The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Friday, the head of the EPA and a Republican Congress debate environmental law reform, Betty Ann Bowser reports on the day's Waco hearings, Mark Shields and Paul Gigot look at the politics of the week, and essayist Roger Rosenblatt considers the world of computers. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: The focus of the Bosnian war turned to the Western front today. Government soldiers from neighboring Croatia crossed into Bosnia. They captured two Serb-held towns near the Croatian border. Meanwhile, Croatian Serbs moved closer to the enclave of Bihac. We have more in this report from Liz Donnelly of Independent Television News.

LIZ DONNELLY, ITN: In Western Bosnian, two Balkan wars are merging into one. These Bosnian Croat forces have been joined by troops and artillery from Croatia, itself. They're fighting against the Serb army, also drawn from both sides of the border. For the moment, the conflict is contained within Bosnia, but the UN warns it could soon spill over into Croatia, where Serbs and Croats have had an uneasy truce since 1992. Croat forces working with Bosnian government troops have overrun Serb positions in the Herzegovina region. The war in Western Bosnia is a complex, three-way conflict involving Serb, Croat, and Bosnian government forces. By capturing two Serb towns, Grahovo and Glamac, the Croats have cut a key Serb supply line. Tonight, the Croats are turning their fire on Serb forces near Knin. Such setbacks will hit Serb forces active in the Bosnian enclave of Bihac. These Croatian television pictures show Croat soldiers entering the formally Serb-held town of Grahovo, the Croats acting to relieve pressure on their Bosnian government allies defending the Bihac enclave to the North.

MR. MAC NEIL: The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote next Tuesday on lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnian government. The Senate passed the measure Wednesday, and President Clinton has threatened to veto it. Today, the President consulted with Russian President Boris Yeltsin on the Bosnia crisis. White House Spokesman Mike McCurry said the two spoke by telephone for about 45 minutes. They reiterated the need for a political solution to the war and agreed the Serbs must stop threatening UN-protected zones. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton today praised last night's Senate vote to extend the Ryan White Act. It provides funds to cities and agencies to care for AIDS patients. The vote was ninety-seven to three. Mr. Clinton spoke at a meeting of his new AIDS Advisory Council at the White House.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think we can attack this disease without attacking each other, and apparently, sensible, good, far-sighted Americans of both parties agree. When we begin to pit one disease against another or one group of people against another in this country, we all wind up behind. And I felt much better about the future of our country, at least on this point, when I saw how the United States Senate conducted itself yesterday.

MR. LEHRER: In economic news today, the Commerce Department reported the Gross Domestic Product was up .5 of a percent during the second quarter. That's the slowest growth rate in three and a half years. Most of that slowdown was attributed to cutbacks in auto production. The Federal Communications Commission voted continued life for the Fox Television Network. It weighed limits on foreign ownership of U.S. broadcast stations, saying Rupert Murdoch's ownership of Fox Stations served the public interest. Murdoch's company is based in Australia, but he is a naturalized American citizen.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Senate voted ninety-eight to nothing today to limit the size of gifts Senators could receive. The bill prohibits gifts of more than $50 and puts a $100 a year limit on all gifts from any one individual. It also bars Senators from accepting all expense paid recreational trips like charity golf, tennis, and ski tournaments. Current rules allow Senators to accept gifts worth up to $250. Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona co-sponsored the legislation. He spoke after the vote.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: This is a major step forward in convincing the American people that we are committed to living like they do. There is a credibility gap and a degree of cynicism out there amongst the American people which is significant. And when we enact legislation such as we enact today, we are telling the American people that we will live like they do. It's not a matter of corruption, as much as a matter of different lifestyles, and, therefore, not being in tune with the hopes and fears and aspirations of the American people, I believe we made a giant step forward in closing that gap today.

MR. MAC NEIL: The new rules will go into effect January 1st. The House today rejected an effort to block the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing anti-pollution laws for one year. Moderate Republicans joined Democrats in the 212 to 206 vote. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. of State Christopher today reaffirmed the US commitment to one China. US-Chinese relations have been strained since Taiwan's president made an unofficial visit to the United States in June. Christopher is scheduled to meet China's foreign minister next week. He spoke today at the National Press Club in Washington.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: We recognize that the government of the PRC is the sole legal government of China. We acknowledge the Chinese position that there is but one China, and that Taiwan is part of China. We reaffirm that we have no intention of advocating or supporting a policy of two Chinas or one China, one Taiwan.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations formally admitted Communist Vietnam today. The group was founded 28 years ago to contain the spread of Communism in Asia. At a welcoming ceremony in Brunai, the Indonesian foreign minister said the inclusion of Vietnam would enhance the vitality and collective strength of the association. Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand are also ASEAN members.

MR. LEHRER: Susan Smith was sentenced today to life in prison for drowning her two young sons. A jury in Union, South Carolina, decided that sentence. She originally claimed the children had been taken by a carjacker but later confessed to their murder. She will be eligible for parole in 30 years. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the EPA and Congress, the Waco hearings, Shields and Gigot, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITS?

MR. MAC NEIL: First tonight, environmental regulation. Federal laws designed to protect natural resources have been under intense scrutiny since the Republican takeover of Congress last fall. Today the debate went to the House floor with some surprising results. Kwame Holman begins our report.

KWAME HOLMAN: What the House debated today was a $79 billion appropriations bill that included money for veterans affairs, public housing, NASA, and several other agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency. How that money is divided up troubles many Democrats and some Republicans like Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, [R] Connecticut: We're cutting 34 percent from EPA. We're being pretty gentle, in my judgment, with NASA. We're saying that the veterans don't have to weigh in in any way to help get our financial house in order, and we're gutting EPA, and we're gutting environmental laws, and let's not call it any different than that.

