The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight full coverage of Senate hearings on buying access with campaign money, with excerpts, Senators Bennett and Torricelli, and a look at the Caspian oil project; then national standardized testing in the schools as seen by our regional commentators. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: An oilman said today that large donations to the Democratic Party won him access to President Clinton. Roger Tamraz testified before the Senate hearings on campaign fund-raising. Tamraz defended his actions and his being allowed in the White House. Yesterday a former National Security aide testified she tried to keep him out because of questionable business dealings in his background. Some committee members accused Tamraz of gaming the system, using his money and influence to win support for his business projects. We'll have more on the hearings right after this News Summary. Overseas in Cairo today ten people were killed in a terrorist attack on a tour bus. Lindsay Taylor of Independent Television News reports.

LINDSAY TAYLOR, ITN: According to eyewitnesses the gunman sprayed the vehicle with bullets at the same as throwing petrol bombs just as tourists were boarding. More than 30 people were inside the bus when it burst into flames. In the immediate aftermath police and security forces were extremely edgy. There had been a fierce gun battle during which three of the attackers were shot and wounded, but there were fears that others may have got away. The court is said to have been used by a German tourist company. The dead included German nationals, and it's thought their Egyptian driver and guide. Just yards away the Egyptian museum was sealed off as police searched for more of the gunmen, who'd been dressed in dark suits to blend in with the crowd. As the many wounded were rushed to hospital amidst scenes of chaos, the attack brought strong condemnation from politicians around the world.

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: On behalf of the United States Government I condemn this cowardly act of terrorism in the strongest possible terms. I offer our prayers and our condolences to the families of those who were killed or injured in this barbarous attack and to the governments of Egypt and Germany.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: Islamic extremists are being blamed for the attack, which came three days after the court convicted 72 people of subversion in ongoing trials of some 150 suspects.

JIM LEHRER: In U.S. economic news today the nation's trade deficit rose nearly 25 percent in July to 10.3 billion dollars, the highest it's been since January. Commerce Secretary William Daley said exports had declined in part because America's top trading partners have slow growing economies. He also said Japan and China were still restricting their markets to U.S. goods. A NASA official told Congress today it was still safe to send Americans to the Russian space station Mir. Frank Culbertson said he'd jump at the chance to go himself. House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner questioned the safety of the 11-year-old orbiter. It has recently had a fire, a collision, and frequent computer breakdowns.

REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Chairman, House Science Committee: I can't conclude from what I've seen so far that the benefits of visiting Mir in the future are still commensurate with increasing risks. What will it take for Russia to decide that Mir has passed its prime, or the United States to determine that it's not safe? Does someone have to get killed before NASA and the Russian space agency wake up?

FRANK CULBERTSON, NASA/MIR Project Manager: Those who know me and my history have seen that I take the lives of my friends very seriously and would never send anyone in phase one to do anything I have not done myself or would not do in the future. Others occasionally accuse me of even being too biased in favor of the crew's welfare. But the reality is these people are my friends.

JIM LEHRER: American astronaut David Wolf is scheduled to go Mir next week. Also in Washington today there were events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Air Force. The site of a planned memorial to airmen near Arlington National Cemetery was dedicated. It's where the military's first test flight occurred. Later at the Pentagon, President Clinton and Defense Secretary Cohen presided over a tape-cutting ceremony. In New York City today diplomats from four countries discussed a permanent peace in Korea. Representatives of the United States, China, and North and South Korea are trying to create a framework for talks to officially end the Korean War. Fighting stopped in 1953, with a cease-fire but not a peace agreement. Chelsea Clinton went off to college today. President and Mrs. Clinton went with her to Stanford University, where she'll be a freshman. Stanford is in Palo Alto, just South of San Francisco. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to buying political access, the Caspian pipeline, and our regional commentators on standardized testing. SERIES - THE MONEY CHASE

JIM LEHRER: Access to the President in exchange for campaign contributions; that continued to be the issue today for the Senate's fund-raising hearings. Kwame Holman has our report.

KWAME HOLMAN: Most of high-profile figures sought by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee thus far have refused to appear. They are implicated in violations of campaign fund-raising laws. International businessman Roger Tamraz has been described in countless press reports as contributing $300,000 to the Democratic Party to win U.S. Government support for a Central Asia oil pipeline project. Today a calm-looking and unapologetic Tamraz broke the pattern--he acceded to a committee subpoena and stated his own case.

ROGER TAMRAZ: I know that I am a man innocent of any crime. After all this time swimming in false accusations, the U.S. Senate rises like a lighthouse beacon, beckoning me to the solid ground I have been wanting, ground where what I have done will be recognized by people who share my love of democracy.

KWAME HOLMAN: The 57-year-old Tamraz says he has a love for U.S. democracy that had its genesis in his native Lebanon. Tamraz came to the U.S. and studied at the Harvard Business School in the 1970's and later became a U.S. citizen. By the 80's Tamraz was back in the Middle East running a large Lebanese bank and running afoul of anti-American authorities. Tamraz said he began what would become a long association with Intelligence officials when they asked his help in freeing hostages taken around the time of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans.

