The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the big budget negotiations. Norman Ornstein provides an update. The Bosnian mission. Elizabeth Farnsworth talks to our six regional commentators. No more federal speed limits. Tom Bearden in Denver explores the impact, and then Margaret Warner has a conversation with retiring Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton was in England today, the first stop on a five-day diplomatic visit to Europe. He held a news conference with Prime Minister John Major at Ten Downing Street. The President congratulated Major and Irish Prime Minister John Bruton on yesterday's development in the peace talks for Northern Ireland. He praised the twin track peace process which separates disarming the Irish Republican Army from the rest of the peace negotiations.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: My message to the IRA is that the twin tracks process has provided a mechanism for all the parties honorably now to bring their concerns to the table and to be heard, and that in the end, peace means peace. And we're all going to have to support that.

JOHN MAJOR, Prime Minister, Great Britain: We can't deliver peace, John Bruton and I, we can't do that. What we can do is facilitate peace. And what we are putting in place is a process that will help to carry that capacity for peace forward.

MR. LEHRER: Major said Mr. Clinton's planned trip to Northern Ireland tomorrow helped concentrate the minds of those involved in the peace process. Later, the President made a formal visit to parliament. State trumpeters heralded his arrival in the Royal Gallery. In remarks, he stressed the importance of an international peacekeeping force for Bosnia.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, the warring parties in Bosnia have committed themselves to peace, and they have asked us to help them make it hold, not by fighting a war, but by implementing their own peace agreement. Our nations have the responsibility to answer the request of those people to secure their peace. Without our leadership and without the presence of NATO, there will be no peace in Bosnia. We know that if we do not participate in Bosnia, our leadership will be questioned and our partnerships will be weakened, partnerships we must have if we are to help each other in the fight against the common threats we face.

MR. LEHRER: Back in Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said 17,000 U.S. troops will provide air, sea, and technical support for the 20,000 Americans on the ground in Bosnia. The additional forces will be stationed offshore and in countries neighboring Bosnia. U.S. negotiator Richard Holbrooke talked about that and other matters at a briefing for congressional Democrats today. He told them the President needs their support.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE, Assistant Secretary of State: I think it would be a tragedy if Congress, which speaks for the American people, did not support this historic and vital action. This is certainly the most important foreign policy vote since Desert Storm, and Desert Storm, you will recall, was not initially popular. It took a while to hold up support and understanding. We don't have as much time. We have to explain to the American public that this is peace making, not war and that this is not Vietnam.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on sending U.S. troops to Bosnia later in the program. Republicans and Democrats continued their budget negotiations today. They met for less than two hours. Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the two sides will meet daily this week through Saturday. We'll have more on what's happening right after the News Summary. The House today again rejected the bill funding the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Veterans Affairs and other federal agencies. The majority ordered the Republican leadership to add more money for veterans' health programs. And the House also unanimously passed legislation to limit the influence of lobbyists, the first such reforms in 46 years. It now goes to the White House. President Clinton has said he will sign it. The President did sign legislation last night that will allow states to set their own speed limits. The federal limits have been 55 on urban segments of interstate highways, 65 in rural areas. The new law goes into effect in 10 days. Some states are already set to raise or eliminate speed limits then. We'll have more on that story as well later in the program. There was more testimony today before the Senate Whitewater Committee. A former federal bank investigator said President and Mrs. Clinton were helped by ties to a failed Arkansas savings & loan. Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: Senators heard from former Resolution Trust Corporation investigator Jean Lewis. She led a 1992 investigation into the collapse of Madison Guaranty, the Arkansas savings & loan owned by James McDougal, the Clintons' former business partner in the Whitewater Land Development Company. Lewis said the Clintons benefited from McDougal's financial misdeeds at Madison and had some advice for the committee.

JEAN LEWIS, Former Bank Investigator: But if the committee wants to know what the Clintons knew about the corrupt activities resulting in losses to Madison, why not invite the Clintons to testify, as I am today and have in the past? Why not ask them directly?

MR. HOLMAN: Lewis said it was clear James McDougal used money misappropriated through Madison Savings & Loan to pay some of the Clintons' Whitewater debts.

JEAN LEWIS: Because these funds came through kited checks and were utilized for the benefit of Whitewater Development for paying its accountants, for making loans to itself, and for making Whitewater mortgage payments, the benefit that enured to Whitewater ultimately enured to the people who were involved in that corporation, which included Mr. and Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. and Mrs. McDougal.

MR. HOLMAN: Committee Democrats suggested Lewis long has held a political vendetta against the Clintons.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, Democratic Counsel: Did you express to a friend of yours in 1992 your view that Mr. Clinton was "a lying bastard?"

JEAN LEWIS: Obviously, Mr. Ben-Veniste, I will claim authorship of this document, and yes, sir, I did make that comment.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

MR. HOLMAN: The hearing ended abruptly late this afternoon when Lewis apparently became ill, complaining of chest pains. She left the room and was expected to be well enough to return tomorrow, when the Senate Committee continues its Whitewater investigation.

