The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in New York. After the News Summary, we go first tonight to a Newsmaker interview with the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey, then we look at President Clinton's plan to fight global warming. We hear from the Secretary of Energy and spokesman for industry and the environmental movement, and we end with a look at the attack on tourists in Florida. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton has decided to call home a 750-man army ranger task force from Somalia. They were sent there to help the United Nations effort to capture warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid after the killing of 24 Pakistani peacekeepers. At the White House today, Mr. Clinton was asked if the pullout means he's given up the search for Aidid.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It means that we have 3600 Marines coming in, many of whom have similar capacities, who will be there, and it means that right now we are engaging in a political process to see how we can resolve our nation in Somalia and to do all the things the United Nations ordered to do, including working out a political solution and having a process by which the people who were responsible for killing the Pakistani soldiers, that's what started all this, that that investigation can proceed and appropriate action can be taken. There may be another way to do that, so right now we're in the stand-down position. It does not mean that a final decision has been made.

MR. LEHRER: On Capitol Hill today, Undersecretary of State Peter Tarnoff told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the U.S. will have no part in any future manhunt for Aidid. U.N. sanctions against Haiti took effect today. A U.S. Navy frigate stopped a ship from Belise this afternoon, the first interception since the embargo began at midnight. The sanctions cover shipments of oil and arms. They are designed to pressure Haiti's military leaders to allow the return to power of ousted President Aristide. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: The battle between the White House and Congress over deploying American troops overseas continued today. There were private negotiations between the Clinton administration and congressional leaders on two measures advocated by Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole. He wants to prevent the President from sending U.S. troops to Haiti or Bosnia without prior congressional approval unless national security is at risk. Meanwhile, Sen. Don Nickels, an Oklahoma Republican, introduced a measure to require congressional approval before U.S. troops could be deployed to any U.N. operation where they would be under foreign command. Here's a sample of the debate on the Nickels measure.

SEN. SAM NUNN, [D] Georgia: I think the President ought to be given not just a warning light but sort of a red light for the next few months, a red light that says don't put any more U.S. forces under the U.N. until the U.N. gets its own act sorted out. But that's not the Senator of Oklahoma's amendment does. This is permanent law. It will apply to Republican presidents in the future as well as the Democratic president now. It'll apply to every president. It's a change in the balance of power between the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States.

SEN. DON NICKLES, [R] Oklahoma: I don't see that as, as congressional intrusiveness into presidential power. I see it as more or less reaffirming that the President not delegate that power to the United Nations or the Secretary General.

MS. WARNER: The Senate votes on the Nickels amendment tonight. Sen. Dole is not expected to introduce his proposals until tomorrow.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton today announced an initiative to fight air pollution and global warming. It requires businesses to voluntarily cut energy costs and reduce emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases." It calls for 1.9 billion dollars in mostly redirected government spending and more than 60 billion in private sector spending. A coalition of environmental groups said they were dubious that industry would take voluntary action. We'll have more on the story later in the program. The House of Representatives voted today for a second time to kill the superconducting supercollider. The vote was 282 to 143. The Clinton administration had requested $640 million to fund the giant atom slashing experiment in Texas through next year. The House voted it down in June, but it was later restored by the Senate. House-Senate negotiators must now try again to reach a compromise. The Commerce Department reported today housing starts rose 2.8 percent in September. It was the highest rate in three and a half years. The report said a sharp increase in apartment building construction was a key factor. The largest gains were in the Northeast.

MS. WARNER: In Los Angeles, jury deliberations continued on two remaining charges in the Reginald Denny beating trial. The defendants, Damian Williams and Henry Watson, were acquitted yesterday of the most serious charges stemming from the attacks during last year's Los Angeles riot. Still unresolved is an attempted murder charge against Williams and an assault count against Watson. The judge re-read the jury some instructions this morning and urged them not to let their deliberations be swayed by public opinion.

MR. LEHRER: Israel freed its longest held Palestinian prisoner today. A government spokesman said the man's release after 23 years was a reward to the PLO for peaceful behavior. He also said more of Israel's 12,000 Palestinian prisoners could be freed as part of the Israeli-PLO peace agreement. Benazir Bhutto was sworn in again today as the prime minister of Pakistan. Her previous government was dismissed in 1990 following charges of corruption and mismanagement. Bhutto said today she would work to solve Pakistan's severe economic problems. She also said she wanted to restore close ties with the United States which cut all aid to Pakistan over suspected nuclear weapons violations.

MS. WARNER: That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead, the director of the CIA, rolling back global warming, and tourist targets in Florida. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight to a Newsmaker interview with the director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey. He's a Rhodes scholar from Tulsa, Oklahoma, who has been a part of the national security apparatus since he served as a lieutenant in the United States Army. He's been an arms control negotiator, Capitol Hill staffer, undersecretary of the navy in the Carter administration, and an ambassador in the Bush administration. Outside government he's been a lawyer, an unofficial defense adviser, the president, Senators, and presidential candidates. His appointment as CIA director by President Clinton was his first official foray into the world of intelligence, and this marks his first foray into a live television interview since taking that job. Mr. Director, welcome.

