The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, extended coverage of the Milosevic war crimes indictment. That includes a NewsMaker interview with National Security Adviser Samuel Berger on it and his own China spying fallout. Kwame Holman reports on today's gun control debate in a House Subcommittee. And Elizabeth Farnsworth talks about the best place to take a heart attack victim. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Yugoslav President Milosevic has been indicted for war crimes. The UN International Tribunal at the Hague, Netherlands, made the announcement today, and issued arrest warrants for Milosevic and four other Yugoslav officials. They were held personally responsible for the campaign against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The U.N. court's chief prosecutor said this.

LOUISE ARBOUR, Chief U.N. War Crimes Prosecutor: This indictment is directed against the five named accused. It is not directed against the state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, nor against its people. Whatever the differences amongst the citizens of the FOI and the differences that they may have with other nations, I believe that they will expect their leaders, who have abused their trust, to come to the Hague to respond to these accusations.

JIM LEHRER: It was the first time a head of state was charged with such atrocities by an international court. Yugoslavia refused to recognize the indictment. Russia said it was politically motivated. President Clinton welcomed it. He spoke at his Florida vacation site.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: This says to the hundreds of thousands of victims of Belgrade's atrocities in Kosovo that their voices have been heard. It will help to deter future war crimes by establishing that those who give orders will be held accountable. It will make clear to the Serbian people precisely who is responsible for this conflict and who is prolonging it. It speaks for the world in saying, that the cause we are fighting for in Kosovo is just. I call on all nations to support the tribunal's decision and to cooperate with its efforts to seek justice.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have much more on this story right after the News Summary. President Clinton also said today NATO air strikes will continue. Allied jets flew a record 741 missions overnight. Belgrade residents and Yugoslav media reported 50 strikes on the capital and suburbs. Three people were reported killed. NATO said anti-aircraft fire was intense. Attorney General Reno today defended the Justice Department's handling of Chinese spying allegations, but she said there would be an internal review. She blamed subordinates for not calling her attention to the theft of nuclear secrets from U.S. weapons labs. She said she had no intention of resigning over it. One Republican Senator had demanded she do so. And Senators responded today to this week's House report alleging that spying. They approved legislation to increase Congressional oversight of technology transfers, tighten security at nuclear weapons laboratories, and monitor Chinese missile launches. The amendments were attached to the fiscal 2000 defense spending bill. Fighting escalated today between India and Pakistan. Pakistani officials said they shot down two Indian military jets, which violated its air space over Kashmir, the disputed border area. India had launched a second day of air strikes against suspected Pakistan-backed guerrillas. Indian military officials said the planes went down inside India's territory, and air strikes would continue. A Pakistani army spokesman urged the U.N. to intervene. On Wall Street, another down day, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed off 235 points at 10,466. And the space shuttle "Discovery" was launched this morning from Cape Canaveral, Florida. It is to rendezvous with the international space station on Saturday. The seven-member crew will deliver two tons of supplies and spare parts, make repairs, and perform a space walk to install a robot crane on the station. "Discovery" will return on June 6th. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Milosevic indictment, National Security Adviser Berger, gun control in the House, and heart attack treatment.

FOCUS - CALLED TO ACCOUNT

JIM LEHRER: Tom Bearden begins the Milosevic story.

LOUISE ARBOUR: On May 22, I presented an indictment for confirmation against Slobodan Milosevic and four others, charging them with crimes against humanity.

TOM BEARDEN: With those words, the chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia announced the first U.N. war crimes indictment of a sitting head of state. Louise Arbour said arrest warrants have been issued for Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, Serbian President Milan Milutinovic, Yugoslav Deputy Premier Nikola Sainovic, Serbia's Interior Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic, and the head of the Yugoslav army, Dragolyub Ojdanic.

LOUISE ARBOUR: An independent review by a judge of this tribunal has confirmed that there is credible basis to believe that these accused are criminally responsible for the deportation of 740,000 Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo and for the murder of over 340 identified Kosovo Albanians.

TOM BEARDEN: If convicted, Milosevic could face life in prison. The Tribunal was established by the U.N. Security Council in 1993. Based in the Hague, the Netherlands, its mandate is to prosecute violators of international law committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The Tribunal has publicly indicted 84 individuals since it was established, and has issued other secret indictments. Seven people have been convicted. Warrants are still outstanding against 31 people, including Bosnian Serb wartime leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. Arbour said the Tribunal's work is not finished.

LOUISE ARBOUR: We are still actively investigating other incidents in Kosovo, as well as the role of the accused, or some of them, in Croatia and in Bosnia in earlier years. We are also still investigating the role and responsibility of others into the crimes contained in this indictment.

TOM BEARDEN: Arbour said the Tribunal was not permitted to visit Yugoslavia and had relied on testimony from refugees and government sources for information about the alleged crimes.

