The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

RAY SUAREZ: Good evening. I'm Ray Suarez. Jim Lehrer is off today. On the NewsHour tonight, Kwame Holman takes the measure of a massive federal education bill, and we hear how it's being graded; Shields and Gigot bring analysis of the week in politics; Ted Robbins reports on water in the desert for illegal immigrants; and Margaret Warner talks to retired General Wesley Clark about modern war. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

RAY SUAREZ: President Bush took his vision of a wider European alliance to what was once part of the old Soviet Bloc today, as he neared the end of his five- day visit to Europe. (Band playing) A day after clashing publicly with European leaders on global warming, President Bush received a warm welcome in Poland. This is the place his father visited 12 years ago as President to support the people's efforts to overthrow communism. Speaking to reporters in Warsaw, the President previewed his meeting tomorrow in Slovenia with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I am concerned about some reports of proliferation of weapons throughout... On Russia's southern border, for example, countries on their southern border. And I'll bring that subject up. I think it's important for Russia to hear that our nation is concerned about the spreading of weapons of mass destruction. (Drum roll)

RAY SUAREZ: During the day, President Bush visited Poland's tomb of the unknown soldier and its memorial to the Warsaw ghetto where the Nazis herded 500,000 Polish Jews. The Jews later staged a month- long uprising but were crushed. (Singing) Later, at Warsaw University, the President called for Europe to move beyond its old East-West divisions.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: All of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between should have the same chance for security and freedom and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe as Europe's old democracies have.

RAY SUAREZ: The President said Russia has nothing to fear from NATO expansion. Russia has opposed admitting the Baltic states-- Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia-- to NATO. Such an expansion would bring the western alliance right up to the Russian border for the first time. Mr. Bush concluded on an emotional note, speaking of a religious monument in downtown Warsaw.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: It is the figure of Christ falling under the cross and struggling to rise. Under him are written the words "sursum corda," "lift up your hearts." Lift up your hearts is the story of a new Europe and together, let us raise this hope of freedom for all who seek it in our world. God bless. (Applause)

RAY SUAREZ: Leaders of the European Union opened a summit today on expansion amid violent protests. Near the meeting site in Gothenburg, Sweden, hundreds of protesters fought with riot police. They smashed windows, attacked cars, built barricades and lit fires. Hundreds of people were detained, and at least 37 were hurt. Inside the meeting, the focus was on Ireland's recent rejection of a plan to expand the EU. In eastern Europe. All 15 current EU members must approve the expansion treaty. The Secretary of the Navy today defended a decision to stop bombing drills on Vieques Island. The plan calls for ending the exercises off Puerto Rico by May, 2003. But protesters want an immediate halt, and leading republicans in Congress say any withdrawal would hamper training. Navy Secretary Gordon England said he made the decision to calm emotions on the issue. And he said he'd ask Congress to repeal a law allowing a November referendum by Vieques residents.

GORDON ENGLAND: My judgment is it's better for us to be in control, for us to take the initiative, for the Department of the Navy to decide how we will proceed in the future in training our forces, rather than leave it to local referendum. My judgment, leaving this to local referendum, is a very bad precedent. I would much rather be in control of the decision, have us make the decision, have us control our destiny.

RAY SUAREZ: England said he'd appoint a panel of experts to seek an alternative training site. Inflation was largely under control in May, but the slump in manufacturing grew worse. The Labor Department reported today the Consumer Price Index rose 0.4%, not counting energy and food prices. The so-called "core" rate was up just 0.1%. Separately, the Federal Reserve said industrial output fell 0.8%. It's been down eight months in a row. Plants operated at their slowest pace since 1983. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to education reform, Shields and Gigot, water in the desert, and a conversation with General Wesley Clark.

FOCUS - GRADING THE SYSTEM

RAY SUAREZ: Thousands of public schools across the country have just closed their doors for the summer. When they reopen in the fall, students, teachers, and administrators are likely to face a list of new federal requirements and achievement standards which Congress hopes to complete work on in the next several weeks. Kwame Holman begins our report.

SPOKESMAN: The clerk will call the roll.

SPOKESMAN: Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allard.

KWAME HOLMAN: Early last evening, the Senate took a final vote on its version of education reform, following six weeks of work on President Bush's proposals, and on dozens of amendments suggested by Senators from both parties. Florida Democrat Bill Nelson this week called the bill a victory for public education in America.

SEN. BILL NELSON: I believe this bill creates a framework through which we can reach every student, be it an inner-city student, a rural student, a physically challenged student, a low-income student, a suburban student, or a learning impaired student.

KWAME HOLMAN: The most significant reforms are in the area of student testing and the Senate bill, like the one the House passed last month, upholds most of what the President wanted done. It requires annual state designed reading and math tests for children in grades three through eight. Schools that don't show an improvement after one year would get extra federal aid to improve their curriculum and train teachers. Schools that don't improve after two years must allow students to transfer to another public schools, and schools that don't show improvement after three years must allow students to use Title I funds for tutoring or for transportation to another school. Following yesterday's vote, Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions talked about the purpose of testing.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: We need to know whether children are learning. If you do not love children, you will just socially promote them and allow them to go forward and not confront the difficult problem that they are falling behind. President Bush says we do not want a child to fall behind. Well, you have to test to find that out. Parents and teachers often can be in deniability, but when a child can't do a basic third- grade math test, then we can deal with that problem.

