The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the church fires story, Elizabeth Farnsworth has an update; the White House and the FBI files, how it looks to our six regional commentators; "Where They Stand," Bob Dole speaks in Toledo, Ohio; an important court decision on the Internet, Margaret Warner debriefs law professor David Post; and a Nigeria update, Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks to State Department official John Shattuck. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton visited one of the burned out black churches in the South today. He went to Greeleyville, South Carolina, where the Mt. Zion AME had been burned down last year. He went to the old site and to that of the new church being built. He told the congregation he would assign more federal agents to investigate the fires. More than 30 Southern black churches have been damaged or destroyed by fires in the last 18 months. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Trent Lott of Mississippi was elected Senate Majority Leader today. He replaces Bob Dole, who resigned yesterday to campaign full-time for President. Lott, who had been No. 2 in the Republican leadership, had only one challenger for the job, fellow Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran. Lott won the secret ballot forty-four to eight. Flanked by the Republican leadership, he spoke to reporters.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: I thought this morning as I was watching the Olympic torch being passed from one hand to the other that's sort of what's happening with the Republican leadership in the Senate today. The torch has been passed, but the flame is the same. Our agenda will be the same as the one that Bob Dole laid out for us. We do want to control the size and scope of government. We do want to return decisions back to individuals and state and local governments. We do want entitlement reform for the security of those programs and the future of our children being able to rely on that.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma was chosen to replace Lott as Majority Whip, the No. 2 job. In Philadelphia today, a three-judge federal panel blocked part of the new Communications Decency Act. They said it violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The law was designed to protect children from certain material on the computer Internet. The case is now expected to go to the Supreme Court. We'll have more on this story later in the program. In Montana today, the U.S. attorney said a teen-age girl left the ranch where the Freemen group has been in a standoff with the FBI. She was the last child in the compound. Sixteen adults remain inside. Yesterday a member of the Freemen briefly left the ranch for a meeting with the group's jailed leader in nearby Billings. At Ft. Bragg, North Carolina today an army sergeant was given a death sentence. Sgt. William Kreutzer was found guilty yesterday of premeditated murder and 18 counts of attempted murder. He killed an officer and wounded 18 soldiers in a pre-dawn assault on troops in his own unit. In economic news today, the Labor Department reported consumer prices were up .3 percent in May. The increase was blamed mostly on rising gasoline prices. The United States will give $6.2 million in food aid to North Korea. Floods in 1995 triggered a severe food shortage in North Korea. State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns made the announcement. He said there was no direct link between the aid and a U.S. proposal for peace talks among Communist North Korea, South Korea, the United States, and China.

NICHOLAS BURNS, State Department Spokesman: Sometimes you have to put aside your political differences with a government, no matter how reprehensible that government might be to its own people, and you've got to respond to the needs that individuals have around the world. This is a humanitarian gesture by the United States. It is meant to help the victims of the floods in North Korea, farmers, people who live in the countryside. These people are not Politburo officials. They're not members of a North Korean military general staff. These are simple people who don't have enough food.

MR. LEHRER: South Korea and Japan are also providing some $8 million in assistance. At the United Nations in New York today, UN arms official Rolf Ekeus said he suspected Iraq was still hiding clandestine weapons. He said he believed that was why the Iraqi government blocked his arms inspectors from searching two military sites near Baghdad. They are looking for non-conventional weapons to be destroyed under UN sanctions imposed during the Gulf War. An Iraqi government spokesman said access was denied for reasons of national security. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the church fires, the regional commentators, "Where They Stand," the laws of the Internet, and a Nigeria update. FOCUS - RESURRECTION

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight to the church fire story and to Elizabeth Farnsworth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Because of the President's visit, the national spotlight shone for a while today on Greeleyville, South Carolina, and on Mt. Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church. A NewsHour team, along with "Time" Magazine religion correspondent Richard Ostling, was there a week ago taping a documentary.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Greeleyville is usually a quiet kind of place. About 500 people live here, 300 black and 200 white. There's one main street, four white churches, two black churches in town, and six nearby, including Mt. Zion. Nearby textile factories employ some townspeople, but unemployment for the county stands at around 17.5 percent. The No. 1 cash crop is tobacco, just as it was when slaves worked the outlying fields. Before it burned, Mt. Zion Church was located here off a dirt road just outside of town. With close to 200 members, Mt. Zion was one of the largest black churches in the area. Arsonists burned it down on June 20th last year. At first, firemen told the pastor it was an electrical blaze.

TERRANCE MACKEY, Pastor, Mt. Zion Church: I couldn't believe that when it happened, I just couldn't believe it, and the--one of the firemen said to me that it was an electrical fire, happened by electrical, and I said to him, "How could that be? We turn the breaker box off when we leave church every Sunday. There's no juice coming to the church." He said, "Well, I don't know, but it's an electrical fire." I said, "Okay."

MS. FARNSWORTH: But two weeks later, Timothy Welch and Gary Cox were arrested after pawning a PA system from the church. They were charged with arson and burglary. Welch was carrying a Ku Klux Klan membership card when he was arrested. In his statement to police, he said he and Cox urinated on the floor of Mt. Zion and then set the church on fire using hymn books as kindling.

