The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MS. FARNSWORTH: And I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth in New York. After our summary of the news this Monday, we focus first on a Republican push for a moratorium on federal regulations. Two members of Congress and two Denver observers debate the idea, then the effect of the latest suicide bombing in Israel on the Middle East peace process. Next, an update on the post quake situation in Japan, and finally a Phyllis Theroux essay on staying inside. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton today signed into law the first bill passed by the 104th Congress. It's the Congressional Accountability Act which requires Congress to abide by fair labor, anti-discrimination, and other laws of which it had been exempt. Both Democrats and Republicans were present at the White House ceremony.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I am extremely pleased, and I think the American people are extremely pleased, that we are beginning the new year with a reform that requires Congress to live under the laws it imposes on the American people. I'm encouraged that we've begun this year with a White House in Congress, with Republicans and Democrats working together on a reform that has long been needed. Most Americans are actually surprised when they learn that some of our most basic laws don't apply to Congress and their staff. This legislation ensures that we'll change that.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Clinton called on Congress to pass other reforms, including lobbying and campaign finance reform, and the line item veto. The Justice Department sued the states of California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania today. They were accused of failing to comply with the 1993 Motor Voter Law, which requires states to make voter registration available when people apply for driver's licenses at social service offices or by mail. Elizabeth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Israeli Prime Minister Rabin said today the Mideast peace process will go forward, despite suicide bombings that killed 19 people yesterday. Eighteen soldiers and one civilian were killed in two separate attacks at a bus stop North of Tel Aviv. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Israeli authorities sealed off the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and gave the Intelligence Service greater powers to fight terrorism. We'll have more on this story after the News Summary.

MR. LEHRER: Anti-abortion activists held a march and rally in Washington today. It marked yesterday's 22nd anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe V. Wade decision legalizing abortion. The demonstrators began at the ellipse near the White House and marched to the U.S. Capitol. Pro choice groups also observed the anniversary. They held a vigil at the Supreme Court for victims killed in abortion clinic attacks.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Supreme Court today upheld a worker's right to sue an employer over age discrimination. The decision was unanimous, but the court barred reinstatement of the employee if other evidence of wrongdoing is found. Sixty-eight hundred General Motors workers in Flint, Michigan, are back at work following a four-day strike. Last week's walkout forced the closure of 10 other plants. GM agreed to hire several hundred new workers in order to settle the strike.

MR. LEHRER: Transportation Secretary Federico Pena today announced a new program to more closely watch the nation's airlines. He said the government would monitor airline advertising, frequent flier programs, scheduling, and access for disabled passengers. The new program will operate out of the Department's Office of Consumer Protection. Pena talked about it at a Washington news conference.

FEDERICO PENA, Secretary of Transportation: We have established a stronger, more forceful consumer protection office with a new and broader mission. We have already begun to change this small but very important unit of the Department of Transportation from one that mainly reacts to complaints to one which will more aggressively investigate and anticipate problems. We are not introducing any new regulations here. We're simply adopting a better structure and a better strategy for enforcing rules that are already on the books. We are going to go into airline offices and work with management on ways that systematically prevent the kinds of problems that generate consumer complaints.

MR. LEHRER: The National Transportation Safety Board held its first public hearing today on the September crash of USAir flight 427. The Boeing 737 went down as it was preparing to land at the Pittsburgh airport. All 132 people on board were killed. The NTSB released a transcript of the cockpit conversations which showed the flight was routine until seconds before the plane crashed.

MS. FARNSWORTH: A week after the earthquake in Kobe, Japan, some businesses and schools reopened. Electricity was also restored throughout the city. Authorities said today that more than 5,000 people were killed in last Tuesday's quake. More than 100 are still unaccounted for. A government official said the damage is estimated at more than $100 billion. We'll have more on this story later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: Today's start of the O.J. Simpson murder trial in Los Angeles was delayed over a dispute about new evidence. The former football player has pleaded "not guilty" to killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and a friend. The trial could last several months.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy has died. She was 104 years old. Mrs. Kennedy was the daughter of a Boston mayor, the wife of a U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, and the mother of three U.S. Senators, one of whom became President of the United States. She died Sunday afternoon at the Kennedy family compound in Hyannisport, Massachusetts, of complications from pneumonia. A funeral service will be held tomorrow at the Boston church where she was baptized in 1890.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the regulation debate, peace and tragedy in the Middle East, a Japan earthquake report, and a Phyllis Theroux essay. FOCUS - RED TAPE

MS. FARNSWORTH: First tonight, the rules and regulations that flow from Washington. A major tenet of the Republicans now controlling both Houses of Congress is that overregulation of the private and public sectors is hurting the nation's economy. The Republican Contract With America promises to take action, and debate began last week at a subcommittee hearing of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Correspondent Kwame Holman has our report.

REP. DAVID McINTOSH, [R] Indiana: [January 19] We are determined to reduce the regulatory burden on the American people.

MR. HOLMAN: Leading the charge on regulatory reform is freshman Republican David McIntosh of Indiana. He is co-author of a bill that would place a moratorium on all new federal rule-making and block the implementation of any regulations issued by the Clinton administration since the November election.

