The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the next move in the impeachment trial: Kwame Holman reports, Tom Oliphant and David Brooks analyze; Elizabeth Farnsworth conducts a debate on the proposed missile defense; Betty Ann Bowser recounts the war between the states over garbage; and Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky reads some trial poetry from "Alice in Wonderland." It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The impeachment trial resumed late today. Majority Leader Lott offered a motion on how to proceed. Minority Leader Daschle offered a substitute, which was defeated. Lott's plan covered depositions and a timetable for a final vote on the articles. We'll have more on the story later in the program. Social Security can only be fixed in the long-term by raising taxes or cutting benefits. That was the word from Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan today. He testified before the Senate Budget Committee. He said he favored using future budget surpluses for Social Security, rather than the tax relief Republicans want.

ALAN GREENSPAN: I would favor tax cuts only if it appears that there is no way to maintain that surplus. I prefer tax cuts to spending increases. But far superior to either, in my judgment, is to allow the unified budget surplus to run and debt to the public decline.

JIM LEHRER: Greenspan said he opposed the president's plan to invest Social Security money in stocks. He said that would disrupt normal market forces. Two big mergers were announced today. Ford will buy Volvo's automobile division for $6 billion. Volvo will keep its boat engine, construction equipment, and other businesses. And in the computer industry, Internet search company Yahoo is buying Geocities for $4.5 billion. Geocities helps individuals establish web sites on the Internet. On the Kosovo crisis today, NATO demanded Serb forces and Kosovar rebels have peace talks or face military action. NATO Secretary-General Solana said both sides must also accept an interim political settlement. It will be drawn by the six-nation contact group monitoring the conflict. There were also reports today of more combat. In other foreign news today, two U.S. planes dropped bombs on an air defense site in Northern Iraq. A military spokesman said anti-aircraft fire provoked the response. The planes returned safely. In Washington, the commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf warned congress about financing opposition groups in Iraq. Marine General Anthony Zinni said none were strong enough to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Violence broke out in earthquake-stricken areas of Colombia today. Nearly 900 bodies have been recovered so far. We have more from Mark Austin of Independent Television News.

MARK AUSTIN, ITN: For several hours, the town of Armenia descended into chaos and anarchy as hungry mobs rampaged through the streets looting shops. [Sirens wailing] The police were outnumbered. Military police were called up. "We're starving," says this woman, "where's the help we need?" The Colombian president immediately ordered hundreds of troops to the stricken area and calm was eventually restored. But this is how the tens of thousands of homeless here are now forced to exist, sleeping on the streets with whatever belongings they could salvage. For most, it isn't much. As the body count climbs in Armenia, they're running out of coffins. More are being sent from the capital, Bogota -- these filled with food and medicine. Medical help for the more than 4,000 injured also remains in short supply. With the relief effort here uncoordinated and stretched to breaking point, the hunt for bodies goes on. International rescue and recovery teams have now arrived at the scene, but most people here believe it's too late to find anybody else alive.

JIM LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to an impeachment trial update, the missile defense debate, garbage between the states, and some "Through the Looking Glass" poetry.

FOCUS - MISSILE DEFENSE

JIM LEHRER: We're going first to the debate over national missile defense and to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Remember "Star Wars," the space-based system conceived during the administration of President Reagan as a way to defend the U.S. against Soviet ballistic missiles? Well, now that countries like North Korea can build rockets, too, the missile defense debate is back. It's not Star Wars this time, but something different. At the Pentagon last week, Secretary of Defense William Cohen pledged $6.6 billion, between now and 2005, to build a more limited national missile defense system. It would be aimed at attacks from places like North Korea or an accidental attack from Russia or China.

WILLIAM COHEN, Secretary of Defense: We are committing additional billions of dollars and taking other steps to protect our troops and the American people from the growing threat posed by weapons of mass destruction delivered by ballistic missiles.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: This video from the Defense Department shows some elements of the proposed system. Satellites in space and radars on the ground would detect and track an enemy missile launch. Then interceptor missiles would be launched to destroy the invader. About $55 billion have been spent since 1983 on missile defense research. The $6.6 billion announced by Cohen last week will pay for building the missiles, radars, and other aspects of the new, limited system. During his briefing last week, the secretary made four key points: First, the threat of missile attacks from nations like North Korea is increasing. Second, no firm decision has been made about actually deploying a defense system, but a final decision will be made in June next year. Third, building a missile defense system might violate the anti-ballistic missile or A.B.M. Treaty. And finally, implementation of the missile defense system depends on further testing. The flight tests of interceptors so far have almost all failed. Concern over the threat posed by missile attacks has grown since a bipartisan report on the subject was released last July by a commission headed by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The commission, appointed by congress, found that concerted efforts by a number of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological or nuclear payloads poses a growing threat to the United States, and that the warning times the U.S. can expect of a new, threatening ballistic missile deployment are being reduced."

