Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Political Fuel; Close Ties; Guantanamo Debate; Housing Boom; Australian Hostage Freed; Maria Cantwell Interview; CAFTA Opposition in Congress; King Tut Exhibit

Aired June 15, 2005 - 18:00   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.


KITTY PILGRIM, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. Well, tonight, an explosive debate on Capitol Hill over Guantanamo Bay. White House and military officials say the hundreds of detainees there are treated fairly, but one senator called the prison an embarrassment to our country.
Plus, the Downing Street Memo roils Washington. What, if anything, does the British memo suggest about the White House's rationale for the war in Iraq?

And desperate buyers beware. Now the historical housing market is causing millions of Americans to buy homes they can't afford. We'll have a special report.

But first tonight, President Bush is demanding that Congress pass the energy bill. He says it will bring relief from high gasoline prices. But, on the same day, there are new questions about the Bush administration's ties to big oil. A key White House official on energy now has a new job. He's going to work for the world's largest oil company, ExxonMobil.

White House Correspondent Dana Bash reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president argued long-stalled energy reforms would help consumers and the environment.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Americans will be better off at the gas pump. And future generations will breathe cleaner air, too.

BASH: But Mr. Bush's critics revived their charge his main goal is to help the oil industry where he once worked, seizing on word the official who set climate change policy, Phil Cooney, traded his administration job for a post at ExxonMobil.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: The revolving door between the White House and big oil swung open again yesterday, just as the White House expressed opposition to key initiatives in the energy bill.

BASH: Documents disclosed just last week showed Cooney edited government reports in a way critics say tried to downplay a scientific link between industrial emissions and global warming. Cooney resigned from the White House Friday, though Bush officials and Exxon say his departure was long planned. An Exxon spokesman tells CNN Cooney will work in communications in Dallas, and was hired because his White House experience and previous work at the American Petroleum Institute makes him valuable to anybody in the energy business.

The resolving door between key White House jobs and big business is hardly new. Wall Street executive Robert Rubin went to Citygroup after serving as President Clinton's treasury secretary. Clinton budget director Franklin Raines left the White House for Fanny Mae, a private mortgage giant backed by the government.

The White House dismisses any talk of impropriety.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look at our record and look at the facts, because it's a strong record when it comes to addressing climate change.

BASH: But energy ties of Mr. Bush and the vice president have created a perception problem from day one on environmental policy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BASH: And regardless of what Mr. Cooney did, the White House reminded reporters today, it is the president who sets policy. He does believe global warming exists, but that the jury is still out on exactly what its impact is. And Kitty, environmental groups call that an excuse for giving a pass to oil companies when it comes to tougher standards.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Dana Bash.

Well, the Cooney case is just the latest to raise questions about the ties between government and big business.

Christine Romans reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When ExxonMobil hired a former White House insider, it stirred up those old complaints that corporate America has too much influence in Washington.

ROBERTA BASKIN, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: Going from the American Petroleum Institute as a lobbyist into the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and then back into ExxonMobil, I mean, this is about influence peddling. And ExxonMobil has hired some 27 former federal officials as lobbyists. And that's how you get access to the highest places.

ROMANS: ExxonMobil is the biggest spender in its industry, and it's playing a well-known game. Nearly $13 billion has been spent lobbying the federal government over the past six years. Pharmaceuticals, insurance, and oil and gas dominate. Big numbers; harder to measure is the influence. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the drug industry alone there are two lobbyists for every member of Congress. Nearly 500 of those drug lobbyists are former federal officials. More than 40 are former members of Congress.

Most notably, former Congressman Billy Tauzin, he helped pass a new Medicare prescription drug law and then went to work for the drug lobby. Critics call it unseemly, but Tauzin has plenty of company. According to Political Moneyline, since 1995 more than 272 former members of Congress have become lobbyists. Critics decry this revolving door between industry and government.

DAVID DONIGER, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: Our government now, especially the White House, and in the Congress, too, is far too close to the big energy companies. It's no wonder that they can't tell the difference between the interests of the energy companies and the American people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: Critics like these are concerned that close ties are influencing American policy. After all, they say, these companies wouldn't be spending so much money if they didn't get something in return -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Christine Romans. Interesting.

Well, in Iraq today, at least 35 people were killed in four separate insurgent attacks. A suicide bomber wearing an Iraqi army uniform blew himself inside a mess hall in Khalis. At least 23 Iraqi soldiers were killed, 25 more were wounded.

And there were two deadly attacks in Baghdad today. A suicide car bomber attacked an Iraqi police patrol, killing at least four people. Five people were killed in a mortar attack in Baghdad.

A separate mortar attack in Tal Afar killed three people. And the U.S. military also said two Marines were killed yesterday in two roadside bombing in the Anbar province.

Well, we do have some good news, however, to report in Iraq. One man is celebrating after U.S. and Iraqi troops rescued him from insurgents.

Douglas Wood, an Australian, was taken hostage almost seven weeks ago.

Kathleen Koch reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DOUGLAS WOOD, FREED HOSTAGE: God bless America.

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A jubilant Douglas Wood was examined by U.S. Army doctors in Baghdad after his surprise discovery by Iraqi troops. They stumbled upon him while they and U.S. soldiers were searching a northwest Baghdad neighborhood for weapons.

STAFF SGT. RODNEY BROWN, U.S. ARMY: We had a big area that was cordoned off, looking for weapons caches. And we basically just were searching every house.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

KOCH: Instead, they found the 63-year-old Australian engineer tied up under a blanket his captors had used to hide him when Iraqi troops approached.

WOOD: I wasn't sure what was happening. The first thing is, there was a bit of shooting outside. And they came and covered me over with a blanket. They ripped off...

KOCH: The three suspects were taken into custody, though it's unclear if they were directly responsible for Wood's April 30 kidnapping. His captors had made several videotapes demanding a large ransom and the withdrawal of the 1,400 Australian troops in Iraq. Wood says he was moved once during his ordeal.

WOOD: Thirty-five days in the second place. I think it was two different groups.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How did they treat you?

WOOD: Pretty fair. They kicked me in the head in the first place. And bread and water all the time.

KOCH: Still, Australian authorities say Wood is in remarkably good health.

NICK WARNER, AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM: He's as well as you could expect him to be after enduring what has been 47 days in captivity.

KOCH: Wood's safe release was welcomed in his native country...

JOHN HOWARD, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to inform the house that the Australian hostage in Iraq, Mr. Douglas Wood, is safe from his captors.

KOCH: ... and by his family.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can we get a sense of your feelings, sir?

MALCOLM WOOD, BROTHER OF HOSTAGE: I'm delighted.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you spoken to your brother?

M. WOOD: No.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KOCH: Wood, a civilian contractor, has an American wife and lives in California. And right now it's unclear whether or not he will return there, go to Australia, or stay in Iraq after he is debriefed by Australian and coalition forces -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: All very nice options.

KOCH: Quite true.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Kathleen Koch.

Well, on Capitol Hill today, a fiery debate over the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony about the treatment of hundreds of detainees. Now, critics have called on the military to shut the prison down.

Ed Henry reports from Capitol Hill.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was a tale of two prisons, with Democrats calling Guantanamo an international embarrassment, while Republicans insisted the detention center is vital to the war on terror.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: This country is not systematically abusing prisoners. We have no policy to do so. And it's wrong to suggest that, and it puts our soldiers at risk who are in this battle because we sent them there. And we have an obligation to them.

HENRY: Republicans continued to hammer the theme that detainees actually have it pretty good, with Sessions saying the prison in such a scenic part of Cuba it would make a magnificent resort. That followed Republican Duncan Hunter's media event on Monday in which he contended the prisoners are well fed.

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: This is lemon fish, and this is what the 20th hijacker and Osama bin Laden's bodyguards will be eating this week.

HENRY: Democrats scoffed at that, charging Guantanamo is really just a legal black hole for the 520 detainees.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Producing props of chicken dinners and such, seeming to argue this is more a Club Med than a prison. Let's get real.

HENRY: Democrats stepped up their efforts to shut the prison down altogether, but the committee chairman echoed Vice President Cheney by suggesting it would be unwise to simply release the suspected terrorists.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Now, we ought to be as sure as we can what steps are being taken so that we do not release detainees from Guantanamo who turn up on battlefields killing Americans.

HENRY: But some detainees have languished in the prisons for three years without facing any charges. If they're really terrorists, say Democrats, charge them with crimes.

LEAHY: If that's true, if they pose a threat to us, then there has to be evidence to support that, or our administration would not have the world at it. If there's evidence, then let's prosecute them. Let's bring the evidence forward.

HENRY (on camera): But a top Justice Department official testified that the Bush administration believes legally it can keep these detainees in perpetuity.

