The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, John Tower admitted marital infidelity but said his critics should look to their own morals, Vice President Quayle said the administration did not have the votes to win Tower's confirmation, the bipartisan Commission on the budget ended in partisan deadlock. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we have excerpts from John Tower's speech to the National Press Club and from a preliminary round of Senate debate on his confirmation as Defense Secretary, then Congressman William Gray and William Frenzel explain why the big bipartisan Economic Commission could not agree, Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio updates the Oliver North trial and we close with some excerpts from Drug Chief-Designate William Bennett's confirmation hearings. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: John Tower came to his own defense today. The embattled nominee for Defense Secretary appeared at a National Press Club luncheon in Washington. He was asked, among other things, if he had ever violated his marriage vows.

JOHN TOWER, Secretary of Defense-Designate: As a matter of fact, I have broken wedding vows. I think I'm probably not alone in that connection.

MR. LEHRER: We will have extended excerpts from Tower's appearance right after this News Summary. While Tower spoke, the Senate prepared to debate his confirmation. Formal debate was delayed at the request of the Republican leadership until tomorrow, but this morning there was an early skirmish involving the Senate Majority Leader and a Republican supporter of Tower.

SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL, Majority Leader: It is only after careful study of the record that I've concluded that Sen. Tower is not the man to provide leadership to the military and civilian employees of the Department of Defense, especially in the difficult job of performing the Pentagon's administration and procurement practices in a period of budget stringency.

SEN.

WILLIAM ARMSTRONG, [R] Colorado: In my opinion, the only proper basis to make this judgment is facts, specifically and openly presented, and that hasn't happened yet. When it does, I'm ready to listen, but if it doesn't, I think the Armed Services Committee ought to back off.

MR. LEHRER: How will it go when the vote does finally come? Vice President Quayle gave this answer to reporters during a White House photo opportunity.

VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: Well, we hope the prospects improve. We don't have 50 votes yet, but we're moving in that direction and I'll be the 51st.

REPORTER: Do you think you can still saveit?

VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: I think so. I hope so.

MR. LEHRER: Under an arrangement announced this afternoon, floor debate will start tomorrow. The final vote will come next week. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Public confirmation hearings began today for Edward Derwinski, President Bush's choice to head the new Veteran's Department. The 12 term Congressman was pressed by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee to explain his action in 1977. He tipped off the South Korean Government that one of their agents was going to defect and testify to Congress about Korean bribes to members of Congress. Derwinski acknowledged his actions were stupid, but he said he did not jeopardize the defection because he didn't know the defector's name, and, therefore, never gave it to the Koreans. The full Senate today gave virtually unanimous confirmation to two other Bush appointees, Louis Sullivan as Secretary of Health & Human Services, James Watkins as Secretary of Energy. Watkins was unopposed. Sullivan had one negative vote from Republican Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who said he felt Sullivan had not taken a strong enough position against abortion.

MR. LEHRER: The Economic Commission went quietly today. The bipartisan body set up to find a compromise way out of the deficit crisis could not do so. It issued its final report that was split pretty much along partisan lines. Seven Republicans plus a Bush appointed Democrat endorsed President Bush's no taxes pledge and his budget proposal. The six other Democrats signed a minority report calling the approach neither theoretically sound nor politically realistic.

MR. MacNeil: The Iran/Contra trial of Oliver North resumed today even though the dispute over classified information which caused adjournment Monday and Tuesday was unresolved. North contends that everything he did to help the Nicaraguan contras had the approval of top officials. One of today's witnesses was Robert Owen, who carried messages and money to the contras for North. Owen said North never mentioned President Reagan or other officials by name, he always used the word "superiors" but indicated he was working for their policies.

MR. LEHRER: Investigators believe they may have found the cargo door that blew off a United Airlines 747 near Honolulu last Friday. Nine people died in that tragedy. Authorities said radar had located a large metal object at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean near where the incident occurred. The object is in 16,800 feet of water and no decision has been made yet on whether to mount the expensive effort it would take to retrieve it.

MR. MacNeil: In the race for Mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, whose late father held the job for 21 years won yesterday's Democratic Primary. Daley received 56 percent of the vote, compared to his opponent, Eugene Sawyer. Sawyer had served as acting Mayor since the death of the city's first black Mayor, Harold Washington, in 1987. In the general election next month, Daley will face a conservative Republican who has strong support among whites and a black candidate backed by Jesse Jackson.

MR. LEHRER: There were some elections in Israel yesterday and the right wing Lekud party won. The elections were at the municipal level throughout the country. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said today the results were an endorsement of Lekud's hard line policies towards the Palestinians. The head of the Labor Party, Shimon Peres, said it had nothing to do with the Palestinian issue.

MR. MacNeil: In Venezuela, martial law remained in effect after two days of rioting and looting. The Associated Press reported that four people were killed today when police drove away mobs trying to loot stores in the slums surrounding the capital city, Caracas. About a hundred people have been killed and thousands arrested in Caracas and eight other cities since Monday night. The riots were triggered by price increases which are part of a government austerity program.

