The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we look at the reasons behind the government's plea bargain with confessed spy Aldrich Ames. We have a report on the abortion protest case argued today before the Supreme Court and continuing her South African election coverage, Charlayne Hunter- Gault talks to a black poet. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: Former CIA official Aldrich Ames and his wife entered guilty pleas today on charges of spying for the former Soviet Union and Russia. They also pleaded guilty to tax evasion on the $2 1/2 million they were paid for their espionage. In a plea bargain, the 52-year-old Ames was sentenced to life in prison without parole. He agreed to cooperate with a government investigation of the damage he caused. Mrs. Ames's lawyer said her sentence would depend in part on her husband's cooperation. At today's hearing, the government revealed that at least 11 agents had been compromised by Ames to the KGB. Most were executed, arrested, or had disappeared. The U.S. Attorney called it the most damaging spy case in the history of the country. We'll have more on the story right after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The Supreme Court heard arguments today on a case involving protests at an abortion clinic. It stems from a Florida court decision creating no speech, no protest zones around a clinic in Melbourne, Florida. Today's appeal was brought by members of Operation Rescue who were arrested outside the clinic. One of them, Judy Madsen, says her free speech rights were violated. She and those representing the clinic spoke to reporters.

JUDY MADSEN, Plaintiff: Where in the first amendment does it say that I must obtain permission from an abortion clinic before I can speak? Why must my speech be censored? This suppression is discriminatory and unAmerican.

ELEANOR SMEAL, Feminist Majority Foundation: Remember, as we stand here, there are restrictions on where you can demonstrate at the Supreme Court, because we must protect the safety of the court and the justices. Are the lives of doctors and patients of less worth? We think time, place, and restrictioned manners around such demonstrations are necessary and justifiable in this atmosphere of violence.

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

MR. MAC NEIL: President Clinton said today he wanted to separate the Social Security Administration from the Department of Health & Human Services. Such a proposal is now before Congress. Mr. Clinton said he thinks an independent agency would work better, and he said many people believe it would help guarantee the long-term integrity of the fund. He also said the government will soon begin providing new information about Social Security accounts.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We're going to start as soon as we can on a limited basis sending out statements to the American people. But within the next four or five years, we'll be able to send out statements to everybody in the country every year on their Social Security account. Here's what you've got in it. Here's how much money it's earned. Here's what you can look forward to getting out.

MR. MAC NEIL: This was the second annual Take Our Daughters To Work Day aimed at boosting self-esteem and expanding career horizons for girls. The White House was one of the work places visited today. The President and Mrs. Clinton and Vice President Gore hosted a lunch for more than 200 daughters of administration officials and reporters, as well as girls from a nearby school. Mr. Clinton said this to them.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The real message of this day, I think, is twofold. One is that we have to find a way to make it possible for all Americans to be successful as workers and successful as parents at the same time. We don't want there to be a division between our obligations to our children and our obligations to our work. And the second is we want to say to the young women of our society, you can grow up to do anything, to be anything, to achieve anything that your imagination, and your effort and your talent will let you achieve.

MR. MAC NEIL: A number of companies refused to participate in the Take Our Daughters To Work program, saying it discriminated against boys.

MR. LEHRER: Twenty-four Navy midshipmen will be expelled from the Naval Academy in the school's largest cheating scandal. They were among 71 Midshipmen who were caught cheating on a 1992 engineering exam. Each case was reviewed individually. The expulsions were ordered by Navy Sec. John Dalton. The House Judiciary Committee voted today to ban 19 types of assault weapons. The vote was 20 to 15. The bill now goes to the full House, where it could be voted on as early as next week. The Senate approved a similar ban last year as part of an overall crime bill.

MR. MAC NEIL: Rising interest rates in the unusually bitter winter took their toll on the nation's economy in the first quarter. The government reported today that output of goods and services expanded at an annual rate of only 2.6 percent. That compared with 7 percent growth in the final three months of last year. Delta Airlines said it will be handing pink slips to as many as 15,000 of its employees, or about 20 percent of its work force. Delta made the announcement in reporting it lost nearly $80 million for the first quarter. The job cuts will happen over three years and are designed to slash costs against low fare rivals. Cost cutting helped the nation's No. 1 automaker enjoy a healthy profit in the first quarter. General Motors said it earned $854 million, also reflecting stronger North American sales.

MR. LEHRER: Israel and the PLO announced agreement today on the specifics of Palestinian self-rule in the Gaza Strip and Jericho. The announcement in Cairo said the agreement is expected to be formally signed next Wednesday. The deal followed talks involving Sec. of State Christopher, PLO Chairman Arafat, Israeli Foreign Minister Peres, and Egyptian President Mubarak. A U.S. warplane based on the carrier Saratoga crashed in the Adriatic Sea today. The pilot ejected from the Navy FA-18 fighter bomber but was killed. The plane went down shortly after take-off. It was participating in NATO patrols of the no-fly zone over Bosnia. There was no immediate word on the cause of the crash.

