The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And I'm Charlayne Hunter-Gault in New York. After the News Summary, the Clinton compromise on gays in the military, we get four views. Next, the President's firing of FBI Director William Sessions, was it justified, we have a debate, and finally Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett updates the battle to hold back the waters along the Mississippi River. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton today announced his plan for homosexuals to serve in the military, a way he called an honorable compromise. Gays would not be asked about their sexual orientation, but they would not be allowed to declare it once in the service. Homosexual activity would be, would continue to be prohibited, but there would be no more witch hunt investigations. He said it balanced the rights of individuals and the need of the military. The President spoke about the plan this afternoon in the White House briefing room. He was asked if the plan would still force homosexuals to remain in the closet.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, it will not necessarily require them to stay in the closet. The policy, as written, gives people a limited right obviously to stress their sexual orientation, but if they do so, they are at risk of having to demonstrate in some credible way that they are observing the rules of conduct applied in the military service. That is much more than they had before. Over and above that, the investigative rules which are part of the policy go far beyond anything that was written in law before in terms of respecting the privacy and associational rights of homosexuals in the military service and others, and non-homosexuals, heterosexuals in the military.

MR. LEHRER: The President's plan goes into effect October 1st. We'll have more on the story right afterthis News Summary. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: President Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions today, ending a six-month power struggle between the director and the White House. The President said Sessions could no longer lead the agency effectively. Sessions was accused of ethical lapses earlier this year by the Justice Department. He met with Attorney General Janet Reno on Saturday but refused her request that he resign. Today Sessions said he was sad to be leaving under these circumstances and denied violating ethical rules. The President is expected to announce a replacement as early as tomorrow. We'll have more on the story later in the program. Former House Postmaster Robert Roda pleaded guilty today to embezzling federal money and giving it to congressmen. In a plea agreement read by prosecutors, Roda admitted to participating in a scheme with unnamed lawmakers that allowed them to use their office postage accounts to get thousands of dollars in cash. Roda faces up to three years in prison but is not expected to get the maximum because he is cooperating with the continuing investigation.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton added Nebraska and South Dakota today to the list of states declared disaster areas because of floods. The Mississippi River crested downstream at St. Louis. It hit a record 46.9 feet overnight and then began receding. Most of the city remained dry, but a levee break left south St. Louis under 10 feet of water. Workers in Quincy, Illinois, worked at opening a key bridge across the Mississippi. It was the last working bridge for 200 miles when flooding forced it to close this weekend. And in Des Moines, Iowa, water began flowing through the city's pipes for the first time since the water works were flooded a week ago. City officials said it was still not safe to drink. We'll have more on the flooding later in the program.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa rejected calls from his party for his resignation today. Miyazawa's Liberal Democrat Party lost its 38 year parliamentary majority in weekend elections. Miyazawa lost an earlier vote of no confidence and was expected to step down after the election. But he said today he would make a decision before parliament votes for a new prime minister within a month.

MR. LEHRER: United Nations Envoy Rolf Ekeus said today he had resolved a dispute with Iraq over weapons monitoring. He gave no details but said there was no longer any reason for military action. We have a report from Baghdad by Robert Moore of Independent Television News.

ROBERT MOORE, ITN: It was a final diplomatic mission, an attempt to mend the fraying relationship between Iraq and the United Nations. This morning after four days of tough talking and brinkmanship, Iraq appears to have made the crucial concession, Teraq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, agreeing to the concept of long-term monitoring of the country's weapon systems. For Rolf Ekeus, the satisfaction he has almost certainly averted U.N.-backed military action against Iraq. Other issues remain in dispute, but a new frame work for settling them is now said to be in place.

ROLF EKEUS, UN Envoy: I wouldn't say that we have a clear cut settlement, but I think we are on the way to break out of that, that almost quite dangerous, dangerous situation.

MR. MOORE: For the last two weeks, ordinary Iraqis have been living in fear of a fresh missile or air attack. But with the crisis de-fused and compliance agreed on, there is now growing hope the U.N. will consider lifting sanctions. That may take time, but for now at least Iraqis are under no immediate external threat. Nevertheless, from bitter experience, the U.N. here is still officially cautious. But privately, they are hopeful this has been the long awaited diplomatic breakthrough, an end to the bitter circle of non-compliance and military action.

MR. LEHRER: North Korea agreed today to resume talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Communist regime has long been suspected of developing a nuclear bomb. Today's announcement was made in Geneva after a meeting with U.S. officials. North Korea pledged to abide by international safeguards for nuclear non- proliferation and to discuss nuclear issues with South Korea. In return, the United States promised to help North Korea change its nuclear power program to one less easily adapted to weapons production.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In South Africa today, gunmen with assault rifles executed six commuters on a van. The attack took place outside Johannesburg and followed a weekend of other black factional violence that claimed 22 lives. Meanwhile, a new round of power sharing talks began today despite a boycott by black and white conservatives. Both the Inkatha Freedom Party and the pro- apartheid Conservative Party are refusing to attend to protest a plan to hold the country's first multi-racial election next April. That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead on the NewsHour, gays in the military, the FBI firing, and the Midwest floods. FOCUS - CODE OF CONDUCT