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Thanks, Jim. It's a pleasure to be interviewed by a distinguished spy novelist.

MR. LEHRER: Well, thank you very much. A major real story today, and in the last few days, has to do with the word "disarray" in foreign policy. Republicans in the Senate and other critics have said that that -- they used that word to describe the state of foreign policy in the United States right now. You're a key figure in the, in the foreign policy team of the Clinton administration. How do you react to that when you hear that word?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, two ways. First of all, from my perspective, the President and the other members of the National Security are doing a very careful and thorough job of assessing intelligence, which is my job, and making decisions, but secondly, from the point of view of assessing policy, you really ought to talk to policy makers, because we in the intelligence business are not doing that.

MR. LEHRER: Well, when people have this impression or say it - - it's not an impression -- that all things seem to be out out of control around the world. Suddenly there's this and this, and that's going on. The United States, the most powerful nation in the world, seems to have lost control.

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, again, from the perspective of intelligence, I think what we've been able to provide and decisions have been able to be made with respect to countries, Russia, China, Japan, Iraq, has, has been anything but indicating disarray. I do say from an intelligence perspective that understanding what is going on in countries that are coming apart in one way or another, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, presents difficulties for us. We do, do the best we can, but I think on the policy maker's side, they've been, been doing a good job with what information we've been able to give them.

MR. LEHRER: Is it safe to assume that the CIA is playing a role in Somalia and Haiti?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, the CIA and, indeed, the Intelligence Community as a whole are doing our best to help the President and the NSC understand what's going on in those two countries. Yes, it presents particular problems. Let me give you an example. In Somalia, the United States was not officially in Somalia for some years. We came back in, the Intelligence Community did, when the military came back in late last year in order to try to help understand the clan relationships, a whole range of things, so that policy makers and military officials could make their decisions. But that sort of a way to get back into some place to understand the intelligence situation is not easy.

MR. LEHRER: As I'm sure you've read or heard, a lot of people couldn't -- a lot of lay people couldn't understand with this great intelligence apparatus we have we couldn't find Mohammed Farrah Aidid and still haven't found him for all practical purposes.

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, think back to Noriega several years ago too. I think any police chief will tell you that even if you are the authority in a city trying to trail an individual is a major and very difficult undertaking. It's considerably more difficult when one is an outsider. That's not normally the kind of thing that intelligence is really desiring to do. On the whole, it's in cases such as trying to understand what individuals are doing, it's a much more long-term process.

MR. LEHRER: Another issue that arose that involved intelligence was in Haiti. A big U.S. ship arrives with 200 American CB's and some Canadian, and Canadian troops, and suddenly the Haitian government doesn't allow the ship to land, and there's a mob on the scene. The question that arose is: Why didn't U.S. intelligence know that ahead of time and save the U.S. this incredible embarrassment?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, I'm really quite proud of the job that intelligence has done in Haiti overall in informing decision makers about such things, the effectiveness of the sanctions last summer, the overall stresses between various parts of the decision makers in Haiti and even, even the suddenness of specific events. So I'm not going to get into detail about that particular one, but overall I think you'd find that inside the government and outside it we're getting pretty good grades for what we've done in Haiti.

MR. LEHRER: Is there any question in your mind that sanctions led to the Governors Island Agreement?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, I think that it has been the case that when the International Community has a tool such as sanctions, although there are up sides and down sides to them, it can in some circumstances be effective. And I think most observers would say that that was one thing, certainly not the only thing, but one thing that helped lead to the agreement.

MR. LEHRER: Without getting into the details, which you couldn't do even if you wanted to, but just in a general way, if anybody's sitting out there wondering that the CIA or that the Intelligence Community has a role to play and is, in fact, playing it in Somalia and Haiti, the answer is yes, is that right?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Absolutely. We are from the point of view of informing decision makers very much involved. And as I said, the CIA but also the rest of the Intelligence Community and Defense Department and so forth, which is very important to the whole process.

MR. LEHRER: What kind of good intelligence was available about the armed rebellion against Yeltsin in Russia before, after, and during -- before, during, and after? I got that a little mixed up.

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Again, without getting into any sort of detail, this is another area in which I'm really quite proud of the Intelligence Community's ability to understand all along some of the, the trends and the things that were happening in, in Russia. President Yeltsin had a very difficult situation which he acted on with dispatch and effectiveness, although tragically with some loss of life during that period from September 21st to October 3rd, and if you'll talk to the people whom we were briefing, I think you'll find that we did a pretty good job on understanding it.

MR. LEHRER: Has Yeltsin got that job, speaking of jobs? Is he back in control, do you think?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, he had a major success, and the next thing that has to happen is the elections in, in December need to go forward and go forward effectively. He's making I think important strides that way. It was -- the events of the 21st to the 3rd were another of a series of crises in which he's performed really quite remarkably, and this was another one.

