Return to Transcripts main page

News from CNN

Owen Vote; Bolton Debate; New Offensive; Stem Cell Research Controversy

Aired May 25, 2005 - 11:59   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Unfolding on NEWS FROM CNN, among other things, Judge Priscilla Owen finally getting her up-or-down vote in the U.S. Senate. It's happening right now. And when that's done, there's a full Senate debate on John Bolton's nomination as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
We're live on both stories here in Washington.

Also, sure to spark some disagreement in this era of prison abuse and the war on terror, Amnesty International labeling the United States "an abuser of human rights." We'll tell you what's going on.

Later, the comedian Chris Tucker back on the stand today as the defense gets ready to rest in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial.

First, some headlines.

An arrest warrant is expected in the case of the so-called runaway bride, Jennifer Wilbanks. Only a few moments ago -- you may have seen it live here on CNN -- a suburban Atlanta prosecutor said a grand jury indicted Wilbanks on two counts, making a false statement and filing a false report. Danny Porter says he expects arrangements will be made for Wilbanks to surrender to authorities.

The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany holding another round of talks with Iran. They hope to convince Iran not to resume its uranium enrichment program, fearing it could be used to make weapons. Iran insists it's program is for peaceful purposes only and vows to restart the enrichment process if talks fail.

Middle East diplomacy coming to the nation's capital. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas meeting right now with members of the House of Representatives. Later this afternoon he'll sit down with senators. Tomorrow, he'll hold talks with President Bush over at the White House.

Among the most popular stories we're watching this hour on CNN.com, the arrest of an 86-year-old woman in Charlotte, North Carolina. Police say she called 911 emergency dispatchers, get this, 20 times in less than an hour to complain that a local pizza parlor wouldn't deliver her pizza to her home. Police say she also complained that someone in the shop called her a crazy old coot.

You want toy read more about this story? You can go to CNN.com. That's where the information is. At this hour, a confirmation vote for a controversial judge. Priscilla Owen has waited four years to have her day before the United States Senate for a vacant federal judgeship. The long-awaited vote is about to begin, but amid new questions about the truce that brought it about and averted a political meltdown.

Let's get the developing story from CNN's congressional correspondent, Joe Johns. He's up on Capitol Hill.

What exactly is the latest, Joe?

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the latest is, Wolf, that the vote has begun on the Senate floor. Priscilla Owen of Texas, the president's home state, has waited four years for this. Of course this is one of those things that Democrats have contested right up to the last.

For a long time they've called her an activist judge, someone who inserted her own personal opinions into her decisions. Republicans say that's certainly not true. They call her an exemplary candidate for the federal bench. That, they say, is the reason why she was listed as first in the fight over the filibuster. As you mentioned, there are some lingering dissatisfactions with that agreement that put her nomination on the floor, and there are a couple other judges who are expected to be passed through at some time, some later date as a result of that agreement.

This has been a huge battle, of course. Senator Frist, speaking in some fairly grand terms earlier today, called it "the greatest constitutional issue to confront the Senate in our lifetime."

Let's listen now to Senator Frist on the floor, with his counterpart, the Democratic leader, Harry Reid.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: I was not a party to that agreement, nor was our Republican leadership. It stops far short of guaranteeing up-or-down votes on all nominees. It stops far short of the principle on which this leadership stands.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: I've been involved in two filibusters during my career of almost 19 years in the Senate. That's two more than most people have been involved in.

Filibusters don't happen very often. And so I would -- I would think we should just move beyond this, let's go on and get the business of the country done. Let's not talk about nuclear option anymore. Let's let the Senate work its will.

(END VIDEO CLIP) JOHNS: Back live now, that vote is continuing on the floor of the United States Senate. After that vote, we do expect some of the key Republicans involved in the entire issue of Priscilla Owen to go to the cameras and talk to reporters.

Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: The expectation is she'll get the 51 votes, the majority in this Senate vote?

JOHNS: The expectation is she'll get the 51 votes. Many people do feel she's qualified. There was a lot of question as to how many Democrats might actually vote for her. It does seem pretty clear that she'll be able to get through, but certainly, as you know, not without a fight that went for years -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. We'll watch, see what unfolds. Joe Johns on the Hill for us. Thanks very much.

With nerves in the Senate frayed as they are, another heated controversy awaiting on deck. Immediately after the Owen vote, debate is set to begin on John Bolton, the president's very controversial choice as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

With that part of the story, let's head over to the State Department. Our Andrea Koppel standing by -- Andrea.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Wolf.

I spoke to someone, a spokesperson in Senator Bill Frist's, the majority leader's, office just a short time ago. And what she said is there is still a deal that is under discussion right now.

They're still trying to work out a deal as to how many hours of debate there would be on the Bolton nomination, but they are expected to begin that debate shortly, as soon as the Priscilla Owen vote is done, and it could go on for up to 40 hours. What that means is that each side, the Democrats will get 20 hours, the Republicans would get 20 hours. That doesn't mean that they will necessarily debate for 40 hours, but they have that option.

One thing that's hanging over them, of course, is the Memorial Day Weekend. The expectation is that senators will want to get this wrapped up by the end of business tomorrow evening so that they can go off and enjoy their holiday.

George Voinovich, who is the Republican of Ohio who grabbed a lot of headlines earlier this month when he said on the one hand that he would support the vote in committee that you're looking at right there, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, would support it without recommendation, but that he would be voting against it once it gets to the floor, so far he is the only Republican to have come out publicly against this nomination.

He sent a letter earlier this week to his colleagues in the Senate, saying essentially that he has reservations about the Bolton vote, deep concerns. He said, "It is my concern that John Bolton's nomination sends a negative message to the world community and contradicts the president's efforts. In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective ambassador to the United Nations."

Now, Wolf, there has been no public announcement to this effect. And certainly Republicans are not declaring victory at this point. But I can tell you, I've spoken with a half a dozen staffers in Republican offices, people like Lincoln Chafee's office, Chuck Hagel, and others, most of whom are saying that they're going to come out and support the Bolton nominations.

The Republicans have a 55 vote majority. And unless there is a filibuster, which is not expected, absolutely not expected at this point, you would only need a 51-vote majority, which would mean at this stage that the Bolton nomination would go through. But again, Republicans are not declaring victory as yet -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Because some Democrats are even saying they'll vote for confirmation of Bolton. So there's a little leeway there for the Republican side, for the White House side. We'll watch this debate unfold.

Andrea Koppel, while I have you, a quick question. The visit that the president will have tomorrow with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, coming to Washington, going into this visit, any major expectations as far as a breakthrough in U.S.- Palestinian relations? Any major surprises expected?

KOPPEL: I think that the meeting is the message, Wolf. This will be the first time in over four years since President Bush took the White House that he has welcomed the Palestinian leader, the chairman of the Palestinian Authority.

Remember, he refused while Yasser Arafat was alive to even shake his hand, let alone welcome him at the White House. So, really, the visit and the Oval Office meeting is going to be the symbolic message.

Very little substance expected, although Mahmoud Abbas does want the United States to try to give him aid directly. You'll remember Condoleezza Rice, when she was in the region back in February, said that the U.S. was going to be pledging upwards of $350 million, but Congress is refusing to let that money go directly to the Palestinian Authority.

Mahmoud Abbas wants to show the Palestinian people ahead of elections that are expected in July, municipal elections, that he can deliver, that he can improve the lives of the Palestinian people, unlike his chief competitor, the other political party also known as the militant group, some believe terrorist, Hamas -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Andrea Koppel at the State Department for us. Thanks, Andrea, very much.

And now to Iraq. Another major offensive to try to root out insurgents in that country. This time, the focus is in on the city of Haditha, about halfway between the Syrian border and Baghdad.

CNN's Ryan Chilcote is on duty for us in Baghdad. He's joining us live -- Ryan.

RYAN CHILCOTE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it's being called Operation New Market. As you said, it's taking place in the city of Haditha, about 130 miles west of Baghdad.

The Marines, who are pretty much making up the bulk of the forces in this operation, say they've always had a presence for the last three months in and around Haditha, but about a month ago they saw an increase in the attacks and in the insurgents' activities in that area, so they felt like they had to go in, in such large members.

