The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth in Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we look at President Clinton's move against teenage smoking with the views of teenagers, the head of the Food & Drug Administration, a Philip Morris official, and the president of the American Cancer Society. Then Kwame Holman reports on today's Whitewater hearings. Finally, Ron Ostrow of the Los Angeles Times discusses the indictments in the Oklahoma bombing case. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. FARNSWORTH: President Clinton took historic action today aimed at curbing teenage smoking. He endorsed a Food & Drug Administration finding that declared nicotine an addictive drug. He then authorized the FDA to take steps to stop the sale and marketing of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to children. The President proposed broad reforms to restrict cigarette advertising, ban vending machines from establishments frequented by minors, and require proof of age to purchase tobacco products. At a White House news conference, he explained the need for such measures.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Today and every day this year 3,000 young people will begin to smoke. One thousand of them ultimately will die of cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and other diseases caused by smoking. That's more than a million vulnerable young people a year being hooked on nicotine that ultimately could kill them; therefore, by executive authority, I will restrict sharply the advertising, promotion, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes to teenagers.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Opponents of the measure have 90 days to object to the regulations or offer a compromise. Cigarette manufacturers today filed suit against the federal government to block the FDA from implementing the new rules. Advertising industry officials have also vowed to fight the proposal. They had this to say about the President's plan at a Washington news conference.

WALL SNYDER, President, American Advertising Federation: Clearly, we feel that these proposals run afoul of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the visual contents of an advertisement are protected by the First Amendment. It is another way in which to communicate. Because this is a First Amendment issue and because it is very important to our members, we will fight this in the courts.

MS. FARNSWORTH: We'll have a Newsmaker interview with FDA Commissioner David Kessler and more on this story right after the News Summary. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Principal suspects in the April bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City were indicted today. Federal prosecutors charged Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier in the blast that killed 168 people and injured more than 500 at the Murrah Federal Building. A grand jury indicted McVeigh and Nichols for killing federal law enforcement officers, using weapons of mass destruction, and destroying federal property. Prosecutors said they would seek the death penalty. Fortier has admitted casing the Murrah Building with McVeigh. He was arraigned today and pleaded "guilty" to know about the bombing in advanced. He will appear as a government witness at the trial. Lawyers for McVeigh and Nichols said their clients were not guilty and deserved separate trials outside Oklahoma City.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The United States brought evidence to the United Nations today that Serb forces executed thousands of Bosnian civilians when they conquered the UN safe area of Srebrenica last month. The evidence consisted of an aerial photograph showing a soccer field where civilians were rounded up. Another photo showed nearby patches of earth which had recently been disturbed. U.S. experts believe about 600 people were buried at that site and more than 2,000 others were buried elsewhere. UN Amb. Madeleine Albright spoke to reporters in New York.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, U.S. Ambassador to UN: What is evident is that there is a compelling case that there were wide scale atrocities committed in the area against defenseless civilians, away from the battlefield area, and that there were high level Bosnian Serb military people present. This is clearly a case that needs to be investigated further by the War Crimes Tribunal.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The United Nations Envoy to the former Yugoslavia said today that the UN will withdraw most of its peacekeepers from Croatia. The troops were sent there in 1992 to enforce a cease-fire between Croats and Serbs, but their mission was undermined by last weekend's Croatian army assault on a Serb enclave. About 150,000 Serb refugees have left Croatia since the fighting. Many are headed for Serbia, but remain stranded today in places like Banja Luka, in Northern Bosnia, where food shortages are reported. United Nations officials confirmed that many of the Serbs were stoned or beaten by Croatians as they tried to make their escape. Others were ridiculed by victorious Croatian soldiers along the roadside.

MR. MAC NEIL: Two daughters of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and their husbands, both prominent military officers, have defected to Jordan. King Hussein today granted them and others who accompanied them political asylum. President Clinton said the defections demonstrated the level of instability inside Iraq and provided evidence the United Nations sanctions were working. He said he'd spoken with King Hussein about the potential for Iraqi reprisals against Jordan and had promised U.S. support.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: King Hussein's decision, located where he is, to grant asylum to those individuals was clearly an act of real courage, and I have assured him and told him that we would stand behind Jordan. We owe it to the people who are our partners in peace in the Middle East to stand behind them, and we have already made it clear that if Iraq threatens its neighbors or violates United Nations resolutions, we would take appropriate action. I think we have to do so in this case.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Whitewater hearings wound down today on both sides of the capital. Republican Senators sparred for a second day with former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum over the controversial search of Vincent Foster's office in the days following Foster's 1993 suicide. Nussbaum steadfastly denied charges that he removed documents from Foster's office. In the House, Banking Committee Chairman Jim Leach blasted Hillary Clinton's former employer the Rose law firm of Little Rock. A federal bank regulator testified that the law firm did not disclose information revealing its work for Madison Guaranty, the failed savings & loan at the heart of the investigation.

MR. MAC NEIL: In economic news today, the Labor Department reported inflation at the wholesale level was unchanged in July. The report said energy prices posted their biggest drop in two years, but that was offset by rising food costs. California Governor Pete Wilson filed suit today against his own government to end affirmative action programs. The suit said state laws which grant racial and gender preferences serve to stigmatize people and violate constitutional rights. Last month, Wilson led a successful drive to end affirmative action at the University of California.

