The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in New York. After our summary of the news this Wednesday, we'll examine what messages the voters were sending yesterday. Then an update on the fires in California, the conclusion of Charlayne Hunter-Gault's conversations from the Middle East, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay about Italian movie maestro Federico Fellini. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Los Angeles was placed under a state of emergency today because of suburban wildfires but officials said the worst was over. A wind-driven blaze scorched 35,000 acres in the seaside community of Malibu, destroying more than 200 homes. Seventeen people were injured, two seriously. Thousands were evacuated, and a 45-mile stretch of the Pacific Coast Highway was closed. The fires flared up yesterday with the return of hot Santa Ana winds. Those winds died down today. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Republicans took all the top prizes in yesterday's off-year elections, ousting Democrats for mayor in New York City and for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. As for ballot initiatives, voters soundly rejected one on school vouchers, defeated several proposing equal rights for gays, and approved two imposing term limits. Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole called the Republican sweep "a big, big defeat for the White House." President Clinton disputed that assertion. He spoke at a meeting with congressional leaders this morning.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think it is a manifestation that the voters are not yet happy with the pace of economic renewal, social reunification in this country. They're worried about crime. They're worried about all these other social problems we've got, and I think it's also a sense they have that government's not yet working for them, and all that is right. There's nothing wrong about that. And I think that all people who are in, if they want to stay in, are going to have to work together until we produce economic results, a country that's coming together instead of coming apart, and political reform.

MS. WARNER: We'll have more on the elections after the News Summary.

MR. LEHRER: The Senate voted overwhelmingly last night to subpoena the personal diaries of Sen. Bob Packwood. Only six of the one hundred Senators voted against the subpoena. The Oregon Republican is under investigation for allegations of sexual misconduct and possible criminal violations. He has been fighting requests for his diary by the Ethics Committee. West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd accused Packwood of staining the reputation of the Senate and called for his resignation. He spoke shortly before last night's vote.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD, [D] West Virginia: None of us is pure or without flaws but when those flaws damage the institution of the Senate, it's time to have the grace to go, and Sen. Packwood has chosen to do the opposite. He has chosen to stay in spite of the continuing damage he is doing to the body by prolonging this matter and refusing to comply with the Ethics Committee's request that he produce certain documents to the Committee.

MR. LEHRER: An aide to Sen. Packwood said today he would apply the subpoena in federal court. That could tie up the issue for months or possibly years.

MS. WARNER: President Clinton launched a new salvo at the health insurance industry today. He accused it of greed and attacked industry ads that criticized his health care reform plan. The President was on a trip to Pennsylvania to promote the plan. His attack came two days after a similar one from Mrs. Clinton. The President formally submitted the North American Free Trade Agreement to Congress today. The treaty would create a free trade zone among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA is opposed by labor unions and others who claim it will cost thousands of American jobs. Backers say it will be a job builder by creating a giant new market for U.S. goods. The House is expected to vote on the agreement November 17th. During a ceremony at the White House this morning, the President was asked if he had enough votes to pass the bill.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Do we have the votes? We don't have them today but we're getting there. We're making really -- I think all of these people would admit thanks to them we're making rapid progress. And we, we had a real movement in the last ten days or so, and I think you'll see more and more progress in the next few days.

MS. WARNER: Some of the treaty's strongest opposition is coming from members of the President's own party. Today House Majority Whip David Bonior of Michigan addressed a group opposing NAFTA.

REP. DAVID BONIOR, [D] Michigan: We have the momentum on our side that the people of this country are speaking out against this. All the polls are showing that when people understand the issue here, there's a two to one margin against this treaty, even the ones, the polls that asked the cursory question, the majority of people who are opposing NAFTA.

MS. WARNER: The Federal Reserve said today that stronger consumer spending is fueling a slow to moderate recovery across much of the country. The analysis is based on surveying business executives in different regions. The Fed said reports from California and New York were mixed but were generally positive elsewhere. The Central Bank uses the report to set interest rate policy. That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead, winners and losers, fighting the flame, voices from the Golan, and a maestro's touch. FOCUS - ELECTION '93

MS. WARNER: Election '93 is our lead tonight. Republicans were the big winners in three key contests yesterday. In New York City's closely fought mayoral race, the incumbent Democrat, David Dinkins, was narrowly defeated by Republican Rudolph Giuliani. In the Virginia governor's race, Republican George Allen trounced Mary Sue Terry, ending 12 years of Democratic domination of the state house. But the biggest upset of the day came in New Jersey. Republican Christine Todd Whitman defeated the incumbent Democratic governor, Jim Florio. She joins us now from Morristown for a Newsmaker interview. Welcome, Mrs. Whitman, Governor-Elect Whitman. Tell me, why do you think you won this campaign?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: [Morristown] Well, it was the voters of New Jersey speaking out I think very clearly on two issues: One, that government has got to look for cuts before it raises taxes because that just strangles the ability of business to do business and truly hurts people. And the other is that they wanted to talk about issues, and they got through all the negative campaigning that had gone on and the image that had been portrayed of me and said, we want to hear about what you want to do for the future. And I outlined a plan for them that was pretty bold and big. But they wanted to hear that, and when they looked at what the governor was proposing, it was just more of the same.