MR. MAC NEIL: South African officials today extended voting in the country's historic all-race elections by an extra day in some areas. Polls now will be open until Friday, where long lines, a shortage of ballots, and other problems have disrupted the voting. The polls originally were scheduled to close this evening, and most outside the black homelands did so. The election has given blacks in South Africa the right to choose their government for the first time since the country was established more than 300 years ago. Heavy fighting broke out again today in the Rwandan capital, Kigali. U.N. officials said it was making it impossible to deliver emergency relief supplies. A renewed battle for power broke out between the two main tribal groups earlier this month. A hundred thousand people are believed to have been killed. Nearly all foreigners, including most U.N. peacekeepers, have fled the country.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Ames guilty plea, abortion protesting, and a first time voters in South Africa. FOCUS - AMES - SPY CASE

MR. MAC NEIL: We lead with the plea bargain struck today with Aldrich Ames, the former CIA chief of counterintelligence. Ames was sentenced to life imprisonment after admitting selling information to Moscow and unmasking many CIA agents. We'll analyze the Ames case after going through today's events with Stuart Taylor, senior writer for American Lawyer Magazine. Stuart, thanks for coming. First, you went to the courthouse today and like a lot of other journalists, you couldn't get in. Why was that?

MR. TAYLOR: About three-quarters of us were locked out, I'd estimate, forty or fifty journalists; fifteen got in, along with a lot of government personnel. The reason apparently was that although this is the most damaging spy case in history by the government's account, the judge, Claude Hilton, chose to use a small courtroom, which he usually uses, that doesn't have many seats in it, and there is a very large courtroom in that courthouse. For reasons that haven't been explained, as far as I know, the judge chose to use the small one. That made it inevitable that not everybody could get in.

MR. MAC NEIL: What is the speculation about why he would do that? Among you reporters what is the speculation?

MR. TAYLOR: He has not said why he would do that. That particular judge's relations with some parts of the press have been frosty at times, as have that particular U.S. Attorney's Office in Alexandria, Virginia. And there were a lot of very angry reporters who gave the U.S. Attorney, Helen Fayhe, a fairly tough reception when she had a press conference later on. Also, it won't improve the relationship.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ames is accepting this plea bargain to protect his wife, or to help his wife. Just explain.

MR. TAYLOR: His wife and their five-year-old son. I think that's clear. And the reason it's clear is that he is agreeing to receive a life sentence without parole, which is the toughest sentence he could possibly get. The government couldn't do anything more to him after a trial. There is no death penalty currently in effect for espionage in this country. And both his statements and the prosecution's statements and the whole structure of the plea agreement, which is based on his wife being sentenced four months from now, after he has had an opportunity to cooperate fully in explaining what he did, and make it clear that that really does seem to be his central motivation in all this today.

MR. MAC NEIL: He was claiming that the government had from the beginning made out a much harsher, he called it vindictive case against her than he claimed was justified, that she wasn't really a part of it. Could you just elaborate on how he explained his wife's role in this.

MR. TAYLOR: He did say that by his own explanation and hers, which the government doesn't contradict all that directly. She didn't know anything about his spying activity until 1992 when she was going through his wallet or something and found a piece of paper that led her to question him and him to confess it. And by his account and her account, she objected to his activity. She asked him to stop, and he blackmailed her, his words, through various sort of means, he promised to stop, he said, "We can't afford to anger the Russians." He said, "Your mother might be injured." And he kept doing it and enlisted her in it. So although it seems a little hard to understand where she would have thought all the money was coming from all those years, $2 1/2 million by the end, his explanation to her supposedly was he had a friend in Chicago, an old friend, who was investing for him or giving him money or something, and somewhat to my surprise, when I questioned the FBI agent in charge of the Washington office about this, he said, "Yes, we believe that. We believe that she didn't know until 1992." Now at the same time, she pleaded guilty to tax fraud beginning in 1995 [1985], every since 1995 [1985], she admits they were not reporting all their income on their taxes. And she also pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting his activity through conspiratorial activities since 1992.

MR. MAC NEIL: The prosecution says he unmasked many agents, as many as 11, I think, and probably caused them to be killed, some of them anyway. Describe that.

MR. TAYLOR: I think they named four who, who they asserted had been executed after he exposed them.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, these are not Americans. These were Russians, or Soviets.

MR. TAYLOR: All Russians, I believe, many of them KGB agents, one of them supposed a Russian general. To give on example that's elaborated in the documents that were put out today there was someone code named G.T. Cowell, who was a Russian agent of some kind who was providing information to the CIA. And G.T. Cowell supposedly told the CIA about something called spy dust, which is an invisible powder that the Russians would put on American diplomats to help follow them around or surveill them in some way while presumably, while they were in the Soviet Union. This was deemed important enough so that President Reagan ultimately complained to the Russians about the spy dust. According to the documents made public today, Ames exposed G.T. Cowell to his Russian handlers as an American agent. And G.T. Cowell was arrested and executed.

