The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After the top stories tonight, we examine where the Senate vote to lift the Bosnia arms embargo leaves President Clinton's foreign policy. Next, excerpts from today's Waco hearings, followed by the Whitewater testimony. Jeffrey Kaye talks to a scientist who helped discover the hormone that may control fat, and we close with the ceremonies commemorating the dead of the Korean War. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: There was strong reaction today to yesterday's Senate vote to lift the Bosnia arms embargo. Britain's foreign secretary called it bizarre. The Russian foreign minister said it was totally incomprehensible, and the French prime minister said the United States would have to assume the consequences if the United Nations is forced to leave Bosnia. Leaders from Bosnia and Turkey supported the vote. Several countries have threatened to pull their peacekeepers from Bosnia if the embargo is lifted. President Clinton said the vote was not a repudiation of his foreign policy, but showed a frustration with the UN's failure to protect the Muslim enclaves. He spoke today at the White House.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The United Nations must never again be caught in a position where it makes a commitment, as it did in Srebrenica, and then does not attempt to keep that commitment. And I think the vote in the Senate should be taken as a message, simply a message to do that, that the United States Senate, both the 69 people who voted for the resolution and the 29 people who voted against it all believe that the United Nations must move aggressively to protect the people of Bosnia from what they have endured.

REPORTER: Mr. President, because of all of the allied threats in the past, why should the Bosnian Serbs be scared of this allied threat of massive air strikes?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, they ought to be able to tell from what's going on here in the United States that, that if the UN fails the next time, that there will be a different force.

MR. LEHRER: The House of Representatives has yet to vote on lifting the embargo. President Clinton has threatened to veto if it does pass. The United States has asked the United Nations to investigate reports that Bosnian Serbs used poison nerve gas in their attack against Zepa. The former safe zone was conquered earlier this week. The UN's human rights investigator for the Balkans resigned today. The former Polish prime minister said he's doing so because of the world's hypocrisy over Bosnia. We'll have more on Bosnia later in the program. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Three major labor groups today announced they will merge to form the nation's largest industrial union. The United Auto Workers, the United Steel Workers of America, and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace workers estimate their new union will have a combined membership of about 2 million people. Machinist President George Kourpias said the merger was arranged to give members a stronger bargaining position. He spoke at a Washington news conference this morning.

GEORGE KOURPIAS, President, Association of Machinists: This is not driven by an economic need to do this. These are all three powerful, strong, stand-alone unions, in good shape with their membership, fighting unions, bargaining unions, organizing unions. This merger is being put together to build a new union because we have a commonality of interest in all these areas, and we believe that we're going to be much stronger as a result of this.

MR. MAC NEIL: Union officials said many details remain to be worked out. They expect the merger to be completed by the year 2000. In economic news, factory orders for big ticket durable goods fell by .1 of a percent in June. It is the fourth decline in five months.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton signed the rescissions bill today. It cuts more than $16 billion from the current federal budget and provides disaster assistance for the Oklahoma City bombing and the California floods. The President vetoed an earlier version last month. Today he said the new one was not exactly what he wanted but it was an improvement.

MR. MAC NEIL: Testimony at the Waco hearings today centered on the tear gas used by the government of the Branch Davidian compound. The FBI agent who managed the operation said he and Attorney General Janet Reno were convinced the type of gas used was safe enough to drive the children out but not hurt them. Reno defended her decision to use the gas during her weekly news conference at the Justice Department.

JANET RENO, Attorney General: The FBI came to me, and we reviewed the matter and reviewed the matter. I called the President and told him what I intended to do. He backed me up, and the President of the United States never pressured me to do anything in this matter. With respect to the FBI, and it's been particularly interesting because everybody has come up with every idea that they could, I still see no indication whatsoever that the FBI misled me, or in any way pressured me.

MR. MAC NEIL: The attorney general is scheduled to testify at the Waco hearings on Monday. At the Whitewater hearings, a lawyer testified about finding Vincent Foster's suicide note after the deputy White House counsel killed himself in 1993. He said White House aides thought the note was not important and it was not examined at the time. We'll have excerpts from the Whitewater and Waco hearings later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: China's news agency said today Harry Wu has confessed to falsifying information about China's penal system. Wu is a Chinese-American human rights activist who was imprisoned in China last month and charged with spying. The news agency also released a videotape of Wu. They claim he admitted to intentionally making errors in two BBC documentaries on forced prison labor and organ transplants from executed inmates in China. A State Department spokesman commented on the report.

NICHOLAS BURNS, State Department Spokesman: We don't know who produced this tape. It has not been claimed--the Chinese government has not yet claimed ownership. We want to be very careful not to jump to any conclusions until we are able to talk specifically and directly to the Chinese government about what they think is happening. I would just also say that we have an obvious interest in seeing Harry Wu. We have not seen him in a number of weeks. We believe that it makes sense for us to have access to him to assure ourselves that he's okay, that he's well, and to continue to make the case directly to the Chinese government that he ought to be released.

MR. LEHRER: Wu is 58-years-old. He spent 19 years in prison labor camps in China before emigrating to the United States in 1985.

