The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: 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, acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger will be here for a Newsmaker interview. Then Transportation Secretary Andrew Card and Congressman Dante Fascell assess the federal government's response in Florida to Hurricane Andrew. And we close with some political analysis by Mark Shields and Doug Bailey, substituting for David Gergen. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Seven thousand U.S. Army troops began arriving in Florida today to help with hurricane relief efforts. Another one thousand Marines will be sent there shortly. The soldiers had started setting up a 20-bed field hospital directing tent cities for the homeless and distributing over 4,000 meals. In addition, 20 mobile kitchen trailers have been sent that can feed up to 72,000 people a day. President Bush spoke about the operation this afternoon at the White House. He was asked about criticism the federal relief effort had been too slow in coming.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I can tell you this, that this large a military movement would not have taken place if there was not very early planning and cooperation by the military. And we have responded. I think the governor would agree that when he asked for this massive movement of force it was only within a few hours that we responded to that. And so I think much more important than when something took place that didn't take place is the feeling we must convey of total cooperation. And I am satisfied that we responded properly and I am very confident that the military have conducted their mission so far with beautiful planning, now excellent execution.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on this story later in the program. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: In economic news, the income of U.S. workers rose last month, but was outpaced by their spending. The Commerce Department today reported personal incomes were up .2 percent in July, while consumer spending increased .3 percent. It was the second month in a row that spending rose faster than income. In a separate report, the Commerce Department said the nation's merchandise trade deficit rose 42 percent in the second quarter. The 24.4 billion dollar deficit was the worst showing in a year and a half. A large increase in imports and a decline in farm exports were the main reasons.

MR. LEHRER: In the presidential campaign today, Bill Clinton and Al Gore continued their Texas bus tour. They visited an electric generating plant in Waco. Later, Clinton challenged President Bush's charge he raised taxes in Arkansas 128 times. A Clinton campaign statement said Mr. Bush was intentionally lying to win the election. Clinton, himself, would not go quite that far, but he did say the President had repeatedly mislead the American people and distorted his record. This afternoon, White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater stood by the claim Clinton raised taxes 128 times. Fitzwater also said, "This fellow's regard for honesty and veracity is so low that he has no business calling anybody else a liar." Vice President Quayle did the Bush/Quayle campaigning today. In Michigan, the Vice President jumped Al Gore's views on the environment. He called Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" an "extremist manifesto that viewed economic growth and ecological stability as enemies." Gore rejected that charge. He said the Democratic approach would make the United States the world's leader in environmental technology and create millions of new jobs. We'll have our regular Friday night look at politics later in the program.

MR. MacNeil: Concessions by Bosnia's Serbs did not stop the fighting in Sarajevo today. At London peace talks yesterday, the Serbs promised to give up seized territory, close detention camps and put heavy weapons under U.N. supervision. But in Sarajevo, mortar and artillery fire continued throughout the night. At least 10 people were killed, including 2 children. Buildings burned out of control. We'll speak about the Yugoslav crisis with acting Secretary of State Eagleburger after the News Summary. Allied air patrols over Southern Iraq continued for a second day today. U.S. planes are flying from the carrier Independence. Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News narrates this report.

MR. VAUGHAN: The full night of allied air power is now arranged against Saddam. So far so good. All aircraft have returned safely with no sign of retaliation by Iraqi forces. U.S. policing of the no-fly zone South of the 32nd Parallel began shortly after mid-day on Thursday. To leave the Iraqis in no doubt about allied intentions, the pilots have been dropping leaflets. The message is simple: Lock on radar and you'll be taken out. The commander of the U.S.S. Independence, Adm. Bennitt, is pleased.

REAR ADMIRAL BRENT BENNITT, Battle Group Commander: Here, almost 24 hours into Operation Southern Watch, as the Independence continues to perform superbly, we've continued to launch and recover airplanes throughout that area.

MR. VAUGHAN: Baghdad grudgingly admitted it is halting combat missions in the exclusion zone, saying they'll deal with the U.S. action in due time and with appropriate methods.

MR. LEHRER: U.S. relief flights began landing inside Somalia for the first time today. Four Hercules cargo planes brought 37 tons of rice, beans and cooking oil to the town of Belatwayne in the East African nation. The food was distributed without incident. But in Mogadishu, thieves backed by tanks stole several hundred tons of supplies, twenty-five trucks, and the U.N.'s entire fuel supply. Two U.N. guards were shot in a separate incident. One point five million Somalis are in danger of starvation and not enough food is yet reaching the country. Relief officials say half of what does get in is stolen. The U.S. territory of Guam was hit today by a typhoon packing 150-mile an hour wind gusts. The storm caused 80 injuries and demolished buildings all across the Pacific Island. Its governor declared it a disaster area and said he would ask President Bush for federal aid.

