With regard to detention, look, we can detain illegal aliens now who are out of the law, who are not doing what is right. Why wouldn't we be able to detain terrorists and people who we know are connected with al Qaeda and with Osama bin Laden or with other terrorist cells not only here in this country but in other countries as well?
SCHIEFFER: It seems to me that a lot of this is very detailed. It's very complicated. Perhaps only lawyers would really understand the differences in some of the proposals. But I think the bottom line to me this morning is, hearing you and hearing Senator Leahy, it seems the Congress is much closer to coming to an agreement today than it was, say, a week or so ago.
HATCH: Well, in 1996 we weren't. Today I think we can. We've to get this done, I think, into the hands of the president by October 5. That's what the president has asked for, that's what John Ashcroft has asked for. If we don't do it, we risk the whole country or at least having another incident that could cost the American people very, very dearly.
SCHIEFFER: I'm very sorry, I'm going to have to let it go.
SCHIEFFER: OK, go ahead.
LEAHY: Bob, we also have to look at a lot of things. There's a huge amount of information the FBI and Justice Department have now. We have to ask, why weren't translators hired long ago? We have to start doing some of those pragmatic things. No law is going to change the fact if you have information in your files that might have prevented some of these things and it was overlooked. We've got to do a far better job of that.
HATCH: Well, but these laws will change. They will give them the tools necessary to be able to do a much better job against anti-terrorists and other types of criminals that were affiliated with terrorists.
SCHIEFFER: All right. I'm sorry...
LEAHY: Translators in the first - I'd hire a few translators in the short term.
HATCH: Well, they're in the process of doing that.
SCHIEFFER: I'm sorry, gentlemen, I must end it at that point. We'll be back in just a minute with more on all of this.
SCHIEFFER: With us now from Florham Park, New Jersey, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
Senator Lieberman, it is my understanding that you want to introduce a new legislation to create an agency to address home security. What's that all about?
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERAN, D-CT: That's absolutely right, Bob.
I apologize for the sore throat first.
The most important national security challenge that we have now is to defend our homeland. We have never had to do that before in our history, but now we know we must. And it cannot be done best by just having somebody coordinate the agencies that are involved in homeland defense.
It is clear that our guard was down before September 11. I did a hearing last week on airline security, and the looseness of the system before September 11 was awful. We're going to tighten that now, but we've got to tighten every other system of homeland defense to prevent, protect and then respond if there's another attack.
And I think that means giving - creating a separate agency and giving the director of it budget authority and line authority and therefore accountability. If you just, as the White House, with all respect, seems to be doing, create another adviser to the president, there's no guarantee that that person will be able to protect us and force the federal bureaucracy to protect us better than they did before September 11.
BORGER: Senator Lieberman, you just heard the debate before you between Senators Hatch and Leahy. Do you believe that we are moving too quickly on legislation affecting civil liberties?
LIEBERMAN: I do not, Gloria. I think it's critically important to adopt this legislation and resolve our differences, because there is a clear and present danger to the security of the American people at home.
Let's remember that we were not only attacked on September 11. We were actually invaded before September 11 by these terrorists who abused the freedom that America provides in planning and preparing for these attacks. And I want to give the attorney general and law enforcement throughout this country every opportunity and power to stop that from happening again.
Now, obviously, we want to protect freedoms, but we do get to a point where we cannot cover every worry about law enforcement in America misusing a power we're going to give them.
And we have to trust the attorney general, the FBI, local prosecutors and police.
They're on our side. And so long as there's judicial review, if they abuse our trust, then those who are the victims of that abuse will be able to go to court. And if they truly abuse our trust in this wonderfully open society, we'll change the law and reduce the powers that we've given to them.
But I think it's time now to pass this legislation. I think Pat Leahy and Orrin Hatch can work it out, and I think we ought to try to do it as soon as we possibly can.
SCHIEFFER: All right. Senator, hold that thought for just a moment, and we'll be back.
SCHIEFFER: And we're back now with our expanded edition of Face the Nation, Face the Nation page two. We've been talking to Connecticut Senator Joe Leberman.
Senator Lieberman, part of what's going to happen on Capitol Hill next week is the Congress is going to have to start thinking about some kind of a stimulus package for the economy. Number one, do you think a stimulus package is necessary? And number two, what are your ideas on what it should be?
LIEBERMAN: Yes, Bob. This economy was going into recession before September 11. Obviously we have a crisis of confidence, consumer confidence, particularly now, that has put us more toward a recession.
I think we do need a stimulus package, but it's very important to remember two things: First, we have the strongest economy in the world, so the American people should not lose confidence in our economic future. And ultimately the private sector will bring us out of this. We can give them a little help, though.
Second, whatever we do, we shouldn't spend so much on tax cuts or a stimulus that we take our government so far into deficit that we raise interest rates that make it hard for the Federal Reserve and Mr. Greenspan to keep interest rates low, which is probably the best thing to get the economy going.