REV. TERRANCE MACKEY: The pastor's office was in the corner. Right next to that was a pulpit and the choir loft.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Pastor Mackey told "Time" Magazine's Richard Ostling the loss was devastating to the Mt. Zion community.

REV. TERRANCE MACKEY: It was a shock, a surprise, that the church had burned down because most of them grew up here. It was the only church they ever attended all their lives. Their parents attended this church and their grandparents attended this church. You know, the church isn't safe anymore. The only safe haven you have basically is the church. When you can't go there for refuge any longer, where are you going to go?

MS. FARNSWORTH: Parishioner Amelia Dunmore is the fourth generation of her family to attend Mt. Zion.

AMELIA DUNMORE, Member, Mt. Zion Church: Well, for everybody that went to that church, you know, it--I would say it was just one of the family had died when we lose the church.

[CHILDREN SINGING]

MS. FARNSWORTH: Rev. Mackey and his parishioners didn't waste time mourning. They got permission to use the town's community center and were up and running the first Sunday after the fire. They also started raising money to rebuild. They needed $220,000. $110,000 would come from insurance. They got a $90,000 loan from a local bank, $20,000 from black and white churches around the country, and a little over $1,000 from local white churches and individuals. So there was some local help and concern as of a week ago, Rev. Mackey said, but not a lot.

REV. TERRANCE MACKEY: The shocking part to me, even to this day, I have not heard from the mayor of this town, nor the city council of this town, nor the chief of police of this town since it happened.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But the national assistance Mackey solicited made rebuilding possible, and last week, the new pews were being installed. Meanwhile, the pastor was working to lift the veil of silence he felt covered the more than 30 church burnings throughout the South. Parishioners weren't speaking up, he said, partly because a long history of racism left them intimidated.

REV. TERRANCE MACKEY: People are afraid to speak out. That's the biggest fear in our country is people are afraid, they deny things that are going on. They live here. They bank here, and they drive their cars here. They know their cars, and they're afraid that somebody is going to see it, hear it, and retaliate against it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But Rev. Mackey and other ministers from burned churches did speak out. So did the National Council of Churches which, along with several civil rights organizations, sent a delegation to visit many of the arson sites. Meanwhile, state and federal agencies continued their investigations.

REV. TERRANCE MACKEY: I'm the pastor of Mt. Zion AME Church in Greeleyville, South Carolina.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And last month, Congress got involved when Mackey, himself, testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Then on Saturday, the Mt. Zion pastor stood next to President Clinton as he condemned the burnings in his weekly radio address from the Oval Office.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I want to present to Rev. Mackey a little plaque I brought.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And today the President and Pastor Mackey stood together in South Carolina in front of the rebuilt church.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You think about what happened--90 years ago when the other church was built, people might have expected things like a church bombing. That was the time of Jim Crow and there were even lynchings in the South. It was a time of abject poverty, worse than anything we call poverty today. It was 90 years ago an expression of faith and courage for people to get together and build a church. But it was the church that saved the people until the civil rights revolution came along. And it is, therefore, I think doubly troubling to see our native South engulfed in a rash of church burnings over the last year and a half. We have to say to all of you who've been afflicted by this we know that we're not going back to those dark days, but we are now reminded that our job is not done. Dr. King once said "What self-centered men have torn down, other centered men can build up." [applause] The men and women of Mt. Zion have shown us the meaning of these words by refusing to be defeated and by building up this new church.

MS. FARNSWORTH: After the President spoke, the Rev. DeVere Williams, pastor the largest white church in town, gave the benediction.

REV. DeVERE WILLIAMS, United Methodist Church: We pray that in some way this event will help us to draw closer as a community, that we will grow in and build on the love and caring that is already here. We are thankful for the efforts made by our government leaders to produce equality among all our people. But we know, merciful Lord, that love cannot be legislated, that relations will not really change until hearts are changed.

MS. FARNSWORTH: After all the hoopla and the President and his entourage were gone, Pastor Mackey told producer Kate Olson what the visit meant to his church and community.

REV. TERRANCE MACKEY: This community will never ever be the same again. This is very small community of people, and they'll be just- -it will not be the same way it was before. I believe it transformed this community, to let them know in this community and the Southeast total that the President is concerned about what is happening to these churches. For this community, it bridged the gap that was there from the time when I was here the past five years. It bridged the gap between myself and the, the mayor of the town. Him and I have both rode together in the, in the car--with the President in his limo, and we talked. We shared some things with the President there, just the three of us, and we bridged some gaps that we had because he's different from me, and I didn't agree with him, and we bridged some gaps that were there, and I think it's a positive step in the right direction for this community.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Rev. Williams said he hoped the President's visit would make a difference but he wasn't sure.

REV. DeVERE WILLIAMS: I don't anticipate any dramatic, overnight changes. I hope we'll have some good white participation Saturday in the formal dedication of the church. It's a day-by-day type thing. We just have to keep working at it. It could be that somehow this will strengthen the community and bring us closer together.

