January 7, 2005

From our nation's capital, this is Washington Week. And now here's moderator Gwen Ifill.

Gwen: Torture, disaster, ethics concerns, elections challenges. Just a typical back-to-work week here in the nation's capital.

Alberto Gonzales on the hot seat. The White House counsel may become attorney general, but he has a couple of critical fires to put out first.

Alberto Gonzales (White House Counsel): (From Thursday) Contrary to reports, I consider the Geneva Conventions neither obsolete nor quaint.

Gwen: As the first big confirmation hearing of the year begins, we talk about whether any of the Senate's questions got answered.

Half a world away, the international community hits the ground with unprecedented relief efforts in the tsunami zone.

Colin Powell (Secretary of State): (From Wednesday) I've been in war, and I've been through a number of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other relief operations, but I have never seen anything like this.

Gwen: Is the U.S. doing enough?

Congress is back to work, taking care of some internal business, like ethics rules for its leaders, and external business, like the electoral college vote.

While, looming not far off on the horizon is a big fight pitting doctors against lawyers and many members of Congress against the White House.

Covering these stories this week, Michael Duffy of TIME magazine, David Sanger of The New York Times, Gebe Martinez of The Houston Chronicle and John Harris of The Washington Post.

Gwen: Good evening. Perhaps your hometown has great community theater, the place where you go to see traveling road shows or local revivals. The best kind of local revival in Washington's federal community is the confirmation hearing. This week, Alberto Gonzales was the star, but the supporting players -- that is, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- had the darndest time getting Gonzales to answer questions about their number one concern -- his handling of the so-called "torture memos" that appeared to condone the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA, Chairman, Judiciary Committee): (From Thursday) Do you condemn the interrogators' techniques at Abu Ghraib shown on the widely publicized photographs?

Alberto Gonzales (White House Counsel): Let me say, Senator, as a human being I'm sickened and outraged by those photos. But as someone who might be head of the department, I don't want to provide legal opinion as to whether or not that conduct might be criminal.

Gwen: But was Judge Gonzales being asked for his legal opinion, or was he being asked what he might be willing to condone if he is confirmed as attorney general? Michael?

Michael Duffy (TIME Magazine/Washington Bureau Chief): Well, whatever he was asked, he didn't give an inch. Mostly he was asked about torture in all its different forms. Watching Judge Gonzales sit there for six or seven hours and he did a great job of saying nothing, I thought the only way to get anything out of him is to apply some of the same tactics to Gonzales that Gonzales had spent several years to make sure that the military could apply to captives in Al Qaeda and wars overseas. He rejected torture in all his forms, but that was not the question. The question was what Gonzales had done behind the scenes to rearrange the legal furniture to narrowly define the word torture so all sorts of words like pain and death would be ok and legitimate for our guys to use to get information out of folks they had brought back as captives from Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush administration said we cannot play by the rules we are playing by before. We are up against people who fly planes into skyscrapers of mommies and daddies. They tossed out the Geneva accords. The Senators wanted to know what Gonzales had done to make that happen.

Gwen: Did he ever say that again, hey, listen, it may not have been the wisest thing to do, but we were fighting a different war.

Duffy: He didn't go that far. He didn't respond, a lot of "I don't recall"s, "I don't remember"s, like his role in making certain memos happen. A lot of things he said he wanted to study again. Of all the community theater events this is one where a witness gave as little as I have ever seen. He was so sphinx-like the people in his office said they were glad he doesn't play poker because if he did they would kill him.

Gebe Martinez (The Houston Chronicle/Congressional Correspondent): Everybody expects he will get the confirmation of the Senate so what was the point both sides were playing out? What were the questioning of the Senate Democrats and some Republicans trying to get at?

Duffy: You could almost see a shift among the Democrats. They initially thought they were going to try to lay down some markers. His confirmation has always been assured, there was a feeling he would be nominated by President Bush to the Supreme Court if an opening should come, maybe not the first, but the second opening. They realized there was no reason in picking on a guaranteed nominee who was Hispanic. What I think was interesting is how certain Gonzales was that he didn't give a little more. I thought he could have been more forthcoming. This is the mantra of the Bush administration, never apologize, never regret, even when everyone can see you might have made a misstep. It was interesting.

John Harris (The Washington Post/Political Correspondent): This may be an impolitic question, but has he not gotten anything from these more aggressive tactics. Have they served a role? Do people acknowledge they are happy the policy changes have taken place?