REP. DAVID McINTOSH: Regulations push up the price that moms and dads pay for food to put on the table, for clothing for their kids, for the cars that they drive, and for all goods and services. They force farmers to spend time filling out federal forms, rather than filling their fields, and small businesses cannot create new jobs with the regulatory burden that they are suffering under. The need for a freeze on new regulations is beyond debate.

MR. HOLMAN: Democrats on the subcommittee, including Cardiss Collins of Illinois, didn't see it that way.

REP. CARDISS COLLINS, [D] Illinois: No one can claim the American public voted in November to block the issuance of regulations that protect consumers from the deadly E-coli bacteria in meat. No one voted to stop improved airline safety regulations. No one voted to halt regulations that provide for enhanced safety at nuclear power plants. No one voted to stall new mine safety rules designed to cut down on coal mine fires, yet, this bill, it makes these and virtually all federal regulations subject to a six-month moratorium.

MR. HOLMAN: Republicans consider the proposed moratorium just a stop gap measure on the way to legislating a major overhaul of the entire federal regulatory system. In their Contract With America, Republicans cite four principal objectives: first to strengthen the requirement that agencies perform a cost/benefit analysis of all proposed regulations. If the cost to industry or local government outweighs the benefit, the regulation could not be implemented as written; second, to calculate the total cost of regulations imposed on the private and public sectors, and then cap that amount; third, to allow property owners to collect compensation more easily when their property is impacted by federal regulation; and fourth, to limit the ability of the federal government to pass on the costs of regulations to the states, the so-called unfunded mandates issue that the House now is debating separately. At last week's hearing, Clinton administration officials noted they are pursuing their own regulatory reforms and declared that while some changes are needed, regulations play a vital role.

SALLY KATZEN, Office of Management and Budget: Well chosen, carefully crafted regulations can protect customers and consumers from dangerous products. They can assure equal access to markets, limit pollution, protect workers, and ensure that Americans have the information they need to make informed choices for themselves. Excessive or poorly designed, however, regulations can cause confusion and delay, generate unreasonable burdensome compliance costs. They can retard innovation, reduce productivity, and distort private incentives. The challenge is to craft regulations when needed so they do not have unintended consequences.

MR. HOLMAN: But at a hearing today of the House Small Business Committee, Charles Griffiths, Jr., a roofer from Binghamton, New York, pleaded with members to make changes quickly.

CHARLES GRIFFITHS, JR., Business Owner: As a small businessman, I am convinced that I am not in the office more than five minutes before I have violated some regulation, obscure regulation that I don't even know exists. It's an overwhelming, it's an overwhelming fear that we have, because regulations are so pervasive and so hard to understand that I'm sure most businesses feel the same way.

MR. HOLMAN: A vote on the regulatory freeze could come on the House floor next month.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now to our discussion. We're joined in Washington by two members of the Government Reform & Oversight Committee that held that hearing, David McIntosh, a freshman Republican from Indiana, and Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California. And we also hear from two people who view the regulatory situation from Colorado, the state we've been turning to for reaction in the first 100 days of the new Congress. Rich McClintock is executive director of the Colorado Public Interest Research Group. He joins us from Denver. And Perry Pendley is president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation based in Denver. He is in Sacramento, California, tonight. Thank you all very much for being with us. Let's start with the proposal for a six-month moratorium. Congressman McIntosh, why is that necessary?

REP. McINTOSH: Well, in order to change the way we do business here in Washington and try to cut back on the millions of dollars of costs that the taxpayers have to pay in regulation, we needed to say it's time to stop doing business as usual, it's time to put a break on new regulation, and let this new Congress go through and find out where we can repeal regulations, so that the taxpayers don't have to pay so much at the local level, workers don't lose their jobs, farmers aren't hurt as they're trying to farm the fields, and the consumer doesn't pay more for products than they need to.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And Congressman Waxman, I gather you don't agree?

REP. WAXMAN: I agree that we need regulations that make sense, that are not excessively burdensome, but we need regulations because they protect ordinary Americans from real threats, threats to the air we breathe, the water we drink, cancer causing pesticides that would be added to the food, and this moratorium would stop a number of important regulations that are set to be put in place, and the beneficiary of stopping those regulations are really the corporate special interests. Probably the best example of that is the tobacco industry, which will be protected -- it already is quite protected -- but be protected from any further investigation by the Food & Drug Administration about their practices of trying to push cigarette smoking on kids, or OSHA, which is trying to stop people who don't smoke from having to breathe in secondhand smoke in public places. This moratorium would be a huge boost to the tobacco industry which, by the way, it was reported last week gave $2 million to the Republican Party. I think it's a special interest, corporate special interest, versus I think a lot of ordinary people, the public interest that's at stake.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about that, Congressman McIntosh, is it a huge boost for the tobacco industry?