MS. FARNSWORTH: That's our News Summary. Now it's on to the battle to end teenage smoking, Whitewater, and the indictments in Oklahoma City. FOCUS - TEENS & TOBACCO

MS. FARNSWORTH: President Clinton's campaign to reduce teenage smoking is our lead tonight. The new rules he proposed today represent the federal government's first attempt to directly regulate cigarette sales to minors. The rules would ban all tobacco advertising around schools, ban cigarette vending machines, and severely restrict cigarette advertising and marketing aimed at teenagers, among other things. At his news conference, the President said cigarette smoking by teens is a major public health hazard.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Adults make their own decisions about whether or not to smoke, but we all know that teenagers are especially susceptible topressures. When Joe Camel tells young children that smoking is cool, when billboards tell teens that smoking will lead to true romance, when Virginia Slims tells adolescents that cigarettes may make them thin and glamorous, then our children need our wisdom, our guidance, and our experience. We are their parents, and it is up to us to protect them. So today I am authorizing the Food & Drug Administration to initiate a broad series of steps all designed to stop sales and marketing of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to children. Now, nobody much likes government regulation. And I would prefer it if we could have done this in some other way. The only other way I can think of is if Congress were to write these restrictions into law. They could do that, and if they do, this rule could become unnecessary. But it is wrong to believe that we can take a voluntary approach to this problem. Yes.

REPORTER: Mr. President, given the fact that anybody who has kids knows that the more you prohibit something, the more attractive it often becomes, what makes you think that you can do any better in the war against cigarettes than we've done against drugs?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, if you make it clearly illegal, more inaccessible, you reduce the lure of advertising, and then you have an affirmative campaign, a positive campaign so that you don't say just say no. You get young people information, and you, you make it the smart, the cool, the hip thing to do, to take care of yourself and keep yourself healthy and alive. I believe there is every evidence from what has happened in drugs and many other areas that we will see a dramatic decline in smoking among young people. I think we can do that. Yes.

SECOND REPORTER: Mr. President, a coalition of advertisers is filing suit today, saying that for a legal product, your rules would go far beyond any precedent in restricting First Amendment rights.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It is illegal for children to smoke cigarettes. How then can it be legal for people to advertise to children to get them to smoke cigarettes? And does anybody seriously doubt that a lot of this advertisement is designed to reach children so we get new customers for the tobacco companies as the old customers disappear. That--it cannot be a violation of the freedom of speech in this country to say that you cannot advertise and entice people to do something which they cannot legally do.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, we hear from the young people the President wants to discourage from taking up the smoking habit. Correspondent Tom Bearden sampled some opinions in Denver.

TOM BEARDEN: It wasn't difficult to find teenagers using cigarettes at this Denver amusement park. Like most smokers, these girls had picked up the habit well before their 18th birthday, even though it is illegal to sell cigarettes to minors in most states.

MR. BEARDEN: When did you start smoking?

AMANDA BUCKINGHAM: I started smoking about last year, last summer, when I was 14.

MR. BEARDEN: Why?

AMANDA BUCKINGHAM: I don't know. [laughing] But once I started, it was just like whoo--it felt good. [laughing]

DEONNA CAROLUS: You smoke a cigarette, you feel so calm and relaxed for the rest of the day it's great! Weird!

AMANDA BUCKINGHAM: It takes my worries about. [laughing] It like lifts everything off and feels good.

MR. BEARDEN: What about the health warning on the pack?

AMANDA BUCKINGHAM: I've never even looked at it before. [laughing]

MR. BEARDEN: Do you know that smoking is supposed to be bad for you?

AMANDA BUCKINGHAM: Yeah. Everybody knows that, but--

NICOLE BROKOVEC: Health warning things--they're just words, and they're--they're kind of stupid too. It may be a high risk to your health. That's not going to change anything.

MR. BEARDEN: According to two recent studies, a lot of teenagers are ignoring the warnings. The University of Michigan found that while teenage smoking had declined throughout the 1980's, it rose during the past three years. The biggest increase was among 13- and 14-year-olds whose smoking rates increased 30 percent. Another study by the Federal Centers for Disease Control concluded that 600,000 teenagers started smoking during a time when tobacco companies quadrupled spending on cigarette promotions. Anti-smoking activists say tobacco companies have targeted teens with marketing campaigns such as the Joe Camel promotion. One study found the cartoonish figure was as recognizable as Mickey Mouse among young children. Fifteen-year-old Gavin Cataline smokes Camels. He says advertising didn't influence him to smoke that brand and he doesn't think any government program will have much influence on him either.

MR. BEARDEN: The President gave a speech in which he said the government needs to do more to try to stop teenagers from smoking. What's your reaction to that?

GAVIN CATALINE: I don't think there's anything he can do.

MR. BEARDEN: It's a waste of time?

GAVIN CATALINE: Yeah.

MR. BEARDEN: Would it make any difference to any of you if the government were to crack down on the sales of smoking materials to minors.

NICOLE BROKOVEC: No. I really don't think it would. You'd just get it from people who are older. I mean, I have lots of older friends who buy me cigarettes whenever I want to--just ask them, give them the money.

DEONNA CAROLUS: Yeah, it's really not a problem for me either because, I shouldn't say this, but my mom, she buys them for me and my friends that smoke, and they just give her the money. So it's really not a big problem.

NICOLE BROKOVEC: Because her mom knows that we're going to get it anyway.

DEONNA CAROLUS: And she would rather have her buy them for me than me stealing them or shoulder-tapping for people or buying them myself.

MR. BEARDEN: Shoulder tapping, what does that mean?

DEONNA CAROLUS: Where you ask people on the street to buy them for you.

MR. BEARDEN: 18-year-old Eddie Smith doesn't think there's much the government can do either, but he thinks it ought to try.

MR. BEARDEN: Philosophically, do you think the government should discourage teenagers from smoking?

