The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WOODRUFF: Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we debate recent decisions on environmental issues by the Bush administration and we talk to the doctor who's heard firsthand about the autopsy on President Kennedy. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Two doctors who performed the autopsy on President Kennedy have broken 29 years of silence on the subject. They did so to underline the Warren Commission finding that the assassination on November 22, 1963, was the work of a lone gunman. The pathologist insisted in an interview released today that President Kennedy was shot twice from behind as the Commission concluded. The interview was in the Journal of the American Medical Association known as JAMA. Its editors spoke at a news conference in New York.

DR. GEORGE LUNDBERG, Editor, JAMA: Based upon solid, unequivocal forensic evidence as reported by Mr. Brio in the May 27 JAMA, I can state without concern or question my agreement with Doctors Humes and Boswell that President Kennedy was struck and killed by two and only two bullets fired from one high velocity rifle. The first bullet entered the back of the neck and exited the front of the throat. The abrasion collar of the skin at the back of the neck is diagnostic of a wound of entrance. The second bullet entered the back of the head and exploded the right side of the head, destroying the brain with a surely lethal wound.

MR. MacNeil: Lundberg said he hoped the doctors' assertion would put to rest conspiracy theories by those he said have not had access to the truth. He made specific reference to the film "JFK" by Oliver Stone, which he called "a skillful piece of fiction that insulted doctors involved in the autopsy." We'll have an interview with Dr. Lundberg later in the program. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Pro-democracy protests continued in Thailand today despite the bloody government crackdown. At least 21 people have been killed in three days of clashes between the protesters and government troops. Hundreds have been wounded and thousands arrested. This evening at least 10,000 student demonstrators were reported to be massing at the nation's largest university. Caroline Kerr of Independent Television News reports from the Thai capital, Bangkok.

MS. KERR: The focal point of the protest moved to the outskirts of the city tonight, with students from Bangkok University setting up road blocks to protect the campus. Their mood turned violent when one lorry driver refused to surrender his truck to help reinforce the barricades. But this time it was student force which won the day and the driver gave in. The center of Bangkok was almost deserted, apart from heavily armed military vehicles with orders to shoot trouble makers on sight, and even more menacing the military bike riders who patrol in civilian clothes in search of protesters. When they find them, they order them to crawl on their hands and knees to a central area where they can be rounded up, arrested, and taken to prisons which are already overflowing. Some young demonstrators attempted to plead with soldiers who are no older than they are.

SPOKESMAN: We want them to treat us properly not like we are ants or something, not insects, but human beings. They should treat us properly; that's what we want.

MS. KERR: The day began with soldiers firing on unarmed civilians. Many who fled had nothing to do with the protests, but were caught in the crossfire. The orders to the military were clear: Root out the so-called "enemies of the state" and show them no mercy. Soldiers fanned out across the marbled foyer of the Royal Hotel, forcing demonstrators who'd sought temporary refuge there to lie on the floor. Even the meekest protest was greeted with violence by government troops who searched the hotel and rounded up hundreds of young Thais. Frightened and cowering, their identities were recorded before they were herded away. On television, the prime minister said he was now seeking new candidates for his job but it was not enough. The demonstrators at the university tonight will accept nothing less than his resignation and they say they're still prepared to fight for it. The presence of such large numbers is clearly a provocation to the authorities. But these students say they not only fear military violence; they expect it, and they have no intention of being moved.

MS. WOODRUFF: The U.S. today called off a joint military training exercise in Thailand because of the violence. State Department Spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said, "It is clear that a normal relationship with the Thai government under current conditions will be impossible."

MR. MacNeil: President Bush issued an order today setting up a storage bank for fetal tissue used in medical research. The bank would hold tissue from miscarriages or from pregnancies in the fallopian tube but not tissue obtained through induced abortions. Fetal tissue has been used for research on Alzheimer's, Parkinson's Disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. Dr. James Mason, who heads the U.S. Public Health Service, said the administration feared there would be an increase in abortions if aborted fetal tissue was used for research. A House Senate Conference Committee is now working on a bill to lift the current government ban on using public money for fetal tissue research.

MS. WOODRUFF: Housing starts fell in April for the first time in seven months. The Commerce Department today reported a 17 percent drop, the sharpest in eight years. Construction of new homes and apartments slowed in all regions of the country. President Bush met with Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders again today to discuss aid to the nation's cities. During a photo session, he was asked whether he could get House Republicans to support his aid proposals.

PRES. BUSH: We're going to be discussing what we can do to help the cities, plural, including LA, today, and I think I've sensed a broad bipartisan support for the initiatives we'll be talking about today, and I just hope that that will prevail. But we'll wait and see. That's what the meeting is all about.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the meeting, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich of Georgia said many Republicans questioned how much aid the cities really need.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, [R] Georgia: The fact is many of those mayors who marched this weekend have multibillion dollar budgets. There's a $29 billion New York City budget. There's a $3.2 billion D.C. city budget. If they would spend as much time reforming their bureaucracy, changing their work rules, and getting a dollar's worth of service out of a dollar's worth of government as they spend coming here to blame everybody but themselves, I think they'd get a lot more things done in the city.

MS. WOODRUFF: A Senate committee today voted in favor of a bill which includes $1.5 billion for summer jobs and school programs in major cities. It was proposed by Democrat Edward Kennedy and Republican Orrin Hatch, following the Los Angeles riots. The full Senate is expected to vote on the measure within the next two days. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the President opposes the aid package. Voters in Oregon and Washington State went to the polls today. In Democratic and Republican Presidential primaries, President Bush is already assured of the Republican nomination. Bill Clinton has more than 85 percent of the delegates that he needs to win the Democratic nomination. However, Jerry Brown continues to challenge him.