MR. MacNeil: That's our News Summary tonight. Now, it's on to Lawrence Eagleburger, hurricane relief questions, and our weekly political analysis. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight to acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger. He had been the deputy secretary until Monday when he assumed the top position on the departure of James Baker to be White House Chief of Staff and to run President Bush's re- election effort. Sec. Eagleburger returned this morning from the London meeting on peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina, his first major mission as acting secretary. He's with us now for a Newsmaker interview. Mr. Secretary, welcome.

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Is it disheartening to come back to Washington and realize that just a few hours after the big meeting in London, they were killing people again in Bosnia; ten people have died; the fighting is as severe as it's ever been?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: It's disheartening because people are being killed, but I must say to you I did not expect when we went to that conference or when it finished that at that point the killing would stop. I am not surprised that the fighting continues and I don't think that the fundamental points of the conference were aimed at trying to bring a direct end to the fighting the day after the conference was over, despite the fact that we would certainly hope that this would have been the consequence.

MR. LEHRER: Well, then let's go through. What was -- what was agreed to around that big square table in London?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: Lots of things were agreed to, but let me start with the things that I think the U.S. went there trying to get that we got and that I think are important. We got agreement, first of all, that the sanctions must be stringently enforced. There is no question that the --

MR. LEHRER: This is against Serbia?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: Against Serbia. There is no question, for example, that there's great leakage through the Danube River, a number of things, particularly petroleum is getting into Serbia. The sanctions have not been tightly enforced. I think there is clear agreement that they now will be and we're going to take steps to make sure that they are. That's the first point. Secondly, what we got was agreement on the establishment of a permanent process aiming toward peace, where we have Cy Vance and David Owen permanently located in Geneva, working groups on each of these issues involved with the Yugoslav crisis, able to bring the parties together there, to negotiate and try to deal with each of the specific issues. That's a permanent process now. We've had episodic efforts but they were never permanent. We got agreement on monitors along the Serbian-Bosnian border, the Croatian-Bosnian border, to make sure that we can now see and hopefully stop whatever leaks in to the Bosnian Serbs from Serbia. We've got monitors agreed in all of the neighboring countries, in Kosovo, which is one of the areas where we're worried that things may blow up. So we have a number of those things agreed and I think they are all important over the longer-term to bring this thing to an end. And sanctions is critical in that regard. In addition, we got, for example, the Bosnian Serbs said they would collect their heavy arms and turn them over to supervision by the U.N. within 96 hours, a number of those kinds of agreements, a number of agreements from the Serbs and Bosnians. The Bosnians agreed to go back to the negotiating table, a whole list of these, all of which will be nice if, in fact, the parties perform on them. But we have a long history of earlier agreements where the parties are supposed to perform. For example, I did not believe -- still don't believe -- it was useful to try to go to that conference and get immediate agreement on the cease-fire. We would have walked out of the conference, and on the basis of past history, within a day or two the cease-fire would have been broken. What we have established now that I think is critical is the longer-term process to try to force the parties, and particularly the Serbs, to the negotiating table and to some conclusions.

MR. LEHRER: I'm sure you saw or were told, if you did not see, the headlines in the papers back here that all that came out of this conference is talk and nothing with any bite, nothing with any meat.

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: Well, I don't happen to think that's true. As I say, I think the things that I described that I got agreement on from 40 different countries, not the warring parties, but from the rest of the civilized world as to what they're going to do to try to squeeze these people is, in fact, important. We've also got some agreements, as I say, the warring parties. But there's a point I need to make. Unless you start from an assumption that this is a conflict that can be ended one way or another by some application of outside force -- and I'd be glad to talk to you about that -- I think it's wrong as an assumption -- but unless you start with that assumption -- and what you have to be looking for to try to deal with what all of us will admit is a terrible, horrible human tragedy, is the kind of structure that will force these contending parties over time to end this war. I am, in fact, horrified by what I see in the press and U.S. and in Britain, I must say, these days about all of these armchair strategists and generals who are prepared to say we must use some form of force. They aren't the ones that have to worry about the Americans getting killed if we get into a situation in that part of the world from which we cannot easily extract ourselves.

MR. LEHRER: Well, George Kinney, who worked for you, Yugoslav desk in the State Department, resigned the last 48 hours because he thought U.S. policy was wrong. And what he wasn't suggesting, using of U.S. force, he was saying, why aren't we arm the Bosnians so they can defend themselves against the Serbs?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: Well, in the first place, there is, in my judgment, from what we can tell, substantial evidence that the Bosnian Muslims are, in fact, being armed from outside. They do have substantial arms, and is the purpose to this thing to add more weapons to an already overburdened area of the world as far as weapons are concerned? I don't believe that that's the way you're going to solve the problem, by giving arms to the Bosnian Muslims, aside from the fact I think they already have an adequate quantity. The thing of Kinney, if I could talk about it for a second --

MR. LEHRER: Sure, sure.

