. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The farmer is rising for a 15-hour day, and the truckers beginning a five-day journey. An ADM is turning corn and wheat, soy and cocoa beans into your favorite foods. Somewhere in the hard land, a child is sitting down to breakfast, which is why so many
work so long, and take their job to heart ADM, resourceful by nature. And by Chevron, Pacific Life, the Atlantic Philanthropies, the National Science Foundation, and with the continuing support of these institutions and foundations. And... This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. Attorney General Gonzalez acknowledged confusion today over his role in firing eight federal prosecutors, but he insisted again he was not heavily involved in the decisions. Instead, he said he simply approved recommendations by Kyle Sampson, his former chief
of staff. Yesterday, Sampson told Congress that was inaccurate. He said they discussed the firing several times. Gonzalez responded today in Boston. From time to time, Kyle would tell me things that would tell me that this effort was ongoing. I don't recall being involved in deliberations involving the question of whether or not a US attorney should or should not be asked to resign. I didn't focus on specific concerns about individuals. I am fighting for the truth as well. And I believe in truth and accountability. And every step that I've taken is consistent with that principle. Gonzalez has come under pressure to resign because of his changing statements. Today, a White House spokesman said President Bush has 100 percent confidence in Gonzalez, and she said the president believes the attorney general can overcome the challenges that are beforehand.
Gonzalez has expected to testify before Congress on April 17th. The president apologized to soldiers today for problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. It was his first visit there since poor conditions and outpatient neglect were widely publicized six weeks ago. Mr. Bush promised to fix the bureaucratic failures underlying the problems. We'll have more on this story right after the news summary. In Iraq today, Shiite cleric Maktada Al-Sater blamed the US presence for sparking a new wave of violence. He called for mass protests on April 9th, and he said, let the entire world hear your voice that you reject occupation, destruction, and terrorism. On Thursday, 125 Iraqis were killed, as suicide bombers hit markets in Baghdad and to the north, and dozens of other victims were found shot. The US soldier was also killed yesterday that made 79 American deaths in March. Heavy fighting raged today in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, Somali, and Ethiopian
troops battled to clear the city, but Islamic insurgents shot down an Ethiopian helicopter and bodies littered the streets. Witnesses said hundreds of people have been killed. The insurgents were driven out in December, but violence has steadily increased since then. Iran stepped up the pressure again today in its confrontation with Britain. It televised new images of British sailors and marines captured in the Persian Gulf one week ago. One of them was shown apologizing. We have a report from Iran from Julian Mannion of Independent Television News. This is a ransalatist shot in the propaganda war. More pictures broadcast on Iranian television this time showing three of the captured sailors. Side-pay-turnie is Nathan Thomas Summers, and the question once again is what sort of pressure he is under at this moment. He is asked where he was when he was detained.
And no, raining moved this. Off-camera, a voice presses him to admit trespassing. Sir, are you trespassing to the emergency? Yeah, we trespass without permission. Iranian TV also showed new pictures of their gunboats taking the Royal Navy team prisoner. The centerpiece of this provocative broadcast was a seemingly abject apology from Nathan Summers. I like to apologize for an annual war to his without any permission, and that happened back in 2004, and I'd government promised that it wouldn't happen again. And the Iranians have also released what they maintain as a third letter penned by Faye Terny and addressed to the British public. The letter claims that she has been sacrificed to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments. Have Friday prayers a hard-line character launched a verbal assault on Britain's conduct of the affair?
He accused the British government of bullying tactics, and warned that Britain could pay a heavy but unspecified price if it continued. In London, the Iranian embassy said both governments are working to end the standoff, but in Manchester, British Prime Minister Blair denounced the latest display of the British captives. I really don't know why the Iranian regime keep doing this. I mean, all it does is enhance people's sense of disgust that captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way, doesn't fool anyone. And what the Iranians have to realize is that if they continue in this way, they will face increasing isolation. The European Union warned it will take appropriate measures if the Britons aren't freed. It did not specify what that meant. There were new revelations today in the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman. The former NFL star turned Army Ranger was accidentally shot by his own men in Afghanistan
in 2004. The Associated Press reported today that within a week, a top general warned against letting the president say it was an ambush. It was nearly a month before Pentagon officials disclosed what actually happened. And Australian man was formally convicted today of fighting with Al Qaeda, a U.S. military judge at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, accepted David Hicks's guilty plea. He could be sentenced to up to seven years. Hicks has been held since being captured in Afghanistan five years ago. That time could count against the sentence to be served in Australia. In return, Hicks agreed to drop any claims he was abused while in custody. The alleged mastermind of the USS Cole attacks now claims the CIA tortured him into confessing. The Saudi suspect, Ota U.S. military hearing at Guantanamo, he made up his confession. According to a Pentagon transcript, he said, from the time I was arrested five years ago,
they have been torturing me. I just said those things to make them happy. The suspect was transferred to Guantanamo last September. The attack on the coal in 2017, U.S. sailors. The Bush administration announced trade sanctions today on Chinese paper. The case was closely watched by steel, furniture, and other companies fighting subsidized Chinese imports. It means Chinese glossy paper used in magazines will face tariffs of up to 20 percent. For decades, the United States did not impose tariffs on countries without market economies. The Commerce Department said today, China has developed beyond that point. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained five points to close at 12,354. An Aztec rose more than three points to close at 24,21, for the week both the Dow and the Nasdaq lost about 1 percent. And that's it for the new summary tonight.