REP. McINTOSH: No. What this is, is a huge boost for the American middle class. Federal regulations cost us about $600 billion a year in this country. That's about $6,000 for every family of four that they have to pay in higher prices, and a lot of these regulations are needless or counterproductive. We heard from people in our hearings about examples of regulations that just didn't make any sense. One gentleman had developed a new sensor pad, and I'll try to show it to you here, that would allow women to test for breast cancer much more easily. It's been around for five or six years. Canada has approved it. Europe's approved it, but the FDA keeps holding up this sensor pad and won't let it out. Those type of regulations we've got to put a stop to so that we're not inflicting more harm on the American middle class by the way government regulates.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about that, briefly, Congressman Waxman?

REP. WAXMAN: The approval of any medical device is not a regulation. The regulations say the FDA has to make a finding that any device is safe and effective. I think that's an important protection. This particular device evidently has been a source of disagreement among experts appointed by the FDA and an advisory committee. But let's don't talk about anecdotes. Let's talk about individual cases. What this legislation would do would be to stop all regulations, those regulations that would require water systems to test for cryptosporidium, which cause such a health problem in Wisconsin, regulations, by the way, that are about to go into effect that would make mammograms more reliable, regulations that would, in order to protect the public health, make sure that seafood inspections, which by the way the industry even supports - - there's a mindless sort of X-like approach, not very thoughtful, to stop all regulations.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let me interrupt one minute.

REP. McINTOSH: Let me correct the record just quickly on that. Any regulation that would protect against an imminent threat to health and safety would be exempt from this moratorium.

REP. WAXMAN: It's not an imminent threat. There are a lot of threats that are not imminent, but they're threats, nevertheless, and we ought to --

REP. McINTOSH: And what we're saying is let's study this, make sure that we've actually done the right thing with these regulations, because there are a lot of people who are saying that we've got a lot of needless ones.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay, Congressman, let me interrupt. I want to broaden the discussion to bring in our guests who are in Colorado and California. Mr. Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, what's happening in Colorado that makes you favor a moratorium at this point?

MR. PENDLEY: I'll tell you who needs the protection. The people need protection from the arrogant bureaucrats who are all constantly on their case. We need protection from Bruce Babbitt, who's declaring war on the West, designating hundreds of miles of the Colorado River as a habitat area for the squaw fish, designating the whole state of Wyoming at the roving ground for the wolf, and getting into the businesses of small business operators through OSHA. I'll tell you, the American people are terrorized and they're frightened to death that a bureaucrat is going to knock on the door, give them a citation, and threaten 'em with jail time.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. McClintock, in your view, what would be the impact of a moratorium, and thinking about Colorado specifically?

MR. McCLINTOCK: Well, let's be clear. Government efficiency is a goal that we all support, but that's not what these proposals would do. Here in Colorado, we're faced with a tremendous clean air problem, and these proposals would put a halt to important standards regarding oil refineries and other hazardous air pollutants that are otherwise continuing to dump millions of pounds of hazardous chemicals into Colorado's air and across the country. This is really a polluter's bill of rights that would continue to allow large polluters basic ability to threaten public health and safety. And that's not what the American people voted for on November 8th. They voted for change, but they didn't vote for a rollback of basic environmental and health and safety laws. And that's exactly what this freeze would do is to roll back those very important protections that the federal government has put in place.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Congressman McIntosh, how do you respond to that? Would it roll back these important protections?

REP. McINTOSH: No. Anything that is done to protect the environment or health and safety is going to be fully protected. What this will do is get rid of a lot of the needless ones that divert attention from the real problems. One rule, for example, that would be caught on this is something that requires the states in the Northeast to go to a very expensive automobile, rather than allow trading that would actually get you greater reductions in the emissions in that area. So in some ways, the moratorium will help the environment by forcing the agencies to take a more flexible, market-oriented approach that could get us many more benefits than we have right now. What you'll hear time and time again are these old myths about regulations being necessary to protect people from health, safety, and environment. Of course, we're going to protect people from that. That's our job. What we're not going to do is allow the federal regulators to come in and say, we're going to tell you how to live every aspect of your life. We're going to return more authority to individuals, more authorities to cities and the local level and to states, so that they can make those decisions based on requirements in their area.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Congressman Waxman, what's wrong with that?

REP. WAXMAN: We are going to give people individual responsibility to protect themselves from cancer-causing pollutants in the air or coming out of some incinerator? That doesn't make sense to me. You need government regulation. Market forces won't solve that problem. Nobody wants to spend money to reduce pollution if their competitors aren't going to do the same. So you need government regulations to accomplish that. And government regulation is important for the health and the safety of the American people. What this moratorium would do is to stop all regulations, no matter how good they may be, to put them in place, and not even let them go forward. And that's just the first step. The next step is the Republican contract says that the taxpayers ought to pay the costs for the polluters. That seems to me mind boggling, and it seems to me counterproductive. We've always had the notion that the reduction of pollution ought to be part of the cost of doing business. And if we're --

REP. McINTOSH: That isn't the way I read the contract.

REP. WAXMAN: Let me just finish my statement.