About 1,000 Marines went into Haditha before dawn this morning. The Marines saying they were able to, they believe, keep the element of surprise to the operation. Of course, you know, Wolf, that's always difficult for the U.S. military when they have such large-scale operations.

They almost immediately, even before dawn, got into a couple of firefights. The Marines telling us that they killed 10 insurgents. They're also saying that two Marines were wounded there.

Meanwhile, the insurgents are keeping up their attacks in the Iraqi capital. Two attacks to talk about.

One, the Iraqi police telling us that a suicide bomber, apparently trying to target an Iraqi police convoy, was not able to get close enough to it as perhaps as that suicide bomber would have liked. But he rammed his car into a Mercedes nearby this convoy, killing one civilian, wounding eight other Iraqis.

And then just a short while ago, another attack, this time involving a car bomb. Not clear if there was a suicide bomber in that car.

Apparently, according to Iraqi police, targeting a U.S. military convoy. No word on U.S. casualties. However, we do know that at least one Iraqi civilian was killed there, another eight wounded. And some eyewitnesses on the scene there say they saw two U.S. military helicopters landing on that site. That is often, of course, a sign that there is some kind of evacuation take place there -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Ryan Chilcote with the latest. Another deadly day in Iraq. Thanks, Ryan, very much for that update.

This important programming note. This Sunday, a special "LATE EDITION," "Behind the Lines." On this Memorial Day Weekend in the United States, I'll take you with me to Iraq and the Persian Gulf to see how U.S. troops are battling the insurgents.

During my recent visit to the region, we had some unique access to U.S. military commanders. That's a special "LATE EDITION," "Behind the Lines." It airs Sunday, 1:00 p.m. Eastern.

Senator John McCain, by the way, will join me at noon Eastern Sunday during the first hour of "LATE EDITION."

More insight from Iraq coming up. From the upswing in insurgent attacks, to a report of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's supposed demise, I'll speak with "New York Times" Baghdad bureau chief John Burns about the latest developments.

And the president's handling of the war on terror facing criticism from human rights activists. We'll tell you what Amnesty International is saying today about the land of the free.

You're watching NEWS FROM CNN, and we're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: You're looking at a live picture of the U.S. Senate. The vote continuing for Judge Priscilla Owen.

Judge Priscilla Owen, the controversial nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals. This vote going down right now. It's expected she will be confirmed, setting the stage for one judicial nominee confirmation for the president. One of several he's been working on over the past few years.

We'll watch this vote. We'll get the numbers for you as soon as they're complete, let you know what's going on. Widely expected she will, will be confirmed.

Welcome back to NEWS FROM CNN. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

America, the land many, of course, view as the champion of human rights, is now being called one of the world's worst offenders. The Bush administration in particular is getting slammed right now by Amnesty International.

In its latest report, the group describes the U.S. prison camp at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as -- and I'm quoting now -- "the gulag of our time." That's where many suspected militants have been taken since 9/11. The human rights group is calling for that lockup to be shut down and for other governments around the world to investigate senior United States officials who may have been involved with what they call the abuse of detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM SCHULZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: We have documented the use of torture and ill treatment widespread throughout world. We've documented that the U.S. government is a leading purveyor and practitioner of this odious human rights violation. And the refusal of the U.S. government to conduct a truly independent investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention centers is tantamount to a whitewash, if not a cover- up, of these disgraceful events.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: The Bush administration yet to formally comment on the Amnesty International report, which also singles out major human rights violations in such places as Nepal, tsunami-ravaged Indonesia and Sudan.

Let's head back to Baghdad now, where the ongoing violence is leading some to fear Iraq is sliding back into a civil war. And back in the Middle East, in the midst of all of this, the Pulitzer Prize- winning "New York Times" chief correspondent John Burns. He's also the Baghdad bureau chief.

John, thanks very much for joining us.

You've been there almost from day one -- literally from day one of this war. We read your dispatches during that period, followed all of your reporting since then.

Give us some perspective. We get the impression things are really sliding out of control almost in Iraq. Is that -- is that your sense? Or are we just seeing snapshots that could be misleading?

JOHN BURNS, "NEW YORK TIMES": There are shades of light and dark in this situation, Wolf, as you know, and there have been for a very long time. On the one hand, we see considerable progress on the political front with the new Shiite majority government, which today, through the constitutional committee of the national assembly, has laid down a program to try and reach agreement on a new constitution by August the 15th for fresh elections in December.

On the other hand, we have a surge of insurgent violence. At least 600 civilians dead this month, about 60 U.S. soldiers. That's way up on last month, but way down on January.

It's extremely difficult in all of this for me, or, indeed, I would guess, for the commanding American general here or ranking American civilian officials, to come up with a reliable ledger of the way things are going. It's true that things are not at all as good as had been hoped immediately after the elections. But everyone knew from the first months after the American occupation began here that this was going to be a long slog. And we're talk not months, but I think years, before there could be an American withdrawal from Iraq and any hope of a truly stable political situation here.

BLITZER: What's the latest information, John, you're getting on the health of the terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? There were reports this Islamist Web site saying he had been injured, asking his followers to pray for him. What do you know -- or at least what are you hearing from your sources on the ground in Baghdad?

BURNS: Well, I think from the American command perspective, the news about Mr. Zarqawi, in the round is good. From the insurgent's point of view, it's bad.

There's no question that in the last few months, the American military have been very much on the trail of Mr. Zarqawi. They missed him on February the 20th in an extremely close encounter, where he was in a pickup truck that turned around and fled an American checkpoint. He left from the pickup truck as it -- as it passed under an underpass, all of this about 150 miles northwest of Baghdad near the city of Haditha. He escaped, leaving his laptop, $100,000.

Subsequent to that, there have been a number of reports over the last three weeks of Zarqawi appearing in hospitals in several different cities. We've had reports from Haditha, in Anbar province, from Ramadi, a city well familiar to your viewers, I believe, from all the trouble there's been there, and finally in Baghdad.

And yesterday, from a reliable Web site, insofar as one can judge any of these things, a statement by Zarqawi's only -- own organization that he has been injured. And it had a kind of (INAUDIBLE) quality to it, that he suggested that he may be very seriously injured.

There's no doubt that the U.S. commanders made considerable progress in disrupting Zarqawi's operation. And whether these reports prove to be true or not, it is the fact American generals at the highest level here have been saying for some weeks, we will get him.

BLITZER: If that happens, if he's captured or killed or disabled, would it really make a difference in the level, the intensity of this insurgency?

BURNS: I think it would make a difference in several respects.

First of all, the insurgent attacks by Zarqawi's group, and this by his own profession, really, amongst the most brutal and the most terrifying. He, only a week or so ago, on the same Web site that printed the statement by his organization yesterday that he is now injured, he, Zarqawi, issued a 75-minute audiotape in which he expressly called on his followers to attack civilians, men, women and children included, in order to get at the enemy. He said this was legitimate.

This is never going to be accepted by the majority population of Iraq. Never going to be accepted, I would guess, by most Muslims around the world, justified as he tries to make it, with a lot of Islamic rhetoric.

So, yes, it would remove a symbol, a totem of the Islamic militant element in this world. But, of course, what it wouldn't do is impact greatly on the other side of this war, which, I think, in terms of total numbers of attacks, is more significant, and that is the former regime elements as they're called here. That is to say, the loyalists of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party, and those who wish to restore Sunni minority rule.

Now, on that side, there is some good news. I've just come from the national assembly, where I talked to a number of Sunni politicians who were previously sitting out this entire political process who now want to get involved.

They want to be involved in making the constitution, they want Sunnis to have a voice at the table. So there is a feeling that on the Sunni or former regime element side of this war, the Ba'athist, Husseinist side of this war, there may be -- there may be a possibility of drawing the insurgency down over the long run.

If you can remove Zarqawi from the equation, then at least you can concentrate on what, in the long run, is going to be the Iraqi side of this. Zarqawi is, of course, a Jordanian, he's an outsider. And I think that would make a significant difference to the prospects for long-term peace here.