EDDIE SMITH: Yeah. It's a bad habit, you know. Sometimes I sit there and wish I never started.

MR. BEARDEN: What could the government have done that might have stopped you from smoking?

EDDIE SMITH: Nothing really, except raise the price of cigarettes.

MR. BEARDEN: Do you think the government should do something to try to stop all people, particularly young people, from smoking?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE TEEN: I don't think the government can do it.

NICOLE BROKOVEC: They can try if they want to, but they're not going to succeed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE TEEN: I don't think the government could stop me smoking.

DEONNA CAROLUS: Nobody's going to listen to them because so many people, it's a habit, an everyday thing for 'em, and nobody's just going to listen to the government and snap and say, oh, I'm going to quit now because President Clinton says it's bad. [girls in group laughing]

MS. FARNSWORTH: The President's order is based on an FDA finding that the nicotine and cigarettes is an addictive drug, a finding the FDA says gives it the authority to regulate sales and marketing. For the first of three views on today's announcement, we turn to the mean who heads the FDA, Dr. David Kessler. How do you respond to those teenagers who say that the federal government can't make a difference with them?

DR. DAVID KESSLER, FDA Commissioner: You hear the tale of a child. Children at 11, 12, 13, you know, 14, taking a cigarette, it's a ritual, but unfortunately, sometimes it's a ritual that lasts a lifetime. These kids don't--they hear about the risks, but they're teenagers. They never think it will affect them. But what you heard in the piece is by 18, by 16, 17, and 18, these kids that have started at 11, 12, and 13, they're already addicted, and they didn't--when they started smoking their first cigarette--say, hey, you know, I'm going to smoke this one and four hundred thousand more. They really think they can quit. And we have an obligation to try to reduce the amount of smoking among teenagers, because if you don't start by 18 or 19, you don't become a smoker.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you have research that shows that the measures that you proposed today, that were outlined today, that the President outlined, will make a difference with kids like this, getting them to stop?

DR. KESSLER: Yes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And making sure that they don't start?

DR. KESSLER: Absolutely. The most important thing that we can learn from tobacco control experts around the world is that the measures that are put in place must be comprehensive. There's not any one thing that you can do that will solve this problem, and the steps that the President outlined today is the most comprehensive public health package that's been announced in decades on this issue.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So what happens next? When can these regulations go into effect?

DR. KESSLER: The President announced these regulations as proposed regulations. There's a comment period, over 90 days. We will give very serious and full consideration to these comments. We will address these comments, and then we have to go toward a final regulation.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Presumably, Congress could get involved in these 90 days. What could Congress do that would meet the needs that you think are, are here and would make these regulations moot?

DR. KESSLER: The President said he would welcome the Congress to put into law, not just by regulation, to put into law the steps that he outlined today. And he said if Congress does that, he would be happy to sign that legislation. What we care about are putting into place steps to reduce the amount of kids who start smoking. It doesn't have to be FDA who does it. It doesn't have to be by regulations, but it has to be comprehensive. It has to be enforceable, and it has to be meaningful. That's what's important.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So voluntary--if Congress came up with a voluntary plan, that wouldn't be enough?

DR. KESSLER: No.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Tobacco companies have filed suit already asking the courts to block the FDA in this, and earlier, the administration had hoped to avoid or had said that it hoped to avoid legal action, that it would try to find a way to do that. It hasn't been able to do that. Why?

DR. KESSLER: Well, I don't want to comment specifically on any litigation, but we certainly welcome the tobacco companies, if they want to put--if they care as much as they say they do about kids not smoking, let them put these measures more with the Congress and put these measures into law.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I gather that the argument the tobacco companies will make is that the FDA doesn't have jurisdiction here, that nicotine is not an addictive drug. How do you respond to that?

DR. KESSLER: Ask any smoker whether nicotine in cigarettes is addictive, and they will tell you. We have conducted a very extensive investigation over the last 17 months. When you see a document from a general counsel of a major American tobacco company 30 years ago saying we are then in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug, it's just not credible to deny the addictive nature of this substance.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Weren't some companies already beginning voluntary measures? What was wrong with the voluntary measures? I think Philip Morris, for example, had put on the cigarette carton something that said, "Illegal to sell to minors," or something like that.

DR. KESSLER: You heard from the teenagers in the piece; they don't listen to warnings; they don't read warnings. What the President outlined are really two very simple steps to make it harder for children to buy and to reduce the appeal of tobacco products. You know, we send children and teenagers very mixed messages. We tell them it's dangerous. Then look at the ads, at the fun and independence and glamour that's associated with those ads. We tell children it's addictive, it's an addicting product, but we allow--they walk around with hats and T-shirts as billboards for these products. Sporting events--I mean, they're associated with the fun and glamour of these sporting events in these brand names, so we've been sending our children very mixed messages. And it's time that we get serious about smoking among young people. Look, it's not because--it's--you have forty-five, fifty million smokers in this country, many of whom are addicted. What's the right public policy? How do you approach a problem where you have so many addicted smokers? And the fact is the real key is you don't start by 18 or 19, you don't ever become a smoker. It's not because kids are--it's just apple pie or motherhood or it's politically expedient. The focus that the President had on teenage smoking today is so important because it's the right public policy approach to reduce the terrible death and disability from this product.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But do you have research to show that it will work, or that indicates it will work? I mean, you heard the kids. It's already illegal to smoke in the, you know, if you're under 18, and they're getting cigarettes--they can tap on people's shoulder and get them to buy them. And, of course, if it's forbidden, it's just all that much more attractive, isn't it?

DR. KESSLER: The international research shows that to be effective you need a comprehensive set of packages that the President put into place today, and it does work.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And there are other public policy areas where you found that this kind of thing works?

DR. KESSLER: Yes. There's no question. It's very interesting. The boy in the ad said Joe Camel doesn't influence him, but what brand was he smoking? He was smoking Camels. The three most heavily advertised brands are the three brands that children smoke the most. The data is there.

MS. FARNSWORTH: This hasn't been exactly a good year for regulations. It's kind of--there's a--the Republicans are working very hard to make sure that there aren't as many regulations and that government is not as invasive. How do you--how does this jive with that?

DR. KESSLER: This shouldn't be a partisan issue. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It's not an issue of the people of one part of the country versus people of another part of the country. I don't think anyone, smoker or non-smoker, wants their kids to be smoking.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What would you guess will happen in the next 90 days? Do you think the regulations will end up going into effect, or do you think Congress will act?

DR. KESSLER: We're very serious about what the President announced today. We want meaningful and comprehensive measures, whether that's by regulation or by legislation as long as they work, that's what we care about, and as long as they stop kids from ever starting.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Dr. Kessler, thank you very much for being with us.

DR. KESSLER: Thank you.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, for some reaction from the cigarette industry. Joining us is Steven Parrish, senior vice president of Philip Morris Companies, Inc. Thank you for being with us.

STEVEN PARRISH, Senior VP, Philip Morris Companies, Inc.: Thank you.

MS. FARNSWORTH: How do you--what is your view of the regulations that were announced today?

MR. PARRISH: Well, it's clear that FDA has no jurisdiction over tobacco products. That's No. 1. Commissioner Kessler, himself, went before Congress last year and said, I need guidance on this issue. Unfortunately--

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let me interrupt you just right here. Why doesn't the FDA have jurisdiction?

MR. PARRISH: Because FDA is given the responsibility for regulating medicines and pharmaceutical products and medical devices. And to say that cigarettes are medicines or pharmaceutical products or medical devices makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it's contrary to the law. Congress has looked at this issue time and time again, and so have the courts. For the last 80 years, Congress under the food and drug laws, the federal food and drug laws, has repeatedly refused to give jurisdiction to the FDA. Seventy times that statute's been amended; it's never been amended to give FDA jurisdiction. Twenty times there had been proposals in Congress to give jurisdiction to FDA over cigarettes, and each and every one of those twenty times, it's been rejected by Congress. So Congress's intent is very clear here.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But isn't the situation different now that it's been declared an addictive drug?

MR. PARRISH: No, not at all.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Explain that. That's something I need to have explained.

MR. PARRISH: Under the law, it's very clear that Dr. Kessler is not entitled to regulate merely because he determines that something is an addicting drug. That is not his mandate. His mandate under federal law is to regulate those products that are marketed for therapeutic or medicinal purposes. That's very clear under the court decisions. So that's why we are in court today. That's why the advertising agencies that were mentioned early in the program filed their case, because FDA has no jurisdiction not just to address the youth issue--we want the youth issue to be addressed. There are ways to do that, and I'd be happy to talk about some of those ways. But we have to do it in a legal way, the way that Congress has set the process in motion, and not Dr. Kessler on his own.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let's assume for a minute that these regulations do go into effect, or that something very much like them is passed in Congress. How much of a blow would it be to your company?

MR. PARRISH: Well, if there were no more kids in this country who were smoking, that would be great, and it would not materially affect our business. What is unfortunate is that Dr. Kessler has decided to impose a regulatory scheme that goes far beyond the issue of youth smoking and starts to interfere with the rights of adults to make a decision to smoke.

MS. FARNSWORTH: How does it interfere with the rights of adults?

MR. PARRISH: We have millions and millions of our smokers, for example, who have told us that they want to receive direct mail information about our products, and they're adult smokers. As I understand the proposal, we would not be allowed to do that. The Food & Drug Administration, as I understand their proposal that went out today, and it was quite thick, indicated that this is going to cost not just the cigarette manufacturers a lot of money but it will be tens of millions in--tens and tens of millions of dollars out of the pockets of advertisers, retailers, tobacco growers, and others that are engaged in the business of selling what is a legal product to adults.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do the cigarette companies target teenagers?

MR. PARRISH: No, we don't. And I know that some people may be skeptical of that, but I would ask you--

MS. FARNSWORTH: Joe Camel does seem sort of like something aimed at teenagers.

MR. PARRISH: Well, Joe Camel--our company doesn't make Camel cigarettes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I know that.

MR. PARRISH: And the FTC has looked at that and resolved it the other way. Just let me say that our company has said that we--we don't have all the answers, but we do have some things that we think that we can do and that we working with others can do. Last year, the Institute of Medicine issued a report outlining a number of steps that the Institute of Medicine thought could help address the youth smoking issue. We have adopted a number of those measures, and when we did, nobody stepped up, not Dr. Kessler, not President Clinton, and the others, and said what a nice thing for Philip Morris to do, we support you in your efforts. We have already stopped sampling, free sampling of cigarettes. We have stopped sending cigarettes through the mail. We have put the notice on the pack that you referred to earlier in the broadcast. We are working with retailers to help train their clerks so that they are--will do a better job of demanding the proof of age that President Clinton talked about earlier today. All those things are done. There are some things that we can do with others. We're willing to work with legislators to pass laws to toughen up the enforcement and crack down on people who are selling or providing cigarettes to kids. So as President Clinton said yesterday, let's put aside our differences, find the common goal, and work together for it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, why do you think then that the administration went ahead with this? I gather that there were meetings between the industry and the administration, and that you were making some progress, and then the progress stopped, or can you tell us what happened?

MR. PARRISH: Well, so far, I have--I have not seen any proposal out of Dr. Kessler or the administration that does not involve unreasonable restrictions on adult choices to smoke. As I said, we're more than willing to sit down with anybody, whether they're inside the government or outside the government, and deal with our ability--and I mean not just the cigarette industry but the retail community, the American public, educators, parents, to try to keep kids from smoking.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Parrish, do you think that this is the thin edge of the wedge, that not only would this affect adults in certain ways, like in direct mailing, but that it's the first step in regulating smoking for adults?

MR. PARRISH: Well, it clearly is. Dr. Kessler, when he testified before Congress last year asking for guidance, said that my tools are a blunt instrument, and if I regulate cigarettes under the current law, I--we may have a situation where cigarettes are banned from the market. That's prohibition. I don't think anybody wants that. We tried that before in this country with alcohol. It was a dismal failure. Lost jobs--excise taxes to the federal government and the state government go away. Black market cigarettes--it's a nightmare.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Parrish, what's your response to the argument that I think Dr. Kessler and others have made that the cigarette industry, when it's pressured, responds with voluntary measures, something like Philip Morris has done, but that they aren't--they don't go far enough, that they're really only token measures to try to get the heat off, what's your response to that argument?

MR. PARRISH: My response to that is, isn't the issue what can we do to stop youth smoking, not what our motivations are. I can say our motivations are for the right reasons, and they can disagree, but let's put that disagreement aside, and as President Clinton said, work toward the common goal. If they think these steps are meaningful steps, let's acknowledge that and talk about if there are more things that we can do, because that's what we really want to do.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Will you be working in Congress to try to get something that's more to your liking?

MR. PARRISH: Well, we certainly think that this proposal is draconian in its effects on us and advertisers and others in the business of selling this legal product, and we certainly hope that if there are proposals in Congress, they will be more reasonable and focus on the youth issue and not on restricting adults' rights to choose.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Thank you for being with us, Mr. Parrish.

MR. PARRISH: Thank you.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Our third view belongs tonight to Dr. Lamar McGinnis, a practicing surgeon and the president of the American Cancer Society. What about the argument, or what about the--what Mr. Parrish said, that the companies do not target teenagers?

DR. LAMAR McGINNIS, American Cancer Society: The, the increasing incidence of smoking among teenagers speaks for itself. We've been talking about this issue for 35 years. In 1964, we thought the issue was put to rest in that we identified tobacco as the single most preventable cause of death and disability in this country. Thirty-five years later, we're still talking about. Adult smoking has leveled off at about 25 percent of the population, but teenage smoking is rising, and this is alarming, and as Dr. Kessler has so aptly identified, this is a pediatric disease and a pediatric epidemic. We've been concerned for 50 years. We're even more concerned today. More--there are a greater percentage of women smoking today than in 1965.

MS. FARNSWORTH: How do you explain the fact that adults are quitting and teenagers are smoking in higher numbers than ever before?

DR. McGINNIS: Well, I think adults are beginning to understand the message. I think the advertising message to teenagers has had an effect. The glamorization, the depiction of fun and even a health style, and it's been effective, advertising works. It's time it stopped.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You were at the White House today when the regulations were announced. Do you support all of these different measures? Do you think they go far enough?

DR. McGINNIS: We support all of the measures. The requirement that the tobacco companies spend $150 million a year in education for youth is important. It seems like a piddling sum, when you look at $6 1/2 billion that are spent on advertising the product. But it's a start.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And you think this should be mandatory, but do you think voluntary measures would have worked? You heard what Philip Morris has been doing, for example.

DR. McGINNIS: Well, look at the history. Jimmy Carter earlier this month in a piece in USA Today said that every President since Eisenhower has had to deal with the tobacco issue in some aspect. We still have the issue before us. It's not going away.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So you don't think a voluntary effort would be enough. Would there be--I should put it this way--would there be a voluntary effort that you think would be enough?

DR. McGINNIS: I can only go on the past history of what has happened. Lip service has been given to voluntary efforts each time this rises, and nothing comes forward. The interesting thing to me presently is that this is not--this is a bipartisan issue--this is an American issue. Buckley had an article supporting the FDA. Goldwater had an article supporting the FDA. Sununu came out last night supporting this issue. Jimmy Carter supports this. Of interest earlier this week I had the privilege of meeting with Speaker Gingrich. I don't know or think that he particularly supports this activity, but he feels that the winds of change are in the air, and that it is time for the federal government to take- -to take a stronger course, to have a stronger intervention. Our polls show us that the American public favors governmental intervention in this area. In no other area, in no other area do they favor, but in the regulation, in stronger governmental intervention for the regulation of tobacco with youth and teenagers, 78, 87 percent, even in tobacco states, it's only a few points lower.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You heard the teenagers in the report tonight say that there's no way to make them stop, that they can figure out ways of getting cigarettes. Do you think this will go far enough? Do you think it will limit the number of teenagers that start smoking?

DR. McGINNIS: I think Dr. Kessler was speaking correctly to those teenagers, they're addicted. What we hope to do is prevent addiction. We know that adults that are addicted, 90 percent start- -are addicted by the time they're 19. Many teenagers are addicted at 12 now. And so that, that's why the concentration is on youth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Dr. McGinnis, thank you very much for being with us.

DR. McGINNIS: Thank you very much.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead, the Whitewater hearings and the Oklahoma bombing indictments. FOCUS - UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, to Whitewater. The congressional hearings drew to a close today. The House Banking Committee wrapped up its examination of then Governor and Mrs. Clinton's connections to a failed Arkansas savings & loan, and the land development project in the Ozarks. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: All week long, the primary focus of the House Banking Committee hearings has been the failure Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan of Little Rock. Madison's obvious connection to the President and Mrs. Clinton is its owner was James McDougal, the Clintons' business partner in the Whitewater Land Development Company. But today the committee turned its attention to the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock. Rose's obvious connection to the Clintons is that both Hillary Clinton and former associate attorney general Webster Hubbell were partners at the firm. Just how the Rose Law Firm and Madison Guaranty were connected was the subject of complicated testimony today. The Clintons' role inthat relationship became a matter of partisan debate.

REP. JIM LEACH, Chairman, Banking Committee: The committee will come to order.

MR. HOLMAN: Banking Committee Chairman Jim Leach called as witnesses inspectors for the Resolution Trust and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations.

REP. JIM LEACH: The exhaustive review they have conducted of the Rose Law Firm is likely to be a case study of legal impropriety at law schools for decades to come.

MR. HOLMAN: The witnesses explained that both the RTC and FDIC hired the Rose Law Firm in 1989 to clean up the financial mess left by the collapse of Madison Savings & Loan. Both government agencies were unaware that Madison once hired the Rose firm to handle financial transactions that allegedly led to the S&L's collapse.

REP. FRANK LUCAS, [R] Oklahoma: Now, it seems to me that a law firm that had represented a savings & loan prior to it being seized by the federal government would not be the ideal candidate to represent that federal government in pursuing claims against those alleged to have contributed to the institution's failure. Is that a fair statement?

PATRICIA BLACK, RTC Lawyer: Such representation could pose problems.

REP. FRANK LUCAS: Thank you. For one thing as the lawyer for the solvent institution, the law firm would have essentially been working for the very same management on whose watch the institution failed, correct?

PATRICIA BLACK: That is a--that is one of the potential problems that RTC would certainly have looked at.

REP. FRANK LUCAS: So in the case of the Madison Guaranty, for example, a law firm that represented Madison Guaranty in its salad days, so to speak, would have been answerable to Mr. McDougal, the same individual who was later alleged to have been largely responsible for the institution's failing at a $60 million cost to the taxpayer, right?

PATRICIA BLACK: That would appear to be correct.

MR. HOLMAN: RTC lawyer Patricia Black said the Rose Law Firm had represented Madison in the purchase of some property known as Castle Grande, a purchase bank examiners later called fictitious.

REP. FRANK LUCAS: Now, is it also true that Castle Grande was purchased in part by Seth Ward and in part by Madison Guaranty as a Madison Guaranty subsidiary?

PATRICIA BLACK: That is essentially correct.

REP. FRANK LUCAS: Were there Arkansas state regulations that limited how much Madison Financial could invest in the real estate venture?

PATRICIA BLACK: Yes. There was a 6 percent limitation on investments in its subsidiary.

REP. FRANK LUCAS: Okay. In the course of your investigation, did you learn that the entire Castle Grande purchase was designed to invade these regulatory restrictions on Madison's direct investment in the venture?

PATRICIA BLACK: That was the conclusion of Mr. Clark, the examiner from the Bank Board who looked at this transaction approximately six months later.

REP. FRANK LUCAS: In fact, Ward acted as the purchasing agent for Madison in the Castle Grande purchase, is that correct?

PATRICIA BLACK: That is also correct.

REP. FRANK LUCAS: Now, the total purchase price of this development was a million, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, of which Madison contributed $600,000, and then lent Ward the remainder of the non--on the remainder on a non-recourse basis. Was that your conclusion?

PATRICIA BLACK: I cannot remember the total purchase price. Madison's investment was approximately $600,000, and the loan to Mr. Ward was non-recourse.

REP. FRANK LUCAS: So Seth Ward had nothing at stake here because Madison gave him aloan which did not obligate him to personally the loan back, correct?

PATRICIA BLACK: He had no personal obligation to pay it back.

REP. FRANK LUCAS: Mr. Ward was what the bank examiner referred to in his testimony as a straw purchaser, correct?

PATRICIA BLACK: I believe that the examiner raised that conclusion in a subsequent report.

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA, [R] New Jersey: Did you determine in the course of your investigation that Seth Ward was related in some way to Webster Hubbell?

WITNESS: Yes, we did determine that.

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA: And what was that relationship?

WITNESS: Father-in-law.

MR. HOLMAN: But throughout the testimony today there was little to tie Mrs. Clinton to any wrongdoing.

REP. BRUCE VENTO, [D] Minnesota: The fact is that she--she didn't necessary work on the Castle Grande or any of the other direct investment issues that you examined, did she?

PATRICIA BLACK: We have no evidence that she worked on Castle Grande.

MR. HOLMAN: In fact, Democrats attempted to shift the blame for the problems at the Rose Law Firm on to Republicans.

REP. BARNEY FRANK, [D] Massachusetts: The Rose Law Firm had a responsibility to obey the law and apparently failed in many instances, but it was a failure that was made possible, it was the federal government that hired them, people who said, well, they shouldn't have been hired. God did not hire them. They didn't get hired by accident. The passive voice doesn't work. They were not- -they did not come to be hired. The Reagan appointees of the FDIC hired them, then the Bush appointees at the RTC hired them.

REP. THOMAS BARRETT, [D] Wisconsin: What has not been pointed out by the majority side is that, in fact, the request to close Madison Guaranty did not come from the federal regulators under Ronald Reagan. The request to close Madison Guaranty came from a state regulator under Gov. Bill Clinton.