Duffy: One of the reasons more aggressive tactics were implemented, particularly at Guantanamo Bay, the military felt they were not getting enough with the standards they came into the war with which the army had for years. They asked Washington for a legal reading that would allow them to take more aggressive steps. Gonzales helped create that. Rumsfeld put in place 16 or 17 more aggressive steps like hooding and isolation, they took things away from people and psychologically abused them. In a couple of cases n the most aggressive cases, they used them twice at Guantanamo and they got real-time information. The fact is in a lot of cases it has no impact at all. A couple of months later they pulled back from some of the more aggressive tactics.

David Sanger (The New York Times/White House Correspondent): Michael, one of the most interesting exchange was with Senator Kennedy and Senator Biden how he was representing the president. Did we learn anything from this questioning how involved the president or other senior members of the national security staff were in these decisions specifically on the torture techniques?

Duffy: In a word, no. He was at his most Delphic when he was asked about the White House. That was a decision that was coming from justice or state. He knows that once it gets inside the White House it is a black box as far as he is concerned. He gave nothing on that front.

Gwen: With all of the discussion about Abu Ghraib and the torture members is there anything else they could have focused on about this confirmation of this attorney general? They didn't talk about much else.

Duffy: The most important thing is Judge Gonzales is an old friend and ally to the president. Attorney generals can be good friends, old friends, family members and completely independent like Janet Reno. This is someone who has always been at the president's side. His test will be walking the line between being the president's legal advisor and advising him. They didn't ask him that at all.

Gwen: The biggest news story of the last several weeks, of course, has been the mounting death toll and massive international response to the horrific South Asian tsunami. As many of us have pulled out our checkbooks and debated how best to help, the U.S. government has basically been doing the same thing, Secretary of State Colin Powell, on the ground there all this week, noted that doing the humanitarian thing could also yield diplomatic results.

Secretary Powell: (From Tuesday) It does give the Muslim world and the rest of the world the opportunity to see American values in action, where we care about the dignity of every individual, and the worth of every individual, and our need to respond to the needs of every individual of whatever faith. America is not an anti-Islam, anti-Muslim nation.

Gwen: Colin Powell has other goals for this trip, but David, summarize for us what has the U.S. contribution been once you add it up after two weeks now.

Sanger: The contribution has been about $350 million plus the most important thing, which has been the logistical capability of getting into that area, which they've been able to do with planes and military help and a lot of marines. You know, I think what was most striking to all of us as you saw the video particularly over Achey, the comparison to a nuclear weapon going off in a town like that. The comparison wasn't just what you saw in the devastation, but the numbers. Today the U.N. said they thought the death toll is going to go up to 160,000. That is a little more than the number killed at the initial blast of Hiroshima, which gives you a sense of this. In addition to the U.S. pledge of $350 million the major U.S. charities reported they had gotten $245 million from private and corporate donations. That number is still rising. At this point, there is almost too much money sloshing around for what they can do with it. I thought it was an interesting quote from an European diplomat who said, we don't need a donors conference, we need a logistics conference.

Gwen: That is what it comes down to. Logistics is a long-term goal. It is interesting what Colin Powell said about the other less-stated goals are of the United States' involvement here. It is a necessary offshoot, they hope f a country has that been basically at war with a lot of Muslim nations.

Sanger: This main opportunity is in Indonesia, 250 million people, the world's most populous Muslim nation. The people of the administration didn't want to sound as if they were stepping in for diplomatic reasons, but for humanitarian reasons there a huge diplomatic opportunity here. When the president went to Indonesia for three hours a year and a half ago, a trip I was on, he met briefly with Islamic leaders who basically told him in an unvarnished way we think all Americans think all Muslims are terrorists. He was shocked. He hasn't done much about it. We haven't had a policy toward Indonesia. This is an opportunity as Secretary Powell said, to show the people of Indonesia that the United States has a benign side to the superpower nature. The question is, can they follow up on that. What happens when it is not on the evening news? What happens as the rebuilding goes on? That is usually where these things fall apart. The secondary question that comes out of that, does it make us think anything new about development aid. It is easy to get people to respond to disaster. My colleague Nick Christopher pointed out, 165,000 people die around the year from malaria.

Gwen: At what point do we balance those things out.

Harris: Your point about the diplomatic opportunities seem self-evident to me immediately. It was a puzzle why they seemed slow off the mark even though this happened over a holiday. There was a widespread perception it was a flat-footed response.

