The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight a debate over the fast-track trade proposal, today's Senate campaign finance hearings, a Newsmaker interview with the chief executive of Hong Kong, Tung Chee Hwa, and a report on the rebirth of an old-time religious movement. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton made his case today for fast track authority. He called on Congress to grant him that so he can submit trade agreements for a quick up or down vote without amendments. He spoke in the White House East Room before members of Congress, business leaders, and cabinet officials. Congress granted the President fast-track authority in 1974. It expired three years ago. Mr. Clinton said renewing it would help open up markets for American products worldwide.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: In order for us to continue to create jobs and opportunities for our own people and to maintain our world leadership we have to continue to expand exports. We have to use every tool we can get to open foreign markets to our goods and services. We have to continue the fight for open, fair, and reciprocal trade. We have to continue to stand against unfair trade practices. And we have to act now to continue this progress to make sure our economy will work for all the American people.

JIM LEHRER: Democratic House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said he would fight fast-track authority unless there were provisions to help establish comparable wages among trading partners.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Minority Leader: We need the standard of living in underdeveloped countries to come up toward ours, not ours go down to theirs. We need that for two reasons. We don't want downward pressure on our wages; we don't want to lose jobs inordinately here, and we want consumers in these countries that can buy their own products and our products.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. At the Senate hearings on campaign finances today the Democratic Party's legal counsel maintained Vice President Gore broke no laws in making fund-raising calls from the White House. Joseph Sandler said Gore thought he was raising soft money, unregulated contributions for party building activities. Republicans released White House memos indicating Gore was advised some contributions might go into hard money accounts, which are set up for specific candidates. Federal law prohibits raising such funds on federal property. We'll have excerpts from today's hearing later in the program. The Senate today repealed a tax break for cigarette makers it would have given the tobacco industry a $50 billion credit toward the proposed $368 billion settlement reached in June. It was in the tax bill passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in July. The former commander of the Aberdeen Proving Ground has been reprimanded by the army. Pentagon officials made that announcement today. Major General Robert Shadley headed the training base when a number of cases of sexual misconduct between instructors and recruits surfaced. Shadley planned to contest the reprimand, which usually ends an officer's career. The army is expected to issue a long-awaited report on its sex abuse scandal tomorrow. On Wall Street today the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 133 points, or 1.7 percent, to close at 7719.28. Overseas in Israel Secretary of State Albright paid a hospital call on victims of recent terrorist bombings. She shook hands with those injured last week in an attack on a shopping area of Jerusalem. Albright also met with Israeli leaders and endorsed their demand that Palestinian authorities do more to stop terrorist attacks launched from areas under their control. She spoke at a news conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: Partners in pursuit of peace have a right to expect a total sustained and comprehensive effort to preempt terror, to combat it, and to de-legitimize those in their midst who associate themselves with it. There can be no room in this process for those groups who would tolerate or advocate terror and violence.

JIM LEHRER: In the West Bank hundreds of Palestinians protested Albright's visit. They waved signs criticizing her and burned a poster of the American flag. In Ramallah, the Palestinian Authority's minister of education, Hanan Ashrawi, reacted to Albright's comments.

HANAN ASHRAWI, Palestinian Cabinet Member: I think she left only a nod, a sort of symbolic nod, to the peace process and to peace, but basically it reiterated the emphasis on security, the emphasis on the security of Israelis, the emphasis on the strategic and distinctive relationship between Israel and the U.S.. I feel that such a wholeheartedly one-sided approach that adopts Israeli position is not going to be conducive to an evenhanded approach in the peace process.

JIM LEHRER: Albright meets with Palestinian Leader Arafat tomorrow. Hong Kong's chief executive, Tung Chee Hwa, met with members of Congress today. He told them his city was moving toward democracy in an orderly manner. He said Hong Kong is more democratic now than it had been during 156 years of British colonial rule. We'll have an interview with Tung later in the program. In South Africa today the former--a former police officer said he and four others did not intend to kill activist Steven Biko 20 years ago. He told the Truth & Reconciliation Commission they fought with Biko during an interrogation. They did not seek medical care for his injuries and then tried to obscure the real cause of his death. The five officers are seeking amnesty from the commission set up in 1995 to investigate abuses under apartheid. Burgess Meredith died today at his home in Malibu, California. The veteran film star was suffering from melanoma and Alzheimer's Disease. His film career spanned more than 60 years and included two Oscar nominations. He was most recently known for playing the boxing manager in "Rocky." Meredith was 89 years old. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the fast track debate, political fund-raising, the leader of Hong Kong, and old-time religion. FOCUS - FAST TRACK

JIM LEHRER: Putting trade on the fast track and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: The President chose the historic White House East room today to kick off his campaign for one of the top items on his fall agenda.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'm asking the Congress to renew the President's traditional authority to negotiate trade deals, to open more American markets for goods and services from our country, and to restore the partnership between the Congress and the President in the trade arena necessary to keep our economy strong. The global economy is on a very fast track to the 21st century. The question is whether we are going to lead the way, or follow. This is not the time to shrink from the future. This is the time to lead to the future.

