The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, President Bush threatened to veto the crime bill and White House spokesman Fitzwater denied John Sununu's job as in danger. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, the fight over Congress's new crime bill as seen by Senators DeConcini and Simpson and by two law enforcement experts. Then the aftermath of the fires in Oakland, California, and essayist Jim Fisher on life without the threat of nuclear war. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Bush and the Democrats fought over the crime bill today. A House-Senate Conference Committee agreed to a compromise version last night. Mr. Bush said today it would weaken the criminal justice system and he would veto it. The $3.1 billion package mandates the death penalty for about 50 federal crimes and imposes a five day waiting period for handgun purchases. The main controversy is over two provisions that would limit the number of appeals by prisoners and bar the use of illegally obtained evidence. Congressmen on both sides spoke this afternoon shortly before a floor debate began in the House.

REP. HENRY HYDE, [R] Illinois: Nobody likes to torpedo a so- called "crime bill," but I think the only thing worse is to pretend you've done something and what you've done is step back from existing law. I would just as soon leave the law alone. It is a weakening of our present, existing criminal federal, criminal laws, on habeas corpus, on death penalty, on the exclusionary rule, on the admissibility of confessions.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, [D] New York: This crime bill is the toughest crime bill passed by Congress in a decade and the President says he's going to veto it. It proves the President doesn't give a damn about the millions of people who are robbed, mugged, raped and murdered. He cares much more about having a political issue for 1992 saying that the Democratic Party isn't tough enough on crime.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: President Bush focused on domestic issues today. This morning he spoke about some of the nation's problems during a pre-Thanksgiving ceremony at the White House.

PRES. BUSH: Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday. And as we thank the lord for his blessings of freedom, security and peace, we also remember those Americans who are out of work, in poor health, or just plain lonely. We seek solutions to the problems facing our nation, most of all, the repair of hope and an end to homelessness and hunger.

MR. MacNeil: Afterwards, he traveled to Columbus, Ohio, where he visited student teachers and their charges at a child care center. Later at a rally, he made a pitch for his education reform program, saying poor and middle income people stand to gain most. He said his proposals would give parents more ability to choose between public and private schooling, something rich people already have. Presidential Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater today denied rumors that Chief of Staff John Sununu is in danger of losing his job. He said he didn't think Sununu's job had ever been in danger. First Lady Barbara Bush was asked about rumors that she was unhappy with Sununu's performance and wanted him replaced. Mrs. Bush spoke with reporters during a ceremony at which she accepted the White House Christmas Tree.

MRS. BUSH: It isn't true and it's ugly, and I don't like it at all. He knows it's not true.

MR. MacNeil: When President Bush returned to the White House this afternoon, he refused to answer reporters' questions about Sununu. He said the people he met with in Ohio were interested in the economy; they didn't ask him about what was going on in the White House.

MR. LEHRER: The new Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued a warning to Congress today. He said the FDIC will not be able to rescue more failing banks unless Congress quickly comes up with more money. House and Senate conferees met this afternoon to resolve differences over a banking reform bill. It is likely to include a $70 billion taxpayer loan to keep the insurance fund afloat. FDIC Chairman William Taylor told the Senate Banking Committee this morning delay would drive costs even higher.

WILLIAM TAYLOR, Chairman, FDIC: We need the money. We need all of it. I think any kind of a piecemeal approach to this would be a mistake and I think we ought to have the money and get on with this job no matter what method we select to do these failures. And I think new methods have to be brought in, but the message I've been trying to convey is that the money is needed, the money is needed now.

MR. LEHRER: Federal indictments were announced today against 13 people in a money laundering operation. It allegedly funneled Colombian drug money through U.S. banks, much of it through banks in Rhode Island. Twelve of the thirteen people have been arrested. A U.S. Attorney said a quarter to a half a billion dollars passed through the banks. He said the money came from a major cocaine cartel based in the Colombian City of Calle.

MR. MacNeil: The space shuttle Atlantis which was launched Sunday night from Cape Canaveral today successfully deployed a Defense Department spy satellite. The 5200 pound probe is designed to detect and report missile launches and nuclear detonations. The six man crew is expected to remain in space for 10 days.

MR. LEHRER: Brush fire near Los Angeles forced evacuations and freeway closings today. High winds whipped up fire through more than one thousand acres of hillsides in the Los Angeles suburb of Silmar. About 100 residents were evacuated and two freeways were shut down before the fire was contained. No injuries or major damage was reported. Investigators do not yet know what started the fire.

MR. MacNeil: Mikhail Gorbachev's plan to keep the Soviet Union together suffered another setback today. The leaders of seven Soviet republics were expected to approve the plan at a meeting with Gorbachev near Moscow, but they failed to do so. Instead, they agreed only to send the draft of the treaty to their respective parliaments for consideration. In Washington, the Senate approved up to $500 million in new Soviet aid. The money would help the Soviet Union dismantle nuclear weapons that Gorbachev has promised to destroy. The House is yet to vote on the aid. In Yugoslavia, a cease-fire brokered by the United Nations held across most of the Croatian republic today. Federal army guns pounded the city of Osijek early in the day but stopped before noon. We have more in this report narrated by Vera Franckel of Worldwide Television News.

MS. FRANCKEL: Monday's lull in the fighting gave the people of besieged Osijek a chance to get out. In Belgrade, the Red Cross looked after these mainly Serbian evacuees. Only 50,000 of Osijek's 140,000 residents are thought to remain. The rest of fled, fearing more intensive fighting. Osijek's hospitals are crammed with injured civilians and fighters. Officials say seven people died and another thirty-four were wounded by shelling in the previous 24 hours. Attacks here on Osijek intensified after the fall of nearby Vukovar tofederal troops last week. If Osijek and nearby Vinkafji suffer similar defeats, then Serbia's rift would be wider. In Zagreb, federal troops continued their evacuation of barracks after weeks of blockading by Croatian fighters. Operations were conducted under the terms of the latest cease-fire and under the watch of European Community observers. This latest truce was not put together by the community but by the United Nations. Thirteen European-mediated truces have all failed. The U.N. may send in peacekeeping forces to buffer the warring factions, but not unless there's a permanent halt to fighting. Croatians now fear a last minute grab for their territory before any peacekeepers could arrive.