MR. HOLMAN: That's because the appropriation bill also contained 17 riders or restrictions, language to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing many of its regulations. Tom Delay of Texas is the House Majority Whip.

REP. TOM DELAY, Majority Whip: A critical promise we made to the American people was to get the government off their backs, and the EPA, the gestapo of government, pure and simply has been one of the major claw holds that the government has maintained on the backs of our constituents. These riders are about changing EPA's behavior.

MR. HOLMAN: Several Republicans came to the floor with stories of how EPA regulations had done more harm than good in their district.

REP. DAVID McINTOSH, [R] Indiana: In Dunkirk, there is a glass factory that wanted to rebuild its ovens. They wanted to make an environmentally cleaner glass oven that would reduce the amount of emissions they put into the air, but EPA and their local enforcement agents came in and said, you cannot do this unless you meet every single new requirement that we have. The result was, it was extremely cost prohibitive.

REP. DON YOUNG, [R] Alaska: Gnome, Alaska--my daughter is in Alaska today--was built by mining, it is a mining community. It has always been. We have an Eskimo lady up there that the ground is seeping away underneath her house, her house, an elderly lady that cannot fill the ground under her house because the EPA says it's wetlands, and that's our government in action.

MR. HOLMAN: But for every Republican with a story of EPA overregulation, there came a Democrat with a story of how those regulations were desperately needed.

REP. SANDER LEVIN, [D] Michigan: Look at the headline from the "McComb Daily" a few days ago, "Consumers of Great Lakes Fish at Medical Risk." They're talking about a Centers for Disease Control study showing children who eat Great Lakes fish have four times the amount of PCB's and three times for DTT in their bodies and other factors. There's been an effort to counteract this in the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative to cut the amount of mercury, to cut discharges of lead, to cut dioxin levels. But now we have tucked in this bill a plan to begin throwing all that out the window, leaving the Great Lakes at the mercy of those who dump mercury and lead and dioxin into drinking water.

MR. HOLMAN: And it wasn't just Democrats. A number of moderate Republicans also stood in defense of the EPA.

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA, [R] New Jersey: I want to remind my colleagues on the Republican side, it was President Nixon who established the EPA and who made environmental policy a Republican issue. And since then, the American people overwhelmingly support him. They want a healthy environment for children and grandchildren. And speaking of grandchildren, there's an old adage of "out of the mouths of babes." My grandson, Jimmy Cune, in kindergarten, his class wrote to me concerning the Clean Water Act recently, and he said, one line of it said, "And Congresswoman, dirty water can hurt you too." And that's what I want to tell my colleagues today. It can hurt you too.

MR. HOLMAN: Ohio Democrat Louis Stokes joined forces with New York Republican Sherwood Boehlert to offer an amendment removing from the appropriations bill the 17 riders and the language preventing the EPA from enforcing many of its laws. Boehlert argued that language simply didn't belong in a spending bill.

REP. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, [R] New York: For 40 years, for two generations, the Republicans were in the minority, and all during that time, we chastised the then majority for legislating on appropriations bills. We complained about the process. Now we are in charge, and we are doing the very same thing. It was wrong when we were in the minority, it was wrong when the Democrats were in the majority, it is wrong now that we're in the majority, it is simply wrong to deny the people for full and opening hearings.

MR. HOLMAN: Not surprisingly, a number of Democrats stood in support of Boehlert's argument.

REP. DAVID OBEY, [D] Wisconsin: I think what you have here very simply is not just in this bill but in Labor, HEW, in a lot of other appropriation bills, authorizing chairs who do not apparently have the courage to bring their changes in law to the floor in their own bills, are instead trying to slip it into the appropriations process so they can avoid hearings, avoid public comment, and avoid some opportunity for the public to know what's going on.

MR. HOLMAN: But California Republican Jerry Lewis, chairman of the committee that wrote the Appropriations Bill, defended the additional language.

REP. JERRY LEWIS, [R] California: Ladies and gentlemen, the language in this bill comes with the support of virtually all of the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction. Without any doubt, we are moving in the direction of attempting to send a clear message to EPA. It's time for us to redirect this agency so it makes sense, so that the public can once again support this very important work.

MR. HOLMAN: But neither Lewis's argument nor the stories of EPA overregulation were enough to hold off those intent on protecting the EPA. The Stokes-Boehlert amendment, which supporters say unties the hands of the EPA, passed narrowly; 51 mostly moderate Republicans sided with majority of Democrats to pass the amendment.

SPOKESMAN: On this vote, the yeahs are 212, the nays are 206, the amendment is agreed to.

MR. HOLMAN: The vote caused Republican leaders to pull the appropriations bill off the floor temporarily, its regulatory relief measures apparently too drastic for their members to support.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, our debate. Carol Browner is administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration. David McIntosh is a Republican Congressman from Indiana. He chairs the House Regulatory Reform Subcommittee. Congressman, you've personally been leading this fight for months now. Did you and your fellow Republican leaders underestimate the support out there for the EPA in the country?

REP. DAVID McINTOSH, [R] Indiana: Well, let me say I think that what happened today on the House floor was that several issues got bundled together, and by no means should this be taken as a vote in favor of a lot of the regulations that were being stricken in this bill. I'm sure that Congress would vote against mandatory carpools, against the inspection and maintenance program that was also de-funded, and what happened was a lot of it was mischaracterized by a fairly extensive lobbying effort, and I think as people look at what was in the bill, you will see a lot of efforts in the days to come to take care of those problems.

