The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight a look at the French criminal justice system, four opinions on what the just-returned Congress should do now, the official American and Mexican views of how anti-drug efforts are going, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay about an architect and his city. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The British royal family said today it was deeply touched by the overwhelming public reaction to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. An announcement from Buckingham Palace also said Diana's funeral procession has been expanded to accommodate the thousands of mourners expected in London on Saturday. We have reports from Tim Ewart and Lindsay Taylor of Independent Television News.

TIM EWART: The last minute decision to start the funeral procession from Kensington Palace follows mounting concern about the number of people who will line the route. The prime minister emerged into Downing Street to explain the reasons.

TONY BLAIR, Prime Minister, Britain: All our energies are now directed towards trying to make this as tremendous a commemoration of Princess Diana as possible, to make sure that we have all this many people as possible, so that we can express our own sense not just of national loss, of personal loss, which I think people feel a personal loss, themselves, and make it a service, an event at which she would have been proud.

TIM EWART: At Westminster Abbey they were preparing for a funeral it's now predicted will draw at least 2 million people to Central London. The role of Diana's sons, Princes William and Harry, and their position in the procession will not be decided until Saturday morning. It's been made clear their wishes will be respected. On Friday, their father will bring them to London to pay their respects at their mother's resting place. That night the royal train will bring the queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, and the queen mother back from Balmoral. And Diana's mother, Frances Shand Kydd, has left her home in Scotland to fly to London. In Hyde Park two giant 33-foot screens will show live television coverage of the service for those unable to reach the route of the cortege.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: For the crowds paying tribute to the Princess's memory at Buckingham Palace and at other locations around the world. Royal words of appreciation today: A statement saying that all the royal family are taking strength from the overwhelming public support and their sharing the grief and the loss will be welcomed by many. Today's statement from Buckingham Palace will be seen by some as a response to criticism of the royal establishment's handling of Diana's death. Many had been contrasting the outpouring of popular grief and emotion with the silence and perceived detachment of senior members of the royal family. Immediately after the palace tragedy, Buckingham Palace issued a statement saying that the queen and the Prince of Wales were deeply shocked and distressed by the terrible news. Since then, there had been nothing until today. The absence of the flag at half mast at Buckingham Palace upset many people, and the absence of the royal family, who've remained at Balmoral throughout, has dismayed others. In today's "Sun" Newspaper an editorial criticizes the royal family's response and states bluntly, "All the royals can do is pull up the drawbridges on their emotional castles and retreat into an artificial world where all that matters is doing it by the book." This evening, in an unusual move, the Prince of Wales' press secretary spoke on his behalf.

SANDY HENNEY, Prince Charles' Press Secretary: All I can say that at a time when you lose a member of the family, I think you want to be at home with the family. And that's where the royal family are at the moment, at home in Balmoral with each other.

JIM LEHRER: The West London Coroner's Office today announced it will hold an inquest into Diana's death. A spokesman said it was routine for all British citizens who die suddenly overseas and whose bodies are returned for burial. It will begin after the French investigation is completed. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. In Cambodia today 63 people died in an airliner crash. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun-Sen said there were three survivors. The Russian-built Vietnam Airlines plane crashed into a rice paddy near the Phnom- Penn Airport runway. Most of the passengers were from South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Germany. Only the plane's tail section and a portion of the fuselage remained intact. The cause of the crash was unknown. In Washington, the House of Representatives went back into session today after a month's recess. Debate began immediately on spending bills to keep the government running after the start of the fiscal year, October 1st. The Senate reconvened yesterday. Today it approved an additional $29 million to help prevent under-aged teens from buying cigarettes. It was added to an agriculture spending bill. In Massachusetts, President Clinton said he expected a Republican effort to take away funding for his national standardized testing plan.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think it would be a terrible mistake for people who are afraid our children can't measure up, or who have a misguided notion that somehow the federal government is trying to take over the direction of education in America to persuade members of Congress not to fund the tests. And that's basically an issue we're going to be fighting out over the next few weeks.

JIM LEHRER: The Republican chairman of the House Education & Workforce Committee is Bill Goodling of Pennsylvania. He said he would propose an amendment to prevent the Education Department from spending any money on national standardized tests. We'll have more on Congress's return later in the program. Also in Washington today the leader of the Irish Republican Army's political wing met with White House and congressional officials. Gerry Adams asked for American support for next Tuesday's peace talks. They are aimed at devising a new plan for governing British-ruled Northern Ireland. His group, called Sinn Fein, wants to unite the North with the rest of the Irish republic. Adams urged Irish-Americans to promote his cause.

GERRY ADAMS, President, Sinn Fein: I think in a world which is so much a global village essentially saying to people here, you can play a direct role, a very direct role in what is happening in Ireland, and you can influence directly the thinking of the British prime minister on No. 10 Downing street by encouraging the thinking of the Congress and the Senate and the White House here in the USA.