MR. MacNeil: The Commerce Department today concluded that Japanese automakers are selling minivans in the U.S. at artificially low prices. The practice, called "dumping," could result in the levy of punitive new tariffs on minivans imported from Japan. A U.S. Trade Commission has 45 days to decide whether to take such action.

MS. WOODRUFF: The President of Kazakhstan today promised the U.S. that his country will become a non-nuclear state by the end of the century. Kazakhstan is one of four former Soviet republics with long range nuclear arms on its territory. President Nur Saltan Nazarbiev made the comments during a Rose Garden ceremony with President Bush during which they signed several trade agreements. Nazarbiev's commitment to sign the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty follows a similar commitment by Ukraine two weeks ago.

MR. MacNeil: Lawrence Welk has died. A spokesman said the 89- year-old band leader died of pneumonia Sunday night at his California home. The Lawrence Welk Show ran on television for 30 years. It ended in 1982, but continues today in reruns. The orchestra leader toured the country for 25 years before making the move to television. He retired from performing three years ago. And that's our summary of the news. Now it's on to the environment and the Bush administration and the Kennedy autopsy. FOCUS - ROAD TO RIO

MS. WOODRUFF: First up tonight, we look at what's at stake when more than 100 world leaders gather in Rio De Janeiro next month. The unprecedented gathering, dubbed "The Earth Summit," is expected to produce a treaty to control global warming in the Earth's atmosphere. President Bush will be there, but there are some who wonder whether he's coming as friend or foe. He announced his decision to attend last week, a week that included a couple of other decisions that angered environmentalists. Earlier this afternoon I discussed the contentious issues of the Earth summit and how President Bush should address them with a Senator, a White House official, an economist and a scientist, but first, this backgrounder from Correspondent Tom Bearden.

MR. BEARDEN: The prime concern is over carbon dioxide, CO2, which results from burning any fossil fuel, coal, oil, natural gas, gasoline. As CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the so-called "greenhouse effect" strengthens. Carbon dioxide traps the sun's heat. The planet's temperature rises. Some scientists are afraid that global warming could lead to widespread drought in America's bread basket. They fear it could begin to melt the polar ice cap, causing sea levels to rise. Coastal areas could be inundated. Some islands could even disappear. But not everyone agrees that global warming is an impending crisis.

SPOKESMAN: South America'shere, Asia.

MR. BEARDEN: Most scientists say the theory of global warming is well established, but how quickly it will occur, what it will cause and when is still debatable. But the majority also agrees that the time to act is now, before it's too late. For more than a year, delegates to the U.N. from 143 nations tried to hammer out an agreement they hoped would be signed by world leaders at the Earth Summit in June in Rio De Janeiro. Most of the world seemed to agree that the best approach would be for the industrialized nations to agree to cap their CO2 emissions at their 1990 levels. To accomplish that, the Europeans advocated conservation through higher fuel taxes, switching fuels from coal to natural gas, and increased emphasis on public transportation. From the beginning, the Bush administration wasn't willing to accept a CO2 cap. Officials said science hadn't sufficiently demonstrated an immediate threat from global warming and said the U.S. wasn't prepared to possibly damage the recovering economy without better information. Robert Reinstein is the chief U.S. negotiator.

ROBERT REINSTEIN, U.S. Delegate: Putting aside the questions of whether it is scientifically based -- it is not -- it is a political gesture, in essence -- but people haven't costed it out and it varies very much from country to country how much it might cost and how difficult it might be. The United States generates close to 60 percent of our electricity from coal. It's our own coal. It's plentiful. It's cheap. It's secure. This is not the case in some other parts of the world.

MR. BEARDEN: Critics of the administration, like Tennessee Senator Al Gore, said the U.S. was virtually alone in opposing a CO2 cap and risks becoming an environmental pariah.

SEN. AL GORE, [D] Tennessee: It's embarrassing really because on a whole range of important questions, the line up is 139 countries on one side and 1 country, the United States, on the other side.

MR. BEARDEN: Many nations believe that a treaty without U.S. participation and particularly without President Bush's personal presence at the signing ceremony would be of little value. But the President said he wouldn't sign a treaty with a CO2 cap, even though an EPA study said the U.S. would essentially cap its emissions anyway through ongoing conservation efforts that wouldn't cost a lot of additional money. With time running out, the other countries finally agreed to a treaty without a cap in order to secure U.S. participation. In a meeting with U.S. Secretary General Butros Butrosgali, President Bush announced he would attend the summit.

PRES. BUSH: And I want to take this opportunity to say that I will be going to Rio, to the important meeting there. I think that we have a big stake. I take great pride in the fact that in many ways the U.S. has been a leader for environmental matters. I'm convinced that we can have jobs and economic growth, as well as sound environmental practices. And I will be taking the U.S. message to Rio to that end.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now we get four views on U.S. environmental policy and the Rio Earth Summit. Clayton Yeutter is counselor to the President for domestic policy. He is coordinating administration policy for the summit. Mr. Yeutter came to his post after serving as Republican National Committee Chairman. Democratic Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee is heading the Senate delegation to the Rio Earth Summit. Sen. Gore recently introduced legislation that would require the U.S. to stabilize CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. James Miller is chairman of the board of Citizens For a Sound Economy, a non-profit research group in Washington that advocates tax restraint. He was director of the Office of Management & Budget from 1985 through 1988. And Daniel Lashof is a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national non-profit environmental research and policy organization. Mr. Yeutter, let me begin with you. You heard Sen. Gore say in that interview that it's embarrassing that the administration has a position on carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gas emissions" that's different from the rest of the world. Why is that?