Ed Henry, CNN, Capitol Hill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today said he has no plans to resign. Well, there are new questions about his role in awarding a key oil-for-food contract. Annan has repeatedly denied playing any role in awarding the contract to a company called Cotecna, even though the company employed his son.

Well, now an internal memo at the company suggests he may have been involved. Annan is in Paris meeting with French President Jacques Chirac. He told a French newspaper that the memo is part of what he calls "incessant attacks" against him.

Meanwhile, Senator Norm Coleman, who is leading a congressional investigation of this scandal, said that the memo confirms his suspicions about Annan.

Coming up next, new warnings about the security at our nation's chemical plants. Why some officials say the Department of Homeland Security needs to take action immediately.

And then the controversy over the Downing Street Memo that arrives in Washington. Does the British memo raise questions about the White House's motives in going to war? We'll have a special report.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: We have some breaking news out of Arizona tonight. A military aircraft has crashed in Yuma, Arizona. And Kathleen Koch has the very latest from the Pentagon -- Kathleen.

KOCH: Kitty, what we've learned from a Marine Corps spokesman was that this aircraft carrying one pilot was being flown out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma when at some point late this afternoon it crashed within the city limits of Yuma, Arizona. Now, at this point, the Marines do not yet know why the plane went down, nor do they know the condition of the pilot, or whether or not anyone on the ground was injured, because, again, they do say that this aircraft crashed this afternoon within the city limits of Yuma, Arizona. So that's what we know at this point.

A single Harrier jet -- again, that's an aircraft piloted generally by the Marines, carries just one pilot -- crashing late this afternoon within the city limits of Yuma, Arizona.

PILGRIM: Thank you very much, Kathleen Koch.

And we'll bring you more on this as we get it.

Troubling testimony in Congress today about our nation's poorly- secured and poorly-defended chemical plants. Now, the fear is that those plants are prime targets for terrorists. Officials today vowed to clamp down on security standards which are now virtually left up to the chemical industry.

Jeanne Meserve reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): How much damage would a terrorist attack on a chemical facility do? A worst-case scenario Wednesday from the Department of Homeland Security.

ROBERT STEPHAN, DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY: The highest risk facility in the United States would produce under 10,000 potential fatalities, and less than 40,000 people that would demonstrate some effects.

MESERVE: That is radically less than an Environmental Protection Agency estimate that more than a million could be killed or injured in an attack. DHS says their number is lower because it is more refined, taking into account meteorological factors like wind patterns.

By any measure, an attack could be catastrophic, and there are huge gaps in security. DHS says 20 percent of chemical plants participating in a voluntary industry security program may not be in compliance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I cannot come to the president or to you with a straight face and say, "Ma'am, I absolutely know what's going on there, I'm comfortable with it 100 percent."

MESERVE: A former member of the administration says the chemical security picture is actually much worse.

RICHARD FALKENRATH, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: We haven't made any material reduction in the danger presented by our chemical sector to the civilian population since 9/11. And that's just unacceptable.

MESERVE: DHS says it does support regulation to ensure improvement in chemical security. But the administration has said that before and legislation has floundered.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: This issue is simply too important to give in to gridlock and to accept inaction. We need to work together, and we need to eliminate the stumbling blocks that have tripped up legislative efforts in the past.

(END VIDEOTAPE) MESERVE: Senator Collins plans to introduce a chemical security bill this fall, but observers say unless the administration is willing to give strong backing, it, too, is likely to fail -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Jeanne Meserve.

Well, more on the terrorist threat to our chemical plants later in the show. Senator Susan Collins, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will be our guest.

Well, a big fear is the terrorists bent on destruction are sneaking across America's border with Mexico. The Bush administration's 2006 budget calls for an increase of only 210 Border Patrol agents. And there are now less than 10,000 agents for the entire 2,000 miles of our border with Mexico. But, new funding for an increased border presence may be on the way.

Casey Wian reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Bush set up a potential showdown in February when his proposed 2006 budget included only 210 additional Border Patrol agents, a fraction of what Congress requested. Now it appears the Senate is ready to pay for a thousand more agents, on top of 500 added earlier this year.

The Senate Appropriations Committee this week is expected to approve legislation that would spend $600 million more on border security than the White House requested.

SEN. JUDD GREGG (R), NEW HAMPSHIRE: After weapons of mass destruction, the priority area that we have to address is the borders. They're porous, and there are too many people coming over our borders, and we don't know who they are. And many of them are coming in illegally.

And so we need to do a lot of things in order to protect our borders and make them more manageable. And on thing is we need more feet on the ground.

WIAN: The Senate's number is likely a minimum, because the House has already authorized 2,000 more Border Patrol agents. And one House committee staffer says members plan to fight for the larger number, and even that may not be enough.

MICHAEL CUTLER, FMR. INS SPECIAL AGENT: I kind of compare all these halfway measures as kind of like bringing a seltzer bottle to the Chicago fire and offer to put out the flames. We've got millions of illegal aliens. Certainly any additional manpower is useful, helpful and desirable.

WIAN: The Senate bill also seeks to address another critical problem, lack of detention space. Every year, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico are released onto the streets of the United States after they're caught by the Border Patrol because detention facilities are full. Most are never heard from again.

The Senate bill would fund another 2,200 detention beds and add hundreds of immigration officers. According to Senator Gregg, that would allow the United States to end the practice of catch and release within a year and a half. The president's budget makes no such claim.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: Senator Gregg says he's confident President Bush will sign off on the additional border security resources later this year. But obstacles remain, because one of the ways the Senate plans to pay for the additional Border Patrol agents is by cutting funds for first responders and transportation security. And that could be very controversial -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: I'm sure it will be. Thanks very much. Casey Wian.

Coming up, debating the Downing Street Memo. The U.S. and Britain says it's not significant, but the question of whether the U.S. misled the world on Iraq will be front and center in Congress tomorrow. We'll have a preview of that debate.

Plus, uncertain times in the housing market are making for desperate homeowners. Bill Tucker reports on a real life housing soap opera.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: Did President Bush mislead Congress about our reasons for invading Iraq? Well, a document known as the Downing Street Memo is raising that theory again on Capitol Hill, and raising new questions among lawmakers about why we went to war.

Bill Schneider reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): Six weeks ago, the "London Sunday Times" published leaked minutes of a July, 2002 meeting in the Downing Street offices of British prime minister Tony Blair eight months before the war in Iraq.

According to the notes, a high-ranking British intelligence official who had just returned from Washington reported "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The implication? The Bush administration had already decided to go to war before asking for a vote of Congress, before going to the United Nations.

At their June 7 press conference, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair addressed the issues raised by the memo.

TONY BLAIR, PRIME MINISTER OF BRITAIN: But the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go -- to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth.

SCHNEIDER: End of debate? Not if Democratic Congressman John Conyers can help it. He's holding a forum Thursday to look into the allegations. What does Conyers hope to prove?

REP. JOHN CONYERS, (D) MICHIGAN: It may turn out that we got into a secret war that had already been planned and now that we're in it, we can't get out of it.

SCHNEIDER: There were a lot of reports during the summer of 2002 that the Bush administration was I be tent on going to war. What's so sensational about the allegations of the British documents?

CONYERS: Ironically, there are those now writing that we knew he was going to go to war all the time. But if we -- those who claimed that they knew that, he wasn't telling the Congress that. And it's in this crucible that we get the question of deception. Did he deceive us into a war? Were we tricked in a war?

SCHNEIDER: The difference is, the mood of the country. In June, 2002, 61 percent of Americans favored sending U.S. troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Now only 42 percent say it was worth going to war in Iraq. That's why questions about how the U.S. got into the war are being raised now. More than they were then.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: Representative Conyers is planning to present the White House with a petition signed by more than 500,000 Americans. And 104 members of Congress asking President Bush to address the issues raised by the Downing Street Memo. This issue is heating up -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much. Bill Schneider.

Coming up, desperate homeowners, why so many people these days are buying homes they can't afford. We'll have that story next.

Plus, CAFTA controversy, why trade with China is playing such a critical role in the CAFTA debate. We'll have a special report on that.

And King Tut returns. An exhibit of the pharaoh's treasures back in the United States for the first time in decades. I'll talk with the national curator.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: There's been a lot of talk lately that the housing boom in this country is about to go bust. Prices continue to skyrocket, desperate buyers are caught in bidding wars, and many others are buying homes they just simply can't afford. Bill Tucker has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: For 13 years, Americans have enjoyed a housing boon, the longest ever. It's helped give millions of Americans the chance to own a part of the American dream. But some cracks are starting to appear. Buyers are beginning to buy without regard for cost because they want in, assuming prices will only go higher.

