The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, Chinese demonstrators continued to stop demonstrators from enforcing martial law. Britain and the Soviet Union expelled groups of alleged spies, the White House said there was cause for concern in the rise of the U.S. dollar. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, China is once again our lead focus. We have a telephone interview with ITN reporter Jeremy Thompson from Beijing. Then we talk with four china experts, former U.S. Ambassador Arthur Hummel, University of Miami Professor June Teufel Dreyer, and two Chinese journalists, Sun Yougeng and Chao Jinglun. Next, a Roger Mudd report on the investigation into the charges against House Speaker Jim Wright, and finally, Dr. Richard Keeling, head of the American College American Association on a new report on AIDS among college students. NEWS MAKER

MR. MacNeil: In China, the amazing standoff continued between masses of pro democracy demonstrators and soldiers refusing to attack them to enforce martial law. There was a report of a clash in a Beijing suburb but it was not confirmed. Some politicians and army leaders were reported trying to end martial law. We have a report on the events of the past 24 hours in Beijing, from Jeremy Thompson of Independent Television News.

JEREMY THOMPSON: Late Sunday afternoon military helicopters again flew over the square of Heavenly Peace dropping leaflets calling on the protesters to leave. Yet, with fists clenched, the students pledged to stay onto the death.

STUDENT: Maybe we will lose our lives, we will lose our lives, but we have decided we must go on, we must strike on.

JEREMY THOMPSON: Crowds clustered around the subway entrance, troops were reported to be hiding underground. By Monday, daybreak, the people were cautiously welcoming the dawn of a new era in China. The people's army had been halted in its tracks by barricades, by reason and sometimes by stronger methods. One troop truck had its fuel pipes severed, its tired deflated, an army immobilized by an unresolved fight for control of China's Communist Party.

MR. MacNeil: In Washington, President Bush said over the weekend he hopes the Chinese demonstrators will stand up for what they believe and the government will exercise restraint. Vice President Quayle echoed those sentiments today when he met Yuan Li, chairman of China's National People's Congress. Yuan will meet the President tomorrow. They were to have played tennis, but it was cancelled as inappropriate given the unrest in China. In another meeting with Yuan this afternoon, Secretary of State Baker reaffirmed U.S. interest in democratic reform in China. We'll have more on this story after the News Summary. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: In a version of diplomatic one upmanship, the Soviet Union announced today that it would expel nearly half the British workers in Moscow. Last Friday, Britain expelled eight Soviet diplomats and three journalists accused of spying. Yesterday the Soviets retaliated with an equal expulsion. Then today the Soviets upped the ante with an order that could affect 170 British employees in the Soviet Union. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher commented on the development by saying the Soviets had, in her words, revealed their true nature.

MR. MacNeil: Secretary of State James Baker said today it was high time for Israelis and Arabs to be more conciliatory as a means of beginning serious negotiating process. Baker made an unusually tough speech to a leading pro Israel lobbying group, the American- Israel Public Affairs Committee. He called on Israel to lay aside what he called "the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel" and to "foreswear annexation, stop settlement activity, allow schools to reopen, reach out to the Palestinians as neighbors who deserve political rights." Baker also called on Arab countries to end the economic boycott of Israel and repudiate the odious line that zionism is racism.

MS. WOODRUFF: The White House and the Federal Reserve Board tried today to stop the rise in the value of the U.S. dollar abroad, but their joint move seemed to have little effect. At the same time, the White House put out its first statement since President Bush took office warning about further hikes in the dollar's value. The Federal Reserve sold large numbers of dollars in international currency markets. Selling typically drives down the price of a currency. By the end of the day, however, the dollar was up sharply, reaching a two and a half year high against the German mark and a one and a half year high against the Japanese yen.

MR. MacNeil: A survey in 19 colleges has found rates of AIDS virus infection among students to be a cause for concern. The American College Health Association and the Centers For Disease Control tested the blood of nearly 17,000 students who sought medical attention. Thirty tested positive, a rate of two per thousand. If projected onto the entire student population, it could mean 25,000 HIV positive students across the country. The Director of the Association, Dr. Richard Keeling, said the results were higher than they'd expected.

DR. RICHARD KEELING, American Health Association: In our original projections at the beginning of the study, I think we maybe hoped that the rate would end up lower than it is. I think though that what it does clearly do for us is to vanquish any shade of doubt in our minds that this is an actual problem, and that for people in higher education or for people who observe higher education, who have felt, some of them, that this was a potential problem but not one which we were actually facing, I think the study is very useful in establishing that that is not the case.

MR. MacNeil: We'll have a News Maker interview with Dr. Keeling later in the program. Also ahead on the NewsHour, the evolving situation in China, the Jim Wright case, and other news. FOCUS - STANDOFF

MS. WOODRUFF: We go first tonight to the latest developments in China, where as we just reported, students and other demonstrators continue to prevent Chinese army troops from moving into Beijing. Events have been moving uncertainly since Friday, when Chinese Government officials announced that they were going to try to put a stop to what they called chaos in the capital city. We have been relying for reports on the situation there from Independent Television News reporter Jeremy Thompson and we talked with him less than an hour ago. Before we did, we viewed highlights of his reporting over the weekend.

