The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we have excerpts from today's Senate hearings into the FBI and the Ruby Ridge killings. Then Senators Kyl and Dorgan debate the congressional will to raise defense spending. Next, Elizabeth Brackett profiles a big-city mayor who's already started reinventing government. Finally, New Yorker writer Roger Angell talks about tonight's big game for Baltimore Orioles' shortstop Cal Ripken. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: The Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously this afternoon to recommend expulsion of Oregon Republican Bob Packwood, chairman of the powerful Finance Committee. He's been the subject of a two-year investigation by the Ethics Committee. At least 17 women, some of them staff aides or campaign workers, have accused Packwood of making unwanted sexual advances during the course of his Senate career. He was also accused of trying to use his influence on congressional lobbyists to find a job for his estranged wife. At a news conference this evening, Packwood had this reaction to the Committee's recommendation.

SEN. BOB PACKWOOD, [R] Oregon: Folks, I can't recall when any American citizen has been put through a process close to an inquisition and never had a chance to face his accusers, never, not once, never had a chance to question them, to have a process where no single committee member ever heard any of the complainants involved in this case, not one. If I were a normal citizen, I could ask for a public hearing, I could ask to cross-examine my accusers, I could do anything that any of you in this room have a right to do that has been denied to me.

MR. MAC NEIL: Packwood has served in the Senate since 1969. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: There was much reaction today to France's underground nuclear test in the South Pacific. Protests occurred in countries throughout the region and in Europe. More than 36 governments, including the United States, registered opposition to the action. Yesterday's blast occurred in French Polynesia, 3,000 miles Southeast of Hawaii. It was estimated to be close in size to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II. The test is the first of eight scheduled over the next nine months. French President Chirac said they are needed to update France's nuclear arsenal and technology. Chirac promised to sign an international test ban treaty next year.

MR. MAC NEIL: NATO jets bombarded Bosnian Serb positions for a second straight day today. NATO's Southern Commander, Layton Smith, said Operation Deliberate Force would continue into the foreseeable future. NATO released cockpit video from yesterday's raids. It was supplied by U.S. and French aircraft and depicted hits on Serb command control centers and ammunition depots. The NATO commander said every effort was being made to avoid civilian targets. NATO and the UN have said that in order to stop the bombardment, the Serbs must exceed to UN demands to lift the threat to Sarajevo and the other UN-designated safe areas. A State Department said the Bosnian Serbs should comply with those conditions.

NICHOLAS BURNS, State Department Spokesman: They could once run amuck in Bosnia. They could once rape and pillage cities, and they now cannot. They now are on the defensive. They now are facing very intensive NATO air bombardment. They're facing the guns of the Rapid Reaction Force from Mt. Igman and other places around Sarajevo. It's a new day. And it certainly is something different than they have felt in the past. And they ought to learn the lesson. This is not temporary. This is not illusory. It's not something that can be waited out because there's a collective expression of international will here that the time has come to move to the peace table.

MR. MAC NEIL: Leaders from Bosnia, Croatia, and the Yugoslav Republic are scheduled to meet in Geneva on Friday to lay the groundwork for further peace talks.

MR. LEHRER: First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke at another women's issues forum in China today. She addressed representatives of the non-governmental organizations meeting near Beijing in conjunction with the UN Conference on Women. Mrs. Clinton urged the private organizations to make sure governments live up to promises of equal rights for women made at the conference. Here in Washington, President Clinton praised his wife's speech yesterday to the UN conference. He said she was not singling out China when she criticized human rights abuses.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Senate began hearings today into the 1992 FBI raid at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in which the wife and son of white separatist Randy Weaver were killed. A shootout occurred when federal agents went to apprehend Weaver, after he failed to appear in court on charges of selling sawed-off shotguns to an undercover agent. Weaver accused federal agents of violating their own rules for using deadly force.

RANDY WEAVER: I'm here today to do all in my power to see that all citizens, including law enforcement officers, obey the law. I'm here today because there must be accountability for the killings of my wife and son. When high-ranking FBI officials issue death warrants and cover up their involvement, the message they send to police officers all over the country is it is okay if you can get away with it. Citizens who cannot trust their government band together in fear. If people in positions of power commit unlawful acts and are not held accountable, then the citizens' fear of the government is justified.

MR. MAC NEIL: Several FBI officials have been suspended for their actions at Ruby Ridge, and a criminal probe is underway. Today was the first of eight days of Senate hearings. We'll have extended excerpts right after the News Summary.

MR. LEHRER: The Senate voted approval today of a new land-based anti-missile defense system. It would guard against nuclear, chemical, or biological missile attacks. The 85 to 13 vote authorized the Defense Department to move toward construction of a multi-site system by the year 2003. It's part of a $265 billion bill to authorize defense spending in fiscal 1996. We'll have more about the anti-missile system later in the program.

MR. MAC NEIL: Hurricane Luis is dumping rain in the Northern Caribbean after moving through Puerto Rico last night. Trees and power lines were downed in San Juan, and many residents were without electricity and water today. The heavy rains caused flooding and erosion along the coast. Luis is being blamed for the deaths of four people. The storm is moving Northwest, and forecasters predict it will turn North tomorrow. Wind gusts have dropped slightly, from 150 to 125 miles an hour.

MR. LEHRER: A 56-year-old baseball record set by New York Yankee great Lou Gehrig will be broken tonight. Baltimore Oriole shortstop Cal Ripken is slated to break the Major League record for consecutive games played. He tied the record last night when he played in game 2130. Tonight's game will be at Camden yards in Baltimore. President Clinton and Vice President Gore are scheduled to attend. We'll have more on it later in the program, along with the Senate hearings on Ruby Ridge, the anti-missile defense system, and the mayor of Indianapolis. FOCUS - UNDER FIRE

MR. LEHRER: Ruby Ridge is first tonight. A Senate subcommittee began hearings today into the ill-fated siege in Northern Idaho three years ago. Three people were killed in the confrontation between federal agents and a white separatist and his family. Betty Ann Bowser reports.