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: LANSCOM had some questions about some of the policies of the United States, and I hope that -

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Already the administration is dealing with the fall-out from Cohen's announcement last week. In Russia earlier this week, Secretary of State Albright heard objections from Russian leaders to rewriting the anti-ballistic missile treaty. That treaty, which was signed in 1972 by Presidents Nixon and Brezhnev, limited the nuclear weapons arsenals of the two world superpowers and ruled out development of nationwide ballistic missile defenses. At a Moscow press conference Tuesday, Albright and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said they had referred the matter to a bilateral security committee. Albright also said the U.S. might seek amendments to the ABM treaty, which Ivanov said Russia would oppose.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And we get four views now. Robert Bell is director of arms control and defense policy at the National Security Council. Donald Rumsfeld was secretary of defense under President Ford and was chairman of the commission that assessed the ballistic missile threat last year. Richard Garwin, a member of that commission, is chairman of an advisory committee to the director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. And John Rhinelander helped negotiate the 1972 A.B.M. Treaty. He is now vice chairman of the Arms Control Association. Bob Bell, flush out what we're talking about here. We'll get into the whys in a few minutes, but how manymissiles, where would they be in this system that's proposed?

ROBERT BELL, Special Assistant to President Clinton: Elizabeth, those are the two key questions yet to be answered as Secretary Cohen made clear in his press conference. We're looking at a range of options here from one site that would include just about 20 missiles at the beginning of the deployment to a more robust deployment in the first stage that could perhaps move that site to a different location or mix the number of missiles, again, very limited in the first phase, between two sites.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And where would those two sites be, perhaps?

ROBERT BELL: We are conducting environmental site surveys at present. At the site that's already designated in the ABM Treaty in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and some locations in Alaska, which, of course, would be much more proximate to the North Korean launch sites if their missile threat continues to grow as it's evolving right now. And we've kept the Russians informed throughout of this environmental work at both locations.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. We'll get back to that, too. Mr. Bell, how would that work? We gave a cursory explanation. You explain how it would work.

ROBERT BELL: Well, we've had satellites in geosyncronous orbit twenty-three/twenty-four thousand miles above the earth for many, many years. In fact during the Desert Storm Gulf War, we used those satellites to let our forces in Kuwait know that there were Scud missiles coming towards them. So, those overhead satellites would give the first warning and then A.B.M. radars that would be part of these sites would pick up the incoming warhead, and there would be a ground-based interceptor, or actually under our plan several launched at each incoming warhead to assure an extremely high probability of intercept.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Donald Rumsfeld, based on what your commission found last year, do you think a national missile defense of this sort is necessary?

DONALD RUMSFELD, Commission to Assess Missile Threat: Well, I do. There is no question but that the threat is there. And I was very pleased to hear Secretary Cohen state that fact, that the threat is here and now. I think that the decision on the part of the administration to put some money behind that decision was also important, as well as the decision to recognize the fact that the A.B.M. Treaty is inhibiting development of and deployment of such a program and the decision to go forward and begin the discussions with Russia on that, although I sense there may be some difference between the Pentagon and the White House, at least in terms of the press reports on that issue. But I was pleased to see Mrs. Albright bring it up.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Rumsfeld, describe the threat that your commission identified.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, the threat is that we concluded -- we discussed the threat from Russia and the threat from the People's Republic of China and those capabilities which are reasonably well understood. What we focused on what was the evolving threat that is proceeding at a more rapid rate than had previously had been assessed by the U.S. intelligence community with respect to countries such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, countries that have had shorter-range ballistic missiles but because of the availability of technology today and have been proceeding at a pace that suggests that they can have these weapons within a period of five years of a decision to do so, and that in fact the United States might not know of such decision, which means you are really in an environment of little or no warning. And certainly the North Korean launch of the Taipadonwan three-stage missile is a perfect example of the problem.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Explain that missile those of us who are not experts in this. A three-stage missile, what could it hit?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, it depends of course on the success of the third stage, all stages. It depends on the weight of the payload. But the conclusion that has been made now by the Pentagon and by Mr. Walpole, who is the national intelligence officer on this subject, in an unclassified basis is that the Taipadonwan launched by the North Koreans suggests they will be able to reach the United States in a reasonably short period of time.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But can't at the current moment, right?

DONALD RUMSFELD: No. It could reach portions of the United States, probably depending on the payload weight.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Richard Garwin, were you on the same commission. Do you think that the United States should move towards developing a national defense -- missile defense system?

RICHARD GARWIN, Commission to Assess Missile Threat: Well, I think we should develop a missile defense system that can handle the threat. And there are three problems with the current system. First, you have small payloads available to the North Koreans; they're the only one of the three threat countries we looked at -- North Korea, Iraq and Iran.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Small payloads?

RICHARD GARWIN: Small payloads, not thousand pound for early stage - early generation nuclear weapons but small payloads, some tens of pounds, hundreds of pounds, which might deliver biological weapons. And that's not good news. But the problem is that in delivering biological weapons, they are not going to come all in one clump in the middle of a city or on the outskirts. The weapons aren't very accurate -- but are easily divided into bomblets on the way up; these bomblets would have to be intercepted independently. This national missile defense is not the way to do it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Mr. Garwin, let me interrupt you here. I'm going to come back to you in a minute on why you think this won't work. But did you identify the same threat as part of the commission as Mr. Rumsfeld just described?