Now, an update of the veteran's care story. Cuba policy, graduating college athletes, and shields and lowery. Judy Woodruff has our veteran's story, beginning with a report on the president's visit to Walter Reed today. There were handshakes, autographs, pictures with wounded soldiers and their families. Even a brief workout today for the president during his three-hour visit to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. It was his first trip to the facility, which is about six miles north of the White House, since a series of newspaper articles led to public anger over the state of outpatient care at Walter Reed and other facilities around the country. The articles highlighted substandard conditions in some of the facilities, including moldy walls and carpets, as well as a frustrating maze of red tape for service members and veterans.
The problems at Walter Reed were caused by bureaucratic and administrative failures. The system failed you, and it failed our troops, and we're going to fix it. I met some of the soldiers who had been housed in building 18. I was disturbed by their accounts of what went wrong. It is not right to have someone volunteer to wear a uniform and not get the best possible care. I apologize for what they went through, and we're going to fix the problem. Most of Walter Reed's patients are veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The president also awarded 10 Purple Heart Metals to wounded service members, and he visited an outpatient facility where residents of the now-infamous building 18 were moved during
renovations. In the wake of numerous stories and congressional hearings, three top army officials were forced to step down. The commander of Walter Reed Hospital, Major General George Waitman, Army Secretary Francis Harvey, and the U.S. Army Surgeon General Kevin Kylie, who resigned March 12. At least half a dozen investigations have been set up by the president, the Defense Department, and Congress, in addition to a new 800 hotline for service members to report problems. Thank you for calling headquarters Department of the Army would soldiers and family hotline? And while visible conditions at Walter Reed seem to be on the mend, reporters are continuing to find other problems throughout the Defense Department and Veterans Affairs Health Systems. Today, the New York Times reported flaws in digital record-keeping that can lead to serious medical mistakes and delays in patient care.
That came a week after the VA disclosed to news organizations, including the Associated Press, that a small number of the networks, health clinics, and hospitals were beset by maintenance problems, such as mold, leaking roofs, and even a colony of bats. Mr. Bush's visit was not without some criticism and protests. One neighbor's home, near the helicopter landing site, urged the president to bring the troops home. For more now on the care being given to soldiers and veterans, we turn to Steve Robinson, Director of Veterans Affairs at Veterans for America, an advocacy and humanitarian organization. He had a 20-year career in the Army and retired as a senior non-commissioned officer. Ann Peter Gaton is director of the Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division at the American Legion. He was an enlisted member in the Air Force in the 1990s. We invited both the departments of defense and Veterans Affairs to participate in this discussion,
but they declined. Steve Robinson, let me begin with you. What did you make of the president's visit today in his comments? We were glad that the president took ownership of this issue. It's something that we expect of our elected leaders. It's important that he has stepped up and let the soldiers know that he's going to really look at these issues and go after them. There are a lot of things that still haven't been talked about, especially the mental healthcare needs of soldiers. For example, at Ward 54 at Walter Reed, no one visits those soldiers. No one goes up and finds out what kind of needs they have. So we're very pleased that he's taken ownership, he's apologized, and he's taking steps to correct the problem. Do we have now Peter Gaton an accurate picture of what these wounded returning service members are experiencing in these systems? We do have an accurate picture, not only of the conditions they were living in when we were afraid of building 18, but also the process that these wounded service members are
having to go through to receive the benefits and care that they need into transition from DOD healthcare to VA healthcare. The American Legion has been concerned about that process since before these issues of Walter Reed were brought to light and the American Legion wants to be part of the solution. We need to get past the finger pointing in the blame placing and we have taken a proactive step and we, the American Legion, have signed an MOU with Walter Reed leadership. What is that? It's a memorandum of understanding with Walter Reed leadership in the transition office. The American Legion will not have two paid staff members in that transition office. One individual will help with all the aspects of transitioning from healthcare to ensuring a job opportunities and the other staff member will focus specifically on physical evaluation boards and the military evaluation boards. The American Legion member will help this service member go through that process. So two more staff people. Exactly. Two more American Legion staff members in that transition office. That's going to make a difference, do you want to see? Well they need about 15 people in there and really it's great that the American Legion is doing this.
