The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Wednesday, Senators Hollings and Packwood debate the GATT treaty, Charles Krause interviews the new president of Mexico, Tony Burden reports from Houston on criminal trial consultants, and one of the discoverers explains the newly-found obesity gene. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The 24,000 U.N. peacekeeping troops in Bosnia may be pulled out soon U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Ghali said today. He spoke to reporters while on an inspection trip into Sarajevo. There was heavy fighting today near Bihac, a U.N.-declared safe haven. We have more in this report narrated by Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News.

RICHARD VAUGHAN, WTN: Chances for peace in Bosnia have seldom been so slim. On the northern battleground rebel Muslims, backed by Serbs, are laying siege to Velika Kladusa, the second biggest town in the Muslim enclave of Bihac. U.N. and NATO efforts to spare Bosnia are in shreds. In Sarajevo, Bosnia's President Izetbegovic ticked off the U.N.-Secretary General for staying neutral against what he called Serb fascism. Bosnian Serb Leader Radovan Karadzic didn't even show up. Boutros Ghali said if the warring bosses won't cooperate, he might withdraw the 24,000 U.N. peacekeepers from Bosnia. That would not displease many Bosnian Muslims, several hundred of whom staged a rowdy, anti-U.N. protest outside the presidency building. They're convinced the U.N. and NATO have betrayed them by not trying to stop the Serb offensive against Bihac. In London, U.S. Sen. Bob Dole again criticized allied policy in Bosnia and repeated his call for NATO air strikes on the Bosnian Serbs. He again urged the lifting of the arms embargo on the Bosnian government, a move he called a lift and strike action that is sharply opposed by Britain and France.

MR. LEHRER: After today's meeting with Sen. Dole, British Foreign Sec. Hurd denied there was a rift between Washington and London. He said the Clinton administration was not pressing for an immediate lifting of the arms embargo because that would mean the withdrawal of U.N. troops from Bosnia. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: A first class postage stamp will soon cost 32 cents. Today the Postal Rate Commission approved the 3 cent increase requested by the Postal Service. It had reported a $1.3 billion deficit last year. The Commission also approved raising the cost of a postcard a penney to 20 cents. The new rates are expected to take effect January 1st. In other economic news, the Commerce Department reported the Gross Domestic Product grew at a 3.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter. That's 1/2 point higher than was originally estimated.

MR. LEHRER: The Senate began two days' of debate on the GATT treaty today. It passed the House yesterday by a wide margin, but a closer vote is expected in the Senate tomorrow evening. In today's floor debate, supporters and opponents differed on how the trade treaty will affect the average working American.

SEN. MAX BAUCUS, [D] Montana: As trade has increased, as GDP has increased as a consequence of trade, average, middle income Americans have seen their incomes decline, decline. Now I'm not standing up here and saying there's exact quid pro quo. I'm not saying there's exact correlation, or it's totally causal. I'm not saying that, but I am saying that there is some cause, there is some relation. There is something going on here that we as Americans, as we pass these big trade agreements, are not dealing with.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, [D] California: GATT, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, reduces what are known as border taxes, and these border taxes are tariffs, and they reduce them worldwide by one third. And this amounts to a global tax or tariff cut of 744 billion dollars. Now, what does this mean for the United States economy? The economic benefits for workers, consumers, and businesses are many.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on the debate right after this News Summary. House Democrats today elected Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt Minority Leader for the new Congress, which convenes in January. He defeated a challenge from Congressman Charles Rose of North Carolina. Gephardt served as Majority Leader behind Speaker Tom Foley in the last Congress which the Democrats controlled.

MR. MAC NEIL: First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton today criticized Newt Gingrich's recent statements about welfare reform. The incoming Republican Speaker of the House has said welfare rolls could be reduced by placing illegitimate children in orphanages. Before a women's group in New York, Mrs. Clinton called the remarks unbelievable and absurd. She said unless child care and health needs are part of welfare reform, thousands of people could be forced on the streets. She also had these comments about television violence and its impact on children.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: And I just hope that we begin to appreciate what we have done to ourselves and what we are doing to our children with a steady diet of the kind of media images and information that too often distorts reality, that too often gives children the idea that their futures are beset by violence and limitation and dysfunctional images.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mrs. Clinton also called on the women's group to work to improve the ways in which women are presented in the media. Scientists have isolated a gene for obesity that could someday lead to a treatment for the condition. The discovery was announced today by researchers at Rockefeller University in New York. It involves cloning a gene in mice that when mutated affects appetite and body weight. We'll talk to one of the discoverers later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: Two people died today when the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro caught fire off the coast of Somalia. Rescue vessels saved about 1,000 passengers and crew from the burning ocean liner. Ten of the persons aboard were Americans. The ship is expected to sink. The Achille Lauro was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists in 1985. An American, Leon Klinghoffer, was killed by the hijackers. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to GATT in the Senate, President Zedillo of Mexico, trial consultants in Texas, and the newly-found obesity gene. FOCUS - TRADING POINTS - GATT

MR. LEHRER: First tonight, GATT part two. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted strongly in favor of the world trade agreement known as the GATT. Today it was on to the Senate, where the outcome is expected to be much closer. The vote is tomorrow. We have our own Senate debate now. Bob Packwood, Republican of Oregon, is the likely next chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Ernest Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina is the outgoing Commerce Committee chairman, whose opposition to GATT forced this special session of Congress. Sen. Hollings, do you still think GATT is a bad deal for America?