RICHARD GARWIN: Yes. We were unanimous. We had an emerging I.C.B.M. threat as soon as the countries wanted to put the effort behind it and worked at it effectively. But we noticed that there are two other threats. One, I mentioned, the bomblets, and also some countermeasures that keep you from having a cooperative warhead in space to intercept. But furthermore, that if these countries really wanted to hurt us, then they would use shorter-range millions from ships, nuclear weapons blowing up in harbors, purchased cruise missiles if they like, small airplanes that could fly out of shipping containers on a ship. And that's a much easier job. That's not to say we shouldn't have a defense against those things we can defend against, but we shouldn't feel protected against malign intent from these countries.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And your commission looked at the threats but made no recommendation on what should be done against those threats, the Rumsfeld Commission?

RICHARD GARWIN: Exactly. We didn't discuss whether it was feasible or not.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Mr. Rhinelander, how do you see the threat from North Korea and elsewhere?

JOHN RHINELANDER, Former Arms Control Negotiator: Well, I don't think the threat from North Korea is as important by any means as the problem with the Russians and the Chinese. The Russians have thousands of weapons now which could destroy us. And China has maybe ten to twenty. And these are the ones which are in place right now. And we ought to be focusing on them. Whatever defense we are thinking of putting up would not handle the Russian threat. Everybody understands that. And what we are doing is counterproductive.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So, why don't you think the others are a threat, a current threat, the ones mentioned by Mr. Rumsfeld?

JOHN RHINELANDER: What the commission is saying that over the next five years, they may develop them. They are not saying they are there now. The immediate threat of around the world are shorter range systems, not the ones that can reach the U.S.. The U.S. can be hit directly now only by a thousand or so, more than a thousand Russian missiles and a handful of Chinese missiles.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And you're not saying that a national missile defense should be developed to counter that. You're just saying it won't work for what it's aimed at now.

JOHN RHINELANDER: Well, one of the problems is it's never worked over the last 50 years. We've been trying to develop them since really after World War II. We have put maybe $100 billion into the effort and we still don't know how to do it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. I'm going to come back to that in a second. Mr. Bell, respond to what you've heard so far. What were you thinking about in the administration when you decided to move forward on this?

ROBERT BELL: Well, we think it's very important to protect the option of deploying the system when it's ready to be deployed. That's a crucial distinction, Elizabeth. As you said in the front of this piece, Secretary Cohen made clear when he announced at the press conference last week our plans, that we've not made a deployment decision yet and do not intend to until June of 2000 at the soonest.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Explain that briefly and then go ahead. Money to build but not yet deploy?

ROBERT BELL: Well, the Pentagon, unlike most agencies of our government, has to have very strict budget plans that go out five or six years. And the budget that the president will submit on Monday for the Pentagon extends through the year 2005. And we had to ask ourselves if we're as serious about this program as we say we are, and we are, then was the money going to be in that long-range plan to protect the option of deploying it if we conclude in the summer of 2000, based on flight tests that we're going to have to conduct over the next 18 months, if we conclude then several things: First, that the flight tests show that the system is ready for deployment, that it can do the job and answer the sort of technical questions that John Rhinelander and Dick Garwin just raised. Second we're going to have to confirm that the threat that we are now projecting and expecting to arrive about in that time frame has, indeed, matured in that direction. We're also going to need to make sure the costs are under control. And, of course, by then we'll know a lot more about our discussions with the Russians on modifying the treaty, if that's required, and our ability to persuade them that that can be done while still preserving the benefits we hope to achieve from the strategic arms reductions treaties.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And the threats as they were described by Mr. Rumsfeld, those are the same ones you identified?

ROBERT BELL: I believe that's right. Both the Rumsfeld commission and now our intelligence community are on the same script. They are both projecting the likelihood that this threat from North Korea will mature in the time frame we are talking about here. That's our expectation. We'll need to confirm it. But we are now, in effect, hedging against that eventuality -- perhaps that high likelihood event -- by putting $7 billion into the defense budget.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Garwin, now, why don't you think it will work? You gave us an answer. Go ahead.

RICHARD GARWIN: I mentioned the bomblets and against the nuclear warheads arriving in space.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Explain the bomblets in a little more detail.

RICHARD GARWIN: The bomblets were biological weapons, anthrax, or whatever in little containers about that size weighing a few pounds, dozens or hundreds of them all flying over a region of tens of miles. You cannot collide with them the way these interceptors are supposed to collide with warheads to destroy them.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Because they're too small?