[PEOPLE SINGING IN CHURCH]

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mt. Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church will be officially worshipping in its new building after a dedication this Saturday. FOCUS - THE FBI FILES

MR. LEHRER: Now the story of the White House and the FBI files. We'll hear from our regional commentators right after this backgrounder by Kwame Holman.

MR. HOLMAN: In 1993, a White House security aide asked for and received FBI background files on 341 people. The requests came on standard form 86, often used to procure information on people seeking White House jobs, but the background files the aide requested were those of former officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Among them, James Baker, President Bush's secretary of state, former Reagan press secretary James Brady, Reagan chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein, and Marlin Fitzwater, President Bush's press secretary. The files were collected and read at the White House by an army civilian investigator who said there was potentially negative information on only three of the three hundred forty-one. The White House says the requests were made mistakenly during an effort to streamline security procedures. Last Sunday, chief of staff Leon Panetta apologized.

LEON PANETTA, White House Chief of Staff: ["Meet the Press"] A mistake has been made here. It is inexcusable, and I think an apology is owed to those that were involved.

MR. HOLMAN: Later that day on a campaign trip to California, the President, himself, spoke about the files.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It appears to have been a completely honest bureaucratic snafu when we were trying to straighten out who had the security--who should get the security clearances to come into the White House.

MR. HOLMAN: But Republicans in Congress have questioned why the FBI would provide such data to the White House at all and were not mollified by the White House statements.

REP. DICK ARMY, Majority Leader: ["This Week with David Brinkley"] What business did they have nosing around in files on people who had long since left the White House when we know they weren't even getting their own people properly cleared?

MR. HOLMAN: The chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee called the White House statements about the files conflicting and has called for hearings into the matter.

REP. WILLIAM CLINGER, Chair, Government Reform Committee: The conduct of this House, as well as its truthfulness, given the last week of less than accurate statements, plus I must say a whole history of, of where we've been sort of misled, documents have been discovered after the fact, and so forth, I think demands a thorough examination.

MR. HOLMAN: Among the files requested was that of Billy Dale, the former head of the White House Travel Office whose firing led to a congressional investigation. Yesterday prosecutors for Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr questioned the White House security aide who read the files. An FBI report on the release of the files is due on Friday. This afternoon, President Clinton responded to Republican charges the files may have been some sort of White House enemies list.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You know, I would never condone or tolerate any kind of enemies list or anything of that kind. I do believe based on the evidence that we know it's just an innocent bureaucratic snafu which is what I said all along, and I'm sorry that it occurred, and I believe that we will correct it, and I think that the FBI will correct it on their end as well, so that nothing like this will happen again.

MR. LEHRER: Now, how all of this looks to our six regional commentators, Clarence Page of the "Chicago Tribune," Lee Cullum of the "Dallas Morning News," Patrick McGuigan of the "Daily Oklahoman," William Wong of the "San Francisco Examiner," Cynthia Tucker of the "Atlanta Constitution," and Mike Barnicle of the "Boston Globe." Pat McGuigan, does this look like an honest mistake to you?

PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: [Oklahoma City] Well, uh, I think there's room for skepticism. Umm, I'm not going to be quite as conclusary as Mr. Clinger and some of the others. I think one of the problems we have these days is that everybody feels we have to have the whole answer to a situation within, you know, hours or minutes or days after something happens. I do think there's room for skepticism, given that Mr. Clinton was so critical of the Bush White House for its look at background information in 1992. Then we had that incident early in the Clinton presidency that involved about 160 files, and they had to eventually not only apologize for that, but if I remember right, Warren Christopher had to fire a couple of people at the State Department. So I think you've got-- at a minimum you've got something here that looks like a problem in terms of management of sensitive information. Now those of us in the press corps know, for example, colleagues that work at the White House, information like this exists, you know, FBI files exist on anybody that has regular access to White House grounds. So I think it's important to get a handle on how this abuse or misuse of information occurred and then go forward and put in place safeguards to ensure that it doesn't happen again. We thought a lot of these kinds of things had been fixed as a result of abuses of the Nixon era, but apparently there's still the potential for information to be flying around when it ought to be more secure.

MR. LEHRER: Cynthia, how does it look to you?

CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: [Atlanta] Well, I do not believe that President Clinton was about the business of trying to construct some sort of White House enemies list. But I am disappointed that the President has not set a tone throughout his administration so that aides, no matter how low-ranking they are, know that this kind of thing is completely unacceptable. If you think back to 1992, when Bill Clinton was campaigning for office, he had something vaguely similar happen to him. High ranking GOP officials were digging through his passport files apparently looking through embarrassing information back to his days as a student when he protested the war in Vietnam. He said then very clearly if anyone in my administration ever did something like this, I'd have them fired. Clearly, he has not set that kind of tone at the White House, and he should have.

MR. LEHRER: Mike Barnicle, what do you think?

MIKE BARNICLE, Boston Globe: [Boston] Well, I think it probably points to the fact that the median age of the White House staff is about 13 years of age and they were dumb enough to go and ask for these files and someone over at the FBI was dumb enough to provide them as if they were just library papers being sent over on 30-day loan. There is absolutely zero interest in this among the American electorate, or the American public actually. I think the interest would probably lie more towards what is going on at the FBI that you can call them up and say, hey, I got nothing to do today, could you send me over a pack of files, so I can read through them and find out whether Marlin Fitzwater was on an all-water diet six years ago.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Lee Cullum.