ROGER TAMRAZ: The U.S. asked me to arrange for safe passage into Lebanon for the person who was to lead American actions in retaliating and recovering our hostages. This man was abducted and tortured to death. His abductors, the suicide bomber supporters, enemies of the U.S. and peace, became my enemies. They attacked me with every means at their disposal. I was kidnaped, slowly poisoned, tortured, and beaten for three weeks in 1989, while I was the leading candidate in the Lebanese presidential elections. All of my assets, worth more than a billion dollars, were illegally seized by my enemies in power. Even in 1996, the harassment continued with the court case in which I was sentenced in absentia to 15 years in jail for being in contact with Israeli citizens. I would like to know why after all that I have accomplished, lived through, seen and participated in, I should be deemed unfit to visit the White House. I have risked my life many times for this country for no material gain.

KWAME HOLMAN: Committee Chairman Fred Thompson suggested information about Tamraz on the public record alone should have kept him out of several White House social events he attended in 1995 and '96.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee: A Lebanese court charged you with embezzling $200 million from a bank. In 1992, a Jordanian court convicted you in absentia for the same fraud, and sentenced you to two years in prison. A French court has ordered you to pay $56 million in connection with a financial dispute. And there is an outstanding Interpol warrant for your arrest. That was information that presumably they had access to.

KWAME HOLMAN: Because of such information, National Security Council officials recommended Tamraz be barred from meeting high level officials, including the President and the Vice President. But those warnings apparently never reached the right people at the White House. Tamraz was invited to a White House dinner in March 1996 and spoke to the President about his plans for an oil pipeline in Central Asia.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: Describe that discussion.

ROGER TAMRAZ: Well, it was just an introduction to the President, and he asked how I was. And I explained that I was on that project and that most probably the project would be going to overseas workers.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: Would be going where?

ROGER TAMRAZ: To overseas. It's going to be a project financed from overseas.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: Did he know what you were talking about?

ROGER TAMRAZ: Yes, he knows that I discussed the pipeline with him, yes.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: What was your reason for bringing it up? What were you hoping for?

ROGER TAMRAZ: Well, I was introduced to the President. And that's what you discuss, what you do.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: You say you didn't ask specifically. Did you ask in a more general way for his assistance?

ROGER TAMRAZ: No. I said, "If somebody wants to hear me out, I'm available." .

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, [R] Maine: Did you believe that by making the contributions, it would allow you to have that access?

ROGER TAMRAZ: No, because if I really wanted access, I wouldn't just go to social functions. I mean, you must understand what these functions are about. You think you get into the White House so you've won. It's only-- the fight begins when you get into the White House. Then there's a guerrilla fight to get close to the President.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Something you were successful in doing

ROGER TAMRAZ; Well, let me finish my position. First, the President is surrounded by the ladies, because they swoon around him. [Laughter.]

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: This one doesn't

ROGER TAMRAZ: Secondly, you have his bodyguards. And thirdly, you have the handlers. The same handlers that get you into the White House are sure, once you get in, that you don't get the chance to get what you want.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: But you were, in fact, successful in talking to the President about your pipeline project, were you not?

ROGER TAMRAZ: I think the record shows, ma'am, I'm a persistent person. I wouldn't be sitting here if I wasn't

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: That's very true. Do you believe that you would have been able to have the conversations, however brief they might have been, with the President of the United States about your pipeline project, a project in which you believed deeply, without having contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the DNC?

ROGER TAMRAZ: Honestly, no.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman And thank you, Mr. Tamraz.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: Thank you very much. One humorous moment in the last six months, and I was out of the room [laughter]. Senator Levin.

SEN. CARL LEVIN, [D] Michigan: When you didn't get the one-on-one meeting that you expected with the Vice President, you were frustrated?

ROGER TAMRAZ: Sir, I've been in much worse positions in my life.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: I understand. I understand. But my question is--

ROGER TAMRAZ: Petty politics never frustrates me; it amuses me.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Were you unhappy that you didn't get your one-on-one meeting with the Vice President?

ROGER TAMRAZ: Not really, because if they kept me from the door, I come through the window.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: I think that says it all.

ROGER TAMRAZ: Yes.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: The problem is that around here people can buy their way through the window. That is the problem. Now, I think you for your purposes, which you think are important purposes, were fighting for access to the President and the Vice President. I think you were doing it aggressively. I think you were hustling. I think you were being hustled at the same time. And that's the culture. That's the bad news. The good news is you didn't get your one-on-one meeting with the President, and its policy was not changed, if there is any good news in this story. But the bad news is that your hustle for a lot of money, that you thought, that you thought that that would get you access, that, in fact, it did contribute to getting you access. And the question is whether or not we're going to change it.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, [D] Connecticut: Let me ask you this, as my time on this round expires. As you look back at the $300,000 you gave, do you think you got your money's worth? I mean, do you feel badly about the fact that you gave and you didn't get any change on the pipeline, for instance?