MR. LEHRER: Pat Schroeder announced her retirement today. The Colorado Democrat said she would not run for reelection to the House next year. She has served for 23 years and, as such, is the senior woman in the House of Representatives. She was the first woman appointed to the House Armed Services Committee. Schroeder joins a list of 20 announced House retirees. Republican Congresswoman Jan Meyers of Kansas became the 19th yesterday with her announcement. She chairs the House Small Business Committee. We'll have a conversation with another retiring woman of--woman member of Congress, Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, later in the program. Former Sen. David Durenberger was sentenced today to one year of probation and fined $1,000. The Minnesota Republican pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of abusing his congressional expense account. He was denounced by the Senate and did not seek reelection in 1994. Astronomers believe they may have found something new and important outside the Earth's solar system. It's a planet-like mass of gaseous material called a Brown Dwarf. Scientists from the California Institute of Technology and Johns Hopkins University announced their discovery today at NASA headquarters in Washington. They said it will take years to determine if the Brown Dwarf is really a big planet. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to a budget battle update,the Bosnia mission as seen by our regional commentators, the end of national speed limits, and a retiring Senator Kassebaum. UPDATE - BUDGET BATTLE

MR. LEHRER: The update on the budget negotiations is where we begin tonight. They began yesterday with the Republican Congressional leadership on one side of the table, the Democratic leadership and representatives of President Clinton on the other. The search is for a mutually agreeable way to balance the federal budget in seven years. Norman Ornstein is here to tell us where it stands as of tonight. Norm is a research scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who specializes in watching and explaining Congress. Good evening, sir.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Institute: Good evening.

MR. LEHRER: So, where do matters stand as of now?

MR. ORNSTEIN: Well, what they have basically done in the time since they reached an agreement before the Thanksgiving recess was to leave for Thanksgiving recess and come back and, in effect, discuss literally the shape of the table around which they would negotiate. It's looking more and more like those Vietnam peace talks in Paris 22 years ago, and how they would go about the process of organizing these discussions. What's happening now is preliminaries, Jim, to see who has the upper hand and what the agenda is here. And basically they first tried, the Republicans tried to get the President to submit a new budget that would come to balance in seven years.

MR. LEHRER: In other words, his version, and so they could then compare it to their version, which they've already passed, right?

MR. ORNSTEIN: Exactly. They said we won here, we got you to agree to a balanced budget in seven years, show us your budget and then we'll work the two out together. The President's response was, we won, we got you to agree that we would protect the programs of Medicare, Medicaid, the environment, and education; tell us how you would change your budget, and we'll see if we can make it work in seven years. So it's preliminaries now, and frankly, it's going to take at least a few more days before we can actually get down to serious discussions of how we can narrow the differences between the two approaches.

MR. LEHRER: Now, what I read today was that there were, they still have not come to agreement on what numbers to use, what economic numbers to use. Explain all of that, please, sir.

MR. ORNSTEIN: Part of the agreement to sit down and negotiate was that they would update the economic numbers and use numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. Now, a budget is, of course, how much money you take in and then how much you spend out. In the case of the federal budget, that is all highly dependent on the state of the economy. If the economy grows faster, you bring in more tax revenues. People have more money. You spend less money because you have less unemployment, people are requiring less from the federal government.

MR. LEHRER: Less services?

MR. ORNSTEIN: Less services.

MR. LEHRER: Social services. Okay.

MR. ORNSTEIN: And since we're talking here about an economy that's almost $7 trillion and a federal budget that now is about $1.6 trillion, very small differences for this next year, but especially if you compound over seven years, result in huge differences and amounts.

MR. LEHRER: Like what?

MR. ORNSTEIN: The congressional budget as originally proposed used numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, their own budget operation, they projected that over the seven-year period to 2002, the economy, the Gross Domestic Product, the GDP, would grow on an average of about 2.3 percent a year. The President's budget, coming from the Office of Management & Budget, his own office, projected growth during that same period of time of between 2.4 and 2.5 percent, 2.3, 2.5 doesn't seem like a lot. Over seven years those differences amount to well over $200 billion. Small differences in inflation, the Republican budget projected somewhat higher inflation, that means smaller tax revenues that are indexed to inflation and more outlays, and that means a difference of hundreds of billions as well. So the numbers here matter.

MR. LEHRER: And they matter in a practical sense, because then if they take the most optimistic numbers, then the Democrats would argue and the President would argue, well, we don't have to cut so much, right, because there will be more--

MR. ORNSTEIN: Exactly so.

MR. LEHRER: --more revenue.

MR. ORNSTEIN: Now, there are two reasons why the Republicans want to use more pessimistic numbers. One is a substantive one that, after all, you're, in effect, betting on the come here, if you use optimistic numbers and the economy doesn't pan out, then you aren't going to get the balanced budget that you promised. So you might as well use a prudent set of numbers. But the second reason is that that puts more pressure on for cutting spending. Now, what we know is that the Congressional Budget Office numbers that projected for this coming year and the existing year in which we're in seem to be very pessimistic based on the results that we now have. So they're already making adjustments to move up a little bit.

MR. LEHRER: Now, did they--did the Republicans agree in this deal, the deal that was signed and brought 'em to the table now, to adjust those figures in any way?

MR. ORNSTEIN: What the Republicans agreed to do, they say, is to use the newest set of numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, because these are continuously updated. We weren't expecting to get a new set of numbers until next February. Now, presumably, they're going to push forward their numbers, and what the White House has gotten in return to agreeing to use the Congressional Budget Office's numbers is that they will update them with the advice and, they say, the active participation of their own people, as well as some outside figures. And the private sector has generally been more optimistic than either the Congressional Budget Office or the White House. So if you--if you move just a little bit, if they accept the notion, for example, that we'll grow on average 2.4 percent over the next seven years, it probably means a hundred to two hundred billion dollars less that they have to take out of the spending stream. And that moves them considerably further towards reaching their goal of an agreement by December 15th.

