Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Bingaman Discusses Energy, Education; Smith, Lantos Talk About Efforts to Broaden the War

Aired March 02, 2002 - 10:00   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.
KATE SNOW, HOST: "Be patient," says the commander in chief, as some Democrats raise doubts about the widening of the war on terrorism and the prospects for future success. We'll have reaction from Congress.

The debate over energy: Can the U.S. break its addiction to Arab oil? And this week's new rules on nuclear power plant security, do they provide enough protection? All just ahead on CNN's Saturday Edition.

Good morning to California and the West Coast, and to all of you across North America, I'm Kate Snow in Washington.

You'll hear the president's radio address here in just a few moments. We're waiting for that.

The chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, joins us to listen and react to that, as well as talk about some other issues.

And we want to hear from you, as well, about nuclear power plant security and about the widening of the war on terror, from Afghanistan and Somalia and the Philippines now to Yemen, Georgia and beyond. Our address is saturday.edition@cnn.com.

Lots more ahead, but first we check in with a news alert.

(NEWSBREAK)

SNOW: We're now moving up on the time each Saturday when we hear from President Bush. His weekly radio address starts right now.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning.

This coming week, I will be highlighting measures to help America's public schools carry out the education reforms we enacted in Washington earlier this year.

Our education reforms require accountability and results, and give schools greater resources to achieve them. Parents will have more information about the performance of their local schools and more say in how their children are educated.

The No Child Left Behind Act is historic, ushering in a new era of accountability in education. But a lot of hard work is still ahead.

The effectiveness of all education reform eventually comes down to a good teacher in a classroom. And America's teachers are eager to put higher standards into action, and we must give them the tools to succeed.

My administration has set a great goal for our public schools: a quality teacher in every classroom. We can achieve this in two ways: by attracting capable men and women into teaching profession and providing teachers the training and support they deserve.

Over the next decade, America will need more than 2 million new teachers. The budget I have signed into law for 2002 includes nearly $3 billion for teacher training, recruiting and hiring, an increase of more than 35 percent over the last year's budget.

We propose to expand programs that recruit new math, science and special education teachers by forgiving part of their college loans in exchange for a commitment to teach in poor neighborhoods for at least five years.

We should open up the teaching profession, allowing people who have achieved in other fields, including veterans and parents with grown children, to share their learning and experience.

And we must upgrade the teaching colleges where many teachers receive their training, the topic of a conference that will hosted by our first lady on Tuesday.

Today, only 36 percent teachers themselves say they feel very well prepared for their jobs, so we'll focus on teacher training efforts where the need is greatest: in early childhood education, special education, math, science and reading instruction.

Through my administration's Reading First program, we are placing a new emphasis on the most basic of skills, and many of our teachers will need training in the best and proven methods of reading instruction.

Because learning only takes place in an atmosphere of order, we want our teachers to be in control of their classrooms. So we're protecting teachers from the threat of frivolous lawsuits that often result from enforcing reasonable discipline.

Because committed teachers often buy school supplies for their students out of their own pockets, the budget I propose includes a tax deduction to cover some those costs.

And because I strongly believe in local control of education, I'll implement new flexibility for school districts. They will be able to use federal funds where the local need is greatest to reduce class sizes or improve teacher training or to increase teacher pay. In our new era of education reform, we're asking a lot of our teachers, and we owe them something in return. We must treat them as the professionals they are. We must give them our respect and support. Teachers are among the most important people in our children's lives, and a good teacher can literally make a life-long difference.

I have confidence in the education reforms we enacted because I have confidence in the teachers who will carry them out.

Thank you for listening.

(END AUDIO TAPE)

SNOW: President Bush with his weekly radio address, focusing in on education today.

With us in the studio is the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a Democrat.

SNOW: Thanks for being with us...

SEN. JEFF BINGAMAN (D), NEW MEXICO: Nice to be here.

SNOW: ... this morning. You are also on the Education Committee. So let's start there with what the president just said.

Take New Mexico as an example. Beautiful state. I used to live there. I loved the state, but in terms of education, there are a lot of problems in New Mexico -- high illiteracy, high drop-out rate.

