The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

RAY SUAREZ: Good evening, I'm Ray Suarez. Jim Lehrer is off today. On the NewsHour tonight: Margaret Warner and the debate over military preparedness; Senate candidates Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio debate in New York; faster, higher, stronger on the eve of the Olympics, Tom Bearden reports on the athletes and their 21st century tools. And essayist Richard Rodriguez considers the appeal of the games. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

RAY SUAREZ: The fallout from the Wen Ho Lee case continued today. In Washington, Attorney General Reno said she had no apologies to make to the nuclear scientist. He was freed yesterday in a plea agreement, after nine months in solitary confinement. He admitted copying classified computer data to tapes at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Federal Judge James Parker was sharply critical of Lee's treatment, but Reno said Lee was to blame because he didn't cooperate.

JANET RENO: With respect to issues of whether apologies are out of the question, or what should have been done differently, with all my heart and soul I wish that Dr. Lee had come forward, and said, "This is what I did with the information. This is what I did with the tapes. I made copies, I didn't make copies, and here, I'll sit down with you and we'll work it out and I'll try to give you as much information as possible to permit you to confirm and corroborate it."

RAY SUAREZ: Later, president Clinton had harsh words for the way the Justice and Energy Departments handled the case. He spoke at an unrelated patients' rights event at the White House. He said he always had reservations about the denial of bail to Lee.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The whole thing was quite troubling to me, and I think that it is very difficult to reconcile the two positions that one day, he's a terrible risk to national security, and the next day, they are making a plea agreement for an offense far more modest than what had been alleged. Now, it may be that the plea agreement is the right and just thing. And I have absolutely no doubt the people who were investigating and pursuing this case believe they were doing the right thing nor the nation's security. But I don't think that you can justify in retrospect keeping a person in jail without bail, when you are prepared to make that kind of agreement.

RAY SUAREZ: Under the plea bargain, Lee has agreed to tell the government all he knows about seven missing tapes. The case began as part of a probe of alleged Chinese espionage. In the presidential race today, Governor Bush and Vice President Gore agreed to hold three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate. Their campaigns accepted a proposal from the Bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. The Bush-Gore face-offs will be October 3 in Boston, October 11 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and October 17 in St. Louis. Vice Presidential Candidates Cheney and Lieberman will meet October 5, in Danville, Kentucky. Aides to Vice President Gore dismissed allegations today linking campaign funds to a presidential veto. The New York Times reported Gore was asked to call a Texas lawyer in 1995, and press him to contribute $ 100,000 to Democrats. The lawyer opposed a bill setting limits on product liability suits. President Clinton ultimately vetoed that bill. Gore's aides said last night the Vice President never made the phone call. Republican George W. Bush said the fund-raising allegations are really disturbing. He said Gore "may have crossed a serious line." Bush said the way to end years of scandal is to elect a President who restores honor to the White House. He spoke during a campaign appearance in Newport Beach, California. Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan today received $ 12.6 million in federal matching funds. The Federal Election Commission formally awarded him the money, and the Treasury Department wired it to him. Physicist John Hagelin had claimed he was the party's real nominee, but he dropped plans to appeal the funding decision. In Britain today, fuel-tax protesters began calling off blockades at oil refineries and depots. They said they had won a moral victory on their demand for lower taxes, and said they might have lost public support if they continued. In London, Prime Minister Blair said he would listen to the protesters' concerns, but he would not promise action.

TONY BLAIR: If we yielded on this, I simply ask you how long before someone else with a grievance or a cause-- and there is usually good reason for most grievances and causes-- how long before they decided that they too had a right to shut the country down in pursuit of that cause or grievance.

RAY SUAREZ: The gas blockades disrupted schools, hospitals and businesses across Britain. Retailers said it would take two to three weeks to refill thousands of empty gas stations. Boeing said today it would redesign the rudder system on its 737 aircraft. Rudder trouble was suspected in two crashes involving the planes, in Pennsylvania in 1994, and Colorado in 1991. The Federal Aviation Administration called for the change. More than 3,000 Boeing 737's are in service. Retrofitting all of them could take years. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: America's military readiness, the New York Senate debate, high-tech tools and the modern Olympian, and a Richard Rodriguez essay.

ISSUE & DEBATE - MILITARY READINESS

RAY SUAREZ: Now to another in our series of campaign issue and debates. Tonight, the question of military readiness, and to Margaret Warner.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander- in-chief today, two entire divisions of the army would have to report "not ready for duty, sir."

MARGARET WARNER: From the night George W. Bush made that charge at the Republican convention, the question of whether American military forces are ready to fight has emerged as a top campaign issue. Several times in the past six weeks, Bush has said that military readiness, a key indication of military strength, has slipped during the Clinton years.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Two weeks ago in this very city, I said what I'm going to say again. The current administration inherited a military ready for the dangers and challenges facing our nation. The next President will inherit a military in decline. As a percentage of the GNP, our investment in national security is at the lowest level since World War II. Overall in the armed services, commitments around the world have tripled, while our forces have been reduced by 40%. (Band playing)

MARGARET WARNER: Al Gore has responded by defending his administration's record.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Our Navy has more than twice as many surface ships than China, more than three times as many as Russia. And our Air Force is by far the largest and most modern in the entire world. If anyone doubts our strength, let them talk to our pilots patrolling the skies over Iraq right now. Let them meet the sailors who have kept the peace in the Taiwan Strait. And let them remember our overwhelming victory in Kosovo, without a single American life lost in battle. Our military is the strongest and the best in the entire world. (Applause) If you entrust me with the presidency, I pledge to keep it that way.

