The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight four views of how to deal with the world's new nuclear proliferation problem; a Kwame Holman update on the tobacco update in the Senate; two Southern Baptist views of their vote on the relationship between husbands and wives; and some perspective on the biggest sporting event in the world, the World Cup of soccer. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Secretary of State Albright urged greater efforts at arms control today. In a Washington speech she appealed to Russia to ratify a treaty that would cut U.S. and Russian long-range nuclear warheads roughly in half. She also asked Congress to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty to set an example for India and Pakistan. She criticized their recent tests.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: The Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests dealt a blow to the non-proliferation regime, but let me be clear. Those senseless blasts beneath the ground do not, as some suggest, discredit that regime. To the contrary, they illustrate its logic and its necessity. A month ago India and Pakistan could look forward to improved relations with the United States and other major powers. Today, those prospects have been demolished.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on her speech and an arms control discussion right after this News Summary. The tobacco bill gained another new wind in the Senate today. It came from President Clinton's acceptance of a tax cut amendment proposed by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. Meanwhile, another attempt to cut off debate and force a vote failed. A third try is expected tomorrow. We'll have excerpts from today's debate later in the program. The family of a cigarette smoker won a damage suit against the tobacco company today. A jury in Jacksonville, Florida ruled Brown & Williamson was negligent, made a defective product, and conspired to hide the health dangers of smoking. The company was ordered to pay $950,000 in damages to relatives of the smoker, who died last year of lung cancer. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said today there was no need at present to raise interest rates. He testified before a joint committee of Congress. He said the American economy remained vigorous, despite financial uncertainty in Asia.

ALAN GREENSPAN, Chairman, Federal Reserve: Current economic performance with its combination of strong growth and low inflation is as impressive as any I have witnessed in my mere half century of daily observation of the American economy.

JIM LEHRER: The Federal Reserve Committee that sets interest rates is scheduled to meet at the end of June. Two more bodies were recovered today from the ruins of an exploded grain elevator in South Central Kansas. It brought the death toll to four, with two others still missing. Investigators believe the first explosion set off a series of others in connecting storage silos. The Wisconsin Supreme Court today gave Milwaukee schoolchildren the choice to attend parochial or private schools at state expense. The state would pay tuition for about 15,000 poor children to attend non-public schools. The Wisconsin court said the voucher program did not violate the doctrine of separating church and state. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is expected. Defense Secretary Cohen repeated the NATO ultimatum to the Serbs today. Military intervention will be used, if necessary, to resolve the conflict in Kosovo. He spoke in Rome one day before NATO defense ministers meet in Brussels. We have a report on Kosovo from Kevin Dunn of Independent Television News.

KEVIN DUNN, ITN: Twenty thousand Kosovars took to the streets of their capital, Pristina, to protest at Serb repression and to call on NATO to help them achieve their demand for autonomy from Belgrade. It was the 60th day of demonstrations in the capital and was mainly peaceful, though some Serb cars were stolen. The crisis in Kosovo shows no sign of easing. Options for military action, which range from air strikes against the Serbs to the dispatch of troops to secure Kosovo's borders, are top of the agenda, when NATO defense ministers meet tomorrow.

JIM LEHRER: The month-long World Cup of soccer began today in France. The opening pageant last night turned into a brawl as crowds battled riot police in Paris. Thirty-four policemen were injured, one critically. Fifteen people were arrested. Air France pilots ended a 10-day walkout that disrupted travel to the World Cup matches. We'll have more on the World Cup at the end of the program tonight. Between now and then the new nuclear proliferation problem, a tobacco bill update, and the Southern Baptist vote on marriage. FOCUS - TESTING NUKES

JIM LEHRER: The nuclear story and to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The United States, along with 148 other nations, signed the 1996 comprehensive test ban treaty, which bans all nuclear explosions of any size anywhere. But the U.S. Senate has yet to ratify the treaty or to hold major hearings on it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright pushed hard for both in her speech today at the Henry J. Stimson Center in Washington.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: The nuclear tests in South Asia present us with a fateful choice. Some now say that nuclear nonproliferation is doomed and the sooner we accept that, the better off we'll be. Because a standard has been violated, they would have us accept a world with no standards at all. I say that is dangerous nonsense. Efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons do not come with a guarantee, but to abandon them because they have been dealt a setback would be a felony against the future. And there are steps we can take to regain the momentum we have lost. Step one is to gain Senate approval of the comprehensive test ban treaty, for despite the South Asian test, CTBT remains essential to our strategy to reduce the nuclear danger. Now more than ever the CTBT is relevant to American security and world peace. And now, more than ever, we need to get the treaty's monitoring and detection system up and running. Now, more than ever, we need to declare that testing is not smart, not safe, not right, and not legal. Now, more than ever, we need to demonstrate that the world has entered a new era in which the greatness of nations is measured not by how much they can destroy but how much they can build. So I asked the Senate and the president has asked the Senate do not stall, do not delay, approve the CTBT. On this critical measure at this perilous time, American leadership should be unambiguous, decisive, and strong. In particular, I urge my friend, Sen. Helms, to bring the CTBT before his committee, examine it on its merits, and if the chairman wants me to testify, all he has to do is say the word and I'll be there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We get four views on the comprehensive test ban treaty now: Michigan Senator Carl Levin is a Democrat and served on the Senate Armed Services Committee; Arizona Senator Jon Kyl is a Republican and serves on the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, which oversees the national laboratories that design and maintain America's nuclear weapons; Sidney Drell is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, he's on two presidential panels dealing with nuclear weapons; and Robert Barker was Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy during the Reagan and Bush administrations. He's now at Lawrence Livermore Lab, but is speaking for himself. Thank you all for being with us. Senator Levin, do you agree with the Secretary's statement that there is a new urgency for the Senate to act now on the treaty?