MR. MAC NEIL: But despite those results, Ames said in his statement today that he didn't think that mattered very much. He says -- we have this quote -- "I do not believe that our nation's interests have been noticeably damaged by my acts, or, for that matter, those of the Soviet Union or Russia noticeably aided." What do the prosecutors say about that?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, Helen Fayhe, the U.S. Attorney at the press conference I mentioned, had said two things in response to that at least. One, she said he, traded people's lives for 2 1/2 million dollars. And she said Mr. Ames was trying hard today to rationalize and justify his behavior. So although they didn't give a detailed rebuttal and make an argument that yes, this activity is valuable, they clearly are contradicting him. Also, it should be noted that the indictment, the count of the indictment conspiracy to commit espionage to which he pled guilty says that he provided information relating to the defense of the United States with the intent and reason to believe that the same would be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign power. So he's on the hook for admitting that much.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let me read another piece of his statement, which we also have on the screen. He says the whole business is a sham. And I'd like to know what the prosecutor's reaction to this. I'll just read it. "I had come to believe that the espionage business, as carried out by the CIA and a few other American agencies, was and is a self-serving sham, carried out by careerist bureaucrats who have managed to deceive several generations of American policymakers and the public about both the necessity and the value of their work. There is and has been no rational need for thousands of case officers and tens of thousands of agents working around the world, primarily in and against friendly countries. The information our vast espionage acquires at considerable human and ethical costs is generally insignificant or irrelevant to our policymakers' needs." What was the reaction to that? It's a rather extraordinary statement for a former CIA official.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, it was. The prosecutor's reaction is these are predictably self-serving statements by a man who has no standing to be a critic of the espionage activities at this stage in his life, certainly, and by a man who would rather be perceived as some sort of a political dissenter than as a man who sold out his country and the lives of various Russians for money. They say it was all about money; the rest of this is just his after-the-fact rationalization.

MR. MAC NEIL: We've heard the Ames's purpose to reduce his wife's sentence. What is the government's purpose in the, in accepting this plea bargain? What do they want from him?

MR. TAYLOR: They, they avoid a trial, and of course, they avoid the acquittal, the risk that he would be acquitted or that she would be acquitted. That's a very small risk. What they avoid that's more important to them are two things. One, they hate espionage trials, the government does, because there's all sorts of information that in the interest of a fair trial needs to come out that the CIA hates to have come out. And certainly part for a very legitimate reason. These are national security secrets. We don't want to compromise more foreign agents in order to convict this guy for having compromised foreign agents, for example. Some critics would say they're also trying to avoid embarrassment because it has been a huge embarrassment to the CIA that this man managed to spy for the Russians for so long while driving a Jaguar into the CIA parking lot every day, and that it would just be pounded into them in the course of a criminal trial. A third thing they get is they get his full cooperation right up front. It's very important to our government, to the CIA, to the FBI counterintelligence people to have him debrief them on all the things he told the Russians so they can try and do more damage control.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, Stuart Taylor, thank you.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you.

MR. MAC NEIL: Jim.

MR. LEHRER: We get three more views of this now. David Whipple is a 35-year veteran of the operations directorate of the Central Intelligence Agency. He's now executive director of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. George Carver was deputy for national intelligence to two CIA directors. He's now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Congressman Dan Glickman, Democrat of Kansas, is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, first of all, what do you make of Ames' statement about this whole espionage business being pretty much of a sham?

REP. GLICKMAN: Well, I think it's self-serving. He has been basically convicted and has agreed to a plea for the biggest spy case in years, if not ever, and he sold his country out. He is guilty of treason and espionage and so I think he's trying to cover himself with interesting perspectives and perspectives that other people periodically share to some degree. But I don't think it's particularly relevant to his particular case, which he deliberately sold his country out for money and he will pay the consequences for that.

MR. LEHRER: So what about his point -- forgetting what his self- serving interest in saying this was -- his point that the -- there are several generations of American policy measures in the public about both the necessity and value of their work. In other words, the public, he says, and folks like you have been deceived by the bureaucrats at the CIA and others in the intelligence community. Are there others who feel that way besides Aldrich Ames?

REP. GLICKMAN: Oh, I think that in the broader picture and particularly the end of the Cold War, it's time for us to go back and re-evaluate what the intelligence community does. There's pretty much unanimity that their satellites and their ability to pick up intercepted signals is very important for this country, particularly for our military security, but for intelligence generally. But in the aftermath of the Cold War and in the aftermath of the Ames case, we're going to examine a lot more carefully and a lot more closely how they use spies, whether they are needed as we once thought they were, particularly when Moscow was the entire focus of our intelligence operation. So while I don't agree with the specifics of what he says, I do think now is the time for us to examine how the CIA and the other intelligence agencies use people in the espionage business, and maybe there are less risky ways to do this kind of business in the more modern world.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Whipple, do you agree that this is the time to at least explore those questions?

MR. WHIPPLE: I think these questions are being explored all the time. I think that this is a process that's going on inside the intelligence community right now and will continue to be. I think that world changes that have taken place, intelligence has to be considerably different than it were during Cold War. And I think that the idea of investigating the intelligence community is a little misplaced. It ought to be, the intelligence community ought to be adjusting to new requirements, which I think they're doing.