MR. LEHRER: Finally in the news, when Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of his Olympic Gold Medal last summer for taking steroids, he claimed he had not knowingly taken them. Today Johnson's trainer told a Canadian Government commission Johnson had been taking steroids and knew it since 1981. And that's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to John Tower and the debate about him, the bipartisan Economic Commission, the latest from the Oliver North trial and William Bennett's confirmation hearings. FOCUS - SELF DEFENSE

MR. LEHRER: There were two major events today in the still escalating battle over John Tower. Event one was at the National Press Club where Tower appeared on his own behalf. Event two happened on the floor of the Senate. We have extended excerpts from both. The Press Club featured questions from the audience and most of them dealt with the allegations of drinking, womanizing and possible conflict of interest that have plagued the Tower Defense Secretary nomination from the beginning. The questions were submitted in writing and were put to Sen. Tower by Press Club President Peter Holmes.

PETER HOLMES: Sen. Mitchell of Maine this morning announced his opposition to your nomination. The Majority Leader's vote carries a great deal of weight. Can your nomination make it in light of it?

JOHN TOWER, Secretary of Defense-Designate: I believe that the Majority Leader also said that individual Senators should make up their own minds or something to that effect, so I don't believe that he's trying to put the hammer on anyone, or I would not guess that he is based on his statement that individual Senators should come to their own conclusions.

PETER HOLMES, National Press Club: Sen. Hollings this morning said you had made pledges to abstain from alcohol before and broken them. Can we believe the latest one?

JOHN TOWER: I don't know what Sen. Hollings is referring to. I don't recall any such, but the fact is this is not a pledge, it is an oath that I have taken, have taken for, to and before the American people, and I regard such oaths as sacred and I can assure you I will abide by it.

PETER HOLMES: You said Sunday you've never broken a pledge in your life. Does this include wedding vows?

JOHN TOWER: As a matter of fact, I have broken wedding vows. I think I'm probably not alone in that connection.

PETER HOLMES: Senator, have you considered waiving the privacy provisions of the FBI report so that portions of it could be released to the public?

JOHN TOWER: It's not up to me to waive the privacy provisions. Those privacy provisions I think apply essentially to the people who were interviewed and I don't think it's within the purview of my power to wave anything. I have not seen the FBI report. I don't know what's in it and I can't comment or express any attitude on what should be done with the report in terms of revealing sections of it, or all of it, or a reduced version of it. I simply have no way of making judgment.

PETER HOLMES: One Washington columnist said you were not cuddly, or a very well liked member of the Senate when you were there. Do you think that the lack of affection of your former colleagues is playing an inordinate role in your current crisis?

JOHN TOWER: I believe it might be true that I'm not universally popular but I don't think that would be considered a motivation for their vote for or against me, because I have some very good friends that hold me in deep affection who've told me so that are not going to vote for my confirmation. I know of some in the Senate who have said that they have very little affection for me who are going to vote for me, so I would have to discount that as a factor.

PETER HOLMES: Do you believe, as some apparently do, that the opposition to you is mostly partisan?

JOHN TOWER: I think if it turns out that way that it's a significant development in American politics. I think it raises the question is character assassination a legitimate and acceptable means of the exercise of political power. If that question is answered in the affirmative, we have ushered in a new and rather ugly phase in American politics.

PETER HOLMES: Senator, what has angered you most about the way your nomination is being considered?

JOHN TOWER: I suppose one thing that I think engenders some resentment is the fact that there was no clearly defined standard against which I should be judged. The standard seemed to be developed and seemed to evolve to fit the situation. Now several Senators have said that the Secretary of State must adhere to a higher standard than members of the United States Senate. I accept that. I accept that the Secretary of Defense must adhere to a higher standard than members of the United States Senate, but my question is: How much lower an acceptable standard is there for members of the Senate? Is it an acceptable standard for Senators late in the evening who have had a few drinks in the hideaways and offices of the capitol a steps away from the Senate chamber to come on to the floor late in the evening and vote on vital issues of nuclear deterrence? Is it an acceptable standard for Senators to accept honoraria, PAC contributions and paid vacations from special interests who have a vested interest in the legislative process? I think in the course of formulating a standard for the Secretary of Defense, or, indeed, for any other cabinet officer, that it is time that the Congress articulated what its own standards are.

PETER HOLMES: Senator, you've taken a beating in the press. Embarrassing stories have been written about your personal life. What are your feelings about this?

JOHN TOWER: Well, I guess I should say I feel a little bit like the fellow that had been immersed in tar and feathers and was being ridden out of town on a rail. Obviously, it has not been comfortable. I think that there has been too much of an eagerness on the part of some aspects of the media to rush into print or on the air waves with unsustained allegations, and there's an old saying, of course, that the answer never catches up to the charge. The charge might be a four column head above the fold on the front page, and the answer when it comes, refuting the charge or rebutting it or disproving it, might come back on page twenty- three, somewhere in the patent medicine ads.

PETER HOLMES: Under what set of circumstances would you withdraw your name for consideration by the Senate?

JOHN TOWER: William Barrett Travis who was the commandant of the Alamo said, "I shall never surrender or retreat.". Wait a minute. I am a little sorry I brought up the Alamo analogy because it just occurred to me what happened at the Alamo.

PETER HOLMES: Would you comment on the state of the current relationship between the department and the defense supply industry? Should it be improved and how would you do that, especially in view of your own perceived conflict of interest by some?

JOHN TOWER: Well, in terms of my own cases, that's a perception of an appearance. There is none because I have no continuing financial arrangement with any defense contractor. I have severed all my relationships with him as of the 1st of December of last year three months ago and so I have no continuing financial interest. I have no particular loyalty to any particular contractor. I think contractors must be held responsible for what they are responsible for and I believe that we should insist on value of the dollar that we spend with them and I think that we should insist that they be honest in their dealings with the Defense Department.

PETER HOLMES: There's been some suggestion that the acquisitions against you have been fueled by the Pentagon, itself, because of its fear and concern about the reforms you would make. Any comment?

JOHN TOWER: If that's true, I would consider that to be a very very strong recommendation for my confirmation.

PETER HOLMES: If confirmed, what effect will all the debate leading up to the vote have on your ability to function as Secretary of Defense?

JOHN TOWER: I have been assured by my potential subordinates it would have no adverse effect on them in terms of following my direction and my authority. I think when people suggest that I would be incapable or crippled or in some way debilitated in the performance of my duty to explain how they think I would be. I think once you're given that authority backed up by the President of the United States and you're engaging active cooperation of Congress that my effectiveness would not be diminished. And two, there is a very clear perception in the military community that I'm being very very unfairly treated and my confirmation would be considered vindication. And I think to survive the kind of campaign that I have been through actually indicates strength and not weakness.

PETER HOLMES: In the event that you do not win confirmation, will you return to consulting for defense contractors?

JOHN TOWER: I have no intention of ever returning to defense consulting again in any circumstance. Following my career in government service should it extend over a period of a few years from now or should it extend over a much shorter period of time, it is my expectation that my involvement in national security matters will be in the academic world, primarily, my involvement in defense matters. In all probability, once I -- I won't say in probability, I'll say it's a virtual certainty, that once I complete my public service -- I've spent virtually all of my adult life in public service on the two, a little over two years, two and a half years in the private sector, and that's all, the rest of it's been given over to public service. And I've accumulated very little in this world, being a schoolteacher by background or by trade and a clergyman's son by background, and I remember what John Nance Gardner once said when he left the Vice Presidency after having served as Speaker of the House, Vice President of the United States, distinguished career, says he was going to cross that Potomac heading West and never come back again. He never came back and he lived to be 95 years old. However, I will not make that kind of flat commitment. It is my plan to load up my 1972 Dodge Charger 400 Magnum with all my possessions, mattress strapped to the roof and all that sort of thing, and head back to Texas, as my prominent residence. But I might be back from time to time in one capacity. Incidentally, in that my grandparents lived in their nineties, my enemies can take small comfort that I will depart this world anytime soon.

JOHN TOWER: Event two, speeches on the floor of the Senate where the fate of the Tower nomination rests. We have excerpts from remarks by Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, Democrat of Maine, and Sen. William Armstrong, Republican of Colorado.

SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL, Majority Leader: I have reviewed the record of this nomination carefully. I have examined the Armed Services Committee's records and reports. I have read the extensive FBI background report in its entirety. After this study, I am persuaded that John Tower should not be confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Immediately after leaving the government as chief negotiator on strategic arms, Sen. Tower formed close consulting relationships with numerous defense contractors. He earned a great deal of money in less than three years advising these companies about the possible impact of government decisions on their business. He received payment while it was widely assumed that he might be a nominee for Secretary of Defense. Sen. Tower's decision to embark on such a course can at best be described as one of indifference to potential conflicts or the appearance of conflicts which such relationships could engender. There is overwhelming evidence that Sen. Tower at one time used alcohol to excess. Indeed, after initial denials, both the nominee and the White House have reversed their positions and now acknowledge this fact. That being the case, it is reasonable and prudent to require convincing evidence that the excessive evidence has stopped and will not recur. Such evidence must consist of more than a pledge or a promise. It must be reflected in the individual's behavior. Again, the record in Sen. Tower's case is not persuasive.

SEN.