Is the education bill really going to help people in New Mexico and across this country?

BINGAMAN: Well, the education bill that the president signed last month and that we worked on all last year in Congress will do some things to improve education. I think it's a good bill. I supported it strongly.

The question is, will we provide the resources? The president's budget does not do that. It's the lowest -- the least increase in education spending that we've seen over the last seven years in Washington.

Although we put a lot of provisions and programs into the bill that everyone seemed to agree upon at the time, the administration has asked for no funds on drop-out prevention, which was a priority of mine, no funds to help schools restructure themselves into smaller learning communities.

There are a lot of areas where, in my view, the president's budget request to the Congress is woefully deficient. And that's going to be the fight this year, is how much in the way of resources are we going to actually commit to education. SNOW: But in terms of philosophy, do you see a major change coming now with accountability? I mean, your bill really called for accountability, making sure kids are learning, and if they're not, change the school or let them change schools.

BINGAMAN: Well, yes, but there are sort of two sides to the coin. One side is accountability; we're expecting more. The other side is we committed to provide additional resources.

And the budget the president sent us does not provide additional resources. It barely keeps up with inflation. So we're going to have to put some additional money in, or else I think we will not have kept faith with the people of the country.

SNOW: We've got a lot more to talk about. I want to talk about energy coming up this week. We'll talk about the war, so stand by. We'll come back with you in just a moment.

Is the Bush administration on track and on target in that war against terrorism? Work grinds on at Ground Zero, nearly six months after the terror attacks, as we go to break. We'll continue our conversation with Senator Jeff Bingaman and take your phone calls and e-mails when Saturday Edition returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: We're talking with Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Thanks again for being with us, Senator Bingaman.

It came out yesterday that the U.S. government has a standby government, if you will, operating just outside of Washington. This morning there are reports that Congress didn't even know about it.

Did you know about it?

BINGAMAN: Well, I didn't know about it until I read about it in the "Washington Post."

SNOW: Does that bother you?

BINGAMAN: Well, it doesn't bother me so much that I didn't know about it.

I do think that we need to think about, you know, whether this really is the right response or the right preparation for the threats that we face today. I'm not persuaded it is, but I really haven't heard the administration justify what they're doing there. It seems to be a little unusual.

SNOW: In what sense? That we're spending money, obviously, to keep a staff going outside of Washington?

BINGAMAN: Well, yes, I mean, this is a big country. If anything did happen to the central government here in Washington, there are other parts of the government all around the country that could pick up and act appropriately.

I just don't know what's going on in these so-called bunkers. The concept of a bureaucrat in a bunker sort of being ready to spring into action and run the country, I have problems with how that might work and whether that's the right formulation.

Is there a problem between the Congress and the administration right now in terms of information sharing? Does it surprise you that didn't know about it?

Well as I say, I am not surprised I didn't know about it. I would think that the leaders of the Congress would be informed.

SNOW: Right. Senator Daschle said yesterday he didn't know about either.

BINGAMAN: Right, and I would think that you would inform the majority leader of the Senate.

SNOW: Speaking of Senator Daschle, he also made some other comments, that I'm sure you're aware of, on Thursday, and then yesterday, reflected on those comments. Let's listen to what he had to say about the war on terrorism, a bit of a questioning of the length of the war, the duration and where it's headed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), SENATOR MAJORITY LEADER: Clearly, we've got to find Mohammad Omar. We've got to find Osama bin Laden. And we've got to find other key leaders of the Al Qaeda network, or we will have failed. I think that it's critical that we keep the pressure on, we do the job that this country is committed to doing.

But we're not safe until we have broken the back of Al Qaeda, and we haven't done that yet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Mr. Daschle very clearly saying yesterday, "I wasn't being critical. I was just pointing out some questions that we have."

But certainly he's raising doubts. Are Democrats starting to rumble about doubts over the war?

BINGAMAN: Well, I think that there is concern that we're not sure where it all leads. There does seem to be an expansion. It seems like very week or so there is a new commitment of troops. This last week it was Yemen, it was Georgia, the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Before that, it was the Philippines.