MR. LEHRER: Lebanon today accepted the invitation to the December 4th Mideast peace talks in Washington. Jordan accepted Friday. There has been no official response yet from the Palestinians, Syria, and Israel. An Israeli cabinet minister today said Israel would go to Washington if later talks are held in the Middle East. There were reports of heavy artillery exchanges between Israeli and Lebanese troops today. They were in Israel's self-declared security zone in South Lebanon and followed the killing of three Lebanese soldiers in a separate attack there. Lebanese troops were deployed in the area in July. Today's fatalities are believed to be the first in Israeli fire.

MR. MacNeil: Freed hostage Thomas Sutherland arrived back in the U.S. today. He left Germany earlier with his wife and two of his daughters. Sutherland was freed in Lebanon November 18th, after more than six years in captivity. He and his family flew via Dallas to San Francisco, where they'll spend the Thanksgiving Holiday weekend with a third daughter. That's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to the politics of the crime bill, rebuilding after Oakland's big fire and a Jim Fisher essay. FOCUS - IT'S A CRIME

MR. LEHRER: The latest Washington word fight over who is the toughest on crime is our lead story tonight. The centerpiece of the argument this time is a new crime bill. House and Senate negotiators with Democrats in the majority reported it out to their respective floors last night. We pick up the story with a Kwame Holman backgrounder.

MR. HOLMAN: The crime bill is compromise legislation as far as the House and Senate are concerned, a blend of their respective bills approved earlier this year. But some Republicans don't consider it a compromise. They call it soft on crime and charge the Democrats bullied their way through the weekend session of the House-Senate Conference Committee where the final bill was written.

REP. HENRY HYDE, [R] Illinois: The Democrats just rolled this over on every vote that was had. We were outnumbered, outgunned. We were everything but out-argued, and that doesn't count.

MR. HOLMAN: Strom Thurmond of South Carolina originally had held up final action by protesting the Democrats' five to three majority among Senate conferees. Steven Simms of Idaho threatened to block the bill because of tough language on gun control. Democrats appealed to the President.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN, Chairman, Judiciary Committee: [Wednesday] So, Mr. President, like they're replaying the movie "E.T.," you know, that says phone home. Phone the Senate, talk to the Republicans. Tell them: Let the crime bill go.

MR. HOLMAN: Republicans dropped their demands and when conferees met this weekend, several provisions sailed through with few objections. For instance, the death penalty was extended to some 50 federal crimes, including acts of espionage, treason and terrorism resulting in murder, for the murders of federal officials and for major drug trafficking crimes. Conferees adopted the Senate's version of handgun control which calls for a five day purchase waiting period to enable police to conduct background checks. But the conferees rejected the Senate's ban on the manufacture and sale of 14 assault-style weapons. House and Senate negotiators also approved money for hiring more federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel. The partisan disputes erupted over two provisions in particular. On habeas corpus appeals relating to the death penalty, Democrats demanded the less restrictive language approved by the House. It sets a one year deadline for filing appeals of death sentences and bars successive petitions without new facts. And Democrats chose the milder Senate language to amend the so-called "exclusionary rule." It says, evidence seized using an invalid search warrant can be introduced in trials as long as police acted in good faith. The House version would have allowed use of evidence even if seized with no warrant. The full House and Senate will vote on the crime bill before they recess before the year on Wednesday. Democrats who challenged the President to veto the crime bill got their answer today.

PRES. BUSH: The Conference Committee -- that's the way it works back in Washington -- last night reported a bill that is simply not acceptable. So let me be clear, I would have to veto this bill because it would weaken our criminal justice system. We need a stronger criminal justice system today. And I think all the communities and families across our country understand that.

MR. LEHRER: Now to two members of the Conference Committee, Sen. Dennis DeConcini, Democrat of Arizona, who was one of the conferees who voted for the bill, Sen. Alan Simpson, Republican of Wyoming, the Senate Minority Whip, was a member who did not. They join us tonight from Capitol Hill. Sen. Simpson, do you agree with President Bush that this bill weakens the criminal justice system of the United States?

SEN. SIMPSON: Well, I can certainly tell you it weakens the Congressional system of the United States. We went to conference yesterday and the first time any of us ever saw the language was at 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon. We had a conference at 3:30 yesterday, Sunday. The Democrats on the House side pushed it before us. It's just a bunch of descriptions by paragraphs. It doesn't have any substance to it. The Republicans never saw it. The Republicans in the Senate never saw it, and the Democrats in the House, in the Senate never saw it until 2:15. That's a travesty. We still have not seen the language of the bill and it is not the House bill and it is not the Senate bill. It's a hybrid bill that nobody has ever seen and that is really extraordinary.

MR. LEHRER: But what -- so in other words, your opposition to it isn't based on substance, it's based on not knowing what's in it.

SEN. SIMPSON: That is exactly true. And I know that's hard for the American people to understand, so I wouldn't see them get too excited about calling home. They ought to call their Congressman and say how could you ram through a bill, a crime bill? We know what's in the House measure. We saw that. We know what's in the Senate, but we do not know what's in this measure.

MR. LEHRER: Well, obviously, the President does. He said a while ago he was going to veto it because it weakened the criminal justice system.

SEN. SIMPSON: Well, we've gotten the pieces of it, which is simply the description which was about ten or fifteen pages. It just says house proposal. And there's enough on there to decide to veto it, I can tell you that.