SEN. CARL LEVIN, [D] Michigan: Very much so. There's no excuse for the Senate to at least not consider the treaty. And if there's arguments pro and con, then let's listen to those arguments, but to bottle this treaty up in committee without a hearing in committee and without bringing it to the Senate, it seems to me, is just totally wrong in the atmosphere that we now find ourselves. This treaty, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our top military official, the previous four chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, our Secretaryof Defense, our Secretary of Energy, will add to the security of the United States by making it more difficult, harder for other countries to bring about nuclear weapons, or to improve the nuclear weapons they have. And if this treaty enters into force, it will make it possible for us to monitor a lot better any nuclear explosion around the world. So our top military people strongly agree with Secretary Albright.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Senator Kyl, how do Republicans see this treaty?

SEN. JON KYL, [R] Arizona: Well, it's not just a partisan issue, but I think most Republicans believe that we should not put our reliance upon a treaty. Understand that in order for the comprehensive test ban treaty to have any impact at all a nation would already have had to violation the existing treaty, NPT, or Non-Proliferation Treaty, that bans the development of nuclear weapons. The CTBT, by contrast, bans their testing. So a nation would have had to specifically violate the NPT, having developed a weapon, in order for the CTB to be relevant. It's obvious that if that's happened, there's no point in putting reliance upon that country abiding by a treaty.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But, Sen. Kyl, do you agree with Sen. Levin that the Senate should act on this?

SEN. JON KYL: No. The whole point here is that we have to act in our self interest to ensure that we can defend ourselves. And the best way to do that is through the development of missile defenses and through helping countries like India and Pakistan work out differences that have created the need for this testing on their part. But to rely upon a piece of paper, a treaty, that's already been violated numerous times-and I'm talking now about the NPT and a CTBT that would also be violated--is to put our faith in a cloud in the air. It simply won't provide for our national security.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sidney Drell, do you think the Senate should ratify the treaty?

SIDNEY DRELL, Stanford University: Definitely. On national security grounds, as a physicist, on technical grounds I believe it's in our interest. The weapons in the enduring stockpile now had a very good pedigree. They're well tested. We have great confidence in them. The way to preserve that confidence is by doing the kinds of detailed diagnostics-I would say forensic work now going on in the laboratories under the stockpile stewardship program. That is-

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you mean by-you mean looking at the weapons in ways other than exploding them?

SIDNEY DRELL: We take them apart and we fingerprint them. We see whether they're aging. With the modern diagnostic techniques, with the advanced computers, we are now able with confidence to get data and see that the weapons are behaving the way they were calculated to behave and the way we learned they behave by an extensive test program over the past years. Earlier, we tested to develop new weapons and because we didn't have the diagnostics, or the computer power to do this type of work in the laboratory, I'm confident we are putting our resources where they are most needed now in the program. In addition, we will be beefing up under treaty our ability to monitor activities that may prove threatening to us in the nuclear realm around the world. The number of stations will more than triple.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Let's come back to that aspect of the treaty. Robert Barker, let's divide this up and right now let's talk about the effects of the treaty just on the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Do you support the treaty? I know you don't support the treaty. And is it-how-why not? How do you think it will affect the safety and the reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

ROBERT BARKER, Former Pentagon Official: Elizabeth, you have correctly characterized my position. My concern is that with any treaty it's a risk/benefit situation. The benefits-purported benefits-have to do with non-proliferation. I believe that India's and Pakistan's successful tests of nuclear explosives show that a CTBT will not prevent the development of workable nuclear weapons in the world. But such a stop cessation of testing does have a very, very high risk as far as the U.S. nuclear stockpile is concerned. Our entire stockpile was developed and designed with the expectation that we would be able to test it as we needed when we discovered problems in that stockpile. President Clinton's decision to cease testing has resulted in the Department of Energy developing a very, very comprehensive program that Dr. Drell has just described. I strongly support that program as an alternative until we really sit down and can evaluate that program, I believe ultimately we will decide that nuclear testing is the only tried and true way of establishing reliability of our stockpile.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why>

ROBERT BARKER: These weapons have been developed, Elizabeth, with that in mind. Our understanding of the physics, the technical behavior of these weapons is not well understood. Dr. Drell described some of the very, very complex programs that are no underway to try to improve that situation so we can depend more upon laboratory experiments than calculations. But until these tools have been demonstrated to actually deliver their promise, we live with the risk that any day we will discover a problem that we do not know how to fix without testing. I think it's much better for us to be in a position to test without breaking the treaty than would be required if we had to break a treaty to test. During my six years in the Pentagon five times I was presented by surprise from the Department of Energy with a major problem with a weapon and a weapons system in the stockpile, a problem that potentially affected every weapon there. It took us a while to sort out what fraction of the weapons were banned and what weren't. In several cases nuclear testing was required to resolve the problem. I don't think things have changed that much.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. I'll come back to you, Sidney Drell in one second. But Sen. Kyle first, is this a major concern of yours too?