MR. MAC NEIL: President Clinton and South Korean President Kim Young Sam dedicated a memorial in Washington today honoring Americans who served in the Korean War. The ceremony took place on the 42nd anniversary of the signing of the Korean War armistice agreement. President Clinton said all free people everywhere should recognize the 1 1/2 million veterans of the Korean conflict. He said they put the free world on the road to victory in the Cold War. We'll have more on today's ceremony later in the program. Also ahead on the NewsHour, Congress versus the President on foreign policy, Waco and Whitewater hearings, and the fat hormone. FOCUS - POWER STRUGGLE

MR. LEHRER: The President, Congress, and foreign policy, that's where we start tonight because of what happened yesterday in the United States Senate. It voted 69 to 29 to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia. Here's a sample from yesterday's debate on whether Congress should involve itself this way in U.S. foreign policy.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: We roll over the President this afternoon and then what? Go out there, Mr. President, we're united, Democrats and Republicans, we want you as the commander in chief and as the articulator of foreign policy to go do your thing. We're just going to roll over you when we decide we don't like what you're doing. What kind of standing is this country going to have with all of the world? We have one president at a time. We have one commander chief at a time. We have a State Department that we delegate responsibility to, to create foreign policy.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Majority Leader: This is not about rolling over the President. This is about the Senate of the United States and about Republicans and Democrats who share a common view, and some on each side, I might add. I believe we don't have many opportunities like this to sort of turn away from historic failure and chart a new path for America. It doesn't happen too often in the United States Senate.

MR. LEHRER: We get the analytical perspectives of two former staff members of the National Security Council now. Jeremy Rosner served with President Clinton. He's the author of a book, The New Tug of War, about Congress and foreign policy, and he's with the Carnegie Endowment. Richard Haass served with President Bush and at the Reagan State Department and on Capitol Hill. He's now with the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Rosner, is this about rolling over the President?

JEREMY ROSNER, Carnegie Endowment: I don't think it is about rolling over the President. I think the President was essentially right today, that this was a vote of frustration with a policy and a UN operation that has not produced good results on the ground. I do think it's, though, part of a larger trend of Congress being more assertive in national security affairs.

MR. LEHRER: So it's an important vote?

MR. ROSNER: It is an important vote. There have only been two times in the last twenty-five years when Congress has overridden a veto of the President on national security affairs. Now, we're a long way from that happening on this issue.

MR. LEHRER: We have to explain that. This vote had enough votes, theoretically, to override a veto, but it has to go to the House first. If the House passes it, then it goes to the President. He vetoes it, and then there would have to be a 2/3 vote in order to override. So we're not quite there yet.

MR. ROSNER: We're a long way from being there, I think, and things might change a lot. The votes in the House and the Senate have responded a great deal to the events on the ground, and I think a large part of the vote in the Senate was because the events on the ground in the safe havens had turned so bad in the last week.

MR. LEHRER: How do you see it, Richard Haass, is this a rollover of the President, or is this part of the new trend, Congress trying to run foreign policy more than it has in the past?

RICHARD HAASS, Council on Foreign Relations: I think it's a pretty strong repudiation of this President. I think, like nature, Congress implores a vacuum. There's a clear vacuum in presidential leadership not simply in Bosnia but in foreign policy more generally, and I think what we see as a Congress, and not simply Republicans--I think it's a mistake to see this in partisan terms- -but we really see a pretty strong bipartisan coalition effectively taking the initiative on a policy that's seen as simply failed.

MR. LEHRER: That's the way it ought to be seen, as taking an initiative on this policy, and this policy alone, and not see it as Congress rolling over a President and doing something it ought to be not doing?

MR. HAASS: I think it's dangerous to read too much of a trend into this. Under the Constitution, most of the initiative in foreign policy and national security resides with the executive branch. It'd be very hard for Congress to make all sorts of commitments either in Bosnia or any other place. What Congress can basically do, though, is really in some way block presidential initiatives or in extreme circumstances like this begin an initiative. Beginning it is very different from seeing it through. We not only have all the questions about what happens inside the beltway with vetoes and overrides and all that, but we really have all sorts of questions of what comes next in our policy towards Bosnia. And at some point, initiative will either pass back to the President or will have to be shared between the two branches.

MR. LEHRER: But let's take the scenario that, that--let's say it- -this does become policy, passes all of the, all of the many tests that it has to go. Where does that leave the President in terms of his relations with his fellow leaders around the world, particularly in Europe, on Bosnia?

MR. ROSNER: Well, I think leaders all over the world are, are as worried about the U.S. Congress these days as the President and people in his administration. I think it would make things a great more difficult. I don't think, though, as Richard said, it's a repudiation of the entire foreign policy. Let's think back to the last time there was a veto override. It was 1986, with the South African policy of President Reagan. Now that clearly wasn't a repudiation of his entire foreign policy but--

MR. LEHRER: Just an issue, one issue.

MR. ROSNER: One issue. I think it's the same on this, and I think clearly it would complicate things with the allies, and clearly that's why the President's standing up for his policy and standing up for our allies overseas.

MR. HAASS: What you asked, though, about our allies,this will have a real negative impact, in part, because of Bosnia. This will reinforce the differences that already exist between the United States, Britain, France, and so forth, but also, it really adds another great degree of uncertainty. It's hard enough dealing with the United States at times when we're together. But the fact that you now have a divided administration, you have divisions between administration and Congress, not just politically but institutionally, it really raises all sorts of questions about the ability of the United States to lead, because a key part of leadership is predictability. And right now, we are anything but predictable.