MARGARET WARNER: The President is seeking so-called "fast track" authority that would free him to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries without fear that Congress would reopen those agreements afterwards. Congress would have 90 days to accept or reject an accord but no power to amend it. Administration officials say that without fast track authority, they won't have the credibility and flexibility they need to succeed at the negotiating table.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If we don't have this authority, we will leave the field to our competitors to break down more trade barriers for their own products at our expense. Since 1992 in Latin America and Asia alone, our competitors have negotiated over 20 agreements that don't include the United States.

MARGARET WARNER: American presidents enjoyed fast-track negotiating authority for 20 years, until the legislative authorization for it expired in 1994. During those 20 years, administrations negotiated a series of major agreements to reduce tariffs and other trade barriers. They included the 1992 North American Free trade agreement among the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and, in 1994, a set of worldwide tariff reductions under the General Agreement On Tariffs & Trade, or GATT. Now, the President would like to expand NAFTA to include Chile, and he also wants to explore negotiating other free trade areas in the hemisphere and beyond. But Mr. Clinton faces some fierce opposition, primarily from the same forces that fought NAFTA three years ago. Among the host vociferous opponents are labor and environmental groups. They fault NAFTA and other recent trade agreements, for not requiring America's trading partners to raise wages and environmental safeguards to levels closer to those of the U.S.. Labor and consumers activists held a rally in front of the White House today to protest the President's bid for fast-track renewal. And several leaders of the President's own party in Congress , including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, held a news conference this afternoon to air their objections. The President said he was sensitive to labor and environmental concerns. But the White House has not released the wording of its proposed fast-track bill.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, two members of Congress--Democratic House Whip David Bonior of Michigan, Republican Jim Kolbe of Arizona. Congressman Kolbe, be a little more specific than the President was today. Why does a President need this fast- track authority to negotiate them without it?

REP. JIM KOLBE, [R] Arizona: Well, he can go in and negotiate it without it, but the problem is if he does that, what happens is what happened last year to the shipbuilding proposal and gets picked apart in Congress with amendments and so forth, and then you have no agreement. You have to go back to your people that you negotiated with. It's like any negotiation. They want to know that when they negotiate it what's done when the deal is done it's done, and it's going to be signed or not signed by Congress or approved or not approved by Congress. That's why the President has to have this fast-track authority. No country is going to enter serious trade negotiations without it.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with that basic point?

REP. DAVID BONIOR, [D] Michigan: I do not. The President likes to argue and say that he's conducted 200 trade deals since this administration. If you look at those trade deals, only two of them have been done under fast track. And that was a jab in the NAFTA deal that we just saw. I think there's not credibility in the argument that the other side won't negotiate with us if we don't have that authority to do the deal under a fast track provision because we have, indeed, the biggest, the best market in the world. Everybody wants into our market today. And the fact that the President and his administration has done 200 deals, 198, without fast track, indicates that.

REP. JIM KOLBE: But the difference is that most of those do not require legislation. Almost all of them didn't require legislation. If it requires legislation, which is what we're talking about here, with an extension of NAFTA, or if we're talking about the agricultural negotiations critical to the United States, which are to take place in 1999, the intellectual property negotiations, the things on computer technology software, all of those things, legislation is required. That's what--if you don't have fast track, it gets picked apart.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me go on now to you at the press conference with Mr. Gephardt. What is it exactly that you all want?

REP. DAVID BONIOR: This isn't really a question about trading. Everyone understands the need for expanding trade. It's a very important part of our international economic strategy. The question is who is going to get the benefits of the trade. Is it going to be the elite, the people at the top, or are the people who make the products going to share in this? And what we're suggesting is that there needs to be some basic environmental and worker standards in these provisions in order for us to accept them.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Be even more specific if you can. Are you looking for the trade agreements to, what, guarantee worker standards in the other countries?

REP. DAVID BONIOR: Yes. We want our negotiators to be able to go to the table and say to those people that agree to, for instance, intellectual property. In many countries when we do a trade agreement, we insist that intellectual property, compact discs and other things of that nature, that those countries abide by the rules that we want. But we don't do that for the workers who make those products. And we're saying we want workers--for instance in Mexico--we want the workers in Mexico to be able to form organizations, so they can bargain collectively. They want the right to assemble. We want to make sure that there is no labor, child labor provisions. We want to raise the standards of other countries, so our workers here in the United States aren't competing against people in Mexico, for instance, who are making $1 or 70 cents an hour.

MARGARET WARNER: So you want the fast-track bill to actually require the administration to negotiate those things?

REP. DAVID BONIOR: Negotiating environmental standards and negotiate labor standards.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. What's wrong with that?

