Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Bush to Sign Arms Agreement; Carter Visits Biotech Lab in Cuba; Efrat Through the Years

Aired May 13, 2002 - 22:00   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.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: ... any other night we would lead with the story, but as the war against terror continued or the anthrax story flared or the Middle East exploded, they all seemed more timely or more compelling or just plain more important.

But not tonight. In this century, Russia feels closer to being an ally than an enemy, but nevertheless remains a country with enough nuclear fire power to turn the planet to toast. So the whip begins tonight with the arms control agreement. Our Senior White House correspondent John King is following that today. John, the head line.

JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Judy, the president received word early this morning the final obstacles had been overcome; 10 days from now in Moscow Presidents Bush and Putin will sign a strategic arms reduction treaty cutting the nuclear arsenals of the two former Cold War rivals by two thirds.

WOODRUFF: Thank you. We will see you shortly. On to Havana. Kate Snow is traveling with former president Jimmy Carter. Kate, a head line?

KATE SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Judy, very busy day for President Carter. He began this morning with breakfast, inviting two Cuban dissents, well known political activists to come and meet him this morning then from there to a biotechnology center where President Carter asked scientists, among other, things about AIDS in Africa, but the most noteworthy thing he did was he talked about the prospect and the charge by the U.S. government and the Bush Administration that Cuba is developing biological weapons. Mr. Carter taking issue with that.

WOODRUFF: All right, Kate. We'll see you in just a moment, too. Now the latest from the Middle East. Quite an interview that Wolf Blitzer has had over the last day or so. Wolf, the head line?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Judy, Yasser Arafat tells me he's ready to support two states, Israel and Palestine, living alongside each other. He leaves his compound in Ramallah for the first time since December, takes a victory lap around the West Bank. We will have all the details -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: We'll see you in a moment. A fascinating and bitterly fought race for the mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Jeff Greenfield will weigh in on that tonight. Jeff, the headline.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: One of the most intriguing political races in quite a while for mayor of Newark. It pits a 16 year incumbent with all the power of the establishment against a brash young newcomer who some tout as potential future president. It pits 2 African Americans against each other in a race that has been defined, in large measure, by race. One of the most interesting elections we have seen in quite a while, Judy.

WOODRUFF: All right, Jeff Greenfield. We'll talk to you shortly. Back with all of you in a moment. Also coming up in on NEWSNIGHT, a rare window into how church leaders dealt with abusive priests before their behavior became a nationwide scandal. Videotaped testimony of Cardinal Egan of New York from 1997.

And it's not so often that just going back to work is a triumph. It is if you were forced out of your office on September 11. That is segment 7 tonight.

All that to come, but we begin with a story that would have played out very differently not so long ago. Not so long ago treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union only emerged if they did at all, after years of haggling over everything, right down to the color of the ink. This one came quickly. As for the ink, the Bush Administration called it strictly optional. No treaty necessary. A handshake deal to drastically cut nuclear weapons, they said, would have been just fine. But a treaty it is. CNN John King has the details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): The president calls it an arms control breakthrough and proof of a new day in U.S. Russia relations.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That's important. The new era will be a period of enhanced mutual security, economic security and improved relations.

KING: Presidents Bush and Putin will sign the treaty May 24 in Moscow. It commits the United States and Russia to cutting strategic nuclear arsenals by two thirds over the next decade, to a range of 1,700 to 2,200 war heads down from the 5,000 to 7,000 war heads each country has now.

BUSH: Make the world more peaceful and put behind us the Cold War once and for all.

KING: Mr. Bush told President Putin six months ago he would be happy with a handshake deal, but the Russian president insisted on a formal treaty.

KARL INDERFURTH, NUCLEAR THREAT REDUCTION CAMPAIGN: These agreements will outlive either the Bush Administration or the Putin Administration. So they have to be legally binding. That's the only way that you can instill trust and confidence over the long-term in arms reductions. KING: Russia wanted excess war heads destroyed, but the treaty allows for war heads to be kept in storage and as operational spares, which is what Mr. Bush wanted. The treaty requires Senate approval. Initial reaction was largely positive in part because the White House says it remains committed to a separate program aimed at helping Russia destroy war heads and protect its nuclear stockpiles.

INDERFURTH: The Russians themselves have admitted, there have been questions about possible theft and diversion of those materials. We don't want to see Osama bin Laden get a Russian tactical nuclear weapon.