KWAME HOLMAN: The bill provides $320 million to help states design their own standardized tests. Schools would be required to post their results on report cards available on the Internet. Failing schools could be forced to replace staff, restructure, or turn over operation to the state. The bill allows for greater flexibility in the use of federal education funds. It does so for states and school districts in return for accepting the new testing requirements. It also establishes a pilot program in sevenstates and 25 school districts in which schools would be freed from most restrictions on the use of federal funds. And during the course of the debate, Senators from both parties agreed to add money to several other areas of education: $1 billion over five years to help improve reading scores, nearly $9 billion next year for special education programs, and an additional $2.5 billion each year thereafter through 2007. The bill also provides money for schools to form partnerships with colleges and universities to improve science and math instruction -- and more money for charter schools as well.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: I think we've built a strong structure here today in passing this bill, and the question is now, will we fill it appropriately?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: This is a list of all of the good things we have added to this bill over and above the Bush budget.

KWAME HOLMAN: Reporter: The Senate added $15 billion more to the bill than what President Bush budgeted. Several weeks from now, the appropriations committee will have to decide whether to pay for all, some, or none of the add-ons. Democrats, New York's Charles Schumer among them, urged the President to support the big increase.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: If you don't want to fund education, don't stay you are the education President. If you don't want to fund education, don't say you are the education Senate. Don't talk about not leaving a child behind when you are leaving 80% of the children behind with this budget.

KWAME HOLMAN: Utah Republican Robert Bennett was one of the eight Senators to vote against the education bill and cited as the main reason out of control spending.

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: The cost of this bill is twice what it was when the bill hit the floor to begin with. We added money here; we added money there. We had a drunken sailor's attitude toward this situation: "Education is wonderful; let's throw money at it."

KWAME HOLMAN: However, Democrats didn't get the money they wanted for hiring new teachers and for school construction. And Republicans didn't get the private school voucher program they wanted, not even a $50 million voucher pilot program co-sponsored by Arkansas Republican Tim Hutchinson.

SEN. TIM HUTCHINSON: I wish we had done what the President campaigned on and what he proposed doing, in taking part of that title I money, the federal dollars, for low-income children, giving them the opportunity to take that money and use it in private schools. But we didn't, and we are where we are. This is our opportunity to at least give it a try.

KWAME HOLMAN: Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy argued successfully against spending the money on a voucher program.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Where in the world is this magic $50 million coming from? I don't know where it is, but they keep referring to it. I think we ought to take the magical pot and invest it in something that is going to make a difference -- and that is address the problems of failing schools. That's what we ought to be doing.

KWAME HOLMAN: Despite the dispute over vouchers, the education bill passed the Senate on an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

SPOKESPERSON: The ayes are 91, the nays are eight; the bill as amended is passed.

KWAME HOLMAN: In Europe today, President Bush took time to thank the Senate for its work.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yesterday the Senate overwhelmingly voted for an education bill that I had submitted to the Congress. It is a piece of legislation that will reform public education in America. It is a meaningful, real reform.

KWAME HOLMAN: Selected members of the Senate now will sit down with their counterparts in the house to work out some minor differences in their respective versions of the education reform bill.

RAY SUAREZ: To help us put the education bill into perspective, we turn to Bob Chase, the President of the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union; Chester Finn, a former Reagan Administration education official who is President of the Fordham Foundation, an education think tank here in Washington; Lisa Graham Keegan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Education Leaders Council, a nonprofit organization of state officials, and Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust, also a nonprofit education organization. Well, we still have two very different versions of this bill floating around. Just to stress again -- these have to be harmonized before they go to the President, but let's get your perspectives on what these conference committees have to work with -- the overview of the bill.

LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN: Well, I think the most important thing, Ray, is that this has already changed the dialogue. People say, what have these bills done? Obviously, federal legislation doesn't change American education; it's a very small portion. But the direction has already changed. Much of the dialogue now centers on how we're going to make sure that all kids make academic progress every year. And, of course, we have discussion about whether that is being done well or not, but the key point is that the debate by the President and the Congress in my opinion has changed the debate in the states. Now it's a matter of how and not whether we're going to know where all kids are when it comes to math and reading.

RAY SUAREZ: So if it does nothing else just setting tone, setting direction is an important goal?

LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN: That is, it is an important goal. It ought to do other things, and it's going to. There are other goals and still will be after this passes, but that has been a huge difference, and it's felt in the states. The difference, it's a different focus out there now.

RAY SUAREZ: Bob Chase, what do you see when you look at the two bills?

BOB CHASE: Well, for the most part I see positive aspects of both bills. There are differences that have to be ironed out. And, obviously there are other issues there that I hope as Congress remains in session that they will address. But for the most part, I think we are seeing a piece of legislation that will help, that will move us forward -- that will continue to enable us to bring about the kind of reforms that are necessary. I'm particularly pleased, for example, that there are portions of the bill and dollars being allocated to help those schools that are performing the weakest and need improvement. I'm particularly pleased to see opportunities in there to improve reading programs especially in the early grades. There are some areas, however, that do need to be looked at very carefully and as the conferees meet and put together a final version of this legislation, hopefully they will be able to iron out those differences and make the final bill a strong piece of legislation.