So, specifically, I think we ought to give the 35 million Americans who work and pay payroll taxes but did not get a rebate earlier this year exactly the same rebate that everybody else got.
Secondly, I think we ought to not fall for the easy answer on the business stimulus and give some sort of across-the-board capital gains cut, or even a corporate tax cut.
I think we ought to focus in on tax incentives that will help business invest again and create jobs and growth. And that means investment tax credits, particularly geared to small businesses, and particularly to help them buy computer hardware and software, attach themselves to the broadband. Those high-tech sectors were the ones that drove us down toward the recession. We now have to help them forward.
And I'd try one more thing. I'd accelerate depreciation for businesses that invest, making it more likely that they will and create growth.
I'd also try a different kind of capital gains tax cut, one that said to people who invest in new businesses in the next year, if you hold that investment for a couple of years and you then sell your stock, you don't pay any capital gains. And that's a way not to encourage people to sell their stock that they own now and therefore drive market prices down, but to get money to entrepreneurs to create new growth and new jobs.
Bottom line, I think a little bit of a fiscal stimulus, tax cuts as I've described. And the natural power of the American economy to recover will bring us back next year.
SCHIEFFER: All right. Senator Lieberman, we're going to let you rest your voice a little bit now. Thank you so much for joining us this morning.
LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: We're going to turn now to another aspect of this story, and that is the airlines and airline safty.
Joining us from Gloucester, Massachusetts, the former American Airlines CEO Robert Crandall. Here in the District, here in our studio, Captain Duane Woerth, president of the Airline Pilots Association.
Gentlemen, the president of course laid out his proposals last week. He talked about increased security in the airline cockpits. He talked about sky marshals on airplanes. He talked about federal supervision of the baggage screeners in airports.
I'll start with you, Mr. Crandall. Is that enough?
ROBERT CRANDALL, Former CEO, American Airlines: No, I don't think it is, Bob. I think there's been a lot of enthusiasm, and I think you've got to give the president credit for focusing on this problem.
But what I think we need is an integrated security system from stem to stern. We need to start by integrating the reservation systems with the CIA and the FBI and the anti-terrorism intelligence. Then I think we've got to have, at the screening point, uniformed federal employees carefully trained, well-paid. We've got to find a way to search or X-ray every bag that goes into the belly. We've got to secure the ramp area, that is the area where the airplanes are parked. And, finally, we've got to focus on in-the-air security, which is things like cockpit doors and air marshals and, under appropriate conditions, armed pilots.
When we do all of that as an integrated whole, then I think we'll have the security we need, and we've got to do it forever.
The president said it's going to be a long war. It is going to be a long war. We've got to make the airways safe, so we can revitalize the economy. And that's what I hope we'll move forward with doing.
SCHIEFFER: What would you add or subtract from that, Captain?
CAPT. DUANE WOERTH, President, Air Line Pilots Association: Well, I would support everything Mr. Crandall said. I've submitted 21 items to both the Senate and the House of immediate-action items which were included in his list, and nine long-term issues.
We believe that integrated system has one level of security. Every small airport, cargo has to be treated with the same equivalence that we do to passenger terminals. That could have been a FedEx or a UPS airplane. Every part of our aviation community has to have the same level of professional security.
BORGER: Mr. Crandall, if were you a pilot right now, would you want to carry a gun?
CRANDALL: Yes, I would. I'd want to be - I'd want to go - many pilots have military backgrounds. I'd want to freshen my training, but yes, I would want to carry a gun. I wouldn't ever want to use it, and I would hope that all the elements of our security system would keep the airplane safe. But as a final resort, as the last resort, I think a trained professional pilot who knows how to use a gun and who can defend the airplane and the people on it and the people to which that airplane might be directed is a step we oughto take.
BORGER: Mr. Woerth, before September 11, the prevailing theory among pilots was that, if you found yourself with a hijacker on an airplane, you ought to cooperate with the hijacker.
BORGER: Do you now have to kind of rewrite the book?
WOERTH: We have to completely rewrite the book. That was the previous thinking. And for the threats we knew, that was right. I mean, most hijackers were despondent, they wanted political asylum. They wanted something. They weren't skilled, assassin, suicidal people. We have to rewrite everything. And if we don't do radical differences, we won't improve the system.
BORGER: So is it OK for pilots to solicit vigilantes among passengers, as some have been doing?
WOERTH: Well, I think the captains have taken control of the ship like they had to. Until all these activities are put into place, until we have the federal marshals, until the security system is more integrated and solid, a captain's been doing what they're paid to do. They've taken charge. They work with their crew which includes the flight attendants. And a lot of them have been telling the passengers in a calming manner - I've had good reports from the passengers that they are comforted by their captains in charge of this airplane and he knows what he's going to do.
