Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Will Bush Suffer From Stock Market Decline Fallout?; Congress Expels Traficant; Do News Reports on Missing Children Help?

Aired July 27, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Democrat leaders have talked down the market.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: The best thing they could do is to completely scrap their entire economic plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL O'NEILL, TREASURY SECRETARY: We face problems, we deal with them, and we move on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KATE SNOW, HOST: The blame game for the market's dizzying ups and downs. Will Congress smooth out the wild ride with new penalties for crooked business leaders? And the political fallout for a popular president, from Wall Street gyrations and that upcoming one-month vacation.

Our panel of CNN reporters has the inside scoop on what happened this week and what's coming.

Plus, new debate over U.S. weapons for Israel, Congress dumps one of its own, and are news reports on missing children a help or hype? All just ahead on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

Good morning to Oregon, the rest of the West and to all of our viewers all across North America. I'm Kate Snow in Washington.

Joining me this morning to tackle the big stories of the week, my CNN colleagues, White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, CNN financial correspondent Christine Romans, and from New York, CNN correspondent Deborah Feyerick.

We'll have the first listen of the president's weekly radio address at exactly six minutes past the hour. Stay with us for that. We will also take up some other issues here this morning, as we talk about the president's polling numbers, we talk about Congress and the week there, we talk about Zacarias Moussaoui and missing children. But first, this news alert.

(NEWSBREAK)

SNOW: Now we turn to our panel gathered here this morning.

Let's talk first about the president. He's going to speak in just a few moments with his weekly radio address. Suzanne Malveaux is here from the White House.

This week, a lot of attention behind the scenes at the White House on the polling numbers.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, it was really interesting because what was most striking this week was the disconnect. You had, on one hand, the administration giving a very positive message, but on the other hand, behind the scenes, we saw the stock market was just tanking.

And obviously Republicans are very worried about their numbers. Their midterm elections are coming up. Even the White House is looking at 2004 and saying, you know, what kind of costs are we going to pay for this type of economic downturn.

The other thing, too, of course, is the head of the SEC, Harvey Pitt. He came out asking that his own agency become a Cabinet-level department, that he would be getting a 20 percent raise. People have been calling for his resignation for the last couple of weeks. And clearly, it seems that there is a disconnect between the message and what's going on behind scenes.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And different numbers they're watching on Wall Street, not polling numbers but the numbers on the big board. And in fact, a lot of discussion on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange that there just isn't leadership coming from D.C., that you definitely need to see a Don Rumsfeld type on economic policy, and they don't think they've got it right now.

SNOW: They don't have a lot of faith in Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, do they?

ROMANS: At this point, they don't, no.

SNOW: President Bush getting ready for his weekly radio address on this theme, corporate responsibility. Let's take a listen to the president.

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

This week, the federal government took decisive action against corporate fraud and abuse. The Justice Department arrested several executives who used a public company as a personal loan agency, while hiding their actions from investors and employees.

Additional investigations coordinated by our Corporate Fraud Task Force are under way across the country. It should be clear to every shareholder, investor and employee in America that this administration will investigate, arrest and prosecute corporate executives who break the law.

During the last several months I've called on Congress to pass strong reforms to hold corporate officers accountable for their actions. This week members of Congress responded to that call. The House and Senate passed bipartisan reforms, increasing the penalties for corporate wrongdoers and creating tougher standards for corporate auditors so that investors and employees can trust the accounting statements of their public companies.

This legislation will help reassure Americans that our economic system is sound and fair. I thank the Congress for their hard work, and I look forward to signing the bill next week.

Members of the United States Senate have one more week before they head home for August recess. I urge them to take up several important issues.

The Senate should pass trade promotion authority, which will give me a stronger hand in negotiating foreign trade agreements. Trade agreements create good jobs and economic growth because they open new markets to America's farmers and ranchers and manufacturers. I urge the Senate to get a final bill to my desk so that I can immediately take action that will create jobs and strengthen the economy.

The Senate should pass the defense appropriations bill, which includes the largest increases in defense spending since the Reagan years. Our military needs to plan for a long war on terror and prepare for all of the missions that lie ahead. The House passed its defense appropriations bill in June. Now the Senate must make the defense of our country a top priority.

The Senate should not go home before approving a new Department of Homeland Security. This department will coordinate our nation's response to grave national threats, to anticipate our enemies, analyze our vulnerabilities and act forcefully to address them. And the Senate must give the Department of Homeland Security all of the authority and flexibility it needs to protect the American people.

And the Senate should protect the retirement security of American workers. In April, the House passed pension reforms based on my proposals to give workers more timely information and greater control over their own retirement funds, as well as access to professional investment advice. America's retirement security is too important to fall victim to political game playing, and the Senate must act now.