JIM LEHRER: It was Adams' first trip to Washington since the IRA broke a cease-fire last year and initiated a new one in July. At the Pentagon today the U.S. Army general commanding NATO said his troops would use lethal force to protect themselves in Bosnia. NATO troops faced down hostile Serb mobs last Thursday and Friday. And American soldiers were harassed this week as they secured a key television tower. General Wesley Clark told reporters mob action against NATO stabilization forces, or S-FOR, in the Serb area had to stop.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe: The instances that you've seen recently give me great cause for concern because they betray a pattern on the part of some people to attempt to dissuade S-FOR from accomplishing its mission. We will not be deterred by mob violence or threats of mob violence. We will use all means necessary, including lethal means, to protect our forces and to continue our mission.

JIM LEHRER: In Phoenix today Arizona Governor Fife Symington was found guilty on seven counts of fraud for falsifying documents to obtain millions of dollars of loans. The two-term Republican must now give up his office. He announced late today he will resign on Friday. The charges stemmed from his previous career as a real estate developer. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the French criminal justice system, what should Congress do now, fighting drugs with Mexico, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. FOCUS - FRENCH LAW

JIM LEHRER: The French legal system, which is investigating the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: The investigation of the Paris car crash that killed the Princess of Wales and two others has centered around six photographers and a motorcycle driver. That investigation is being conducted in a system that has some similarities and some major differences with criminal law in the United States. Here to explain are Anthony Kahn, a partner of the New York-based international law firm of Kudere Brothers, his practice focuses on commercial and corporate law, and he has spent over three years practicing law in Paris, and Laurent Vonderweidt, a French citizen who is certified to practice law in both the United States and France. His California practice focuses on immigration, business, and French law. Mr. Kahn, could you briefly explain what has happened to these men since they were arrested within the confines of the French criminal justice system? What have they gone through exactly?

ANTHONY KAHN, Attorney: Well, the first stage is a period which could be up to 48 hours, and I believe it was that long in their case, where they are held by the French police, pretty much incommunicado. They can at one point, I think, about after 20 hours, see a lawyer, but he really can't do very much, other than make sure that they are all right. And the police in France have the advantage of that period of time to investigate these suspected crime and collect evidence which they will present to an examining magistrate at the end of that time.

PHIL PONCE: Is it fair to say that during that time that they got statements from these seven men, is that likely?

ANTHONY KAHN: That is certainly usually the case, that the individuals who are so arrested are kept in circumstances which are certainly not comfortable. And they are encouraged to tell their version of the story. Obviously, they can't be forced to do that, but they do not have the kind of Miranda warnings or other protections which you would expect in the United States, which might lead such an arrestee to say nothing at all to the police.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Vonderweidt, at this point, are the seven men, are they considered suspects, are they considered defendants?

LAURENT VONDERWEIDT, Attorney: That's a good question. I mean--and to follow up with what was just said and that happened I think yesterday--the police have gathered a number of information--they are going to reach some conclusion they are going to present to a magistrate, who in turn is going to decide if there is enough evidence that maybe further inquiry is necessary, and exactly what happened. And at that point, photographers in that case did not become suspects, but I will say target of the investigation. And that allows the magistrate--not-- the prosecution--to continue the investigation.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Kahn, as this investigation continues, I mean, what is the likely next step? What happens here?

ANTHONY KAHN: Well, the investigation may continue for quite a period of time. Obviously, the examining magistrate who will be collecting evidence in preparation for making a report on whether they should go to trial or not--will want to hear the evidence of the one survivor of the accident so that he will have to wait until that individual is ready to give testimony. He will collect other evidence from eyewitnesses. And on the basis of the evidence and his investigation, which is now a full investigation, he will make a recommendation to the prosecutor as to whether a trial should be sought against these individuals, and, if so, on what charges.

PHIL PONCE: And what charges are the most serious ones that are possible?

ANTHONY KAHN: Well, there is a charge very similar to the one that would exist in the United States of involuntary homicide similar to our manslaughter charge, which is certainly a potential charge. But unlike the United States, there are a couple of other charges which could be brought in France. One is a violation-- alleged violation of the Good Samaritan Law--which is a legal obligation in France upon onlookers to an accident to help someone in danger. You have an obligation in France to stop, call for help, and if you can--without endangering yourself--assist someone in danger. The law says that you must do that. And, of course, it is possible that they will be charged with failing to respect that law.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Kahn, to what extent do jurisdictions, criminal jurisdictions, typically states within the United States impose a Good Samaritan responsibility on citizens here?

ANTHONY KAHN: I think it's extremely rare, if it exists at all, in any of the states in the United States that the Good Samaritan obligations go as far as in France. We do have a good American law, which requires in varying degrees in different states, someone who begins to render assistance to continue to do so, and not to simply stop in the middle, for example, of giving CPR to someone. But I'm not aware of any state which goes as far as the French law goes in requiring someone who's a witness to actually assist an individual if it can be done without endangering himself.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Vonderweidt, is that an obligation that French citizens are generally aware of, their responsibility to help out?

LAURENT VONDERWEIDT: That's a question that may be difficult to answer, but I do not believe that, indeed, people are aware of this, this provision of the law, so that's pretty much what I can say. Again, I'm not sure they are aware of that. Now I'm sure they are.

PHIL PONCE: As far as the authority, Mr. Vonderweidt, of the investigating judge to impose sanctions like ordering somebody not to continue to practice their profession or journalism, is that--is that a fairly common thing to do?