SPOKESMAN: Raise your right hand for the administration of the oath.

MS. BOWSER: Randy Weaver said he thought this day would never come when he would have a chance to tell "his" version of the events that unfolded near his home in Northern Idaho in 1992. It was early morning. Federal marshals were doing surveillance around his property.

RANDY WEAVER: On August 21, 1992, federal marshals shot my son, Samuel, in the back and killed him. He was running home to me. His last words were, "I'm coming, Dad." They shot his little arm almost off, and they killed him by shooting him in the back--in the back with a nine-millimeter submachine gun. The gun had a silencer on it. He was not wanted for any crime. He did not commit any crime. The marshals killed his dog right at his feet. He only tried to defend himself and his dog. Sam was just 14 years old. He did not yet weigh 80 pounds. He was not yet five feet tall. The marshals who killed Sammy were grown men; they were in combat gear; they had their faces painted with camouflage; they were wearing full camouflage suits with black Ninja-type hoods; they were carrying machine guns, and large caliber semiautomatic pistols; they were trained to kill.

MS. BOWSER: Weaver first got into trouble with law enforcement in 1989, when he was charged with selling two sawed-off shotguns to an undercover agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms. When Weaver failed to show up for trial on those violations of federal gun laws, U.S. marshals were ordered to bring him in. For months, they watched activities around Weaver's cabin at Ruby Ridge. On the morning of August 21, 1992, the family dog, Striker, discovered the marshals in the bushes and began barking. Gunfire erupted. Before it was over, 14-year-old Sammy Weaver and a federal agent named William Degan were dead. Kevin Harris, a young man who lived with the Weaver family, was with Sammy. Inside the cabin were Weaver's wife, Vicky, and his three daughters, Sarah, Rachel, and ten-month-old Elisheba.

RANDY WEAVER: Pretty soon, this other shooting started, and I'm thinking, "I got to get back down there; the boys are involved in this." And I tried to reload my 12-gauge shotgun, and I jammed the stupid thing, so I threw it down on the ground, and I threw my nine-millimeter pistol out, and I fired three times. I said, "Sam, get home, get home!" I heard him yell, "I'm coming, Dad!" And I thought, "Good. That's great!" And I headed--I kept moving up the hill toward home. And there was a few more shots fired, and here I am back up in the yard, and I'm waiting--I'm yelling, "Get home, Sam! Come on, Kevin. Get home! Get home!" And pretty soon, Kevin comes walking up the road, and then we yelled at him and said, "Where's Sam?" And he said, "Sam's dead." And we just went berserk. All of us, we just lost it.

MS. BOWSER: The FBI hostage rescue team was hastily summoned to take over after the shootout at Ruby Ridge, and although it is still unclear today who approved it, FBI officials at the scene were operating under rules of engagement that allowed them to use deadly force against any armed adult observed around the Weaver cabin. And one day after Randy Weaver lost his only son, he and Kevin Harris were shot by an FBI sniper on August 22nd. Vicky Weaver was shot and killed while standing behind this door with Baby Elisheba in her arms.

RANDY WEAVER: I switched my rifle from my right hand to my left hand, and I reached up to turn the latch, and I got shot in the back, shot through this shoulder, and first things was, you know, that hurts like hell. The second thing was, they're going to shoot me again. Sarah come around the edge of the building. She said, "What happened, Dad?" And I said, "I've been shot." She says, "Get to the house." She started pushing me, turning me, "Get to the house," and Vicky had come outside in the yard. She said, "What happened?" I said, "I've been shot, Ma," and she says, "Get in the house, get in the house," and she jumped back on the porch and opened the door, and as we went running through the door, there was another shot, and a loud boom, right there, and I'm just inside the door off to the right, and by the time I turn around, I hear a commotion behind me, and Rachel's standing right over here, about as far as I am from that thing there. Rachel's ten years old. Vicky was turned around, laying down on the floor, with her head in a kneeling position with the baby underneath her. Kevin--Kevin was sprawled out on the kitchen floor, clear inside the door. Vicky's head was about at his feet, and the girls were screaming. I went over and picked the baby out of Vicky's arms and checked her out. She had blood in her hair, and she was all right. She was--it was like she was, umm--I can't remember how--it was like she was--she had shock. And I handed her to Rachel and checked Vicky. She was just--when I picked her up and over, she just--she was just like a wash rag. She was gone.

MS. BOWSER: Weaver and Harris were tried for the murder of federal agent Degan in 1993 and acquitted. At their trial, Ron Horiuchi, the FBI sniper, testified he accidentally killed Vicky Weaver, but Weaver toldthe committee today he doesn't believe that. He was questioned by Committee Chairman and Republican Presidential Candidate Arlen Specter.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, [R] Pennsylvania: Your contention is that he deliberately and intentionally used one bullet to shoot both people?

RANDY WEAVER: Yeah.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Mr. Harris and Mrs. Weaver?

RANDY WEAVER: Yeah. But I believe he was trying to take my wife out first and hoping he'd hit one of us three going through. That's the way I see it.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Why do you believe he was trying to take your wife out first?

RANDY WEAVER: He had orders that he could and should--any adult.

MS. BOWSER: Throughout today's hearing, Weaver's 19-year-old daughter, Sarah, was a visible emotional presence, and she backed up her father's testimony that the FBI sniper had to have seen her mother standing behind the door.

