The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, the Supreme Court approved mandatory drug testing for some railroad and government workers. A new Trident 2 missile exploded in failure shortly after launch, and new figures showed inflation moderating. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After the News Summary our first focus is the drug testing decision. We'll have back-to-back interviews with critic Ira Glasser of the American Civil Liberties Union and Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, its top defender, then a documentary report on a North versus South battle over defending death row inmates. We'll have a News Maker Interview with Salvadoran President-Elect Alfredo Cristiani, and Judy Woodruff will report on the pace of the Bush administration's performance. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The U.S. Supreme Court today handed down its first decisions on mandatory drug testing. There were two of them, one on railroad workers, the other on employees at the U.S. Customs Service. By a 7 to 2 vote, the court upheld blood and urine tests for railroad employees involved in accidents. In a 5 to 4 decision, it also approved urine tests for people applying for drug enforcement work with the Customs Service. The decisions drew this reaction from Attorney General Dick Thornburgh.

DICK THORNBURGH, Attorney General: I would certainly hope that responsible employers will share our commitment to providing a drug free work place and will be heartened in their resolution to initiate responsible drug testing programs by the court's finding today. I would think that many more employers will view this decision as a green light toward responsible drug testing programs.

MR. LEHRER: A reminder that Attorney General Thornburgh and Ira Glasser of the ACLU will be with us right after this News Summary. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Navy's newest, most powerful weapon failed its first test at sea today when it exploded just four seconds after blastoff. The $24 million unarmed Trident 2 missile was launched from the nuclear submarine USS Tennessee as it cruised submerged several miles off Cape Canaveral. The Navy said no damage was done to the submarine or to nearby support ships. The missile had been tested 19 times before from a ground launch pad. Three of those tests failed.

MR. LEHRER: The monthly Consumer Price Index numbers were out today and they were not as bad as expected The Labor Department said the increase for February was .4 percent, down from .6 in January, but the two together do translate into a 6.1 percent annual inflation rate compared to the 4.4 rate experienced in both 1987 and '88. The government today also announced the 1988 losses for the savings & loan industry. The total was $12.1 billion, the largest yearly loss since the great depression. The figures were released by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Secretary of State James Baker today asked Congress not to prejudge the human rights performance of the newly elected rightist party in El Salvador. Secretary Baker was responding to several members of Congress who said they were concerned that human rights abuses could increase under the new government and jeopardize U.S. aid. During his appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Secretary had this to say.

JAMES BAKER, Secretary of State: If we really believe in democracy, we ought to give democracy a chance and we ought to resist the temptation to pick and choose winners. If we don't like the winner, we don't recognize the government. That's not democracy. So we need to give this government a chance.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Later in the program we will have a News Maker Interview with President-Elect Cristiani. In El Salvador today, the military said it has detained troops who shot two photographers covering Sunday's elections. One of the journalists was killed and the other is in serious condition. An armed forces spokesman said the soldiers would remain in custody pending an investigation.

MR. LEHRER: There was more fighting and death in Lebanon today. In separate incidents, three members of the United Nations peacekeeping force were killed when a land mine destroyed their truck. Seven other people died in combat in the Christian section of Beirut. It was the fourteenth day of fighting between Christian army units and Moslem militia men. Sue Stephens of Worldwide Television News narrates this report.

SUE STEPHENS: The latest shelling left parts of Northeast Beirut in ruins, more destruction caused by the fighting between Syrian- backed Moslem militia and Christian army units. Overnight the two sides fought with guns and rocket launchers, continuing a round of fighting that started two weeks ago. As usual, the clashes left more than bombed out buildings. Christian soldiers fired their weapons in honor of a dead officer. He was one of fifty-nine killed since the factional fighting broke out. The latest battles have seen the crossings that divide Moslem and Christian Beirut closed, cutting off all travel between the two sides. They've also prompted residents to stockpile food for fear of further clashes, people lined up for bread in Moslem, West Beirut, and there were lineups of petrol in anticipation of a shortage. So far, there's no sign of a cease-fire to end this round of fighting.

MR. LEHRER: In Washington, the White House announced three upcoming meetings between President Bush and leaders of the Middle East. President Mubarak of Egypt will come to Washington April 3rd. Israeli Prime Minister Shamir will meet with Mr. Bush three days later and King Hussein of Jordan will be here May 2nd.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In Brazil, at least 10 people were killed when a Boeing 707 cargo plane exploded in mid air and crashed in a sprawling slum near Sao Paolo. There were reports that dozens of people on the ground were injured. Some 20 wooden shacks caught fire after the explosion. Later, firefighting teams extinguished the flames. An airline spokesman said the plane apparently developed mechanical trouble and was attempting an emergency landing. That's our News Summary. Still ahead on the Newshour, work place drug testing, defending death row inmates, Salvadoran President-Elect Cristiani, and the pace of the Bush administration. FOCUS - PASSING THE TEST

MR. LEHRER: The Supreme Court's drug testing decisions are our lead story tonight. The court approved mandatory testing of railroad employees involved in accidents and of applicants for drug enforcement work in the U.S. Customs Service. We look at the impact of the rulings with two key players from opposite sides in the cases and the issues they raise, the Attorney General of the United States, Dick Thornburgh, and Ira Glasser, the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. They are with us for separate interviews. Mr. Glasser is first. Mr. Glasser, your side lost. What has been lost, in your opinion?