ROGER TAMRAZ: What crystal ball? It's a fantasy. I was not looking for any change on the pipeline.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: So do you think you got your money's worth? Do you feel badly about having given the $300,000?

ROGER TAMRAZ: I think next time I'll give $600,000.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Don't give out your phone number.

KWAME HOLMAN: Also today the committee heard from the man former National Security Council official Sheila Heslin accused in yesterday's emotional testimony of pressuring her to help Roger Tamraz. Department of Energy Official Jack Carter testified he intended no such pressure and said Heslin misunderstood him. The Senate hearings continue tomorrow.

JIM LEHRER: Now the perspectives of two committee members: Republican Senator Robert Bennett of Utah, Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey. Sen. Bennett, how would you assess the testimony of Roger Tamraz?

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT, [R] Utah: He was certainly the most colorful character we've had before the committee in a long, long time, and kept everybody interested and riveted. I liked Sen. Levin's phrase when he said, "You've been hustled and you were hustling." I think he was hustling us a little bit today. He was playing a role. There's no question in my mind that many of the things he has done have been inappropriate; that the decision made by the National Security people to keep him out of the White House and out of the presence of the Vice President and the President was the right decision. But as he said, he's a very persistent person. And he found a way to go around that. And it was kind of fun to sit there and watch him. But this is not a man that I would lend any money to.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Torricelli, what about Sen. Levin's point that Mr. Tamraz is part of a culture, to hustle the hustle, as Sen. Bennett was just saying. Is that correct, or is this an aberration, or is this an extraordinary thing that Mr. Tamraz was involved in at the White House?

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI, [D] New Jersey: No. I think it's an accurate reflection that, indeed, in our culture--and I don't think it's unique to our own time--is part of our political and capitalist system. People generally have the belief with enough effort and enough money you will get access and you can influence decisions. But in hearings that have generally been bad news about the American political system it should be remembered that at least in one small moment the system worked. The National Security Council denied access for a meeting, policy was not influenced, the country did not change its judgment. He may have gotten to a social function, but he did not get the change of policy that he wanted for any price.

JIM LEHRER: Do you share Sen. Bennett's concern over the attempts to influence the National Security Council?

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: I do. And I think that if these hearings serve a function, it will be that there is going to be a rising ethical standard, no matter how we might change the law. If the National Security Council was on guard in this instance because of his background, one can only imagine in this and in future administrations the kinds of background checks we're going to go through to ensure that people who are, indeed, hustlers, and this man clearly was a hustler, a rakish character, are not going to get in the door.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Bennett, is there more involved here than a simple hustle? Was there something illegal involved here?

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: Well, what he was after, as he indicated, was not a change in policy. What he was after was government neutrality on the issue of the pipeline. If the government didn't say we really hate this idea, then he was prepared to sell it to other people as saying the United States has no objection to my pipeline. And he said that in his testimony; all I want is no objection. He's smart enough to know that a position of no objection is, in fact, a position and one that he can use. I think he came to closer to getting that than maybe we're giving him credit for because he's certainly had a lot of solicitation for concern over how he felt. There's a note that we saw that was written by the--signed by the chief of staff to the President, Mack McLarty, wanting to find out about this. Now, no, he never got the final statement that he wanted, but he came awfully close, and frankly, that scares me a little.

JIM LEHRER: Scares you in what way? Why does it scare you?

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: Because if we get to the point where campaign contributions can produce that kind of result and then say, well, we didn't change policy, we just kind of looked the other way and let him go on his way. Then we are in serious danger of having the government up for sale. This man knew exactly what he wanted and came dangerously close to getting it. I think the instinct that our witness yesterday had, which was don't let him in even to a social event, was the right instinct and should have been followed, and it was overridden by the pressure from the Democratic National Committee.

JIM LEHRER: That's Ms. Heslin, who was an aide at the National Security Council. Senator Torricelli, what do you think? Are you scared, as scared as Sen. Bennett about this?

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI: Obviously. We were all troubled at the idea that the word is out that for sufficient money you can get unlimited access and change policy at the highest levels. But it is worth knowing that something else came into these hearings today that's gotten very little attention, and that is the request to meet with the President was Mr. Tamraz's sixth request for meeting in the federal government. The previous five were all arranged by present or former employees of the Central Intelligence Agency. And it, I think, startled many of us, what is a Central Intelligence Agency doing arranging appointments for this individual in five different agencies of government and, indeed, ultimately, this orchestrated campaign to get in to see the President and to use Mr. Fowler to do so also came from an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, who called apparently without identifying himself, asking Mr. Fowler to get involved. It was a peculiar new twist on what is obviously an unsettling affair.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Fowler, was then their head of the Democratic National Committee. Well, Sen. Torricelli, do you think that the CIA improperly got involved in a political matter? Is that what you're suggesting?