JEREMY THOMPSON: At 10 AM, loud speakers announced that parts of Beijing were now under martial law, an order signed by Premier Li Peng. Soldiers were authorized to take any measures to maintain order. On state television, it was said the edict had been made to end the turmoil that was destroying people's life and social order. The protests were a threat to the Communist Party leadership. During the night, more army reinforcements were moved into the outskirts of Beijing, truckloads of troops, lines of armored personnel carriers, on top of each one, machine guns half hidden under canvas covers. They were soon surrounded by crowds of Beijing citizens barricading the way into the city's center. Some people clamored onto the army vehicles. Others tried to persuade the soldiers not to go on, not to harm the students. As day broke, thousands were still coming to the square in support of the students hunger striking in the name of democracy. Many of the students seemed scared, most angry and dumbfounded at the government's final response to their demands for freedom. The students had never wanted revolution, never called for the overthrow of the Communist Party; they just asked for sufficient change to create a better China. Now they were faced with the full might of China's army. The workers who'd thrown their weight behind the student movement were still trying to prevent confrontation. There were now reports that students were being beaten by police in the square. The showdown was imminent. On the northern outskirts of Beijing, a line of tanks blocked in a village street. The Chinese T-54s had been driven down from inner Mongolia only to be halted by peaceful resistance, 14 tanks in all held hostage by the people. Villagers said they counted 26 more a short distance away. The tank commanders told villagers they didn't know what was going on. They hadn't been allowed to read newspapers in days. Some thought they'd come to shoot films, not people.

CITIZEN: The Chinese people ask them why you're exercising in the Peking City; we don't know. We've come to decide our government is not very good.

MR. THOMPSON: Buses blockaded most routes into Beijing, bringing public transport to a standstill. Students ruled the roads, policing much of this confused city. Crowds gathered to discuss the political situation, anxious to speak out despite the military threat.

CITIZEN: It is the chance to advance China quickly.

MR. THOMPSON: But opposition to martial law was also coming from the highest level. We'd learned of growing dissent among the party leadership and from provincial governments. It was hard to know just who was under siege in China's capital.

MS. WOODRUFF: I talked to Jeremy Thompson a half hour ago and asked him if the army had made any headway against the demonstrators.

JEREMY THOMPSON, ITN: I'm not sure the army wants to make any headway anymore. The fines we've seen over the last 24 hours or so suggest that the army now realizes that largely it was hoodwinked, it was conned, it was cheated by those who had ordered it into town from all over China, that they felt they did not know what was happening. And we've talked to soldiers. We've talked to people who have been stopping the soldiers and the soldiers have come up with a range of extraordinary explanations. They have not been allowed to read newspapers for a week, some told they were coming into town for exercises. Some even told us they were coming into town to make movies, would you believe, and many were told stories about looting of banks, looting of shops, chaos, anarchy, turmoil on the streets, and they came here and they've been shown by the students and by the ordinary citizens and workers of Beijing that it's a calm city, under the control of citizens' rule in many ways. And they're saying, well, you know, who's told us all this, who's told us there are problems on the street, we don't believe the government anymore, why should we take orders from a government that we can't trust. And I think that, you know, we're now seeing a situation where the military is disaffected largely from those who have been making the rules and setting the orders in the last two or three days.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are the soldiers answering your questions when you approach them?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, some of them. Most of them are not too certain what to say to foreigners, but they're talking certainly to the local people who are blocking the streets in front of them. I mean, whereas a couple of days ago they were reluctant to say anything or do anything, they're now talking to the local people who persuaded them that they shouldn't go forward into the city. They've been taking food and drinks from them. They've been reading the newspapers given to them by the local people and they're starting to realize what the situation really is in Beijing. And we've also this letter that's been issued to the martial law headquarters from a number of leading generals, saying that we do not want to spill blood, we are the people's army, we will not enter the city to cause trouble, we will not enter the city to go against the people. And I think it seems now that the army is another faction in this whole struggle for power at the top of China's Communist Party.

MS. WOODRUFF: What are the indications? How long can the students, can the people who are demonstrating in the main part of Beijing, hold out? I mean, apparently, the government is trying to cut off supplies to that part of the city, are they not?

MR. THOMPSON: I'm not sure they're succeeding really. The question is really how much famine the students have got. I think there are less students now. Undoubtedly, a lot have gone back to college or have gone away for a break now. They've been there 10 days also. A lot of them are very tired. A lot of them are quite sick. And I think they're finding that the resistance they've been putting up has gone on almost too long and they feel that perhaps they've already won a victory and there's a movement now to hand over the reins of power to a wider group of people from not only just students, but workers, peasants, and the whole citizenry of Beijing, to take up the freedom movement and not just leave it to the students, themselves. They're saying, we've completed our task, we've taken it this far, take it on, take it as a wider movement that crosses the whole social strata. And I think a lot of them will now start retreating. Whether that's wise or whether that means the movement is completed, it's difficult to say at the moment.

MR. MacNeil: Here now with additional perspectives on the recent movement in China, we have June Teufel Dreyer, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Miami, and a specialist in Chinese military affairs, she joins us from Miami. Chao Jinglun is the Chief Editorial Writer for the China Daily News, a Chinese language newspaper based in New York City's China Town. He is from Beijing, and is a former Nieman fellow at Harvard University. Sun Yougeng has been a reporter for another China daily. This one is an English language newspaper published in Beijing. He's on leave as a graduate student at Columbia's School of International Affairs. And Arthur Hummel served as the U.S. Ambassador to China from 1981 to 1985. He is now a consultant on Chinese affairs in Washington. Let me turn to the two Chinese reporters first. You I know have been in touch a bit with colleagues and friends in Beijing. Mr. Chao, can you add anything to what we've heard?