MS. WARNER: And did the voters shift in the last few days, or were the polls wrong all along?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: Well, I think the polls are always subject to the vagaries of any particular moment in time. There certainly was a shift in momentum over the last ten days, two weeks, but I've been hearing a lot more positive response in the streets, and the polls are that papers were indicating really throughout most of this campaign.

MS. WARNER: And how much of a factor do you think just general voter anger was in your election?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: I think there was a lot of voter anger. Voters are very tired of being used. They're very tired of being lied to, and as you may know, they also passed a referendum in this state on the ballot this time that's recall. So they can get me a whole lot sooner than they can get anybody else if I don't do the job I promised to do.

MS. WARNER: Do you think the voter anger is as strong as it was last year when it fueled Ross Perot's rather remarkable showing?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: Well, if politicians don't start to really listen to the people that bring them into the process and to, to respond to what they want to see done, then you're going to see this voter anger continue. What has happened is voters don't feel they have to go out and demonstrate on the street anymore. They know they just have to go into the ballot box and pull a lever, and that can make the difference.

MS. WARNER: And do you think President Clinton's popularity of programs were an issue in your campaign, in your race at all?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: They really weren't. This election was decided on the campaign that was run here in this state and on the issues and on the policies of Jim Florio or the lack thereof. Obviously, as far as the President's concerned, they're for anybody looking at this race. I think there's a very clear message to those in government and making policy that you do have to look for the cuts before you go to the people and say we want more of your tax dollars.

MS. WARNER: And that takes us to what you're going to do next. What do you feel you were elected to do most of all?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: I was very clear about the economic recovery proposal that I put out which included a 30 percent tax cut, 10 percent a year for three years. When I get into office, I've got to find $250 million in cuts or savings to find in the first five months of that budget, and then I have the other 750 to find in the next twelve months of my administration. There are over $500 million in suggested savings that are on the governor's desk right now from a management audit that he had commissioned for not all of the departments even, just for some of the departments, and by limiting the rate of growth of state government, you pick up another $500 million, which takes you to a billion. The fiscal year '94 budget, the fiscal year we're in now, is scheduled to end with a $400 million deficit -- I mean -- excuse me $400 million surplus. If you take that down to 200 million, you've found your 1.2. And that doesn't even account for growth which for every 1 percent of growth in this state, you get $300 million in new revenues, into general revenues.

MS. WARNER: Well, would you call yourself a supply sider? Do you believe that lower taxes will in and of themselves generate greater revenues? Are you going to have to make this all up by spending cuts?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: Oh, no, there has to be a combination. I believe very strongly we've seen it. That's why what happened is a clear indication that when John Kennedy lowered taxes in 1963 and when Ronald Reagan lowered taxes, you saw there'd be a spurt in growth of jobs, you saw increased personal revenues. What they didn't have the ability to do, and I will as governor of the state of New Jersey, is cut the spending side. I have the line item veto. I also have something called impoundment authority. And those two tools, along with a willing legislature which I also will have, will enable me to make the kinds of cuts or controlling in the rate of growth of state government, and there's a big difference there, that will enable us to do this.

MS. WARNER: By a slim majority, the polls suggested, i.e., the exit polling suggested, that voters -- even some who voted for you -- don't really believe you can do this. How is that going to affect the way you proceed, if at all?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: It's not going to affect it at all. I'm just going to make believers out of them by doing it. I mean, there are a lot of people who didn't vote for me. This was a close election, and this -- I need everybody in the process. The governing of the state of New Jersey isn't done for one party or another or just for the people who voted for you, all of the people of the state, and I intend to govern that way.

MS. WARNER: And do you think that the voters are really ready for austerity? I mean, again, they tell pollsters that they're ready for lower, reduced services if that means fewer taxes. Do you believe them? Does that give you a lot of opportunity to really cut services do you think?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: Well, we're not talking about austerity. We're not talking about cutting a lot of services. Most of the $500 million in proposed savings that are outlined in the current report are things such as improving the computer system that we have for the state or for freezing hiring and allowing for natural attrition to take place. And I'm talking about limiting the rate of growth of state spending. In the last three years, this governor had state spending increase 24 percent, more than twice the rate of inflation. That's the kind of thing we can't afford. But it doesn't mean that you're cutting out whole programs, but it's very important that government start to get much more efficient in the way it delivers services, and that's why we need to move to things like performance-based budgeting, so that we're really funding those programs that meet the goals of public policy as they're set today.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you about another issue, crime, that seemed to be on the voters' minds. Was it, again, a big factor in your victory, do you think, and what do you need to do now to address that issue?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: Well, crime was a major issue because the governor tried to portray me as someone who thought it was a wonderful thing to have near as I can figure out. The voters obviously are very concerned about crime, and I've put out a very complete package that speaks to the need to not only have strict sentencing and judges who understand their responsibility to enforce the law, not write it, but also to start to focus on the fact that we need to intervene earlier in the lives of children when they start to run afoul of the law, before they really get themselves into deep trouble with the criminal justice system. And we --

MS. WARNER: I'm sorry --

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: -- desperately need to start there.