By taking action on these issues, the Senate can advance our national priorities of defending freedom, protecting our homeland and strengthening our economy. The Senate now has one week left to make progress for the American people, and I urge them to seize the opportunity. Thank you for listening.

MALVEAUX: So really, the main objective here is, the next couple weeks we're going to see the president again giving this kind of message, on part (ph). He's going to be talking about the economy, the strength of the economy, trying to get investors confident in the markets again.

And there's been a lot of controversy, really. Just in the last week or so, we've seen so many people being called to step down. We saw Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who is headed to Latin America this week -- the White House asked him to postpone his trip while this legislation is pending.

I mean, clearly they need to get this message across to folks, that they are on top of this and they're not behind when it comes to, you know, the markets and which way they're moving.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: My question is -- two questions. Is Paul O'Neill going to become the fall guy for the problems with the stock market?

And for Christine, what does it take to get that disconnect stitched back together, to get public confidence back in the stock market, in the financial markets, and get people believing that the economy really is in pretty good shape?

ROMANS: It's interesting, I mean, Paul O'Neill did go and sit down in New York, I think on Tuesday, and had a meeting with a bunch of Wall Street bigwigs, and that did help, that helped.

But you're going to have to see more arrests, unfortunately. A lot of people are saying more tough talk out of Washington before they're going to feel a little bit better about it.

MALVEAUX: And it may not really come from the administration at all. I mean, O'Neill is under fire, Pitt's under fire, even Mitch Daniels is under fire. But like you said, it may be people who are in corporate America who are actually being accused of corporate abuse and found guilty of corporate abuse.

SNOW: So, OK, all of this is going on. Here's the backdrop. And now the president is going to take a month off, which -- a lot of attention on that this week. In fact, yesterday he went up to the Hill, Capitol Hill, for 15 minutes. He just stopped by. And he told -- he mentioned in his speech to the members of Congress, Republicans, "Oh, don't worry, I'm not going to really take a month off." I mean, he seems pretty defensive about it. He said, "I'm really going to work. It's a working vacation."

MALVEAUX: Right. And I think what most people are asking is, like, "Wait a minute. The president is taking the month off. The vice president's going to be in Wyoming. And then also Congress is going to be off. Who's running our government here? I mean, should we all take a vacation?"

STARR: Is that politics, or do people understand, in the 21st century, the president's never taken time off?

MALVEAUX: You know, I think he's facing criticism here, for a month, to take a month off. But of course, the administration saying it's not a vacation, they're not calling it that. It's going to be kind of a working time off. He's going to be having at least 12 visits to cities around the country. He's going to be holding this economic forum. He's not calling it a summit. The Democrats wanted to it be a summit, and it's a forum.

(LAUGHTER)

But he's going to be addressing some of those concerns. I do think they're defensive about it, though.

ROMANS: And meanwhile, the stock market is...

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It seems to me -- it seems to me also that there's the public perception that the economy is really in freefall. So what is the Bush administration sort of doing? Granted, he's entitled to a vacation. You know, I want to take a week off and I'm not running the country, so he should be able to take a month off.

But still, there is that sense that things are kind of going out of control. So what are they going to do to pull it back and say, no, we are OK? I mean, it's even being reflected in the president's poll numbers.

MALVEAUX: Well, one of the things, first of all, is the economic forum that they're going to be holding. But I think also you're going to see the president out there. He's going to be talking about the economy. He's not going to be behind the scenes. I mean, he's at his ranch, but we're expecting a lot of public appearances, a lot of travel days, that he's going to try to reassure folks that, yes, he's not behind it on this one.

ROMANS: All right. More on all this later. The fasten-your- seatbelt sign is still flashing on Wall Street. We'll fly into that bumpy weather, just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: This government, this government will investigate, will arrest and will prosecute corporate executives who break the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMANS: President Bush talking tough against business fraud and federal response.

I'm Christine Romans. Welcome back to SATURDAY EDITION.

A week when the major stock indices fell to five-year lows and then had a huge rally on Wednesday, actually closing the week higher, the markets did, basically because of what they're calling the handcuff index...

(LAUGHTER)

... which is, you know, video of John Rigas, a founder of Adelphia, and couple of his sons, former executives of that company, being, you know, led off by federal investigators, charging them with fraud.

So folks saying that, interestingly enough, seeing signs of arrests on Wall Street by Wall Street, what people accuse of being huxters, is good news for the stock market now.

FEYERICK: That's the handcuff index.