LOUISE ARBOUR: We have received and we are continuing to receive valuable information from governments, as well as from groups and individuals. We are still awaiting further evidence that I believe many states will be able to contribute to our larger investigation. I also call on all states to comply with the execution of these and all outstanding arrest warrants issued by the Tribunal. These warrants are issued under the authority of a Security Council resolution, which requires all states to comply with the orders of the Tribunal. I call, in particular, on the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and especially on the Minister of Justice, to stand up for the rule of law and to request that the accused voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, or, should they fail to do so, to provide for their arrest and transfer to the Hague. Finally, I am mindful of the impact that this indictment may have on the peace process in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I am confident, as was obviously the Security Council in creating this Tribunal, and in calling upon the Tribunal several times in the last year to address these issues, that the product of our work will make a major contribution to a lasting peace, not only in Kosovo but in the whole region in which we have jurisdiction. No credible lasting peace can be built upon impunity and injustice. The refusal to bring war criminals to account would be an affront to those who obey the law and a betrayal of those who rely on the law for their life and their security. Although the accused are entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence until they are convicted, the evidence upon which this indictment was confirmed raises serious questions about their suitability to be the guarantors of any deal, let alone a peace agreement.

TOM BEARDEN: Arbour was asked whether the indictments put the allies in the awkward position of negotiating with an indicted war criminal.

LOUISE ARBOUR: I don't think it's for me to pass comment or judgment on how politicians will now decide to manage a very complex, complicated, and difficult peace process. I don't expect them to tell me how to do my work, and I have no intention of telling them how to do their work. I think how the next chapter will be played is, as I said, I believe it is a very difficult issue, and I don't have any advice to give to politicians as to how to do their work.

TOM BEARDEN: Arbour travels to Switzerland tomorrow to formally present the indictments to a United Nations panel.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: And to President Clinton's National Security Adviser, Samuel Berger, who is with us for a NewsMaker interview. Mr. Berger, welcome.

SAMUEL BERGER, National Security Adviser: Good evening, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: Following up on Ms. Arbour's comment, how will the indictment of Milosevic affect the Kosovo peace process?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, I think that Slobodan Milosevic, as a result of what happened today, is considerably weaker, and I think under substantially more pressure than he's been under before. The Serb people now know very clearly who is responsible for this conflict, who is prolonging it. Those who are around Milosevic I think are going to be less inclined to hitch their wagon to a falling star. He will be more isolated in the international community, and the fissures that we have seen developing within Serbia over the last two to three weeks, demonstrations against Milosevic in the cities, desertions by his army, opposition leaders speaking out more vocally against Milosevic, I think that will only intensify. So I think this is a good development, which will advance the cause of ending this conflict and achieving our objectives.

JIM LEHRER: How do you make a deal with a war criminal?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, there are plenty of -- the conditions of NATO are quite straightforward and don't require a lot of negotiation. We're simply saying we want the Kosovar refugees to go back, and for that to happen, the Serb forces have to leave, otherwise we have a civil war. And there has to be an international security force in Kosovo with NATO command and control, NATO at the core, to keep the peace. So those are really not negotiable positions. The Serb authorities can manifest their agreement to those principles in many different ways.

JIM LEHRER: But isn't Milosevic still very much in charge, even more in charge now than he was when the bombing began 60 days ago?

SAMUEL BERGER: I think that you've got a fractured society. I think you've got a public who is suffering from a prolonged conflict. The rally around the flag mood that existed in Serbia several weeks ago has changed rather dramatically to a very grim and somber apprehension about the future. I believe the pressure on Mr. Milosevic is increasing, and I believe the fact the international community represented by the United Nations, not by NATO, not by the United States, by the United Nations has basically said, "This man is a pariah, not a patriot," I think increases the pressure on him.

JIM LEHRER: But Mr. Berger, somebody has to make this -- whether it's negotiated or not, somebody has to agree to the terms of NATO, that they've laid out, and isn't that, in fact, Milosevic as we speak now?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, Mr. Chernomyrdin will be in Belgrade tomorrow. There are others who may have contact with Mr. Milosevic. There are other authorities in Belgrade with whom -- who can express the views of the government. So I think there are plenty of ways to get to "yes" here. We have said that we have no plans to deal with Milosevic. We don't rule out that possibility. We will do whatever what we think is necessary and appropriate in the national interest.

JIM LEHRER: And his being indicted today as a war criminal does not change that from NATO or the U.S. point of view?

SAMUEL BERGER: What -- does not change what, Jim?

JIM LEHRER: In other words, the willingness. If you said you're willing to negotiate with him if that's what it takes.

SAMUEL BERGER: We're not negotiating, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

SAMUEL BERGER: Let me make this very clear. We have some very basic conditions here, which are necessary to make the peace work. The Serbs come back -- The Serb forces go out, the Kosovars come back, and an international security presence goes in. Those are not negotiable conditions.

JIM LEHRER: Well, then, what does Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott doing talking to Chernomyrdin? If he's not negotiating, what is he doing?

SAMUEL BERGER: He's making it very clear to Mr. Chernomyrdin what we mean by those conditions, so that he understands what it means to say NATO at its core, what it means when we say that Serb forces have to leave so that he has no mistake if and when he meets with Mr. Milosevic what it will take to gain our agreement to end this conflict and get on with the business of building a new Balkan region.