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: -- is to me this is a classic case, and it's a tough one to deal with. Here is a young man in the foreign service who saw this horror going on, did not think we were doing the right things with it. And I must say, having been a foreign service officer, having lived through that kind of situation myself, showed remarkable courage in at least saying, I don't like it, I'm going to quit, and I'm going to talk about it. Too many people don't like it, don't quit and talk about.

MR. LEHRER: Did he talk to you about it?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: No, no.

MR. LEHRER: Before?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: I don't think I've ever met him, but I certainly didn't talk to him about that. But having said that, here again, he sees one piece of this. He sees a human tragedy. He sees the U.S. Government not acting in what he would consider to be an appropriate way to try to bring it to an end, not being actively enough engaged. I disagree with that. But I come back to saying again, to be seeing it from that perspective, as against a perspective that George Bush, Jim Baker, and, indeed, I have to worry about, and certainly Dick Cheney and Gen. Powell have to worry about, which is the degree to which the United States involves itself militarily and a process for which there is no clear purpose and no clear end, because you see, in my judgment, Kinney is also saying military involvement on our part was in the end essential. That process leads you into the kind of situation that got us into Vietnam. And I'm not prepared to accept arguments that there must be something between the kind of involvement of Vietnam and doing nothing that the New York Times and the Washington Post keep blabbing about, that there must be some form in the middle. That's again what got us into Vietnam. You do a little bit and it doesn't work. What do you do next?

MR. LEHRER: But they also say, the New York Times and the Washington Post and others say, hey, look, you sat right here with me, the News Summary just now, we showed film of U.S. airplanes taking off of an aircraft carrier to fly air cover for the Shiites in Iraq. Why can't we do that for the Bosnians?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: Fly air cover against what? The war in Bosnia, while there is some air activity, the war is not being fought fundamentally in the air. It's being fought on the ground. The comparisons between Iraq and Bosnia, it seems to me, are totally incorrect. The proper comparison with regard to Iraq, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that the President stopped at a point. He didn't go chasing after Saddam Hussein throughout all of Iraq and getting us tied down, that there is a fundamental difference between the kind of activity that went on in Iraq, including the Iraqi invasion of another country, and what I continue to say is in a sense a civil war. Not that these aren't different republics and different countries, but it is inter-ethnic conflict and it is massively mixed up. It is in territory that is extremely difficult to fight in. And the one thing we have decided clearly we were going to do is we will use all necessary force to get humanitarian supplies in to these people and that is critically important. What we have also said is we are not going to involve ourselves militarily in trying to make peace and force this conflict to an end. I understand Mr. Kinney's concerns. He doesn't have to make the kind of tough decisions in the last analysis that others have to make. And, again, I'm not attacking the young man, but he never set foot in Yugoslavia, as far as I could understand it. And until you've been there, until you've seen what kind of country it is, until you understand the terribly complex relationships between people in Yugoslavia, it is very dangerous to look for simplistic solutions.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Let's go back to the solution that you outlined at the very beginning that was agreed to in London. Let's say that everything that you all put in place works.

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: It'll take time.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. There's no precedent for that, but say it does this time. How long will it take before the killing stops?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: Let me remind you, there's also no precedent for the kind of situation you see in Yugoslavia right now.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. All right.

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: But I don't know how long it will take.

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me. What I meant was -- you said it yourself - - there have been deal after deal after deal after deal and nothing happens.

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: And it's also quite clear that very often sanctions as an instrument of bringing someone to change its policy, you cannot guarantee they're going to work. The fact of the matter is that imperfect as the sanctions have been against the Serbs so far, it is clear they have made some real impact on the Serbian economy. The Serbs are looking at a winter that's going to be tough, if, in fact, those sanctions are really clamped down. There is at least some, I think, substantial reason to believe that that's going to force real change in the attitudes of the Serbian government and hopefully the Serbian people. And there is no question --

MR. LEHRER: By when?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: I can't tell you how long. This is not an issue that's going to be settled next week or next month. It's going to take time. That's tragic and it's terrible. It's better than having a hundred thousand troops in there and not knowing how to get 'em out again.