SEN. HOLLINGS: Oh, we know, and if you'd listen to the debate, just listen to Sen. Baucus that you just had on the screen, Sen. Baucus is chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee of Finance. He has been working on this particular agreement, he says, for the eight-year period. He's been in Geneva. He says now on the floor of the United States Senate, even though he voted for it in committee as it was reported out, that it's an outrage, and it should be killed. Oh, there's no question we won the debate so far.

MR. LEHRER: Outrage in what specific way? What outrages you the most?

SEN. HOLLINGS: Outrageous in every way. You can go to the responsibility that we have under the Constitution and the Congress to regulate foreign commerce. You relinquish that to an unelected bunch of bureaucrats in Geneva, operating in secret, with one man, one vote. If we didn't have the veto we have now, we have one in GATT, and if we didn't have that in the U.N., you wouldn't have a newsreel, so Castro will out-vote us, and it's just unheard of. That's why he calls it an outrage.

MR. LEHRER: Why is it not an outrage, Sen. Packwood, on that issue alone, just on what's going to happen in Geneva and the World Trade Organization and the way this thing will be implemented?

SEN. PACKWOOD: Well, you know, Jim, in the GATT, which is the current trade organization to be replaced by the World Trade Organization, there has not been a vote since 1959. Everything is done on consensus. There are provisions for votes. There are places where we can be out-voted, but everything is done by consensus. And in the implementing charter of the World Trade Organization, it says that consensus will continue to be the rule of operation in all major decisions. So I'm not worried about us being out-voted, but you're well aware of, if worst comes to worst, we can get out. Six months' notice and out we go.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Sen. Hollings, the other major issue is about jobs. Your side, the opposition, claims this is going to lose a lot of jobs for Americans. The other side, the pro-GATT side, says it's just the opposite. What is your case on the fact that this is going to lose jobs for America?

SEN. HOLLINGS: The experience under the present GATT, it was brought out in this debate in a dramatic fashion. We use the same statements that President Carter used, that Amb. Strauss used back in 1979, how it was going to give so much money and so much growth and everybody was going to get rich, and so many more thousands and thousands of jobs. The exact opposite is true. We have lost 3.2 million jobs, and instead of increasing trade, we have had a $100 billiontrade deficit on an average for the last 10 years. There's really 1.5 trillion outflow of value from the nation's wealth. Otherwise, what jobs we do have are part-time. The average worker with a full-time job is taking home 20 percent less pay, and the Fortune 500 have not created a net new job in 15 years, so --

MR. LEHRER: And the new GATT will make this worse?

SEN. HOLLINGS: There isn't any question about it --

MR. LEHRER: All right.

SEN. HOLLINGS: -- because we went down the list of things under Sen. Brown. I thought that was dramatic. He had read -- and the only Senator that's admitted to reading the entire agreement -- he went down saying, look, I was for GATT, and he went down chapter and verse how we're going to lose completely.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Sen. Packwood, this is a major argument. How do you answer that about jobs?

SEN. PACKWOOD: I want to give you two examples, if I might, Jim. The first the opponents say, oh, the big multinational corporations are going to go overseas and manufacture everything overseas and send it back to the United States. That's why big business wants this. I want to give you an example of something. This is a computer chip. And it's an eight-inch wafer made by Intel. It's made in Oregon. Intel has just -- and they're a big, multinational corporation -- they have just announced that they're going to spend $1.2 billion, billion, to build another new plant in Oregon, hundreds of hundreds of employees. They're not going to Bangladesh. They're not going to China. They're building in the United States, because they can produce it better and cheaper here than anyplace else, but I want to give you one more example, because they'll say, well, that's a big corporation. A little company called Denton Plastics, 40 employees, Portland, Oregon, what it does is recycle waste plastic. Here's one example. It's just a normal plastic bag that you would get from the dry cleaners, the grocery store. That's one example of what they recycle. Here's a more interesting one. You can obviously recognize this as a frozen food package wrapper. They take these, put 'em into great big kilns and crushers, crush them all up, and turn them into little black pellets like this, you see them in my hand perhaps. They then sell those overseas everyplace. Mr. Denton, the owner, has been to China. And I said, "How can you compete with the Chinese when they can have labor at whatever cost somebody says," and he says, "You ought to see what they're doing." They're attempting to take these wrappers and cut the colors out of them by hand with scissors.

MR. LEHRER: You mean the Chinese are?

SEN. PACKWOOD: The Chinese are. He's doing it with machines.

MR. LEHRER: So your point is that the competition from the United States is still going to be there just because we can do it better and more efficiently, is that right?