IRA GLASSER, American Civil Liberties Union: Well, the fourth amendment to the constitution permits the government to search people who are suspected of wrongdoing. We have never opposed that. But what the constitution prohibits the government from doing is searching innocent people, people who are not even suspected of any wrongdoing. This decision carves a giant exception into that distinction. This decision permits the innocent to be searched along with the suspected. It allows the government to search people who are not even suspected of using drugs on the job or off the job. It, therefore, has no capacity to deal with the problem of drug abuse. Its main impact will be two injure innocent people.

MR. LEHRER: What about -- let's take the two decisions one at a time -- the railroad case, now that applies to railroad employees involved in an accident. Now why is that an unreasonable search?

MR. GLASSER: Well, it doesn't apply to railroad employees involved in an accident. It applies to railroad employees who have beenon the train after an accident has occurred or other infraction of the rule. It's not only an accident. Now this was all generated; these rules were generated. There's no requirement that any individual railroad employee be suspected of being implicated in causing the accident. These regulations came about largely because of a big accident in Baltimore in 1986, in which 16 people were killed and the conductor was found out to have been on drugs. The problem was is that you didn't need drug testing of other people to find out about him. He was a person who had had repeated convictions for drunk driving for 15 years. He was at that time awaiting trial for drunk driving, his supervisors knew about it and they should never have allowed him to drive that train. You didn't need drug testing; they knew that he was unfit to drive the train. And what problem is going to be solved by dealing with poor supervision in that instance and then subjecting other innocent people who weren't even suspected of being involved in the accident to invasion of their privacy is beyond me. And it will not make the train safer, but it will injure innocent people.

MR. LEHRER: Well, as you know, the court disagreed with that. The court said very specifically that safety was their concern and that's the reason they ruled the way they did. What do you see, taking the specifics of the Amtrak accident and the Amtrak case aside, put those aside, what do you see are the implications of that decision, could be the implications?

MR. GLASSER: Well, what could be the implications of this decision is the fourth amendment will not mean in the future what it has meant in the past. In the past if the government had a good reason to search somebody, that is, there was some degree of individualized suspicion, they could do so, but if there was not a degree of individualized suspicion, if they had no probable cause to believe a particular individual was involved in wrongdoing, then they couldn't search. That was a balance that was struck in the eighteenth century by the people who founded this country and it is a balance that conservatives in this country ought to support. In the future, if this decision is expanded, as Attorney General Thornburgh has wished before, that employers consider this a green light, it will mean that people can be searched and their privacy is invaded even if there is no reason to suspect them of using drugs or of wrongdoing, and that obliterates the fourth amendment standard that has governed rights in this country and protected innocent people.

MR. LEHRER: What about the second decision that involves employees or prospective employees of the U.S. Customs Service involved in drug enforcement? The court, as you know, said that that was a legitimate thing, because they were involved enforcing laws against drugs, it was a fair thing to give them drug tests?

MR. GLASSER: Yes, they said that, but they did not say that any particular individual had to be suspected of using drugs. They basically turned the whole thing around. They said just because you have a job enforcing the law, therefore, you are presumed guilty before you start, therefore, you are under suspicion. Now Justice Scalia voted against that. That decision, as you know, was much closer. It was a five/four decision.

MR. LEHRER: Five/four, right.

MR. GLASSER: And Justice Scalia, who is a leading conservative on the bench, regarded that as a symbolic public relations gesture. It will not affect anything, it will not make it easier to interdict drugs, it will not make it easier to do the law enforcement job. What it will do is it will subject thousands of innocent people who are not suspected of using drugs to an invasion of their privacy. There is no need to do that other than public relations.

MR. LEHRER: What is the harm --

MR. GLASSER: What is the harm?

MR. LEHRER: What is the harm of having an innocent person be subjected to a drug test?

MR. GLASSER: The harm of having any innocent person subjected to an invasive search, which is what that is, is the same as the harm of wiretapping everybody in New York City because there is an epidemic of theft. It's the same as the harm of searching everybody in a particular government building because somebody has stolen a pocket book. It is the harm that always results when you allow the government the power to punish everybody in advance and presume that everybody is a suspect instead of just limiting their invasions of privacy and their searches to the people who are suspected of a crime and against whom there is some reason to believe they are involved. That is the proper balance. That is the balance that allows the government to pursue crime and to pursue wrongdoing while protecting the rights of innocent people who are not suspected of wrongdoing. Why upset that now because of a drug scare is really a product of hysteria and reflects no respect for constitutional rights, or any respect for conserving the constitution.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think the Supreme Court has been infected with drug scare?