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton's decision on homosexuals in the military is our lead story tonight. Our coverage begins with this extended excerpt from the President's announcement made before a military audience at the National Defense University in Washington this afternoon.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Clearly, the American people are deeply divided on this issue, with most military people opposed to lifting the ban because of the feared impact on unit cohesion, rooted in disapproval of homosexual lifestyles, and the fear of invasion of privacy of heterosexual soldiers who must live and work in close quarters with homosexual military people. We now have a policy that is a substantial advance over the one in place when I took office. I have ordered Sec. Aspin to issue a directive consisting of these essential elements: One, servicemen and women will be judged based on their conduct, not their sexual orientation; two, therefore, the practice now six months old of not asking about sexual orientation and the enlistment procedure will continue; three, an open statement by a service member that he or she is a homosexual will create a rebuttable presumption that he or she intends to engage in, prohibited conduct. But the service member will be given an opportunity to refute that resumption, in other words, to demonstrate that he or she intends to live by the rules of conduct that apply in the military service; and four, all provisions of the uniform code of military justice will be enforced in an evenhanded manner as regards both heterosexuals and homosexuals. And thanks to the policy provisions agreed by the Joint Chiefs, there will be a decent regard to the legitimate privacy and associational rights of all servicemen. Just as is the case under current policy, unacceptable conduct, either heterosexual or homosexual, will be unacceptable 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from the time a recruit joins the service until the day he or she is discharged. Now, as in the past, every member of our military will be required to comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is federal law and military regulations, at all times and in all places. Let me say a few words now about this policy. It is not a perfect solution. It is not identical with some of my own goals, and it certainly will not please everyone, perhaps not anyone, and clearly not those who hold the most adamant opinions on either side of this issue. But those who wish to ignore the issue must understand that it is already tearing at the cohesion of the military, and it is today being considered by the federal courts in ways that may not be to the liking of those who oppose any change. And those who want the ban to be lifted completely on both status and conduct must understand that such action would efface certain and decisive reversal by the Congress, and the cause for which many have fought for years would be delayed probably for years. Thus, on grounds of both principle and practicality, this is a major step forward. It is, in my judgment, consistent with my responsibilities as President and Commander in Chief to meet the need to change current policy. It is an honorable compromise that advances the cause of people who are called to serve our country by their patriotism, the cause of our national security, and our national interest in resolving an issue that has divided our military and our nation, and diverted our attention from other matters for too long.

MR. LEHRER: Now reactions to and perspectives on the President's action, two congressional, two military. Congressman Barney Frank is a Democrat of Massachusetts. Congressman Duncan Hunter is a Republican of California. Tanya Domi is a former army captain, executive director of the Military Freedom Project of the Gay & Lesbian Task Force. Bob Maginnis is a recently retired army lt. colonel. Until his retirement, he worked on the gays in the military issue with the army inspector general's office. He's now a member of the Defense Readiness Council, a group that opposes lifting the homosexual ban. Congressman Frank, beginning with you, is it an honorable compromise as the President says it is?

REP. FRANK: Well, it's not an acceptable one to me. I don't criticize President Clinton. I think that he has done the best that he could in a very difficult situation, but it falls short of what I thought was necessary. It still says that anywhere, any time, any place if you express your, your sexuality, you can, if you are gay or lesbian, be kicked out. It makes it much less likely that you will be. In other words, it improves, in my judgment, in practice on the policy, but it continues to have a statement which the military leadership, itself, admits isn't true. Mainly, we've had military leaders acknowledge that there have been plenty of gay and lesbians who have been superb members of the military, and this policy says, yeah, but if we find that out, we kick you out. It makes it less likely that it will be found out. It makes it harder for people to be persecuted, but it still is in principle the wrong policy, and for that reason, I was disappointed by it. But I add again not by the President. I think Bill Clinton in the face of a lot of political opposition, a lot of bigotry, did the best that could have been done. Unfortunately, in the end, that for me was not good enough.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Hunter, do you see it as an honorable compromise coming at it from the other side?

REP. HUNTER: I think it's going to be totally unworkable. I think it'll create a bonanza for lawyers. I've read some of the text, and I think it's going to lead to numerous lawsuits, and beyond that, I think that it will hurt the military badly, because the military depends on middle America sending their sons and daughters into the service, and if they perceive, and I think many of them will, that the military is not what they consider to be a wholesome environment for their kids, they're going to stop sending their kids. And I think a little difference with my colleague, as a member of the infantry myself and listening to a lot of testimony, very few people in the combat arms, and I'm talking about infantry and armor and those arms where it's most difficult to get volunteers, very few of those people have come forward and stated that they're homosexual. To my knowledge, no medal of honor winners out of the hundreds and hundreds that we have have said that they are homosexual, so I think that we're embarking on something to accommodate President Clinton's political promise that is going to damage the military.

MR. LEHRER: How do you respond to that, Congressman Frank, that even with your reservations about it, if it goes forward in the form the President has opposed, at least according to Congressman Hunter, it's going to hurt the military?