REP. JIM KOLBE: Well, we say if it's related to trade, yes. If it's specifically related to the trade agreement, to trade provisions, and, yes, they should negotiate that. And we offered to include that in the fast-track legislation. But fast track and trade negotiations are complicated enough it doesn't need to have all these other things laid into it. As we found in countries like Korea or Taiwan as the economy improves, so do the workers' stands, so do the environmental standards begin to improve as countries begin to focus on that. So the best way we can help the living standards of the people of Mexico is the same way we've done it in Korea and Taiwan, and that's to trade with them. We need to trade more with these people. It also helps our people, of course. We've created more jobs in this country since with trade agreements than anything else, more than half of our--the growth, the economic growth we're having in this country comes from our exports and our trade, not just in manufacturing but in services.

MARGARET WARNER: But are your objections to including this in the fast-track bill is the question of doability, or do you actually think it's a bad idea in terms of economic theory and practice?

REP. JIM KOLBE: It's a bad idea to freight down, to load down a trade agreement with what are really extraneous procedures. Let's just take an example. The first thing you mentioned here in your earlier piece, that Chile might be the first thing that we negotiate a trade agreement with, the first country. To take that and to negotiate an Amazon rain forest agreement in the context of an agreement to bring Chile under the NAFTA umbrella just simply doesn't make any sense.

MARGARET WARNER: What about something like--as the Congressman suggested--say that workers in Chile can organize?

REP. JIM KOLBE: We're not going to permit Chile to tell us what our labor laws should be, and similarly, we shouldn't tell them we have international labor--we have the ILO specifically for that. And Chile's a signatory to more of those ILO agreements than we are.

MARGARET WARNER: Explain the ILO.

REP. JIM KOLBE: International Labor Organization. Those are your international standards.

REP. DAVID BONIOR: We've not used the ILO, and you know that, for years, and we've not been sympathetic to using the ILO. The problem here is, is that the folks on the other side--and Jim is a good friend of mine and I respect his views on this--but they're not adverse at all to using--going to Chile or to Mexico or where have you and saying an intellectual property, you know, protecting Walt Disney, protecting Mickey Mouse and compact disc. You've got to do this, and trade sanctions. But when it comes to the people who make those products, when we're trying to provide them with some protections, no way. The problem is that in Mexico the productivity of the Mexican workers has gone up tremendously over the last--particularly the four years, and their wages have gone down. Now, what does that mean to an American worker? What that means to that American worker is that corporations go into negotiations with American workers and they say, if you don't take a freeze in pay or in wages or in benefits or if you don't take a cut, we're moving to Mexico. We have lost close to 200,000 jobs in this country. More importantly even than that, because most of these people have gotten work, although they've gotten it at less pay, more importantly than that, there's been a downward pressure on wages and benefits. And 80 percent of America hasn't really experienced the wonderful growth in income and benefits that's the top 20 percent. And we want to protect that 80 percent.

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about since NAFTA was adopted.

REP. JIM KOLBE: And we've created more than 1.7 million jobs since NAFTA, so I mean the net has been much greater than the small number that might have been lost as a result of NAFTA.

MARGARET WARNER: I want to prevent--

REP. JIM KOLBE: I mean, if he is going to say all those were lost by NAFTA, I'm going to say every one that's been created since NAFTA was created because of NAFTA. It doesn't make any sense either way.

MARGARET WARNER: To what degree--I don't want this to turn into a NAFTA debate--to what degree is NAFTA and differing views, differing perceptions about NAFTA, coloring this debate about fast track?

REP. JIM KOLBE: Well, it does color it. There's no question about it. Because of the peso devaluation, the opponents have latched onto that and have said that that was the fault of NAFTA, which, of course, it wasn't at all. And, in fact, NAFTA has worked exactly as we intended it to work, which was to stabilize the economy. We're now back at way over 37 percent over our exports prior to NAFTA, so it's working.

MARGARET WARNER: The President was expected to come out actually with his language today and he did not. And that was reportedly because--it was reported to be because he and the White House were negotiating with you all to try to come up with language that might satisfy you. Do you think you're going to get language from the White House that satisfies you?

REP. DAVID BONIOR: Well, I would hope so, but my sense is that it's probably not going to happen. What we want is in the core agreement for fast track we want these protections for workers and protection for the environment. And without them it's going to be very, very difficult for us to support this provision. We're asking for something that I think would correct the mistakes of NAFTA. And if you look at NAFTA--and I think this is-- NAFTA is important to look at because this is really an extension. This is expanding NAFTA--you will find, for instance, on the environmental front and the food safety front--I mean, I have 179 schoolchildren who were contaminated with strawberries that had pesticides on them and other things. I've got a number of people who have lost jobs in my district because of plants that have moved out to Mexico. This is happening all over the country, and I think there's a real concern on the environment and on health and safety and on food safety.

MARGARET WARNER: And if you don't get the language you want, then are you and how many Democrats do you think will oppose this?

REP. DAVID BONIOR: I think--well, we had 62 percent of the Democrats in the House oppose him on NAFTA, the President. And I think if we don't get these guarantees on the environment and on workers' wages, and safety standards, I think we're probably--and food safety--I think we're talking anywhere in the neighborhood of three quarters of the Democratic Caucus.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. If the President were to include these guarantees, what would that do to the Republican majority who gave him NAFTA?