MR. LEHRER: But the suggestion has been made not just by Aldrich Ames but by others that, that the worst people to ask to do that are the people who have the most to gain by the system continuing the way it is.

MR. WHIPPLE: No. There are people in the intelligence community whose job it is to assess these things who make a living assessing these things from an objective point of view. I don't think it's the doers of human source collections that the Congressman referred to who are going to judge themselves. I think you'd be quite right then.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Carver, what about the additional point that Ames makes that the information our vast network requires at considerable human and ethical cost is "generally insignificant or irrelevant to our policymakers' needs." You were involved for years in delivering intelligence information to our policymakers. Comment on that charge.

MR. CARVER: Well, it's simply not true, and again, as everyone else has said, this statement is largely a piece of self-serving dribble. The intelligence information acquired by humans often provides the one key missing piece of the puzzle. Satellites and technology are wonderful, Jim, for answering the what question, how many tanks are rolling around, et cetera, but they are lousy to answering the why question, whether these tanks are there for a feint or because of a prelude to invasion to ascertain intentions you need human beings, you need human beings in the proper place, human beings have given priceless intelligence over the course of the past few decades, and they will be necessary in the future.

MR. LEHRER: What about the argument that not only people in your business make but trial lawyers, police officers, reporters, people in my line of work say the worst witness is an eyewitness, and you must always verify, verify, verify, verify, you must have more than one source, electronic means, all kinds of everything.

MR. CARVER: Well, of course. Human intelligence is not the only kind of intelligence. What humans provide has got to be collated with what other humans provide and with all the fruits of technological wizardry. But there is an essential -- the human ingredient, to my mind, is essential, particularly as we face the future. It's a great myth that the CIA and the intelligence community, of which the agency is the linchpin is forged as an instrument for fighting the Cold War, therefore, since the Cold War is over, you don't need the instrument. The National Security Act of '47, which set up the present community was devised or at least Section 102, which -- the intelligence section -- to keep the United States from ever being hit by another surprise on the order of Pearl Harbor, and in the turbulent world in which we live, it is essential that the U.S. be protected from further surprises. And for that reason, it is going to need superb intelligence, even more intelligence than he needed during the height of the Cold War.

MR. LEHRER: But Congressman Glickman, if I understood what you were saying to begin with, that may be all well and good, but at the same time things have changed to a point that maybe the way the CIa goes about their business should be examined, is that correct?

REP. GLICKMAN: Absolutely. I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that we had -- we did justify this agency based upon the Communist threat, and that has changed considerably. I do think there are some folks in the intelligence community who are looking for new missions to justify the work they do. Now this is not to say that issues involving nuclear proliferation and terrorism -- those kinds of things are, are very important, they are, and they require an active, effective intelligence, but we just cannot go on with the status quo. The fact of the matter is, is that we have to look at where we use spies. We have to look at how we use them. We have to look at what we can get from other sources. We have to look at the embarrassment it does to the United States of America. These are questions we can now ask. It doesn't mean that there aren't threats facing this country, but it does mean, particularly after the Ames case, in which we've seen the intelligence community or at least parts of it not function as well as they should have and finding out and rooting out this problem, that we have got to ascertain whether the billions that we spend are worth it, and while substantially they're worth it, whether changes are needed, particularly in how we collect information using human beings. And that -- those are appropriate questions to ask. It doesn't mean you're anti-intelligence. It doesn't mean that you don't want a strong CIA or intelligence community, but it does mean that the Ames case gives us an opportunity to dissect the intelligence community and determine what we ought to be doing in the future.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Whipple, is it your position that even to ask the kinds of questions that Congressman Glickman is asking is anti- intelligence and destructive to the intelligence community?

MR. WHIPPLE: No. I think the asking of those questions is very positive and a very good idea, but I'm amused always to hear the assertion that people are looking for a new mission who are in the intelligence, because it seems to me the new position is presented to the country. Look at the number of flash points and trouble areas around the world which are covered every night on your program. All of these are intelligence targets. I retired as recently as 1985. Today's intelligence community is a far cry from the intelligence community I served in as late as 1985. The ways we go about collecting intelligence in the broader sense, the various areas of the world which affect national intelligence interests very severely are myriad compared to the Cold War period.

MR. LEHRER: Well, what about the techniques that are used, I mean, the methods that the CIA uses, is the need for human -- what do you call it -- the official term you used a minute ago -- spies is what the rest of us call it.

MR. WHIPPLE: Human source collection.

MR. LEHRER: Human source collection. Is that, do you believe, based on your inside knowledge, that that same need, that need is as high now as it has always been, particularly when dealing with the Soviet Union, the old Soviet Union?

MR. WHIPPLE: I think without human sources, without human spies, we would never have caught Ames in the first place. I think that without human source collection, to give the thought beneath the intelligence, if your target is a country or a leader, Saddam Hussein about to attack Kuwait, you need to understand Saddam Hussein as well as understand his capabilities and his, his readiness to march against Kuwait. Now technological, technical collection will give you the capability, but you need human source to tell you exactly what the intentions are, and that's what Dr. Carver was just talking about.