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: [Dallas] Well, Jim, I think it's most unfortunate. It's very strange to me that this out-of- date list would--of 300 people--would contain numerous Republicans and the former secretary of state and press secretary and the others, not to mention the head of the Travel Office and one of his associates. I think we certainly had a young administration three years ago that was having a difficult time finding its way. If you remember, there were a number of other things that happened that shouldn't have. I remember the chairman of the Holocaust Museum was summarily let go right before the museum was going to open. It was to my mind an outrage, and I think Mike Barnicle is right. This was a matter of a young staff feeling its way and I think in the case of these FBI files very well might have been out of bounds. I feel that more needs to be known about it. I don't accept it frankly as an innocent mistake at all.

MR. LEHRER: But, Mike, your point is that if mistakes were made, they were made by the FBI, is that right?

MR. BARNICLE: Yeah. I mean, what's Louie Freeh running down there? If you can call up--never mind--never mind who calls from the White House. You should--you ought to have a very good reason for calling up and getting clearance files--

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. BARNICLE: --being read by some civilian over at the White House. I mean, Lou Freeh should know what's going on in his own department. I think that's the issue.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. And that goes back to Pat's point that the procedure should have stepped in even if somebody was 13 years old, right, doing the wrong thing, that's your point, Mike?

MR. BARNICLE: Yeah, that is my point.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Bill Wong, what's your point about this?

WILLIAM WONG, San Francisco Examiner: [San Francisco] Well, I think that we really don't know enough yet to, to make any conclusions one way or the other. It strikes me that if--some of the Republicans on here are, are a little outdated themselves, and itwould surprise me that the Clinton White House, if it were constructing an enemies list, would be looking into the backgrounds of some Republicans who are current--who would not be in power, and why, for example, Gingrich or the congressional Republicans wouldn't be on the list, so that throws into doubt for me whether this was a purposeful search for an enemies list. But I would have some questions for the White House as to why they asked for the files on Billy Dale months after he had been let go from the Travel Office, and I think that would be a central question to answer. And thirdly, I would say, who ordered--who from the White House ordered it, and play off of Mike Barnicle's point--somebody at the, at the FBI wouldn't--shouldn't necessarily just hand over these files from a low-level request from the White House. It would--I would think it would have to come from somebody fairly high up.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Clarence, how does it look to you?

CLARENCE PAGE, Chicago Tribune: Well, I get to be the cleanup man here, I guess. [laughing]

MR. LEHRER: Exactly. You get to summarize or disagree with everything that's been said, right.

MR. PAGE: I would agree with what's been said insofar as first of all, we don't know enough to make any conclusions about there being an enemies list but what we know it's just illogical to, to draw that kind of a conclusion. It certainly makes more sense to say, yes, this was a new administration, they were, they were guilty of rank amateurism, if anything, in the way this was handled. It's not just a question of, of the FBI getting ahold of these files or providing them to the White House, but the fact that the administration hung onto them for a couple of years. That also needs to be investigated. Uh, when Clinton says snafu as our editorial said in yesterday's paper, we must remember that the first couple of words in that acronym are situation normal. You being a former Marine, I haven't got to tell you what the rest of it is.

MR. LEHRER: I know. Never mind.

MR. PAGE: But if this is the normal situation, then we certainly do need investigation to see what is wrong with that normal situation and how it needs to be changed for the future.

MR. LEHRER: Many Republicans are complaining that if this had happened in a Republican White House that the press and the public would be in a state of high outrage now over this. Are they right?

MR. PAGE: We are in a state of high dudgeon. This is dudgeon.

MR. LEHRER: This is dudgeon?

MR. PAGE: This is high dudgeon. But the fact is that even though some of the press have been comparing this to Watergate, let's not kid ourselves, at the same time it don't look like Watergate to me. Uh, I don't see a cancer on a presidency. I see a--early on in the presidency some, some mistakes being made, but the question is were they made with malicious intent, or was there a cover-up here of the fact that to some degree there was business as usual going on, and this administration was just embarrassed to be conducting business as usual, and so tried, tried to cover that up with some variety of excuses.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Pat, how--how has your newspaper been playing this story in local television, if at all?

MR. McGUIGAN: Well, we initially had a mildly critical editorial over the weekend, and we haven't done another one. I think if we comment on it again, we'll probably be a little more critical. You know, we are three and a half years or whatever the timeframe is, I guess, into this presidency, and when are these guys going to get ready for prime time? If this is just a matter of incompetence, a mistake, sensitive information being left around that shouldn't be left lying around, why is this still happening after three and a half years, particularly given the sensitivity that the President, himself, expressed about such matters in his campaign in 1992? So I'm not quite as forgiving as Clarence, but I think it's possible that this will turn out to be just incompetence, a mistake, however you want to characterize it. But I'm a little bit skeptical. I'm looking for more information.