MR. LEHRER: But what is there? Is there anything, any clue you can give me as to what's in that bill that you don't like?

SEN. SIMPSON: Well, it weakens, what it does with one breath in saying we're going to do this with habeas corpus, it simply takes back in the next breath. What they do is change existing law, repeal Supreme Court cases. The exclusionary rule is weakened. Every major piece of the bill is weakened to be pro-crime instead of anti-crime. That's a sad thing.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. DeConcini, that's a serious charge, that you Democrats are turning out a crime bill that's actually pro-crime.

SEN. DeCONCINI: You know, I've heard a lot of things said here in the last few days and it's so grossly unfair to say that. Let me just read my friend, Alan, a letter I just received today from the National Association of Police Organizations. And it's from Robert Sculley, the president. It says: "Dear Sen. DeConcini, I'm writing on behalf of 135 rank and file police officer members." It goes on to say that "We believe the version which has been reported out of the conference to be a tough anti-crime legislation which goes a long way towards meeting the acknowledged needs for substantial improvement in America's criminal justice system." Here's 135 police officers who think this is a tough crime bill, not a pro-crime bill. So, I mean, this is ridiculous. Let me just point out a couple of things this bill does. It puts in 51 death penalties in the federal statutes that are not there now, federal death for 51 crimes that are not covered now. And these are crimes that my friend, Alan Simpson, has supported for a long time, drug kingpins, murder in the course of a rape, murder by hire, drive-by shootings, these are -- shooting of a law enforcement officer. You know, I didn't get everything I wanted in that bill. I'm disappointed it doesn't have the assault provision, assault weapons provision, but when you have a 300 page bill, we've been working on this for three years now, we know what's in the bill, we can say, oh, well, it just came across as a proposal, negotiations, that's what legislation's all about, and that's what we did. We passed a 300 page real tough crime bill that's going to bring us $3 billion more federal resources towards law enforcement, local and state, and federal law enforcement that we don't have today. Now it's not everything I want and not everything that Alan Simpson wants, but it's in the right direction. And I don't see how anybody can say this is a pro-crime instead of an anti- crime bill.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Simpson.

SEN. SIMPSON: Well, it's interesting to read a letter like that. I don't know what the date of it is, but it sure couldn't be very current, because we don't know at this hour, hear this, we do not know at this hour what is in this bill. Now, if that's shocking to you, let it be so. Now that's where we are on this extraordinary measure. It won't be -- we already are at 500 pages -- they're printing it. We're told they're printing it. This isn't a 300 page bill. It's a 600 page bill and it is not the House bill and it is not the Senate bill.

MR. LEHRER: You said that a minute ago, Senator.

SEN. SIMPSON: I sure did.

MR. LEHRER: But there must be enough that you had read that causes you to oppose it, to say that it works for crime, rather than against crime.

SEN. SIMPSON: I am saying that that is not my definition. It was called a pro-crime bill by others, and I'm saying to you that there are many provisions in it; from what we have seen from the simple skeleton that was presented to us yesterday, it said things like House position with modifications. We said what are the modifications? Well, we've added this penalty and that penalty. All I'm saying to you is that the members of this committee, Democrat and Republican alike, in the Senate have not seen this bill.

SEN. DeCONCINI: Well, let me just say a couple of things that's in this bill that the Senator knows that are in there that was in the past bill we have, it creates a boot camp, eight thousand new positions for prisoners to go to to learn how to correct their behavior and have some motivation. That's a tough anti-crime provision. That's in this bill, a billion dollars to local law enforcement that is not there today to help coordinate the local and national drug coordination. That's a tough anti-crime bill, when you have that kind of stuff. Now that was in the bill that was in the Senate side and that's in the bill that was passed today.

MR. LEHRER: Well, Sen. Simpson, then let's be specific. Do you oppose the five-day waiting period for handgun sales?

SEN. SIMPSON: The Senate provision is what we adopted. That's about the only thing we did yesterday. We adopted that. I come from a state where gun control is just how steady you hold your weapon. I can't play with that one in any sense. So it's very clear that the Senate bill was adopted. The assault weapons provision went out.

MR. LEHRER: Right.

SEN. SIMPSON: But it went out not with me.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Now, how do you feel about the, the death penalty for the 51 additional crimes? Are you opposed to that?

SEN. SIMPSON: No, I'm not, but I'm telling you that in this proposal we already know enough in the stuff that's been leaking out to us that they say they've strengthened the death penalty in the 51, and then they have gone around and repealed five or ten Supreme Court decisions or two or three. Every time they gave up on say a habeas corpus or exclusionary rule or death penalty which looks good, they came around and deftly in this huge bill put it back in.

MR. LEHRER: Look, I think we're not going to resolve that part of this tonight, but Sen. DeConcini, your colleagues, your Democratic colleagues, Congressman Schumer and also some in the Senate, have suggested what Sen. Simpson, the President, and other Republicans are looking for is a 1992 campaign issue to run on, which is you Democrats are soft on crime. And does that add up to you?

SEN. DeCONCINI: I don't think my friend would do that here. Now my friend down at the White House --

SEN. SIMPSON: You wouldn't do that to the President either, would you?

SEN. DeCONCINI: But down at the White House I'm not too sure, and let me tell you why. The President came up here, what, more than 200 days ago and said in 100 days I want a crime bill. We didn't get it. What did he do? He banged the Democratic Congress, I'm sorry to say, not the whole Congress, banged us for not doing it. Over 200 days have gone by, the President says I want a crime bill, I want a crime bill. Now he's got one or can have one. If it isn't what he wants, I understand that. This bill isn't what I want. But he's for the death penalty. He's for the boot camps. He's for a correction in the habeas corpus. This is a correction. It's not as good as one as I wanted. I supported the one that Alan Simpson wanted. But why not put a crime bill into force and effect and say this is good for the country, now try to do better, will you, let's come back and improveit, shall we, instead of saying, making it a political issue. And that's what I think the President's up to. And that's what I predict's going to happen.