MR. LEHRER: On personalities, who's actually doing the heavy negotiating thus far?

MR. ORNSTEIN: A part of the dispute was who would be at the table. The Republicans wanted a small number, four on each side, and they wanted basically to have just the White House representing the Democrats, Republicans in Congress, White House. The Democrats said, well what about Democrats in Congress, and that's something Republicans didn't particularly want. It took away that symmetry for them and it meant a different group. Basically, they've compromised. They're going to be a somewhat larger group. They'll be representatives of the three different contingents. And what we know is there will be some leadership representatives there. Dick Armey, the Majority Leader in the House, will be there; Trent Lott, the Whip in the Senate, will be there. We will have representatives of the Democratic leaders in Congress, including Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and somebody from the House side. And we'll have more principals, the budget principals, John Kasich and Pete Domenici, the chairs of the two committees, the ranking members of the two committees, Democrats Martin Szabo and Jim Exon.

MR. LEHRER: Who for the White House? Who for the White House?

MR. ORNSTEIN: And clearly it is Leon Panetta and Alice Rivlin, the budget director, who will be the major figures here. Bob Rubin, the Treasury Secretary, and possibly Laura Tyson will participate. This is the first step. What will happen here presumably, if it all moves forward, is we'll reach a general agreement, and then they'll turn to other larger groups of people who are more specialized in these areas, congressional committee chairs and agency heads, to work out details.

MR. LEHRER: Too early to even predict a possible outcome, is it not, so early?

MR. ORNSTEIN: It is early to predict an outcome. Much of what we've heard which is pessimistic today is posturing. But it is extremely unlikely that we will actually have a deal signed, sealed, and delivered by December 15th. The wags around Capitol Hill have been saying that the date to look toward is December 22nd, which is when the schools in the local districts get out for Christmas, and when most of the members will have pressure to get away. But, frankly, the optimists would say by December 15th what they will get is an agreement that they're moving far enough along that we can continue to extend, keep government going.

MR. LEHRER: Keep the government going--

MR. ORNSTEIN: Operating.

MR. LEHRER: --while they talk some more.

MR. ORNSTEIN: While they talk some more.

MR. LEHRER: All right, Norm. Thanks a lot. FOCUS - BOSNIA MISSION

MR. LEHRER: Now the Bosnia mission, how newspaper editorials and our regional commentators see President Clinton's decision to send U.S. troops to Bosnia. Elizabeth Farnsworth has that story.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Since making his Bosnia speech Monday night, the President has continued to press his case for U.S. leadership of a NATO force. Today's audience with a joint session of the British parliament:

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We must help peace to take hold in Bosnia, because so long as that fire rages at the heart of the European continent, so long as the emerging democracies and our allies are threatened by fighting in Bosnia, there will be no stable, undivided, free Europe. There will be no realization of our greatest hopes for Europe, but most important of all, innocent people will continue to suffer and die.

MS. FARNSWORTH: At home, the President's arguments are having an impact at least on newspaper editorial pages. Reaction from major metropolitan dailies around the country seem strongly in favor of the President's plan. "A compelling Bosnia argument," wrote the "Los Angeles Times;" "a sacrifice for peace," declared the "Atlanta Constitution." "Clinton has it right," was the "Miami Herald" conclusion. "Time for leadership," announced the "Philadelphia Inquirer." But the "Houston Chronicle" dissented: "Clinton failed to make the case that American lives should be risked, given the ethnic hatreds and craving for territory among Bosnia's factions. Would hostilities not resume soon after the peacekeepers withdrew after only a single year?" The "Chronicle" concluded, "Clinton has committed his presidency to the Bosnian peace effort. His reelection may rise or fall on the result." The "Los Angeles Times" challenged that argument: "Those who would attribute Clinton's Bosnia strategy primarily to electoral politics are way off target. The President's cause is right." The "Daily Oklahoman" had a different view. Its headline read: "Bill Clinton's War." "This President is entirely too comfortable using the U.S. military as an instrument supporting the interests of the UN bureaucracy, squabbling European allies, and warring factions in the former Yugoslavia." In St. Paul, Minneapolis, the President got support: "As Clinton emphasized, the mission is specific and limited to one year. The force is strong. The rules of engagement are robust. The chain of command is unambiguous." Whether the newspapers sampled were for or against the President's Bosnia mission, they all agreed that this is the beginning of a long sell. And now the view from our regional commentators: Mike Barnicle of the "Boston Globe," Lee Cullum of the "Dallas Morning News," Patrick McGuigan of the "Daily Oklahoman," Cynthia Tucker of the "Atlanta Constitution," William Wong of the "Oakland Tribune," and Clarence Page of the "Chicago Tribune." Clarence, it looks like the President is in the midst of a full court press here. What do you think so far? Is he making a good case?

CLARENCE PAGE, Chicago Tribune: Well, he is making a persuasive case for a lot of Americans. The one word for the reaction across the country has been ambiguous or ambivalent. There's a sense of it's the right thing to do at the same time, it's risky, and is it worth it? There are a lot of questions out there, but the President made three important cases. One is the case for this being an issue of national security. I think that's the weakest case actually because our security is not directly threatened here. The second case is that of history and geopolitics, especially in the post- Cold War era. That's a much stronger case. Our allies seem to be unable to move in a meaningful way, without the big kid on the block, which is the United States. We're the last remaining big superpower out there, and then third is the moral argument. That must be the most persuasive, and it's largely driven by the television images we've seen and the misery over there, and this real all-American sense that, gee, if we can do something, we ought to do something. The big question is, though, will it only be one year? I think that's a dangerous deadline to put on things, and the Serbs, among others, know that if we take too many casualties, will Americans pull out, will our will be strong enough?