MR. LEHRER: Most of the Americans who have -- at least that we've interviewed on this program -- members of the government and former members of the U.S. government have said the problem in Russia is there is no alternative to Yeltsin, no individual politician who has the, the power and the popularity that Yeltsin has. Is that, is that still the case?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: I don't know whether I'd call it a problem or not. It is, in fact, the case I think that he is the leading and best known and most popular politician in Russia today as well as being the president, and he has a difficult job but he's, he's made substantial strides in the last few weeks not without difficulty to, to make progress toward getting a new constitution, in effect, in getting these elections done, and that's, that's the next thing to want.

MR. LEHRER: as a practical matter, gaining, gaining and gathering intelligence about Russia in this new world, is it a case now where a CIA agent just picks up the phone and calls a KGB guy and says, what's the deal, unlike the old days?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, there's a whole range of things in this new, post Cold War world. I've said on several occasions it's as if we were struggling with a dragon for 45 years, namely the Soviet Union, finally slayed it but found ourselves in the middle of a jungle full of a lot of poisonous snakes, and in a lot of ways the snakes are harder to keep track of than the dragon was. The Soviet Union did a lot of things in relatively predictable ways. It designed new weapon systems the same way, deployed 'em the same way. It even infiltrated movements in the third world the same way. In many countries today, including parts of the world that were under the control of the Soviet Union in one way or another -- for example, Iraq was a Soviet client state at one time -- behavior of a lot of leaders is considerably less predictable than it was in the time of the Soviet Union, and so although there's not nearly as much of a risk of some cataclysmic event, such --

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: -- as with an exchange, nuclear exchange --

MR. LEHRER: And the access is better too, is it not?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Access is better. One thing that we do with Russian intelligence, we don't, of course, do everything with 'em, but one thing we do is work together on such issues as counter- narcotics, for example, understanding the drug trade. And we may even since I have some of the best pictures of Lake Bicol and Russian intelligence has some of the best pictures of the Great Lakes on environmental matters --

MR. LEHRER: Taken from way up high?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Taken from way up high -- we may work together on some environmental matters one of these days. That's one thing we're exploring.

MR. LEHRER: Well, for instance, there are increasing -- there's an increasing number of stories, rumor type stories that Boris Yeltsin is, in fact, ill. Well, in the old days if you wanted to find out whether -- if the CIA wanted to find out whether or not the leader of the Soviet Union was ill, it'd be a very difficult situation. First of all, is that true? And second of all, is that kind of information easier to come by?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, I'm not going to get into President Yeltsin's health, but I think he's right now looks to us to be a vigorous and effective leader.

MR. LEHRER: How do you read the decision by his military to dump nuclear waste in the Sea of Japan right after Yeltsin had been there on a friendship trip? What was that all about?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, it's not entirely clear what's happened there, but as a general proposition, Russia has a lot of problems with disposing of nuclear waste and environmental matters, and it's one thing that we're seeking to be of some help to them on in understanding, and they have some environmental information about the arctic and so forth which can be of help to all of us. It's an area we're cooperating in.

MR. LEHRER: You shouldn't -- it would be a mistake then to read that as an act on the part of some generals or admirals trying to make trouble for Yeltsin?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY:Well, again, without saying anything about that particular event, it's -- that whole area is a difficult problem in Russia, as it is for many countries, and it's something we're working together in.

MR. LEHRER: In general terms, how are you and your colleagues doing in retooling the Intelligence Community in this post Cold War world? There's been a lot of talk about it. How are you doing as a practical matter?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: I think were' having some real success. What we're trying to do is focus a lot more on issues such as proliferation of nuclear, chemical, bacteriological weapons, ballistic missiles, terrorism, on counter-narcotics, some economic issues, trouble spots around the world. I guess I'd put proliferation and terrorism right up front. And one of the things that's meant is both reducing the size of the Intelligence Community somewhat and also reshaping some of the programs. People need to learn some new languages, as some of the satellite programs are being changed. We're in the midst of a lot of reshaping and, and we're I think having some substantial success in bringing it off.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Moynihan, Democrat of New York, former vice chairman at one time of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on this program, and he said it elsewhere, that now that the Cold War is over that the CIA should be disbanded, that part of its job should be given to the Defense Department and the other part given to the State Department.

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, I've known Sen. Moynihan for 25 years. I'm a great admirer of his, not only of his abilities as a public servant in a number of jobs, but his wit and erudition, but even Homer nodded occasionally, and this is an absolutely terrible idea. It makes about as much sense as saying that since the U.S. Navy was founded in 1775 at the beginning of 40 years of two hot wars and one cold war with great Britain that at the end of that time in 1815, we should have gotten rid of the U.S. Navy because we wouldn't need it anymore.

MR. LEHRER: Are you having trouble making that case though?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: No, I don't think so. I think that members of Congress who've I've talked to -- and I spend a lot of time up here going over budget matters and other matters with them -- have generally been receptive to understanding what we really need to do in order to shift the focus of the Intelligence Community, and while we're reducing its size somewhat figuring out the best way to use its tools to understand things like proliferation and terrorism. After all, issues like proliferation of nuclear weapons and chemicals and bacteriologicals and terrorism are not just some abstract national security issue. They're public safety problems for the United States. We really need working together with the FBI to make sure that the worst effects of the fact that countries such as Iran and iraq and North Korea are involved in both weapons proliferation and terrorism, don't come home to visit us here, and we spend a lot of time and effort on that. Much of what the Intelligence Community had before by way of technical systems and, and other availability, other available assets is quite important and useful toward that kind of intelligence.