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI: Well, I don't think first of all that the Central Intelligence Agency should be acting as an extension of anyone's private business setting up businesses, setting up appointments throughout Washington that involved changes of policy. That's one problem. Second, the idea that an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, who's clearly operating undercover would be calling the Democratic National Committee, seeking to use the chairman of the committee to change the National Security Council policy of not allowing access to the White House is another matter. I noticed in the hearing room today a representative of the Inspector General of the CIA was in the room. I assume that's an indication that they have an internal investigation underway, but it is worth noting here that somebody was duped. Not only was there an attempt to dupe the National Security Council into allowing Mr. Tamraz into the White House, Mr. Fowler, himself, was a victim. He was used, fortunately not successfully, to gain access to the President.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Bennett, how do you read the CIA involvement in this?

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: Well, I'm not sure how many of the people who set up these first meetings were former officials of the CIA, who had left the agency and had gone to work for Mr. Tamraz and, therefore, were his employees and how many were still connected with the CIA. That wasn't made clear to me. And if they were, indeed, separated from the CIA in that first series of meetings, it's perfectly appropriate for them to go to work for him and for him to use his employees. The thing that was interesting to me was that he had a very comprehensive series of meetings and hearings on his proposal. He tried to portray it before us--his proposal was turned down by a single woman in the Vice President's office with NSC background, and that on 20 minutes she turned down a really worthwhile proposal. The chairman made that very clear. He had every opportunity as a citizen, without using any political influence, to get his proposal--get his position before the government. And when that didn't work--because his proposal, frankly, wasn't any good--that's when he turned to his friend in the CIA to put the pressure on Mr. Fowler and yes, that is a disturbing thing that I think we ought to look into.

JIM LEHRER: Look into it, is it against the law, should somebody go to jail for this?

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: I'm not going to press that question until we get a little more information about it, but I would think it could very well be illegal for somebody on the government payroll to advance the interests of a private party in this fashion. I remember when I was on the government payroll in the executive branch I had a friend who asked me to make some introductions for him so he could go ahead with his business. I said, I can't do that. I am a federal employee. I can't pursue your interests in this fashion; it's just not proper.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Torricelli, many people are suggesting today that these two days, these last two days of hearings, are the most serious matters thus far brought up. Do you agree?

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI: Well, I think we've seen the most serious indication where someone so blatantly with an extraordinary amount of money was entirely unapologetic, just set out for personal interest to buy his way into the White House and influence policy. This is one where there were no shades of gray, so in that case, and perhaps because of the personality involved, it was the most revealing and the most disappointing in witnessing government.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Bennett is saying that Tamraz actually got something for his money. You're saying the opposite, right, that he didn't really get anything?

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI: I don't believe that he got anything, and remember before he ever contributed a dollar in political money--it should be remembered--he did have five different opportunities to present his case as an American citizen. Only in the sixth instance, because he was failing to influence policy, did he attempt to make a contribution. And even then I think the proof is in the final result; he gave the money. He didn't get his meeting. He gave the money. He didn't get his pipeline, and he didn't influence American policy. So what otherwise is a very disappointing account of a current American political culture, if you were to weigh the entire episode by the final net result, he didn't get a pipeline but he did get in front a congressional committee where he has to answer for his behavior. So the system may be bad but the situation isn't hopeless.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, gentlemen, thank you. And speaking of the pipeline, we're now going to take a look at that. But Senators, thank you both very much for being with us.

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI: Thank you very much.

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: Our pleasure. FOCUS - PIPE DREAM

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, that Caspian oil pipeline and national testing. Margaret Warner has the oil story.

MARGARET WARNER: It was the lure of big oil in the Caspian Sea region of Central Asia that led Roger Tamraz to try to cultivate the Clinton White House. For more on why we turn to Julia Nanay, director of the Petroleum Finance Company, an oil and gas consulting firm with clients investing in the Caspian Sea. Roger Tamraz once pitched his project to the firm. And William Maynes, president of the Eurasia Foundation, a non- profit group promoting free markets and democracy in the region. Julia Nanay, why are there so many western oil companies suddenly interested in this region?

JULIA NANAY, Petroleum Finance Company: Well, if you look at the oil industry and you look at the history of the oil industry, basically big and small oil companies, the last big oil producing province that was discovered through exploration was discovered over 25 years ago, and that was the North Sea. So essentially if companies are looking at investment opportunities, they really have very few places to go that offer the size and scale of an area like the Caspian Basin.

MARGARET WARNER: And what is the size and scale? What kind of reserves are we talking about?

JULIA NANAY: Well, essentially, if you look at the Caspian today, it's hard to tell exactly what is there, but if you look at estimates that the Department of Energy has come out with, they're saying that potentially there's about a hundred to two hundred billion barrels of oil in the Caspian Basin. And if you look at Russia, there's about 49 billion barrels of oil there. And if you combine the two, the entire former Soviet Union probably represents another Saudi Arabia.