RICHARD GARWIN: They're too small and they're too many. As Bob Bell says, we're going to start with 20 interceptors and we're limited to 100. But we do not know how to collide with the bomblet and we certainly don't have that many interceptors. So, that's one surefire way of beating the system, with biological attack, which of course is illegal. But destroying the United States is illegal and undesirable, too. Incidentally these people cannot destroy the United States. They will have one, five missiles, something like that, some of which may work. It would be a terrible thing for them to launch. But even if they have a nuclear warhead and they are far from having a deployable nuclear warhead, it will not fly through space like a happy puppy running up to be petted. We are not going to intercept it with its own -- with its approval. And so it's really easy to put around one of these things a big aluminized plastic balloon. The United States deployed such things in space in 1958. And these can be as big as this whole studio. So, the interceptor will poke a hole in one part of it, and it will not touch the reentry vehicle which will then reenter as if it had not been affected at all and even several interceptors seeing the balloon can do that. So these countermeasures are put off until a later time by the ballistic missile defense organization and I think we should realize that they will be there from time zero.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay, Donald Rumsfeld, how do you respond to that argument, that it shouldn't be developed because it won't work?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, I think that with all respect to my friend, Richard Garwin, and his knowledge of this subject, which is extensive, it seems to me that the argument that we shouldn't do anything until we can do everything simply doesn't work. Throughout the whole history of mankind there have been advances in military technologies where there is an improved offense and then an improved defense and an improved offense. It's never be static; it will not be in this instance. Second, I guess I have a lot more confidence in the technical capabilities of the United States of America. There just isn't a doubt in my mind. If we relieve ourselves of the restrictions of that treaty so that we do not have to do contortions to do what is the quickest, cheapest, most effective way of doing this, and organize to do it in an effective way, that the United States will be able to do it -- will it be perfect? No. Will it be able to solve every problem, terrorist attacks and everything else? Of course not. But I certainly agree that it ought to be able to protect the 50 states and possessions. It ought to be able to deal with the shorter-range threats as well as the longer-range threats, that is to say a shorter-range ballistic missile from a ship. And we need to also recognize the importance of our friends and allies and forces overseas and staging areas, or else we're an uncertain ally. I'm very pleased to see us working with some of our allies in that area now.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Rhinelander, you were the legal advisor to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the A.B.M. Treaty. What will be the effect of that treaty if this is deployed?

JOHN RHINELANDER: Well, we don't know for sure because we don't know the specifics of what the U.S. is proposing. I understand it may, though, consist of two sites, one in North Dakota, as Bob Bell indicated, perhaps the second in Alaska. The treaty only allows one site, so that would be one amendment. It would probably have space-based components to it and the treaty now limits the deployed sensors to fixed land-based. It may have sea-based components to it. It would be a fundamentally different legal arrangement than what we agreed to in 1972. And I do not personally believe the Russians will accept it because they do not have the capability. They don't have the money to deploy anything like what we are thinking about.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So do you see this as fundamentally destabilizing to the U.S. effort to cut arms?

JOHN RHINELANDER: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you think of what has been going on with the Soviet Union?

JOHN RHINELANDER: I think you have to ask what is the likely Russian reaction going to be. It won't be to build a comparable one because they couldn't do it and they don't want to do it. I think more likely than not, they will decide they will not take down the multiwarhead offensive missiles which they had agreed to in one of the great feats of diplomacy during the Bush administration to eliminate all their land-based weapons, the ones that concerned us more than anything else.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: All right. I want to get to Mr. Bell for a response on this, and we don't have much time. Mr. Bell, what do you think about that?

ROBERT BELL: Well, Elizabeth, two things. First, the A.B.M. Treaty has been amended or changed before, including under this administration. We had a very successful -- it was not an easy negotiation but an ultimately successful negotiation with agreements signed in New York in September of 1997 that amended the treaty. And, second, it's clear that the Russians value defense. After all, they have an A.B.M. around their capital city of Moscow. They have spent billions of rubles to maintain it and improve it. It's now in his fourth generation. So, we must start from the fundamental common ground that there is value in having protection against neighbors or states that hold you in some hostility, not being able to strike with impunity against your homeland.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all very much for being with us.

JIM LEHRER: And still to come on the NewsHour tonight, impeachment, garbage between the states, and "Through the Looking Glass.

UPDATE - WHAT NEXT?

JIM LEHRER: What next with the impeachment trial? Kwame Holman begins our coverage.

KWAME HOLMAN: This morning, the unmistakable motorcade that is the president's alone swept along Pennsylvania Avenue en route to Capitol Hill. But the president wasn't heading for the capitol itself. The caravan continued past the site of the impeachment trial and on to the Russell Senate Office Building. The occasion was a memorial service for Lawton Chiles, the former Florida governor and three-term United States senator who died last month.

CHOIR: [singing] Glory, glory hallelujah.

KWAME HOLMAN: The president appeared comfortable siting among Chiles' former colleagues, the senators who hold the fate of the Clinton presidency in their hands. Two senators who did not attend the service were Majority Leader Trent Lott and Minority Leader Tom Daschle. They were back in the capitol, behind closed doors just off the senate floor, trying to work out a bipartisan agreement on the rules to conduct the depositions of three witnesses approved by the senate yesterday. Shortly after noon, senators were seen scurrying off to the their respective party caucuses for briefings on the negotiations.

SPOKESMAN: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are commanded to keep silent.

KWAME HOLMAN: As required by the rules of the impeachment trial, today's session began on time at 1 this afternoon. However, Majority Leader Lott immediately asked for an hour recess.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: We're still attempting to reach an agreement with respect to the remaining procedures for the trial, particularly with regard to how and when the depositions would be taken. We've been making progress, but it is something we need to be careful about. I'm hopeful we'll be able to reach an agreement yet today.