ROMANS: That's the handcuff index. The more handcuffs you see, the better it will be, longer term, for the stock market. And that is counterintuitive. Usually, you don't see something like that.

MALVEAUX: And I noticed too, actually, they treated these guys a lot different than they normally treat white-collar criminals or alleged white-collar criminals.

FEYERICK: This is a real perp...

MALVEAUX: The perp walk, yes, the handcuffs, the whole bit. I mean, clearly a message here that we're getting tough. This is a message from the administration. We're getting tough. We're going to treat them differently.

ROMANS: Absolutely.

MALVEAUX: Deborah, go ahead.

FEYERICK: Suzanne, it was definitely a message, because, you know, one of the defense lawyers had said, "We're willing to surrender our clients." And that's usually the way it works. And the government said no. So the images of those guys walking out in handcuffs, very, very powerful.

And I think the government is sending a message that, "If you think you're going to be treated any differently than any common criminal, you're not. We're going to take you out. We're going to handcuff you. And you know what? The press is going to get word of it."

So again, you're right, that handcuff video very, very powerful in terms of the new Wall Street and what's going to go on.

And also, you know, it's about time that the CEOs and the CFOs are held responsible, because so many people trust in the market, that, you know, if you can't believe them, who can you believe?

SNOW: I've got to get the politics in here for a second, because I sit on Capital Hill all week. And, I mean, Thursday, it was like a train drove through Congress. I mean, they passed this bill on corporate responsibility, corporate accountability faster than almost anything we've ever seen up there.

ROMANS: Right.

SNOW: I mean, it just slid on through. It's huge new penalties. I mean, the biggest part of the bill is huge new penalties for CEOs who sign off on bad books. You know, if you accidentally sign off on a bad book, you could get 10 years in prison. If you do it willfully, you get 20 years in prison.

ROMANS: The opponents are grumbling that, you know, this is going to actually hold back American business, this is going to slow the productivity of American companies. You're going to have CEOs, they're not going to want to take changes, CFOs who are not going to want to have complicated accounting and buy complicated companies. It's going to stall mergers and acquisitions.

But then there are other people who are saying this is the way it should be. There are laws on -- you know, why is this the first time that we're actually cracking down on this? So it will clean up, clean up all of the wrongdoing.

SNOW: And it played well on Wall Street, right?

ROMANS: Oh, it did, it did. And that is also -- it's been a week of strange news. Usually, gridlock in Washington is so good. You never want to see Congress charging through with something that has anything to do with Wall Street. It makes people nervous. This time, they liked it.

STARR: So people have to be wondering, is the corner now turned in the market?

ROMANS: Maybe.

STARR: Maybe. I mean, what will turn it?

ROMANS: Well, I mean, the answer...

STARR: You know, what -- did we have a one-day rally here?

ROMANS: Well, you need money from people like you and me and our parents and our friends who are actually going in and starting to buy stocks again. So far, the average investor is still pretty cautious, because, you know, frankly, if you've opened up your mutual fund statements, it has been a terrible first six months.

MALVEAUX: Now, you know, I don't know if it's going to get any worse, but I know the SEC is requiring them to certify all of their numbers. That's coming up next week.

I mean, what do you think we're actually going to be faced with? Are we going to see hundreds of other corporations, or dozens perhaps, rewriting their books?

ROMANS: It's funny, and some people are saying after August 14th, that deadline, you can start to breathe a little bit easier, because you'd think if there's going to be a huge restatement or somebody has to stand up and say, "You know what, we inflated our revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars," you've got another week to say it. It's sort of your amnesty, your card to play before you can -- so after next week, maybe that's going to be an important time when you can start to step in. At least you know that you've got that deadline behind you.

FEYERICK: And, Christine, what is the fear on Wall Street? I mean, are -- is this something that a lot of companies or many of the CEOs are going to be confident and just signing off on the books, or are there going to be a lot of restatements? I mean, are we talking 10 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent? And what sort of reverberation could that have ultimately on the market as a whole?

ROMANS: It's interesting, Deborah, because I've mostly heard from people that they think the big ones are already out of the way.

They think that the bad apples have already been sort of, you know, found, and they're rotting at the bottom of the barrel, and we know about it and we're picking them out. So hopefully, there aren't going to be a lot more. And it gives investors a little bit of confidence that they can come back into this market.

But something else I want to point out is that, you know, the economy -- and you mentioned this -- the economy is actually on the mend. So there's this disconnect between the market and the economy. The important thing is to make sure the market starts to stabilize before the market starts to hurt the economy again and you have that double-dip recession so many people fear.

