The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening, and Happy Thanksgiving. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this holiday, Margaret Warner runs a debate about prayer in school, Tom Bearden has another about assault weapons, and essayist Roger Rosenblatt thinks about the countryside. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Bosnia'sMuslim president said this evening Serb forces had crossed into the town of Bihac. Earlier he said fighting was intense, and he called for help from NATO and the United Nations. Yesterday NATO planes attacked Serb positions around Bihac. We have more in this report by James Mates of Independent Television News.

JAMES MATES, ITN: The first pictures from yesterday's air strikes against Serb missile batteries. The video is poor quality but missiles can clearly be seen blasting their target. Three anti- aircraft batteries were taken out in the course of two raids. The Serb reaction has been to detain more than 250 U.N. peacekeeping troops, most of them Canadian, in locations around Sarajevo.

MAJ. GEOFFREY HALL, UN Protection Force: Late yesterday afternoon, the Serbians informed us that they had mined the only route in and out to one of our checkpoints and told us they'd like us to stay and not move in or out.

JAMES MATES: The U.N.'s General, Sir Michael Rose, believes the Serbs are holding them as insurance.

LT. GEN. SIR MICHAEL ROSE, UN Commander: The Bosnian Serb side feel the threat of air strikes against them and by having our presence they feel that in some way insulates them against the possibility.

JAMES MATES: A worrying prospect for NATO ambassadors who are meeting today in Brussels to decide how the besieged town of Bihac is to be prevented from falling into Serb hands.

MR. LEHRER: The NATO ambassadors renewed their threat of further air strikes, but they failed to reach agreement on a U.S. plan to expand the U.N.-designated safe zone around Bihac. Secretary of Defense William Perry spent this Thanksgiving Day visiting U.S. troops in Haiti. He said another 3500 will be coming home by December 15th. That will bring the number remaining in Haiti to 6,000. Twenty thousand U.S. forces were sent there last September. Perry thanked them for their service.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: You have done an outstanding job. Professionalism, the dedication, the skills that you have brought to this job have impressed everyone. They've impressed the Haitians. They've impressed the Americans. They've impressed everyone in the world.

MR. LEHRER: Thanksgiving was the big story in this country today. It was a day of giving for many Americans who volunteered to serve holiday meals to the needy. The menu was the same throughout the country: turkey, stuffing, sweet potatoes, and lots of gravy. In Washington, on a cold and breezy Thanksgiving Day, volunteers served dinner to the homeless. The outdoor event took place on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol Building. In New York City, Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade got underway as scheduled this evening for the 68th time. The big balloons included Barney the Dinosaur, making his first appearance in the parade, Spiderman, and Ronald McDonald. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to praying in school, selling assault weapons, and viewing the countryside. FOCUS - HOUSE DIVIDED

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight, this Thanksgiving night, to the debate over a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools. Congressman Newt Gingrich, leader of House Republicans, put the issue on the agenda for the new Congress and for public debate everywhere. Margaret Warner has our debate as taped earlier this week.

MS. WARNER: The battle over school prayer is routed with separation of church and state, a doctrine first laid out in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in 1789. Three decades ago, the Supreme Court said that prayer in the public schools violated that separation, but the issue was far from settled. Our look at the current round of debate begins with this backgrounder by Betty Ann Bowser.

MS. BOWSER: It was a ritual that baby boomers and older generations should remember well, the way kids throughout the nation used to start their day in school, standing for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a moment of prayer.

[KIDS SAYING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]

MS. BOWSER: There's much in this scene, says Rep. Newt Gingrich, for modern-day schools to emulate.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, House Republican Leader: I do not believe it is possible to explain America, and you can't describe any of the founding fathers without some sense that we are driven by a higher purpose and that we have a relationship greater than being protoplasm seeking to amuse itself. And I think in that broad sense, if you remember, it is freedom of religion; it is not freedom from religion.

MS. BOWSER: But mandatory school prayer was banned in 1962, when the Supreme Court ruled that it violated the First Amendment, the clause that reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Members of Congress have tried since then to amend the Constitution, but supporters have never been able to muster enough votes for the necessary 2/3 majority. Meanwhile, by the mid 1980's half the states had passed laws requiring teachers to lead their classes in moments of silence.

TEACHER: For one minute, you will sit quietly.

MS. BOWSER: For prayer, meditation, or personal thought. But in 1985, the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama moment of silence law on the grounds that it was a thinly veiled attempt to reinstate prayer. Several states have laws on their books mandating moments of silence but do not expressly encourage prayer in public schools. But court challenges are mounting, and proponents would prefer a constitutional amendment to put the issue to rest. The man who's expected to be the next Speaker of the House announced he wants a vote by early July.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: I think there's no question that re- establishing that this is a nation within a religious framework is central to where we have to go. That's why I said that I was very strongly in favor of a voluntary school prayer amendment, and we'll have a vote on one before the 4th of July recess.

MS. BOWSER: The next day at a news conference in Indonesia, President Clinton said he might support such an amendment.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: [Nov. 16] I'd be glad to discuss it with 'em. I want to see what the details are. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. It depends on what it says.

MS. BOWSER: Civil liberties groups expressed outrage, and by week's end, the administration was tempering the President's remarks.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: My position on the prayer issue is I have always supported a moment of silence. When I was a governor, I supported the moment of silence legislation. I do not believe that we should have a constitutional amendment to carve out and legalize teacher- or student-led prayer in the classroom. I think that that is inherently coercive in a nation with the amount of religious diversity we have in this country. I think that would be an error.

MS. BOWSER: With battle lines being drawn, Republican Senators warned against a protracted fight that would divert attention from their much publicized Contract with America.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: That's going to be a tough battle in the Senate.