SEN. PACKWOOD: Here is the argument that's always raised. How can we compete with 3 cents an hour, 30 cents an hour, 50 cents an hour labor? I talked with Mr. Denton not 35 minutes ago, and I said, "How much of your total costs are your floor labor?" 10.17 percent. It isn't worth moving to China for that. That's why these companies will stay in the United States.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Hollings.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Intel's already in Malaysia. Malaysia today is the largest producer of semiconductors in the world. The Intel plant that he's talking about is under a voluntary restraint agreement that we put in. That's going to be GATT illegal. But let's admit everything he says. We still have a $150 billion deficit. I've got small plants galore in South Carolina that export. He doesn't have to give me this stuff. I've got Digital in South Carolina. I could go down the same thing. You've got to look at the end instance of what we've been doing, and we've been draining ourselves of jobs, and there's another important point you haven't mentioned, Jim, and that's the budget busting. Here you've got a new majority leader coming in, Senator Dole, to the President, and saying, look, Mr. President, I'll bust your budget for the GATT if you bust my budget for the capital gains tax.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think --

SEN. HOLLINGS: And that's outrageous!

SEN. PACKWOOD: You know, first --

SEN. HOLLINGS: That's outrageous!

SEN. PACKWOOD: Sen. Hollings may know what he's talking about in his state. He doesn't know what he's talking about in Oregon. This wafer that I'm talking about and this Intel 1.2 billion dollar plant is not manufacturing something to be protected by a restraint order in the United States. They're the biggest exporter of chips in the world, and these are made for a world market in the United States, paying United States wages.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Hollings, and then to you Sen. Packwood, the fact of the matter is you all are looking at the same world but you'd never know it, the way you -- in other words, you see one thing, Sen. Packwood sees it another way. The fact of the matter is it's all speculation, is it not? I mean, you're speculating one way, he's speculating another.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Not at all. Come on, Jim. We know and have had seven of these. This is the eighth GATT agreement. We continue to lose. I could go into my textiles or shoes, but now we go into conductors, semiconductors, airplane parts, machine tools, all of those we are in a minority position, and we continue to lose. There's no education in eight kicks of a mule, I used to say the second kick of a mule. We know from hard experience the present GATT is not working, and this would be a total sellout.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Sen. Packwood, what is -- how do you look at the record? He looks at the record and sees one thing. You look at -- how do you look at the record up till now?

SEN. PACKWOOD: I look at the record and say we are the biggest exporter in the world, bigger than Japan, bigger than the common market. We are the biggest single exporter in the world. And what will serve us better than lowering tariffs, lowering barriers around the world to exporters? It is easier for products to get into our country at the moment than for us to get into other countries, and GATT comes closer to leveling that playing field than anything else that we've done.

SEN. HOLLINGS: But, Jim, we're the biggest importer, and we outweigh the imports over the exports by over two to one. That's our problem. Exports yes, create jobs, but imports lose the jobs. And his own record, the Finance Committee, and now Secretary Bentsen found and their finding there in the '87 Trade Act that the Tokyo Round, the present GATT, was not working, it didn't live up to its promises.

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of winning and losing, Sen. Hollings, what's the count now? You --

SEN. HOLLINGS: We had about 25 firm votes and about 25 we were working on, but I haven't been able to work on any today. We've been on the floor. I hope they listened to the debate. If they did, we've still got a chance. But I think Bob Packwood's got the upper hand.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree you have the upper hand, Sen. Packwood?

SEN. PACKWOOD: It's thin. As you're well aware, Jim, we have a particular budget point of order, and we have to get 60 votes, not 50. It's close. I think we've got sixty-one or sixty-two, but it's not a big edge.

MR. LEHRER: What about the Sen. Hollings dig there a moment ago at Sen. Dole? They made a deal with the President, we'll bust the budget for your thing and then we'll budget for mine on capital gains later.

SEN. PACKWOOD: Well, again, Fritz doesn't know what he's talking about.

SEN. HOLLINGS: I read the paper, and I listen to MacNeil-Lehrer.

SEN. PACKWOOD: Again, you know under arcane Senate budget rules we are operating what we call static projections. You lower the tariffs, the amount of revenue you collect comes in. It doesn't take into account any increase in trade, any increase in revenues from any other sources because of increased trade. There is not, as far as I know, Jim, a single economist from the left to the right that says this bill loses money. But because of our particular budget rules, it is scored that way, no one believes it.

SEN. HOLLINGS: Jim, we're going back to Reaganomics without Reagan. That's all I can say. This growth and the way they got static, now they want to make dynamic projects. Heavens, don't let's buy that again. We're killing the country with the thing. We've got a $4.7 trillion debt and a billion a day interest costs that will continue to add to the debt.

MR. LEHRER: How will GATT add even more to it though?

SEN. HOLLINGS: It'll add $31 billion more to the debt. I can tell you that.

MR. LEHRER: How? In what way?

SEN. HOLLINGS: Well, because the tariffs that were to come in are going to be cut. So it's a revenue loss. Everybody agrees to that.

SEN. PACKWOOD: Everybody?

SEN. HOLLINGS: Yes.

SEN. PACKWOOD: Find me a respectable economist from the far left to the far right that agrees with your statement, Fritz.