CHAO JINGLUN, China Daily News, New York: The situation is obviously very fluid and volatile. And there are so many rumors floating around that some of the stories you have to take with a grain of salt. But I think the standoff cannot last very much longer because both sides are working for a solution.

MR. MacNeil: You mean by that there would be some kind of compromise worked out between the Communist Party power structure and there would be a truce and people would retreat from their confrontation?

MR. CHAO: Obviously. For instance, take Li Peng, the Premier, who seems to be in the driver's seat, but he has the most to lose because he's so unpopular that virtually everybody is against him.

MR. MacNeil: But even if he won and got martial law imposed, he wouldn't have much authority or much support for authority after that.

MR. CHAO: I doubt very much that he would have to hear martial law imposed very much longer. The thing to watch I think, there are two people, two persons who are conspicuously absent. One is of course the General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. There is rumor that he has resigned but there has never been a public announcement to that effect and he still has the title of General Secretary and is supposed to be on sick leave, health problem of course, political health. And the other person, of course, is Deng Xiaoping, who is the senior leader and Zhao recently told Gorbachev that according to Secret Resolution adopted at the first plenary session of the thirteenth central committee, Deng still has the last word on major issues.

MR. MacNeil: He hasn't been heard from.

MR. CHAO: He hasn't been heard and nobody knows where he is.

MR. MacNeil: So one assumes there is a good deal of negotiation going on behind the scenes.

MR. CHAO: I would think so, yes.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Sun, can you from your context add anything to what we've heard over the last day or so?

SUN YOUGENG, China Daily, Beijing: This thing is very hard to believe what is going on, because a lot of reports have been written based on rumors, based on what they heard from one group of people, another group of people. I just talked with my friend at China Daily. He was personally out there at a place where the clash reportedly had happened and from what he said everything was quiet there.

MR. MacNeil: And there had not been a clash?

MR. SUN: He can't confirm that.

MR. MacNeil: I see.

MR. SUN: Because he returned from the scene about an hour and a half ago.

MR. MacNeil: Do you find it credible -- I mean, this letter that Jeremy Thompson reported that is circulating, that was signed by, as he put it, leading generals who said they would not spill blood and go against the people, I mean, is that a credible report?

MR. SUN: I would say so, because as my friend told me -- he has friends who work at the People's Daily --

MR. MacNeil: Which is the paper of the Communist Party.

MR. SUN: -- which is the paper of the Communist Party which now has some additional soldiers stationed in that newspaper now, but the soldiers are not welcome. Whenever they enter the canteen all the workers there at the table -- just very unwelcome sign to them. And they enter the People's Daily in civilian clothes.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Chao thought this could not last much longer, this confrontation and standoff. What is your feeling about it?

MR. SUN: Well, it's hard to say but I think the longer it lasts, the bad it will look for both sides because the indecision on the part of the government is a sign of weakness and nothing has happened, although a million deadlines have been imposed, and for the students if this lasts very long -- and right now the students have in a way seen a little bit and other elements, I mean, other parts of people in other circles of the society can enter the square and everything, and if the situation gets a little more chaotic and loses control, that could be a good excuse to the government that they can use power of some kind.

MR. MacNeil: Right. Let's turn to Ms. Dreyer in Miami. As the student of the Chinese military affairs, what do you make of a group of their leading generals writing to the Communist Party and saying we're not going to spill blood, we're not going to go against the student?

JUNE TEUFEL DREYER, University of Miami: [Miami] This is really almost unprecedented, it seems to me. What you're seeing here is the people and the army saying we are the people's army and we are for the people and seeing a split between the people, on the one hand, and the party and the government on the other.

MR. MacNeil: Until we heard this news and until the army began behaving the way it has over the last few days, who did you think controlled the Chinese army?

MS. DREYER: Who did I think controlled the Chinese army? Deng Xiaoping. And it begins to look strenuously as if he doesn't. The person who was in charge of day to day military affairs also happens to be the president of China, Gen. Yung Shunkun. And Yung Shunkun, you probably saw the television broadcast the other night, he was absolutely livid and he lectured the students stridently, saying how difficult it was for him to conduct the Sino-Soviet summit when, in fact, the students were blocking the paths to the city and his motorcade had to go in the side.

MR. MacNeil: Why -- what would be the army's, the motive of army in refusing to carry out the orders of the Premier and impose martial law?

MS. DREYER: I think partially they do not wish to put themselves against the people. They see no point in it. They have been told by no less than Deng Xiaoping for five, six years now that the army is supposed to stay out of politics. And all of a sudden, at a crucial juncture, they are being told to go into politics and in a way in which they're not comfortable with.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. Let's move on to Amb. Hummel for a moment. Mr. Hummel, what do you make of the silence of Deng Xiaoping and Zhao Ziyang as just referred to by our two Chinese friends here?

ARTHUR HUMMEL, Former U.S. Ambassador to China: I'm afraid that I have to consider that this is very ominous evidence of disarray and weakness and dissension within the government, itself. This is something that Deng Xiaoping has tried to strive against, trying to institutionalize his reforms and build continuity, and he's been pretty successful for 10 years. Now everything is falling apart, while the government, including the army, cannot agree onwhat to do.

MR. MacNeil: What would you have expected Deng to do in this situation? What would have been characteristic for him to do and with the power that even though he doesn't have a big title in government he obviously still holds?