MR. LEHRER: So, how does the President play this now, Mr. Rosner? What does he do? Does he try to make a deal with Congress, or does he try to--does he stand down, stand by his policy, what's the best way, best route for him to travel?

MR. ROSNER: Well, on this, in terms of his relations with Congress, as I've said, we've still got a long way to go. The secretary of state met today with the Republican leaders in the House. As you said, the House has not yet acted on this. I think the margin was small enough in the Senate that there's a pretty fair chance things might change when it comes to the Senate having to vote on overriding the President. Now, I think the President has said he would veto this bill, and I think there's a pretty fair chance he'd be sustained on that in the Senate, if not in the House.

MR. LEHRER: Richard Haass, what about the issue that you can't go halfway on this? Congress has now done this, and if it does, in fact, go the final route, then Congress is then suddenly responsible for the Bosnia policy, and the President can say, wait a minute, these guys didn't go along with me, it's not my problem.

MR. HAASS: Well, it'll certainly be the play of the White House. They will, in a sense, try to shift responsibility particularly [if], as seems likely, the situation goes from where it is now to something even worse. But I think the administration will find it somewhat hard to convince the American people of that. It's not as though you have this masterpiece put together by Michael Angelo, that somehow the Congress has gotten in the way of. Clearly, the current situation has been a failure by any measure, by any standard, and it's very hard to, in a sense, beat something with nothing. Unless the administration comes up with some new policies toward Bosnia with the NATO allies, and this I think involves a serious use of force, I think initiative will continue to go to the Congress.

MR. ROSNER: I think one of the things, though, here is that I think there are an awful lot of people in the Congress who have not thought through what the consequences of the action would be if there was actually a unilateral lifting of the, of the embargo. And I think it's an uncomfortable position for Congress. You know, back in '86, when Congress overrode President Reagan's veto on South African sanctions, Bob Dole went to the floor of the Senate and said, we shouldn't do this because the moral authority of the U.S. should only be expressed to the President, and if we do this, then it will be our responsibility, and how can Congress run a policy? Now, those same words come back to haunt the Congress now and I think come back to haunt the majority leader.

MR. LEHRER: So then what happens?

MR. ROSNER: Well, I think some of the--if things on the ground did turn sour after this--if we actually got to the point of unilaterally lifting the embargo--I think Congress would be in for a share of the consequences.

MR. LEHRER: The President's press secretary, Michael McCurry, said that if this does go the final way, that more people are going to die as a result of this congressional action than would have otherwise. Is that, is that the case that we're going to be arguing about if this happens?

MR. ROSNER: I don't think it's so much whether more people die. The majority leader frankly admitted that this will intensify the fighting, and I think he deserves credit for laying that out. I think the point is how this will be perceived internationally. If the UN has to pull out, if the war intensifies, we will be seen as on the hook morally for the consequences of that. And some of the statements of the European leaders today bolster that. And I think it'll be very difficult at that point for the U.S. not to bear some of the responsibility and take additional actions to try to cope with the consequences.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about that? The United States--if this goes the whole route--is going to be more involved in Bosnia as a result of this, but this is a unilateral action, and the allies did not want it to happen. They're saying they're going to withdraw their troops if it happens, bump, we're there, right?

MR. HAASS: Definitely. We are in the middle of this, but let's not kid ourselves, we are in the middle of it now both by what we've said and done and by what we failed to say and failed to do. This is something where American interests are at stake.

MR. LEHRER: And have been from the very beginning?

MR. HAASS: And have been from the very beginning, and in some ways we've reinforced the interests because this has become a major issue. So whatever now we do or don't do, we have to accept the fact that this has probably become the defining event of the post Cold War world.

MR. LEHRER: Defining event of the post Cold War World.

MR. HAASS: I would think more than anything else right now, what is at stake in Bosnia has a lot to do with--

MR. LEHRER: Not the vote, but just what's happening in Bosnia?

MR. HAASS: Exactly, in Bosnia, about the United States, its capacity and willingness to lead, about the NATO alliance, about the United Nations, about the stability of Europe. There's a tremendous amount at stake here, which in some ways has gone way beyond the problems of the former Yugoslavia. The United States has to think seriously about making major undertakings, and I think Congress, while perhaps not having thought it through, I think Jeremy's right, people haven't thought through where this is taking them, but I think one way or another, either with the administration's policy or with Congress or something in-between, the United States will find itself more involved in the situation.

MR. LEHRER: Meaning with U.S. troops on the ground?

MR. HAASS: Oh, I think at some point, U.S. troops are getting indefinitely. I think the question is: What's the context? Is it U.S. troops getting in to facilitate the withdrawal?

MR. LEHRER: The 25,000 that have been promised.

MR. HAASS: That's one scenario.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. HAASS: Exactly. To facilitate--

MR. LEHRER: Then somebody starts shooting at those 25,000, and then--

MR. HAASS: There's all sorts of questions about where that leads, or if we don't want to do that, U.S. troops are going to be involved in an air campaign, or U.S. troops are going to be involved, possibly, in arms supply, or U.S. troops are going to be involved in making some safe areas safe.