REP. JIM KOLBE: There won't be Republican support, and with all due respect, I don't think there's anything the President can offer that's going to get the support of David Bonior and Richard Gephardt. I just don't think it's going to be there. I think the real issue down at the White House is not the negotiations with the Hill but the internal negotiations between Al Gore and the President's people. I think Al Gore is backing away from his 19- strong defense--defense of 1993--remember when he clobbered Ross Perot in the debate--I think he's backing away from that because he's looking to the year 2000, he's looking to his base, his labor environmental base. And I think that's basic conflict that's going on down at the White House.

REP. DAVID BONIOR: He's looking to the base of the Democratic Party, which is the working people and the people who care about a clean and a safe environment.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. We have to leave it there, but thank you, gentlemen.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, campaign money, the leader of Hong Kong, and old time religion. SERIES - THE MONEY CHASE

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman reports on the day at the Senate hearings on campaign fund-raising.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee today continued to hear from those in charge of the Democratic National Committee during the 1996 presidential campaign. Washington lawyer Joseph Sandler was then and is now general counsel of the DNC. He defended the way his party amassed $350 million in political contributions, even though a small portion of it was returned because it came from questionable sources.

JOSEPH SANDLER, General Counsel, Democratic National Committee: That's not a perfect record, to be sure, Mr. Chairman, but surely it demonstrates that the DNC did not deliberately solicit improper or illegal contributions, or turn a blind eye to the receipt of such contributions. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The officers and staff of the DNC during these past four years worked long and hard, often at great personal sacrifice, to vindicate the ideals of the Democratic Party.

KWAME HOLMAN: Sandler then turned to an examination he carried out of a controversial set of some 47 fund-raising phone calls Vice President Al Gore made from his offices in 1995 and '96. In March, the Vice President told a news conference the calls did not violate prohibitions against raising political money from government facilities because the money he raised was unregulated, so-called "soft money."

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: There is no controlling legal authority, no case ever brought, ever decided, that says that is a violation of law.

KWAME HOLMAN: In the month since then Attorney General Janet Reno essentially has agreed with the Vice President, saying she would not ask for an independent counsel's probe of the fund-raising calls because they involved soft money. Today, DNC Counsel Sandler said his analysis also showed the Vice President was soliciting soft money, also known as non-federal campaign funds.

JOSEPH SANDLER: All the materials that we have seen clearly indicate that the Vice President was soliciting non-federal money.

KWAME HOLMAN: But that assertion was called into question a week ago when the "Washington Post" reported part of the funds Gore solicited went to so-called hard money accounts at the DNC, accounts regulated by federal law. Shortly thereafter, the Justice Department said it would begin a review that could result in a call for an independent counsel investigation. But the DNC's Sandler said the Vice President didn't know the funds were going to regulated accounts.

JOSEPH SANDLER: Our procedure was to deposit the entire amount in the federal account, transfer the excess portion to the non-federal account, and because of internal DNC procedures, of which the Vice President would have no reason to be aware, the DNC--after the fact and without the Vice President's knowledge--deposited a small percentage of a portion of those contributions that he had solicited into our federal account.

KWAME HOLMAN: Republican Counsel Sandy Mattice brought forward DNC memos that indicate the President and Vice President were advised the DNC was putting the money Gore raised into regulated hard money accounts.

SANDY MATTICE, Republican Counsel: The issue that we're discussing is, is what may have been the Vice President's state of mind about whether he was raising hard or soft dollars. Go down to the final paragraph on that page of the document that says federal money is the first $20,000 given by an individual, $40,000 for a married couple, any amount over $20,000--over this $20,000 amount from an individual is considered non-federal individual. That is a policy, and I think that's consistent with what you just said, correct?

JOSEPH SANDLER: I think, Mr. Mattice, this is Mr. Marshall's way of explaining the federal contribution limits in plain English.

SANDY MATTICE: Okay. Well, in any rate, it does say that the first $20,000 given by an individual is federal money. I mean, it says that.

JOSEPH SANDLER: Correct.

SANDY MATTICE: Okay. Now, I just want to establish that this memo from Mr. Marshall was, in turn, passed along apparently, if you'll look at the first page of Exhibit No. 1065, to both the President and the Vice President on February 22, 1996, by Harold Ickes. You see that?

JOSEPH SANDLER: I see it. This is not our document.

SANDY MATTICE: I realize that. Have you ever seen it before?

JOSEPH SANDER: I don't believe so, unless he showed it to me in my deposition, I wouldn't have seen it.

SANDY MATTICE: But it does appear that Mr. Ickes passed along to the President and the Vice President the information that the first $20,000 of money raised was going to go into the DNC's federal account to the President and Vice President. And I just want to make sure--you don't know--do you know that the Vice President did indicate to the donor which accounts their moneys would be deposited into?

JOSEPH SANDER: I don't know. I think it would be highly unusual for the Vice President even to be familiar with the seventeen or twenty different accounts maintained by the DNC, let alone discuss that in a two- or three- minute conversation with the donor. I don't know firsthand. It stretches, the credulity to surmise that.