SEN. HOLLINGS: That was a CBO estimate. That's where we got it. We got it from Alice Rivlin over there at the OMB office and the CBO. That's what we're arguing about.

SEN. PACKWOOD: And even they admit this will raise money. Those are estimates which presume no change in behavior because of the lower tariffs. They say if you accept that presumption, and nobody does, but if you have to accept that presumption, only then do you lose money.

MR. LEHRER: Meaning that just the lowering the tariffs will cause people, business and everybody else, to operate differently, and that will cause a different result, you mean?

SEN. HOLLINGS: No, that's tariff collections. You lose that to your revenue source as a country. Malcolm Wallop just a minute ago on the floor said, look, I'm for GATT, but I can't bust the budget that way. And he's going to vote on the point of order not to waive it.

MR. LEHRER: And I can't bust the budget of our time. Gentlemen, thank you both very much. Have a happy debate.

SEN. PACKWOOD: Thank you.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead on the NewsHour, Mexico's new president, trial consultants, and a gene for obesity. NEWSMAKER

MR. MAC NEIL: Almost exactly a year ago, Congress was voting on another trade treaty as controversial then as GATT is now, the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. Tomorrow Mexico will have a new president. Charles Krause has that story.

MR. KRAUSE: When Ernesto Zedillo is inaugurated tomorrow as Mexico's present, he'll take over a nation that's evolved in recent years from a third world country into an economic powerhouse. Mexico now buys more American goods than Japan, but despite its economic gains, the country has also been rocked in the last year by political upheaval and violence. LastJanuary, Zapatista guerrillas attacked government buildings in the Mexican state of Chiapas, demanding economic and social justice. Government troops eventually crushed the rebellion, but not before hundreds of peasant insurgents were killed. Then in March, Luis Denaldo Colosio, the presidential candidate for the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party or the PRI was brutally gunned down in Tijuana. Six months later, another assassination took place, this time the deputy leader of the PRI, Jose Francisco Ruis Masial. It's been alleged that the killings may have been ordered by high- ranking party officials. Last week, the prosecutor resigned, charging a cover up. It's against this backdrop of political turmoil and uncertainty that Zedillo takes over as president. A 42- year-old economist with a doctorate from Yale, Zedillo is known for his competence as an administrator, but he's had little political experience. We spoke to Dr. Zedillo last week in Washington, just after he'd met with President Clinton at the White House.

MR. KRAUSE: Dr. Zedillo, welcome. As you know, there have been two major political assassinations in Mexico this year and also the uprising in Chiapas. What do you propose to do over the next six years to guarantee Mexico's political stability?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO, President-elect, Mexico: Okay, I think regarding first these events that you mentioned, and once I am in presidency, I intend to continue or even intensify investigations on these two assassinations that you mention. I will instruct the attorney general to intensify those investigations so that we can know the truth, the whole truth, about them. Regarding Chiapas, I intend to reopen and continue negotiation as soon as possible. The only solution in Chiapas is a peaceful solution. That we will achieve through dialogue, through responding to the legitimate social demands that this group has posed. Mexico is a country with political instability, and in spite of these very bad events, but I think that through democratic reform that I intend to push when I am in the presidency, we'll have even bigger political stability. Mexico has come a long way in opening up its democratic system, but we have to do even more. And I intend to do so.

MR. KRAUSE: You've covered a lot of ground, so let me go back and ask you one question first of all about Chiapas. During the next week, the Zapatistas have said that if the governor-elect, who is a member of your party, is put into office, that they will resume fighting. Do you think that can be avoided?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: As soon as I get to the presidency, and that will be December 1st, I will invite them to initiate some sort of negotiation. So I will really hope that they do not incur any violent actions.

MR. KRAUSE: The assassinations, there have been a number of Mexican analysts and many Americans as well who have suggested that perhaps these assassinations are linked first of all and second of all are part of a power struggle within the PRI, itself. Do you share that view?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: I don't see any evidence to support that view. That's a hypothesis, perhaps a hypothesis that has to be investigated, which would not eliminate any idea regarding these assassinations. But so far, we don't have any hard evidence to prove that hypothesis.

MR. KRAUSE: At the same time, the prosecutor in the case, who is the brother of the -- one of the men who was slain most recently - - has resigned, and apparently he said that he was -- there's a cover up, his investigation is being thwarted. How do you react, or how do you respond to what's happening today in Mexico?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: Well, I think that's a very sad fact. The investigation had started quite well. There are 10 persons already in jail, and I really lament that this has happened. I cannot make a judgment on this idea by the special prosecutor that there is a conspiracy, because I don't know yet what kind of evidence he has in his hands. Once I have the information I will be in the position to give a judgment on this hypothesis of this.

MR. KRAUSE: Do you see that solving of these cases, both the previous assassination of your predecessor, Mr. Colosio, and the latest one, do you see this as important, only important because of the implications for the larger judicial reform and democratic reforms and stability that you talked about?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: I think these facts are very important but they are just one more element in this environment of deep dissatisfaction in the Mexican people regarding our system of justice. And now that the very famous persons have been killed, national attention has focused on the national system of justice. But I think that problems with that system have existed for a long time. That's why during my campaign this was one of the key issues. We have to move forward to reform our legal system, and it has to be a very radical, very important, total reform.