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. McGUIGAN: And I'm glad my colleagues based there in the nation's capital are paying some close scrutiny to it because I think we'll know a little more in a couple of weeks.

MR. LEHRER: Mike Barnicle, do you agree with the Republicans when they say, hey, if this was a bunch of Republicans, that everybody would be all over 'em like a blanket, including the people in Boston, Massachusetts?

MR. BARNICLE: Oh, it'd be on "Frontline" tonight. You know, it'd be a documentary already. If it were Newt Gingrich, it'd be on the front page of the "Globe" every single day since it had happened, but because this was a bureaucratic snafu made by well-intentioned, moderate to progressive Democrats, it's not much of a story.

MR. LEHRER: So I think that's a "yes," right?

MR. BARNICLE: Yeah.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Cynthia, what do you think?

MS. TUCKER: Well--

MR. LEHRER: Do you think--do you think that the press hasn't been playing this right?

MS. TUCKER: I, I think the press has been giving it a fair amount of attention. Here in the suburbs of Atlanta, Sen. Dole visited last weekend. He made a very pointed address dealing with the issues of the FBI files. He took Clinton to task. He had a rousing audience in attendance, and so naturally, the newspaper covered that story. We have had an editorial mildly castigating the Clinton White House for this. But the fact of the matter is that this does- -is not one of those issues that connects well yet with the American public. We have absolutely no evidence, for example, that the Clinton White House was using these files to damage people in any way. As Bill said earlier, if, in fact, the Clinton White House were constructing an enemies list, wouldn't Newt Gingrich be on it? I mean, they are looking for information on Republicans who have been out of office for a while, whose influence is long past.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MS. TUCKER: So it doesn't look that suspicious to me, and the-- you know, the Republicans are certainly going to try to make as much political pay out of this. They're talking about even holding hearings on the subject. I think the American public would be bored to tears by congressional hearings on these FBI files.

MR. LEHRER: Lee, is the--has this story connected--is this story connecting in Texas, in your part of Texas? Is there any evidence one way or another on that?

MS. CULLUM: I think it's connecting somewhat, Jim. The "Dallas Morning News" had an editorial saying that we need some answers, and the editorial acknowledged that it could, indeed, be ineptitude. That's perfectly possible. But if it isn't, we need to know more. I think it's just one more thing in the mine field that lies ahead for President Clinton, and I don't think that it is to be dismissed or is being dismissed, not by any means.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Bill, what do you think, in terms of just the way it's connecting thus far?

MR. WONG: Well, I don't see any evidence that it's connecting at this point, and that may be perhaps a public that has grown pretty cynical about these what I would call partisan political games, and, uh, I would be disappointed, frankly, if the Republicans didn't make some hay of this. But it is still pretty early, and everything has to be viewed in terms of presidential politics, and the President was out here the other day, and he got a lot of attention for a lot of other things, and the FBI files was certainly not one of the central figures.

MR. LEHRER: But this story isn't over, is it?

MR. PAGE: No. It's still at the third rate burglary stage. Let's remember how Watergate began.

MR. LEHRER: Oh, boy, that's a bad phrase.

MR. PAGE: Do you remember?

MR. LEHRER: Right, sure.

MR. PAGE: Remember that?

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. PAGE: The White House tried to dismiss it as a third rate burglary, and when the "Washington Post" pursued it, Woodward and Bernstein pursued it, a lot of other people were saying, why are you going after this, why are you badgering the President? And it takes a while for something like this to gel. I don't see the indications right now that it is another Watergate, but you've got to pursue this sort of thing whenever it happens. I don't blame Congress for wanting to hold hearings.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Thank you all six very much. SERIES - WHERE THEY STAND

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, "Where They Stand," Internet laws, and a Nigeria update. "Where They Stand" is our weekly look at major policy speeches by candidates Dole and Clinton. Last night, it was President Clinton in California. Tonight we hear from Bob Dole in Ohio. The former Senate Majority Leader took his first campaign trip this morning as citizen Dole. He flew to Toledo, where he spoke at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon.