MR. LEHRER: But, Dr. Carver, Ames says that these spy wars that you two engaged in and others are still engaging in was basically "a side show which had no real impact on our significant security interests over the years."

MR. CARVER: Well, that's simply not true, and intelligence has had an enormous impact on security interests. One of the most serious defectors, the serious moles, was George Blake. The Soviets thought he was so important --

MR. LEHRER: He's a British --

MR. CARVER: He's a British -- they gave him a direct, a -- the order of Lenin, which they gave to only one other person, Richard Sorga. Now Sorga -- well, for performing that function -- Sorga's intelligence that the Japanese were not going to go out of Manchuria and hit Soviet Siberia made Stalin willing to transfer the divisions from the East to Moscow in time to fend off the German invasion. If it hadn't been for that piece of human intelligence, the whole course of the war would have been different. Time without number, during the course of the past few decades, humans have provided an absolutely key ingredient. They will continue to do so. Now the chairman of the Oversight Committee, who's a friend of mine, and I respect, we may differ a little bit on principle and how things should go about them, but you cannot rely solely on technological whiz bangs to do all of your work for you. This is a mistake, I fear, that Adm. Turner made when he was director of Central Intelligence. There's got to be a human input, a human ingredient, and that is going to involve having humans work for you, and it is also going to involve, and this is where Ames was so damaging, humans being willing to cooperate with you on the assurance that the fact of their cooperation is not going to become public knowledge or be divulged to their own superiors. Ames has not only betrayed people and cost them their lives, but he also made it extremely difficult for the time being for us to get other people to cooperate with the United States, because they will ask the logical question of, gee, how can we safely do that if there might be other Ameses rattling around in your woodwork?

REP. GLICKMAN: Jim, may I --

MR. LEHRER: Yes, Congressman.

REP. GLICKMAN: I agree with that to some degree, but I must tell you that the recruitment of spies, the hiring of agents overseas, particularly when they work for foreign governments, it requires exquisite management. I mean, you see the risks are so great, and we saw that in the Ames case. People died because of this man selling out his country. But what we have found is, is that the management within the operation of the intelligence community maybe just hasn't kept up with the changes in the world, and I'm not blaming anybody in particular. I'm saying it's happened over a period of years. So if you are going to do this kind of human source collection or spies, you have to make sure that your security systems are up to speed, that your management is up to speed, and that people are paying attention to details. That is what was missing in the operation of the intelligence community more than I would have liked to have seen it. So if the intelligence community wants to engage in spying, where appropriate, where necessary, they sure as hell better know what to do and how to do it in order to avoid the problems the Ames case prevented.

MR. CARVER: You're right on that. I mean, you've got to handle these things professionally and carefully, which is why they shouldn't be done by amateurs. But the fact that they need to be handled properly is not an argument for saying that you don't need them.

MR. LEHRER: But, Mr. Whipple, isn't the Ames case an argument for something new at the, in the intelligence community, a better management? That's what the Congressman is saying.

MR. WHIPPLE: I would agree with the Congressman that there has to be a perfection of the way we go about it. There has to be a greater sensitivity. There has to be less emphasis on protecting the privacy of individual members of CIA. There has to be a little bit of a more stringent surveillance of them and their private and personal behavior in order to be able to understand and to evaluate correctly these things that seem to us to be so evident, the expensive car, the large income, the money all over the place, the new house, all the rest of it. If these things weren't a signal to people to do something, then there's something wrong.

MR. CARVER: Jim, to an extent, you need not to go forward but to go backward. Ames -- no one has a constitutional right to a security clearance, and the price of the poker there is surrendering a measure of privacy, letting people check in your finances. Similarly, nobody should be allowed to travel abroad without telling the agency, as it's required by regulation to do, that he is so doing. A very simple way to do that is require every agency employee to leave their passports with the agency and draw them out when they wanted to travel. Also, nobody when I was a young case officer, if you wanted to marry a foreign national, you had to provide enough information for a detailed security, you had to submit a formal application, attached to which had to be a signed, undated letter of resignation. Now, Ames committed what in my day would have been regarded as a heinous offense of getting romantically involved with someone he developed operationally. If his resignation had been accepted when he married his Colombian wife, then we would have avoided all these problems.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Glickman, as I read what's going on, at least on the Hill and also from what Director Woolsey has said, that these kinds of things that Mr. Whipple and Mr. Carver are talking about, if they're not in the works, they're going to be shortly, is that right? These things are now being changed, is that correct?

REP. GLICKMAN: I think both the agency, as well as Congress, are on their way to making changes in security, make changes in how counterintelligence is conducted, and we in Congress are also looking very closely at the budget of the intelligence community, because, after all, our best oversight is monitoring very closely how they spend the money.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead on the NewsHour, the right to protest case in the Supreme Court, and a Soweto view of the South African election. FOCUS - GAG ORDER?

MR. MAC NEIL: Next tonight, abortion rights versus free speech. As we reported earlier, that was at issue today in a thorny Supreme Court case that the Justices, themselves, called confusing and complicated. The case involves restraining orders which prohibit anti-abortion protesters from hindering or harassing patients or staff at abortion clinics. Christopher Gillette of public station WPBT, Miami, reports from Melbourne, Florida.