They're doing something that the Department of Defense should be doing. And if Walter Reed would open up his doors to the Veterans Service Organizations, other organizations would willingly come in and help. You mentioned the service members with mental health care needs. Are you saying that story has not been fully told yet? What I'm saying is that when people go to visit Walter Reed, they often forget to stop by Ward 54, Ward 54 is the Lockdown Psychological Award where soldiers who don't have physical injuries that you can see, they have the unseen wounds of war, they don't get purple hearts. And their stories need to be told, Americans need to understand that all the wounds of this war are not just physical. Are you saying that we read the stories in the Washington Post, there have been numerous follow-up, follow-on stories since then. Is it your sense, Peter Gaiton, that that's another part of the story that we haven't heard fully yet? The mental health care needs of returning service members is going to be a major obligation of not only due to health care but also VA health care.
And Steve mentioned it's a major issue that needs to be taken into account. We're getting mental health care individuals from the combat who have mental health care needs. Some of these issues may not manifest themselves for five to ten years down the road. We saw this in Vietnam. What Congress has done has allowed any combat service member who returns from Afghanistan and Iraq to receive two years of treatment in a VA health care facility. What if those mental health care issues don't manifest themselves within two years? What we need to do is ensure that Congress, the administration and we as citizens of this country meet our obligation to our wounded service members who come back and sacrifice for our own freedoms and ensuring that they get the treatment they need. And we do that by funding VA and DOD at a level that will allow them to meet their obligations. And that funding has been an issue. Right. And we're working with Congress right now. There's a flurry of legislation going around in this particular supplemental that talks about increasing the number of care providers, increasing the number of mental health care professionals, fully funding mental health care. Right now DOD's at 60% capacity.
We need to fill up that other 40%. Steve Robinson, you've also, I understand, have some additional information to share with us about service members coming back home, wounded and then being sent back to the war zone. Is that correct? Yeah. Recently I worked with Mark Benjamin from salon.com and he and I worked on a story in which soldiers had reported tests. They were getting ready to be deployed to the war zone and they had limiting profiles. A P3 profile means you're not supposed to deploy. It's a, it's a kind of profile that means you can't do your job. You can't carry your weapon, you can't carry your rucksack and these soldiers were saying they had those profiles but they were being sent to the war anyway. Mark wrote a story, a lot of soldiers got sent to Iraq and the latest update that we have is that the DOD IG reports that some of those soldiers are being sent back home now. They were inappropriately deployed. The Senate Armed Services Committee has been involved in this issue. The House Armed Services Committee so people are starting to look at it.
And so you're, there's some response from DOD. There's movement but we haven't really heard exactly how many people got inappropriately deployed, what were their profiles and what is DOD going to do to prevent this in the future at other bases. This is something that you and others are following. Peter Gaiton, we heard the president say this is, he said this is a result of bureaucratic and administrative failures. He apologized. Is that the underlying cause, as you say it, does that explain what happened here? Well the American Legion understands that yes, it's bureaucratic and administrative shortfalls that have caused some of the administrative problems that are wounded service members have experienced not only at Walter Reed but other locations but you need to couple that administrative shortfall with the amount of wounded service members who are returning. By Congress's own admission just two years ago when they were providing funding for RIA, they did not anticipate the large number of wounded service members that are returning. Those wounded, some of those wounded service members as we see every day are going to Walter Reed.
That's a large influx of patients and their rehabilitative process is taking even longer than expected. So you're getting a large amount of veterans going through that system at Walter Reed and that needs to be addressed and we can't ignore the fact that Walter Reed is also on the brack list, the closure, Walter Reed is scheduled for a place for your alignment and closure list. So Walter Reed's being designated to be closed. So you have to ask yourself how can you commit federal, how might the appropriate amount of federal funds being committed to a facility that's targeted for closure in the next eight years? And what's the answer? We need to take that into account. We shouldn't look at the need for closure, we should look at the demand for health care. There are service members in that facility right now and there are family members who are there helping their family, their wounded service members get through the process. Their immediate needs should be addressed in federal funding, not the anticipation of closure of Walter Reed but the needs of those Americans who are wearing the uniform and coming back with wounds. So when the president says against you, he acknowledges their failures, he apologizes look at the overall picture, commissions have been appointed by the president, by the Department of Defense, veterans affairs. Is this administration responding as it should be to these problems?