KWAME HOLMAN: Committee members also asked about a New York Times report today charging the DNC diverted some $2 million in soft money contributions into regulated hard money accounts, placing 62 donors in jeopardy of violating contribution limits.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, [D] Connecticut: I found the story in the Times this morning to be very troubling, really awful, in the sense that contributors had their money allocated to accounts which they were not aware of. How do you explain how this happened?

JOSEPH SANDLER: The--

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Let me put it more aggressively and have you respond to this. Was it carelessness, or in a sense bad intent, which is to say intentional carelessness because of the desire to put more money into the federal account?

JOSEPH SANDLER: No. It was certainly not intentional in any way in that regard. The first months of 1996, with a change of staff in the finance administrator in our accounting department, it was not done properly.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: There's an implication in the article, at least by one or two of the contributors quoted, that the first they heard about it--I may be reading it wrong--was when the reporter from the Times called them, is that not correct, or is it possible that that is correct?

JOSEPH SANDLER: It is possible in some cases that--well, first of all, when this was corrected retroactively, unbeknownst to us, the people who were doing it did not go back far enough in time, all the way back to January, as they should have. That was a mistake.

KWAME HOLMAN: Tomorrow, the committee will hear from National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, easily the most senior Clinton administration official yet to be called. Berger is expected to be asked about foreign-born contributors who attended presidential fund-raising events over the objections of national security officials. CONVERSATION - HONG KONG'S FUTURE

JIM LEHRER: Now a conversation with Hong Kong's chief executive. We start with some background from Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE: When the Chinese communist flag was raised over Hong Kong in July, it signaled not only the end of British rule but also the beginning of a new Hong Kong government led by Tung Chee-Hwa. At 60, Tung is a shipping magnate and reportedly a billionaire whose business and political interests have long extended from East to West. Born in Shanghai, Tung fled China as a refugee after the Communist Revolution in 1949. Yet when it came time for the Communist Chinese government to choose a chief executive for post-colonial Hong Kong, Tung was their choice. At the handover ceremony, the eyes of Hong Kong's 6.3 million people--along with hundreds of millions of others all around the world--watched and listened to Prince Charles with nostalgia.

PRINCE CHARLES: Ladies and Gentlemen, China will tonight take responsibility for a place and a people which matter greatly to us all.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But the real focus was on Hong Kong's new chief executive, who's called C. H. Tung when his name is said in English. Following Prince Charles, Tung attempted to reassure his audience that Hong Kong's economic and political freedoms would be respected under the "one country-two systems" formula originally put forward by Beijing. But just blocks away, former members of Hong Kong's legislative council were protesting. Their fear: that China's decision to abolish the old legislature--which was democratically elected--in favor of a new appointed legislature was an ominous sign of things to come. Tung's critics have also accused him of being insensitive to freedom of the press and freedom of assembly and generally of being more concerned about pleasing the Communists in Beijing than protecting the democratic rights of people in Hong Kong.

EMILY LAU: I said from day one that he is Peking's puppet and he will do what he's told. But I think what is also true is that he is also basically a very, very conservative person, very paternalistic, so we can safely assume that all the things proposed by Peking he also supports.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But so far, the worst fears of the pro-democracy forces in Hong Kong have not come to pass. Neither the red army--4000 strong and now stationed in military garrisons built by the British--nor Tung's civil administration has interfered to stop newspapers from publishing or demonstrators from expressing their views in the street. Tung has also promised that elections for a new legislature will be held next year. But Tung's critics say that his proposal for electing the new legislature is fundamentally undemocratic because it's based on a system of proportional representation that's heavily weighted against Hong Kong's opposition Democratic Party. Still, the political controversies have not so far affected Hong Kong's economy. Since the handover, it's remained stable, with low unemployment and continued growth. But the stock Market and Hong Kong's currency have been hurt by the financial crises that have hit other Asian markets. Tung arrived in the United States on Monday, a country he knows well, having lived during the 1960's in California, where he reportedly became a big fan of the San Francisco 49ers. In Washington this week, he's already met with members of Congress and members of the cabinet. A meeting with President Clinton is scheduled for Friday.

JIM LEHRER: I talked with Tung Chee Hwa earlier today. Mr. Tung, welcome. From your perspective, how is Hong Kong doing two months and ten days after the handover?

TUNG CHEE HWA, Chief Executive, Hong Kong: Well, Jim, I think we are doing just fine. It's been a very satisfying two months and ten days, with the whole world watching us. The three branches of our political structure, the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive branches, all functioning very normally, the economy continuing to expand, the way of life, our lifestyle which we are very used to, hasn't changed. And demonstrations, as you can see, continues--and we're having a wonderful beginning, but, of course, we are moving forward. And a good beginning is always a good way to start something. And we are very happy.

JIM LEHRER: Has anything basically changed in Hong Kong in these last two months and ten days?

TUNG CHEE HWA: I think the issue really is this; that Hong Kong has now become part of China. We are moving forward under the one country-two system concept. People in Hong Kong--and 95 percent of us are Chinese--we are proud that now we become part of China, we're at last reunited after 156 years of separation as a result of an unjust war. And we are also very confident of our future because we believe the masters of our own destiny. We can do better things and greater things as we move forward into the 21st century.