SARAH WEAVER: She was standing right here, right in the window, holding it open, holding the baby, saying, "Get in the house. Get in the house."

SPOKESPERSON: And she was shot here.

SARAH WEAVER: Yes.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: You saw her in that position as you were running toward her?

SARAH WEAVER: If I had taken one more step, he would have got all three of us, because I felt everything just hit my cheek. I thought I'd been shot, because the sound travels with the bullet, and it sounded like the person was standing right where you--or right behind--it sounded like it was right there.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: How long would you say that your mother was standing there in that position in the door?

SARAH WEAVER: The whole time it took us to run from that shed into the house.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: And how long would that have been, approximately?

SARAH WEAVER: Approximately 10 seconds. I really couldn't tell you. I'd have to go up and do it over and time it.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: And do you think she was visible through the glass at that time?

SARAH WEAVER: I do believe she was.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Why do you conclude that?

SARAH WEAVER: Because I remember the curtains. I remember having to close them.

MS. BOWSER: One Senator characterized Weaver as no poster boy, pointing to his ties to the Aryan Nation and his belief in the separation of races. Chairman Specter questioned him about that.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Were you a white separatist? And what does that mean, as you understand it?

RANDY WEAVER: Well, sir, Chairman--Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, what to me separatist means is a couple of different things. No. 1, I am not a hateful racist, the way most people understand that, but I believe in--that if there's separation of the races, scripturally speaking, that's what I believe is right. It sounds like an impossible task and most likely is, but I believe that every--people of every race should be proud of who they are and what they are. There are good people in every race. There are bad people in every race. We had had beliefs that, you know, if there ever was a natural disaster or downfall of the government or whatever, we wanted to be separated from the rest of the world. We didn't want to be a part of it--survival, you might call it. We wanted to separated out and be able to survive, you know, any bad times ahead if there were going to be.

MS. BOWSER: Tomorrow, the Senate Committee will hear from officials of the ATF, the agency that first brought charges of federal firearms violations against Randy Weaver.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead, raising defense spending, a pioneering mayor, the UN Women's Conference, and a record night in baseball. FOCUS - DEFENSE DOLLARS

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, what sounds a little like a fairy story from the Cold War, Congress giving the Pentagon billions of dollars it doesn't want. The Senate voted today to increase defense spending by $7 billion more than the Clinton Pentagon requested. Included was $600 million to finance work on a missile defense system the administration says will waste money and endanger basic understandings with Russia. Despite these objections, that measure passed overwhelmingly 85 to 13. Here to debate the priorities are Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and Democrat Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. I spoke with them a short time ago. Sen. Dorgan, what passed on missile defense today was a compromise which satisfied many Democrats but not you. Why did you vote against it?

SEN. BYRON DORGAN, [D] North Dakota: [Capitol Hill] Well, it was a distinction without a difference. The amendment that passed and the bill that includes the amendment that was adopted by the Senate says that this country will develop for deployment a new anti-ballistic missile system. This, essentially, is the first down payment on building a new Star Wars system which will cost probably 40 to 48 billion dollars. I don't think we need it, and I don't think the country can afford it.

MR. MAC NEIL: Yeah. How do you answer that, Senator Kyl?

SEN. JON KYL, [R] Arizona: [Capitol Hill] Well, first of all, the bill passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 85 to 13. And it passed the House 300 to 126. I think that shows the consensus that's beginning to develop on a national defense system. And when you understand according to the acting director of the CIA that countries like North Korea could have a missile that could reach parts of the United States within three to five years, it's time to get on with the proposition of protecting Americans. And it's not going to cost $40 billion. According to the Defense Department, if you take out the cost of one piece of it that would be built in any event, it costs about $19 billion over 10 years. That's about $1.9 billion per year, or about 3/4 of 1 percent of the defense budget.

MR. MAC NEIL: What do you see as the threat that this would be responding to, Sen. Kyl?

SEN. KYL: Well, the Cold War is over, and so we're not talking about Star Wars anymore, protecting from a deliberate attack from the Soviet Union, for example. But what we are talking about is twenty to twenty-five nations around the world who by the turn of the century, according to the CIA, are going to have the capability of directing missiles at either enemies near them, or eventually and with at least some cases the continental United States. It's our--to protect our forces deployed abroad and our allies, and if we need any evidence of the fact that missiles are the weapon of choice for the future for the bad guys of the world, we have only to look at Saddam Hussein and Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. Remember that 28 Americans died in one Scud attack, 20 percent of the full amount of casualties that we took in that war.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Dorgan, what about that threat?

SEN. DORGAN: Well, Robin, the threat, as you know, is a much more likely threat of explosives in a rental truck hired by terrorists. It's much more likely if Sen. Kyl and others are concerned about North Korea, Iraq, or Iran, that they would threaten a country if they were able to get ahold of a nuclear bomb, threaten a country with a suitcase nuclear bomb, or a nuclear bomb planted in the trunk of a rusty Yugo parked on a dock in New York City, or even more likely, a nuclear terrorist attack with a glass vial no bigger than that with the deadliest biological agents in it. This, this notion about we must build Star Wars now that the Cold War is over is a weapons program in search of a reason. We've got a lot of folks here in Congress who have never met a weapons program they didn't want to run over and hug and buy three or four or six dozen of. And this is a case where the country is up to its neck in debt. The Cold War is over. Six thousand missiles and nuclear warheads are being destroyed under the ABM Treaty in Start I and Start II in Russia now as I speak. And what's the solution here, well, the solution is the Republicans get control of Congress, they want to cut a whole series of nutrition, education, and health care issues, but they want to build Star Wars. It just--I'll tell you, it's out of step with any logical explanation of public need in this country.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Kyl, describe--start from scratch for us and describe the system you envisage. It's actually, as I understand it, two systems. One, as you said, the administration wanted anyway, which is to protect troops in a war theater, and the other to protect the Continental United States. Describe that second system, how you imagine it working.