KING: U.S. officials say the agreement its proof of both a no nonsense Bush style and the trust shared by the two presidents.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

And they offer this anecdote, the officials do as evidence. Back in 1991 the United States and the then Soviet Union signed the Start I treaty. It took nearly a decade to negotiate and that treaty ran 750 pages long.

This treaty struck in 6 months of on and off negotiations, and when it's signed 10 days from now it runs, Judy, just three pages.

WOODRUFF: John, connections, if any, between this treaty and the Bush plan not only to do away with the anti-ballistic missile treaty to stop observing, in essence, in June, and also looking ahead to missile defense?

KING: Certainly the two governments, Russia and Washington still have some disagreements over missile defense. The will also, though, as evidence of this new cooperative spirit, sign a statement of principals in Moscow that commits the two governments to continue to try to work out the differences. Russia still upset at the United States for pulling out of the ABM treaty. Still has suspicions about the Bush missile defense plan.

What U.S. officials believe thought, is that first and foremost President Putin wants the prestige of an arms control treaty. Next to that he wants more U.S. business investment and believed negotiating this treaty was key to getting the Bush Administration more engaged in that and not long after the signing ceremony in Moscow, another remarkable event; Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush will both be in Italy when Russia signs a new agreement to cooperate with the NATO alliance, the world's strategic alliance is being rewritten here in about a week. A very different era now than we would have had looking at this story a few years ago.

WOODRUFF: Indeed. That is right. John king at the White House. Thanks.

Well dealing with another kind of nuclear threat now. A report unconfirmed so far, that Islamic terrorists may be planning an attack on or around July 4 against a nuclear power plant. The report comes from a foreign Intelligence service that officials we have talked to say may not be reliable. Just the same, no one is dismissing the threat and the broader question of nuclear security remains very much on the table.

Joining me now to talk about it, Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey, a Democrat and senior member of the House Energy Committee. Congressman Markey thanks for being with us.

REP. EDWARD MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Thank you for having me.

WOODRUFF: Do you take this information seriously?

MARKEY: I have no idea whether the information is credible or not credible. But I do know that it does, again, raise the issue of how secure our nuclear power plants are in the United States given the fact that al Qaeda has repeatedly made it clear that they are at the top of their targets for terrorist attacks if they can gain access to them.

WOODRUFF: How secure do you think -- there are what, 66 nuclear power plants in the United States. How secure do you believe they are?

MARKEY: Well, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has yet to in fact put in place a new set of regulations on a permanent basis that would give protections against the kind of attack that we saw on September 11, that is 20 terrorists that are suicidal, heavily armed and with the capacity to put together this kind of attack.

Before September 11, nuclear power plants in the United States were flunking their security tests by a rate of 40 to 50 percent. They were grammar school exams compared to the college level exam which we realize al Qaeda will give to any nuclear power plant that they decide they are going to attack.

WOODRUFF: You have proposed legislation that among other things would have, what, the federal government take over security at these plants. What makes you convinced that having the federal government in charge is going to prevent or assure us that there won't be some kind of terrorist attack?

MARKEY: Well, we can't assure that we can be 100 percent protected, but like airports, I think that there are certain facilities in the United States that could have catastrophic consequences for a wide range of people in our society. And so in the same way that the American people want a federalized security force at airports, the same thing is true for nuclear power plants. These are places where accidents, mistakes can't be allowed to happen because of the catastrophic consequences that could occur for a much wider range of the population.

WOODRUFF: Why do you think the existing system is so unsafe or so unreliable?

MARKEY: I think it is because...

WOODRUFF: Just money? Not having the resources to put the systems in place?

MARKEY: Largely the nuclear regulatory commission and the nuclear industry itself operated under an "it can't happen here" doctrine until September 11. So we are still in a transition period here. We are trying to get the agency and the industry itself to shake off these old notions and to spend the money. Obviously it costs money to build this additional security. It makes nuclear generated electricity a little less competitive against natural gas, oil, coal.

WOODRUFF: Money that has to be spent for security.

MARKEY: It's a price they have to be willing to pay. Thus far they have kind of resisted it in the same way they resisted no-fly zone over nuclear power plants or having National Guard at nuclear power plants because they think it will stigmatize that energy source. But I think it will only help to build more confidence in it if the American public knows that that security is being put in place.

