The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in Washington. After our summary of today's news, we focus on the resignation of Oregon Senator Republican Bob Packwood, then Betty Ann Bowser reports on the second day of congressional hearings on the Ruby Ridge incident, and Secretary of State Warren Christopher joins us for a Newsmaker interview about Bosnia policy and other matters. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: Facing overwhelming pressure, Republican Senator Bob Packwood resigned his Senate seat this afternoon rather than face the ignominy of expulsion for sexual misconduct.

SEN. BOB PACKWOOD, [R] Oregon: "Duty, honor, country." It is my duty to resign. It is the honorable thing to do for this country, for this Senate. So I now announce that I will resign from the Senate, and I leave this institution not with malice, but with love. Good luck. Godspeed.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Republicans thus lose the chairman of the powerful Finance Committee and a pivotal figure in the new Republican majority's efforts to reform welfare, taxes, and Medicare. Packwood's decision follows yesterday's unanimous vote by the Senate Ethics Committee to recommend expulsion. Today, the chairman and vice chairman of the committee released more than 10,000 pages of documents detailing the allegations against Packwood. The committee's two and a half year investigation had been criticized by feminists and Democrats.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL, Chairman, Ethics Committee: I know that at various points in this case there were those out there who wondered whether the Ethics Committee would get in the Packwood case. Well, there can be no doubt today that the Ethics Committee got it, concerning the gross and persistent misconduct demonstrated by Sen. Bob Packwood. No work place in America ought to tolerate the kind of offensive, degrading sexual misconduct that the Ethics Committee finds Senator Packwood to be guilty of. And it certainly cannot be tolerated in the United States Senate either.

MR. MAC NEIL: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: A Senate subcommittee today pressed federal law enforcement agents to justify their bloody 1992 shootout with white separatist Randy Weaver. Weaver's wife and teen-age son and a federal marshal were killed in the exchange of gunfire around the Weaver cabin at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Federal agents had been pursuing Weaver after he failed to appear in court on charges of selling two illegal guns to an undercover agent. The agent in charge of the raid for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms was Herb Byerly.

HERB BYERLY, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms: I believe in my heart that what I pursued, the techniques that I used were proper. I discussed the case with the assistant U.S. Attorney's office. I made the recommendation that he be prosecuted. The U.S. Attorney's office looked at the case, and the U.S. Attorney's office pushed the case forward.

MS. WARNER: We'll have excerpts from the hearing later in the program.

MR. MAC NEIL: A Justice Department report released today projects that juvenile arrests for violent crimes may double by the year 2010 if current trends continue. The report said juveniles are also more likely to be the victims of crime, especially at the hands of their peers. The Department calls the report "its first comprehensive collection of youth crime data." Attorney General Janet Reno said it shows the need to step up youth crime-fighting efforts.

MS. WARNER: NATO's Operation Deliberate Force continued today, with more bombing attacks on rebel Serb positions in Bosnia. We have more in this report from Lindsay Taylor of Independent Television News.

LINDSAY TAYLOR, ITN: Nearly 2,000 sorties have now been flown to bomb the Bosnian Serbs into meeting the UN and NATO's demands to end the siege of Sarajevo. The Bosnian Serb capital, Pale, was among the targets. An ammunition dump was reported to have been hit as NATO intensified the attacks aimed at persuading the Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic to withdraw his heavy weapons. This morning in Zagreb, the UN peace envoy, Yasushi Akushi, indicated that so far they had not been successful.

YASUSHI AKASHI, UN Envoy: We have not seen in the last 24 hours much move, much policy change on the part of Bosnian Serbs. We have been waiting for it, but I think as of now, Gen. Mladic's position seems to be prevailing.

MR. TAYLOR: Other Serb targets around Sarajevo were bombed by the NATO jets, including the Lukavica barracks, said to be a key military nerve center. But the destruction and continued bombing is angering the Russians, who are part of the five nations' contact group in Bosnia. Today, President Boris Yeltsin, frustrated by his failure to sway policy, warned that Russia may consider its relations with the West if the attacks continue. But a meeting in Paris today of foreign ministers of the contact group and the counterparts from Islamic countries agreed the air strike must go on, despite tomorrow's talks in Geneva involving the foreign ministers of Bosnia, Croatia, and Yugoslavia.

MS. WARNER: We'll havea Newsmaker interview with Secretary of State Christopher on the situation in Bosnia, among other things, later in the program.

MR. MAC NEIL: Riot police clashed with anti-nuclear and pro- independence activists in Tahiti for a second straight day today. The protests were triggered by France's underground nuclear tests Tuesday, 750 miles Southeast of the island. Rioting began yesterday at the airport near the French Polynesian capital of Papeete. Nearly a thousand activists swarmed the runways, torching the terminal and parked cars. Local police attempted to repel the crowd with tear gas and stun grenades. France flew in reinforcements to assist them. After dark, protesters marched into Papeete. They set dozens of shops on fire and looted government buildings before dispersing. More than 13 people were injured.

MS. WARNER: A Chinese government official responded negatively today to First Lady Hillary Clinton's criticism of China's family planning and human rights record. A foreign ministry spokesman in Beijing said critics from other countries should pay more attention to their own domestic problems. In a speech Tuesday to the UN Conference on Women, which was meeting in China, Mrs. Clinton condemned that country's family planning and human rights policies. Today, the foreign ministry official said China hoped the U.S. would take concrete measures to improve relations between the two countries, instead of creating new obstacles.