WILLIAM ARMSTRONG, [R] Colorado: If there is information that in some private relationship a nominee has violated some pledge or has behaved in a way that is improper or sets a low standard of public morality, then I think when a nominee is being considered for a post like Secretary of Defense or for that matter Senator that that's fair game. Now Mr. President, I want to say this just right. We had not too long ago a political figure from my state whose political career was abruptly ended because of an allegation of an improper relationship with a person of the opposite sex, and I'm not insensitive to that in the case of Sen. Tower. If there's something in the record, I'm going to take that into account. But the difference in the case involving the Colorado figure that I referred to a moment ago and this case is striking. Our former colleague, who was a candidate for President, was forced to withdraw or at least did withdraw following an episode in which all the facts were on the public record. I believe such issues are fair game, that they are factors for consideration, not to say that one lapse or two lapses, human nature being what it is is disqualifying, but it's a fair standard on which judgments may be made, but the distinction I want to draw is in the case I've just cited we're talking about a specific instance which occurred on a date which was specified at a time which was specified in front of witnesses who came forward and whose names were known and who published stories and, in fact, there was a picture that was published. In the Tower case, we're talking about allegations which were hinted at but never even made. It's not that the allegations are unproven. In the Committee's report they aren't even really made. There isn't anything specific that Sen. Tower is said to have done, and I believe, and I really plead with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, it is your duty if you've got that kind of information to bring it forward and if you don't, then by gosh, I think it's your duty to back off. Now what about the notion which appears by the way in both the majority and minority reports that we ought to keep this FBI report secret? I'm not saying publish the FBI report. That's just a lot of raw investigatory material. I'm saying whatever the Committee took into account in reaching its extraordinary recommendation ought to be specified, lay it out. If there's something specifically that he did, what is it, so that we can make a judgment and so that the nominee can be judged and so that the country can hold us accountable for the stewardship of our task. And that applies to drinking, it applies to behavior towards women, and it applies to the question of improper relationship with defense contractors. What is it specifically that is objected to? And I'm prepared to look at that and if there's something there, I'll make a judgment on it and stand up to be counted.

MR. LEHRER: Under an agreement announced late this afternoon, formal floor debate on the Tower nomination will begin tomorrow, with a vote scheduled for next week. Still to come tonight on the Newshour, the quiet going of the Economic Commission, a North trial update and William Bennett's confirmation hearings. FOCUS - DEFICIT DEADLOCK

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight we focus on the sharply divided conclusion of a special government commission that was supposed to find a bipartisan solution to the budget deficit problem. The National Economic Commission was established by Congress in late 1987. It was an attempt to mold the views of experts in and out of government into a bipartisan approach to the issues of the deficit spending and taxes. The Commission was loaded with such luminaries as former Democratic Party Chairman Robert Strauss, Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca, and Investment Banker Felix Rohatyn on the Democratic side, and with prominent Republicans like former Defense Secretaries Caspar Weinberger and Donald Rumsfeld and former Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis. Today the Commission released its report with little fanfare, not even a press conference. The result was a split almost exactly along party lines. All seven Republicans and one Democrat appointed by George Bush voted in support of the President's program. They agreed that the deficit can be reduced without raising taxes. The remaining six Democrats dissented and were highly critical of the President's approach. Joining us now are two Commission members, Congressman Bill Frenzel, Republican of Minnesota, ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, and Congressman William Gray III, former head of the House Budget Committee, now the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus. Congressman Gray, the Commission seems to have ended not with a bang but a whimper. What went wrong?

REP.

WILLIAM GRAY III, [D] Pennsylvania: Well, I think essentially what happened was that the majority members wanted to support President Bush's fiscal and revenue policy of his flexible freeze. And, therefore, as a result, there was never any meaningful negotiation with regard to any other fiscal and revenue policy. Basically, what we Democrats simply said is fine, that's your right to do that. You have the majority, you have the votes, and since the President never liked the Commission in the first place, we understand what you're doing. However, it does not meet the requirements of our mandate, which is a bipartisan recommendation, because there never was a negotiation and so we just simply said that we disagreed with the approach of the administration for three reasons. One, it's an unbalanced and non- sustainable approach politically in terms of deficit reduction. Two, it's overly optimistic economic assumptions in the out years. And we also felt very strongly it was a one year measure to get you through Gramm-Rudman of this year. However, we did agree with our colleagues on the Republican side that deficits do matter and that there ought to be some budget process reform.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Frenzel, do you agree with that version of history, that you never got to meaningful negotiations and that President Bush never liked the Commission at all?

REP. BILL FRENZEL, [R] Minnesota: Well, we did never get to meaningful negotiations. Part of that was due to the fact that we were obliged by court order to operate under an open meeting law and it is very hard to negotiate sensitive political and economic questions in the harsh glare of daylight, but it is also true that the President and Congress were about to engage in negotiations anyway and it is not entirely clear to me as to what some kind of unanimous agreement had we been able to reach it would have contributed to the conclusion. But I think both the majority and the minority did agree on a number of items. We agreed that deficits were important, they needed to be reduced, that the deficit reduction should follow the Gramm-Rudman targets down to zero in four years, that then we had to work on a separate problem now being masked by Social Security receipts. We have some similar inclinations in budget process reform, and, indeed, I think we kept the flame of deficit reduction alive during the past year, and I do not look upon the Commission's report as a failure. We could have done more, but I'm not sure had we done more we would have contributed to a conclusion between the President and the Congress. The ball is clearly there and in that court will be the final judgment.