SIDNEY DRELL: Yes, it is. Not only is the United States precluded from developing new safety measures for our weapons, but also determining the verifiability and reliability of these weapons as they deteriorate with the passage of time. Their life cycle is far exceeded in some cases. I want to go back to another point too. I simply refuse to believe that world opinion, as Secretary Albright pointed out, is going to stop anyone from violating the treaty if they believe it's in their national self-interest to proceed with the development of a nuclear program. Both India and Pakistan new full well that world opinion would be very much against them. They were even willing to suffer severe sanctions because their domestic political situation and their perceived national security interest deemed it important for them to go ahead with these nuclear programs. So a treaty is not going to help.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Sen. Levin, just on the question of the effect of this treaty on the U.S. nuclear arsenal, where do you come don on that?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Well, I listen to the heads of thelaboratories that are nuclear weapons laboratories. The heads of those laboratories support this treaty, and they feel that we can very safely maintain a stockpile through the stewardship program without testing. They are the heads of the laboratories. The top uniformed military officers of the United States support this treaty. They must certify that we can safely maintain this stockpile. They have done so, so we ought to listen to the heads of the labs. And Mr. Barker is, I think, an employee of the lab, but the head of the labs say that we can safely maintain this stockpile, and one other thing-I'm kind of amazed to hear that the CTBT doesn't protect us from testing in India and Pakistan. They are not members of the CTBT. That's the problem. We are urging them to join this treaty, and we have no standing to persuade them to do so if we, ourselves, not only don't ratify the treaty but won't even have a debate on the Senate floor, have it bottled up in the Foreign Relations Committee.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. I'm going to come back to that, but back still on the issue of the effect on our stockpile, how do you respond to these-especially to Mr. Barker's comments?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: The heads of nuclear weapons labs say we can protect the stockpile's safety and reliability. The heads of the nuclear weapons labs have certified that we can do that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Yes. Sidney Drell.

SIDNEY DRELL: Well, more data is always helpful. No scientist is against it. But the judgment, as Senator Levin says, of the heads of the labs of some of the major premier designers with whom I've worked is that it is not necessary. It would be easier to get some data. What's critical is to do the analysis work that's now going on, and I think when you balance the risks and the benefits, getting the added power into our ability to verify activities around the world, which we will with the comprehensive test ban, accepting the judgment of many, including the lab directors, that testing is not necessary, we should go with it for one very important reason. The goal of the game is to try and restrain proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world, making them more available to terrorists. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, when it was extended-this is a 1970 treaty-

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Making sure they're not available to terrorists.

SIDNEY DRELL: Making sure they're not available. In 1973--they received its final formal review in 1995, all the countries of the world, save for India, Pakistan, and Israel, signed up on the assumption and on the condition that we would stop testing. Now, the Non-Proliferation regime is a great success. It has not failed because of India and Pakistan. Four nuclear countries in the 1990's abandoned nuclear weapons: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and South Africa. Four more on the way to nuclear capability abandoned them--Argentina and Brazil, North Korea, now in the deal for nuclear power, and because of the war Iraq. So we have a regime that is working that has the whole world united. If the United States is to be a leader in preserving this important regime and try and restrain non-proliferation, we must ratify the treaty to be sitting at the table as a leader.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Robert Baker, staying on the proliferation aspects of all this now, isn't it true that the non-proliferation regime, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, did assume that the major nuclear powers would stop testing?

ROBERT BARKER: Certainly, one of the traditions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was that the nuclear weapons states would work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, and certainly the United States and Russia, the Soviet Union, have been very successful in that regard, but I would remind you that during the Reagan and Bush administrations it was made very, very clear that the sensation of nuclear testing only made sense the same day that you eliminated the entirety of nuclear weapons. In fact, George Bush on the next to last day in office on January 1993 made a very, very clear statement in a report to the Congress that he viewed nuclear testing as being continually necessary in order to enhance the safety or maintain the safety and reliability of the stockpile. I agree with Dr. Drell, that a non-proliferation regime is very successful, and he pointed to very successful stories that occurred without a comprehensive test ban treaty, in fact, successes that occurred while the United States was continuing to use nuclear tests to preserve the safety and reliability of its stockpile. The day may come when I may feel that the risks are acceptable. Right now, I don't. The stockpile stewardship program for the U.S. is a relatively new program. Only two certifications of the stockpile have taken place since the cessation of nuclear testing. I'd like to see the Senate dig into that whole procedure and discover for itself-determine for itself whether that-whether this certification process is an acceptable substitute for nuclear testing. This seems to me to be a step to be taken way before the Senate considers ratification of the comprehensive test ban.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sen. Kyl, but on the proliferation issue, what is your response to Sidney Drell's concerns that the whole Non-Proliferation regime, as he puts it, depends on the stopping of testing by the major nuclear powers?