KWAME HOLMAN: As has become his custom, Lott walked out of the chamber and immediately briefed the waiting media. He said the issue of the possible videotaping of the witness depositions was a major point of disagreement between Democrats and Republicans.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: There is an indication that they don't want the option for videotaping of the depositions or for that to be shown on the floor. The videotaping is an additional tool in this modern era that senators can use to review what the witnesses have to say. We don't say that it will be used on the floor. We don't prejudge that. We just say that that would be up for the senate to decide. The Democrats don't want that to happen. And I don't understand their alarm about that. It's an option, which the senate would have to vote on. And so that is a point of some concern, and all we're saying is that it is a modern tool that should be available and the senate should make a determination as to how or if or when that would be used. Thank you very much.

KWAME HOLMAN: When the one-hour trial recess expired, Lott again stood before Chief Justice Rehnquist and this time asked for an indefinite break.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: In an effort to get an agreement on how to proceed, it's very important that all parties are aware of the procedures that we are outlining, and that does include senators on both sides of the aisle, the House managers, the White House, the attorneys for the witnesses, and so it does take time.

KWAME HOLMAN: In fact, it took three and a half hours for Lott to return to the senate floor. And when he did, he described a procedure under which senators would vote on separate plans for proceeding from Republicans and Democrats.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: I also understand that both sides are willing to waive -- the parties -- willing to waive the debate time on these issues. And with that explanation, I'd like to begin that process. And I send a resolution to the desk and then ask that it be read in its entirety by the clerk and time for the two parties be waived.

KWAME HOLMAN: Both plans called for final votes on the articles of impeachment to be held no later than Friday, February 12. The main difference between the plans was whether the videotaped depositions of witnesses would be made public.

SPOKESMAN: -- that shall be an order for the House managers and/or White House counsel to make a motion or motions to admit the depositions or portion thereof into evidence, whether transcribed or on videotape.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST: The yeas and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.

CLERK: Mr. Abraham.

KWAME HOLMAN: As expected, the Democratic plan to prohibit the release of any videotaped depositions was the one that lost out on a straight party line vote, a separate vote on a Democratic attempt to move to an immediate vote on the articles of impeachment failed as well.

JIM LEHRER: And to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, first of all I'm told the Republican plan just passed, or is on the verge of passing. And to update us on all of this and explain it we're join by "Boston Globe" columnist Tom Oliphant and David Brooks, senior editor of the "Weekly Standard." So, Tom, explain what we just saw.

TOM OLIPHANT: Well, on one level, I suppose you could call it an anarchist's delight, though there is a little bit more order here than it looks like. The two sides have been unable to come together. That's the most important fact. They tried. They're close and I think it almost takes a Talmudic scholar to explore the differences between the two plans as they were just offered. The Republican one that has passed has essentially kept the door open to a continuation of these proceedings without a clear end in sight. The Democratic alternative would have put a much tighter box around it. But I think from a public standpoint, the most interesting thing is the failure of the two parties to get together and run this thing.

MARGARET WARNER: And how do you explain this failure?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it's really interesting. It reminds me of a policy woks' version of the Cuban missile crisis. You know, they have been dancing together; nobody blinked. So we are in partisan warfare. And it is interesting from the Republican point of view, because the Republican pollsters and all the people in charge of the political future of the Republican Party's are like chickens without heads these days. The polls are dropping. You know, they are going around saying the sky is falling, the sky is falling. I'm mixing my chicken metaphors -- but they are in total panic. And what is interesting about Trent Lott and the Republicans in the senate is they've hung tough, they didn't caved in to the Democratic demands. They were willing to go into this partisan world. It will surprise a lot of people.

MARGARET WARNER: But, Tom, explain why it was so important to both the Republicans and the Democrats. Say this videotape issue, I mean the only difference is, as I read these two resolutions is that Senator Lott leaves open the possibility that the videotapes may be shown in whole or in part on the floor of the senate. And the Democrats didn't want that. Why? Why is that such a big deal?

TOM OLIPHANT: Well, we have heard all afternoon about White House concerns about the spectacle of Monica Lewinsky's face being shown via videotape; a claim that seems rather hard to understand since the past year has been a spectacle and what could -- could get much worse. The other thing that I think that is interesting though, is to show that this still alive and that one shouldn't just say, this is a food fight, it's hopeless, is that each party, in its resolution, kind of gave up something or showed its ability to have a little wiggle room. The Republicans, for example, have no provision for some kind of split verdictyet at the end of the this process by February 12th in their plan. And interestingly, Daschle, in return for a tighter box on the trial process, did not have anything in there about White House or even House manager opportunities to have more witnesses after these three have been deposed. So you can see them trying. It's just that as of tonight they've failed totally.

MARGARET WARNER: So the Republican plan that now we're going ahead for, though, David, go back to the videotaping for a minute, why is it so important to the House managers and the senate Republicans to hang tough, as you put it, on that one point?

DAVID BROOKS: You know, I think it's the Hail Monica strategy. Monica will focus the public's attention. Something might happen. It's not likely but something might happen. And the videotape controversy is actually kind of interesting. Just a few days ago we had the Harkin-Wellstone amendment which said the deliberations should be wide open. Most Democrats voted for that. Now these same Democrats are saying the evidence should be closed. So, the deliberations are open but the evidence is closed. And the Republicans have the reversed situation.