MARGARET WARNER: "Readiness" refers to the armed forces ability to wage war now, if called upon to do so. It's measured by factors like how much combat training soldiers are receiving, the condition of weapons and availability of spare parts, the force's ability to transport troops wherever they're needed, and such staffing barometers as the number of new recruits, how many service members reenlist when their terms expire, whether units are operating at full strength, and perhaps hardest of all to gauge, the morale of the troops. The U.S. armed forces have been sharply cut back since the Cold War ended. The total number of uniformed personnel fell from 2.2 million in 1989 to 1.4 million today. During that time, military spending declined from $ 392 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars to $ 292 billion this year. (Explosions) Still, U.S. military planning has been based on the expectation that U.S. forces are ready to fight two major regional wars at nearly the same time-- in Korea and the Gulf, for example. But U.S. troops haven't seen that kind of combat. Instead they've been deployed to peacekeeping and humanitarian missions in places like Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, as well as patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq. Signs that America's military was being strained by these operations started in 1993. Over the years, anecdotal stories accumulated in the trade press about short falls in training funds, lack of spare parts, and highly trained pilots deciding not to reenlist. Still, as recently as early 1998, the Clinton administration and senior military leaders insisted there wasn't a problem.

GEN. HENRY SHELTON: I can report we remain fully capable of conducting operations across the spectrum of conflict. We are fundamentally healthy.

MARGARET WARNER: But seven months later, the military top brass was back on Capitol Hill, and saying they did, in fact, have a readiness problem.

GEN. HENRY SHELTON: Our forces are showing increasing signs of serious wear. Anecdotal, initially, and now measurable evidence, indicates that our readiness is fraying and that the long-term health of the total force is in jeopardy.

MARGARET WARNER: In response, early last year the Clinton administration proposed increasing military spending by $ 112 billion over six years, a roughly 7% increase.

WILLIAM COHEN: The budget includes the first sustained increase in defense spending since the end of the Cold War.

MARGARET WARNER: The Pentagon's most recent quarterly readiness report to Congress, covering April to June of this year, said... "Thanks to increased funding, the overall readiness of our forces is improving." But the report said there were still "force readiness and capabilities shortfalls that increased risk in executing operations, if called upon to fight two major wars at once."

MARGARET WARNER: What is the state of the U.S. Military today in and how differently do Bush and Gore see the issue? To explore and debate that we're joined by Stephen Hadley, former Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Bush administration -- now a senior policy adviser to George W. Bush; Gordon Adams who oversaw foreign affairs and national security spending at the Office of Management and Budget in President Clinton's first term. He now co-chair's Al Gore's defense advisory group; Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration, and now vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations; and retired Army Colonel David Hackworth, who served from 1946 to 1971. He's the author of "About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior," and is a syndicated columnist for King Features. Welcome, gentlemen. Steven Hadley, George W. Bush has made two broad charges here, and let's take them one by one. The first is that the U.S. military is in decline. What's the evidence of that?

STEPHEN HADLEY: There's two bits of evidence. One thing, it's important to say what he's not saying. U.S. Military is the best in the world, and the men and women in uniform do a terrific job. Nobody disputes that. But there's a problem, and it's got a short-term and a long-term piece. The short-term piece is, are we doing enough to support our men and women in uniform for the things we ask them to do today? The operations overseas are up by a factor of three. That means longer deployments, longer separations, and we begin to see, in this decade showing up, that showing up in terms of difficulties to recruit people, difficulties to retain people. And in order to hold that force, you need to pay them enough, you need to give them good housing, you need to put the kind of money into it that allows people to feel comfortable with foreign missions today. And there's a long-term piece. We built this force in the 1980's. This equipment is getting old, it needs to be replaced, so we have a modernization issue, but we also need to begin to both modernize the force and transform it to the lighter, mobile force that everyone's been talking about that we need to have. We haven't made much progress on that.

MARGARET WARNER: But let's go back even to the premise before, the details about readiness, which is that the U.S. Military is now, in some way, weaker or less capable than it was when Clinton and Gore... the Clinton-Gore administration inherited from George W. Bush's father. What's the evidence that it's in decline?

STEPHEN HADLEY: Well, one of the things that you've heard from military leaders, General Zinney, for example. He most recently said, we cannot now do the two simultaneous major theater wars that we plan for without accepting what he believes is undue risk and undue delay in executing the second piece of it. That's one measure. But I think the real measure is what we ask these men and women to do, day in and day out, and what they're telling us when there are questions raised about morale and retention and recruitment and those sorts of things. That's the issues we need to really address, and that's money, that's support, that's training, that's maintenance, that's good pay, and a lot of other things.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Gordon Evans, how do you and Vice President Gore see this, in terms of whether it's in decline?

GORDON ADAMS: Yeah. First off, it's clear that Vice President Gore does understand these issues. He served in the military. He voted for the Persian Gulf War along with only nine other colleagues in the Senate Democrats, so he's prepared to go to the mattress, with respect to American national security. He follows these closely and monitors these issues closely. I don't think this is fundamentally a readiness issue. This administration, current administration, has invested in readiness. Recruitment numbers, retention numbers are now meeting their goals this year, after a lot of investment by this administration. The first pay raise that has gone into effect, the largest pay raise, probably since the 1980's, has been put into effect by this administration. The quality of life investment has gone up 35% over the past eight years of this administration in constant dollars. In other words, we're investing in readiness, and the readiness is probably quite good. It's, in fact, proven in the performance. Where we send these forces, these forces perform, as Steve has said, superbly well. I think the real issues here are twofold, and the real differences between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush are twofold. One is, who is investing in transformation, and what does transformation mean?