REP. McINTOSH: I mean, I think that's a little --

REP. WAXMAN: Let me just finish my sentence. If you're going to have the taxpayers pay for it, which is the way I read it, taxpayers are going to have to pay for it, and we can't balance a budget, we won't pay for it, it won't be done, and all the harms from the failure to regulate, which is very, very expensive, can't always be quantified, because I don't know how much you put in terms of dollar amounts for a life that is shortened or diseases that occur that might have been prevented. Sometimes you can measure medical cost, but you can't always measure the full impact of what these dangers can do to people.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, let me go to Mr. McClintock just for a minute back in Denver. You went through some of your, some of your concerns with the Republican reform agenda. Could you give us a couple of more specific examples from Denver or from Colorado that you're concerned about so we can discuss specifics in this group?

MR. McCLINTOCK: Well, an example first is the issue that Congressman Waxman raised regarding paying polluters not to poison us. Here in Colorado, we would be faced with having to compensate directly those very companies that have helped contribute to major air pollution here in the West and threatening the health of over a hundred million Americans across the country. A second example is having to deal with issues of product safety. There's important toy safety legislation that was put into effect last year, bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats, and yet, this freeze would put a limit on that legislation, freeze it from going into effect, and that legislation gives parents important warning labels about the dangers of hazardous toys. So, in fact, it would leave parents in the dark, while bureaucrats squabble over the cost-benefit effects and add more red tape. Americans want effective government. They don't want a rollback of important environmental and consumer laws.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Mr. Pendley, you're based in Denver, I think, aren't you?

MR. PENDLEY: You bet.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about the air pollution issue?

MR. PENDLEY: Well, what has happened in Colorado is the air quality has improved in Denver. It's improved simply because the car quality has improved, and the ability of the fleet to deal with air quality has improved greatly, and now what we're having is the federal government coming in on the backs of everybody and demanding everybody come into these handful of stations to be checked each year, when the experts know that there's alternative ways to do this to find the handful of cars, relative handful of cars that are contributing to the problem. And the lead, the lead in your show tonight gave a good example where the Secretary of Transportation is now going to send his storm troopers into the various airlines to beat up on them because they don't have enough access for handicapped in various isolated places. This is -- if this is an example of how we're going to have even-handed treatment from the government, then their position is way out in space.

REP. McINTOSH: Let me mention what's going on when they're talking about the government making payments. That's a constitutional requirement, that if the government takes your private property, it has to pay the taxpayer or the citizen just compensation. So if you've got a wetlands regulation or Endangered Species Act regulation that says to somebody you can no longer use your farm, or you can no longer live in your house because we're declaring this special area to protect an endangered species, then they're going to get paid for that. That seems to me only fair for the individuals who invested their life savings in many cases in order to do that, have everything at stake in that property, and it's a constitutional requirement.

MR. McCLINTOCK: That shouldn't include having corporations be paid for making the fundamental improvements in pollution prevention so that they're not longer releasing millions of pounds of hazardous chemicals. We call on Congress, instead, to focus on really where there are fundamental wastes in government, and that would include eliminating the more than $200 billion in polluter subsidies over the next five years, and we'd call on Congress to cut the polluter pork that currently is subsidizing so much of the pollution we're facing here in the West.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let me jump in one minute here. I want to get back, just for a minute, Congressman McIntosh, to these specific two issues that were raised by Mr. McClintock: Clean Air act, air pollution issues. How do you respond to his concerns about that?

REP. McINTOSH: Well, let me, let me just say this. I think there are a lot or provisions in the Clean Air Act, particularly in the permitting rule, that get, apply a lot of additional costs to those companies but don't get you any additional benefits in terms of reducing emissions. Those are the type of regulations that I think we need to go in and change. Why should we put American companies at a disadvantage, threaten American workers with theloss of jobs, when we don't get any benefit to the environment?

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Congressman Waxman, what do you think about that, what about Clean Air Act, air pollution concerns?

REP. WAXMAN: I think air pollution is probably a clear area where we need strong regulation. Market forces won't solve the problem. Air pollution doesn't respect state boundaries. We need the federal government to be involved. Now, that means to me the federal government ought to be involved in the reasonable way, using market forces where it's appropriate. For example, when we wrote the law dealing with acid rain pollution reductions, we required that there be a competition to try to reduce the pollution and give benefits, to set up a market for the reductions, using market forces, not just regulation. But sometimes straight command and control kinds of regulations are going to be the only way to accomplish the goal. The important thing is to accomplish the goal because the public is going to be affected, ordinary people, middle class. When I hear this talk about we're going to protect individual freedom by stopping regulations, It's just so perverse, because what they're talking about --

REP. McINTOSH: That's what it's about -- protecting freedom.

REP. WAXMAN: Don't interrupt me. Don't interrupt me. What really is being said is, the freedom of the business corporate polluter who often, by the way, seems to be a very big contributor to campaigns, that's whose freedom we're talking about protecting. And who's going to pay the price are going to be the people who are going to get cancer. We have one out of four people in America get cancer. We need regulation to stop the exposure to carcinogens. And I don't think it's enhancing the freedom of people to say that they should accept the idea that somebody shouldn't be regulated, somebody shouldn't have to be required to spend some money to --

REP. McINTOSH: Nobody's going to do that.

REP. WAXMAN: -- reduce pollution.