LAURENT VONDERWEIDT: The court gives the authority to the magistrate to do that. In fact, it gives the magistrate broad latitude of what it can decide to do. I think we have to remember in that case is that the procedure is pretty standard; that the actors and the victims involved, you know, are certainly out of the itinerary--and it seems to me that maybe that--a case--some people make the argument that some of the measures taken by the magistrate were not necessary at the time.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Kahn, if there are charges filed and if there is a trial, differences between French trials and American trials, for example, does one have the right to remain silent in a French trial?

ANTHONY KAHN: Well, of course, one cannot be forced to speak. Legally, one can't be forced to say anything. The difference, however, is that there is not the same degree of warning that one has the right to remain silent. And in France, if one does remain silent, it can be held against you. The judges who make the determination in this case as to the culpability of the individuals will probably take into consideration the degree of cooperation that they've received, or the prosecutors have received, from the suspects. And someone who doesn't explain his actions or refuses to say anything is likely to have that held against him in France, which would not be the case here.

PHIL PONCE: And how about the presumption of innocence of guilt, how does that work, and what are the--is there a difference in the burden of proof, for example?

ANTHONY KAHN: There is the same basic presumption of innocence in France, as the one that exists in the United States, and the prosecutor, similarly, has a burden of proving the guilt of the individual defendants. However, the burden is not as great as it is in the United States, where, as we all know, one has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In France, in a crime of the type that we're talking about here, which may be charged against these individuals, the judges merely have to be convinced that the individuals committed the crime. There is no burden of proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judges are convinced that they committed the crime by a preponderance of the evidence, then they will be found guilty.

PHIL PONCE: Preponderance of the evidence being more of a standard that we associate in the United States with civil trials for example.

ANTHONY KAHN: That's right. If they are convinced it's more likely than not that the crime was committed by these individuals as charged, there will be a guilty verdict.

PHIL PONCE: And how would French law, Mr. Kahn, take into account the possibility that the driver of the car might have been intoxicated. How does that factor in into the respective responsibilities of the various parties?

ANTHONY KAHN: Well, it is, of course, a factor because the difficult question of what caused the accident is a key question. But I think it will be dealt with very differently in France than in the United States. In the United States, where the lawyers play a much more active role in the proceedings in a trial of this type, in a criminal trial, one would expect the lawyers for the defendants to make a major point of the alleged drunkenness of the driver and say that it makes it impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the photographers caused the accident. In France, on the other hand, the notion of shared responsibility is much more well developed. And the fact that the driver may have been culpable does not relieve necessarily the photographers of what they have been accused by some of doing.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Vonderweidt, if you were explaining to an American how the atmosphere or the mood in a French criminal trial is different from that which might exist in an American criminal trial, what are the differences?

LAURENT VONDERWEIDT: Yes. I think the most--the first difference is to the fact that in France you don't have juries, I mean, except for a very limited number of cases. And I--the photographers are going to be tried before a panel of three judges. That's the main difference. The other difference, also to mention, is that the victims of the--the family of the victims can join the civil lawsuit with a criminal procedure, so you would have--and you don't have the--it's a possibility. They don't have to do that, but if they do that, and I've heard that the--some members of the victims have done that--you would have the judge to decide first on the criminal side and then at the same time some trial to decide on the civil suit.

CHARLES KRAUSE: And with that, Mr. Vonderweidt, Anthony Kahn, I thank you both. FOCUS - WHITHER CONGRESS?

JIM LEHRER: Congress is back with conflicting priorities and agenda. We begin our look with this report by Tom Bearden.

TOM BEARDEN: Members of Congress just returned to Washington this week, but already are talking about finishing their work and leaving town as soon as possible.

SPOKESMAN: First of all, we'll read the headline--October adjournment. That sounds good.

TOM BEARDEN: The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Louisiana Republican Bob Livingston, will have a lot to stay about when Congress adjourns. Over the next several weeks he and his counterpart in the Senate, Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska, will have to guide 13 spending bills through Congress and on to the White House for the President's signature. And they need to be finished by October 1st, the beginning of the new fiscal year.

REP. BOB LIVINGSTON, Chairman, Appropriations Committee: We know from experience that failure to complete the appropriations bills in an expedient manner can, in fact, result in a political and public relations nightmare. We've been there before. We don't anticipate repeating that increment of history. And that's why I think that you will see the vast majority of members, both Republican and Democrat, lending their best efforts to working together to get this process completed as quickly as possible.

TOM BEARDEN: Livingston's optimism is based on the bipartisan cooperation that led to the five-year balanced budget agreement just before Congress recessed in early August.

REP. BOB LIVINGSTON: Because of the parameters of the budget agreement, which require for a little bit more spending this year, the controversy and the contention in our process will be less than it has been in previous years.

TOM BEARDEN: So far, the House and Senate each have passed their respective versions of seven of the spending bills. Differences must still be ironed out in conferences between the two chambers. The other six still remain to be passed by one or both Houses of Congress. The largest of those is the bill dealing with the Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education. But today, Chairman Livingston said one contentious issue contained in that bill had also been resolved by bipartisan compromise.