CHRISTOPHER GILLETTE, WPBT: Melbourne is a quiet, conservative tourist town of 60,000 on Central Florida's Atlantic Coast. Neither the police nor the city government was prepared for the escalating tension three years ago when anti-abortion activists besieged the town's only abortion clinic. Lawyers for the clinic say local authorities feared adverse political fallout from conservative constituents, or costly lawsuits if they arrested the demonstrators en masse, though clinic owner Patricia Windle sought relief from the courts and won two injunctions restricting the activities of anti-abortion protesters around her clinic.

PATRICIA WINDLE, Clinic Operator: If this had only been a free speech issue, we would never have gone to court. As an ardent admirer of the first amendment, I found no problem with peaceable demonstrations on this sidewalk. What we found a problem with was the mobs, the screaming, the ugly content of their speech. We found the potential for a riot. The cops were terrified all the time. We found the consequences of their behavior was definitely aimed to hurt women.

MR. GILLETTE: The injunctions Windle obtained from the two lower courts prohibits activists from passing out leaflets. The patients and staff on clinic grounds are within a 36-foot buffer zone around the clinic. It also prohibited loud noise during the hours surgery is performed. Most egregious, according to the appellants in the case, is a provision that prohibits displays of anti-abortion literature or placards within sight of the clinic. Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said the injunctions also went so far as to restrict the activities of anyone with a pro-life viewpoint, regardless of their behavior around the clinic.

MATHEW STAVER, Lawyer: The judge needs to and the courts need to be very specific when they are restricting activities that will involve free speech. Stop the abuser, but don't take the abuser's activity and paint everyone with the same brush, and try to restrict only the activities and not the free speech areas.

MR. GILLETTE: Judy Madsen is the appellant named in the case. She is appealing the lower court's ruling to the Supreme Court. She concedes she and other pro-life activists at the clinic aggressively try to get their message across, but she insists they are acting in good faith.

JUDY MADSEN, Anti-abortion Activist: If they don't want to talk to us, then certainly they're not being forced to talk with us. We're there. We're there offering information. We feel they have a right to know. We feel that they ought to know -- many of these women don't know how extreme some of the complications are -- some of the procedures.

PATRICIA WINDLE: The police will do nothing to make them deter their behavior.

MR. GILLETTE: Patricia Windle hired attorney Talbot D'Alemberte, one of three representing the Aware Woman's Clinic, the plaintiff in the case. He is president of Florida State University at Tallahassee. D'Alemberte says the case has little to do with first amendment rights. According to him, anti-abortion protesters violate the clinic's legal right to operate.

TALBOT D'ALEMBERTE, Lawyer: What the court found was that they were engaged in activity which blocked access to the clinic. Now, again, they may have been saying something while they were engaged in that activity, but it was the activity, itself, which brought about the court order. They can say anything they want. They just can't say it standing in the clinic driveway. And that's what this court order is about.

MR. GILLETTE: The lawyer for the anti-abortion advocates seems to agree on the notion of activity versus speech.

MATHEW STAVER: I think you draw the line by, No. 1, trying to restrict the activity rather than the speech. The activity is trespassing. That's what the interest of the clinic is. They don't want people trespassing, the activity of blocking entrance to this clinic or touching or abusing individuals going in and out of that clinic. That's what the interest is. Stop that activity, but don't go beyond that to restrict free speech.

WOMAN: What most women describe the surgery like is like having a menstrual like cramping for maybe about ten, fifteen minutes.

MR. GILLETTE: Michele Waters was 17 when she had an abortion at the Aware Woman's Clinic in Melbourne. She had dropped out of high school in the ninth grade, and says she wasn't ready to raise a child.

MICHELE WATERS: I understand that they have their own opinion, and I respect that, but we have ours too, and I'm not telling them, well, if you get pregnant, you can't have it, because that's not my, that's not my decision to make. It's theirs.

MR. GILLETTE: Susan Beem Berry is an episcopal priest and a volunteer at the clinic. She's one of many abortion rights activists who find it difficult to separate the pro-life message from the activity of protesters.

REV. SUSAN BEEM BERRY: I've seen them surround clinic defenders and pray for their death. I've seen them stand outside the recovery room and yell, "Mommy, mommy, why did you kill me? I had blue eyes. My name was Jennifer." I've seen them talk to sick women who are leaving the clinic at night saying, "You murdered your baby. You're going to hell." And so what I find ironic is that in the name of religion, they are so hateful and so vicious.

KIM: Ma'am will you just take a pamphlet, please. We can help you.

MR. GILLETTE: Pro-life activists argue they have the right to voice their voices. Kim, and this man, who refused to give his name, spend many of their days outside the clinic, attempting to distribute leaflets which the injunctions prohibit. They say the injunctions deny them the right to express their views, no matter how objectionable they might be.

KIM: Well, of course, it's unjust. It's free speech.

MR. GILLETTE: You see it as a free speech issue?

KIM: Absolutely. These women have a right to know what is going on in this place.