MR. KRAUSE: Many of your critics, many academics in Mexico, say that there's no question that you are a fine economist but that your political experience has been not as great as perhaps as it could have been, and they wonder whether you are going to have the political instincts necessary to balance and somehow carry out the job of president. How do you respond to those?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: We'll see, we'll judge by the results.

MR. KRAUSE: In the economic area, you have talked about the need for greater distribution of income, for attempts, efforts to end some of the worst poverty in Mexico. Tell me what you are proposing to do in that area.

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: Well, I think we have to combine two strategies. One, directed to speed up economic growth, without sacrificing the economic stability that we have achieved over the last few years. We need to create one million jobs a year, and in order to do that, we need economic growth. The other strategy has to be an ambitious, consistent, well-designed social policy to take education, health, basic services, huge opportunities to those groups and regions that are now the weakest, the poorest in the Mexican society.

MR. KRAUSE: Has your country benefited from NAFTA so far?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: I think so. Our exports to the United States, for example, have grown more than 20 percent during '94. And this is only the first year in which NAFTA is working. Also, our exports to Canada are growing very substantially. So I think that already only 11 months after NAFTA began, we can say that NAFTA is proven right by the facts.

MR. KRAUSE: Does Proposition 187 in California threaten the improved ties and increased trade between the two countries?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: I think it's a problem, but that has to be placed in perspective. I think we should move forward in all bilateral issues and should not allow Proposition 187 to put backwards our relationship. It is an important issue. Mexicans are very concerned. We are very concerned about this Proposition 187, but we also know that this is a problem that until now is referred to a state in this country and that this was supported by a state government. And we are very appreciative of the attitudes and the positions that the federal government of the United States has adopted regarding this issue.

MR. KRAUSE: Has President Clinton promised to try to do more to deflect 187 or at least make sure that it does not become federal law?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: He has promised to do that. In fact, he has said publicly that he questions the constitutionality of Proposition 187 and that his government will do whatever they can to dispel the notions of which Proposition 187 are based.

MR. KRAUSE: If I may play the devil's advocate for a moment, if I may, Californians, obviously, voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 187. They obviously feel they have the right to deny basic services to illegal immigrants. Why should the United States be responsible for Mexicans who come here illegally?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: Well, I think you have to put it in more general terms. How can you deny a universal right as education? In most constitutional laws, in any country, you have education as a basic right, regardless of the nationality of the individual. I agree the United States has to enforce its laws, in this case immigration laws. We are not disputing that fact. What we are disputing is a neglect of a basic human right.

MR. KRAUSE: A last question. As you look forward to six years as president of Mexico, what are the principal challenges that face you, and where do you want your country to be six years from now?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: Well, I have said that we have four challenges, important ones. One is to create jobs, and for that we need economic growth. The other one is to fight poverty effectively, and for that we need well done, ambitious social policy. The other one is to have better justice in Mexico. And in order to achieve that, we need to reform our system of justice, and we will do that. And the fourth one, a a very important one, is to have a better democracy in Mexico. And Mexico is ripe to have a better democratic life, and we will work with that.

MR. KRAUSE: Do you think that six years from now Mexico will be as different a country as it is today from six years before?

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: I think Mexico will be a better country six years from today. I am sure.

MR. KRAUSE: Dr. Zedillo, thank you very much.

ERNESTO ZEDILLO: Thank you very much. FOCUS - PEER REVIEW

MR. LEHRER: Now, the growing practice of using psychological consultants to pick jurors. The point is to win a case even before the trial begins. We have a report from Anthony Burden of public station KUHT-Houston.

SPOKESMAN: We have to listen to the evidence to decide that.

ANTHONY BURDEN, KUHT-Houston: This is the process of jury selection. Most attorneys feel this is where the trial is really decided.

NEIL McCABE, South Texas College of Law: You've either gotten a good jury for your side, or you're going to lose.

MR. BURDEN: It's that basic, according to Prof. Neil McCabe of the South Texas College of Law.

NEIL McCABE: Since people are full of biases and prejudices and this is the only opportunity for the lawyers to discover such biases and prejudices, most lawyers understand that this voir dire process, this questioning process, is key to how the case is going to come out, and in some kinds of cases the lawyers will tell you that for all practical purposes the case is over by the time you have picked that jury and given your opening statement to them.

MR. BURDEN: In almost all states, attorneys are allowed to question the prospective jurors, looking for signs of bias either way. Then each side is allowed to strike a certain number, usually ten. It's called the periphery challenge, meaning no explanation is necessary. It can be something the person said, the way he or she looked or just a hunch, but when the client can afford it, most attorneys want to base their hunches on the best information available. Supplying that information has become a $400 million a year industry. One of the trial consultants often in the spotlight is Robert Hirschorn, who heads Bennett & Associates of Galveston, Texas.