TOM OLIPHANT: And I think it's even -- the ironies are even more delicious because a couple of days ago it seemed that there was resistance on the Republican side to the idea of showing videotapes because it would signal the closing of the door to actual live body testimony on the floor of the senate. And so now it seems that in about 48 hours, the two parties have managed to reverse roles, reverse positions, all in the name of some majestic constitutional purpose that I'm sure eludes the public and the public is quite correct at this point.

MARGARET WARNER: As you say, the anarchist's delight. All right. If you're in the public and you're sitting home and you're saying, okay, now what difference will this make? It means, one, they may see videotapes of the witnesses - as I read it though, also, David, doesn't it leave open the possibility of live witnesses?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I would think Republicans are still loathe to do that. And I think the momentum is drifting away. Remember, the Republicans were set against videotapes. The fact they are willing to accept videotapes suggests they have given up on live. I think the other thing it does, it could pre-ordain the end game here. There were all these competing plans, conviction without removal, peanut butter without jelly, all this stuff. If we're in partisan land, then it makes a simple up or down vote, I think, more likely. Though, as Tom says, they could still reach an agreement, so we shouldn't close that off.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And you both mention the split verdict idea which you've steered away from till now. But explain this. This is something that actually everyone has been talking about all day, Joe Lockhart, the White House spokesman was in high dudgeon over it. What is it and do you agree with Tom that there doesn't seem to be a door left for that?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I'm not sure about the door. What it is, it's two votes on each motion. There would be first a finding of fact. Did he do it? Then the second vote, is he removable for it? And the Republicans want that because they think it establishes he was guilty. And then there's a legal fog whether this is constitutional and the White House is deeply upset by it.

TOM OLIPHANT: Indeed. I think one reason that the provision in the Lott proposal may not be crystal clear tonight is that there are a couple of things that have happened just in the last 24 hours. There's some indication that the senate parliamentarians do not view the proposal as constitutional. So that would mean Lott would have to get the senate on a partisan basis to overrule a William Rehnquist ruling, which would look bad.

MARGARET WARNER: And explain why, just in political terms, the White House would hate that so much or seems to?

TOM OLIPHANT: The split verdict. Well anything that makes it easier to enter some kind of judgment that the president committed a crime, I think the word that gets people into fixed battle is crime. And so why censure, condemnation has always been something that the White House has been willing to consider, at least, something that is part of the impeachment record makes them see red.

MARGARET WARNER: But how is that different from censure which the White House says it's ready to accept?

DAVID BROOKS: This is a good question because there are some forms of the finding of fact which are just the same as censure. There is a sort of a Rube Goldbergian complexity to all this. My grandmother used to say smart, smart, stupid - you know, too smart. And a lot of these are too smart, which I think again makes it more likely we will have just a straight vote, just as the Constitution envisioned we would.

TOM OLIPHANT: There is nothing in the Lott proposal that prevents the senate from getting to the end on February 12th as proposed. Another dirty little secret about the split verdict, though, is that many conservatives oppose it violently. They want the clear verdict guilty or not. They don't like the idea of fudge on constitutional grounds. They don't like censure. And I think Republicans who are advancing this idea have run into problems in their own party that people sometimes forget.

DAVID BROOKS: And I think it gives moderate Republicans a chance to peel off the crucial -

MARGARET WARNER: All right. So, let's go back to what we do know will happen or we can say with some certainty will happen. Depositions will begin when?

TOM OLIPHANT: This weekend there. Is nothing to prevent that. The motion already agreed to yesterday permits the -- authorizes the issuance of this subpoena, so assuming everybody can be brought to a place, they could begin as early as Saturday would be my guess. But - and here's where the fudge in the Lott resolution starts to come into play. It is not entirely clear after the first part of next week precisely what happens after that.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean because even though Lott has certainly talked about resuming the trial by next Thursday, there's room here for all kinds of motions.

TOM OLIPHANT: There are going to be motions. And the Democratic threat in here, you saw an example of it, people did if they were watching an hour or so ago, when there was another Democratic motion to go directly to the final arguments in the case. And I wouldn't be surprised if every day the trial convenes, that at Democrat doesn't get up and make some kind of motion like this to end it in order to reinforce the partisan image of yesterday.

DAVID BROOKS: Remember when the House democrats walked out of the chamber, they staged a walkout, senators wouldn't do something so uncouth, but this is their version.

MARGARET WARNER: David, before we go, how much of a risk - I mean, this was not what the White House wanted -- in terms of real terms, how much of a risk is there now for the president or the White House in these procedures? I mean, the conventional wisdom has always been there are not 67 votes to convict the president. Is there anything here that threatens that?

DAVID BROOKS: There is a remote chance that Monica Lewinsky or Vernon Jordan will say something but I wouldn't put money on it. It clarifies the issue. History can say Republicans were on this side, Democrats were on this side; you judge.

TOM OLIPHANT: But it's hard not to see this living up to that comment that was once made about academic politics, that the reason they are so vicious is the stakes are so small.