MARGARET WARNER: What does transformation mean?

GORDON ADAMS: If you look at the force that is in place today, it is already significantly different from the force that was left behind at the end of the previous Bush administration. We have 90% of our aircraft-- fighter aircraft, for example-- capable of using precision- guided munitions. It was 9% back when this administration came into office. If you look at the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in Kosovo, to take data and provide it to shooters in order to target the Kosovo air war, the performance was superb. We couldn't do that ten years ago. So the force is clearly in the process of being transformed, and Vice President Gore has now put on the table resources that he's prepared to commit to making that transformation to continue, to build on that record. The other major issue that I think we have to confront here is, what are we using these forces for, and Vice President Gore is clearly in favor of forward engagement. He is clearly in favor of American leadership, and understands the synergy with which you have to use your intelligence, your diplomacy and your military capabilities...

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, we've got to...

GORDON ADAMS: ...in order to accomplish your goal.

MARGARET WARNER: We've got a lot on the table. Let me go back to the... in decline or in transformation. Colonel Hackworth, how do you see that in terms of the way the U.S. Military is today, vis- -vis what the Clinton-Gore administration inherited eight years ago?

COL. DAVID HACKWORTH: Well, I've been on this beat for 55 years, 26 as a soldier and 29 as a writer about soldiers, a war correspondent, and so on. In these 55 years, I have never seen morale as low as it is today, and I've never seen our readiness as bad as it is today. And it's shocking. The Marine Corps has no choppers. Their Harrier jets are gone. The Air Force is at 40% of operational effectiveness. The Navy's at 30% of operational effectiveness, and the gentleman who mentioned how well we did over Serbia, the Navy has just released an inspector general report that said we missed 50% of the targets over Serbia and over Iraq. So naval gunnery and naval piloting is just not what it should be. Across the board, in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, our readiness is very, very bad. And this is not a political issue; this is a life or death issue. These young folks that are defending our country-- and I agree with everyone who's spoken so far-- they're the best. But we don't know what's coming down the track tomorrow. We don't know if Iraq is going to raise its head. We didn't know in '88 when we were providing him with intelligence, and ammunition, and supplies, and so on that we'd be fighting him a couple years from now. You never know who your enemy is, and you have to be ready. We are not ready now, and I talk to 500 servicemen a day, I visit the military base once a week. I'll be off to Fort Benning, Georgia, for a week next week to talk to our grunts and take a look at our training, so I bring you factual reports of what soldiers are telling me, what leaders are telling me, and they say we're in serious trouble.

MARGARET WARNER: Lawrence Korb, how do you see it? That sounds like a bleak picture.

LAWRENCE KORB: Well, the military is certainly smaller than when President Bush left office, but I think it's more effective and it's more capable of dealing with the threats. After all, if we compare this, as you did in your opening segment, to what we spent in 1989 or besides, nobody would argue it's as effective or as ready, because it doesn't have to be. I think the problem, and Colonel Hackworth was pointing it out, we're still using the same type of readiness indicators and training as we did during the Cold War, and this is a new era. We're still buying Cold War-type weapons systems. We're sort of almost in an arms race with ourselves. We're going ahead with the next generation of military weaponry that was really developed to deal with the Soviet Union. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: The Navy had a great chance to buy an arsenal ship, which is a comparatively inexpensive ship, a couple of hundred million dollars that you could load up with missiles and you could fire against targets like we have been in the last couple of years. That died because nobody was willing to step forward. The aircraft carrier people didn't want it, the surface Navy people didn't want it, and so instead we build $ 1 billion destroyers and $ 6 billion aircraft carriers, rather than building this. If we were to buy the current generation of our fighter aircraft-- the F-15, the F-16, the FA-18 C and D-- instead of trying to buy $ 200 million fighters like the F-22-- you wouldn't have these maintenance problems, because you'd be able to replace the current generation of systems, rather than going ahead and buying the more expensive, more sophisticated, which you don't need in this day and age because you don't have a peer competitor.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me get Stephen Hadley to respond to that. That raises the bottom line question, which is, is the U.S. in jeopardy from any adversary or combination of adversaries we can see now or in the near term, and as both our guests in New York raised, who is it we should be getting ready to fight?

STEPHEN HADLEY: Look, we're in a wonderful situation in that we don't have the kinds of threats we faced in the Cold War. That's a great triumph for Americans; Americans are safer today than they've ever been before. But you don't raise the question in terms of, "do we have a bigger military, and are we spending more in defense budgets than all our adversaries?" We have a different standard. We say that when we send our men and women into combat, we want to give them the best America has to offer. We've set a standard. We go in, we go decisively, we win, we keep casualties home... low, and we get people out. You can't do that unless you address these issues both in terms of short-term readiness and long-term modernization, so the issue really is, are we doing right by the men and women in uniform, and I think the judgment really is that we're not. We've got todo better.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you see this?

GORDON ADAMS: Well, I think, to come back to the readiness point for a moment, I think in fact we have done right by the men and women in uniform.

MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry, let me interrupt you. What I'm really asking is, what do we need to be ready to fight? What should be the test today in this post-Cold War era?

GORDON ADAMS: I think that's the critical question.

MARGARET WARNER: No, just a minute. Let me just let Gordon Adams chime in here first.