SEN. KYL: That's right, Robin. First of all, on the theater missile system, the first one you described, it would be a much more robust system than the Patriot missiles, which we know now did not really do a very good job against the Scuds. And there are enemies that have much better weapons than the Scuds that we will have to be able to defeat in the future.

MR. MAC NEIL: But this one is not controversial.

SEN. KYL: Not particularly, although there were some issues--

MR. MAC NEIL: Yeah.

SEN. KYL: --in the bill this year that dealt with that. But the national missile defense system is the one to which you speak, and it's not Star Wars, it's not the kind of thing that would have been deployed against the Soviet Union, and, in fact, helped to bring the Soviet Union to its knees, but, rather, a much more limited kind of system that could only protect against an accidental launch or a launch of only a very few missiles by a nation like North Korea or Iraq.

MR. MAC NEIL: How would it work?

SEN. KYL: Well, it could be deployed in a couple of different ways. First of all, we know that we would probably need two or three or maybe even four or five sites in the United States for a ground-based missile, so that when we find that a missile has been launched by an enemy, we know that by a satellite detection, then that message is relayed to radars, which then pick up the incoming missile, and one of our ground-based missiles is launched against it. That's probably the first kind of system that could be deployed.

MR. MAC NEIL: What's your objection to that, Sen. Dorgan?

SEN. DORGAN: Well, first of all, we've already spent, according to a study that will be released tomorrow by the Congressional Research Service, the Christian Science Monitor today or yesterday says, "Pentagon Hit for Hiding Spending on Star Wars." The CRS Study says we've spent $70.2 billion already on a missile defense system. I would ask Sen. Kyl and others, what do you have for that, what have you bought for $70 billion? And they say, well, but we can, we can build a new system, multiple site, which will violate the ABM Treaty, and it is Star Wars, because in their resolution, they talk about space-based circumstances for this system, so it is Star Wars. They'll say, well, only 19 billion dollars more. Name one weapons programs of this scope and type that has come in anywhere near budget. It is multiples of that at a time when the American taxpayer, you know, they have a government that's up to their neck in debt. Sen. Kyl is a conservative. He and his friends are over there arm waving about all the wild-eyed big spenders. When the defense bill came to the floor, the wild-eyed big spenders are the folks on his side of the aisle that wanted to put--that wanted to buy trucks we didn't need, submarines the Defense Department didn't ask for, jet fighters that we didn't require, and now Star Wars that, in my judgment, is a gold-plated boondoggle that this country can't afford and doesn't need.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you--Senator Dorgan, do you think that President i should veto it--

SEN. DORGAN: Yes.

MR. MAC NEIL: --on the political priority grounds?

SEN. DORGAN: I certainly do, not political priority grounds. He ought to veto this on the, the evidence of the fact that this country ought not be spending money it doesn't have on things it doesn't need. You know, the hood ornament on irresponsibility, in my judgment, in the defense authorization bill, Robin, is I discovered a write-in in that bill. You know, they wrote in trucks and planes and submarines that the Defense Department said they didn't need, but I discovered a write-in for $60 million in blimps, mind you, blimps. Yes, they wrote in money to buy blimps. But that's just the hood ornament in what was stuffed into this bill that's $7 billion above what the Secretary of Defense says is necessary to defend this country.

MR. MAC NEIL: What is your reading, Sen. Kyl, of the likelihood, given the majorities you discussed, of the White House vetoing this?

SEN. KYL: I can't imagine that the President would veto this bill. As I said, this bill passed 300 to 126 in the House and 83 to 13--85 to 13, rather, here in the Senate. This is not some wild- eyed proposition. The numbers are not what my friend, Sen. Dorgan, just said. There's been a lot of money spent on research for ballistic missile defense, but a lot of that money has gone into the development of the theater missile systems that we talked about earlier and could go into the deployment of this particular system. It's ironic that each time we've gotten to the point where we could deploy, it is the liberals who have stopped the deployment of a system. And, in fact, the compromise language that we voted on here went from to deploy a national missile system to develop for deploy. So the liberals will have another opportunity to stop the actual deployment after we've spent a lot of money on the system. Robin, I want to refer to one other thing too, because one of the common arguments is, well, a suitcase bomb might be what's really used against us. It's like a doctor saying you need a small pox vaccination. You say, yeah, but I might get polio. Well, that's right. You probably needed to be vaccinated against both. And we have customs and other laws and officials that try to prevent the suitcase bomb scenario, and we also try to protect against missile defense, but it's the missile which according to the CIA directors, all three of the last CIA directors said concerned them the most, the proliferation of ballistic missiles.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Kyl, let's turn to the larger picture for a moment, and that is the--besides the missile defense system, the nearly $7 billion in spending that you and fellow Senators have voted for that the Pentagon and the administration did not ask for. It's always been good politics for Republicans to push for a strong defense. But is it still good politics today? Any polls I've seen show maybe three out of ten Americans want higher defense spending. The rest--seven out of ten--either want it the same or less. Is it still good politics to go for strong defense?