MARGARET WARNER: And in trying to develop this, I assume there's some getting out already. What--how is some oil being piped out of there already? We might have a map, I think, to show this.

JULIA NANAY: Essentially there's very small oil production that's getting out, particularly, I think what I'd like to focus on is the Western Oil & Gas Company. There are companies that since--

MARGARET WARNER: If we could just stay with right now, there's one--that goes mostly through territory controlled by Russia, is that right?

JULIA NANAY: Yes. Basically the big project and the big story so far has been Chevron and Mobil's project Tangee Field in Kazakhstan. And there's about 160,000 barrels a day of oil being produced there. And it's going out through existing pipelines in Russia. And Chevron has also resorted to basically trying to get the oil out by rail, through the Baltics, and then it tankers it down to Baku and then rail through Georgia. So essentially they've had to piece together a system to get the production that they already have out of the region.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Give us a political snapshot of this region. Most of the countries there used to be part of the old Soviet Union, right?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES, Eurasia Foundation: Yes. And several new countries have been created. And now this region threatens to become the next cockpit of international politics involving Russia, China, the United States, Iran, and neighboring countries like Turkey.

MARGARET WARNER: So you mean all these major powers vying for influence with these new countries?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: With these new countries.

MARGARET WARNER: We have another map to show that. Why do these countries not just--in getting Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, in getting their oil out, why don't they just use the pipeline that's existing now?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Because that pipeline goes through Chechnya. And that is jeopardized by security reasons. And most of the other--

MARGARET WARNER: Explaining, that's that breakaway region of Russia, where they've had a big war.

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: That's right. Where they have had a big war. And most of the other pipelines they're talking about go through areas that either are currently the site of conflict, or could become the site of conflict.

MARGARET WARNER: Are they also looking for a way not to be dominated by Russia?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, certainly, those--some of the countries are close to Russia. Others are not. But certainly many of the countries hope to use this oil to get a genuine source of independence. And the money would permit them to consolidate their national independence and become countries that are truly independent.

MARGARET WARNER: And how does Russia regard this?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, Russia, I think that there are probably different factions in Russia that look at this region. I think there are certainly some that hope to get a predominant role. There are others that are determined that Russia have a share. And there are also people outside of the region who look at it differently. Some see this as a way to keep Russia out, others should come in and keep Russia out, and some believe that the only way to solve this is to get--let everybody have a piece of the pie.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. This may be obvious, but Julia Nanay, why do these countries need the western oil companies to develop these alternative non-Russian routes?

JULIA NANAY: Well, I think that they need the western oil companies for many reasons. Western oil--western capital for the oil and gas developments is essential, I think. It's essential for the upstream developments, the oil and gas production. It's essential for the pipelines. They need the western companies primarily for the capital and also for the technology, I think. You know, more probably in the deep drilling offshore in the pipeline side, they need them for the financing and essentially that the companies that are involved in production want to be involved in the pipelines as well.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Give us--describe briefly, if you could, the alternative routes. And we're going to put up a map, or several maps again, and this gets a little confusing. But I think it'll give us an idea of the variations as they try to skirt around Russia. What are some of the other options?

JULIA NANAY: Basically, the options are either you go and build a new pipeline that's going to provide you greater access to Kazakhstan in Russia, or from Azerbaijan you can go up North. Again, it's Chechnya, and Russia is looking at other options that bypass Chechnya, and then go up North again and hook into the Black Sea. Or you can go out West from Azerbaijan, and you'd be going out through Georgia or Armenia. Right now, the favored route is Georgia. You can either go to the Coast of Georgia and then down South to Turkey, or you can go to Tbilisi and then down South to Turkey. One of the--

MARGARET WARNER: This is the so-called Azerbaijan to Turkey route--

JULIA NANAY: Yes.

MARGARET WARNER: --that has different--

JULIA NANAY: Variations.

MARGARET WARNER: --ways of doing it. Yes.

JULIA NANAY: And then the other route that the U.S. would very much like to see is a route out of Turkmenistan that carries gas first and then oil through Afghanistan to Pakistan and then on to India.

MARGARET WARNER: I don't think we have a map of that.

JULIA NANAY: Yes.

MARGARET WARNER: And then is there also an option to go down through Iran?

JULIA NANAY: Well, the option to go down through Iran is something that has been studied and essentially I think what is happening now is that as these countries realize that Russia controls the access routes to their oil and gas they're beginning to look at Iran as a favored option, and Kazakhstan, in particular, is now taking companies and from Asia that are willing to invest in their upstream oil and gas producing projects because they're going to drive pipelines to Iran. But this is being studied, yes.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. So what are the U.S. national interests here?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, I think that they're basically to get the oil out in order to increase the world supply. I think that's the basic interest. There are some people who look at this as an opportunity to try to wall off Russia. I think that--I think it's--one would have to be honest and say that some people see that as a possible reason for the United States to get involved. But I think the primary U.S. interest is to get the oil secured for the world market.