WOODRUFF: You obviously have had some inside information from the Energy Department, from some of these plants. Just last month you released a letter from an official at the Federal Energy Department essentially complaining that the president's budget office wasn't allocating or wasn't proposing enough money for security. Could Congress go ahead and put this money out there even if the Bush Administration is saying we have, we can't spend this much money at this point?

MARKEY: The Bush Department of Energy requested an amount of money in order to protect the nuclear weapons laboratories of the United States where we put together these nuclear weapons. The White House rejected 93 percent of the request from its own Department of Energy saying, we can't afford to spend that amount of money on security.

WOODRUFF: After September 11?

MARKEY: Just in the last two months. The Congress has now looked at that and said, regardless of what the office of management and budget, regardless of what the White House says, we have to ensure that more money is put into security around these nuclear weapons laboratories.

So if that's the case with nuclear weapons laboratories, it only raises the question of what kind of security thus far has been put in place around nuclear power plants, civilian nuclear power plants in our country.

WOODRUFF: Do you think the latest threat will have the effect of getting the administration and anybody else who is against spending this money, to change their minds?

MARKEY: We know that in the caves and computers of Afghanistan that al Qaeda will target a nuclear power plant, a nuclear weapons laboratory if they get the chance. I think that each time this story arises, it brings us closer to the day where the amount of resources necessary will be allocated in order to ensure that al Qaeda can not be successful in attacking any one of these facilities and creating a catastrophic event.

WOODRUFF: All right Congressman Ed Markey, who has been watching this energy and nuclear industry for some time. We appreciate it. Congressman Markey, thank you very much for dropping by.

MARKEY: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: Good to see you.

If our first story tonight was an echo of the Cold War, this story is perhaps a remnant of the real thing. Former president Jimmy Carter is in Cuba. the first American leader, retired or otherwise, to visit Fidel Castro. The trip was OK'ed by the Bush Administration, but just as Mr. Carter arrived the administration accused Cuba of developing biological weapons.

That dominated the news from Havana today where we turn once again to CNN's Kate Snow.

SNOW: Judy, President Carter started out his day with a breakfast with Cuban dissents. Some political activists here in town. Then it was really the biotechnology center that attracted the most attention. He headed there, to a center for biotechnology and genetic engineering accompanied by Fidel Castro.

Carter asked the scientist he met with about AIDS in Africa but that wasn't the headline of what came out of that meeting. In comments after the center the headline was that President Carter said he had asked U.S. officials, who had briefed him before he made his trip here to Cuba, he said he had asked them specifically on more than one occasion, was there any proof, any information that Cuba was sharing information with other countries that could be used for terrorist purposes?

President Carter saying in his statement today that the answer given to him by U.S. officials was clearly no. Now Carter also said that he hoped, given what President Castro said yesterday about allowing him to have full and free access while he's here on this visit, that Carter hoped that others might be able to come to this country and observe and look into the scientists here and make sure or try to verify whether in fact there is any, any production going on of biological weapons.

I spoke with Riccardo Alcone (ph), the president of the National Assembly in Cuba a short time ago and asked him about this. I said, would the Cuban government allow a team of say international independent inspectors to come and try to verify the Cuban government's claims that there is nothing going on here that is anything but science. He said they would be open to that as long as they were independent visitors.

Now Judy, in addition to looking at the president's visit here, we have been trying to get a sense for life on the streets here. One thing that you notice right away in Cuba is the power of the American dollar. The U.S. dollar has been legal here since 1993. Cubans will do just about anything to make a buck.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): In old Havana, with its crumbling colonial facades on a narrow street down a dark hallway, the set welcomes visitors.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hola.

SNOW: For about 25 bucks a night she rents out a room in her apartment. Her visitors are from all over, she tells me. The symbol on the door means she has a license to charge them in dollars. If you make dollars, she says, it's a lot easier to get by. The bathroom is 1958 but the newer furnishings were bought with green backs and she's not the only one on the block offering a room.

(on camera): Three, four, five, six rooms.

(voice-over): Dollars have created a parallel economy in Cuba. Cuban workers can spend their peso salaries, on average the equivalent of $12 a month, but only on certain things. The bread you get with peso or a government ration card is nothing compared to the sweets on display at a dollar bakery.

If you have dollars, you can fill up with higher quality gas, buy a stove or dishwasher and check out this dollar mall in central Havana, from perfume, to shoes, even sinks, tubs and tires for sale.