MR. MAC NEIL: Hurricane "Luis" roared Northward into the Atlantic today on a path expected to spare the U.S. mainland. But its overnight fury left many tiny Caribbean islands in shambles. St. Martin, Antigua, and Barbuda were pummeled by the devastating storm that packed 120-mile-an-hour winds. Anguilla, St. Barts, Guadaloupe, and Dominica were also battered. At least 13 people are reported dead and thousands more are homeless. By this evening, authorities said "Luis" was 640 miles Southwest of Bermuda.

MS. WARNER: The space shuttle "Endeavour" and its five-member crew finally embarked on a long-scheduled 11-day science mission. The spacecraft blasted off from Cape Canaveral this morning, after more than a month of delays caused by technical problems and unpredictable weather. While in orbit, the astronauts plan to release and then retrieve two satellites. A space walk is also planned for the mission. That's our summary of today's news. Now it's on to the Packwood resignation, day two of the Ruby Ridge hearings, and the Secretary of State. FOCUS - CALLING IT QUITS

MS. WARNER: The Packwood story preoccupied Capitol Hill today, and it is our lead focus tonight. The resignation of the five- term Oregon Republican late this afternoon came less than 24 hours after the Senate Ethics Committee had unanimously recommended his expulsion. We'll get political analysis from Mark Shields and Paul Gigot, but first, Correspondent Kwame Holman reports on today's developments on Capitol Hill. KWAME HOLMAN: Late this afternoon, as news organizations reported his impending resignation, Bob Packwood took to the Senate floor one more time.

SEN. BOB PACKWOOD, [R] Oregon: I think many of you are aware of why I'm here today. I am aware of the dishonor that has befallen me in the last three years, and I don't want to visit further that dishonor on the Senate.

MR. HOLMAN: With almost every member present and with is voice quivering, Packwood began a meandering off-the-cuff recitation of his accomplishments, including what he considered one of his greatest--tax reform.

SEN. BOB PACKWOOD: Tax reform in 1986--we were up against the verge of failure. The House had passed a middling bill. I was chairman of the Finance Committee, and every day we were voting away 15 to 20 billion dollars in more loopholes. I finally just adjourned the committee and said, "We're done." I remember Bill Armstrong saying, we were done for the day. I says, no, we're done for the session, we're not going to have any more meetings, this is it. Bill Defendorfer and I and my chief counsel went out to the Irish Times and had our famous two pitchers of beer. Those were in the days when I drank. I quit drinking years ago. But I can see why they call it courage. By the time we'd finished the second pitcher, we had drafted out on a napkin the outlines, and really said, okay, they want tax reform, we'll give 'em tax reform. And here's an example of this body that can move when it wants to move.

MR. HOLMAN: But Packwood's actual announcement that he would resign came quickly and tearfully.

SEN. BOB PACKWOOD: Some here--Sen. Byrd would--Sen. Exon would- -some in my age group will remember Gen. MacArthur's final speech at West Point. "Duty, honor, country." It is my duty to resign. It is the honorable thing to do for this country, for this Senate. So I now announce that I will resign from the Senate, and I leave this institution not with malice, but with love. Good luck. Godspeed.

MR. HOLMAN: Packwood gave no official date for his resignation. His announcement comes on almost 24 hours after the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to recommend his expulsion from the Senate, stemming from charges of sexual misconduct during his 26 years in office. But a combative Packwood responded immediately, refusing to accept the committee's decision.

SEN. BOB PACKWOOD: Folks, I can't recall when any American citizen has been put through a process close to an inquisition and never had a chance to face his accusers, never, not once, never had a chance to question them.

MR. HOLMAN: This morning, the Ethics Committee's Republican chairman, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and its Democratic vice chair, Richard Bryan of Nevada, laid out the reasons for the committee's decision.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL, Chairman, Ethics Committee: When individuals become Senators, they take an oath of office, to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution stipulates that the Senate has the duty and authority to investigate and punish unethical behavior by its members. Sen. Packwood's systematic effort to obstruct and impede the Ethics Committee's inquiry demonstrates utter contempt and disregard for the Senate's constitutional self-disciplinary process and, as such, is a violation of his oath of office.

MR. HOLMAN: The Ethics Committee has leveled three main charges against Sen. Packwood. Packwood vigorously denies each one of them. First, 18 charges of sexual misconduct by the Senator spanning three decades and involving 17 women, most former Packwood staffers or campaign workers.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: These were not merely "stolen kisses," as Sen. Packwood as claimed. There was a habitual pattern of aggressive, blatantly sexual advances in at least some of the 18 instances of which we find Sen. Packwood guilty. He used physical coercion against his victims, frightening them and causing them severe emotional distress.

SEN. BOB PACKWOOD: [last night] I am accused of kissing women, on occasion of perhaps over-eagerly kissing women, and that is the charge, not drugging, not robbing, kissing, and when rebuffed, never approaching them again, and there's one charge in the last twelve years.

MR. HOLMAN: The Ethics Committee charges that in order to obstruct the committee's investigation, Sen. Packwood deliberately altered diaries of his that the committee had requested.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: But this case is not only about severe misconduct. It is also about a deliberate effort to cover up important evidence relevant to that misconduct. Specifically, the committee finds Sen. Packwood guilty of endeavoring to obstruct and impede the committee's investigation.