ROBERT HIRSCHORN, Trial Consultant: We're not loading advice. All we're trying to do is make sure we get a fair shake. Let me give you an example. The William Kennedy Smith case, we did research, polling, surveying, prior to trial. Our research indicated 80 percent of the jury had formed a negative opinion either thinking that Will was guilty or probably guilty. So we came in as overwhelming underdogs in that case, and that's why jury selection and the trial consultants were so important to make sure that we created an environment where jurors harbored those feelings and would share 'em.

MR. BURDEN: When the names of those in the jury pool are available ahead of time, some researchers actually drive by the home of potential jurors looking for any clue as to personality.

ROBERT HIRSCHORN: I want to know what kind of bumper stickers are on a car. I'd like to know what kind of car you drive. I'd like to know if your yard is kept neatly. I'd like to know if you have curtains or if you have burglar bars. I'd like to know if you have a sign that says, "Beware, alarm system in the house." I mean, these are little tidbits, all little bits of information that could be very helpful in deciding is this the appropriate case for you.

MR. BURDEN: Some consultants go as far as to question neighbors and run credit checks on prospective jurors. Others routinely have jury questionnaires submitted for handwriting analysis. It's this aspect of jury research, the personal investigation of private citizens who are called to jury duty, that's raising the most concern.

NEIL McCABE: Now, see, we're getting into areas where people get a little bit more of an uneasy feeling about it, because this sounds like things that folks shouldn't be able to find out about you, but, in fact, they can.

SPOKESPERSON: Plaintiff's attorney argues to you that they need to be punished.

MR. BURDEN: Although trial consultants are most frequently seen in high-profile criminal cases, few defendants can afford their services which average in the thirty to fifty thousand dollar range. Trial research is most frequently used in civil litigation, especially where huge sums are at stake.

STEVE POWELL, Attorney: This will get their attention, and this will cause --

MR. BURDEN: Attorney Steve Powell of Houston is asking for millions of dollars in damages in a lawsuit against a major corporation. He's completing his summation to the jury.

STEVE POWELL: -- and to fine this corporation where in punitive damages is $25 million.

MR. BURDEN: Later, Powell eavesdrops on deliberations in the jury room by a closed-circuit television. This is not an actual jury. These are surrogates, each carefully selected to mirror the demographics and attitudes of the community where the real trial will be held. This is the Wilmington Institute in Dallas, a psychological think tank considered to be the state of the art in trial research. It was founded more than 20 years ago by Robert Gordon, a psychologist studying group dynamics. By applying the same scientific methods to juries, Dr. Gordon claims a 95 percent accuracy rate in forecasting their verdict.

ROBERT GORDON, TheWilmington Institute: Because depending on the personality, the background, the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the person who will hear the case, the outcome can be predicted. So attorneys, great trial attorneys, have always been great psychologists, and they emphasize jury selection. That's why it's so powerful. You need a receptive audience. At least, you need to eliminate from the audience those that are biased against you. If you achieve that, you have an excellent chance of prevailing. If you don't achieve that, then you can't possibly win.

MR. BURDEN: Houston attorney John O'Quinn has lost only one case in the past fifteen years. He was one of the first trial lawyers in the country to apply Dr. Gordon's scientific approach. O'Quinn has become so dedicated to research and preparation that he's built his own practice courtroom adjacent to his office. Here is where he formulated the strategy for his successful lawsuits against the manufacturers of silicone breast implants.

JOHN O'QUINN, Lawyer: I remember when I first when to try my first breast implant case in late 1992, my belief, as a lawyer, is that this was a woman's issue, and what I wanted was 12 women, and that I would have the best chance if I had 12 women. I learned in this room that I was wrong, that actually a breast implant case is a case in which a great number of men actually have a better point of view towards the female plaintiff than women. And it was a very surprising thing for me to learn, therefore, it influenced my, the way in which I picked my jury and presented my case.

MR. BURDEN: That insight paid off handsomely. The jury awarded O'Quinn's client $25 million in damages. Not everyone sees the necessity of research. Houston attorney Joe Jamail won the biggest jury award in history, $10 billion, in the Pennzoil-Texaco case, without consultants. Jamail fears the jury system is in danger of manipulation by all of this research.

JOSEPH JAMAIL, Lawyer: You're prostituting, and there's a lot of it going on. Then others say the case is too complicated for just the jury of peers. That is horse manure. It's these kinds of lawyers who want to do it technically, without emotion. Well, we might as well put in a computer or something. That isn't what the law is about. People have a right to have their case heard fairly before their peers.

MR. BURDEN: Other critics say the American ideal of equal justice is threatened when the side with the deepest pockets has the advantage of all of the research and the expert consultants.

NEIL McCABE: Well, it's not equal justice, but we don't have a system of equal justice. We have an ideal of equal justice, but we certainly don't have the reality, and I think most people know that. The quality of representation that one gets in a criminal trial depends in large part upon the amount of money one has.

MR. BURDEN: Trial consultants are bringing one obvious benefit to the legal system. In many cases, their research can make the outcome so obvious that the time and expense of trial can be avoided.