REP. FRANK: Oh, I think people like Duncan Hunter greatly exaggerate the amount of prejudices out there. At the same time they try, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for them. They whip up the prejudice at the same time as they decry it. The notion that people having come forward more to say that they are gay or lesbian, obviously, they haven't; they'd get kicked out. What we have are a lot of people who after they have been in have acknowledged being gay or lesbian. So his citation of the fact he didn't know anybody when he was in the infantry who volunteered it, of course not. People paid a very, very high price for that. I think people have consistently exaggerated the extent of prejudice against gay men and lesbians. We're talking about people who are prepared to do what everybody else does in the military. We are talking about people who are prepared to abide by every other rule that everybody else does, and what we're told is the very knowledge that someone else is gay, not having seen or heard or been the victim of any kind of advance, but the simple knowledge that there is a gay person in the room with you will somehow drive people to distraction. Fortunately, I think that is a gross exaggeration in the amount of prejudice that exists.

REP. HUNTER: Well, Jim, I think the one group that the President should have listened to are the young men and women who serve in uniform, and most of them have responded that they don't want to have to serve in close quarters with homosexuals for long periods of time. That's the one group that President didn't list.

REP. FRANK: Well, here, no, we have not had the military run by - - and I'm not sure exactly what the overall numbers were -- but a majority would probably come out that way, but not everybody, but that criterion would have kept the military from being racially integrated. If you had asked, the policies are different in some ways, if you had asked the existing white soldiery and sailors in 1948, what do you want, they would have said, don't integrate. If you had asked the all male military years ago, do you want women involved, they would have said no. Now, we haven't decided that we will run American military policy by polling the enlisted people. And I hope we don't. I don't think that's a good way to run military policy.

REP. HUNTER: But a majority of young black people who are enlisted have said that they don't want to be forced to serve with homosexuals.

REP. FRANK: A majority of white people in 1948 would have said that they wouldn't have integrated the military.

REP. HUNTER: I don't think you can call those young black people bigoted, Barney.

REP. FRANK: No. I call you bigoted.

REP. HUNTER: I don't think you can --

REP. FRANK: I don't think that they were.

REP. HUNTER: Well, there's about 95 percent of them have said that they don't want --

REP. FRANK: That 95 percent figure is simply made up by you. There is no figure of 95 percent that have said that.

REP. HUNTER: That is not made up. That's exactly what the figures are.

REP. FRANK: Where'd the figure of 95 percent come from?

REP. HUNTER: The Los Angeles Times Poll.

REP. FRANK: 95 percent of the blacks said that?

REP. HUNTER: 95 percent of the enlisted people, about 30 percent --

REP. FRANK: I thought you were talking about the black people.

REP. HUNTER: 30 percent of whom are black. So you have a large minority, including blacks, and Filipinos who don't want to serve with homosexuals. I think we should listen to those people in this age of --

REP. FRANK: Well, do you think we should look into the military on every issue? Should we have listened to the white military in 1948?

REP. HUNTER: I think when you have --

REP. FRANK: If we'd listened to them then --

REP. HUNTER: My answer is I think when young people come in and they give so much of their lives, I think you should give them a little sensitivity to their sense of privacy.

REP. FRANK: Now, let me ask you a question. Should we call the military men and ask whether women should be allowed a greater role? Is that -- is that policy only for gay men and lesbians, or is that the policy you were --

REP. HUNTER: I think that military, they should be given a greater role than they have been.

REP. FRANK: They didn't have a poll. The military didn't decide that.

MR. LEHRER: We have two former military -- we have two former military people.

REP. HUNTER: We'll give it back to you for a while here.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Let's listen to these two former military people who see it very differently. Col. Maginnis, your objections to lifting the ban aside, is what the President outlined today workable, or can the military make that work?

COL. MAGINNIS: The President said that subject to good leadership and proper training that he has every confidence that the military can make this work. But I think there are some problems, and I heard Duncan Hunter bring these up. Specifically investigations, we're very concerned on how the investigations might be started. In the past, all we had to have is credible evidence, and that was defined by the litmus test which most everyone has heard about. Now it looks --

MR. LEHRER: Explain that. What do you mean?

COL. MAGINNIS: Well, acknowledgement of being a homosexual, homosexual acts, or acknowledgement of marrying or attempting to marry men. That was a litmus test. In the future, what is going to be the standard for initiation of investigations? It looks as if it has been considerably strengthened against doing, you know, investigations that commanders routinely have done in the past. So we will find, as a result of this change, I think a dramatic downturn in the number of administrative and judicial discharges as a direct result.

MR. LEHRER: And you see that as a bad thing.

COL. MAGINNIS: Well, I see it as a bad thing only because I believe that the introduction of homosexuals into the military potentially brings some risk with it. Now this is already established in the tort loss, specifically the analytical principle called the assumption of the risk. If there's a risk, you assume the risk, don't be surprised when the risk materializes. We've gone through the arguments time and again. The medical risk, certainly 1580 HIV positive people in the military today, three battalions worth, clearly, according to our own surveys have indicated that they acquired HIV through homosexual encounters. We also are concerned about the retention and the recruitment issue. You know, the surveys are right. We're concerned.

MR. LEHRER: Of heterosexuals.

COL. MAGINNIS: Of the people that are currently in and the people that might potentially come in, 75 percent of the people are in the pool of people that we might draw from, from, to fill the 1.7 million military. They're telling us we're not sure we want to come in because of this decision. Whether we like that or not, whether it's conservative or liberal doesn't matter. We have an obligation to fill the military to defend the country. Certainly we're concerned about that. We're concerned about cohesion. And we've heard the thousands of times about various cases. Certainly the American Security Council Foundation's survey of last month looked at 1,040 generals and admirals, active duty, and it said 99.6 percent agree that this is going to damage cohesion.