SEN. JON KYL: Bob Baker had it right. If Sid Drell is proud of the fact that certain countries backed off of development of weapons while we were testing, the question is then of what matter is it whether a country is testing or not. In the past two and a half years we've had five countries test nuclear weapons, including France, China, perhaps Russia--verification is too hard to know for sure-and, of course, Pakistan and China. Also, countries that signed the NPT, including Argentina, Brazil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, South Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan have all broken parts of the NPT. So merely because you have a treaty doesn't mean that countries are going to abide by it, or, as I said before, that there will be any incentive for them to comply with it simply because of world opinion. Might I also make one other point regarding the lab directors that my friend, Carl Levin, referred to? One of the lab directors, the head of Los Alamos National Laboratories, made it crystal clear that the CTBT can't work in terms of verification. In fact, he said that he can state-and I'm quoting-categorically that zero yield test ban-which is what CTBT is-is beyond the verification capabilities of our national technical means. So even if it made sense to have a CTBT, it cannot be verified and, therefore, it's unworkable.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Senator Levin, where do you come down on this? And please finish up by telling us what you think will happen in the Senate with this treaty.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: We can verify CTBT when 44 countries, including India and Pakistan, agree to it, because then we'll be able to put monitors on their soil, which we now cannot do. We have no standing to try to persuade India and Pakistan to sign a treaty, which most of the world has signed, when we, ourselves, refuse to ratify that treaty. I think the chances are only fair that that treaty will be brought to the floor of the Senate. There's about thirty-five or forty of us that are co-sponsors of a resolution urging hearings and urging that the Senate at least debate this treaty. And I don't think we have any standing in the world, any credibility, to argue against proliferation of nuclear weapons when we, ourselves, will not debate and consider the comprehensive test ban treaty, which our military leaders say will reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation in this world.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, gentlemen, Senators, thank you very much. UPDATE - SMOKIN' DEBATE

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman updates the progress of the tobacco bill in Congress.

KWAME HOLMAN: Just a few weeks ago it was widely believed tobacco legislation would attract broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill because of its simple, popular, and frequently stated purpose, reducing teen smoking. But after weeks of crafting in the Senate, the tobacco bill has taken on a number of other goals and become increasingly complex.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: The fact that the bill just continues to get worse and worse and worse-there's a point, you know, at which you say, this thing is not, you know, capable of being resurrected.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: We've tried the cooperation route. We've tried to-you know, in good faith-negotiate solutions and compromises that we think both sides could live with, but they don't seem to be interested in doing that.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Senate's bill, sponsored by Arizona Republican John McCain, truly is a work in progress. Simply put, it would raise federal cigarette taxes by $1.10 a pack. Overall, the bill would require tobacco companies to pay the federal government $516 billion over 25 years. But deciding what the government should do with all of that money has slowed the debate considerably. Democrats support language in the McCain bill that calls for the $516 billion to fund medical research, public health education on the dangers of smoking, and to reimburse states for their costs of treating smoking-related illnesses and provide financial relief to tobacco farmers. But a number of Republicans have come forward with other ideas on how to spend the money. Phil Gramm of Texas proposed using some of the money for a tax cut.

SEN. PHIL GRAMM, [R] Texas: So we're going to take a portion, a substantial portion of the money and give it back to blue collar workers by repealing the marriage penalty for couples that make $50,000 a year or less. The reason that I focused in on $50,000 and below in this bill is that smoking in America today is predominantly a blue-collar phenomenon. 75 percent of these taxes will be paid by people who make $50,000 or less.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Georgia's Paul Coverdell proposed using some of the money for the war on drugs.

SEN. PAUL COVERDELL, [R] Georgia: The first war that had ever been waged against kids that we're in the middle of, and so we suggest an amendment that if this legislation becomes law, 20 percent of the resources-20 percent-ought to be focused on the nation's number one problem. I think that leaves 80 percent to deal with what is among families and teenagers the eighth most serious problem.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Democrats charged the Republicans' proposal would, in effect, kill tobacco legislation.

SEN. JOHN KERRY, [D] Massachusetts: If all we're going to do is come to the floor and fight about these amendments that carve out and carve out, there's a whole lot of issues involved in them that have already proven very tricky and very contentious and very divisive on the Senate floor in previous incarnations. If we keep revisiting them, one can only interpret that, unfortunately, as an effort to try to derail or slow down or stop the fundamental legislation that we're trying to achieve ourselves.

KWAME HOLMAN: Yesterday afternoon Senators showed just how far they are from agreeing on comprehensive tobacco legislation. An effort by Democrats to get cloture, to end debate, and force a vote on tobacco failed miserably. That led to more accusatory rhetoric.

SEN. DICK DURBIN, [D] Illinois: We are currently debating the Coverdell amendment to the Durbin amendment to the grand motion to recommit with two underlying Gregg amendments also still pending. Hard to follow? It is designed to be hard to follow. It is designed to tangle us up in procedures so we never get to vote on this bill and never vote on this issue. Now the tobacco companies have to be cheering after that last vote.

SEN. JOHN ASHCROFT, [R] Missouri: Some say this is legislation that is dead or dying and the cloture is needed to salvage this legislation. Well, that's the mind set of people who are afraid that the details of the legislation will be exposed to the American people, and, as a result, the American people would no longer support the measure.