MR. LEHRER: What about that argument Richard Haass makes, Mr. Rosner, thatlike it or not, whether the President likes it or not, or anybody likes it or not, the United States is already involved in Bosnia, so as long as we're involved, why not go and do more?

MR. ROSNER: Well, we're certainly involved. The whole reason we're not involved with say 150,000 Americans on the ground is because our interests are not as, as prominently involved as lots of areas around, around the world. So I disagree with Richard that this is the defining event. There are things that are so much more important to our interests right now than Bosnia. Frankly, on those, I think the President has done a pretty good job. Whether you're talking about supporting the process of reform in the former Communist states or whether you're supporting the Mideast peace process, or getting trade agreements, those are all more important to our interest. But I think in terms of the visual impact, in terms of how searing this is, as a humanitarian crisis, right on--within Europe, which is clearly the most important area of our interest, it is awfully important, we are involved morally. We're involved financially, and we'll be involved, as Richard said, with troops one way or another.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask both of you the toughest question of all, but you're both experts, so I don't hesitate to ask you this, beginning with you, Mr. Haass. Let's say the arms embargo is lifted. What happens on the ground in Bosnia, what scenario? How does this thing play itself out?l

MR. HAASS: I think the most likely scenario is that begin to see the end of the UN presence of a neutral peacekeeping presence. Ultimately, that would come out. Ultimately, arms will start to go in. Ultimately, U.S. forces would have to go in to help bring out the UN forces, and I think we essentially see this war move from another--to another phase.

MR. LEHRER: The Bosnians fight it out?

MR. HAASS: Where the Bosnians begin to fight, but also, they will need help. One of the things about lifting the embargo is I would say it is necessary but not enough. We will have to think of ways of tiding them over an initial, an initial period where they are actually likely to become more vulnerable, rather than less. We'd have to do that either with air power or with U.S. and European forces on the ground. So we're entering, ultimately, a more serious phase because of this.

MR. LEHRER: What scenario do you see?

MR. ROSNER: Well, I think it's pretty clear the UN would pull out. I think it's pretty clear the Serbs would attack more forcefully to try to make the maximum use of that period in their advantage before the Bosnians get more arms. I think during that period it's just a question of how much gains the Serbs would make, and we would, during that period, the world as a whole, would need to take affirmative actions to supply the Bosnians with heavy arms, which is what they lack right now. But, you know, the thing about what the Senate voted on yesterday is there's nothing in that bill to address any of those steps in the plan.

MR. LEHRER: Including providing arms ourselves?

MR. ROSNER: Providing arms, what policy we'd take, and I think part of the reason the Senate didn't include that is because there are some people who voted for that resolution who wouldn't support arming Bosnians.

MR. HAASS: In some ways, this again is more of a symbol, if you will. It's more of an expression of frustration, a vote of no confidence, rather than a positive substitute for the policy. This has a long way to go before it actually gets fleshed out as an alternative.

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen, thank you both very much.

MR. MAC NEIL: Meanwhile, the suffering in Bosnia continues. Nik Gowing of Independent Television News has this report on the flow of refugees from Zepa, which was captured by the Bosnian Serbs on Tuesday.

NIK GOWING, ITN: Before they left Zepa last night, there was one final humiliation for one group of refugees, a gloating farewell from the Serb commander, Gen. Mladic. "Good evening," he said. "How are you. I am Gen. Mladic. You have probably heard various stories about me," he went on, before trying to reassure the nervous victims of his offensive that they would be safe. This week, the United Nations indicted Gen. Mladic as a war criminal. But UN commanders on the ground have had to negotiate with him to win safe passage for these refugees out of Zepa. And later, as his Bosnian Serb forces consolidated control of the safe area, Mladic rejected the charges of being a war criminal, claiming it was Goebbels-like propaganda. After a twenty-three-hour journey, the first bus convoy carrying refugees from Zepa arrived in Zenitsa at 2 this morning during the city's night curfew. More misery from this war, more lives shattered by ethnic cleansing. Women, children, and a much higher percentage of men than we saw after Srebrenica fell, weary, disorientated, with no idea of where next they will have to build a new life away from their homes now controlled by Bosnian Serbs in Zepa. This tented camp for 400 is for transit only, a first port of call to rest, freshen up in relatively sanitary conditions and register with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Once again, the stories suggest great fear but not the same scale of indiscriminate rape and murder as in Srebrenica.

WOMAN: [speaking through interpreter] We don't feel safe at all. Sons, men, fathers, all of them are left over there. What kind of salvation is this? We don't feel safe without them.