MR. LEHRER: Let's go through those with Capt. Domi now. Okay. First of all, the question about investigations, you heard what the colonel said about that. How do you read this policy and how it will be effective?

CAPT. DOMI: Well, I share concerns as well, believe it or not, but I disagree with the colonel being that I was a former military police officer and did work in investigations. I believe because now the standard will be for misconduct, the commanders will have a vested interest in proving a pretty good case on a soldier, and that, in fact, has become much more punitive in nature resulting in more discharges that would be other than honorable or court martials.

MR. LEHRER: Take me through that. How do you think that might happen?

CAPT. DOMI: Well, I have some concerns about the inconsistency that has been articulated in the policy that's been explained to us that one could go to a gay bar, but when one was at a gay bar, they couldn't necessarily hold the hand of another woman, as in my case, or dance with that woman.

MR. LEHRER: That would be a violation of the new policy.

CAPT. DOMI: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: As you see it.

CAPT. DOMI: That's right. If one could read gay literature but they couldn't necessarily tell a colleague or a friend in confidence that they were gay, there's some clear inconsistencies, and so I too share Col. Maginnis's concern, and having been a company commander, I know that you have to establish a probable cause for investigation. When does it become a probable cause, and where do we draw the line? From my standpoint of having been in the military, I think it's going to be an undue burden on commanders, and I fear for really, even though Congressman Frank and I are on the same issue, on the same side on this issue, I fear for increased witch hunts, because the outcome could be much more punitive now under this policy.

MR. LEHRER: Is that a possibility, Colonel, that a commander could, well, you heard what she said, has she got a legitimate figure, even though she comes at it from a different point of view than you do?

COL. MAGINNIS: Well, it's legitimate I think in terms of, you know, it depends upon how you characterize witch hunts. There was a so-called witch hunt that was characterized by the homosexual community in Texas that took place last May in which 60 homosexuals were captured on video camera in a latrine next to a child care center. These people were kicked out of the army subsequently, but they were caught in the act of anal and oral sodomy, clearly a violation of Article 125. We would have not initiated that investigation had we followed the prescribed outline that the President has now given us.

CAPT. DOMI: Well, that was a sting operation run at Ft. Hood, Texas, and the majority of those people that were arrested eventually, in fact, were married men. A lot of them had families, so this is what happens. People get forced into the closet, the bigotry, the prejudice exists, and people seek, unfortunately, in inappropriate ways where they would get the services of somebody else.

MR. LEHRER: Let's go to a second point, Captain, which was that this will discourage a lot of people from going into the military.

CAPT. DOMI: Well, I don't share that, I don't share that conclusion. I think that people will continue to go into the military because it's always been access for many Americans to get higher education and to get job skills. And with the economy as it is right now, pretty stagnant, people are going to continue to go in. People will continue to seek out the military and maybe even some for devotion to country. And if they're not going to come in because of this policy, then perhaps that's probably best. In the long run I think the President wants to set a standard of how people should be treated. I agree with Congressman Frank. It's not anywhere near where we want it, but he has attempted to move this issue forward.

MR. LEHRER: What about the unit cohesion issue? You're a former company commander. You heard what the colonel said.

CAPT. DOMI: Well, everyone says right now that unit cohesion would be denigrated by allowing openly gay and lesbian people to serve, but, in fact, every study that's been commissioned by the Department of Defense, including a Government Accounting Office's report, has indicated that it should be lifted and that it is only mere speculation on the part of people, and we know, and the colonel does know this as well, is that positive leadership is the example by which military people follow.

MR. LEHRER: She's right about that, isn't -- can't a military leader affect this very dramatically?

COL. MAGINNIS: A military leader can affect a lot of things. We had the best leadership we've ever had in this country during Desert Storm in the '91 operation. During that same period, our own records indicate that the criminal sexual conduct problem with discovered homosexuals was eight to one to heterosexuals. That sends a very clear message. Now Tanya talked about the Crittendon Study in '57, the Perserex Study in '89 and '91, and also the recent Rand Study. The Crittendon Study clearly said that they don't know what the answer is, they're not sure whether or not it's a blackmail or a security problem. They say though that it's like schizophrenia or manic depression or whatever. The Perserex Study interestingly advocates the possible recruiting of AIDS positive, HIV positive military into the military. Those types of studies are seriously flawed, and they've been de-bunked already. So I would not rely upon that conclusively to support any argument, because they just aren't good studies.

MR. LEHRER: Back to the Congressmen, beginning with you, Congressman Hunter, from your perspective, is this over? In other words, the President tried to work out something he said, we ranthe tape that both sides who feel strongly, as you do on one side, Congressman Frank on the other, the captain and the colonel here, nobody's happy with this, but has the, does it resolve it, or do you believe there will be a serious effort in Congress to go back to the original ban and make that, make that the law of the land?

REP. HUNTER: No. I think there will be a serious effort to, to undo what the President has done with this directive, and I think that the men and women of the armed services who don't want to see this change made are going to have to rely primarily on Sen. Sam Nunn, who made a fairly strong floor speech on Friday that, that laid out a policy that is quite a bit different from the policy that the President has come up with. So there will be a battle, and I think that, that the real key, the real thing that this House Armed Service and Senate Armed Service Committees have to ask is: Will middle America continue to send their young kids into the military if they perceive that the military is changed? And I don't think they're going to buy this deal that the President has come out with.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Nunn issued a statement late this afternoon which said he was positively disposed toward what the President announced. He said that he wanted to look at the details but that at this point he felt, he felt positive about it. Congressman Frank, how do you read that? How do you read Sen. Nunn's reaction? And how do you read how important that is?