MR. MAC NEIL: So you don't see this as a vote on the principle of protecting or reducing the power of the EPA?

REP. McINTOSH: I think it was a vote on a principle about some existing programs, particularly of sewage overflow. I think there were a lot of Republicans that joined with the Democrats to say we like those set of regulations, but beyond that, I don't think it was a broad vote on that principle.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you see it, Ms. Browner?

CAROL BROWNER, Administrator, EPA: Well, first of all, it's important to remember that these riders were nothing but special exemptions for the special interests. What we had were prohibitions on EPA's ability and my ability to set tough standards for hazardous waste incineration, tough standards for toxic air, pollutants from petroleum refineries, and what I saw today was a bipartisan vote in opposition to prohibitions on my agency's ability to do its job of protecting the health of the American people, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat.

MR. MAC NEIL: Congressman, your colleague, Congressman Boehlert of New York, the leader of the moderates in that successful amendment today, said he was deeply worried that Republicans were being painted as an anti-environment party. What's your response to him?

REP. McINTOSH: I think we've got actually a better way of solving these environmental problems than fairly heavy-handed and draconian regulations. I'd like to see us adopt a system in incentives, where we get rid of a lot of the paper work and the burdensome requirements but say to people you audit your work place, and you tell us how we can reduce emissions and clean up the environment. In fact, a couple of the issues today were exactly that point. The permitting regulation in the Clean Air Act gets us zero environmental benefits but is enormously burdensome in terms of paper work and that type of approach. I think that's going to be the real debate, and Republicans will come out with a better idea of cleaning up the environment when the day is done.

MR. MAC NEIL: In the meantime, Congressman, the bill, the entire appropriations bill has been pulled off the floor for the moment. Does that mean that you're reconsidering the one third cut in the EPA's budget. You think that may be too much for your fellow Republicans to vote for?

REP. McINTOSH: No. If anything, I think the leadership might have sensed that with the Boehlert amendment passing, they might not have conservative votes to pass the final appropriations bill. And so they may need to figure out some way of doing that. But to be honest, it was a weekend, and people had worked very hard on several bills this week. I think it was more to do with the fact that they wanted tempers to cool a little bit, and we can come back on Monday and address this bill.

MR. MAC NEIL: So you're still going to go for the 1/3 cut?

REP. McINTOSH: I think you'll see the rest of the bill intact and passed on Monday, yes.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ms. Browner, how would a 1/3 cut--what would it do to the effectiveness of the EPA? Obviously, you must have been anticipating this.

MS. BROWNER: Well, we did not anticipate the largest reduction of any major federal agency or department. This is a 34 percent across-the-board cut. What that means for some specific programs is even more. For example, a 50 percent cut in enforcement--that means that we won't be able to file the criminal cases. We had a situation in my home state of Tampa--my home state of Florida last year where someone illegally dumped toxic waste, and children died from that. We took criminal action. Those people are in jail today. We want to be able to continue those activities. A 50 percent cut in enforcement, we won't be able to do that. This cut eliminates all of the federal dollars for drinking water programs in this country. In fact, Mr. McIntosh's home state of Indiana will lose over $35 million in federal dollars to upgrade their drinking water system, to help that know that the water they drink is, in fact, safe. These cuts are very real. And what it means is my ability to say to the American people, I'm doing my job to protect your health, your environment is now under mine.

MR. MAC NEIL: What's your comment, Congressman?

REP. McINTOSH: Let me address that last point. One of the towns in my district, Richmond, was put on EPA's kind of warning list about its drinking water quality, and everybody in that town knows they've got very, very clean drinking water. There's a level of hysteria here that just isn't happening. What- -the message that Congress is sending to the agency is we think you've gone off in the wrong direction, we're cutting enforcement because we think you've been harassing individual Americans that have done nothing wrong, certainly intended to do nothing wrong. And we want to redirect that to fight real environmental problems and redirect those resources in a way that create incentives for people to do what's right, clean up the environment. Another example from my home state, the state legislature this year passed a bill that said to people, if you need 60 days to come into compliance after you've found an environmental problem, we'll give it to you so that you don't hide it under the table but come forward and truthfully try to address that problem. Well, EPA's reaction was to say, no way, we're not going to do that, we're going to come in with our enforcement and trump the state law and go after people anyway. The result is nobody has any incentive to look in their own backyard, figure out where the problems are, and try to correct the problem.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ms. Browner, since the complaints ever since the Republicans came in and before that have been coming thick and fast and just to use one word, the Congressman's word, harassment, do you at EPA, have you looked to yourselves at all and said, well, maybe we have been a bit too heavy handed?

MS. BROWNER: Since coming to EPA two and a half years ago, I have been working to reform the regulatory system. I come from state government. I ran one of the largest state environmental agencies in this country. I understand the strength that the state and local governments bring to this town of public health and environmental protection perhaps better than anyone who's ever served in this job. I couldn't agree more with the need to reform the system. Unfortunately, that is not what Mr. McIntosh and the Republican leadership is about. This is nothing less than a full frontal assault on EPA's ability to do its job on behalf of the American people. We've seen what the Contract with America a regulatory reform package passed that invites lawyers into every aspect of our work, ties us up in legal knots so that we can't set standards, standards to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink. We saw a bill passed, a Clean Water bill passed that literally rolls back the clock to the time in this country when rivers like the Cuyahoga caught on fire. We are for sensible reform. We will work with anyone in a bipartisan manner.

REP. McINTOSH: Carol, I have to tell you, that's mischaracterization.