SCHIEFFER: Mr. Crandall, do the airlines have to accept some of the blame here? Because, after all, it's the airlines - they were in charge of the security up until now basically and were pretty much taking it to the lowest bidder.
I saw a report down in Fort Worth, down in your home territory, where one of those security agencies was recruiting in a homeless shelter. I don't know how far they got with that or where that went, but it just is kind of one of many anecdotes about how lax the security had become.
CRANDALL: Bob, I think you would find that everybody in the aviation community feels very badly and is ashamed of the lax standards of security.
But I do want to make this point. The federal government has always been in charge of aviation security. They made the rules. The aviation industry, the airlines, myself, have long agitated to have the federal government take it over with federal employees, ideally uniformed and armed employees. It is the federal government itself that farmed it out to the airlines, who in turn farmed it out to the lowest bidders.
That was a mistake, and that is why I said earlier, we have not gone far enough. This is a federal policing, home-defense function. Let's put it where it belongs. Let's put it to a professional agency. Let's not have people on minimum wage screening our airplanes. That makes no sense.
SCHIEFFER: And let's talk about National Airport, the only airport in the country that has not reopened, the airport here in Washington. Do you think, Mr. Crandall, and Captain Woerth, can it be reopened
WOERTH: I would say absolutely yes.
WOERTH: Well, go ahead, Bob.
CRANDALL: I'm sorry, Duane.
Yes, I think it can be re-opened. Keep in mind, Bob, that the airplane that was used in this horrible thing on September 11 came from Dulles. That's only about two minutes' flight time away from the principal buildings of government.
I think when we put a properly integrated security plan in place, when we have the right kind of air-to-ground communication, that we're going to have adequate warning of any airplane that might be subject to aberrant behavior, and there is no reason why we cannot and should not open National Airport and open it promptly.
WOERTH: National Airport should be opened at the earliest possible time.
SCHIEFFER: And it can be done safely?
SCHIEFFER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you so much.
We'll continue our expanded coverage on Face the Nation after this short break.
SCHIEFFER: Well, we're back with this expanded edition of Face the Nation. We're going to talk with our panel of roundtable guests in just a minute, but before we do that, we want to check in with CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey, who is in Pakistan this morning.
SCHIEFFER: Well, joining us now from Atlanta, Georgia, former Senator Sam Nunn. Here in our studio, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen and Tom Friedman of the New York Times.
Well, let's talk a little bit about what Allen Pizzey just said. Bill Cohen, what about this report? And how would you assess it, that the Taliban says, yes, well, yes, we do know where he is, but we're keeping him in a secret place?
WILLIAM COHEN, Former Secretary of Defense: Well, you may recall on this very program we went through this last week, in which first they said, "Show us the evidence and we'll consider releasing him to you." Then they said they didn't know where he was. Now they say they know where he is. I think it's on-again, off-again, depending upon how threatened they feel, in terms of their own existence, as a force in Afghanistan.
So I would take it, at this point, with - cum grano salis, a grain of salt, and just continue to do what the president was doing.
SCHIEFFER: Sam Nunn, as a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and someone who's dealt with these issues for many, many years, what do you make of this report this morning?
Former SEN. SAM NUNN, D-GA, Co-Chm., Nuclear Threat Initiative: Bob, it certainly seems to me that the president's on the right course. We have people in Pakistan that are communicating with the Taliban. They know clearly what our demands are. We're not going to have a court of law present all the evidence to them. We certainly can communicate through the Pakistan leadrship, as we're doing. So I think the president's on the right course.
SCHIEFFER: Tom, would it be in our interest if we captured Osama bin Laden dead or alive? Which would be better?
TOM FRIEDMAN, New York Times: Well, I think that the Bush administration would like him dead or dead, basically. The last thing that I think the administration wants is Osama bin Laden in their hands, which would immediately make every American ambassador, every American multinational, every American citizen abroad a potential target for hostage swaps. I think it would be a huge hornet's nest if they brought him in alive.
At the same time, you know, on this Taliban matter, I would say, Bob, I think the Taliban are never going to say they're going to turn him over. I mean, that's just not going to happen. They may say, we're never going to turn him over there, I mean, and give us a little indication where he is. But they're going to go down saying, "We never turned him over."
And as Secretary Cohen said, every time we tighten, you know, the noose around this country, it seems to get their attention a little bit more. One thing we learned from Kosovo, people don't like to get hit by the United States. And I think that applies to the Taliban, too.
BORGER: Secretary Cohen, it seems that this investigation has truly expanded abroad and may now in fact may be focused in abroad. There is an Algerian pilot in London that we are trying to extradite. Some people believe he has been at the center of these terrorist cells.
Do you believe that, in fact, there's a whole other army of terrorists in waiting in Europe right now?
© MMI, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved