The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MUDD: Good evening. I'm Roger Mudd in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Thursday, we have excerpts from the House debate on the budget compromise, followed by analysis from Mark Shields joined tonight by Kate O'Beirne and David Broder. Then we look at the State Department flap over U.S.-Bosnia policy, and Jeffrey Kaye reports on the sentencing of the two police officers in the Rodney King case. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The budget debate moved to the floor of the House of Representatives today. The plan would cut some $496 billion from the budget deficit over five years. Democratic leaders predicted it will win approval sometime this evening, but they were reported to be scrambling for wavering votes. President Clinton did the same thing. Throughout the day he phoned lawmakers lobbying for the bill's passage. Later at a photo opportunity he told reporters what he had been saying.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: This is the beginning, not the end, of our efforts to have responsible budgeting. There will be one more round of budget cuts. There will be the unveiling of the Vice President's report on reinventing government, which will have billions of dollars in further savings that can be achieved. There will be the opportunity to control health care costs in the context of the health care reform bill in a way that will not be unfair to older people on Medicare. So what I am suggesting to them is that this is clearly the best chance for a real deficit reduction, for a fair apportionment of the spending cuts and revenue increases, and for an economic plan that will grow the economy.

MR. LEHRER: The House passed an earlier version of the bill by a six vote margin. Here's a sample of today's debate.

REP. DEBORAH PRYCE, [R] Ohio: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will face a big decision today. Should they vote for the largest retroactive tax increase in history, or should they vote for the American taxpayer? I feel like the Wendy's lady, you know, the one who opened up the hamburger and said, "Where's the beef?" Well, I look up, open up the tax package and say, "Where are the spending cuts?" There's no spending cuts, there's no beef, but there's plenty of pork. Now, shouldn't that go first?

REP. DAVID PRICE, [D] North Carolina: The fact is that we have a plan that reduces the deficit by $496 billion mainly through spending cuts that restores tax fairness and that lays a solid foundation for economic growth. There is no alternative before us that even comes close. This is the plan, this is the time. Let's get the job done.

MR. LEHRER: The Senate is expected to vote tomorrow. We will have more from the House, plus some analysis right after this News Summary. Roger.

MR. MUDD: The Senate has approved $5.8 billion in relief for the victims of the Midwest flooding. The bill passed last night is more than double the amount the President originally requested. The extra money would go to farmers for crop losses. The Senate bill must now be reconciled with a $3 billion version passed by the House last week. Although river levels were dropping in most of the Midwest, the Mississippi River was expected to crest today at the historic town of St. Genevieve, Missouri. Officials said the river would reach about 49 feet, just two feet below levees protecting the town. Workers spent the day reinforcing those levees to prevent them from being breached. There was some good news on the manufacturing sector in the economy today when the Commerce Department reported orders to U.S. factories jumped 2.6 percent in June. That was the best gain of the year for factory orders which have declined in each of the three previous months.

MR. LEHRER: A gunman opened fire at a federal courthouse in Topeka, Kansas, today. A security guard was killed. Three others were wounded. Police sealed off the building and an FBI SWAT team was called in, but several hours later, they found a man inside, dead of a gunshot wound to the head. Before going in, he apparently set off a bomb in a parking lot outside. The man was identified as Jack Gary McKnight. He was to have been sentenced today on drug and firearms charges.

MR. MUDD: The Bosnian Serbs under western pressure offered today to lift their siege of Sarajevo and open two key roads into the city. Serbian forces have besieged the city more than a year and just yesterday said they had captured strategic high ground on Mt. Igman overlooking the city. But the Serb leader, fresh from peace talks in Geneva, met just outside Sarajevo this morning with his top general and said their troops would withdraw from Mt. Igman and another mountain seized this week. U.N. officials said the withdrawals will begin tomorrow. Bosnia's Muslim president boycotted the Geneva talks for three days because of the Serbian advance on Sarajevo, and NATO warned it would launch air strikes to break the siege. The State Department's desk officer on Bosnia has resigned to protest U.S. policy in Bosnia. Marshall Freeman Harris today said he disagreed with the decision to use air strikes, and he accused the Clinton administration of putting undo pressure on the Bosnian government to break up the country. We'll have more on that story later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. of State Christopher will talk to NATO commanders about air strikes against Serb positions in Bosnia. He's expected to hold those talks tomorrow at a U.S. air base in Italy after finishing his Middle East trip. He claimed progress on that mission which took him to Israel and Jordan today. We have a report narrated by Vera Frankel of Worldwide Television News.

VERA FRANKEL, WTN: Christopher arrived at Rabin's office after meeting the chief Palestinian negotiator, Fisel Husseini. Christopher is trying to break the deadlock in Palestinian-Israel talks on interim self-government of the Palestinians. This was Christopher's second meeting with the Israeli prime minister in two days. The most important item on the agenda was the outcome of Christopher's talks in Damascus the previous day with President Hafas Assad. Syria had asked for more active U.S. mediation in the peace process. Rabin said the news from Damascus was encouraging.

YITZHAK RABIN, Prime Minister, Israel: I believe that you have brought certain good news. It's only the beginning. We still have a long way to go. I appreciate your efforts, and thank you very much.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: I don't want to get into the substance of any of the discussions. I'll simply say that I think it's accurate that the peace process has been salvaged and is back on track.

MS. FRANKEL: Christopher's next stop was Oman, Jordan. His meeting with King Hussein was largely a diplomatic courtesy. It's believed the only obstacle to an announcement of the Jordanian- Israeli agreement is Jordan's hesitation to go ahead before the Palestinians and Israelis agree. Back in Israel, Christopher confirmed he would revisit Damascus on Friday to help bridge the gap between Israeli and Syrian positions.

MR. LEHRER: Two more American soldiers were wounded in Somalia today. Officials said their convoy was ambushed by Somali gunmen about 50 miles west of Mogadishu. The area is controlled by warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid, who remains a fugitive from U.N. forces. There have been seven U.S. casualties in Somalia in the past two days.

MR. MUDD: Two huge explosions killed about seventy people in the southern Chinese city of Shen Zen today. Officials said the first blast was at a shipping company. It ignited fires in at least eight warehouses where explosives were stored. More than 200 people were injured. Many were firefighters caught in the second explosion as they helped victims from the first.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the budget vote in the House, U.S.-Bosnia policy, and the Los Angeles sentences. FOCUS - A HOUSE DIVIDED

MR. LEHRER: The first of two final rounds in the fight over the budget plan is being fought as we speak. It is happening in the House of Representatives which will vote later tonight. The Senate is to do it tomorrow. Our coverage begins with the debate on the House floor. Kwame Holman reports.

SPOKESMAN: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

MR. HOLMAN: Aside from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, the only bipartisan moment in the House today came when New York Democrat Michael McNulty announced that two of his Republican colleagues, Susan Molinari and Bill Paxton, also from New York, had gotten engaged on the House floor.

REP. MICHAEL McNULTY, [D] New York: I want to join with all of my colleagues in wishing them the best of health and happiness. [applause]

MR. HOLMAN: But soon after the applause died down, so did the family atmosphere. And Democrats and Republicans resumed their feud.

REP. ROBERT DORNAN, [R] California: Isn't there some aspect of the ax killer here who smears in blood on the bathroom window, "Stop me before I tax again?"

REP. BOBBY RUSH, [D] Illinois: Don't be swayed by the guardians of gridlock who are still being led the failed policies of the just say no, just do nothing Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

REP. LUCILLE ROBYAL-ALLARD, [D] California: This budget is the first step on the path of economic recovery which will lead to a better quality of life for all Americans.

REP. ROD GRAMS, [R] Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of our Democratic colleagues believe the President needs their votes today to save his job. Well, I hope you remember that to save the President's job the price will be the lost jobs of millions of working Americans.

REP. ROSCOE BARTLETT, [R] Maryland: This is wrong-headed plan. Go back and start over again.

REP. DAVID PRICE, [D] North Carolina: This is the plan. This is the time. Let's get the job done.

SPOKESMAN: The time of the gentleman has expired.

MR. HOLMAN: New York's Gerald Solomon, the ranking Republican on the rules committee, had a specific complaint. Democrats were trying to waive the rule requiring a 48-hour waiting period between the time a bill is filed with the House clerk and the time when debate on it can begin.

REP. GERALD SOLOMON, [R] New York: Who has had time to read this, this -- look at that -- several thousand pages, not one member knows what he's voting on here today.

MR. HOLMAN: Badly outnumbered, the Republicans lost that battle and even were denied a victory on a simple voice vote.

REP. JOHN MURTHA, [D] Pennsylvania: Those who favor say ay.

GROUP: Ay.

REP. JOHN MURTHA: Opposed no.

GROUP: [shouting] No!

REP. JOHN MURTHA: From this chair, the ayes have it.

REP. GERALD SOLOMON: Mr. Speaker, as a good Marine, I would expect better of that, but I would object to that vote on the grounds -- object to the vote.

MR. HOLMAN: The vote to forego the 48-hour rule fell along strict party lines, and the House then moved toward a final vote on the budget bill.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, Chairman, Ways & Means Committee: The American people elected Bill Clinton to lead and change the direction of our country. The President has faced that responsibility squarely and asks us to support this plan. My friends, now is the time to govern. The President has my vote. He deserves your vote. Adopt this conference support.

REP. JOHN KASICH, [R] Ohio: We feel passion about defeating this plan not because any of us have an interest in hurting the President of the United States, because we want to have partisan political gain. That is not the reason why the Republicans have been so passionate. The reason why we have been so passionate is we believe that this program of massive tax increases, devastating cuts in national security, no real cuts until the last two years of this program, no control of federal spending, a bigger federal government. What we're concerned about is that prescription will wreck the economy.

MR. HOLMAN: Part of the Republican argument was that they had public opinion on their side.

REP. DAN BURTON, [R] Indiana: Ten thousand signatures from one city and one county in my district against this package. The American people are against the largest tax increase in history.

MR. HOLMAN: But Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin argued Republicans had managed to manipulate public opinion through a campaign of disinformation.

REP. DAVID OBEY, [D] Wisconsin: And you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for some of the misinformation that you and your political allies are peddling in this country in the name of free speech. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves! Freedom of speech gives you the right to say anything you want, but if you've got a conscience, you'll at least keep it honest.

MR. HOLMAN: Four of the thirty-eight Democrats who voted no on the budget last time now say they'll support the President's plan. But Ohio's James Traficant won't be one of them.

REP. JAMES TRAFICANT, [D] Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I'm a Democrat. I helped to elect Bill Clinton. His heart's in the right place, but I wasn't elected to blindly support any President, or turning my voting card over to Democrat Party. It's our tax policy. It's a failure. It's killing America, and I'm voting no. And I'm urging every member to vote their conscience today.

MR. HOLMAN: But despite the defections, it appeared the President would have enough votes to win in the House tonight and move on to the Senate tomorrow.

MR. LEHRER: Now some analysis of that situation tonight. It comes from our regular syndicated columnist Mark Shields joined tonight by Washington Post political reporter David Broder and Kate O'Beirne of the Heritage Foundation. She's a contributing editor of the magazine the National Review. Does the President have the votes in the House?

MR. SHIELDS: As of this moment, no. I think it's a tough, tough fight for the President right now. All stops are being pulled out, but there's no two-way team.

MR. LEHRER: It's close though, right?

MR. SHIELDS: It's close, but it's a long reach from here. I mean, this is the hard part of the road.

MR. LEHRER: What's going wrong for him in the House, David?