MR. GILLETTE: But do you think they also have a right to come here if they so choose?

KIM: From a Godly aspect, no. God says do not commit murder, and this is murder.

ANONYMOUS MAN: If we don't speak for the unborn, we are no better than the Germans in Nazi Germany that said we can ignore the Jews being taken away.

MR. GILLETTE: Both sides in this legal struggle expect to be vindicated.

MATHEW STAVER: What we are seeing in the issue of abortion activity and free speech around clinics is what I call the neo- McCarthyism of the 90's, the new McCarthyism. Anyone who has a pro- life viewpoint is now sucked in and lumped together with the worst elements of the pro-life movement.

TALBOT D'ALEMBERTE: I'd always thought I was a pretty ordinary doctor and to say that you can protest something going on, we can stand out at the gates of the White House, and hold up our signs and be heard, we don't get to block off the White House, we don't get to say you can't enter the White House, and you can't block access.

MR. GILLETTE: Regardless of the constitutionality of the injunction, neither side is likely to change its activity.

JUDY MADSEN: To me, they are death camps, because there's no name that fits them better or graphically depicts what occurs inside the walls.

PATRICIA WINDLE: Feel under siege? You'd better believe it. Feel afraid? Yes, indeed. Gonna quit? No, I don't think so.

MR. GILLETTE: If the court finds in favor of buffer zones, the ruling may serve to reduce the confrontations at abortion clinics and provide more legal protection to clinic owners. But everyone agrees the debate over legalized abortion will not end with the Supreme Court's decision in this case.

MR. MAC NEIL: Earlier this week, legislation that would make it a federal offense to block access to abortion clinics was approved by a House-Senate Conference Committee. FOCUS - APARTHEID'S PEOPLE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a report from South Africa. It is the one seen on the NewsHour in some areas of the country last night but not in others because of the funeral of former President Richard Nixon. Either as a second or a first look, it's the story of a black man who voted yesterday for the first time in his life. Charlayne Hunter-Gault first met him when she was there in 1985.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In the build-up to today's historic vote, it didn't take much to produce an air of celebration. And most events eventually turned political, like the ceremony renaming the Black Baraguanas Hospital for ANC martyr Chris Hani. It is here that we caught up with Mtutu Matshoba, a poet whose work is head of the ANC's arts and cultural affairs office, is a far cry from what he was doing when we first met him nine years ago. Back in 1985, Matshoba was one of a small but growing black middle class who each morning left the Soweto township where blacks were forced to live for their journey into the white world, some 30 minutes away by train but light years away in circumstances.

MTUTU MATSHOBA: It's like living in one world, and going over to another. I have to prepare myself mentally for a work situation where I meet completely different people than those with whom I stay in the township. I see this dual way of life as a challenge to me, because it gives me an opportunity to prove myself in the so-called white world.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Matshoba worked in a white advertising agency, earning about $9,000 a year as a specialist in the black consumer market, with the same responsibilities as his white colleagues but with a lower salary. It was not a bad situation, but it was an uneasy one, giving rise to great ambivalence as Matshoba reversed the process each day, forced to confront the stark inequality of the two worlds he inhabited, yet, looking forward to being with his wife, Mandisha, and their two children, his mother, and assorted relatives and friends. In those days, Matshoba worried about the political turbulence in the townships that led to a prolonged government clamp down and the detention and deaths of thousands of black South Africans protesting apartheid.

MTUTU MATSHOBA: People are getting very impatient. And they are getting to the extent where they are prepared to die for their aspirations.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Among those who died in the nine-year interim, were both of Mtutu Matshoba's brothers, Delisa, who was 33, and Fazila, who was 29. They were murdered within three months of each other.

MTUTU MATSHOBA: It has never been proved that it was actually political, but one, the first one to die, the youngest, was shot by a guy that is known to be a vigilante, and the second one was found dead one morning, he was found at the mortuary. His car was found in one part of the township, and he was found at the mortuary, and the post mortem indicated that he had been severely beaten over a long period.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So who do they did it? Was it --

MTUTU MATSHOBA: Many people believe up to this date that it was one of those eliminations of activists, because he was very -- first he belonged to the underground structures of the ANC, and he was very active in civic matters, and he was involved with the people that were planning the rent boycott. And so he was killed about three weeks before the rent boycott was launched.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Matshoba told us about the funeral which was preached by Nobel Laureate Bishop Desmond Tutu and attended by many activists and people his brother had helped, especially dependents of political prisoners. He then told us that the funeral was a turning point in his life.

MTUTU MATSHOBA: I was working at the advertising agency but I was feeling then that working there was actually like side lining myself. Advertising became, you know, trivial.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Such feelings led Matshoba into a bout with depression.

MTUTU MATSHOBA: His death was devastating, and I was devastated, and at the same time, I felt very angry, and when the people invited me to step into my brother's shoes, I welcomed that opportunity, because it was to me an opportunity to show that they couldn't destroy the family, itself, they couldn't destroy the family by killing people each time, and we always replaced -- it's the culture of this struggle that each time a person was killed, one would take over from where the other one had left off.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Here at the ANC's regional office, Matshoba was a familiar figure, especially now, helping to coordinate cultural activities for the last big pre-election rally in the Johannesburg area on Saturday, four days before the election. Everything seemed to be running smoothly. And, indeed, on the day of the rally only celebration was apparent, celebration of the old at the dawning of the new.