MR. LEHRER: You have been to Yugoslavia before. You were the U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia. It's a country you've always cared about. You're now the No. 1 man at the State Department, the No. 1 man in this government on foreign affairs below the President. Were you able to in a private way in London to look at Serbian leader in the eye and say, hey, fellahs, this is for real, we're going to get you eventually if you don't stop this?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: We have to do it privately. We had this table and the Serbs were sitting over there. And I think I gave the toughest speech of anybody at the conference, and I said to them, and they sat there and they heard it, and hopefully we're going to get the same thing into Serbia itself, you people need to understand that the choices you make and have made determine whether you're going to be accepted into the civilized world for years to come. You are isolating yourselves from the rest of the world. We're not going to forget what you're doing and you're going to pay a price for many, many years into the future if this doesn't all stop. And, you know, my point again is I think they understand that at one level. It is difficult to explain, but this war is not rational. There is no rationality at all about ethnic conflict. Itis gut. It is hatred. It's not for any common set of values or purpose. It just goes on. And that kind of warfare is most difficult to bring to a halt. I am more inclined to -- I strongly believe that without Serbian support from Belgrade to the Bosnian Serbs, over time it withers. But I keep coming back to saying it's over time. I hate that. People are dying every day. I understand that. It is the alternatives that have to be looked at. And from my point of view, I think from the President, since he supported me in all of this, the fact of the matter is the only way to deal with this issue is, one, over time squeezing down as we can, making clear that we are going to get humanitarian supplies in to starving people, that we're going to break up those detention camps. We're going to get people out of them. We're going to take care of the refugees. And also one of the things critically important, as I said, the United States will never accept a peace settlement in that part of the world with Bosnia that, in fact, recognizes ethnic cleansing, that is, having driven Muslims out of areas taken over by Serbs, that those people are going to have to be committed to go back to their homes, that there will be no cantonization that is against separating people out, and that the refugees have to be committed to go back where they are. So one of the things that is also clear is there isn't anybody on the Yugoslav side who doesn't understand that the U.S. will not accept a conclusion to this mess that doesn't permit the Bosnian Muslims, for example, to go back to their homes, provide some support to rebuilding their homes. It may take a long time, but I personally don't see any other solution to it. And I'm not alone in that. Dick Cheney doesn't; the generals don't; the President doesn't. The massive use of force to try to bring about a peace settlement here is just far too dangerous and a lot of people who loosely write about using force had better think about the fact they don't have to worry about the young Americans that may or may not come back from something like that.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the NewsHour, whose to blame on hurricane relief and Friday political analysis. FOCUS - HELPING THE VICTIMS

MR. MacNeil: Anything that happens during a presidential election, anything, even acts of God, can turn political. And that's what's happened with Hurricane Andrew. Faced with mounting complaints about problems with food, water and housing, the federal government sent in 7,000 troops to Florida to help care for 250,000 homeless. President Bush cancelled a vacation weekend in Maine, and called a news conference to defend the federal effort.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yesterday, we received a request for massive numbers of troops and yesterday we responded within several hours. And I think that will be Gov. Chiles's understanding too. But, look, if any federal official is trying to blame a state official, I want it to stop. And if any state official is trying to blame the federal official or local official, that doesn't -- that's not constructive. I know it makes very good, wonderful debate, but it doesn't help anything. What we're trying to do is work together here and I am determined that from the federal government's standpoint we give maximum cooperation to local and state officials. And that's the way it's going to be. And there is no point getting into blame and this who shot John thing that I know everybody's fascinated with. I don't want that and I don't want one, single federal official trying to be in the blame assigning business.

MR. MacNeil: Joining us now from Miami is the man President Bush has put in charge of the federal relief effort, Transportation Secretary Andrew Card. Also with us is Democratic Congressman Dante Fascell, whose district contains much of the devastation. Congressman, at the beginning of his statement, the President said today the federal government is responding promptly and massively. Do you agree?

REP. FASCELL: Well, they are now. The question of cooperation between the state and federal government's always a sticky one. But as the secretary here will say, they had an inter-agency meeting rather early on, and as a matter of fact, even tried to contact me on Sunday night. I think the real problem that people have to understand here is that the cooperation that's necessary between the federal government and the state. And it's a burdensome and a bureaucratic system that we have. And when the devastation is as great as this one was, and it's underestimated, then we have the kind of problem that we're faced with. But now, today, you see ultimately the kind of response I think that we should have had from the very beginning. And I'm not blaming anybody for that. I'm just saying that looking at it from the air, for example, you get one impression. If you travel on the ground and you're looking at people and you're looking at what's happening, you get an entirely different impression. And it was clear to me from the very beginning that what we needed was an overall single command, which only the military could respond to.

MR. MacNeil: And you're saying Sec. Card isn't that overall, single commander?

REP. FASCELL: Well, Sec. Card is the secretary of transportation. He's the personal representative of the President of the United States. He's in charge, as far as the federal agency cooperation is concerned, with the state government. That's as far as he can go. Now, to command or order a Department of Defense Unit, that's something else again. And that requires a kind of action that was taken by the President. And, you know, first it was the National Guard. Then it was other elements of the federal government on requests of the governor. And that all took time. In the meantime, people were horrified and frustrated and in dangerous situations and without food, water, and adequate medical attention. And everybody's been knocking their brains out -- don't misunderstood me -- the local police, the National Guard, the health people, the hospital, the fire volunteers, firemen, the effort has been fantastic. And the response from the rest of the country has been outstanding. The thing is the media's done a remarkable job. Take the Miami Herald, which printed under tremendous obstacles and got information out. The trouble is the people in the area that were hit don't have that benefit. Radio was their biggest communications system. If I were going to make a suggestion in the future, I would say once the estimate is made of how grave the damage is, put a single commander in charge by arrangement with the governor, make it military, and to have some kind of on-the-ground communication system so that people in the area will know what's going on. The rest of the country knew everything about what was going on, except people in the area.

MR. MacNeil: Let me go over to Sec. Card. Do you feel that because you are just the transportation secretary that your hands are somehow tied and you cannot fully coordinate, as the Congressman feels is necessary?

SEC. CARD: Well, I certainly am able to coordinate. And I don't think my hands are tied. And I don't think the Congressman implied that my hands were tied. What we do have now is the President called up the army. The army is on the ground, providing assistance to the people who need it. The Congressman, in fact, everyone is interesting in getting support to the people who need it now. We have people who don't have food, who need water, who don't have a place to sleep. And that's the kind of concern that the President brought to bear on this process. He's addressing that concern. And we're doing it in concert with the governor, in the whole state of Florida, and the state and local officials, all the way down to the sheriffs and the county commissioners. We've got a good team effort going now. We're moving forward. We're not going to point fingers or blame people for what might have happened or might not have happened. We're moving forward. And that's important. This is a major, major crisis, far greater than most people realize. And we have to address that crisis and it won't be solved overnight.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. Congressman, let me just ask you this. I talked to Gov. Chiles on Tuesday night on this program. And I said, "Are the Feds giving you everything you need? Is it adequate?" And he said, "We're getting good help from them. It's taking time to build up." Then I said, "Do you need federal forces?" He said, "We need federal help in medical supplies, in engineering battalions, and big equipment, water tankers and generators." But he didn't say then, we need federal help to feed people.

REP. FASCELL: Well, I wasn't there, so I don't know what the governor said.

MR. MacNeil: Well, I'm just reading from the transcript here.

REP. FASCELL: Right. And I'm sure that what he said at that time has been accurately repeated. I think that the underestimation of this disaster all across-the-board that was one of the things that caught up with us.

MR. MacNeil: By state as well as the Fed, you mean?

REP. FASCELL: Well, by everybody. Let's put it that way. I don't want to stick my finger in anybody's eye.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah.

REP. FASCELL: But, you know, people are out there without food and without water and no means to communicate. Now, it's fine to have these inter-agency meetings, organizational effort, and the relationship and the partnership between the state and the federal government. But if you're out there on the ground and your roof's been blown away, and you have no protection, and no food and no water and no means of communication, and no means to go anywhere to get food or water, there's a system that has to go in place immediately in order to distribute. You can't set up a center, for example, and say, well, people should come to the center.

MR. MacNeil: Well, is that now -- is that system now in place?

REP. FASCELL: The system is now in place with the federal troops and the National Guard. We're finally getting a distribution system that goes beyond so-called "centers." If people could get to a center and they knew where to go, the center works. But what we have in the first couple of days was there's no way to communicate to people to tell 'em where to go to get food.

MR. MacNeil: Because their radios and televisions weren't working, you mean?

REP. FASCELL: Nothing was working, absolutely not. And you go down there right now -- and I just came back from the homestead area by car -- and I want to tell you I was in World War II all through Africa, Sicily and Italy, and I never saw anything like that devastation. And as I say, it's one thing to look at it from the air. It's another thing to look at it on the ground and see what is happening to people.

MR. MacNeil: Let me go --

REP. FASCELL: Again, don't misunderstand me. The effort is there.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. Let me ask --

REP. FASCELL: It is being made by everybody.

MR. MacNeil: Let me ask the secretary another question here. Do you feel now that you've really got a handle on the size of the problem, you can assess how big the federal role must be, how much it's going to cost? I mean, for instance, the President said today if more money was needed, it would be found. Now, do you now know how much?