MR. MacNeil: But other issues have been clearly there in the past few years like the Social Security crisis which resulted in a compromise produced by a similar Commission. Wasn't that just the purpose of this Commission, to take some of the heat off the President and off you members of Congress for whatever unpleasant medicine may be necessary to reduce this deficit? Wasn't that the whole purpose of this?

REP. FRENZEL: Sure it was, and we've had some successful commissions like Social Security and base closings. Both of those, I might add, operated under the same law but in close meetings, where they were able to negotiate discreetly. On the other hand, we've had Commissions that were less successful. The Central America Commission is one that comes immediately to mind. I don't think we need to say that this Commission was a total failure because we couldn't come to an agreement. Some of us felt very strongly about the fact that taxes weren't necessary, others thought that more resources should be employed, and so we came to two separate conclusions on some matters but on many matters we agreed. I think the report will help the Congress and I think it will help the President.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Gray, what happens now if a bunch of heavyweights, like you gentlemen and your colleagues are not holding elective office and not, therefore, directly politically responsible to a constituency, if you guys, a group like you can't come up with a realistic solution to this, can the Congress and the White House?

REP. GRAY: It means I think that there's going to be difficult days ahead. Essentially, the National Economic Commission has stepped off of the platform while the big wrestlers, the Sumo wrestlers now can go at it, the administration and the Congress directly, and that's one of the reasons why we, the Minority members, the Democrats who were in the minority on the Commission, did not make any specific recommendations because we said we're not going to add to what we perceive as something that is very partisan. We did lose a bipartisan opportunity.

MR. MacNeil: Excuse me interrupting you. Are you saying that it was Mr. Bush who made this issue partisan?

REP. GRAY: It is my opinion very clearly that a bipartisan opportunity was lost to partisan obscurity, because, No. 1, President Bush back in October announced very publicly that he was opposed to the Commission because he felt that it was going to be a shelter to recommend taxes. Well, we never even got to that question about taxes, but the fact is that if the Commission was to be effective, it had to make its recommendations really before the new President, whether it's Bush or Dukakis or whoever, made their budget proposals so that they could be taken into consideration. That was not possible and so, therefore, the life of the Commission which is up this month gave way to the realities, the political realities that George Bush was a President. He was not for the Commission in the beginning and secondly, he had a very set fiscal and revenue policy which he called the flexible freeze which he wanted supported and which he wants to negotiate with Congress on.

MR. MacNeil: That sounds, Congressman Frenzel, like there was never any chance given the outcome of the election that this Commission could come up with, even if some Republicans on it had agreed, come up with a solution that included new taxes.

REP. FRENZEL: I think that none of the Republicans on the Committee were very enthralled with adding taxes under any set of circumstances. I think one of the things the Economic Commission's difficulties tell you is that these are difficult problems, there are strong splits in the Congress and in the general public about how to deal with these problems.

MR. MacNeil: Well, aren't the same political realities going to stymie you in the Congress in your negotiations with the White House that lie ahead which have a time limit on them of the end of the summer?

REP. GRAY: I think some of those problems are going to exist. That's what I mean by a lack of balance and sustainability. The flexible freeze of the President despite the kinder and gentler rhetoric calls for $21 billion of reduction out of the domestic side, a 4 percent increase for the Pentagon, and there are proposals which I haven't found anybody who's going to support. I don't think members of the Ways & Means Committee of which Mr. Frenzel is a member will vote for $5 billion of reductions in Medicare, Republicans or Democrats. That's been up here three times before, and has failed. Also, let me just say one other thing and that is that there are taxes in the Bush flexible freeze. There are $14.5 billion worth of revenues, and of the 14.5, after you remove the asset sales, there is about $7 billion of new revenues which are called increased receipts which are called user fees which I think to the American taxpayer who will have to reach into their pocket and pay them, they will call them not user fees, not increased receipts. They'll call them taxes. So I mean, taxes are not really the issue here. We've always had new revenues, increased receipts, user fees coming from the former administration and now we've got it from this administration. I think what we're talking about is what is sustainable and long-term deficit reduction.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Frenzel, you didn't get a chance to answer the question. Aren't the same political realities going to stymie you now as confronted this Commission?