KWAME HOLMAN: Just as it looked as if the Senate could make no more progress on the tobacco issue, President Clinton intervened. Late yesterday afternoon, after signing the highway bill into law, the president abruptly announced he had convinced each of the two Senate leaders to give a little.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I talked to Sen. Lott today, and I want to thank him and, in his absence, Sen. Daschle, for the agreements which have been made today to allow votes to proceed on the tobacco legislation. I thank you, sir. We have another chance to save a million lives, reduce youth smoking, and make a massive contribution to the public health of America.

KWAME HOLMAN: The President's intervention might not have changed any Senator's position on tobacco issues, but apparently, it did help convince Senators to move ahead and vote on important amendment.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: And the important thing was to try to come to an agreement that would get some votes on these important issues. This gets us started in that direction, and I think that is positive.

KWAME HOLMAN: Early last evening on a party line vote the Senate agreed to spend $15 billion included in the tobacco bill for Senator Coverdell's proposal to fight teenage drug use. The Senate then defeated the Democrats' alternative plan. Win or lose-Senators on all sides considered the vote a sign of progress.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: And I'm certainly appreciate of the fact that we're able to proceed forward with a couple of votes here. I think this is an important beginning of our efforts to be able to really tie down narrowly some of the most contentious issues and to be able to lay out, hopefully, an agenda for the rest of the week.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today the Senate moved on to debate Sen. Gramm's proposed tax cuts, but Gramm too agreed to compromise and scaled back the size of his proposal. And now it has the support of the president and other Democrats.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: I think he's come a long way. And I appreciate the fact that he has, but I still think he's spending too much on tax cuts at the expense of public health, at the expense of research, at the expense of farmers, and at the expense of states.

KWAME HOLMAN: Despite the progress, Daschle and other Senators warn the effort to complete tobacco legislation still could fall apart.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight the Southern Baptist vote on marriage and the World Cup. FOCUS - SHEPHERDING THE FAMILY

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner has the Southern Baptist story.

MARGARET WARNER: The Southern Baptist Convention this week amended its official statement of beliefs to declare that a wife must: "submit herself graciously," to her husband's leadership. Southern Baptists are the nation's largest Protestant denomination, with nearly 16 million members. The Convention's leadership adopted the amendment yesterday at their annual meeting in Salt Lake City. It was the first change in 35 years to the "Baptist faith and message," which sets out the principles for Southern Baptists to follow. The amendment on "the family" reads, in part: "the husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. The statement goes on to say: "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God, as is her husband, and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation." .

MARGARET WARNER: With is now is Dr. Anthony Jordan, the chairman of the committee that drafted the amendment. He is the executive director/treasurer of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma; Carolyn Weatherford Crumpler is former executive director of the Woman's Missionary Union of the Southern Baptist Convention. More recently, she's held a leadership role with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a breakaway group within the Southern Baptist Church. Welcome, both.Mrs. Crumpler, do you have a problem with the statement that I just read that was adopted yesterday?

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship: I have no serious problem with this statement, as much as I have a problem with having to revise or amend the Baptist faith and message. I believe that the scripture cited is Ephesians V, and I believe in that, Paul is talking more about mutual submission in order for there to be unity and cooperative effort. I am not in agreement with the amendment. But, of course, I did not vote.

MARGARET WARNER: And you're saying that you believe that the biblical teaching is man and wife submit to one another?

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: Correct.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Dr. Jordan, your response to that.

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN, Southern Baptist Convention: Well, I think that the amendment speaks very clearly the interpretation of scripture, in all due respect to Mrs. Crumpler, the fact is that yes, the scripture says that we are to be in mutual submission to one another, but it goes on to say here's how it is played out. And it is not only spoken of in Ephesians V, but it is also spoken of in Colossians, and again in 1st Peter III. And I think the key to it is that you are to submit to a husband in relationship to his servant/leadership. And if a husband loves his wife like Christ loved the Church, then the wife has nothing to worry about.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you mean by that?

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN: Well, obviously, the husband has a responsibility to love his wife and to serveher. It's not like the husband demands this submission. In fact, our statement says she graciously submits to him. And it is God's word that tells us that's the way it is. Really the amendment was put forth as the basis that came solely out of the scripture. And so we're very comfortable with it, and it was overwhelmingly adopted.

MARGARET WARNER: Mrs. Crumpler, do you see the statement as meaning that there's a demand or not?

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: A demand for submission, yes. No. I really do not, but the thing that concerns me about the statement is I am very happily married to a Christian pastor, retired pastor, and we-our marriage is very happy. We do not-we don't argue about who is submissive to whom. I think the problem that this gives me is that I think it will define the male/female relationship beyond marriage. There is a great deal in our convention at the present time that feel that there are certain positions to which the Lord does not call women. And I think that this will be interpreted in that way.

MARGARET WARNER: Dr. Jordan, why did the convention decide that this kind of a statement and this kind of amendment was needed now? What's the problem you're trying to address?

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN: Well, there's no question that there is a tremendous breakdown of family life. There's an attack on family values. And Southern Baptists have always been pro family. And I think this statement is a very clear definition of what we believe how God would have us live in family relationships. And it is a statement that is not being clearly stated within our culture. And so this statement, I think, certainly runs against culture, but it is God's way. We're very comfortable to say this in a strong and yet very clear and compassionate way.

MARGARET WARNER: Mrs. Crumpler, would you agree that there is a breakdown in the family and in family life and it's something that churches should address?