MS. WARNER: You called Gov. Florio's bill banning assault weapons a lousy law. Now, if the legislature once again votes to repeal it, will you sign that law?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: Not a repeal. I've never supported a repeal of that law. What I have indicated that I would support is a grandfathering of those people who got weapons legally, have never done anything illegal with them, should not have been made into criminals by the law. That's what made it a bad piece of legislation in my mind, not the particular weapons that were on it necessarily. So what I would look for if they were to pass something, to send it up to me, that would get my approval would be a grandfathering bill.

MS. WARNER: Let me just ask you one, final, quick question. You're about to become an incumbent office holder, yourself. What is the danger that that voter anger and cynicism can quickly turn on you?

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: Oh, I would expect it to turn very quickly if I don't run an inclusive government, an open government to make the people part of the process so they understand what's happening, and if we can't do everything on the timetable laid out initially, they'll understand why and decide that's a legitimate reason or not, but I plan to deliver on the promises certainly to the best of my capability, and I will do that by including the people in the process. I've been there before in elective office, and I know that you can do it. But you're never going to please everybody all the time, so that's another part of the understanding you have to have.

MS. WARNER: Well, thank you, Mrs. Whitman for being with us on this big day for you.

GOVERNOR-ELECT WHITMAN: Thank you. My pleasure.

MR. LEHRER: Now analysis of the New Jersey vote and other elections around the country yesterday. It comes from our man Shields, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and from Eddie Williams, president of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which examines public policy issues of special concern to black Americans, and Republican pollster Linda Divall. She joins us from public station KERA in Dallas tonight. Mark, do the Whitman, Giuliani, and Allen victories send any kind of consistent message?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, they send a message that's not reassuring to the, to the White House. I mean, Bill Clinton was elected president just a year ago. At that time, Democrats held the city hall in Los Angeles, they held the city hall in New York City, they held two Senate seats in Georgia. Now they hold one. They held one Senate seat in Texas. Now they hold none. And they held the New Jersey governorship. So -- as well as the Virginia governorship-- and so all of those have changed, and the Republicans think, oh, is there a national pattern?

MR. LEHRER: I wasn't thinking necessarily from that point of view. In other words, we'll get to that in a minute about Clinton specifically, but, I mean, is there anything that ties what happened yesterday together anyway?

MR. SHIELDS: It's not a good time to be an incumbent, and it's a tough time to govern, Jim. It's a tough time to govern objectively and subjectively, objectively because all of 'em are strained on demands and resources. Taxes are absolute suicide, trying to raise taxes, and at the same time subjectively, because there's a growing cynicism and skepticism about the ability of government to deliver.

MR. LEHRER: Eddie, what's your feeling, overview of this thing? What happened?

MR. WILLIAMS: Anti-incumbent mood. People are concerned about the, about the future. People are concerned about crime. People want to see some new faces.

MR. LEHRER: New faces, concerns, Linda, what do you think?

MS. DIVALL: Well, I think there are three trends here. No. 1 is that voters were clearly saying that the Democrats no longer own the mantel of change. Second, they were saying that when you look at six key races since President Clinton was elected, two Senate races in Georgia and Texas, two mayors races in Los Angeles and New York City, and the governors races in New Jersey and Virginia last night, the voters are saying that they rejected the Democratic incumbent or the Democratic incumbent party in all six instances, which has to be a blow to the White House and I think is indicative of the fact that there wasn't a mandate for Bill Clinton in '92. The third thing is, going back to Mark's point, clearly a difficult time to govern. That anti-incumbent feeling is as deep and as volatile as it ever was. Voters are angry. They're scared. They're frustrated, and they have very little regard for those politicians who don't honor their campaign promises, don't take decisive action, and don't connect with the voters on a daily basis.

MR. LEHRER: So it's conceivable, Mark, that if, if all of those incumbents like Florio and, and Dinkins and the others had been Republicans, they might have lost yesterday anyhow just because they were incumbents?

MR. SHIELDS: I think that's a distinct possibility, Jim. I think the, the argument you can make, how important are off-year elections? I remember a first term president, first year of his office, just like Bill Clinton, who had won a very narrow victory lost four successive House races, special elections, never happened before in the history of the republic, never happened since. His name was Richard Nixon. It was 1969. Three years later, he carried forty-nine of the fifty states. So I mean, we can over-interpret and analyze this, but I think Eddie's right, I think Linda's right, that being an incumbent, which was once a lock, almost a lead-pipe cinch for re-election, has become a burden, and I think that's why you're going to see a skittishness among Democrats on Capitol Hill right now.

MR. LEHRER: Eddie, specifically what happened for Giuliani in New York City to cause him to beat David Dinkins? David Dinkins was early on at least was considered to be in good shape, and what happened?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think the bottom line is that he took slightly more white votes than he did before. David Dinkins held on. He got 95 percent support among blacks. He got 25 percent among whites. It was a little lower than he'd had before. 60 some percent among, among Hispanics, so he did very, very well. But I think this mood thing that was, that was taking place, plus the turnout, and Dinkins not being able to get as much, is what hurt him. Now connect that to the other, other point. It is sobering, as we analyze the long-term implications of this, realize that in two of these elections they, the vote margin was very, very close. New York and --

MR. LEHRER: New Jersey.