REP. FRENZEL: No, I don't think so, because we have deadlines. We have to come to some conclusion before Gramm-Rudman bites or before the debt ceiling limits are interposed, but I think taxes are one of the issues, I differ with a Bill a little bit on that, and I noticed that those who are complaining that the President's budget is not kinder and gentler have not come forward with important proposals about how to increase taxation. So I think the Congress and the President are going to have some sharp negotiations in front of them. But I think they will come to a conclusion. I can't predict what the result is going to be, but I think that we are going to achieve the Gramm-Rudman targets this year, and I think we have a chance to reach them in the future.

MR. MacNeil: Who is the loser politically in this result of the Commission, Mr. Frenzel?

REP. FRENZEL: I don't think there is a political loser. I think the Commission has cleared a little brush, has arrived at some modest consensus and has set the stage for the President and the Congress to negotiate. I think the members behaved with diligence and distinction, did the best they could under the circumstances and they'd be glad to be called back if they can be found helpful somewhere else, but I don't think there's necessarily a loser here.

MR. MacNeil: Do you, Congressman Gray?

REP. GRAY: No, I don't think that there's a loser. I think that the members just faced a political reality and had to deal with that reality and, therefore, the result was preordained. I would point out that that we in the Democratic side don't recommend any new taxes or revenues at all.

MR. MacNeil: Well, thinking of it politically, this administration has come in, it was one of the major themes of the President's inaugural address, stressing the desire for bipartisanship. On the Tower nomination which we've just heard discussed and now on this bipartisan commission, if a bipartisan commission can't be bipartisan, how can the administration and the Congress? What does it say about the next four years, Congressman Gray?

REP. GRAY: Well, I think it says a couple of things. One, if the Commission was to be successful, we really needed to issue a report in January at the latest prior to President Bush laying down his budget. No President is going to lay down a budget, a fiscal and revenue plan, and then say ah, I've received new revelation from 14 wise people from different walks of life who are Democrats and Republicans, and then goes back and pick it up. We should have done that. We weren't able to do that for a variety of reasons. Second thing, I think what it says is that the deficit problem has no stone wall, like the Social Security Commission had to come up with a solution because checks were going to stop. The problem with deficits is they are corrosive, they're slow acting. They are not perceived immediately. And so, thus, there is no political sanction such as checks stopping in the case of Social Security. And then finally, I think ultimately what this really says is that the problem is sodifficult and people have taken such strong positions that maybe a Commission cannot work, especially when you have a President with very strong ideas, and rightfully so, about what he wants, and, therefore, you have to let the normal process of the executive branch and the legislative branch work it out through the normal budget process, but I think Congressman Frenzel is right. We will have deficit reduction. If the Congress does not accept the Bush flexible freeze, which I don't think it will, then it will come out with a different proposal which will do the job and if the President doesn't like that, which is always a possibility, then we can have sequestration where we'll have across-the-board cuts and we'll get the job done that way.

MR. MacNeil: Let me get a final word from your colleague, Congressman Frenzel. What do you think it says about the prospects for bipartisanship in the years ahead, with the administration just having started?

REP. FRENZEL: I think we're in a difficult spot with the Tower problem and with the deficit problem, nevertheless, I am convinced that there is good will on both sides that the President really means his outreach, that Congress will respond to that outreach. I think we will have some violent arguments, rigorous confrontations and that together we're going to reach a deficit reduction plan that will do the job.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Congressman Frenzel, Congressman Gray, thank you both for joining us from Capitol Hill. UPDATE - TRYING TRIAL

MR. LEHRER: Next, an update on the Oliver North trial. It was back in the witness business today after a two day flap over the use of some classified documents. That issue remains unresolved. The judge and the defense are upset. And Nina Totenberg, Legal Correspondent for National Public Radio, is here to explain it all. Nina.

MS. TOTENBERG: Hi, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Let's first of all on the witnesses, General Singlaub and Robert Owen today, what did they say? What was their purpose?

NINA TOTENBERG, National Public Radio: General Singlaub testified about the fund-raising and the various arrangements for arms selling that he engaged in with the encouragement of Lt. Col. North.

MR. LEHRER: Now he's a retired army general.

MS. TOTENBERG: He's a retired army general. And I think probably the most important piece of his testimony was when he said that he in a meeting with Lt. Col. North has said to him right after the Bolland amendment passed banning military and intelligence aid to the contras, he met with North and he said to him, look, I think this law can be read to say that the National Security Council, the office of the President, and you can still be engaged in aiding the contras and North said to him, I agree with you, but there are a lot of lawyers in this administration who don't. So that means that there is now testimony on the record showing that Oliver North knew that directing aid to the contras from his office was of questionable legality. So that's what we heard from Singlaub. We heard further testimony from Robert Owen who was courier --

MR. LEHRER: Is Singlaub finished, or is he coming back tomorrow for cross-examination?

MS. TOTENBERG: He's coming back tomorrow for cross-examination. We finished up with him today at the end of the day. The beginning of the day was devoted to Robert Owen.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Now tell us about Robert Owen.