REP. FRANK: Well, I, I, Sen. Nunn and I haven't read each other all that well, and I think we need simultaneous translation, but I will say in the House that I think with the Joint Chiefs having said this is the policy they like, that's probably what will, what will be sustained. And I'll tell you the reason, although as I said, I, I would have preferred the President to have gone for something better, although I think that, in honesty, that would have lost. The inconsistency here is I think what's going to help. The Colonel said and Duncan Hunter has said, well, they won't send, people don't want to serve if they know there are gay people around, therefore, if there are gay people around who are trying hard not to come out, we will drag them out, we will investigate them, we will go after them, and, therefore, people will be appalled at knowing they're there. The Colonel is upset --

REP. HUNTER: That's not what we've said at all.

REP. FRANK: Please, let me finish. Please, let me finish. The Colonel said --

REP. HUNTER: Well, then don't mischaracterize --

REP. FRANK: All right. I'll leave you out of this. I'll talk about the Colonel.

REP. HUNTER: Thank you.

REP. FRANK: The Colonel said that, oh, we won't be able to do investigations. Well, if, in fact, you are motivated by a sense that people will be upset if you know gay people are around, and I think people have exaggerated that prejudice, but if that's what you're worried about, then why do you insist on investigating. If people are going out of their way not to announce that they're gay or lesbian, the Colonel's problem is that we can't investigate or drag them out to offend people. I think what that shows is a sense of people who are motivated, frankly, more by a bias and an unwillingness to give people a chance to play by the same rules as everybody else.

REP. HUNTER: Now let me make a statement on that, Barney. I think the reason --

MR. LEHRER: Congressman, wait a minute. He's talking about what the Colonel said, so let's let the Colonel respond.

COL. MAGINNIS: You know, the President gave us six months to look at this, and we have. We've looked at absolutely thousands of vignettes from commanders all over the world, and we ask, tell us about where you've discovered someone who's homosexual, and what impact that had on your unit. And you wouldn't believe the tragedies that we heard. There are exceptions, but by and large - -

MR. LEHRER: What about the -- what about the congressman's point? The congressman's point is that --

REP. FRANK: Colonel, why are you eager to discover it?

MR. LEHRER: -- why do you want to find out if it does that to the unit in other words?

REP. FRANK: You're the one that's dying to find out.

COL. MAGINNIS: We didn't have to find out. It just naturally came to a head.

REP. FRANK: No. Colonel, you try to investigate it.

COL. MAGINNIS: As soon as we discovered or someone did something that perpetrated a problem in that unit, I mean, I can give you an example where I was in a unit where this happened, and it really undermined the effectiveness of the unit once it was discovered.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask the Captain one final question.

CAPT. DOMI: Well, I would just --

MR. LEHRER: From your point of view, are you going to leave this alone, or is your group going to press in the court for a, a broader ban, a broader lifting of the ban?

CAPT. DOMI: Of course, we're going to join with our coalition partners, and this is going to be in the court. I mean, Monday Sgt. Tom Panacea's case will be in front of the federal court in Phoenix, and the Meinhold and Stephan briefs must be filed by the 29th, and we're going to work on the Hill. We're going to work on fighting back any codification attempt by Sen. Nunn, and we'll continue to press, and we'll continue to be visible. We are not going away. Our movement isn't going away, and gay and lesbian people will continue to be part of America and we'll continue our fight for social justice.

REP. HUNTER: Jim, I think that it's very clear that there will be lots of court cases on this, and I think that's part of the Clinton strategy. They've opened the door a little bit. I think both sides concur that there's lots of ambiguities, lots of room for court cases. We're going to make a lawyer's paradise out of the military.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

REP. FRANK: Some of those cases were already filed. That's nonsense. The court cases --

REP. HUNTER: There will be hundreds of court cases filed under this new language.

MR. LEHRER: I think we have --

REP. HUNTER: There will be equal protection cases filed.

MR. LEHRER: I think we have an area of agreement. Everybody agrees this didn't end it today. Thank you all four very much for being with us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Still ahead, the fired FBI director and battling the floods. FOCUS - FORCED OUT

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The other big story in Washington today is the firing of FBI Chief William Sessions. That's where we turn next. On Saturday, Attorney Gen. Janet Reno asked for Sessions' resignation. But the beleaguered Sessions publicly refused to resign. That led to today's showdown between the President and Sessions. Sessions was halfway through a ten-year term, but the FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President. The former federal judge was appointed by President Reagan but came under attack for alleged ethical abuses as FBI chief. In January, a Justice Department report initiated by former Attorney General William Barr accused Sessions of ethical lapses. Here's an excerpt of today's announcement by President Clinton.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: In recent months, serious questions have been raised about the conduct and the leadership of the director of the FBI, William Sessions. Among other matters, the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has issued a report on certain conduct by the director. I asked the attorney general, Janet Reno, to assess the director's tenure and the proper response to the turmoil now in the Bureau. After a thorough review by the attorney general of Mr. Sessions' leadership of the FBI, she has reported to me in no uncertain terms that he can no longer effectively lead the Bureau and law enforcement community. I had hoped very much that this matter could be resolved within the Justice Department. The attorney general met with Judge Sessions over the weekend and asked him to resign, but he refused. In accord with the recommendations of the attorney general, with which I fully agree, I called Director Sessions a few moments ago and informed him that I was dismissing him effective immediately as the director of the FBI. We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the FBI. It is time that this difficult chapter of the agency's history is brought to a close.