MS. FARNSWORTH: Patrick McGuigan, what do you think so far? Is the President making a good case?

PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: [Oklahoma City] I think he made a great speech the other night. I disagree with the conclusion. I think a lot of the analysis that Clarence just offered is pretty much on the mark, but, again, I reach a little different conclusion. I was disappointed in Bob Dole not taking a more forthright stance against sending the troops there. If eventually, in fact, the troops are deployed, Americans will do what they always do. They will rally in support of the military, and they'll try to support the President the best they can. But while we're having this discussion about whether or not this is a good idea, we need to make the case against the deployment. It seems to me you can be very active for peace without putting our men and some women right in the midst of this conflict. Teddy Roosevelt in 1905 even won a Nobel Prize for negotiating peace between the Russians and the Japanese, but it didn't involve the expenditure of American capital or lives. I'm very concerned about this for so many reasons that it's hard to summarize them in just a couple of minutes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mike Barnicle, has the President convinced you?

MIKE BARNICLE, Boston Globe: [Boston] Well, I mean, I don't think I'm important in the mix really. I think the editorials that you just read, it's sort of interesting to look at them. I don't think there are many editorial writers or television commentators who have sons or daughters serving with the 1st Infantry Division. And I think a lot of people are leery and they're waiting. They don't know a lot about the history of where their sons and daughters are going. They don't know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. And Americans like good guys and bad guys. And I think they're kind of leery about this particular President who seems intent sometimes on remaking himself off the latest polling data and transforming his persona and his policies into something depending on the last person he spoke to. So I think the jury is still out. I think a lot of people think they're doing the right thing to stop the sacrifice and the slaughter of innocents, but they're wondering why now, why there, and if so many people have died, why didn't we do something earlier.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Bill Wong, what do you think? Do you think it's partly--the reaction is, the mixed reaction is partly a result of this particular President?

WILLIAM WONG, Oakland Tribune: [San Francisco] Well, I think that's, that's certainly the case in part. The, the way it's playing out here is as it's playing elsewhere across the country. There is some skepticism, some lack of support. Our newspaper at the "Oakland Tribune," for example, and the four newspapers that belong to the Alameda newspaper group did support Clinton's action with some reservations, and I think he is--he's made a good case, not a great case, but I'm not sure a great case can be made in this matter. I like the fact that he talked about the leadership credibility question, the fact that the United States brokered the deal. He brought the parties together. We got them to come together with an imperfect, yet they have a peace agreement, so we really are obligated to back--back that up. The strategic questions about whether or not we have interests there, we do have some indirect interest in that. We have ties to Europe, and our major European allies have not been able to broker a deal, and, and the war has the potential of spreading, so we do have some indirect interests. I think the weakest element has to do with the one-year deadline. It sounds to me very political, and it really does not- -he did not explain very well an exit strategy.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Cynthia Tucker in Atlanta, do you think the President is emphasizing the right points?

CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: [Atlanta] I think that he has begun the process of making a case. I would like to have heard him talk even more about reclaiming the moral high ground. I would have liked to have heard him talk even more about World War II and the lessons we should have learned from that. Americans look back on the history of World War II on Nazi brutality toward millions of Jews, and some Catholics, some homosexuals, and we say never again. We would never allow lives to be snuffed out like that again. And if we mean never again, then we have to support this effort. So I think the President has begun to make the case. I think he will have to make the case over and over again. An unscientific read of our letters to the editor showed that Atlantans are about evenly divided as they are across the country. The President has a lot of skeptics here still, some who don't believe this is in our national interest, some who believe that Bill Clinton is not the right person, given his history of avoiding service to order troops into this kind of very risky situation. But I think this is one of the more courageous stands Bill Clinton has taken in his presidency, because he has very little to gain politically by doing the right thing. This will, after all, be played out during a presidential election year. So I don't think he's doing it for reasons of domestic politics. I think he's doing it because it is the right thing to do.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Lee Cullum, what do you think? Do you think the President's making the right arguments, or is there something more he needs to be doing?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: [Dallas] Elizabeth, I do think he's making the right arguments. I thought that he was very effective on Monday night, and, and effective in his restraint. He didn't make exaggerated claims for the plan or the reasons for proposing this plan. I think that he is persuasive when he talks about NATO and the precarious position NATO is in, and the necessity for the United States to assume a leadership role in Europe. I want to disagree a little bit with Patrick McGuigan. I really respected Bob Dole's position in this thing. I thought it was courageous of him to at least not torpedo the policy. He didn't completely close ranks behind it, but he didn't torpedo it either, and I know how tempting it must have been to come out against it, because here in Texas, I find very few people who favor sending troops to Bosnia. I think I finally found one lawyer talking for quite a long time to a lot of people. I found a moderate Democratic lawyer for it. Sheldon Zimmerman, a very respected rabbi in Dallas, argues for it on moral grounds. While the "Houston Chronicle" came out against the President's plan, I want to stress the "Dallas Morning News" did come out for it today in support of it, urging Congress to support it with the proviso that troops will be sent to make peace, keep peace, rather, not make peace, keep peace, not make war, and with the proviso that they will be withdrawn if things go awry. But I think the President made the case persuasively that if we don't act here, if we look as if we're afraid to act militarily, it will spread the impression that we are afraid and troublemakers in areas that are of urgent interest to us in the Middle East, for example, in the Persian Gulf, for example, will, will make the kind of trouble that will, will necessitate a massive response, 500,000 troops instead of 20,000 troops. So I feel that he's making the case. Now I would say, having made the case, don't talk too much. He's made the case. Restraint serves him well.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Bill Wong, what do you think of the Republican response so far?