MR. GLASSER: Yes, I do, and it won't be the first time. In the 1940's after Pearl Harbor, when we incarcerated Americans of Japanese descent because we assumed that all Americans of Japanese descent would be spies, the Supreme Court said that was okay. In the 1950's during the red scare, free speech was invaded and the Supreme Court said that was okay and that loyalty oaths were okay. The Supreme Court has frequently in our history given into momentary hysteria and it's always been embarrassed about it 40 years later, but 40 years later is not good enough for the people who's rights are violated today and that is the issue that is posed by these decisions.

MR. LEHRER: All right, Mr. Glasser, thank you very much. Now to the Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh. He appeared before the Supreme Court last November to personally argue the government's case for mandatory drug testing. Mr. Attorney General, has the Supreme Court been taken over by a drug scare, hysteria?

DICK THORNBURGH, Attorney General: This is the first case that's been decided in this area, Jim, and it's bound to create a good deal of uncertainty and fair amount of confusion because it will take a while for the effect of this case to sink in, but it clearly represents an extension of the traditional tests that have been utilized by the court in fourth amendment cases. The fourth amendment means the same thing today as it did yesterday. It requires a balancing of a reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of citizens against the legitimate concerns of government over hazards such as drug abuse among those who are the wheel or in the service of locomotives, carrying passengers and sometimes hazardous substances across the country, and in the second case, as you pointed out, there is a real governmental interest in the integrity of those who are on the front lines of our effort to deal with illegal drugs. The Customs Service has a very important role to carry out and the court made clear it respects the need for those persons not to be compromised by drug use themselves or to be unable to carry firearms because of the effect of persistent drug use. These are balances that are difficult to strike, the court acknowledged that they were difficult to strike, but they are decisions that can't be avoided and balances that I think are struck in the public interest.

MR. LEHRER: Well, let's go through some of Mr. Glasser's points. You heard them. He said that in the past, up to this point, he said, the court even though in the past may have done some things for hysteria reasons, but basically the fourth amendment reserved the right for these kinds of things only on matters where a person was suspected of doing some wrongdoing, committing some crime, but he says these decisions expanded to others, to innocent parties as well.

MR. THORNBURGH: Well, I think that's a misreading of both the literal language of the constitution and the court's previous holdings. There's nothing in the constitution that says that you differentiate between suspected persons and innocent persons. What the fourth amendment to the constitution prohibits are unreasonable searches. And in determining whether a search is reasonable or unreasonable, the balancing tests that the court utilized in these two cases is precisely what's been utilized in the past. Furthermore, these are not criminal cases. These are not cases where evidence is being sought to proceed criminally against these persons and the court took note of the fact that government has a legitimate interest in preventing or deterring the use of drugs or alcohol by those in charge of trains or those involved in law enforcement, themselves.

MR. LEHRER: You said, and we ran it in our News Summary, Mr. Glasser just referred to it, in your statement this afternoon after the court issued these rulings that you hoped employers saw this as a green light to go forward with their own drug testing. What do you mean? What employers and in what areas?

MR. THORNBURGH: One of the principal recognitions that's occurred only in the recent past about our problem with drugs in this country is it's a demand side problem as well as a supply side problem. We can't leave the entire anti-drug effort to law enforcement. That means that we've got to hold the users of drugs accountable for their contribution to the carnage that's been reeked in this country by drug abuse and drug trafficking. One of the methods that can be utilized is drug testing in the work place. It has the incidental benefit of being able to increase the productivity of American employers and to enable them to compete better in the world markets that we are engaged in today. My hope is that reasonable drug testing programs such as those approved by the court today will be utilized by employers. They must use some means under the Drug Abuse Act of 1988 which required every employer who has a contract for more than $25,000 with the federal government to certify that they've taken steps to ensure that their work place is drug free. I suggest that reasonable drug testing programs of this type can be useful in meeting that requirement.

MR. LEHRER: But eventually -- you mean all work places?

MR. THORNBURGH: I think any employer who has an interest in contributing to a drug free society, of promoting a drug free life-style and is interested increasing the productivity of his work place ought to consider very seriously the need for a drug testing program.

MR. LEHRER: It wouldn't have to be a company that was involved in public transportation or law enforcement or anything like that.

MR. THORNBURGH: I think here you have to make the distinction between public employers and private employers. Public employers are only those that are affected by today's decisions. Private employers have no such restrictions as exist under the fourth amendment. They are able in their own best interest to test their employees for a wide variety of skills or deficiencies as the case may be and drug testing I think is increasingly being used by major employers to ensure the integrity of the work place and to increase productivity.

MR. LEHRER: But when you say green light, these decisions today, as far as you're concerned, your reading of these decisions is the Supreme Court has said mandatory testing in the work place is okay?

MR. THORNBURGH: I think they have said that inferentially with respect to public employers. Now we have a whole raft of cases coming along that involve random testing, that involve employees in sensitive positions with regard to handling classified information or dealing with criminal investigations, and they're all going to be heard in due course, but this is the first case that the court has decided in this area, and I think it does give a green light for reasonable drug testing programs consistent with the fourth amendment as the court found these to be.

MR. LEHRER: So your position is not so much like if you take the railroad case where the issue was, and the court at least said the issue and you argued and the court agreed with you, that the issue was public safety, you think there is an additional function of drug testing that just has to do with cleaning out drugs in society?