BLITZER: John Burns, reporting for "The New York Times," the Baghdad bureau chief. Thanks very much for spending a few moments with us. Be careful over there in Iraq. We'll continue to read your dispatches in "The New York Times."

Updating our viewers now on the confirmation of Judge Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals. It looks now she will definitely be confirmed. She's got more than 51 votes, well on her way to being confirmed.

Priscilla Owen going to become a U.S. Court of Appeals judge. This in the aftermath of that compromise worked out a couple nights ago, a compromise setting the sage for no filibuster against her, which would have require 60 votes to break the filibuster. Unlikely she could have received 60, but she is going to get at least 51.

We'll watch this vote tally on the floor of the Senate and bring you more, the final tally, when we get it.

We'll take a quick break. When we come back, back to normal. After more than three years, Reagan National Airport in Washington welcoming back at least a modest number of private smaller planes.

And the defense calls in final witnesses in the Michael Jackson trial.

NEWS FROM CNN will continue right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: New York celebrating Fleet Week. You're looking at live pictures now.

Events beginning just over three hours ago with the parade of ships. Members of the military and their families are receiving a warm welcome. The defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was not on hand. He had to cancel his trip to New York due to some bad weather.

Fleet Week runs through Memorial Day. There it is, New York City, Fleet Week. Lots of sailors in the Big Apple.

In our CNN "Security Watch," a big announcement expected this afternoon about general aviation and charter aircraft flights at Reagan's National Airport -- Reagan National Airport here in Washington, D.C.

Our Homeland Security Correspondent Jeanne Meserve is standing by live at the airport with details.

Jeanne, a lot of small planes have been anxious for this, but there are some pretty serious restrictions.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: There really are. And probably not too many of them are actually going to be able to land and take off here.

The recent air incursion even into the restricted airspace over Washington, which led to an evacuation of the Capitol and the White House, illustrated how concerned they are about air security over the U.S. capital, and so some people are expressing some surprise this morning that the TSA is expected to announce a reopening of this airport, which is just a couple of miles from the National Mall, to some general aviation. However, it will be restricted. It will be limited.

According to an aviation source who's familiar with the TSA regulations that are expected to be proposed this afternoon, there will only be 48 operations a day permitted here. That's 24 landings, 24 takeoffs.

General aviation aircraft that are flying into Reagan National will need to go through one of 12 gateway airports where passengers and crew will be screened by the TSA, and where the aircraft will be swept by bomb-sniffing dogs. The crew and passenger manifest will have to be provided to the TSA 24 hours ahead of time, so names can be run against no-fly lists. Also the pilot and crew will have to go through prescreening, including a criminal background check, and an armed law-enforcement officer will have to be on board each and every one of those aircraft.

Now about 300 people lost their jobs here at Reagan National because of the shutdown of general aviation operations after 9/11, and some members of Congress and the business community have been pushing very hard to see this reopening. Some of them are ecstatic about the fact that this is going to be announced today. However, one, Eleanor Holmes Norton of D.C., though happy, is worried about these restrictions, calling them needlessly cumbersome.

In any event, it seems clear that only the very richest of private citizens and corporations will be able to use these general aviation facilities when they do reopen, which is expected in about 90 days -- Wolf.

BLITZER: It sounds like, Jeanne, like if you're the governor of Kentucky or governor of another state, you probably could meet a lot of those requirements. But if you're a private citizen, even a wealthy citizen, how do you get an armed law enforcement officer to agree to fly with you into Washington?

MESERVE: Well, you know, some of those governors, and senators and other VIPs have been able to land here. There have been waivers that have been granted to some of them over the last couple of years, so they've been able to put down. But you're absolutely right, those are the people who will be able to do it and the corporations, big corporations with larger corporate jets.

But you know, even before 9/11, this was not an airport that was frequented by those very small airplanes and private operators for the most part, simply because landing here is so expensive -- Wolf.

BLITZER: They're just have to fly to Dulles or Baltimore- Washington International Airport. That's what they've been doing since 9/11, and presumably almost everyone else will continue to have to do that as well, except for a privileged few.

Jeanne Meserve reporting for us, from Reagan National. Thanks very much.

And to our viewers, please stay tuned day and night to CNN for the most reliable news about your security.

When we come back, very passionate debate on Capitol Hill, and for many lawmakers, the position they take on embryonic stem cell research is literally a matter of life and death. Their views. I'll speak live with two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dan Lungren, a Republican from California, along with Rhode Island Democrat Jim Langevin. That's coming up next on NEWS FROM CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The United States Senate is considering a stem cell research bill similar to the one approved by the House of Representatives yesterday. That bill would lift President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for new research on embryonic stem cells in a very restricted, limited way. The House bill passed 238 to 194.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE PENCE (R), INDIANA: We lost, they won, but they did not win by enough votes to overcome a certain presidential veto. Today's loss has laid the foundation for tomorrow's victory. As we prepare to support the moral leadership that president George W. Bush brought to this issue in the spring of 2001, by sustaining his presidential veto not if, but when it comes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Some believe embryonic stem cell research might lead to possible new treatments, or even cures perhaps for several diseases and illnesses. Here to discuss whether there should be federal funding, expanded federal funding for such research, two members of the House of Representatives with different perspectives, Republican Congressman Daniel Lungren of California, Democratic Congressman Jim Langevin of Rhode Island.

And, Congressman Langevin, I'll start with you. When you were 16 years old, you had a horrible accident, left you paralyzed. You are now in a wheelchair. You believe there should be expanded federal funding under these restrictions. Tell our viewers why.

REP. JIM LANGEVIN (D), RHODE ISLAND: Well, this is a major development. The House of Representatives has passed the stem-cell research legislation, and now it goes on to the Senate. This legislation offers great hope for curing various kinds of conditions and diseases, that could offer hope for all kinds of people suffering from things like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, ALS, cancer, even spinal chord injuries and many others. And I believe that as a caring and compassionate nation, we have an obligation to get behind this research and realize its full potential.

BLITZER: Congressman Langevin, do you believe that potentially you could walk again if this research moves forward?

LANGEVIN: That's a distinct possibility. And spinal chord injuries are one of the conditions that potentially could be treated through embryonic stem cell research. These cells -- a (INAUDIBLE) that could become any cell in the body. The research is just in its infancy, just in its beginning, and we don't have enough federal support for the research, and it's only been around for a few years.

But with the proper resources, the proper dedication and effort behind it, I know that not only for spinal injuries, but for many other conditions and diseases, there is now great hope. This isn't just about spinal chord injuries, this is about people helping those people that are dealing with juvenile diabetes, ALS, Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, and today is great day.

BLITZER: Congressman Lungren, you disagree. Even though you have a brother who's been suffering, what, for 15 years from Parkinson's? There are many experts as far as the Parkinson's community is concerned who believe that embryonic stem cell research could cure your brother among the many others who suffer from Parkinson's?

REP. DAN LUNGREN (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, let me say a couple things. The first is that my brother and I grew up together. We're one of seven in our family, but we were the closest. He was my older brother, has been my older brother. He's someone that's always talked about the moral dimension of our lives and someone that's guided me in many ways in that. And that's what I don't want to lose here.

Obviously, I would wish us to be able to pursue all that scientific endeavor that might lead to some sort of breakthroughs, although some of this is speculative at this point. That's why I've supported adult stem cell research, umbilical blood cord research, which we really haven't put that much money in.

The question with respect to embryonic stem cells is, do you have to kill the embryo in order to get the stem cells? And thus far, that is the procedure by which it is done.

And what we were asked yesterday to do is to put federal funds behind that. It's been legal to do, but the question is whether federal funds should be used for it. There are those who believe, including those on the president's bioethics panel, that there are four possible techniques that may be used to develop the line of stem cells from embryos without killing the embryos. I would hope that we would move in that direction, But really, we're asked to cross the rubicon. It'd be the first time ever we've used federal funds to kill human life in any form in order to help others. BLITZER: What's the -- Congressman, a lot of people ask this question. Maybe can you explain it. The president, when he first took office in 2001, did approve federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. And a lot of people are wondering, what's the difference between those embryos and the embryos now at these the fertility clinics that are simply going to be discarded in any case? Why not use those embryos similar to the embryos that he approved funding for in 2001?