SNOW: Which is just the message that I think the president and Republicans, where I sit on Capitol Hill, is that they have done things to help the economy. They keep, at least on the Hill, they keep trying to shift the focus back to everything they've done for the economy and how they have been out there, you know, they passed a stimulative tax cut, you know, and sort of refocus so that it's not all about this stock market.

MALVEAUX: And I think too, with the poll numbers too, because they're really concerned, there's a little bit of a dip in his popularity, about 69 percent, which really is not that bad, but when you compare it to just after September 11, it was about 90 percent. But they're saying I think it's about the institutions, they're not confident in the institutions, and that's what we need to bolster.

And I thought you brought up a really good point, Kate, which is kind of looking at that corporate responsibility legislation, just plowed through. It was mothballed, really, I mean, when you looked at it.

SNOW: It had been.

MALVEAUX: Six months ago, nobody was paying any attention to it.

SNOW: Right, right. Post-Enron, it had sort of died down.

STARR: Well, from the business of Wall Street to the business of war. New focus this week on how Israel is using U.S. weapons.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STARR: I'm Barbara Starr. Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

An Israeli attack on a terrorist leader killed civilians as well. It sparked a huge outcry in the Middle East, and we are hearing echoes of it here with the Bush administration commenting directly about the use of U.S.-supplied weapons, weapons that under U.S. law can only be used for self-defense.

And of course, this was the Israeli attack on Gaza City, the killing of the Hamas terrorist leader. It was conducted using a U.S.- supplied F-16.

Nobody is saying that the Bush administration is ready to cut off arms sales to Israel, but there's a lot of questions bubbling underneath the surface this week. The Bush administration is not happy that U.S. weapons were used in this attack, and it made it very clear to the Israelis in very quiet ways.

SNOW: The policy is that the U.S. can sell weapons -- and this is a policy not just for Israel, right? This is for...

STARR: U.S. weapons are sold to foreign countries for their self-defense. And of course, normally, it's self-defense against an enemy force. And the question, of course, in Israel is, who constitutes an enemy force?

But from the Bush administration's point of view, the killing of children in this attack couldn't have been worse because it involved collateral damage, what the administration has been dealing with in Afghanistan.

FEYERICK: Barbara, one thing I want to point out, though -- you know, and that's interesting you say self-defense. And it seems to me, and I don't know why Israel hasn't made this point, that in a way this was self-defense.

This guy was the military leader of the military wing of Hamas. Hamas sets out to kill women and children. And if the Israelis used that bomb, maybe they -- clearly, you don't need to use a one-ton bomb, but at the same time, there is that sense, I think, that they had one chance to get this guy and they were going to get him. And, you know, you're getting a guy basically who is sending out a teenaged girl to bus stops to blow up innocent children and women as well.

So there's an interesting thing there, too. Should they have used that kind of power? No. And the guy who made that order definitely has blood on his hands. But at the same time, there was a goal, and that was get rid of the guy who is organizing all of these suicide bombers who are attacking women and children. So...

MALVEAUX: You know what? I think if this administration objects strongly, then of course they have a means to do so. The State Department said, no, we're not going to go ahead and complain to Congress and to bring that up.

SNOW: They're supposed to complain to Congress if weapons are used in an offensive way.

MALVEAUX: That's right. That's right. But I noticed that the State Department said, we're going to take a look at this. But they're not necessarily moving forward here.

STARR: This will brew for a while. They'll see how it all plays. They're making it clear to the Israelis they're not happy.

There was another story at the Pentagon this week that developed yesterday that was very unsettling, the story about Fort Bragg, the headquarters of many of the most elite special forces in the U.S. military. In the last six weeks, four Army wives have been killed, all of them allegedly now by their husbands. Three of the soldiers had just returned from duty in Afghanistan.

The Army is just reeling from this string of murders. Two of the men committed suicide after committing the murders. There hasn't been a spate of crimes like this since anybody can remember in Fort Bragg.

ROMANS: Are they saying it's a fluke? It's just a statistical -- I mean, it seems very unusual that you would have that many in such a short time.

STARR: It is unusual. They really don't know, they don't know what's going on. They don't know if it's combat stress. They say they don't think it is. But clearly, something has gone very, very wrong here.

SNOW: What kind of after-care, what kind of psychological counseling do soldiers get when they come back from a theater like Afghanistan?

STARR: The military has a lot of programs to offer -- stress counseling, reunification with families essentially. All of these things are offered to these soldiers.

But the question is, with these special forces guys, are they loners, are they taking advantage of this, are they getting help if they need it?

And I think the real question is, people like this, who have these kinds of problems, did the military do it to them or did they have problems before they entered the military? And should they have been screened out at the beginning?