MR. WILLIAMS: -- New Jersey could have gone either way. They were teeter tottering there at the very end. And, in fact, what happened to, to Dinkins was kind of a mirror image of, of his victory four years ago. So there is volatility in the electorate, but, again, I think if either one of those candidates could have marshalled their troops, they might have won.

MR. LEHRER: Linda, what's your analysis of what happened in New York City?

MS. DIVALL: Well, I think in New York City the voters were saying that they were dissatisfied with Mayor Dinkins' performance specifically on crime and specifically on the Crown Heights incident, and that they wanted a different style of management. They wanted somebody who was not going to be quite as, as distant from making a decision in a decisive way, and I think that's what happened elect Rudy Giuliani. And the same case I think applies to Christie Whitman. The interesting thing with Christie Whitman is she wasn't afraid to say to voters here is my vision for what we have to do. Frankly, she was scoffed at. People at some skepticism about her plan initially but the exit polling data show that by a very narrow margin of 47 to 51, they still maintain some skepticism, but she has made it very clear that she intends to follow through on that promise.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, going into these elections, there was much talk that one of the, one of the lessons of these elections yesterday was going to be the -- that everybody who's in, in any kind of position in government at all levels of government better get with the crime and violence issue. Can you read that in these results?

MR. SHIELDS: I think you can read it probably in Virginia, but I think there are other factors besides. The problem, Jim, when you win 51 to 49, you've got to give credit to everybody. Left-handed agnostics come in and say, we put you over the top.

MR. LEHRER: That's true.

MR. SHIELDS: And so, you know, what really is the meaning? George Allen's victory in Virginia, where he ran probably harder and stiffer on abolition of parole and so forth as governor gives --

MR. LEHRER: The support of the NRA.

MR. SHIELDS: The support of the NRA. What maybe it proves is that you can't use surrogates to run against. I mean, Jim Florio in New Jersey ran against the NRA, but I think in Florio's case something has to be said. The Florio race in 1993 was like Jerry Ford's in 1976. Jerry Ford started off 32 points behind Jimmy Carter, and he lost by an eyelash and overlooked, of course, is the terrific, that he got that close. Jim Florio was given up for dead. He was gone. He did get that close, so some things did work for him. I'm not sure what but I think crime is not going to go away as an issue. Everywhere you travel in the country, the concern, the anxiety the people have about random violence, that a child just going to pick up a loaf of bread or a quart of milk or going to school is in jeopardy is really endemic.

MR. LEHRER: Eddie, you mentioned that earlier, you agree with that, right?

MR. WILLIAMS: I certainly do, and even before the elections, we had seen a great number of people white and black who were concerned about the crime issue. We now believe that the Brady Bill may have a chance of passing. We're getting more intense discussion about the impact of television violence on child. People are concerned about it. They're frustrated. They don't know what to, what to do about it. Politicians don't know exactly what to, what to do about it. It did get discussed in New York. There are some who believe that Dinkins might have been more assertive in countering the attacks of Giuliani against him on being soft on crime.

MR. LEHRER: And some of the, the -- I read today that some of the white, liberal votes that Dinkins got before he lost to Giuliani on the crime issue, that it crossed over all kinds of philosophical things?

MR. WILLIAMS: And it's an issue that we're going to see again next year until we come to grips with it in this country. It has to do with guns and the kind of resources that we're prepared to commit.

MR. LEHRER: Linda, moving on to some of the other results yesterday of some of these propositions, particularly in California, much talk today about the overwhelming rejection of the California voters of educational vouchers, school vouchers. How do you read that?

MS. DIVALL: Well, it's true that it went down in California, but I don't think that that diminishes the fact that you're going to see this issue be a fundamental concern in a number of states across the country in 1994. It's quite clear that the conservatives I think decided that they couldn't compete against the NEA. They were simply out-funded.

MR. LEHRER: The Teachers Union.

MS. DIVALL: They weren't willing to play that.

MR. LEHRER: The NEA.

MS. DIVALL: That's correct.

MR. LEHRER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: I think it's an issue that's not going to go away. As long is there concern about the public schools, about the safety of children, about what -- how the public schools are performing, this is an issue that, yes, is ideologically driven, but it is working in a field where, Jim, people are deeply concerned about their children's safety and --

MR. LEHRER: It also relates to what Eddie was saying, that's all of these things. Now what about term limits? Term limits did very well yesterday. That also goes back to the incumbent thing you all were talking about before.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's true. If you can't vote 'em out, then let 'em get out on a tenure, term track. So it is a question of concern to me in the electorate, and we may be headed towards some kind of mood swing, which certainly means it will swing back the other way at another time.

MS. DIVALL: Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Yes, Linda.

MS. DIVALL: If I could go back to a point that both Mark and Eddie made, I mean, I think the larger message here is that of personal security in this campaign in the three major races as well as California. I mean, what voters are saying is, it's not just crime. It's this overall sense of I'm a little bit scared about what's going to happen to me and on both taxes, economic security, and the issue of guns in schools and violence in schools, people are saying, we want someone who's going to be serious about trying to turn the direction of this around.

MR. LEHRER: And would you agree that that applies to all levels of government?