REP. McINTOSH: Anything that actually makes the benefit I think or an agreement it's appropriate area to consider. It's all the mindless ones that don't reduce the risk of cancer at all.

REP. WAXMAN: But you're putting a moratorium on all regulations.

REP. McINTOSH: That's to give us six months to go through and see all of the stupid ones that have been built up for 40 years. It's going to take a long time to undo a lot of these dumb ideas that government bureaucrats have foisted on the American people.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I'm going to interrupt you both to go back to Mr. Pendley for one minute. Mr. Pendley, I want to you know in your view what is the most important reform needed in federal regulatory procedures?

MR. PENDLEY: Well, I think the one thing that's killing property rights and killing the economic development, particularly in the West and all throughout the country, is the Endangered Species Act. I mean, Bruce Babbitt, Sec. Babbitt is naming species after species, and along with it, hundreds and thousands of acres being put into what he calls critical habitat and off limits to the American people. If there's any one thing that's killing us and destroying property values and destroying economic activities, it's the Endangered Species Act, and just for the ability to stop his regulations on that one statute, I think a moratorium makes good sense. When Congressman Waxman talks about property rights, he doesn't have a clue about what's happening in the real world when mothers and fathers across this country are being told you can't use your 10 acres because we think it's a wetland, or we think it's a pristine section of the environment that need to be protected for your neighbor. He doesn't have a clue. I think McIntosh is right on about how this is really hurting real Americans and their most fundamental right, their right to own and use property.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Mr. McClintock, what about the Endangered Species Act? What do you think about that?

MR. McCLINTOCK: Well, the proposal that has been put forth in Congress is to require 23 separate cost-benefit studies on any legislation that goes forward in regulations. This is more red tape. This is more bureaucracy. Out here in the West, we hear a lot of fancy words about job creation being thrown around and titles, or we're going to streamline regulation. What we really see is a polluter's bill of rights that is looking to upset what currently is in a number of these federal laws existing cost-benefit analysis, including the Endangered Species Act.

MR. PENDLEY: There is no cost-benefit in Endangered Species. Forget it.

MR. McCLINTOCK: What we really need to be addressing in the West and across the country is whether or not we want to go back to the 1950's and the days when there was DDT across the country, when rivers caught on fire. These are the kinds of environmental problems that basic federal legislation was put in place to stop. And we're not going to want to see, as the American public, Congress roll back those protections.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Congressman McIntosh, what about this issue of the complication of the regulatory reforms, the cost-benefit analysis, the risk analysis, the peer review committee, what about that, is it going to be more complicated than it is now?

REP. McINTOSH: Listen, I'm all in favor of making regulators go through more hoops before they put new regulations on the public, but what this is really all about is not the environment. We're going to protect the environment. It's regulations like one that prevents this breast sensor pad from going to the hands of American women. We need to stop those regulations. We need to put a stop to new ones so that we can go and find the thousands of examples like this where our government has been hurting the American people. I call them victims of regulation. We need to be able to cut through and help the American women be able to get this new device in their drug stores. We need to be able to help the American worker be able to have a job that will be dependable and well paying, and we need to help the American farmer be able to do their job and compete on a world marketplace.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Congressman Waxman, we have just a few seconds for a response to that.

REP. WAXMAN: We need thoughtful regulations. We need to look at the cost and the benefits, but this proposal, not only the moratorium but all the other things that the Republican contract is calling for, is really just too extreme. And I think Mr. McIntosh revealed it when he said he wants to make regulators jump through hoops. They would allow regulations to be tied up in court, delayed, postponed. That means the public is going to be subjected to more dangers, and those special interests, corporate special interests that won't be regulated will have all that additional profit that they won't have to spend on protecting the public. That's what I really think is at stake.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Gentlemen all, thank you very much for being with us.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the new tragedy in the Middle East, a Japan earthquake update, and a Phyllis Theroux essay. FOCUS - WAR OF TERROR

MR. LEHRER: Now, fallout from yesterday's suicide bomb attack in Israel, which killed 19 people, 18 of them Israeli soldiers. Islamic fundamentalist groups opposed to the peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians claimed responsibility for the bombing. We get the Israeli and Palestinian views of the possible consequences of the Sunday attack now. Colette Avital is the Israeli consul general in New York. Hassan Abdel Rahman is the Palestine Liberation Organization representative in Washington. Ms. Avital, how seriously has the peace process been damaged by this tragedy?

MS. AVITAL: I think public opinion has, in fact, reacted very strongly, and there is no doubt that each act of terrorism is very negative and has, in fact, reacted very strongly, and there is no doubt that each act of terrorism is very negative and has its impact on the population, and there is less and less support, and that erodes in a way the whole peace process. But I believe that the government has decided that it should go on because basically the problem is more of a military one than of a political one.

MR. LEHRER: So that is the -- what is the, the argument that the Israeli government gives to the Israeli people for continuing the peace process?