MALVEAUX: And I have a question too, because I know that special forces, really, it's a unique group of people, unique group of skills and requirements. Are they saying that they might be particularly vulnerable to this type of...

STARR: Well, they've seen a lot of action in Afghanistan. I think that question is going to be looked at. But really, the Army doesn't have any answers right now -- Deborah. FEYERICK: Barbara, are these programs mandatory? I mean, you know, maybe they just don't realize that things are bothering them and that they should have help. And most people don't seek out help unless, in fact, it just comes right up and smacks them in the face.

STARR: That may be the issue, Deborah. They're not mandatory. They are available, these counseling programs are available for them, family assistance programs. But a guy and a family have to go ask for it. And it may be time now for the military to put it in front of their face a little bit more, you know. It'll be an issue that will be with the Army for sometime now.

FEYERICK: OK. Well, the next topic coming up, the so-called 20th hijacker has a change of mind and a change of plea. A dramatic moment in an Alexandria courtroom. We'll be back with that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: An important source of information about the news of the day, and transcripts of this show, SATURDAY EDITION, can be found online at CNN.com. The AOL keyword, CNN.

We're back with SATURDAY EDITION. We're going to talk about a terror suspect changing his guilty plea, about Congress racing to complete its work this week, and about missing children. But first, a news alert with Marina Kolbe in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

FEYERICK: Well, we were in court in Alexandria, Virginia, this week. Very dramatic moments, Zacarias Moussaoui, telling the judge that in theory he could plead guilty to 90 percent of the charges that the government had made against him. But he had a problem with those other 10 percent of the charges, and that includes being directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

By the end of the hearing -- he had started by wanting to plead guilty, but then by the time the hearing was over, he said he had to withdraw his plea because to plea to everything in the indictment would mean certain death. And that's exactly what he's trying to avoid.

So a real flip-flop by Moussaoui in court this week.

SNOW: So why did he even -- I guess I don't understand why he did this in the first place, Deborah. I mean, a week ago, he comes before the judge and says, "I've got to say something; I'm guilty." And now he's saying, "I'm not guilty." What is going on with this guy?

FEYERICK: His thinking is that by pleading guilty to the most serious charges, the ones that carry the death penalty, then what he'll be able to do is he'll be able to get in front of a jury and he'll be able to explain the extent of his involvement in al Qaeda, the extent of his involvement with Osama bin Laden. And he says, you know, basically his thinking, "Once I get in front of some rational people, they'll realize that I wasn't directly responsible. This will save my life." Because he thinks that by being put to death, that's a form of suicide and suicide is prohibited under Islamic law. So that's where he's coming at. But the judge said, "No, you cannot pick and choose which charges you're going to plead guilty to." And that's where there was a deadlock.

STARR: But, Deborah -- it's Barbara -- you know, we saw his defense lawyers on TV earlier this week say that they thought he still had some psychological issues, that he really wasn't understanding what was going on.

So what's the assessment? Does he have psychological issues, or is he actually a pretty crafty guy and he's trying to get around the system?

FEYERICK: If you ask his standby counsel, yes, he definitely has some psychiatric issues. They have even said that his family has a history of mental disease.

If you ask the judge, she says that she finds him mentally competent to stand trial, and that is -- I'm sorry, to act as his own lawyer.

And there is a distinction there, because if she says, "No, he is psychiatrically, you know, unable to do this," then that also means that he cannot stand trial, because he's simply not mentally fit.

Is he crafty? People say, "You know, is he crazy like a fox?" I don't know. I think he doesn't know what the law is. That is very, very clear. But this is a guy who sees things in a particular way, and he hangs on to the way he sees things. It's, you know, fundamentalist basically.

MALVEAUX: Deborah, you know, you've been there. Can you kind of describe of explain what the scene is like? I've just read about it, and they say it's really kind of a circus environment and atmosphere. And some are even arguing, "Hey, maybe the military tribunals aren't such a bad idea, because look at, you know, look at how this whole thing is being handled. Looking at what we're seeing. It's just kind of unfolding before us."

FEYERICK: Well, Suzanne, you know, it's an interesting point. There's a lot of media covering it, there's no question about it. And when you have a lot of media covering anything, as you know, there always seems to be that sense of chaos, of confusion.

But I can tell you the U.S. marshals have that courthouse under very, very tight restriction. There were a lot of armed guards in the parking lot. Also, inside the courthouse you've got to go through two layers of security in order to get inside the courtroom as well.

So in that sense, no, it's not a circus. But what Moussaoui is doing, yes, that definitely has a carnival-like atmosphere, simply because he keeps changing his mind. He pleads guilty one week. He pleads not guilty the next week. So in that sense, you know, there is that sense that it is a bit of a circus.