MR. WONG: I think it's quite interesting. It's encouraging that the two leaders have been restrained in, in holding back any criticisms and Sen. Dole wanting to support the plan. So I see that as encouraging. I think that the President and his people have some time to persuade doubtful Senators and representatives. I think he'll have an easier time in the Senate. The House Republicans, especially the freshman class, appears very stubborn about wanting to support the President on this, but I, I think and I would hope that Congress will pass a resolution that will support the President.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Clarence, what do you think about the Republicans? They're treading a very fine line here, aren't they?

MR. PAGE: Yes, they are. Well, it's not unusual, in fact, it is traditional for Congress to back the President in foreign policy, especially when American troops are involved. They're behaving quite properly in that regard. One thing they were criticized for by the "Wall Street Journal" editorial board, which is very Republican, very conservative, is that they have not offered an alternative vision. Those like Phil Gramm, who have spoken out against our involvement, haven't offered an alternative vision, and they sound more like the 60's radicals who said, "Hell, no, we won't go," that kind of isolationism for which they criticized a young Bill Clinton. So the Republicans here are really taking kind of a "wait and see" attitude.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Pat McGuigan, what do you think Congress should do?

MR. McGUIGAN: I think they should point out the reasons that this might not be in America's best interest. You know, Henry Kissinger the other day made three basic points: the ethnic cleavage, the possibility of war crimes trials, and the issue of refugees, all each of those individually being things that can thwart our best efforts. And you know the best way to avoid any form of neoisolationism, which by the way is the principal issue on which I disagree with Pat Buchanan, which is his sort of neoisolationist view, the way to avoid any kind of comeback from isolationism is to only use our military force, our power, and our clout, if you will, in ways that can work and that are effective, and that also promote America's best interests. I don't think this engagement does that, certainly not at the level that President Clinton is talking about.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But Pat, do you think that Congress should try to block the troops from going?

MR. McGUIGAN: I think we should oppose this deployment in the vote that's coming up in Congress, yes. Once a decision is made one way or the other on the issue, if the President exercising what he believes is his authority as commander-in-chief to go ahead and send the troops in, if that happens, I think you'll see Americans try, even if they oppose the policy, to support the troops. You saw that in the wake of the Persian Gulf debate from a lot of the people, including our own Senator Boren at the time, who had opposed the President's proposed policy but then rallied to support the troops and backed national policy. That's why we have two branches of government that deal with policy, the presidency and the legislative branch. That's the jobs of the two respective. It's not just to roll over and stop discussing once an issue is presented by one party or the other, but to talk about it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Thank you all very much for being with us.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the end of the federal speed limit and Sen. Kassebaum. FOCUS - SETTING LIMITS

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton put his signature to legislation yesterday that did away with national highway speed limits. Tom Bearden in Denver has that story.

MR. BEARDEN: In Nevada, they're already busily producing new signs for the highways, signs raising the speed limit to 75 miles an hour. Nine states are now planning to raise or eliminate their speed limits as of December 8th, the first day when the new limits will be legal. But highway safety groups bitterly oppose the bill and protested in front of the White House yesterday as the President signed it. They claim that raising the speed limit willresult in more fatalities. A National Academy of Science's study estimates that between two and four thousand lives are saved by lower speed limits. Opponents question the validity of those kinds of numbers, saying other factors are involved. The national speed limit was originally intended to save fuel, not lives. In the early 70's, an Arab oil embargo created a serious gasoline shortage in the United States. In 1973, the 55 mile an hour speed limit was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, and later endorsed by President Carter, who touted improved safety, as well as fuel economy.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: It's obvious that the fuel savings can be enormous. I think maybe eight or nine million gallons per day can be saved. And since 1973, we've been saving, I think, eight or nine thousand lives per year.

MR. BEARDEN: But the speed limit was enormously unpopular in the West, where drivers were used to high speeds in the wide open spaces. In fact, nearly all of the states planning to raise the limits immediately are Western states.

MR. BEARDEN: Well, the bill may be signed, but the debate is certainly far from over. Joining us to discuss this are the Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, Chuck Berry, who supports higher speed limits, and Judith Lee Stone, who is the president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, who opposes them. Mrs. Stone is in our Washington studio. Mr. Speaker, the Colorado legislature is going to look at this issue next month. What's going to happen?

CHUCK BERRY, House Speaker, Colorado: Well, I think something will pass. We're ready to give this to our state department of transportation, let them go out and look at all the highways in Colorado. Many of these highways were designed in the 60's and some in the 50's to be driven at the 70 mile an hour speed limit. We're not automatically going to raise the speed limit on all roads to 75, but we're going to look at what they're properly designed for, what the safest condition is. We can have safe highway travel in Colorado with higher limits in some areas.

MR. BEARDEN: Ms. Stone, what do you think will happen in Colorado if it does raise the speed limits?