GORDON ADAMS: I think that's the critical question, actually, is what is it we are... readiness for what? What are we to be ready for? And clearly, there are a series of things that are involved in what the Vice President has called forward engagement and American leadership around the world, in which your military capability is an essential tool. It's not your only tool, but it's a tool you have to marry up to your diplomacy, to your intelligence, in order to deal with what the military calls "full spectrum of contingencies."

MARGARET WARNER: Give us an example for people sitting at home saying, "what? Where? What's the scenario?"

GORDON ADAMS: We have contingencies all the way from what we do right now in the Balkans, which is a peace stabilization operation. Now, understand that Vice President Bush is not sure he wants to stay there. I would argue very strongly we play an important leadership role in the Balkans. We have an important deterrence and containment of Saddam Hussein in the Gulf, where this administration has 20,000 to 25,000 people deployed in the theater, that weren't there in 1990, before we went into Desert Storm, and are now there and fully capable, all the way to the restoration of democracy in Haiti, which was a successful operation carried out with the use of the military and with the use of foreign assistance and diplomacy. We got those troops in there safely because of the diplomacy worked, so there's a series of contingencies that go all the way from major combat contingencies right across to the American leadership role, in such areas as putting 200 people in to help with the logistics and communications in East Timor, where the Australians take the lead in a coalition, but we provide some of the spine that helps them to operate. American leadership is a global responsibility. The military is clearly one of the tools that we will bring to our arsenal of handling that responsibility.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, Colonel Hackworth, you weight -- I know you were trying to get in here earlier. In terms of what threat should we be ready for?

COL. DAVID HACKWORTH: I want to get to straight talk because all we're talking is bureaucratic talk at the defense level. I'm talking about what the grunts go through. Our armed forces are nothing other than a big fire department. When a fire occurs, and we never know when a fire occurs, that fire department has got to be ready to get there and put out the fire. It is a 911 force. Right now, our fire department doesn't have any will. Now, we say what's our judgment? There's no threats out there. You never know. Louis Johnson in May of 1950 told Harry Truman, the President, there were no threats out there. In June of 1950, we went eyeball to eyeball with the North Korean army when they invaded North Korea. And we got whipped. We were decisively whipped because Louis Johnson, the Secretary of Defense, was giving up the same kind of spill we're hearing here now that we're ready when we weren't. Now, thousands upon thousands of Americans were killed and wounded in the first six months of that war, and we were almost driven to the sea because we were not ready.

MARGARET WARNER: Colonel Hackworth...

COL. DAVID HACKWORTH: ....the fire department wasn't set.

GORDON ADAMS: It is an entirely different military today than in the Korean War. One example in the Korean War...

MARGARET WARNER: Let me get Larry Korb in here.

LAWRENCE KORB: I think, you know, when you go back and you look at these historical things like before the Korean War or Governor Bush talking about what it was like before World War II, that's completely irrelevant. Today, as Steve mentioned, we do -- we spend more than all of our competitors combined. We spend enough to be able to deal with what we have to. The problem you have is the military leadership particularly is still holding on to their Cold War type of thinking and training and doctrine and buying weapons. No wonder the troops are frustrated because when the Air Force spends $ 200 million to buy an F-22, that means they can't get the spare parts. They can't get the F-16's and the F-15's they should be getting. When the Navy doesn't buy an arsenal ship and you have to send a carrier task force out to do what one ship could do, then you do overwork the people. They haven't reorganized the military, the active and reserves since the end of the Cold War.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Mr. Korb, let me just interrupt you. Are you saying then that we don't have to be prepared for absolutely every contingency; that the U.S. just has to spend smarter?

LAWRENCE KORB: That's correct. I mean, and you could never prepare for every single contingency. You need to be able to fight a large war, and you need to be able to do these peacekeeping type of operations.

GORDON ADAMS: In effect preparing for every contingency. And in fact do you have to prepare for every contingency.

LAWRENCE KORB: Gordon, if you say are we prepared to do this, this, and this, and they all come simultaneously, no. And I think that's where we got ourselves into trouble with this simultaneous. Well, if we were all engaged in one place and something else happened, we need to have two, three, four. I mean, you would never end with it. I think a reasonable person has to say, well what is it I do, am I prepared to do it. And I would say we are. We don't manage well, we overuse certain units. And we under use other units. The army's civil affairs battalions - they are all in the reserves. That's what you are using in Bosnia and Kosovo.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Gentlemen, I'm sorry. We have to leave it there. I know this is going to go on for the next eight weeks, and we'll return to it. Thank you all four very much.

RAY SUAREZ: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the New York Senate debate, high technology at the Olympics, and a Richard Rodriguez essay.

FOCUS - FACING OFF

RAY SUAREZ: Now, the latest twist in the New York Senate campaign. Last night in Buffalo, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton squared off against Congressman Rick Lazio for their first debate. The moderator was Tim Russert of NBC News.

TIM RUSSERT: Good evening. And welcome to WNED-TV public television station studios in Buffalo, New York.

RAY SUAREZ: Both candidates were asked about health care. Mrs. Clinton was asked if the reform proposals she made early on in the Clinton administration would have hurt New York's teaching hospitals.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: In 1993 and 1994, we did attempt to reform our health care system to provide universal health care coverage. Now, as everyone knows, that was not successful. But we learned a lot, and Iin particular learned a lot about what we can do step by step to try to reach the goal of providing quality, affordable health care. And here in New York, there isn't any more important part of the health care system than the teaching hospitals, which are really the crown jewels of the health care system. We did propose a funding stream that would have provided additional funds to the hospitals, but we still have not done enough six, seven years later.

RAY SUAREZ: Representative Lazio was asked about his vote against legislation allowing patients to sue their HMO's.