SEC. CARD: We don't know how much yet, but we know that the problem is massive. I've spent -- I was on the ground for eight hours today in Homestead. I was on the ground in Homestead yesterday. I've been talking with people on the streets, at the centers, helping to distribute food. I think I have a good sense of the magnitude of the problem. We don't know how much it's going to cost. I can tell you that whole communities have been destroyed, whole communities, not a neighborhood, whole communities. Families are separated right now. We're looking to address the personal concerns that exist to those people. First, get them food, water, make sure that they have some shelter. Next, help to restore the family, then rebuild the community. It's going to take a lot of effort and it's going to take a long time. And we've got a lot of people who are helping. The federal government is helping, the state government is helping. The local government is helping. But more than that, people are helping. The Red Cross has tremendous volunteers. I met volunteers that came down from North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia. They're all here working. We've had people drive down from Massachusetts to distribute food. This is going to take a massive effort for a long time. I don't want anyone to underestimate the severity of this problem. It is a serious, serious problem. And we're all going to work together to address it.

REP. FASCELL: On the cost, let me just say that I just wrote the President today, and communicated with him the support, the Governor's request for 100 percent on reimbursement, rather than the 90 for 10 days. I mean, this is beyond anybody's comprehension or anybody's ability to cope with financially.

MR. MacNeil: Do you have an estimate, Congressman?

REP. FASCELL: I have no idea, absolutely no idea. But I want to tell you, I wouldn't be far wrong if I said several billion dollars just off the top of my head.

MR. MacNeil: Is that what you think it is, Sec. Card?

SEC. CARD: I do. I think the problem is several billion dollars, several billion.

MR. MacNeil: And is that going to require sort of special congressional appropriation, do you think?

SEC. CARD: Well, we're already drafting a bill. It probably would, but we have the resources available right now to address the immediate concern. And we are trying to address the concerns that are basic right now. The basic concerns -- we're going to talk about rebuilding these neighborhoods, but first we have to address the personal concerns that are out there.

MR. MacNeil: And do you think you're now on top of, that you have now got control of the need for food, water, and shelter? Is that --

SEC. CARD: No. We have the process in place so that we can get on top of it. We aren't there yet, but we are going to get there. We have -- there will be 12 kitchens up and operating by the army by the end of -- by midnight tonight. Breakfast tomorrow morning there will be 12 kitchens operating and we'll serve a thousand meals per kitchen tomorrow morning. And that will be breakfast, lunch and dinner. We have six of them up and operating right now. We have a horrible problem out there, and this is just the beginning. It's going to take a lot more than that. But we understand the problem now and we understand how to address --

REP. FASCELL: Let me make a suggestion, if I may right here.

MR. MacNeil: Yes, sir.

REP. FASCELL: What occurs to me at this point is this. And this is subjective judgment, obviously. But when you have a disaster of this magnitude, you have to have a highly visible commander who's in charge that people can see and understand is in control.

MR. MacNeil: Haven't you got one next to you there?

REP. FASCELL: We have -- no, I'm not being critical of him. I'm just saying he's doing his job. He was appointed by the President and FEMA is the organization which is chairing I suppose the inter- agency effort at the federal level to cooperate with the state and the county and the city. I'm just talking about you need a Schwarzkopf personality and a military command system when you have a disaster this large without necessarily the federal government taking over. It has to be done by agreement and understanding.

SEC. CARD: We have a three-star general, lieutenant general right now --

REP. FASCELL: Ebison.

SEC. CARD: Gen. Ebison, who is heading up this command in Florida. I met with him all day yesterday, have been meeting with him today. He went out and surveyed the troops as they arrived and distributed their tents, and he's on top of it. He's a three-star general --

REP. FASCELL: We're getting there. We're getting there.

SEC. CARD: Washington is paying attention.

REP. FASCELL: All right.

SEC. CARD: The President has personal interest in this.

REP. FASCELL: Second suggestion.

SEC. CARD: He's paying a great deal of attention.

REP. FASCELL: Second suggestion --

MR. MacNeil: It has to be quick, Congressman, because we need to move on.

REP. FASCELL: You've got to distribute the food and the water and the medicine to the people because they can't get anywhere. And I'm not talking about today. We're finally getting that in place. I'm talking about maybe -- hopefully they'll never be another one like this. Thirdly, you need a communications system on the ground for - - i.e., to be able to communicate with people, whether it would be hundreds of radios or whatever it takes. Cellular phones are knocked out. There are no telephones there.

MR. MacNeil: Okay.

REP. FASCELL: You can't get television. Okay. Finally, you've got to have a system whereby whatever they've got in their home can be saved. If you think of thousands of homes without roofing, paper on it, just down to the bare boards, and all of the stuff that's inside is going to go the next time it rains, which it did today, they're in the same position they were when the storm hit.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. Well, Congressman Fascell and Sec. Card, thank you both for joining us.