RAY SUAREZ: Chester Finn, when you compare the House and Senate versions to what President Bush proposed, how do you like the work that has been done on the Hill?

CHESTER FINN: They are badly diminished from what the President proposed. He proposed the bill I wish they had ended up with. What they've ended up is much shrunken in every sense except the dollar sense; in the dollar sense it's ballooned but in the sense of its likelihood ofbringing about change on the ground in American schools and school systems, many of the engines that changed that the President proposed were just shut down by the Congress.

RAY SUAREZ: Like?

CHESTER FINN: Well, two that are important to me I think in the original Bush plan, one was the idea of serious state flexibility. Let states spend their federal dollars as they see fit in return for better results. That was known as charter states in the President's proposal, and the merest shadow of that ideas remains in the Senate bill and not even that in the House bill. The Bush plan also had some serious empowering parents through a couple of school choice mechanisms. One was the pilot voucher program that we just watched on your news segment. The other was going to be the opportunity for parents of kids stuck in terminally bad schools to take their dollars to private schools. Both those forms of school choice were eliminated. And basically any empowering parents was eliminated from the legislation, so the only real engine of change that we're left with, other than the atmospherics that Lisa talked about, which I think are not unimportant, the only engine of change we are left with actually is testing. And we probably will talk a lot about the testing provisions, but that is about all that is left from the original Bush proposal that I thought had hope of bringing about some alterations in American schools.

RAY SUAREZ: Amy Wilkins, you've compared the House and Senate versions and found the Senate wanting, why?

AMY WILKINS: I think that the House version when you look at the House version, it's sort of a more purposeful reform vehicle. It has sort after vision of where it wants schools to go and how it wants schools to get there. For example, the House bill, in talking about how you measure the progress of schools, requires that you look at individual groups of students, that you look at how the black students in school are doing, how the Latino students in a school are doing, how the poor kids in a school are doing, how the disabled kids are doing. Looking at groups separately is the only way we're going to close the achievement gap.

RAY SUAREZ: You mean inside a school system or under the same roof?

AMY WILKINS: Within the same school. You know, what you see even within the same school is big achievement gaps between groups of kids. And unless we look at those kids as separate groups, what happens is schools average the scores together, the mathematical function of averaging is to disguise gaps, to get sort of extremes. And so if we are ever going to close the achievement gap, we really need to look at groups of kids individually within the same school, and the Senate bill just doesn't do that.

RAY SUAREZ: Testing keeps coming up again and again in a lot of the critiques of this bill. A lot of attention has been paid to the fact that states can choose their own testing regimes. Do you agree with this approach? Does it give you data that is really useful at the end of the process?

LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN: Oh, I think it's very useful within the state itself, absolutely. But the state in my opinion has to have one standard for all kids. It gets to the issue that Amy is talking about, which is you can't allow groups of kids to continue to fall behind, which is what is happening all over the United States. Within a state you set a standard and you test for the standard all kids. The bills have proposed that there is sort of a national audit, if you will, or way to sort of look at whether the tests that we are all using are comparable against a standard that is generally accepted. We like that. Most of our states are using what is called a National Assessment of Educational Progress anyway. The country has been using it for 30 years, it's a solid test. Many of the congressional folks who stand up and say we doesn't want a national test, then turn around and use a chart from the NAEP about how the kids are doing, it's a highly relied upon test. And we think that is a good way to say, look, here is a state test, here is another state test. Let's give them the NAEP and let's see are we running pretty close here -- because at the end of the day you have to be able to read the same way and do mathematics the same way, regardless of where you are.

RAY SUAREZ: But also at the end of the day even if you are spending similar amounts of money you won't be able to compare the kids in Chicago to those 95 miles away in Milwaukee.

CHESTER FINN: You won't because Illinois and Wisconsin will each set up their own tests and because the national assessment that Lisa was talking about won't go to any unit smaller than a whole state. So you will be able to compare Illinois and Wisconsin as a whole, if they both choose to use the NAEP as their audit test. But you wouldn't be able to compare Chicago and Milwaukee, no, you won't.

BOB CHASE: If I can -- I think there are a couple of things to take into consideration. First of all I think that the testing component is an important component -- and although it may surprise some -- we are not in any way against the appropriate use of tests to give us the data so we can see how kids are doing and put into place the kinds of programs we need to help young people achieve. What we have to be very careful about, though, is how they are used. An example, right now when we test Title I schools and kids in Title I schools, we can compare what the situation is tests from state to state. In the state of Texas right now about 1% of those in schools that are deemed to be Title I schools have been designated as low performance schools. In the state of Michigan, that percentage is about 77%. I point that out not because I think that Michigan's Title I schools are 77% in more trouble than those in Texas, but I point that out because of the discrepancies between the assessments that are being used. So as these are developed we have to be particularly careful that what we are doing -- especially since dollars will eventually be tied into the results, that are going to be showing, and what we are doing, is in fact measuring things in appropriate and good ways, so that tests are being used in an appropriate way not being used as a quick fix or an easy solution.

AMY WILKINS: Well, I guess Bob's point about the difference between the assessments in the state of Texas and Michigan reinforces Lisa's point about why we need a NAEP - a national standard to compare the tests. Then you can look at the Michigan test and you can look at the Texas test, compare it to NAEP and know what is going on.