REP. BOB LIVINGSTON: One in which Henry Hyde, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, worked very hard with people of differing persuasions and reached an agreement on language to extend abortion prohibitions to HMO's.

TOM BEARDEN: And that bipartisan spirit was evident again this afternoon as the full House resumed action on spending for foreign operations.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, [D] California: In terms of the issue-by-issue consideration of the bill I think a great deal was accomplished because of your openness, accessibility, and spirit of bipartisanship.

REP. SONNY CALLAHAN, [R] Alabama: And it's been a pleasure working with you, your first year as ranking Democrat on our subcommittee. You've been a pleasure to work with, as has your entire staff. So it has been a joint effort, both Republicans and Democrats joining together to bring to the floor what I consider a responsible bill.

TOM BEARDEN: But not all is sweetness and light. There are serious disagreements over national educational testing to measure student performance: Funding for more B-2 Stealth bombers, keeping troops in Bosnia, preserving the National Endowment for the Arts, and funding for family planning services in third world countries. And there will be major disagreements on legislation outside of the appropriations process, including granting fast track authority to the President to negotiate trade agreements, distributing money for mass transit and highway projects contained in the re-authorized surface transportation bill, and most contentious this year, legislation to reform campaign finance laws. Today, Democrats in the House and Senate made it clear: Campaign finance reform would be at the top of their agenda.

REP. GEORGE MILLER, [D] California: My colleagues and the speaker should be aware that we are prepared to use all our means at our disposal to force a vote this month. No more business as usual, Mr. Speaker. The famous avoidance scheme on this issue is no longer acceptable. Our ability to honestly represent our constituents depends on our success in reforming the campaign finance laws. Already there is talk of adjourning the Congress as soon as possible to avoid addressing this issue. That is unacceptable.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: Our hope is that we can deal with campaign finance reform at a very early date, and my guess is that whether it's scheduled or not, we will be dealing with it sometime this month in the form of either amendment or a bill.

TOM BEARDEN: However, the 13 appropriations bills are the only must legislation on the congressional agenda. And once they're passed, it appears many members will be satisfied to leave the other issues unresolved, declare victory, and go home.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes the story from there.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, four views on what Congress should do this fall. From inside the House, Republican Congresswoman Marge Roukema of New Jersey and Democratic Congressman Sander Levin of Michigan; and from outside former Reagan White House official Gary Bauer, president of the Family Research Council, and Al From, president of the Democratic Leadership Council. Congresswoman Roukema, what do you think should be the Republicans' priorities this fall?

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA, [R] New Jersey: Well, now I'm not speaking for the Republican leadership, you understand, but I'm speaking as a Northeasterner. And I think, first of all, obviously, we have to get the appropriations bills passed. There is not going to be a shutdown, as you've heard. We're going to stop that senseless partisan bickering, I hope. That does not mean that we will not have differences. I, for one, am a proponent of opposing the President's proposal for national educational standards. And I'm going to join Chairman Bill Goodling of the committee in opposing that. I think that's a debate that we have to have within the Congress because it has implications for a national curriculum and kind of a ministry of education. And I think that's a longstanding debate, and it should not be in this appropriations bill. But probably the most important thing from my point of view--and it was stated in your introduction--as a partisan issue--and that is campaign financing reform. It is not necessarily a partisan issue. I and Christopher Shays on the House side have been leading that effort, but Republican Senator McCain has been very direct about his intention of doing everything he can on the Senate side to bring the issue before the American people. And I think that should be a priority. I know we're going to meet resistance from both Democratic House leadership, as well as Republican House leadership, but I'm looking for Sen. McCain's leadership here, because the Senate rules will probably permit better. In addition, I'd just throw in one other issue that I think will probably come up, and that is some of the things regarding welfare reform and the standards, the labor standards, whether it's minimum wage or some other standards that are still at issue between us.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Gary Bauer, do you share those priorities, as head of the Family Research Council, for Republican?

GARY BAUER, Family Research Council: Right. I think my priorities are a little bit different. I had some agreement with some of the things that the Congresswoman mentioned. Margaret, I think there are some really important issues that the country is divided over. And my heart actually sunk when I heard all that talk about bipartisanship because that usually means those problems are going to be ignored. Long-term, this fall and into next year, I hope they get to work on pro-family, flat tax proposals that are out there, and to get IRS off the back of the American people. I think that's very important, particularly if it recognizes human capital, our children, and investments in children. The second issue is doing something about extending to our unborn children the protections of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, beginning with ending partial-birth abortion and going on to further restrictions. But there are two issues this fall that I think it would be inexcusable if the Congress didn't deal with: one domestic, that is, giving educational choice to America's parents. We're sitting in a city where the schools aren't open again for the second summer because they haven't repaired the roofs. We just had a budget deal where we had an educational choice provision. The President insisted on taking it out. I wish my Republican friends wouldn't have agreed to that. They need to pass educational choice savings accounts this fall. The second issue is a more realistic China policy; one that's based on more than trade. We ought to be standing for American values, human rights values. We ought to restrict the transfer of technology so that our national security isn't harmed. And with a summit coming up in a couple of weeks we ought to insist that the Chinese show good faith by releasing some dissidents.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Congresswoman, that's quite a different agenda from Mr. Bauer, who represents some important conservative groups on the outside. And you've got members certainly within your party in the House who endorse that. How do you think the leadership's going to square that circle? I mean, you can't do it all.