MR. HOLMAN: Former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell came before the committee this afternoon from a minimum security prison, where's he's serving a sentence for overcharging clients. Hubbell tried to convince members there was no conflict in Rose's representing the federal government in the Madison case since the pending legal action wasn't against Madison but against an accounting firm Madison had hired.

REP. DICK CHRYSLER, [R] Michigan: After receiving no notice of conflicts from any Rose attorney who had worked on the prior Madison Guaranty matter, you then called April Breslaw at the FDIC and told her that there were no conflicts.

WEBSTER HUBBELL, Former Associate Attorney General: Yes. I believe I said after circulating the memo, in my memory having a firm meeting about the meeting about the matter, at least discussing some issues partners had about it, that I notified Ms. Breslaw that we had no conflicts.

REP. DICK CHRYSLER: Did you later find out that Rose had represented Madison Guaranty on a number of prior occasions in which Hillary Clinton had been the billing partner?

WEBSTER HUBBELL: I believe I said, Congressman, that I was aware- -I was not aware of the nature of the matters--but aware that the firm had represented Madison in 1985 and 1986, and aware that Mrs. Clinton was the billing attorney. I did not consider that a conflict because we were standing in the shoes of Madison in suing its former accountants.

REP. JOSEPH KENNEDY, [D] Massachusetts: Mr. Hubbell, the--I think the point that is trying to be established on the other side is that there, in fact, was a conflict of interest by Mrs. Clinton with regard to the hiring of the Rose firm to represent the government's interest with regard to the Frost audit. Could you please comment directly on whether or not you believe there was a conflict of interest and if not why not.

WEBSTER HUBBELL: I don't believe it is, and if I could maybe give an example--I represent you, Congressman, in just doing some normal work, and then later on you have a dispute with your accountant, and you hire another lawyer, and that lawyer sues that accountant, and then ultimately, unfortunately, and I won't use you because you are a bad example, because the accountant did such bad work, you have to take bankruptcy and a trustee is appointed to manage your affairs, and that trustee hires me. I'm representing to sue the accountant. You've already sued the accountant, and now the trustee is appointing me and I was one of your former attorneys. There's no conflict. We're representing the same client, and so I didn't then and I don't today believe that our representation of Madison against Frost because of the prior representation was a conflict.

MR. HOLMAN: RTC lawyer April Breslaw agreed with Hubbell.

QUESTIONER: Do you feel that there was, in fact, a conflict?

APRIL BRESLAW, RTC Lawyer: With regard to the prior representation of Madison, no, and I would add that I'm aware of many situations in the FDIC and RTC in which they continue to use a law firm which was originally retained by an institution which failed.

MS. FARNSWORTH: At the other Whitewater hearing, a special Senate panel heard for a second day from former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum. Senators from both parties suggested Nussbaum's handling of documents in Vincent Foster's office left open the possibility that papers related to Whitewater might have been lost or concealed. Both House and Senate hearings will resume in the fall. UPDATE - INDICTMENTS

MR. MAC NEIL: Next tonight, the Oklahoma City bombing case. Nearly four months after the explosion which killed 168 people on April 19th, indictments were handed down this afternoon against two main suspects, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Michael Fortier, a third suspect indicted on lesser charges, agreed to testify against McVeigh in return for a reduced sentence and immunity for his wife. We're joined now by Ron Ostrow, a Los Angeles Times reporter who's been covering the Oklahoma bombing case since it began. Ron, thank you for joining us.

RON OSTROW, Los Angeles Times: Thank you.

MR. MAC NEIL: Terry Nichols' attorney said after the indictments, the indictment is just a warmed over version of the circumstantial case presented at the preliminary hearing. Is he right?

MR. OSTROW: Oh, no. I don't think so. I think there's a lot of details in this, in this indictment that were not presented at the original hearing. In addition, of course, they now have the testimony or will have the testimony of Michael Fortier, who pled guilty late today in federal court in Oklahoma City and gave some examples of, of what he knew when he said that Mr. Nichols, Terry Lynn Nichols, and McVeigh together robbed an Arkansas gun collector and used some of those finances to help pay for the bombing.

MR. MAC NEIL: I heard that the judge asked him, "Did you know about the plan to bomb in advance," and he--he hesitated and then said,"Yes, sir, I did."

MR. OSTROW: Yes, because one of the crimes he pled guilty to was lying to federal agents right after it, but also knowing in advance--of a felony--knowing in advance of this and failing to--to inform authorities of it.

MR. MAC NEIL: What do yo make of McVeigh's attorney saying that he had talked to an unnamed informant who had been given a grant of immunity by federal authorities who told the FBI that a federal building in the Midwest would be blown up in mid-April by Islamic militants?

MR. OSTROW: This, of course, was the original--you remember the inclination of the investigators at the beginning. I--there may be such an informant. There may be such information, but I don't think it--it cuts to the degree of evidence they've developed according to this indictment, and we'll see if it stands up in court, the degree of evidence they've developed against his client, and it's beyond being circumstantial. You've got again the testimony of Fortier, and I'm sure Mr. Jones will concentrate on trying to destroy Mr. Fortier as a witness, a credible witness.

MR. MAC NEIL: Are there still important pieces missing from the government's case?

MR. OSTROW: Well, it's interesting. The indictment, the words are often conspired with others known and unknown to the grand jury-- this just says others unknown to the grand jury in the indictments I noticed, and what I think that signals is they don't have anybody in the wings who's going to come forward as an unindicted co- conspirator as a government witness that we don't know of at this point.