BOB CHASE: As long as we understand that the NAPE test may not have been designed to do that. We have to take a look at the appropriate use of NAEP tests or other types of tests that would be used as benchmark, and let's not just jump and say this one will do what we want it to do to measure the equity involved in that which is being tested or the test results. We have to be very, very careful when we start doing these kinds of things to make sure that we get it right. That is all we are saying. Please let's take the time to ensure it's being done right so that we don't end up creating a situation that is more inequitable or more problematic than that which currently exists.

CHESTER FINN: There is nothing if not time built in this legislation. This legislation contemplates roughly a 17-year timeline between the first year that the states have to have tests in place and the year when the kids have to have been brought up to standard.

BOB CHASE: I think that is stretching a little bit.

CHESTER FINN: Add 5 and 12 years, I get 17, Bob. What do you get?

BOB CHASE: I don't have the legislation right in front of me to give the exact number of years, but you and I know it calls for two years then two years down the line. It is much, it will be brought into play much more reasonably than 17 years.

CHESTER FINN: I wish that were true. I read the Senate bill on the drive out here. The first year in which any test results are required under this bill is the school year 2005-2006. Which is five years from now. Then a 12-year clock starts to tick for kids making progress toward the state standards. At the end of 12 more years the state is supposed to have reached its expectations for all of its students.

BOB CHASE: You and I know all along the way that are measurements that have to be made and progress has to be continued to be made, that we are not talking about nothing being done for a period of 12 or 17 years.

RAY SUAREZ: But I think that is an important point, because we are talking not about individual kids who will be in third grade and five years later be taking tests as 8th graders. We are talking about bringing up schools and systems and districts and all these other things along with that, aren't we?

LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN: No.

RAY SUAREZ: When we talk about a bill were a life as long as this one?

LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN: Perhaps, but we are talking in the interim about real live individual kids now. This conversation gets so esoteric and we start talking about process. Let's talk about children. Back in the gym the kids, these tests are not for new standards. Everybody is saying we need to get a chance to be moving this in slowly. They ask children to read and to do foundational mathematics. This is not asking the kids to understand Calculus or high-level function - reading on Voltaire so we can have commentary. This is very simplistic stuff. And what the tests are doing is telling us a very painful truth. Our organization is a little bit more urgent about this and it isn't a federal law that's going to make people urgent. It will be the leadership in the school itself, but I don't think that -- we can talk about being very careful about the use of tests. It is very important. But we also know enough right now. We ought not pretend that we need ten years of pilot this because 12 years is a lifetime of schooling.

BOB CHASE: Lisa I don't think anyone is saying we need that length of time. What I'm saying we need to proceed in a reasoned and careful way. That does not mean it has to take ten years. It means we have to be smart about how we go about doing that. I pointed out the difference between the obviously the rigors of the test in Texas and in Michigan as an example of what have can happen if we are not careful in how we use tests and what we do with them. These tests are going to have some rather high stakes implications. I'm not saying that they shouldn't. But I'm saying they are going to have that so what we need to do is be smart on how we design them, how we implement them to make sure that while they are rigorous, they're at the same time fair and look at a whole host of other things in addition to tests as it relates to how students will do.

AMY WILKINS: Bob makes a good point. There is a timeline in here which is troubling. The bill says that after one year of troubled test scores that you then go into school improvement. Most of the researchers are saying that you really need a fuller picture of schools and you really need to look at least two years of school data; the second troubling part of the timeline in this bill is you that have one year of technical assistance before the sanctions kick in. We really believe that you probably need a longer period of technical assistance to turn schools around. In this bill there is a rush to sanctions.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me get a quick response from Chester Finn.

CHESTER FINN: There are all kinds of technical problems for the Conference Committee to try to work out over the next few months. But the big problem with this bill is it's going to take forever before any kid in any school in America is going to feel any effects of this legislation - a very, very long time.

BOB CHASE: I couldn't disagree with you more. We see an improvement already. I can point out to you the situation in Edgewood, Texas, where we went in there and working with our local there with the parents, with the community groups, with the school district, with everybody there actually -- a place where in fact there had been eight or nine schools who were identified by the state as low performance schools. And we turned it around within a couple of three years. No there are no low performance schools there. The dropout rate has dropped dramatically. So now it's 6% rather than somewhere around 20 or so.

CHESTER FINN: You are not the federal government.

RAY SUAREZ: I'm going to call an end to it there with the hope that when we see the final shape of this bill we can talk more about this. Guests, thank you all.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

RAY SUAREZ: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields and Gigot, humane borders, and a conversation about modern war.

Terence Smith is with Shields and Gigot.

TERENCE SMITH: That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. Gentlemen, welcome.

Mark, this President ran on an education platform. Now he has got an education bill -- big victory?

MARK SHIELDS: Big victory. Not only ran on it, I mean, he took an issue that the Democrats I don't say own but certainly had a very substantial advantage in the public's judgment as to which party was better. And he not only has closed that gap but it's a bipartisan bill. And if you want to prove how bipartisan it is, the most upset individuals with this bill today, the most disappointed, are conservatives, and it passed by a 91-8 vote. So it was a big victory for George Bush.