JUDITH LEE STONE, Highway Safety Advocate: Well, I hope that there aren't any more deaths and injuries, but I do have to say that the designed speed that Mr. Berry is talking about was something that was meant to be under ideal conditions, which means that nothing else can be going on out there, like bad weather and disruptions on the road, so really that figure of 70 miles an hour that the roads were designed to do is really not a very helpful figure.

MR. BEARDEN: You say you hope it won't increase fatalities. Is there evidence to believe that it will?

MS. STONE: Well, we think it probably will because in 1987, when the states raised their speed limits to 65 on the real interest highways, there was a 30 percent increase nationwide in fatalities. That's a huge increase. We are assuming and we think the data shows that the same kind of thing will happen under this scenario.

MR. BEARDEN: Mr. Berry, is she right, are we going to see more people dying on Colorado highways?

MR. BERRY: Well, I don't think so. Our statistics show that when that speed limit went to 65 in 1987, that the traffic fatalities in Colorado did not increase in any significant way. Certainly, drivers have to in our state, where there's a lot of snow and mountain passes, have to moderate their speed based on conditions. They're not always going to drive. I mean, people--drivers are smarter than I think we sometimes give them credit for.

MR. BEARDEN: He says the fatality rate in Colorado went down. How does that jive with the national figures?

MS. STONE: Well, I think that the fatality rate is one thing. The number of fatalities is another, and that means that when an individual life is lost, that gets factored in to an overall rate. But that's a very difficult figure to talk about when you're talking about one person's life being lost. I don't know how many lives were lost in Colorado overall during that period of time. But I do know that when speeds go up, people tend to drive much faster than the speed limit, and the percentage of people exceeding the higher limit goes way up, and that inevitably leads to more death and injury.

MR. BEARDEN: Mr. Speaker, what about that issue of single lives lost, is that something that should be a factor in considering this, the value of a single human life?

MR. BERRY: Well, of course, we always need to look at that, but balance all considerations together. I think a lot of people exceed the speed limit now because it's artificially low. These highways were not designed, the modern cars were not designed to travel 55 on a flat surface, multiple-lane highway across the wide open spaces. And yet, that's what they're supposed to drive because of the national speed limit, so of course, people exceed it if they can get away with it. Some have called that a speed limit, a benchmark of opportunity. But I think if the speed limits are more realistic and we have looked at what the road will take and everything, I think you'll actually see more compliance with that, that speed limit, and the reason people are driving fast now is because they just don't think it's realistic, and they can get away with it.

MR. BEARDEN: Ms. Stone, is that an issue in your mind, that the speed limits aren't realistic, people are going to violate them anyway?

MS. STONE: Well, I think the fact or the statement that people will comply just because it's the right thing to do is kind of wishful thinking. We haven't seen that happening in the past on other roads. The speeds have been going up. Yes, it is true that people don't comply with the 55 mile an hour speed limit, but that's really no reason to raise the limit, because when you start going 70 and 75, as an average speed on certain roads, it makes it much more difficult to control the vehicle, much more difficult to stop. We have truck out there going at much faster speeds and barreling down on the rear of cars, and people are very nervous about that. I think it becomes a very difficult enforcement issue for the police the higher the speeds are, and there are a lot of single vehicle crashes that happen when there are no cars around at all. People go off the side of the road, they fall asleep, they roll over. Many of the crashes that happen are rollover crashes, so we expect that some of those will increase as well.

MR. BEARDEN: What about the argument that people have made in support of higher speed limits, that highway engineers in Colorado are much better qualified, for example, to determine what a good speed limit is for their terrain than somebody in Washington?

MR. BERRY: I think that's absolutely right. Most of these decisions should be made at a state level. The terrain is very different here in Colorado than it is on the East Coast. I don't want to be telling the people in Pennsylvania how fast they ought to drive. When I go back there, I'll abide by their speed limits, but I really think we in Colorado can do this without the heavy hand of government in Washington tell us what's best for us. Again, I don't think we give drivers enough credit for using sense and driving in a safe and prudent fashion. Sure, there are always some bad drivers out there, and frankly, I think that we're going to have crashes, regardless of what the speed limit is because there are irresponsible drivers, but let's give most people the benefit of the doubt. Let these limits be set on a state level based on what we think is, is the safe speed to travel.

MR. BEARDEN: Ms. Stone, that sort of speaks to the western issue. You mentioned trucks barreling up on people on the highways. In the wide open spaces in Texas and Oklahoma and Colorado and other places, that doesn't happen very often because there aren't many cars on the road, and that does speak to the issue of what's a reasonable speed limit for the terrain. Why is that better set in Washington or set nationally than it is locally?

MS. STONE: Well, you can repeal the national speed limit but you can't repeal the law of physics. The fact of the matter is when you're involved in a motor vehicle crash, the dynamics of that crash are very severe, and the higher the speed that you are going, the more severe the crash is going to be. It's just as simple as that. You can't control each individual situation obviously, and there are a lot of crashes that happen not because it's the fault of the driver but just circumstances.

MR. BEARDEN: Mr. Speaker, the argument has been made, and you sort of touched on it earlier, that people are not obeying the law, therefore, we ought to change it. But if you follow that same rationale, people take drugs. Should we repeal our laws on drugs?