MR. LEHRER: You talked about reducing the size though of the Intelligence Community. Is it still a secret how many employees there are at the CIA and what your budget is?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Yes, and I --

MR. LEHRER: Why is that?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: I think there's good reason for that. This is - - I think in these days and times it's important for people to understand as much as we can tell the world as a whole about how intelligence works, and we've disclosed a lot of historical material, and we're disclosing a lot more. We've freed up a lot of Cold War records and estimates of the Soviet Union before 1983, the Kennedy files on the Kennedy assassination, and the rest. And I'm also spending a lot of time, as I said, on the Hill going over budget matters and programs with individual Senators and Congressmen, but if we get into a public debate about the reason why the budget has to be a certain size, we can't really argue about that without explaining what it goes for, explaining that well, you have these satellite programs this year, no satellite programs next year. I can't carry on that debate just with the American people.

MR. LEHRER: Why not?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, because the wonders of electronics mean that this is being heard virtually as we're saying it in places such as Iraq and Iran and North Korea, as well as it is in homes in the United States. So anything that we do publicly, we also directly or indirectly are saying something about the way we collect intelligence to the people we're trying to collect intelligence on over in those foreign countries. And I would very much hope -- and that's why the administration took this position on the debate in the House of Representatives, on having a public total for the intelligence budget, that it would not be made public, and that proposal in the House was defeated by over two to one.

MR. LEHRER: Intelligence work, being a spy, and all of that sort of business is supposed to be fun and exciting. At the top where you are, is it fun -- are you having a good time?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Well, it's a fascinating job. I hope I'm doing it well. The most important thing is that people who now come to work in the Intelligence Community, the CIA in particular, have an extraordinary challenge in front of them. Part of the work's dangerous. There's no getting around that. The hours are really long, but the challenge of being able to try to understand some of these extremely difficult problems and piece them together from satellite imagery and agent reports and all the rest help the President and the National Security Council understand things like proliferation of weapons and terrorism is, there's a lot of psychic income in that. Let me put it that way.

MR. LEHRER: So it's still fun without the Russians?

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: It's fascinating. Fun's not quite the right adjective.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Director, thanks a lot. We appreciate your being with us.

DIRECTOR WOOLSEY: Thank you.

MS. WARNER: Still ahead, the global warming debate, and Florida's tourist murders. FOCUS - CLIMATE CONTROL

MS. WARNER: Next tonight, the Clinton administration's plan to combat the environmental danger of global warming. The issue has been at the center of a continuing debate among scientists and politicians. We'll join that debate with the Secretary of Energy and two experts after a Tom Bearden backgrounder.

MR. BEARDEN: Global warming first received widespread public attention in the summer of 1988 when global temperatures hit record highs. Drought conditions in this country caused half of all farmlands to be declared disaster areas. It was on a sweltering June day that NASA scientist Dr. James Hanson spoke before a Senate Committee. He said a warming trend for the 1980s which included the five hottest years on record was not normal, not a natural climate variation.

DR. JAMES HANSON, NASA: [1988] The global warming is now large enoughthat we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.

MR. BEARDEN: Up to that moment, global warming due to the so- called "greenhouse effect" had seemed a remote possibility, something for future generations to worry about. The theory of how the effect works is undisputed. Sunlight strikes the Earth. The Earth radiates heat back to the atmosphere and part of that heat is then trapped in the atmosphere by carbon dioxide and other gases.

DR. JAMES HANSON: The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.

MR. BEARDEN: Hanson's testimony, based on this computer climate model, touched off a storm of controversy. Most climatologists felt he had jumped the gun. They argued that climate naturally varies so much it would take several decades before anyone could determine whether the greenhouse effect had really set in. Recent scientific studies seem to show that the impact of the greenhouse effect so far is less threatening than Hanson warned. It is thought to have raised temperatures only slightly, at night and in the cooler seasons. Despite the uncertainties, it is clear that carbon dioxide and other gases have continued to increase. Power plants and automobiles are burning more CO2 emitting fossil fuels. Tropical forests, which absorb CO2, are being burned down, adding even more CO2 to the air. Last year, at the Rio Earth Summit, there was pressure on then President Bush to sign an international global warming treaty. The treaty, at first meant to commit each nation to specific measures to reduce greenhouse gases, was changed under United States objections. The treaty President Bush did sign committed the United States to lowering its emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. On the campaign trail, Candidate Clinton objected.

BILL CLINTON: The nations of the world at the Rio conference were looking to the United States for leadership. Instead, they found reluctance.

MR. BEARDEN: Clinton promised to be a better environmental president than George Bush. His running mate's high profile environmental record and his best selling book Earth in the Balance [Earth in the Balance, Ecology and the Human Spirit] reinforced the message. In it, Al Gore called for higher fuel efficiency standards to help reduce greenhouse emission. On Earth Day this past April, President Clinton again highlighted global warming.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Today I reaffirm my personal and announce our nation's commitment to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000.