TERENCE SMITH: Paul, some conservatives are not happy about the absence of school vouchers, as we've just heard in the discussion before. Looked at from a conservative point of view is this a victory, an achievement?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, it's a political victory in the sense Mark describes testimony I don't think it is a policy victory in the sense it resembles when the President first proposed. I mean, Chester Finn who we saw is somebody who helped write the Bush plan. He is now denying paternity. He doesn't know -- Bob Chase of the NEA - a big ally of Ted Kennedy who also loves the bill, a big supporter of Al Gore, now says boy, I like this. This is something we can deal with. This is a National Education Association. He fought every single reform that George Bush proposed in Texas. He opposed him all the way and now says we like this. That tells you something about where the bill has gone. I think why this happened is because the President really believes he needs a signing ceremony in education. And he has been willing to give up a lot of the policy to get it.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, he will get that after the passage. It will be seen as another achievement?

MARK SHIELDS: No, I didn't know we were talking policy. I thought we were talking politics here. Okay. But it was a political victory. I mean, now Paul and a lot of folks on his side of the aisle are very upset because Ted Kennedy played a prominent role in it. And anything Ted Kennedy is for - including a Mother's Day resolution -- is probably by definition not in the public interest for these folks. But I think that George Bush gets his testing. He gets his stamp on tripling the reading budget. And the Democrats didn't get what they wanted. I mean, what were the Democrats cornerstones? They were school construction and more teachers. They didn't get it so Bush didn't -- if I were a conservative I would be upset because the White House did go lukewarm on vouchers.

TERENCE SMITH: So it's a compromised, Paul, on both sides?

PAUL GIGOT: Sure, it's a compromise on both sides but I think a lot of conservatives are willing to tolerate a great role in education by the federal government, which they've always resisted, if, for example, the testing and the flexibility was something that could break up local education monopolies. But if you look at the provisions in this, I think a lot of them believe and I think rightly -- Bill Bennett, for example, agrees with Chester Finn that they've been so watered down that they're not going to be able to do it. And Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust is no conservative. She is not Bill Bennett, but she believes - she believes in tests, believes they should be important because the kids in poor schools that aren't getting lifted up, and she thinks it has been watered down too, so it's a question of just how deep these reforms go. But politically Mark is right. There is going to be a signing ceremony. Bush is going to be able to say I changed the tone in this town. I got things done. In the short-term he will benefit from that. Four years from now if test scores aren't up, schools aren't improved, that benefit isn't going to be there.

TERENCE SMITH: Mark, the other big headline this week for President Bush, of course, has been his trip to Europe. He is still on it. He has a meeting with Vladimir Putin tomorrow. How has he handled himself? How has he looked to you politically this week?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, the President had an advantage. I mean, expectations were not high. I mean, this is a man who was born to considerable wealth and comfort and had great social advantages and somehow was not curious about traveling to Europe. I mean, most, you know college students kind of eat peanut butter sandwiches to get to Europe, and he hadn't been and there was still lingering doubts about the legitimacy of his election. He has provided some material for the late-night writers with Africa as a nation and the mispronunciations but he has done I think adequately. I had a really conservative say to me, you know, without attribution, they say there are times when he doesn't seem adequate at the ceremony. That is not his strong suit. This is very obviously strong on ceremony; trips of this nature are. Senator Jay William Fulbright, the long time chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said to me, when John Kennedy was in the White House, I was always proud to go to state dinners, proud that he was my President. And I don't think a lot of people are having that sense of pride that he is in command or mastery of the material before him -- that he has studied hard and is making the statements but there is not a sense really that this a man in command of the situation or the subject.

TERENCE SMITH: Paul, what do you think both in terms of style and substance on the trip?

PAUL GIGOT: I would give him a lot better marks on both of them. I thought he was quite well briefed apart from the inevitable muffs of longs, which I think we're going to have for all four years of the Bush presidency. He did seem in command of the brief, and he didn't back down. And he went in there with an agenda on missile defense. He knew he was going to be beaten up on global warming by some of the European countries. And he came away - he went there and he didn't back down. He presented himself. He said this is my agenda -- made the case for it. He didn't win a lot of converts immediately, but he did get some movement. Vaclav Havel, for example, the former Czech leader, said, this is something we have to look at on missile defense. The Spanish prime minister, the Italians seem to be moving. France and Germany aren't but he made his case. The condescension that some in Europe showed to him is comparable to something that happened here at first - still does in some quarters - and that isn't always bad to have an American President be able to stand up over there and we don't mind if our President stands up to the Europeans.

TERENCE SMITH: Do you see some political benefit to that?

MARK SHIELDS: I really don't. I do -- I'm fascinated by the flexibility of my good friends on the right. When Bill Clinton made a mistake and was criticized overseas, it was obviously Bill Clinton's bumbling and ineptitude and he wasn't ready for prime time. Now when George W. Bush gets criticism, it somehow reflects of -- anti-Americanism is what we are seeing. That is fine. You can always use a little jingoism. It's good short-term politics. But I don't think anybody could play short-term politics - in layman - X and Y when we are talking about things like global warming which is real.

TERENCE SMITH: The big day, maybe the biggest day of the trip is tomorrow. When he sits down with Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, and now we get, now the stakes go up, what do you expect?