I think people are wondering now, how extensive is this going to become. What's the cost going to be? How long of duration are we committing to these countries for? I think there is a concern about the focus of it. Clearly, the conflict in Afghanistan has had strong bipartisan support. Everyone sort of understands what we're about there and what we're trying to do. Some of the rest of it, I think, we're beginning to not know.

SNOW: But Republicans, you know, lashed back at Daschle, saying "This is inappropriate. This is the commander in chief. It's not right to criticize. It's not right to question."

BINGAMAN: Well, some of that's because they're looking for opportunities to criticize Senator Daschle because he's seen as a credible alternative to President Bush in some future campaign. I assume that's what they're thinking.

But, you know, I do think their reaction was excessive. I don't think he said anything that I took as criticism of what the president has done. What he is doing is raising very legitimate questions about where this all leads. And I think the American people have some of those same questions, and we need to have answers.

SNOW: I want to turn to energy. You're the chairman of the Energy Committee. Energy, a very big bill expected to come up this week on the floor of the Senate.

Republicans call it energy security. They say it's a matter of national security. Do you agree with that?

BINGAMAN: Well, I do agree with it that, long term, we need to find ways to meet our own energy needs. So I do think that there are national security implications involved with energy.

SNOW: What about the Alaskan National Wildlife Refugee, ANWR it's called. It's gotten a lot of attention to date. Will that pass in this energy bill? Will that be part of this energy bill?

BINGAMAN: Well, I'm sure it will be offered.

It's not a part of the bill we're bringing to the floor.

I'm sure there will be an effort to amend the bill to open ANWR, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, to drilling. There evidently will be a filibuster by various members to keep that from happening. And then we'll have to resolve that and see if the votes are there to stop the filibuster or if that amendment is dropped.

That opening provision is in the House-passed bill.

SNOW: And what's your prediction, though, on whether it passes?

BINGAMAN: My prediction is it will not be part of the Senate- passed bill, if we pass a bill in the Senate.

SNOW: So if it's not in there, do Republicans cut bait and run away from the energy bill, if they don't have ANWR in there? Because that's going to be important to them.

BINGAMAN: Yes, well, it is, particularly to some members.

I think the administration would like to see the Wildlife Refuge opened. But at the same time, there are a lot of other provisions in the energy bill that they also would like to see passed. So at some stage, they're going to have to look at what we come up with, if we do come up with a bill, and see whether or not, on balance, it's something they want to pass.

SNOW: I want to ask you about one last thing. Part of your bill calls for changing the fuel-efficiency standards for cars and SUVs, something that's going to affect a lot of Americans if it happens.

Senator Lott had an interesting comment about this yesterday. He told one our producers, and I quote here, "I want a big, huge SUV for my large and growing family, and I prefer a gun rack in the back window too." Senator Trent Lott saying that, and we're not making that up. He's a hunter. He wants to have his SUV.

And a lot of Americans are very attached to their SUVs. And you're talking about saying the overall mileage needs to go up to about 35 miles per gallon for SUVs and cars. I mean, that's asking SUVs to really get better with their gas mileage.

Are you hurting consumers briefly?

BINGAMAN: I don't believe so. The proposal in the bill is that this would all happen by the year 2013. We are not saying tomorrow, we're not saying next year, we're not saying five years from now. We're giving the automobile manufacturers plenty of time to phase this in.

Ford Motor Company, on their web site, says that they have an SUV that they're developing to market very soon which will have twice the fuel efficiency of the current SUVs.

The technology is there. It's a question of whether we have the will to use it and some incentive to use it. And we believe the American people can keep their SUVs but can have SUVs that are much more fuel efficient.

SNOW: It's going to be an interesting debate to watch this week. Thank you so much, Senator Jeff Bingaman, from New Mexico, Democrat, thanks for being with us today.

Up next, new security rules for nuclear power plants. Do they offer enough protection? We'll hear from both sides of the nuclear debate.

And we want to hear from you at saturday.edition@cnn.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD MESERVE, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: We've characterized these steps we've taken as interim security measures. We are continuing to evaluate the situation as part of a comprehensive review of the security environment, and there is the prospect of more changes to come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard Meserve explaining the panel's decision this week to require the nation's 104 nuclear power plants to tighten security measures.