JIM LEHRER: Now, is -- are the NATO forces now going to actively try to arrest Milosevic?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, it is the obligation of the individual countries obviously in the first instance to apprehend and turn over war criminals to the Hague. There are no NATO forces in Belgrade. I think at this point the NATO forces have as their primary mission to destroy his military, as we are doing day by day, to increase the pressure on him so that it will be absolutely clear that each day he loses more. The only way to end this conflict is to accept the fundamental conditions that we've laid out.

JIM LEHRER: This thing is going much slower than you and others in the administration had hoped for, is it not?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, I think we have to be patient here. We've been at this for about eight weeks. We've done enormous amount of damage. Some of it we've had to overcome -- a lot of bad weather in the beginning. The weather now is very clear. I think there is no question that with patience and persistence we will prevail. And I think the evidence of that is not only in the damage that is being done to his military and to his military industrial complex, but in what we are seeing expressed by the Serbian people. A thousand Serbian army soldiers this week defected in Central Serbia. There are three or four cities in Serbia now where anti-Milosevic demonstrations are going on. There are politicians in Belgrade who are speaking out against Milosevic who would not have had the temerity to do that two weeks ago or four weeks ago. He's in a weakened position, and now he's isolated internationally, and there really is only one way for him to end this, and that's to bring an end to this conflict.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of patience, are you and the President concerned about initial signs that the patience of the American people as manifested in opinion polls and college commencements and all of the newspaper editorials is beginning to wane?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, I think the American people would like to see this come to a conclusion, but I believe they'd like to see it come to a successful conclusion. I do not believe the American people want at the end of this century to ratify ethnic cleansing. I believe they want us to reverse ethnic cleansing. That's what this is about, as well as the stability and peace of Europe. Would we like this to come to an end --certainly. But it has to come to an end that upholds the fundamental principle for which we are engaged in this matter, and this is that you cannot expel and murder and kill an entire people with impunity.

JIM LEHRER: Well, what about the new comments that, yes, that may all be true, but the tools that we are using, meaning dropping bombs from 15,000 feet, is, in fact, killing innocent people also?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, you know, first of all, NATO takes extraordinary efforts to minimize civilian casualties. We've flown 25,000-plus missions. There have been problems in perhaps a dozen. You know, there were 50,000 people -- it is estimated -- that were killed in Baghdad during the Gulf War, civilians, there were no cameras that captured that. We try our best to minimize civilian casualties. It is impossible to eliminate them. But we have to persist in this campaign. I think we have the right strategy. I think we are winning. I think Milosevic is losing. And I think today was a serious blow to him and to his -- any hope that he could outlast the international community.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. On to this week's China spying report from the House Select Committee. Several members of Congress have called for your resignation as a result of that report. Are you considering such a move?

SAMUEL BERGER: No. Not at all.

JIM LEHRER: You don't feel you have done anything wrong?

SAMUEL BERGER: No. Jim, I believe that personally and within the White House, I think we acted appropriately when this information was brought to our attention. 1996 -- when I first was briefed on some of this, we acted to have an FBI investigation launched. We told DOE to go brief the Hill. They got the same briefing that we did to increase their counter intelligence efforts and to conduct a wider investigation and report back. They did that in '97. And they -- and that report showed a pattern of Chinese behavior, not just the '79 and mid-80's cases that were referred to in '96, but a pattern over several years, and systematic problems in the labs over many years. And we swiftly acted to implement the most sweeping reforms of counterintelligence in the labs in history. And those are being implemented vigorously by Secretary Richardson. And I believe that we have taken what has been a long-standing problem over perhaps 20 years and made gigantic steps towards fixing the problem.

JIM LEHRER: The main hit on you, as you know, Mr. Berger, is that you were told in April of 1996 and you didn't tell the President about it until, what, a year or so later, even longer than that?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, I was told in 1996, Jim, of the -- in a briefing, of the evolution of China's strategic program, in two cases, one went back to 1979. The one that went that involved the mid-80's. I found that very troubling. I asked DOE -- I acted in response to what I heard. I asked DOE to widen and deepen its investigation, to intensify as they were planning their counterintelligence efforts to brief the Congress. Within several weeks the FBI had opened up a full investigation on the prime suspect. So I took the actions that I believed were appropriate. I get an awful lot of threat information every day. I have to make a judgment as to what I brief the President -- and what I don't. In 1997, when this was clearly a patternand a systematic problem, I thought it was essential for the President to know.

JIM LEHRER: You did not think it was important enough to tell him until a year later after you were told?

SAMUEL BERGER: I think I acted in 1996 to do the things that needed to be done, and based upon the briefing that I received in '96, the same briefing, by the way, that Congress received -- there were no hearings in the Congress at that time. And in '97, when the problem really was broader in scope and wider, I think we, as I said, undertook a sweeping reform with the President's full support.

JIM LEHRER: One of the criticisms that's been made of you, was made on this program, in fact, the other night, was that you may have been influenced in your reaction by the fact that before you came to government, you were a private attorney here in Washington, representing interests, international trade interests that were favorable to China. Is there any truth to that?