PAUL GIGOT: I don't expect anything major to come out of that particular meeting but that is the sort of thing that may have long-term consequences because we know that foreign leaders size each other up when they first see each them and this is an important relationship and the president today in Warsaw said, look, we want NATO expansion; we're going to seek any democracy that he wants it and is willing to help with the defense burden to go in. That is going to be a big issue in dealing with Russia. So it has those important consequences. I don't think it has any immediate political consequences.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Mark, during his trip, the administration announced a change on the live fire exercises and military exercises in the Puerto Rican Island of Vieques. How did this one come off politically?

MARK SHIELDS: There were three things involved in this. Politics, politics, politics, this is it totally. It's an indefensible move strategically, militarily. He has alienated the uniforms. He is supposed to be the candidate - Mr. Bush -- the military. They were thrilled at his election. He has let them down badly here. He did what Bill Clinton refused to do. Bill Clinton being importuned by his wife and her supporters running in a state in New York with a large number of Puerto Rican voters refused to back off of Vieques and George Bush absolutely terrified as Karl Rove is obsessed with the Latino vote.

TERENCE SMITH: Karl Rove is his political advisor.

MARK SHIELDS: Political adviser. I was talking yesterday to a fellow named Bob Moore, a Republican pollster in California and Oregon. He pointed out to me the terrifying reality for Republicans, which is Michael Dukakis in 1988 lost California to George Bush by - George Bush Sr. by 350,000 votes, Bush got a majority of the vote. If the same vote were held today, the fact that tripling - more than tripling of the Latino vote and the tripling of the Asian vote and the decrease of the Anglo vote in California, Dukakis would carry that state. This is what drove the -

TERENCE SMITH: Big stakes.

MARK SHIELDS: I would just ask my friends what would they say if James Carville had been involved in a decision about Bosnia?

TERENCE SMITH: As Karl Rove was.

MARK SHIELDS: As Karl Rove was. It's unpardonable when the Secretary of the Navy meets with the political advisor to the President.

PAUL GIGOT: I would say it was a Clintonesque decision, which it was. I admire Mark for trying to - President Clinton on this one but he set this up for a referendum - for a local referendum which is a fait accompli, essentially is going to be overturned, but I think this is an indefensible decision, very badly handled, and I'm not so sure that it has the political benefits they say it does.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, exactly, because many in Puerto Rico are not very happy with this. They say you are promising to end this by 2003. We want you to end it now.

PAUL GIGOT: George Pataki, the governor of New York, up for reelection in 2002, wanted this removed. He criticized the decision and said -- thank you very much department. No question about it. As far as the Hispanic vote goes it makes no distinction between the kinds of Hispanic Americans we have. This is a preoccupation of Puerto Rican Americans who very rarely vote Republican anyway. I don't think that this is a great concern -- a passionate concern of Mexican Americans in Los Angeles. I just don't think it is.

MARK SHIELDS: One other thing, that is the President said this was, these are our friends and neighbors. They are also our fellow Americans. They didn't want us there - now that is a dangerous precedent, Terry. If you are talking about Okinawa where the Japanese government has had to resist indigenous, local opposition to the United States Marines being stationed there had and they say it comes to the decision of friends and neighbors whether you are going to be there, that is tough, and it is bad policy.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Gentlemen, thank you both.

FOCUS - HUMANE BORDERS

RAY SUAREZ: Heat and thirst killed 14 illegal Mexican immigrants late last month as they wandered the desert after crossing the Arizona border, and the broiling summer season is just beginning. The deaths have sparked a humanitarian effort to protect the migrants. Ted Robbins of KUAT, Tucson, reports.

TED ROBBINS: Carrying five gallon jugs of water through the Arizona desert in June is a punishing task. But these folks volunteered for it. They are members of a year-old religious group known as Humane Borders. It was formed to help Mexican migrants who illegally cross into the U.S. woefully unprepared for the sun and heat. In the last three years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates more than 1,000 migrants have died of various causes trying to cross into the United States. This time of year, in this place, it's the heat and the lack of water that kills them, almost 20 just since May. Humane Borders volunteer Stan Curd says he is motivated to try to stop the deaths by the golden rule.

STAN CURD: Doing, you know, to other people like you'd like to be treated, you know. And kind of an empathy with these people that don't have much, looking for a better way of life.

TED ROBBINS: The migrants are forced to cross in the desert, these people say, because the Border Patrol is heavily policing safer places in and around cities. That makes it very difficult to cross there.

REV. ROBIN HOOVER, Human Borders: No wires, no people, no roads-- excuse me, there are a lot of people. That's why we're here.

TED ROBBINS: Humane borders leader is Reverend Robin Hoover, pastor of the first Christian church in Tucson. Along with providing aid, he makes no bones about wanting to challenge U.S. Immigration policy.

REV. ROBIN HOOVER: We're trying to take death out of the immigration equation. We would like to place as much water in the path of the migrants coming forward so that they will not die. In doing that particular activity, we invite a whole lot of the public into the conversation, and we're trying to effect changes in INS policy that will get people out of the desert.

TED ROBBINS: Reporter: Right now, humane borders has two water stations, both in Oregon Pipe Cactus National Monument. Not only has the national park service given permission for the water stations, it's allowing Humane Borders to use park water. Monument superintendent Bill Wellman supports the effort for humanitarian reasons.

BILL WELLMAN: I think all of our ancestors arrived in this country one way or another, and not all of them legally. It's nothing a person should have to die for.