MS. AVITAL: Well, I think that when one is in shock and in pain, it is very difficult to throw distinctions. And this is why it is so important to understand now and perhaps to stress that whereas in the past, the majority of the Palestinians rejected Israel, engaged in acts of terrorism, today the majority of the Palestinians have decided that there is another course of action that one accepts the state of Israel and that it's, in fact, a fringe, a minority, no doubt a crazy minority, a determined minority which is trying to unsettle the peace process, and, therefore, the question is: Do we give in to terrorism? We've always -- every single government in Israel has never given in to blackmail and to terrorism? Do we jeopardize that which we have so far been able to achieve? Do we throw -- excuse me for using that expression -- do we throw the baby with the water? Are we not going by stopping the peace process to give in to the demands of the terrorists? Are we not, in fact, going to jeopardize that which we have achieved already with the majority of the Palestinians?

MR. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Rahman, is she correct that the majority of the Palestinians still support peace with Israel?

MR. RAHMAN: I believe so, and I agree with Amb. Avital, that I think that we have only one option, and that is to move forward with the peace process, because, otherwise, we will be playing into the hands of those who on both sides want to undermine our efforts to create peace for our two peoples.

MR. LEHRER: Who are these people who are behind these bombings, these Palestinians?

MR. RAHMAN: Well, it is not a secret. It is a fringe group of people who are bent on undermining and sabotaging the peace process.

MR. LEHRER: Why? Why? What is their objection?

MR. RAHMAN: Well, their objection is very clear. They made it clear, and that is they oppose the agreement that we made with Israel to coexist in peace, side by side, with the Israelis, and reach this historical compromise that we reached in, in the Declaration of Principle.

MR. LEHRER: Why can these -- this one yesterday was just one of several that has happened in the last few weeks -- why can't they be stopped?

MR. RAHMAN: Well, you know, it is almost impossible to stop individual suicidal attacks. You do your best in order to achievethat. I believe that the only way to end terrorism and violence is by creating a different kind of environment on the ground, where those kind of people will feel isolated and irrelevant to the population, and that can be achieved when you change the situation on the ground.

MR. LEHRER: They do not feel that way now? In other words, when a -- you say the majority of the Palestinians support peace with Israel and not back these kinds of terrorist acts, so why are they, why are the terrorists not isolated now?

MR. RAHMAN: Well, they are isolated. They are a small group of people. We have to remember that this incident did not take place neither in Gaza, nor on the West Bank. It took place inside Israel proper. If the Israeli army cannot stop them, I don't believe that the Palestinian police force can. What I'm trying to say, that we and the Israelis have to work together in order to eliminate those kind of actions. How can we do that? First, we make peace a reality for our two peoples. And this requires courage, leadership, and focusing on the issues, rather than the act to what takes place.

MR. LEHRER: Ms. Avital, how would you answer it? Who do you hold responsible for this, I mean, responsible for stopping it? Do you hold the Palestinian authorities that Mr. Rahman is associated with, or do you hold your own army responsible? Who must move to stop this from happening again and again and again?

MS. AVITAL: I would agree that this demands a closer cooperation between us. I believe that there are two types of answer. There is the military answer. Obviously, in the past, there have been various acts of terrorism, starting with bombs in supermarkets, hijackings and so on, and over the years, we've been able to dismantle them. So I don't think that we should be totally defenseless. Yes, those are suicidal acts, and yes, those are acts of people who want to kill themselves. But I believe that we have to find a way, and the way is probably through preventing them through more intelligence. And this is why there isn't one single authority that should be made responsible, I think it takes the two of us, not only us, many others, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, all those who now rally against this kind of fundamentalism in the Middle East, and others in the world to fight it. There's also the political and economic answer, and I would agree there with Mr. Abdel Rahman, yes, we have to create another environment, we have to mainly bring about some measurable progress in order to have people see the light at the end of the corridor. But one has to combine both, and it is not enough to change the conditions on the ground. I think one has to crack down on those, on those organizations. It is difficult, but it is not impossible.

MR. LEHRER: Do you have any problems with that?

MR. RAHMAN: No, absolutely not. I believe that the Palestinian authority in action and not in words only have been active in combatting violence and extremism within the Palestinian community. The problem is you cannot really have 100 percent proof that things like this do not happen. What we are urging our partners in this process is not to react emotionally to this and move together with us in trying to find solutions for this problem. In this context, I'm referring to actions to, for example, close the West Bank and Gaza from Israel and thus, keep it --

MR. LEHRER: Now, your government has done that, has it not, Ms. Avital? They have already taken action to close the border today?

MS. AVITAL: Yes, but I would not agree there. It is not an emotional act. It isan act of security. It's a question of separating the two populations. It is a question of trying to prevent infiltration. So this is not an emotional reaction. This is a security reaction. Maybe it is security-wise not sufficient, but it is not meant in any way as a punitive kind of a behavior.

MR. RAHMAN: Well, you know, you have 60,000 Palestinian workers who are prevented from work, and, thus, earning their living as a result of this closure. And in the past --

MR. LEHRER: Because they live in the West Bank and Gaza, and they go over every day to their jobs in Israel, and they will be prevented by this.

MR. RAHMAN: Those are really the innocent people who are paying for something that others committed. I mean, I'm almost sure that those people who committed those acts, those criminal acts, are not legal workers who go to work in Israel every day. Those do not need permits or permissions to get there. So we do not want the overwhelming majority of the population to pay for something that they have not done. And this creates sad feelings within the Palestinian community. So what we are saying, we should not play into the hands of those people, make them feel successful by increasing the tension.