QUESTIONER: Is it one you want to engage in?

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Well, I think I want to engage in some other issues up front. I don't think we ought to get bogged down.

MS. BOWSER: But even if a school prayer amendment did make it through Congress, three-fourths of the states would have to ratify it to make it the law, and, again, moderate Republicans who are governors are saying that's not where their priorities lie.

GOV. WILLIAM WELD, [R] Massachusetts: But I think Newt Gingrich should dance with the gal that brung him, and the gal that brung him was the tax and spend issue and crime and welfare. Those are the issues that all four of us campaigned on in 1994. Those are the issues that are going to dominate the 1996 presidential election. The Republican throughout the country is on the right side of those issues. Let's press them.

MS. WARNER: Should Congress take up the school prayer issue? We look at the proposed constitutional amendment now with two members of Congress and two clergymen. The members of Congress are Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Congressman Ernest Istook, a Republican of Oklahoma. Congressman Istook is the chief sponsor of a school prayer amendment in the House. They are joined by two clergymen on opposite sides of this argument. Rev. Brent Walker is a Baptist minister who serves as general counsel to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. He advises Baptist groups on religious liberty issues and separation of church and state. Rev. Robert Schenck is an evangelical minister who preaches at the National Community Church in Washington, D.C. He's also an executive member of the National Clergy Council, a network of conservative members of the clergy and religious orders. Welcome, gentlemen. Congressman Istook, let's start with you. Before we get to the specifics of this amendment, why are you proposing it? What problem is it that you think it will address?

REP. ISTOOK: Well, of course, the American people, if you look at public opinion surveys, indicate by a margin of 75 to 80 percent that they believe the Constitution should no longer be used as a weapon against people of faith. They would like to have the ability to have voluntary prayer in public school. When something is that important to the American people, I think it ought to be important to the Congress as well.

MS. WARNER: But be a little more specific, if you could. How is the Constitution being used as a weapon against people of faith in the schools?

REP. ISTOOK: Well, for example, in your opening statement, you said that the doctrine of separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment. Those words don't appear in the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion but goes on to say, "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And you can look at the words of Justice Potter Stuart, who wrote the dissent in the original school prayer cases mentioning that we are actually infringing upon people's constitutional rights when we limit their ability to express their faith in a setting where their children are required to attend, namely compulsory public school attendance.

MS. WARNER: Well, Rev. Schenck, there was a story in the New York Times this week that said that -- and our own setup piece showed that in many schools there are moments of silence, school prayer, prayers are being said at graduation ceremonies and so on. What exactly is the problem as you see it, as you supporters of this amendment see it?

REV. SCHENCK: Well, I think the Congressman was alluding to it. Ever since the decision came down from the Supreme Court, it has been interpreted asprohibiting prayer during school hours. In fact, just recently in the last year or so, or two years, students have actually been arrested for praying on school property. That's outrageous! And that was never meant by the Supreme Court decision. We think -- and that's the group that I speak for -- evangelical groups, many of them believe that it's time to correct that egregious error and affirm by an amendment the right of students to pray.

MS. WARNER: So you're saying that right now, even students who go off by themselves voluntarily and have a prayer meeting at lunchtime sometimes get either -- if not arrested at least disciplined by school authorities.

REV. SCHENCK: Well, they do. In fact, I happen to have been a student in a post-Angle vs. Vitale public school, and I can remember as a student being told, you don't pray in school because it is illegal, it is unconstitutional, it is against the law. And I don't know how that made other students feel, but it made me feel like a criminal for even considering such a notion. I think that has to change.

MS. WARNER: What about that, Sen. Leahy, have the school authorities gone overboard in interpreting this decision?

SEN. LEAHY: I think that there has been so much confusion about this by people who want to somehow get this whole subject down to where it fits on a bumper sticker slogan for whatever reason, and that the confusion arises there. There is no question -- in fact, Wallace vs. Jaffe makes clear --

MS. WARNER: Explain Wallace vs. Jaffe.

SEN. LEAHY: Wallace vs. Jaffe is a Supreme Court case that dealt with a moment of silence. They struck down this particular case in a particular state because the moment of silence was used as a prayer. There's no reason why you can't have that. I talk to students all the time, ask how many of them have taken exams that they weren't prepared for. At least every hand goes up. I say, "How many of you said a prayer?" Virtually every hands goes up. And we have prayer in school certainly in that regard. But on a more serious level, at some point we ought to ask, is there a responsibility for parents? As a parent, I feel a responsibility to teach my children what prayers to say. As a government official, I think I'd like to work at making the schools better, and that's where I think you're going to see a major debate in this, including among a number of Republicans, who are very uncomfortable that instead of talking about how to make our schools better, we're talking about how the government is going to tell you how to pray. My wife and I sent our three children to parochial school where we paid the tuition, where the students said the same prayers that we say at home. I'm very much in favor of that, but when they reached the point where there was no parochial school available for them and they transferred into public schools, I didn't want somebody in that school board -- with maybe an entirely different religion than I have -- telling my children what kind of prayers or how they must conduct prayer. There are things that parents ought to be doing and not turning it all over and saying the school should do it, or the state should do it.

MS. WARNER: Rev. Walker, how do you see the problem? Do you think there is a problem in the public schools who want to pray not being able to?

REV. WALKER: Under the law that stands now there should not be a problem. If these kinds of horror stories are happening, I think the principals and the teachers ought to be disciplined for allowing those things to go on. Under the rulings of the Supreme Court, it's only state-sponsored, school-sponsored prayer that has been removed, not private, individual free exercise on the part of the students. Certainly students can get together even in groups and pray audibly, as long as their prayers aren't disruptive, outside the classroom before a math test or around the lunch table before lunch, a prayer of grace, in the locker room before a football game they can pray. So that can be done. Religious clubs abound throughout this country since 1984.