Well from this point forward, there is a response and we're looking to see the results of the commissions. But one question I want to raise right now is what about all the people that fell through the cracks that have now been kicked out of the military inappropriately, have lost their VA benefits forever because they weren't screened for mental health or they didn't identify their traumatic brain injury. If we're going to move forward from this point forward, draw a line in the sand and move forward, that's great. But let's make sure we take care of those people that have honorably served and didn't get the help that they need. Let's go back in time and correct those problems too. Is any of that being looked at by the administration? Well I think the steps that we've seen recently since Walter Reed issues have been brought to light, the president's visit today in his commitment to moving forward to saying, we realize we have problems. Let's do the right thing and the American leads and wants to be part of that solution. The Secretary of VA took one step immediately after seeing the conditions of Walter Reed and he created 100 new patient advocates to be at the VA facilities. Making positive steps like that will solve the problems. We as a nation need to hold our Congress and our administration to task. And when these issues are brought to light, allow them the opportunity and give them the
assistance they need to correct the problems. The focus here should be the needs of our service members, not who's to blame or how we're going to get there. Let's just get there together. I'm glad you pointed that out, we did get a statement from VA today pointing out not only these hiring of 100 patient advocates, they talk about the advisory committees they've created that include service members who were wounded in their families. Well this is a story that we are going to continue to follow and we thank both of you for being with us Tony Gayton and Steve Robinson. Thank you both. We appreciate it. Still coming tonight, graduation rates in college athletics, shields and lorry, and changing Cuban policy. Ray Suarez has our Cuba report. For many Cuban-born Americans, the right to return home at their own convenience has been restricted far too long.
Arlene Garcia still dispairs about missing her mother's funeral 12 years ago. I was not able to avoid a lot of her funeral and I was not able to spend any time with my family at that time consulting my dad. Garcia had already traveled to Cuba once during that year and U.S. government policy at the time allowed just one annual trip. Today it's even more strict, just one visit every three years regardless of how urgent the need. You know, the Cuban government actually doesn't throw it at me from going there. My own government, you know, the government that I'm willing to give my life for, the United States, is the one that is not the government, but the country prohibit me from going to Cuba. Ever since the Cuban revolution in 1959, when Fidel Castro's long reign has communist dictator began, the State Department has restricted Cuban Americans to just limited trips back to the island nation, while most other Americans have been barred outright from trading with, investing in, or traveling there.
But times are changing in Cuba, as well as in the United States. After undergoing intestinal surgery last summer, Fidel Castro relinquished power to his brother Raul, and with Democrats now in control of Congress in Washington, the first significant change in U.S. policy toward Cuba could be near. A majority of congressional Democrats, along with a growing number of Republicans, support engagement with Cuba, and are behind several bills that would lift travel and trade restrictions. Jose Serrano, Democrat of New York, and Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona, say relaxing U.S. policy is long overdue. It is outdated as a relic of the Cold War. It hurts people and it hurts a lot of Americans that can't travel to Cuba. And as long as we are hypocritical, and now it believes that you could talk to the Iranians to the North Koreans and other folks, but you can't talk to Cuba, and you can't travel to Cuba. That's not going to sell anymore. I think if there are Cuban American families or other Americans who say, I don't want to travel to Cuba because I think that that will somehow prop up the regime there, then they
ought to be able to make that choice. But to tell Cuban American families, you have to choose between going to your father or your mother's funeral is simply wrong, and it's something that we shouldn't tell families. But Bush administration officials have bound. Relations with Cuba will improve only when Fidel Castro is out of the picture, and they don't believe he is. Raúcastro's recent offering to open talks with the United States was rejected by administration officials. Their point person on Cuba is Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who maintains the trade in travel bans will remain until the Cuban government takes positive steps toward a transition to democracy. Our focus should be on the island, on Havana, on the regime, on the people of Cuba, and not in Washington, which I think is the wrong way of thinking about this. Gutierrez himself was born in Havana. At age six, just after the revolution, his family took him in fled to Florida.
I would be very leery of leaving anything up to the communists. One of the things that we have learned over time is that we cannot trust them. They do not like the U.S. They believe that the U.S. is their enemy. They truly are the definition of an enemy. They would like to see the world without us. Foreign officials have said President Bush likely would veto any measure to engage with Cuba. But lawmakers and Cuba watchers believe there is sufficient support in Congress to override a veto. Julia Swig is written widely on U.S. Cuba relations. I believe if there were a secret vote today in the U.S. Congress, there would be a bipartisan majority. Republicans and Democrats voting to gut the entire embargo policy. There appears to be considerable support among the American public, as well. A recent Associated Press Ipsos poll showed 62 percent want diplomatic relations restored with Cuba, while 40 percent said they would like to vacation there.