Joining us to talk about the safety and the financial implications of all of this, Scott Peterson, vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, and Dr. Edwin Lyman. He is a physicist and scientific director of the Nuclear Control Institute.

You both have -- the names of your organizations sound very similar, but I know you come at this from very different perspectives.

Let me start with the new order this week. Does it make nuclear power plants safe?

SCOTT PETERSON, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE: Well, absolutely, and nuclear power plants have been safe even before September 11. We have the most robust security program in the industrial sector. We have been at the highest alert in that program since September 11; we remain there today.

And what the NRC's requirements do are really formalize programs and security that we already have in place at our nuclear power plants today. We'll make some adjustments to our programs to improve them, as we have been doing since September 11, and we'll continue to be at the highest level of security.

SNOW: Edwin Lyman, you're shaking your head.

EDWIN LYMAN, NUCLEAR CONTROL INSTITUTE: Right. Well, we have a different view. Unfortunately, the public is at a disadvantage because we don't know what's in this order, it's secret.

But from what I have learned from various authorities, it does not go nearly as far enough as it should to mitigate the severe problems that were in place before September 11 and, I'm afraid, are still present at nuclear plants today.

SNOW: Is there a consistency, Mr. Peterson, across the board? There are 104 nuclear power plants in this country. Is there a consistent level of security?

PETERSON: Absolutely. There are NRC requirements that ever single plant has to meet in order to operate daily and produce 20 percent of the power for this country.

SNOW: And what kind of things are we talking about? What kind of security measures?

PETERSON: We're talking, first of all, well-armed, well-trained security forces, about 80 at each site. We're talking detection equipment, hand geometry and other access issues to get into the plant. And the on-site inspection by the NRC itself to make sure that the industry is doing all that it needs to do in security.

LYMAN: Unfortunately, there is not a level of consistency that should give people comfort. Every state has made its own decision, for instance, whether to deploy National Guard at nuclear plants. So you have a few states which now have National Guard troops supplementing existing security; others aren't. It's not clear why some have them and some don't.

SNOW: But if they have 80 security guards, as Mr. Peterson says, at every single plant, I mean, that's a lot of security.

LYMAN: Well, actually, to be honest, before September 11 and before the order was passed, the minimum number of guards that a plant could have on any shift was five. And it turns out that quite a few plants had actually gone down to that number. Security was a very easy place for nuclear plants to cut, because they were looking to save money. It's a competitive industry, and it was an easy place to cut then.

SNOW: But hasn't that changed since September 11? Have you seen that?

LYMAN: Well, I believe that the order may have something to do about the minimum number of guards.

But it doesn't address overtime issues. Guards could work up to 16 hours in a 24-hour shift, and it turns out that they were relying heavily on overtime to meet these commitments and straining the resources.

This has led to incidents in last few weeks. For instance, at the Indian Point plant last week, one guard pulled his gun on another because he didn't bring his orange juice to him. And they had to call in the police to arrest the guy. There's unprofessional behavior going on, and it's really scary.

SNOW: Let me give you a quick chance to respond.

PETERSON: Yes, let me talk about the security forces that we do have at our plants. Seventy percent have either military experience, law enforcement experience or previous industrial experience. We have former U.S. Secret Service agents, we have former members of the Green Berets and Delta Force, we have former members of the Marines and Army. These are very well-qualified security officers, well-trained, well-armed. And they are supplemented by state police and National Guard, and rightfully so given today's environment.

SNOW: OK, we're just getting started. We're going to come back in just a moment. We're going to take a quick break. We have to do that.

When we come back, our guests will take your phone calls and your e-mails on the nation's nuclear power plants and terrorist attacks. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: We'll get back to our discussion in just a moment about nuclear power plant security, but first here is Kyra Phillips in Atlanta with a news alert.

(NEWSBREAK)

SNOW: The nuclear power industry is running ads now that highlight what security measures are in place, or as the ads say, "Nuclear power plant security -- we've got what it takes." And there's the ad there. You can see it.

Let me go back to our guests now, Edwin Lyman and Scott Peterson, joining us on two different sides of this issue.