MR. BRODER: The plan is not popular in back home, if you're going to boil it down to one thing. The atmosphere up there is quite remarkable. Jim, I spent the afternoon there. The Republicans are relaxed. They're nonchalant. Their attitude is they've had their fun. They've made their point from their viewpoint. It sold the message that it's a tax plan. They don't much care at this point whether it passes or fails. The Democrats are really sweating. An hour ago I was with Bill Richardson, the chief deputy whip, and he said we've got two dozen people not all of one stripe, not all freshmen, some of them subcommittee chairmen, some liberals, some conservatives, and we can't find a way to satisfy them all.

MR. LEHRER: You're nodding in agreement, Kate.

MS. O'BEIRNE: I was up there for a few hours too, and I found the same thing. The Republicans are practically buffing their nails now, and there's a mad stirring on the other side of the aisle. When President Clinton went on TV on Tuesday night, it may have been a mistake. I mean, I often thought that this plan was going to be sold inside the beltway. It's going to be deals. It's going to be talking to members. It's going to be trying to buy votes. Republicans report that following his appeal -- and Bob Dole repeating the Capitol Hill switchboard phone number -- millions of calls came in to the switchboard. The Republicans report 86 percent against the plan, and Democrats say, well, mine are running sort of 50/50. What happened I think is they started hearing from an awful lot of constituents who don't want the plan. It may not have been a good idea to go on nationwide TV on Tuesday night and stir up the grassroots and urging them to call in if you're not convinced that they're going to be the right message into Washington. And I think that's what some of those members are now responding to.

MR. LEHRER: Well, speaking of the right message, Mark, what about David Obey's charge that there's an -- that this thing has been misrepresented, that the Republicans successfully got the word out that this is a tax bill rather than a deficit reduction package?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, it is a tax bill. The Republicans can't be criticized for calling it a tax bill. It is a tax bill, a pretty good size tax bill. I mean, usually when it comes to that, and David Obey is a loyal Democrat and a fierce partisan in 24 years in the House, but usually when it comes to that, it's sort of an admission that you guys have won the debate to this point. Part of the other problem I don't think can be ignored here, Jim, is that an awful lot of the defections, an awful lot of the Democrats who aren't supporting the plan come from those 50 congressional districts that George Bush carried last, last fall. And Bill Clinton is trying to offer a bold, ambitious, almost historic program on a very thin lead of 43 percent, and he, he only ran ahead of the Democratic winning congressional candidate for 13 districts in the whole country. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan who won 377 of the 435 congressional districts. It's a big difference. There's a pragmatic political factor in this whole equation.

MR. LEHRER: David, why does this, your newspaper on its editorial page, the New York Times on its editorial page, the Detroit -- many newspapers and others have said, hey, Democrats, this is your opportunity to govern, you must demonstrate to the country that you can govern, and that means you have to pass this plan -- why is that falling on so many deaf ears of Democrats?

MR. BRODER: If the plan passes tonight, it will be simply because of that argument, because the prospect of failing to back the President on a measure which he has invested now five months of his time and an enormous percentage of his political prestige and capital, the prospect of that failing scares even some of the Democrats. They don't want to be the one who brings it down. But on the other hand, these are scared folks. I talked to a member today up there who said maybe I -- this is a fourth termer -- he said, maybe I've been around this place too long, but I wasn't of the view that we were elected just to cast easy votes. Listening to my colleagues, they don't want to cast a tough vote.

MS. O'BEIRNE: Yeah. It seems to me that the President sort of gave his Democratic colleagues a choice, you know, in the House. We've seen this play out. Either suicide or regicide. And some of them were willing to take a risk and to cast that tough vote rather than kill the king seven months into his term. On the other hand, they're not the most selfless group of individuals, and as much as they care about President Clinton's political fortune, they tend to care about their own to quite an extent too. And I think at the nth hour that's what's beginning to happen.

MR. LEHRER: Is it that clean, Kate, for most of these people, that a vote for this bill means that they are going to lose reelection? I mean, is that how they see it?

MS. O'BEIRNE: Many of them do. Well, for one thing, it's the attitudes of Republicans. They look at their colleagues across the aisle who are looking rather smug. There are some Republicans hoping this thing passes by a 40 vote margin. I mean, they really do, because they're being forced, and it'll make 40 other new members --

MR. BRODER: I think Kate is exactly right.

MS. O'BEIRNE: -- rather vulnerable.

MR. BRODER: Excuse me. One of the reasons it won't pass by more than five votes is that there are not that many volunteers, and they're going to give a pass to anybody who is saying, I can't stand it, you know, can't take the heat.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. SHIELDS: Eight or nine of the Democrats who are not supporting the President as of this moment are from Texas. Texas was a bad state for Bill Clinton. It's been a worse state since then, since the Kay Bailey Hutchison crushing victory over Bob Krueger, the appointed Democrat. So that's, that's part of it.

MR. LEHRER: Won't they be running with Anne Richards?

MR. SHIELDS: They will be running next year, they will be running next year as part of a national Democrat -- as a national Democrat. That's going to be a national consensus, a national agenda in the campaign of 1994. Democrats won't be able to do what they've been able to do successfully in off years really for the past quarter century with the exception of 1978, and that is to move away and to be the counterpoint to a conservative White House that is trying to, allegedly going to trim Social Security, be cruel to widows and orphans. Now the Democrats are, are part of the governing party with a governing record to defend. Republicans, by contrast, are free for the first time really since 1978. They've had to defend in off years Republican Presidents and their policies against Democrats who are generally more skillful than Republicans at winning elections. And I think that's going to be a real problem for the 1994.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Go ahead.

MS. O'BEIRNE: Don't you think too what the Republicans are talking up an awful lot are the wins they've had since January? The Democrats don't think this President is popular enough to give them cover. You need cover if you're going to cast an unpopular vote. And they point to lots of things. They point to Hutchison's huge win in Texas. They point to the lt. governor in Arkansas, a Republican winning for the fourth time in this century and say why.