NICK RETSINAS, HARVARD JOINT CTR FOR HOUSING STUDIES: It's called extreme extrapolation comfort. You look back at the last two or three years, you have a short memory, so you think it will always be thus. I don't know if they look at it as a gamble, though it is. It is a gamble.

I think what it is, is people are just so desperate to get on the carousel, they don't ask any more what a house costs.

TUCKER: Contributing to that sense of desperation, home prices are rising much faster than wages. Already, more than one-third of home buyers are spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. One in eight spends 50 percent.

Many buyers in search of something they can't afford are moving farther and farther away from work, creating a squeeze on budgets. Lower income households can end up spending 10 to 11 percent of their monthly budgets on just getting to work.

The jump in prices also means that down payments are more difficult to afford. To accommodate buyers, mortgage companies have introduced products that let them borrow the full value of their homes and for a fixed period of time, pay only the interest on the loan.

CHRIS BOWMAN, HOME BUYER: If we were to afford a full 20 percent down payment, it would have been a significant drain on our savings. In fact, it would have almost wiped out our savings.

TUCKER: But interest-only loans also very high risk and some worry that many buyers don't understand the risk.

DAVID LEREAH, NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: You're making a low monthly payment with a negative amortization loan, but the household doesn't understand that it's negative amortization, that they're actually going to be owing the bank even more money than the original loan balance.

TUCKER: Interest-only loans are the fastest-growing segment of the market since the beginning of this year.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER (on camera): Nationwide, 60 percent of all loans are adjustable rate mortgages, and Kitty, that's worrisome because many people believe the only way those interest rates can adjust at the end of their period is to go higher.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Bill. Very worrisome, huh?

TUCKER: Yep.

PILGRIM: Well, another big financial worry for Americans is the sky-high price of gas. It's costing an average $2.13 a gallon at the pumps these days, just 16 cents off the all-time high, and one goal of the energy bill, currently under debate in the Senate, is to decrease America's dependence on expensive foreign fuel.

Well, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington is pushing aggressively for changing the dangerous habit and she joins us now from the Washington bureau. Thank you very much for being with us.

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL, (D) WASHINGTON: Good evening.

PILGRIM: What would you like to see? What's your ideal scenario?

CANTWELL: Well, right now we're importing about 58 percent of our oil from foreign countries. We'd like to see that reduced. In 20 years, we're going to be produ -- we're going to be importing 68 percent. So, what my amendment does, and I hope that our energy bill that passes the Senate will include this, will say that we want to decrease from that current 58 percent our consumption of foreign oil, and if we set a national goal to do this, I think that we can achieve it.

John Kennedy said let's put a man on the moon and a decade later we were doing that. So, I think we have the ingenuity in America, it's just about having the resolve from the national level.

PILGRIM: How do we cut back?

CANTWELL: Well, one of the sections of the energy bill deals with biofuels and I think a lot of Americans feel right now there isn't much competition on gasoline prices. They would like to see alternative fuels be produced competitively and challenge the price of foreign oil. I think that's a good idea and it puts American farmers in the fuel business.

PILGRIM: What about ethanol? What are we doing about that? And what should be done?

CANTWELL: Well, one of the challenges that we have is we can't say that our future energy strategy is going to come from five midwestern states. So, while we can get ethanol from corn products, what we need to do is the research and development that will allow us to have a variety of alternative fuels from a variety of products. That way you can drive down the costs.

For example, Washington state right now, we sell biofuel, but we probably add 20 cents to 50 cents on the gallon by transporting product from the midwest to the northwest. So, if we produce biofuels regionally, that can be a big savings, and I think it will be one of the big opportunities for us to get off our overdependence.

PILGRIM: There's a worry, though, that if you overregulate this, you're going to mess up the market and things will not be as cheap as they should be.

CANTWELL: Well, I think right now, people in Seattle are paying almost $2.30 a gallon, and right now, they just want to know that our federal government has a goal -- off -- to get off that overdependence. And right now, the trajectory is -- we're at 58 percent foreign imports. Soon we'll be at 68 percent, and it doesn't look like gasoline prices are going to go down.

When you think about the Chinese demand for oil, it's likely that we'll be -- that $50 a barrel will be a luxury. So, we want to make sure we're continuing to reduce our consumption of foreign oil, looking at alternatives, getting more fuel efficiency, and helping the American economy, because we just can't afford the high energy costs.

PILGRIM: We're almost out of time but I want to point out, the Senate Energy Committee proposal is considerably less ambitious than yours. What can be done to reconcile this discrepancy?

CANTWELL: Well, currently the bill would have us, instead of 58 percent of our oil coming from imports, would have us at 60 percent of our imports coming from foreign sources. So, what we need to do is to pass a goal as part of this legislation that says that we are going to pursue all measures to actually start reducing our foreign consumption of oil. That way the American economy will be stronger. Instead of depending on these countries like Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and others, Libya, for our oil supply, we will significantly reduce that. And I think that should be a national goal. I think it's one that we can achieve.

PILGRIM: We applaud it. Thank you very much. Maria Cantwell, thanks for joining us.

Well, the controversy over CAFTA is heating up on Capitol Hill. Pass the so-called free trade agreement may be a top priority in the White House, but lawmakers are proving that they're nowhere close to making that a reality. Karen Schaler reports from Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAREN SCHALER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Sub-standard working conditions in Central America are only one of the key concerns on Capitol Hill over the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.

REP. BEN CARDIN (D), MARYLAND: We need a CAFTA agreement. This is not the right CAFTA agreement, and the reason, quite frankly, is that it moves backwards on workers' rights.

REP. BARBARA LEE (D), CALIFORNIA: CAFTA, if you ask me, is anti- minority. It's anti-labor. It's anti-health. It's anti- environmental. It's anti-democratic.

SCHALER: Others argue, why push forward a new trade agreement when there's ongoing controversy over trade deals with Mexico and China?

REP. XAVIER BECERRA (D), CALIFORNIA: Visibly, vocally against these deals because they fall so far short, because now we have a history of trade agreements to look to, to see how they work.

SCHALER: China is the newest hot button in the CAFTA debate. House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas has said a full passage of CAFTA would be difficult without addressing Chinese trade issues, like China's fixed currency and a record trade deficit.

Congressman Sherrod Brown, a leader in the CAFTA opposition, is skeptical of exchanging yes votes on CAFTA for future promises of action on China.

REP. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: Most of us in Congress aren't that stupid. Most of us aren't, that we want to in fact see something done on China, something they've resisted for five years before we cast -- before anybody decides to vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

SCHALER: Many in Congress speaking out against CAFTA say they aren't opposed to opening up trade with Central America. They're just against the way this specific CAFTA agreement is drafted.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHALER: And President Bush has said ratifying CAFTA is one of his top priorities this year. But this week, some members of Congress have shown this controversial trade agreement continues to be a tough sell. CAFTA could be given to Congress for a final vote as early as next week and then Congress only has 90 days to make a final decision on this trade deal. Kitty?

PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, Karen Schaler.

Well, China's largest home appliance maker is looking to buy a century-old American icon, Maytag. China's Hayer (ph) Group would have to top a U.S. firm's bid f more than $1 billion. Maytag agreed that the offer from Ripplewood holdings last month, but this deal gave Maytag until this Saturday to find other buyers and profits at Maytag have been sagging since last year. That, and higher steel prices led to more than 1,000 job cuts at the company. We'll stay on top of that for you.

Also, up next, why major U.S. chemical facilities are still vulnerable to terrorist attacks and why the government -- what the government plans to do about it.

Plus, King Tut returns. What did the Egyptian king really look like? Well, I'll speak with the national curator of the exhibit. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: More now on U.S. chemical plants that remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The Bush administration recently endorsed the need for new legislation that would compel every high-risk chemical facility to develop a security plan, and undergo a vulnerability assessment.

Earlier today I asked Senator Susan Collins, chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, whether she was pleased with the administration's new stance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: Well, I was very please today that the administration very clearly endorsed the need for federal legislation. At a minimum, we need a requirement that every high-risk chemical facility develop a security plan and undergo a vulnerability assessment.

I think that those would be initial steps that we should take. But I'm going to be working with my colleagues and with the administration, with industry, environmental groups and with other experts over the next couple of months to draft what I hope will be a bipartisan bill.

PILGRIM: What do you think is the biggest danger in this country? What plant?

COLLINS: I haven't identified a specific plant. But there's no doubt that the security of chemical facilities is not where it should be. When I talk homeland security experts they always point to two major vulnerabilities that our country has: One is our sea ports and the other is our chemical facilities.

Across the country, there are some 15,000 high-risk chemical facilities and several of them are located in very heavily populated areas. That makes them tempting targets for a terrorist attack.

PILGRIM: The requirements are voluntary at this point, aren't they?