MS. BROWNER: We will work with anyone in a bipartisan manner to achieve sensible reform, but we will not be a party to repeal.

MR. MAC NEIL: Congressman.

REP. McINTOSH: Carol, you and Teddy Kennedy talk about rolling back the clock, but you know that's just not true. What we're saying is for example, in wetlands, we're going to concentrate on environmentally safe--very important areas, but we're not going to go out and take away people's farms, take away people's private property when there isn't a real strong environmental need. We just want to concentrate our efforts where there's the biggest problem. That's why our regulatory reform bill said let's have the cost- benefit analysis.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, let me ask you this--

MS. BROWNER: David, we did a thousand cost-benefit analysis and risk assessments last year. They are essential to our decision making. What you--

REP. McINTOSH: But follow them, listen to them.

MS. BROWNER: We do listen to them. What you would have us do is limit the decisions we make to theoutcome of one economic analysis. You would put the health of our children at risk in each and every instance.

REP. McINTOSH: No, never. If there's a real health risk, I say go ahead and take care of it. But if there are no benefits, if it's all paper work, then yes, pay attention to your economics study and do the right thing.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, let's take one example of the 17 riders that were, were proposed and defeated today, at least for the time being. The new regulations you are proposing, Ms. Browner, on cements plants that burn toxic wastes. Now, the charge is that, that in theory may be a good thing to do but it actually doesn't benefit anybody directly in terms of cleaner air to breathe.

MS. BROWNER: It absolutely benefits the people who live next to these facilities, the people who breathe that air. Let me explain what's happened in this country. We have one set of standards for hazardous waste incinerators. We have another weaker set of standards for cement kilns, boilers, industrial furnaces, which are also burning hazardous waste. I think we should have tough standards for both. That's exactly what my rule would do. What David thought to do today in his amendment, which he lost, would have been to prohibit me from setting tough standards on these facilities that are burning hazardous waste. Why should there be two different standards?

MR. MAC NEIL: What is in those hazardous wastes, briefly, that affect people's health?

MS. BROWNER: It is a combination of toxic soup that is being burned in these facilities. You're talking about things like benzine, toluene, and PCB's. It is a combination of toxic and hazardous materials that are being burned in these facilities, and we think it should be done according to standards.

MR. MAC NEIL: Congressman, what's your comment?

REP. McINTOSH: And I think that was part of what was confusing to people today on the House floor. When these new regulations don't go forward, there are existing standards that detect--

MS. BROWNER: They're not tough. They're not protective.

REP. McINTOSH: They're very tough. They protect against what scientists tell us are the real threats. They might not protect against the hypothetical threat of somebody who lived next to the plant for 70 years and ate the dirt around it, they might have a trouble, but the real threats--

MS. BROWNER: David, you agree these standards are not the same as the standards on other hazardous waste?

REP. McINTOSH: I do agree with that.

MS. BROWNER: Don't you agree? So it's a lower standard. You just agreed, right?

REP. McINTOSH: The question is whether it's needed. And the science has not concluded that these are needed. That's what we're asking--

MR. MAC NEIL: Since I don't think you two are going to agree on this right here, can I ask you, Congressman, this. Just back to the question of the general public's support for what the EPA is doing and the way it's been read by the Republican leadership, do you think ordinary Americans consider the EPA the gestapo of America, as your colleague, Congressman Delay, called it today?

REP. McINTOSH: Well, I don't want to get into Mr. Delay's quote but let me say I--

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you consider it that? Is that a fair characterization?

REP. McINTOSH: I think the American people have a residual of good will towards the agency. I think they want to see a clean environment. I do think there has been an increasing sense that it's been an agency out of control, that it's gone too far and that it has begun to harass American citizens, rather than target its efforts towards really solving some key environmental problems. Let me tell you another problem that we've been trying to deal with, and, in fact, will come up next week in Congress. There are $91 million of EPA funds go to different organizations who end up lobbying the government. They lobby at local levels; they lobby in Washington.

MS. BROWNER: Robin, excuse me for a moment. This is another example of the kind of false rhetoric--

REP. McINTOSH: No, it's absolutely true. They go to these organizations, and they lobby them.

MS. BROWNER: David, you know--your lawyers know that we provide funds--the vast majority of our grants go to state and local governments to upgrade their facilities that we provide funds to- -

REP. McINTOSH: I have a list right here, Carol.

MS. BROWNER: --business organizations. We provide funds to neighborhood organizations.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ms. Browner, just before we conclude, what is your- -how do you feel about being described as the gestapo of America?

MS. BROWNER: I think that's one of the most outrageous and irresponsible statements ever made by a public official, particularly after what the public servants of this country endured during Oklahoma City. For people to make those kind of inflammatory statements does not result in wise, common sense, legitimate reform of our system. We will work with anyone to achieve that.

MR. MAC NEIL: And, Congressman, just before we go, do you, do you believe that when you come back next week you're going to have to roll back a little bit on the effort to, to, to restrict the agency as a result of today's vote?

REP. McINTOSH: I think that the final bill won't be the way it came, came into Congress, but there'll be another opportunity next week to address this problem of, of grant recipients lobbying on all of these issues, because most Americans don't want to see taxpayer-funded lobbying, and I think that will be probably one of the most important things that we're able to accomplish in Congress.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, thank you both for joining us. Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Waco hearings, Shields & Gigot, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - WACO REVISITED

MR. LEHRER: Now, the Waco hearings. Two House subcommittees wrapped up a second week of joint hearings today. Witnesses included former high-ranking administration officials. Betty Ann Bowser reports.