American businesses also hope for a change in policy. Farmers want to export more produce to the island. Oil companies are anxious to explore Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters. And the travel industry predicts a million U.S. tourists would visit Cuba during the first year after travel restrictions are removed. But those who support the current U.S. policy argue that previous actions by the Cuban government, including the downing of two American private planes by the Cuban Air Force over the island's waters in 1996, should not be rewarded by a relaxed travel ban or with U.S. investments. Because of murdering Americans, because of shooting down American airplanes in international airspace, because of the fact that they have very active espionage networks in the United States. Republican Congressman Mario Diaz-Ballard is the son of an exiled Cuban politician, and represents some 30,000 Cuban Americans in and around Miami. The reality is that if you open up, if you eliminate the travel ban, you're talking about
billions of dollars that would be sent to that anti-American terrorist state. And the question was very simple. What did that terrorist state do when they used to get about $7 billion a year from the Soviet Union, were the Cuban people freer, were the human rights conditions better? No. Even those who support engagement with Cuba acknowledge its history of restricting economic and political freedoms. Many say lifting the travel ban would show Americans are anxious to interact with Cubans, and it might send a positive message to other left-leaning Latin American countries now critical of American foreign policy. New York's Jose Serrano. I got to believe then that a lot of the rhetoric you hear from Latin America against us diminishes because they all relate to Cuba as the symbol of American oppression, of American anger, of American silliness. We move that, and you have an opportunity to say we're here to talk to you. As for Arlene Garcia, she'll return to Cuba this summer for the first time in three
years to visit her ailing fund. After his health declined further, Garcia says it's not clear what she would do, Americans can get around the travel ban, though not legally, through Canada and Mexico. In a case where an absolute necessity of having forbids my father is not very healthy, is something more to happen to him, and he would request my presence there. Then maybe I will think about having to break the law because after all, you know, the law is thicker than anything else. Garcia hopes the Congressional momentum behind lifting the travel ban leads to political change when the full house considers the issue later this spring. Now how the student and student athletes are faring on this final four weekend. Jeffrey Brown has our luck.
On the court, they have the skills. They dribble, they dunk, and they bring out the school spirit. But off the court, there's been a long history of academic under achievement in men's NCAA basketball. The teams making up this year's final four arrived in Atlanta as the annual fever known as March Madness reaches its climax. This weekend won't be about test scores and passing grades, but a new study examining the graduation rates for participating schools released by the University of Central Florida presents some good and bad news. It found that of the 65 schools participating in this year's tournament, just 24 institutions graduated at least 70% of players in recent years. Some schools in the NCAA tournament graduated less than one in five players or 20%, including the University of Tennessee and the University of Maryland.
Ohio State, a contender for the championship this year, has a 38% graduation rate. But there are some schools that are excelling, the College of the Holy Cross and Massachusetts, the University of Florida and other of the remaining title contenders, and Weber State University, all graduated 100% of their male basketball athletes. The study also revealed that white athletes are graduating in much higher numbers than their black colleagues in NCAA schools. In 2001, a study by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics recommended that by this year, 2007, teams that did not graduate at least 50% of their players should have not the eligible for championship play. And for more on how athletes are doing off the court, I'm joined by Richard Lapchick, the lead author of the new study. He's director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports at the University of Central Florida.
And Kevin Blackstone, a freelance sports writer who appears on ESPN, NPR, and other outlets, he has reported widely on college athletics. Well, Richard Lapchick, you've been watching this problem for years with some concern. Where do things stand now? Well, the good news is that when the Knight Commission said 50% should be the measure to be eligible for the tournament, only 28% of the teams would have met that standard in 2001. This year, 64% of the teams graduated better than 50% of their basketball playing student athletes. There's been a gradual increase in the graduation rates for basketball players in general. The bad news here is that nearly 49% of those teams in the tournament had a gap of 30% or more between the graduation rates of their African-American players and their white players. Kevin Blackstone, how do you see it? Emphasize the positive glass half full, half empty, how do you see it? Well, I think it's half empty. And the reason is because it's the mission of higher education to educate people, hopefully provide them with a certification of that education, which is a diploma, and hopefully
a validation of what they've learned by being able to get employed once they leave. And obviously, what this shows is that there is a disconnect between college athletics and what that mission statement at higher education really is. And as Richard pointed out, things have gotten better probably because schools feel somewhat behoove now to do a better job in terms of graduating their student athletes, simply because there's a lot more pressure being put on them to do so. Are they feeling that pressure, do you think Richard left check? Is that why you see a positive sign here of improvement? I think the passage of something called the academic progress rates, which if they fall below a certain standard starting next year in terms of their graduation rates, they'll start to lose scholarships. I speak on college campuses pretty regularly, and people in the athletics department tell me all the time that now they've started to recruit athletes that they are confident will
be able to graduate because the coaches do not want to lose those scholarships, those scholarships are their bread and butter of how they stay in contention to get in the tournament and to get to this weekend in general. Do you see Kevin a change in the life of the student athlete, or is it really school by school, is that how to think of it, or is there a general rule? Well it is school by school, but I think if you look at the last generation of student athletes, I think you can see a change, they become much more important to the lifeblood of a university beyond just building up school spirit. Those scholarship athletes also are a great marketing tool for the universities, and beyond that most importantly, they are great revenue generators for those universities. Athletic departments at major schools like those who are going to see this weekend in the final four, those are basically separate corporations that have a different corporation. Separate corporations.