COLLINS: That's right. And the industry deserves credit for undergoing voluntary audits and investing in security. But that doesn't mean that every chemical company has invested in security. Those belonging to certain trade organizations have, but there are many others who have very loose security including not even a safe perimeter around the plant.

PILGRIM: What sort of a physical risk do they pose to people? You've spent some time on the issue, but many of our viewers may not understand what kind of a risk it can be.

COLLINS: Well, I think if you look at the accidental releases of chemicals over the past 20 years or so, it gives you a sense of just how lethal a release of chemicals can be. The most notable case was back in 1984 in India, where there was an accidental release from a chemical plant that killed hundreds of people and sickened many thousands.

PILGRIM: But many millions of people live in the vicinities of chemical plants in this country -- don't they -- high population density areas?

COLLINS: That's right. If you look, for example, at a state like New Jersey, you have large chemical facilities that are nestled in the midst of very densely populated areas. Now, that doesn't mean that they can't be made more secure and many of those facilities have taken steps. But there's no doubt in my mind that this is a very serious vulnerability. Al Qaeda knows where these plants are. They know the hazardous release of chemicals -- a deliberate strike -- could kill thousands of people, far more than we experienced on 9/11.

PILGRIM: Senator Susan Collins, we thank you very much for being with us tonight. And thanks for your efforts on this issue.

COLLINS: Thank you.

PILGRIM: Well, coming up at the top of the hour here on CNN, we have "Anderson Cooper 360" and Anderson joins us now with a preview -- Anderson?

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Yes.

Kitty, thanks very much.

Coming up tonight in about 15 minutes, the search for Natalee Holloway is intensifying in Aruba. There are reports now that Authorities have seized a car belonging to one of the three young suspects in custody.

CNN sources are also saying that the three young men are now pointing fingers at one another.

We're also going to talk to the father and stepmother of Natalee Holloway about what they think about the pace of the investigation.

Also, last night we showed you a pretty surprising piece about what American teens are still doing on Aruba: Partying, drinking to all hours of the morning. Well, we're going to tonight show the piece to the parents of one of the young kids we profiled and get their reaction.

That's the top of the hour -- Kitty?

PILGRIM: Thanks, Anderson.

Just ahead: "King Tut, Part Two." New secrets about the pharaoh from Egypt will be unveiled in a new U.S. tour fit for, well, what else, a king. I'll be speaking with the curator with the first King Tut exhibit in almost 30 years.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: After an almost 30-year absence, one of the biggest stars of the '70s is about to make a splashy return to the United States. It's King Tut, the Egyptian pharaoh who came to the throne as a boy and will go on to a four-city, two-year tour. Well, along with the replica of King Tut's coffin, 50 items from his burial site will be on display.

Perhaps the most anticipated is new cat scan renderings of what the king might have looked like.

Joining me now from Los Angeles is David Silverman. He is the national curator for the King Tut exhibit which opens tomorrow in L.A.

And thanks for being here. This is really exciting.

You know, what is different about this exhibit? What did we not know two decades ago about King Tut?

DAVID SILVERMAN, NATIONAL CURATOR, KING TUT EXHIBIT: Well, there are a lot of things that are different about this exhibit. First time around, King Tut came with 55 treasures, and this time around he's come with not only the treasures, but also members of his family and his court.

We've learned a lot in the meantime. We've learned something about perhaps how he died. But every time we learn something, there are other things that we now need to know. And we still don't know.

PILGRIM: What are we able to find out medically now that we couldn't find out before? Because medical technology, CAT scans, have advanced so much.

SILVERMAN: The National Geographic CAT scans revealed to us that he was not murdered by a blow to the back of the head. And until those wonderful CAT scans came out, we were not able to see that.

There are also some indication on one of the legs that there was a gash, which did not heal. And that indicates perhaps that he may have died from an infection caused by that.

PILGRIM: Was the -- was he damaged when they first found him? Is that where some of the injuries that they thought were medical injuries were incurred?

SILVERMAN: Yes, there are certainly some damages that were caused during the embalming process. And there were also damages that were caused once he was -- the tomb was opened. And in order to extricate him from the coffin that he was in, some damage did occur.

PILGRIM: David, you've been in the field for a long time. You're one of the top experts in the world. But what got your pulse going about this exhibit?

SILVERMAN: The opportunity to go along with him the second time around. This was my first job, the first time around. And to have the opportunity to do this, and also be part of an exhibition that told a lot more about the king this time around than we were able to the first time around.

PILGRIM: You know what I find is really fascinating is that there were projections now of what he might have looked like. They could recreate his face. And yet, different teams came up with different versions of what he might have looked like. Explain that a bit for us.

SILVERMAN: Well, part of it has to do with what the artist might think based on the skeleton that is available to them. And there are several different anthropological models that are used for the basis of the sculpture. So a lot of it has to do with exactly how the artist may view that.

And also, even though you may know something about it from the skeleton itself, certainly the soft tissue is much more difficult to predict in terms of what the person might have looked like.

PILGRIM: So the French team came up with a different version than the American, or the Egyptian team. Which one do you think -- or is that not a delicate question -- which one do you think is probably the correct one?

SILVERMAN: Well, it is a delicate question, because I really don't know the answer. If we look at all of the faces in the exhibition of King Tut, there are at least seven or eight different versions. And now with these new three other ones, we have at least over ten different versions.

For the Ancient Egyptians, however, it wasn't which one was the real portrait, the Egyptians really felt that the portrait was determined if the name of the king survived on that. And so for them, the one with the name was the one that was really the portrait.

PILGRIM: You know, he was buried with such gorgeous objects of great artistic merit. What do you think is the most beautiful? Or among the most beautiful?

SILVERMAN: Well, the mirror case that you just showed was beautiful. The cosmetic jar that you just showed was beautiful. Really, it's hard to choose one that is my favorite.

But it's not only the objects from King Tut's tomb that is so important, and among the beautiful ones, there are some from his predecessors, including that of his father which are really magnificent. So, it's an opportunity to see these wonderful treasures in the context of more than 100 years of Ancient Egyptian times.

PILGRIM: You know, more than 8 million people visited the first King Tut exhibit 26-years-ago. Why are Americans so fascinated by Egyptology?

SILVERMAN: Well, it has mystery, it has allure. And even though it is alien, everyone recognizes something about it. The images are basically from nature. The hieroglyphs, even though you can't read them, are signs that people can relate to because they see the images. And I think everyone knows something about it, from learning about Ancient Egypt through the Bible, too.

PILGRIM: Well, how many people do you expect to come to this? Or are there no projections?

SILVERMAN: New projections are at least 1 million in Los Angeles, and hopefully that many in each of the other cities. Because a lot of the revenues do go to the Egyptian government to help the preservation of the monuments in Egypt. And that's critical.

PILGRIM: It is a pricey ticket. It's $30, isn't it?

SILVERMAN: The range of prices goes from $24 to $30, depending on when, where and how old you are. But I think you have to put that into perspective these days, amusement parks are ridiculously expensive, too, if you want to put it that way. And for me, the idea of the thrill that you get from this exhibition, along with the educational material that you'll also get, far outweighs any of the other alternatives.

PILGRIM: Well, I would have to agree with you on that. And I'm sure I will not miss it, if I get the chance. David Silverman, thanks very much for joining us this evening.

SILVERMAN: Thank you very much.

PILGRIM: Well, for more on King Tut and the upcoming exhibit, you should tune into "King Tut's Final Secrets." It will be on the National Geographic Channel on Monday, June 20, at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.

Tonight at 8:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN, Paula Zahn takes a look at one family who has four sons in Iraq. An incredibly moving story. And Paula is here with a preview of that -- Paula.

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Kitty. And we've got this extraordinary view from these young men about the war in Iraq through the eyes of a real life band of brothers. Eric, Jeff, Evan and Greg Pruitt of Idaho are all members of the U.S. National Guard. And we're going to follow all four of them from the home front through training to the dangerous streets of Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ask these people how these people are doing up here on the roof.

Hello?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello? How are you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good, how are you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE; It's difficult. We've got two missions here. We've got to provide security for ourselves and the people here. But we also got to at the same time make the people feel like we're here to help them and not just be occupiers and that sort of thing.

(END VIDEOTAPE) ZAHN: And I think the other thing that really shines through tonight is their incredible sense of patriotism. It's not just good enough to have four brothers who serve in Iraq, their father and another brother is just back from a tour of duty in Iraq. So, six members in all from one family.

PILGRIM: We look forward to that.

ZAHN: Thank you.

PILGRIM: Thanks a lot, Paula.

ZAHN: We'll be there.

PILGRIM: Still to come, a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: Thanks for being with us tonight. And please join us tomorrow. A House vote tomorrow could end in major changes for the United Nations. A leading Congressman on the International Relations Committee joins us.

And some U.S. high-tech companies are aiding communism in China as they chase profits. We'll have a special report on that.