MS. WARNER: But then how do you explain -- I'm sorry -- how do you explain these horror stories?

REV. WALKER: Well, I can't explain them. If they're happening, they're absolutely wrong, and outside what the Supreme Court has said about prayer in public schools. My objection to the constitutional amendment is that it's simply not necessary. The kind of things that the Congressman says he wants to have happen in the school are already permissible. And if students are not being allowed to do that, then there ought to be some, some action to go to court and to get that corrected. But it doesn't --

MS. WARNER: What about that Congressman?

REV. WALKER: -- you don't need a constitutional amendment to do something that the students can already do.

REP. ISTOOK: Well, let's look at the case that was handed down at the Ninth Circuit Court just last week, a case that came out of Idaho, was decided in the courts in San Francisco. The students at a high school here by an overwhelming number said we want to be able to have a prayer at our graduation. Okay? The court said, you can't do it, you're threatened with legal sanctions. Do we want kids hauled away in handcuffs for it? I mean, those things are happening, and the Constitution is being used as a weapon against people of faith. And somehow, something that should be non- offensive, that's an expression of some of the most positive values of our history, of our tradition, and of ourselves, is being criticized. We're told you should tolerate everything that goes on in modern society except somebody offering a prayer in a public school setting. There in no way left, short of a constitutional amendment, to remedy the problem.

SEN. LEAHY: Well, I take an exception to this: The Constitution is against people of faith. I hold my faith very, very strongly, as I did when I was growing up and when I went to school in a parochial school we picked specifically because it represented the faith I wanted. I practice my faith, and I am pleased that there is a Constitution that guarantees that I can. We -- our Constitution in guaranteeing the right of freedom of speech, the right of freedom of religion, or the right not to have a religion, guarantees the diversity that keeps our democracy going. We're the most powerful nation on earth, and instead of being a dictatorship, we're a democracy because we guarantee diversity of religion, of speech. I do not want to see us stepping in and saying it's going to be otherwise. I would say the parents who are concerned -- as I have been as a parent, as all parents should be -- set an example to your child. Pray yourself at home. Go to your church or your synagogue or wherever you practice religion. Set an example day by day. Take the responsibility yourself. Don't tamper with our Constitution.

MS. WARNER: What about that, Rev. Schenck?

REV. SCHENCK: But, Senator, how do we counteract this continuous negative message? If you look back over 30 years, the courts have consistently ruled against people of faith and their expression of faith within the confines --

SEN. LEAHY: They are not ruling against people of faith. They are protecting the ability of people of faith to practice --

REP. ISTOOK: But the practical outcome is negative.

MS. WARNER: One at a time, please. Well, let's ask about the case that was just raised. Do you think, Rev. Walker, that if a majority of students at a school vote to have a prayer at graduation that they should be able to?

REV. WALKER: If they vote to have a prayer in a student-run group --

MS. WARNER: No, at the graduation ceremony.

REV. WALKER: Exactly. In a student-run group, that's perfectly fine. But where you have a state-sponsored, state-run ceremony, such as a graduation service, the fact that the students, the majority of the students want to have prayer doesn't make it legal. I think that, although there is some ambiguity about this among the lower courts, and the Supreme Court hasn't addressed the issue, I think that our constitutional rights to insist upon the enforcement of the new establishment clause are not up for votes. The Bill of Rights is, by definition, counter majoritarianists. They're to protect the rights of the minority even when it flies in the face of a majority's vote. So, no, I don't think that solves the problem, but if it's a private gathering, a student club, some other environment that does not carry state-sponsorship with it, like a graduation service does, then I think it's perfectly permissible.

MS. WARNER: All right. What about that point, Congressman?

REP. ISTOOK: Taxpayers spent millions of dollars, for example, for the latest presidential inauguration, and others too. What do they begin it with? A word of prayer. How do we open a session of Congress? A word of prayer. State legislatures also. The U.S. Supreme Court, they had a case that came out of Nebraska, people challenging, can you open a meeting of a public body, a state legislature with a word of prayer? The Supreme Court said yes. But yet, we're told that it's dangerous only when it's in a school setting. That's, that's just not right. You cannot preach tolerance and then say but we will not tolerate the viewpoint of the vast majority of the American people, we will not tolerate their prayers. I mean, you're preaching intolerance when you say that.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask Rev. Schenck to reply to the point that Rev. Walker just made, though, that in the case of this school that there were students there who didn't want to hear the prayer and that, therefore, even if a majority voted for it, it is putting state sponsorship behind something that impinges on the religious freedom of the minority.

REV. SCHENCK: I'm sure there are many things that students don't want to hear in a school setting. I'm certain of it. And we don't say, well, because this one person doesn't like a lecture on capitalism or a lecture on communism, then we will not include that in our curriculum. Prayer is unique in that it has been treated as this very dangerous form of free speech when it is not. I think if you have a lecture on other religions, if you're going to hear about Buddhism, you're going to hear about the history of Christianity in the West or whatever, what is so dangerous about hearing a prayer? We are not talking about a government-sponsored prayer. We're talking about students expressing their free speech rights.

SEN. LEAHY: I would encourage -- I would encourage the schools to have lectures on all kinds of different religions. That's fine. I mean, that's part of your education, just as we teach history and geography and everything else. But don't tell my child who has learned certain prayers at home, prayers in our school, prayers in our religion, or prayers in our parochial school that we paid for, that when they go to the public school, now we're going to tell you what is the kind of prayer you're supposed to say.