DAVID BROOKS: I suspect at the end of the day, the White House will be happy today because it is a more partisan process, they can paint the Republicans as the bad guy. And some conservatives will be happy too because they think "let history judge us."

MARGARET WARNER: And what happened to the moderates not in ideological terms but those in both parties that didn't want a partisan process?

TOM OLIPHANT: The message from these votes, and there have been one or two Democratic defections, is there is no middle ground. There are only two the parties at war, which is the worst image for Washington.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, well, thank you Tom and David -- very much.

FOCUS - TRASH TALK

JIM LEHRER: Garbage, the cause of the latest battle between the states. Betty Ann Bowser reports.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Virginia is proud of its rolling countryside, its pristine Blue Ridge mountains, its hunt club tradition. And the state has always bragged about its history as birthplace to more American presidents than any other. But recently, Virginia boosters worry the old dominion may be getting a reputation for something else: Garbage.

STATE SEN. BILL BOLLING, [R] Virginia: There's no question that becoming the nation's king of trash is simply inconsistent with the legacy that we have spent so hard trying to develop in the commonwealth.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: What State Senator Bill Bolling is talking about is the three million tons of solid municipal waste coming into Virginia every year, by barge, by rail, and by truck. It winds up at one of seven mega landfills that are located in rural areas of the state. A lot of the waste is coming from New York City, which is paying someone else to get rid of its garbage because the city has ordered the state's Fresh Kills Landfill closed by 2001 because it's an environmental hazard. Bronx borough president Fernando Ferrer says the city has simply run out of places to put its garbage.

FERNANDO FERRER, Bronx Borough President: When I was a kid, we burned it. And then we found every park and unused piece of land in this city and buried it. And now the very biggest active landfill in New York, Fresh Kills, is set to close, and it should close. So what do you do? Well, you export it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Exporting its garbage may be an expedient solution for New York City, but it has also triggered angry exchanges between its mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, and Virginia officials. When Giuliani was asked recently about the adverse political climate created in Virginia, because of the amount of New York trash going into that state, this is what he said:

MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI, [R] New York: People in Virginia like to utilize New York because we're a cultural center, because we're a business center. What goes along with being a cultural and a business center is you're very crowded, and we don't have the room here to handle the garbage that's produced, not just by New Yorkers, but by the three million more people that come here and that utilize the place every day. So this is a reciprocal relationship.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The governor of Virginia, James S. Gilmore III, responded with a letter toGiuliani, a fellow Republican. He said: "Like millions of people living from Maine to Florida, I am offended by your suggestion that New York's substantial cultural achievements, such as they are, obligates Virginia and other states to accept your garbage. Let me assure you that the home state of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison has no intention of becoming New York's dumping ground." The solid waste industry came to Virginia in the early 1990's, because it has lots of undeveloped, inexpensive land, is centrally located in the middle of the eastern seaboard, has established rail lines and deep river barge

channels to move the waste. So companies like Waste Management built huge megafills like this one in Charles City County outside of Richmond.

SPOKESMAN: Give me liberty or give me death, but don't give me New York City trash! [Cheers]

BETTY ANN BOWSER: A growing number of residents and environmentalists don't want the state to be known as the trash capital of the country. So recently, they held a demonstration in front of the state capitol. They're not only concerned about the amount of waste coming into Virginia, they also worry about another potential problem. Jim Sharp is director of Campaign Virginia.

JIM SHARP, Campaign Virginia: I think the danger is destroying groundwater and drinking water resources for people. And you may not see a problem ten, even twenty years down the road, but what about fifty years down the road? The E.P.A. only requires companies to be responsible for them 30 years after closure. We may see problems long after that because the design is actually better than what we had in the past.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Today's megalandfills are not like the city dump of years gone by, which allowed toxic materials to leak into the groundwater and the soil. The new megafills are constructed with a layer of clay, and usually two layers of a synthetic material to keep liquids from leaking into the ground. Other systems keep methane gas, an explosive byproduct of rotting garbage, from escaping into the air, often using it to generate electricity. Industry leaders say the technology is safe, and the only answer to the nation's waste disposal problems. Tom Corbitt is regional assistant counsel for Waste Management.

TOM CORBITT, Waste Management Inc.: It's hard to say you guarantee that nothing is ever going to happen, but you have to. We guarantee that if something happens, we will come back. If you look at the technology, from what we know today, we believe it's going to work. Oftentimes -- look at any invention and people say, "well, how do you know it's going to do this?" Well, this is what you believe. In most cases, it works. We have to believe it's going to work.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: More garbage has meant more money for officials in Charles City County. Over the years, they have collected millions of dollars through their contract with waste management. It's been enough money to cut property taxes and build an entirely new school system. Gil Britton is director of development.

GIL BRITTON, Director of Development, Charles City Co., VA: We are now doing things economically that we've not been able to do before -- build the schools, build facilities for the offices and so forth, parks and recreation. We've also had a park for industrial development. We have a new industrial road that has been put in. And our tax base is just beginning to broaden away from real estate and personal property.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But residents say tax cut or not, the landfill smells bad and has created unnecessary truck traffic.This intersection in the Town of Tappahannock gets over 300 garbage trucks a day, coming and going from two landfills. And this intersection in Charles City County has seen an increase of more than 100 trucks a day. Last year, an 18-wheeler that was supposed to be carrying municipal waste had an accident on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. When officials got to the scene, they discovered the truck was not carrying garbage, but medical waste, including syringes and bloody sheets. Waste Management was eventually fined $125,000 for the incident.