Plus, the author of a new book on outsourcing joins us to talk about reclaiming hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now.

END

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 June 15, 2005 - 18:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. Well, tonight, an explosive debate on Capitol Hill over Guantanamo Bay. White House and military officials say the hundreds of detainees there are treated fairly, but one senator called the prison an embarrassment to our country.
Plus, the Downing Street Memo roils Washington. What, if anything, does the British memo suggest about the White House's rationale for the war in Iraq?

And desperate buyers beware. Now the historical housing market is causing millions of Americans to buy homes they can't afford. We'll have a special report.

But first tonight, President Bush is demanding that Congress pass the energy bill. He says it will bring relief from high gasoline prices. But, on the same day, there are new questions about the Bush administration's ties to big oil. A key White House official on energy now has a new job. He's going to work for the world's largest oil company, ExxonMobil.

White House Correspondent Dana Bash reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president argued long-stalled energy reforms would help consumers and the environment.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Americans will be better off at the gas pump. And future generations will breathe cleaner air, too.

BASH: But Mr. Bush's critics revived their charge his main goal is to help the oil industry where he once worked, seizing on word the official who set climate change policy, Phil Cooney, traded his administration job for a post at ExxonMobil.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: The revolving door between the White House and big oil swung open again yesterday, just as the White House expressed opposition to key initiatives in the energy bill.

BASH: Documents disclosed just last week showed Cooney edited government reports in a way critics say tried to downplay a scientific link between industrial emissions and global warming. Cooney resigned from the White House Friday, though Bush officials and Exxon say his departure was long planned. An Exxon spokesman tells CNN Cooney will work in communications in Dallas, and was hired because his White House experience and previous work at the American Petroleum Institute makes him valuable to anybody in the energy business.

The resolving door between key White House jobs and big business is hardly new. Wall Street executive Robert Rubin went to Citygroup after serving as President Clinton's treasury secretary. Clinton budget director Franklin Raines left the White House for Fanny Mae, a private mortgage giant backed by the government.

The White House dismisses any talk of impropriety.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look at our record and look at the facts, because it's a strong record when it comes to addressing climate change.

BASH: But energy ties of Mr. Bush and the vice president have created a perception problem from day one on environmental policy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BASH: And regardless of what Mr. Cooney did, the White House reminded reporters today, it is the president who sets policy. He does believe global warming exists, but that the jury is still out on exactly what its impact is. And Kitty, environmental groups call that an excuse for giving a pass to oil companies when it comes to tougher standards.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Dana Bash.

Well, the Cooney case is just the latest to raise questions about the ties between government and big business.

Christine Romans reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When ExxonMobil hired a former White House insider, it stirred up those old complaints that corporate America has too much influence in Washington.

ROBERTA BASKIN, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: Going from the American Petroleum Institute as a lobbyist into the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and then back into ExxonMobil, I mean, this is about influence peddling. And ExxonMobil has hired some 27 former federal officials as lobbyists. And that's how you get access to the highest places.

ROMANS: ExxonMobil is the biggest spender in its industry, and it's playing a well-known game. Nearly $13 billion has been spent lobbying the federal government over the past six years. Pharmaceuticals, insurance, and oil and gas dominate. Big numbers; harder to measure is the influence. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the drug industry alone there are two lobbyists for every member of Congress. Nearly 500 of those drug lobbyists are former federal officials. More than 40 are former members of Congress.

Most notably, former Congressman Billy Tauzin, he helped pass a new Medicare prescription drug law and then went to work for the drug lobby. Critics call it unseemly, but Tauzin has plenty of company. According to Political Moneyline, since 1995 more than 272 former members of Congress have become lobbyists. Critics decry this revolving door between industry and government.

DAVID DONIGER, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: Our government now, especially the White House, and in the Congress, too, is far too close to the big energy companies. It's no wonder that they can't tell the difference between the interests of the energy companies and the American people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: Critics like these are concerned that close ties are influencing American policy. After all, they say, these companies wouldn't be spending so much money if they didn't get something in return -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Christine Romans. Interesting.

Well, in Iraq today, at least 35 people were killed in four separate insurgent attacks. A suicide bomber wearing an Iraqi army uniform blew himself inside a mess hall in Khalis. At least 23 Iraqi soldiers were killed, 25 more were wounded.

And there were two deadly attacks in Baghdad today. A suicide car bomber attacked an Iraqi police patrol, killing at least four people. Five people were killed in a mortar attack in Baghdad.

A separate mortar attack in Tal Afar killed three people. And the U.S. military also said two Marines were killed yesterday in two roadside bombing in the Anbar province.

Well, we do have some good news, however, to report in Iraq. One man is celebrating after U.S. and Iraqi troops rescued him from insurgents.

Douglas Wood, an Australian, was taken hostage almost seven weeks ago.

Kathleen Koch reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DOUGLAS WOOD, FREED HOSTAGE: God bless America.

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A jubilant Douglas Wood was examined by U.S. Army doctors in Baghdad after his surprise discovery by Iraqi troops. They stumbled upon him while they and U.S. soldiers were searching a northwest Baghdad neighborhood for weapons.

STAFF SGT. RODNEY BROWN, U.S. ARMY: We had a big area that was cordoned off, looking for weapons caches. And we basically just were searching every house.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

KOCH: Instead, they found the 63-year-old Australian engineer tied up under a blanket his captors had used to hide him when Iraqi troops approached.

WOOD: I wasn't sure what was happening. The first thing is, there was a bit of shooting outside. And they came and covered me over with a blanket. They ripped off...

KOCH: The three suspects were taken into custody, though it's unclear if they were directly responsible for Wood's April 30 kidnapping. His captors had made several videotapes demanding a large ransom and the withdrawal of the 1,400 Australian troops in Iraq. Wood says he was moved once during his ordeal.

WOOD: Thirty-five days in the second place. I think it was two different groups.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How did they treat you?

WOOD: Pretty fair. They kicked me in the head in the first place. And bread and water all the time.

KOCH: Still, Australian authorities say Wood is in remarkably good health.

NICK WARNER, AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM: He's as well as you could expect him to be after enduring what has been 47 days in captivity.

KOCH: Wood's safe release was welcomed in his native country...

JOHN HOWARD, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to inform the house that the Australian hostage in Iraq, Mr. Douglas Wood, is safe from his captors.

KOCH: ... and by his family.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can we get a sense of your feelings, sir?

MALCOLM WOOD, BROTHER OF HOSTAGE: I'm delighted.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you spoken to your brother?

M. WOOD: No.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KOCH: Wood, a civilian contractor, has an American wife and lives in California. And right now it's unclear whether or not he will return there, go to Australia, or stay in Iraq after he is debriefed by Australian and coalition forces -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: All very nice options.

KOCH: Quite true.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Kathleen Koch.

Well, on Capitol Hill today, a fiery debate over the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony about the treatment of hundreds of detainees. Now, critics have called on the military to shut the prison down.

Ed Henry reports from Capitol Hill.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was a tale of two prisons, with Democrats calling Guantanamo an international embarrassment, while Republicans insisted the detention center is vital to the war on terror.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: This country is not systematically abusing prisoners. We have no policy to do so. And it's wrong to suggest that, and it puts our soldiers at risk who are in this battle because we sent them there. And we have an obligation to them.

HENRY: Republicans continued to hammer the theme that detainees actually have it pretty good, with Sessions saying the prison in such a scenic part of Cuba it would make a magnificent resort. That followed Republican Duncan Hunter's media event on Monday in which he contended the prisoners are well fed.

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: This is lemon fish, and this is what the 20th hijacker and Osama bin Laden's bodyguards will be eating this week.

HENRY: Democrats scoffed at that, charging Guantanamo is really just a legal black hole for the 520 detainees.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Producing props of chicken dinners and such, seeming to argue this is more a Club Med than a prison. Let's get real.

HENRY: Democrats stepped up their efforts to shut the prison down altogether, but the committee chairman echoed Vice President Cheney by suggesting it would be unwise to simply release the suspected terrorists.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Now, we ought to be as sure as we can what steps are being taken so that we do not release detainees from Guantanamo who turn up on battlefields killing Americans.

HENRY: But some detainees have languished in the prisons for three years without facing any charges. If they're really terrorists, say Democrats, charge them with crimes.

LEAHY: If that's true, if they pose a threat to us, then there has to be evidence to support that, or our administration would not have the world at it. If there's evidence, then let's prosecute them. Let's bring the evidence forward.

HENRY (on camera): But a top Justice Department official testified that the Bush administration believes legally it can keep these detainees in perpetuity.

Ed Henry, CNN, Capitol Hill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today said he has no plans to resign. Well, there are new questions about his role in awarding a key oil-for-food contract. Annan has repeatedly denied playing any role in awarding the contract to a company called Cotecna, even though the company employed his son.