HELEN THOMAS, UPI: Mr. President, what did he do wrong, and are you confident that there was not an internal vendetta against Judge Sessions because he wanted to broaden the look of the FBI, take in more Hispanics, blacks, and women?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, let me answer the second question first. I think that was, that will be remembered as the best thing about his tenure, and he deserves the support and thanks of the American people for trying to broaden the membership of the FBI to make it look more like America and to follow the lead of some other agencies and the United States military. Now, but beyond that, if you read the report of the Office of Professional Responsibility and you do what the attorney general did, if you look at that and all the other circumstances, and you assess the capacity of the present director to lead or the incapacity of the director to lead, and she reached a judgment which she communicated to me that he ought to resign, and I fully agreed with that judgment. There are lots of reasons for it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Shortly after the President announced his dismissal, former FBI Director Sessions talked with reporters.

WILLIAM SESSIONS, Former FBI Director: When I came to Washington nearly six years ago, I was challenged by the Senate Judiciary Committee to continue the movement for change begun by Directors Kelly and Webster within the Bureau. The opportunities for women, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities have been greatly expanded. The possibility for service and promotion within the Bureau could now be limitless. In addition, I have led the FBI to what I call an astounding accomplishment in the counterterrorism area, the counterintelligence area, the DNA and fingerprint technologies, and in the battle against gangs, drugs, violent crime, and white collar fraud. Throughout my tenure, I have been keenly aware of the high level of trust placed in me by the American people. Now, because of what I would term scurrilous attacks on myself and on my wife of 42 years, it has been decided by others, and now you know by the President of the United States that I can no longer be as forceful as I need to be, and being the Federal Bureau of Investigation and carrying out my responsibilities to the Bureau and to the nation. It is because I believe in the principle of an independent FBI that I refused to voluntarily resign. I will speak out in the strongest terms about protecting the FBI from being manipulated and politicize both from inside and from out.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: President Clinton is expected to name a successor to head the agency tomorrow. We take a look at the decision to fire Sessions and ask was it justified. Congressman Don Edwards, Democrat of California, is a member of the House Committee that oversees the FBI. George Terwilliger is the former deputy attorney general under William Barr. He oversaw the Office of Professional Responsibility which wrote the report investigating Sessions' ethics on the job. And starting with you, Mr. Terwilliger, was President Clinton's move today in firing William Sessions justified?

MR. TERWILLIGER: I think it was, Charlayne. The issue comes down to what's best for the FBI and best for the country. And I think it's on that basis that the President made his decision. The institution is one of the most important ones in our government and, indeed, in our nation. And we simply can't have a situation where there is disarray and a deep-seeded morale problem that was caused by this lingering situation with the Director.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you say to that, Congressman Edwards, was it justified?

REP. EDWARDS: Well, I'm certainly not going to criticize the President or the attorney general. It's their call, not mine, and I think that the important thing to remember is that the 20,000 agents of the employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the American people are better off for having Director Sessions there for six years. The FBI is an enormously improved institution. Director Sessions ticked off a number of the improvements that have been made under his command, and there actually were more than that. The organization is a better place for having Director Sessions. I'm sorry to see him go, but it's a decision that I had nothing to do with, and I certainly accept it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But in your position, and you heard the President, President cite his reasons, he said there were serious questions about his leadership, that Mr. Sessions can no longer effectively lead the Bureau and the law enforcement community. Do you agree with that part?

REP. EDWARDS: Well, certainly the FBI has done some tremendously wonderful things in the last, in the last few years, and especially in the, in the last months of Director Sessions' reign, they arrested the alleged bombers of the World Trade Center within a very few days. They solved the problem of other terrorists in New York, arrested a whole group of them, and another in Los Angeles, just a few weeks ago of skinheads who were heavily armed.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me, but on the other hand, the President did say that there was a leadership vacuum there, and the agency was, in effect, adrift, a deep morale problem.

REP. EDWARDS: I'm perfectly satisfied with what the President said. I'm, I think the world of both the attorney general and the President. It's their decision, and I support them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Terwilliger, let me ask you this. In terms, you were a part of the investigation, leading the investigation that recommended this move many months ago now, but what do you think of how it happened today. The President abruptly called Mr. Sessions back from a meeting in Chicago where he was to address FBI agents at lunch and at dinner. Was this handled in the right way?

MR. TERWILLIGER: It's difficult for me to judge. It was certainly an awkward situation overall, Charlayne, and one would have hoped that it all could have gone smoother. But the Director apparently by his ownstatements today has steadfastly refused to resign despite requests relayed through the attorney general from the President that he do so. That's fairly astounding in and of itself to me. I think if the President indicates to a high government official that it's time to go, then it's time to go, absent some very inarticulable, inappropriate reason for the request.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about that, Congressman Edwards, the abrupt calling back and so on, and the refusal prompted in part by the refusal of Mr. Sessions to step down, how do you think that part of it was handled?