SAMUEL BERGER: Well, I was a lawyer in Washington. I had no Chinese clients.

JIM LEHRER: You don't deny you were a lawyer?

SAMUEL BERGER: I'd like to. I think probably, you know, not the most admired profession in the world. I had no Chinese clients. It's hard to represent any large American corporation, which doesn't do some with China. I represented companies that bought and sold in China. But the notion, Jim, that any decision that I would have participated in would -- involving these issues -- would have been based on anything than my best judgment of what is in our national security interest is simply absurd and offensive. And one can question whether I made the right judgment, but not the motivation behind the decisions that I made.

JIM LEHRER: The judgment question here again, the wrap on you is that you did not see this as an important matter. You did not see this as a serious breach of security by the Chinese.

SAMUEL BERGER: To the contrary, and I think I've said this twice before, but I'll say it again. When I first got a narrower briefing in '96 that focused on the general pattern of where China was going in the nuclear field, possible areas in the United States, Russia, and abroad where they could be acquiring information, two specific cases from the 70's and the 80's, I was troubled. It was a serious matter, and I took the actions that I thought were appropriate. The FBI, DOE, broadening its investigation as it did and came back in a year with a much more troubling picture, encouraging Mr. Curtis, who is the deputy and had a plan to beef up counterintelligence at DOE to go forward and seeking -- and telling DOE I thought it should get to the Hill and brief them with the same information that they briefed me. So I did take it seriously. I did act. I believe I acted in the national interest, and I believe I acted appropriately.

JIM LEHRER: And the bottom line is your conscience is clear and you're not going anywhere?

SAMUEL BERGER: I'm going back to work.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you, Mr. Berger.

SAMUEL BERGER: Thank you, Jim.

FOCUS - CALLED TO ACCOUNT

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, more reaction to the Milosevic indictment, a gun control debate in the House, and where to take heart attack victims. Again to Tom Bearden on the Milosevic story.

TOM BEARDEN: The Yugoslavian government's reaction was swift and uncompromising. Yugoslavia's chief envoy to the United Nations, Branko Brankovic, categorically rejected the legitimacy of the war crimes tribunal.

BRANKO BRANKOVIC: First and foremost, this is an indictment of a nonexistent court by nonexistent Madame Arbour. She exists, but whatever she has as a duty to do -- this court for us does not exist, so the indictment as well. Second point I would like to mention as far as this is concerned, this so-called indictment is, I think, the last attempt by the NATO countries to avoid what is obviously inevitable, and that is a total collapse of the policy of aggression by NATO against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

TOM BEARDEN: In Brussels, NATO Spokesman Jamie Shea welcomed the indictment, but said it would have no impact on NATO's conduct of the war or its conditions for ending it.

JAMIE SHEA: Our position is crystal-clear. We continue to insist that the authorities in Belgrade accept NATO's five conditions. And as I've said, we are going to keep up our military action until those five conditions are met. So this is something that we have noted coming from the tribunal today.

TOM BEARDEN: In London, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said NATO was determined to bring Milosevic to justice, but that lines of communication had to be kept open while he was in power.

ROBIN COOK: So long as Milosevic retains that power in Belgrade, it would be irresponsible of us not to talk to him about the implementation of our objectives in Kosovo. There will, though, be no question of any deal that spares Milosevic from standing trial on these charges. There can be no amnesty for war crimes.

TOM BEARDEN: The Russian government called the indictment a politically motivated obstacle to peace.

SPOKESMAN: I don't think it's merely coincidental, and it clearly undermines the peace efforts, and I don't know what will be the consequences.

TOM BEARDEN: Russia's Balkan Envoy, Viktor Chernomyrdin, plans to continue his diplomatic efforts despite the indictment. He will fly to Belgrade Friday to meet with Milosevic.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes it from there.

MARGARET WARNER: We get three further assessments of the Milosevic war crimes indictment. Lawrence Eagleburger was Secretary of State in the Bush administration. In December 1992, he called for Milosevic to be tried for war crimes. He served as ambassador to Yugoslavia in the 1970's. Warren Zimmermann was U.S. Ambassador to Yugoslavia from 1989 to 1992; he wrote a book about the country's breakup entitled "The Origins of a Catastrophe." And Nina Bang-Jensen is special counsel for the Coalition for International Justice, a private group with offices in Washington and the Hague that assists the War Crimes tribunal's work. Welcome all. Secretary Eagleburger, do you see the impact of this as Sandy Berger does, which is that it leave, as he put it, Slobodan Milosevic considerably weaker and under substantially more pressure?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER, Former Secretary of State: No, I don't see it that way. Mind you, I think it was the proper thing to do, to indict, but I think probably the short-term consequences of this will make it more difficult to arrive at a settlement with regard to the Serbs. Milosevic is clearly not going to be anxious to put himself out of business. So I think it probably slows the process, but it was the right thing to do nevertheless.