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA: I don't--no, obviously we can't do it all, and I think the tax simplification question--he talked about flat tax--I would expect it would take the form of a simplification, and that would undoubtedly be deferred until next year. But I do want to say that with respect to the voucher question, I think that is a horrendously divisive one. I, for one, am opposed to the vouchers, but we can have a very useful debate on the tax-free deductions perhaps. I think that is feasible. Whether or not we can do it in this short time period I don't know. But on the fast-track for trade, now that is very divisive in the Republican Party. And I, as Northeast Republican and a large business constituency, I understand not only the business constituency but the job component of trade policy. And I think it's absolutely essential that we pass fast track.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's turn to the Democrats. Congressman Levin, what do you--I don't want to get too long a laundry list here, but what do you think should be the priorities, given the fact--I understand- -that Democrats can't exactly set the agenda, but you do have a President in the White House?

REP. SANDER LEVIN, [D] Michigan: Yes, we sure do. And we're going to try. Campaign finance reform clearly is a vital issue; it's a difficult issue. It can become bipartisan if the Republican leadership will schedule it for debate. That's the only way we're going to be able to consider it. I think the public is so sick of the present system that it's cynical it will ever change it. On welfare, Marge Roukema mentioned the standards issue. Look, I think people who are able-bodied on welfare should work. When they work, they should be treated as workers, not as second-class citizens. Fast track will also be an important issue. And I think it's vital that we understand what is really bothering people about the fast track issue. And it's this: In the last five, six years an increasing proportion of our imports have come from developing countries, which have much lower wages and tightly controlled economies. And what the American public wants an answer to is: How will this kind of increased competition not from Europe or Japan, but from low-wage countries, affect the standard of living in the United States of America?

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me just continue with Congressman Levin for a minute. You voted against NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, in '93, as many, many Democrats did. Are you ready to support the President on this, or is what you're saying, that you aren't ready to give him this fast track authority on trade agreements?

REP. SANDER LEVIN: If he faces up to this issue of competition with developing countries, I would support, but if he doesn't, I'll oppose it. I worked for the Uruguay Round, helped to shape the negotiations, voted for it. I'm in favor of expanded trade. But the dynamics of globalization are changing. And we have to look at the impact on the typical family in America.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And Al From, how do you think that the Republican leadership has said they're not ready to give these additional protections Democrats want, how do you think the President should handle this, and is this a priority?

AL FROM, Democratic Leadership Council: Well, first of all, I think the main priorities for the Congress this fall and into next year should be to build on the new center that is developing, the bipartisan center. I think the first priority is to make sure that Americas' leadership is maintained in the world economy, and that includes both passing fast track but also making sure, as Sandy Levin is trying to work out in the House, that the concerns of working people are dealt with so that everybody can be a winner in the world economy. But quickly, there are other priorities too. I think we need to pass the money for the educational testing. We need to--to me, the biggest challenges facing this country are making sure that our kids are well educated. That includes national standards. It includes accountability, which is what testing is. So we know whether people are failing, and I think some forms of choice, even though I'm not willing to go to voucher route, certainly charter schools. And finally, the two other priorities are taking care of the elderly. We made gigantic strides in a bipartisan way on Medicare in the Budget Act, but now I think we need to secure the entitlements for our senior citizens well into the 21st century, and we have a chance to reform them. And finally, what Sandy Levin talked about is campaign finance reform. We need to make sure that we preserve our democracy and strengthen it by looking at the campaign finance laws.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman, since we can't get into all these issues, let me ask you an overarching question that I think will help--will guide a lot of this. Gary Bauer said earlier that he was dismayed at all this talk of bipartisanship. Do you think that in the next couple of months the model should be the kind of bipartisan cooperation, even accommodation we saw between Republicans in the White House and Democrats, or should you be about defining differences now?

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA: Yes and no. Or, yes, all of the above. I guess I should say it that way. I'll tell you- -I think we have to stop the partisan bickering and deal with the issues that count with the American people. That having been said, I do think that there are some areas where we simply have to draw the line in the sand. It may be on that educational testing question at least until Congress, the committee on which I serve, Education & Workforce Committee, has a chance to deal with it, rather than circumventing it through a loophole in the appropriations process.

MARGARET WARNER: And you would say that even if the President is threatening to veto that bill?

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA: I think we have to face that. I think we have to confront it. I'm prepared to look that issue in the eye. I think there is another question--and I guess that's on the fast-track issue. I don't know--I don't know how that will work out. I think the President and the Congress on a bipartisan basis can deal with that. But speaking now again for myself, I think we've got to confront the campaign financing, deal with it in a real way, because I think it's the subterranean issue that is badly eroding our democracy, and if we don't face up to it and get some leadership, particularly with the Thompson hearings going on in the Senate, then I think it speaks very badly about the Congress.