SEN. BOB PACKWOOD: These diaries were kept locked in a safe for 25 years, and the only people that ever saw them were the woman that typed them and me. And when this case first arose and Arnold Porter wanted some of the diaries, I had some fear of a leak. And I don't mean in the sense I mistrusted my lawyers at all. All I knew is that something that I had guarded and protected for 25 years, that no one had ever seen and which was never going to be opened until years after my death, was now going out of my hands to a big place that had copiers and people on bicycles and who knows what else, and I frankly, feared not any problem with my lawyers, but I could see the "National Enquirer" or somebody saying to somebody else, if we give you two thousand or three thousand dollars, can you get us a copy of some pages? So I made some alterations in copies of the diaries, not the originals.

MR. HOLMAN: But on the floor of the Senate this afternoon, there was little mention of the charges against Packwood but much praise and fond memories.

SEN. MARK HATFIELD, [R] Oregon: I'd like to accentuate the positive. I must say that in my many years of teaching political science, I never had a more brilliant student as Sen. Packwood. He came to Willamette University as a freshman, and he immediately established himself as one who was knowledgeable about politics and was willing to engage in politics, and to invite other people to be involved in politics.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: Bob Packwood is my friend. I am proud to call him my friend, and I cannot bring myself to say that his departure from the Senate is welcome. I surely know less about the case against the Senator than do the members of the Ethics Committee, and I know that they would not reach their decision absent their confidence that the decision was just. But I cannot accept it with anything other than profound regret.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Majority Leader: When I look at the legislative record of Sen. Packwood and add it all up, and think about the many times he has stood on this floor in this place right here, offering amendments or debating amendments that affected somebody somewhere, some child or children or homeless, or whatever it might be, whatever the issue might be, I would just say he's been an outstanding legislator, an outstanding United States Senator, and someone whose legacy will be around for a long, long time.

MR. HOLMAN: By resigning before the Senate could vote on expulsion, Packwood will save his estimated 89,000 dollar annual pension and relieve himself of the dubious distinction of becoming the first member expelled from the United States Senate since the Civil War.

MS. WARNER: Now, political analysis of the Packwood resignation. It comes from our regular team of Shields and Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Well, Mark, a stunning 24 hours between the Ethics Committee recommendation and Packwood's resignation. What brought this all to a head so quickly?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: What brought it all to a head, Margaret, was that the Senate had the prospect of concluding the O.J. Simpson trial and then going to public hearings televised of three months of Bob Packwood cross-examining two dozen Anita Hills of charges of absolutely besmirching, not simply him, the institution, but more dangerously, he became an embarrassment, more than an embarrassment, he became a threat, a threat to incumbents. So the--

MS. WARNER: The whole spectacle of it.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right, was going to hurt every incumbent, and it provided a ready-made platform for every challenger next year to say, send me down there, it'll be different when I'm there.

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: In a sense, he sealed his own fate when he asked for public hearings last week. I mean, it was a calculated gamble, I think. He had heard that they were going to at least censure him and probably cost him his chairmanship, and the difference in the Senate, being a chairman and not a chairman, is a difference, to paraphrase Mark Twain, between lightning and lightning bug. And I think he thought that with public hearings he might be able to buy some time. Instead, I think the Senate decided this was--the Ethics Committee decided this was going to be an ordeal that would tarnish all of us, as Mark pointed out, and it was too much.

MS. WARNER: Explain why the conventional wisdom, though, was so wrong about what was happening inside the Ethics Committee. I mean, when the Ethics Committee voted 3/3 along partisan lines not to hold public hearings, the assumption among Democrats, and I think among most of the press and the public, was that the Republicans on this committee were going to protect Bob Packwood. Were they, and then they had a chance over the recess, or was everybody as wrong all along?

MR. SHIELDS: What is known--what was learned, anyway, during the recess was that the Republicans on the committee and the committee, itself, intended to strip him of his chairmanship and to censure him, a very severe penalty. I mean, we're talking, as Kwame said, about the first Senator to be expelled since treason during the Civil War. I mean, whatever the charges against Bob Packwood, they don't quite constitute treason. But when Packwood learned of this, Paul's absolutely right, he decided to up the ante, to hold onto his chairmanship by asking for public hearings and the public hearings then would protract it, would get into December, and that's when it really became not only dangerous to members of the Senate but also to the whole presidential Republican pact, that this would somehow dominate the dialogue.

MS. WARNER: But do you think members of the committee also felt any pressure over the recess? I was struck when I was at the Ross Perot convention in Dallas. A lot of the Perot voters were pointing to this case and saying, what's taking the Senate so long.

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think what happened was Barbara Boxer, frankly, was playing a high stakes political game and it worked. I mean, she raised the ante by forcing--

MS. WARNER: Democrat of California.

MR. GIGOT: --by forcing the vote on public hearings, and once that vote was taken, once the Republicans had rallied and said, no public hearings, then it made much more pressure on them to actually sanction him. And besides, a lot of them worried, because if once his public record came out, they believed that there would be a lot of pressure if they didn't have done something to him--a slap on the wrist wasn't going to do. He had to have some punishment. And the really only two punishmentsyou could have are the cost on the chairmanship or expulsion.