MR. LEHRER: Is that what's happening, Sen. Simpson?

SEN. SIMPSON: Let me tell you what's happening. They knew that we were going to leave here and the Democrat-controlled Congress wasn't going to do a crime bill and that George Bush would beat their brains out between now and when we come back. So Foley had to press Jack Brooks, George Mitchell had to press Joe Biden, said, get this turkey out of here, dump it on the President, and he will veto it and we'll ram it in here like an ice pick.

SEN. DeCONCINI: We had a Republican Senator who would not approve a conferee. We waited around here more than six weeks.

SEN. SIMPSON: That wasn't me, my friend.

SEN. DeCONCINI: No, it wasn't you.

SEN. SIMPSON: And the balance was improper.

SEN. DeCONCINI: And I don't mind saying who was if I have to because it was public knowledge. He would not approve a conferee. Why not? Because they didn't want a crime bill. Now he happened to be a Republican.

SEN. SIMPSON: That is not true. The break in the Senate Judiciary Committee is eight to six and we were trying to stick with that same percentage in conference like five/four or four/three and they refused to do it. They refused to let us have that break.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Simpson, would you excuse people who would think that having listened even to the two of you tonight that this is a political argument, not an argument over substance?

SEN. SIMPSON: You ain't kidding. This is all it is. This is not a crime bill. This is a turkey just in time for Thanksgiving.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. DeConcini.

SEN. DeCONCINI: Indeed, it is Thanksgiving and we have a chance to deliver not a turkey, we have a chance to deliver a tough anti- crime bill if the President and the Republicans want it. If they don't, we don't get it. It's as simple as that.

MR. LEHRER: The politics of this, Sen. Simpson, are, from your perspective, is that the Democrats have set the Republicans up for the President to veto this bill. And what you're saying, Sen. DeConcini, is that the Democrats have been set up, is that right?

SEN. DeCONCINI: I believe that if the President doesn't tell the Republicans up here that he wants a crime bill that has a death penalty and most of the things he's campaigned for, we will not get a crime bill and then he will blame the Democrats. If he wants a crime bill, he can have it. It's not perfect, but it's a good, better than a good start. It's a real anti-crime bill.

SEN. SIMPSON: And I've been here 13 years and I've conferenced a lot of bills and I've never seen a bill where we never saw the material and never saw the substance of the bill. It's absolutely absurd. It's a travesty.

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen, we've been here 13 minutes. Let's don't go away because we're going to hear two more views and then we're going to come back to you. Judy Woodruff has the two additional views. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: And those two views come from experts in crime and law enforcement. Joseph McNamara is the former police chief of San Jose, California. He is now a criminal justice research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Eugene Methvin is a senior editor at Reader's Digest who has covered criminal justice issues for more than 40 years. He served on the President's Commission on Organized Crime from 1983 to 1986. Joseph McNamara, is this bill going to reduce crime?

MR. McNAMARA: I don't think so. I don't think either party is covering themselves with glory on this kind of bickering. Crime is a local problem and Washington isn't going to have any great impact on it, but the American public is tired of this kind of squabbling on vital issues. I like some things in the bill. I like the idea that we'll have a waiting period for handguns which is long overdue. I would love to see a provision banning assault rifles because we have one massacre after another. I think some cutbacks on the exclusionary rule are important, but I think the 52 new crimes for the death penalty are just an attempt by both parties to hoodwink the American public. It's not going to have any impact on the crime rate. I'm not opposed to the death penalty for terrorism and multiple murders and other things. But I don't think we should try to deceive the public. The death penalty bill will have no provision, no deterrent effect. It will not reduce crime in America.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. I want to get to the specifics in just a moment, but let me just stick to that first question, whether this bill is going to have a palpable effect in reducing crime in this country. Eugene Methvin, if the bill were passed, what we know of it today, would it reduce crime in this country?

MR. McNAMARA: Oh, I don't think it would --

MS. WOODRUFF: No, I'm sorry. Let me switch -- we heard your answer on that. Let me just switch to Mr. Methvin now.

MR. METHVIN: It will have a marginal but healthy impact. The death penalty for major drug dealers, yes. The failure to outlaw those assault weapons I think is a terrible omission in this bill. Most police in the country are for outlawing those weapons. The exclusionary rule, yes, curbing the federal judiciary's extreme interpretations of the Constitution will have a healthy impact. The habeas corpus issue is important.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. I do want to go to the specifics. If you don't mind, let me just ask about those one by one. But you're saying on balance it'll have some effect.

MR. METHVIN: Oh, yes, oh, yes.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you don't go along with either the Republican or the Democratic view that it either is going to greatly weaken or greatly strengthen.

MR. METHVIN: I don't think it would weaken anything, no.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. McNamara, greatly weaken, greatly strengthen?

MR. McNAMARA: I don't think it will weaken anything either and I think in the area of the exclusionary rule, the court is going to make its own rulings. They have been correcting some of the extremes of the exclusionary rule for years.

MS. WOODRUFF: You wouldn't agree with President Bush's argument that it's going to weaken the criminal justice?

MR. McNAMARA: I guess this is part of the normal bargaining process. When a bill is passed, each side tries to get more of what they want in the bill and the President is doing that and so are both parties in Congress and that's what the conference process is all about.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Let's talk specifically about the provisions, the death penalty. They've extended the death penalty to about, what is it, 50, 51 new federal crimes that now would bring the death penalty. Eugene Methvin, you said a moment ago you don't think it'll have a great effect.

MR. METHVIN: Well, it'll have some effect, but the problem with the death penalty is it takes 10 years now between the judgment of guilt in the assessment of the death penalty and the execution. And that's because of the habeas corpus interpretations of the federal judiciary over the past 30 years.