MR. THORNBURGH: Absolutely. I think the distinction clearly has to be made between public employment where fourth amendment considerations enter into it and private employment where the concern of all Americans to clean up the drug problem in this country by doing more than simply putting more money into police and courts and correctional systems, but by attacking the root problem, which is one of values, one of the value of a drug free life-style against the ruin of a drug dependent life-style, and employers can make a substantial contribution in that regard. Many are today.

MR. LEHRER: But what about Mr. Glasser's final point, the one that we started, my first question to you, that there is a legitimate concern about drugs in this country? He used the term "drug scare", but then is there a concern on your part as the Attorney General of the United States also that in the drive to do something about drugs that some civil liberties could get trampled upon?

MR. THORNBURGH: I don't think so. I think when it comes to law enforcement, which is my prime responsibility in the Department of Justice, the parameters of the fourth amendment rights, fifth amendment rights, all the constitutional rights that are utilized regularly by criminal defendants and criminal suspects are not affected by this kind of decision. This kind of decision goes much more to the demand side of the drug problem, one that it's about time that we began to pay more attention to, holding the drug user accountable for his or her contribution to the enormous costs we pay in this country for drug abuse.

MR. LEHRER: So you do not agree with Mr. Glasser that 40 years from now the Supreme Court in that time will look at this decision and say this was done in an atmosphere of hysteria?

MR. THORNBURGH: I hope 40 years from now, maybe 10 years from now, we'll look upon this decision as signaling a commitment by this nation and this society to deal with the drug problem in a comprehensive way, rather than simply focusing on the law enforcement side of it. That's what we need and that I think is going to follow from what I call the green light given by the Supreme Court today.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Thornburgh, thank you very much.

MR. THORNBURGH: Thank you, Jim. FOCUS - JUSTICE FOR ALL?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Next tonight we look at another hotly contested legal issue. Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments over expanding the rights of death row inmates to legal counsel. Often, their appeals are costly and time consuming and many inmates, particularly those in the South, have been having difficulty finding attorneys to represent them. Usually they must rely on sympathetic attorneys from the North to take up their causes. We have a report from Karen Burrows of public station KTCA in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

KAREN BURROWS: David Earl Wilson was sentenced to die in the electric chair five years ago for the slaying of a popular New Orleans attorney. He came within two days of execution when a lawyer convinced a federal judge there were grounds for appeal. The execution was temporarily stayed. One thousand miles North of Wilson's death row cell is the Minneapolis, Minnesota, attorney who represented him. Jim Volling took Wilson's case 10 days before the execution date. After Wilson exhausted his state court appeals, no local Southern attorney would take his case through the federal appeals process. Wilson and Volling might seem like an unusual team, but instead they are part of a trend as an increasing number of Southern death row inmates look to Northern attorneys for help in final appeals.

DAVID EARL WILSON, Death Row Inmate: I'd rather have a lawyer from out of the state because due to the experience that I had with a Louisiana lawyer when I went to trial, I don't think I would prefer for a lawyer in this state to represent me.

KAREN BURROWS: Why not?

DAVID EARL WILSON: They don't know anything about law and they don't take no time and do anything on your case and you never see 'em till the day of trial and then when you go into trial, they don't know nothing, they ain't found out nothing, they ain't checked with nothing to check your story out or anything.

JIM VOLLING, Minneapolis Lawyer: I didn't ask to come down here to try the system. They didn't have any lawyers that were willing to take these cases, and I'm not trying their system. It doesn't, I don't care what state this is in. It's an issue of fundamental fairness, it's an issue of due process, it's an issue of a lawyer's duty, I think, to make sure that people don't slip through the cracks.

KAREN BURROWS: Death row at the Louisiana state penitentiary has 19 inmates appealing their sentence. Of the 19, 12 are represented by Northern attorneys. Recruiting Northern attorneys is the work of Rebecca Hudsmith, a New Orleans lawyer. She insists outside help is needed to pursue avenues of appeal after death row inmates no longer qualify for court appointed attorneys.

REBECCA HUDSMITH, Death Penalty Researcher: They have rights which ought to be asserted in their behalf before they're executed if they're executed at all. We need volunteer lawyers to review their cases, to research the legal issues and to decide what issues are valid issues that ought to be asserted in either the state courts on post conviction or the federal courts.

KAREN BURROWS: Death row appeals cases do not attract Southern volunteers because the death penalty is popular in Louisiana. To some, appealing a death sentence is the same as opposing the death penalty. Judge Thomas W. Tanner, now retired, presided over David Wilson's trial and thinks Northern volunteers come South to meddle with the justice system they don't fully understand.

THOMAS W. TANNER, Retired Judge: Public opinion in Louisiana is very strong for the death penalty and I think that public opinion is reflected in your lawyers. The lawyers down here just feel like the death penalty is a right penalty.