MR. YEUTTER: Well, I'm not at all embarrassed by that, as a matter of fact, Judy, because it's not a question of whether we have a different view. The question is whether or not our view is correct. And in my judgment, the U.S. view was correct, is correct, and that is now accepted by the rest of the world. Perhaps some countries did not agree with that conclusion with great enthusiasm, but, nevertheless, there were quite a number of folks who came up to us at the end of the negotiation, Judy, and said, thank you for saving us from ourselves, we'd have made a mistake had it not been for you.

MS. WOODRUFF: But why correct? What is it about the American -- the U.S. position, the Bush administration position that it took everybody else so long to come around to understanding?

MR. YEUTTER: Well, the point we were making, Judy, was really illustrated in your opening commentary here, and that is that although we are as committed as anybody to the cause of responding to the challenge of global climate change and should be, we were not going to make definitive commitments that might come back to haunt us, that is, the commitment would be to reach a certain level of emissions by the year 2000, essentially irrespective of cost. That commitment was definitive. It was specific. The intent on the part of many of these other nations was to get everyone, including the United States, to agree to specific targets and timetables and we thought that it was not in the interest of the United States. We'll do our part, but I did not want to commit and the President did not want to commit the government of the United States eight years from now to a specific level of emissions that might have been very costly on the American economy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you -- does the administration believe that global warming is a serious problem?

MR. YEUTTER: We do not yet know for sure. Clearly, the majority of the scientists who are looking at that issue today, Judy, believe that it is a serious problem, or at least a serious potential problem for the future. And that being the case, it seems to me that we ought to be prudent, that we ought to take some actions that will respond to that potential challenge, rather than waiting. I don't think any of us would disagree with that. The question is precisely what should we do, how far should we go, what should be the level of commitment well out into the future, and all we're simply saying is, let's take this a step at a time, let's use good common sense, and let's not lock ourselves into a result here that could really be devastating, not necessarily will be, but could be devastating to the American economy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Gore, you hear what the administration is saying through Mr. Yeutter. What's unreasonable about that? Let's wait. Let's get more information. Let's make sure we know what the problem is and what the costs are going to be before we make a commitment eight years down the road.

SEN. GORE: I sometimes still hear representatives of the tobacco industry say we don't yet have enough evidence to link smoking with lung cancer. Of course, the vast majority understand that they have an economic interest in muddling up the truth and trying to pretend there's uncertainty there when really there's not. This is the same thing. The vast majority of scientists have joined an international consensus that this problem must be faced now. What President Bush insisted on as his price for going to what is mainly a photo opportunity for him at Rio is an agreement that doesn't do anything. Mr. Yeutter wrote a letter to opponents of the treaty which says in the letter this agreement contains no commitments of any kind. Now, the fact is the world is at a real turning point. The relationship between human civilization and the ecological system of the Earth has been changed dramatically. The world needs leadership most of all from the President of the United States to put together a global response to this crisis. President Bush is not interested in being the environmental President; he's interested in being a reelected President. He said he'll do anything to be reelected. And his gutting of the treaty at Rio proves he meant just that.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you heard Mr. Yeutter's point that why make a commitment now when all the evidence is not in yet?

SEN. GORE: Well, the evidence may not be in on exactly what the regional impacts will be in a specific year. But the evidence is in on the relationship between doubling the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global climate change. The scientific community has told the politicians all over the world you're kidding yourselves if you don't start acting. You know, it's the easiest thing in the world for the present generation of leadership to say, let our children and their children bear the burden of this because we don't want to take any political risks between now and election time. I think that it is a complete abdication of leadership at a time when this country and the world needs leadership.

MS. WOODRUFF: Abdication of leadership?

MR. YEUTTER: Judy, politics didn't have a thing to do with this decision. And we ought to take it out of the political realm, because that's unfair. And it's also unfair to suggest that this treaty is going to be meaningless, or as Sen. Gore put it, that the President gutted the treaty. That's simply not the case. It is true that we do not have specific commitments in the treaty, but that does not mean that the treaty will be of no consequence. I happen to think it will be of major consequence, Judy, because the United States is going to make significant commitments in this direction, notwithstanding the fact that there are no specific commitments. And, in my judgment, a lot of other countries will do likewise.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, if you're making the commitments, why not go ahead and say you're going to make the commitments, because your own EPA has said that the United States will be in compliance, isn't that right?

SEN. GORE: We can make these changes --

MR. YEUTTER: No, that is drawing conclusions based upon assumptions that may or may not turn out to be the case. And it's just not prudent and sensible to do that, Judy. We're going to do what is appropriate for the United States as long as Pres. Bush is around. What other people do in the future will be up to them. But I do not believe that we ought to put a burden on the people of this country or the businesses of this country that just shouldn't be placed there as a result of this kindof international obligation.

MS. WOODRUFF: I want to get to the bottom of the one point Sen. Gore made. You said in this letter to a member of Congress that Mr. Yeutter said that this language is not binding. How do you square that, Mr. Yeutter, with saying that the treaty will accomplish something? If it's not binding, then how will it accomplish it?

MR. YEUTTER: Judy, there are thousands of international treaties and conventions that have language that is not binding. I have negotiated a whole host of those during my tenure as U.S. Trade Representative. Many of those agreements have turned out to be exceptionally meaningful through the years. A lot of time the jargon that's used is best efforts. Nations will use best efforts to do certain things. Now, those are not binding commitments, but they often turn out to be very meaningful commitments. And in my judgment, Sen. Gore is underestimating the good that will come out of this convention.