Well, now an internal memo at the company suggests he may have been involved. Annan is in Paris meeting with French President Jacques Chirac. He told a French newspaper that the memo is part of what he calls "incessant attacks" against him.

Meanwhile, Senator Norm Coleman, who is leading a congressional investigation of this scandal, said that the memo confirms his suspicions about Annan.

Coming up next, new warnings about the security at our nation's chemical plants. Why some officials say the Department of Homeland Security needs to take action immediately.

And then the controversy over the Downing Street Memo that arrives in Washington. Does the British memo raise questions about the White House's motives in going to war? We'll have a special report.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: We have some breaking news out of Arizona tonight. A military aircraft has crashed in Yuma, Arizona. And Kathleen Koch has the very latest from the Pentagon -- Kathleen.

KOCH: Kitty, what we've learned from a Marine Corps spokesman was that this aircraft carrying one pilot was being flown out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma when at some point late this afternoon it crashed within the city limits of Yuma, Arizona. Now, at this point, the Marines do not yet know why the plane went down, nor do they know the condition of the pilot, or whether or not anyone on the ground was injured, because, again, they do say that this aircraft crashed this afternoon within the city limits of Yuma, Arizona. So that's what we know at this point.

A single Harrier jet -- again, that's an aircraft piloted generally by the Marines, carries just one pilot -- crashing late this afternoon within the city limits of Yuma, Arizona.

PILGRIM: Thank you very much, Kathleen Koch.

And we'll bring you more on this as we get it.

Troubling testimony in Congress today about our nation's poorly- secured and poorly-defended chemical plants. Now, the fear is that those plants are prime targets for terrorists. Officials today vowed to clamp down on security standards which are now virtually left up to the chemical industry.

Jeanne Meserve reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): How much damage would a terrorist attack on a chemical facility do? A worst-case scenario Wednesday from the Department of Homeland Security.

ROBERT STEPHAN, DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY: The highest risk facility in the United States would produce under 10,000 potential fatalities, and less than 40,000 people that would demonstrate some effects.

MESERVE: That is radically less than an Environmental Protection Agency estimate that more than a million could be killed or injured in an attack. DHS says their number is lower because it is more refined, taking into account meteorological factors like wind patterns.

By any measure, an attack could be catastrophic, and there are huge gaps in security. DHS says 20 percent of chemical plants participating in a voluntary industry security program may not be in compliance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I cannot come to the president or to you with a straight face and say, "Ma'am, I absolutely know what's going on there, I'm comfortable with it 100 percent."

MESERVE: A former member of the administration says the chemical security picture is actually much worse.

RICHARD FALKENRATH, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: We haven't made any material reduction in the danger presented by our chemical sector to the civilian population since 9/11. And that's just unacceptable.

MESERVE: DHS says it does support regulation to ensure improvement in chemical security. But the administration has said that before and legislation has floundered.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: This issue is simply too important to give in to gridlock and to accept inaction. We need to work together, and we need to eliminate the stumbling blocks that have tripped up legislative efforts in the past.

(END VIDEOTAPE) MESERVE: Senator Collins plans to introduce a chemical security bill this fall, but observers say unless the administration is willing to give strong backing, it, too, is likely to fail -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Jeanne Meserve.

Well, more on the terrorist threat to our chemical plants later in the show. Senator Susan Collins, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will be our guest.

Well, a big fear is the terrorists bent on destruction are sneaking across America's border with Mexico. The Bush administration's 2006 budget calls for an increase of only 210 Border Patrol agents. And there are now less than 10,000 agents for the entire 2,000 miles of our border with Mexico. But, new funding for an increased border presence may be on the way.

Casey Wian reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Bush set up a potential showdown in February when his proposed 2006 budget included only 210 additional Border Patrol agents, a fraction of what Congress requested. Now it appears the Senate is ready to pay for a thousand more agents, on top of 500 added earlier this year.

The Senate Appropriations Committee this week is expected to approve legislation that would spend $600 million more on border security than the White House requested.

SEN. JUDD GREGG (R), NEW HAMPSHIRE: After weapons of mass destruction, the priority area that we have to address is the borders. They're porous, and there are too many people coming over our borders, and we don't know who they are. And many of them are coming in illegally.

And so we need to do a lot of things in order to protect our borders and make them more manageable. And on thing is we need more feet on the ground.

WIAN: The Senate's number is likely a minimum, because the House has already authorized 2,000 more Border Patrol agents. And one House committee staffer says members plan to fight for the larger number, and even that may not be enough.

MICHAEL CUTLER, FMR. INS SPECIAL AGENT: I kind of compare all these halfway measures as kind of like bringing a seltzer bottle to the Chicago fire and offer to put out the flames. We've got millions of illegal aliens. Certainly any additional manpower is useful, helpful and desirable.

WIAN: The Senate bill also seeks to address another critical problem, lack of detention space. Every year, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico are released onto the streets of the United States after they're caught by the Border Patrol because detention facilities are full. Most are never heard from again.

The Senate bill would fund another 2,200 detention beds and add hundreds of immigration officers. According to Senator Gregg, that would allow the United States to end the practice of catch and release within a year and a half. The president's budget makes no such claim.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: Senator Gregg says he's confident President Bush will sign off on the additional border security resources later this year. But obstacles remain, because one of the ways the Senate plans to pay for the additional Border Patrol agents is by cutting funds for first responders and transportation security. And that could be very controversial -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: I'm sure it will be. Thanks very much. Casey Wian.

Coming up, debating the Downing Street Memo. The U.S. and Britain says it's not significant, but the question of whether the U.S. misled the world on Iraq will be front and center in Congress tomorrow. We'll have a preview of that debate.

Plus, uncertain times in the housing market are making for desperate homeowners. Bill Tucker reports on a real life housing soap opera.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: Did President Bush mislead Congress about our reasons for invading Iraq? Well, a document known as the Downing Street Memo is raising that theory again on Capitol Hill, and raising new questions among lawmakers about why we went to war.

Bill Schneider reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): Six weeks ago, the "London Sunday Times" published leaked minutes of a July, 2002 meeting in the Downing Street offices of British prime minister Tony Blair eight months before the war in Iraq.

According to the notes, a high-ranking British intelligence official who had just returned from Washington reported "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The implication? The Bush administration had already decided to go to war before asking for a vote of Congress, before going to the United Nations.

At their June 7 press conference, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair addressed the issues raised by the memo.

TONY BLAIR, PRIME MINISTER OF BRITAIN: But the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go -- to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth.

SCHNEIDER: End of debate? Not if Democratic Congressman John Conyers can help it. He's holding a forum Thursday to look into the allegations. What does Conyers hope to prove?

REP. JOHN CONYERS, (D) MICHIGAN: It may turn out that we got into a secret war that had already been planned and now that we're in it, we can't get out of it.

SCHNEIDER: There were a lot of reports during the summer of 2002 that the Bush administration was I be tent on going to war. What's so sensational about the allegations of the British documents?

CONYERS: Ironically, there are those now writing that we knew he was going to go to war all the time. But if we -- those who claimed that they knew that, he wasn't telling the Congress that. And it's in this crucible that we get the question of deception. Did he deceive us into a war? Were we tricked in a war?

SCHNEIDER: The difference is, the mood of the country. In June, 2002, 61 percent of Americans favored sending U.S. troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Now only 42 percent say it was worth going to war in Iraq. That's why questions about how the U.S. got into the war are being raised now. More than they were then.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: Representative Conyers is planning to present the White House with a petition signed by more than 500,000 Americans. And 104 members of Congress asking President Bush to address the issues raised by the Downing Street Memo. This issue is heating up -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much. Bill Schneider.

Coming up, desperate homeowners, why so many people these days are buying homes they can't afford. We'll have that story next.

Plus, CAFTA controversy, why trade with China is playing such a critical role in the CAFTA debate. We'll have a special report on that.

And King Tut returns. An exhibit of the pharaoh's treasures back in the United States for the first time in decades. I'll talk with the national curator.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: There's been a lot of talk lately that the housing boom in this country is about to go bust. Prices continue to skyrocket, desperate buyers are caught in bidding wars, and many others are buying homes they just simply can't afford. Bill Tucker has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: For 13 years, Americans have enjoyed a housing boon, the longest ever. It's helped give millions of Americans the chance to own a part of the American dream. But some cracks are starting to appear. Buyers are beginning to buy without regard for cost because they want in, assuming prices will only go higher.

NICK RETSINAS, HARVARD JOINT CTR FOR HOUSING STUDIES: It's called extreme extrapolation comfort. You look back at the last two or three years, you have a short memory, so you think it will always be thus. I don't know if they look at it as a gamble, though it is. It is a gamble.