MR. SHIELDS: Paul's absolutely right, Margaret. For the past two weeks, Democrats in the Senate Campaign Committee have been hawking a poll around town taken in Kentucky which showed a loss of 1/3 of Sen. McConnell's popularity. They attribute it in their analysis exclusively to his leading the fight for closed hearings and standing in opposition to Barbara Boxer in her, her crusade or efforts to open up those hearings.

MS. WARNER: So what is going to be the impact, with Bob Packwood gone, on the Republicans on the Hill and their ability to move this incredibly ambitious agenda?

MR. GIGOT: Well, on the one hand, I think some of them think it's a relief. I mean, if you would have had a kind of their version of a three-month O.J. trial or a six-month O.J. trial, it would have interfered with what they were doing, or it would have blotted out whatever they were trying to do. So in that sense, this is a hit, however, because Packwood was a very effective Finance Committee chairman. In fact, I think he's the best member on that committee. The only one who can really match him is Bob Dole, who is--used to chair the committee, and is now the majority leader. There's nobody else who has this kind of a strategic scope of how you deal with Medicare, how you deal with Medicaid, how you deal with taxes, and the instant recall on facts, the ability to argue in public, and the ability to put together a bill on the floor and make it stick.

MR. SHIELDS: I think the implications are enormous. I think that, first of all, right behind Bob Packwood is Bill Roth of Delaware, who at the age of 74 is--commands neither the confidence, nor the loyalty, nor the respect. I think Paul's right about Bob Dole. The two of them were the two strategic thinkers certainly on the Republican side in that committee, and the committee, its importance cannot be overstated. We're talking about the entire fate, fortune, and future of the Republican program. We're talking about the balanced budget. We're talking about cuts in Medicare, or cuts in the growth in Medicare, of Medicaid, of welfare, of the whole everything, I mean, everything that's involved, and the tax cut to boot. You can say the fate, fortune, and future of the Republican Congress, as well as the fate, fortunate, and future of Bob Dole. What it means is that Bob Dole is going to have to come back and be de facto chairman of that committee.

MR. GIGOT: That's right.

MS. WARNER: But is it a foregone conclusion that Bill Roth will say--Sen. Roth will say he wants this chairmanship? Isn't there some scenario for him passing on this, and somebody else getting it?

MR. GIGOT: Well, he's the chairman of another committee, of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and so he could say, I don't want it, but I think everyone wants that plum, and he misses--this is the--the Governmental Affairs is the minor leagues compared to finance, and he's said he wants it. So I think that he probably will want it. But Mark's absolutely right. Bob Dole is going to be the de fact chairman, because there's one thing that is beginning to dominate--will dominate, I think, in the politics of a lot of the legislation in the Senate the next couple of months, and that is if Bob Dole needs a victory to succeed in his presidential race. And he can't--he loses a chief lieutenant in Bob Packwood. He's going to have to become his own lieutenant. And he's going to have to run that committee.

MS. WARNER: Which is going to take a lot of valuable time.

MR. SHIELDS: A lot of time. Margaret, ever since 1976, which is really the modern era of presidential politics, when for the first time federal law limited what any individual could contribute to a campaign, presidential campaign, or what any candidate could spend in a primary overall, time became more important than money. Ronald Reagan out of office, full-time candidate, wins. Jimmy Carter, out of office, full-time candidate, wins. Walter Mondale, out of office, full-time candidate, wins. George Bush, in office, full-time candidate, wins. Okay. And the reality is--

MR. GIGOT: Then loses.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. GIGOT: But wins the nomination.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. And, you know, that George Bush didn't really have a day job. I mean, he went to meetings where he didn't ask questions, but, but the reality is that Bob Dole is trying to do the impossible. He's trying to do what Lyndon Johnson couldn't do and what Howard Baker--two majority leaders before him with enormous political gifts--and that is to win the nomination at the same time as you're the Senate Majority Leader. And neither one of them had as ambitious a legislative program as Bob Dole does. Bob Dole has to--has to be successful, because he--it's not a candidacy based upon eloquence or charisma, or exciting bold new ideas, it's that he's effective. He's the guy that gets things done. He's practical. And that's--this is going to be the test for him. This four months will determine, I think, the fate of the Republican Congress, as well as Bob Dole's fate.

MS. WARNER: Then if Mark is right, is Bob Dole well advised to, in fact, spend the whole fall working on the legislative agenda?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think he has no choice, but if he goes out and, and the legislative agenda fails, then he fails. I mean, this is in a sense the first primary. This is his first primary. This is his first primary in Congress and in the Finance Committee, and I think the key has always been, would, will Bob Dole be--it's an eleven to nine committee--it's one of the most narrow in the Senate--can he get John Chafee's vote to, to get that eleven to nine narrow majority, get out on the floor, where they have a little bit more running room, and I think that frankly, Bob Dole's persuasive ability was always going to be the key anyway, so in that sense, Packwood's departure doesn't mean as much as long as Dole is there to, to be able to, to stand in.