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: I certainly do agree that there's a breakdown. I simply do not believe that this statement is going to decrease the breakdown. I do not believe that a woman's failure to submit to her husband is the cause of the breakdown in the family.

MARGARET WARNER: And Dr. Jordan, do you think it is?

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN: Well, I think it is-any time that you do not follow God's plan, as revealed in His word, there's going to be dysfunction and problems in the family. I think that our position was not to try to straighten out all the world, but we are simply saying as Christians, as Southern Baptists who are bible-believing Christians. This statement gives us the best plan. We've heard from all the other gurus around society and culture, and now let's hear from God.

MARGARET WARNER: So are you saying you think there's a confusion of roles within marriage today?

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN: Well, I think there has been. I think it goes all the way from male relationship to the male/female relationship in marriage. And obviously, we've addressed all of that in our statement.

MARGARET WARNER: And Mrs. Crumpler, do you think there's a confusion in the roles in marriage?

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: I'm not confused. I'm not confused.

MARGARET WARNER: Mrs. Crumpler, staying with you for a minute, this was adopted. You said you did not vote. You were at the convention, were you not, or not?

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: Yes, I was, but I came home early. I returned to Cincinnati yesterday.

MARGARET WARNER: I see.

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: I was there for the women's meeting. The Woman's Missionary Union meets just prior to the Southern Baptist Convention.

MARGARET WARNER: It was adopted, as I understand it, almost overwhelmingly, without dissent?

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: That's right. Unanimously, I believe.

MARGARET WARNER: Does that tell you that it is a view widely shared by a majority of Southern Baptists?

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: It is a view widely-by the majority of Southern Baptists, who now attend the convention, that has changed in recent years.

MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry. Can you explain that.

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: Yes. Some 20 years ago there came to be what some have called the conservative resurgence within the convention. There's a basic difference in interpretation of scripture between those who are in leadership now and those who were in leadership. This is a very wide divergence, and most of the people who are not in agreement with the current leadership in the convention have just stopped going to the conventions.

MARGARET WARNER: I see. Is that the case, Dr. Jordan, that really your conventions, your meetings now only reflect a certain group within your church, a more conservative group perhaps?

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN: Well, I think it is more conservative, because that's who Southern Baptists are. That's who we have been across the years, and some of those who disagree have stopped coming to the convention, but there is a wide diversity of those who've come. We had a debate on the floor about this matter. The other side was represented, but when you look at the convention, you look at who is there, it is a wide perspective of who Southern Baptists are.

MARGARET WARNER: Dr. Jordan, what practical effect do you want-do you expect that this new statement will have?

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN: Well, it defines and clarifies where we as Southern Baptists stand in relationship to this issue, and I think it is a necessary refinement and statement-definement of who we are and what we believe. That's what a confession of faith. And hopefully, there will be a response on the-I think people will-in the Southern Baptist convention basically follow it now.

MARGARET WARNER: But just to be very specific about individual Southern Baptists, would you expect that within a family, if the wife said I'd like to go out and work and the husband said well, I don't want you to work, that he would cite this as sort of authority for his position?

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN: Well, there are always people who will take anything and take it and make an aberration out of it. And I would just say that this statement is very clear. It is not a putdown on women. It really lifts women, if a husband loves his wife. In my marriage of 30 years my wife is not subservient to me. We're in a mutual partnership and relationship, and yet, there are certainly times when I take leadership in the home, because that's my biblical responsibility.

MARGARET WARNER: And Mrs. Crumpler, what do you think the practical effect of this will be?

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: I think it won't make a great deal of difference to very many people. I certainly agree that if there were to come a time when someone had to be the leader of our household, my husband would be that, because he just is more sensible than I am, more practical than I am. I do not think it's going to make a great deal of difference in the playing out of the way that Christian people, Baptist Christian people, live their lives and live their marriages.

MARGARET WARNER: Is that possible, Dr. Jordan, that actually it won't have much effect at all in a practical sense?

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN: Of course, I believe anytime that you make a clear definition and state clearly where you stand in relation to the scripture, it'll have an effect on Southern Baptists' lives, because we're people of the book.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Dr. Jordan, if there are Southern Baptists who don't agree with this, and who don't try to put it into practice, do you still consider them Southern Baptists?

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. We're not trying to exclude anyone here. We're just simply trying to say this is what we as Southern Baptists believe the scripture teaches about family. Mrs. Crumpler and I may disagree, but she is my sister in Christ. And I in no way would exclude her.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Mrs. Crumpler, do you feel the same way? Do you feel the same-that you are still very welcome within the Church?

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: Yes. Yes. My basic differences is that I do try to follow the teachings of the bible. My interpretation of those teachings vary somewhat from Dr. Jordan's and from others in leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention now, but I certainly try to follow the teachings of the scripture.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you both very much for being with us.

CAROLYN WEATHERFORD CRUMPLER: Thank you.

DR. ANTHONY JORDAN: Thank you.