REV. SCHENCK: Senator, that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about --

SEN. LEAHY: Of course, it is. Of course, it's what you're talking about.

REV. SCHENCK: -- a school drafting a prayer or the government drafting a prayer. We're talking about allowing a student and affirming a student's rights to pray as he or she feels --

SEN. LEAHY: This is exactly what we're talking about.

REV. SCHENCK: -- to participate.

MS. WARNER: Gentlemen, let me --

SEN. LEAHY: What we're talking about is a major debate on this, instead of a major debate on making our schools better.

REV. SCHENCK: Oh, I think we could make them better.

MS. WARNER: Gentlemen, here's what I'd like to do. I'd like to read this amendment, since now we're getting to the specifics, so that we understand what it says. Your proposed amendment says, "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions." You do go on to say that no person shall be required to prayer and nor shall the U.S. or any state impose the words of any prayer to be said in the public schools.

REP. ISTOOK: Yeah. I think if you're reading it verbatim, you may want to read the exact language of those last two safeguards, because they're very important. Two thirds of the amendment is devoted to protecting the right so that people are not compelled to participate, nor would the government compose the language of a prayer to be spoken.

MS. WARNER: So how would it work exactly?

REP. ISTOOK: So it's not a government mandate. Okay. For example, first of all, you need to understand that how it would work would vary from point to point, you know, in the country, because you will have some areas of the country that are more cohesive. You know, they have the same religion some places that just about everybody belongs to, and others, there is more of a mix. So how it would be applied would depend upon how the particular locality thought was best there. For example -- and, again, going back to the original court decisions, they said there's two things, two basic approaches you can take. One, if it's not disruptive in the classroom setting, you can always tell people that if they wish to leave during that, they may do so. Or, you can set up the ability to perhaps just immediately before classes begin to say that anyone who wishes to participate in a devotional exercise can go to this particular locale. And if they have more than one group that wants to have more than one type of devotional, they can do that in multiple places within the school. One is basically an opt out system. The other is an opt in system. But instead of having the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court telling every school in the whole country, no matter what their mix of religious belief, that they all have to do it the same way, which is nothing at all, you have the ability to let local units of school boards decide how to apply that.

MS. WARNER: Okay. What's wrong with that?

SEN. LEAHY: I find rather frightening what the Congressman said about if you're an area where there seems to be a preponderance of people who belong to a particular religion, then that would determine the -- the prayer. I would hate to --

REP. ISTOOK: That's not what I said.

SEN. LEAHY: I would hate to -- that's basically what you said.

REP. ISTOOK: No.

SEN. LEAHY: If there's that cohesiveness, I would hate to be the person who belonged to a minority religion in that setting. It still comes down to this: What is wrong with encouraging children to pray at home, in their church, in their temple? What is wrong with encouraging children who want to get together and have a religious group? There are provisions for them to do that, even on school grounds, but as a practical matter, of course, we'll see what the debate is. This is the primary thing that the new incoming Speaker of the House has said that the House Republicans will bring the debate before the American people and will debate it in the Senate by July 4th, I believe he said. So let's see how the debate's going. I think you're going to find a number of people, including a number of Republicans, who are going to feel that maybe the American people would rather we spent between now and the 4th of July concentrating on a lot of other issues besides this one.

REV. SCHENCK: That is not the --

REP. ISTOOK: Senator, here is --

REV. SCHENCK: -- primary problem.

REV. ISTOOK: -- the others in the hundred day agenda that are to come up before this does.

MS. WARNER: Let me let Rev. Schenck in.

REV. SCHENCK: Senator, here's the problem. The message, the subtle message to students is: Your religion is welcome outside the schools but don't bring it in here. And we have to remember, religion embodies the highest human ideals, human aspirations. Religion has contributed immensely to the development of culture and to our American way of life. And the subtle message from school systems, from the courts that's been very blatant is it is not welcome in the public arena. And I think we've paid the consequences of that.

SEN. LEAHY: I would say that the American Constitution has contributed as much to our way of life as anything else.

MS. WARNER: Let Rev. Walker get in a word here.

REV. WALKER: But it is welcome, and if that's the message that's being communicated, we need to change the message. We shouldn't amend the Constitution.

REP. ISTOOK: There's no other route left. We've tried every other avenue.

REV. SCHENCK: This has been a 30-year experiment, Rev. Walker. This has been 30 years in the making.

REV. WALKER: There may have been a misunderstanding, but the correction for that is education, not amending the Constitution - -

REV. SCHENCK: Another 30 years?

REV. WALKER: -- to allow the, the state through the schools to dictate when, where, and how our kids pray. You're a clergyman, just as I am. I assume that you regard prayer as a quintessential act of religious worship.

REV. SCHENCK: Absolutely. And that's why I'm --

REV. WALKER: There's a lot of things that government can do well, and the schools can do well, but fiddling around in religion is simply not one of them.

REV. SCHENCK: But I do think they can make space for that most - -

REV. WALKER: That is fine. That is fine.

REV. SCHENCK: -- sacred of human rights.

REV. WALKER: That is fine, but under the Congressman's proposal, a teacher could call a prayer meeting in the classroom as long as little Sally, who believed differently, is excused to go out in the hall and be ostracized and as long as the teacher doesn't actually write the prayer. That's a perfectly consistent scenario with your constitutional amendment. And I find --

REP. ISTOOK: A prayer meeting is more expansive than the offering of a prayer. I think you're changing your terms here.

REV. WALKER: The --

REP. ISTOOK: Because this does not talk about a prayer meeting. It talks about --

REV. WALKER: It talks about group prayer, which is what a prayer meeting is.

MS. WARNER: Gentlemen, before we go, let me ask the two members of Congress here about the political prospects for this. You heard Sen. Dole say he wasn't sure the votes were here. Do you think you can get 2/3 in each House for this amendment?