MR. LEHRER: What about that argument, Ms. Avital, by closing the border you make 60,000 people, you upset them and their families and whatever, and cause more support or on the Palestinian side to not dealing with Israel?

MS. AVITAL: We know this is a dilemma, because also the Israeli population, and the Israeli population needs to feel an improved sense of security, needs to feel that it can trust the government, that the government is trying by every single way to protect them. So when a government has to act, it has to weigh all the options to take some kind of precautions and to see what it can do in order to improve other security conditions. Again, this is not merely a political question. I would say more than anything it is a security measure.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Rahman, on the political thing, the Israeli government also said today that they believe that Iran is not necessarily behind this bombing but supporting the, the extremists who are generally behind these bombings. Do you agree with that?

MR. RAHMAN: Well, I would say that it is not a secret that Iran associates itself with those organizations that oppose the peace process, especially the Islamists among them, and if you want to reach that conclusion, you can, I mean, that Iran supports the organizations and the groups that oppose the peace process, Hamas, and the Jihad -- Islamic. But, I mean, this is not a secret.

MR. LEHRER: And once you say it, though, that's it, though. There's not --

MR. RAHMAN: Absolutely. You cannot do much about it.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree there's not much you can do about it, except complain?

MS. AVITAL: Oh, no. I think that Mr. Abdel Rahman understated it a little bit. It's not just the question of -- we would agree that, we know there cannot be any action without the infrastructure, the massive aid, the money that comes from Iran, and this has to be stopped, and there are many ways of stopping it, and we cannot do it alone. I think there the international action and the action of governments in the world, certainly those that have a way of putting pressure on Iran, is very necessary. Again, terrorism, let me remind you, is not only a problem of Israel or inside Israel. It is very much a scourge in the Middle East, in Egypt, in Sudan, in Algeria, and so and so. We have to do something to start fighting more effectively against it, and we have to unite our efforts. And this is why we believe that strong action has to be taken.

MR. LEHRER: Is there cooperation between the Palestinian authority and the Israeli government as we speak on the security side of it, not just the political?

MR. RAHMAN: There is no doubt in mind, there are joint committees, Palestinian-Israeli joint committees that deal with those issues, but let me say the following: The only way really to combat terrorism and extremism on both sides, because on the Israeli side you have the settlers also who are really doing a great deal to undermine the peace process, and they should be brought under control, what we can do is two ways. One is by security, being conscious and combat those groups on the security level; second, politically, moving forward with the peace process and achieving peace.

MR. LEHRER: I hear you both, and I thank you both very much for being with us. UPDATE - AFTERSHOCK

MS. FARNSWORTH: Next tonight, an update on the situation in Japan. The search for survivors in the earthquake-stricken city of Kobe is winding down, but the search for ways to avoid a similar disaster elsewhere in the country is just beginning. Liz Donnelly of Independent Television News reports.

LIZ DONNELLY, ITN: It wasn't the earthquake that killed Ukiko Karahuchi, a young woman who'd recently left home to move into her own flat in Kobe. She, together with several hundred others who lived her in Higashi Nodaku, was a tragic casualty of the relief effort. When the authorities switched electricity back on without checking for gas leaks, this whole area went straight up in flames. Firemen gently helped Ukiko's shocked father place her remains in a polyurethane bag, watched by her brother and his friend. After all the horror of the earthquake, this is still a shocking scene, but amazingly, many other areas have suffered a similar fate, and countless other people have died through mistakes or lack of action. People here believed Japanese technology would protect them from natural disaster. This is one of the very few occasions we witnessed people trying to relax. Toshio Matsumoto was on the night shift in his job at the Water Board when the earthquake happened. He came here to help his parents in a shelter after their flat became too unstable to live in.

TOSHIO MATSUMOTO: [speaking through interpreter] In the quake, wardrobes and furniture fell down, so in future, I want to see them fixed to the walls.

NURKO KAWAKAMI: [speaking through interpreter] I want buildings to be far more solid in the future. Up till now, the priority in council housing has been to build quickly, so the work has been very shoddy.

MS. DONNELLY: No one anticipated craters in the landscape, and the destruction of the infrastructure. Ten years ago, regulations were introduced designed to give new buildings enough support to withstand a force six earthquake. But over seven, the Kobe quake was too strong. For the moment, the immediate emergency is paramount, with new fires every day and the remains of thousands of buildings still to be searched for survivors. Kobe City Council says it has a basic master plan for the future, but no one there is yet ready to discuss it. It was the newly-built, modern skyscrapers which fared best in the Kobe earthquake and the traditional two-story Japanese buildings with heavy tiled roofs, supported by wooden beams which took a heavy tool. But modern blocks were badly damaged too, often because inside they lacked enough supporting walls. Ideally, each building should have the support of cross-bracing like this. But planners will have to decide in future how much they're willing to spend.