WEBSTER HUBBELL, Former Associate Attorney General: With regard to Waco, I did not communicate with the President until after April 19th in any regard.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Webster Hubbell was an associate attorney general when decisions to end the Waco siege were made. He is also a close friend of the President's.

REP. ED BRYANT, [R] Tennessee: And obviously, you had personal contact with the President, I assume, during that time due to your relationship, personal relationship?

WEBSTER HUBBELL: That's absolutely correct.

REP. ED BRYANT: And the issue of Waco did not come up in any of these formats.

WEBSTER HUBBELL: It did not.

MS. BOWSER: The committee also wanted to hear what former FBI Director William Sessions and two other top Justice Department officials knew about the President's role in key Waco decisions.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, [D] New York: I want to ask you clearly, Mr. Hubbell, did President Clinton convey to you in any way, shape, or form that he wanted the siege at the Branch Davidian compound and you--and that you or Attorney General Reno should make that end happen? In other words, did the President impose pressure on the decision-making process about Waco, yes or no?

WEBSTER HUBBELL: No, he did not, either directly or indirectly.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER: I would like to ask each of the other gentlemen the same question. Did President Clinton or any other high official in the White House pressure you gentlemen to make a decision to move in before you thought it was appropriate? And you could please answer yes or no. Judge Sessions.

JUDGE SESSIONS: Mr. Schumer, I had no contact from the White House at all.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER: Mr. Potts.

MR. POTTS: No, sir.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER: Mr. Richard.

MR. RICHARD: No contact with the White House.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER: Mr. Clark.

MR. CLARK: None.

MS. BOWSER: Committee Republicans wanted to know why Justice Department officials discounted an April 14th letter written by David Koresh in which he indicated he might be willing to come out if allowed to complete religious writings. Koresh's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, earlier testified he believed the letters signaled Koresh was ready to give up.

WEBSTER HUBBELL: The attorney general wanted me to talk personally with the head negotiator to go over everything that had happened to get his opinion of whether Koresh was going to come out at anytime soon, whether he could be negotiated out, and what had happened, and what his prediction was--

REP. BILL McCOLLUM, [R] Florida: And what did Mr. Sage, in general terms, in two hours say to you?

WEBSTER HUBBELL: In general terms, that the negotiations had failed, that he could not negotiate Vernon Howell, David Koresh, out of the building or anyone else, that the only people who had left that building left because David Koresh wanted them to.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: Did he at any time say that Mr. DeGuerin believed that Koresh had now become convinced he was a messenger of God, rather than to be a martyr under the Seven Seals, and that, indeed, if given about ten days in time, DeGuerin was absolutely convinced that Koresh would, indeed, come out? Did that explicitly get conveyed to you?

WEBSTER HUBBELL: I got into a lot of detail, but I certainly didn't understand what you've just said to be the case. I understood, based on my conversation with Mr. Sage--and I can't recall everything that was said--that Mr. Koresh was manipulating the attorneys to buy more time and that he wasn't going to come out.

MS. BOWSER: When Attorney General Janet Reno approved the tear gas plan on April 17th, she was told it would be a gradual step- by-step process done over a 48-hour period designed to drive the Davidians from the compound. But officials said today when the Davidians fired on FBI tanks, they were forced to accelerate their plan. Several Republicans were troubled by that.

REP. JOHN SHADEGG, [R] Arizona: The whole idea here was not to hurt people, right?

WEBSTER HUBBELL: That is correct.

REP. JOHN SHADEGG: Okay. I want to go into a series of pictures. I'm having some difficulty with that entire section of roofs some 50 feet by 50 feet or 45 feet by 45 feet being crushed by a tank going in and out, and while you can't see it in a still photo, there is a picture of the tank literally going up on top of the roof once the roof collapsed and hit the ground. I find an inconsistency between the efforts of the gas insertion plan to save life and the actions of this tank repeatedly going in and out crushing that section of the building. And my specific question is: Was the attorney general warned of this part of the plan, and what was its purpose?

LARRY POTTS, Former FBI Assistant Director: Well, I believe that there was a discussion that there would be--there may come a point in this where we would try to poke holes in the building. My--

REP. JOHN SHADEGG: I understood that. This, I don't see as a hole.

LARRY POTTS: No, I understand that, yes, sir, but I believe that, that the CEV, according to what the HRT drivers said about that day, was trying to get around to get gas into the back of that compound which they could not get to any other way.

REP. JOHN SHADEGG: The part of the plan, as this thing extended on, was after 48 hours, if there were no people coming out, that there would be a systematic dismantling of the building that would take place. The authority delegated to the on-scene commander was that if at any time the Davidians responded and that the lives of the agents were placed in danger, the on-scene commander had full authority to escalate that plan.

LARRY POTTS: We hoped that the immediate reaction might be that some people would come out, but this was not an operation where we expected to put some CS gas into a room right away and, and have a lot of people come out. We were trying to shrink the size of the compound. The other thing we were hoping to do was to force some serious negotiation, force David to get back on the phone and start talking to us seriously, and working toward a final conclusion that would have all them come out without any more gassing at all if possible.

MS. BOWSER: Branch Davidian Clive Doyle told the committee that the FBI did so much damage to the compound some people were unable to get out. He is one of nine people who survived the fire.

CLIVE DOYLE, Branch Davidian: After six hours of gassing and six hours of tanks penetrating the walls, pushing on the walls, destroying the gymnasium at the back, those of us in the chapel were virtually cut off from the rest of the building. The roof of the gymnasium had collapsed and blocked the back stairs that went up to David Koresh's rooms. The tank had come through the front door area on numerous occasions, the last one right into the chapel area, was spraying gas there. They continued to push on the front of the building to where the whole first floor hall that ran the length of the building was blocked with the dividing walls in the various bedrooms being pushed back into the hallway, and the sheetrock and the two-by-four's cutting off any opportunity for us to, to have contact with the people at the other end in the cafeteria or whatever.