Mr. Peterson, you say the plants are secure, they are safe. But it took six months to get this order out this week from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Why so long? Why such a wait to make a mandatory order about security?

PETERSON: Well, that's because we went to the highest level automatically just hours after the September 11 events. There have been advisories that the NRC has sent out on a regular basis to the industry. We've complied with those advisories. They audit our compliance to those advisories.

But now we're looking at a longer-term prospect of keeping security at our higher levels. So the NRC simply wanted to formalize these rules. We agree with that, because we want to make sure that we are prepared for the long term to keep these plants safe and secure -- to hire additional guards if that's what it takes at plants, to move safety barriers out further away from the plants if that's what it takes.

LYMAN: Do you know why there was such a delay? Because NAI was busy lobbying the commission not to impose any new regulations. And it was only because the White House called NRC to task, because, after five months, they hadn't done anything to impose new regulations on the industry. And the president went in the State of the Union address, said they had found diagrams of nuclear power plants in Afghanistan. And the NRC hadn't done anything.

SNOW: I'm glad you...

PETERSON: They found diagrams of facilities all over the country, including the Space Needle...

SNOW: ... I'm glad he brought that up, because that caught my attention, and I'm sure it caught a lot of American's attentions when the President of the United States, in front of Congress, says "We found diagrams of nuclear power plants." That's very disturbing.

Do you worry, I mean, that you area target?

PETERSON: Well, there are several targets out there in the country that they found diagrams for. You look at chemical facilities, other industrial facilities.

What we're doing is cooperating with the NRC, with the military, with the state police and with the intelligence community to make sure we have a full protective shield over our nuclear power facilities. We've been doing that before September 11. We continue to do that today.

SNOW: What happens if a plane, God forbid, a terrorist, decides to go after a nuclear reactor. What happens if a plane heads towards a nuclear reactor?

LYMAN: Well, I firmly believe that the evidence shows that if a fully fueled jumbo jet, like we saw on September 11, crashed into the containment building at a nuclear plant or the spent-fuel building, where the highly radioactive discharge of the plant is stored, or auxiliary control rooms, that there is a very good chance that you could have a serious Chernobyl-type accident.

PETERSON: I don't think there is any evidence that suggests that at all. The NRC is doing studies right now. The industry is doing studies right now. We believe, based on the robust construction of those containment domes, four to six feet thick of concrete, reinforced by rebar as thick as my forearm, we think it will contain safely the fuel in that plant.

SNOW: There was an old study, wasn't there -- I read about a study from the '80s that was done about what would happen if a plane accidentally crashed into a nuclear reactor. And it said, at the time, it said that it would be a serious problem.

PETERSON: Well, many of our plants near airports were designed to withstand the crashes from airplanes as they...

LYMAN: They were designed to withstand accidents...

PETERSON: ... excuse me -- as they land. I think that those plants certainly are safe in that condition because they were designed that way. But the nature of nuclear plant design and engineering is that it's very conservative. You design beyond what the scenarios are of the day.

So we're very confident that our plants can withstand those kinds of hits. And it's very difficult to fly a plane at full speed at ground level at such a small target.

SNOW: Let me take a phone call here from New York. Caller, are you there?

CALLER: Yes, I am. My question is, what are you doing to ensure the safety -- what are we doing to ensure the safety of the spent fuel rods? From my understanding, the spent fuel rods are -- they could cause a lot of problems if something goes wrong, God forbid a terrorist attack and so forth.

SNOW: They're both nodding along with you. PETERSON: Yes, let me address that. The fuel rods are stored safely today in concrete and steel-lined vaults, normally three-feet- thick vaults. They're in separate facilities at the plant. Some of them are within that containment domed structure, but not all.

SNOW: But is that a bigger concern?

LYMAN: That's not true.

SNOW: Is that a bigger concern than perhaps what we've been focusing on, the nuclear reactor?

PETERSON: I don't believe it is, because those fuel rods are in 30- to 40-feet-deep water in a large pool that we believe, that even if the facility was hit, there is plenty of time to restore cooling to that pool before you have any health and safety affects.

LYMAN: I'm sorry...

SNOW: And you completely disagree?