KAREN BURROWS: One measure of the death penalty's importance to the Louisiana justice system is the number of executions that have taken place in the state. Eighteen have died in the electric chair and those eighteen account for nearly 20 percent of all of those executed nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed capital punishment 12 years ago. New Orleans attorney William Quigley thinks without the work of Northern volunteers the number of executions would be even higher.

WILLIAM QUIGLEY, New Orleans Lawyer: Lawyers, the judges and the public view this as liberal advocacy for detestable human beings and they see people from out of town coming in to represent these unsavory characters and I do think there is some resentment.

THOMAS W. TANNER: Whether they're from the North or from California or wherever they're from, I still resent that. If they came from Alabama or Mississippi, I would resent that. I think I would be resented if I took off and went North and tried to take on the defense and said, look, your court system up here is no good and you all have made all kinds of mistakes and you've convicted this poor fellow, and it's not a question of North versus the South. It's a question of coming in and trying to stir up an issue that is not a legal issue. It's a political issue.

KAREN BURROWS: Defending a death row inmate can easily cost a law firm fifty to one hundred thousand dollars. While expenses can be written off on the firm's tax return, there are no tax breaks for the time donated by attorneys, all this for a case where the odds of winning are remote at best and the stress tremendous.

JIM VOLLING, Minneapolis Lawyer: You've just got a client who's looking to you to tell him whether he's going to live or not, you're the last hope; that's not easy.

KAREN BURROWS: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alvin B. Rubin has worked to organize Southern attorneys for future death row appeals cases in a move to eliminate the need for attorneys from other states.

JUDGE ALVIN B. RUBIN, U.S. Court of Appeals: And I think the quality of the volunteer lawyers has been very very high in terms both of their competence and diligence and I think the only difference is the volunteer lawyer from away from Louisiana makes an even bigger sacrifice because there is, in addition to everything the Louisiana lawyer would have to do, there's a difficulty of traveling to and fro, the greater difficulty of communication and the difficulty of trying to be familiar with some local matters that perhaps the lawyer would not otherwise know.

KAREN BURROWS: The death house in Louisiana is where prisoners are taken before execution, living their last days in a cell down the hall from the electric chair. David Wilson once came close to dying here. Now with the help of a Northern attorney, the Southern convict is fighting to get his death sentence changed to life in prison without parole.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight, El Salvador's President-Elect and Judy Woodruff report on the start of the Bush administration. NEWS MAKER

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We turn now to El Salvador and its new President-Elect Alfredo Cristiani. As we've been reporting, Mr. Cristiani bested the incumbent Christian Democrats by about 20 percentage points in Sunday's voting. We'll be talking with him in a few moments from El Salvador, but first some background. Alfredo Cristiani is a millionaire coffee grower from a wealthy family. He went to college in the United States, graduating in 1968 from Georgetown University with a degree in business administration. His party, Arena, was founded in 1981 by wealthy land owners who grew disillusioned with the Christian Democratic Government of Jose Napoleon Duarte. Arena's first leader was Roberto d'Aubuisson, an army major who had been expelled from the armed forces for misconduct. A former U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador called d'Aubuisson a pathological killer because of his suspected role in backing right wing death squads who killed thousands of civilians in the early 1980s. Cristiani took over as Arena leader after d'Aubuisson lost the 1984 election to Duarte, but d'Aubuisson did play a prominent role in Cristiani's campaign and one Arena opponent called Cristiani a "mask for a monster". Cristiani ran on a moderate platform. He promised to increase spending on education and health care, promised to improve the land redistribution program his party once fought against, and proposed talks with leftist rebel leaders of the FMLN who have been fighting to overthrow the government. I interviewed him earlier today from San Salvador and asked him about the low voter turnout.

ALFREDO CRISTIANI, President-Elect, El Salvador: Well, I think that the voter turnout is over the 50 percent mark and it might get near the 55 to 60 percent range. That is not a low turnout, especially when you take into consideration the amount of violence generated by the FMLN since early morning on election day.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The FMLN guerrillas have said that this turnout demonstrates that no political solution is possible without their involvement. How do you respond to that?

MR. CRISTIANI: Well, I think they always try to discredit the electoral process, but we have to take into account that it is very difficult circumstances under which the Salvadorians have to vote because of the violence generated by the FMLN. The political parties asked the FMLN for a three day truce before, during, and after the elections in order to see what happened when Salvadorians have normal conditions to go out and vote. They always want to use this.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I read somewhere today that you said that you planned to invite some of the opposition in when you get ready to form your government in, I believe it's around June the 1st. How do you plan to deal with the opposition, including the FMLN?

MR. CRISTIANI: Well, with respect to the opposition that is participating in the process, that is, the political parties, we have expressed our purpose of being a government that will allow participation of the different political parties not necessarily in cabinet posts but rather in the macro political decision making process, that is, to take into account the views of all the political parties. With respect to the FMLN our position has always been that we need to incorporate them into the process and everybody is willing to give them a space for them to work in. We have had for the first time in El Salvador at least since I can remember all the political parties working within the process now, trying to solve the conflict by proposing to the FMLN a way that the process can be legitimate and open enough for the FMLN and the rest of the political parties.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think the prospects are? I mean, are you hopeful enough that a cease-fire could come into effect any time soon?