JIM LEHRER: Are you really in charge of Hong Kong in the government? What is your relationship? What has it been thus far between you and Beijing?

TUNG CHEE HWA: Well, as you know, we are moving ahead on the basis of one country-two systems, which means that we will have our own systems in Hong Kong, which is different from that on mainland of China. And under that concept, except for issues like foreign affairs and defense, all internal matters of Hong Kong is my responsibility and the responsibility of my administration. And this is the way we're going about it.

JIM LEHRER: Thus far have you had any interference from the government in China?

TUNG CHEE HWA: Not at all. Jim, you have to remember, China very much want one country-two systems to succeed because it is in China's long-term interest for this to succeed.

JIM LEHRER: Do you see one country-two systems as a permanent arrangement, or is this temporary? Will it eventually move into one country-one system, is that the intention?

TUNG CHEE HWA: No. This is a permanent arrangement for long, long period of time to come. It says it's for 50 years. I have--I believe it will go on for longer than that. It is not the arrangement of expediency. It is a long-term vision of some of the leaders in China that on the one hand it is important for the country to be reunited and so Hong Kong becomes part of China, but, on the other hand, the second system must continue because a successful Hong Kong can contribute to China's modernization and also a successful Hong Kong can set a good example for Taiwan, for whatever ultimate solution there will be for Taiwan, because the country has to be eventually united.

JIM LEHRER: How do you account for the skepticism about what you just said, that most people--not most people--many people believe that this is temporary and that eventually this--Hong Kong is just going to become another part of China, and it's going to be one system, et cetera? What do you say to people about that?

TUNG CHEE HWA: Well, I think for many skeptics the best way to convince them is the facts, as you would say, the proof is in the pudding. And many were very skeptical about the transition. Well, we have proved that the transition has worked well and to many of my skeptics I suggest that they should come back to see us from time to time, a year, two years, three years later. And you continue to find Hong Kong thriving ahead under two systems.

JIM LEHRER: Now, you do have your critics, as we saw in this setup piece, also here in the United States, Secretary of State Albright, members of Congress, about this legislature thing, the new legislature before--over 2 million people participated in the election--under the new plan only 180,000 people will actually be eligible to vote. Why have you done it that way?

TUNG CHEE HWA: Well, this is not exactly correct, if you excuse me for saying so, let me put it this way first--that you have election next year, May of next year, the election will be open, the election will be fair, and all political parties and people of all persuasions will be asked to join the election. And I think they will, and there are two and a half million registered voters in Hong Kong. And I believe--and I very much hope--most of them will participate. And we certainly as a government will try very hard to persuade the registered voters to vote.

JIM LEHRER: Can they all? Are they all permitted to vote?

TUNG CHEE HWA: Oh, absolutely.

JIM LEHRER: To go in, one man, one vote?

TUNG CHEE HWA: Absolutely.

JIM LEHRER: I thought it was under a proportional system.

TUNG CHEE HWA: Well, what it is, is that there are 60 seats in the legislature, 20 are directly elected through universal suffrage, and the other 30 seats are through a functional constituency arrangement, which is indirect election, and then--the election committee, which is also indirect election--so the issue is that all the 2 + million voters, registered voters, will have the opportunity to vote and we're appealing to all of them to vote, but where there is some controversy is in the functional constituencies. And these were invented by the then Hong Kong government under the colonial rule as a halfway step, moving slowly towards democracy, and the important thing I think, Jim, for us to remember is that we have a constitution--we have what we call a basic law, which is our constitution, which, among other things, maps out for the next 10 years the evolution of our political institution--how the legislature will be elected every few years until the about 10th year and how the chief executive would be elected every time. My term is for five years, and in 2002 there will be another election for another chief executive. And then will come 2007. And it's all mapped out in our constitutional document, and the document also says very clearly that at the end of that time we are going to move into universal suffrage if it is at that time the wish of the Hong Kong people. So the ultimate aim is universal suffrage. It is all very clear. But what we are doing is a very gradual approach, a step by step approach towards ultimately universal suffrage.

JIM LEHRER: If you wanted to change that, could you? If you wanted to speed it up, in other words, if you wanted to make it--if you wanted to get there in five years or four years or seven years, could you do it unilaterally?

TUNG CHEE HWA: Well, you know, basic law is part of our constitution. And it was debated and agreed to between Mainland Chinese and also Hong Kong people after four years of discussion. And I guess it's like your constitution. Can you change that? You probably can, but it's a very complicated process.

JIM LEHRER: Right.

TUNG CHEE HWA: But I think we just got it about right, a 10-year process going forward, and looking at ultimately universal suffrage. And the reason why is this, Jim: Please don't forget. For 156 years we have been under colonial rule, and a British governor was sent to Hong Kong without ever consulting us. And most of us--almost all of us--don't even know what his name is. And the first election for the legislature was only six years ago. And in not too many years from now we will have more democracy than we ever had before. And the important thing, Jim, is this, that we care about democracy in Hong Kong. We want Hong Kong's democratic institution to develop. And over a 10-year period it's all met now very clearly ,and we get there.