REP. RICK LAZIO: We don't want to drive more people onto the rolls of the uninsured. Yeah, sure, a vote for that bill might have pleased some editors and some editorial boards, but it wasn't the right thing to do.

Ask the real health care experts right now, and they'll tell you that was bad legislation.

TIM RUSSERT: When 28 New York Congressmen vote one way and you vote another way, it's suggested that you did that because you're more loyal to the leadership of the Republican Party in the House than you are to the constituents of New York.

REP. RICK LAZIO: I don't think anybody can rationally say that, Tim. In fact, if you look at my record, it's a record of independence in the House, whether it's standing up on the environment or on funding for the arts, or on a whole range of other issues. I've been able to stake my claim and have a record that's reflective of New York.

TIM RUSSERT: Mrs. Clinton, your response.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, listening to the Congressman's response reminds me of a word I've heard a lot of this past year, "chutzpah." He stands here and tells us that he's a moderate, mainstream, independent member of Congress. Well, in fact, he was a deputy whip to Newt Gingrich. He voted to shut the government down. He voted to cut $ 270 billion from Medicare. He voted for the biggest education cuts in our history. Time and time again, when he's had a choice to make, particularly at the critical turning point when our country was really on the line with Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, he stood with the Republican leadership and Newt Gingrich. Once again, he's standing with the Republican leadership, not just against the rest of the Congressional delegation, but 200 health groups, including doctors and nurses.

REP. RICK LAZIO: Well, I have to go back to Mrs. Clinton's last remark, because it has to redefine the word "chutzpah." Mrs. Clinton, you of all people shouldn't try to make guilt by association. Newt Gingrich isn't running in this race. I'm running in this race. Let's talk about my record.

TIM RUSSERT: The issue of trust and character has been raised repeatedly in this campaign. Mrs. Clinton, I want to start with you. In January of '98, you went on the "Today" Show and talked about what had occurred at the White House. I want to play that for you and our viewers and our voters and give you a chance to respond.

MODERATOR: So these charges came as big a shock to you as anyone.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: (January 27, 1998 "Today") And to my husband. I mean, you know, he woke me up Wednesday morning and said, "you're not going to believe this."

MODERATOR: And so when people say there's a lot of smoke here, your message is... Where there's smoke...

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: There isn't any fire.

MODERATOR: If an American president had an adulterous liaison in the white House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it.

MODERATOR: Should they ask for his resignation?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: (January 27, 1998) Well, I think that if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true.

TIM RUSSERT: Regrettably, it was proven true. Do you regret misleading the American people?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, that was a very painful time for me, for my family, and for our country. It is something that I regret deeply that anyone had to go through. And I've tried to be as forthcoming as I could, given the circumstances that I faced. Obviously, I didn't mislead anyone. I didn't know the truth. And there's a great deal of pain associated with that, and my husband has certainly acknowledged that and made it clear that he did mislead the country, as well as his family.

TIM RUSSERT: In your response, Mr. Lazio, would you also address your fund-raising letter of July of 2000 where you said the First Lady embarrassed our country?

REP. RICK LAZIO: I stand by that fund-raising letter. I stand by that statement. And I think that, frankly, what's so troubling here with respect to what my opponent just said is somehow that it only matters what you say when you get caught. And character and trust is about well more than that. And blaming others every time you have responsibility, unfortunately, that's become a pattern, I think, for my opponent. And it's something that I reject and I believe that New Yorkers reject. We can do, well, better.

TIM RUSSERT: Mr. Lazio, your credibility was brought into question earlier in this race when this television commercial ran throughout the state.

SPOKESPERSON: Lazio and Moynihan made a difference. They're from New York. They're fighting for New York. Tell Lazio and Moynihan, "keep fighting for us."

TIM RUSSERT: Senator Moynihan wrote you a letter and said that you have never been photographed together, that this was misleading, and was "soft-money fakery." He asked you to contact the Republican Leadership Committee who paid for that ad, the two members of the advisory board, George Pataki, Alfonse D'Amato, and your campaign said, "we don't know how to reach them."

REP. RICK LAZIO: Well, let me say, first of all, that ad did not come out of my campaign. I'm taking full responsibility for everything that my campaign does, whether it's the letter that you referenced or any commercial. The truth of the matter is, though, that I was the author and was the prime mover in the House behind the working bill that this commercial was all about. The fact is, is that it did help disabled Americans go back to work and keep their health care benefits, that it was an accomplishment, that I am a doer, that I did get the job done, that it was signed into law. And that's the truth of the matter.

TIM RUSSERT: But why give the impression you're walking down the hall with Senator Moynihan when that was, in fact, dummied footage?

REP. RICK LAZIO: Well, listen, I don't stand for that. I reject that. But that's not my commercial. We would never have created that commercial or aired that commercial.

TIM RUSSERT: Why not call George Pataki and Alfonse D'Amato and say, "take it off?"

REP. RICK LAZIO: It was taken off.

TIM RUSSERT: At your request?

REP. RICK LAZIO: It was taken off. I think it ran its course, as a matter of fact.

TIM RUSSERT: Mrs. Clinton?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, I've been trying to run a campaign based on the issues, not insults, and I think that we've just seen a clear example of how difficult that is.

TIM RUSSERT: A question from Mark Hammester, who is here in the audience. Much of America is watching this race. Can both of you set an example to the rest of the country and renounce the use of soft money ads for the rest of this campaign? Mr. Lazio?