MR. BERRY: Of course not, because those are realistic laws. You suffer a loss if you get hooked on drugs, and you can't be a productive member of society. The 55 mile an hour speed limit was instituted because of an international oil embargo situation, so we could save fuel. We didn't have enough gasoline coming into this country. It had nothing to do with safety, as the earlier statement was made. I can recall, because I was a college student at the time, that very shortly before that people were traveling at 70 miles an hour on all the highways out here, and you know, it was relatively safe travel. I mean, I don't--I don't recall any dramatic change myself as a driver occurring when we had that 55 reduction, except there was a lot of frustrated people. They were angry. I mean, in the West, time is money, and where you're spending an enormous amount of time on a highway at an artificially low speed limit, people are going to do one of two things. They're either going to--the anger is going to build up, or they're going to figure out a way to drive what the reasonable and prudent speed is, which is going to be higher than 55 in many situations.

MR. BEARDEN: One provision in this new bill that hasn't been talked about much is the helmet law, lifting requirements that states have helmet laws. What effect is that going to have on Colorado, assuming that this legislation passes such a lifting?

MR. BERRY: Well, we don't have a helmet law now, and we've been paying a penalty in terms of our federal highway dollars because we don't have a helmet law, so that's actually going to help us to be able to use those dollars directly on the highways.

MR. BEARDEN: Ms. Stone, do you think the same corollary is going to happen when Colorado institutes the law it already has in effect right now, that more people will be killed?

MS. STONE: Oh, Colorado doesn't have a helmet law, and we've been trying to get one passed. I certainly think that now that we're not going to have a speed limit that's reasonable in Colorado, if that happens, I think you should pass a helmet law. The fact of the matter is, is that the federal law on helmets really didn't sanction the states, it didn't take money away from the states. It took money from one pot of money in the state and put it over into the highway safety pot because that was where it was needed. That was the rationale. So really the states didn't lose a penny over this law. And I think that what's going to happen as the result of the repeal of this federal program is that a number of states where we've been trying to get helmet laws passed, such as in Colorado, are probably not going to do that. I also think that we'll see some repeal efforts in states like Colorado and maybe Maryland and some others that have recently passed laws. I think this is a travesty. Head injury's a very expensive proposition in this country, and helmet laws are a very effective solution to that problem.

MR. BEARDEN: Montana is about to remove all speed limits as far as the daytime travel is concerned. What's your thought on that?

MR. BERRY: That goes a little too far for me. I think there need to be some indicators out there and basically I think as a former criminal prosecutor in the county courts, I think it would probably be pretty difficult to prove that somebody wasn't traveling a safe and prudent speed. When you've got the presumption of a speed limit, I think it assists in that. And there are still going to be some people out there who are driving eighty, ninety miles an hour that it's just not going to be safe, and there ought to be an enforcement mechanism for that. So I'm hesitant to go the full measure and just say there won't be any speed limits.

MR. BEARDEN: Ms. Stone, do you agree?

MS. STONE: Well, I'm very happy to hear you say that. I would like you to know some information, if you don't already, which is that AAA did--the American Automobile Association did a survey that showed that over 80 percent of their, their folks thought that the speed limit shouldn't be any higher than 65. My organization, Advocates, did a survey as well earlier this year and asked the same question and got some similar numbers in the high sixties of people who didn't think we should go above sixty-five. So we certainly think that should be something that everybody should look at, that there's no reason why you have to go back to the levels that you were before 1974.

MR. BEARDEN: We have to leave it there. Thank you both for joining us. CONVERSATION

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a conversation with Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, who has decided not to seek reelection. She is with Margaret Warner.

MS. WARNER: When the Republicans took over Congress this year, Nancy Kassebaum became chairman of the powerful Labor and Human Resources Committee, the first woman to chair a major Senate committee. The daughter of former GOP presidential candidate Alf Landon, Sen. Kassebaum became known as a voice and vote for moderation. Her 17-year voting record reflects her party's traditional fiscal conservatism, but she parted company with her party on many social issues, from abortion to gun control. She's the 10th U.S. Senator to announce plans to retire next year, and she leaves office with an 82 percent approval rating in the latest "Kansas City Star" poll. Welcome, Senator. Thanks for being with us.

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM, [R] Kansas: [Capitol Hill] Thank you, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: That's an approval rating that any politician would envy. You're head of a very powerful committee. Why are you retiring now?

SEN. KASSEBAUM: Maybe it's nice to leave while you're still wanted, but I have planned for some years that I would not seek a fourth term. I guess that I--I will miss much. I'm not leaving out of frustration with, with the way Congress is operating or the Senate is operating. In fact, I feel it's unfortunate that we've been--we've maligned ourselves, as well as the public, of course, has always viewed us as being somewhat--with a great deal of skepticism. But I felt the time was right. I have five little grandchildren and have scattered around the country and I look forward to being able maybe just to spending some of the time and my own schedule that allows me to, to do some of the things that I would like to do as far as being with them, and being at home.

MS. WARNER: You say you don't want to malign the Senate. The news of your retirement was greeted by many people on both sides of the aisle as a real setback for moderation and civility on Capitol Hill. Are moderation and civility having a tough go of it in Congress these days, do you think?

SEN. KASSEBAUM: We've tended, I think, more recently to want to engage in what maybe would be regarded as sort of a spectator's sport, and it seems to me part of that is because we ratchet up the pressure to sort of say something that will be viewed as being tough on both sides of the aisle. And, and the press covers it as who's winning, who's losing, and, and it becomes more entertainment frequently than it does, I think, thoughtful debate. But we'll, we'll work our way through that, I think. I just hope that people realize, and I believe most people do in the country, that we do engage in far more debate than may appear to be the case when the headlines sort of try to, to achieve a shock value.