SEN. BOB DOLE, Republican Presidential Candidate: We are at a crucial turning point in our history. And so it's time for me to give my fullest major devotion to the great struggle before us. And so I have put my career on the line because I believe America's future is on the line. And this election is a contest between the great liberal pretender and the party of principle, between the rear guard of the welfare state and a vision for America's future. But I want to take you back to 1992. That's the year that Bill Clinton and his party took over the entire government, and he talked about change. He was going to do all these great things for America and for business and for everybody else. He was going to give you a middle class tax cut. But, instead, he gave you the biggest tax increase in history. And you saw that. The American people saw that, and they didn't like it. So in 1994, they gave party control, Republicans in the House and the Republicans in the Senate, for the first time in 40 years--40 years, not since Eisenhower was President had we controlled both the House and the Senate. And some may find fault with what we did. Some say we're too business-oriented, that we want you to make a profit, we want to remove some of the regulations, and we want to reduce your capital gains rate and some of the tax impediments. So they gave us this Republican Congress and what happened? We passed welfare reform. We passed a balanced budget. We passed a tax cut for American families with children. And what happened to all those reforms when they landed on Clinton's desk? Welfare reform vetoed- -twice. A balanced budget vetoed--twice. Tax cuts for families with children--vetoed. Well, with a record like that, on November 5, I have a hunch the American people are going to say to Bill Clinton, vetoed, vetoed--[applause]--on November 5. [applause] We don't need more campaign promises. We just need somebody who will deliver because the American family is being squeezed to death by high taxes, excessive interest rates at one end and the sluggish economy on the other. So I think it's time to stop playing games with the American family's pocketbook. Americans need and deserve real tax cuts that let them keep more of what they earn. And I've always our problem is not that we're taxed too little, it's that our government is too big and we spend too much of your money. And in my administration, this will stop. [applause] And I do want to return to integrity in government. I want to restore the vigor in our economy, the growth and opportunity that creates jobs, jobs. I remember Governor Rhodes. I used to come out when he was here. He'd get up and he'd mention jobs 45 times in his speech and probably create 45 jobs doing it. And I'm worried about children. President Clinton talks about children every day, and I think it's good, but he never talks about their future. He never tells you what's going to happen if we don't get a balanced budget. He never tells you the debt they're going to be saddled with--just to pay interest on the debt about $180,000 for a newborn. If we're concerned about our children, your children and your grandchildren, then you'd better hope we have people in Congress and someone in the White House who's willing to make tough decisions, stop playing politics with Medicare, for example. Let's, let's preserve it, let's strengthen it, and the last thing I did yesterday before leaving the Senate was to introduce a bill that would establish a bipartisan commission on Medicare. Let's stop frightening our parents and mothers and our grandmothers about Medicare, Mr. President. Let's start leveling. If we don't fix it, it's going to be broke in five year, Mr. President. We'll do it the right way. If America doesn't profit, it means your business has not profited. And I believe there are many things we can do in the tax code to make it flatter and fairer and simpler and downsize the IRS. [applause] I don't think anybody would miss it. [applause] My view is with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, you're going to see business boom. You're going to see a balanced budget, and the experts tell us, that means a 2 percent drop in interest rates right off the bat, 2 percent. That means more activity, more jobs, more growth, more expansion, more opportunity. And I don't know other groups in the chamber group and others who are here that understand that better than we do. So it's up to all of us. Thank you very much, and God bless America. [applause]

MR. LEHRER: Bob Dole speaking in Toledo, Ohio. We'll have another pair of speeches next week. UPDATE - CYBER SPEECH

MR. LEHRER: Now, a development in the laws ruling cyberspace. Margaret Warner has the story.

MARGARET WARNER: What limits, if any, should be imposed on material that's transmitted over the Internet? Four months ago, Congress and the President agreed as part of a major telecommunications reform law to make it a crime to transmit so- called indecent material over public computer networks--public computer networks. Several groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union immediately challenged that provision as an unconstitutional infringement of free speech. Today a federal appeals court in Philadelphia sided with the opponents and blocked enforcement of the law. The Communications Decency Act made it a crime to transmit indecent or patently offensive words or images over computer networks that could be accessible to children. Offenders could receive fines of up to $250,000 and two years in prison. Here to explain today's decision is David Post, a law professor at Georgetown University. Thanks for being with us.

DAVID POST, Georgetown Law Center: Thank you.

MS. WARNER: What was the court's reasoning in blocking enforcement of this law?

MR. POST: Well, the court said two major--made two major points. One was that because of the nature of the Internet, it is, as the court said, technically impossible or economically prohibitive to comply with this regulation. You can't tell when you send information out over the Net if the recipient is over 18 or under 18. Umm, and because of that, that would have a chilling effect on all communication because people would be restricted to the least common denominator, in effect. And the second thing that court said was this is a criminal statute with criminal penalties. Saying that you can't transmit indecent material without defining indecency is unconstitutionally vague. And I think those are the two major rationales that the court relied on.

MS. WARNER: So in other words, they were saying there's nothing wrong with the objective of keeping indecent of offensive material away from children but that this would infringe on the free speech rights of adults?

MR. POST: Correct. That this sweeps too broadly. In trying to accomplish that goal, the government was--the means it chose swept too broadly and as the court said, it was like burning down the house to roast the pig. It would have an effect on the communications among adults in trying to protect children and the Constitution does not--the First Amendment does not permit that.

MS. WARNER: Now, is this kind of indecency prohibition, though, is this regularly used in the regular broadcast media?

MR. POST: Well, one of the important things that the court said here, umm, and may be really quite path-breaking, is that the Internet is not like broadcasting. The courts have permitted the government to regulate speech on broadcast networks to some extent on the grounds that there's a scarcity of resource. Not everybody can just get on the air and say what they want to say. Here the court specifically said the Internet is completely different. The Internet is much more like newspapers or mimeo machines. Everybody has access, more or less, and that means that the government has a much narrower scope for its regulation certainly compared to the broadcast media. It's a very important part of this decision I think.

MS. WARNER: Now, there wasn't an actual case. In other words, no one had ever been prosecuted under this law. So how did the judges go about even learning about or investigating the practical ramifications of this whole thing?

