of is even your notion that the whole area of intellectual debate and discourse should be subjected to the laws of economic analysis.

RICHARD POSNER: Well, I think when... when academics or anybody else go out into the media market to reach the public, they're engaged in economic activities, so there are people who are making a great deal of money, although I think the major incentive is to, you know, to sound off and express yourself, feel you have an influence.

MARGARET WARNER: And your major conclusion?

RICHARD POSNER: My major conclusion is that academic distinction does not translate in any automatic way into media celebrity. In fact, there's actually a negative correlation between how your scholarly distinction looked... you know, counting scholarly citations and your media mentions, your media celebrity. And that means it's a rather undiscriminating market. And understandably, the media aren't in a position really to identify the people who know the most about a subject. And on the other hand, the public isn't really interested in the most scholarly exponent. Particularly, they want colorful people, people who take extreme positions, which are interesting dramatic people, people they've heard of.

MARGARET WARNER: If the consumers are the people who watch and read this and they find it challenging, interesting, stimulating, is there no value in that?

RICHARD POSNER: Well, there's a value and a disvalue. I mean, the value is it's entertainment. The disvalue is that a lot of this is a kind of solidarity- building or kind of prejudice- reinforcing. The tendency is people watch the public intellectuals who mirror their own views. They're not watching the people who challenge those views.

MARGARET WARNER: And, finally, you do have a remedy that you suggest to bring more accountability to this whole field.

RICHARD POSNER: Yeah. I document in the book the really extraordinary frequency of absurdly mistaken predictions and evaluations that famous public intellectuals make, and yet they go on doing their public intellectual routine. So there is no accountability. It would be very nice if a custom emerged that people posted on some accessible web site all their public utterances. I think it also would be good for these people who are... who are talking about political and social questions to reveal the way, you know, public officials are required to, the sources and amounts of their outside earnings.

MARGARET WARNER: And finally, you suggested a journal of retractions.

RICHARD POSNER: Maybe it's unrealistic in terms of human nature to have people say this: I predicted acts that didn't happen. You should know this, because I'm going to make future predictions, and you should be able to evaluate my... look at my track record, see if I'm worth believing.

MARGARET WARNER: Richard Posner, thanks very much.

RICHARD POSNER: Thank you.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day. Israel and the Palestinians agreed to end the standoff in Bethlehem. The deal involves deporting 13 Palestinian gunmen to Cyprus. And traces of anthrax turned up on mail at the Federal Reserve in Washington. On the "NewsHour" tonight, Homeland Security Director Ridge said it was too soon to tell if this was a new attack, or leftover contamination from last fall's attacks. "Frontline" tonight looks at the many facets of Islam as it's practiced around the world. The program is called "Muslims." Please check your local listings for the time. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with King Abdullah of Jordan, plus Shields and Brooks, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.