MARGARET WARNER: And what is it that both Roger Tamraz--but also all these other oil companies have a lot of other people lobbying in Washington for them, do they not, a lot of former U.S. officials--who are they and what are they looking for from the U.S. Government?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: The U.S. Government is a very important player in this because, as your other guest was pointing out, you have to have capital in order to develop this. And American oil companies are a major source of capital here, although, you know, China has just signed a big agreement with Kazakhstan, and they're going to be putting in money. But you have to have the capital. And the U.S. Government is going to have to bless this and give it political support if it's to work. Also, the United States is going to have to play a very important role in trying to solve the security issues there. The United States right now with Russia is trying to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

MARGARET WARNER: This disputed region that they went to war over--

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: That's right.

MARGARET WARNER: --and there's a--some sort of sanctions, are there not, U.S. sanctions against Azerbaijan?

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: The U.S. Congress in 1992 prohibited the United States from providing assistance to the humanitarian or developmental assistance to Azerbaijan.

MARGARET WARNER: And I understand that Secretary--former Secretary of State Baker and many other senior former U.S. officials have--are working on behalf of these, trying to get this lifted.

CHARLES WILLIAM MAYNES: Well, they are consultants to some of the oil companies that would like to see this restriction lifted in order to improve the U.S. relationship with Azerbaijan.

MARGARET WARNER: Have they made any progress, do you know?

JULIA NANAY: On Section 907?

MARGARET WARNER: That's the section--

JULIA NANAY: Yes.

MARGARET WARNER: --the U.S.--sanctions.

JULIA NANAY: I think that it's unlikely that the section will be lifted this year, but there is some effort to at least restore Exon Bank financing and let OPIC operate in Azerbaijan.

MARGARET WARNER: OPIC being Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

JULIA NANAY: Private Investment Corporation. And there may be--

MARGARET WARNER: Which backs loans

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Goodling's voice has been the strongest in Congress opposed to national testing, and on Tuesday, he was lining up support for an amendment to the education spending bill that would ensure no money could be spent on the President's plan.

REP. LINDSEY GRAHAM, [R] South Carolina: Take some time to find out how much money is being spent at the local level and see if this $100 million program does any good, or we should take the $100 million and give it to the classroom teacher, who will actually meet their child every day and see if they can help produce a better result.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Throughout the evening members came to the floor to highlight the merits of national testing and expose its shortcomings.

REP. JAMES MORAN, [D] Virginia: Today we are behind other nations in educational achievement. 40 percent of our children are not reading at the level they should be; 20 percent of our 8th graders are not even taking Algebra. We know these statistics because we recently conducted studies comparing the achievement of our students with those in othercountries. This analysis is a valuable tool for educators and the administration is trying to conduct a similar analysis to determine how local school districts compare nationally. It is the same kind of approach to find put what we need to be doing to better serve our students.

REP. CALVIN DOOLEY, [D] California: And what the voluntary testing will allow--will allow that parent and those schools to gain a greater understanding of whether or not they need to be doing a better job; whether or not they ought to be making some improvements in the way they're trying to educate their children and how they make them more proficient in reading. We're going to be doing a better job in giving schools and again parents the information they need to know whether or not they ought to be doing something and trying to develop some of the basic math skills which are critical to an individual's future success.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: One of the one of the main arguments against national testing was fear of expanding the federal government's role in education.

REP. CHARLES NORWOOD, [R] Georgia: What this debate is really about is not testing, but it is about curriculum. Testing is just the next step in a liberal agenda for Washington to seize control of our local schools. My folks at home don't want that. They don't think the Department of Education should run their local schools. If the federal government established testing on which all of our school systems are judged, the next step will be for the federal government to establish a national curriculum to match the tests.

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON, [R] Arkansas: We need to keep control of our children's education in the hands of the local people who work daily with our children and our parents to properly educate them. They are the most qualified to assess their educational needs. We do not need to justify an even more bloated and unmanageable Department of Education. Let's invest the money in our children, not in our administrative paperwork.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Republicans were nearly united in opposing national testing, but they were joined by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which resulted in an interesting debate among Democratic liberals.

REP. MAXINE WATERS, [D] California: The CBC cannot support any testing that may further stigmatize our children and force them into lower educational tracks and special education classes. I recently reviewed the test results of a test in California. It may have been the achievement test. And it told me what I already knew; the kids from Beverly Hills did very well, the kids from Compton and from Watts did not do as well. Our children are failing because, in many cases, there's just plain lack of resources in districts that are poor, that don't have the resources.