MARGARET WARNER: And when you say it will make him less likely to put himself out of business, why?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: Because he now sees that if he goes out of business and leaves Serbia --

MARGARET WARNER: By out of business we, we mean --

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: He no longer runs Serbia and then he tries to leave the country at any point, he's going to end up in the poky. We all understand that, and he certainly understands it. So, I think it probably makes it more difficult to arrive at an agreement, also because some of those around Milosevic have been indicted as well. So there's a vested interest now in finding some way to keep themselves in power, which I think they all intended to do anyway. So the consequences in the short term probably don't help the process. In the long term, it's the right thing to do.

MARGARET WARNER: Ambassador Zimmermann, what do you see as the impact on ending this Kosovo conflict?

WARREN ZIMMERMANN, Former U.S. Ambassador, Yugoslavia: Well, I have a different perspective from Secretary Eagleburger. I think even in the short run we are not hurt by this indictment, which by the way was very important and very positive. Yesterday if we had negotiated with Milosevic over Kosovo, we would have gotten nothing from him. That was when he was unindicted. Today, now that he's indicted, if we negotiated with him, we would still get nothing from him. And the reason is because NATO still has to rebalance its position, its military position to the point where it is clearly winning before anything will come out of the Serbs from the point of view of a position that will meet even the minimum NATO conditions. Further on down the road if NATO can do that, then, as Sandy Berger said, a lot will be accomplished that won't need negotiation, and for the rest of it, either Milosevic will have to make the right concessions, or somebody will have to take his place who can make them. But it will be the military situation and changing that in NATO's favor that I think is determining.

MARGARET WARNER: Nina Bang-Jensen, address the question that Jim asked Sandy Berger, which is how do you negotiate or make peace with an indicted war criminal? That is, as a matter of international law, is Milosevic a valid person to make an agreement with?

NINA BANG-JENSEN, Coalition for National Justice: Regrettably, there's nothing in international law that says you cannot negotiate with an indicted war criminal. What should prevent us from negotiating with this indicted war criminal is exactly the reason that Louise Arbour said in her statement, which is this essentially affirms the conclusion that many other people have reached, that he is not the appropriate guarantor for peace in the Balkans. He's not kept past agreements. He's unlikely to keep any agreement he might reach here. So I see -- I have some concerns with what Mr. Berger was saying, because I absolutely agree with him -- there's nothing to negotiate now. We have to achieve the objectives that NATO has set forth. Yet, at the same time, we have signs that we are, in fact, negotiating. He knows what he has to do in order to bring peace to Kosovo and Serbia.

MARGARET WARNER: But, I mean, when you say he's not the person to deal with, somebody has to be dealt with. What's the alternative?

NINA BANG-JENSEN: Somebody has to be at the table, and I would like Slobodan Milosevic not to be at that table. We should be sending signals to people in the government that we're prepared to negotiate with other people. We certainly should accept that he's prepared to offer the NATO objectives up or if he's prepared to surrender, but beyond that, we should not compromise at anything lower than those objectives. We've negotiated with him for many years to no result.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you see, Secretary Eagleburger, any alternative to dealing with Milosevic to make this deal, if there is a deal to be made?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: No. Not as long as he's in power. And what the discussion here tonight shows is how this whole mess, which is called our bombing of Serbia, has become so complicated that there are no easy answers to anything. Do we negotiate with him, don't we negotiate with him? Ambassador Zimmermann says we have to win the war first. I agree with that, but I don't see any evidence that we intend to win it any way other than to continue to bomb, and as that goes on, make ourselves look to the rest of the world as the big bully on the block. This is an unholy mess in every regard -- and now having indicted Milosevic, which as I say should be done, largely as a warming to the next Milosevic, as much as it is to this fellow. But now that we've indicted him, I think it is probably clear that it's more difficult if we're going to follow the line here that we shouldn't negotiate with a war criminal. As long as he's running Serbia, we're going to have to negotiate with him. But we're doing so in very odd and awkward circumstances. This whole war has turned out to be an odd and awkward circumstance. And there are no easy answers to any of the problems.

MARGARET WARNER: Ambassador Zimmermann, follow up on something Sandy Berger said, which is well, there are other authorities in Belgrade that we can deal with. Are there?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: I'm with Secretary Eagleburger on that one. I think Milosevic is in power. He's in charge. He's going to be the one to make the decisions. So I don't really see anybody else to deal with. But it doesn't have to be us -- NATO -- to deal with Milosevic. We can do it through third parties, so we don't have to deal directly with a war criminal, which I think we should not do. There's the UN, Kofi Annan. His very first statement on the NATO bombing condemned the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. He's an objective person. Maktia Tsari, the President of Finland has played an enormously positive role in the Bosnian war, and he's doing the same in Kosovo. There are plenty of authorities out there that can be used as mediators. The Russians, if they want to, can do it. They've hardly shown very much objectivity about that. They've criticized us. They've criticized NATO. They've criticized the Kosovo Liberation Army. They have not shown any concern for the Albanians.

MARGARET WARNER: But, I mean, at some point still someone has to give the army and the paramilitaries the order to leave Kosovo if NATO is going to get what it wants, correct?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: It has to be as of now Milosevic, unless he's replaced. He's the one who has to do it.