TOM CORBITT: It was a mistake. It should not have been in that -- in that -- that truck.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Does it show the industry has problems?

TOM CORBITT: It shows that the industry is made up of human beings, and the human beings are the individuals who deposit into containers, and that somebody made a mistake.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: John Paul Woodley, Virginia's secretary of natural resources, says the Bay Bridge Tunnel incident was a wake-up call for state officials.

JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, Secretary of Natural Resources, VA: I think it's fair to say that that was considered an event, a very significant event that would - that called to mind in very stark terms the problems associated with the transportation of municipal solid waste.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In order to move solid waste by barge and get trucks off the highway, Waste Management is building this port along the James River. But that, too, has stirred controversy. The port is on the property of Shirley Plantation, one of the most historic Civil War sites in Virginia. The James River is the body of water America's first settlers sailed when they founded Jamestown. And Bob Waldrop, who lives next door, is suing -- so far unsuccessfully-- to stop the barges from coming.

BOB WALDROP: I'm so violently opposed to the importation of out-of-state garbage into the Commonwealth of Virginia. Six hundred truckloads on a barge on this river in the midst of some difficulty could, in fact, in my opinion, be very devastating to the river.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Charles Carter III is a fourth-generation owner of Shirley Plantation. He has a contract with Waste Management to develop the port on his property, and he views Waldrop as an alarmist.

CHARLES CARTER III, Owner, Shirley Plantation: Well, in this branch of the James River, you'll find that there are six million tons of cargo a year. 3.7 million of those are six million tons are hazardous materials: Petroleums and chemicals, some of them including phenol. There's two million barrels of phenol that move into this area. Phenol is highly toxic and highly combustible. So there's much more dangerous cargoes that move on the river.

[CHOIR SINGING]

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The parishioners of Mt. Olive Baptist Church in King and Queen County say a landfill run by Brown Berris Industries next door to them causes constant problems. Reverend Keith Parham is president of Residents Involved in Saving the Environment, or RISE, a group trying to get rid of the landfill.

REV. KEITH PARHAM, R.I.S.E.: We are used to smelling grass in the morning and pine trees, and now we have to smell garbage. We used to see eagles flying in this area. We don't see eagles flying, we see buzzards, turkey buzzards. We've been complaining about buzzards who perch on people's houses, and people are afraid to come out in their yard, even to hang their clothes on the line.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Parham and others also charge the industry with environmental racism. They complain most of the landfills in Virginia are in predominantlyAfrican-American communities. But Sam Gingold, vice president for B.F.I. Industries, which has two landfills in Virginia, says when it comes to his company, that's not true.

SAM GINGOLD, Brown Ferris Industries: Most of our facilities are in white areas, as opposed to African- American areas. And I can tell you all of the discussions that I have sat in on, as we discuss a new facility, those discussions are usually started from an economic standpoint. I don't see anyone sitting around a room talking about, "that's the community to put that facility because that's where we're going to have the easiest chance."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The State of Virginia studied the impact of landfills on minority communities in 1995 and found "no evidence of an intent to discriminate," but also found that in some cases, "citing and monitoring have had a disproportionate impact on minority communities." Both Governor Gilmore and the Virginia legislature are proposing banning garbage barges on Virginia waterways, as well as capping the amount of out-of-state waste coming into the commonwealth. But there could be problems with that, because federal courts have consistently ruled garbage is interstate commerce and cannot be regulated.

FINALLY - THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a poem on a certain trial from NewsHour contributor Robert Pinsky, the poet laureate of the United States.

ROBERT PINSKY, Poet Laureate: Yesterday, while the senate was voting about its trial procedures, some people were celebrating the birthday of Charles Dodgson, who, as Lewis Carroll, wrote "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass." "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" ends with a courtroom scene. In Alice's trial, a poem that is read out to the jury as evidence may remind some of us of what it has been like listening to lawyers and legal scholars as they spin out fine points of evidence, law, and procedure. Dodgson, the great master of nonsense, wrote: "They told me you had been to her, and mentioned me to him; she gave me a good character, but said I could not swim. He sent them word I had not gone. We know it to be true if she should push the matter on, what would become of you? I gave her one, they gave him two, you gave us three or more; they all returned from him to you, though they were mine before. If I or she should chance to be involved in this affair, he trusts to you to set them free, exactly as we were. My notion was that you had been, before she had this fit, an obstacle that came between him and ourselves and it. Don't let him know she liked them best, for this must ever be a secret kept from all the rest, between yourself and me." And that is some expert 19th century gobbledygook.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday; and, speaking of trials, the senate approved Republican procedures for completing the impeachment trial by February 12th. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said raising taxes or cutting benefits may be the only long-term way to save Social Security. And NATO demanded Serb forces and Kosovar rebels hold peace talks or face military action. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you good night.