NIK GOWING: But it was the government official accompanying this camera who insisted on doing the interviews. He allowed no others. In Tuzla, two weeks ago, the Bosnian government wanted the refugee exodus to embarrass the United Nations, but it also embarrassed the Sarajevo leadership. Some refugees openly said that the Bosnian government had betrayed them by letting Srebrenica fall. That is not what Sarajevo wanted to hear. So this time for Zepa, the Bosnian government has thrown a security cordon around the refugees, armed soldiers preventing even refugees from previous crises talking across the barbed wire. Having been told about the arrival of this second convoy at a cinema transit point, the army and police ordered us not to film, even though we had an official permission from the city authorities and the local refugee council. By this afternoon, the first group of refugees were being loaded onto UN trucks and leaving the sweltering heat of the camp. Their destination was a series of compounds like schools and barracks which are already home to previous refugees with access for us again forbidden under orders from Sarajevo. In Geneva, meanwhile, another sign of the international despair on Bosnia; Tadeus Mazayevski has resigned after three years as the UN's human rights investigator in the Balkans. The former Polish prime minister said he was stepping down because the United Nations had been unable to prevent the fall of Srebrenica and Zepa. Mazayevski said publicly what many senior figures now say in private. "I believe we have a certain hypocrisy towards Bosnia," he said, "when we claim to defend it but, in fact, we are abandoning it." The impotence of the United Nations over Zepa and Srebrenica reflects that hypocrisy. No one will praise the United Nations now, but the safety of these refugees, including the men, is the result of high-level UN negotiations with the Bosnian Serbs to guarantee safe passage.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead on the NewsHour, Waco and Whitewater hearings, the hormone-controlling fat, and the Korean War Memorial. FOCUS - UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, the two big hearings on Capitol Hill. First, Waco. Today the main focus was the decision by federal agents to use tear gas to end the 51-day stand-off at the Branch Davidian compound. Betty Ann Bowser reports.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: After an evening of conflicting testimony about the dangers of CS gas on children, the committee today heard from the man who briefed Attorney General Janet Reno about tear gas, Dr. Harry Salem, an army civilian inhalation toxicologist.

DR. HARRY SALEM, Army Toxicologist: The advice I gave was that if chemical had to be used, the riot control agent CS would be the agent of choice. It is considered the safest and most potent riot control agent that we are aware of based on the scientific literature.

MS. BOWSER: But several Republicans on the committee weren't satisfied with that explanation.

REP. BOB BARR, [R] Georgia: We do have at least one autopsy photo here. And we talked about this last night. It's in the record. A medical examiner photo of Doe 57, a six- to eight-year- old girl, cause of death, asphyxia, inflammation in throat and lungs. Is it possible that the CS gas would cause inflammation in the throat and lungs of a six- to eight-year-old girl?

DR. HARRY SALEM: CS gas is a respiratory irritant. It causes inflammation of the mucous membranes which line the respiratory tract. To get to where the inflammation is that great, you're going to need a very high concentration, sir, to get to that. It may be a combination of the blankets that were put over the children plus- -

REP. BOB BARR: No. I understand that.

DR. HARRY SALEM: And if you exclude all of the oxygen--

REP. BOB BARR: Is it possible that it could have caused inflammation in the throat and lungs of a six- to eight-year-old girl?

DR. HARRY SALEM: Yes, it is possible that CS can do that.

MS. BOWSER: Former FBI Assistant Director Larry Potts thought there was nothing dangerous about the CS gas plan, but when he joined Salem and others to brief Reno, she wanted more assurances.

LARRY POTTS, Former Assistant Director, FBI: And even after finding out from the experts that they didn't believe the CS gas would be harmful to the children, we then put in certain other aspects in the plan which would build in extra safety aspects for the kids.

MS. BOWSER: And Potts said, this is what Reno told him:

LARRY POTTS: "I want special rules of engagement to make sure that we go out of our way not to gas the children. So if you see a child in one particular area where you were going to put gas in, don't put gas in that area. You don't have to stop the gassing operation but move to another area of the compound."

MS. BOWSER: After rejecting the tear gas plan several times, Reno finally approved it on April 17th, being assured by FBI officials that it would be a step-by-step, gradual process. But as the CEV's, or combat engineering vehicles, began injecting tear gas into the compound, the Branch Davidians opened fire. Dick Rogers was in charge of the FBI's tactical operations.

DICK ROGERS, Former Tactical Commander, FBI: They forced us basically to back off of this very phased, very carefullythought out plan to deny portions of that building over a period of 48 hours.

QUESTIONER: And had they not opened fire, you would have had a gradual insertion of the gas?

DICK ROGERS: Yes, sir, and let me also clear up one thing. The plan was never to insert gas for 48 hours. The plan was to insert gas over a period of 48 hours, which is a big difference.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, [D] New York: My basic problem is not the use of the gas, but the thing that I wonder about is the method with which the gas was administered. You know, these CEV's, these combat engineering vehicles, banging holes into this compound and going right up there to try and administer the gas, but the banging of the holes which you state was necessary to allow the gas to blow through, is quite a frightening activity, and it seems to me, it is not the type of activity designed to encourage people to come out.

LARRY POTTS: There was quite a bit of discussion, sir, about whether or not we use those to try to get the gas in, or whether we sit back at a distance and fire ferret grenades into these--into the compound. It was believed that by starting out with firing on them, they would believe that we were shooting at them, shooting bullets at them, ammunition at them, and that would be more provocative than trying to go up and put it in this other way.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER: You haven't answered about the banging and the trying to create holes. You could still have administered it this way and not, you know--the building was shaking in the pictures--in the films that I saw.

DICK ROGERS: Two purposes: One is to make an opening to put a non-flammable, non-burning type of CS into that building, and second of all, we wanted to use them to make escape openings for those people. I was very concerned about the fact that these people may not be able to get out of that compound, particularly if the mighty men are controlling the doors, and they have weapons, that, in fact, they've got everyone trapped.