LYMAN: Well, the spent fuel pools are the Achilles heel of the nuclear power plant safety. They have been neglected for too long.

The performance tests that the NRC used to run, where mock attackers would try to take out nuclear power plant safety systems, never even checked to see if the plant could defend against an attack on the spent fuel pool.

And if there were a large, rapid drain-down of water, you could have that fuel releasing radioactivity within a few hours. And there is no effective barrier between that material and the environment, just a thin industrial barrier.

SNOW: He mentions that the drills haven't been going on. It's my understanding, clarify this for us, because it's my understanding that the drills haven't been happening since 9/11. Why?

PETERSON: Well, that's an NRC program. And since 9/11 we've been focused absolutely on providing security for those planks, using all of the resources we have to keep them protected, meeting the NRC advisories that have come out.

We would like for those drills to continue. I think the requirements that came out of the NRC this week will permit that, in terms of providing additional staffing so that we can get back to the scenarios.

We are drilling our security officers. We train them about 240 hours a year. That's a big part of our program, to make sure that we're able to respond. So we would certainly like for those tests to resume.

SNOW: Would it be better if the security guards were federal employees? LYMAN: Well, I think that some type of federalization would be a good idea, because there are vast inconsistencies in the way that security plans are carried out at the plants and the training. There is no physical fitness requirement from the guards. And there is -- the bottom-line requirements are lowest common denominator.

We need to have a more highly respected, highly paid work force. Right now at some plants, they're getting paid less than the janitors. We need consistency. We need to treat these guards with more respect than the industry is.

SNOW: Scott Peterson, you get the last word.

PETERSON: I would say that there is consistency, because there are NRC regulations on security that each one of our plants has to meet in order to operate. Our security guards are well-trained, they are well-armed. And I would challenge anybody to find a better industrial security force in the country than what we have today at nuclear power plants.

SNOW: Scott Peterson, Edwin Lyman, there's a lot more to talk about. We hope you'll come back another time.

PETERSON: Thank you, Kate.

LYMAN: Thanks.

SNOW: Just ahead, is widening the war against terrorism a winning strategy? We will talk to two members of the House International Relations Committee, when Saturday Edition returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: Costs and casualties of the war were on the minds of cartoonists this week.

Mike Smith of the Las Vegas Sun showed a White House meeting. An adviser with an arm full of papers says, "Mr. President, you want to finance a war, fund homeland security and cut taxes? I don't know how we will ever get these numbers to add up." President Bush gets on the phone says, "Hello, Arthur Andersen?"

Randy Bish (ph) in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review showed two men next to a sign labeled, "Middle of nowhere, population 2." The caption reads, "Tell me again where killing the American reporter has brought us?"

And finally, in the New Yorker, a child asks her father simply, "Daddy, can I stop being worried now?"

The Bush administration this week announced that U.S. military advisers will be dispatched to Yemen and the former Soviet republic of Georgia as part of the fight against terrorism. But some lawmakers and some others are questioning the decision to broaden this war effort while there is still unfinished business, including of course the capture of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Joining us to talk more about all of this is Republican Congressman Christopher Smith of New Jersey. He is the chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee and also a member of the International Relations Committee. And California Congressman Tom Lantos. He is the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us this morning.

REP. CHRIS SMITH (R), NEW JERSEY: Thank you, Kate.

REP. TOM LANTOS (D), CALIFORNIA: It's a pleasure.

SNOW: Some strong comments this week about the war and about expanding the war coming from your Senate colleagues, particularly from Democrats.

Let me start with you, Congressman Smith. Do you think there is a concern now among those in Congress about broadening this war?

SMITH: Well, frankly, I think the concerns ought to be expressed more privately. That's why we have an Intelligence Committee. We need to have a united front that's united for real. And I find it very reprehensible that Congress, particularly on the Senate side, are trying -- or are conveying that there is somehow a crack.

I find among my own constituents and among many Democrats and Republicans in the House that there is overwhelming support. If we want to liquidate this cancer known as terrorism, we need to go wherever it's rearing its ugly head.