BILL ZELIFF, [R] New Hampshire: You heard the testimony on the fire, but you were there. What do you think--what were your observations relative to--I mean, I saw it on TV. I saw the tanks go in. I saw us go through the buildings, come back. I heard the announcement. This is not an attack, you know, and a tank would go back in and go right through the building. What did you feel? What were your emotions?

CLIVE DOYLE: Well, we definitely weren't believing what we were hearing over the loud speakers, that they were not entering the building, or this was not an attack. You know, we were told they weren't going to be shooting, and yet they're firing what amounted to mortars or rockets at us, these ferret rounds, which sounded like a mortar.

BILL ZELIFF: Were you afraid?

CLIVE DOYLE: Yes.

BILL ZELIFF: What about the kids, was this a safe place for kids to be in?

CLIVE DOYLE: I think that's why the women ended up putting them in the cement building because they felt they were protecting them.

MS. BOWSER: Two arson investigators who worked on the government's fire review team said infrared videotapes made on April 19th show very clearly the fires were deliberately set on the inside.

JAMES QUINTERE, Arson Expert: You can see the fire, here the first fire; a minute later, a fire began in the dining room area, and a minute after that a fire began in this chapel. It is not burnt through the roof yet, but the ignition in the debris area because of the wind has now propagated significantly over that debris area. These are three distinct fires. From this information, I can conclude that these three fires that occurred nearly one minute apart were intentionally set from within the compound. I've estimated--these are rough estimates--but I think they're pretty reasonable--that the occupants would have had sufficient warning, and no doubt, that the fire occurred, and this would have enabled them to escape for up to five minutes from the start of that first fire or perhaps as many as twenty minutes in some protected areas of the building. So between an interval of five minutes after the fire started and maybe as much as 20 minutes, a person could have escaped from some parts of that building.

MS. BOWSER: When Davidian Doyle was arrested after the fire on April 19th, his hands were in flames. Later tests showed his clothing covered with lantern fuel. But Doyle today denied David ever taught him or any other of his followers to commit suicide. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Now our end-of-the-week political analysis with Shields and Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. First on the Waco hearings, Mark, how would you score it this week?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: I think the place have a face, they have a voice, they have a case, mistakes in judgment made, yes, questions of character, commitment selflessness, I think, all come down on their side.

MR. LEHRER: Paul.

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: I think it was a draw if you're trying to score it in the raw political sense, which I think may be the wrong way to score it.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. I didn't mean that necessarily politically. Just --

MR. GIGOT: The Republicans, I think, some Republicans wanted to make some partisan hay out of this, and I think they did not succeed for some of the reasons Mark talks about. But I think that if you paid attention to the hearings or even snippets of them, you learned a lot. And I think that there was a sense that there's accountability coming out of this, that people who did make mistakes in judgment, not in intention but in judgment, and some serious ones, that we've been able to vet it, and I think that public accountability and confidence ought to be assisted.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think that the idea that there was a conspiracy involved in this has been put aside once and for all yet?

MR. GIGOT: I've seen no evidence of any conspiracy at any level. If there was anything at all, it was mistakes in judgment about whether to go ahead, no conspiracy.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Yeah. I think you're talking about a pretty isolated quarantine minority of terminal paranoids that are looking at any kind of conspiracy here.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. What about Whitewater, how did it go this week, from your perspective?

MR. SHIELDS: I think the Republicans got an edge on Whitewater. They made one serious strategic mistake, but they had a tactically good week. Tactically, they got an agreement from the Justice Department of the Clinton administration that they had grave misgivings and doubts about the way the investigation, the handling of--

MR. LEHRER: One of the Justice Department officials said that.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. And there's more to come, and that there were grave reservations and just exactly--there seemed to be an extraordinary foray of activity disproportionate to just concern about the family or, or anything of the sort. So I think in that sense, the Republicans' case--initial case was probably buttressed and fortified. The mistake they made, Jim, was they should have had the House hearings first. The House hearings are about Whitewater, about Madison Savings & Guarantee. That's what's going to come up with Jim Leach in a couple of weeks. Then you'd have something that people could kind of tie to a cover-up. As it is now, it's all just sort of happening out there, and there's no real story line to it. They feel you've got to develop a story line in hearings.

MR. LEHRER: --the end--you mean that the story before--

MR. SHIELDS: They did.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: There's something to what Mark says. They're waiting, though, for I think Congress to go out of session when a lot more people might pay attention to the actual hearings that Mark is talking about. I think the Republicans, despite this--some of the slow tedious pace of it--were actually scoring some points, and they're doing so by building the case that this administration, while publicly saying it didn't really care about Whitewater, it was no big deal, nothing to worry about, in private was actually very concerned about it, and down throughout the administration, they were doing things that suggested this preoccupation with something which wasn't supposed to be a problem, and they're damaging the credibility bit by bit.

MR. LEHRER: But didn't it--the hearings this week, everybody seemed to always get it back to Bernie Nussbaum, the White House counsel, as the guy who was overreacting, the guy who was trying to protect the President too much, rather than a big conspiracy at the White House?

MR. GIGOT: It's pretty high up in the White House, the counsel's office, and there was an allegation, in fact, by one of his deputies reported in the "Washington Post" that he, Mr. Nussbaum, received calls from a friend of the First Lady saying, we don't want this to go very far. And he's been denying that--he doesn't recall any such conversation, but Mr. Nussbaum is going to be a big witness.