And the judge should maybe be reining him in just a little more than she is, though legally she is doing the right thing.

ROMANS: Well, Deborah, I wanted to ask you -- this is Christine -- what is the demeanor of the judge? Clearly, this is a really tough case to try.

FEYERICK: It's a very difficult case to try. The judge has been very good, but she's let him get away with some things in the courthouse that, in past trials that I've covered, it just doesn't happen. Like in the U.S. embassy bombing trial, the judge would have the defendants in his chambers. They would vent, they would rant, they would rave, and then when they got back in the court, they were very solid defendants basically. You never saw any of that, the things Moussaoui is pulling in the courthouse. You didn't see that happening.

Getting back to Suzanne's question of the military tribunal, I think vis-a-vis public perception, to get back to that topic again, it's very important I think that the government have this whole thing above ground, sort of in the open so that everybody can see who this guy is, what he's been charged of. He's the only guy we have in connection with the 9/11 attacks who is standing trial as of this moment. So in that sense, it's important.

SNOW: And interesting that that may not be the same way they handle some of the other cases that come up.

As the Moussaoui case took its twists and turns, Congress was trying to figure out how to prevent another terror attack, how to organize a huge new Homeland Security Department.

More on that and the congressman who got the boot this week, in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: It's been an amazing week. A lot has gotten done here in the Congress, and I want to thank both the Republicans and Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: President Bush made a rare and very quick visit to the Capitol yesterday. He praised Congress and pushed them to pass a bill giving him the authority to negotiate trade deals, the very last thing the House did after 3:00 a.m. this morning.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, it was a lot like college students...

(LAUGHTER) ... who see the exam week and start cramming to get everything done and get all of those exams and final papers in before they have to leave for the summer recess. That's exactly what the House did this week.

One of the biggest things they did yesterday was pass in the House this Homeland Security Department structure. It's really wonky. It's really technical. But, I mean, bottom line, this is the way that they're going to reorganize the government to try to deal with homeland security. Twenty-two different agencies melded into this brand new -- it's the biggest change since the 1940s, in terms of a government structure.

MALVEAUX: And if the administration gets what it really wants, I mean, the House definitely aligned with the administration on, you know, Customs, the role of the INS, Coast Guard.

But still a fight with the Senate. I mean, you have that Lieberman bill where they just don't know what to do over workers' rights. They say, hey, the administration arguing we need to limit workers' rights so we can have more flexibility, hire or fire as we see fit. And that just doesn't look like that has much of a chance on the Senate side.

SNOW: That became -- the big issue this week that was in all of the papers became what to do about the federal workers who will be in this new department. Should they be able to strike, have unions, that kind of thing.

But you know, it's interesting, that wasn't all along the real huge concerns that were being raised. In fact, some of the concerns that were being raised were really much more practical about some of the things you mentioned, Suzanne.

The INS, if you put the INS in this new structure, then what happens to people who need to get a green card? Are they suddenly having to report to somebody who's in a law enforcement official?

And Coast Guard, if you put them in, they're supposed to be rescuing people out on the water, you know, who have a problem with their boat.

It's just a lot of questions.

STARR: But you have to wonder if most Americans out there, they look at this, they understand, but they may be thinking, "Is this just more Washington bureaucracy?"

Seems that a lot of Americans still want to know the bottom line: Can this government, can this administration prevent another terrorist attack? And it's not clear how a bureaucratic new department is going to accomplish that.

ROMANS: And keep us safe on our airplanes and keep the airports safe?

And, you know, I mean, it's a really big task, and this is just the very beginning.

SNOW: And I mentioned that they're trying to cram a ton of stuff in. Did I mention that?

(LAUGHTER)

One of the other things that they're talking about, and were this week, and then next week in the Senate, it's going to be the talk of the Senate next week, prescription drug plan.

We've all heard about this. You know, the hidden political agenda that's not very well hidden is that seniors matter to everybody who is running for this mid-term election coming up in November. Seniors tend to vote more in off-year elections when there's no presidential race going on. Older people tend to go to the polls.

So of course, both parties are sort of jockeying to try and get a bill. One already passed the House, but it's a Republican bill, and the Democrats in the Senate are trying to craft their own version on prescription drugs.

ROMANS: The Democrats have been promising, you know, cross my heart, we're going to have something great for the seniors. They've been promising this for six or seven years now, and nothing has come to fruition yet from Capitol Hill. The states are starting to take over, though, and do their own legislation.