ROBERT GORDON: But our research actually diminishes the need for a jury trial because we know in advance of trying the case if you're going to win or lose. If you're going to win, what is the amount of damages that you might win, or if you're going to lose in a criminal case, what is the range of punishment that an average juror would impose? Consequently, you stimulate the possibility of negotiation and settlement, mediation, arbitration, and plea bargaining.

MR. BURDEN: In a relatively short time, trial consultants have become entrenched in the American legal system. There are now more than a hundred firms in this country offering trial science services. Their input has come to be considered so important many attorneys feel that when the client can afford it, trial consultants are an essential part of effective representation. FINALLY - FAT FREE

MR. MAC NEIL: The gene for obesity is next tonight. As we reported, researchers at Rockefeller University announced the discovery today of a gene that appears to cause obesity when it malfunctions. The announcement doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who's overweight has a genetic defect, but it may lead to new treatments for some people with weight problems. Dr. Jeffrey Freidman was in charge of the research, and he joins us now. He's an associate investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute of Rockefeller University. He heads the university's laboratory of molecular genetics. Dr. Friedman, thank you for joining us. I read today that for years it's been known that obesity has a genetic link. Now, what precisely is new in what you've done?

DR. FRIEDMAN: While it's been known for some time, as you mentioned, that obesity is inherited as a genetic defect, what we found is the actual root cause of one form of obesity.

MR. MAC NEIL: And that is --

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, it turns out there's a mouse strain that's been available for study for 40 years, and that strain has a defect in a single gene, and we've now been able to isolate the defective gene that leads these mice to weigh excessive amounts of -- have excessive amounts of weight.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, you say the gene is defective. Did you make it defective with something you did to it, or did a group of mice arrive who had the defect and inherited it?

DR. FRIEDMAN: At the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, they breed upwards of 2 million mice a year. And in the course of those breeding experiments, they come across all sorts of variants on a weekly basis, in fact. And occasionally, they come across genetic variants that are obese. And this animal that we've worked with is one such example of a spontaneous variant.

MR. MAC NEIL: I see. So you hadn't done some damage to the gene, itself. It arrived that way. Now, how does this gene appear to work in mice? What is your theory or hypothesis of how it makes them fatter than they should be?

DR. FRIEDMAN: I'll reiterate the point you made before. These mice are fat because they're missing something that's normally present, and the question you ask is: How does that function? The available evidence is consistent with the idea that the defective gene is a signal by which the fat tissue communicates with the brain to regulate body weight, the idea being as you become more obese, you make more of the factor that signals to the brain you're obese, it's time to take countermeasures.

MR. MAC NEIL: You mean, your fat tissues actually send out some substance, is that what you believe?

DR. FRIEDMAN: I think our current hypothesis is yes, the fat emits a hormone or a substance that is part of a regulatory system that controls body weight.

MR. MAC NEIL: And how do you think that works? How do you hypothesize it works?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I think that, that this we're talking about is a graded signal that's released from, from fat in proportion to the fat cell mass.

MR. MAC NEIL: And that goes into the bloodstream, that signal?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, we would hypothesize it goes into the bloodstream, and that signal is then read out by centers in the central nervous system.

MR. MAC NEIL: Who say you've got too much fat, eat less.

DR. FRIEDMAN: Eat less and perhaps metabolize more.

MR. MAC NEIL: Run around a bit more. Go to the gym more, or run on the treadmill more. So what is the substance that you believe goes to the brain and sends that message?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, it is conceivable that the molecule that we've identified is that substance.

MR. MAC NEIL: Which is what kind of substance?

DR. FRIEDMAN: It's a protein.

MR. MAC NEIL: A protein. Is that something that you can break down and you could recreate in a -- you could synthesize?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, modern methods do allow one to sort of synthesize the protein from bacterial or yeast or other sources, and yes, that's something that can be done.

MR. MAC NEIL: So if you had a synthetic protein, you could have - - from normal mice whose genes are operating right, and you gave it to the defective gene mice, would that tell their brains to tell them to stop eating, do you know?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I think that's a key experiments, the results of which need to get tested and will get tested.

MR. MAC NEIL: And is that what you're into now?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, that's one of the important experiments I think that we'll have to do to test that hypothesis.

MR. MAC NEIL: In other words, you've been able to identify this substance enough to recreate it, to give it to some mice to see whether it makes fat mice get thinner, is that --

DR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. That's correct.

MR. MAC NEIL: And how long do you think that will take?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I think it really depends on what the actual forms of the protein are. We can get some idea from the genetic blueprint what the structural features of the protein are, but those are relatively crude assessments for the moment, and it may be that there are modifications of the protein alterations, incisions in the protein that are made that are required for activity, and we may have to unravel some of them as well before we can.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is there only one obese gene or gene for obesity, or is overweight due to several genes? Could it be due to several genes?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I would -- I'm almost certain that it's due to several genes. There's certainly evidence for that in mouse.

MR. MAC NEIL: How close is a mouse's biology to a human -- to human biology?

DR. FRIEDMAN: I think for physiological systems like the control of body weight and a variety of others, I think they're fairly similar. There are no at least obvious differences in the way body weight is regulated in mice and humans.