MR. CRISTIANI: Well, I think it is something that still carries some degree of distrust from a lot of the political parties and a lot of the sectors where the proposal made in Mexico by the FMLN carries sincerity with it. We, nevertheless, believe that it's worthwhile trying, and we think that it is possible, I think conditions have changed, international conditions are different, and they are being forced I think somewhat into being more apt in looking for a dialogue with the political parties and the government than they were before, and for the first time they have spoken clearly about the possibility of participating in the electoral process which had never been their statement before.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: There are those who say that the war in the short run is going to escalate. What do you think about that?

MR. CRISTIANI: Well, I think this is something that has been used by our political opponents here during the campaign very regularly and these comments have been picked up. It is not so. We will continue to search for a political solution as we have had very active participation with the other political parties since this process started in February of this year.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Secretary of State Baker told Congress today to give you, your government, the Arena party, a chance to prove yourself on human rights before deciding whether or not to cut U.S. assistance. What assurances are you prepared to give, especially given the reputation that the Arena party has for being involved with death squads and human rights abuses?

MR. CRISTIANI: Well, first of all, I have to say right out that the Arena party is definitely not involved with violent activity. We have been working very hard to be where we are right now to consolidate the organization of our institution, our political institution. We have been working within the National Assembly. We have very many local governments, and, therefore, because of the perception that there is in the United States and other countries, that's the message that we have asked, do not prejudge our government, but, rather, judge them by the acts after it starts.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You have insisted that you will be your own man and yet, there continues also to be the perception that Roberto d'Aubuisson, who has been linked to the death squads, is going to be the power behind the throne. What will your relations with Mr. d'Aubuisson be?

MR. CRISTIANI: Well, he has stated himself and also I have expressed the same sentiment that he was elected for the national assembly and that he will keep on working in the assembly, not in the executive branch. I think that Major d'Aubuisson of course carries his care of power within the political party, but the institution, the Arena party, is no longer a one man political movement. It is too big to be that. A lot of participation has made the composition of the party somewhere where there has to be a consensus reached in order for the decision making process, and it stays in its executive committee.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Have you had this discussion with Mr. d'Aubuisson? I mean, have you sort of discussed who's going to be running things --

MR. CRISTIANI: Oh, yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: -- and this perception that you won't be?

MR. CRISTIANI: Definitely. Our government plan has been already approved by the government and that's exactly what we're going to do. I mean, it has been approved by the national assembly of our political party and that's exactly what we're going to promote.This plan was drafted by a group of people that was appointed by myself and there is no way that the government is going to be controlled from behind the scenes. This was stated at a press conference the night before last when we announced the projections of the election results and he was present and he was asked and he gave the answer and everything is fine. This is something that has again been promoted by our political opponents and again I must say that we have to wait and see or the people who have a different perception have to wait and see and not go right out and prejudge before things do happen.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How important is it for U.S. aid to continue in your view very briefly, sir?

MR. CRISTIANI: Well, the country is in a lot of economic problems. The mismanagement in the administration has been quite large and there is definitely the need for economic aid to solve our problems. There is no doubt about that. Also I think that the military aid is necessary for various reasons but also because the lack of funds that the government can count on to try and withstand this attack from Marxist guerrillas, so I think that the aid is definitely important.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Just very briefly, do you have a specific program to deal with those who have committed human rights abuses in the past and that will prevent further human rights abuses?

MR. CRISTIANI: Well, we are more worried. Of course, this does not mean that the investigation should not go on, continue with respect to human rights violations under Mr. Duarte's administration, but our administration will be much more concerned from stopping new ones from going on. That would be where we are going to stress the most. We have to be able to work with the armed forces and the security forces in order to stop the abuses and whoever does commit them be held responsible for those activities.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, finally, there were reports late today that there were some arrests in the shooting of two journalists on Sunday, one of whom died. What can you tell us about that and what are the chances of bringing to justice those who committed the crime?

MR. CRISTIANI: Well, I think it obviously is something that everybody regretted to see, the death of not two but four -- I mean, three news media representatives and one who was wounded. I believe the investigation should go on. The attorney general has said he will investigate. Also, Mr. Duarte's administration has ordered an investigation. The circumstances are still not very clear in the public here. I'm not well aware of exactly how things happened because it hasn't been made public.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Right.

MR. CRISTIANI: The only thing that we have heard is just the testimony of someone who I guess was in the vicinity where the representatives of Reuters were shot down and apparently his testimony claimed that there was some soldiers that ordered the motorcycle to stop and apparently the two media men did not see the order to stop and continued. In this case it seems to me that the problem was that everybody was somewhat nervous and with a lot of anxiety because of the threats that the FMLN had made clear would make right before and during the election day and this was all the security mechanisms that were ordered right before, the night before, but still this is just the testimony that came out on the local television. But I think that there should be a lot of investigation and if there is responsibility, the people should be held responsible. Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, Mr. Cristiani, thank you very much for being with us and we'll be watching your administration with interest.