MR. BEARDEN: Today, President Clinton explained he planned to do that with a voluntary set of incentives. The President committed nearly $2 billion in federal funds for a new program and asked industry to commit more than 60 billion. The Clinton plan will also launch a program to help businesses improve heating and cooling systems. It will also issue new efficiency standards for many household appliances and will ask Congress to change the tax law so business can use cash vouchers to encourage employees to use public transport. The President stressed that most of the measures in his plan could start right away, without waiting for congressional approval.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And I think if all of you read the plan in its exquisite and sometimes mind bending detail, you will see that it is a very aggressive and very specific first step, I would argue the most aggressive and the most specific first step that any nation on this planet has taken in the face of perhaps the biggest environmental threat to this planet.

MS. WARNER: Now to three views of the global warming policy debate. Hazel O'Leary is the Secretary of Energy. Fred Palmer is general manager and chief executive officer of the Western Fuels Association. His coop supplies coal to electric utilities. It is participating in one of the voluntary programs announced today. And Daniel Becker is the director of global warming and energy programs at the Sierra Club, a national environmental organization. Thank you all for joining us. Madame Secretary, let me start with you. As we were just reminded in this taped piece, during the campaign then Candidate Clinton - - Candidates Clinton and Gore attacked President Bush on environmental issues, and I think people expected a very aggressive Clinton administration on these issues. Yet, to many critics, today's program did seem like warmed over Bush's and particularly in the heavy reliance on voluntary standards. How do you respond to that?

SEC. O'LEARY: Well, one, we argue now, or you presume that a voluntary program isn't a vigorous program. In this instance, I think we have a vigorous program and that there are 50 individual measures which will help us to achieve our goal and even better our goal to reduce emissions by the beginning of the 21st century. There are some who might like a little pain with a program but if we can accomplish our goal without pain and perhaps more importantly be cost effective so that jobs are not adversely impacted, then I think we've done our job. And in this instance we're creating new jobs and at the same time doing what we said we would achieve for the environment.

MS. WARNER: And is this goal of reducing emissions by the year 2000 to the levels of a decade before, is that a firm commitment, or is that just an objective?

SEC. O'LEARY: No, it is absolutely a firm commitment, and the government's role in this exchange of voluntary agreements between the private sector and government is to keep score. So if we find at the end of two years that we're not achieving our goal, then we have the option to go back and seek stronger measures from the Congress of the United States.

MS. WARNER: Well, Mr. Becker, what do you make of this plan/

MR. BECKER: Well, Sierra Club is very disappointed that the administration not only didn't seek pain, which isn't necessary, but left on the cutting room floor very cost effective measures that would have guaranteed that we would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 but more importantly really begin to solve the global warming problem by reducing below that level. This, this first action plan looks global warming straight in the face and blinks. The biggest single step to curbing global warming, which is a cost effective plan, would be to require that 45 mile per gallon cars be put on the road within 10 years. The auto industry doesn't like it, but everybody else does. It will save more carbon dioxide pollution than almost all the other measures in this plan combined, and it is, as I said before, the single biggest step curbing global warming. Also, today happens to be the 20th anniversary of the OPEC oil embargo. It will save -- 45 mile per gallon cars will save more oil than any other step that we can take.

MS. WARNER: Mrs. O'Leary, he does raise an interesting point about fuel efficiency standards. Vice President Gore, when he was a Senator, advocated mandatory fuel standards that would increase the miles per gallon that cars get, and yet the plan really has nothing about that. What was the decision there? Explain that to us.

SEC. O'LEARY: Two things: First of all, the plan does have a transportation component, and we're picking up 12 percent of the savings there. You may recall that last week our administration kicked off another program which addresses this issue after the beginning of the 21st century through the Clean Car Initiative, where we working with the government, with the private sector, will increase energy efficiency in automobiles by 300 percent. That savings should kick in at just about the time we're looking for additional greenhouse gas reductions, and we can take them from the automotive sector. So I think this is a balanced plan. As the President pointed out tonight, this is the beginning, this is the first step. We know that we'll have other things to do as we move into the 21st century.

MS. WARNER: And what would have been the down side to having mandatory, a mandatory increase in the fuel efficiency standards?

SEC. O'LEARY: There were two issues here: No. 1, what was doable immediately; we did not believe that efficiency standards for automobiles, i.e. Cafe standards, could be legislated that quickly. You'll recall that we have a very deep legislative agenda. And perhaps most importantly, looking at the shape the economy was in, we're interested in creating jobs right away, and this program with its heavy dependence on conservation in the home, in the office, in the shop, in the workshop, accomplishes that goal.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Palmer, let me ask you from the industry perspective, what is your assessment of this plan?