LUNGREN: He approved funding for stem lines, stem cell lines that had come from embryos in which the procedure had already taken place. He did not want any money to go towards the further destruction. That's the essential difference. The question here is whether we'd use federal funds for the very first time now to destroy embryos for the purpose of doing further research.

Look, it's not an easy question. I don't want to suggest it is. There are good men and women on both sides of this issue, but...

BLITZER: All right.

LUNGREN: ... I hope we understand what we're talking about, the significance of this decision.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to bring back -- I want to bring back Congressman Langevin.

I want to update our viewers. Priscilla Owen, the federal judge, has been now confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The final vote, 56 in favor, 43 opposed. Priscilla Owen will become a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. That is official.

Let me bring back Congressman Langevin right now. I'd like to you respond to the argument made by Congressman Lungren, and the president for that matter, that, in effect, you're killing life in order to try to save life.

LANGEVIN: What Dan and others who oppose embryonic stem cell research and federal funds for it, what they're suggesting is that if we provide the federal funds, then the embryos are going to be destroyed in order to get the stem cells. And what we're suggesting is that the decision will have already been made by the parents, the donors of these -- creators of these embryos, to destroy the embryos.

Because they were first created in the in-vitro fertilization process, the donors have decided they are no longer going to use the embryos, that they have the number of children that they tried to produce or they no longer are going to try. And so therefore, the embryos are either going to remain frozen. Some could be adopted I fully support adopting embryos for those couples that want to allow their embryos to be adopted. But many couples are going to decide...

BLITZER: All right.

LANGEVIN: ... that they're going to destroy these embryos. Rather than seeing them being discarded, I'd rather see some useful benefit come to mankind through stem cell research that could offer hope to millions of people.

BLITZER: Congressman?

LANGEVIN: So the issue is not that if we provide federal funds, it's going to cause the destruction of the embryos. That decision would have already been made.

BLITZER: Congressman Lungren, I want you to respond to that, but I also want to respond to some of your fellow Republicans. About 50 of them voted in favor of this expanded embryonic stem cell research, including Congressman Duke Cunningham of California, very emotionally. Listen to what he said on the House floor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DUKE CUNNINGHAM, (R) CALIFORNIA: I am for life and I'm for the quality of life. But I don't want another six-year-old to die. I oppose the California bill. It went too far. I don't support cloning. But I want to save life. We're this close to stopping juvenile diabetes. And there's other embryos that are tainted so bad that you would not implant those, and they want to study those so that they can stop those childhood diseases. But you cannot look a child in the eye when the only chance they have to live is this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You want to respond, Congressman Lungren, to your colleague?

LUNGREN: Well, sure. I mean, obviously, it's an emotional issue. No one wants any child to die or anyone suffering. I don't -- every day I ask myself why God allowed my brother to have Parkinson's and why not me. We grew up together. Those are heartfelt feelings. And I understand. I would disagree with him on several points. Number one, this is very similar to what we did in California, where we voted for taxpayer funds to be utilized for this purpose. Number two, we have to confront the question whether we will destroy life.

Now, some people don't recognize it's life because it happens to be in the embryonic stage. But the fact of the matter is biologically, scientifically, when you get the embryo, that is the essence of human life. All of the development is inward, is from the inside. There's nothing from the outside that causes the development. It needs to be nurtured, but it is an identifiable human entity, and so the real serious question -- and here's my problem. Every time in the United States we have made the biggest mistakes, it's whenever we have defined a member of the human community, the human family, as less than fully human. That's what I'm worried about.

BLITZER: We'll leave it right there. Congressman Lungren, Congressman Langevin, two very thoughtful positions. You clearly disagree. The House of Representatives voted in favor of this expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but not by enough votes that potentially could override a presidential veto. The president making it clear he's going to veto this legislation, so it's not going to go anywhere, almost certainly. We'll continue this debate, though, down the road. Thanks to both of you for joining us.

LUNGREN: Thank you.

LANGEVIN: Thank you.

BLITZER: From the House of Representatives, let's move over and update our viewers once again on what has happened on the Senate floor, only within the past few minutes. Federal Judge Priscilla Owen -- now Federal Judge Priscilla Owen, she's about to be sworn in.

Priscilla Owen will be the new U.S. Court of Appeals judge. 56- 43 confirmation of her -- that was the result of that compromise worked out the other night by members of the compromise committee, the 14 members of the Senate who worked out that deal. Priscilla Owen has been confirmed, 56-43.

They're now taking up the whole issue of John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Here's the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist responding to the confirmation. Actually, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, one of the other Republican leaders in the Senate, from Texas, with John Cornyn. They're clearly pleased that Priscilla Owen has been approved by the U.S. Senate.

We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. The child molestation trial involving Michael Jackson approaching the end, and despite the early hint from Jackson's attorney, it appears the pop superstar will not be called to the witness stand.

CNN's Ted Rowlands joining us now live from outside the courthouse in Santa Maria, California.

What is happening right now, Ted?

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the final defense witness is into cross-examination. Comedian Chris Tucker, who took the stand late yesterday, has finished on direct and is now into cross. We expect that he'll be done sometime soon this morning, and then the defense will rest its case.

The prosecution is expected for a couple days in rebuttal, and it's safe to say the jury is going to start deliberating Jackson's fate by mid next week or late next week, at latest.

This morning, comedian Chris Tucker took the stand and said that he spent considerable time with the accuser and the accuser's family, and he said that the accuser himself was a cunning, smart little boy that asked him for money on repeated occasions. He also said that his handlers, his brother and a couple of his associates, warned him about this family. He says he didn't believe that he should be warned, but then, he said, he saw evidence that the mother was, quote, "crazy" during an interaction. And then he said he pulled Michael Jackson aside at one point and warned him about this family.

This is the final defense witness. It's one of the only witnesses that spent considerable time with the accuser and the accuser's family, and they've decided to go with him, rather than put on Michael Jackson himself -- Wolf.

BLITZER: So it could wrap up today, then there's some rebuttal and some final arguments, and the whole thing could go to jury when?

ROWLANDS: We expect by late next week, most likely Thursday or Friday. Memorial Day is a court holiday, as you can imagine. So probably Thursday or Friday, the jury will begin.

BLITZER: All right, at long last, we'll see what the jury says. That's the most important thing.

Ted Rowlands reporting for us from Santa Maria, California.

CNN's "LIVE FROM" coming all of our way at the top of the hour. Let's get a little preview now. CNN's Miles O'Brien standing by.

Miles, where are you today?

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Sitting here right at the circle of excellence, as we like to call it for "LIVE FROM." There is team. We're getting it all ready here.

There's Mike Topo (ph), the EP. A couple of things -- first of all, Kyra, pull it back, Ron, a little bit. Kyra Phillips has been working those phones, her phones should be steaming still, talking to her friends at NORAD. She's faking that right now. But she did find out that they are going to ask for a clarification, a correction from "The Washington Post" for a story out today indicating that the secretary of defense, SECDEF as they like to call him, had given the green light to shoot down that poor Cessna 150 from May 11th.

Also, Wolf, if you run into Burt Reynolds, just pretend like you've seen his movies, OK, because if you haven't, you might get a quick speed slap. We'll explain that one as well.

Back to you.

BLITZER: All right. You've Kyra Phillips and Burt Reynolds on the same program. We'll be watching. Doesn't get any better than that, Miles?

O'BRIEN: Yes, I'm just going to take the rest of the afternoon off.

BLITZER: All right, Miles and Kyra. "LIVE FROM," that comes up in about seven minutes from now here on CNN. I'm coming back after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

I'll be back later today, every weekday, 5:00 p.m. Eastern for "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." Among other things, we'll take a close in- depth look at Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. He's a key player in the insurgent fight against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. But where did he come from, and what does he want? We'll go in depth. Nic Robertson has an exclusive report. That's coming up, 5:00 p.m. Eastern, later today on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS."