(on camera): Dollars are so important, Cubans have found all sorts of creative ways to earn them. Some of them legal. Some of them illegal, like selling counterfeit cigars or pirated videotapes or C.D.s. We talked to one man who says CDs. We agreed not to use his name or show his face.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I can buy them for two dollars and sell for 4 or 5. You understand. It's survival.

SNOW: A lot of people do it, he tells us, life is hard here. On this street a man approaches to ask if he can take me to a restaurant inside someone's home. They are called paladatas.

Yamila (ph) a former systems analyst and her husband, Pepin, a former mechanical engineer, quit their jobs when they got a restaurant license. It allows them to seat only 12 and pay extra for the sign out front. And they can only charge in pesos, which they quickly convert to dollars.

PEPIN CHORENS CEPEDA (through translator): What does it mean? First and foremost having economic independence. That's important -- to meet your needs, the basic and the not so basic.

SNOW: For many Cubans, economic independence means the freedom to make and spend a buck. Not every Cuban has access to dollars, but for many it's a way of life.

(END VIDEOTAPE) And Judy, President Carter hasn't had a lot of time yet to visit with the Cuban people, but he keeps mentioning that he's going to be giving a speech tomorrow night. Everywhere he goes he mentions it as if he really wants to make sure the Cubans know what time it is going to be televised so that they will all be watching tomorrow evening as he addresses the Cuban people from the University of Havana. Back to you.

WOODRUFF: Kate we hope you have time to try out one of those paladeros. We'll see. Thanks.

SNOW: I have.

WOODRUFF: You can tell us about that tomorrow night. Thanks Kate Snow.

Later on NEWSNIGHT we will look at the history of one Jewish settlement on the West Bank. Up next, Yasser Arafat tours the destruction of the Palestinian areas of the West Bank.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Two pictures came today from the Middle East. Seemingly defeated prime minister Ariel Sharon and seemingly victorious Yasser Arafat. But like much else in the Middle East, things are not always what they seem. Let's go back now to Wolf Blitzer, who is covering both stories, and you have a big exclusive on Sunday -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Judy, the leader of the Palestinians, Yasser Arafat, left his compound for the first time since December, earlier today went on a tour of the West Bank. He visited Nablus, the largest city on the West Bank, meeting with Palestinians there. Went on to other stops.

Earlier he was in Jenin, although he avoided stopping directly in the Jenin refugee camp which had been the scene of the bloodiest, most serious fighting between Israelis and Palestinians. And earlier he was in Bethlehem at the Church of the Nativity which had seen that five week stand off between Israelis and Palestinians.

I spoke to him in Ramallah at his compound earlier before he went on what his aides describe as a victory tour of the West Bank and he insisted he was doing everything possible to stop terrorism against Israeli civilians, but also said that some sources of terrorism were beyond his control.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Are you prepared now to promise people of Israel, the people of Palestine, everybody, that you, Yasser Arafat, the president of the Palestinian Authority will do everything you possibly can to prevent terrorism?

YASSER ARAFAT, CHAIRMAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY: No doubt. This is my policy from the beginning. Although there are some, I don't want to say their names, some international power are supporting this.

BLITZER: Iraq?

ARAFTAT: I'll not speak names. I'll not mention any names -- have supported them.

BLITZER: Iran?

ARAFAT: I'm not saying names. I'm saying that and their leaders, their main leaders is not here. Their main leaders are outside, and in spite of that, I am following.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: The other major development here over the past day or two a bitter feud between the two leaders of the Likud Party. The prime minister Ariel Sharon faced a serious challenge from Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu defeated Sharon in the Likud central committee on a key issue on whether or not there should be a Palestinian state.

A resolution was passed barring such a Palestinian state over the objections of Prime Minister Sharon. Judy, that's a serious political embarrassment to the Israeli leader.

WOODRUFF: All right. Wolf Blitzer reporting from Jerusalem. Wolf, we really appreciate you getting up so early this morning. We know you are putting in some long hours these days in Israel. Thank you, Wolf.

And coming up next on NEWSNIGHT we will look at how the situation on the West Bank has played out in the history of one Jewish settlement there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: One of the perks of working at CNN is the history we have at our finger tips. Sometimes a trip to the video library gives us a perspective on the news of the day that sometimes can get lost when we cover only the news of the day.

That's the way it is tonight with a fascinating report from the Middle East and CNN Mike Hanna. He has managed to capture the essence of the conflict over land and peace in the story of a single Israeli settlement on the West Bank. It is one of more an 200 now in place. Facts on the ground, they are called by some. Others call them obstacles to peace.