NINA BANG-JENSEN: I agree. If he -- all I'm saying is that we can't negotiate. We have set forth our principles. And by not negotiating, I don't mean we can't accept his acceptance of those principles. What I mean is we should not be engaged in a sustained extension of these prolonged negotiations that are going to give him, essentially reward him for what he's done.

MARGARET WARNER: Secretary Eagleburger, you spent a lot of time in Yugoslavia and dealt with the Serbs even since then. You heard Mr. Berger again, and we've heard this from other administration people and some of the Europeans saying, "Well, there were signs of rising opposition in Yugoslavia. There are demonstrations. There are some politicians speaking out." What's your take on what this indictment, one, whether those are significant, and there have been some news accounts, and two, what this indictment will do to Milosevic's basis of support internally?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: First of all, Margaret, I can't say no to the arguments that there are beginning to be cracks in Milosevic's armor in Serbia. I have serious doubts about that myself, but maybe it's there. I must say, my own judgment of Serbs and of their position with regard to Milosevic is that the bombing and everything that's gone on has largely solidified his support. I would suspect that this indictment will also solidify their support of Milosevic, at least for a time. Now, having said that, maybe the bombing over a long period of time will, in fact, accomplish what we hope, which is that they will rise up and throw him out. I have very serious questions about that, and particularly in terms of if it's a race between how long we can sustain the bombing before publicly and internationally it becomes a real albatross around our next. And his ability to last things out in Serbia, I'm afraid I think he has a better chance than we do. But maybe it will work. Maybe they will overthrow him. I think there's very little likelihood of that myself.

MARGARET WARNER: Ambassador Zimmermann, how do you see the impact of these indictments on, you know, the political elite, the military elite, the public in Serbia?

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: I think in the short term Milosevic will make the argument that this indictment is an indictment of all Serbs. He will wrap himself in the Serbian flag. He'll argue that all Serbs are being victimized by NATO and now by the UN that's inconvenient for him, because he likes the UN, but he'll swallow that one. And I think, in the short run, that may work. In the long run, I don't think it will. And it particularly won't work to the degree that the Serbian citizens and people get more opportunity to express a free choice. Then I think he will become a serious embarrassment to them.

MARGARET WARNER: And Ms. Bang-Jensen, what do you think are the chances that Milosevic will ever be actually apprehended and brought to trial?

NINA BANG-JENSEN: Right now it seems like it will -- it's far away, but I'm convinced that it eventually will happen. I hope and maybe this is wishful thinking, that ultimately people will rise up and they will turn him over, hand him over, over time. He can't go anywhere.

MARGARET WARNER: But it is true, or is it true, does the War Crimes Tribunal have any way itself to apprehend him?

NINA BANG-JENSEN: It really doesn't. The only thing that it has is the commitment of member states to execute their arrest warrants. And there are some states that might not execute those warrants. And that's the greatest fear, that there will be sort of a de facto immunity given to him. He'll be allowed to go to a third country, and they will simply not honor the warrants.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean, as sort of an unspoken part of a deal?

NINA BANG-JENSEN: Right.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think are the chances of that happening?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: Well, I think, for instance, if he went to Russia, it's fairly clear they wouldn't honor it. It may well be. Since I don't believe we're going to get to the point where we win this war militarily, which I think requires ground troops, I'm inclined to believe in the end there has to be sort of a diplomatic deal. I don't like it, but I'm afraid that's where we go. And when it gets to that kind of a negotiation, I have to believe that Milosevic is going to look for some way to get himself out of this if, in fact, he's reached the point where he feels that he has to give in. And then I think Russia or some other or China or some other country that certainly doesn't approve of what's been happening here, then this indictment could well offer him a place to go. So I think there's at least a chance that he won't be ever dealt with. But again, Margaret, let me make my point, which is I care of course whether he gets his just deserts, but the fundamental question here is that what's important about what's been done is it tells the next Milosevic, there's something else he's got to think about before he engages in the kinds of activities that Milosevic has done.

MARGARET WARNER: All right.

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: And I think that's important.

MARGARET WARNER: Thanks. Secretary Eagleburger, Ambassador Zimmermann, Ms. Bang-Jensen, thanks very much.

FOCUS - GUN CONTROL DEBATE

JIM LEHRER: Gun control legislation began moving through the Congress again today. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: By 2 o'clock this afternoon, most members of the House of Representatives were gone from Capitol Hill, getting an early start on a long Memorial Day recess. A few, however, those who sit on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, were just getting to work, analyzing new gun control measures approved by the Senate last week. Massachusetts Democrat Martin Meehan applauded the Senate for its quick response to recent school shootings in Colorado and Georgia. However, he complained the House was slow to act.

REP. MARTIN MEEHAN: It's unfortunate to say the least that we haven't marked up this legislation before this. It's a very good price of legislation. It should have been marked up before the full committee. And frankly, I don't think that the Congress should be leaving on a Memorial Day recess for a week-and-a-half without having passed this bill.