FINALLY - FOOTBALL FRENZY

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight the World Cup and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: It was the kick-off to the most important event in the world's most popular game . Brazil beat Scotland two to one in Paris in the opening match of the 16th World Cup championship. Over the next five weeks a cumulative global audience of more than 37 billion people is expected to watch 32 national teams play 64 games of soccer. Exuberant fans of defending champion Brazil were among the first to arrive in Paris earlier this week. And, with the sound of bagpipes and the swinging of kilts, the first battalion of Scotland's so-called Tartan Army marched into Paris to show its support. Last night, a kickoff parade along the Champs Elysses included four 60 foot inflatable giants, representing the world's different cultures. For fans, getting to the celebration has been difficult. Air France pilots staged a nine-day strike ... flights were canceled; Air France terminals were empty. Much to the relief of French officials, the strike ended today when the pilots agreed to salary cuts in exchange for Air France stock. The first competition for the cup was held in 1930. Since then, it's been held every four years except during World War II. Countries compete for the honor of being the host. Teams from 170 countries played in two years of preliminary games to be in this year's field of 32 finalists. In 1990, the US qualified for the first time in forty years, but the team finished second to last in the tournament. Four years later, the United States hosted the games for the first time. The American team finished in 14th place, while Brazil claimed its fourth title. This year--qualifying for the World Cup for the third straight time-the American team is ranked 11th in the world going into the tournament-an all time high. And, the US Soccer Federation has a plan called Project 2010 to have the US "positioned" to win the World Cup in twelve years. But for now, defending champion, Brazil--with its superstar Ronaldo-enters as the tournament favorite. Other perennial powers such as Argentina, Germany, and Italy are also strong contenders. Fans in the United States alone will be able to watch more than 230 hours of live coverage.

PHIL PONCE: We're joined now by Rick Davis, former captain of several US national teams and a former professional soccer player; and Jessi Losada, sports anchor for Univision, the largest Spanish language television network in the United States. He's now providing commentary on his fifth World Cup. Gentlemen, welcome.Mr. Davis, for those of us who don't follow soccer on a regular basis, give us an idea of just how big the World Cup is around the world.

RICK DAVIS, Former Captain, US Soccer Team: I think probably the best way for people here in this country to understand it would be to say if we took the Superbowl, the NBA championship, the NHL Stanley Cup, the World Series, rolled all of those up into a little ball and tossed in a little bit of the Olympics games with it, that would be the significance of how the rest of the world perceives the World Cup.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Losada, is that how you would characterize it?

JESSI LOSADA, Soccer Commentator, Univision: Oh, most definitely. The World Cup is "the" largest sporting event in the entire world. The viewership is not in the millions, it's in the billions. And I don't think there's any country in the world that's not watching the World Cup starting today. It's in every language you can possibly imagine, and it's been in the hearts of soccer fans all over the world for the past few years during all the qualifying. It's more than just a sport for the rest of the world. It's more like a passion.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Losada, give us some inkling as to why people are so passionate about it.

JESSI LOSADA: Well, there's a lot of tradition involved. And, you know, it goes far beyond just being a sport on a local level. Once you get to the World Cup it's a matter of national pride. And these national teams basically represent their entire country. And it's a matter of getting out there, you know, doing the best they possibly can. Sometimes, you know, you will have a very small country, like today we saw a great game between Brazil and Scotland. You know, Brazil is this huge country with a tremendous history in soccer and the Scottish were there, and they gave a great game. They did their best. It's a matter of national pride for these teams, and there's a lot of pressure involved here too.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Davis, do you agree that a lot of this has to do with patriotism or nationalism even?

RICK DAVIS: I think it probably even goes beyond that. I think that in my experiences in traveling to some of the places that I've been along with the US national team and playing other countries, it's more than just a passion, it's more than any pastime that I've ever known. I almost look at it more as it being a religion in that people take real offense if their national team is criticized, or if they aren't playing well.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Davis, how much interest would you-do you think there is in the World Cup in the United States?

RICK DAVIS: I think it's growing interest. I think if you look back at 1990, when the United States team participated for the first time in quite a few years, people were really kind of ambivalent to it. They didn't really understand it, didn't really want to watch it because they didn't understand it. And so from there '94 came along, we actually staged the World Cup here in the United States, and I think that opened a lot of people's eyes to not only the sport but how significant the sport is around the world. You bring it up to date this year, this time around, in '98, and I think that there is some genuine interest not at the level of say football or baseball, but certainly I think it's growing.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Losado, in some communities is there the kind of fever pitch that we see in other countries?

JESSI LOSADA: I think so, especially among Hispanics here in the United States. You get that kind of passion, that kind of World Cup fever. We've seen it here in Miami. We've seen it in Los Angeles, New York, throughout the country where you have a large Hispanic community, where you've got people cheering for their country. Of course, there's a very large population here from Mexico and the United States and the Mexican team as well, getting a tremendous amount of support throughout the country. And we've seen that type of interest throughout our broadcasts on Univision, which have a tremendous rating.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Losada, how do you assess the prospects for the US team?

JESSI LOSADA: Well, I think the US team, if we're talking about this World Cup, I think they are going to have a pretty tough time. They're in a very difficult group. They made a lot of progress, definitely. I think Coach Samson has done a great job with the talent that he has. I think it's a team that's in transition. They've got a lot of veteran players. They've got some young, upcoming players. It's going to take a while for soccer to really take root in the United States and for the United States' soccer team to become a world power. Undoubtedly, the best athletes in this country are not playing soccer. You know, Michael Jordan is in the NBA; he's not playing soccer. I think in the future you're going to see better athletes in soccer, as there's more money and as the sport develops. The MLS has a tremendous future, Major League Soccer, here in the United States. There it's going to be the cradle for the future of soccer in the United States. We're going to see a lot of great athletes participating. I don't know if 2010 might be the year that we'll win a World Cup here in the United States, but I think it's going to come pretty soon.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Davis, how do you assess the chances for the US team?