Until then, thanks very much for watching NEWS FROM CNN. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

"LIVE FROM" with Kyra Phillips and Miles O'Brien, that's coming up next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


Aired May 25, 2005 - 11:59   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Unfolding on NEWS FROM CNN, among other things, Judge Priscilla Owen finally getting her up-or-down vote in the U.S. Senate. It's happening right now. And when that's done, there's a full Senate debate on John Bolton's nomination as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
We're live on both stories here in Washington.

Also, sure to spark some disagreement in this era of prison abuse and the war on terror, Amnesty International labeling the United States "an abuser of human rights." We'll tell you what's going on.

Later, the comedian Chris Tucker back on the stand today as the defense gets ready to rest in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial.

First, some headlines.

An arrest warrant is expected in the case of the so-called runaway bride, Jennifer Wilbanks. Only a few moments ago -- you may have seen it live here on CNN -- a suburban Atlanta prosecutor said a grand jury indicted Wilbanks on two counts, making a false statement and filing a false report. Danny Porter says he expects arrangements will be made for Wilbanks to surrender to authorities.

The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany holding another round of talks with Iran. They hope to convince Iran not to resume its uranium enrichment program, fearing it could be used to make weapons. Iran insists it's program is for peaceful purposes only and vows to restart the enrichment process if talks fail.

Middle East diplomacy coming to the nation's capital. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas meeting right now with members of the House of Representatives. Later this afternoon he'll sit down with senators. Tomorrow, he'll hold talks with President Bush over at the White House.

Among the most popular stories we're watching this hour on CNN.com, the arrest of an 86-year-old woman in Charlotte, North Carolina. Police say she called 911 emergency dispatchers, get this, 20 times in less than an hour to complain that a local pizza parlor wouldn't deliver her pizza to her home. Police say she also complained that someone in the shop called her a crazy old coot.

You want toy read more about this story? You can go to CNN.com. That's where the information is. At this hour, a confirmation vote for a controversial judge. Priscilla Owen has waited four years to have her day before the United States Senate for a vacant federal judgeship. The long-awaited vote is about to begin, but amid new questions about the truce that brought it about and averted a political meltdown.

Let's get the developing story from CNN's congressional correspondent, Joe Johns. He's up on Capitol Hill.

What exactly is the latest, Joe?

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the latest is, Wolf, that the vote has begun on the Senate floor. Priscilla Owen of Texas, the president's home state, has waited four years for this. Of course this is one of those things that Democrats have contested right up to the last.

For a long time they've called her an activist judge, someone who inserted her own personal opinions into her decisions. Republicans say that's certainly not true. They call her an exemplary candidate for the federal bench. That, they say, is the reason why she was listed as first in the fight over the filibuster. As you mentioned, there are some lingering dissatisfactions with that agreement that put her nomination on the floor, and there are a couple other judges who are expected to be passed through at some time, some later date as a result of that agreement.

This has been a huge battle, of course. Senator Frist, speaking in some fairly grand terms earlier today, called it "the greatest constitutional issue to confront the Senate in our lifetime."

Let's listen now to Senator Frist on the floor, with his counterpart, the Democratic leader, Harry Reid.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: I was not a party to that agreement, nor was our Republican leadership. It stops far short of guaranteeing up-or-down votes on all nominees. It stops far short of the principle on which this leadership stands.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: I've been involved in two filibusters during my career of almost 19 years in the Senate. That's two more than most people have been involved in.

Filibusters don't happen very often. And so I would -- I would think we should just move beyond this, let's go on and get the business of the country done. Let's not talk about nuclear option anymore. Let's let the Senate work its will.

(END VIDEO CLIP) JOHNS: Back live now, that vote is continuing on the floor of the United States Senate. After that vote, we do expect some of the key Republicans involved in the entire issue of Priscilla Owen to go to the cameras and talk to reporters.

Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: The expectation is she'll get the 51 votes, the majority in this Senate vote?

JOHNS: The expectation is she'll get the 51 votes. Many people do feel she's qualified. There was a lot of question as to how many Democrats might actually vote for her. It does seem pretty clear that she'll be able to get through, but certainly, as you know, not without a fight that went for years -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. We'll watch, see what unfolds. Joe Johns on the Hill for us. Thanks very much.

With nerves in the Senate frayed as they are, another heated controversy awaiting on deck. Immediately after the Owen vote, debate is set to begin on John Bolton, the president's very controversial choice as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

With that part of the story, let's head over to the State Department. Our Andrea Koppel standing by -- Andrea.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Wolf.

I spoke to someone, a spokesperson in Senator Bill Frist's, the majority leader's, office just a short time ago. And what she said is there is still a deal that is under discussion right now.

They're still trying to work out a deal as to how many hours of debate there would be on the Bolton nomination, but they are expected to begin that debate shortly, as soon as the Priscilla Owen vote is done, and it could go on for up to 40 hours. What that means is that each side, the Democrats will get 20 hours, the Republicans would get 20 hours. That doesn't mean that they will necessarily debate for 40 hours, but they have that option.

One thing that's hanging over them, of course, is the Memorial Day Weekend. The expectation is that senators will want to get this wrapped up by the end of business tomorrow evening so that they can go off and enjoy their holiday.

George Voinovich, who is the Republican of Ohio who grabbed a lot of headlines earlier this month when he said on the one hand that he would support the vote in committee that you're looking at right there, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, would support it without recommendation, but that he would be voting against it once it gets to the floor, so far he is the only Republican to have come out publicly against this nomination.

He sent a letter earlier this week to his colleagues in the Senate, saying essentially that he has reservations about the Bolton vote, deep concerns. He said, "It is my concern that John Bolton's nomination sends a negative message to the world community and contradicts the president's efforts. In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective ambassador to the United Nations."

Now, Wolf, there has been no public announcement to this effect. And certainly Republicans are not declaring victory at this point. But I can tell you, I've spoken with a half a dozen staffers in Republican offices, people like Lincoln Chafee's office, Chuck Hagel, and others, most of whom are saying that they're going to come out and support the Bolton nominations.

The Republicans have a 55 vote majority. And unless there is a filibuster, which is not expected, absolutely not expected at this point, you would only need a 51-vote majority, which would mean at this stage that the Bolton nomination would go through. But again, Republicans are not declaring victory as yet -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Because some Democrats are even saying they'll vote for confirmation of Bolton. So there's a little leeway there for the Republican side, for the White House side. We'll watch this debate unfold.

Andrea Koppel, while I have you, a quick question. The visit that the president will have tomorrow with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, coming to Washington, going into this visit, any major expectations as far as a breakthrough in U.S.- Palestinian relations? Any major surprises expected?

KOPPEL: I think that the meeting is the message, Wolf. This will be the first time in over four years since President Bush took the White House that he has welcomed the Palestinian leader, the chairman of the Palestinian Authority.

Remember, he refused while Yasser Arafat was alive to even shake his hand, let alone welcome him at the White House. So, really, the visit and the Oval Office meeting is going to be the symbolic message.

Very little substance expected, although Mahmoud Abbas does want the United States to try to give him aid directly. You'll remember Condoleezza Rice, when she was in the region back in February, said that the U.S. was going to be pledging upwards of $350 million, but Congress is refusing to let that money go directly to the Palestinian Authority.

Mahmoud Abbas wants to show the Palestinian people ahead of elections that are expected in July, municipal elections, that he can deliver, that he can improve the lives of the Palestinian people, unlike his chief competitor, the other political party also known as the militant group, some believe terrorist, Hamas -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Andrea Koppel at the State Department for us. Thanks, Andrea, very much.

And now to Iraq. Another major offensive to try to root out insurgents in that country. This time, the focus is in on the city of Haditha, about halfway between the Syrian border and Baghdad.

CNN's Ryan Chilcote is on duty for us in Baghdad. He's joining us live -- Ryan.

RYAN CHILCOTE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it's being called Operation New Market. As you said, it's taking place in the city of Haditha, about 130 miles west of Baghdad.

The Marines, who are pretty much making up the bulk of the forces in this operation, say they've always had a presence for the last three months in and around Haditha, but about a month ago they saw an increase in the attacks and in the insurgents' activities in that area, so they felt like they had to go in, in such large members.