REP. RICK LAZIO: Absolutely. As somebody who has twice voted for McCain-Feingold, who is a strong believer in campaign finance, who got the support of the leader on the campaign finance movement, John McCain, I think it is my responsibility to try and lead on this effort. As America looks to New York, this is an opportunity for us to be able to say, "we don't have to rely on soft money." And my campaign has not had one commercial nor raised one dollar in soft money. My opponent has raised soft money by the bucket loads, and I guess they have learned how to raise soft money over many years. Let me say this, though, we have an opportunity to do something important here tonight. I have right here a pledge that I sent over to my opponent. It's a ban on soft money pledge. I am willing to say we will neither raise nor spend a dime of soft money, and ask all outside groups to stay away, if my opponent is willing to do the same.

TIM RUSSERT: Mrs. Clinton?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, Tim, you know, back in may, I made exactly that offer. I said, "let's forego soft money," but let's also be sure we don't have these independent expenditures, like the one we just talked about concerning Senator Moynihan and the fake ad. And I said, "you know, if you would do this, I would certainly abide by it." If you will get signed agreements from all your friends who say they are raising $ 32 million and will not be running so-called independent ads, will not be doing push polling, will not be doing mass mailings that are filled with these outrageous personal attacks, I think we can have an agreement. I would like to see those signed letters from all those different groups that you have counted on to flood this state. I think if we can get signed agreements from all of your allies when you wouldn't ask the one group to stop, but if you will get those signed agreements, then you know we can make a deal. But I also...

TIM RUSSERT: Do we have a deal, Mr. Lazio?

REP. RICK LAZIO: I'd like to get it done today.

TIM RUSSERT: Will you get those signed agreements?

REP. RICK LAZIO: I'd be happy to. Let's just get this deal done right now.

TIM RUSSERT: Let me get Mrs. Clinton to...

REP. RICK LAZIO: Right here, here it is. Let's sign it. It's the New York freedom from soft money pact. I signed it. We can both sit down together. We can all get all the media in here. We will make sure it's an ironclad deal. And I am happy to abide by anything that we all agree on, but let's get it done now. Let's not give any more wiggle room.

TIM RUSSERT: Mrs. Clinton, do you want to respond?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, yes, I certainly do. You know, I... I admire that. That was a wonderful performance and...

REP. RICK LAZIO: Then why don't you sign it?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: And you did it very well.

REP. RICK LAZIO: I'm not asking do you admire it, I'm asking you to sign it.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, I would be happy to when you give me the signed letters...

REP. RICK LAZIO: Well, it's right here. It's right here.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: When you give me the signed...

REP. RICK LAZIO: Sign it right now.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, we'll shake on this, Rick.

REP. RICK LAZIO: No, I want your signature, because I think that everybody wants to see you signing something that you said you were for. I am for it, I haven't done it. You have been violating it. Why don't you stand up and do something important for America? While America is looking at New York, why don't you show some leadership, because it goes to trust and character?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: And this new radio ad from the Republican party using soft money is not part of your campaign?

REP. RICK LAZIO: What are we talking about here? Let's put things in perspective.

TIM RUSSERT: We are out of time. We have to...

REP. RICK LAZIO: $ 6 million, $ 7 million, $ 8 million that you have been spending.

TIM RUSSERT: We have to allow time for closing statements.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I will use the 30 years of my experience to go to work for the people of New York. But, look, I know that there may be some who think that the most important issue is who has lived here the longest. That's the test. And if that's the test, I can't pass that test. But if you want someone who will get up every day and be on your side and fight for better schools, health care, and jobs, I can pass that test, and I would be honored to serve as a Senator on behalf of the people of New York.

REP. RICK LAZIO: Now, you have got to decide in this campaign how you define "character" and "trust." My opponent has talked and talked, but she has done nothing for New York. I've delivered for New York. And as an old Yankee manager Casey Stangell used to say, "You can check it out." So I look forward to your vote in November, and I thank you for being with me here tonight.

FOCUS - HIGH TECH SPORTS

RAY SUAREZ: Next, the science of swimming, the technology of track and field.

Tom Bearden has an Olympics preview. (Band playing)

TOM BEARDEN: In 1996, the Olympics were dubbed the year of the woman. This year may turn out to be the year of technology. Science is allowing athletes to train more effectively, nourish their bodies better, and to benefit from better equipment. The most visible and controversial innovation is the new swimsuit. Until recently, smaller was better on the theory that such a suit caused the least drag or resistance through the water. Newly developed full body suits were delivered just before the U.S. Olympic trials after the international swimming authority authorized their use at this year's Olympics. And several new records were set. Manufacturers claim the suits allow athletes to swim anywhere from 1 to 3% faster, a phenomenal gain when victory is measured in fractions of seconds. Amay Van Dykeen won four gold medals in Atlanta, two by a combined total of..3 of a second. She'll be wearing a full body suit in Sydney.

AMY VAN DYKEN: That 3 percent is the difference is between probably first and fifth in my event. So it is a big difference. And it is definitely going to help out a lot of people. We have done a lot of testing on the suit, and it's definitely proven to be a lot faster. World records are being shattered and the only thing that I can attribute it to is not different training, it's the suit.

TOM BEARDEN: Several manufacturers have been developing the suits for more than two years. At Speedo, the largest suit manufacturer, they scanned swimmer's body to develop a suit that would reduce drag as much as possible. Chief designer Stew Isaac said the result mirrors nature.

STU ISAAC: It is modeled after the shark skin and has ridges and almost scales on the surface that creates vortices around the surface of the skin which reduces overall drag. Then it also has a compression effect which reduces the extra vibration of the muscles to help -- make sure you don't lose toomuch energy. And thirdly it is the engineering of the seams and the fit of the suit that makes it truly move with the body.