MR. POST: Well, one of the extraordinary things about this case was that the judges--it was a special three-judge panel which was set up to hear this challenge, and they took it upon themselves to learn about the Internet. They were, I think, quite candid about their own lack of information, about what is this monster that we hear about, umm, and there were a number of hearings. Computers were brought into the courtroom. Experts came and explained to them what's the World Wide Web and how do messages get from here to California and what is the routing system and what exactly is, as a technical matter, what is this medium, and I think one of the really interesting things reading the decision is how much the court learned and how much it is telling the Supreme Court perhaps about the very special characteristics of this as a communications medium, the unique characteristics of this.

MS. WARNER: Which the Supreme Court being where this case goes next?

MR. POST: Presumably. The government has a right in the statute, itself, to take this immediately to the Supreme Court without going through an intermediate appellate court level. Most people assume they will do so.

MS. WARNER: Okay. Now who--what individuals or groups were at risk under this law? In other words, who's breathing a little easier tonight?

MR. POST: Well, certainly the on-line services are breathing easier, the America On Line, Microsoft Network, Compuserve, Prodigy, those, because they were very nervous because people get to the Internet through those services, they were concerned about their potential liability. Also, as the court emphasized very much, it is the smaller operators, the high school class that puts up a World Wide Web site perhaps and has a link to something that someone might conceivably find offensive, a discussion of AIDS or a rape crisis hotline, umm, I think it's the smaller people with fewer resources--Microsoft may be able to protect itself and to monitor but the hundreds of thousands of small entrepreneurs, if you will, they were at risk and nervous, and I think they are breathing easier today.

MS. WARNER: And then though what about the parents' groups and others who are concerned that their children can get on the Web now and surf around the Web and tap into these sites that do have sexually explicit material?

MR. POST: Sure--

MS. WARNER: Where do they go next?

MR. POST: It's a legitimate concern. I'm a parent myself. Where they go is, uh, again, as the court emphasized, there is software available out there, blocking software, that will allow individuals to control the access from their home machines, for example. There are on-line services that provide parental controls so that some sites are not accessible through those particular services. And I think what this opinion is about, is about parental responsibility, or individual responsibility for one's own action and not--the government is not going to protect you from those sites, and you'll have to do it yourself, and there are means available to do that.

MS. WARNER: Well, Professor Post, thanks very much.

MR. POST: Thank you. UPDATE - NIGERIA - TROUBLED NATION

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, some eyewitness words about the troubled African nation of Nigeria. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has that story.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Nigeria was once the richest nation on the African continent thanks to its oil and other resources. Now the country is deeply in debt, with its infrastructure crumbling. Its politics have gone the same way. Africa's most populous nation has been run by a succession of military governments that have refused to turn over power to civilians, even after an election three years ago today. Since then, the regime has been cracking down even more strongly against domestic opposition. A leading opponent of the regime, Moshood Abiola, widely believed to have won the Presidential election, has been in prison for two years. He was charged with treason by the military government of Sanni Abacha. On the NewsHour last summer, the Nigerian foreign minister defended his government.

CHIEF TOM IKIMI, Foreign Minister, Nigeria: [August 2, 1995] Let me assure you that we will have democracy in our country in our own time, a democracy that would take into account our social, cultural, and political circumstances. It will be peculiar to Nigeria. It will not be the Westminster system which failed in our country. It will not be the American Presidential system which failed in our country. Now we know better.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Nigeria provoked new international controversy last November when it executed nine people, including poet and human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. The hangings brought widespread condemnation from governments and prompted calls from human rights groups for international economic sanctions against Nigeria. But many nations involved in lucrative oil trading with Nigeria have refused to support sanctions. Last week, one of the wives of the imprisoned Abiola, Kudirat, was murdered. So far, no one has been charged.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The highest-ranking American official to visit Nigeria is Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, John Shattuck. He was there 10 days ago, and he joins us now. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. What first is the latest on Mrs. Abiola's murder that you can tell us?

JOHN SHATTUCK, Assistant Secretary of State: Well, Mrs. Abiola's murder is really an example of the political terror that is gripping Nigeria at this point. No one knows who was responsible for this. We do know that the assassination--and that is what we believe it was--took place about 200 yards from a police checkpoint. There is no evidence at this point of who precisely pulled the trigger, but we know that she was pulled out of the car and shot at point blank range. And obviously, this is a terrible, terrible act in any country. And it was a tragedy in Nigeria, because it underscored the political violence.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Some human rights groups have accused the government, and over the weekend, there was some group that nobody had ever heard of who were--Support Group of Abiola, they call themselves, or words to that effect--saying that they did it, but you say there's no evidence that any--of anybody right now?

SEC. SHATTUCK: Well, one of the difficulties, of course, about Nigeria is how very difficult it is to get information about precisely what's going on. Nigeria is a, is a country which is gripped by lawlessness and political violence as well as political repression, and all of these issues combine to make it almost impossible to adequately determine who was responsible for this, but the United States is calling for a full investigation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You met with her when you were there. What was she up to?