REP. MAURICE HINCHEY, [D) New York: Some of said that testing establishes a stigma. Well, what kind of stigma is worse than the stigma of not being able to do simple mathematics, or what kind of stigma is worse than the stigma of not being able to read and write, to be able to communicate properly?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But Republicans held solid. And with the support of some 70 Democrats, they easily approved Bill Goodling's amendment blocking any funding for national testing. However, the House vote sets up a confrontation with the Senate, which last week just as easily approved funding for national testing.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, the national testing debate as seen by the NewsHour's regular panel of regional commentators: Patrick McGuigan of the Daily Oklahoman;Mike Barnicle of the Boston Globe; Lee Cullum of the Dallas Morning News; Bob Kittle of the San Diego Union Tribune; and Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution. Cynthia Tucker, should there be national testing?

CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: Absolutely, Elizabeth. This is one country about to go into the 21stcentury, competing with nations around the world, and all American students ought to be taught the same things. It strikes me as ludicrous to say local school systems know what their children need to learn. It's not as if this nation is separated into all of these distinct geographical regions anymore and all Southern children need to know is about agriculture. All American children need to meet a minimum standard of mathematics and reading. And that is not-- not only not bizarre, it's a very reasonable proposal.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Pat McGuigan, should there be testing so that all students are taught the same thing?

PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: Absolutely not. I think that a nationalized federal test is a bad idea. I think education should be local and personal; it should not be federal and bureaucratized. I join the critics, both left and right, in questioning the utility of all the money that's going to be spent on this. And I would much rather see--even though I'm dubious about the entire federal role in education--I would much rather see all of that money sent to the states, most of which are already testing. Here in Oklahoma we have a criterion reference test spread throughout the elementary and secondary years. And I'd much sooner trust the findings of the Oklahoma superintendent of public instruction than I would the federal U.S. Department of Education. I disagree with Cynthia on this one.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mike Barnicle, should all this--money be sent to the states, as Pat says, or should there be national testing?

MIKE BARNICLE, Boston Globe: Well, I think there probably should be "a" test. I think any test that gets children up for taking a test, that gets them into the discipline of having to take a test is probably a good thing. But that's not really the issue, and I think most of us realize it. I mean, you heard in that piece that preceded us a pack of politicians talking like politicians instead of parents. The real problem with public education in this country is parental involvement; it's discipline in the schools; it's the sad fact that too many adults today know more about the death of Princess Diana than they know what their children are going to have for homework this evening. They know that the school day is too short. They know that the school year is too short. They know that the kids are not getting what they ought to out of public school. They know that by the time they get to the fourth grade or the eighth grade for the math test it's too late for many of these children. The schools have to get back to the basics, and people in this country have to get the feeling that they're getting the best bang for their buck in public education, which they certainly are not now. I have seven kids, and I know I'm not.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Bob Kittle, is that right, that the issue is not really testing but these other matters that Mike just talked about?

ROBERT KITTLE, San Diego Union Tribune: Well, the real issue, Elizabeth, is accountability. And that's why we need a national test. We cannot hold--our parents cannot hold public officials--school board members cannot hold our schools accountable unless we know how they are doing. And we don't know how they are doing when we have this patchwork of tests that is now being used throughout the country. It's impossible for me as a parent in San Diego, for example, to know whether the schools my children attend are doing as well as the schools say in Oklahoma or in Georgia. And that's why we need one yardstick to measure how students are doing. And with that yardstick then we can take the schools that are not performing well, whether they're in the inner city or elsewhere, and redirect our energies there, see what can be done, what kind of remedial action might be taken to help schools that are not performing well. And the schools that are performing well, perhaps we can learn from them how to do things better.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Lee Cullum, do you agree with that, that the yardstick is what we really need?

LEE CULLUM: Yes. I do agree with that, Elizabeth. I have talked to a number of people the last two or three days about this issue, and I certainly find those who share the concerns expressed on that tape and expressed by Patrick McGuigan in Oklahoma City, but I also called a couple of educators whom I respect, one a woman named Liza Lee here in Dallas, who runs a private school but is very interested in public education. She says that a national test would be an efficient but blurry snapshot of where we are right now. And it is not--it's a limited look at intelligence and achievement, but it could be useful. I also talked with Don Hearse at the University of Virginia, who is giving his life to working with elementary schoolchildren. And he says that the test, in principle, is a good idea, but you have to be very careful of the content, especially in math. You want the questions to be questions that are susceptible to factual objective answers and not the fuzzy stuff that Lynch Haney quite correctly complains about. So my own view is yes, have the test, be careful of the content, and don't let it become a tracking mechanism. Don't let it become a part of the permanent record of schoolchildren today.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Bob Kittle, what about the argument that's made that this is not a proper role for federal government, that this is too much big brother getting involved in local issue?

ROBERT KITTLE: I appreciate the concern. We don't want, in my view, to have national education standards driven by a bureaucracy in Washington. But that's not what this testing plan would do. To begin with, it's voluntary. And states and school districts can participate, if they choose to. They will if it's a good test. If it's not a good test, they won't. And there's no way to force them to participate. But beyond that, the testing mechanism, as it was altered in the Senate wouldn't be the Department of Education that would draw up the test; it would be an independent bipartisan board that I think we can trust to come up with some objective, non-politicized standards in reading and mathematics so that we can all see how our children are doing.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mike Barnicle, are you concerned about--are you concerned that this would give too great a role to the federal government?