MS. WOODRUFF: Habeas corpus being the appeals that a person convicted --

MR. METHVIN: Endless appeals of a convicted killer of his death sentence. Those appeals delay the execution an average now of 10 years. And that's because a federal judiciary has used habeas corpus to conduct a campaign essentially of civil disobedience, of failure to carry out the judicial oath to enforce the laws and support the Constitution.

MS. WOODRUFF: But specifically, back on the death penalty, Joseph McNamara, how much of an impact is adding those federal crimes going to have?

MR. McNAMARA: I don't think it will have any. I think people will still appeal and it shouldn't take ten or twelve years for the appellate process. But the other side of that is these are local crimes, killing people. They have death penalties in the states and that's adequate. This is mere partisan political stuff and rhetoric from Washington so each party can go before the electorate in a couple of years and say, hey, we favor the death penalty. The trouble is dope dealers are going to deal because of the enormous profits whatever the penalties are, and that's been our experience for 80 years. It's not going to make the dope problem go away. And most people commit murder out of a crime of passion. They're not going to stop because Congress passed the death penalty.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Habeas corpus, you both have referred to this already. This, again, is appealing, a criminal who has been convicted and sentenced for killing someone, sentenced to death, and continues to appeal, this is the habeas corpus. What they've done is put a new restriction on the use of this so that, what, there's a one year limit after which someone could not appeal, is that correct?

MR. METHVIN: Unless there are new facts found, but there are always ways to allege new facts, and the problem has been, and I disagree with Chief McNamara when he says Washington has no impact on local crime, Washington has a huge impact on local crime through the Supreme Court,which has taken over largely the administration of criminal justice. And now the Congress is attempting to curb some of those excesses in the habeas corpus area, however, this conference bill adopts a softer House position.

MS. WOODRUFF: Because the Republicans were arguing, as I understood it, practically to eliminate habeas corpus appeals. Mr. McNamara, what effect would that have had if the Republicans had been able to get their way on this issue?

MR. McNAMARA: It would have had none because the United States Supreme Court wouldn't have allowed it. In fact, the Supreme Court is making rulings over the past few years that have cut back the length of the appellate process, and I think the present make up of the Supreme Court is likely to be a lot tougher on crime than Congress, either party, is going to be through this legislation.

MS. WOODRUFF: And so specifically on this one new restriction, saying you can't appeal after one year unless there's new evidence, will that have a bearing on crime?

MR. McNAMARA: I don't think the United States Supreme Court is going to turn over their responsibilities on judging whether someone gets a fair trial and gets their constitutional rights to Congress.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Let's talk about the so-called "exclusionary rule." This is permitting the use of evidence, improperly or illegally seized evidence that's previously been unacceptable. The Republicans would have liked to have gone further than what's in the final bill and let all this evidence seized, even without a warrant, let that be admissible in court. What finally passed was that only that evidence that if the officers who got it were acting in so-called "good faith." Would this make any difference, Gene Methvin?

MR. METHVIN: Yes, it will make a difference. The problem is that for 30 years, the Supreme Court has taken over and written a code of criminal procedures that could not have gotten through any legislature in America, federal, state, or local, and the Congress is now attempting to curb some of those excesses specifically in the habeas corpus area and the death penalty area, and in the search and seizure area. Don't forget, as is often said in Supreme Court opinions, the Constitution doesn't say there shall be no search and seizure. It says there shall be no unreasonable search and seizure. And what is unreasonable is a matter that is left largely to judges. Before 1961, it was left to state judges. The federal judges didn't take it up. But then suddenly the federal judges took it over. And then later in 1965, they took over the whole regulation of police interrogation.

MS. WOODRUFF: So is this going to make a difference? Would this make a difference or not, this expanding the use?

MR. METHVIN: Yes, it will make a difference.

MS. WOODRUFF: I'm sorry, restricting the use of --

MR. METHVIN: Well, what we're talking about is restricting habeas corpus and expanding the use of evidence which the police seized in good faith but which some federal judge may later come along and say is unreasonable. But that merely removes the argument from the question of whether it's unreasonable as to whether, back to whether it's good faith.

MS. WOODRUFF: Okay. I guess, I don't want to get completely lost here. Joseph McNamara, specifically on the exclusionary rule and what they've done to permit the use of some improperly seized evidence.

MR. McNAMARA: The court has already moved in that direction. Don't forget the exclusionary rule is a court rule and the court can change that rule. They might listen to Congress on this kind of an issue because it's not strictly an interpretation of Constitutional rights and it's quite true that some of the exclusionary rule rulings that wouldn't let the jury hear evidence of guilt did go too far. Originally, the rule was passed to stop police third degree methods. And it hasn't really worked the way it should. I think it's time to take a new look at it. There are better ways to control the police than letting convicted and guilty people who should be convicted go free because we won't let the jury see the evidence of their guilt. I think we should and must control police misconduct, but by letting guilty people go free, I don't think that's the kind of message of justice that we want to send to the American people.

MS. WOODRUFF: The five-day waiting period says you must, of course, wait five days so that the law enforcement officials can search your background. Gene Methvin, is that a move in the right direction?

MR. METHVIN: It's a move in the right direction. It's a tiny step. I'm not sure. It's been called the Brady Bill and I'm not sure it would have helped Jim Brady. I think Hinckley may have had his weapon long before that. He'd been stalking Presidents before Reagan even became President. He stalked Jimmy Carter. I don't think that that's going to make any major difference. What would make a major difference is this assault weapon question. And the Senate --

MS. WOODRUFF: Had that in there.

MR. METHVIN: -- had that in there, and the Democrats in the House took it out.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. McNamara on the same point.