MS. WOODRUFF: Why isn't that enough?

SEN. GORE: Well, the real issue is how the United States can provide leadership in the world community. After the collapse of communism, we are preeminent in the world. The world looks to us for leadership. For a long time, President Bush resisted this treaty because he said, you put us at a unique disadvantage. After the administration's own studies showed that we should meet this target and timetable at a profit with voluntary measures, then the argument shifted. They said, since we can meet it without a treaty, we don't need a treaty. That's like saying, since I'm not going to rob a bank, we don't need laws against robbing banks. How are we going to convince India and China, other countries in the developing world, and elsewhere in the world to join in a worldwide commitment to deal with this problem of global climate change?

MS. WOODRUFF: What about that leadership?

MR. YEUTTER: Judy, that was not what the study showed.

MS. WOODRUFF: By the way, this is a study done by the Environmental Protection --

SEN. GORE: And the Department of Energy. They had a big fight over it. They finally resolved it in favor of the EPA.

MR. YEUTTER: But the study indicated, Judy, that we could come relatively close to a stabilization commitment by the year 2000 if the assumptions that were included in the study turned out to be the case.

SEN. GORE: At a profit with voluntary measures, right?

MR. YEUTTER: Not at -- well, I don't know how you'd determine profit in this kind of situation, but Senator, you have to assume that given the level of economic growth to even come close, and if, as we hope, we come out of this recession with a healthier level of economic growth between now and the year 2000, it would be much more difficult to make that target and much more costly to the American economy. I think we ought to be interested --

MS. WOODRUFF: Why is it more difficult?

MR. YEUTTER: Simply because the higher the level of economic growth, the greater the energy usage and the higher the level of emissions.

SEN. GORE: That's not true. That's not true. We used to have the assumption back in the '70s that one unit of GNP would equal one new unit of energy consumption. We broke that relationship. The same mistake is being made now. They assume that if we grow more, we have to put out more CO2. In fact, the Japanese and the Germans are putting much tougher constraints on CO2 than we are, because they see it as an enormous business opportunity to serve the market worldwide for the new, more efficient processes, and because they find that productivity and profits go up as they become more efficient.

MR. YEUTTER: Judy, if it turns out over the next decade that we use more energy and have a lower level of emissions of carbon dioxide, we'd be delighted. That would be a wonderful outcome. If the market provides that kind of output for the United States, we'd be delighted, but we are not going to mandate that through governmental action insofar as the President is concerned. And we don't know whether that'll be the outcome as the years unfold, because Sen. Gore cannot predict what will occur in the U.S. economy in the year 2000 any better than I can.

SEN. GORE: But the scientists are telling us what will occur if we continue to put an amount of this pollution into the atmosphere every day equal to 100 times the output of those Kuwait oil fires. They're telling us the time to act is now.

MR. YEUTTER: And that's why we'll do more than our share, Judy, but doing our share and agreeing to a specific share or a specific commitment in an international obligation which we take seriously is another matter entirely.

MS. WOODRUFF: I want to broaden this out. Jim Miller, President Bush by deciding to go ahead and go to this summit and, in essence, the administration saying, we agree with the goals, even though we're not going to sign this agreement that the rest of you would like, are they handling this issue the right way?

MR. MILLER: Well, I think by and large they have. I mean, I congratulate Clayton on having encouraged some reforms in the original treaty. I think the existing treaty does set some goals but doesn't set specific timetables, specific standards that have to be met. The notion that Sen. Gore was putting forward that you could somehow have this binding treaty that would force the U.S. to reduce energy consumption or reduce greenhouse gases from what they would have been down to a level of 1990 or 1992 without any cause is simply irrational. It will cost us something. The question is how much. It may cost 2 percent of Gross National Product. It may cost $100 billion a year, as the CBO had suggested or cited a study as saying. It's going to cost something. $100 billion is $1800 for each family unit in America.

MS. WOODRUFF: But what we're hearing is that we're going to be in compliance with those emission restrictions anyway.

MR. MILLER: I doubt that this would be the case, because I doubt that the market incentives are going to result in a stopping down of emissions from what they would be sufficient to get emissions down to the 1990 level at the year 2000.

MS. WOODRUFF: Should the President be going to Rio to participate in this summit? Is it important?

MR. MILLER: Under the present circumstances, given the treaty that they have renegotiated, it probably makes sense for him to go. I surely hope under the old treaty that he would not have gone. So I --

MS. WOODRUFF: The treaty they were attempting to get the United States to sign.

MR. MILLER: That's right. I think that's something that Clayton should be congratulated about. But can I talk just a second about this business of relationship between --

MS. WOODRUFF: Please do.

MR. MILLER: -- greenhouse gases and what's going on. I mean, these are extremely complicated models that the scientists are using and they're measuring greenhouse gases and they're saying greenhouse gases are going to result in a certain amount of global warming. And then beyond that, you get some kind of temperature change and you're going to talk about everything on the Earth. And it's very difficult to do and if you go back and look at the data that we've had on temperature from say 1880s, if you look at that through 1930s, the line sort of goes up. If you look from 1930 to 1980, the line sort of goes down. And that's the reason we had stories about ice age. And if you look at it recently, it tends to go up. So I think we need to know a lot more about this process before we jump to any policies that are going to create certain costs on American people and their standard of living.

MS. WOODRUFF: Daniel Lashof, is the scientific evidence that inconclusive at this point?