TOM BEARDEN: Isaac says it was a long and expensive development process.

STU ISAAC: What we do is we start in a wind tunnel with the base fabric and do some pure research with the different designs of the fabric. Then we went from there to a flume which is a, really a wind tunnel for water. There we tested swimmers and models and from there into the pool to see if they really can did swim faster.

TOM BEARDEN: While many of the new suits may look the same, they are based on different concepts. Pier Sports is a small California swimwear company that has spent more than a million dollars developing their version. Instead of ridges and scales, they tried to make the suit as slick as possible. Matt Zimmer helped design the suit and tested it in real competition when he tried to make the Olympic team last month.

MATT ZIMMER: The stripes that you see here, these are functional panels where we have actually turned the stripes of the fabric in a different direction to control the water around it. Any of the strokes has got a tremendous amount of muscle manipulation that's happening. If you can control the movement of that a little bit better and keep it more in a streamlined position, the flow of water over the human form is going to be a lot smoother, the coefficient or friction is going to be less, and theoretically you're going to go faster.

TOM BEARDEN: While many swimmers began to jump on the bandwagon at the U.S. Olympic trials, some are skeptical. Ashley Tappan qualified for the Olympics in the 400 meter freestyle relay wearing a shorter version of the suit.

ASHLEY TAPPAN: The whole hype is really about the fuel body suit. And the testing that I have done in those have proven that the full body suit is not, does not help me. It actually just drags me down. So, for somebody else, it might work great. For me, it doesn't work.

SPORTSCASTER: A new American word for Ed Moses.

TOM BEARDEN: In fact, Ed Moses broke the American record for the 100 meter breast stroke without wearing a full body suit.

ED MOSES: Well, if you looked at the field of trials, I think I was the only one that didn't wear it and I'm the one that came out on top. I don't say the suit is going to make a difference, I think it is the mental picture. If you think the suit is going to help you, sure, great, if you have that thing on, it might help you. But basically gain it is the hard work and knowing that no matter what you are wearing, if you swim the race that you have trained for, you're going to do well.

SPOKESMAN: 15 seconds. Rock'n roll.

TOM BEARDEN: Richard Quick, the head coach of the U.S. Women's team thinks the suit could help bring down world records at these games. But he says his athletes are still learning how to use them to their best advantage.

RICHARD QUICK: Some people were warming up in the suit and we've since found out that the suit gets a little bit heavier when it gets wet. It is faster when it is dry, and when you are moving through the water very fast, I mean, it may sound funny to you, but the suit stays drier when you are going fast. But fur doing a slow warm up and that kind of thing and hanging out in the water, then it gathers water, and it gets a little heavier. So we're learning how to use the suit. But I do think it is going to cause the Olympic games to be a good deal faster.

PROFESSOR JOEL STAGER, Indiana University: We'll talk a little more of science.

TOM BEARDEN: But Professor Joel Stagersaid he can prove the suits don't work for anybody. He's the head of the human performance lab at the University of Indiana. Using data from all the swimming trials since 1968, without taking into account the kind of swim suit worn at the time, Stager constructed a mathematical model to predict swimmers' finishing times this year.

PROFESSOR JOEL STAGER: The conclusions basically suggest -- what was it William Shakespeare that said much ado about nothing - so basically the analysis shows that out of the 26 events that we forecasted, 24 out of 26 performed exactly as they should have.

TOM BEARDEN: Regardless of suits?

PROFESSOR JOEL STAGER: Regardless of whether or not the athletes were wearing suits.

TOM BEARDEN: But Speedo's Isaac said the proof is in the pool.

STU ISAAC: I think would you have a tough time convincing many of the swimmers of that. We've had 12 world records broken just in the last four months leading up to the Olympics, which is incredible in the pre-Olympic period.

TOM BEARDEN: But even Isaac is cautious about making too many claims.

STU ISAAC: The suit is not a magic bullet. The people that put the work in and get the coaching and really, really do what they are supposed to in training are still going to be the ones that win.

TOM BEARDEN: The athletes aren't the only ones concerned with winning medals. So are the manufacturers. Steve Furness, a 1976 bronze medal winners is one of the co-founders of TYR Sports.

TOM BEARDEN: How important is it to your company that your suits do well in the Olympics?

STEVE FURNISS, TYR Sports: Very. That's what we have made in the whole basis of sport promotion, athletes going fast in your equipment is the best form of endorsement a company can have. Obviously there are commercial arraignments with some of the athletes, but their performances and their exposure in those suits will make a big difference.

TOM BEARDEN: New suits may also be a factor in track and field. Nike has created outer wear for sprinters called the swift suit. It is a full body suit with a hood designed to not only reduce wind resistance but also to keep runners warm. Eddie Harber is Nike's chief designer.

EDDY HARBER, Nike, Inc.: The key area of innovation on the swift suit is the fact that we have different textures on different body parts. So each texture has been applied to the different body part to match the velocity of that body segment so the head and the torso are moving at 27 miles an hour; the hands and the feet are moving at 55 miles an hour. And the same way you can see this here, it functions on the same principle that a golf ball functions on. As the air flows over this surface, it is a layer of air closest to the arms is broken up and becomes turbulent. And the next layer on top of that moves very fast over that layer.

TOM BEARDEN: Marion Jones, who is going for an unprecedented five gold medals in women's track and field, believes the suit will help her in the chilly conditions of Australia.