AMB. HUMMEL: I'm afraid I would have to say that the initial reaction to the first demonstrations which, after all, were over a month ago and were in connection with the death of the previous party secretary, Hu Yaobang, the initial reaction of the older people in the government I think would be to disperse the demonstrators and to use force and to use coercive measures. Nobody knew at that time, however, that the students would be so successful in getting resonance and support from all elements of Beijing's population, and in many other cities as well. But I think one has to sum it up by saying that the government has split badly, is bungled, and will have a very hard time putting together a strong government again.

MR. MacNeil: What is your feeling about the kind of authority Premier Li Peng would wield if he is successfully finally, and either the students just go away of their own accord, they drift away and the army is left in charge, or he actually disperses them by force, what kind of authority would he be left with to govern?

AMB. HUMMEL: You are asking the ultimate question. Of course, there's a first stage that needs to be solved, how to get the demonstrators off the streets and how to have a dialogue that results in the cessation of demonstrations. That stage is being bungled right now in my judgment by the government. The second stage that you mention is maybe even more difficult, of responding and they will have to respond to demands for far more freedom of speech and freedom of action and democracy and for a crackdown on corruption that has badly marred the lives of all Chinese citizens and has been accelerating for the past year.

MR. MacNeil: Gentlemen, there was a report -- one of the rumors circulating in Beijing today, you may have heard it from your own friends, is that Zhao Ziyang was back, as it was put, and was in charge and was working actively to get the martial law order lifted. What kind of credibility do you attach to that report? Do you have any?

MR. SUN: Well, that's very hard to give any credit to anything right now.

MR. MacNeil: But you don't have any particular reason to credit that?

SUN YOUGENG, China Daily, Beijing: No, not necessarily, because my friend told me he has been there all the time and rumors around and because they are in the press, that doesn't necessarily mean they know a lot more than other people, but they say while this could be true, but at the end of the conversation they always say this has never been confirmed. Regarding the letter of the generals, that letter has been confirmed from friends who are working at the People's Daily.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Chao, what do you make of Zhao's role or non- role at the moment?

CHAO JINGLUN, China Daily News, New York: I think Chinese politics is a very subtle thing. Major decisions are made behind closed doors. Nobody really knows what is going on, but it is obvious that things are moving, not just a standstill, and you mentioned the generals, who have come out against martial law and against moving the troops on the students, and that's only one factor. The other factor is legislators, members of the standing committee of the National People's Congress are working to get emergency session of the National People's Congress to convene, and that according to the Constitution is a supreme state,organ of state power, and it has the power to dismiss the Premier and to annul the martial law.

MR. MacNeil: We have a minute or so left. What is a quick prognostication from each of you? I know how speculative all this is. Ms. Dreyer, what's your hunch is going to happen?

JUNE TEUFEL DREYER, University of Miami: [Miami] Zhao Ziyang will be allowed to reappear, talk with the students who he seems to have the best rapport with them, he will offer a concession and both sides will withdraw to think about it for a while. I agree with the first gentleman who spoke that they can't keep this up for too much longer.

MR. MacNeil: And, Mr. Ambassador, what do you think is likely to happen?

AMB. HUMMEL: I agree with June Dreyer. I think the first, there has to be a move towards conciliation by the government, and after that, the conciliatory mood, hopefully, will get the demonstrators off the streets and then they can begin to approach the real problems that the students are demanding.

MR. MacNeil: So neither of you two is predicting an armed clash. What about you, very quickly, what do you think is going to be the outcome?

MR. SUN: I don't think there's going to be a very severe armed clash. Maybe there will be some isolated incidents and then both sides will keep on constraint a little bit.

MR. MacNeil: What do you think?

MR. CHAO: Deng being the consummate politician that he is --

MR. MacNeil: Deng Xiaoping.

MR. CHAO: Yes. -- I think he is still playing his own game, that is, playing off one faction against another and holding a delicate balance, but the situation is so urgent that he has to call on Zhao Ziyang, who is the only person who can clean up the mess.

MR. MacNeil: Zhao Ziyang. We have to leave it there. I'd like to thank all four of you very much. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still to come, tomorrow's day of reckoning for House Speaker Jim Wright, AIDS on campus and an update on the Alaska oil spill. FOCUS - SPEAKER UNDER FIRE

MS. WOODRUFF: We go now to the ongoing Jim Wright story. Tomorrow attorneys for the Speaker will ask the House Ethics Committee to drop some of the charges against him. It is a high stakes political struggle that will be fought in the open in a televised hearing. Congressional Correspondent Roger Mudd reports.

ROGER MUDD: On April 13th, just four days before the House Ethics Committee pulled the string, on April 13th, all of Capitol Hill knew he was in desperate straits. Speaker Wright seemed unaware of just how serious his predicament was.

REP. JIM WRIGHT, Speaker of the House: I'm not accused of any personal immorality or of any dishonesty, or misusing tax dollars. We're dealing here with three issues concerning my personal finances and the technical reporting requirements of the Congress.

MR. MUDD: But four days later when the Ethics Committee made public its statement of allegations against Wright, it was obvious the 12 members were talking about more than just technical reporting requirements; they were talking about the political life and death of James C. Wright. Speaker Wright's responses over the next several weeks, however, seemed to reveal he had no pulled together strategy, no thought out, consistent defense. His first move was to ask the Ethics Committee for an immediate hearing.

REP. WRIGHT: [April 17] I have today requested very urgently and very earnestly that that committee give me the privilege of coming this afternoon, today, right now, or tomorrow or the next day, surely within a week, and confront them, and confront the allegations head on and face to face and I'm prepared to do that.