MR. LASHOF: Well, the Bush administration, itself, has now accepted the worldwide scientific consensus that this is a problem that we're going to have to deal with now. And the question is: What steps are we willing to take? Our own analysis shows that the investments in energy efficiency and renewal technology needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by the year 2005, not just stabilize or come close to stabilize, as the administration suggests, would actually profit the U.S. economy a total of $2.3 trillion over the next 40 years. So Jim has about the magnitude right but the sign wrong. We would be saving about $100 billion per year through implementing those energy efficiency measures.

MS. WOODRUFF: How can you know that at this point? Because clearly some in the administration are saying, or many in the administration are saying there's no way to know that, we're not sure of that.

MR. LASHOF: Well, if you look in detail at the specific technologies and measures that can be adopted that are in place in many places around the country and do a calculation --

MS. WOODRUFF: Just give us one example.

MR. LASHOF: Well, for example, the largest electric utilities in the country, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, are now investing hundreds of millions of dollars per year in improving the energy efficiency of their customer's home and they're making a profit by doing that, because the rules of regulating utilities that they operate under have been modified to allow that to happen. As a result, Southern California Edison has said the CO2 emissions from their system will fall 10 percent by 2000, 20 percent by 2010. That's happening in the real world. So it's easy for economists to say, well, in theory, it's impossible to get this profit, but if we look at what's happening in the real world, we know that with political will and institutional commitment, we can achieve these results at a great benefit for our economy.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about that, Jim Miller?

MR. MILLER: Could I just say as an economist anybody that would suppose to you the notion that you could impose cost increases in the neighborhood of $100 billion a year and have no adverse effect on economic growth is simply not credible in terms of economic principles. And that's what their study does. It assumes that the Gross National Product will have the same --

MS. WOODRUFF: This is the National Resources --

MR. MILLER: That's right. This assumes that half the Gross National Product is the same with these changes and without these changes.

MR. LASHOF: Well, the fact is that the investments that you're making, they are a cost. You have to invest now in more efficient equipment. But the return on that investment is very high and you make a profit coming back. So the kinds of -- to say that just a cost without looking at the benefit side is to miss half the picture. And our analysis shows that you do need to invest but that that investment has a very positive return.

SEN. GORE: Yeah, I mean, we should ask ourselves in this country, why is the Key Dan Ren, the largest Japanese business group, seeking to impose much tougher CO2 limits on their businesses than are even contemplated in the U.S. law? It could be that they're just soft-headed about international business competition and they've got it wrong, or if you don't think that's likely, maybe they know something that we don't. In fact, they say openly the biggest new market in the history of world business is the market for these new products and processes that allow economic progress without environmental destruction, that are more efficient. The report came out two weeks ago that 35 percent of U.S. exports are now to the developing world. In Mexico City, they are shutting down factories not because of the economy but because they're choking to death on the pollution, and they want to buy the new machinery that lets them reopen those factories without adding to the pollution. Japan and Europe are competing to sell them that technology. We're still sitting here with our heads in the sand. It's a perfect illustration of the line in the Darr Straight song "D'Nile ain't just a river in Egypt."

MR. YEUTTER: That's really only part of the story, Judy, because actually the Japanese are playing catch up ball here. The United States is a lot farther along in its environmental programs than the rest of the world and we are going to do well with the exports Sen. Gore's talking about because in environmental technology we are ahead of the rest of the world. So we're going to do all right.

SEN. GORE: We're importing it. We're now a net importer of it because they've gutted the environmental protection just like the President overruled the EPA last week on clean air. And because we have seen a wholesale retreat from environmental protection, we are now importing this machinery from Germany and Japan, same with solar energy. We're now a net importer of the new generation of electrical energy production.

MR. YEUTTER: Judy, that's just unfair because --

MS. WOODRUFF: Are you saying we are not a net importer?

MR. YEUTTER: -- just as I cannot confirm or deny those numbers, I'd have to verify them, but I do know that with the environmental laws and regulations we have, we are setting the example for the rest of the world. The Japanese will concede privately that they would find it very difficult to meet the stabilization standard that was articulated in this proposed agreement. I think we will do very well as an exporter of this technology over time. And if we have the kind of --

MS. WOODRUFF: Again, this is the standard that's still in there; it's just not mandated.

SEN. GORE: No, it's not even in there.

MR. YEUTTER: Well, it's -- again, I believe Sen. Gore is being much too pessimistic about the probable outcome of what was agreed to in this climate change convention. But totally aside from that, in my view, as a nation, we're going to take the kinds of actions that these gentlemen are suggesting. We simply don't feel that you need a governmental mandate to force the people of the United States to do this. The market is going to provide these incentives both here and abroad. And that's exactly the point that Sen. Gore is making in an indirect way, even though he was trashing the administration in the process, very unfairly, in my judgment.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, what about these other two decisions that the administration -- controversial environmental decisions the administration has made? Sen. Gore referred to one of them, allowing companies to increase pollution emissions without informing the public and No. 2, increasing the acreage out in the Northwest, land that can be -- that logging can take place on despite the -- in the old growth, so called "old growth" forest, despite the spotted owl? The New York Times, as you know, had an editorial today saying this isn't the environment President, this is the President who's only interested in his reelection. How do you get around that increasing perception that this President is not concerned about the environment?

MR. YEUTTER: Judy, I completely disagree with that because I believe he is the environment President, and he's balancing interests as they should be. I had personal involvement in both of those decisions. They were carefully considered decisions in which we attempt to balance the interests of environmental protection versus the jobs that were at stake in those cases. Looking at spotted owl, for example, the decision ultimately emerged there. We'll permit the survival of spotted owl at a lower level of population level than might otherwise have been the case. But it will also save a lot of jobs in the Pacific Northwest. And with respect to the other --

MS. WOODRUFF: Let me just stop you there and ask Daniel Lashof - -

MR. YEUTTER: Sure.