SEC. SHATTUCK: Mrs. Abiola is one of the many people in Nigeria who are struggling to bring their country to democracy and to bring about a better respect for human rights. She's, of course, the wife of the imprisoned Chief Abiola, who is by all accounts the victor in what was regarded as the freest and fairest election in Nigeria in history. It took place three years ago today. Uh, and it was thereafter annulled by the Nigerian regime that was in power and, uh, and, uh, basically because they didn't like the result. She is, she is a--she was a campaigner for democracy and human rights.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Were you allowed to see Chief Abiola?

SEC. SHATTUCK: I was not able to see Chief Abiola. I made a request of the government to do so but that request was not honored.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Were you allowed to see General Sanni Abacha, the military ruler?

SEC. SHATTUCK: I also did not see General Abacha. He has not apparently been accessible to anyone from the outside world for sometime now.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You asked?

SEC. SHATTUCK: I did certainly ask to do so. Now I did have good meetings with others in the government and delivered a very strong message that the United States and many other countries see that the deterioration of human rights and the rein of repression in Nigeria is such that additional sanctions will be imposed if there is not significant improvement in the, in the near-term.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Was that the purpose of your trip, to deliver that message?

SEC. SHATTUCK: That was one of the purposes of the trip, and it was a unique trip as well. It was a trip that was intended to put us in touch directly with many of the people in Nigeria who are themselves trying to overcome these difficulties and this, all these setbacks for human rights and democracy. And I managed to see a very broad spectrum of people across Nigeria.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You told me when we talked before the interview that this was the most moving experience you had had since going to Bosnia. What was so moving about it?

SEC. SHATTUCK: Well, I think what was so powerful about it was despite all of the secret trials and the thousands of political prisoners and the tremendous repression of the will of the people there are many people in Nigeria who are under these great odds struggling to bring democracy and human rights to their country. A visit like the one that I paid and others have paid gives them hope, gives them opportunity. One of their messages to me was that they believe that additional sanctions should be brought against the government of Nigeria.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now you say that you took the message to members of General Abacha's regime that if they didn't do something about the situation, sanctions would be imposed. What does that mean exactly? Was there a timetable, and can you back up that threat?

SEC. SHATTUCK: Well, first of all, there are sanctions already imposed against the regime. The United States denies visas to any of the regime who wants to travel to the United States, except for official business to the, to the UN. We have cut off all military aid, all foreign aid. And we have an arms embargo. Other countries have begun to do the same thing. What's at issue right now is whether additional measures will be brought--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Like an oil embargo.

SEC. SHATTUCK: Well, we're not ruling anything out, and this month, there are three very important sessions, one with the European Union here in Washington next week, a second with the G- 7 countries, all of the industrial countries that will be meeting in, in France, and third, the commonwealth countries we'll be meeting, and all of these meetings we'll consider additional measures targeted directly at the regime, itself.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Just how bad did you find the situation? I mean, you said you met with all these groups, and they were very brave, and, and you were very impressed, but people who have been there or observing the situation or are getting reports say that it's basically on the verge of collapse, chaos?

SEC. SHATTUCK: Chaos is the word I think that most readily comes to mind describing it. I mean, you see crime routinely in the streets, the differentiation between political crime and common crime, it is often very difficult to see. You see a significant amount of narcotics trafficking. In fact, Nigeria is widely known to be one of the major narcotics trafficking centers of the world. You see corruption of all kinds, and a deterioration of the infrastructure of the country, which is a tragedy, given the rich history that Nigeria has, the tremendous resources that can be brought to bear on the world stage.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, why then is it taking the international community so long to, to tighten the screws on Nigeria?

SEC. SHATTUCK: Well, I think the screws have been tightening slowly but surely and we had, of course, thought that there would be a transition to democracy. The transition turns out to have become as much an instrument of repression with crees that allow the arrest of people without charge, et cetera. I think the--what is clear and has been very clear since the execution of Ken Saro- Wiwa is that this spiral of repression is getting intolerable.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: President Clinton recently spoke with President Mandela of South Africa, who was way out front after the murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa calling for isolation of Nigeria. Was he asking him to help out in this situation?

SEC. SHATTUCK: We have been consulting with many world leaders, and certainly President Mandela is one who is very obviously at the center of, of a moral stature in Africa and around the world, and talking with him about additional measures. There's no question about that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What are the Africans doing? Are they doing anything?

SEC. SHATTUCK: Well, I think there's, there's division of opinion, to be sure. But the, the outrage at the climate of repression is growing, certainly growing in South Africa and in the United States and Europe and other African countries as well.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How soon do you think there will be some movement on this?

SEC. SHATTUCK: Well, I think there has been movement. We've seen the commonwealth countries themselves in the last month have applied additional sanctions and targeting the regime, making it very clear that those who carry on this kind of repression are not going to benefit from it in the international community is what the sanctions movement is all about.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you.

SEC. SHATTUCK: Thank you. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again the major stories of this Wednesday, President Clinton visited a burned out black church in South Carolina. He promised the congregation he would press investigations of the more than 30 such fires over the last 18 months. Republican Senators chose Trent Lott of Mississippi to be Majority Leader, Don Nickles of Oklahoma to be Majority Whip. And a three-judge panel said the new federal law to enforce decency on the computer Internet violated First Amendment free speech rights. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.