REP. EDWARDS: Well, that has been handled in a mixed way by everybody over the past three months. But it was handled so badly by former Attorney General Barr. He brought this report out, gave it to reporters, didn't even clue in the director, himself, and there I'm not going to disagree with anything in the report, but let me point out that there was no hint of criminal conduct in anything. I think that we ought to concentrate on the future of the FBI and all the fine people in it. They're better off, because Director Sessions is here, and I hope that the new director, whoever he or she is, will carry on in the same tradition of good change, good change, moving forward.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But what about Mr. Sessions' refusal to step down? Did he do the right thing? I mean, he said the reason he did it was he wanted to uphold the principles of an independent FBI. But you heard Mr. Terwilliger say that was an amazing thing for to do. What do you think about that?

REP. EDWARDS: Well, it's very important that there be an FBI Director that is not only independent -- and remember, I'm a veteran of Watergate, and I was on the impeachment committee of Richard Nixon, so we did not have an independent FBI, and they were corrupted by the White House. We must have, if we're going to have a real FBI, we must be independent.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, do you think that the firing of Mr. Sessions in any way compromises that or bodes ill for that?

REP. EDWARDS: Well, the law is that only the President can fire the FBI Director. And I presume that Director Sessions felt that if he resigned, he would be admitting something. He has been very steadfast in admitting or in fighting back and not agree that he had done anything wrong, however, I'm not judging the report. That is up to the President and Janet Reno.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Terwilliger, what about Mr. Sessions' defense of not stepping down, that he wanted to uphold the principle of an independent FBI, do you think that that is in any way being affected now negatively by this whole matter?

MR. TERWILLIGER: In all honesty, I don't, Charlayne. I really think that's a red herring, and perhaps Judge Sessions providing himself with a little bit of dignity on the way out, which he certainly deserves, and I do agree with Congressman Edwards, as we all did, that he did some positive things for the FBI, and I think the Clinton people can take confidence from the way this was handled going back to our days in the Bush administration. We were handed a report conducted by the Office of Professional Responsibility, career people at the Department of Justice, which indicated that the director of the FBI had engaged in some serious wrongdoing, not criminal to be sure, but the same kind of wrongdoing that would get an agent on the bricks, as Congressman Edwards once was, severely disciplined. We thought the action that we thought was appropriate, reprimanding the director and asking him to pay back certain funds to the Departmentfor inappropriate use of an airplane and automobile and so forth. We left it to the new administration to make a decision since they were the ones that were going to have to live with his tenure as to whether or not he should continue. I think although it seemed to have taken a long time, they made a deliberate, careful analysis of their own, of the facts that were in the report, and the overall situation and drew the conclusion that was time for a change. I don't think it does the FBI or the nation any good for Congressman Edwards to try to make a political issue out of this.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Although Attorney General Janet Reno said that the big problem that Mr. Sessions had was the agency's performance and his "hands off" management style, that seemed to weigh more heavily in the decision that she made to recommend his termination than the other matters that had been previously brought up.

MR. TERWILLIGER: Well, what I saw the President's remarks, Charlayne, he indicated it was a combination of things, and I do think that there was some dissatisfaction with the level of leadership and the degree of leadership that Director Sessions was, was carrying on, but what was on our plate was, in fact, these ethical violations, and we left those other matters for the new administration to consider.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Edwards, what about the suggestion that Mr. Sessions may have been the victim of an internal vendetta within, from within the FBI that many of them never liked him, that his efforts at reform to, to make the FBI look more like America, fighting discrimination, may have had something to do with it. What is your sense of this?

REP. EDWARDS: I don't think it had a lot to do with it, but there was a dissatisfaction amongst some of the agents and the employees when Director Sessions insisted on forming a new Office of Fair Employment and insisting that there be goals and timetables for hiring more women, more blacks, more Asians. It's very important to have Asians today and more Hispanics, so -- but there were people in the Bureau that liked him a lot and like in any organization, there were some who didn't like it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But it said that by many reports that I saw today that he had few supporters within the Bureau.

REP. EDWARDS: He had quite a number of supporters, a lot of them didn't want to go public. They felt that there was a risk, but we have quite a list of very strong supporters, and as a matter of fact, I've gotten a lot of mail since the argument first started, and 95 percent of it's very favorable, and a lot of it from the Department of Justice employees.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The administration has said that it wanted to avoid a messy fight, which is exactly what finally happened. How is this going to affect the ability of the next director who is said to be the President's planning team to appoint tomorrow? How do you think this is going to affect the agency, itself, and the ability of the next person, whoever it is, to handle it?

REP. EDWARDS: Well, I would hope that the message doesn't get out that he was removed because there was a cabal. I reject that. It would be a terrible thing if the new director came in and there was a feeling in the higher echelons of the FBI that by expressing dissatisfaction and rumor mongering that they could somehow get rid of this director. That's certainly something we never want, and I don't think we have it now, and I don't expect it to take place in the future.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Briefly, Mr. Terwilliger, just what kind of road do you think the new director is going to have to hold and after all of this?