REP. ISTOOK: Oh, I think that the political process is very basic and straightforward. First, of course, we're starting in the House. Every member of the House of Representatives has just stood for reelection. They have just faced the electorate. That's only true of a third of the membership in the Senate. In 1971, the last time that this was brought before the House, the vote was 240 in favor, 162 against. There was a 78-vote margin but it was not a 2/3 margin. I think that the House has changed, while the desire of the American people has strengthened to support this effort, and I think that we can achieve the votes in the House for the 2/3 majority. Obviously, we hope that that will help to create the momentum, the public awareness, the contact with members of the Senate to also help them to support that amendment and then go on to the states.

MS. WARNER: And do you think it's possible that it would be watered down to a moment of silence legislation, not a constitutional amendment?

REP. ISTOOK: We need a constitutional amendment to tell people they have the right to remain silence. I mean, you cannot -- the Supreme Court has already ruled a moment of silence is not deemed to include a right to pray. If so, they kick it out. If you go for a moment of silence, you're saying we still do not want to permit prayer. But if you have a constitutional prayer amendment, then you cay say that a moment of silence is also something you can do. It gives you the ability to do both.

MS. WARNER: Sen. Leahy, you have the last word on the political prospects for either one of these scenarios.

SEN. LEAHY: Well, the Republican agenda said by the 4th of July they want this on. So I think they'll bring it up, and let's vote up or down. That's a real debate. I am really surprised that that is such a major part of what the new Republican-dominated Congress wants to do that by the 4th of July we've got to vote on telling our kids how they're going to pray in school. I would much -- I would think it would be far more preferable to codify in the law precisely what the rights are now. And the rights are that you have a right to have silence, a moment of silence, and the rights are that you can say a prayer during that time. But the other right is that no one in the government, directly or indirectly, can tell my child what prayers he or she should say. That's been the Constitution for 200 years. That's the way it ought to be.

MS. WARNER: Well, gentlemen, I'm sure we'll be back to discuss this, and thank you all very much.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, assault weapons, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - GUN LAWS

MR. LEHRER: Now, the debate over controlling the sale of weapons. It was raised again after the Tuesday attack at police headquarters in Washington, D.C., in which two FBI agents and a police officer died. The gunman, who was also killed, used a semiautomatic weapon. Tom Bearden has the debate and a backgrounder.

MR. BEARDEN: On November 13th, a fierce, 25-minute gun battle erupted between San Francisco police and a 37-year-old drifter. Before police shot him to death, Victor Boutwell allegedly fired an estimated 100 rounds from three semiautomatic assault weapons, now banned under the 1994 crime control law. A police officer was killed, another wounded, as were a paramedic and a bystander. That same day, in Wausau, Wisconsin, 64-year-old Carl Steppert was accused of shooting six people with a small caliber handgun. The new Brady Gun Control Bill requires a background check before such a weapon can be purchased today. One shooting victim, seven-year- old Allison Wallace, died. But the recent incident that attracted the most attention as captured on home video, which is now owned by a syndicated TV program, was when Colorado resident Francisco Duran sprayed the White House with bullets. Could any of the current gun legislation have stopped Duran from buying the Chinese- made semiautomatic weapon that he used? Duran bought the rifle at this federally-licensed gun shop in Colorado Springs, Colorado, six weeks before the shooting. The man who sold it to him is Jim Wear, who owns the shop. He says buying a rifle is easy.

MR. BEARDEN: What was it that Francisco Duran bought from you?

JIM WEAR, Gun Store Owner: The gun -- the rifle that Mr. Duran purchased was SKS of Kolisinkoff design. This happens to be a Russian model. The gun that he bought was a Chinese model, almost identical in form and function to this one, except without the bayonet.

MR. BEARDEN: What does the law say about me purchasing or Francisco Duran purchasing this weapon? What sort of hoops do I have to jump through?

JIM WEAR: On a long gun, i.e., a rifle or a shotgun, the requirements are much less than buying a pistol. No. 1, there is no background check, which is part of the new crime bill/Brady Bill. Also, the age difference -- you must be 21 to purchase a handgun. You only have to be 18 to purchase a long gun. Also, a handgun must be purchased with an in-state ID. The long gun does not.

MR. BEARDEN: The only requirement is filling out a form stating that the buyer isn't a felon. Duran is a convicted felon. He lied. But nobody checks the veracity of any statement made on the form. Two weeks after buying the rifle and four weeks before he showed up at the White House, Duran returned to Wear's shop to buy a pistol. This time he was not allowed to buy the weapon. The rules were different.

JIM WEAR: In purchasing a handgun, as with the Brady Bill and the new crime bill, the person must first make an application for a background check which involves a $12 fee. They fill out -- it's called a Form CHTR, which is a Colorado Handgun Transaction Record. That information is then called in to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. They then run the person, name, birth date, Social Security number, on the NCIC computer, and whatever information is fed back to them at the time, they then provide an approval number or a denial number. This is to buy any kind of handgun.

MR. BEARDEN: How long did it take to get that approval from the CBI?

JIM WEAR: The CBI generally takes about five minutes, depending on how their computers are working at the time. Now, what the Brady Law did was instill a five-day waiting period, however, each state has the option of instituting the insta-check system which Colorado has.

MR. BEARDEN: After the background check, Duran's purchase was denied, but the rifle he bought didn't fall under the Brady Bill. It didn't fall under the crime bill's regulations of assault weapons either.