MS. WOODRUFF: Because your organization has looked into that issue.

MR. LASHOF: Well, Judy, I don't think this decision will save any jobs. At best, it may postpone the day which these workers have to find employment through some kind of sustainable activity. You simply cannot go around cutting down the primary forests of the United States and expect to have sustainable economic growth on that basis. The only reason it's seen as economic growth at all is because our Gross National Product statistics don't include the environmental debt that we are creating. The United States cannot have credibility as an international leader trying to get other countries to protect their forests if we're saying we're not willing to protect the last few stands of old growth forest in the Pacific Northwest.

MR. MILLER: I thought timber was a renewable resource.

MR. LASHOF: It is, but not old growth forests that have never been cut. That's the whole point. We have to move to a system where we are growing timber and harvesting it on a sustainable basis. And this decision simply delays the point at which we get that.

MR. YEUTTER: Judy, Jim, is correct. We plant trees in the United States as well as cut them down. And in fact, we're planting a lot more today than we're cutting down. So we are renewing forest resources. This whole battle is over whether or not the old growth forests will ultimately be cut. That is an issue that goes beyond economics and beyond the spotted owl question.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Gore, and then I want to come back to you.

SEN. GORE: The President's position is that we ought to go on forcing the American taxpayers to subsidize the clear cutting of our national forest. We're selling 500-year-old trees for the price of a cheeseburger. The taxpayers are giving money to subsidize this activity. It is absolute economic insanity, same as the clean air decision where they say, let's put the cost of more and more pollution on the families that live downwind. We don't even have to notify them or give them the chance to take part in the decision. So after that decision for them to continue to say he's the environmental President, I can't imagine Republicans or Democrats watching this sequence of events not chuckling to themselves when they hear that phrase, "the environmental President."

MR. YEUTTER: Judy,the Senator ought to read those regulations before he indicts them because they'll be laid out in a very rational way and once you have a chance to understand the full story you'll recognize that this does not permit a production unit to just willy nilly expand emissions without any kind of regulatory control. So it's a much more complicated question and much more individualized than the Senator suggests. So let's get the facts before we --

MR. LASHOF: The decision says, as I understand it, says that a plant as long as it doesn't build new facilities can change the way it operates, use dirtier feed stocks, and increase its pollution without any specific limit, without notifying the public. It turns a program of permitting which is designed to protect the public into a program that is designed to protect the polluter.

MR. MILLER: That's not true. They have to report to the state. The state has some 28 days --

MR. LASHOF: Seven days.

MR. MILLER: The EPA has a certain amount of time to report back. Could I take this opportunity to agree with Sen. Gore? I think you're right. I think certain stands of trees, federal property, have been underpriced. And when I was at OMB, I tried to get those prices up. I hope that you would support legislation to bring those prices --

SEN. GORE: The President supports the continued subsidy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, we're going to have to leave it there. Mr. Miller, Mr. Yeutter, Sen. Gore, Mr. Lashof, thank you all for being with us. Thank you. NEWSMAKER - THAT FATEFUL DAY

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight, a new report on the autopsy of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Oliver Stone's film "JFK" has intensified discussion of who killed President Kennedy and whether his assassination was the result of a conspiracy. [SEGMENT FROM "JFK"]

MR. MacNeil: At the heart of the debate is the lone gunman theory which says that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he shot the President. One of the central questions raised by critics of that is the direction of the bullets that struck the President. The official government report by the Warren Commission concluded that all shots that hit Kennedy and Gov. Connolly, who was riding in the President's car, were fired from the school book depository behind the limousine. But critics have long claimed that the home movie made at the time of the assassination, the so-called "Sbruder Film," shows Kennedy was struck from the front. That and other evidence have been used to support the theory of a second gunman. Today the Journal of the American Medical Association jumped into the fray by publishing the first interviews with the two doctors who conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy. It is their first public comment on the assassination. They spoke to writer Dennis Brio and Dr. George Lundberg, editor of the Journal and a pathologist, himself. And Dr. Lundberg is with us now. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Lundberg.

DR. LUNDBERG: My pleasure, thank you.

MR. MacNeil: These claims about the JFK autopsy evidence have been out there for years. If they could have cleared it up so easily, as your interview suggests, why have these two doctors waited 29 years to do it?

DR. LUNDBERG: Well, I don't really know why they waited that long.

MR. MacNeil: Did you ask them?

DR. LUNDBERG: Oh, yes, we asked them. They said, for example, that all the information as in the Warren Report and if it was there in black and white, and has been verified by a variety of committees and other groups over the years, at least four previous times, if the public didn't believe that, why would they believe them if they came out. They also, I think, were a little afraid of what the media might do to them. They're private people who went along with their regular lives, very successful pathologists in their own way, and weren't really that willing to confront repeatedly, but finally they'd had it. I mean, they felt like they'd just been beaten on too long by too many people so they were ready to talk.

MR. MacNeil: You said that the Oliver Stone movie insulted the doctors who did the autopsy. How did it insult them?

DR. LUNDBERG: It insulted their professionalism. Well, it was a fabrication. It implied that they were part of a conspiracy. It showed them at their potential worst when they were really not at their worst at all. These are respected physician pathologists who happened to be in the United States Navy at that time but I feel that it insulted not just them but pathologists in general, forensic pathology specifically; the United States Navy, it insulted military medicine with the idea that a professional doctor in the military would be subject to some superior officer dictating that he or she not do their professional duty. It was an insult in many ways.