MS. DIVALL: I think so. I mean, clearly, people are saying they've got a very short threshold, if you will, for the length of time that they want incumbents to get some action, to take some action and turn things around.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. All right, let's go quickly in the couple of minutes left here to the Packwood diaries case, Mark. This is no surprise in the vote, I mean, only six Senators vote against not enforcing the Ethics Committee subpoena, but Sen. Robert Byrd to go on the Senate floor last night and call for Packwood to quit, that's quite a stunning event, is it not?

MR. SHIELDS: It was scorching. It was scalding. I mean, it was as tough as I've ever heard a Senator at a major moment with the rest of the body there go after, go after a colleague. I mean, Bob Packwood probably is the only politician that had a worst day yesterday than the Democrats, if you think about it. I still, you know, have problems with the going after the diary, and the fact that he has not had a hearing. But it's obvious that the Senators in a rush to judgment and to save the institution, read their own necks, are ready to toss him overboard.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Senator Packwood, by the way, this evening issued a statement publicly rejecting Sen. Byrd's invitation to quit. Linda, what did you think about that, what Byrd did, and this whole situation?

MS. DIVALL: Well, clearly it was dramatic theater, and I think Mark is absolutely right, that these Senators are looking back to the Thomas-Hill hearings, so they don't want to see the institution tarnished any more, and they don't want to have to worry about their re-election in 1994. I think many people are uncomfortable with this whole notion of privacy and what many people want to see handed over. The bottom line is that this is a decision that Sen. Packwood is going to have to make, and I think many of his colleagues wish that he would make it sooner, rather later.

MR. LEHRER: Eddie, I read one piece of analysis today that suggested that the Packwood hearing -- I mean, the Packwood debate on the floor of the Senate coming when it did right before the elections fed this kind of anti-cumbent thing. I mean, you know, look at these guys. You know, I mean, look at what's happened. Do you agree with that? Is it possible?

MR. WILLIAMS: I do. In fact, I heard one commentator say today that Bob Dole probably agreed with Sen. Byrd when he was trying to get him out. I think Linda is right, that what happened in these elections made, made President Clinton and the Democrats very edgy, if not unhappy. Similarly, what we are seeing in the United States Senate should, should make Republicans unhappy with the spectacle of being played out here with Bob Packwood, David Durenberger, under indictment, with Kay Hutchinson having her problems, here are three Republicans in seats that Democrats could easily win should they exit or should they be forced out.

MR. LEHRER: All right. So the drama goes on. Gentlemen, Linda, thank you very much.

MS. WARNER: Still ahead, the California fires, conversations from the Golan Heights, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - FIRE STORM

MS. WARNER: Next tonight, the Southern California inferno. As we reported earlier, Los Angeles fire officials said they believe the worst of the Malibu wildfire is over. The blaze still raged out of control today but the driving winds have subsided, giving firefighters a chance to contain the flames. The fire has consumed 35,000 acres and 200 homes in Malibu and threatened nearby Pacific Palisades. We have a report from Val Zavala of public station KCET- Los Angeles.

MS. ZAVALA: The fire started yesterday about 11 AM inland near the town of Calabasas. Over the next four hours it raced almost 15 miles through dry, windy canyons dotted with homes and ranches. By 3 PM, it had reached the Pacific Ocean and that community of Malibu known as the home of many Hollywood celebrities. Through the night, fires swept through Malibu, turning homes and ranches into charred embers. The wild winds sent sparks sailing across roads and over residential clearings, starting new blazes in a matter of seconds. Yet, most of the beach front homes survived. By dawn, the scenic Pacific Coast Highway was clogged with people evacuating. In the meantime, the fire was moving inland toward the affluent and densely populated community of Pacific Palisades. Residents watched the smoke rise over the ridge above multi-million dollar homes.

WOMAN: We haven't slept, just been keeping an eye on things.

MS. ZAVALA: The Friedmans packed clothes, tax records, and Arnie, who's a doctor, packed his research papers. They were ready if they needed to evacuate. Yesterday afternoon residents of Malibu and the rustic Topango Canyon didn't have the luxury of time.

RESIDENT: It was just coming down, like the winds were coming down. Unbelievable.

MS. ZAVALA: They were ordered to clear out these canyons or horse country, and getting animals out is a top priority.

RESIDENT: They were just at a ranch down this way, and we're moving 'em up to my house. We don't really have the facilities for 'em but we're going to do it.

MS. ZAVALA: Despite evacuation orders, some residents were desperate to get back into their homes to save what they could.

MAN: I have a heart condition, and I've been walking all the way from Sunset to at least see what my house looks like.

WOMAN: I couldn't breathe, and I just kept walking up here, and they stayed.

SPOKESMAN: Are they trapped?

WOMAN: I think so.

SPOKESMAN: Okay. There were a group of people that were trapped. We've notified the LA County Fire Department, and they're sending people in there to get those people out.

MS. ZAVALA: Up in the hills some people were already surveying the losses. This was the Kowalki Family farm. There used to be a greenhouse here.

MR. KOWALKI: I was delivering. I was delivering our produce to stores at Thousand Oaks, when I saw the fire. I came, and it was already down. Probably the whole thing took very little time.

MS. ZAVALA: Investigators consider the fire to be of a suspicious nature. They're investigating the point of origin for clues.

BRUCE FREEMAN, Los Angeles County Fire Inspector: Such as a matchbook or flare or anything like that, boot prints, anything that would be out of the ordinary.