SEN. KYL: Robin, I'll answer that two ways. First of all, politics should have nothing to do with national defense. National defense is the first obligation of the United States government. And you do what you have to do almost regardless of the circumstances. We are, of course, reducing defense spending. This is the 10th straight year that defense spending has actually been reduced. And I would point out that at the end of this year, we're going to be spending less on defense than this country did before Pearl Harbor, both as a percent of the federal budget and as a percent of the Gross National Product. Now, to the second thing, I would say is this: There is pork in the defense bill just like there is in every other part of the budget. And I think that one thing you'll find both Sen. Dorgan and I agreeing on is that in those areas where there was pork, we voted together to try to take that out. Now, our definition might be a little bit different, but I don't think we could argue that a national missile defense is pork. When it came to supporting the Olympics and the blimps and things like that, we both tried to take those things out.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Dorgan, obviously, a lot of your fellow Democrats think it is good politics to vote for this, because so many of them did today and left you and just a small minority in the cold.

SEN. DORGAN: Well, I don't think they think it's necessarily good politics. I think many people are afraid to vote against a defense appropriation or defense authorization bill, because if they vote no, someone is going to come along, especially a political opponent, and say, you know something, that person doesn't believe in a strong national defense. It's the most common charge bantered around in a campaign. You know, we've got folks in the Senate here- -I said on the floor the other day that if Saddam Hussein decided he was going to resurrect a cavalry, we've got a bunch of Senators who would run off and propose that we start buying horses. It doesn't matter what the merit of an issue is, as long as it's defense, as long as they can claim that it's using money to buy a defense system, boy, the more the merrier. I wish we'd see that kind of frugality on the issue of domestic spending. I mean, you know, I guess what I mean to say is I'd like to see the same frugal notions when we talk about defense spending as they exhibit on domestic spending. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that a lot of the programs don't have great merit. I've supported theater missile defense programs. Some of them are, are essential. But to, to create a new Star Wars program at this point in time in this country, it makes no sense. We don't have money for it, and we don't need it. And it seems to me we ought to stop spending money on things we don't need.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Kyl, briefly.

SEN. KYL: Well, I just might quote from a letter that Dr. Henry Kissinger sent to the committee, chairman of the committee, at the time we had the debate regarding a national missile defense system to protect all Americans. He said development of such a system is long overdue.

SEN. DORGAN: Yeah. He'd be the last person I'd take advice from. At least from Dr. Kissinger's standpoint, if he says we need it, I say we don't need it.

SEN. KYL: If I could continue the point, the fact is that all three of the last CIA directors have said that their biggest concern is the proliferation of the ballistic missile. And Saddam Hussein we now know almost too late was very close to having a nuclear weapon. And we know that he had the missiles that could have delivered those weapons to Israel and certainly to attack our forces that were arrayed against him.

MR. MAC NEIL: All right.

SEN. KYL: So this is not a future threat. The threat is now.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gentlemen, sorry to interrupt, we have to leave it here.

SEN. DORGAN: Well, let me just make the point that the current intelligence and the current administration says that that is not the case. This not a needed system at this point, and that's why they opposed it.

MR. MAC NEIL: Thank you both. PROFILE

MR. LEHRER: Now, another view of government spending from the local level. Cities across the country have had to cope with much less financial resources. Elizabeth Brackett of public station WTTW-Chicago reports on one Republican mayor's new approach to that problem.

MS. BRACKETT: Other than the one day a year when cars race around an oval track at breakneck speed for 500 miles, Indianapolis is a city that hasn't been used to the national spotlight. Residents there often jokingly call their home "Indi-A-No-Place."

SPOKESMAN: My weird Northern approach idea--

MS. BRACKETT: But Indianapolis's Republican Mayor Stephen Goldsmith's experiment in reinventing government is changing that. The 49-year-old Goldsmith is part of a new breed of baby boom mayors bent on doing more with less and running city hall like a business.

MAYOR STEPHEN GOLDSMITH, Indianapolis: You know, we started asphalt under the taxiways. Why can't we use the bituminous and cut our costs?

MS. BRACKETT: In meetings, Goldsmith sounds more like CEO of city hall than mayor. Cutting costs, privatization, and competition have become the Goldsmith buzzwords.

MAYOR STEPHEN GOLDSMITH: We're going to go through government and turn it all upside down and make it all operate like a business, no matter how difficult that might be to accomplish.

MS. BRACKETT: The airport is the latest target of the mayor's efforts to cut costs. These executives from the British firm BAA are planning to sign a contract to run the airport, promising savings of $100 million over the next 10 years.

MAYOR STEPHEN GOLDSMITH: Is there a way to do it at a reasonable amount?

MS. BRACKETT: In the three years he's been mayor, Goldsmith has gone through over 60 city agencies, injecting them with what he regards as private sector know-how and turning some of them over to private companies to run.

MAYOR STEPHEN GOLDSMITH, Indianapolis: And whether you call it privatization or competition or bidding, it requires our employees to get better and produces more value for the citizens.

MS. BRACKETT: Goldsmith's experiment in making city government leaner has attracted sight seeing tours by Republican politicians, like Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and New Jersey Governor Christine Todd-Whitman. Mark Rosentraub, director of the Center for Public Policy at Indiana University, says Goldsmith has put Indianapolis on the list of well-managed cities.

MARK ROSENTRAUB, Center for Public Policy, Indiana University: Steve in some ways has taken the best of what's happened in a number of cities, put it to work in Indianapolis, and then put his own spin on it. And so maybe he's even taken it one or two steps beyond where it was at other cities. The unique thing of what Steve has brought to this whole question of privatization has convinced public sector employees and the unions that they can compete.

MS. BRACKETT: In fact, those public sector employees, many of whom bitterly opposed privatization, have won over half the contracts to run city agencies. The city's garbage workers redesigned their routes and won the bid to run the city's refuse services. Those garbage workers have saved the city $15 million so far, and they've all received $1,800 bonuses for working smarter. Refuse truck driver Carl Kinchlow said even though they're doing more work with fewer men, morale is better than it's been in years.