Sanger: I was in Crawford in that week between Christmas and New Year's. We had to ask the spokesman, where is the president. And they were very defensive about this and basically took the position that turning out statements should be enough. I think it took them a while to wake up because they weren't thinking about the opportunity with Indonesia. Because the president was clearly on vacation and didn't want to be disturbed. They argued they didn't want him to say anything until he had something to announce. They caught up nicely, but it sure was a slow start.

Duffy: What do we make of the use of the former presidents, President Clinton and Bush's father. Does that effort have legs, why wasn't President Carter, who has done a lot of work in this area not part of that?

Gwen: Was it a PR ploy? What is the purpose of having ex-presidents stand up behind the podium? What are they doing?

Sanger: Initially I think it gives the cover for big donations to come in. President Clinton and Former President Bush were able to lean on corporate executives, whether it has much lasting power, I don't know. President Carter's exclusion was fascinating. The White House wouldn't touch this. A couple of people have suggested to me, inside the administration and outside, Jimmy Carter can be an unguided missile, he would stand up, if he thought this wasn't going right, and say so. He drove Bill Clinton crazy on North Korea. That could be part of it.

Gwen: Thank you, David. On Capitol Hill this week, it was a little like the first day back to school -- the new kids were sworn in, the first prayers and speeches were delivered, and, in one surprise, the House revisited its view on the ethics limits it places on its own members. Was this a wholesale reversal, Gebe?

Martinez: No. It was not a reversal, a wholesale reversal, in fact, the House Republican leadership did push through the House this week major rules changes in ethics rules making it harder to investigate ethics violations against members. They pulled back on one that would have protected House Majority Delay and would have not required him to step down if he is indicted. So they did take a couple of those steps to back off. What were some growing criticisms within the Republican conference about this appearance that the Republican leadership was sliding on ethical standards, they had to react to the members.

Duffy: Gebe, short of voting themselves a pay raise on their first week back, whatever made them think they could loosen the ethical rules on a majority leader who has been indicted?

Martinez: They do live inside this bubble in which a majority of the House Republican membership is very loyal to Tom Delay. He has convinced them the investigations both in Texas and also ethics committee investigations that resulted in admonishments were not valid, are not valid. That he, in fact, is not guilty of anything, that this is a conspiracy by Democrats to try to undermine the Republican leadership.

Duffy: Protection from false indictment?

Martinez: That is the irony. One of the members who oppose this said if he is not going to be indicted, why did we do this? The Republican leaders, said, look, we did not anticipate the public reaction and how effectively the Democrats were going to use this against me. Tom Delay is considered a master political strategist and they were somehow caught by surprise.

Sanger: That takes you to the natural question, which is, has his own standing been tarnished by this? Even if he doesn't get indicted. Does the mere act reduce -

Gwen: Is Dennis Hastert's status enhanced by this because he was mostly able to turn this around?

Martinez: Tom Delay is strong in the Republican leadership. He has not been humbled by the ethics admonishments, what we did see and have seen is we've seen the limits to his career. I talked to many members who said he can be House majority leader as long as he is not indicted. Indictment changes that. But also if he were not indicted and were to run for speaker he would have a real tough race on his hands. The Republican members are saying that more vocally and often.

Harris: They are not retreating across the board. They are sacking the chairman of the House Ethics Committee.

Martinez: Exactly. Again, there are Republican members who are nervous about that it proves Tom Delay's power. If you are not a team player, you will be sacked. Joe Hefley and he have never gotten along.

Gwen: The chairman of that committee.

The other big speckle on Capitol Hill is the members of the House and one member of the Senate did what they didn't do four years ago which was challenge the electoral college results, enough to have a debate on the floor. Something they did not do and Michael Moore made famous in his movie.

Martinez: Barbara Boxer was the Senator --

Gwen: The lone senator, I should say…

Martinez: …who signed the challenge. They said, did you do this because of the Michael Moore film. She said I'm not doing it here today because of Michael Moore, but his film made me think about why we didn't do it four years ago. I didn't do it four years ago because Al Gore asked me not to. She said this wasn't about Al Gore, this is about the voters. The Republicans used this as another example of how the Democrats are being fiercely partisan and are bitter over the results, can't accept the outcome.

Gwen: Except John Kerry sent out a very long email the day before saying I'm not going to object. You had to really read it carefully to realize what his conclusion was. If there is someone to be bitter.