FEYERICK: Kate, one thing, though, is that both of these plans seem so very expensive. I think one policy analyst said that, you know, right now there may be a short-term gain, but in the long-term, it's going to be our children and our grandchildren who are stuck with the burden of this. So how do you balance those two sides?

SNOW: Yes, they are. I mean, they're pretty expensive. The Democrats want to spend, depending which plan you look at, two, three times as much to -- even than the Republicans do.

The other thing that I think is interesting is, for people at home, you're going to see all of the politicians on the campaign trail this summer talking about prescription drugs, and their -- whatever plan it is that they support. But you really have to look at the details of these plans to get at whether it's just talk, whether it's just prescription drugs, "I'm helping you," or whether it really means something.

Because, just for example, the Republican plan that passed the House, once you get up to a certain level of cost, $2,000, you lose all coverage. And then you don't get it again until $4,000 out of pocket. So there's this gap.

And then in the Democrats' plan that's now the compromised version that just came out yesterday in the Senate, the plan there is people only get covered -- most people who aren't in poverty will only get 5 percent of their prescription drug bill covered.

That's not that much, you know. So, really, the details, I think, are going to get glossed over by the politicians, but the details are pretty important.

STARR: Does Congress believe a prescription drug plan is now affordable, that it won't, combined with the president's tax cut program, cause further damage to the economy?

SNOW: Depends on who you ask. I mean...

STARR: Can there be a meaningful program?

SNOW: There are Republicans who are really worried about the cost, but there are also just a -- I keep going back to this -- a lot of people who just want to prove that they're doing something. I think that's the big picture, is that they want to prove that they're trying to do something.

I want to get to one other thing that happened in Congress this week, which I'm sure you all noticed because how could you not. The guy wears such loud clothing and has such a wacky haircut.

But all joking aside, Jim Traficant was kicked out of Congress this week. He's the second member of Congress to be kicked out of the House since the Civil War, only the fifth ever.

Let's hear what he had to say. He's defiant as ever. Listen to what he said to Connie Chung this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES TRAFICANT (D), OHIO: Why should an American have to fear their government? Well, Jim Traficant's saying you don't have to. And I'll tell you what, I'm going to lead that charge and I'm going to change that, whether I'm in jail or not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: "Whether I'm in jail or not." And, guys, he says he's going to run from jail.

ROMANS: Does he have support at home still?

SNOW: Yes, he does. I've been to Youngstown a couple of times. That's his town, Youngstown, Ohio. He has some support, not a ton. The latest poll showed that if he were on the ballot, he would get about 13 percent of the vote.

But I talked to political analysts this week who said if the election had happened this week during all of this talk about him and all the media coverage, he would have had even way more support than that, because...

(LAUGHTER)

No, but we laugh, but there is a core of people in Youngstown who saw steel come and go in that town. And they're more blue collar, and they love the guy. He stands for the little man. He stands up against the government. FEYERICK: How? If everybody is voting against him, the only person who votes for him is Gary Condit. I'm completely -- I just don't know where to begin with that one.

SNOW: Yes. But, I mean, we all laugh -- I want to go back to how a lot of members said to me this was really a sad day. I was talking to a Republican yesterday who said, you know, we were basically watching a guy self-destruct on the floor of the House.

He's used to giving one-minute speeches. The other night, he had 45 minutes to make his case. He rambled all over the place. He was -- it was almost incoherent, if you didn't know his case. He kept mentioning names that no one's ever heard of. It was sort of sad.

MALVEAUX: Yes. I thought it was interesting too, because I followed it and I guess it's the nerd part of me, I was listening to it on the radio on the way home, I turned on C-Span. I was really captivated by it.

And I think one point that so many members of Congress made was the fact that this is the only body that can expel him, that he has been convicted of felony charges, but, at the same time, I mean, we have the burden, the weight to decide whether or not we're going to expel him from Congress, one of our own. And I thought, you know, what a unique situation, you know, in our government.

SNOW: It is unique. I mean, it wouldn't happen that way if you worked for some company somewhere. He probably just would have been fired a long time ago.

Coming up, we're going to change the subject. The heartbreaking stories this summer of missing children. What is going on? Does the surge in summer stories help or hurt these family tragedies?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: Welcome back to SATURDAY EDITION.

In St. Louis, the aftermath of the discovery of a dead child yesterday afternoon. Six-year-old Cassandra "Casey" Williamson was last seen alive at a neighbor's house early yesterday morning. Searchers looked at parks laying along the Meremac River there, with divers searching the river bottom. Her body was discovered in an abandoned factory, and a man taken into custody could be charged later on today.

Just the latest in what is just horrific, just a string of stories that have gotten national media coverage of missing children, all of them dramatic, all of them equally terrible.