MS. ZAVALA: Between this fire and the devastation from last week's fire, about 1,000 Southern California homes are destroyed, at least that many families displaced, dozens injured, and two hundred and fifteen thousand acres blackened. Damages are expected to climb well above 500 million dollars. CONVERSATION - TWO VOICES

MR. LEHRER: Now another in Charlayne Hunter-Gault's conversations from the Middle East. Charlayne visited both the Syrian and Israeli sides of the Golan Heights, one of the most bitterly contested pieces of land in the Middle East. Here is her report.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Many villages like this one lie in the shadow of the Golan Heights, the chain of mountains created by fires and eruptions of ancient volcanoes. As those dynamic forces have long since ceased and solidified, so have the wars and bloodshed between Israel and Syria, leaving in their wake a state of war, frozen in time. Most of these villages live in a virtual state of peace, reminded of the belligerencies only by the 600 or so U.N. peacekeeping troops stationed in areas like this, de-militarized after the 1973 War, or the omnipresent Israeli observation posts that dot the peaks of the Golan Hills. The Golan is Syria's obsession, an obsession fed by monuments like Kuneitra, a ghost town except for its memories, kept alive by Syrians like Abdul Monahem Hanwi, the governor of the region. The governor tells us that Kuneitra and another strip of land captured by Israel in 1967 was returned after the 1973 War, long after all the people had been driven out and not allowed to return. Butthe governor says three days before the Israelis started to withdraw, they started blowing up the town block by block.

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI, Syrian Regional Governor: [speaking through interpreter] There were bulldozers, there were dynamite, and it completely destroyed; we couldn't return. The Israelis would destroy one street and give it to the United Nations and move on to the next street to destroy it and give it to the United Nations. It went on and on. This destruction is not because of war; it's, it's un-purposed destruction.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The governor told us that the Israelis spared no building, including the empty hospital which he said they used for target practice. A Syrian sign over the door reads "This Hospital Destructed by Zionists and Changed to a Firing Target."

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI: [speaking through interpreter] The only buildings they left standing were churches and hospitals and mosques, and they destroyed 'em from the inside.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Where are the people now who used to live here?

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI: [speaking through interpreter] The Israeli army has sent the people out of here to Syria, and they're all waiting there for the liberation so that they return to their homes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do the current negotiations for peace in this region mean to you? What, in your view, must happen that will make all of this right?

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI: [speaking through interpreter] President Assad said that a human being is the most important thing, and someone who thinks that this is a peaceful land, and for us, for the Syrians, and as the President said a number of times, we need a total and fair peace, and without a total and fair peace, that will be surrender, not peace.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What has to happen for the Syrian people to feel that there is a total and fair peace?

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI: [speaking through interpreter] What we ask for is a return of our land and our rights, and this is a fair request. We trust the leadership of President Assad. All we need is we want every piece of land that belonged to us returned. Without that, there won't be a total peace, and it would be surrender. And we're not in a hurry, so we don't want a simple solution.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Israelis are concerned that if they return these lands, they'll be very vulnerable to Syrian bomb attacks and other things. Do they have any reason to be fearful?

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI: [speaking through interpreter] They are the ones who came and took our land. We never went in and took their land. We have never been the aggressors. So why, why are they scared?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: They have no reason to be?

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI: [speaking through interpreter] They have no reason to be.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is the Golan Heights?

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI: [speaking through interpreter] Israel always calls the Golan as the Golan Heights, making people believe that it is only a few heights. The Golan is a lot more than that. There are villages, there are valleys, there is people living here, there is agriculture. It's a lot more than a few hills. Golan is 147 cities, towns, and villages, and not just a few houses.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think that after everything that has taken place here the people can return and feel comfortable living side by side in peace with the Israelis?

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI: [speaking through interpreter] Time is enough remedy for everything.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After our conversation, the governor took us for a short ride to the edge of town to the zig zag line of barbed wire that divides Syria from the lands it wants back from the Israelis. The governor has built a restaurant here on the edge of the land that as of now, he says, he's not permitted to set foot on.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And what is this we're seeing here?

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI: [speaking through interpreter] Fifty meters away from here is the occupied land. After this wire, this is all occupied land. There is -- this is an Israeli car.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In the distance, we could see Israeli military vehicles patrolling the demarkation line, also other Israeli vehicles tending to the orchards planted on this land by Israeli settlers.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And you've built a restaurant right on this border. Why?