Martinez: Sure. They really do believe that election reform needs to be done. This was the last public event from the 2004 election in which they could make their point. They want this legislation and want the Republicans to say yes, we want election reform.

Harris: It is not likely to be done?

Martinez: Not quickly. The last election reform bill took two or three years to get done. It is a tough fight. That is why they were doing it. The Democrats felt like they needed to raise the debate.

Gwen: The Bush administration will be depending on Congress to act on its three main domestic concerns, Social Security reform, tax code simplification, and placing limits on medical lawsuits.

Pres. Bush: (From Wednesday) This is a system that is just not fair. It is costly for the doctors. It's costly for small businesses. It's costly for hospitals. It is really costly for patients.

Gwen: It's costly. Clearly, according to the President, but it is a crisis, John?

Harris: Well, crisis is very much in the eye of the beholder. I think everybody acknowledges there is a problem. Especially in some practices, specifically ob/gyn, where high malpractice rates are a real burden for some physicians and sending some physicians out of their practice. Whether this is a crisis the opponents say, look, this is not a crisis. There is a discrete problem that could be solved with a discrete solution. It is capping at $250 million. The pain and suffering awards juries can get would not address the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is the insurance companies that are unregulated that need to be regulated.

Gwen: The president talked about this all through the campaign, but for some time between then and now, because this has been on Capitol Hill before, his chances don't seem as strong as they once were.

Harris: I think there was a conventional wisdom after the election where the president was handily re-elected and mentioned this in his campaign that now was the time for these changes on lawsuits to happen. This is an issue, by the way, very dear to President Bush's heart. He has been involved in this since his Texas days. He really wants this passed. In the past this passed the House easily, gets stalled in the Senate. People think, now it is going to pass, but this is something always on the verge of passing, never seems to. They are up against a very, very powerful lobby the trial lawyers.

Duffy: Some of these have been on the verge for 25 years. Liability reform, I've been writing about it 20 years ago. Can you sequence this, is it medical then product then things like asbestos or nuclear, or is he biting off a small piece?

Harris: Precisely what you mentioned. These bills are hard to get passed. The proponents have followed a strategy similar to abortion, rather than trying to pass a big package, piece by piece chip away with it. They have had some success. There are three main arenas, medical malpractice, protecting asbestos manufacturers from large outstanding claims against them, the final, this is probably the one that has the best chance of passage, it almost passed last year, a bill that would reform class action lawsuits, easier to take them out of state courts and into federal courts.

Duffy: Has Bush put his chips on one?

Harris: I think the one he really wants is medical malpractice. I think he wants all of these.

Martinez: I was wondering if he is proposing this $250,000 limit and that limit is seen by some Republicans in the Senate as being too low. Do you have a sense if they are really to negotiate that to make more Republicans comfortable?

Harris: This is a good, for that reason a good test of Bush in the second term. Is he willing to split the difference, or is it my way, take it or leave it, if you vote no we are going to pass it or preserve the issue. That makes a lot of Republicans uncomfortable, that cap. It is not a unified Republican caucus on this. One of the people who feels most strongly is Lindsey Graham, a former trial lawyer.

Martinez: Mel Martinez, the new senator from Florida.

Sanger: When the President got elected the first time, those first six months had big victories that made a big difference, education, the tax cut. How important is it for the Social Security and tax reform later that he win these?

Harris: I do think it would show a weakness and the others you mentioned are going to be long-term, ongoing things.

Sanger: They are not quick wins by any means.

Harris: There is a chance, in particular the class action lawsuit, that it would pass early and they would use that as evidence of momentum.

Gwen: Thank you, John. Thank you, everybody, as well.

Before we say good night to you, we offer a final good night to two public servants who made news by being first and also by being good at what they did. Congressman Bob Matsui, the California democrat who died this week, was soft spoken and tough, confined for 3 1/2 years as a child to an internment camp for Japanese Americans, yet making a name for himself years later in Washington on issues like Social Security and free trade.

And former Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm of New York, who also died this week, shattered her ceilings, the first black woman in congress, the first black person to run for president, and the first person to tell you in one word the biggest problem she had in her career -- men.

Both were well aware of the history they made when they came to Washington. Both resisted being characterized solely by race. They needn't have worried.

Keep track of all the news of the day every night with me on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and we'll see you right here next week on Washington Week.

Good night.