MR. SHIELDS: Yes, he can get John Chafee's vote. I think John Chafee, a moderate Republican from Rhode Island, who's endorsed Bob Dole for the Senate, I think he can get his vote, because he voted for a balanced budget amendment. I think when he voted for the balanced budget, and the balanced budget as pushed by that resolution, he was essentially saying, I'm with you all the way through. I think that you'll see on the right wing of the Republican Party, you'll see a vicious attack mounted against Sheila Burke, his chief of staff. I'll tell you why. Sheila is probably--she's probably "the" most competent, or she's certainly one of the two most competent people on Capitol Hill. She has his total trust and total confidence, and he absolutely needs her at this point. I mean, she has got to be his eyes, ears, lungs, and limbs on that committee. The way--if you're Phil Gramm or you're the right wing of the Republican Party and you want to submarine Dole, is you've somehow got to discredit Sheila Burke, look for a campaign against Sheila Burke.

MS. WARNER: Now, losing Packwood in the Senate is also the loss of one of the 54 Republican votes.

MR. GIGOT: Yes.

MS. WARNER: Do you have any--I know this is early, Paul, but do you have any idea how quickly someone might get elected in this special election to place him, or does Dole have to figure he's got a 99-person Senate for now, and 53 votes?

MR. GIGOT: For now, he has a 99-person Senate. I think that the earliest they could have an election would be about 90 days, perhaps something like that. There's no--they can't appoint somebody in Oregon--the governor--Democratic governor can't appoint somebody, so you'll have a race, and I think you'll see a race between a couple of sitting members of Congress.

MR. SHIELDS: Yeah. I mean, Oregon is one of those great reform states where the governor is robbed of the--the greatest act of power that any governor can have is to appoint and make a United States Senator, and because it can--Oregon's reform bill- -John Kitzaber can't do it.

MS. WARNER: But, I mean, if, if we get into the situation where the President is vetoing the Republican package, losing one vote is important.

MR. SHIELDS: It is, it is important, and I think that Democrats are confident. One Democrat said to me this afternoon this is the Harris Wofford thing all over again, recalling Harris Wofford's upset victory in 1991 in the Pennsylvania Senate race over Governor Thornburgh, heavily favored, that somehow this was going to spark the Democrats' resurgence. They feel they--they're confident they can win a Senate race in, in Oregon, because whoever the Republican nominee is, he's going to be carrying, or she--some of the burden of Bob Packwood.

MR. GIGOT: Which is precisely why I don't think it is the Wofford thing. It is not--Oregon is a liberal state. Pennsylvania is much more of a bellwether state, and he will carry some of that baggage, unfairly so, so I don't think it'll be a fair test.

MS. WARNER: What do you think the resolution of this Packwood affair does to the reputation of the Senate as a whole, or the view of Washington out in the country?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I mean, Jeremy Thorpe said of the Harold MacMillan shake-up in the British cabinet, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his friend's life for his own political career." I think, on reflection, we'll see some of that. I mean, Bob Packwood became an embarrassment, became a threat. It isn't going to redeem the Senate, but certainly the prospect of three months or four months of hearings of the nature described and anticipated would have been devastating.

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think, frankly--and we haven't talked about this much--but I think it does raise a question about standards and double standards. There is a lot of--there's a lot of these charges that are 20 years old, and there's a question of the ethic at that time--things changing, and that ethic will no longer apply, and there are some people in the Senate, other people in the Senate-- we all know about it--if the standards had been applied when they were in trouble, Ted Kennedy most prominently--the question is: Would he have survived in this sort of political ethical climate? I don't think so. So I think that's something for the Senate to think about. What are the real standards of conduct in sexual behavior and other things? The standards really aren't clear.

MS. WARNER: But are you saying you think there could be something of a backlash, the public could feel Packwood was railroaded?

MR. GIGOT: No. I don't think that that's going to be the outcome, because his behavior--look, he was a lout--I mean, at best, he was a lout, I mean, what my grandmother used to call a lout, in his behavior, but what I'm saying is that he is not the only one, and there has to be a sense that that standard is going to be applied universally when these things come out.

MR. SHIELDS: Let me just offer a brief exception, and that is this: As a wise Senator said once, if adultery were an exclusion, then they would never get a majority in the Senate, a quorum. I don't know of any case where Ted Kennedy forced his attentions on somebody.

MS. WARNER: Gentlemen.

MR. SHIELDS: And I think that's--I think that's what this is about, and it's what made it different.

MS. WARNER: We're going to have to leave it there without going on to Ted Kennedy. Thanks very much.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead, the Ruby Ridge hearings and Secretary of State Warren Christopher. FOCUS - UNDER FIRE

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, today's Ruby Ridge hearings. A Senate subcommittee continued its investigation into the 1992 federal siege in Northern Idaho. Today, Senators heard from officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms. Correspondent Betty Ann Bowser reports.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Like Waco, the chronology of events now known as Ruby Ridge began with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms and guns. In 1989, the ATF charged Randy Weaver with selling two illegal sawed-off shotguns to an undercover agent named Kennedy Fadeley. Today, members of the subcommittee wanted to know why Randy Weaver became a target of the ATF. Special Agent in Charge Herb Byerly and his boss. Assistant Director of Enforcement, Andrew Vita, testified the ATF believed Weaver was a major illegal gun dealer.