About 1,000 Marines went into Haditha before dawn this morning. The Marines saying they were able to, they believe, keep the element of surprise to the operation. Of course, you know, Wolf, that's always difficult for the U.S. military when they have such large-scale operations.

They almost immediately, even before dawn, got into a couple of firefights. The Marines telling us that they killed 10 insurgents. They're also saying that two Marines were wounded there.

Meanwhile, the insurgents are keeping up their attacks in the Iraqi capital. Two attacks to talk about.

One, the Iraqi police telling us that a suicide bomber, apparently trying to target an Iraqi police convoy, was not able to get close enough to it as perhaps as that suicide bomber would have liked. But he rammed his car into a Mercedes nearby this convoy, killing one civilian, wounding eight other Iraqis.

And then just a short while ago, another attack, this time involving a car bomb. Not clear if there was a suicide bomber in that car.

Apparently, according to Iraqi police, targeting a U.S. military convoy. No word on U.S. casualties. However, we do know that at least one Iraqi civilian was killed there, another eight wounded. And some eyewitnesses on the scene there say they saw two U.S. military helicopters landing on that site. That is often, of course, a sign that there is some kind of evacuation take place there -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Ryan Chilcote with the latest. Another deadly day in Iraq. Thanks, Ryan, very much for that update.

This important programming note. This Sunday, a special "LATE EDITION," "Behind the Lines." On this Memorial Day Weekend in the United States, I'll take you with me to Iraq and the Persian Gulf to see how U.S. troops are battling the insurgents.

During my recent visit to the region, we had some unique access to U.S. military commanders. That's a special "LATE EDITION," "Behind the Lines." It airs Sunday, 1:00 p.m. Eastern.

Senator John McCain, by the way, will join me at noon Eastern Sunday during the first hour of "LATE EDITION."

More insight from Iraq coming up. From the upswing in insurgent attacks, to a report of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's supposed demise, I'll speak with "New York Times" Baghdad bureau chief John Burns about the latest developments.

And the president's handling of the war on terror facing criticism from human rights activists. We'll tell you what Amnesty International is saying today about the land of the free.

You're watching NEWS FROM CNN, and we're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: You're looking at a live picture of the U.S. Senate. The vote continuing for Judge Priscilla Owen.

Judge Priscilla Owen, the controversial nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals. This vote going down right now. It's expected she will be confirmed, setting the stage for one judicial nominee confirmation for the president. One of several he's been working on over the past few years.

We'll watch this vote. We'll get the numbers for you as soon as they're complete, let you know what's going on. Widely expected she will, will be confirmed.

Welcome back to NEWS FROM CNN. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

America, the land many, of course, view as the champion of human rights, is now being called one of the world's worst offenders. The Bush administration in particular is getting slammed right now by Amnesty International.

In its latest report, the group describes the U.S. prison camp at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as -- and I'm quoting now -- "the gulag of our time." That's where many suspected militants have been taken since 9/11. The human rights group is calling for that lockup to be shut down and for other governments around the world to investigate senior United States officials who may have been involved with what they call the abuse of detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM SCHULZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: We have documented the use of torture and ill treatment widespread throughout world. We've documented that the U.S. government is a leading purveyor and practitioner of this odious human rights violation. And the refusal of the U.S. government to conduct a truly independent investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention centers is tantamount to a whitewash, if not a cover- up, of these disgraceful events.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: The Bush administration yet to formally comment on the Amnesty International report, which also singles out major human rights violations in such places as Nepal, tsunami-ravaged Indonesia and Sudan.

Let's head back to Baghdad now, where the ongoing violence is leading some to fear Iraq is sliding back into a civil war. And back in the Middle East, in the midst of all of this, the Pulitzer Prize- winning "New York Times" chief correspondent John Burns. He's also the Baghdad bureau chief.

John, thanks very much for joining us.

You've been there almost from day one -- literally from day one of this war. We read your dispatches during that period, followed all of your reporting since then.

Give us some perspective. We get the impression things are really sliding out of control almost in Iraq. Is that -- is that your sense? Or are we just seeing snapshots that could be misleading?

JOHN BURNS, "NEW YORK TIMES": There are shades of light and dark in this situation, Wolf, as you know, and there have been for a very long time. On the one hand, we see considerable progress on the political front with the new Shiite majority government, which today, through the constitutional committee of the national assembly, has laid down a program to try and reach agreement on a new constitution by August the 15th for fresh elections in December.

On the other hand, we have a surge of insurgent violence. At least 600 civilians dead this month, about 60 U.S. soldiers. That's way up on last month, but way down on January.

It's extremely difficult in all of this for me, or, indeed, I would guess, for the commanding American general here or ranking American civilian officials, to come up with a reliable ledger of the way things are going. It's true that things are not at all as good as had been hoped immediately after the elections. But everyone knew from the first months after the American occupation began here that this was going to be a long slog. And we're talk not months, but I think years, before there could be an American withdrawal from Iraq and any hope of a truly stable political situation here.

BLITZER: What's the latest information, John, you're getting on the health of the terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? There were reports this Islamist Web site saying he had been injured, asking his followers to pray for him. What do you know -- or at least what are you hearing from your sources on the ground in Baghdad?

BURNS: Well, I think from the American command perspective, the news about Mr. Zarqawi, in the round is good. From the insurgent's point of view, it's bad.

There's no question that in the last few months, the American military have been very much on the trail of Mr. Zarqawi. They missed him on February the 20th in an extremely close encounter, where he was in a pickup truck that turned around and fled an American checkpoint. He left from the pickup truck as it -- as it passed under an underpass, all of this about 150 miles northwest of Baghdad near the city of Haditha. He escaped, leaving his laptop, $100,000.

Subsequent to that, there have been a number of reports over the last three weeks of Zarqawi appearing in hospitals in several different cities. We've had reports from Haditha, in Anbar province, from Ramadi, a city well familiar to your viewers, I believe, from all the trouble there's been there, and finally in Baghdad.

And yesterday, from a reliable Web site, insofar as one can judge any of these things, a statement by Zarqawi's only -- own organization that he has been injured. And it had a kind of (INAUDIBLE) quality to it, that he suggested that he may be very seriously injured.

There's no doubt that the U.S. commanders made considerable progress in disrupting Zarqawi's operation. And whether these reports prove to be true or not, it is the fact American generals at the highest level here have been saying for some weeks, we will get him.

BLITZER: If that happens, if he's captured or killed or disabled, would it really make a difference in the level, the intensity of this insurgency?

BURNS: I think it would make a difference in several respects.

First of all, the insurgent attacks by Zarqawi's group, and this by his own profession, really, amongst the most brutal and the most terrifying. He, only a week or so ago, on the same Web site that printed the statement by his organization yesterday that he is now injured, he, Zarqawi, issued a 75-minute audiotape in which he expressly called on his followers to attack civilians, men, women and children included, in order to get at the enemy. He said this was legitimate.

This is never going to be accepted by the majority population of Iraq. Never going to be accepted, I would guess, by most Muslims around the world, justified as he tries to make it, with a lot of Islamic rhetoric.

So, yes, it would remove a symbol, a totem of the Islamic militant element in this world. But, of course, what it wouldn't do is impact greatly on the other side of this war, which, I think, in terms of total numbers of attacks, is more significant, and that is the former regime elements as they're called here. That is to say, the loyalists of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party, and those who wish to restore Sunni minority rule.

Now, on that side, there is some good news. I've just come from the national assembly, where I talked to a number of Sunni politicians who were previously sitting out this entire political process who now want to get involved.

They want to be involved in making the constitution, they want Sunnis to have a voice at the table. So there is a feeling that on the Sunni or former regime element side of this war, the Ba'athist, Husseinist side of this war, there may be -- there may be a possibility of drawing the insurgency down over the long run.

If you can remove Zarqawi from the equation, then at least you can concentrate on what, in the long run, is going to be the Iraqi side of this. Zarqawi is, of course, a Jordanian, he's an outsider. And I think that would make a significant difference to the prospects for long-term peace here.