They're regrouping right now, as we know, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, along the Pakistani border. There is no doubt about it, they're looking for an additional strike. And we need to rout out this cancer. Otherwise, it will come back and it will hit America and Americans abroad with a vengeance.

It's naive beyond the pale to think -- I mean, the president has actually prepared us for this. Throughout this entire process, President Bush has been very clear, his State of the Union, everywhere else, that this is going to be an ongoing, protracted, smart way of trying to rout out this cancer.

You can't just, you know, say, turn the page and say it's over. It's not over.

SNOW: House Majority Whip Tom DeLay called Senator Daschle's comments "disgusting," Congressman Lantos, referring to his comments about expanding the war, questing the expansion...

LANTOS: I find Tom DeLay's comment disgusting.

Let me just say this, I am fully supportive of the president's effort to undertake a global war against international terrorism. I just finished a tour of China, Japan, Germany, France, where I held press conferences indicating the Congress is behind the president, the American people are behind the president.

That does not mean that members of Congress do not have the right to ask specific questions.

And I find myself, Kate, fully in agreement with Senator Biden, that there was no consultation in recent weeks or even months. Early on, we were consulted. We have not been consulted.

I support the effort, but I think the administration is making a mistake by not involving the Democratic leadership in the House and in the Senate.

SMITH: Well, frankly, I think, you know, we're talking about a covert war. In addition to the overt, there is also the covert. There is a need to know and a right to know. I think we need to keep the number of people that in that loop at a very minimum, primarily because we don't want leaks.

You know, unfortunately, and this goes for both parties, there have been leaks in the past that put Americans in grave danger. I want every one of our military people protected to the max, and you do that by keeping that circle very, very small.

LANTOS: I fully...

SMITH: Plus, this is a work in progress. I know that the administration is vetting and sweating the details on how do we go about this. Yemen needs help. We know that Georgia, formerly Soviet Georgia, Georgia needs help in fighting and in engaging this blossoming relocation of the terrorist threat. It's in their own backyard.

SMITH: And then, eventually, if we don't fight it there, we'll end up fighting it here again. And 9/11 should have been the ultimate wake-up call.

SNOW: Do you disagree that they need help, that Yemen...

LANTOS: I fully agree with the deployment of the troops, both in Yemen, in Georgia and in the Philippines. I believe that Senator Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I, as the top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, should have been consulted. We were not.

SNOW: OK. We're going to go to break. We'll talk more about all of this when we come back from this brief break. We're talking to two congressmen on the International Relations Committee. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Do we plan to send troops and money to every country that says it has terrorists? ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The United States will work directly and closely with nations around the world as they combat terrorism, properly and proudly so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer commenting on the administration's decision to broaden the war against terrorism.

We're talking with Republican Congressman Christopher Smith and Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos, both members of the House International Relations Committee, this morning.

Congressman Lantos, you were just on a trip to several different countries, including some counties in Europe, your home country, Budapest, Hungary.

What are you hearing out there in the rest of the world about this broadening effort?

LANTOS: Well, there is some reluctance to go along, and that's why I fear that particularly Democratic leaders have a responsibility to go abroad, have press conferences, and indicate that the president's effort to fight global terrorism is supported on a bipartisan basis and it is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Since I firmly believe in this, I think the administration has a responsibility to involve the Democratic leadership in the planning of these operations.

SNOW: Does the U.S. risk alienating allies by calling people an axis of evil?

SMITH: I think speaking the truth to power, especially dictatorships, is always warranted, especially when they possess nuclear, biological and radiological -- or chemical weapon capabilities.

I mean, when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire, he was roundly criticized by certain people. What was it if that wasn't unmitigated evil? The use of the gulags, the ongoing repression, the use of torture, religious repression, not unlike we have in the People's Republic of China, where today there are thousands of people incarcerated and tortured because of their religious faith.

I had met with Bishop Shu (ph) of Bao Ding province (ph) back in 1994. For that, Bishop Shu (ph) was arrested. He then was led out, then was in hiding for 17 months. And as of today, he is still arrested. He has been tortured. He has spent more than 20 years in Chinese gulags.