MR. MUDD: But when the committee did not agree on speeding up the process, Speaker Wright accused it and it special outside counsel, Richard Phelan, of foot dragging. Next, the Speaker's wife, Betty, broke silence to defend herself as a hard working and professional businesswoman. But in the course of her interview with the Washington Post, she revealed that she had been paid $36,000 for another part-time job with a West Coast motivational company. One of Mr. Wright's lawyers, Stephen Susman of Houston, now says the Speaker really didn't take the charges seriously.

STEPHEN SUSMAN, Wright's Attorney: He didn't think these charges were going anywhere. I mean, I think he miscalculated. His defense basically, as I can determine, has begun in the last few weeks.

MR. MUDD: His original defense was simply to attack Newt Gingrich.

MR. SUSMAN: I don't know what his original defense was, but I don't think -- I've talked to him -- I do not think he thought that there was anything to these charges or to the proceeding. And, therefore, when he should have had someone like me or someone else more vigorously looking at and speaking and he should have been speaking up, he didn't.

MR. MUDD: Some of Wright's closest associates, House Whip Tony Coehlo to name one, seemed to panic. He told the Baltimore Sun that he thought Wright might be inclined to short circuit the process and pull the plug. Nothing seemed to be working. Beginning in late April, every morning, noon, and night seemed to bring more bad news for the Speaker, much of it uncovered by the newspapers. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wright's free use of a jet plane owned by a Texas businessman who had pleaded guilty to a federal bank fraud charge. The New York Times reported that a Texas nursing home company had given Wright's investment special treatment even though the company was in financial trouble. The Washington Times reported that Mrs. Wright had used her husband's offices and staff to help promote the motivational company she worked for. Events plainly had moved beyond Speaker Wright's control.

REP. ROBERT TORRICELLI, [D] New Jersey: I can only imagine what it must be like to be Jim Wright and wake up each morning in the kind of atmosphere he's now living in in Washington, D.C. It must be extraordinarily difficult.

MR. MUDD: Democrat Bob Torricelli of New Jersey is part of the Speaker's defense team.

REP. ROBERT TORRICELLI: There isn't a more cynical place on earth in Washington, D.C., and in the power politics of Washington, there isn't anything more expendable than one more person, one more reputation and one more career. If it's an inconvenience, if it's a political difficulty, if it causes a compromise with the public and you can get from Point A to Point B by taking one more person and tossing them overboard, well, in this town we do that every day.

MR. MUDD: On May 9th, the day Speaker Wright unveiled his new legal defense team, he told reporters the new team was profoundly shocked at the lack of professionalism and the inaccuracies and distortions of the Phelan report. Wright referred to Phelan as "this aggressive lawyer who might possibly have misled the committee.". Committee Chairman Julian Dixon was obviously angered.

REPORTER: What did you think, Mr. Dixon, about the allegations about Mr. Phelan?

REP. JULIAN DIXON, Chairman, House Ethics Committee: What do I think about them?

REPORTER: Right.

REP. DIXON: I think they're totally inaccurate, totally wrong, and an exercise of bad judgment by the respondent's attorneys.

MR. MUDD: Jim Wright had blundered in the opinion of many House members. Both Democrats and Republicans defended the committee. Democrat Louis Stokes of Cleveland is a former chairman.

REP. LOUIS STOKES, [D] Ohio: I really think that the Ethics Committee has done a good job of following the precedents and the traditions of the House and I think in many respects people have to realize that they have the worst job that any member of Congress could ever be given.

MR. MUDD: Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma is part of the Republican leadership of the House.

REP. MICKEY EDWARDS, [D] Oklahoma: The people who are on that committee, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side, were put on that committee because the leadership in both parties considered them to be people of good temperament, good judgment, well respected, people whose word would carry some weight, and Jim Wright had a hand in putting these people on the committee.

MR. MUDD: There still is no explanation as to why Wright chose to unleash his fire at the committee lawyer, Richard Phelan, and by extension the committee, itself. Steve Susman, Wright's lawyer from Houston, says it was not on his advice.

STEPHEN SUSMAN, Wright's Attorney: Every defendant I've ever represented in a lawsuit thinks that the plaintiff's lawyer is a scum bag that slimed up from the bayou, every one of them without exception. So to have Mr. Wright upset with the lawyer who represents the other side is understandable to me, because every one of my clients is upset with the lawyer. Now I have not criticized Mr. Phelan, nor have I urged the Speaker to criticize him. He is a zealous lawyer like I am. He wants to win like I want to win.

MR. MUDD: If the committee tomorrow rejects Susman's motions to dismiss the two main charges against Wright, then Wright, in effect, goes on trial. Committee counsel Phelan having already convinced the committee that there was reason to believe Wright had violated the rules must now persuade the committee that the evidence is clear and convincing that he did.

MR. MUDD: Do you think your chances are as good as 50/50?

MR. SUSMAN: I think my chances are better than 50/50. Let me put it this way. My chances are a lot better than 50/50 if I have a fair jury, and I am still hopeful that that committee will be fair.

MR. MUDD: Still hopeful isn't quite a ringing endorsement, is it, of the committee's fairness?

MR. SUSMAN: I think that they can be fair and I think they will be sensitive to the notion that the eyes -- and I think the eyes of the world will be on this to see whether the Speaker of the House can get a fair trial and due process.