But raising a lot of questions about us, about the media and about how we cover these stories, why do we cover certain stories, should we cover every missing child.

I think one of the most interesting things is, there are about 200 or 300 children a year who are taken by a stranger. I mean, someone they don't know and they end up really being cases. There are a lot of false reports, a lot of runaways, but 200 or 300.

Do you know what that breaks down to? Five or six a week. Five or six kids a week. And we haven't heard much about most of those children.

ROMANS: Why do we zero in on the names that we zero in on? It's a parent's worst nightmare, any of those stories is a parent's worst nightmare.

Two issues, really: Why do certain cases get more attention than other cases? And second, does it help to have national media swooping in on a town? I mean, what can we do here about a little girl who is lost in St. Louis or in San Diego?

MALVEAUX: And, you know, Christine, I mean, you bring up a good point, because, really, when you ask the question, you know, what can it accomplish here -- I mean, I remember -- I don't know if you guys are from here -- the Lyon sisters when they were reported missing in Wheaton Plaza Mall, I was just 6 or 7 years old. I'll never forget that. I mean, I know their faces on the newspaper, on the front page of The Washington Post. I can still see it. It made a real impact on me and my mother when we realized, you know, this was a huge story. And I think it really changed how we behaved and how we saw the world, really.

SNOW: Deborah?

FEYERICK: I think there also has to be some sort of standard as to how we cover the stories. For example, there are some stories that we do go full-gun on and have a whole team to send in order to cover it. Why not others? Is it something we should be evaluating, which children get more press than others?

That, I think, is the big issue. And I think that that's the big concern, because every child's life clearly is as valuable as the next. And so, either there's some sort of a standard or we reevaluate where we're coming from.

SNOW: Kelly McBride, with the Pointer Institute, which is a group that looks over, watches over the media, let's look at what she said. She said, "We tend to, in the national media, on the national level, place more weight with children who are white, children who come from economic circumstances that are middle or upper-level, and we tend to dismiss children from personal situations that are too complicated or too messy." That's the Pointer Institute that reviews media trends and looks at the way the media covers.

I mean, it's an interesting point.

STARR: And all of that makes all of us squirm, because there certainly is an element of truth in that.

And one of the questions, I suppose, is whether some families and the support structure that they have are more savvy at approaching the news media, at getting stories out front and getting in front of the news media, especially 24-hour news stations, that sort of thing. And some families may not be.

ROMANS: Well, what about the police? Are the police more likely to jump on a case in one neighborhood other than another neighborhood, and that's why the media knows about it in the first place, as well?

SNOW: There's a girl named Alexis Patterson who I think we've all heard about now, only because this issue has come up about attention. She's been missing for weeks, in Milwaukee. Got a ton of local coverage in the Milwaukee local papers, local television, Associated Press, but it never really leapt out to the level of national attention. She went missing before Elizabeth Smart, who then got all kinds of attention and is still missing in Salt Lake City.

ROMANS: These are household names.

SNOW: Yes.

ROMANS: Listen, we're talking about these people as if we know them.

STARR: Erin Runnion, the mother of the California girl who was abducted and murdered, she is speaking out. She's calling on families to protect their children and thanking those who tried to find her daughter.

On CNN's "LARRY KING LIVE," she hit out at jurors. She said the suspect, who was let go in a previous molestation trial, that should have never happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIN RUNNION, MOTHER OF SAMANTHA RUNNION: I blame every juror who let him go, every juror who sat on that trial and believed this man over those little girls, I will never understand. And that is why he was out, and that is why his sickness is allowed to do this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STARR: Very, very heartbreaking. And what can you say?

Deborah, I think I interrupted you.

FEYERICK: No, no, that's exactly it. Interestingly, some of these abductions raise serious questions. I think the reason Elizabeth Smart's captured, sort of, the imagination is only because she was taken right out of her bedroom. Again, a little girl on her way to school, Alexis Patterson, why isn't there a crush of media there? We tend to analyze issues based on different stories.

And each one is unique and different, but it does seem that in the last couple of weeks there's always, "Who's the next missing child? Who is the next missing child?" And it's -- I think it is problem.

SNOW: The one good thing, though, if there is any good to come out of all of this I think, is that there's been so much attention that parents are getting the message about, talk to your kids. You know, tell them to react, tell them to fight back, doesn't always work, unfortunately. But at least people are talking about it. Maybe that's the silver lining in that story.

That is all of the time we have this morning, though, for CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. My thanks to my CNN colleagues. We will be back next week.

Up next, CNN's "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS" and Harrison Ford.

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