JIM WEAR: Many of the press people were incorrect in calling the SKS rifle that Duran used, similar to this one, an assault rifle. The conversions that Mr. Duran allegedly made to the gun perhaps would bringit under the category of a modified rifle, however, it is not an assault rifle, and I can show you the differences here. This is a Korean Daewoo-223 rifle. It is M-16 variation, AR-15 variation made in Korea, has a collapsible stock as standard equipment, has a pistol grip, a detachable magazine, and a bayonet. Now, the government's criteria for what is an assault rifle -- and of course, they name specifically the guns as they do the pistols, but part of the criteria is the pistol grip, the detachable magazine, the fact that it is semiautomatic, and the fact that it has a bayonet lug. If you will look at the SKS rifle, you will see no pistol grip, no detachable magazine. While it is semiautomatic, it is in a straight wood stock, and these Russian models carry the bayonet. However, the Chinese model that was purchased by Mr. Duran does not carry the bayonet.

MR. BEARDEN: Wear says there are some glaring inconsistencies in the assault weapons ban. This nine millimeter pistol is perfectly legal. Many police departments use them. But it can easily be made to function exactly like a now illegal assault weapon and still be legal.

JIM WEAR: So if we put this 30-round magazine into this Ruger, we now have a double action, semiautomatic pistol that will hold 30 rounds. Although this is legal to buy, this is legal to possess, legal to obtain, this one, being the old assault pistol which holds 30 years, has now been banned from manufacture primarily because of the way this gun looks. It's very scary-looking. It looks like something you'd see on TV. It does have a high capacity clip, and this is the gun of choice of your young gang members, drug dealers, et cetera. So some inconsistencies that go on, this is a nine millimeter semiautomatic pistol, of fair quality, that has been banned from manufacture and they want off the street, however, this is a nine millimeter semiautomatic pistol that is very much acceptable, that is sold in Walmarts and Long's Drugs and K-Marts and every gun shop all over the country. What we've run into is the people that are making the laws are not at this level. They have not spent a lot of time in gun shops. They have not spent a lot of time on the street. All they know is what they see in the paper. I believe that many of them do not understand the differences, however, when they see this, it scares them much like the infamous pit bull dog scares people. And, of course, if it's scary, we must get rid of it.

MR. BEARDEN: Did the crime control bill make it illegal to buy this?

JIM WEAR: No. The crime bill has only stopped the manufacturing of this gun and other guns like it, manufacturing and importation.

MR. BEARDEN: Can I still buy this, though? Can I still possess it? Can I resell it?

JIM WEAR: I have this for sale. I have others like it. As long as it is out there, it falls under a grandfather thing. You can buy it, sell it, trade it for the time being.

MR. BEARDEN: So how effective are the new gun control laws, and what are the lessons to be learned from the case of Francisco Duran? We'll hear the views of two members of Congress from Colorado. They are Democrat Pat Schroeder, who voted for the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons, and Republican Scott McInnis, a former police officer who voted against the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. Rep. Schroeder, if I could start with you, what conclusions do you draw from the incidents in the White House last week?

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER, [D] Colorado: Well, I think to jump to the conclusion that we shouldn't even try to do anything about guns because somebody was able to get a gun and go shoot at the White House is really the wrong conclusion. We are just beginning - - as you mentioned -- we just got these bills signed into law. The Brady Bill has just begun, and it did stop him from buying a handgun, as was pointed out in the tape, which is very important. One of the interesting pieces in that tape that I learned, that I'm going to go back and look at as a lawmaker, is we know it's against the law to buy any kind of a gun if you're a felon, but nobody's using the instant check to check that. You just fill out the form, and if you lie, as he lied, then you get it. Now, if we're using the instant check because the federal government says you have to use the instant check for Brady and it's illegal to have a gun if you're a felon, we ought to be using the same instant check to catch the guy if he's lying, so he shouldn't have been able to buy weapon No. 2. So why is it -- I guess I would turn it around and say, why is it that the federal government has to come in and say, for crying out loud, these are the laws, enforce 'em? You know, don't just have a piece of paper and let everybody paper over it. We determined even before this year a long time ago that felons should not be able to purchase guns, but obviously people have been going wink, wink, and this guy was winked at.

MR. BEARDEN: Rep. McInnis, what do you conclude from these incidents?

REP. SCOTT McINNIS, [R] Colorado: Well, first of all, I think we need a correction. It was not the federal Brady Bill that prevented Mr. Duran from purchasing a firearm. It was the state of Colorado's law requiring instant check. And that's something that works. I think that we all agree with the problem. There is a problem out there, and there is a crime problem out there. But what we have to look at -- and I don't want to be overly simplistic -- but what works and what doesn't work. And I happen to agree with Rep. Schroeder. We don't need the federal government, frankly. I don't think we need them to dictate in this state what's going to work and what doesn't work. I think you have to come back to the three P's. You have to have prevention like the DARE Program; you have to have protection -- and I've got plenty of cases -- case examples of protection for the average citizen; and you have to have punishment. And in Mr. Duran's case, you will see that he had once before tried to kill somebody. He served only half of his sentence, and he was let back out on the street again. And I think that you'll see a repeat of that. In our country, probably 35 to 37 percent of the violent offenders in this country serve out their full term. As you know, in this country, the average sentence for murder is 15 years. They serve five years. Only 10 percent of the defendants are given a fine. So in my opinion, one, we have to look at the causation. Is the causation ownership of the gun or misuse of the gun? And if we have misuse of the gun, which I think is the causation, then that's where you have to have punishment, and you have to carry out your punishment.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: But, Scott, let me go back to what you said. The way the Brady Bill was written is if you didn't have instant check like we have now in Colorado with our computers, then you have the five-day waiting period. So really it was the Brady Bill that made them use the instant check so they didn't have to do the five-day waiting period, and on the instant check, the way I understand the tape, they found that they didn't use the instant check on the rifles. Now, if we have a law that says felons shouldn't own rifles, why shouldn't we use the instant check for that? In other words, obviously, it's there, and they want to make it very convenient so that you check people quickly and get it out. And I think that's right. You don't want the hassle of five-day waiting periods and all that.