REP. FASCELL: Thank you. FOCUS - THE WEEK THAT WAS

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, some Friday night political analysis. It comes from one of our regulars, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and from Doug Bailey, a Republican political consultant and publisher of Hotline, a daily briefing on politics. He's substituting for David Gergen. First, is there any political fallout to come on this Florida thing and the hurricane, Doug?

MR. BAILEY: It's far too early to tell, Jim. And, frankly, it makes me uneasy, as I'm sure it does everybody, to talk about politics in the midst of a genuine crisis. It is true that Florida is the one large electoral state that was marked as a Bush must, a clear win, and he seemed very confident there. This is the kind of event, of course, that throws everything into a --

MR. LEHRER: Mark, there were things on the wire today, you know, the kind of man on the street type, man and women on the street type interviews today saying that, oh, the United States government can get relief to the Kurds and the Shiites, but can't get 'em to their own people in Florida. If that kind of anger holds on, it could be a problem, right?

MR. SHIELDS: It could be a problem. There is a sense I think that the government in general does not do much. And this is a place where government ought to be able to do something, ought to be able to provide water and food and shelter to people. I would add one thing, i.e, any politician, any political figure who appears or is seen as trying to take a little bit of political edge, advantage out of this, I think risks, and rightly so, his or her career.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Doug?

MR. BAILEY: Absolutely. One of the appalling things, frankly, in Florida right now -- and I'm not talking national figures as much I am local figures -- there is an awful lot of political finger pointing. And I think it comes across very badly.

MR. SHIELDS: Yes. I mean, this is genuine human misery we're seeing.

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of finger pointing in the more real political sense, there was a lot of it today. We had it in our News Summary. The Clinton people put out a statement accusing the President of lying about this 128 tax increases during Clinton's time as governor. Then Marlin Fitzwater turns it around and says that with Clinton's record of truth and veracity, he can't call anybody a liar. Is this just to be expected, Mark, or should we even comment on it?

MR. SHIELDS: This is perhaps the most poisoned political year I've ever lived through. I mean, everything is through this filter of charge, counter charge, back and forth. I mean, I think that really does affect and influence in part what's going on just in the aftermath of Florida and Hurricane Andrew. The Clinton people have a legitimate gripe. A hundred and twenty-eight is an exaggeration, regardless of how you do it. It's a way of enlarging, embellishing, embroidering upon the truth. It's exaggerating. And - -

MR. LEHRER: But is it a lie?

MR. SHIELDS: Yes, yes, I think it's a lie. I don't think there's any question it's a lie. I don't think -- I mean, the Wall Street Journal went through and examined each one. And what they do is they end up, they end up just adding each, each increase that has taken place over a period of five years that was staged, and adding that individually, so you get this aggregate number that's a lot more impressive. But obviously this is -- at the heart of it, Jim, is this. We have an election in 1992, where neither side can make a sustained argument of its candidate without first resorting in a big, big hurry to emphasizing the shortcomings of their opponent. There is not a Bush advocate who can make the case for George Bush without describing Bill Clinton as an unthinkable alternative. There's not a Clinton campaign aide or advocate who can make the case Bill Clinton ought to be President for the following nine reasons, without the second paragraph making the case against George Bush.

MR. BAILEY: As a practical matter though, the President has to be able to make the case for himself, or he can't win this election. I mean, he is substantially far behind. I think as a practical matter both campaigns have over learned the lessons of 1988. You know, Bill Clinton is so ready to respond to anything - -

MR. LEHRER: Unlike Michael Dukakis.

MR. BAILEY: Exactly. And on the other hand, the President and the Bush-Quayle campaign seem to feel that they won in 1988 by putting the pressure on Michael Dukakis and they win in 1992 by putting the pressure on Clinton. I don't believe that's right. I don't think they can win that way. The differences or the shortcomings in Bill Clinton in the end may be a reason that puts Bush over the top. But to get into the ballgame -- and he's not there yet -- but to get into the ballgame, the President has to make his own case, chart a vision of America that he wants to take us to, and explain how to get from here to there, and sell the existing programs that he has, like the education and health care program, and make them salable, make them work. If he can't do that, he's riding at 39 to 42 percent in all of the post convention polls. That means 58 percent have basically said we're not ready to vote for you, Mr. President. He's got to make his case for himself to those people. When he does, I think he can win.

MR. LEHRER: How do you read the post convention polls up to this point, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: I --

MR. LEHRER: A week, it's just a little over a week now.