MR. LEHRER: Mark Huckaby.

MS. O'BEIRNE: Exactly. They point to the legislative races in Missouri. I said to somebody in Dick Gephardt's backyard, a Republican one, and somebody said, no, it is Dick Gephardt's kitchen, not a Republican one. The Republicans are talking it up a lot and more and more Democrats are realizing he's not politically popular enough to give us the cover we might need because Republicans have won races they were not expected to since January.

MR. LEHRER: So, David, in a nutshell, the word that's thrown around a lot that has very little meaning, a courageous vote. This, for many Democrats, is, in fact, a courageous vote. If it was somebody, if some Democrat casts a vote tonight in favor of this bill knowing full well that back home he or she is going to suffer in the neck for this, that's tough, that's a tough go.

MR. BRODER: I was told that if you had a secret vote in the Senate -- now we're talking about the Senate, not the House -- that there would probably be about 20 Democrats who would vote for this on its merits. The reason that they will vote for it is that they do not want to bring the President down, and it really comes very flat to that question.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. SHIELDS: Freshman Karen Shepherd, who was on our broadcast last night --

MR. LEHRER: From Utah.

MR. SHIELDS: -- a Democrat from Utah -- will probably support - - is going to support the President, comes from a district where Bill Clinton got 31 percent of the vote, where she won with 50.5. If you want to do a PS on profiles in courage, or reckless behavior, or however you want to call it, but I mean, it really is not an easy vote certainly.

MR. LEHRER: She's going to spend the rest of her time explaining this because somebody also pointed out there's not enough time really between now and the election for this to really show whether it really works or not. I mean, let's say it's hugely successful. It'll be too late to help these people, is that correct?

MR. SHIELDS: That's why the speech, I think I disagree a little bit with Kate about the speech. I think the speech didn't work. I think what the speech had to do was to give a sense to the country there is no stimulus package. This has to be the stimulus package. There has to be a good feeling come out of this. There has to be optimism generated. Right now there isn't. There's a fatalism. There's a sense, geez, if I'm going to do this, this could mean my political life, and these Democrats are pretty glum and pretty fatalistic about it. And if the President the other night could have put a sense, you do this, and we're on the march, America's on the move again, and it's going to be better, I think in that case you could have made the case going in 1994 that we are moving.

MR. LEHRER: But, Kate, Mark Shields and others made the case on this program the other night or tried to make the case at least that the only thing worse than Bill Clinton the other night was Bob Dole in terms of making -- but apparently the public listened to him more than they did Bill Clinton, is that what you're saying?

MS. O'BEIRNE: I think they have the relentless, the relentless characterization of this plan since February. When the President first unveiled it, it had a boost. The American public supported it relentlessly.

MR. LEHRER: It was a February speech.

MS. O'BEIRNE: Absolutely. Relentlessly, the Republicans have been successful in labeling it as a "tax and spend" plan, not a huge challenge because of the Democrats' image as a "tax and spend," you know, that's the party of tax and spendaholics. And so notwithstanding his particular performance on Tuesday night, relentlessly they're repeating the same message, and it is working out there.

MR. LEHRER: David, if it does pass the House tonight and goes to the Senate, you've been watching the Senate very closely these last few days, has he got the votes there? Has Bob Kerrey decided to go, or what, or stay, I should say?

MR. BRODER: Anybody will tell you from breakfast to dinner whether Bob Kerrey is a braver person than I am. I'm not sure that he knows where he is.

MR. LEHRER: Well, I heard today, I mean, the wires said he was quoted, one of his aides said he isn't going to make his mind up till the very last minute.

MR. BRODER: I can believe that. What is happening and designed for the Senate side is that there will be some kind of a statement coming out of the White House promising that in September the President will come forward with a new set of spending cuts, recisions, to use the Washington jargon, and they hope that that within kind of an orchestration perhaps of a White House summit on spending cuts will be enough to bring Sen. Kerrey aboard, but they don't --

MR. LEHRER: And that's designed just for him?

MR. BRODER: It's designed very much for him.

MS. O'BEIRNE: They're tailoring lots of them. This is a designer bill. They're tailoring an awful lot for individual members. You know what Ronald Reagan's doing in retirement in LA though? He's waiting for the spending cuts they promised him in 1982. He was supposed to get $3 in spending cuts for every dollar in new taxes. The poor man's still waiting. But if it works, I suppose, for Bob Kerrey it works. What the Republicans are hoping for is a 50/50 split in the Senate. You have a 50/50 split, and each individual Senator was responsible for that plan. I mean, each one of them is individually responsible, and that's what they're hoping for.

MR. LEHRER: You have a good memory, Mark. Has there ever been anything like this where individual Senators have become so much in the spotlight, either positively or negatively, whatever your view is, and wield so much power -- David wrote a column about it last summer.

MR. SHIELDS: Well, David's piece on Dennis DeConcini and the --

MR. LEHRER: Herbert Cole.

MR. SHIELDS: -- and the -- Herbert Cole in particular, but Dennis -- the piece on Dennis DeConcini and the Panama Canal. And the parallel is this. In both cases, there's a President who failed to make the wholesale case. He didn't make the case to the nation in favor of his position, therefore, you're down to retailing. And when you get down to retailing, you go one by one, and when you're dealing with Senators, you're dealing with people who think they ought to be on Mt. Rushmore. Every time they shave they see a President in the mirror, and you're dealing with enormous egos that have to be mollified and satisfied.

MS. O'BEIRNE: Let me ask you in retrospect. The plan was apparently, at Vice President Gore's advice was, we don't need the Republicans. We will work with two star Democrats. Now, of course, they were counting Bob Krueger. They didn't leave themselves in the beginning much of a margin in retrospect. Shouldn't they have tried to fashion a package that the Republicans -- and there's a sentiment on that side of the aisle for increasing taxes in the name of deficit reduction -- and then not every single Democratic Senator is such a deal breaker?