JIM LEHRER: And you're comfortable with that, 10 years?

TUNG CHEE HWA: I'm comfortable with it. I'm confident in it, and the other thing, Jim, is very important, is this, that in the process of designing all these things, in the process of designing finally the details of a structure for the election next year, we have consulted the Hong Kong people. And I believe I have the support of the community of Hong Kong people.

JIM LEHRER: Does it bother you to have people like me and other Americans and other people who are not from Hong Kong question this particular point?

TUNG CHEE HWA: No, not at all, because obviously America is the land of the free and home of the democratic values and you are concerned. And I can understand that, but from my point of view, I would do my best to explain, Jim, to you and my other friends in America what we are doing in Hong Kong. But what is important for--I hope you understand, Jim--is this--that I have to do what is good for Hong Kong. And I have to listen to the views of people in Hong Kong because what I have to do is in ultimate interest of Hong Kong people. We all live there. We have to take the consequence of whatever decision we make, good or bad. And I hope we are making good decisions.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Tung, thank you very much.

TUNG CHEE HWA: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: We'll get another view of the Hong Kong situation tomorrow night from dissident Emily Lau. FINALLY - REVIVING FAITH

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the rebirth of an old-time religious movement. Richard Ostling, Time Magazine's religion correspondent, reports.

STEVE HILL, Evangelist: Everyone that needs forgiveness I want you to come right now! Everyone who is away from the Lord, come right now! Hurry! Hurry! Hurry, in the balcony, come on, let's go! Come on!

RICHARD OSTLING: When evangelist Steve Hill gives an altar call at the end of his sermons, he virtually commands people to come forward and repent of their sins. He's been doing so four nights a week for more than two years at the Brownsville Assembly of God, a Pentecostal church in Pensacola, Florida. [singing in background]

STEVE HILL: Come on! Hurry! Hurry!

STEVE HILL: A lot of Americans profess to be Christians, but they're not living the life. And so they walk in this sanctuary, they hear the gospel. It's strong. We preach the same gospel Jesus preached. We preach the same gospel Paul, John the Baptist preached, to get the sin out of your life, get right with God, get holy, clean your act up. And people come by the thousands to hear that.

RICHARD OSTLING: In fact, the cumulative attendance at the meetings has reached 1.7 million. That makes Brownsville one of the biggest and longest running local church revivals in American history, and the movement is spreading nationwide. Long part of the American scene, revival meetings summon people to renew their commitment to Jesus, or to begin a new life of faith. People from across the country come to Pensacola, lining up by the hundreds hours in advance to attend the services. And many leave testifying to the revivals life-changing effects. Patrick Waters was a bouncer in a local bar and a drug dealer when he visited last year. He says his experience of the Holy Spirit at the service turned his life around.

PATRICK WATERS: I never went back to the bars. I never called any of my old drug suppliers from Texas, none of my old clients. And I just walked away from it. I left it.

RICHARD OSTLING: He now works part-time in Brownsville's television studio while studying for the ministry.

PATRICK WATERS: I've never been happier. You know, everything I have now God has given to me. The job that I have, going to school, the friends that I have, I mean, I have friends, true friends, not people that like me because I have drugs, or like me because I have a pocketful of money.

RICHARD OSTLING: Such testimonies of new life at the Friday night baptism services are often emotional and dramatic.

MAN: For all you men out there who have anger, the Lord will take it away from you. I had the anger of where I would get mad at people driving and stop on the side of the road and block them and try to beat them up. If they would not let me in or something like that, I mean, I had anger, and God has been working on that about six months now, and he's taken it, and--[applause]

WOMAN: [screaming] Oh, Father, God, I'm so tired of being a defeated Christian. I'm tired of wallowing and standing and being defeated. God, I go under this water a slave, and I'm comin' up a warrior for you, God! [applause]

LITTLE GIRL: [crying] I just wanted something in my life, and I tried to fill it--I tried to get--to be popular and with friends, anything I could. But now my heart is filled with God. Praise the Lord! [applause]

RICHARD OSTLING: The stories of converts may be inspiring, but it's scenes like this that draw attention and criticism. Many twitch and shake uncontrollably during the services. And at the end of every meeting, when Hill and others pray for people to be anointed by the Holy Spirit, many drop to the floor. They call this being slain in the spirit, or falling under the power. Such unusual physical and emotional experiences are not new. They've been part of revival meetings since frontier days, when people would shake, fall to the ground, even make animal noises. And early in the 20th century they became part of the newly emerging Pentecostal churches, which emphasized being filled with the Holy Spirit and the experience of speaking in unknown tongues. Congregations known as charismatic arose later on and introduced such experiences beyond the Pentecostal denominations. But at Brownsville, extravagant physical manifestations are a nightly mass phenomenon. The current outpouring dates from 1994, when a St. Louis preacher--touched by such anointing prayers--took the experience to a church in Toronto. Worshipers there fell under the power, leading to years of nightly meetings. It was called the Toronto blessing and spread to England, where Steve Hill says he was anointed just before coming to Pensacola.