MS. WARNER: But do you think it's a coincidence that in the recent years so many real moderate leaders, as you say, of both parties, I mean, whether it's Sen. Bradley, Senators Bradley and Nunn on the Democratic side, or yourself or your former colleague, Sen. Danforth on the Republican side, have been retiring really in the prime of their political life, in their 50's and early 60's. Is that just a coincidence?

SEN. KASSEBAUM: Yes. I think it is. I don't--I think each of us have had our own reasons for the time that we have spent here and the time we've left. I mean, I will have been here, by the time I complete my term at the end of December 1996, 18 years. And that's a--that's really a fair amount of time, and I think each of us bring our own reasons why we're leaving. I do believe it's very important, however, let me say, to keep a strong middle ground and today, that's viewed as being somewhat wimpish I think. And yet, on the other hand, you need the--you need both sides, the far right or the far left, however you want to define it, to engage the debate. But at the end of the day, you need a strong and constructive, I think, middle territory that advances the issues forward. And we mustn't lose sight of the importance of that.

MS. WARNER: And do you think that's in danger at all right now?

SEN. KASSEBAUM: I don't think so. I think in the short run it's being tested, but I believe many want to make certain that it does stay there, and that it is important to be able to be constructive and long run. Compromise is viewed as somewhat a word that we don't want to use these days, but it does take that in order to accomplish good, solid end results.

MS. WARNER: Now, the, the ascendancy of your party in taking control of Congress, of course, has been driven by some real ideological firebrands, particularly on the House side. What's your view of that in terms of its impact overall on the party and on the prospects for your party?

SEN. KASSEBAUM: I'm one who has thought that the change in the House and Republicans gaining control of the House has added a lot of vitality to the debate. I think it's been very positive, and I don't always agree with some of the approaches that the House Republicans have taken even. But, nevertheless, it's been, I believe, useful. We're debating things today with a seriousness that we should have for a number of years. I think the whole aspect of the reconciliation bill or the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, as it's called, entails some very important issues for us. And we really need to be cognizant of that and debate them with a seriousness. Again, not trying to strike points with the administration about who's up or who's down, the administration is doing the same thing, because it is far more important than just a game, but these are, I think, crucial issues, and the House has lent a lot of vitality to the debate, a lot of energy.

MS. WARNER: And what about the influence--now I'm moving more to social issues--of the religious right on the Republican Party? That's, of course, a great topic of debate in the Republican presidential race. Do you--are you comfortable with that? Do you think it's a little too much? What's your view?

SEN. KASSEBAUM: Well, how do you determine that, Margaret? I think that my view is that what the so-called religious right--and I don't know that that's the best name to apply, but those who've felt strongly about some of the social issues have gotten out and done the work. They've organized at the grassroots level. They have become parts of, of groups in which they can make their voices heard, and that's what the political process is all about. I can't, I can't fault that. I think they have been really very focused and very organized and have certainly made a difference. And if those of us who would disagree with one issue or another, we need to be able to engender the same kind of support for the issue and it's part of the political process. It doesn't worry me, but I think that for those who feel that we need to be careful that we don't get too mixed with church and state policies, the church isn't politics, I don't believe. Now, some believe maybe that it should be. But there's where I think we need to be cautious. But then we have to make the case.

MS. WARNER: As you know, today Congresswoman Pat Schroeder announced she is also going to retire, the senior woman in the House. You--when you came to the Senate, you were the only woman in the Senate. Your colleague, Congresswoman Jan Meyers, also now, she's retiring, do you think there's any pattern here?

SEN. KASSEBAUM: I don't think so. Again, I think we all reached this decision independent--independently. I know we did. I was very surprised actually when Pat Schroeder made her announcement today. But, again, we have all served--Jan Meyers from Kansas served in the Kansas Senate, she's been very active in public affairs for a number of years, and I think we probably, as I say, all brought to it a look at where we were, what we wanted to do, other challenges that may lie ahead, and felt it was time to step aside.

MS. WARNER: Finally, let me just ask you briefly about how you'd feel really the public feels about Congress. You go home a lot on the weekends. Compared to when you went to the Senate 17 years ago, do you think there's a greater disconnect truly between the people and the Congress, and, if so, why?

SEN. KASSEBAUM: I do believe there is a bit, and part of it, I think, is the sort of instantaneous media that we have, almost a constant barrage of media, and it's very hard to sort through all of the messages that are going out in fax machines today. I mean, that--I never got messages when I first came on the fax machine, and now at the end of the day, they're just all piled up. So it's sort of an instantaneous involvement, and we don't ever stick with anything very long. I heard the other day used, oh, what do you call it, surfing, that we do channel surfing in politics today, sort of trying to find the issue of the moment or the politician of the moment, and that's been the biggest change. And I think that has helped cause the disconnect that I do find worrisome, and I think that's one of the things we really have to work on to make sure we are communicating, that we can have everybody part of the process.

MS. WARNER: Well, thank you for being with us, Sen. Kassebaum.

SEN. KASSEBAUM: Thank you, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Thanks. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, President Clinton was in England, where he praised its contributions to peace in Bosnia and Northern Ireland. London was the first stop on his five-day diplomatic visit to Europe. A State Department spokesman said 17,000 more U.S. troops will be used to support the 20,000 soldiers to be assigned to the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. And as we just heard, Congressman Pat Schroeder announced she would not run for reelection. The Colorado Democrat is the longest-serving woman member, with 23 years in office. And we'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.