CARL KINCHLOW, City Refuse Worker: Well, anytime you get anything extra, when it comes to money, it's great.

STEVE FANTAUZZO, Executive Director, AFSCME Union: [talking to employee] In fact, why don't you put--

MS. BRACKETT: Steve Fantauzzo, executive director of the union that represents those city workers, said before entering into the bidding on contracts, the unions demanded the mayor eliminate middle managers that were bloating the budget. Since those jobs were mostly Republican Party patronage jobs, the unions didn't expect the mayor to agree.

STEVE FANTAUZZO: Much to our surprise, the mayor eliminated some twenty, twenty-five managers. The experience in Indianapolis has not been one of, of privatizing. It's been one of putting services out into the marketplace for bidding. And the reality of that process in Indianapolis has been that public workers, when they're empowered, win four out of every five bids.

MS. BRACKETT: Indianapolis is a city where being Republican is as much a part of civic life as attending Minor League baseball games. The electorate is 65 percent Republican and hasn't elected a Democratic mayor in 25 years. Goldsmith is overwhelmingly popular with the voters. He draws his strength from the white middle class voters that mostly work in service sector jobs.

SUSAN WILLIAMS, City Council: [in meeting] It just sort of struck a chord as I was hearing this numbers game being played.

MS. BRACKETT: But there are critics. Democratic city council member Susan Williams said she worries about some city agencies that are now being run by private contractors. She is particularly concerned about the waste water treatment plant which was privatized just last year.

SUSAN WILLIAMS: We just a few years ago honored the employees because of their own efficiencies and because they've done such an excellent job, so that's a situation that you have to ask yourself if it's not broken, then what needs to be fixed? I think that we're losing control of our resources when we give away or contract out or privatize major functions. That may or may not make sense in the long run.

MS. BRACKETT: But the mayor says privatizing actually gives the city more control over the agencies. The private contractor that runs the waste water treatment plant has guaranteed the city $65 million in savings.

MAYOR STEPHEN GOLDSMITH: If the waste water treatment plant or FBAA at the airport doesn't continue to provide a high value, low- cost service, they're out, they're out. They have a contract, and they're out. They don't get renewed. We rebid it, and often, government just continues--the same people do the same job, even if they're inefficient. We have more control over quality and more control over price as a result of what we've done.

MS. BRACKETT: But shortly after the plant was under new management, over 600,000 fish died in the river where the water is released after it's been treated at the plant. After that, the state environmental department had questions about just how well the plant was being run. They conducted a study. In a letter, the state environmental department concluded that low levels of oxygen in the water caused by a new chlorination process may have been the cause. The letter said, "This switch in the primary disinfection and treatment systems contributed or could have contributed to the fish kill." The mayor said he conducted his own investigation.

MAYOR STEPHEN GOLDSMITH: And we employed one of the biggest environmental engineering companies in the country who found that it didn't have anything to do with the plant. Now, there are regulators who are so opposed to privatization that they use it as an excuse to blame the city, but there's no science behind that.

SUSAN WILLIAMS: That makes me very nervous. When we have private contractors monitoring the work of other private contractors, I think that can lead to all sorts of problems. We have definitely reinvented how we do business here in city hall, no question about that.

MS. BRACKETT: Williams said the problem with Indianapolis's race to privatize is that a mechanism for accountability is lacking.

SUSAN WILLIAMS: You trade political patronage for, for pinstripe patronage. And when you've got the private sector out there taking the cream off the top of our, of our tax dollars, and being beholden to one person and one person only, they do not care what I think of their performance. They care what the mayor thinks of their performance, period. And that's the end of the discussion.

MS. BRACKETT: The mayor's push for change goes beyond reorganizing city services and running city hall like a business. Unique for a Republican mayor, he has an urban agenda that calls for revitalizing inner city neighborhoods, and the people in those neighborhoods say for the most part, it's an agenda that works. Community activist Mary Artist says she sees the difference the mayor has made in her community.

MARY ARTIST, Community Activist: I think that he has done a great job as far as we're concerned. We have been able to fix up more houses, and we have been given some money just as a neighborhood organization to do minor repairs to seniors' houses.

MS. BRACKETT: At this neighborhood rally, the churches and community activists came together to drive drug dealers out of their park. In an innovative pilot program, the city has given the churches in the minority community contracts to clean up and maintain the parks. While the mayor has gotten a lot of positive feedback from such projects in the minority community, he was tested this summer when disturbances broke out after a man named Danny Sales claimed he was beaten by police.

DANNY SALES: [July 26] They took me by the garage--took me behind the garage, turned me around, hit me in my stomach, hit me in my eye two or three times, slammed me down on the ground and started drilling me in my back and in my head, so what he told me- -I asked him, what did he do it for, he told me because I ran.

MS. BRACKETT: Some in the neighborhood blamed the mayor. They say his crackdown on drugs in the neighborhood has led to police harassment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't even sell drugs, but that's the first that anybody asks me.

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're around here everyday. We're getting sick and tired of them harassing us.

MS. BRACKETT: Shortly after the disturbance erupted, the mayor was at the scene saying everything was under control.

MAYOR STEPHEN GOLDSMITH: The situation is safe, but there are still problems, because there are people out here--young thugs-- who are looking for excuses, and the police are going to be out here.

MS. BRACKETT: Later, the mayor said the group causing the disturbance wasn't representative of the neighborhood leadership.