MS. BOWSER: In the end, only nine Branch Davidians came out of the fire alive, and committee members asked the commander of the FBI operation in Waco, Jeffrey Jamar, why.

JEFFREY JAMAR, Former FBI Agent in Charge: I think some were probably convinced had they left that compound that their salvation would be in the balance. They were convinced--that's why they were there; that's why they stayed the whole time with him; that's why they didn't come out during the 51-day siege, that they believed their salvation rested with David Koresh. I can't imagine a human being not fleeing gas or fire, but salvation, okay, shots prevented, prevented them from leaving. The combination of those, I think, probably was 90 percent of 'em. Some people got out. Some people got out and didn't bring anybody else with 'em. This again tells me that there was control on who could come out and who couldn't, and that person was David Koresh.

MS. BOWSER: Jamar also said if he had thought that tear gas would trigger a mass suicide, he and other FBI officials would have stopped it.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, the other big hearing today, Whitewater. A document search in the White House office of Vincent Foster after his suicide was the focus of today's hearing. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Two days after Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster committed suicide, FBI and park police investigators came to his office to look for clues to his death. Michael Spafford, an attorney representing the Foster family was there, and today told the Senate Whitewater committee there were many others.

MICHAEL SPAFFORD, Lawyer for Foster Family: There was Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. Saloon, Mr. Neuwirth, Mr. Burton, myself, Mr. Margolis, Mr. Adams, Mr. Marklin, and another gentleman from the park police, two people from the FBI, and a Mr. Flynn, and a Secret Service agent. So if I counted correctly, that's 13.

MR. HOLMAN: Spafford recounted that White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum wanted to limit what the police saw because many of the documents in Foster's office were privileged or of a confidential nature.

MICHAEL SPAFFORD: Mr. Nussbaum expressed his concerns that he was not sure what was in Mr. Foster's office, that Mr. Foster worked on a lot of matters and some very important matters for the General Counsel's office. He also expressed concerns about the privileges. He said, "I'm not exactly sure what he's worked on, but a lot of it has to be attorney-client or product-related, maybe even executive privilege." What he proposed to do was to balance the interests, if you will, at issue, on the one hand the interest protecting the privilege, on the other hand allowing the investigators to do their jobs. He proposed a compromise. In the presence of all of the investigators, he would describe generally the documents, and they would take it on an issue-by-issue, document-by-document basis to see what came up.

MR. HOLMAN: Department of Justice official Roger Adams also was in the room.

ROGER ADAMS, Department of Justice: Mr. Nussbaum proceeded to pull documents out of the desk, out of the credenza, and to place them in one of three piles. One pile was personal material that was going to go to the Foster family. The second pile was material that was going to be redistributed to other attorneys in the White House counsel's office. They were going to continue to work on it there. It was my understanding that the third pile was material that Mr. Foster had been working on, personal material with the President and Mrs. Clinton, and that material was going to go to an outside lawyer for the Clintons.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Republican Counsel: Now, in conducting this review, did Mr. Nussbaum ever show any of the law enforcement people any of the documents?

ROGER ADAMS: No, he did not. As best I can recall, with most of the documents he made just a, sort of a generic description, something like this is personal, this is going to the family, this is something Vince has been working on--it's relevant to work of the White House Counsel's office--is going to be distributed to other lawyers in the office.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: And he decided what degree of specificity he was going to use in describing documents?

ROGER ADAMS: That's right. We never got to see them.

MR. HOLMAN: Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry pointed out that the investigators didn't complain about Nussbaum's controlling the document search at the time.

SEN. JOHN KERRY, [D] Massachusetts: Were you angry in any way? Did you feel at that point, wait a minute, something's happening here that is dangerous or untoward or problematical in some way?

ROGER ADAMS: I was upset because I thought that Mr. Nussbaum was making a big mistake that he didn't need to be making. I didn't have the impression that evidence was being destroyed or anything like that. I was just very disappointed that we hadn't carried out the agreement that we'd reached the day before.

MR. HOLMAN: Republican Committee Counsel Michael Chertoff said in that agreement the night before Nussbaum had promised to let investigators examine all of Foster's documents, except the personal legal files of the Clintons.

MICHAELCHERTOFF: Essentially, Mr. Nussbaum changed the agreed- upon ground rules of the search?

SCOTT SLATER, FBI: After the search began, it was clear to me that the ground rules had been changed.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: And you understood the original ground rules to be, as Mr. Adams said, department lawyers would be participating in the initial review?

SCOTT SLATER: I wasn't familiar with all the details of it, but I believed that the investigators would have access to the documents, themselves.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: And that didn't happen?

SCOTT SLATER: That did not.

MR. HOLMAN: Committee Republicans have suggested then White House Counsel Nussbaum may have been trying to conceal documents in Foster's office related to the Whitewater investigation. Utah's Orrin Hatch said Nussbaum's handling of the Foster documents only raised suspicion.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, [R] Utah: Now, do you think at the time that- -did you think at the time that Mr. Nussbaum was making a mistake in not upholding that oral agreement?

ROGER ADAMS: Yes, I did.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Okay. Why?

ROGER ADAMS: Because just as I just testified, Senator, it was- -it was going to raise unnecessary questions. There would always be questions about whether it had been done correctly, properly,

MR. KAYE: So you took a gene that you thought was responsible for obesity, right?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, actually, the demonstration that it was responsible for that particular form of obesity in that mouse was pretty good.