MR. MAC NEIL: Your university, and universities are usually cautious about these things, is calling this an important breakthrough, so are some other people in the field. With all the cautions you wish to impose, what could this lead to in people?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I think the most cautious response to that would be to say that as we increase our understanding of a basic process such as the control of body weight, we increase the likelihood of a therapy. And so I think this has augmented our knowledge about how the system works in an important way. I think it's incumbent on us now to figure out how it works, the precise mechanism of action will dictate how easy it's going to be to develop new therapy.

MR. MAC NEIL: With all the experiments that are going on funded by NIH and others to map the human gene system or genom system, is it too early, given your findings, to go and try and find such a gene in human beings? Is it too early to look for that?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, we have already found what we believe to be the human counterpart of this gene.

MR. MAC NEIL: Oh, you have?

DR. FRIEDMAN: And as we compare the protein sequence of the mouse to the human gene, we find a great deal of similarity.

MR. MAC NEIL: What does the protein sequence mean? Is that what we just described as the --

DR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. So proteins are composed of amino acids, and the characteristics and functions of proteins depend on the sequence of each of the individual amino acids that compose it. And that sort of molecular structure is very similar in the mouse and the human versions of the protein.

MR. MAC NEIL: So you found that. Does that mean that side by side with trying to prove your theory in mice you're going to be trying to prove it in human beings at the same time?

DR. FRIEDMAN: That's true, yes. I think that the sorts of methods and tests that we would apply are somewhat different, but I think our interest, as will be the case for others as well I think, is in correlating the findings in mice to the findings in humans.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, I read that you have two experiments in order to confirm your, your hypothesis. One is the one we just talked about, where you might take some of this protein that had been synthesized and give it to fat mice to see if their brains tell them to get thin. What is the other one that you have to do?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, the other one is that there are methods that allow one to detect these proteins in the bloodstream, and so we want to make sure that the -- that firstly, that the protein is present in the bloodstream, as we would expect it to.

MR. MAC NEIL: Oh, you haven't, you haven't detected that yet? I mean, your theory is that when too much fat builds up, it sends out this hormone, and it should be in the bloodstream to get to the brain but you're not sure it's in the bloodstream.

DR. FRIEDMAN: I think we have indirect evidence that it's in the bloodstream, but we don't have the definitive evidence of having actually measured it directly.

MR. MAC NEIL: Suppose your hypothesis proves out and then transferring to human beings it works the same way there, are we headed for a time when somebody who's overweight because of their genes, genetic inheritance, could take something like giving the protein to the mouse in these experiments, that would help them get thin and control their weight?

DR. FRIEDMAN: I think that's conceivable.

MR. MAC NEIL: How conceivable? I mean, is this wild speculation, or is this reasonable speculation?

DR. FRIEDMAN: I think it's reasonable speculation.

MR. MAC NEIL: This is -- I'm interested in the way you talk about the messages getting to the brain. An obese person in today's society is under a lot of pressure, sometimes cruel pressure, social pressure and medical pressure, not to be so fat, and their brains are hearing that message all the time from television and from learned publications. Is it -- is it conceivable that a chemical message going to the brain through the system, if it were operating normally, would be more effective than all the messages they get from society?

DR. FRIEDMAN: I think that is conceivable. I could answer the question at a slightly different way, and that is taking in enough food and regulating food intake is a critical process for all living organisms. That's a basic bodily function, and so we might ask: How much conscious controls ought we have over something as crucial as that for survival?

MR. MAC NEIL: But some organisms, if you give them too much food, make too much food available, will overeat, won't they, like dogs, if you leave too much food for them, will overeat, and human beings are being bombarded with invitations to overeat all the time, and this is the first society where food has been so plentiful where people can overeat, so how do you -- how do you - - is the genetic and normal functioning of the system so strong that it would overcome all the things that society is doing to interfere with it?

DR. FRIEDMAN: I believe it is, and underlying your question actually is an evolutionary argument. It may be that in ancient times none of us had access to enough calories, and we may have been selected for those genetic variants that allow us to very efficiently deposit energy as fat. And it may be that those same genes which were adaptive in this more ancient environment now lead to increased incidents of obesity in an environment where food is plentiful.

MR. MAC NEIL: I see. You mean, that people who adapted badly many hundreds of generations ago disappeared and we're left with the ones who adapted well, and now we're over-adapting, is that right, do you think, when there were no supermarkets, a hundred human generations ago, where people could buy anything they wanted to?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I think that's the basic idea, that there was some sort of selective or survival advantage for the people who could make due on limited calories, and those are the people who predominated and now populate many of our cultures.

MR. MAC NEIL: And we could make due on many fewer calories than we take in now. Well, I'll be interested to see how all that works out. Thank you very much for joining us.

DR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the U.N. Secretary General threatened to pull peacekeeping troops out of Bosnia. The Postal Commission approved a 3 cent increase in the price of a first class stamp, and the Achille Lauro cruise ship caught fire off the coast of Somalia, two people died, but one thousand others were rescued. Good night, Robin.

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