MR. PALMER: Well, I want to first congratulate the President and the Vice President and the Secretary of Energy on the content of this plan. It is a voluntary plan. We are quite happy that it does not include mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. Nor does it include a tax on carbon content of fuels, so we think the plan as it stands is a responsible one, and we think it's one that we can work with. We do have some concerns, and particularly over what is called the correction mechanism in the plan where the government takes another look at greenhouse gas emissions in total in the two to three year time frame with the implied threat of CO2 caps and/or taxes which under no circumstances will, will be justified to impose on the American people, on energy consumers, and particularly electric consumers. However, we don't think that as we go out that this re-look will necessarily force the conclusion that CO2 caps and/or taxes are required if the government keeps score correctly. And one of the best kept secrets in this whole debate is that it is cheap electricity fueled by burning coal that has led to stabilization of CO2 emissions already in the American economy with the exception of the automotive industry.

MS. WARNER: Well, the government -- the administration is looking here for industry to spend some $60 billion on various kinds of conservation measures here. What really is the incentive for industry to do that, if it is that expensive?

MR. PALMER: The incentive is already in the marketplace. The incentive is in cheap electricity. Cheap electricity is giving people the ability to do research and development in important areas of electro technologies, to put in more efficient electric applications in factories and homes, to displace the direct burning of fossil fuels in factories, natural gas for example. It is supported by the literature. It is supported by studies that the Western Fuels Association, itself, has commissioned that cheap electricity used in a factory, for example, even where the electricity is made by burning coal, will result in lower CO2 emissions than the directives of natural gas in that factory. So the incentive is already there.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask Mr. Becker about this. Why are you so dubious about voluntary standards?

MR. BECKER: Well, I think first of all, voluntary standards can be helpful. They can get us part of the way, but there's no guarantee that the voluntary standards will actually achieve the goals that the President has set. And more importantly, even if the administration had a voluntary plan that achieved a stabilization of global warming pollution within 10 years, that just means that the global warming problem will get worse more slowly than it is now. What we need to do is reduce below the 1990 levels by a substantial amount. I actually find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Mr. Palmer that this plan is more important for what isn't in it than what is in it. It lacks tough fuel economy standards. It relies almost exclusively on voluntary standards. It doesn't have cost effective efficiency standards that Mrs. O'Leary would administer. So in a sense, what this plan has the unfortunate -- it puts the administration in an unfortunate position. It relies on the good faith of polluters who caused this problem in the first place. I would ask Mr. Palmer: Do you actually believe that the global warming problem is a serious one, and are you committed, and do you believe, as the President said today, that this is the biggest environmental threat to the planet?

MS. WARNER: Mr. Palmer.

MR. PALMER: No, I do not. I know that there are reasonable people that believe that global warming is a serious threat, but in our view, the apocalyptic vision of global warming that is promoted by the environmental community, by the Sierra Club, by the Environmental Defense Fund, by the Natural Resources Defense Council, is based on a misrepresentation of the science, and this started --

MS. WARNER: Let me ask Mrs. O'Leary to get in on this. I'm sorry, Mrs. O'Leary, where is the administration on this issue of how serious the problem is now?

SEC. O'LEARY: Well, the administration came to grips with this issue when we were standing for election. We're clear on the fact that the science dictates that we must take these measures. And to re-argue or re-litigate the science, I think is a waste of our time. What we have here is a plan that will work, a plan that gets us to achieving our goals as we indicated on the day before Earth Day. It's cost effective. It creates jobs. It's flexible so that industry can allow the marketplace which wants environmental correction to answer this call, and I believe it's the right plan for today. Now, the job of the public is to watch us, to monitor us, and if we're not booking the emissions reductions that we have said we will, then we'll take other action.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Becker, I want to close with looking at a political question here. If a year ago, before Bill Clinton got into office, you'd told me that we'd have this discussion and the environmentalists would be criticizing the administration, the industry would be embracing the administration, I would have said you were nuts. Tell me what it's been like dealing with this administration, and is the Clinton-Gore administration the kind of pro-environmental administration you'd hoped for?

MR. BECKER: It is, indeed, ironic that the very polluters who were saying they don't recognize the problem are being pointed to by this administration as voluntarily agreeing tohelp solve it. I agree that that's the height of irony. I think the big difference between this administration and the Bush administration is that on global warming, the Bush administration would clench their fists and bang their feet and shut their eyes and say, never, never, never, we're not going to act because global warming doesn't exist. This administration has recognized that it's a very serious problem. The President said today that it is the biggest environmental threat to the plan. We agree. Now we need to have an action agenda that the administration supports that will achieve, will help solve that problem, not just whittle away at the edges. And what we want to do is work with the administration over the next year to put teeth in the gums of this plan.

MS. WARNER: But it sounds as if you're saying this administration has not been aggressive on a whole series of environmental measures, as you would have expected.

MR. BECKER: Well, I don't think I said that. I think what we would like to have out of this administration is a partnership with the environmental community to work together to put tough measures that are necessary, that the administration admits will achieve more than these voluntary steps will to achieve the goal that we both share, which is really avoiding the threat of global warming which will require more than just a stabilization, and as the President promised back the day before Earth Day, it, it will require continuing the trend of reduced emissions, and somehow that got lost in today's speech.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Palmer, let me ask you the same political question from your perspective. Is this administration as bad or tough to deal with as you feared?