MR. LEHRER: David, what's your reading?

MR. BRODER: They might have tried that, but I have to say that the way this thing has developed, Kate, I'm not sure that the Republicans were prepared to play ball. There are Republicans who in the past have been very conscientious about the budget deficit, have made courageous votes to cut the budget deficit. But I haven't seen those folks stepping up to it this year.

MR. SHIELDS: Since 1985.

MR. LEHRER: All right. We'll leave it there. Thank you all very much. We'll see what happens.

MR. MUDD: Still ahead, the dust up on our Bosnian policy and reaction to the Los Angeles police sentencing. FOCUS - PRESSURE POINTS

MR. MUDD: Now we take up the Bosnian story. The United States and it's reluctant European allies are preparing for possible air strikes on Serbian positions around embattled Sarajevo. Talks between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats over the future of Bosnia are supposed to resume on Monday, and in Washington, a second mid level State Department official has resigned in protest against American policy. Our coverage begins with a report from Sarajevo from Ian Williams of Independent Television News.

IAN WILLIAMS, ITN: These are the new Serb positions on Pilatzniza, one of the strategic peaks overlooking Sarajevo. This is the first evidence that Serb forces have taken the area which sits just to the west of Mt. Igman which they have also captured. Their guns are quiet, though trained on Bosnian positions below. These troops are not preparing to withdraw. For that reason, the U.N. commander, Gen. Briquemont, went to the Bosnian Serb headquarters in Parley this morning to meet their leader Dr. Karadzic and his army chief who yesterday said his troops would stay put. Karadzic sought to distance himself from General Mladic.

RADOVAN KARADZIC, Bosnian Serb Leader: Generals are generals. They are not politicians. They should not be as politicians as politicians should not be as generals.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then he came up with his own offer.

RADOVAN KARADZIC: We are ready to hand over all of the strategic points around Sarajevo to the UN.

MR. WILLIAMS: If the UN agrees to put people in the strategic point you'll withdraw?

RADOVAN KARADZIC: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Including Mt. Igman?

RADOVAN KARADZIC: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: The UN has become wary of such offers from Dr. Karadzic, but after five hours of talks an agreement was struck for the Serbs to withdraw from the heights around the capital, handing them over to the UN. It remains to be seen if the Bosnian Serbs are good to their word though and if it is enough to bring the government in Sarajevo back to the peace talks. As the meeting took place, NATO fighters were again screaming low over Sarajevo and surrounding Serb positions. This week they seemed to have caused more concern to Gen. Briquemont and his UN colleagues than to the Bosnian Serbs. Until a month ago, Gen. Francis Briquemont headed the Belgian armed forces in Germany. He worked for NATO. Now he's angry at his old colleagues in Brussels. All week he's been engaged in endless shuttle diplomacy between the military leaders of the warring factions here. And the UN in Sarajevo believes American- led NATO threats of air strikes are undermining their delicate attempts to patch together a cease-fire. Briquemont has been trying to persuade Gen. Delic, who commands the Bosnian government forces, to return to the negotiating table. But Delic refuses to talk to the Serbs until they withdraw from the strategic heights around Sarajevo. The UN thinks he's been encouraged by President Clinton's threats to bomb the Serbs, and this meeting failed. At UN headquarters in Sarajevo, Briquemont's closest adviser is his British chief of staff, Brigadier Vere Hayes.

SPOKESMAN: So what we need to do is get the remaining comments in.

MR. WILLIAMS: Both men believe the immediate threat to humanitarian efforts comes not from the Serb capture of Igman but from the Bosnian government offensive in central Bosnia which is holding up vital convoys. Their frustration boiled over at a press conference given by the Brigadier late last night.

BRIGADIER VERE HAYES, Chief of Staff to General Briquemont: There are six fuel tankers waiting to come to Sarajevo. They are not getting in. The reason they are not getting in is because of the fighting in central Bosnia, and that fighting is a Bosnian offensive around Gorni Bacus which is aimed at getting some key terrain around the area of Prozol. That is what is strangling humanitarian aid getting into Sarajevo at the moment. It is not the Serb offensive on Mt. Igman that is stopping humanitarian aid. It is only blocking the military lines into Sarajevo.

MR. WILLIAMS: The fuel shortage is already threatening the limited amount of clean water being pumped in the city. With the main supply cut, diesel-powered pumps have been set up at an old brewery. It is the most important source of drinking water but has only days supply of fuel left. That in turn is threatening to cripple the biggest hospital in Sarajevo, Kosova.

SIR DONALD ACHESON, World Health Organization: The lack of fuel here has very serious repercussions to health. In the first place, it means that the surgeons cannot operate, the X-ray department cannot work, but secondly, in the end, it means it's impossible to pump water which is fit to drink. There is now an unprecedented plan to reduce the number of beds from 1,850 to 500, and this will cut down the services available to people of this city to an unacceptable minimum.

MR. WILLIAMS: Kosova is already stretched and chronically short of vital medical supplies. The planned cuts come as the UN prepares to announce a big program to bring in supplies for winter, the program they believe must be started within the next week but which is impossible while fighting continues in central Bosnia, all of which fuels deep skepticism here about the value of air strikes. Senior U.N. officials complain privately of not being consulted by Washington or the U.N. in New York. They say the knock-on effects on the aid effort and the safety of U.N. personnel here have not been properly considered.

MR. MUDD: At the State Department, the Bosnian war has taken its own toll. A year ago, a State Department desk officer for the Balkans resigned in protest against the Bush administration policy. Now the Bosnian desk officer at the Department has quit in protest against the Clinton administration policy. The official, Marshall Freeman Harris, sent in his letter of resignation yesterday and today took a job with Democratic Congressman Frank McCluskey of Indiana, an advocate of a stronger U.S. policy in Bosnia. They held a news conference on Capitol Hill.