MR. MacNeil: Now these two doctors, particularly Dr. Humes, who was in charge of the autopsy, he says he told you in the interview that there was no interference with him during the autopsy, there was no mysterious senior official there guiding it or directing you to produce certain results or distort the findings. Just enlarge about that, because that is the point the Oliver Stone movie makes with particular drama.

DR. LUNDBERG: That is true. Dr. Humes states that he was in charge of the autopsy, that no one interfered, no one directed. He did it. Dr. Boswell was there with him. He confirms this exactly. I have known, Dr. Humes, since 1957 this is a man that nobody's in charge of. He's a very strong person, highly competent, highly -- very much in charge of what's going on.

MR. MacNeil: There was a third doctor, Dr. Fink, who took part in the autopsy.

DR. LUNDBERG: That is true.

MR. MacNeil: And he refused to be interviewed. What reason did he give for refusing to be interviewed?

DR. LUNDBERG: He didn't give us a reason. He lives in Switzerland at this time. We invited him to come for the interview more than once. He simply declined. He did not indicate why.

MR. MacNeil: How do you answer the charge that was made at your news conference today, the author of one of the conspiracy theory books came and charged that the American Medical Association is now part of "the cover-up," as he put it?

DR. LUNDBERG: I assume that that would be the charge brought against us. I don't see any other one that anyone could make that would have any credibility at all. In the first place, the American Medical Association has not taken a position on this. This is a Journal effort. This is not an AMA effort. Second, the Journal of the American Medical Association is 109 years old. It's as respected a medical publication as there is in the world and I believe that the people, the doctors, the media, the people in general believe what we publish and I believe what we publish stands the test of time. I also have been there ten and a half years. I'm a pathologist. I have done forensic pathology as part of my pathology. I stand by this report professionally myself as well. I think we're going to blow them away.

MR. MacNeil: You have a personal interest in blowing them away? I mean, do you -- did you personally do this because you didn't believe there was a conspiracy and you wanted to - - and you wanted to demonstrate that?

DR. LUNDBERG: No. I personally did it.

MR. MacNeil: You wanted to blow away the Oliver Stone movie?

DR. LUNDBERG: No. I personally did it because I wanted the medical literature to be the place for the truth. I wanted doctors around the world, the medical libraries, the universities have access to the truth on our pages. That's why I pursued Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell and Dr. O'Rose for seven years in order to get this story in our pages. When we went into the interviews, I didn't know what was going to be said. So when it came out this way, this is what we reported. Had it come out another way, that's what we would have reported.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. Let's go to some of the evidence, itself. Why were the two doctors you interviewed so convinced that the bullets struck the President only from behind?

DR. LUNDBERG: Because of clear cut simple forensic evidence. The bullet that struck -- the first bullet that struck the President was in the back of the neck or the upper back near where it meets the neck and it had an abrasion collar, an area of bruising, which was present grossly, was present on photographs, and is present microscopically. That defines a wound of entrance. The bullet struck no bone and came out in the front of the throat, going through the wind pipe on the way with a wound of exit at that point. The second bullet struck the back of the skull, producing a beveling effect in the bone. Beveling means that if a high velocity bullet is going to go into the skull, it will enter the skull at that point with a small hole. And when it comes out that side of the same skull, it makes a larger hole. Then when it goes on through the brain, comes out on the other side, it makes a small hole, where it hits the inside of the skull and makes a larger hole in the outside. And that's exactly what was found in the head. It's shown by description, shown by photographs and by X-rays. That is a cinaquanone. It's absolutely diagnostic. There is no possible explanation: two bullets, only two bullets, both from the fear and from an angle from upwards towards downwards has to be one rifle, two bullets struck the President, no bullets from anywhere else, no other angles.

MR. MacNeil: What grounds do those two pathologists have for saying it had to be the same rifle?

DR. LUNDBERG: The Sbruder Film demonstrates that in a very short period of time the two bullets were fired and they were from the same angle and --

MR. MacNeil: But that isn't from the autopsy --

DR. LUNDBERG: That is correct. Well, that's true, but in an autopsy, you look at the other things as well. You talk to the doctors at Parkland about the tracheostomy they did. Dr. Humes and Boswell said they've seen the Sbruder Film thirty or forty times. That's additional evidence. Ballistic evidence showed that the two bullets that were found --

MR. MacNeil: Of course, they saw the Sbruder Film long after they had performed the autopsy.

DR. LUNDBERG: Of course, of course, long after, but they continued to put this together and it supported the evidence that they had at the autopsy.

MR. MacNeil: How do they deal with the question which has often been raised and continues to be raised that some people thought there might have been an entry wound in the throat, not an exit wound, because the actual wound was destroyed when the doctors in Parkland Hospital in Dallas performed the tracheostomy to open an airway for the President?

DR. LUNDBERG: If the wound in the front of the throat was an entrance wound, where was the exit? There is no exit and there was no bullet withinside. Also there was no evidence that it was an entry wound. There was no abrasion collar as defined by the blue ribbon committee that looked at the results that were still there in the photographs of the tracheostomy in 1968.

MR. MacNeil: And yet, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who was present in Parkland Hospital in the emergency room during the efforts to resuscitate the President says -- and he's written a book about it -- that it was an entry wound, the bullets came from the front. Now he saw the body before the autopsy.