MR. TERWILLIGER: Well, this is baggage that will come with the agency, Charlayne, when a new director starts, but I don't think there's any inside cabal or any other sort of disloyalty to the director or to the FBI as an institution --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

MR. TERWILLIGER: -- on the part of the people who were there. I think the new director will need to carefully chart out his course and make sure that the FBI is not politicized, including making sure that people aren't whistled over to the White House to provide political cover on, on things like the Travel Office fiasco.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, Mr. Terwilliger and Congressman Edwards, thank you for joining us.

MR. TERWILLIGER: Thank you, Charlayne. FOCUS - WATER LOGGED

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight an update on the flood situation in the Midwest. Last night, the Mississippi River set another high water record, 46.9 feet at St. Louis. The level went down a bit today, but the battle to hold back the water is certainly not over. Elizabeth Brackett reports.

MS. BRACKETT: In St. Charles County, the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers have cut a new channel. They now meet 20 miles further upstream. And the county that has always treasured its location between the two great rivers is now 40 percent underwater.

MAN: We're going to have get more baggers on these lines here, or we're going to lose that.

OTHER MAN: We're not getting that many. If you've got any way of getting ahold of any people, we're not getting that many people showing up today like we have had.

SPOKESMAN: We called yesterday -- we just called all -- we had ladies from our church that couldn't be here calling on churches and it was so hot. I mean, people were --

MS. BRACKETT: On the grounds yesterday the approaching crest only increased the intensity of the fight to hold back the water. Over the last 12 days, parishioners of this tiny Baptist church just north of St. Louis were joined by neighbors, friends and strangers as sandbag by sandbag they built a wall that stood over seven feet tall in some spots. The exhausted Baptist minister, Ken Spilger, surveyed their work.

REV. KEN SPILGER: I've just, you know, I have a lot of thoughts. I, No. 1, it makes me see who's in control. We aren't. I believe God has given us wisdom. He's given us abilities and strength to try to do something about it, you know, and take care of the resources he's entrusted to us that we can. We aren't going to control it.

MS. BRACKETT: One reason there is so much tension here is that this is not a levee. The levee is a half a mile off that way, and it was reached about a week ago. This was a wall, a wall of sandbags built by volunteers and built without the supervision or the engineering advice from the Army Corps of Engineers, and a wall they now hope will hold back the billions of gallons of water that are flowing down the Mississippi. Organizing much of the effort was homeowner Tom Scott. A pipefitter by trade, Scott has some construction experience, but never has he lived through something as frustrating as trying to stay ahead of the ever rising river.

TOM SCOTT: With all the rain up north and out west, it just kept on going. We had to keep bagging to stay on top of it. And every day they'd say well, tomorrow, it'll crest at 42.5, so on, and it keeps you encouraged, but as of right now I still don't know where it's going to crest. And that's why we're really disappointed.

MS. BRACKETT: And yesterday morning just before church, Scott got more bad news. The latest crest prediction was 47 feet. That would bring the water over the top of their wall. It was too much for both Scott and his wife.

TOM SCOTT: I don't even live here. I woke up at 3 and couldn't go back to sleep.

REV. KEN SPILGER: The guy down here probably a week ago said, I just wish I could go home. He said, when I come home, this is it. It's incredible.

[RELIGIOUS SERVICE]

MS. BRACKETT: As the Sunday service began, the sandbaggers outside stuck to their task. Even inside, the river came first.

SPOKESMAN: So far the reading is 46.6 at the Corps of Engineers and Betty Scott told us that they're forecasting -- now this is unofficial, but they're looking at maybe another foot, and -- [pause] -- we need to pray. God's word teaches us that we humble ourselves as we kneel. The Lord's scripture records many miracles. We're asking for a miracle today.

MS. BRACKETT: After the service, the sandbagging resumed in earnest.

MAN: We need a bagger.

MS. BRACKETT: But more and more water was seeping through the sandbags, and the tremendous bowing of water on the other side of those sandbags was making the fire marshall nervous.

BOB RITTER, Fire Marshall, Spanish Lake, MO: It's getting more dangerous by the minute. From where we have water behind that wall, there's a lot of pressure. If it would give, you get like a tidal wave action. It could kill people, and we don't want that.

MS. BRACKETT: At 3:30, officials conference. Disappointed volunteers left the wall behind Tom Scott's house. The utility truck arrived, the power was cut, the pumps were pulled.

TOM SCOTT: The guys had to do what they had to do. To me, if you lost one life, it would be --

MS. BRACKETT: But you haven't. You're to be commended for the kind of work you've done.

TOM SCOTT: But anyway in the back of my mind we have still won. We've held the water back of that wall and there may be just a seeping coming around it, maybe that's all we've still got to fight. Who knows? If it crests tonight and stays and goes down, we've done a tremendous, good job I think.

MS. BRACKETT: Oh higher ground than Scott's house, the church could still be saved. Sandbaggers laid down a new line of defense. Exhausted volunteers kept the bags coming until late afternoon. By morning, seepage water was already a foot high around the Scotts' house. But the great Baptist church was still dry. And the wall that Tom Scott and an army of volunteers had built was still standing -- for now. RECAP

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Again, the main stories of this Monday, President Clinton said his new gays in the military policy was an honorable compromise. The policy would allow gays to serve but only if they refrain from open expressions of homosexuality. And the President fired FBI Director William Sessions after he refused to resign voluntarily. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night with a look at the background of Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.