REP. SANDER LEVIN: Could I say just a word on that, because the question is whether Marge Roukema is going to help set the pace for the Republicans--and I admire your position on this--or whether you're going to be in a distinct minority. It's up to the Republican leadership, as well as the Democratic leadership, but the Republican leadership controls the scheduling of these issues. If we don't act in 1997 on campaign finance reform, forget it about 1998. And I just want to express my own feelings, as someone who's been involved in the political process for a long time. They way we finance campaign is distorting the democratic process in Washington, D.C., and we've got to change it and change it in 1997.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Gary Bauer--

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA: Let me add something--

MARGARET WARNER: No. Let me let Gary Bauer back in this just for a minute on that point. The Republican leadership is threatening not to schedule this. The Democrats are threatening to hold up the business of the House, as we just heard Congressman Miller say. What do you think the Republican leadership should do on it?

GARY BAUER: Well, I admire the chutzpah of the Congressman and dwelling on this issue, given that the Vice President of his party finds himself today in even more hot water on campaign finance reform issues. But, Margaret, the problem is neither party wants to deal with their own particular base of support. The Democrats don't want to restrict union dues going into political campaigns. My Republican friends are hesitant to restrict corporations. If they would both agree to restrict both of these special interests, we probably would have some progress on the issue.

MARGARET WARNER: You slightly dodged my question. Should the Republican leadership schedule something or not?

GARY BAUER: Well, I think it would--I don't have any problem with them scheduling it, but I think that there ought to be a fair and open debate that points out that there are a number of special interest groups here. If I could make one other point, the issue to me is not fast track, going back to that issue of trade. We are currently trading with companies in China that are owned by the Chinese military--

MARGARET WARNER: I'm going to interrupt you because I want to get your view, Al From, just on campaign finance. Do you think finally this is going to come to a vote?

AL FROM: Well, I think, in large part, it will depend on the Republicans. I think it's been clear from what Congressman Levin has said, the clips you had from Sen. Daschle, that the Democrats want to put that issue before the American people this fall. Republicans control the Congress. So if the Republicans are willing to have it come up, then we can have the kind of debate that Gary Bauer wants. If not, then we're going to have to try to do it by the amendment route, which doesn't allow as much debate.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you, all four, very much. I'm sure we'll be back to discuss some of these issues again.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the U.S.-Mexico drug effort and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. FOCUS - DRUG WAR

JIM LEHRER: Charles Krause has the drug story.

CHARLES KRAUSE: The U.S.-Mexico border stretches for 2,000 miles from Texas to California, providing an entry point for an estimated 50 to 70 percent of all the illegal drugs imported into the United States. It's an enormous business worth $25 to $35 billion a year, about twice as much as the U.S. and Mexican governments together spend on trying to stop it. Tijuana, on the California border, and Juarez, across from El Paso, are Mexico's two principal drug trafficking centers--poor and teeming cities where drug money and drug-related violence have largely undermined law enforcement efforts aimed at curbing the drug dealers. Twelve Mexican police or drug enforcement officials were gunned down last year in Tijuana alone, and most of the city's more than 200 other murders were also believed to have been drug related. This year, the violence has spread to Juarez, where a series of execution-style murders has shaken a city that's no stranger to drug-related violence. The latest casualties appear to be victims of a power struggle to replace Amado Carrillo Feuntes, one of Mexico's richest and most powerful drug traffickers, who died last July, after plastic surgeons spent over eight hours in Mexico City trying to change his appearance. The United States has long demanded that Mexico do more to stop the drug trade and drug traffickers, providing millions of dollars' worth of training and equipment, along with rosy assessments that the situation was improving. But last February, Mexico's drug czar, Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, was arrested on unprecedented charges of taking money from drug traffickers. That news was then followed by reports that other high level government officials, including the brother of Mexico's former president, Carlos Salinas, were also involved in drug trafficking and corruption. The revelations nearly forced President Clinton to decertify Mexico in this year's report to Congress on international drug cooperation. The President resisted but the damage to Mexico's image had been done, forcing the Mexican government to publicly acknowledge for the first time that drug money had corrupted much of the country's drug enforcement apparatus and many judges and politicians as well. In an interview with the NewsHour last May, Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo said his decision to create a completely new federal police force to combat drugs was evidence of his determination to fight Mexico's drug problem.

PRESIDENT ERNESTO ZEDILLO, Mexico: [May 5] I believe--and I want to be very clear about it--that wherever you have drug trafficking, there is corruption. There is perhaps one difference: We are fully recognizing that, and we are facing that challenge.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Gen. BARRY McCaffrey, the Clinton administration's drug czar, got a firsthand look at that challenge last week as he toured the U.S.-Mexico border. Security was especially tight after the FBI received what it called a credible threat that McCaffrey would be assassinated by a missile during his trip from El Paso and Juarez to San Diego and Tijuana. He was accompanied by high level Mexican government officials, including Mexico's attorney general.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Joining us now to report on his trip and the state of U.S.-Mexico drug cooperation is Gen. BARRY McCaffrey, whose formal title is director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and Eduardo Ibarolla, Mexico's deputy attorney general, who also took part in last week's trip along the border. Mr. Ibarolla joins us from Mexico City. Gentlemen, welcome.

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY [Ret.], Director, National Drug Control Policy: It's good to be here.

CHARLES KRAUSE: General, tell me what did you find down there? Is the situation as difficult as it looks?