DR. LUNDBERG: Unfortunately, nobody in the media has asked him why he thinks that because the evidence, the reasons that would allow a person to draw that conclusion were not stated by Dr. Crenshaw in the book. They were not stated in any interviews I saw spoken of. I don't think he's been asked the right questions. Surgeons typically are really good at taking care of patients who have been shot. They're really bad at forensic evidence. They typically don't recognize it. They haven't been taught it. They destroy it. They don't take pictures of it. They don't write it in the charts. By and large, they don't. The pathologists have hours to examine that. The surgeons have minutes. They have to take care of a sick patient who has been injured. I think that's the basic explanation.

MR. MacNeil: These two pathologists, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, these two pathologists who you interviewed, they are capable of saying on the evidence that the only two bullets that hit the President came from behind, but they're not capable of saying that those were the only bullets fired at the President.

DR. LUNDBERG: No. There may have been many other gunshots in Texas that day. But none of them hit the President.

MR. MacNeil: In other words, the evidence they've given you is not conclusive proof that there wasn't somebody firing from another direction who missed.

DR. LUNDBERG: There is only conclusive proof that the President was hit by only two bullets from one direction.

MR. MacNeil: But everybody there, including me, and I was there, heard three shots that day.

DR. LUNDBERG: Well, and there were, in fact, three cartridges found upstairs and I imagine there was a third shot that missed but probably from the same direction.

MR. MacNeil: But just on a logical point of view in terms of evidence, they can't and you can't as a result of these interviews definitively say that there was only one person shooting that day at the President, can you?

DR. LUNDBERG: No, I believe we can say there was one rifleman, one rifle, one direction, two shots from the back that hit the President. Whoever else may have been shooting I have no idea.

MR. MacNeil: How does Dr. Humes explain -- because much has been made of this as evidence that there was something fishy going on at the autopsy -- that he destroyed his own autopsy notes?

DR. LUNDBERG: It's easily explained. Dr. Humes did not wish anyone in the future to profit off of the President's blood on bloody autopsy notes. As a pathologist, I know that when one take notes in the autopsy room, there's blood on your gloves and the paper often gets bloody. Dr. Humes was very concerned about someone using the President's blood for personal aggrandizement or profit. So he took his notes, copied them completely, perfectly, and then destroyed the original notes while retaining all of the original information, simply getting rid of the blood.

MR. MacNeil: Does that give you as a pathologist, yourself, and thinking of this as a great historical moment, does that leave any questions in your mind, that somebody would destroy what was clearly a piece of historic evidence?

DR. LUNDBERG: Not the least bit. I think when we see what the conspiracy theorists have done for their own personal aggrandizement, for public recognition, for paranoia perhaps or for profit with what they've been able to come up with, I can imagine someone trying to make a great deal out of the President's blood and portions of the blood. I can understand Jim very easily doing this.

MR. MacNeil: But there weren't -- there weren't conspiracy theories around that evening, at least in that autopsy room, were there? There were --

DR. LUNDBERG: There were none there, but I think he was a seer about what might come in the future.

MR. MacNeil: What do they say about the moment that Oliver Stone makes much of, dramatizing in the movie, you actually have a hand coming into the frame and depositing a pristine bullet on the gurney, what do they doctors say about that?

DR. LUNDBERG: We did not ask them about that particular part. Our discussion with them about the "JFK" Film itself was rather limited. We were trying to get at the facts of what happened.

MR. MacNeil: Have they seen the movie themselves?

DR. LUNDBERG: Dr. Humes had seen the movie prior to our interview; Dr. Boswell had not. I don't know whether he has now. Dr. Humes tells Dr. Boswell in our article that Jay, if you go see this movie, you'd better take a tranquilizer or something in advance because it's going to drive you bananas.

MR. MacNeil: What did he say himself about it -- to you about the depiction of the autopsy scene in the movie?

DR. LUNDBERG: Hoax, lies, madness.

MR. MacNeil: Why don't these doctors come out and say all this now in public? I mean --

DR. LUNDBERG: I hope they do.

MR. MacNeil: You would like them to.

DR. LUNDBERG: We invite it. We urged them to. I have gone after this story for seven years. When we got it, we urged them to come on television. I called them several times, called them the day before yesterday, said, would you change your mind, come with us to the press conference, or do a telephone hook-up or something, they said, no, this story is our story; it's in the medical literature; that's where we wanted it; we're not interested in the rest of it; we're not going to have books; we're not interested in personal fame or aggrandizement; we don't want to make money off this thing. So this is our definitive statement. We invite the media to try to have better luck than anybody else has so far.

MR. MacNeil: There are so many people disposed to believe conspiracy theories --

DR. LUNDBERG: Yes.

MR. MacNeil: -- do you think they're going to believe these two men speaking through you?

DR. LUNDBERG: Well, we'll have to wait and see. I think the mainstream of America probably now will begin to come back away from the conspiracy theory towards the theory of a single gunman, although whether Oswald, what he was doing in New Orleans and what all those other things were, I have no way to comment on, but the fringes I don't think we can deal with. But then you always have fringes. But mainstream America I think will come away from conspiracy and begin to believe the truth.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Lundberg, thank you for joining us.

DR. LUNDBERG: Thank you. RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Again, the other main stories of this Tuesday, empty government protest continued for a third day in Thailand. At least 21 people have been killed and hundreds wounded. In this country, housing starts plunged 17 percent in April. It was the largest drop in eight years. The Commerce Department ruled that Japan was selling minivans in the U.S. at artificially low prices. The ruling could result in retaliatory import tariffs on the Japanese vehicles. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Judy. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with an interview with Canada's prime minister, Brian Mulroney. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.