BLITZER: John Burns, reporting for "The New York Times," the Baghdad bureau chief. Thanks very much for spending a few moments with us. Be careful over there in Iraq. We'll continue to read your dispatches in "The New York Times."

Updating our viewers now on the confirmation of Judge Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals. It looks now she will definitely be confirmed. She's got more than 51 votes, well on her way to being confirmed.

Priscilla Owen going to become a U.S. Court of Appeals judge. This in the aftermath of that compromise worked out a couple nights ago, a compromise setting the sage for no filibuster against her, which would have require 60 votes to break the filibuster. Unlikely she could have received 60, but she is going to get at least 51.

We'll watch this vote tally on the floor of the Senate and bring you more, the final tally, when we get it.

We'll take a quick break. When we come back, back to normal. After more than three years, Reagan National Airport in Washington welcoming back at least a modest number of private smaller planes.

And the defense calls in final witnesses in the Michael Jackson trial.

NEWS FROM CNN will continue right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: New York celebrating Fleet Week. You're looking at live pictures now.

Events beginning just over three hours ago with the parade of ships. Members of the military and their families are receiving a warm welcome. The defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was not on hand. He had to cancel his trip to New York due to some bad weather.

Fleet Week runs through Memorial Day. There it is, New York City, Fleet Week. Lots of sailors in the Big Apple.

In our CNN "Security Watch," a big announcement expected this afternoon about general aviation and charter aircraft flights at Reagan's National Airport -- Reagan National Airport here in Washington, D.C.

Our Homeland Security Correspondent Jeanne Meserve is standing by live at the airport with details.

Jeanne, a lot of small planes have been anxious for this, but there are some pretty serious restrictions.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: There really are. And probably not too many of them are actually going to be able to land and take off here.

The recent air incursion even into the restricted airspace over Washington, which led to an evacuation of the Capitol and the White House, illustrated how concerned they are about air security over the U.S. capital, and so some people are expressing some surprise this morning that the TSA is expected to announce a reopening of this airport, which is just a couple of miles from the National Mall, to some general aviation. However, it will be restricted. It will be limited.

According to an aviation source who's familiar with the TSA regulations that are expected to be proposed this afternoon, there will only be 48 operations a day permitted here. That's 24 landings, 24 takeoffs.

General aviation aircraft that are flying into Reagan National will need to go through one of 12 gateway airports where passengers and crew will be screened by the TSA, and where the aircraft will be swept by bomb-sniffing dogs. The crew and passenger manifest will have to be provided to the TSA 24 hours ahead of time, so names can be run against no-fly lists. Also the pilot and crew will have to go through prescreening, including a criminal background check, and an armed law-enforcement officer will have to be on board each and every one of those aircraft.

Now about 300 people lost their jobs here at Reagan National because of the shutdown of general aviation operations after 9/11, and some members of Congress and the business community have been pushing very hard to see this reopening. Some of them are ecstatic about the fact that this is going to be announced today. However, one, Eleanor Holmes Norton of D.C., though happy, is worried about these restrictions, calling them needlessly cumbersome.

In any event, it seems clear that only the very richest of private citizens and corporations will be able to use these general aviation facilities when they do reopen, which is expected in about 90 days -- Wolf.

BLITZER: It sounds like, Jeanne, like if you're the governor of Kentucky or governor of another state, you probably could meet a lot of those requirements. But if you're a private citizen, even a wealthy citizen, how do you get an armed law enforcement officer to agree to fly with you into Washington?

MESERVE: Well, you know, some of those governors, and senators and other VIPs have been able to land here. There have been waivers that have been granted to some of them over the last couple of years, so they've been able to put down. But you're absolutely right, those are the people who will be able to do it and the corporations, big corporations with larger corporate jets.

But you know, even before 9/11, this was not an airport that was frequented by those very small airplanes and private operators for the most part, simply because landing here is so expensive -- Wolf.

BLITZER: They're just have to fly to Dulles or Baltimore- Washington International Airport. That's what they've been doing since 9/11, and presumably almost everyone else will continue to have to do that as well, except for a privileged few.

Jeanne Meserve reporting for us, from Reagan National. Thanks very much.

And to our viewers, please stay tuned day and night to CNN for the most reliable news about your security.

When we come back, very passionate debate on Capitol Hill, and for many lawmakers, the position they take on embryonic stem cell research is literally a matter of life and death. Their views. I'll speak live with two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dan Lungren, a Republican from California, along with Rhode Island Democrat Jim Langevin. That's coming up next on NEWS FROM CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The United States Senate is considering a stem cell research bill similar to the one approved by the House of Representatives yesterday. That bill would lift President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for new research on embryonic stem cells in a very restricted, limited way. The House bill passed 238 to 194.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE PENCE (R), INDIANA: We lost, they won, but they did not win by enough votes to overcome a certain presidential veto. Today's loss has laid the foundation for tomorrow's victory. As we prepare to support the moral leadership that president George W. Bush brought to this issue in the spring of 2001, by sustaining his presidential veto not if, but when it comes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Some believe embryonic stem cell research might lead to possible new treatments, or even cures perhaps for several diseases and illnesses. Here to discuss whether there should be federal funding, expanded federal funding for such research, two members of the House of Representatives with different perspectives, Republican Congressman Daniel Lungren of California, Democratic Congressman Jim Langevin of Rhode Island.

And, Congressman Langevin, I'll start with you. When you were 16 years old, you had a horrible accident, left you paralyzed. You are now in a wheelchair. You believe there should be expanded federal funding under these restrictions. Tell our viewers why.

REP. JIM LANGEVIN (D), RHODE ISLAND: Well, this is a major development. The House of Representatives has passed the stem-cell research legislation, and now it goes on to the Senate. This legislation offers great hope for curing various kinds of conditions and diseases, that could offer hope for all kinds of people suffering from things like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, ALS, cancer, even spinal chord injuries and many others. And I believe that as a caring and compassionate nation, we have an obligation to get behind this research and realize its full potential.

BLITZER: Congressman Langevin, do you believe that potentially you could walk again if this research moves forward?

LANGEVIN: That's a distinct possibility. And spinal chord injuries are one of the conditions that potentially could be treated through embryonic stem cell research. These cells -- a (INAUDIBLE) that could become any cell in the body. The research is just in its infancy, just in its beginning, and we don't have enough federal support for the research, and it's only been around for a few years.

But with the proper resources, the proper dedication and effort behind it, I know that not only for spinal injuries, but for many other conditions and diseases, there is now great hope. This isn't just about spinal chord injuries, this is about people helping those people that are dealing with juvenile diabetes, ALS, Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, and today is great day.

BLITZER: Congressman Lungren, you disagree. Even though you have a brother who's been suffering, what, for 15 years from Parkinson's? There are many experts as far as the Parkinson's community is concerned who believe that embryonic stem cell research could cure your brother among the many others who suffer from Parkinson's?

REP. DAN LUNGREN (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, let me say a couple things. The first is that my brother and I grew up together. We're one of seven in our family, but we were the closest. He was my older brother, has been my older brother. He's someone that's always talked about the moral dimension of our lives and someone that's guided me in many ways in that. And that's what I don't want to lose here.

Obviously, I would wish us to be able to pursue all that scientific endeavor that might lead to some sort of breakthroughs, although some of this is speculative at this point. That's why I've supported adult stem cell research, umbilical blood cord research, which we really haven't put that much money in.

The question with respect to embryonic stem cells is, do you have to kill the embryo in order to get the stem cells? And thus far, that is the procedure by which it is done.

And what we were asked yesterday to do is to put federal funds behind that. It's been legal to do, but the question is whether federal funds should be used for it. There are those who believe, including those on the president's bioethics panel, that there are four possible techniques that may be used to develop the line of stem cells from embryos without killing the embryos. I would hope that we would move in that direction, But really, we're asked to cross the rubicon. It'd be the first time ever we've used federal funds to kill human life in any form in order to help others. BLITZER: What's the -- Congressman, a lot of people ask this question. Maybe can you explain it. The president, when he first took office in 2001, did approve federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. And a lot of people are wondering, what's the difference between those embryos and the embryos now at these the fertility clinics that are simply going to be discarded in any case? Why not use those embryos similar to the embryos that he approved funding for in 2001?