I really do believe that when the president speaks about evil and gross evil and the use of torture -- Bishop Shu (ph) had his ears -- he lost his hearing because he was beaten so badly. That is commonplace. The Falun Gong -- 100 people were tortured to death in China as a result of their belief system in this religious exercise known as the Falun Gong.

Dictatorships are not benign. They do pose a very real threat. And when the president talked about the three axes of evil, I think he put them on notice where it's not going to be politics as usual.

SNOW: But China is not part of that axis of evil.

SMITH: I believe China ought to be included until they turn a corner and move in the direction of democracy and respect for basic human rights.

I mean, today in China, forced abortion is commonplace. Forced abortion is a crime against humanity and severely hurts -- and it is violence against women.

It seems to me that we need to speak truth to power. And when we say that to North Korea and when we say it to places like Iraq, we are just speaking the truth. The president should be lauded for it.

SNOW: Congressman Lantos, you were in Asia just last week. Your comments on that?

LANTOS: Well, I think Chris is right in pointing to the human rights problems, but I think there is another issue here.

For the first time since the end of the Second World War, the United States, Europe, China, Russia, Japan, India are all on the same side in the war against international terrorism. And I think it's very important to maintain this broad alliance because we need partnerships and cooperation in fighting global terrorism.

SNOW: There is another side, though. Let's take a look at a Gallup poll that was done earlier this week, a Gallup poll in Muslim countries.

First off, did Arab groups carry out the September 11 attacks? Take a look at that. No, 61 percent.

And then we have one more to show you here, one of the other questions that they asked. People in Muslim countries asked whether U.S. military action in Afghanistan is morally justified or not. And you see there 77 percent of the people polled said that it's morally unjustified for the United States to be in Afghanistan.

It seems like we're fighting against a great tidal wave of public opinion.

LANTOS: No, we are fighting against corrupt dictatorial governments in Muslim countries. The Saudis, the Egyptians, until recently the Pakistanis, were lying through all the media, fanning hatred of the United States and all other free and open and democratic societies.

It is high time we tell our Muslim "friends," in quotation marks, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, that they have to be honest with their people; they have to recognize that the United States is fighting for freedom and democracy. But hatred is propagated and perpetuated by their own government-controlled media.

SNOW: But does that poll point to a real problem that the United States faces?

SMITH: It definitely does. Unfortunately, these countries do not have a free media. They have a propaganda, and they have, in many cases, very, very virulent dictatorships. This hatred is fanned day in and day out.

And I think the president has tried, and he continues to try, as does the Congress, to say, "Our fight is not with Islam. Our fight is with radical Islamic beliefs, extremism, where killing and maiming and killing people like in 9/11 is just part and parcel of a means to an end." It is totally objectionable.

And the moderates in these countries need to speak out more strongly against this kind of radical extremism. They have a role to play. They can't sit by on the side and wonder what happened when they have not been fully engaged. And that goes for the president of Egypt and many others who need to speak out more boldly, that this was justified and continues to be justified.

You know, they face their own potential insurgences because these radical Islamic regimes have designs on the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia and many other, seemingly more moderate regimes in the Middle East.

SNOW: Did you want to add something?

LANTOS: American Islamic leadership must speak out, too.

SMITH: Yes, exactly.

LANTOS: They have been hiding overwhelmingly. They have not stood up in this global fight against terrorism which, let's face it, is overwhelmingly led by Islamic extremists.

SNOW: OK. A lot more to talk about, but we've got to take a break.

Thank you, and ask you to come again.

When we return, my turn.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: Republicans in the House are talking about sending out certificates that look something like Treasury bonds to every retired American. The certificate would promise seniors that they would get their full benefits in Social Security, no matter what.

Republicans see it as inoculation against Democratic attacks saying they don't care about Social Security, especially since Enron's collapse is making people nervous about their retirement security.

Democrats say it's a big waste of money. The Congressional Budget Office says it would cost $10 million for the first year of mailing those certificates.

Even some Republicans are now questioning whether it's the brightest idea. One Republican aide told me, "Nobody is planning on cutting benefits for seniors, so do we really need to send them a piece of paper telling them that?"

And that's all the time we have for Saturday Edition. Thanks for watching. I'm Kate Snow in Washington.

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