MR. McNAMARA: Well, I agree it's not a panacea, but it's avery important symbolic message to send to combat the Rambo mentality that the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers have been selling to this country for 30 years. And law enforcement is solidly behind the Brady Bill and we need not only to have that bill but to have the assault rifles outlawed too. And this is an area where we should rise above partisan politics. The President should support it and so should the Democrats in Congress.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right, gentlemen, stay with us. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Yes. Back to Capitol Hill to Senators Simpson and DeConcini. Sen. DeConcini, would you concede some of the point that Chief McNamara was making that particularly in light on the issue of the gun legislation that there's more of a symbolic impact than there is going to be a real impact on crime in America?

SEN. DeCONCINI: I do agree with that. I think the assault provision which I authored I'm really disappointed that it didn't go in. I think it might have had a real impact. Nobody knows for sure, but I felt it was worth a try and that's why we had a sunset provision in it because of the fear of the Second Amendment, those who believe in that so strongly. I want to make one correction. I said that the National Association of Police Chiefs is 135,000 members that they represent, and I made an error in the first part of the program, but to get back to your answer, I think it probably is symbolic, what we did here, but as was said, it's a first step.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about that, Sen. Simpson? Do you think that the five-day waiting period is going to have any effect on crime in America?

SEN. SIMPSON: I don't know, but I happen to live in Wyoming. That's where I was raised and lived. That's my principal home and I'm living here temporarily near the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia has the toughest gun laws in the United States and they kill more people in this community than any other community of the United States. I think that ought to answer that question.

MR. LEHRER: So I take it that's a "no?"

SEN. SIMPSON: It sure is. It's bizarre.

MR. LEHRER: And you also were not in favor of the assault weapon ban that Sen. DeConcini sponsored, is that correct?

SEN. SIMPSON: I did not support Sen. DeConcini in the Senate and the House took it all the way and that was out in conference. I did not support Dennis DeConcini, and, yet, I certainly think there are certain weapons that should be under careful surveillance of not meeting the test of a true sportsman's weapons, and we're going to have to revisit that at some appropriate time.

SEN. DeCONCINI: An interesting point on that subject. You know, the President already has banned 43 assault weapons from being imported. These are made in foreign countries now. And in the provision within the Senate bill, seven of those would have been legislated instead of just by executive order. So it's unfortunate we didn't get a crack at it to see if it would work.

SEN. SIMPSON: The Democrats overrode that in the House.

SEN. DeCONCINI: I have to agree with my friend --

SEN. SIMPSON: That's right.

SEN. DeCONCINI: -- that the Democrats in the House made a big mistake.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. DeConcini, I want to go to both of you on this. Beginning with you, Chief McNamara made a general comment to Judy just now that essentially what the debate that he just listened to between the two of you a few moments ago, that the debate that's going on in Congress about this crime bill is basically an irrelevancy, that 51, well, he went through the whole thing, but adding 51 death penalties or the death penalty to 51 crimes, and all of this sort of thing is not going to have one iota of effect on crime in this country in that it's basically a political thing so each side can go home and say, hey, look, we voted for a tough crime bill.

SEN. DeCONCINI: Well, I know the chief and I respect him a great deal, but I disagree with him, because not only does it institute a death penalty on the federal level with the right Constitutional procedures we believe that will be upheld by the Supreme Court, it's very important I think that the United States government go on record that some offenses are going to have the maximum penalty. But the things that it does do that is so positive for enforcement outside of Washington, D.C., if you want to call it, outside the beltway, is the 8,000 new prison positions by forming boot camps. There's over a billion dollars that goes directly to local law enforcement for assistance. This is something that is long overdue and I think even the chief would have to agree that, by God, they need some help on the local level if we really want to have war. This bill starts that help.

MR. LEHRER: Chief McNamara, would you agree?

MR. McNAMARA: Well, I think we ought to declare an end to the war and the beginning of the public health campaign. I think our money would be spent a lot better reducing the demand for these drugs because millions of Americans are spending billions of dollars on these drugs, creating an economic force due to the potential profit, and no amount of boot camps or prisons are going to stop that. I think the boot camps are a sensible step, but I think we ought to step back and take a look at the more fundamental part of the problem, and that is the profit keeps this going around and this demand for drugs.

SEN. DeCONCINI: If I can just interrupt, this bill has over a billion dollars in treatment and education programs, new money, and I think that's very important and I agree with the chief.

MR. McNAMARA: Well, I certainly support that.

SEN. DeCONCINI: But I think that you have to attack it both ways. Now maybe the chief doesn't feel as strong as he used to about enforcement but I feel very strong on both sides, both enforcement, treatment and education. I think you have to do both, and that's the war we're talking about is a three-pronged war.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Simpson, I realize you're opposed to the bill. I realize you're not sure what's in it, but I realize you're also opposed to what you do know that's in it. But even if it was strengthened, do you believe that this bill in any, even in a strengthened form would have a measurable effect on crime in the United States?

SEN. SIMPSON: If these things are corrected where we come back to where we know what we have, and the House version, as I say, was known in the Senate, if we can do that, there's 3 billion bucks in this bill. That's a great advantage and it goes to law enforcement people on the local level, with the death penalty, with an appropriate habeas, without this repealing of case law, with the exclusionary rule, without fun and games, and that's in there, then I think, yes, you'd have a good, strong crime bill that both parties could be proud of, but right now, I've never seen one like this in all my time here. We have not seen the bill and it's 20 to 7 in the East and we haven't seen it yet.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Methvin, how do you feel about, when you look at the problem of crime in this country and then you see what the Congress is, is debating and voting on, do you believe that there is a connection between what the average American feels the crime problem is and what is being resolved in Washington in a general way?

MR. McNAMARA: I think the public is going to be very confused about this. I think most people agree that we need to be doing a lot better job teaching youngsters right from wrong, and that's not addressed by that. I think there are some good things in the bill, as I mentioned, that I think probably should have come up much earlier in the session so that the public and the various media could describe to the public just what we're talking about. It is confusing to have so many issues come up at the last moment.