MASAMI KOBAUSAHI, U.S./Japan Urban Disaster Group: For the following two or three years, they may take that decision that their building must be strong enough to stand indices seven, but after, say, so-called ten years or so, people may forget. This is the nature of human beings. After the event, everybody understands the meaning of disaster.

MS. DONNELLY: Four hundred miles away in Tokyo, scientists here at the Earthquake Research Institute are monitoring the aftershocks in the area around Kobe. They also keep a close eye on earth movements in the rest of the country. Tokyo is considered far more vulnerable to earthquakes than Kobe was. In the last 15 years, scientists here say there have been an average of 20 quakes a year. The largest, between four and five on the Richter Scale, was eight years ago. But at any moment, they say, a quake as large as the one in Kobe could occur. In the capital, people are going about their normal, everyday lives, indulging in their nation's passion for golf. But they say they've been deeply disturbed by Kobe's experience and the lack of effective government response.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: [speaking through interpreter] I'm so ashamed of my government, they pay lip service only, meeting, meeting, meeting. They should take action, instead of meeting.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: [speaking through interpreter] It is now clear I must know how to react in an earthquake erupts like water, and emergency rations should be kept. Everything's selling out. I could only find a rucksack.

MS. DONNELLY: In department stores, earthquake survival kits are selling like hot cakes, customers aware that a recent report estimated an earthquake like Kobe's here would have a horrifying 860,000 casualties if it hit in the rush hour. In Kobe, it will be a very long time before all those who lost their homes once again have a house of their own. But the hope now is that new generations will benefit from the lessons learned, and that never again will this country be as unprepared. ESSAY - HOMEBODIES

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Phyllis Theroux considers the pros and cons of staying inside.

PHYLLIS THEROUX: Once upon a time, everything was outside, including us. But it didn't take us too long to improve upon our situation. We pitched tents, dug foundations, erected walls, and depending upon our income level, wound up living in a variety of simple or ornate structures that we could repair to in times of fatigue, bad weather, or bad humor. But in the process, human beings gradually became insiders. Now, the only time you can see a lot of us outside is during morning and evening rush hour and then only for as long as it takes us to get into cars, buses, or trains for the commute home, and unless we have a dog to walk or job, or are a party animal, we stay inside our homes until the following day. This does not mean that we have completely turned into a nation of voluntary shut-ins. The Sierra Club doesn't lack for new members, and a healthy minority of Americans continue to use their vacations to camp, ski, surf, and hike. But now that so few of us farm the land, we mostly drive across or fly over it en route to something more comfortable, like our own living rooms. So what does this mean? Is outside largely irrelevant, except disconnective tissue between house organs, so to speak? And what about the children, the traditional outsiders who have always resisted coming inside until it is too dark to play, are theybecoming insiders too? That depends upon whether their parents work and send them to day care centers, or they are latch-key kids who babysit themselves, or they live in neighborhoods that are too dangerous to play in. In big cities, like New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., the only people playing cops and robbers are cops and robbers. But even in a town like Ashland, Virginia, a small, safe community, filled with big trees and vacant lots and the kinds of enticing back alleys that make it fun to play hide and seek, one can look long and hard and still not find any free, roaming little rascals kicking cans or yelling, "Allie, Allie, ox in free!" This is not because outside is unsafe but because it's uninteresting compared to the computer games, TV shows, and electronic toys that can be found inside. Today's children are not that different from today's parents, who don't go much further than the length of the extension cord that plugs them into virtual reality. In one way, virtual reality isn't almost as good as reality; it's better. It allows us to experience life without actually having to go out and meet it, which is a real step-saver. We can have Pavarotti sing to us as we cook our dinner, Bill Moyers deliver a lecture on God and politics as we wash up, and while the one thing we can't experience inside is outside, itself, virtual outside will soon be as near as your local movie theater or, more accurately, moving theater. According to news stories, for a few dollars we will be able to sit a few minutes sitting in seats synchronized to the moves of the screen and almost experience roller coaster rides and moon blast-offs, and harrowing rides down churning rivers, without getting wet, unless, of course, we want to get wet, which would probably cost a little more. Where did actual outside go? Nowhere. It's still there, which rhymes with air. And sailing through the air in Ashland are a lot of real, not virtual, soccer balls flying off the feet of the Ashland Youth Soccer Division, which is definitely not on strike. The soccer field is one place in Ashland that one can still find children and parents outside. It may be in the late 20th century that outside has been reduced in importance to where we have to go and what we want to do, like play soccer, that can't fit or be done inside. But on a clear, autumn day, when a light is playing off the determined heads of the Ashland Dragons' Girls' Under 11 Division, our values are turned like the popular children's book "Inside, Outside, Upside Down." For a few exhilarating minutes, the world is back where it began, with everything in it outside, including us. And we remember, even though most of us can't change our insider lives, that outside is really where we belong. I'm Phyllis Theroux. RECAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Monday, President Clinton signed the Congressional Accountability Act into law. It requires Congress to comply with the same laws it imposes on other employers. And the Justice Department sued three states to force them to comply with the so-called Motor Voter Law. In part, it requires states to provide voter registration when people apply for a driver's license. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Elizabeth. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.