MS. TOTENBERG: Owen, his testimony began last week and then degenerated into this flap about classified information. Today it picked up and he under cross-examination from the defense counsel portrayed Oliver North, for whom he carried messages and information to the contras, he portrayed Oliver North as a man of great integrity, trustworthiness, tireless worker for the contras, just a wonderful person in the crusade against communism.

MR. LEHRER: Now Owen was the courier for North to the contras, was he not?

MS. TOTENBERG: That's right. For two years he served as courier for North to the contras. Then the prosecution on redirect had to come back and, in essence, attack its own witness and try to tear down the image of Oliver North as great guy and so the prosecution asked a series of questions, and I think I'm accurately quoting. They were these. Did Oliver North ever tell you that the President of the United States had instructed him to lie? Answer: No. Did Oliver North ever tell you that the President of the United States had instructed him to conceal what he was doing? Answer: No. Did Oliver North ever tell you that any of his bosses by name, Robert McFarland or John Poindexter, had ever authorized him? No, he just said his superiors. So, all we know now from Owen is that North said he was authorized to do what he did from his superiors but without any names.

MR. LEHRER: Is there any way, is it possible in any way to summarize the impact of the testimony thus far in the trial?

MS. TOTENBERG: I don't think yet. We have it too much in bits and pieces. We can tell something about the approaches and the difficulties that both sides are having. The defense approach is, in essence, to try communism along with Oliver North and to find communism guilty and Oliver North innocent so that the defense counsel, Brendon Sullivan, will simply characterize the Sandinistas to the jury as the "bad guys", and he has maps that he points to and he shows Nicaragua as the yellow company which is like Cuba, which is also yellow, or the Soviet Union, also yellow, and we know what those countries stand for. They stand for no freedom of religion, no individual rights. So that is the approach taken --

MR. LEHRER: And that Oliver North is their opponent?

MS. TOTENBERG: Is their opponent.

MR. LEHRER: And that is what has motivated him?

MS. TOTENBERG: That's right. That he was a crusader and that he was authorized by his superiors to do what he did. The prosecution has a difficult time in a lot of ways because almost all of its witnesses tend to be witnesses for the defense. Most of the prosecution witnesses were protagonists in the Reagan administration and the pro contra effort and they don't want to see Oliver North convicted. So in the end, it's usually the prosecutor who on redirect examination is attacking his own witness to try to show that they were part of a kind of a scuzzy operation, not really for truth and goodness.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Where does the issue on the thing that held things up for two days, the business on the classified information, where does that stand now?

MS. TOTENBERG: In limbo. Here's what happened. Mr. Owen was on the witness stand. Mr. Owen was a private citizen and he wrote some eighteen or twenty memos to Oliver North when he served as North's courier. Those memos once they were found after the whole Iran/Contra affair blew up, were classified by the intelligence community, but they were private documents. They were written by a private citizen, a man who is not an official of the government, and in the course of the trial the prosecution was introducing these documents and the defense was trying to introduce these documents and they were edited by the intelligence community in conformance with the rules that the judge had set down for protecting classified information. And then boom, on Monday, but runs out that these memos have been in the public domain for at least six months unedited, uncensored, and all of us reporters got them, I think it was on Monday that we got hold of them, and write all of our stories if we so wished, all the CIA names and the names of Costa Rican officials who helped the United States Government that the intelligence agencies had been trying to protect, probably foolishly, because it's been in the public domain. It was part of a civil lawsuit, and the judge got completely bent out of shape. The defense accused the prosecution of prosecutorial misconduct, said they'd known for 10 days about this, and misled the defense. The judge held a hearing, put one of the prosecutors on the witness stand, security officials from the prosecutor's office on the witness stand. In the end, the judge said, look, I don't think there was any bad faith here but I'm going to have another hearing to find out what's going on here, because these rules aren't working out the way I thought they would and we're having a mess on our hands, so the cuckoo clock trial that he warned of is starting to happen.

MR. LEHRER: But meanwhile, the trial goes on?

MS. TOTENBERG: Meanwhile, he wants to -- I think what he hopes is that if he allows the trial to go forward, he will have a body of knowledge to see whether these are aberrations, these blowups or whether they're going to happen every two or three days, and if they're just aberrations, he can deal with them, but if they're going to happen every two or three days, then it's what the press corps has come to characterize as cuckoo, cuckoo.

MR. LEHRER: Cuckoo, cuckoo. In the meantime, the defense wants the whole thing called off on the grounds that this means that Oliver North is not getting a fair trial, right?

MS. TOTENBERG: Yes, the defense would like the whole thing called off because they want everything in. And I should say that this is another problem for the prosecution. The prosecution narrowed its case, it dropped the two major, the big conspiracy counts with the aim of presenting 12 relatively discreet criminal acts to charge Oliver North with and to limit the classified information that would be needed at the trial, but the judge has allowed the defense wide latitude in showing Oliver North's motivation, and so through the back door a lot of that classified information that the prosecution hoped to avoid is coming in and the judge is letting it in, and so there is a problem here.