MR. LEHRER: The question was for Mr. Methvin, sir. Quickly, sir, I'm sorry.

MR. METHVIN: Yes, I think there's a connection. The American people want action and Congress is trying to do something, at least appear to do something. However, when we talk about habeas corpus, most people don't understand it. Joe Biden said this morning that the President can't explain in 30 second sound bytes what the habeas corpus court decisions are all about. Well, I can explain to you in 30 seconds. I can explain it to you in four words. It's a fraud to pass all of these death penalties and not shorten the appeals process, which the federal judiciary has imposed on the death penalty.

MR. LEHRER: All right. All right. We have to --

SEN. DeCONCINI: It's important to know that there is a one year limit.

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen, we have to leave it there, with all of you talking, we have to leave it right there. Thank you very much.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead, the risks of living in the California hills, and a Jim Fisher essay. FOCUS - FROM THE ASHES

MR. MacNeil: Fires like the one that engulfed more than a thousand acres of trees in a Los Angeles suburb today have become a fact of life in California. Last month, a much more devastating fire destroyed hundreds of homes in Oakland and Berkeley. Inevitably, the questions that follow focus on how to prevent such disasters in the future. Correspondent Spencer Michels of public station KQED, San Francisco, has this report on the search for answers.

MR. MICHELS: From almost any angle, but especially from the East Bay hills, the view of San Francisco Bay is alluring and beautiful. That's why Jim Penowich bought a house here 20 years ago, a house that was completely destroyed by the Oakland fire.

JIM PENOWICH: I was only twenty-nine years old when I bought it, and I didn't think about fire in those days. I just thought about what a beautiful setting it is and how lucky I was to be able to afford to buy a house up here.

MR. MICHELS: Penowich, a television engineer and avid sports fan, lost nearly everything, several cars, his baseball card collection, clothes, antique furniture, and a house he had worked on continuously. Since the fire, he's spent hours at the site.

MR. PENOWICH: Well, I've been busy trying to find anything left, so I've tried not to think about the enormity of it all, although I have my moments where, you know, I cry a little bit, sure. It's impossible not to, just looking around me. One part of me wants to rebuild because I love this area, and another part of me wants to run away and hide.

MR. MICHELS: Should he rebuild, and that depends in part on how much insurance money he gets, he will join thousands of others who want back almost precisely what they lost. The question is: Can they recover the ambience and rebuild the structures the fire destroyed? And as a matter of safety, should they? The October 20th fire in the Oakland and Berkeley Hills left 5,000 people homeless, 25 dead, and caused at least a billion and a half dollars in damage. The fire roared unchecked for a full day as fire departments were slow to fully respond. Water pressure was low and access was difficult. The fire occurred in completely residential, well-to-do neighborhoods, with much of the damage covered by insurance. When the residents like Jim Penowich start to rebuild, they will face the same conditions that made the hills risky to build on in the first place.

ROGER MONTGOMERY, University of California: Building on a hillside is an extremely dangerous thing to do for both the soils, the earthquake reasons, and also for fire. Every years there are fires like this. There have been fires regularly in the history of the East Bay.

MR. MICHELS: At the University of California at Berkeley, close to the fire, the dean of the College of Environmental Design is Roger Montgomery, an architect and planner.

ROGER MONTGOMERY, University of California: There's no question that if you're going to live in California, you've got to pay for it. And California's an expensive place to live. We've got to move water hundreds of miles. We have to protect ourselves against an inflammable landscape, and we have got to also build in a way which is in itself not hazardous.

MR. MICHELS: As Montgomery points out, it is man's presence that has made these hills more flammable. Even in areas not touched by flames, the hazards are easy to spot. Homes are built as close to nature as possible, with trees and shrubs intertwined with the architecture. Shake and shingle roofs are commonplace, though fire officials say they catch fire much more easily than tile roofs. In California, lumber interests have prevented the legislature from banning untreated, wooden roofs, though now once again there is talk of such a law. Streets in the hills are twisty and narrow, giving the area a rural feeling that the residents find charming. Fire trucks, however, find such roads difficult and sometimes impossible to navigate. Water, not just in the hills, but in much of Coastal California, is precious, especially in these drought years. The lakes in the East Bay hills were inadequate to provide pressure and pumps failed because of power outages. Fire protection was, in Dean Montgomery's opinion, not adequate for the risks of living the California hillside lifestyle. With such complete devastation, you might think that the City of Oakland would welcome the opportunity to rebuild the area, to replan to make sure that the problems that happened this time don't happen again. But that is not the case. Oakland intends to rebuild the area just like it was before. The city has put a priority on expediting the building permit process and expects a flurry of construction to begin in the spring. City officials do not envision changing the basic structure or look of the area. Alvin James is city planner for Oakland.

ALVIN JAMES, City Planner: A lot of people tend to think, well, okay, because the fire has essentially cleaned the landscape, if you will, it presents an opportunity to sort of wipe the slate clean and begin again. That isn't entirely true. The physical facilities are still there. There are still streets that are in the general locations where they were before. You still have sewer lines and utilities that are all there. We are looking at how to balance the issues of trying to get people back in as quickly as possible against the at least minimum additional features that have to be put into place to increase safety.

MR. MICHELS: Oakland architect Rosemary Muller, here with a client whose house was destroyed, agrees that the city should not try to re-plan the area. She is chair of an emergency Chamber of Commerce-sponsored design committee.

ROSEMARY MULLER, Architect: I'm working with a bunch of architects, and architects, of course, you give them a cleared out site and the first thing they want to do is redesign the whole thing. So one of the first things you have to do is calm them down a little bit in the interest of the community and people whose houses are burned out are saying, but there is still a community here, it may all be burned, it may have to be rebuilt, but we don't want to start from zero, we want to start from where we were when the fire hit and go on from there.