MR. PALMER: Well, we, we don't believe that the administration has acted in any way but responsibly with regard to energy matters thus far. The -- I never had any fear over the Clinton administration when it came in. I supported the Clinton administration, and I support the Clinton administration. We believe in cheap electricity, in cheap energy. We believe in rational science, and that's the point of view that we're putting out, and we have every reason to believe that the administration will continue to be receptive to this point of view as we go forward.

MS. WARNER: So Madame Secretary, what we've seen here basically, the new Democrat in environmental matters, is that what this plan really, really embodies?

SEC. O'LEARY: I think what you've seen is, first of all, a rational, practical plan that meets the goal that we established for ourselves and that Mr. Becker would require us to use a cannon to accomplish what a laser-directed beam can accomplish I think is unfortunate for the short-term, but he and I know that we'll be working together over the next three years and three months, and I think we'll see progress. I'm very comfortable with the plan today, and I'm very comfortable with the relationship that we've developed, which was preexisting in the environmental community, and is seeking to develop for the entire American public on this issue.

MR. BECKER: Madame Secretary, I guess where we disagree is that - - is what the goal should be. The goal should be reducing emissions of global warming so that we preserve the planet. Just stabilization won't cut it.

MR. PALMER: We believe that the goal should be cheap electricity, so people can live their lives, and to promote --

MS. WARNER: Madame Secretary --

MR. PALMER: -- science.

MS. WARNER: -- you get the last word.

SEC. O'LEARY: Well, first of all, we've accomplished our goal for thisyear. There will be a goal for the beginning of the 21st century, and I think that we can satisfy, well satisfy Mr. Becker as well as satisfy the American public.

MS. WARNER: Well, thank you very much. FOCUS - TOURIST TRAP?

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a follow-up to the Florida tourist murders. Nine have died in recent months, and the state of Florida has been hard at work in trying not only to make its streets safer but also to rescue its image. In the process, officials have discovered tourists aren't the only ones afraid. Betty Ann Bowser has our report.

OFFICER BIL KINNEBREW, Metro Dade Police: It's almost like they don't even know what planet they're on.

MS. BOWSER: These days, police in Miami aren't just looking for bad guys. Officers like Bill Kinnebrew are looking for tourists.

OFFICER BILL KINNEBREW: They kind of stick out. You can drive up and down here, and I can pick -- I can find 'em -- you can find 'em. The people alongside the road know exactly who they are, and it has nothing to do really with their race, color, or creed, or national origin. It has to do with their, their general appearance from a distance.

MS. BOWSER: On this night, not far from where one foreigner was murdered, Kinnebrew spots a driver who may be lost?

OFFICER BILL KINNEBREW: Are you lost?

MAN IN CAR: Pardon?

OFFICER BILL KINNEBREW: Do you speak English? Lost? Okay. Wait a minute.

SPOKESMAN: Best Western near the airport.

OFFICER BILL KINNEBREW: Does he have an address?

MS. BOWSER: This is just one way officials in Florida are fighting crime against foreign visitors. In the last year, nine Europeans have been murdered in robberies or robbery attempts. As their numbers have grown, so has media attention abroad.

SPOKESMAN: In Florida, hundreds of specially drafted police patrols have been searching the state's motorway rest stops for clues to the killers of the 34-year-old Yorkshire man, Gary Colley.

MS. BOWSER: The London tabloids engaged in a feeding frenzy, with headlines like "Holiday of Horror," "Killed Like Animals," and "Get the Hell Out of Here."

GOV. LAWTON CHILES, Florida: We have acted to improve the streets of Miami and of Florida. We will not rest until they are even safer.

MS. BOWSER: Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles launched a massive show of force against tourist crime. He created a task force that so far has resulted in nearly 300 arrests and the state suspended its ad campaign. Rental car companies were ordered to remove anything that made their vehicles easy to recognize. Alamo's Liz Clark says her company wiped out almost all corporate ID.

LIZ CLARK, Alamo Rent A Car, Inc.: We just wanted to remove everything from the rear of the car, so the sticker came off back here. We had an inventory sticker also here. That's removed. We had an Alamo logo, bumper sticker. That's removed, and the plate used to be -- start with a numerator Y or Z and instead of the county name, it would say Lease.

ALAMO SPOKESMAN: [speaking to customer] Hi. Welcome to Alamo. Which language do you prefer, English, Spanish, Italian, Espanole? Okay. This is a map of Miami, and tips we ask you to please read through, okay?

MS. BOWSER: Arriving customers are now giving a variety of pamphlets and brochures that outline safety measures in several languages. And when they leave the rental lot, they now find new signs directing them away from dangerous neighborhoods around the airport and toward the beaches. Still, on September the 8th, a German tourist was run off a Miami Expressway and murdered while his pregnant wife frantically read safety instructions from one of those brochures to him. Then a few days later British tourist Gary Colley was murdered at a rest stop. Once again, Gov. Chiles took reaction.

GOV. LAWTON CHILES: I've asked state law enforcement officials to immediately reassign and deploy their personnel to provide a 24 hour a day presence at all of our interstate rest areas and at our welcome stations.

MS. BOWSER: The governor later hired a private security agency to do the work for $7 million through April of next year. All of this adds up to an unprecedented effort to fight tourist crime in Florida which leaves some visitors reassured.