MARSHALL FREEMAN HARRIS, Former State Department Official: I disagree with the policy, and the policy is that we are prepared to use air strikes now in Bosnia not merely to punish the Bosnian Serbs who are guilty of genocide and brutal aggression in that country but to use those strikes as a means of compelling a political settlement in Geneva, a political settlement that will inevitably lead to the partitioning of Bosnia. My concern here mainly is that the administration first of all has treated Bosnia as a footnote in its domestic policy agenda rather than as a legitimate foreign policy concern. As I say, the, the partitioning of a European state should be a vital concern to us here. But the administration has lacked the political will to do more. I think that what they've done so far I could characterize as half measures as would be the air strikes that are being contemplated now. The -- President Clinton has never directly and actively engaged in Bosnia policy. He has written letters to his counterparts. He has discussed the issue when asked with the media, but it seems to me he needs to be far more forceful and assert himself as a leader of the, the world's superpower, and he should act accordingly. And it seems to me maybe they're going about things backwards, excuse me, that if he were to lead, that would bring the American public along. That would bring along the congressmen who are reluctant to do anything, and it could inspire our, our European allies to do more.

REPORTER: Do you think the administration has the political strength to both pass a budget bill and embark on a more vigorous Bosnian strategy?

MARSHALL FREEMAN HARRIS: I think the administration will be surprised what it could accomplish if it confronts this issue head on. When it adopts a defeatist mode, as it has in Bosnia, now being willing to accept the partitioning, it's going to get defeatist results. I think if it asserts itself and does so strongly, it would be amazed at how much support it could find.

MR. MUDD: Joining us now to discuss the questions raised by Marshall Harris and U.S. policy in general is Stephen Oxman, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs. This past Monday, Mr. Oxman led the U.S. delegation at a NATO meeting in Brussels, where the allies met on the use of air strikes against Serbian positions around Sarajevo. Good evening, Mr. Secretary.

SEC. OXMAN: Good evening, Roger. Nice to be here.

MR. MUDD: Sec. of State Christopher when asked about the desk officer's letter of resignation said simply that he's a young officer. Certainly the Department has a better answer than that, doesn't it?

SEC. OXMAN: Well, Marshall's a mid level officer, very hard working officer who chose to resign, and we certainly respect his decision. I think the key issue is: What is the new initiative? What is the focus of our policy?

MR. MUDD: And may I ask one other question. He said in his letter or at the press conference today that while the State Department was not in turmoil over the Bosnian policy, there was a widespread dissent. Is that a correct characterization?

SEC. OXMAN: I wouldn't characterize it that way. This is a very tough situation, and a lot of people have worked many, many long hours on it and many months, and it puts a lot of pressure on people. It's a difficult situation, but I wouldn't characterize it in that way.

MR. MUDD: What about some of the questions that he raised in his letter? For instance, he said that the air strikes, the possible use of air strikes too little, too late, generally designed to assuage our guilt for earlier inaction, and that those air strikes were designed, he said, to put pressure on Bosnia to accept its own partition?

SEC. OXMAN: Well, this is a major new initiative by President Clinton and the purpose of it is to say that if the Bosnian Serbs continue their effort to strangle Sarajevo and other areas in Bosnia, that NATO will be prepared to use air power to stop that. Now the purpose of that is both to address the humanitarian situation in Sarajevo and to reinforce the negotiating process. Our goal is a negotiated solution, and it's our hope that this warning will cause the Serbs to moderate their conduct, stop the strangulation of Sarajevo, and will reinforce the negotiating process.

MR. MUDD: That you hope will pave the way for the Bosnian acceptance of its partition?

SEC. OXMAN: Our position is that this is a dispute that needs to be resolved through the negotiating process. We're not taking any particular position on the particular issues being negotiated. We do support the continued existence of a Bosnian state. They've agreed on constitution principles earlier this week which seem to preserve a Bosnian state with three pieces to it. We are waiting to see what the parties agree. If they come to a viable agreement with enforcement provisions that they enter into in good faith, then we're going to be prepared to participate in helping to implement it.

MR. MUDD: Is U.S. policy now to -- not to protect the continued sovereignty of the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

SEC. OXMAN: No. We think there should be a recognition of the continuation of the state of Bosnia. And that seems to be what they incorporated into their constitutional principles earlier this week.

MR. MUDD: What, Mr. Secretary, do you make of today's offer by the, by the Serbs to lift the siege of Sarajevo and open up two roads into the city? As far as we know, it's only an offer, do you -- can you illuminate any more?

SEC. OXMAN: Well, we're getting fragmentary reports about that, and we're looking at it very closely. It could be a significant development. As you know, President Izetbegovic has said that unless this activity around the heights outside of Sarajevo stops, he may not stay engaged in the negotiating process. So we're looking at that very closely, and we're hopeful that the reports are right and that they would carry through on the agreement. In this situation, we're always a big skeptical. There have been many agreements entered into in Bosnia that have not been carried through on.

MR. MUDD: But would the opening of just two roads into Sarajevo be enough to, to, in effect, call off the air strikes? What would it take, for instance, to stop the air strikes?

SEC. OXMAN: Well, this is going to be a judgmental question. We've said that if the strangulation of Sarajevo does not stop, then NATO will be prepared to use air strikes. Now, that strangulation has taken many forms. There's been shelling. There's been a cutoff of water and electricity and fuel. There's been an impeding of the distribution of food from the airport into the city, the food comes in through the airlift and then it can't be distributed into the city. These are a number of the, the dimensions of the problem. We'll see whether in light of this warning the Bosnian Serbs stop this activity and permit the food to be distributed. We'll see whether the shelling stops, and over the last couple of days interestingly the shelling seems to have subsided very greatly. These are the factors that will be looked at. The NATO Council will be meeting again early next week, and they will look at that. They'll also look at what the status is in the negotiations, and then a judgment will be made.