MR. CRISTIANI: Thank you very much, a pleasure being here. FOCUS - SLOW START?

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight a Judy Woodruff report on the problems President Bush is having putting his administration together, a fact that has led to charges that things are adrift, something he has strongly denied.

JUDY WOODRUFF: If there was one thing George Bush stressed during last year's campaign, it was his years of government experience, experience, he suggested, had left him uniquely prepared to hit the ground running. [Bush Campaign Commercial]

MS. WOODRUFF: The day after the election, Mr. Bush seemed anxious to set his priorities and get a team in place to carry them out.

PRESIDENT BUSH: [Nov. 9, 1988] I will for the most part bring in a team of brand new people from across the country and in my view, that will reinvigorate the process.

MS. WOODRUFF: That was four and a half months ago. The reinvigoration is still waiting for most of Bush's team to arrive. Out of more than 500 top level administration jobs to be filled by a Presidential opponent and confirmed by the Senate, only 26 have actually been confirmed and are in place. At the State Department, only a handful of policy jobs is filled and it is way ahead of 10 other government departments, each of which has only one appointee in place, the Secretary. Chase Untermeyer is the man President Bush put in charge of personnel.

CHASE UNTERMEYER: It does take longer than we'd like it to.

MS. WOODRUFF: Pendleton James had Untermeyer's job in the Reagan White House.

PENDLETON JAMES: It is irresponsible to take three months for a President of the United States to make an appointment.

MS. WOODRUFF: The delay, especially in the foreign policy area, is troublesome to many like John Whitehead, who was No. 2 at the State Department in the Reagan administration.

JOHN WHITEHEAD, Former Deputy Secretary of State: If undersecretaries and assistant secretaries are not in their jobs and those offices are vacant, then there gets to be the atmosphere of a real slowdown in our policies and it is easy to have initiatives dry up and to have to start over again from scratch in many of these areas.

MS. WOODRUFF: Chase Untermeyer defends the slow pace. He says a deliberate decision was made during the transition period not to rush in filling the policy making jobs.

CHASE UNTERMEYER, Director, Presidential Personnel: We could take advantage in essence for the first time in modern American political history of having appointees of the previous President stay in their offices, knowing that those people were our political soul mates and they would act as loyally for President Bush as they did for President Reagan.

MS. WOODRUFF: But political scientist Stephen Hess says that's a risky strategy for Mr. Bush.

STEPHEN HESS, Political Scientist: It's a risk because in those early days of an administration people are really looking at a President in a new way and in a way that they may not ever look at him again. They get a fix on the President and while you're taking your time, those days are drifting away. We are certainly losing the review, the political review that comes or should come early on in a new administration, and we're just going a bit too low for that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Whatever problems observers cite, they say most are related to the slow staffing of top level government jobs.

J. PENDLETON JAMES, Reagan Personnel Director: The appointment process is the most mind boggling, bewildering, frightening, harrowing maze that you can possibly imagine, be it from the White House side or be it from the appointee's side.

JOHN TOWER: I have none, Senator. I am a man of some discipline.

MS. WOODRUFF: What has made the process so much more daunting is the political climate increasingly sensitive to ethics. In the wake of revelations about marijuana use by former Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsberg and the legal difficulties of a number of Reagan appointees like Michael Deaver and Lynn Nofsiger, the Bush White House is determined to avoid a repeat performance.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I want to assemble that a government that the people of this nation can be proud of and that's our goal, that's our mission.

MS. WOODRUFF: But in selecting appointees the American people can be proud of, the Bush White House and its investigative arms are taking longer to do background checks.

MARGARET TUTWILER, Assistant Secretary of State: In 1981, the Federal Bureau of Investigation basically took 24 hours to about three to five days for what's called an initial name check before a President can announce from the White House his intention to nominate. Today in 1989, that exact same process we have been told is taking the FBI three or more weeks. So we sit here for three weeks while a name check is done.

MS. WOODRUFF: The frustration voiced by State Department Official Margaret Tutwiler is heard in virtually every agency of the government but the FBI insists that that's not its fault.

FLOYD CLARKE, FBI: As a routine matter, it normally is going to be completed in five to seven working days. If there is some reason for us to expedite that on a particular individual, we would do it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you feel it's taking longer now that it used to do the same sort of investigations?

FLOYD CLARKE: No. I think it's probably taking less time.

MS. WOODRUFF: However long it takes, once the FBI has looked through its files and done a preliminary name check on potential appointee, the White House may announce that it intends to nominate that person for a particular position. That's when the fun begins. If the White House wanted Judy Woodruff to accept a Presidential appointment, here are the forms that I'd have to fill out; the 10 page questionnaire for sensitive information, which asks, among other things, for information about all the organizations I've belonged to over the last 15 years; supplemental instructions for completing the first form that expands on the questions. For example, "Although the first form requests information about your involvement with alcohol and dangerous drugs over the last five years, please list all use since 18 years of age." Also, "Please give details of any psychological psychiatric treatment other than marriage counseling." And the supplement to the first form, it adds two more pages of open ended questions such as, "Is there anything in your life that could cause an embarrassment to you or to the President if publicly known? If so, please provide full details." Then, the personal data statement from the White House with 16 more questions, including, "Have you ever written any particularly controversial books or articles? If so, please describe." Then there's the executive personnel financial disclosure report, considerably more detailed than filling out a federal income tax return. Speaking of which, the tax check waiver form, which once I sign it, gives the IRS permission to release otherwise confidential information about me, and a lengthy memorandum from the White House about conflicts of interest to guide me in rearranging my professional and financial affairs if I do decide to join the government, and finally a fingerprint form, with room for prints from all 10 fingers. Once all these forms are filled out, one goes to the IRS, some go to the FBI, the rest to the White House Counsel's Office and/or the Office of Government Ethics.