Whatever you call them, everyone agrees their fate will be the last thing settled in any peace deal. The town Mike Hanna focuses on is Efrat, now and then. Here's his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIKE HANNA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The city of Efrat Glistening in the spring sunshine, it could be a Southern California suburb of Los Angeles or San Diego, is just one of the dozens of Jewish settlements scattered throughout the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis live in these settlements that in Palestinian eyes are the sharp edge of Israeli occupation, a clear attempt to establish facts on the ground that would resist any future negotiations as to what is or what is not land of the Palestinian state.

For some Israelis its national expansion over what the Israeli government calls historical Judea and Sameria (ph).

(on camera): The intensity of the current intefada has, to a large extent clouded the issue of settlements, which will still be there when or if the current uprising ends or moves into a new phase of negotiation.

To understand how these settlements came about and continue to expand, it's instructive to look closely at this one, Efrat. Let's look back through recent history and begin with CNN's first Jerusalem bureau chief, Jay Bushinsky, reporting from Efrat more than two decades ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAY BUSHINSKY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: An Israeli plan to establish an urban center and eventually a sizable city to be known as Efrat, has stirred up the local residents. They pulled up the staves of a fence erected by the Israelis to demarcate the area southeast of Bethlehem. This resulted in the arrest of 7 Arab men.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My grandfather and my grandmother, they all were working this land. We went to the court and every time we go to the court they tell us to go and to come the next month and the next month. Until after one or two years we leave our land and we come to work inside it so they can't take it.

BUSHINSKY: The Jewish agency for Israel, Zev Ben Joseph, rejected these arguments.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All of our land of Efrat are lands that belong to the state of Israel. They are not private at all.

HANNA: Let's move forward seven years and see how the debate stood during the first intifadah in the West Bank. It's 1988 and here's CNN's Linda Scherzer.

LINDA SCHERZER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Not a shot has been fired across this valley. The people are divided by politics, but they share the land in peace.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I understand nationalism. He understands my Zionism. And we attempt to co-exist.

SCHERZER: It is, however, an uneasy co-existence. The Arabs of Jorelashma (ph) helped build this settlement. They shop in Efrat supermarkets. They travel along its roads.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That does not mean that we are there. No. But we don't want trouble.

HANNA: But trouble was on the way. These are the hilltops between Efrat and Bethlehem on Christmas day 1995. And reporting here is CNN's Bill Delaney.

BILL DELANEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two days later, confrontations erupted elsewhere on the West Bank over plans to expand a Jewish settlement, which the Israeli government is now reconsidering. All skirmishes in what many fear could eventually flare into something much more serious as Jews and Arabs, passionate about the same land, continue a seemingly endless battle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They even told us week and a half ago I want to you build here and I want you to build big here because this is greater Jerusalem.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This mountain belongs to my family. And the other mountain belong to other family in our village. So it's the same problem.

DELANEY: And as the peace process builds momentum, this is how veteran Middle East correspondent Jerrold Kessel explained the problem all then were grappling with.

JERROLD KESSEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The issue goes way beyond the spectacular spot and whether one settlement will expand. It is a question of who ultimately will own this land of the West Bank. Who will control it? Israelis or Palestinians?

HANNA: This is about where Jerrold Kessel stood seven years ago. As you can see, Efrat has expanded substantially and is now very close to the outskirts of Bethlehem. Now we are nearly two years into a second Palestinian intefadah, and the situation is more intense than ever before. A few weeks ago, this is how Matthew Chance described his visit to Efrat.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Into the heart of the divided West Bank, with Israeli armor, these forces are redeploying from some Palestinians towns, but a heavy troop presence remains. There are still occupied lands and Jewish settlement still need protection from Palestinian attacks.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One of the suicide bombings that we had here in Efrat, we wanted to blow up the supermarket, but was recognized before he was able to do that. It was a man who worked here, who earned money here. His entire family worked here. And people treated him with respect and very finally, he had no reason to hate us.

CHANCE: But doesn't that tell you there has to be a political end game? There has to be a political solution to bring peace to this territory?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can't ram peace down people throats. And it's something that I'm not sure people in the West understand. HANNA: Two decades of history. Two decades during which the struggle for co-existence between two peoples turned into a struggle for dominance and a struggle to remain apart. It's a struggle that will most likely only intensify until the issue of who owns this land, and all the land on which settlement stand is addressed.