HERB BYERLY, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms: On October 11, 1989, Mr. Weaver stated to the confidential informant that he wanted to go into business with him by supplying the confidential informant who had the persona of being a dealer of illegal weapons. Mr. Weaver stated to him that he wanted to go into business with him, they had a discussion on the type of firearms that were the- -the best sellers for the confidential informant. The confidential informant stated an array of guns, including shotguns. Mr. Weaver then asked the confidential informant, well, what size? The confidential informant said, "The shorter, the better." Mr. Weaver then told the confidential informant that he could fly four to five of these per week to the informant.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, [R] Iowa: Would you describe what you believe to be a significant threat of violence, what that was?

HERB BYERLY: Yes, Senator. I was given the information by the sheriff that each of the Weaver children possessed firearms. They were well versed in how to use these firearms; that they even slept with firearms, that if we were to attempt to arrest Mr. Weaver in the presence of his children, that there could certainly be a threat to us or to them, or to the Weavers, themselves, with the children using the firearms to prevent the arrest of Mr. Weaver. I had information from a neighbor who had been providing me information for almost six months concerning the activities of Mr. Weaver, where he and some of his associates were using firearms to shoot over their residence, to intimidate them with firearms. These are some of the things that came into play with the information that I provided to the U.S. Marshal's Service.

SEN. HERB KOHL, [D] Wisconsin: Mr. Byerly, it is clear, isn't it, that after all is said and done the total number of illegal firearms that were transacted between Mr. Weaver and the ATF were two sawed-off shotguns?

HERB BYERLY: Yes, Senator.

SEN. HERB KOHL: I mean, that's the bottom line.

HERB BYERLY: Yes, Senator.

SEN. HERB KOHL: Is it also true that you had no knowledge of him having sold illegal firearms to other people?

HERB BYERLY: That is correct.

SEN. HERB KOHL: So then rationally speaking, how do we come to the conclusion that this man is so dangerous in terms of his propensity or probability of becoming a major firearms dealer that you would decide that, in fact, he was, in fact, such a dangerous person from that respect when, if, in fact, the total number of transactions was no more than two?

HERB BYERLY: There were only two sawed-off shotguns which came into the hands of ATF through the confidential informant.

SEN. HERB KOHL: Yes.

HERB BYERLY: But there was information coming from Mr. Weaver's mouth that he could supply up to five sawed-off shotguns per week.

SEN. HERB KOHL: Well, then why didn't--if that were true and you really wanted to have a case that you wanted to be certain of where you're coming from, which we expect from people in your position, why wouldn't you have pursued it to the point where, in fact, he was and had become a major firearms dealer, so we wouldn't have to be talking about whether or not. He, as you know, will deny that. He said, "I only sold two." And the question about how that happened. And he's right, in terms of fact. He's not a major firearms dealer. You're suggesting that he could have become. But he wasn't. And you were in control of that whole operation to have made it, in fact, the case. So do you understand our concern about--

HERB BYERLY: Yes, Senator.

SEN. HERB KOHL: --accepting that conclusion that you are putting forth with respect that Randy Weaver. . . major firearms dealer-- it's not true on the basic of fact, is it?

HERB BYERLY: There were only two firearms which were received by ATF, that is correct.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON, [R] Tennessee: I think you try to make out a better case than you've got here. When you try to portray Weaver as a--as a major supplier, it appears to me that the only source you've got for that is your, your paid undercover agent, Mr. Fadeley, isn't that the case?

ANDREW VITA: In the monitored conversations that we had yes, sir.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: In what?

ANDREW VITA, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms: In the monitored conversations that Mr. Fadeley had.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: Well, I looked at those conversations, and it, it raises a question. The main conversation when he supposedly laid it all out is to, No. 1, the fact that you have to take the word for your paid informant that he was approached by Mr. Weaver, instead of the other way around; No. 2, the details in which the deal was structured and the deal was structured, and the amount of arms that could be supplied, all of that was not recorded. Then when you get to the recorded conversations, there's nothing in there that indicates that Mr. Weaver is some kind of a regular or massive or has any history as far as an arms dealer that I can see. What I do see is Mr. Weaver saying here in this conversation of October 24th, he says, "When I get my work stuff set up, I can do a better job." And then the informant says, "All right. Now you said for $150, you could do pretty much four or five a week, couldn't you," and Weaver says, "Well," and then the agent picks back up again. They never get back to it. Pretty apparent what you're talking about here is a fellah sittin' down under a shade tree with a hacksaw. And it just depends on how many he can saw as to how many he can supply. Isn't that the case?

ANDREW VITA: Well, that could be the interpretation.

MS. BOWSER: Vita elaborated in a separate exchange.

ANDREW VITA: Mr. Weaver also presented a profile that is very consistent with major firearms traffickers. They indicate that they have an unlimited source of supply. They indicate that they have firearms that are available to us that are not maintained on federal firearms licensees' records, which Mr. Weaver did. He indicated that he could supply us a continuous quantity of firearms. He also indicated that those weapons could not be traced, which is very consistent with somebody who's involved in criminal firearms trafficking.