MAYOR STEPHEN GOLDSMITH: The disturbances that we saw in Indianapolis continue to demonstration that there are young adults- -fourteen to seventeen--who neither respect authority nor life. And as their numbers grow, they become the biggest problem for any large city in the country, and we clearly, don't have the solution to that problem.

MS. BRACKETT: Despite the disturbances, even Goldsmith's critics say he's done more for the minority community than his predecessors.

SUSAN WILLIAMS: This guy not only wants to be the poster child for privatization, but he also wants to be a conservative Republican young mayor with an urban agenda, which really sets him apart from the pack.

MS. BRACKETT: Goldsmith works hard at shaping his image. He's been described as a workaholic. Shortly after 5 A.M., he was on the Stairmaster reading over a speech. And at 6, he was in the pool taking a swim. Meetings in his city hall office start as early as 7 A.M.. The staffers have learned to expect e-mail or computer messages from 5 A.M. on. The mayor usually personally answers the over 500 e-mail messages he gets a day during meetings with staff. Everyone, from citizens, city workers, to top officials, sends him e-mail. His family life also often has to take a back seat to his mayoral duties. This birthday party for his six- year-old daughter, Olivia, was held three months after her birthday due to her parents' busy schedules. His wife, Margaret, related to the prominent Pulliam Publishing Family and a cousin of Marilyn Quayle, says that her husband's work is all consuming.

MARGARET GOLDSMITH: He's driven. He thinks he has so much time in life to accomplish, to make people's lives better. He honestly strives for that, and he some day will kick back and retire and spend more time with us and more time traveling and maybe in an academic setting, I hope, but for now, he's on a mission. He's a man with a mission.

MS. BRACKETT: But city councilwoman Susan Williams wonders if Goldsmith is sometimes more interested in making headlines than remaking city hall.

SUSAN GOLDSMITH: There is this, this need and this energy to move fast and make a big splash. He doesn't have a whole lot of time and patience for dialogue, and so, therefore, it's sort of get up in the morning and say, okay, today, I'm going to do this, and you're either with me, or you're against me. That makes it kind of tough. So there's a drive and an ambition there that, that some people aren't comfortable with.

MS. BRACKETT: But it's a drive that Goldsmith hopes will take him beyond city. His mayoral election is just around the corner, and he's already set up an exploratory committee for a run for governor. And some even say where he would really like to reinvent government is from the White House. UPDATE - WOMEN'S CONFERENCE

MR. MAC NEIL: Next, an update on the United Nations Women's Conference in Beijing and on the much larger meeting of non- governmental organizations taking place 30 miles away in the town of Hairou. James Mates of Independent Television News reports.

JAMES MATES, ITN: In a chaotic conference, this was the most chaotic day so far. Torrential rain had driven the Hillary Clinton rally indoors and into a venue that couldn't begin to accommodate all the women wanting to attend. That might have been understood, but the Chinese decision to keep the women standing in the rain for more than two hours before opening the doors certainly wasn't. Many of those who stood and waited never made it.

WOMAN IN RAIN: I want to hear Hillary Clinton. I don't want to hear on CNN. I want to hear her with my ears.

WOMEN SHOUTING: Please move back! Please move back!

MR. MATES: The Chinese security police struggled to control a situation of their own making, pushing women back in the manner they'd employed all week. But it wasn't just the women who found themselves locked out. Senior administration officials--even members of the Clinton cabinet--were being given the same treatment. U.S. Health Secretary Donna Shalala, who's leading the American delegation here, and Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord, were kept standing in the rain for more than five minutes, eventually having to be pushed through the security cordon by their aides before finally being granted admission. It was typical of the Chinese preparedness for this conference that they had not even managed to equip their security men with waterproofs.

[WOMEN CLAPPING AND SINGING IN HALL]

MR. MATES: Inside the hall, the women who had been allowed in tried to revive their dampened spirits through song. And Hillary Clinton, when she finally arrived, was greeted like a pop star. She had been told what the women had gone through to be there and was immediately sympathetic.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: And I greatly regret that we were forced to move this occasion indoors in order to avoid any of us drowning out there. But I'm very sorry that not everyone that wished to be with us this morning was able to be in. And I hope--

MR. MATES: And that led her into another stinging criticism of the way the Chinese authorities have treated the women throughout this conference.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I know that you have had to endure severe frustrations here as you have pursued your work. And I also wanted- -

MR. MATES: But she assured them, whatever the difficulties, they were making a difference.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: The wisdom that has accumulated here, the experience, the energy, the ideas are on full display, thanks to your resourcefulness, your tenacity, your sense of purpose, and your spirit. You are playing an important role in this conference, and you will be the key players in determining whether or not this conference goes beyond rhetoric and actually does something to ensure--[loud cheers and applause]

MR. MATES: The turnout here is a tribute to Hillary Clinton's pulling power but also to the credibility her presence has given this secondary conference, way out here in Beijing's suburbs. Back in Central Beijing, well-sheltered from the weather, the main UN Conference moved into its third day and heard another bitter attack by the Americans on the way the Chinese have handled this event.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, UN Ambassador: It is unconscionable, therefore, that the right to free expression has been called into question right here at a conference conducted under the auspices of the UN and whose very purpose is the free and open discussion of women's rights.

MR. MATES: And a dissenting voice too from the representative of the Vatican. The Pope's personal envoy here is trying to turn back the tide of greater liberalism and the acceptance of the right to abortion as part of the women's rights agenda.

MARY-ANNE GLENDOR, Special Envoy to the Vatican: It would be a great reproach to our society if we had nothing better to say to a woman who is poor, frightened, pregnant, and alone, than that she has the right to destroy her own unborn child.