MR. MUDD: Really it'll be the United States that's the tail that wags the dog on the air strikes, isn't it? The US will be calling when and how many and which targets?

SEC. OXMAN: No, Roger, this will be a NATO -- this is a NATO initiative. We were very gratified that the NATO allies unanimously supported the President's proposal which he made last Friday, that NATO should undertake this exercise, and the NATO Council will, will review the factors I mentioned, and that decision will be made in NATO with our allies.

MR. MUDD: If the shelling stops, but the Serbs simply remain in position on those heights overlooking the city and the roads are opened up, do you think generally that's sufficient, or do you expect a withdrawal, and what happens to Sarajevo?

SEC. OXMAN: Well, I don't want to speculate on the exact conditions. I think we'll know it when we see whether the strangulation effort has stopped. I mean, the conditions there are really outrageous, particularly the water situation, the best judgment is that people need 12 liters of water per day just to have a minimal existence, and that if they don't have more than 2.5, they will die. Well, the people in Sarajevo, our best judgment is they're getting four leaders of water per day. So this is a very tough situation. So we'll know, we'll make a judgment whether the strangulation of the city and of other areas in Bosnia has, has stopped, and we're hopeful that this warning from NATO, a very serious matter, will be enough to have that effect.

MR. MUDD: What makes you so sure that, that air strikes won't simply derail the negotiations?

SEC. OXMAN: Well, we are -- as I said -- very, very committed to seeing the negotiating process succeed. We feel this situation needs to have a negotiated solution. At the same time, we can't sit back and watch Sarajevo, the capital of what would be the Bosnian entity and this new Bosnian state, simply be strangled. We're hopeful that by taking the measure we did, the Serb conduct will moderate, will stop, the negotiating process can be preserved so the Bosnian Muslims aren't presented with the situation where they're being forced to capitulate. That's the theory of the action, and we'll see what effect it has.

MR. MUDD: Do you foresee the possibility of Sarajevo becoming a, a city under UN trusteeship? What's to protect it?

SEC. OXMAN: Well, I wouldn't speculate on the U.N. trusteeship. What's to protect it, right now it's not getting much protection. The UNPROFOR forces, UN forces, have done heroic work in Sarajevo and elsewhere in Bosnia, but the fact is the presence of the UNPROFOR forces has not prevented the strangulation process on this city. So our approach is let's see if we can address this in a different, more forceful way, see if this can stop the process, address the humanitarian situation in the city, and at the same time promote the chances of a negotiated solution in Geneva.

MR. MUDD: Do you acknowledge, Mr. Secretary -- my final question -- that the Clinton administration's policy toward Bosnia has been rather difficult to follow and figure out for, for the layman?

SEC. OXMAN: Well, I think -- I don't agree with that -- I think if you look at the track record of President Clinton and the administration since he came into office, he's done a lot. He engaged on this problem much more so than the prior administration. This was a problem we inherited. We were the ones who led the way in air drops of food into eastern Bosnia. We attached a senior negotiator, Amb. Reg Bartholomew, one of our best diplomats, to the negotiations. We were the ones who sought to lift the arms embargo, a very forward looking, forward leaning effort, a difficult effort. We were not able to get agreement on that. We are the ones. President Clinton made this new initiative last Friday, and he's gotten the NATO allies unanimously to support it. So I think the record shows a very, very engaged approach, one that's designed to achieve a negotiated solution, and in an activist way, not just sitting back.

MR. MUDD: Thank you. It's been a pleasure to talk to you, Mr. Secretary.

SEC. OXMAN: Nice to see you, Roger, thank you. FOCUS - THE SENTENCING

MR. LEHRER: Now a report on reaction in Los Angeles to yesterday's sentencing in the Rodney King case. The two officers found guilty of violating King's civil rights in the 1991 beating were sentenced to two and a half years in jail. Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET-Los Angeles reports.

MR. KAYE: Yesterday morning TV sets all over Los Angeles were tuned to one of the final episodes in the Rodney King beating saga. Martin De La Rosa watched with special interest. He served on the federal jury which convicted the two officers of violating King's civil rights, and he was surprised when Judge John Davies pronounced the sentences; thirty months in prison, two years' probation.

MARTIN DE LA ROSA, Former Juror: I feel pretty strongly that it's very lenient on Judge Davies' behalf.

MR. KAYE: Too lenient?

MARTIN DE LA ROSA: Yeah, a little too lenient. I figured for myself, this is just my opinion, it would be five, accounting for the two years that the officers have been going through this and the hardship.

MR. KAYE: Officer Lawrence Powell and Sgt. Stacey Koon could have received ten-year maximum sentences. Prosecutor Steven Klimer argued for minimum prison terms of seven years, calling the 1991 incident brutality which horrified the country. But Judge Davies said this case was atypical, and he departed from sentencing guidelines. He described his reasoning in detail, frequently referring to the videotape of the beating. Davies said King "contributed significantly to provoke in the offense behavior."

MR. KAYE: The judge said that King contributed significantly to provoking the officers' behavior.

MARTIN DE LA ROSA: He may have, but I don't see any reason why he would want to use King's behavior to contribute to the way those officers acted towards him.

MR. KAYE: King's most serious injuries, according to Judge Davies, occurred at the beginning of the beating. Those blows were legal, said Davies, who determined the officers should only be punished for about six baton strikes committed when police crossed the line from legality to illegality. Disappointed prosecutors said they were exploring a legal challenge to the sentences. Terree Bowers is the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles.

TERREE BOWERS, U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles: We will be consulting with the attorney general of the United States and the solicitor general to evaluate the district's, the district court's analysis of the case and to decide whether or not to seek appellate review of the judge's decisions.

MR. KAYE: The defendants were publicly mute. Koon stood stoically as his lawyer, Ira Salzman, called the sentences neither a victory or a defeat.