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Well, I think it's generated enormous amounts of violence and corruption on both sides of the border, more than 200 Mexican police officers murdered, more than 400 violent incidents against our own law enforcement authorities. So we've got an opportunity here. The Gulf Cartel and the ACF gang have both been disrupted by her intensive intervention. We're going to have pile on and confront this issue in the weeks to come.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Now, I understand you're planning to recommend some changes, both in terms of force structures and more equipment down there. Tell me, what do you have in mind?

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Well, I think the attorney general, Janet Reno, and Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin really had the primary responsibility, but it's clear to most of us that at these 38 ports of entry we got 82 million cars, 3 + million trucks pouring back and forth across the most open border on the face of the earth. We've got to have technology to deter drug smuggling. And I think the second thing that is obvious to most of us is--

CHARLES KRAUSE: What kind of technology?

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Well, this last year's budget, bipartisan support of the Congress, put eight giant X-ray machines that were designed for Soviet ICBM's on to the border, so that in the coming year you're going to see these movable assets and the custom service, Sam Banks and Bob Rubin, our Secretary of the Treasury, are going to finally have a handle on some of this smuggling problem.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But we'll still need the Mexicans to cooperate.

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Sure. You can't do this unless both sides of the border, unless Mexican law enforcement and judicial authorities and intelligence systems meshed with ours. And that's our challenge, how to build a partnership in the years to come.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Ibarolla, in Mexico City, tell me, from your side of the border, how does this situation look? Is it better or worse?

EDUARDO IBAROLLA, Deputy Attorney General, Mexico: Well, as Gen. McCaffrey just stated before, for Mexico to fight on drugs is a priority. President Zedillo in his last State of the Nation a few days ago clearly said that this is a priority for Mexico, we are working very hard on that, and we, of course, have a very good program of cooperation not only with the United States but also with other nations of the world, and mainly with the Latin American countries.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Is there anything you can point to, though, specifically that demonstrates that there's been some real progress; that the flow of drugs from your country is being--

EDUARDO IBAROLLA: Well, certainly, this year is going to be a record year in cocaine seized and also in marijuana. We have seized until now a little more than 30 tons of cocaine that were captured in Mexican territory, and also the attorney general is--Mr. Madraso--is changing the whole institution that was devoted to fight drug traffickers. The new prosecutor's office has been changed from everything. We have new personnel. We have people that have been--that have passed several examinations, among others a polygraph, and we are trying to hire better people, honest people that are really devoted to this fight.

CHARLES KRAUSE: General, what's your assessment of how the Mexicans are doing?

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Well, tremendous effort. The U.S. Department of Defense and Mexican armed forces are cooperating. We're trying to give them 73 helicopters to increase their mobility so that the army and the police, who have destroyed more drugs than any other nation on the face of the earth can continue the effort. I think we're also seeing unprecedented cooperation between the two attorney generals, Madraso and Janet Reno. Extradition so that criminals can't flee justice in each country is part of our developing partnership.

CHARLES KRAUSE: On the other hand, you were personally embarrassed when Gen. Gutierrez was arrested earlier this year. What is the level of corruption like? Is it any better than it was?

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Well, clearly, this was a tremendous blow to the Mexican government, all those who believe that partnership is part of our effort. And Gutierrez Rebollo, of course, was arrested by Mexican authorities 62 days after he was put in office. They were unaware. He was a mole for one drug gang, operating against other drug gangs. I think we're going to see more cases of corruption on both sides of the border. Now, we've had some 600 cases of official corruption related to drugs in our country, and we've prosecuted mayors and sheriffs and police chiefs. The question isn't whether corruption exists but what are we going to do about it, and I think both sides are determined to try and root this out.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But if you don't mind, my question was: What are they doing about it? Because you've got to report back to Congress, and what are you going to tell them?

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Well, we're going to send a report over there another 10 days. I'm going to make sure you've got a copy of it right after we give it to Senators Coverdell and Feinstein. But essentially what we're going to do is try and catalogue specifically ten areas of Mexican-U.S. cooperation--talk about numbers, talk about what they're really doing. One area will be, obviously, intelligence sharing, evidence sharing, extradition, Mexican attempts to rebuild their law enforcement institutions, military to military cooperation, across the board, what are they actually doing?

CHARLES KRAUSE: Corruption?

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Well, in corruption, of course, they've got Gutierrez Rebollo on trial now, both military trial and civil trial, they tried to wrap up some 30 people they think were involved in his gang, and then the Mexican law enforcement authorities, thank God, did put tremendous pressure on Amado Carrillo Feuntes. He tried to flee the country and now is dead, fortunately. His gang is now murdering one another and Mexican law enforcement authorities, and unfortunately, innocent people also.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Ibarolla.

EDUARDO IBAROLLA: Yes?

CHARLES KRAUSE: In terms of corruption, do you think that the arrest of Gen. Gutierrez has served as a warning to other officials in the government and the police that maybe corruption is a bit more dangerous than it used to be?