ABDUL MONAHEM HANWI: [speaking through interpreter] Yes, we're very optimistic the liberation is going to come and occupation is going to go. We know we're optimistic about that. And history dictates that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Meanwhile, those who wait are not only government officials but people, people like these who were separated from loved ones during the 1967 War. They call this place the Screaming Hill, a place where separated families come every morning, trying to maintain their ties to those across the ravine in the village called Magdel Sham. It is one of five Syrian villages under occupation. On the day the Israelis took it, many of its members were off doing errands. Although the Israelis claim it is the Syrians who refuse to allow re-entry for fear that the people in Magdel Sham have been coopted, the governor told us it is the Israelis who refuse to allow them to return, thus separating many mothers, fathers, children, sisters, and brothers. Most of the inhabitants are from the Druse Sect, a distinct ethnic and religious group. Among those who come to the Hill are Druse clergymen. The governor told us earlier that the Israelis mined the ravine to prevent crossing. One man who died of natural causes left in his will a wish, to be buried facing his family in Magdel Sham. His wish was granted. Now history will be written about the wishes of his survivors, a fate that is now in the hands of those who are negotiating the fate of the Golan Heights. Nestled against ancient volcanic hills is the kibbutz of Merom Golan. This tiny close-knit community was the first Israeli settlement built on the Golan Heights after the territory was seized from Syria in the 1967 War. Since then, Israel has established 32 such settlements spread over 440 square miles. Some 8,000 settlers live in them. About 400 people live and work here in Merom Golan. Kibbutz life is based on tight communal values. Israelis who have chosen this kind of existence say they are drawn to it by the quality of life, the gentle climate, and the mostly peaceful pace. To support themselves, residents of Merom Golan raise livestock, tend orchards, and manufacture electric motors. Shmuel Mandel is the director of the kibbutz and its business ventures. He came here with his wife in 1967, when Merom Golan was founded at a time when life was not so peaceful. They came originally to serve as human buffers between hostile Syrians and the striving state of Israel, and while Mandel and others say they hardly give that unpeaceful time much thought, it is never far from their minds, as we learned traveling up the hill behind the settlement. Directly below is Syria. Beyond the threat of Israeli territories and the apple orchards of Merom Golan is a no-man's land, and then the Syrian ghost town of Kuneitra. To launch an attack on Merom Golan, any Syrian forces would first have to scale this hillside, thus, the strategic importance of the Golan Heights.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You used to live in Kuneitra?

SHMUEL MANDEL, Kibbutz Director: Yes, until '74, the town of Kuneitra was in Israeli hands since 1967, and my kibbutz, the site of the kibbutz was in the town of Kuneitra until the new buildings were built on the other side of this hill in '72, and then we moved. There used to be some 36,000 people, inhabitants in Kuneitra before the war, most of them soldiers and part of the Syrian army.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why when the Israelis pulled out of Kuneitra did they blow up most of the buildings?

SHMUEL MANDEL: To be true, they don't, they didn't ruin it. Part of it was ruined in the war of '67, part of it in the war of '73, part of it in the time between, but they keep it as a ruined town in order to show the cruelty of the Israelis, but it was not something like --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Scorched earth.

SHMUEL MANDEL: -- intention before giving it back that someone blew part of it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When you look over and see Damascus this close --

SHMUEL MANDEL: We can't see Damascus, but it's close, yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It's close. What are your thoughts when you hear discussions about making peace with Syria and Syria insisting on returning all of the Golan?

SHMUEL MANDEL: So first of all I personally, my family, all my members in the kibbutz, my friends in the kibbutz, and the other people of the Golan Heights, all of us want peace. The same is whether, anyone in the world, mainly in Israel, and the peace in this area is not like in any other part of the world. We have a dictator on the other side of the border. We have geographies that I showed here before, what's the widths of this area, it is very critical from the defense points of view of all the northern part of Israel. It's critical for the supply of water to Israel, and therefore, we think that even peacetime Israel should remain in control of this area and that Israeli settlements should be here even in peacetime and for peacetime. If there's going to be no agreement between Israel and Syria, it won't be good but it's not going to ruin all the process. The process can be with the Palestinian, can continue with the Jordanians, and the Syrian will have to be the last one, and a new reality is going to be created in the area. Maybe they are going to be convinced that they don't have any other way but just to, to go to the peace process and to, first of all to make peace. Right now if we give back a real part of the Golan Parts, my understanding is a big risk that Israel cannot take. It's not a calculated risk. It's a real risk that Israel cannot take.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Because of the kind of government in Syria?

SHMUEL MANDEL: It's one of the main reasons because, you know, along the history you can never find peace agreement that lasted long time between a democracy and non-democracy or between two non- democracies. Democracy, in a democracy when you sign some kind of agreement, the government that would come after the present government will stand behind every obligation, not in dictatorship. So let's imagine that Assad will keep the peace, but who knows who will come after Assad, and will come after Assad?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Such fears have conspired to leave places like this more or less intact, for during the 1973 War ignited by the Arabs against Israeli, Syrian paratroopers recaptured some peaks like this, if only for a short while, and while there are plans to make this a museum, plans for war are never far in the background of Israeli minds.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now this obviously is no longer used but what is the state of readiness of the Israeli military in this region? I saw a lot of soldiers when we were coming up here.

SHMUEL MANDEL: You saw a lot of soldiers but it's well familiar secret, well known secret that Israeli army is not built on prevalent service, prevalent units. Most of the Israeli army is reserved forces, and the Israeli army needs about 48 hours until the reserve forces in the battlefield, because it takes time during these 48 hours, the Israeli army used the air force, the Israeli army used the area, and the topographic advantages of the area where it is, and therefore, this is one of the critical importances being seated on this cease-fire line because this cease-fire line controls the East, and if we go to the West from this cease-fire line, then the Israeli military forces will be inferior to the Syrian units.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What you lose in the process of gearing up to, to react, you gain from these strategic heights?

SHMUEL MANDEL: Right.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It sounds to me like you don't anticipate that the Golan Heights will be turned over to Syria in your lifetime.