FOREIGN MALE VISITOR: It's like lottery.

FOREIGN FEMALE TOURIST: If you compare the percentage of people who are bad treated to the people, to the number of tourists who come to Florida, there is no, I don't know, it's not very --

FOREIGN MALE VISITOR: We will leave by day. It's not so dangerous as you came by night.

MS. BOWSER: But in some quarters, the all out effort to rescue Florida's No. 1 industry, the industry that employs 675,000 people, that brings in $31 billion a year, has raised even more questions. T.H. Pool, Sr. is president of the Florida NAACP.

T.H. POOLE, President, Florida NAACP: The question that I ask is if the governor is going to spend all this money beefing up the patrol on the highway and having patrol in all of these rest stops and God knows we've got 'em everywhere, what about all the American taxpayers, the supporters who die everyday, what are you saying to them, their dying was in vain, it's not as important as these visitors? We're getting into the almighty dollar, and we're worried about the tourists, and we're putting on the show to keep the tourists coming.

GOV. LAWTON CHILES: I think it's a very legitimate complaint. I echo what they're saying. They do, many of them, live in constant fear of their lives and certainly for their children and have to lock them in at night, and it's, it should not take the fact that you start having some tourist problems that you have to deal with those.

MS. BOWSER: People in the African American community are raising their voices in protest over the rounding up of black youths in the most recent tourist murder. Rev. John White is pastor of Bethel AME Church in Miami.

REV. JOHN WHITE, Bethel AME Church: I'm fearful this morning that too many Afro-Americans have been put in jail because we all look alike, cannot get a witness. I'm fearful just to solve a murder that the wrong person may be put in jail.

MS. BOWSER: White is angry that the local sheriff in Monticello, Florida, hauled in at least 13 juveniles for questioning in the most recent murder. Florida NAACP President Poole is angry too.

T.H. POOLE: They will do some things in the black community they would not do on Knob Hill. Take the situation in Monticello. I asked the question if the perpetrators of the crime had been tall, thin, and 16, and white, would the sheriff had gone into the school system and pulled out all of the white, thin, tall, 16-year-old white boys? Absolutely not, because he's fearful of getting banker Johnson's son, you know, lawyer top flight's son, and Mr. Big's daughter.

SPOKESMAN: Not only is our community hurt by the image that our recent crimes have caused, but it's worse by the reality that so many of us live in an area where violence is prevalent.

MS. BOWSER: Don Bierman is chairman of the Dade County Community Relations Board. Like Poole, he is concerned about what kind of force is used to solve the tourist murders, but Bierman does notsee the situation in strictly racial terms.

DON BIERMAN, Dade County Community Relations Board: The problem is not that they're violating the rights of young black people. It's that they're violating the rights of people. Before you get arrested, there has to be probable cause. Before a youth is interrogated, they're supposed to have the right to a parent or a counselor present. If the sheriff gets himself a statement or major case prints or some evidence, he's not going to be able to use it because he's violated these rights.

MS. BOWSER: State officials and Attorney General Janet Reno had generally defended law enforcement efforts to curb tourist crime.

JANET RENO, Attorney General: I know from discussions that I've had that everybody is trying to do it the right way consistent with constitutional due process and consistent with public safety.

MS. BOWSER: Since most of the tourist murders have involved juveniles and guns, many Florida officials are calling for strict gun control legislation.

SPOKESMAN: We are all endangered by the careless disregard of life exhibited by young people with easy access to guns.

MS. BOWSER: Even the Tourist Commission is openly talking about new laws to curb the use of guns.

DIANNA MORGAN, Walt Disney World: Should we, for example, request that we close the loophole that allows youths or minors to possess weapons even though they cannot purchase weapons.

MS. BOWSER: Ironically, the murders of foreign tourists come at a time when violent crime in the Miami area is declining, and where Europeans make up the fastest growing segment of the industry. For life long Florida booster like Merritt Stierheim, that is a bitter pill to swallow.

MERRITT STIERHEIM, Miami Visitors and Convention Bureau: This is endemic. Crime is endemic in the world today, and it doesn't make any difference whether you're in London or Frankfurt or Cairo or wherever, but here in Miami, murder is down almost 40 percent, 39 percent from where it was in the 1980s. And it has dropped steadily every year for the last four or five years, so that in terms of statistics, which are realistic, I mean, it's not whiffle dust, they're real.

MS. BOWSER: The really profitable part of the tourist season begins shortly, and even with worldwide news coverage about murdered tourists, there are no reported mass cancellations, but industry leaders continue to warn vacationers to be less carefree and more careful. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, President Clinton ordered a 750 person army ranger unit home from Somalia. The Senate considered legislation limiting the President's ability to deploy troops overseas. A U.S. Navy frigate stopped the cargo ship headed for tourist in the first maritime enforcement action of the new U.N. embargo. The ship was later allowed to proceed to Haiti, and the President unveiled a set of mostly voluntary steps to limit the global warming caused by air pollution. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Margaret. We'll see you tomorrow night with a Charlayne Hunter-Gault conversation from the Middle East among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.