MR. MICHELS: While practically all the emphasis from officials and residents is on recreating what was here before, Oakland City Councilman Dick Spees says he wants more fire protection and has for a long time.

DICK SPEES, City Councilman: I, for example, had argued for an additional fire department on the hills and in more sense of readiness, I believe that budget does have a factor to play in this and I think that we're going to have to look at that and really ask the citizens what is the level of protection you really want.

MR. MICHELS: Spees argues that the 1978 passage of Proposition 13, California's tax and budget cutting measure, resulted in significant cuts and later stagnation in fire protection.

MR. SPEES: It will take more money to really get us up to speed, both in terms of the water services in the hill area, but also probably the fire services.

MR. MICHELS: Spees is also pushing hard to replace the non-native Eucalyptus and Monterrey Pine trees that burned so furiously during the fire. Within a few days of the fire, some of the damaged Eucalyptus and Pines were being removed as a safety measure. But city officials were being cautious in ordering property owners, who are also voters, to cut down trees on their lots. Fire resistant redwood will be planted throughout the hills. One lumber company has donated 50,000 seedlings, and with winter coming on, helicopters are dropping grass seed on the barren hillsides to prevent erosion. Despite these efforts, because of budget problems and the demands of a popular lifestyle, major changes will be difficult to achieve.

ROSEMARY MULLER, Architect: Well, there may be some changes in terms of building materials. It wouldn't surprise me if wood shake roofs get outlawed. It wouldn't surprise me if fire-rated walls become required. It's even possible that sprinklers inside houses will be required, residential sprinkler systems. But these things that will not cause a change in the basic structure of the community and not necessarily even a change in its appearance.

MR. MICHELS: Dean Montgomery doesn't think those changes will be enough to make a big difference.

DEAN MONTGOMERY: I think what's likely to happen is that we're going to not build back very much better than what was left, and so California will somewhere along the line experience this again.

MR. MICHELS: Just a few blocks away from the fire, new home construction proceeds on a heavily wooded lot. Those who have lived in the California hills and those who aspire to seem to think the risks are well worth taking. ESSAY - LIVING ON THE EDGE

MR. LEHRER: We close tonight with an essay. Today the Senate voted to spend $500 million to help the Soviets dismantle their nuclear weapon. That is part of the reaction to President Bush's announcement a few weeks ago to reduce America's nuclear arms. Jim Fisher, columnist for the Kansas City Star, has some reaction from Missouri, where many of America's missile silos are located.

MR. FISHER: People welcomed the speech. And to most Americans it was pretty much of an abstraction. Oh, they knew there were missiles somewhere out in the country, that part you either fly over or doze through on the Chicago to LA Amtrak. They knew there were some antiseptic-looking control rooms in the ground, shielded with massive steel doors, but inside the silos were rockets and young, scrubbed Air Force officers, with keys and codes to launch the ICBMs once, God forbid, the order came down. What they really knew came mostly from television, night launches of the Minuteman missiles from Vandeburgh or Cape Canaveral, smoke and fire against the sky, monotone voices announcing another successful usually or unsuccessful rarely test firing. Only once was there a hint, in the made-for-television movie "The Day After," spectators in the Memorial Stadium in Lawrence, Kansas, looked up from a football game and saw the missiles streaking into the sky, headed over the North Pole to the Soviet Union It was an arresting scene, fiction, of course, because that was a movie, with dramatic license. Actually, there aren't any missiles within eighty miles of Lawrence, but the scene worked, especially out here in Missouri, because people knew what really was in their own backyards. This is Missile F-3, just Northwest of Cole Cant, Missouri. It is one of a hundred and fifty Minuteman missiles in West Central, Missouri. It's one missile but several warheads, multiple, independent, re-entry vehicle, or MERVs, a nice government acronym, several nuclear weapons, one missile, scary, you bet. But not so much these past few weeks. The nuclear weapons are still inside the silos, but the controversy now is not mega tonnage but on how to dispose of them. There's relief here though. The missile crews have stood down. The missiles have become like cars without starters. Out here we've lived with these things since the early 1960s, 30 years of chain link fences and the concrete pads inside, 30 years of little brown and white signs, one saying N-6 or F-2 or D-8, knowing down deep that one letter and one number spelled Armageddon. Nuclear war, if it came, if the Soviets would just heave a bunch of similar missiles this way, no pinpoint accuracy, no surgical strike, good-bye Western Missouri, good-bye the Dakotas and Eastern Montana, where the other Minuteman bases are. Oddly enough, we got used to it. It was a black-humored admonition that if you were driving down some Missouri back road and saw a Minuteman come roaring out of its silo, the best thing to do was to stop, bend over, and kiss a certain part of your anatomy good- bye. Oddly, people being people adapted. They grew crops and grazed cows right up to the chain link. They didn't get out and march because they believed the country had to have a credible defense. If that meant Minutemen, so be it. A few marched. Some got inside the fences and beat on the silos with sledge hammers and poured red dye on them. They went to jail, with the approval of most folks out here. With the President's speech, things changed. Oh, nothing you can really see. The missiles are still there. So are old habits. Take Jack Hutchison, an auctioneer who lives near Versailles, Missouri. Not long ago he put up an old wooden stover windmill on his farm. It's a beauty, 144 blades, hand finished, looking after restoration as good as it did the day it came out of the factory over in Illinois in the late 1870s. Being proudly the last of its kind, the windmill draws lots of sightseers. How does Jack tell people to get here? Turn right at the missile, he says of his neighboring silo. And everybody understands, not even thinking. I'm Jim Fisher. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again the main stories of this Monday, President Bush threatened to veto anti-crime legislation now headed for a final vote in Congress and Presidential Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said White House Chief of Staff John Sununu was not in danger of losing his job. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.