MR. KAYE: Right.

FRANK COLLINS: There wasn't much doubt about that.

MR. KAYE: And did what with that?

FRANK COLLINS: We put the sequence of the gene into bacteria in which we were able to produce the protein, then purify the protein, refold it into a biologically active form, and then test it in the mice.

MR. KAYE: And the protein produced by the gene?

FRANK COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KAYE: And then you injected it into how many mice?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, we had a large number of mice in several groups. One group were the obese mice, with the underlying defect in this gene, but also included were their normal litter mates that are lean and wild-type mice that are also lean.

MR. KAYE: So you had a bunch of fat mice and a bunch of normal mice, and you found what?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, what we found in the obese mice is that there is a dramatic reduction in body weight and body fat especially, so all the loss in body weight can be accounted for by a loss of body fat. There's no loss of lean body mass, which is really important. What the mice are losing is just the fat. In addition, these mice are abnormal in many other ways than just the obesity. They suffer from diabetes, elevated blood sugar, as well as elevated blood insulin. So the diabetes they have is like Type II diabetes, adult-onset diabetes in people. This diabetes was actually cured by treatment with the OB protein at doses that were lower than those required to give the maximal weight loss.

MR. KAYE: The OB protein is the protein we're talking about, obviously.

FRANK COLLINS: Yes, the one coded by this gene.

MR. KAYE: Were there any side effects?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, actually, the obese mice improved dramatically in their health. They stopped being diabetic. They're normally hypoactive, in fact, can't even maintain a normal body temperature. Their movements are sluggish. They move less. All of that was brought to within normal values by treatment with the OB protein.

MR. KAYE: How did this work? Do you have any idea?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, we're not certain how it actually functions in a detailed, mechanistic way, i.e., what part of the body it binds to, what are the target sites. But what I can say is that one of the abnormalities in these mice also, the obese mice, is overeating. They overeat compared to normal mice, as well as have low metabolic activity. Both the overeating and the low metabolic activity were corrected by the OB protein.

MR. KAYE: So these mice, the fat mice, stopped eating as much and got more exercise?

FRANK COLLINS: Exactly. And, and also their metabolic rate increased, not just their activity, but the intrinsic metabolism increased. Their oxygen consumption went up. So we think both effects mediated the loss of body weight and body fat.

MR. KAYE: Do you know how this works? You said you didn't.

FRANK COLLINS: No.

MR. KAYE: Does it act on the brain? Is it--are there other mechanisms that--

FRANK COLLINS: Well, the, the thinking in this area would be that at some point there would have to be an effect on centers in the brain. It's believed--I think there's substantial evidence for this--that a part of the brain called the hypothalamus is the coordinating center for the control of appetite and metabolism that regulates body weight. Now whether the OB protein acts directly on the hypothalamus or indirectly I think is still unclear.

MR. KAYE: And you're working to find that out?

FRANK COLLINS: Yes, very actively.

MR. KAYE: Let's come to the big question. I don't think there's a whole lot of concern in this country about obese mice, but I think some people would like to lose weight. Will this work in humans?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, I would like to be confident in our predictions, but I think it's best to be cautious. All that the protein has been tested in so far are mice. Now, one thing that we haven't talked about that I think is important to remember is that the effect of the protein was not just on mice which have that genetic defect. The important finding of these papers is that also normal mice or mice that are obese for another reason than this genetic defect also respond to the protein with a substantial loss in body weight and body fat, depending on how much fat they have to lose in the first place. Obviously, the lean mice respond less than the obese mice. But it's important to stress that the activity--

MR. KAYE: Why is that important?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, the reason is that I think it might be a popular conception that when you translate this into humans, the protein might only be active on humans who happen to have a defect in this gene. We don't believe that's true. We believe that there is potential, although it's only been demonstrated in mice, that the protein may work in people who do not necessarily have a defect in this gene. It's a broader spectrum possibility.

MR. KAYE: So what's the next step here for--or at least for human trials?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, the next steps are the animal testing, both more efficacy testing, if you will, to find out how long the positive effect is maintained, what happens when you withdraw the drug, but also safety studies at exaggerated doses to find out what possible toxic effects there may be.

MR. KAYE: What is the time line? How long do you think it will be before you undertake human trials?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, sometimes it's difficult to predict this accurately because you don't know how well the program will go, or what you'll find until you do it--

MR. KAYE: Right.

FRANK COLLINS: --but if the program continues to go as well and rapidly as it has so far, we could be in clinical trials as early as next year.

MR. KAYE: As I understand it, your phones have been ringing off the hook with, with people who want to volunteer for human trials, right?

FRANK COLLINS: Yes, they have.

MR. KAYE: And you've told them essentially, call you back, don't call us, we'll call you?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, actually, I think the important thing to understand is that clinical trials are not necessarily run on a volunteer basis. They're run at particular clinical centers with the population of patients identified by each of those centers. It's important to demonstrate that people in different clinical centers find essentially the same result.

MR. KAYE: So there's no point in calling here to sign up, to be part of human trials?