MIKE BARNICLE: Yes, I am. I wouldn't want a bunch of bureaucrats from the Department of Education, as well intentioned as they are, you know, having their hands over all over public education in New England and Massachusetts. But, again, it strays from the issue. Public education is the core of this country. It's the foundation of this country. The vast majority of people are educated in public schools, in Boston, and I would imagine all over the country, are being marginalized by politics and you heard the politics of the test in the preceding clip. They're being marginalized by teachers unions. The kids end up not getting what they ought to get out of the school day. You're going to many libraries and many larger school-urban school systems in this country. You'll find books where President Kennedy is still alive or a man has not yet landed on the Moon. We have to get back to the basics of education as it was thirty, forty, and fifty years ago in this country, where from K through 5, or K through 6, kids learn how to read, write, do math, speak English, and have nice penmanship. That's a critical need I think before we even get into testing.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Pat McGuigan, do you think that because of the problems that everybody's just run through the federal government--I mean, are you not willing to accept the argument that the federal government might be the only way to solve this problem nationally, for there to be national testing?

PATRICK McGUIGAN: Sure. Well, first of all, I don't think that the public schools are the foundation of the country. I think the foundation of the country is individual human liberty: ordered liberty, government that respects the rights of individuals. I think nationalizing education in this direction would just be another step in doing some things that have not served the country well. I believe we're going to wind up having a replay if we go this direction, even though Bob is right about the change made in the Senate, that it's a private consortium that'll oversee it in corporation with the Department of Education. I think we'll see a replay of the national history standards fight and what was it, the humanities standard fight before that, because of the polarization that's occurred around these issues. There are lots of testing instruments out there that are very credible and respected, many of which even incorporate the cultural sensitivities that Rep. Waters was talking about in the segment before we spoke. So I think those testing instruments are there. They're available from the private sector for individual schools and school systems to use. That is a better way to go. Let's get more coal, more coal down into the ranks of our school systems, more resources for our teachers, and better teachers, and better facilities for our kids, rather than yet another testing instrument. I don't think this is a good idea.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Lee Cullum, you said you were for these tests but you didn't want them to be used for tracking and other purposes that might stigmatize some people as--that's a concern, as we heard in the piece. How would you avoid that?

LEE CULLUM: Well, I think you treat it as an indication of where things stand now. You treat it as a guideline to what needs to be done next, but you don't build a database of these test scores. That's how you do it. They don't remain. I think the American way is always to expect people to grow and develop and change. The European way, as you know, is to track people from age 11 or so. They take a very definitive test, and they either go the academic route or the more vocational route. That's not the American idea, and I think this test can be arranged in a way that does not violate the American idea that one can always change and grow and develop.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Cynthia, what do you think about the argument that Maxine Waters and others have made, that the results will be used to stigmatize groups?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: I think it's a ridiculous argument, Elizabeth. The fact of the matter is, is that children coming out of poor school systems, be those children black, white, or brown, are already stigmatized. It's not as if employers don't already know that those children don't have basic skills. They do. Furthermore, it is insulting to suggest that African-American children and Latino children in poor neighborhoods can't master standardized tests. They can. It--Congresswoman Waters was right to suggest that they don't have the resources they need at the moment in many cases, so let's improve the resources. But how will we know that they have measured up to a basic standard unless we test them. And those children absolutely can meet those standards.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Bob Kittle, has this gotten too political, in your view, this whole question?

ROBERT KITTLE: Oh, absolutely. It is a shame actually that we don't have just a private sector solution to this. And, you know, many, many school districts have for years used the Iowa test of basic skills that's used by private schools and public schools. And it provides a benchmark that is not politicized. Unfortunately, it's not used widely enough. It's not used universally. So we need a universal test. And it's too bad that it takes on all of the political baggage that it does, but I just think that with changes made in the bill in the Senate that this is a very sensible idea; we need it; and I hope the House will come around to the idea that this does make sense. It's a way to improve our schools, and that's what it's all about.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Pat McGuigan, just very briefly, too political?

PATRICK McGUIGAN: Yes. I think it's become too politicized and could increase if we go this direction. If we want models of what works, you don't have to look further than a city like Chicago, where there's a lot of folks who are very challenged economically and yet have succeeded through schools like Marva Collins Westside Preparatory, a private school, and a Catholic school like Providence St. Mills. Those are models--if we want to talk about intervening in ways that will positively affect the delivery of education to our most challenged children, it'd be better to go in empowering those kinds of models than to go towards a national test like this.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all very much. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, oilman Roger Tamraz told Congress his large donations to the Democratic Party won him access to President Clinton. Ten people were killed, twenty-four injured in a terrorist attack outside a museum in Cairo, and the nation's trade deficit rose nearly 25 percent in July to $10.3 billion, the highest since January. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening with Former President Carter and Shields & Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.