KWAME HOLMAN: The subcommittee's Republican Chairman, Bill McCollum of Florida, said he agrees with some of the provisions approved by the Senate.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Let me say right up front that I support closing loopholes and tightening existing gun laws, not because they will prevent further devastating shootings by suicidal maniacs, but because such changes are the responsible thing to do. I want to stop felons from buying guns, even though we all know that most dangerous criminals get their guns on the streets or by stealing them. I also want to limit juvenile access to guns. Kids should only use guns under the supervision of a parent or guardian.

KWAME HOLMAN: However, McCollum also agreed with fellow republican George Gekas of Pennsylvania, who argued new gun laws alone won't prevent tragedies.

REP. GEORGE GEKAS: We're talking about setting an example, punishment, deterrents. There has been so no substitute since the dawn of civilization for disciplining individuals who would do violence to others, no better example of how to deal with such individuals except by swift, visible, palpable punishment.

KWAME HOLMAN: The committee's first witness was Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, who urged the House to adopt the Senate's measures and to add other new gun controls as well.

ERIC HOLDER: A mandatory 72-hour waiting period for all happen-gun purchases will help stop heat-of-the moment killings and a proposed increase in the minimum age for handgun possession from 18 to 21 will get hand guns out of the hands of the most crime-prone age group.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Chairman McCollum quizzed Treasury Undersecretary James Johnson about the track record of gun laws already on the books, including the five-year-old Brady Law.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Mr. Johnson, in your written testimony, you've indicated that the Brady Law has prevented over 250,000 felons and others from buying a gun. How many of these people have been arrested, of the 250,000 people, how many of them have been prosecuted?

JAMES JOHNSON: There are two aspects to our view of the Brady Law. One is, as you indicate in your questioning, an important preventative aspect. The fact that we're able to prevent 250,000 convicted felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing a firearm is a significant, significant fact that should not be overlooked.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: But am I right we're only talking about 1 percent or 2 percent or some really small percent of the 250,000 people that have been intercepted trying to buy a gun who were felons who have been arrested and prosecuted to date? It's very low, right, 1 percent or 2 percent, something like that?

JAMES JOHNSON: It would be fairly low, yes.

SPOKESMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

KWAME HOLMAN: A second panel of witnesses included the National Rifle Association's Wayne La Pierre, who said his organization has been unfairly criticized during this recent debate over gun control.

WAYNE LA PIERRE: As this made-for-TV law making gets played out, it needs a villain, so good Americans have been exposed daily to a well-coordinated, systematic bashing of the National Rifle Association, and its members, as somehow a reckless societal pathogen, an extremist empire opposed to safety, caution, and reason. That's a cruel and dangerous lie.

KWAME HOLMAN: Darrell Scott, whose daughter was killed in the Columbine High School shootings agreed the NRA is not to blame.

DARRELL SCOTT: When something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs, politicians immediately look for a scapegoat, such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that continue to erode away our personal and private liberties. We don't need more restrictive laws. The young people of our nation hold the key, and there is a spiritual wakening that's taking place that will not be squelched.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Bryl-Phillips Taylor, whose son was shot to death by a classmate ten years ago, said stronger gun laws would have made a difference.

BRYL-PHILLIPS TAYLOR: The easy availability of guns got my baby killed. A gun had a very large ammunition clip, and it was taken from an unlocked storage shed.

KWAME HOLMAN: The House will move more slowly on gun legislation than the Senate did. More hearings are scheduled for next month.

FINALLY - CRITICAL CHOICE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, new research on surviving a heart attack, and to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The new research, published today in the "New England Journal of Medicine," found that heart attack patients stand a better chance of surviving if they're taken, not just to the closest hospital, but rather to one with lots of experience with heart attacks. The lead author of the report joins us now. He is Dr. David Thiemann, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins hospital. Dr. Thiemann, briefly tell us who you were studying and what you found.