REP. MICKEY EDWARDS, [R] Oklahoma: If they give him a clean bill of health, then he's going to get off. If they merely say there's not quite enough technically to pin him, or that there is but we're going to recommend a light penalty, then I don't think he can survive it politically.

MR. MUDD: They've already said there's reason to believe something is going on.

REP. EDWARDS: That's right. That's right.

MR. MUDD: So, in other words, you think he's finished?

REP. EDWARDS: I think he's finished. Absolutely.

MR. MUDD: Through it all, through the bad news, through the media pursuit, Speaker Wright in public has never stopped smiling.

REP. JIM WRIGHT: And so we earnestly hope that they will move swiftly to rule on our motions to dismiss and that any further remaining issues, they'll act swiftly on those in order that we can resolve this matter quickly and let Congress get on with the important businessof the nation.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Ethics Committee is not expected to vote on the request to drop some of the charges against Speaker Wright until later this week.

MR. MacNeil: Still to come on the NewsHour, AIDS on college campuses, and updating the Alaska oil spill. FOCUS - AIDS ON CAMPUS

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight, AIDS on college campuses. The first major study of the AIDS epidemic among college students indicates the disease is having an impact. Nearly 2 out of 1,000 students who were tested had results that were positive for AIDS; 25,000 college students may already be infected with the AIDS virus nationally. Dr. Richard Keeling is the President of the American College Health Association which co-sponsored the study with the Centers For Disease Control. He is also Director of Student Health Services at the University of Virginia. Dr. Keeling, thanks for being with us.

DR. KEELING: Good evening.

MS. WOODRUFF: How significant are these findings and just to clarify, over what period of time was this study conducted?

DR. RICHARD KEELING, American College Health Association: The study was conducted over just about a year beginning early in April of 1988, concluding about the end of February of this year. We think the findings are significant because they really represent the first nationwide effort to get a handle on what the frequency of infection in students is. We've had some very preliminary experience with actual cases of AIDS, some limited studies based on one campus here are there, but really no national norms, no experience that told us in a geographically disbursed sample what the results might be, so we think this is our first good indicator.

MS. WOODRUFF: You say it's a national sample and yet these were 19 selected campuses and most of them were large universities. Do you think that in any way skewed the results, or could have skewed the results?

DR. KEELING: It could have. There are a number of features which could limit the interpretations of the information we've obtained here. We could only work with 19 schools, 16 of those are large, regional universities, 3 private schools. On the other hand, they are geographically very disbursed, they have largely different student populations, with a wide range of ages, graduate and professional programs, et cetera. They draw from a pretty diverse sample of urban and rural populations, and we think that at least as a first look it provides a reasonable first guess of the impact of HIV on students.

MS. WOODRUFF: Another question about the sample, as I understand it, you were able to take the test because students would come into a health center to be checked up because they thought they had a health problem, because they weren't feeling well or whatever. Do you think that may have had an effect or an impact on the results?

DR. KEELING: It's possible that it did, but it's difficult first to know precisely what the impact is, because students come to their health centers for many reasons. Some come not just for illness, but also for screening for jobs or graduate study, they come for cholesterol screening or pregnancy tests, et cetera. So who gets blood drawn may not be quite so simple a question as who's ill. We won't probably know how much that influences the population until we're able to do longer-term follow up studies that help clarify those questions.

MS. WOODRUFF: How does the nearly two per thousand compare with the rest of the population in AIDS?

DR. KEELING: It's interesting. It fits in in a common sense way with what we might expect. The rate is a little bit higher than what we're seeing for military recruits. There's been a very stable rate of one or one point four per thousand in the civilian applicants for military service, a little bit lower than the rate that's seen for example in job corps volunteers, and in a sense from a demographic point of view that fits. People who go to college might be a little less carefully selected in a sense for HIV infection than people who go to the military service might be a little more selected than people who are on the job corps. If you look at the general population, you really have to think carefully about what that is. We talk about a national number of a million, million and a half people infected with HIV, but many of those people are in clearly identified groups at higher risk, intravenous drug users, for example. If you exclude people known to be at higher risk in the population, then look at the remainder of the general population, we don't really know what the rate of infection is. We think that the rate of infection among college students is probably higher than the rate among say unrisk group Americans in their thirties, forties and fifties, but we're going to have to wait a while for more precise answers.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do these results tell you about the behavior of these students and whether the word is getting out? After all, these students, if they're college age, then AIDS is something they've been hearing about ever since they matured and would have been involved in sex one presumes, so why wouldn't they have responded I guess is the question.

DR. KEELING: I think the problem is that we've tended to think in terms of information instead of behavior. And college students are shown in many many surveys in the past couple of years to have excellent information. They know about HIV, they know about HIV is transmitted. They, in fact, know reasonably well how to prevent it from being transmitted. They also know that kind of information about a lot of other sexually transmissible diseases. The problem is they don't do what they know; they don't apply in their behavior the knowledge that they have. And what we have to think about is what are the barriers, what are the blockades between knowledge and action. In the case of a college population, you can imagine many of them, experimental behavior, disavowal of risk, the "it can't happen to me" business, the influence of alcohol on sexual behavior, sexual activity without consent, sexual assault, et cetera, and all of those things we think are of tremendous importance, probably more importance than information, so what they know isn't the whole answer.

MS. WOODRUFF: So what does that tell you as someone who heads up an organization that's concerned with health on college campuses, what does that tell you about what needs to be done to get rid of those barriers you just described?