MS. BOWSER: Tomorrow, representatives from the Federal Marshal's Service will be questioned about their role in the 1992 shootout that ended with the deaths of one of their agents and Randy Weaver's 14-year-old son. NEWSMAKER

MR. MAC NEIL: Finally tonight, a Newsmaker interview with the Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: Good evening, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Two thousand NATO bombing sorties have failed to budget the Bosnian Serbs. What do the U.S. and NATO do now?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, I think we keep on, Robin. Even though the bombing campaign has gone on for several days, the fact is that there was a pause for a couple of days, and then we've had unusually bad weather there, or perhaps I should say usually bad weather. But today was an effective day. I think that at the present time, Gen. Mladic and the Bosnian Serbs must understand that they don't have a good military option, and so we'll continue. There are some very good targets. At this stage of the campaign what we're hitting is infrastructure targets, ammunition dumps, communications links, and we've had some good hits there, and I think the Bosnian Serbs will be suffering in at least those two categories.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you have reason to believe Gen. Mladic will change his mind shortly?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: I think he ought to change his mind, because he doesn't have any satisfactory military option. He's in an impossible situation, and we'll just proceed down this course. We began this, of course, in retaliation for the terrible bombing that killed so many people in Sarajevo, and I think that the Serbs are now being reminded that that kind of conduct is going to exact a fairly heavy cost.

MR. MAC NEIL: William Safire, the "New York Times" columnist, charges today that the tactics are more, in his words, bombast than bombing, because you won't target the actual Serb guns that have, as you say, been punishing Sarajevo.

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, those are military decisions that had been taken quite consciously. The most attractive and best targets at the present time are the two that I mentioned. First, of course, we very effectively took out the air defense. Now, we're working on ammunition dumps, other infrastructure aspects of it, as well as communications. This campaign can continue for some time, Robin, and I think that there will be military judgments as to where we go from here. The military officials that I talked to today felt that the campaign was going well and that we were proceeding.

MR. MAC NEIL: Have those guns on the hills surrounding Sarajevo, have they, and tanks, have they been placed off limits as targets?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: No, they've not been placed off limits as targets. The military find the other targets at this stage of the campaign to be more attractive. Let me emphasize one point, Robin, and that is that we've not seen those artillery pieces firing in the last few days, and there may be a strong reason for that, because they know that they can be targeted and fired back against either by the air campaign or by the Rapid Reaction Force.

MR. MAC NEIL: How long can the alliance hold together if the Bosnian Serbs continue to keep their heads down and ignore your ultimatums?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: I think the alliance is very solid on the subject. This, of course, goes back to the London conference where under President Clinton's leadership we agreed very determinedly there to go forward in the situation like this, that is, where they have attacked one of the safe areas. We said we would take strong substantive and decisive action, and we're doing just exactly that. So I think that Gen. Mladic would be well advised to recognize that we're very determined, and we will continue.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you dismiss today's warning from Boris Yeltsin that this could split Europe into two camps again and end his cooperation with NATO?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, we've been working very closely with the Russians. Of course, the Russians were present at the London conference where these decisions were taken. I've been in touch with the foreign minister. We've been talking with them at all levels. They have a representative at the contact group who we're meeting tomorrow in the negotiating session that commences in Geneva. So we're in very close touch with the Russians. You know, the important thing to remember here is the Russians want a peace settlement just as much as any other country in Europe. They realize that this situation in Bosnia is one that must be brought back to a peaceful situation. We now have got an opportunity, Robin, one of the best we've had in a very long time, to get some momentum for peace, rather than the momentum of war. And that's part of the Russian desire and design, just as it is ours. And I think around--around that set of principles, we'll be able to work and stay together with the Russians.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you--well, do you think that Boris Yeltsin is just speaking for political effect at home to keep his--the nationalists who are the natural allies of the Serbs happy while he winks at what's going on?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, I wouldn't want to ascribe purely political motives to him, but I simply emphasize that we're in regular and constant touch with the Russians, explaining to them why we're doing what we're doing. They know that we are conversing, dealing with President Milosevic of Serbia, in whom they have a great deal of confidence and interest. One thing, Robin, we have to keep in mind is that tomorrow there will be a meeting in Geneva for the first time with the three foreign ministers of Serbia and Bosnia and Croatia. They've not met at that level during our, our administration. We've got a chance to grasp this opportunity to move toward peace, and as I say, I think the Russians have an equal interest in that, and up to this point, the bombing campaign has, I think, served the interests of, of improving the chances of success in that peace conference.

MR. MAC NEIL: So you're not worried about Boris Yeltsin's threats?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, certainly, we want to take into account their point of view, and that's why we're in touch with them so regularly, but the fact is, as I said, that we'll be meeting with their representative, Deputy Foreign Minister Ivanov, in the contact group tomorrow in, in Geneva. They had a representative at the meeting today in Paris, and we're going to keep on talking with them, but I think they understand the importance of proceeding on these dual tracks. As I've said before, this is force in the service of diplomacy. This is force being employed to achieve a, a peaceful result ultimately, and I think that's the track we must stay on. I think we are on the right track under the President's leadership, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: The NATO supreme commander in Europe, the American general, George Jalwan, said today that the success of these NATO missions will set the future of Europe and the alliance. Do you-- is that what you see riding on this?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: I, I think the last several days has seen a very strong renaissance in confidence in NATO, and I think that's what Gen. Jalwan had in mind, that this has been and will continue to be an effective campaign by, by NATO. I, once again, go back to the London conference, which I think was a fundamental change, was followed by actions in the North Atlantic Council of NATO. NATO's been proceeding effectively under the strong leadership of Secretary-General Willy Claes, and I think NATO is showing that they can be effective in this situation, and so I agree with Gen. Jalwan, that it's an important moment for NATO.