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: Nobody objects to the instant check. You objected to the instant check --

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: No. I'm for --

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: -- when you cast your vote.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: -- the instant check, because --

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: I think we'd have to look because my recollection, Pat, is that in 1991, you voted against the instant check, and so has the anti-gun people have gone against the instant check in favor of the five-day waiting period. Let me say that --

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: What the record shows is that it will take till about 1998 to get all states up on computers.

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: Colorado's in it. That's what stopped him from purchasing a handgun. And it worked.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: And so the law was written so that we put the money out to start helping states bring their records up to date and do it on computers, and for those who had instant check, they didn't have to do the five-day waiting period. So that's how the law's written, and when everybody gets - -

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: Back to the first point, which really is kind of moot here at this juncture, but it was not the Brady Bill. Colorado passed its instant check before the Brady Bill came into effect, so it was not the Brady Bill that stopped Mr. Duran from purchasing that handgun. But the point is the --

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: But what stopped them --

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: What I would like to have you do tonight is to concede that the instant check is the way to go. I think it makes a lot of sense to have --

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: The Brady Bill concedes that.

MR. BEARDEN: It sounds like you do agree that the instant check - -

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: I think we do.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: The Brady Bill concedes that. The question I have is: Why doesn't Colorado, or why don't other states then use it across the board for all laws about guns? I think every American would say if we helped pay for this instant check, which all of them are going to do, whether they want to or not, taxpayers aren't volunteers, so they're all going to pay for it. Don't they want it used to enforce all laws, and isn't it outrageous they didn't use it the second time he comes in and fills out the form?

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: Well, what's outrageous is that the people, if they're so ingenious at this point, why didn't they at the time of the Brady Bill passage put that into that Brady Bill?

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: It is in the Brady Bill. It's in the Brady Bill.

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: For all weapons? It's not for all weapons. It is for handguns --

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: No, that's not --

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: -- if the states don't have it.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: Well, that's right. But see, states aren't enforcing it for all, so maybe we have to go do it for all. The hope was once you got it up and going for handguns states would use it to enforce all the laws without guns. But what the tape told me is apparently they're not. So I think we're going to have to figure out something about that, because I don't think there's any American that's going to argue that felons have the right to go buy guns. You're right. They should have been punished. They should have been kept in jail longer, all that,all that, but we've got to get that fixed. But until we get that fixed, we still all could agree we don't want felons buying guns of any kind, maybe water pistols. I don't know. But everything else you probably need --

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: There are some groups that don't even want you to do that, that don't think you should have toys like that.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: But instant check that we invested in ought to be used to make sure that it will work.

MR. BEARDEN: Let me ask you something else about what Jim Wear had to say. He says that gun control laws do not reduce the supply of weapons. He says it moves them into the black market, where people simply pay more money for them, and where criminals are going to profit from illegal sales. What do you think about that?

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: Well, I used to be a police officer. I know a lot about crime, and I can tell you that you can pass all the laws you want, and what I have found in my experience as a police officer are that the people that obey the laws are not the people we have the problems with. So I don't think when you take a look, I don't think going after possession or ownership of the guns through gun control laws is going to have the kind of impact that people want to have on crime out there. The conclusion is that if you really want to get crime, you have to go back to what I said earlier. One, you've got to have punishment that means something. Two, you've got to get in on the preventative side. I know we agree on the preventative side of it. And three, what's forgotten in all of this argument are the 2 1/2 million cases every year where people are able to protect themselves by the use of a weapon. And in the majority of those cases, the strong majority of those cases, a shot is never fired, just possession of the weapon has protected that individual.

MR. BEARDEN: What about the protection issue?

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: Oh, I think the protection issue is one of the tough issues, but if you're not a felon, you can get a gun. The good guys can still get guns. We're not talking about no one can get a gun. We're talking about who can get it now. Then the argument if you chase felons out of the legitimate market, they're going to go to the illegitimate market. That's correct. But if we get smarter and smarter about that, we can start tracking the illegitimate market just like -- it's the same with drugs. Nobody would say, well, let's legalize drugs, because otherwise they'll go get 'em illegally. You know, let 'em get 'em illegally, and go get 'em for doing things that are illegal. I think you have to draw very bright lines, but to me this makes an incredible amount of sense. I also think that when we were talking about the assault weapon ban, the other thing that jumped out at me at the tape, there were many of us on the Judiciary Committee also talking about clips and talking about other things that could modify a rifle to make it an assault weapon saying, look, we didn't come to town on a turnip truck. You can do exactly what was pointed out in the tape, you can get one, and you can modify it; maybe we should look at this too. And we really got beaten back on that. But I think eventually, as Americans get more savvy about this and understand it a little more, I think they're going to say, yeah, we don't want street sweepers, and we don't want things that are meant to kill the most people the fastest. If you want it for protection, you don't need a street sweeper. If you want it for sports, you don't need something that spews out 30 rounds of ammunition. You draw those bright lines.

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: You know what I think they're going to find - - I think as time goes on and we have some more of these unfortunate incidents -- I think the people are going to find some of these things like the Brady Bill don't work, they don't have the effect. When Duran was in Washington, Washington, D.C., where I work, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, and it's got one of the highest crime rates in the country. I think it's going to shift -- eventually, I think it's going to shift from saying hey, gun control is not the answer. The answer is we've got to have prevention, and I keep coming back to it, and we've got to have punishment. Now, I think you do a whole lot more for controlling these kind of incidents by having kept this guy in jail to serve his original sentence, and --

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: I didn't let him out, Scott.