DR. DAVID THIEMANN, Johns Hopkins Hospital: We were studying elderly patients who had the confirmed diagnosis of heart attack. Medicare, the Health Care Financing Administration, collected data in 1994 and 1995 on essentially every elderly patient who had a heart attack during that period and put together a large database that we were able to analyze. We found that patients who had heart attacks and were taken to low-volume centers did much worse than those who were taken directly to high-volume centers, even after adjusting for technology and the doctor's specialty and every clinical factor involving the patient.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And what do you mean by low and high-volume?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: Well, high-volume centers had basically taken care of more than about four Medicare heart attack patients per week or translated into the entire population of patients with heart attack, about one patient per day. The low volume centers had actually less than one patient per week.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Dr. Thiemann, what do you mean by elderly?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: The Medicare database's patients over 65 only but our findings probably apply to younger patients, as well. If anything, there was greater benefit among the younger patients than among the very elderly. So that although overall there was about a 17 percent difference between patients at the lowest and the highest volume hospitals, in the youngest age group, the 65 to 69-year-old patients, the difference went to as high as 38 percent.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Before we get into why this might be happening, what's the significance for our viewers who have either had heart attacks or have friends or relatives who have had them? Should they be sure that if an ambulance comes, for example in San Francisco the ambulance is supposed to take you to the closest hospitals, we checked on it, should they be sure that doesn't happen, that they go to a hospital that has a higher volume of treatment of heart attack victims?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: I don't think this study has implications for individual patients for several reasons. The most important thing for a patient who is having what they think might be a heart attack is simply to call 911 and get into an ambulance, regardless of where the ambulance is going. The other reason is that this is primarily an issue for emergency medical system policy makers and for politicians. It suggests that emergency medical system policy perhaps could be revised. But unfortunately, or fortunately, patients don't have control over where the ambulance is going to take them.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How would you revise the emergency policy system?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: I think there are two answers. One is that for patients who are obviously having a heart attack, emergency medical system people and paramedics may consider taking them directly to a high-volume center, if the transit time isn't significantly different. For patients who may be having a heart attack but don't have the obvious diagnosis, the situation gets much murkier, because if the ambulance took everybody who might be having a heart attack to high-volume centers, they'd quickly overwhelm every big hospital in the country.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And we should be clear here for the record, there was an editorial in the "New England Journal of Medicine" that accompanied your article, that this study, your study's looking at averages, right? It doesn't mean that a given hospital with low volume heart attack treatment is not -- does not do very well treating heart attacks? Is that right?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: That's absolutely correct.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is this why individuals shouldn't try to make their own decision?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: Yes. There are many excellent low-volume hospitals. Part of the problem, however, is there's sort of a statistical Catch-22 here in that in hospitals with very low volume, it's impossible to have an adequate sample size to even tell whether they're good or bad. And this is one of the fundamental debates in quality assurance, in the debate about whether patients should be taken directly to a bigger hospital, or whether we ought to try to improve the quality at smaller hospitals or try to identify which hospitals are best regardless of volume.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And is this sort of your research so far a beginning point for more research, I gather?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: One of the issues raised by this study is how to identify in the field patients who have a high likelihood of having a heart attack. If paramedics using either automatically interpreted electrocardiograms or using a simple questionnaire could identify patients who were likely to be having a heart attack and take only those patients to the higher volume centers or only the very sick patients to the higher volume centers, we might be able to maximize the benefit without overwhelming the system.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Dr. Thiemann, why do you think the high-volume hospitals do so much better? Is it just that practice makes perfect?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: It looks as if part of the difference is due to individual practice characteristics, particularly the use of aspirin and beta blockers, which explain about a third of the difference.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Excuse me. In other words, the way that use those makes some difference?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay.

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: But most of the difference isn't explained by any of the individual practice variations that we were able to measure. It suggests that the experience not just of the doctors, but of the entire health care team, from the emergency room through the coronary care unit nurses to the tension in additions in the operating room and the catheterization laboratory, is key, because in this analysis, we included the specialty of the physicians, and even a cardiologist at a low-volume hospital does not have as good an outcome for his patients as cardiologists at high-volume hospitals.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do most cities have high-volume hospitals, and what about rural areas?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: Part of the problem I think is that in the United States there is a lot of economic pressure for new drugs and new devices, but we have not invested large sums of money in the emergency medical system. So in Europe, for example, it's fairly common to give clot-busting drugs to heart attack patients in rural areas in the field before they ever get to the hospital. That's very rarely done in this country because we haven't invested in the training and the infrastructure needed to do so. One of the surprising findings in our study is that simply living in a rural area is an independent risk factor for worse survival after heart attack. And that suggests that this is a particular area that might be targeted by health service interventions.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you recommended that hospitals be developed which are essentially cardiac attack units? They have like a trauma unit. If you now have a severe trauma, you may be taken to a hospital because it has this severe trauma unit. Do you think that should happen with heart attacks too?

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: The trauma analogy is interesting and seductive, but it doesn't apply to cardiac disease for a couple reasons. One is that there are many more cardiac patients than trauma patients. Another is that the cardiac patients tend to have a lot of other problems. So I think the notion of stand-alone hospitals that do nothing but hearts is probably not destined to survive. However, I think the notion of large, high-volume centers that have a special expertise in cardiac disease in addition to taking care of a range of general patients probably is something that deserves serious consideration.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And you have touched on this throughout, but I gather you aren't sure yet whether low-volume hospitals could be brought up to par with the high-volume hospitals if certain things are taught or certain treatments are begun.

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: This is a fundamental debate within quality assurance and improvement efforts in medicine. It's sort of whether to bring the mountain to Mohammed or Mohammed to the mountain. If experience is what matters, as seems likely from this study, then merely being at a low-volume hospital is a severe disadvantage. And it's probably easier for a nurse or a doctor to maintain their skills and to improve

them in a place where they're seeing heart attack patients constantly than at a place where they see them only infrequently.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: All right. Well, Dr. Teaman, thank you very much for being with us.

DR. DAVID THIEMANN: Thank you.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday: Yugoslav President Milosevic was indicted by the UN War Crimes Tribunal. Attorney General Reno said she would not resign over criticism she mishandled allegations of Chinese spying. On the NewsHour tonight, National Security Adviser Berger said he would not resign either, despite the calls of some Republicans in Congress. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening, with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.