LUNGREN: He approved funding for stem lines, stem cell lines that had come from embryos in which the procedure had already taken place. He did not want any money to go towards the further destruction. That's the essential difference. The question here is whether we'd use federal funds for the very first time now to destroy embryos for the purpose of doing further research.

Look, it's not an easy question. I don't want to suggest it is. There are good men and women on both sides of this issue, but...

BLITZER: All right.

LUNGREN: ... I hope we understand what we're talking about, the significance of this decision.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to bring back -- I want to bring back Congressman Langevin.

I want to update our viewers. Priscilla Owen, the federal judge, has been now confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The final vote, 56 in favor, 43 opposed. Priscilla Owen will become a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. That is official.

Let me bring back Congressman Langevin right now. I'd like to you respond to the argument made by Congressman Lungren, and the president for that matter, that, in effect, you're killing life in order to try to save life.

LANGEVIN: What Dan and others who oppose embryonic stem cell research and federal funds for it, what they're suggesting is that if we provide the federal funds, then the embryos are going to be destroyed in order to get the stem cells. And what we're suggesting is that the decision will have already been made by the parents, the donors of these -- creators of these embryos, to destroy the embryos.

Because they were first created in the in-vitro fertilization process, the donors have decided they are no longer going to use the embryos, that they have the number of children that they tried to produce or they no longer are going to try. And so therefore, the embryos are either going to remain frozen. Some could be adopted I fully support adopting embryos for those couples that want to allow their embryos to be adopted. But many couples are going to decide...

BLITZER: All right.

LANGEVIN: ... that they're going to destroy these embryos. Rather than seeing them being discarded, I'd rather see some useful benefit come to mankind through stem cell research that could offer hope to millions of people.

BLITZER: Congressman?

LANGEVIN: So the issue is not that if we provide federal funds, it's going to cause the destruction of the embryos. That decision would have already been made.

BLITZER: Congressman Lungren, I want you to respond to that, but I also want to respond to some of your fellow Republicans. About 50 of them voted in favor of this expanded embryonic stem cell research, including Congressman Duke Cunningham of California, very emotionally. Listen to what he said on the House floor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DUKE CUNNINGHAM, (R) CALIFORNIA: I am for life and I'm for the quality of life. But I don't want another six-year-old to die. I oppose the California bill. It went too far. I don't support cloning. But I want to save life. We're this close to stopping juvenile diabetes. And there's other embryos that are tainted so bad that you would not implant those, and they want to study those so that they can stop those childhood diseases. But you cannot look a child in the eye when the only chance they have to live is this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You want to respond, Congressman Lungren, to your colleague?

LUNGREN: Well, sure. I mean, obviously, it's an emotional issue. No one wants any child to die or anyone suffering. I don't -- every day I ask myself why God allowed my brother to have Parkinson's and why not me. We grew up together. Those are heartfelt feelings. And I understand. I would disagree with him on several points. Number one, this is very similar to what we did in California, where we voted for taxpayer funds to be utilized for this purpose. Number two, we have to confront the question whether we will destroy life.

Now, some people don't recognize it's life because it happens to be in the embryonic stage. But the fact of the matter is biologically, scientifically, when you get the embryo, that is the essence of human life. All of the development is inward, is from the inside. There's nothing from the outside that causes the development. It needs to be nurtured, but it is an identifiable human entity, and so the real serious question -- and here's my problem. Every time in the United States we have made the biggest mistakes, it's whenever we have defined a member of the human community, the human family, as less than fully human. That's what I'm worried about.

BLITZER: We'll leave it right there. Congressman Lungren, Congressman Langevin, two very thoughtful positions. You clearly disagree. The House of Representatives voted in favor of this expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but not by enough votes that potentially could override a presidential veto. The president making it clear he's going to veto this legislation, so it's not going to go anywhere, almost certainly. We'll continue this debate, though, down the road. Thanks to both of you for joining us.

LUNGREN: Thank you.

LANGEVIN: Thank you.

BLITZER: From the House of Representatives, let's move over and update our viewers once again on what has happened on the Senate floor, only within the past few minutes. Federal Judge Priscilla Owen -- now Federal Judge Priscilla Owen, she's about to be sworn in.

Priscilla Owen will be the new U.S. Court of Appeals judge. 56- 43 confirmation of her -- that was the result of that compromise worked out the other night by members of the compromise committee, the 14 members of the Senate who worked out that deal. Priscilla Owen has been confirmed, 56-43.

They're now taking up the whole issue of John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Here's the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist responding to the confirmation. Actually, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, one of the other Republican leaders in the Senate, from Texas, with John Cornyn. They're clearly pleased that Priscilla Owen has been approved by the U.S. Senate.

We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. The child molestation trial involving Michael Jackson approaching the end, and despite the early hint from Jackson's attorney, it appears the pop superstar will not be called to the witness stand.

CNN's Ted Rowlands joining us now live from outside the courthouse in Santa Maria, California.

What is happening right now, Ted?

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the final defense witness is into cross-examination. Comedian Chris Tucker, who took the stand late yesterday, has finished on direct and is now into cross. We expect that he'll be done sometime soon this morning, and then the defense will rest its case.

The prosecution is expected for a couple days in rebuttal, and it's safe to say the jury is going to start deliberating Jackson's fate by mid next week or late next week, at latest.

This morning, comedian Chris Tucker took the stand and said that he spent considerable time with the accuser and the accuser's family, and he said that the accuser himself was a cunning, smart little boy that asked him for money on repeated occasions. He also said that his handlers, his brother and a couple of his associates, warned him about this family. He says he didn't believe that he should be warned, but then, he said, he saw evidence that the mother was, quote, "crazy" during an interaction. And then he said he pulled Michael Jackson aside at one point and warned him about this family.

This is the final defense witness. It's one of the only witnesses that spent considerable time with the accuser and the accuser's family, and they've decided to go with him, rather than put on Michael Jackson himself -- Wolf.

BLITZER: So it could wrap up today, then there's some rebuttal and some final arguments, and the whole thing could go to jury when?

ROWLANDS: We expect by late next week, most likely Thursday or Friday. Memorial Day is a court holiday, as you can imagine. So probably Thursday or Friday, the jury will begin.

BLITZER: All right, at long last, we'll see what the jury says. That's the most important thing.

Ted Rowlands reporting for us from Santa Maria, California.

CNN's "LIVE FROM" coming all of our way at the top of the hour. Let's get a little preview now. CNN's Miles O'Brien standing by.

Miles, where are you today?

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Sitting here right at the circle of excellence, as we like to call it for "LIVE FROM." There is team. We're getting it all ready here.

There's Mike Topo (ph), the EP. A couple of things -- first of all, Kyra, pull it back, Ron, a little bit. Kyra Phillips has been working those phones, her phones should be steaming still, talking to her friends at NORAD. She's faking that right now. But she did find out that they are going to ask for a clarification, a correction from "The Washington Post" for a story out today indicating that the secretary of defense, SECDEF as they like to call him, had given the green light to shoot down that poor Cessna 150 from May 11th.

Also, Wolf, if you run into Burt Reynolds, just pretend like you've seen his movies, OK, because if you haven't, you might get a quick speed slap. We'll explain that one as well.

Back to you.

BLITZER: All right. You've Kyra Phillips and Burt Reynolds on the same program. We'll be watching. Doesn't get any better than that, Miles?

O'BRIEN: Yes, I'm just going to take the rest of the afternoon off.

BLITZER: All right, Miles and Kyra. "LIVE FROM," that comes up in about seven minutes from now here on CNN. I'm coming back after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

I'll be back later today, every weekday, 5:00 p.m. Eastern for "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." Among other things, we'll take a close in- depth look at Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. He's a key player in the insurgent fight against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. But where did he come from, and what does he want? We'll go in depth. Nic Robertson has an exclusive report. That's coming up, 5:00 p.m. Eastern, later today on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS."

Until then, thanks very much for watching NEWS FROM CNN. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

"LIVE FROM" with Kyra Phillips and Miles O'Brien, that's coming up next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com