MR. MATES: That is a debate that will surface again before this conference is over, though a major row is not expected. Last year, at the World Population Conference in Cairo, the Vatican accepted compromise wording on this issue, and it's expected the same compromise will hold again this time. FINALLY - THE STREAK

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, the big baseball story, that of Cal Ripken, the shortstop who has become a national hero for showing up for work 2,130 consecutive times. It happened last night in Baltimore, as he tied the record held by Lou Gehrig. [fans cheering]

ANNOUNCER: It has now become official. Cal Ripken has played in 2,130 consecutive games, tying Lou Gehrig's Major League record for most consecutive games played. [fans cheering and music playing]

MR. LEHRER: Some thoughts now about Cal Ripken and his baseball record from New Yorker magazine writer Roger Angell, the author of many books on the realities and mysteries of baseball. I talked with him this afternoon.

MR. LEHRER: Roger Angell, describe Ripken's achievement in baseball's terms.

ROGER ANGELL, The New Yorker: Well, Jim, this is very much a-- it's a fans' achievement, I think, because it's something that fans can identify with. This is a feat. It's an endurance feat and a very considerable one. It is not a performance mark. It's not like Joe DiMaggio's 56th consecutive game hitting streak. It's not like Roger Maris's 61 home runs. There was more excitement in that. It was more athletic. This is more a matter of character and endurance.

MR. LEHRER: In what way is it a matter of character?

MR. ANGELL: Well, it's, it's hard to play shortstop at all. It's certainly hard to play shortstop over 14 years, and, and this vast stretch of games. It seems almost impossible on the face of it, because there's so much involved in every game, even Gehrig playing first base, although he took a lot of chances at first base, received a lot of plays that is, it was a more sedate sort of place to play. At shortstop, you're right in the middle of the game, right in the middle of everything.

MR. LEHRER: So the chances of getting hurt are just--are there on every play just about.

MR. ANGELL: That's right. But, of course, Cal has learned to defend himself. It's not--it's not just an accident, I think, that, that he's stayed out there. I mean, he's in great shape all the time, really takes care of himself, but he never dives for a ball. It's been noticed over the years. He sort of flops after it. He doesn't take a chance with his body. He wants to be ready--not thinking about the streak--he just--he wants to be out there at shortstop on a continuous basis.

MR. LEHRER: Well, you know, they called Lou Gehrig "the iron man." Does "iron man" apply in describing Cal Ripken?

MR. ANGELL: He doesn't seem iron to me. He's too supple for that. He's a wonderful-looking athlete. He's--for one thing, he's a lot bigger than Lou Gehrig. People forget that. He's the biggest shortstop who ever played the game.

MR. LEHRER: How big? How tall is he?

MR. ANGELL: He's 6'1", 220, which is very large for the position.

MR. LEHRER: And how big was Gehrig?

MR. ANGELL: Gehrig was six feet and he was 200 pounds. He was a solid player for his day but nothing like the size of Ripken. The Ripken feat, I think, is, is particularly--I find myself today very pleased about this. I was very happy about it all day long. I think this is something that baseball really wants right now, to have somebody who does something quietly and does it over and over for a long time, goes to work everyday and gets the job done. I think the fans can identify with this, and at a time when so many baseball stars seem to be egocentric and involved with money and performance in a very private and personal, selfish sort of way.

MR. LEHRER: Does he deserve all this hoopla, this kind of hero status that he's in right now?

MR. ANGELL: Well, in the larger baseball picture perhaps not, but I don't think we should belittle him for that. I mean, I don't think--I'm so afraid that once the feat goes by, people will start saying, well, he isn't much of a shortstop. He really is. He's a wonderful shortstop. He's not as skilled as other people even playing today, but I think he's the most intelligent shortstop perhaps who's ever played the game. He is more--he carries more information out there every day than anybody else playing the game. And he works on this all the time. He--he'll do a thing--you'll see him do the thing that great infielders do, which is to move for the ball before the pitch has been delivered, because he knows--he's picked up the sign from the catcher--he knows what this pitcher is going to throw in this situation, and probably almost exactly where the ball is going to be hit.

MR. LEHRER: So he's a great baseball player?

MR. ANGELL: He is a great baseball player, and in addition to, to this almost separate feat of being, being a good baseball player for such a long period of time.

MR. LEHRER: It seems like Ripken's achievement also goes beyond baseball. People who don't care that much about baseball have been cheering for him these last several weeks because of the streak. How do you--how do you interpret that?

MR. ANGELL: Well, again, I think that he's a--I think he's almost--we don't have any blue collar ball athletes anymore, but he's almost blue collar because he does go to work every day. We can almost see him punching the clock. And fans can, can connect themselves to this thing. Also, it's a very--it's very particularly--a particular sort of baseball record. Baseball is the only sport that's played every day, and no other sport has this, the daily soap opera, as it's been called. And he's always on. He's always on. You don't, you don't expect anything different. And this is pleasing in a time of great change. We want our sports to do a lot of things for us, and now and then we remember that baseball provides, as no other sport does, this satisfaction, and there's something very satisfying about what's happened.

MR. LEHRER: And you don't have to be a baseball fan necessarily to understand that.

MR. ANGELL: That's right, exactly.

MR. LEHRER: This kind of achievement.

MR. ANGELL: Exactly.

MR. LEHRER: Roger Angell, thank you very much.

MR. ANGELL: Thanks, Jim. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: The major story of this day occurred late this afternoon. In a closed door session, the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to recommend the expulsion of Oregon Republican Bob Packwood from the U.S. Senate. The vote follows charges of sexual and official misconduct against Packwood during his nearly 30 years in office. Sen. Packwood issued a statement saying the vote was outrageous and unfair. Good night, Jim.

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