FRANK COLLINS: Not really. First of all, the trials are a long way off. We haven't made decisions about where they're going to take place, or what populations we're going to use, although we are focusing on medically-serious forms of obesity, those associated with the complications of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and real morbid obesity. Obesity occurs in a gradation from a few pounds overweight to many hundreds of pounds overweight, and we're focusing on the more serious end of that spectrum, because, in fact, although this has been called a pill, in all likelihood, it will not be a pill. It will, in all probability, for at least the very initial clinical trials, be something that needs to be injected.

MR. KAYE: And in the long run probably not something that you could just go into your drugstore and pick off a shelf?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, this is--this will be a prescription medicine, at least at the beginning, and as I said, initially, probably injectable, although we are working on other ways to deliver the protein.

MR. KAYE: Meaning what, pills?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, pills are a possibility. Oral delivery of proteins has not really been achieved in a useful way. It's not something that we've given up on, but there are other ways, such as implants that continuously release it, something analogous to Norplant, and other ways of delivering proteins that we're also investigating.

MR. KAYE: Otherwise, I suppose if it's not implanted, people who do take this would essentially have to continually inject themselves with it for it to be effective, right?

FRANK COLLINS: That's the presumption, is that, is that it will be a chronic treatment. Now, that remains to be demonstrated by the animal tests we're doing. What happens after a very long period of administration and then drug withdrawal? It's quite possible that it will be a chronic treatment, something like insulin treatment, for example, which is injectable and chronic.

MR. KAYE: Do you think that for those people who are taking pills or exercising as a way of reducing weight but who don't have chronic--suffer from chronic obesity, that this might eventually be something that they'll be able to sign up for?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, it's certainly possible that it will. I mean, until we do the clinical trials, we don't know the spectrum of patients who will be responsive and who won't be. It is possible it would be. But I wouldn't encourage anybody to give up a proper diet or proper exercise, because there are benefits from those things that go way beyond just keeping weight off.

MR. KAYE: And finally, when do you think--if everything goes as planned--the trials with animals prove successful, human trials prove successful, you get approval from the FDA, Food & Drug Administration--when do you think that this might actually go to market?

FRANK COLLINS: Well, you know, that's a date that's much more difficult to predict than the start of the clinical trials, how long they'll actually run, and how many will have to be done. It really depends on what you find. I can rely on a bit of history here and say that Amgen has delivered products to the market within approximately five years.

MR. KAYE: Dr. Collins, thank you very much.

FRANK COLLINS: You're welcome. FINALLY - FORGOTTEN WAR

MR. MAC NEIL: Finally, the Korean War Veterans Memorial was dedicated today on the national mall in Washington. It came on this, the 42nd anniversary of the end of the Korean War. President Clinton and South Korean President Kim Young Sam participated with the ceremonies. We have these excerpts.

KIM YOUNG SAM, President, Republic of Korea: [speaking through interpreter] On behalf of the people of the republic of Korea, I pay tribute to all those Korean War veterans who sacrificed their lives, and I pay respect to all those who fought in that war. The sacrifices of the Korean War veterans to defend freedom and peace were so great. Their sacrifices were not in vain. The blood and sweat shed by the US and UN troops proved to be the prime mover behind the realization of freedom throughout the post-war world after the war. We take pride in the progress of history that has turned the Korean War from a forgotten war into a war most worthy of remembrance. Let all succeeding generations remember the truism engraved in this memorial: Freedom is not free. Thank you. [applause]

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Today we are surrounded by monuments to some of the greatest figures in our history, while we gather at this, our newest national memorial to remember and honor the Americans who fought for freedom in Korea. In 1950, our nation was weary of war. But one and a half million Americans left their family and friends and their homes to help to defend freedom for a determined ally half way around the world, or as the monument said, "a place they had never been and a people they never met." The Korean War veterans endured terrible hardships, deathly cold, weeks and months crammed in foxholes and bunkers, an enemy of overwhelming numbers, the threat of brutal imprisonment and torture, defending the perimeter Pussan, braving the ties of En Chan, confronting the world's fastest fighter jets in Migali, enduring hand-to- hand combat on Heartbreak Ridge and Pork Chop Hill, fighting the way back from Chosin Reservoir. They set a standard of courage that may be equal but will never be surpassed in the annals of American combat. [applause] On this day, 42 years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower called the end of hostilities on armistice on a single battleground, not peace in the world. It's fair to say that when the guns fell silent then, no one knew for sure what our forces in Korea had done, or the future of our nation, or the future of world freedom. The larger conflict of the Cold War had only begun. It would take four decades more to win. In a struggle so long and consuming, perhaps it's not surprising that too many lost sight of the importance of Korea. So to all the veterans here today, and to all throughout our land who are watching, let us all say, when darkness threatened, you kept the torch of liberty alight. You kept the flame burning so that others all across the world could share it. You showed the truth inscribed on the wall that freedom is not free. We honor you today because you did answer the call to defend a country you never knew and a people you never met. They're good people. It's a good country, and the worldis better because of you. God bless you and God bless America. [applause] RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Thursday, leaders from Britain, France, and Russia condemned yesterday's Senate vote to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, but leaders from Bosnia and Turkey welcomed the move. President Clinton said he did not see the vote as a repudiation of his Bosnia policy but as a sign of frustration over what was happening there. Good night, Robin.

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