Mike Hanna, CNN in the West Bank.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: What a remarkable story to see that place over 20 years.

Well a little later on NEWSNIGHT, a sign of renewal at ground zero. And up next, another courtroom, another cardinal about sexual abuse.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: You probably heard the phrase "embattled cardinal" quite a bit over the past few weeks. And the cardinal we're usually talking about is Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston. Well, today, a different embattled cardinal grabbed the bulk of the attention, Edward Egan of New York. The controversy today surrounds the videotaped testimony that Cardinal Egan gave five years ago in a lawsuit against a priest he supervised as bishop in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Late last month, Cardinal Egan told parishioners that "mistakes may have been made during his tenure in Bridgeport," a line that struck some at the time is Nixonesque. Well, the testimony made public today explains why Egan said that. The story tonight from Jason Carroll.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Then bishop Edward Egan's testimony offers a unique look at how he answered questions about a priest accused of sexual abuse.

EDWARD EGAN, REV.: All things considered, he made a good impression.

CARROLL: Egan complimented Father Lawrence Bret, and said he would be inclined to write Bret a letter of recommendation. His videotaped testimony was played during a civil trial involving allegations Bret sexually molested Frank Martinelli when he was a teenager. At times, Egan appears combative.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I refer to you, I mean the diocese, unless I specify it's Father Egan.

EGAN: Well, I would then like to have the opportunity when we're not sure who you is, to answer in my question who you is and my understanding.

CARROLL: Egan says he now has a zero tolerance policy towards sexual abuse in place in New York. This is how he responded five years ago, when asked what it would take to get a priest accused of sexual abuse suspended.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Supposing he was teaching at a school and sexually assaulted a student, and bit his penis, would that be the sufficient cause to suspend a priest?

EGAN: If there were such a case, that would be sufficient cause, I'm sure in many bishop's minds.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay, would it be one in your mind?

EGAN: I would have to know all of the details. I wouldn't make -- the suggestion is so strange, I would want to know more about it.

CARROLL: The suggestion wasn't all that strange. It is what Bret was accused of doing to Martinneli. Egan also said priests are individual contractors, not the responsibility of a bishop.

EGAN: A priest is self-employed. Self-employed according to the federal law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which federal law?

EGAN: Federal law of the Internal Revenue Service.

CARROLL: Cardinal Egan was asked after a mass this past weekend if he still believes that to be true.

EGAN: The question is whether the employee of the parish or the diocese, but I don't think that's a major issue. I won't bother with that, okay.

CARROLL (on camera): Before Egan became cardinal of New York, he suspended Bret after learning about more allegations of sexual abuse. The Bridgeport diocese eventually settled the Bret civil suit shortly before Egan moved on to become cardinal of New York.

Jason Carroll, CNN, Boston.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: Later on NEWSNIGHT, some workers returned to their offices at ground zero. And up next, politics in Newark as a new generation tries to unseat the old.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Tomorrow voters in Newark, New Jersey will go to the polls in a race for mayor, deciding between two men who are both Democrats and both African-American. Let's just say the similarities between councilmen Corey Booker and long time Mayor Sharp James end right there.

This has turned into a very bitter clash. Not just between two men, but between two political cultures. Mayor James representing the entrenched city establishment and Corey, Booker, literally half the mayor's age, without much experience, and more from the new Democrat mold, like the man he's sometimes compared to, a young Bill Clinton. Once again, here's Jeff Greenfield.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHARP JAMES, MAYOR, NEWARK: I officially declare myself candidate for...

GREENFIELD (voice-over): It should have been a cakewalk. Sharp James has been mayor of New Jersey's largest city for 16 years. He has the almost unanimous backing of New Jersey's dominant Democrats, the labor unions are behind him. They know how to get out the vote.

JAMES: You're four times more likely to be murdered here...

GREENFIELD: But if the polls are right, Mayor James is in a fight for his political life against 33-year-old Corey Booker.

COREY BOOKER: I'm not going to be the downtown mayor like this one...

GREENFIELD: Who wasn't even born when Sharp James first entered public life.

(on camera): Both candidates are Democrats, but they are deeply divided over politics and policy. They are both African-Americans, but there is a deep racial divide here as well. And while the debate in this mayor's race is about the kind of city Newark is, it is in a sense overshadowed by Newark's past and by the potential future of one of its contestants.