DR. RICHARD KEELING, American College Health Association: I think what it says to us is as we look at the study that HIV infection is clearly an active problem among students. We know the behavioral characteristics of college and university students which may allow further spread of the virus, and that says we have to do something at behavioral level and working at behavioral level means building skill. It means going to students, helping them understand what their behaviors are, what the impact of those behaviors are, and then building in them all kinds of skills which enable them to modify behavior to have a maintaining effect on behavior change and then somehow to feel rewarded for making those changes.

MS. WOODRUFF: How do you do that? That sounds like a logical thing to do, but how do you achieve that?

DR. KEELING: It is, and it's a tough agenda. The agenda is going to require that we be explicit, that we be direct, that be peer- based in our education, that we talk to them in credible terms, using credible messengers, and that we're willing to find ways to build community support within their student community for different kinds of behavior. That means we can't get away with just giving lectures, just handing out pamphlets, just showing a videotape, We have to go down in small groups and talk to them. What are you going to say, what are you going to do, what's your reaction when your potential sexual partner refuses to wear a condom, what do you say to him at that point, how do you protect yourself in this specific kind of situation.

MS. WOODRUFF: And this is something that's over and above what the general population is hearing about.

DR. KEELING: I think it is. We've been so prudish about that kind of information that it's been difficult to get it out.

MS. WOODRUFF: Just one last quick question, as we understand it, the participants who did test positive for AIDS were not told of those results. I think it was what, about 30 people out of some 16,000.

DR. KEELING: Correct.

MS. WOODRUFF: How do you feel about that, about the fact that they aren't told?

DR. KEELING: That certainly concerns us. We would obviously like to have anyone who is infected with HIV know of that, both for his or her own health and for protection other people. In this study, because of the design, this is a blinded sero prevalence study. People were not identifiable, identifiers were taken off the tubes of blood, we don't know who those people are. In order to make that information, however, available to students, every health center which participated in the study simultaneously had voluntary HIV antibody testing available for its students.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Well, Dr. Richard Keeling, we thank you for being with us.

DR. KEELING: Thank you. UPDATE - PLACING BLAME

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight an update on the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound. For five days last week, the National Transportation Safety Board held fact finding hearings in Anchorage to determine exactly how the accident occurred and who shares the blame. Seven hundred miles of Alaskan shoreline have been sullied by the worst oil spill in this nation's history. Lee Hochberg of public station KCTS in Seattle spent last week covering the NTSB hearings in Anchorage.

LEE HOCHBERG: The story of the Exxon Valdez, as told here, began while the tanker was still in port, being loaded with oil. Captain Joe Hazelwood, who refused to testify, went ashore for an afternoon of drinking in Valdez. Chief Engineer Jerzy Glowacki was with him.

QUESTIONER: Had you and the captain begun drinking?

JERZY GLOWACKI, chief Engineer, Exxon Valdez: I had a drink, yes.

QUESTIONER: Did the captain?

JERZY GLOWACKI: Yes, he did.

QUESTIONER: What were you drinking?

JERZY GLOWACKI: I was drinking gin and tonic.

QUESTIONER: Do you recall what Captain Hazelwood was drinking?

JERZY GLOWACKI: I believe he was drinking vodka.

QUESTIONER: Can you recall how many drinks you had while you were on the pipeline?

JERZY GLOWACKI: I believe I had three drinks.

QUESTIONER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

JERZY GLOWACKI: I believe I had three drinks.

QUESTIONER: Is that about what Captain Hazelwood had?

JERZY GLOWACKI: I am not certain.

QUESTIONER: And did you leave together, the three of you?

JERZY GLOWACKI: Yes, we did.

QUESTIONER: Where did you go?

JERZY GLOWACKI: We went to Pizza Palace.

QUESTIONER: And who ordered the pizzas?

JERZY GLOWACKI: I did.

QUESTIONER: Where did you wait for the pizzas to be prepared?

JERZY GLOWACKI: While I was ordering the pizzas, the captain and the radio officer went to the bar next door. Then after I ordered the pizza, I joined them the same place.

QUESTIONER: Were they drinking alcoholic beverages?

JERZY GLOWACKI: They had ordered something by the time I came back in, yes.

QUESTIONER: Did you have something?

JERZY GLOWACKI: When I came in, yes, I ordered another gin and tonic.

MR. HOCHBERG: Glowacki testified that after the crew boarded the ship, Capt. Hazelwood retired to his quarters. Third mate, Gregory Cousins, who had been aboard the ship only four times previously in Prince William Sound, was at the helm as the tanker bore down on Bly Reef. He ordered a hard right turn but the ship never turned.

GREGORY COUSINS, Third Officer, Exxon Valdez: Upon ordering the hard right rudder and taking a few minutes -- not a few minutes, several seconds at the radar -- I called the captain and I said to him at that time, I think we're in serious trouble. And even during that conversation, at the end of that conversation, was when I felt the initial shock to the vessel.

QUESTIONER: Would you characterize or describe that shock to the vessel?

GREGORY COUSINS: It was like a slight roll, very unusual sensation that we knew we'd hit something.

JAMES KUNKEL, Chief Mate, Exxon Valdez: At that moment I knew that my world would never be the same again. I feared for my life at the time, I wondered if I'd see my wife again, and I didn't, I had no idea of how bad this was, but it was the worst thing I had ever been involved in.

MR. HOCHBERG: Coast Guard Officer Mark Delozier was the first aboard the Valdez.