We're talking about places that control $50, $60, $70 million in revenue in their athletic budgets, they have to get that money from somewhere, and they're getting it from the revenue sports, which we know of as being basketball and football. And yet you see some discrepancy in Mr. Lapchick's data there between a Florida and our in Ohio State. Exactly. But I would also point out, as Richard knows down there in Florida, that's going to change dramatically for Florida pretty soon, because most of the players that they have on this year's team who returned from last year's National Championship team are underclassmen and most likely will bolt this year for the NBA, and therefore it won't be until they actually finish their education and get a degree that they'll count in these statistics. Yeah, Mr. Lapchick, that's a little confusing, isn't it? Some of the big stars that we often hear about leave school after a year or two years to some of them, hopefully, that mean they hope to go to the NBA. How are they?
Are they counted in your statistics here? In previous years, when the night commission released that statement in 2001, they would have counted against the school. As long as they leave in good academic standing now, they do not count against the school. They become a neutral factor. And Kevin mentioned football and basketball being the drivers. I think it's a statement about the University of Florida that their National Championship football team also had the highest graduation rate of all the 56-ball-bound teams last year. They're doing something right at Florida, and I think it would behoove the other schools not only in the final four, but in the tournament who played Division I sports to find out what's going on at Florida because it's across the board. They're producing clearly great athletic teams, and if we had a final game on Monday night between the two of the best graduation rate, it would be Georgetown and the University of Florida. Mr. Levchek, staying with you, what about the women's side here? It sounds like it's a better picture. The women have consistently had higher graduation rates where 10 to 20 percent higher across
the board in the women's teams than we are in the men's teams. There are lots of women's teams, more than 80 percent of the women's teams have a graduation rate above 70 percent, and equally important to me is the gap between African American females and white females on those teams is very narrow. They've eliminated that gap, and I think that's an important statement about how they play the women's game, and it's also about them not having the same driving force at the end that they think they're going to play in the pros and know that they're going to have to be better prepared academically for a career outside of the game basketball. You wanted to jump in there? Yeah, I was going to say that's the biggest difference. The WNBA obviously does not provide the same riches that the NBA does, and so women, unfortunately, don't have as many professional athletic opportunities as men do. And I also don't think have grown up with this dream that they can hit the lottery ticket of being a professional athlete.
The big gap that he does cite, Mr. Levchek Sykes, is on the men's side is between black and white athletes. Yeah, and that may be part of what I just mentioned, you know, unfortunately still today when young black males look for images to emulate what do they see? They see Michael Jordan, they see Magic Johnson, they see all these fabulous athletes who get featured on MTV cribs and all the wonderful things they can do with the millions of dollars that they make. They don't necessarily think about a Conda Lisa Rice or a Colin Powell or someone who's a lawyer or a doctor and therefore they get caught up in this chase for the athletic dream and sometimes that winds up, it turns out to be a tragic. Mr. Levchek, we just have a minute here, but I wanted to ask you, for those schools that continue to do poorly, how much of an oversight regime is there? Is there anybody really pushing them with some, you know, real hard sanctions? Well, this is going to be the first time starting next year that schools will be able to
the NCAA, will be able to penalize them with the loss of scholarships and, you know, we've gone for 50 or 60 years with poor graduation rates that have really very recently under Miles Brand leadership started to change and I think the fact that they are able to put in those sanctions is going to, is the primary difference maker in it, but I want to point out that on many of our college campuses, those basketball student athletes who are African-American graduate at a higher rate than African-American students in general, too many of our campuses are still unwelcoming places for people of color when they come. The streets and the buildings were all named after people who look like me, the faculty are mostly look like me, the administrators. That has to change too. I have to have a more friendly and welcoming climate on our college campuses for all students of color. All right. Thank you both very much. Richard Lapchick and Kevin Blackstone. Thank you. Thank you. Finally tonight, the analysis of Shields and Lowry syndicated columnist Mark Shields, a national review editor, Rich Lowry, David Brooks is a way tonight.
Mark, did the president make a difference by going to Walter Reed today? I'm glad the president did go, Jim. I mean, it's not much of a trip from the White House. It's been a long time coming, but the administration, the government, America, is still reeling from the statement by the arrogant and insensitive general when confronted with troops living, wounded warriors living in mold with rodents running, said, I don't do barracks inspections. That sort of became the general chilies, became from many Americans, the sense of indifference that, and beyond indifference was explained in the segment with Judy, the bureaucratic nightmare that these troops have put through. You have the feeling now, Rich, that the message has now been heard loud and clearly by those who can do something about this and will do something about it? Yeah. I think so. And look, it's obviously good. The president went there today. I think that he apologized. But the most important thing in this whole episode for me is that there wasn't much circling
of the wagons right at the beginning. People were fired and appropriately so, and that's a problem this administration has had with his management style all along. It's the delegating down to people and then not holding them accountable when they're bad consequences. And this seems to be an exception to that. That was because of the new Secretary of Defense gates? Yeah. I think there's a different attitude there. And with Rumsfeld, he was so embattled and so used to having every possible charge thrown at him, there was very little give there, and the tendency always was to push back against anything and everything, and Gates has been a fresh start in that regard. Speaking of charges, Attorney General Gonzalez, how badly was he hurt by what his former chief of staff said that yesterday in that Senate testimony? He was hurt Jim, and the vote is the silence from Republican senators. We can't, there are no defenders. Riches magazine, the flagship magazine, the conservative movement that came out for his administration.