(voice-over): This is how every story about Newark begins, with the 1967 riots that killed 26 people and marked the city as the poster child for urban pathology.

STEVE ADUBATO, POLITICAL ANALYST: That is the footage that marks us. And I challenge you to ever see a documentary on Newark without that footage. And what happens for many people, that's all they see.

GREENFIELD: Mayor James says there's much more to see, a revitalized downtown, marked by the gleaming new performing arts center, the promise of a new sports arena.

JAMES: You tell me that the people here do not have pride.

GREENFIELD: He calls it a renaissance.

BOOKER: We have failed to achieve the substance of a renaissance.

GREENFIELD: Corey Booker says Newark needs renaissance for the rest of us. Booker, graduate of Stanford, Oxford, Yale Law School, came here six years ago. Won a council seat. Gained wide attention by living in a trailer, in the midst of some of the most drug infested streets in the city. Booker's youth and media savvy have won had him national attention. A future president, some call him.

Sharp James says that Booker is an interloper, a stalking horse for a white establishment that wants to take the city back. A small taste of the media campaign offers some sense of how bitter this campaign has become.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Booker abandons public schools and leaves our children behind.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He bought two vacation home, a 46 foot yacht and a Rolls Royce.

GREENFIELD: So did a recent debate.

JAMES: I'm amazed at Mr. Booker's lack of knowledge.

BOOKER: Sharp James keeps talking out of both sides of his mouth.

JAMES: Mr. Booker's not told one truth on this program.

BOOKER: Sharp James may not have a future as a mayor, but he has a one as a fiction writer.

ADUBATO: The question is, you know, has Sharp James stayed too long? Has he burned bridges with Newark voters, enough Newark voters to lose this race? I mean, this is going to be the closest race in the history of the city.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GREENFIELD: In fact, Judy, this race is close enough and stakes high enough that the U.S. Attorney's office is sending in observers to make sure that the votes that are cast and the votes that are counted add up to the same result. Judy.

WOODRUFF: Jeff, what's your sense of why this has gotten so bitter?

GREENFIELD: Well, for one thing, people who have been in power 16 years don't like to be challenged. But also, it's kind of a clash between the established civil rights oriented black leadership and a newer, younger kind of black leadership that has questions about some of the basic beliefs of the older generation. That, and the fact that, you know, urban politics is never a tea party. It wasn't 100 years ago and it isn't now.

WOODRUFF: All right. Jeff Greenfield. And I want you to stick around because I'm going to talk to someone then who's been covering this race for "The New York Times". He is Andrew Jacobs.

Andrew Jacobs, do you think, I mean, you've been covering this for some weeks, months. Do you think it's as close as the polls are saying?

ANDREW JACOBS: Yes, I do, yes.

WOODRUFF: And you know, Jeff's been talking about the cultural difference, a generational differences between these two men. What do they disagree on?

JACOBS: Well, in fact, they don't disagree on that much. They mostly hold the same progressive views on a lot of things. It's really come down to a personality clash and a clash of generations, a clash of cultures.

WOODRUFF: So you're saying there's almost nothing that they, in terms of policy, that they?

JACOBS: Their policy really is not that dramatically different. I think it's the mayor tried to spin Mr. Booker as being someone who supports vouchers, but in fact, he really doesn't support vouchers. So for the most part, they both are very progressive politicians.

WOODRUFF: One of the stories you wrote that I was just looking at tonight was about how the people around them, their supporters, the people working on their campaigns are very different. Talk about that, about the kinds of people around each man.

JACOBS: Well, Mr. Booker has really drawn a lot of people from outside of the city and outside of the state. He through his years passing through Stanford, Yale and Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, he's really inspired a lot of people and he's called on those relationships to help him in this campaign. And they have come to Newark and to help him out. And Mr. James is relying on a, you know, a very old fashioned network of city workers and union members. And he's also one of the state's most powerful Democrats. And so, he's relying on the whole Democratic apparatus in the state.

WOODRUFF: You've also written about -- Andrew Jacobs, about the outsiders' involvement here, especially in the Booker campaign. I mean, what kind of outside involvement are we talking about? Is it just money?

JACOBS: It's money. And it's also volunteers. And it's also people who are helping, you know, being paid on the campaign. It's a little of everything.

WOODRUFF: And in terms of volunteers, I mean, are we talking about people going door to door or advertising expertise?