I think what it is, is people are just so desperate to get on the carousel, they don't ask any more what a house costs.

TUCKER: Contributing to that sense of desperation, home prices are rising much faster than wages. Already, more than one-third of home buyers are spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. One in eight spends 50 percent.

Many buyers in search of something they can't afford are moving farther and farther away from work, creating a squeeze on budgets. Lower income households can end up spending 10 to 11 percent of their monthly budgets on just getting to work.

The jump in prices also means that down payments are more difficult to afford. To accommodate buyers, mortgage companies have introduced products that let them borrow the full value of their homes and for a fixed period of time, pay only the interest on the loan.

CHRIS BOWMAN, HOME BUYER: If we were to afford a full 20 percent down payment, it would have been a significant drain on our savings. In fact, it would have almost wiped out our savings.

TUCKER: But interest-only loans also very high risk and some worry that many buyers don't understand the risk.

DAVID LEREAH, NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: You're making a low monthly payment with a negative amortization loan, but the household doesn't understand that it's negative amortization, that they're actually going to be owing the bank even more money than the original loan balance.

TUCKER: Interest-only loans are the fastest-growing segment of the market since the beginning of this year.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER (on camera): Nationwide, 60 percent of all loans are adjustable rate mortgages, and Kitty, that's worrisome because many people believe the only way those interest rates can adjust at the end of their period is to go higher.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Bill. Very worrisome, huh?

TUCKER: Yep.

PILGRIM: Well, another big financial worry for Americans is the sky-high price of gas. It's costing an average $2.13 a gallon at the pumps these days, just 16 cents off the all-time high, and one goal of the energy bill, currently under debate in the Senate, is to decrease America's dependence on expensive foreign fuel.

Well, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington is pushing aggressively for changing the dangerous habit and she joins us now from the Washington bureau. Thank you very much for being with us.

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL, (D) WASHINGTON: Good evening.

PILGRIM: What would you like to see? What's your ideal scenario?

CANTWELL: Well, right now we're importing about 58 percent of our oil from foreign countries. We'd like to see that reduced. In 20 years, we're going to be produ -- we're going to be importing 68 percent. So, what my amendment does, and I hope that our energy bill that passes the Senate will include this, will say that we want to decrease from that current 58 percent our consumption of foreign oil, and if we set a national goal to do this, I think that we can achieve it.

John Kennedy said let's put a man on the moon and a decade later we were doing that. So, I think we have the ingenuity in America, it's just about having the resolve from the national level.

PILGRIM: How do we cut back?

CANTWELL: Well, one of the sections of the energy bill deals with biofuels and I think a lot of Americans feel right now there isn't much competition on gasoline prices. They would like to see alternative fuels be produced competitively and challenge the price of foreign oil. I think that's a good idea and it puts American farmers in the fuel business.

PILGRIM: What about ethanol? What are we doing about that? And what should be done?

CANTWELL: Well, one of the challenges that we have is we can't say that our future energy strategy is going to come from five midwestern states. So, while we can get ethanol from corn products, what we need to do is the research and development that will allow us to have a variety of alternative fuels from a variety of products. That way you can drive down the costs.

For example, Washington state right now, we sell biofuel, but we probably add 20 cents to 50 cents on the gallon by transporting product from the midwest to the northwest. So, if we produce biofuels regionally, that can be a big savings, and I think it will be one of the big opportunities for us to get off our overdependence.

PILGRIM: There's a worry, though, that if you overregulate this, you're going to mess up the market and things will not be as cheap as they should be.

CANTWELL: Well, I think right now, people in Seattle are paying almost $2.30 a gallon, and right now, they just want to know that our federal government has a goal -- off -- to get off that overdependence. And right now, the trajectory is -- we're at 58 percent foreign imports. Soon we'll be at 68 percent, and it doesn't look like gasoline prices are going to go down.

When you think about the Chinese demand for oil, it's likely that we'll be -- that $50 a barrel will be a luxury. So, we want to make sure we're continuing to reduce our consumption of foreign oil, looking at alternatives, getting more fuel efficiency, and helping the American economy, because we just can't afford the high energy costs.

PILGRIM: We're almost out of time but I want to point out, the Senate Energy Committee proposal is considerably less ambitious than yours. What can be done to reconcile this discrepancy?

CANTWELL: Well, currently the bill would have us, instead of 58 percent of our oil coming from imports, would have us at 60 percent of our imports coming from foreign sources. So, what we need to do is to pass a goal as part of this legislation that says that we are going to pursue all measures to actually start reducing our foreign consumption of oil. That way the American economy will be stronger. Instead of depending on these countries like Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and others, Libya, for our oil supply, we will significantly reduce that. And I think that should be a national goal. I think it's one that we can achieve.

PILGRIM: We applaud it. Thank you very much. Maria Cantwell, thanks for joining us.

Well, the controversy over CAFTA is heating up on Capitol Hill. Pass the so-called free trade agreement may be a top priority in the White House, but lawmakers are proving that they're nowhere close to making that a reality. Karen Schaler reports from Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAREN SCHALER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Sub-standard working conditions in Central America are only one of the key concerns on Capitol Hill over the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.

REP. BEN CARDIN (D), MARYLAND: We need a CAFTA agreement. This is not the right CAFTA agreement, and the reason, quite frankly, is that it moves backwards on workers' rights.

REP. BARBARA LEE (D), CALIFORNIA: CAFTA, if you ask me, is anti- minority. It's anti-labor. It's anti-health. It's anti- environmental. It's anti-democratic.

SCHALER: Others argue, why push forward a new trade agreement when there's ongoing controversy over trade deals with Mexico and China?

REP. XAVIER BECERRA (D), CALIFORNIA: Visibly, vocally against these deals because they fall so far short, because now we have a history of trade agreements to look to, to see how they work.

SCHALER: China is the newest hot button in the CAFTA debate. House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas has said a full passage of CAFTA would be difficult without addressing Chinese trade issues, like China's fixed currency and a record trade deficit.

Congressman Sherrod Brown, a leader in the CAFTA opposition, is skeptical of exchanging yes votes on CAFTA for future promises of action on China.

REP. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: Most of us in Congress aren't that stupid. Most of us aren't, that we want to in fact see something done on China, something they've resisted for five years before we cast -- before anybody decides to vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

SCHALER: Many in Congress speaking out against CAFTA say they aren't opposed to opening up trade with Central America. They're just against the way this specific CAFTA agreement is drafted.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHALER: And President Bush has said ratifying CAFTA is one of his top priorities this year. But this week, some members of Congress have shown this controversial trade agreement continues to be a tough sell. CAFTA could be given to Congress for a final vote as early as next week and then Congress only has 90 days to make a final decision on this trade deal. Kitty?

PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, Karen Schaler.

Well, China's largest home appliance maker is looking to buy a century-old American icon, Maytag. China's Hayer (ph) Group would have to top a U.S. firm's bid f more than $1 billion. Maytag agreed that the offer from Ripplewood holdings last month, but this deal gave Maytag until this Saturday to find other buyers and profits at Maytag have been sagging since last year. That, and higher steel prices led to more than 1,000 job cuts at the company. We'll stay on top of that for you.

Also, up next, why major U.S. chemical facilities are still vulnerable to terrorist attacks and why the government -- what the government plans to do about it.

Plus, King Tut returns. What did the Egyptian king really look like? Well, I'll speak with the national curator of the exhibit. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: More now on U.S. chemical plants that remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The Bush administration recently endorsed the need for new legislation that would compel every high-risk chemical facility to develop a security plan, and undergo a vulnerability assessment.

Earlier today I asked Senator Susan Collins, chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, whether she was pleased with the administration's new stance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: Well, I was very please today that the administration very clearly endorsed the need for federal legislation. At a minimum, we need a requirement that every high-risk chemical facility develop a security plan and undergo a vulnerability assessment.

I think that those would be initial steps that we should take. But I'm going to be working with my colleagues and with the administration, with industry, environmental groups and with other experts over the next couple of months to draft what I hope will be a bipartisan bill.

PILGRIM: What do you think is the biggest danger in this country? What plant?

COLLINS: I haven't identified a specific plant. But there's no doubt that the security of chemical facilities is not where it should be. When I talk homeland security experts they always point to two major vulnerabilities that our country has: One is our sea ports and the other is our chemical facilities.

Across the country, there are some 15,000 high-risk chemical facilities and several of them are located in very heavily populated areas. That makes them tempting targets for a terrorist attack.

PILGRIM: The requirements are voluntary at this point, aren't they?

COLLINS: That's right. And the industry deserves credit for undergoing voluntary audits and investing in security. But that doesn't mean that every chemical company has invested in security. Those belonging to certain trade organizations have, but there are many others who have very loose security including not even a safe perimeter around the plant.