That's what people always say when they call on a Republican resign, flagship. Most influential. I just thought I'd quote him, I mean really trying to help, I could start if he's right. Trying to help subscriptions. But in a strange way, it's a personal tragedy as well as a public tragedy because this is somebody without a personal fortune to fall back on, without a family fortune, without many options, quite frankly. This is probably the job that he'll hold, and I don't imagine a lot of firms running to get him at this point. But I think the signal has been said that he's out there, and the president's confident he can defend himself, and he's on his own, is the word. But the president's folks, women said today, the president still supports him 100% direct quote. Well, they have to say that right up into the point he leaves. But if you look at the body language, Mark is right, the White House is not very strongly behind him, Republican senators are very quiet. And I think Kyle Sampson's testimony, it didn't, wasn't any evidence of anything
improper or illegal about the firings themselves, but it does make it seem as though Gonzalez was either deliberately deceptive, and I'm open to the possibility of what he was, or I think a little more likely in my view, and this doesn't speak any better of his job as Attorney General, that he's just very, not very careful with his facts or his language, which is something you expect of a lawyer, and it's expect especially from the Attorney General of the United States, and you talk to any Republican on Capitol Hill, and they all agree the handling of this has just been horrible, and it speaks to an incompetence at the top of the Justice Department. Handling and incompetence, is that what this is about? It is, I thought Kyle Sampson's, the chief of staff's attempt to say was a problem of communications. It isn't a problem of communications. I mean, he made a statement yesterday that has to just absolutely incur the wrath and enmity and opposition of anybody who was cut loose, and that is, I don't see any difference.
He equated non-performance, malfeasance in office, or bad performance, with just a political decision. He said, I don't think getting rid of anybody, either grounds is fine. Well, if you're one of the people dismissed, it's one thing to say, we're getting rid of your rich because we want to bring in Billy Bob who needs this experience. But when the thought is left, or at least the charges left, that you're getting rid of your because you're not up to the job, you did a bad job, that's pretty lousy. What the problem was at the beginning, they did not say what Kyle Sampson said yesterday, which is, these are inherently a political position, and yes, politics entered into our decisions in a variety of ways, because we didn't think they were following our priorities, or we wanted to get someone we like a lot, the credential of having this job. Instead, Paul McMole, did you say next question and move on? Yeah, and then Paul, but Paul McNulty, the Deputy Attorney General, said no, this is a performance related, and the Attorney General of the United States wrote an op-ed saying, they lost my confidence.
And now he's trying to tell us, well, he really didn't even know why they were fired. Okay. The vote in the Senate this week, Rich, the war vote, setting a non-binding date for the troops to be gone, and of course, it goes, it's a companion to the earlier legislation that is binding, it was passed by the House. How close are we to a huge confrontation here? It's upon us. It's a big game of chicken. Congress is not going to back down, the House and Senate will get together in a conference and reconcile their bills with some sort of deadline of the sort President Bush is bowed to veto, and he'll veto it, and then we'll see where it goes from here. Republicans at the moment are pretty optimistic about the politics. They think this is another, this is an opportunity for them to paint Democrats this week on the war. And almost as importantly, maybe to get some of their credibility back on fiscal issues, because there's so much extraneous spending in this bill, so many pork projects that they Democrats needed in the House to win over some key votes, that Republicans really
feel that they can hammer on that stuff, and Bush has been emphasizing that in this criticism of the bill. How do you read the politics of this? I'm just amazed. I really am. I mean, we have 70% of the people in the country are opposed to the policy, 60% now want to date set, and a majority, both houses of Congress, has expressed that. And let's be very blunt about what's in this. I mean, it's full funding for the President's surge, including the 28,000 troops that are scheduled to go there, which would bring up to 170,000, which is an increase by 50% where we were just three years ago in the number of troops. So that's that, it's not an argument about that, but what we're talking about is whether this President who has had a free hand, I mean, for the six years, I mean, no oversight from the Congress is going to have to respond to the Congress as an equal branch of government. And up to now, I'm just amazed the President sort of reacted like, you're bothersome, you're not an independent branch of government. And I just think that we are heading for some sort of a resolution.