STEVE HILL: Get deeper. Get deeper.

RICHARD OSTLING: Hill was Brownsville's guest preacher on Father's Day of 1995. He concluded by asking everyone to come and be anointed by the Holy Spirit. As he touched people in the crowd many fell. The church's own pastor, John Kilpatrick, was among them.

JOHN KILPATRICK, Pastor, Assembly of God: We'd been praying for revival for two and a half years, and then God just showed up at the end of the service. And when I turned, it just came in like a rushin' mighty wind. And it came in about sock level from behind my legs, and it felt just like a wind and my ankles slipped. And from there, here we are, almost three years later.

RICHARD OSTLING: Since then, the Pensacola phenomenon has spread to congregations in many states. Sociologist Margaret Poloma thinks people are open to movements like Pensacola because American religion has become too intellectual and emotionally drive.

MARGARET POLOMA, Sociologist: I think churches are not providing what many people are seeking, and that is more of a spirituality and something that they can actually--where they can be experiencing God, connecting with Him. And that's what Brownsville is offering. And I think that what is happening now is that the belief is being put into a larger, more human perspective that allows room for physical manifestations, certainly the emotions, as well as the thoughts. Very often religion has been danced out; it's not been thought out.

HANK HANEGRAAFF, Evangelical Broadcaster: [radio show] We're coming to you live from Southern California. Welcome to today's edition of the Bible Answer Man broadcast. I'm your host--

RICHARD OSTLING: Evangelical broadcaster Hank Hanegraaff leads the Christian Research Institute, which attacks groups it considers cults. Hanegraaff favors emotion in religion but says that jerking and falling into trances have nothing to do with biblical teaching. He spoke with producer Kate Olson.

HANK HANEGRAAFF: If you go down to Pensacola, you will see that they prime people for an experience. At the very beginning of the meetings, they'll start telling people, later on the Holy Spirit will fall, and when He does, people will begin to shake; some will begin to jerk; and people are now expecting the mysterious. And when it happens, it is part of the suggestion that they have been seduced by--yet, they have forgotten about the suggestion. They just know that they've had an experience. I'm not doubting that the experience is real. But I'm saying that the basis of the experience is not the Holy Spirit. The basis of the experience is the principle of socio-psychological manipulation.

RICHARD OSTLING: But Brownsville Pastor Kilpatrick says revivals should be judged by the results.

JOHN KILPATRICK: When people come in and they're messed up, they're really messed up. It takes the power of God to set those people free. And when the power of God touches you, there's going to be some kind of reaction. But people that like church sedate and quiet and real, you know, like I said, Home and Gardens neat and tidy, they're not going to like that kind of revival. And so it's easy to look on at something like this that's happening and find fault with it and call it mind manipulation or emotionalism, and that kind of thing. But I've been here, friend, and it's real. Trust me, it's real.

RICHARD OSTLING: Brownsville has inspired a new dynamism in a neighboring mainline congregation, the Pine Forest United Methodist Church. The Methodist youth group had been praying for revival, and after visiting Hill's meetings, they introduced the Brownsville experience in their own church. Young people have especially been touched by the revival. Linda Smith is Pine Forest's Youth Director.

LINDA SMITH, Youth Director, Pine Forest United Methodist Church: The most dramatic changes have been one of wishing that they were different, wishing that they knew God, to knowing God, being tremendously changed almost overnight, being physically changed. We can see a difference in their appearance, their behavior, their lifestyle. Their language has changed dramatically. I believe that this generation has experienced so much in trying to survive and overcome that there is nothing that the world can offer them that could outweigh the priceless treasure that they will find in Jesus Christ.

RICHARD OSTLING: Whatever the immediate benefits, sociologist Poloma, who worships at a charismatic church, is concerned about what happens to converts after emotions wane.

MARGARET POLOMA: These experiences don't last. There is going to be a coming down from the mountain, so to speak, or in John of the Cross terms a dark night of the soul. And who's going to help see the people through that? Charismatics have not had a good history of that, nor many Pentecostals. Essentially what happens to Charismatics and Pentecostals, when they come down from the mountain, they get the blues, you know, the post- charismatic, post-Pentecostal blues. And is that going to happen with this revival, or will people be able to go deeper in a kind of spiritual walk? I'm not sure.

STEVE HILL: [service] What's going on in this place is very biblical. We're praising Him with the instruments. We're clapping to the Lord! We're--

RICHARD OSTLING: For the moment, the new religious enthusiasms are spreading. They may fade in time and may never convince the conventional church life familiar to most believers. [music in background] But many Americans seem to be looking for a more intense experience of God and are drawn to exuberant worship that unites the body and the soul. [music in background) RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, President Clinton asked Congress for fast-track authority to make trade deals and keep Congress from amending them. The Democratic Party's legal counsel said Vice President Gore broke no laws in making fund-raising calls from the White House, and Secretary of State Albright endorsed Israel's demand that Palestinian authorities do more to stop terrorist attacks. We'll see you on- line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.