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: Well, I didn't either. I know, but we're talking about results.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: And I want to say we need all of the above. I vote for prevention as you stipulate; I vote for punishment; I vote for that. But I also voted for the assault weapon bans and the Brady Bill, because I think it's a beginning. It's our first step. You know, it's a beginning. We're going to get it better. But the reason it doesn't work in D.C. or the reason it doesn't work when you do it city by city or state by state is people can cross state lines. It's very easy. It's all transportable. And that's why you need a national policy like we've had on cheap ones that come in, you know, from international sources and things like that.

MR. BEARDEN: Speaking of national policy, how is gun control going to play in a Republican Congress?

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: Well, I don't think -- I think just the direction that I've told you, I think they're going to acknowledge that gun control is not having the kind of impact that people thought that it might have. I think this Republican Congress is going to be a lot tougher on the punishment aspect of crime, and I think they're also going to understand and recognize the importance of prevention. And I'm pleased to hear, Pat, that you're for stronger sentencing. I want you to sign up on the death penalty, and I'll get you a few other things here real quickly.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: Well, no, no, I --

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: But the fact is that the Republican --

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: I voted for the crime bill.

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: -- Congress is not going to decorate this thing by saying, all right, folks, we passed a gun control bill, regardless of the fact that Washington or San Francisco or some of these other cities have tough gun control, and it doesn't work in their communities, we're going to lead you to believe that it works across the country.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: Are you going to repeal it? Are you going to repeal the assault weapons bill?

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: I don't think that will be repealed.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: Are you going to repeal Brady?

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: I don't think the votes are there to -- no, I don't think the votes are there to repeal Brady. But what I think is that instead of moving the momentum, which is Brady too and some of the other supporters of -- some of them want to move to a complete ban of any type of weapon at all -- I think that momentum has come to a sudden halt. And now we're going to say all right, we'll see what's working on your Brady Bill, but in the meantime, we're going to shift our momentum into tougher sentencing and punishment that really means something, which in almost every case your tape mentions. I'll bet you if you look back at their criminal history, tougher sentencing would have resolved the problem.

MR. BEARDEN: It sounds like you're worried about losing ground.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: I'm worried about losing ground, and I'm also worried about losing the funding for instant check, because there was $200 million authorized in the crime bill for instant check to come on line in these different states. What we know is we want a network -- because we're such mobile people -- we want it in all the states, and we want all sorts of things for children that are taken across state lines, for tracking child support, and for tracking criminal records vis-a-vis guns. And I'm really worried that some of that funding won't materialize, even though it's been authorized.

MR. BEARDEN: I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there.

REP. SCOTT McINNIS: All right.

MR. BEARDEN: Rep. McInnis, Rep. Schroeder, thanks very much for joining us.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: Thank you. ESSAY - OPEN COUNTRY

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt, a New Yorker, considers the countryside.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Now is the season you feel it most, the urge to head for open country or open anything. True to its name, the fall brings things down like curtains or eyelids. And with every closing, every hint that the mind and the weather are about to fold its shutters and hide again, to hibernate -- now there's a fancy word for hiding -- there is an equal pulling of the will toward the light. Open Country -- it is the title of a new book of photographs by Jay Dusard, and it also sounds like a magician's command -- open country -- as if one were trying to pry one's way out of a box or a bottle and rediscover space and breathing room. Anybody who's been to places like Montana or Wyoming knows what it means to feel this way. At the first sight of the endless sky and the endless land, the city-bred will issue an involuntary sigh, which, in a way, is a sound of criticism, especially these days, when the word "city" means problem and danger, a street attack, a kid with a gun, the familiar grim alarms of the news. Say open country, on the other hand, and you feel what is in Dusard's photographs, free at last. It really isn't so. In Utah, in New Mexico, even Big Sky, Montana, if you look close enough into the open country, you see the details that break up the big picture. You can stumble on the rocks. Traveling is hard. If you've lived in open country for any stretch of time, you know too well how lonely the size and solitude can make you feel. It doesn't jump you in the dark. It is the dark. Still, there is something about the free expanse and the silence, maybe the silence especially, that draws you in and out. People have explained the attraction in various ways. One likes open country because it signals freedom, Americans take to that. Or one likes the idea of the assertion of nature over machines. Or, in the age of the information highway, where everyone is parked before a little screen, the open country presents a screen as big as all outdoors, a natural drive-in. And the private, secluded life becomes the private, secluded life out in the open. No viruses, easier on the eyes. Or, in the life of whose limits one grows increasingly aware, there in open country is the apparently limitless. "I saw eternity the other night," wrote the 17th century poet Henry Vaughan, "like a ring of pure and endless light, as calm as it was bright, and wound beneath it time in hours, days, years, driven by the spheres, like a vast shadow moved; in which the world and all her train were hurled." Or, perhaps best still, there is no way to explain the attraction. There is a scene before you, stretched as deep as history, except that its memory belongs to it and not to you. And all you have before you is what the world has had behind, emerging in its own sweet time to the present in the shape of boulders, trees, mountains, sky. You cannot take it in. It cannot take you in either. It doesn't seem to want to -- moving at once closer to the ground on which you stand and farther away, so far that you begin to get high on the knowledge that you are located in a place you can never get to. That's a trip. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Thanksgiving was Bosnia. The Muslim prime minister said Serb forces had entered the town of Bihac after a day of intense fighting. NATO renewed its threat of further air strikes but failed to approve a U.S. plan to expand a protection zone around Bihac. We'll see you tomorrow night. Have a nice holiday evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.