SHMUEL MANDEL: I don't believe so, and not only me. According to public opinion polls that we run and others run shown in the last five years and even after the Madrid process started and even other negotiation with Syria started, more than 80 percent of the population of Israel is against significant retreat in the Golan Heights because they are well familiar with the power matters of this area which are not the same as in the West Bank, not as the same as in the Sinai. You see, if some troubles begin the West Bank or in Gaza Strip, it's a reversible process. I mean, at least according to what our prime minister and our Shimon Peres and everyone say.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You mean you can go in and get it back?

SHMUEL MANDEL: I mean, yes, that's part of the thing, and because if it's going to be no army there, I mean, not army rifle, but no tanks, no cannons, no missiles, and things like this, it's reversible. We all -- we don't have to -- but Israel -- it's under our control, it's not danger. It's -- there are going to be some more terroristic accidents, that's for sure, but it's not danger, it's not easy, it's very painful. There are a lot of -- but it's not danger --- it cannot cause any danger to the existence of the state.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: This can?

SHMUEL MANDEL: This can.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So that you fear President Assad more than you fear Chairman Arafat?

SHMUEL MANDEL: President Assad, with an army of a thousand people with tanks and missiles and whatever, and with very, very basic ideology against Israel; we don't have the same with the Palestinians.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Our last stop is back down in the valley to the edge of Merom Golan to another monument to the determination of Israelis like Shmuel Mandel to hold on to what they believe is necessary to preserve Israel's very existence. It is the graves of soldiers who died defending Merom Golan and other Golan settlements in 1973. When I asked how many died, Shmuel Mandel will only say too many. That is why he says Israel must never give back the land these soldiers died for. ESSAY - CINEMA PARADISIO

MS. WARNER: We close tonight with some final thoughts about Italian director Federico Fellini, who died Sunday at the age of 73. His funeral today in Rome attracted more than 15,000 people. Among the crowds were government leaders, fellow moviemakers, and ordinary citizenswho simply wanted to say good-bye. Essayist Roger Rosenblatt reflects on life without Fellini.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: When a man like Federico Fellini dies, a whole civilization dies with him, not the civilization of his films. Films, fortunately, may be replayed and revived for as long as people wish to give them life. [Film Segment] Fellini's La Strada, La Dolce Vita, [Film Segment] 8 1/2, and Amarcord, they do not die. But the civilization that gave birth to them, the civilization housed in Fellini's mind, that goes, the visionary instrument goes, and only when one looks about and sees no other mind to take Fellini's place does it become clear what death means, absence, absence of that which is irreplaceable. At the time he did his remarkable work, one did not think of Fellini or of any of the brilliant crop of European filmmakers as irreplaceable. That was an era stretching from the mid 1950s to the early 1970s in which one looked as a matter of course to Europe for the best in films, Jewels in Gym, Shoot the Piano Player, Last Year at Marianbod, Sundays in Sebelle, Blow Up, the Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Room at the Top, and Hiroshima, Mon Amour, which was more French than Japanese, ending Mar Bergman, of course, the Seventh Seal. [Film Segment] Brood, brood, brood. These were important and difficult films that you had to watch with your mind as well as your eyes. If they were from time to time a little too instructive, a bit too meaningful, at least one left the movie house knowing one had been in the presence of a serious, comprehensive intelligence, and in the presence of beauty. One also picked up a few words in another language like Fellini's that added to the false sophistication tolerated only in youth. We learned to say, "Paparatso." We learned to say, "Cao." Today that world of European films is dead and buried. So is the Europe that conceived and produced them, no more haunting shadows of World War II, no more moral menace of the bomb. Europe is thoroughly modern America these days. America, meanwhile, has taken to producing terrible films, shoot 'em ups with no character or theme, comedy with all shatter and no wit, fake romance, fake violence, mystery with no mystery. People still go to the movies because they are a little better than television, but go to a movie tonight, it will be nothing like going to a Fellini movie. Going to a Fellini film was going to something better than you were, not worse. It was going to take a little effort to catch whatever it was it was throwing at you. It was going to require some growth. The population was to include gigantic sex goddesses, dwarfs, albinos, jugglers, strong men, hunch backs, peacocks born of a snow storm. You had to search your imagination to find Fellini, perhaps to create an imagination on the spot. He showed us hope where there was no hope, kindness with madness, oddity after oddity, the compilation of which, nonetheless, added up to a recognizable world. Here was a language Americans did not speak a place we had never been, circumstances both freakish and absurd, yet, we were home. Only in retrospectives can one see what Fellini did and by inference what is not done now. These days movies are made from the outside, paint by number patterns and copies of prior financial successes that turn art into commerce and commerce into an art. But once not all that long ago, movies were made from the inside, full of fantasy and horror and fun and sweetness and life, abundant, incredible life, the way a dream is made. Cao, Fellini. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again the major stories of this Wednesday, brush fires destroyed more than 200 homes in Southern California, but officials said the worst was over, Republicans won all the major races in yesterday's off year election, and Sen. Bob Packwood said he would appeal a subpoena for his personal diaries. He also rejected a call for his resignation and said he would serve out his fifth term in the Senate. Good night, Jim.

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