TED ROBBINS: Critics concede these good Samaritans have good intentions, but they say the water may actually act as a magnet for illegal migrants, that in turn will simply attract the Border Patrol. Tucson sector Border Patrol spokesman Rob Daniels says the water stations are not being targeted.

ROB DANIELS: We have said all along that we're not going to be stationing agents at the water tanks with the thought in mind of having the aliens come to us. We have a large area of 281 miles of international border to patrol at the line. There's also a lot of other areas north of the border that we are patrolling, as well. We feel that as long as the effort is out there to remove death from the equation, that the end result will be a very, very positive one.

TED ROBBINS: The Border Patrol does not need to actually have agents here to know when migrants are present but Robin Hoover believes that the patrol is letting migrants come to drink.

REV. ROBIN HOOVER: Obviously there are monitors out here in the ground that pick up seismic detectors, and they send a signal to another location to indicate where migrants are. We have, anecdotally, from rangers here in this installation, that Border Patrol ignore their sensors in our vicinity.

TED ROBBINS: Park superintendent Bill Wellman sees no conflict between the Park Service and the Border Patrol.

BILL WELLMAN: Of course, their primary mission is to prevent illegal entry into the country, which isn't our primary mission. Our primary mission is to protect park resources.

TED ROBBINS: Migrants appear to be drinking the water. More than two-thirds of the 130 gallons in the tanks at this water station were gone by the time the volunteers showed up to refilled them. The tanks are refilled roughly once a week. The water stations are next to phone lines, which make recognizable landmarks. Most migrants cross at night. The rustling of these flags is their signal that water is close. So is State Highway 85, where migrants who make it this far are often picked up and driven north to relative safety. In a hurry, some leave their things behind, including water jugs that were once crucial for survival but are no longer needed.

REV. ROBIN HOOVER: We would create so many, I don't know, say a dozen safe passage corridors here where people would know where water is if they would simply walk east or west they would encounter water.

TED ROBBINS: Humane Borders is negotiating with additional federal, state, local and private land managers in hopes of establishing more water stations in the coming months.

COVERSATION - WAGING MODERN WAR

RAY SUAREZ: Now, as President Bush wraps up his European tour visiting NATO allies, another of our conversations about new books, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: The book is "Waging Modern War." The author is retired four-star army general Wesley Clark who commanded both the U.S. and NATO forces during the Kosovo War of 1999. The book details his struggles against the enemy Serb forces and against his own political and military bosses in Washington. General Clark was relieved of his commend ahead of schedule one month after the war ended. Welcome, general.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Thank you very much, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: You called this "waging modern war." Describe briefly what it is about modern war that makes it different for conflicts in wars we've known in the past.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very complex terrain. It's difficult geography, difficult diplomacy, difficult legal conundrum, so it means you can't turn it over to the military and say, "boys, girls, go at it, just smash them and come back and tell me when you've done it." Instead it's continuous interaction of political and military forces.

MARGARET WARNER: And public perception.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: And public perception is a very big part of this.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, in the Kosovo conflict you write that you feel the Pentagon was ready, really, to fight this kind of war and had great difficult difficulty doing so. What do you mean?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, the Pentagon had its own national military strategy required by law. And it was a strategy that focused their responses, their military actions on two nearly simultaneous operations-- one in Korea and one in the Persian Gulf. Although we could do presence missions elsewhere, and certainly we had a mission on the ground in Bosnia-- these were, if they expanded, they'd be distractions and they'd be detracting from the Pentagon's ability to put money into the procurement account and build forces for the future. And so the Pentagon was torn and it was trying to do the best it could, but it had its own internal priorities, its own internal strategy.

MARGARET WARNER: And so you felt that it made it very difficult for a commander like yourself, the guy who was responsible for actually...

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: There's no doubt about it, no doubt about it.

MARGARET WARNER: Give a couple of examples.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, from the first time I got there in command in Europe in 1997, Javier Solana called me in, the NATO Secretary-General, he said, "look," he said, "Wes, you have to understand, this mission for NATO has to succeed." Well, I had been with Dick Holbrooke on the Bosnian negotiations. I knew it. I said, "we'll make it a success." Javier said, "no," he said, "listen, I don't mean a success by protecting your forces."

MARGARET WARNER: You are talking about in Bosnia now.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: In Bosnia. He said, "I mean you are going to be a success because the entire military and civil implementation has to succeed, and you have to help the civil implementation to succeed." Well, this was precisely what the Pentagon had been struggling to prevent. It was known in some circles as "mission creep." And now it was on my shoulders to do this. So I always knew that when I started down this path to have a successful operation in the Balkans, that I would face... And that's exactly how it turned out at every step along the way as I tried to work my way through this and take actions, there was resistance.

MARGARET WARNER: Several times, though, in this book you say you were actually stunned that you were not getting the support you felt you needed, that you felt that the commander out in the field and you were responsible for all these forces should be supported at home.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I felt that...

MARGARET WARNER: Give an example.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: It's one thing in a policy process that people have differing opinions. But once you're dropping bombs and your men and women are at risk flying into hostile antiaircraft fire and so forth, then it was inconceivable to me that I wouldn't get the ultimately the full support that I needed to be successful. I asked early on to have more targets released from the Pentagon, and I was really surprised five or six days into the war when the Pentagon was rejecting my request for the targets. They didn't fall under their categories and so forth. We were... By the Americans we were told, you can't escalate to such and such a target. You know, I was really concerned about this. Later on the Secretary of Defense called and he said, you know, he was worried about the three Americans who had been kidnapped. I said, "Mr. Secretary, we're a week into the war. I need the Apaches." He said, "well, I don't..."