JOHN WHITEHEAD: Everything is an open book. You don't have any skeletons in the closet when you get through with the process.

MS. WOODRUFF: John Whitehead says the process is more drawn out than when he entered government four years ago.

JOHN WHITEHEAD, Former Deputy Secretary of State: Much longer. The FBI is taking, is being much more careful, because they have learned in the case of various candidates for office that if they neglect pursuing even the slightest lead, that they will then be criticized.

MS. WOODRUFF: But Floyd Clarke who heads the FBI's criminal investigative division insists that despite all the additional background checking the agency is being asked to do, it is not the FBI that's causing any delay.

FLOYD CLARKE, FBI: The record is is that we've agreed to a particular time frame which is essentially the same during the last three or four administrations. For Presidential appointees that require Senate confirmation, that time period is 25 days.

MS. WOODRUFF: Privately, other FBI officials say it is the Bush administration that is at fault for not making personnel decisions as quickly as its predecessors. Even Reagan Personnel Chief Pendleton James agrees.

J. PENDLETON JAMES, Reagan Personnel Director: Ronald Reagan and his team started considering the appointment process a little bit earlier than George Bush, so as a result, we were, you know, a few weeks ahead in this horse race.

MS. WOODRUFF: James praises the FBI for the thorough job it does and says, if anything, it may be too thorough.

J. PENDLETON JAMES: You go into so much minutia in detail that it's almost irrelevant. You apply the same standard of clearance - - if you are appointing, if the President's appointing someone to serve on a part-time board of directors to study the native habitat of whatever, the FBI has to go through a full field FBI check on that appointment.

MS. WOODRUFF: Floyd Clarke acknowledges the FBI follows a standard procedure which only changes if derogatory information arises about an individual. Deciding what aspects of that to pursue, he says, sometimes does involve a judgment call on the part of the FBI.

FLOYD CLARKE: It depends upon the nature of the information. If it reflects in an area where an individual has a particular problem that borders on criminality, that's very very easy. Drug abuse is criminal and we would follow that. If it has to do with a fact that an individual has a hard time getting along with people, we would probably pursue that to find out why. It has to do with his ability to get along.

MS. WOODRUFF: John Whitehead and others think that delving into personal behavior and the details of financial affairs has become too intrusive.

JOHN WHITEHEAD: It seems to me the system has gone too far and we're abusing individual rights by doing that. If we have a system in which every rock is turned over, if we damage people's careers and lives and families by turning over all these rocks and if we leave the jobs open month after month, being unfilled, while we find the perfect candidate, then I believe that we are not doing a service in the public interest.

MS. WOODRUFF: Even Senators in the President's own party complained the White House has been slow to send upthe names of its nominees for confirmation and some argue that that is potentially harmful for U.S. policies.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: It seems to me that we don't have as efficient organization working in some of these departments as far as getting these nominees here for consideration of the Senate. They just aren't coming up. I don't think that you can draw any other conclusion but that if we continue in this fashion that it's sooner or later going to hurt the Bush administration's ability to govern.

MS. WOODRUFF: Former Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead says for example, the countries he recently visited in Eastern Europe still have doubts about the Bush administration agenda.

JOHN WHITEHEAD: The countries there and the leaders of these countries are wondering just what the administration's policies will be vis-a-vis their countries and will the United States be in favor of the changes that are taking place in these countries, will we welcome them, will we try to encourage them, or will we be opposed to them? They don't know.

MS. WOODRUFF: That may be, but senior officials in the new regime continue to argue that their "go slow" approach is right for the times.

MARGARET TUTWILER, Asst. Secretary of State: The worst thing in the world to do for our country would be to rush out here with some half baked idea and it's a total disaster. Then what shape would we be in as a country? What is wrong with reviewing some of the different changes that have happened and taking your time, Democrat or Republican, to assess what has changed and what is going on?

MS. WOODRUFF: For his part, the President dismisses the criticism.

PRESIDENT BUSH: [March 7, 1989] I would simply resist the clamor that nothing seems to be bubbling around, that nothing is happening. A lot is happening. RECAP

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Once again, Tuesday's top stories, the Supreme Court ruled that some workers in sensitive government jobs and those involved in public safety may be forced to undergo drug tests, the first sea based test of the Navy's Trident 2 missile ended in failure after it veered off course and exploded, consumer prices rose moderately last month, calming inflation fears in the financial markets. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.