WOMAN: The people we see behind us are called diviners, sangomas in Zulu. In olden days they used to be called -- rather when the white people came to South Africa, they called them witch doctors because they did not understand this kind ofreligion, and they were sort of pushed in the corner. They were not recognized as indigenous people of South Africa. But I think with the upcoming elections and the freedom of every black person, they have surfaced again.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mtutu, also concerned about African cultural traditions, shepherded a grassroots singing group through the program. After several hours, the crowd suddenly went wild as Nelson Mandela arrived at the stadium and proceeded on foot, pausing for a ritual blessing from the sangomas. Shortly after, Mandela addressed the enthusiastic crowd.

NELSON MANDELA: I will go away from this meeting feeling strong and knowing that the day of destiny we are going to keep it in our hands, that the 27th of April is the beginning of a new era in this country, when we will be able to lay down the foundation for removing the miseries under which we have lived.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It was a triumphant moment for all those who had come to hear the man they expected to be the next president of South Africa. Later, as we reached Matshoba's house, we found his daughter, 17-year-old Pumla, and inside his brother's 13-year-old son, Sikalelo. He was helping his grandmother understand the ballot and how to choose among the 19 parties on it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Did you ever think when we talked nine years ago that we would be sitting here on the eve of the black majority in this country about to take it over?

MTUTU MATSHOBA: It's still unbelievable even to me. It's like - - you know, it's going to be, it's a great landmark, a major landmark in our lifetimes. We have always said freedom will come in our lifetimes and that sort of thing, and people like Nelson Mandela used to say that as well. And this hope has always been like it has driven us, and at this stage it's even intensified, which is why it is difficult for many of us to even entertain the possibility of this being an, an unfair election. We -- we are excited about it. It's like we are just about to be born, reborn, if I can put it that way.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And so it was on this historic morning in Soweto. As thousands of black South Africans lined up to vote for the first time in their lives, Mtutu Matshoba also came for the same purpose. He was accompanied by his sister and his nephew, Sikalelo. The polling station is a small anglican church where the funeral of his brother was held. There was a four hour delay before this polling station opened, but nobody seemed to mind.

WOMAN: This is the first time this thing has been happening to a black, to black people. So I felt great and happy.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you feel about waiting?

WOMAN: I've been waiting but, you know, I'm not in a hurry, as long as I'm going to be in.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why did you come so early?

MAN: Because we wanted to make sure that we put our mark today, our mark of freedom.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Your mark of freedom?

MAN: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That's important?

MAN: That's very important. We are doing this to honor those comrades who have lost their lives so that we could be able to vote today.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN IN CROWD: It's so important, because it's for the first time, so we are so happy.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And you.

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN IN CROWD: Because we want to share some privileges in this country of ours.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You want to share some privileges. That's very -- so you weren't afraid to come?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN IN CROWD: No, No.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Nothing would have kept you away?

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN IN CROWD: No.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN IN CROWD: Never.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Matshoba was one of the first to cast his ballot.

MTUTU MATSHOBA: This day is significant to me not only because I'm voting for the first time in my life and many other people across South Africa are doing the same -- the fact that I voted in this particular church is very important to me. It represents a victory, because this is the church where we -- my brother was laid to rest after being killed mysteriously probably by people who were against his fight for democracy. So that I should actually go and put in my first ballot paper at exactly the same spot where his coffin was lying in state is to me a great victory. It like shows me that it was not in vain that all the people died.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Oh, Mtutu, you just voted. How was it?

MTUTU MATSHOBA: It was great. It was my dream. It's like I've been born for the first time. I'm going to start a new life, I must say. Practically, it's like a beginning of a new life, and exciting. When I see the people here today, I feel a unifying spirit, something that like we are all focusing on one thing. This thing has brought us together and particularly the old people. The prophecy that freedom would come in our lifetime which was made by Nelson Mandela and the others has really come to fruition today, and I just can't describe the feelings, the -- the feeling that seems to be going through, through all of us here. I mean, there's been this delay with the starting of the vote, and people were actually saying they'd sit here until tomorrow if it came to that which shows just how important today is for everybody around here. There were no fears. Actually, there seemed to be a spirit of challenge, you know, people get even more resolved as they feel that -- as they feel threatened. They actually brace themselves up and come out in force. And for some reason the way the response to this election has been that our only fear was the failure to get people to the ballot, to the voting stations, and once people are there, we know that democracy one way or another has got to triumph. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major stories of this Thursday. Former CIA official Aldrich Ames pleaded guilty to charges of spying for Russia and the former Soviet Union. He was sentenced to life in prison. His wife will receive a lighter sentence under a plea bargain. The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case about free speech rights of anti-abortion protesters at clinics, and Delta Airlines said it would cut 15,000 jobs over the next three years. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night with Shields and Gigot, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.