MR. LEHRER: Final question. Just from a lawyer's standpoint, courthouse reporters like to always know this, are the lawyers equally matched in this as you sit there? Do you feel like both sides are doing a good job?

MS. TOTENBERG: One really does have the sense that they're both doing a good job. One also has the sense they truly detest each other. This is not a professional relationship. I mean, there are little jabs, jabs, jabs. I mean, these people have been at it for over a year and they have learned to loathe each other.

MR. LEHRER: That makes it fun, if nothing else. Nina Totenberg, again, thank you very much.

MS. TOTENBERG: Thank you, Jim. SERIES - CONSIDERING THE CABINET

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight, the confirmation hearings of William Bennett to be the nation's first Director of National Drug Control Policy, otherwise known as the Drug Czar. The former Reagan administration Secretary of Education, Bennett will be responsible for coordinating the federal government's anti-drug efforts. He testified today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where members had sharp criticism of President Bush's decision not to give the drug czar cabinet level rank. In his opening statement, Bennett talked about the war against drugs.

WILLIAM BENNETT, Drug Policy Director-Designate: I've been struck, Mr. Chairman, these last few weeks as I've met with people inside government and out by the pessimism, even fatalism, that many have about our mission and the war on drugs. Some have told me that they wouldn't wish this job on their worst enemy. Others have made clear that they think the war is already lost. I think we must disagree. There are things that can be done. A realistic and responsible national strategy if implemented will make things better. Its overall goal is one we all share, a steady flow in the reduction of drugs through our streets and our communities and our children and a corresponding reduction in the deadly hold they now have over so many of our friends and families and neighbors. Our tactics must be refined and intensified, but the need for a full blown attack on both sides of the drug equation, demand and supply, will not disappear overnight. It's taken us more than a generation to come to the pass we find ourselves in now. It will take more than 180 days, the due date for my strategy, to turn the tide around.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN, [D] Delaware: There seems to be some confusion within the executive branch, and I might add other places, about the authority you will have as a drug director. One transition official said that Congress gave the director so much power that he could be a cowboy, that was a quote, and run riot over other agencies. That's also a quote. Other officials have commented that your position is only advisory, with little real authority. Now I'd like you to give me some sense of what you think, what authority you think this language would give you to develop a comprehensive anti-drug strategy.

WILLIAM BENNETT: I didn't volunteer for this job, which I did, to the President in order to hide. That wasn't my intention. Nor would it be interesting enough to pull me out of the private sector which was very interesting and rewarding for my wife and me for at least a couple of months in order just to advise, and we certainly do not need in the war against drugs cowboys. What we need is a comprehensive, thought through strategy. I am to develop an assessment and evaluation of the problem, consult with the Congress, consult with the relevant agencies, consult with the experts, and then too, to have this very independent evaluative responsibility vis-a-vis budget makes it clear that this a serious matter of direction and coordination.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: Dr. Bennett, while you were at the Department of Education, you frequently spoke out on issues that had nothing directly to do with your responsibilities as the Secretary of Education, but I believe that the drug issue is one that will become somewhat mired down in ideological disputes if when you're attempting to do this incredibly difficult job we all acknowledge you volunteered to undertake and the President had confidence enough in you to ask you to undertake it, that your job, your plate's going to be full enough. Do you anticipate continuing to speak out on extremely controversial issues that are outside the mission of the drug director while you are drug director?

WILLIAM BENNETT: I won't foreswear ever doing so, but I think there is plenty to keep me on this beat. I don't go into this job withany sense that this is going to be something we can handle in six months, a year, eighteen months, twenty-four months. And there will be lots of time left over to issue advisory opinions about other things. This will be a full-time position and I plan to focus on it.

SEN. PAUL SIMON, [D] Illinois: What kind of assurances do we have that you're going to come up here and be candid in saying this is what needs to be done to move this nation ahead on this drug problem?

WILLIAM BENNETT: Why take this job if you're just going to be a bureaucrat? I read one magazine that said consensus is that Bennett will be a figurehead. I will not be a figurehead. I will win or I will lose, but I will not be a figurehead. Why would you take this job to be a figurehead? You know, the pay's not so good as we know, the hours are horrible, the subject is depressing, depressing as hell. Unless you thought you were going to make some positive difference, I don't see any reason in the world to do it.

MR. MacNeil: Bennett returns to Capitol Hill for a second day of testimony tomorrow. Final committee action on his nomination is expected next week. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, John Tower in a Washington luncheon appearance admitted he had violated his marriage vows and said he would not give up his fight to be confirmed as Secretary of Defense. A Senate vote on the nomination was put off until next week. And the bipartisan Economic Commission set up to find a compromise way out of the budget deficit problem ended its work in disagreement and split along mostly partisan lines. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the Newshour tonight and we will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.