EDUARDO IBAROLLA: Well, as Gen. McCaffrey said before, corruption is an--that exists not only in Mexico and the United States but everywhere in the world. But the most important thing is that we have a system that prosecute corruption cases and that we are putting in jail those that have been problems of corruption. That's the most important aspect of this problem. We are working on that. We have not only Gen. Rebollo in jail but other officials that unfortunately have the failing in this terrible mess of corruption--and also officials of the government, and even some of the judicial system. So we are working on that. There is no impunity in Mexico, and that's the important thing.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What about the general's point about the violence, the drug war between different drug dealers? What's your sense of that? Is that impeding the flow of drugs into the United States, for example?

EDUARDO IBAROLLA: Well, we are working on that. We are doing efforts, you know--the most--we have to keep in mind that the attraction of drugs is the demand of drugs. So we have to work also in demand reduction. Fortunately, we have in the bilateral agenda, in the high level contact group for drug control, one of the main topics of the agenda is precisely the main reduction. If we don't--if we don't work in the main reduction--if we are not successful in the main reduction, there is going to be enormous difficulties to fight drug traffickers.

CHARLES KRAUSE: General, this report that you mentioned earlier, essentially what Congress wants to know is whether or not Mexico is doing a better job, whether some of the problems that existed, came to light earlier this year, have been resolved. What are you going to be able to tell them? Are things any better than they were?

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Well, our own view is there's enormous commitment on the senior leadership. Both President Zedillo, as Attorney General Madraso, the foreign minister, Guria, their minister of defense, Cervante, so we think they're determined to address a fundamental threat to Mexico's democracy. And, in our view, you know, here our second biggest economic trading partner in the world--230 million people cross that border every year--what option do we have but to cooperate with these--with another democracy?

CHARLES KRAUSE: Good evening. We're going to have to leave it there for now. Thank you, General, and thank you, Mr. Ibarolla, in Mexico City. ESSAY - ALL THAT GLITTERS

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Anne Taylor Fleming considers the relationship between an architect and his city.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Here in this vast sprawl of old cottages and nouveau mansions lives the quirky little house that Frank Gehry built for himself and his family on this quiet Santa Monica Street back in 1977. He didn't really build it, nor did he renovate it. He re-conceived it, leaving the original two-story pink house inside and building a new chain link and corrugated tin house around it. The neighbors were offended and upset. But Gehry, who had already been a working architect for 20 years, saw it as his breakthrough, a witty, chaotic montage of new and old, a metaphor for a city that routinely paves over its past. Fast forward another 20 years and the man who fashioned that private house is at the peak of his powers, considered by many the world's best and most original architect. His crowning achievement is this branch of the Guggenheim Art Museum, on the gritty industrial waterfront in Bilbao, Spain. It's Frank Gehry writ large, an undulating mix of titanium and limestone, his signature-mixed metaphor of hard and soft, of buildings as sculpture. The problem for Frank Gehry is in his hometown. For over 40 years he hasn't been able to do his thing here on a large scale. And that difficulty goes right to the heart of how this city sees itself and doesn't see itself. Everybody talks about how trendy Los Angeles is, how cutting edge modern. From the seaside circus that is the Venice Beach Boardwalk, where the nouveau hippies do their freaky things, to Rodeo Drive, where the nouveau riche do their flashy thing, LA in the mind of the country and often in its own mind is the hottest, happeningest, hippest spot. But at the same time there is a strong conservative streak that runs through the heart of the city, a city that was founded by relocated Midwesterners who built solid industrial fortunes in business and journalism and shipping. They built a city with a tough, take-no-guff police force and a pin-striped, downtown establishment that wants very much to be taken seriously by the rest of the country, an establishment yearning for cultural recognition. And I'm not talking pop culture, movie stars and movie studios, but hard core high culture--museums and concert halls. These are the moneyed folk who decide who builds what in LA. And up till recently, Frank Gehry was considered too much a maverick, a risk. Richard Meier got the go-ahead to design this big new museum, the Getty, which sits atop a hill overlooking the San Diego freeway. And I. M. Pei is responsible for this building, an elegant limestone curve on a Beverly Hills corner that houses one of the city's top talent agencies--neither building fantastically daring. But then in the late 80's Frank Gehry finally did get a nod from the establishment to design the new Disney Concert Hall downtown. It seemed the city was finally going to reconcile its two sides; that the establishment was going to embrace the irreverent at last. People swooned over Gehry's model, a quirkily embracive hall that seemed to float in time and space. Almost immediately, the Disney project bogged down in egos and finger-pointing and cost overruns. But now the city has roused itself anew, raising a vast new sum of money to plow on with the building. Clearly, LA's civic ego and self-image have been irritated and embarrassed by the critical excitement over Bilbao, a cutting-edge building, built on time and on budget, rising in a tough, old Spanish seaport, while here in the sunny Futureland we can't seem to get our act together. Disney Hall is much more than the story of an architect and his city. It's the story of the city itself and the warring sides of its own soul, the entrepreneurial and the artistic, the past and the future, precisely the tension that Frank Gehry's own little house, recreated 20 years ago now, so clearly embodies. I'm Anne Taylor Fleming. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the Justice Department announced late today it would begin a preliminary inquiry into Vice President Gore's campaign fund-raising activities. The inquiry could lead to a formal investigation if evidence of wrongdoing is discovered. And the route of Princess Diana's funeral process was expanded to accommodate thousands of mourners on Saturday. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.