MR. SHIELDS: I think Doug's appraisal is accurate. I think that George Bush has narrowed the gap, that the gap was 25. It's 10, but it's a tough 10. And I think that what we have really is a case where the argument the Clinton people are making is do you like the status quo, are you pleased with it? Vote for George Bush. Nobody is pleased with the status quo. All right. By a 7 or 8 to 1 margin, Americans don't like the status quo. And what Bush people come back and say, hey, tax and spend. Little Billy Clinton, he's a tax and spend guy, plus we've got real doubts about his character. That's the campaign until George Bush and I think until Bill Clinton as well can make the case that this is really not the 53 things I want to do for America, Bill Clinton. I mean, Bill Clinton's got 53 programs -- the three -- what are the three, Bill Clinton, the three differences I want to make that's going to make this country's future better, more robust, and more just.

MR. LEHRER: Doug, coming out of Houston, the Republicans have made a terrific emphasis on family values. What is your reading of what the polls say about whether or not that took, whether or not that's working for them?

MR. BAILEY: Well, I think it's pretty clear that it worked in a sense of exciting Republican delegates in the hall. I think it clearly worked in the sense of pulling the Republican base back together and the party is pretty supportive of the President now. And it gave Republicans some enthusiasm for the first time about this race, but at a big expense. What unites the Republican base may, in fact, make more difficult the winning of the swing vote in the suburbs than the Reagan Democrats admit --

MR. LEHRER: Getting that hard 10 that Mark is talking about.

MR. BAILEY: That's correct. That's very difficult to do, and it is impossible to do, in my judgment, by taking the other side alone. There must be a presentation. Let me give you an example of what I mean. I think the campaign has focused so hard on the negatives of Bill Clinton that they have not focused on what they've been doing and they have not sold what the Bush administration is doing. Here's a little story. Next Tuesday night, the Secretary of Education will conduct a closed-circuit satellite TV broadcast to 2500 community planning groups for the President's education program. He does that every month. Who knows that?

MR. LEHRER: I didn't know that till this very moment.

MR. BAILEY: Well, it's a remarkable story. It's not known in Washington. The administration doesn't sell that, because they're focusing so hard on wedge issues and how to run down Bill Clinton that they're not selling their own story I don't believe.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, what do you think about the family values thing, why it didn't take off? There was expectation in Houston - - Doug's analysis aside -- there was expectation in Houston that this thing was really going to sell outside in the country, and apparently it has not, at least thus far.

MR. SHIELDS: I think -- I think we're going to continue to hear variations of that same theme throughout. I mean, there isn't much you can sell. I mean, you really can't sell -- if you get elected on the pledge of "no new taxes" and 30 million new jobs and you're 14 million jobs short, and you've increased taxes, even though you can say -- and you've taken away the advantage and the value of leadership, of doing the unpopular thing in raising taxes, by then apologizing for having raised them, and instead of saying I did it, I was wrong, I did the right thing, and I did this for America and for our kids' future by raising taxes and going back, I mean, and casting it in some heroic --

MR. LEHRER: In other words, you mean saying I was wrong when I said --

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: -- read my lips --

MR. SHIELDS: Exactly.

MR. LEHRER: -- not when I raised the taxes.

MR. SHIELDS: Exactly. Now we're back to he was wrong then. Because of that, Jim, I think that we have a -- we have a campaign where the focus is going to be upon the shortcomings, whether, in fact, we like it that way or not, and that's where they think Bill Clinton is most vulnerable and the Democrats are most vulnerable.

MR. LEHRER: Quick thing. The one thing where President Bush and Gov. Clinton were back to back was before the American Legion in Chicago this week. What's your quick analysis of how that went?

MR. BAILEY: I didn't see the speech in its entirety, although you folks ran a lot of it. I saw the general television coverage, and I think it is the President's audience, and he wins the day, but Bill Clinton got, I think, from television viewers high points for candor.

MR. LEHRER: Talking about the draft.

MR. BAILEY: Talking about the draft and his own situation.

MR. SHIELDS: I think any time Bill Clinton talks about the draft he's in trouble. I think he did a superb job there by showing the nerve of a second story man. I mean, he walked into this crowd that should have been George Bush's home court advantage, walked in there, and basically treated them like any other special interest group. He said, what do you want, flag burning, I'm for it, I signed the bill; you want better benefits, I'm for it; you want to consult the next secretary of veterans affairs, you've got my guy. I mean, he basically treated them like you'd treat the Aluminum Siding Institute, and they went for it. So I guess you'd say that he carried the day.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. I think he agreed with you, but I don't think he really did.

MR. BAILEY: I heard pander. I was talking about candor.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. All right. We're going to leave it at there, leave it right there, gentlemen.

MR. SHIELDS: A little pander.

MR. LEHRER: A little pander. Okay. Thank you both very much. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main story of this Friday was the arrival of 7,000 federal troops in Florida to help provide food and shelter for victims of Hurricane Andrew. President Bush deflected criticism that the federal response was too slow. He said he was not going to play a blame game. Good night, Jim.

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