MARK DELOZIER, U.S. Coast Guard: I went around on the port side of the table and observed Captain Hazelwood standing up against the windshield of the wheel house and he was crouched over by the windshield in a position similar to this, with his hand over his mouth, covering his mouth.

QUESTIONER: Did you detect an odor of alcohol emanating from the master?

MARK DELOZIER: Yes, I did.

QUESTIONER: How would you characterize that, as strong?

MARK DELOZIER: I wondered around near him within a distance of three or four foot and I would describe it as very intense. It was very very noticeable to me. I felt as though he was trying to cover up the odor on his breath.

QUESTIONER: By holding his hand over his mouth?

MARK DELOZIER: By holding his hand over his mouth, smoking cigarettes, and drinking coffee.

QUESTIONER: Did he offer you any rationale as to why the grounding occurred?

MARK DELOZIER: In the master's interview?

QUESTIONER: In the master's interview.

MARK DELOZIER: In the master's interview, I asked him what he felt the cause of the casualty was and he said that you're looking at it, meaning himself, and that he overestimated the navigational abilities of the third mate.

QUESTIONER: Mr. Delozier, did you at any time search the captain's quarters for alcoholic beverages?

MARK DELOZIER: I found two empty beer bottles in his garbage can in his sleeping quarters, and I found approximately six bottles of new Moosi beer in his refrigerator.

MR. HOCHBERG: Hazelwood's employer was the Exxon Shipping Company. Its president testified that the company was aware of Hazelwood's drinking problem and hadbeen monitoring him.

QUESTIONER: How long did this supervision or close supervision go on in terms of monitoring Captain Hazelwood?

FRANK IAROSSI, President, Exxon Shipping Co.: Right up to his last voyage before the incident.

QUESTIONER: And that program did not detect his use of alcohol?

FRANK IAROSSI: No.

QUESTIONER: And why do you think that was?

FRANK IAROSSI: I couldn't respond.

MR. HOCHBERG: The Valdez received little navigational help from the Coast Guard radar man because, according to testimony, the Coast Guard radar doesn't cover the area where the Valdez went aground.

STEVEN McCALL, U.S. Coast Guard: We don't have radar coverage throughout Prince William Sound. We have radio communications throughout the Sound and beyond. In the areas where there are no radar coverage, basically, generally speaking, South of Blyon, the Bly Reef Buoy area, we have to rely on the integrity of the vessel operators.

MR. HOCHBERG: The radar man on duty, however, testified that he hadn't been watching the radar anyway.

QUESTIONER: At any time from the time you took over the watch until the tanker went aground, did you monitor the motion of the tanker or stand by the console and track what the vessel was doing?

BRUCE BLANDFORD, U.S. Coast Guard: I never did see him on radar at all.

MR. HOCHBERG: The Alyeska Company, which operates the Alaska Pipeline, was supposed to respond first to the spill. In its oil spill contingency plan, it had said it would be able to respond within five hours. It actually took 13, because the barge that it uses to fight oil spills wasn't loaded with the proper equipment.

QUESTIONER: Was it Alyeska's policy during the period preceding the accident to have the clean-up barge loaded and ready to respond to a spill?

WILLIAM HOWITT, Alyeska Pipeline Co.: The spill plan does not require Alyeska to have that barge loaded.

QUESTIONER: Was that your policy?

WILLIAM HOWITT: No, it was not our policy. It was our normal practice.

QUESTIONER: Was the barge ready for response at midnight on March 24th?

WILLIAM HOWITT: Yes, the barge was ready for response.

QUESTIONER: Was it loaded?

WILLIAM HOWITT: No, the barge was not loaded.

MR. HOCHBERG: The response to the spill thus fell to the Exxon Shipping Company, and its president testified that Exxon's performance was exemplary.

FRANK IAROSSI, President, Exxon Shipping Co.: As far as the third challenge, getting the ship off the reef, I would say we probably if we don't rate a hundred, it's probably ninety-nine, as far as doing that. One clear thing we were not able to do and I'm not sure there was a power on earth that could do that, but that was recover the 240,000 barrels that had already spilled.

MR. HOCHBERG: The Safety Board will study the information it gathered in Alaska for almost a year before issuing its official report on what went wrong. Until then, the focus in Alaska will be on scouring clean the hundreds of beaches left oiled by the Exxon Valdez. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the major points in the news, in China, students and soldiers continued their standoff amid reports of efforts to lift martial law orders. Britain and the Soviet Union traded expulsions of diplomats and journalists alleged to be spies. The White House said the rising value of the dollar was a cause for concern. To close tonight, you might be interested to know that the NewsHour was one of the winners of this year's Peabody awards for excellence in broadcasting. The award was for the Newshour's coverage of the 1988 election. The host at today's awards luncheon was Charles Kerault.

CHARLES KERAULT: MacNeil/Lehrer deserves a Peabody every year, wins one pretty nearly every year. Here to accept is Lester Crystal, Executive Producer.

LESTER CRYSTAL, Newshour Executive Producer: I'm now required to respond with a 30 second sound bite. This is a proud moment for the Newshour. In this democracy of ours we feel it's our most important responsibility to cover the election process fairly, comprehensibly and with some innovation. And virtually our entire staff was dedicated over more than a year's time to accomplish something that is being honored today by this prestigious award. On behalf of Robin and Jim, I want to thank the Peabody Awards, I want to thank an absolutely tireless and dedicated staff, and I want to thank the organizations that give us so much support, AT&T, the public broadcasting stations, and the Corporations for Public Broadcasting. Thank you very much for this honor.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our Newshour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.