JACOBS: Well, I don't want to characterize this as being all outsiders. Most of the volunteers are actually Newark residents. There is a group of people, who have come from New York and Los Angeles and people who Corey Booker's known through the years, who really believe in him, believe in his promise, and his message. And they feel like they want to do something good for Newark.

WOODRUFF: All right. Jeff Greenfield has a question.

GREENFIELD: Well, it's just an observation. One of the things that Sharp James has done is to take Corey Booker's, the friends of Corey, if you remember the Bill Clinton thing, the fact that he has in the past talked about alternatives to public school, talked about a kind of new Democratic theory. And James is saying this is a stalking horse. Corey Booker's a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for a White establishment that wants to take power away from us. And there is no doubt when Sharp James makes that argument in Newark, what he's talking about.

By contrast, Corey Booker, who speaks Spanish, has targeted some 30 percent of Newark that is Hispanic. We think of it as an all black city. It is not. And that could wind up in the race as close as Andrew describes it, actually being a pretty significant factor.

WOODRUFF: And in fact, Andrew Jacobs, I read that the people around Sharp James have, among other things, accused the Booker campaign of being Republicans in disguise.

JACOBS: Yes. I think because Corey Booker spoke at the Manhattan Institute once, which is a very conservative institute. He's been spoken highly by Ariana Huffington and George Will, who wrote a lot in his column. They interpret that as him having a lot of support from conservative Republicans. And I don't know if it's necessarily true. He seems to get support from a lot of different groups. So I don't know if it's necessarily true that he is a Republican stalking horse.

WOODRUFF: Well, what sort of Republican presence will there be? Does one just assume that whoever wins this primary wins in November because of the preponderance of Democrats?

JACOBS: Yes, it's a nonpartisan election. This it. Unless there's a run off, which could happen because there's a third candidate. So the winner has to get more than 50 percent of the vote.

WOODRUFF: And to both of you, both you and Jeff, the future of Corey Booker, I mean, it's one thing if Sharp James loses, one wonders what his future will be. But if Corey Booker loses, there's life after this election we assume?

JACOBS: Well, I can remember, Judy, another fellow in his early 30's who actually lost the governorship of Arkansas in a shocker in 1980. And it was widely assumed his political career had ended. His name was, I think, Clinton.

WOODRUFF: I think we've heard that name somewhere. All right, Andrew Jacobs with "The New York Times," we thank you. Our own Jeff Greenfield. Thank you both. We appreciate it.

And next on NEWSNIGHT, a sign of renewal at ground zero.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Finally from us, it is back to work at ground zero. When you look at a picture of the American Express building two weeks after the attack, it is hard to imagine anyone being able to work there again. But now Amex employees are returning to the place where they fled for their lives on September 11. They lost nearly a dozen of their co-workers. Today, they gained at least something, the sense that they wouldn't run scared forever.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today is a defining moment in the 152 year history of American Express company. Today we come home.

KATHY MARRYAT, VICE PRESIDENT: September 11 and the move back has affected everyone in a very different way. And everyone's handling it differently and have different issues. There's some sad things, but also, there's definitely a feeling of regrowth and coming back, which is really exciting.

TABER GONZALES, SENIOR ANALYST: We actually, this is the floor that we were on. And you know, I mean, everything that everyone saw on TV is pretty much what we saw. And it wasn't a pretty sight. Well, I was faced north and I was looking out and I heard the loud sound. And I looked out that window, which is basically right on to the World Trade Center.

You see ground zero. I mean, it's a construction site. And you know, it's a grave in a way. But I mean, all you can really do is look at it, and just hope, you know, that hope for humanity that it finds more love in it than hatred.

GEORGE PATAKI, GOVERNOR, NEW YORK: For all the horror, and all the sense of loss we will always feel because of September 11, today, we are stronger, more unified, more aware of what brings us together, more aware of the price of our freedom, and more confident of our future than we have ever been in our lifetime. And we will not just rebuild lower Manhattan to where it was on September 11. We're going to move far beyond it.

GONZALES: We're here. And we're staying here. And we're not going anywhere. It's something that's going to take a lot of time to reconcile the feelings.

REP CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: American Express, we thank you for coming back home. God bless.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: Eloquent words from that one American Express worker, that in the remains of ground zero, the Trade Center, that there will be in there, in what they have left there more hope for humanity than fear.

That's NEWSNIGHT for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you for watching. I'll see you tomorrow.

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