MR. LEHRER: Next week.

MR. SHIELDS: He's the designated hit man. I mean, there's no question about it. I mean, he's the guy--there's an old rule--

MR. GIGOT: Designated target.

MR. SHIELDS: Designated target, that's right. But there's an old rule in presidential White House politics that was explained to me by a Republican during Iran-Contra, Jim, and it goes like this, did Ronald Reagan know about Iran-Contra? Of course, he did. Well, how do we know he knew about it? Because that was good news, and there were nine people lined up to give him good news. White House staff really acts in anticipation of what's going to please or displease the principal. And the flurry of activity here seems to suggest that there probably was an interest at the highest point in the White House of just exactly what was going on. I mean, they were not acting in a vacuum. They were acting to either please or protect their principal, and I think that's the questions that are going to be asked.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. What's your damage assessment, Paul, on what the Senate vote to lift the Bosnian arms embargo has done to the President, if any?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think on this point I'm going to try one of Mark's double bankers political interpretation.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Now, let's listen to this one, Mark.

MR. GIGOT: What--it was obviously a repudiation of a policy. It was an embarrassment to be overridden by 21 Democrats in addition to the Republicans, no question about it, but I think that ultimately this may help the President politically. And I say that because in two senses--one this is going to help the President make his case to the Europeans who have been resisting any strengthening of the policy.

MR. LEHRER: You see my problem, folks.

MR. GIGOT: We're about to pull out all together, folks.

MR. LEHRER: Right.

MR. GIGOT: Let's tough it up here. And then the other thing is that when Congress makes a vote and when it does ultimately override the veto, it begins to take responsibility. It begins to say, well, we just repudiated the President's policy and Congress is awful at actually running a policy, so there's going to be some incentive on both sides here to work out a negotiation that again begins to get to a different and let's hope better policy.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think?

MR. SHIELDS: I thought it was a pretty good double banker, I really did.

MR. LEHRER: But do you agree with it?

MR. SHIELDS: The West Germans--[laughter]--ten nine. I thought- -I thought that there are a lot of elements in this. One, it was an attention getter. I mean, it was a way of saying pay attention because your policy isn't working, we're dissatisfied with it. It was a sense of frustration that the White House is in denial. I think the Senate was expressing that, and they have been in denial about the--and, Jim, in addition to that, there's almost a sense of frustration about the absence of clear-cut lines in a post Cold War world. I mean, we really don't know, you know, what to do, who's with us, and everything else. We--outrage is no substitute for national will. We don't have any national will really to go into Bosnia. There's a great sense of outrage. The British and the French don't have a great sense of outrage; they do have a commitment. They have men on the ground at risk, more than at risk, casualties. So you've got all this. I find myself, strangely enough, coming down on the side of Jesse Helms. I never thought I'd say that either here or any other place. He said--

MR. LEHRER: They're listening.

MR. SHIELDS: He said--there's a feel good vote--it's a feel good vote--let's lift the embargo, let's let them have--but he says, look, you don't lift the embargo unless you're going to arm them, and he said, I want to fight for $50 million to do it. I mean, it's an absolute fraud to say lift the embargo and then walk away.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. SHIELDS: So that's where I think it is. I think politically it was a big hit on the President, I really do, on the administration, sense of confidence.

MR. GIGOT: The Jesse Helms policy here is in a way an updating of the old Reagan doctrine--remember--that you help proxies--you help people be able to defend themselves--the Contras in Nicaragua, for example, without American involvement of--

MR. LEHRER: Of people there.

MR. GIGOT: --folks on the ground, and you can help U.S. interest with that kind of a policy. I think there might be support in the Congress for that sort of policy.

MR. LEHRER: All right. The Senate voted its lobby reform bill 98 to nothing. Is it serious reform?

MR. GIGOT: A good rule of thumb in Washington is that when something passes the Senate 98 to nothing, it's good to take a second look, to wonder about it. I think this is probably a good example--it was--of that. It was avote where--heavy in symbolism, we're not going to take gifts any more--but it was based on--

MR. LEHRER: Anything over $50.

MR. GIGOT: Or a hundred dollars from any one person--

MR. LEHRER: Over a year.

MR. GIGOT: Over a year. It's designed to prevent, Jim, the 30- second spot that says your Senator was--voted against stopping taking gifts from those dreaded lobbyists. It was a defensive vote. I don't know that it's going to change the body politic very much at all.

MR. LEHRER: You don't think cutting out the ability to go to these golf tournaments and all that is going to make a difference?

MR. GIGOT: Based on the premise that you can buy a Senator's vote or allegiance with a weekend at Vale or a lunch or a dinner here or there, I think that's a false premise. I mean, as cynical as we all are about politicians sometimes, I think there are bigger things at stake more often than not when they're voting.

MR. LEHRER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: I don't think it's a question of buying a vote. It is a question of buying access. I mean, there's no question about it, who does get in to see the Senator. And I thought it was intriguing again to see John McCain. I mean, Bill Cohen of Maine- -

MR. GIGOT: His favorite Republican.

MR. SHIELDS: --Carl Levin--Bill Cohen of Maine and Carl Levin of Michigan, Republican and Democrat, have fought this fight for a long time and carried this water, and John McCain, I think, was key, and John McCain to a degree not only made the case earlier in this broadcast, but he's compensating still for his own sense of tainting in the, in the Keating scandal.

MR. GIGOT: Keating Five.