MR. MAC NEIL: And if you fail to persuade the Serbs, what would that mean for NATO?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: I do not think we will fail in this situation. I think we understand what the stakes are, and we will proceed. I do not think the Serbs have a good military option at the present, at the present time, Robin. I think they've run out of--they've run out of satisfactory alternatives, and I think Gen. Mladic would be well to recognize that point.

MR. MAC NEIL: The "Christian Science Monitor"--let me put a couple of things that have been said here in the states about this- -"Christian Science Monitor" quotes an aide to Sen. Domenici today, Greg Vuksic, as saying, "The American phase of this war is just beginning. This is either going to be another Beirut, or a Korea, with U.S. troops in place for years to come." Is he wrong?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, I think it's a vast overstatement. Under United States leadership, we now have the best opportunity we've had to achieve momentum for peace, rather than the momentum of war. If we can achieve a peace settlement, then the United States would participate in a NATO operation to implement the peace, but I do not see the kind of prolonged situation to, to which he refers. Overwhelmingly, I think, Robin, there's been editorial support for the United States leadership. I hear that almost wherever I go, both on Capitol Hill, as well as reading it in the newspaper, so there may be--may be others who see a down side to this, but I think we are on a good course at the present time.

MR. MAC NEIL: Does the administration stand by its prior commitment to provide up to 25,000 U.S. troops, if there is a settlement, to police that settlement, help police that settlement?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Robin, we certainly stand by our commitment to participate with NATO if NATO decides to go along with a settlement and try to implement it. The number of troops will depend upon the nature of the settlement. Many things have changed since two years ago when that commitment was first made, but the commitment continues. The scope of it, the extent of it, the number of troops involved will certainly depend upon the nature of the settlement that's reached. If you have more compact units, if you have a situation where you're not having a peace settlement with enclaves stretching out through the country, it may be the number of troops will be considerably less, but the implementation of force cannot be planned until a peace settlement is reached. And I expect the meeting tomorrow in Paris will be a very important one, that it will take important steps, but it's a long and difficult road. When we get down that road and see the shape of the peace settlement, then the United States, acting through NATO, will be able to decide on the scope of its commitment. But the fundamental basis of our commitment remains, and that is that we will help to implement a peace settlement if it's reached--implement it through NATO.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you react to this reading of your policy by John Steinbrener of Brookings? He says, "The United States has now accepted responsibility for producing an outcome, and the only outcome that will stop the fighting is an ethnic partition of Bosnia imposed on all parties."

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: That's just a fundamental misunderstanding, Robin. The United States is strongly supporting the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to remain within its present borders. We expect to argue very strongly for a continuity of that country, so we're not advocating a partition. Now, there will very likely be two entities within that country, that is, the new entity of the federation consisting of, of the Bosnians and the Croatians within Bosnia. That's one entity. The other entity will be an entity consisting primarily of Serbians. But that's by no means a partition of the country. It is a continuation of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that will be the position we advocate at the conference, and we hope it will be accepted by the parties tomorrow.

MR. MAC NEIL: On China, I wonder what message the administration is sending the last few days. Hillary Clinton delivered what many people regarded as a transparent broad side there, and then the President said she didn't single out China for criticism.

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, I think that the First Lady made a very eloquent and powerful statement in Beijing, and it's just the kind of a statement that she should have made. After all, this was an important women's conference. China invited the United Nations to have the conference there. Mrs. Clinton made a powerful statement with respect to women's rights and human rights. That was appropriate at this kind of a conference. I think the--it should not affect our relationships with the Chinese, which I expect to be meeting with the Chinese foreign minister in New York in a couple of weeks, as we try to improve our relationships to them, and strengthen and stabilize the relationships between the United States and China. But I admire Mrs. Clinton for her statement in, in Beijing, and I think it was a very appropriate statement when you take into account the fact that it was a conference on women's rights being hosted by China.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Chinese foreign minister spokesman said today the key issue standing in the way of Sino-U.S. relations is how to remove what he called the serious consequences brought by the Taiwan president's visit to the United States. Is that the key issue in your view?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, it's certainly regarded by the Chinese as being a very sensitive issue, and I have discussed it at great length with the Chinese foreign minister and expect to do so in the future. Let me emphasize that our policy has not changed on that subject. We will have official relationships with the Chinese government. We will continue to have important but unofficial relationships with the--with the Taiwanese, and if there are to be visits in the future, they will be very carefully regulated in light of the nature of the relationship that we have with Taiwan and the relationship we have with China. But we're having ongoing discussions of this subject with the Chinese, and because we've not changed our policy, because we continue to respect the three communiques, I do not think that should be an impediment to the improvement and stabilization, strengthening of the relationships between the United States and China.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for joining us.

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Thank you, Robin. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, Oregon Senator Bob Packwood resigned this afternoon. His decision came a day after a unanimous vote by the Senate Ethics Committee recommending his expulsion. He has been accused of sexual misconduct and abuse of power during his 26-year Senate career, and in Tahiti today, police clashed for a second day with anti- terrorist and pro-independence activists. The protests were triggered by France's underground nuclear tests Tuesday, 750 miles Southeast of the island. Good night, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Good night, Margaret. That's the NewsHour for tonight, and we'll see you again tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.