MARGARET WARNER: These are helicopters, the low-flying helicopters.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Exactly. He said, "well, I don't know anything about that." I said, "well, Mr. Secretary, the proposal's in the Pentagon. It's been there since before the war started." A couple of nights later, we had a video teleconference, and I made my case. And subsequently the Apaches were approved for deployment, but not for employment. And throughout the campaign I kept working the system to try to get the right to use the Apaches to strike the Serb forces. It would have a powerful... A powerful effect on Milosevic, it would galvanize our European allies, but no support.

MARGARET WARNER: What is this... What should this tell us or what does it tell you about the Pentagon? I mean, why... How do you explain this reluctance, or this tug-of-war?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think a lot of it came from a conversation... was illustrated by a conversation I had with the army chief, General Denny Reimer, in December of '98, four months before the air campaign began. He was over in Europe visiting the troops and I said, "you know, Chief, things are looking bad here. We may be going to war. I think you ought to be preparing for this and requesting resources for it." He said, "but Wes," he said, "we don't want to fight in Kosovo." I said, "but, chief, do you want to fight in North Korea or Iraq? Do you want to fight anywhere?" And he said, "well, I guess you're right." But the simple truth was that the mindset in the Pentagon was that if we were ever going to go to war there were only one of two theaters where we were going to go to war in, and it wasn't in Europe.

MARGARET WARNER: Now the other tension that runs through your whole book is the tension between... That this was an alliance war. And you were head of NATO forces as well as American forces. There is an amazing scene at the Pristina Airport as NATO forces are coming into Kosovo, and the British general on the ground, General Mike Jackson, refuses your order to block the Russians on the runway. Just tell us more about this.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: It was a surprising moment to me. It was Sunday the 13th of June, about 8:30 in the morning. And he said, "I'm not going to take your order to block these, this runway." And so we talked about it. He was extremely agitated and emotional and making all kinds of statements. So I said, "let's get your chief of defense," his boss in the British chain of command, "on the line." I talked to General Sir Charles Guthrie, the British chief of defense, and he said, "let me talk to Mike." And so I pass the phone over and then Mike handed the phone back to me. And the British chief of defense said, "well, I agree with Mike." And he says, "so does Hugh Shelton," the American chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I was very surprised because I had gotten word from Washington that Washington supported, in fact, suggested that I block these runways and strongly supported how I did it, how I wanted to do it. So I called Hugh. It was about 3:00 in the morning in Washington, and I said, "well, you know, here is the problem and Guthrie says you support Jackson, not me. What... Do you support me or not?" Because you can't take actions in war without support of governments. He said, "well," he said, "I did have a conversation with Guthrie. I knew you were getting this order. Guthrie and I agreed we don't want a confrontation but I do support you." So I said, "well, then you've got a policy problem." And it really was a policy problem caused by the British government's differing perception than the American government's, and by Mike Jackson's perception of the situation.

MARGARET WARNER: What does this tell you about alliance warfare? I mean, that if push comes to shove, does the whole alliance command structure break down?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, only in... It tells you the same lesson we've always known about alliances, that if you are going to lead and you have the command positions, you have to back up that command position. You have to earn it by committing the resources. Now, in this case, although we had the majority of the aircraft and the air campaign, we had done our best to avoid taking a leadership role on the ground. The British had the vast majority of the forces. They were there first. They had the capital sector around Pristina and the Pristina Airport sector, and they had the commander on the ground. So it was going to be, except for the Apaches, it was all British troops at risk, and it was a British commander and therefore it was essentially a British operation under my command. It's the same thing that we would have found in the Second World War. Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander because the United States put the bulk of the forces in, not the Brits. In this case, because the United States didn't want to take the lead by committing its resources on the ground, when push came to shove, it was another country that actually set the policies.

MARGARET WARNER: If Milosevic had not caved what he did, do you think the alliance had the wherewithal and the will to pursue this war, to do what it took to win?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do, I do. I think the decision had already been made in the White House that one way or another they were going to find a way to work this out.

MARGARET WARNER: And finally, there's another theme in the book, and I've only been able to touch on a couple, had to do with the inability of the U.S. Government and the western governments to prevent these conflicts when you felt earlier action, both Bosnia and Kosovo could have. Do you... One, what did you think was behind that, and do you see the same thing happening vis- -vis Macedonia now?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I... What was behind it is very simply conflicting interests and priorities in Washington. And I was doing my job as a regional commander in chief warning the Pentagon, but it wasn't a well-received warning. It was a warning, which was rejected, basically, and subsequently we went to war. I think the risk in situations like this is high. The earlier one can get involved decisively, the better. But when the decision is still ambiguous, your chances of a successful, low-cost preventive solution is much higher than waiting for it to become so clear-cut that you go to war. And that's the concern for Macedonia today.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, General, thanks very much.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Thank you very much, Margaret.

RECAP

RAY SUAREZ: Again, the major stories of this Friday: President Bush made the case in Warsaw, Poland, for expanding NATO without threatening Russia, and leaders of the European Union opened a summit, amid violent protests. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Ray Suarez. Thanks and good night.