MR. SHIELDS: Keating Five scandal, and he--he, in fact, has been as strong as anybody on the Republican side or maybe even as most people in Congress on pushing for campaign finance for that very reason. But that is the real--you're playing at the edges when you're talking about gifts. If you're really talking about where the money goes, where the money is, it's in campaign financing.

MR. LEHRER: They haven't done anything about that.

MR. SHIELDS: No. They've collected a lot.

MR. LEHRER: Right. Collected a lot--is that a double bank shot too? Paul, on, another thing in the Senate, Sen. Boxer versus Sen. McConnell on whether to make the Packwood hearings public, who's winning that debate at this stage?

MR. GIGOT: Well, Congress--Senator Boxer, former Congresswoman, but she's winning the battle of the PR so far, I think. She is playing rough, punch-in-the-gut politics. I mean, the ethics--

MR. LEHRER: I saw her on "Nightline" last night--she did--against Alan--Sen. Simpson of Wyoming--she wouldn't give an inch to him.

MR. GIGOT: No. And she kind of rolled over him, frankly. I saw that as well. It's, it's tough politics. It's exception--it's an exception to what she had supported when she was in the House, and there were other allegations of sexual misconduct against others. She was quiet there. Some of those were Democrats.

MR. LEHRER: She disputes that--at least she did last night.

MR. GIGOT: There's a problem for the Republicans here if she keeps to put the pressure on, because she's saying, disinfectant is the best form of politics, and we can clear this up, but the Republicans do not want to have hearings, and I think you have to ask yourself, what public interest or public education is really going to be served by having public hearings? Everybody's covered this; everybody knows what Bob Packwood did. I mean, he's kind of done a Hugh Grant on, on "Larry King Live," of apology. What else are we going tolearn?

MR. LEHRER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: I think--I was talking to Sen. Boxer yesterday. She is an absolute bulldog on this. She pointed out that the--that she had survey data to support that 2/3 of Americans were interested in seeing the Packwood hearings, and a lot less than a majority-- in fact, less than a plurality, were interested in seeing either the Waco or the Whitewater hearings. So she's got--she's got the case on her side for this. I--you know, I think if the tests were, what did people know, have we ever covered this area before, there'd be a lot fewer hearings in Congress. I mean, I don't know how many times Webb Hubbell has to be drawn up, but he's been drawn up nine times, the last time I counted, so I think she's--Mitch McConnell has himself a very formidable adversary in Barbara Boxer.

MR. LEHRER: And she's not going to give in.

MR. SHIELDS: She's not going to give in.

MR. LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, thank you both very much. See you next week. ESSAY - USEFUL TOOL

MR. MAC NEIL: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt looks at the world of computers.

COMMERCIAL SPOKESMAN: Shopper Vision provides interactive shopping on demand for more than 20,000 products at local supermarkets and pharmacies delivered to your home.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: The question of whether the emerging technologies represent an evolution or a revolution hinges on what people are calling interactivity. Without interactivities, i.e., the ability of people on the receiving end of information and entertainment to order up whatever they want and talk back to those talking to them on a screen, of course, cyberspace would only be quantitatively different from space as we know it. The railroad got us from this space to that space faster. The radio put us in the same auditory space. Television added the visual. The new machines will do all that too, but conceptually, they will be closer to the telephone, which created its own space and took communications two ways. So will communication go on in the 21st century's combination TV and computer, which may be seen as at least as revolutionary as the telephone? If it seems even more revolutionary than that, the reason will be that people will say so much more over the wires and so much more will be said to them. The revolution may seem to be merely a function of magnitude. But the premise behind that growth in size, one that never entered the mind of Alexander Graham Bell, is that the new machines will give us everything we want. Life will be customized. Want to go shopping? Push that mouse. Want to receive only the sports pages or the financial pages of the newspapers? Here they come, to you and you alone. Want a movie? It's yours. If it's information or education or even sex you want, just tell the screen. If it's a particular politician you want, tell the screen who, or better yet, the politician will come to you because he or she may already know exactly what you want from the things you have ordered up in the past. Campaign managers will be taking notes. A candidate for President may tell you the one thing you want to hear and then tell your neighbor something else entirely. To know who it is you're really voting for, you'll have to keep checking that screen. Once you are satisfied, you may vote from your chair at home. There you will sit, the commander of cyberspace, at once isolated and a member of the community of the air whose atoms are held together by what you want. To function happily in this brave new community then, all we have to do is know what we want. Not so easy--like rolling off a log. No wonder American big business is betting the farm that this is the stuff the future is made of. Bell Atlantic is becoming a media company. Time-Warner is becoming a phone company. Billions are spent not only on cables and programs but on the assumption that we know what we want. All inventions make things easier and faster, and it's a lock that the emerging technologies will give us facility and speed. The true revolutionary idea here, however, is that we will make our own little worlds in the new machines, create our own movie theaters, our own news, our own schools, our love life, even our customized governments, because we know what we want--not that that is provable, unfortunately, either of individuals or of the country as a whole. Then maybe the machines will tell us what we want to make things easier still. But if we would like to keep hold of the individuality for which all this stuff is supposedly geared, it would help to think a bit beforehand what it really is we want, because knowing what one wants means knowing how one wants to live. Will cyberspace show us how we want to live? That would be a revolution. I'm Roger Rosenblatt.

MR. MAC NEIL: Next week, Charlayne Hunter-Gault will resume her series of conversations about cyberspace. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again the major stories of this Friday, the focus of the war in Bosnia shifted to the Western front as Croatian government soldiers captured two Serb-held towns near the border between Croatia and Bosnia. The U.S. Gross Domestic Product increased at a .5 percent annual rate in the second quarter. That's the slowest growth in three and a half years. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.