MARION JONES: Everybody is a bit concerned about the weather in Sydney. And I'm no different. Obviously, as a sprinter, I would love it to be as warm as possible. But the fact that it will be in Sydney in September, pretty much guarantees that it won't be that warm, it will be about 68. And what really appealed to me in the beginning of this whole process was the fact this suit is designed for that type of temperature.

TOM BEARDEN: Technology is not only helping athletes in competition, but in training as well. The U.S. rowing team put sensors on each oar so coaches could see effort exerted and how much effort was on getting the oars in and out of the water. Even boxing is seeing some innovation.

SPOKESMAN: We display the information on the screen.

TOM BEARDEN: In the United States Olympic complex in Colorado springs, engineer Tom Conrad demonstrated an instrumented punching bag.

TOM CONRAD: The graph shows us the actual contact on the bag, force versus time. The graph on the bottom shows us a history of the punches, so we can look at fatigue factors to see if the boxer can punch as hard at the end of the bout as the beginning of the bout. It gives us 'em a very quantified measurement of how well they are doing. They can try different techniques, different punching styles and also determine the boxer's optimum punch.

TOM BEARDEN: Is the real time feed back important?

TOM CONRAD: Extremely. People don't remember what they did a week ago. If we collect data, post-process -and give them a stack of a printout a week later they have no idea what to do with it. If we can give them immediate feedback, they know what they have done and the coach can immediately make corrections.

TOM BEARDEN: Conrad has also developed a laser and computer system designed to help target shooters aim and squeeze the trigger more smoothly.

TOM CONRAD: The technology does not really improve what the athlete is capable of. It simply let's them get to a high level a little sooner, and perhaps stay there a little longer. The effect is small. But in many cases, with the margins of victory being so small, the resulting difference can be quite large.

TOM BEARDEN: As athletes gear up for the games, many of them will be using the best science they can find to help them win the gold.

ESSAY - ETERNAL FLAME

RAY SUAREZ: Some closing thoughts now about the Olympics. They belong to essayist Richard Rodriguez of the Pacific News Service. (Band playing Olympic theme)

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: Every four years, in summer, the runner enters the stadium, carrying the eternal flame, and with his torch he ignites the pagan dream of immortality. The crowd cheers. (Cheering) Am I alone in feeling so ambivalent toward this spectacle we call the Olympics? On the one hand, as much as any, I am thrilled by the athletes, their bodies so poised, and their prowess. On the other hand, I withhold myself from this, the largest pagan celebration in the world. (Speaking German) Most notoriously in our times Hitler understood the advertisement of a parade of perfectly-formed athletes. Simone Weil, the French Jewish philosopher, admitted that the pageantry of Hitler youth was wonderful to her, their banners and their music. One had to remind oneself that the parade meant to trample all who were not in it. Here they come now, from every nation, Olympic runners and wrestlers and jumpers. They parade, smiling, and waving at us. How should we not cheer? Yes, we cheer lustily as he flies through the air; cheer to see her run against time. This Hellenic ideal made flesh. The Hellenistic idea was the perfectibility of flesh. In America and those parts of Europe we call the West-- two competing influences have always been at play. Our civic life is described by Hellenism, the cult of the individual to become, and to say, and to be. The competing religious impulse, call it Hebraic, characteristic of Jew and Christian and Muslim, describes life as bounced by obedience, alone, I can do nothing. Matthew Arnold in "Culture and Anarchy" distinguishes

Hellenism -- spontaneity of consciousness-- from Hebraism, a strictness of conscience. These two influences intersect in America. In the Hellenistic ideal the forum, the gymnasium, and the university are in harmony. In America, there is disharmony. The architecture of our intellectual life is Greek or Greco-Roman. Fraternity row has long chosen to name itself "Greek," harkening to Athens. The architecture of official Washington is Greek, because the documents of our country are shaped by Hellenism. But in America the common, religious piety is Hebraic or tribal, which is why there is a constant hunger in America for public prayer-- at the football game, at the high school graduation, and why the justices in their Greek temple keep telling us that such prayer is impossible in America-- the Constitution protects the individual from the tyranny of the group. Hard to imagine the freedom of worship in America for Buddhist and Scientologist and Sufi, were it not for our Hellenistic adherence to this cult of the individual. But it is impossible to imagine in ancient Greece such a thing as the special Olympics-- cripples and the disabled running enabled. The danger of Hellenism is that it leads to a cult of the hero, who vanquishes all lesser beings. Recently, the Olympic altar has begun to crack. Gold medals have had to be stripped from athletes who could not pass drug tests. Then Tonya Harding's ex-husband and his band of goons assaulted a competing athlete. Then, several members of the International Olympic Committee resigned after five-star extortion of host cities. Historians tell us that the ancient Greeks attached no glory to losing. So, also, today: Only gold will get you onto the box of Wheaties. Only gold, not silver, not bronze, not a good try, will get you immortality. Only gold is immortal. As someone who feels his soul more Hebraic than Hellenic, I keep thinking that what is eternal about the eternal flame is the wish for immortality. The Olympics is a celebration of youth, of ripeness, of summer. It is the most sublime and foolish of human romances, and this is its liturgy. Appropriate now to the neo- paganism of today's America, where one senses everywhere the obsolescence of a word like "soul." The body is all, health is all, and death is the defeat of all. Let the games begin. I'm Richard Rodriguez.

RECAP

RAY SUAREZ: Again, the major stories of this Thursday: Attorney General Reno said she had no apologies to make to nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee, but President Clinton had harsh words for the way federal officials handled the case. And Governor Bush and Vice President Gore agreed to hold three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Ray Suarez. Thanks and good night.