PILGRIM: What sort of a physical risk do they pose to people? You've spent some time on the issue, but many of our viewers may not understand what kind of a risk it can be.

COLLINS: Well, I think if you look at the accidental releases of chemicals over the past 20 years or so, it gives you a sense of just how lethal a release of chemicals can be. The most notable case was back in 1984 in India, where there was an accidental release from a chemical plant that killed hundreds of people and sickened many thousands.

PILGRIM: But many millions of people live in the vicinities of chemical plants in this country -- don't they -- high population density areas?

COLLINS: That's right. If you look, for example, at a state like New Jersey, you have large chemical facilities that are nestled in the midst of very densely populated areas. Now, that doesn't mean that they can't be made more secure and many of those facilities have taken steps. But there's no doubt in my mind that this is a very serious vulnerability. Al Qaeda knows where these plants are. They know the hazardous release of chemicals -- a deliberate strike -- could kill thousands of people, far more than we experienced on 9/11.

PILGRIM: Senator Susan Collins, we thank you very much for being with us tonight. And thanks for your efforts on this issue.

COLLINS: Thank you.

PILGRIM: Well, coming up at the top of the hour here on CNN, we have "Anderson Cooper 360" and Anderson joins us now with a preview -- Anderson?

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Yes.

Kitty, thanks very much.

Coming up tonight in about 15 minutes, the search for Natalee Holloway is intensifying in Aruba. There are reports now that Authorities have seized a car belonging to one of the three young suspects in custody.

CNN sources are also saying that the three young men are now pointing fingers at one another.

We're also going to talk to the father and stepmother of Natalee Holloway about what they think about the pace of the investigation.

Also, last night we showed you a pretty surprising piece about what American teens are still doing on Aruba: Partying, drinking to all hours of the morning. Well, we're going to tonight show the piece to the parents of one of the young kids we profiled and get their reaction.

That's the top of the hour -- Kitty?

PILGRIM: Thanks, Anderson.

Just ahead: "King Tut, Part Two." New secrets about the pharaoh from Egypt will be unveiled in a new U.S. tour fit for, well, what else, a king. I'll be speaking with the curator with the first King Tut exhibit in almost 30 years.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: After an almost 30-year absence, one of the biggest stars of the '70s is about to make a splashy return to the United States. It's King Tut, the Egyptian pharaoh who came to the throne as a boy and will go on to a four-city, two-year tour. Well, along with the replica of King Tut's coffin, 50 items from his burial site will be on display.

Perhaps the most anticipated is new cat scan renderings of what the king might have looked like.

Joining me now from Los Angeles is David Silverman. He is the national curator for the King Tut exhibit which opens tomorrow in L.A.

And thanks for being here. This is really exciting.

You know, what is different about this exhibit? What did we not know two decades ago about King Tut?

DAVID SILVERMAN, NATIONAL CURATOR, KING TUT EXHIBIT: Well, there are a lot of things that are different about this exhibit. First time around, King Tut came with 55 treasures, and this time around he's come with not only the treasures, but also members of his family and his court.

We've learned a lot in the meantime. We've learned something about perhaps how he died. But every time we learn something, there are other things that we now need to know. And we still don't know.

PILGRIM: What are we able to find out medically now that we couldn't find out before? Because medical technology, CAT scans, have advanced so much.

SILVERMAN: The National Geographic CAT scans revealed to us that he was not murdered by a blow to the back of the head. And until those wonderful CAT scans came out, we were not able to see that.

There are also some indication on one of the legs that there was a gash, which did not heal. And that indicates perhaps that he may have died from an infection caused by that.

PILGRIM: Was the -- was he damaged when they first found him? Is that where some of the injuries that they thought were medical injuries were incurred?

SILVERMAN: Yes, there are certainly some damages that were caused during the embalming process. And there were also damages that were caused once he was -- the tomb was opened. And in order to extricate him from the coffin that he was in, some damage did occur.

PILGRIM: David, you've been in the field for a long time. You're one of the top experts in the world. But what got your pulse going about this exhibit?

SILVERMAN: The opportunity to go along with him the second time around. This was my first job, the first time around. And to have the opportunity to do this, and also be part of an exhibition that told a lot more about the king this time around than we were able to the first time around.

PILGRIM: You know what I find is really fascinating is that there were projections now of what he might have looked like. They could recreate his face. And yet, different teams came up with different versions of what he might have looked like. Explain that a bit for us.

SILVERMAN: Well, part of it has to do with what the artist might think based on the skeleton that is available to them. And there are several different anthropological models that are used for the basis of the sculpture. So a lot of it has to do with exactly how the artist may view that.

And also, even though you may know something about it from the skeleton itself, certainly the soft tissue is much more difficult to predict in terms of what the person might have looked like.

PILGRIM: So the French team came up with a different version than the American, or the Egyptian team. Which one do you think -- or is that not a delicate question -- which one do you think is probably the correct one?

SILVERMAN: Well, it is a delicate question, because I really don't know the answer. If we look at all of the faces in the exhibition of King Tut, there are at least seven or eight different versions. And now with these new three other ones, we have at least over ten different versions.

For the Ancient Egyptians, however, it wasn't which one was the real portrait, the Egyptians really felt that the portrait was determined if the name of the king survived on that. And so for them, the one with the name was the one that was really the portrait.

PILGRIM: You know, he was buried with such gorgeous objects of great artistic merit. What do you think is the most beautiful? Or among the most beautiful?

SILVERMAN: Well, the mirror case that you just showed was beautiful. The cosmetic jar that you just showed was beautiful. Really, it's hard to choose one that is my favorite.

But it's not only the objects from King Tut's tomb that is so important, and among the beautiful ones, there are some from his predecessors, including that of his father which are really magnificent. So, it's an opportunity to see these wonderful treasures in the context of more than 100 years of Ancient Egyptian times.

PILGRIM: You know, more than 8 million people visited the first King Tut exhibit 26-years-ago. Why are Americans so fascinated by Egyptology?

SILVERMAN: Well, it has mystery, it has allure. And even though it is alien, everyone recognizes something about it. The images are basically from nature. The hieroglyphs, even though you can't read them, are signs that people can relate to because they see the images. And I think everyone knows something about it, from learning about Ancient Egypt through the Bible, too.

PILGRIM: Well, how many people do you expect to come to this? Or are there no projections?

SILVERMAN: New projections are at least 1 million in Los Angeles, and hopefully that many in each of the other cities. Because a lot of the revenues do go to the Egyptian government to help the preservation of the monuments in Egypt. And that's critical.

PILGRIM: It is a pricey ticket. It's $30, isn't it?

SILVERMAN: The range of prices goes from $24 to $30, depending on when, where and how old you are. But I think you have to put that into perspective these days, amusement parks are ridiculously expensive, too, if you want to put it that way. And for me, the idea of the thrill that you get from this exhibition, along with the educational material that you'll also get, far outweighs any of the other alternatives.

PILGRIM: Well, I would have to agree with you on that. And I'm sure I will not miss it, if I get the chance. David Silverman, thanks very much for joining us this evening.

SILVERMAN: Thank you very much.

PILGRIM: Well, for more on King Tut and the upcoming exhibit, you should tune into "King Tut's Final Secrets." It will be on the National Geographic Channel on Monday, June 20, at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.

Tonight at 8:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN, Paula Zahn takes a look at one family who has four sons in Iraq. An incredibly moving story. And Paula is here with a preview of that -- Paula.

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Kitty. And we've got this extraordinary view from these young men about the war in Iraq through the eyes of a real life band of brothers. Eric, Jeff, Evan and Greg Pruitt of Idaho are all members of the U.S. National Guard. And we're going to follow all four of them from the home front through training to the dangerous streets of Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ask these people how these people are doing up here on the roof.

Hello?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello? How are you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good, how are you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE; It's difficult. We've got two missions here. We've got to provide security for ourselves and the people here. But we also got to at the same time make the people feel like we're here to help them and not just be occupiers and that sort of thing.

(END VIDEOTAPE) ZAHN: And I think the other thing that really shines through tonight is their incredible sense of patriotism. It's not just good enough to have four brothers who serve in Iraq, their father and another brother is just back from a tour of duty in Iraq. So, six members in all from one family.

PILGRIM: We look forward to that.

ZAHN: Thank you.

PILGRIM: Thanks a lot, Paula.

ZAHN: We'll be there.

PILGRIM: Still to come, a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: Thanks for being with us tonight. And please join us tomorrow. A House vote tomorrow could end in major changes for the United Nations. A leading Congressman on the International Relations Committee joins us.

And some U.S. high-tech companies are aiding communism in China as they chase profits. We'll have a special report on that.

Plus, the author of a new book on outsourcing joins us to talk about reclaiming hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now.

END

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