MR. MAC NEIL: What do you make of the defense attorneys revealing earlier this week that a severed leg dressed in fatigues and an army boot had been found in the Oklahoma wreckage and not part-- apparently belonging to any of the victims?

MR. OSTROW: It's the latter part that hasn't been determined yet. That has not.

MR. MAC NEIL: It has not been determined?

MR. OSTROW: It has not been determined.

MR. MAC NEIL: It may belong to one of the victims?

MR. OSTROW: It may be. But I don't think it's going to take too long to determine that. As I understand it, they do have DNA samples from the persons, the bodies and the parts that were buried, and those will presumably be matched against the leg. Of course, the leg, as you noticed--as you noted--was clothed in the kind of wear that--camouflage wear and boots that a survivalist sometimes wears, so that kind of gets people buzzing too, but we'll see. I think that'll be determined.

MR. MAC NEIL: You think that'll be cleared up pretty quickly?

MR. OSTROW: I think in a matter of weeks.

MR. MAC NEIL: I mean, is there speculation to support the lawyer's contention that this could be a bomber other than the-- one of the two who's been indicted today?

MR. OSTROW: I'm not sure it's other than or along with. The speculation goes both ways--mostly along with--because there were some witnesses who claimed that they saw two people in, in the van at one point.

MR. MAC NEIL: To your knowledge, has McVeigh broken his silence at all?

MR. OSTROW: To my knowledge, he has not. He's given interviews, but they have been deploring the violence at Waco and those kind of interviews. He hasn't, as far as I know, broken his silence at all, especially to authorities.

MR. MAC NEIL: CNN says his lawyer said late today that he will testify in his own defense. What does that argue to you?

MR. OSTROW: Well, that--he ought to make an interesting witness, and the cross-examination on that one ought to be, ought to be fascinating.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you read it that his attorney--his attorneys, McVeigh's attorneys--made such a big point in their presentation this afternoon of opposing the death penalty at this stage--I mean, on the day the indictments were brought down?

MR. OSTROW: Well, I think that was partly because Mr. Ryan, the U.S. Attorney in Oklahoma City, said that he would recommend to Attorney General Janet Reno that the death penalty be sought, and Mr. Jones has already launched an effort to prevent the attorney general from making that decision on grounds that she already committed herself to seeking the death penalty at the time of the bombing, when both she and the President said that capital punishment would be sought for those responsible.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is it, in your experience, is it very unusual for a defense attorney on the day the indictments are brought down to be talking about the, the possible penalty that his client might be subjected to?

MR. OSTROW: No. I think he's trying to cover all bases, and it is a fact that they have to specify at the beginning whether they're going to seek the death penalty, so if he's going to have any influence on that, it would be at this stage.

MR. MAC NEIL: Uh-huh. Nichols' lawyers said he will seek another venue for the trial. I think they both said that they will attempt to--

MR. OSTROW: Yes.

MR. MAC NEIL: --have another venue. Is that likely?

MR. OSTROW: I think--I think the U.S. attorney has indicated that he might be willing to go out of Oklahoma City, but he wants it tried in Oklahoma, not some of the faraway places where it would be difficult for victims and even some witnesses to appear. I--I think they might move it elsewhere in Oklahoma but I can't see it being moved out Oklahoma. I'd be surprised.

MR. MAC NEIL: And what about the defense attorney saying they would want each of their clients tried separately, the trials to be severed?

MR. OSTROW: I think they have a good shot on that, because they're going to turn out to be, I think, quite at each other's case, each one trying to blame the other as it goes along here, and Nichols, of course, claiming that he didn't have the role that the government asserts he had, and he didn't have this friendship with McVeigh to the time that the government says he did.

MR. MAC NEIL: Yeah. What do you--what significance in this case do you think McVeigh's sister has? Have you--since heard testimony before the grand jury which McVeigh's attorney said today had ended when she was brow beaten and shouted at and, therefore, she terminated her appearance?

MR. OSTROW: Well, I did hear that--that the chief federal prosecutor in the case did take issue with her comparing the situation around Oklahoma City to the Vietnam War, and public dissatisfaction with the Vietnam War, that proved to be too much for him, and I think that's--from what I've heard very much secondhand--that's when--that's when the tears resulted, and the testimony broke off, but I--I don't know that she cut off the testimony she was--she was asked to give, and that was, of course, the testimony of letters and other communications she had with her brother.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you--what else do you--going back to the indictments, you said there were new elements. What strikes you, apart from the Fortier testimony, what strikes you as the most important new material that's come forward in the indictments?

MR. OSTROW: Well, certainly, certainly not to skate over to the Fortier testimony about the robbery, the robbery, itself is mentioned in, in the indictment, and the assertion that that's how they financed a series of these, that's how they financed the bombing, and that Fortier has firsthand knowledge. The other thing I noticed, that while this is a very bare bones indictment with little that hasn't come out from trailing the leads of investigators as best we could, there is--there is some drama here. When you go from page 6--I think it's through page 11 of the indictment, which I have before me--it lists the names of the victims of that bombing, starting with a 73-year-old man and ending five pages later with infants eight months, six months, and four months old. That has drama of its own, and i'm sure that's going to have a--a measurable impact on any jury.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. Well, Ron Ostrow, thanks very much for joining us.

MR. OSTROW: Thank you. RECAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, President Clinton authorized the Food & Drug Administration to take action to stop the sale and marketing of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to children. Cigarette manufacturers and advertising industry officials vowed to fight the proposal. And three men-- Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier--were indicted in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Fortier pleaded guilty in a plea bargain agreement. The other two will fight the charges which carry the death penalty. Good night, Robin.

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