IRA SALZMAN, Defense Lawyer: Well, considering the uphill struggle we faced in this matter, I'm certainly very heartened that Judge Davies, as I was confident he would, would not succumb to less responsible members of our community to just be vengeful. This was not a racial incident, and needless and continued repetition of four white officers and a black defendant who was supposedly a motorist, when he's not just a mere motorist, can be addressed.

MR. KAYE: But outside the courthouse the racial implications of the incident were very much in evidence.

MAN: It was not a fair trial.

PATRICIA MOORE, Political Activist: What am I supposed to tell my kids? What am I supposed to tell my people, to believe in a system that really doesn't care for you, that isn't concerned about your well being, that isn't going to protect you when you need protecting?

MR. KAYE: At city hall, newly elected LA Mayor Richard Riordan called for healing.

MAYOR RICHARD RIORDAN, Los Angeles: Our judicial system worked, maybe not the way many of us would like to have it work, but it did work.

MR. KAYE: Police officers we interviewed weren't so sure. They expressed sympathy for Koon and Powell and concern for the Department's tarnished image.

SGT. MIKE BLACKBURN, Los Angeles Police Department: I don't think they should have done any time at all.

MR. KAYE: None at all?

SGT. MIKE BLACKBURN: I don't -- I really don't think so. You know, basically what we're trying to do in sentencing someone is to protect the public and rehabilitate somebody. And I don't think the chances of this ever reoccurring again or -- I just don't think it'll ever occur again.

OFFICER LORNE GOLSIG, Los Angeles Police Department: I used to work for Sgt. Koon in the 77th Division. I was working there the night he saved the life of another officer. A suspect was trying to sneak up behind him with an AK-47 and kill him. He was within feet of him when Sgt. Koon fired, injuring the suspect, forcing him to drop the rifle. I have my own opinion about what happened out there and my own opinion about Sgt. Koon, generally a favorable one. I like him. And to see him go 30 months in a federal prison is a very difficult thing for us.

MR. KAYE: These police officers also said that many of the reforms promised in the wake of the King beating have simply not materialized and lawyer Salzman feels that sending his client off to prison won't prevent another Rodney King beating.

MR. SALZMAN: One of the tragedies of this case is that nothing has changed. The city has learned nothing. LAPD management has learned nothing. Recently on a show an assistant chief says, morale problem, what morale problem, I don't know what morale means. I mean, this type of head in the sand denial that has occurred and is ongoing right now, so yes, tonight, tomorrow, an officer from the Southeast Division, Foothill, Pacific, West LA, could be in the same confrontation. The training is the same. The baton would be used, and if it's videotaped, you would see something exactly similar.

MR. KAYE: Nothing's changed was also the sentiment heard at KJLH, a radio station popular in LA's black community.

LON MCQ, KJLH Radio, Los Angeles: This is nothing new to the black community. This is nothing new. A lot of our calls that we've received, people are not really surprised. In fact, some are surprised that they're going to jail period.

MR. KAYE: Most callers said the relatively light sentences only reinforced their low regard for the justice system.

CALLER: Actually, my comment is I'm not really surprised about the decision. What I mean by that is what really would have surprised me if they would have sent those cops to jail for the maximum term.

LON MCQ: Okay, I appreciate your call.

FEMALE CALLER: Lonnie, we did more time for that for traffic violations. You pay more for a fine. They have no fine. You see, there's no more we can take it.

LON MCQ: KJLH, your comment, please.

FEMALE CALLER: I have always feared the LAPD.

LON MCQ: I mean, have they sent you a message saying your life isn't worth too much?

FEMALE CALLER: Absolutely.

LON MCQ: If you're stopped, this is what might happen, not per se that it can happen but it might happen?

FEMALE CALLER: That's correct.

MR. KAYE: Similar feelings were echoed by participants in an anti-gang program.

BERNADETTE McCOY: Anybody else, any regular person would have did it, you know, committed that crime, they wouldn't have got only two years. That's not right. I don't think so. Myself, I don't think that's right.

JARED WATSON: Isn't it different when cops break the law? Don't they go to a different type of prison, instead of going to like the pen or something like that?

MR. KAYE: Do you think they will?

JARED WATSON: Yeah. Don't they go to like a resort jail or something like that? At least, it's not like a penitentiary or anything like that.

MR. KAYE: Despite the cynicism of these youngsters, police officers say they are now forced to be more accountable.

OFFICER TODD CATALDI, Los Angeles Police Department: We're definitely being scrutinized more, second guessed more by both the field supervisors, the captains of the division you work, and by people up above, you know, in internal affairs, the chief, along with the politicians.

OFFICER LORNE GOLSIG: A lot of patrol officers are running scared. A lot of younger officers who never used to leave a police department are now looking at other departments to join. It's caused attrition among not only the younger officers but also the older officers, who are now retiring at a younger age.

MR. KAYE: Many say they will compare the prison time for Koon and Powell with sentences likely to be handed down to the black defendants who beat motorist Reginald Denny and others during the LA riots. That trial is just getting underway.

BERNADETTE McCOY: They're not just going to get two years. They're going to get more than that.

MR. KAYE: Lawyers for Koon and Powell say they will try to overturn the convictions and the sentences. Judge Davies ordered the two who are free without bail to prison beginning September 27th. Next week, the same judge is scheduled to begin proceedings in Rodney King's multimillion dollar civil suit. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Thursday is the budget plan. The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the measure later this evening. It would reduce the deficit by nearly $500 billion over five years through tax increases and spending cuts. Democratic leaders are predicting its passage but were reported to be scrambling for wavering votes. In an apparent move to win conservative votes, Democratic leaders late today pledged to make future budget cuts. Good night, Roger.

MR. MUDD: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with more on the battle of the budget, among other things. I'm Roger Mudd. Thank you, and good night.