RICK DAVIS: I think the practical side of me wants to say it's going to be real tough. I think Mr. Losada is accurate in that we're in a very difficult group with Germany, Yugoslavia, I think two outstanding countries, and we have our work cut out for us. But if I take off my jacket and shirt, I've got this big red, white, and blue flag, patriot as can be, and I believe in red, white, and blue, and I think that the American athlete-never underestimate what he's capable of doing. I don't want to say that we're going to win it, but I think that we're going to surprise some people and I think that, you know, with the growth of the sport, with the new league, the MLS, coming along, I think the game has a bright future ahead of it.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Davis, what is it that makes soccer appeal or so popular in countries that are so diverse, countries in Africa, countries in Europe, countries in Latin America? What is the appeal?

RICK DAVIS: For me it's a couple of things: No. 1 is that it's just a wonderful game to play. As a kid growing up in this country I had all of the different sports available to me to play, and for no reason other than just the enjoyment that I derive from soccer was soccer my favorite. And so I think that it has a natural appeal in that way. Secondly, I think it's very non-discriminatory. It's one of the few sports that I know of that you can be male, female, you can be big, you can be small, you don't have to be fast, you don't have to be exceptionally strong or whatever, and in that regard, I think, again, it has just real natural appeal to it.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Losada, how do you respond to the criticism that some people have of soccer that it's low-scoring, that it's boring? How do you respond to that?

JESSI LOSADA: Well, I think anybody who says that soccer is boring doesn't really understand the sport. It's a very complicated sport in the sense that there's a lot of strategy involved. I guess, you know, you could say the same thing about baseball. If you really didn't understand what baseball is all about, and you watch these guys sitting around there in the dugout, you'd say, well, that's a terribly boring game. But soccer, I think it's non-stop action if you know, if you understand, more or less, the concept of the sport. You find that it's a beautiful thing, and it's a very simple sport, very basic, so it requires tremendous mental skills, I think a lot of mental discipline. To me, it's a tremendous sport. I love it.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Losada, aside from the obvious fact of scoring, what is it that people should look for, if they're new soccer viewers? What kinds of things on the field should people look out for?

JESSI LOSADA: Well, I think, you know, defensively there's a lot of interesting things that are being done by the teams. There has been more scoring in the last couple of World Cups. You've seen a little bit more effort to have offense. They've changed the rules a little bit. You know, this year there's 3 points for winners, only 1 point for a tie. They're trying to stimulate the goals, and we saw it today, in the first two games of the World Cup there was a lot of scoring, a lot of going after the victory, and I think that's going to be a important part for the future of soccer. But I think strategically, when you see a battle developing in mid-field, when you see those great saves by a goal keeper--let's keep in mind this sport is played only with your feet; you can't use your hands-so it's an extremely difficult sport. It's very difficult to put one of those pinpoint kicks right into the corner of the net. That's something-a rare thing, and it's a thing of beauty. That's why when there's a goal-I'm sure you heard our announcer, Andrez Cantor in Univision, that scream, that goal, because it's a celebration, and, you know, if you have six or seven, eight goals in a game, it wouldn't have that same flavor that, you know, two or three goals a game has. The goal is a very important thing. And it's very difficult to be able to make it.

PHIL PONCE: Rick Davis, what team should viewers be looking at particularly carefully in this World Cup?

RICK DAVIS: Well, for me I think that-I don't believe it's going to be a good World Cup for Brazil, despite the fact that they won their first game already. I think Germany-despite the fact that they have such a proud heritage in the sport-I don't look for them to be that strong, because too many of their players that have been playing within the club system within Germany have had sub par years. For me I like Italy. I think Italy has the strongest club program around the world, and I think that they're going to do well. Longer shots-I think that Yugoslavia is a team that I think has the capability of surprising the world. Argentina, Spain are all good teams, and of course, you've got the African nation-who knows what to expect from there.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Losado, in the very short time that we have left, tell us who Ronaldo is and why these comparisons to Michael Jordan?

JESSI LOSADA: Well, Ronaldo, I guess you should compare him more to something like-somebody like Hoby Brian of the Lakers. He's only 21 years old. He's a big major star in Europe, but he still hasn't made it in the World Cup. This is his chance to shine. A lot of people are saying that he's the next Pale from Brazil, but he's still got to prove it. He was with a team in 1994 here in the United States but he never played because he was extremely young. Now it's his time. He's mature; he's a great player. In Europe he's an idol; people love him. In his country, well you can imagine, he's a national hero. So this is his moment to shine. He's going to have to prove it in this World Cup. In Europe, like I said, he's already established, but in the world community he still hasn't had this showcase of the World Cup to prove that he's the best player in the world. We'll have to see.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Losado, Mr. Davis, thank you both very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, Secretary of State Albright urged Congress to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty to set an example for India and Pakistan; President Clinton backed a Republican tax cut amendment attached to the tobacco bill; and Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said there's no need to raise interest rates now. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.