I think that the Congress has acted, there'll be informally in conference between the House and the Senate the next two weeks, and then come up with something as Rich has said. But I'm amazed so far that no Republican, a John Warner, if you want me to chair on the Senate, I'm sure this can be, it doesn't come forward and say, okay, let's get me work something out here. But the politics, or the politics are working something out, doesn't it revolve around the charge that, in fact, both sides are making the charge about each is making the charge about the other, that they're undermining, they're jeopardizing the funding for the troops that are already on the ground? Yeah, I mean, but the funding is in, the funding is in what's passed, but it doesn't have a condition of, oh, it has a condition, I mean, what it essentially, if you want to boil it down, what the House in the Senate are passing is variations of the Iraq study group, which the President did, and it said, we want diplomatic, we want diplomatic initiatives in the area, we want standard set, we want benchmarks met, we want the Iraqi government
to know that they don't have American troops there in perpetuity, and if they don't meet these obligations, but if, but it, but doesn't it also include rich, the idea, or at least this is the way it's being presented, that if these conditions are not met, then there want, the money will not be there. Well, yeah, the House bill has benchmarks this year, but even if they're met, they want the drawdown to start next year in March, I think, be through by September 08, February 8th. Senate bill says, in 120 days, the drawdown has to begin, shall begin. So this is really a debate over whether the war is going to begin ending or not, and that's a huge debate. You think a deal could still be made? Well, I think, I really think the responsibility is with the White House. I don't think the Congress wants to go back to 1995 and the showdown or whatever. I think that still echoes in a number of people's minds what happened to, it was the end of New Kingdom, which effectively is a public figure, which you think the President
has got more going for, and he's going to veto it, and then we're going to get closer to the time when it's really going to start pinching, not to have this spending bill settled one way or the other, and then the question is, do Democrats really want to have the climactic fight then, or wait until the later in the summer of the fall? I think the politically more careful and risk-free thing would be to wait, but I'm not sure whether that's what they're going to do on. One thing to understand, the President has leverage in that sense as Commander-in-Chief. What the President doesn't have is he's lost the confidence in his policies, the personal confidence in American voters, and the trust in his Iraqi policy. So the Democrats are on the side there, but they don't have the leverage of changing policy, and I think that's really where it is. Eventually, if it does come to that, we'll reach this, describe that again, chicken. That's always the possibility, and I can't believe the President reject this, that there
would be a 30-day continuing resolution to fund it no matter what. And the Congressional Reference Service came out today and said there is enough money to go into June and perhaps into July, so it's not a matter of urgency, emergency. Quickly before we go, presidential politics, two things have happened on the Republican side, Fred Thompson is suddenly boom, good number three in the polls. And the Democratic side, John Edwards, has come up considerably since the situation arose with the recurrence of cancer with his wife. What's going on here, Mark? Well, I think, first of all, John Edwards, John Edwards, this put a human face on what has been his issue, which is health insurance. He's John Edwards' cast himself as a truth teller, he says it's going to have to erase taxes to have universal health care. And I think that even the harshest critics would acknowledge there wasn't a false note struck. Either John, or Elizabeth Edwards, and either of those periods, when they disclose the illness, when they went on 60 minutes, and she actually made the case for him staying in the race.
And it seemed her trust and confidence in him carried the day. Fred Thompson. It's extraordinary. He does a couple media appearances in these third place in the Republican race, basically, which speaks to how fluid and dynamic the race is and the discontent, especially among conservatives with the current candidate. Sure. And he seems to be taking votes from all of them, potentially. But if he gets in, it really hurts Mitt Romney. And may make it impossible for Mitt Romney to win. And three weeks ago, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that he's playing with this. It's good for his name ID. It's nice to be out there. But I was talking to people today in a position to know who now put it about 50-50 that he may get in, because those polls have caught his eye. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you both, Premier. Great to see you again. And again, the major developments of this day, Attorney General Gonzalez insisted again. He was not heavily involved in the decisions to fire eight federal prosecutors, and
President Bush visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. He apologized for problems without patient care. And once again, to our honor roll of American Service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, we add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Here in silence are eight more. You're really happy all day. Washington, we can be seen later this evening on those PBS stations.
We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the new hour with Jim Lara is provided by each person has a unique way of seeing the world. That's why for over 135 years, Pacific Life is offered the power of choice. Pacific Life provides a full power of financial and estate planning solutions to help you achieve your vision of your future. Pacific Life, the power to help you succeed. We've discovered the world's most powerful energy. You'll find it in everything we do.
Uncover it in all the places we work. And see it in our more than 55,000 employees. It's called human energy. And it's the drive and ingenuity that we'll never run out of. Chevron, Human Energy. And by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, the Atlantic Philanthropies, the National Science Foundation, and with the continuing support of these institutions and foundations. And this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. It's of the new hour with Jim Lara. Call 1-866-678-News. I am PBS.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Good evening, I'm Jim Lara, on the news hour tonight the news of this Friday. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.
