The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight McCain-Feingold goes down in the Senate with excerpts and reactions from Senators McCain, Feingold, McConnell, and Nickles, coverage of former White House aide Harold Ickes' appearance before the Thompson committee, a debate about Israel's decision to assassinate a Palestinian leader, and a Jeffrey Kaye report on the coming of El Nino. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. Senate fought to a standstill today over campaign finance reform. Neither side could cut off debate, so Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott pulled the McCain-Feingold bill from further consideration. But Minority Leader Tom Daschle said campaign finance amendments would be offered to other bills for the rest of the session. McCain-Feingold would ban unlimited and unregulated soft money contributions to political parties and restrict campaign advertising by outside groups. Meanwhile, former top Clinton aide Harold Ickes appeared before the Senate committee investigating campaign finance abuses. He played a major role in the fund-raising activities of the '96 Clinton campaign. Ickes accused Republican Senators of trying to tarnish the Democratic Party. We'll have full coverage of today's Senate action on campaign finance right after this News Summary. NATO expansion was the subject of another Senate hearing today. Secretary of State Albright spoke in support of admitting the former Soviet bloc countries of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. NATO ministers approved the expansion. Now it must be validated by the legislatures of the current members. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms raised concerns to Albright about the U.S. having to pay for it.

SEN. JESSE HELMS: We in the Senate recognize that this vital undertaking is not without cost to the United States, and I am convinced that the three new democracies are willing and eager to bear their fair share. But we must now make certain that our present NATO allies are likewise willing to fulfill their end of the bargain.

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I am convinced that the cost of expansion is real but affordable. I am certain our prospective allies are willing and able to pay their share because in the long run it will be cheaper for them to upgrade their forces within the alliance and outside it. I will insist that our old allies share this burden fairly. That is what NATO is all about.

JIM LEHRER: A vote of the full Senate on expansion is not expected until next year. At the White House today President Clinton and Israeli President Azir Weitzman discussed developments in the Middle East. The meeting came a few days after the founder of the militant Islamic group Hamas was freed by Israel. It was part of a deal made with Jordan to have two Israeli secret agents returned home. They were involved in an assassination attempt on another Hamas leader in Jordan. Mr. Clinton was asked if assassination was a legitimate tool of government.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It's illegal for the United States Government to engage in assassination attempts. But I think that it's very important for countries to fight terrorism. I think that Israel's struggle against terrorism is important, but it's also important to consider the consequences on people who are your allies, whatever actions are taken. And I think the important thing now for me is to try to get this peace process back on track. That's really the only way they ultimately get rid of terrorist problems in the Middle East.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on this story later in the program. The first all party talks on the future of Northern Ireland convened today in Belfast. Present were eight political parties representing minority Catholics, who want unification with Ireland and majority Protestants, who want to preserve British rule. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the failure of McCain-Feingold, Ickes before the Thompson Committee, an Israel debate, and waiting for El Nino. FOCUS - DEAD END?

JIM LEHRER: That stalemate over campaign finance reform in the Senate. Phil Ponce begins our coverage.

PHIL PONCE: In the Senate there is a procedural way of killing a piece of legislation without ever going on record as having voted against it. And this morning that's just what Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle charged opponents of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill were planning to do.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: The bottom line is the vast majority of Republicans are refusing to allow this Senate to act on one of the most important pieces of legislation to be brought up in this Senate in this Congress and that's the fact.

PHIL PONCE: Senate rules require the consent of at least 60 Senators to limit debate on any legislation. It's called invoking cloture. Consequently, 41 Senators, a clear minority, can keep the debate going indefinitely preventing a final vote on the legislation, effectively killing it.

SEN. BYRON DORGAN, [D] North Dakota: Conservative columnist Mr. Novak wrote the column and said it as it was: the party's preference is no reform at all. Remove all limits on contributions and disclose them on the Internet. Because that won't become law Senate GOP leaders favor a Senate standoff where no proposal gets 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. I didn't say that; the Republican columnist wrote that.

PHIL PONCE: During seven days of debate on the McCain-Feingold bill Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott allowed one and only one amendment, his own, requiring labor unions to get prior approval from members before using dues for political purposes. Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill and one of its few Republican supporters, liked the Lott amendment but today announced he had decided to vote against it.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON, [R] Tennessee: I become concerned whether or not there is any chance of this amendment becoming law because, as I understand it, it's an amendment to the campaign finance bill. And when I ask around whether or not those who are supporting the amendment will support the bill in case the amendment passes, I don't get any affirmative responses. As I understand it, if we pass this amendment, then those who are primary in support of the amendment will still oppose the underlying legislation. So there is no chance as I see that the amendment has any chance at all for becoming law in this process.

PHIL PONCE: None of the Senate Republican leaders came to the floor to answer their critics. But first term Republican Rod Grams of Minnesota did explain his own reasons for opposing the McCain-Feingold bill.

SEN. ROD GRAMS, [R] Minnesota: For example, this modification is premised upon the believe that there is too much money spent on the American elections. If we accept this assumption, then Congress has decided to assert questionable authority to suppress the rights of Americans to become involved in the political process and have their voices heard. In fact, the belief that there is government justification for regulating the cost of political campaigns was rejected by the Supreme Court I the landmark case of Buckley Vs. Valejo.

PHIL PONCE: Those were the sentiments expressed by most Republican Senators during seven days of debate on campaign finance reform. And those opinions also were expressed in the two votes taken this afternoon.

COATES: The question is, is it the sense of the Senate that--

PHIL PONCE: The first vote was to invoke cloture and end debate on the Lott amendment concerning the use of labor union dues for political purposes.

SPOKESPERSON: Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts, no; Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Moynihan no.

PHIL PONCE: Senate Democrats vehemently opposed to the Lott amendment and unable to add their own amendment voted in a block to keep Republicans from attaining the 60 votes needed to bring the Lott amendment up for a final vote.

SPOKESMAN: On this vote the yeahs are 52, the nays 48, 3/5 of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.

PHIL PONCE: The second vote was to end debate on the McCain-Feingold bill, itself.

SPOKESMAN: The clerk will report.

PHIL PONCE: This time it was the Senate Republicans who, despite eight defections, managed to keep supporters of McCain-Feingold from attaining the 60 votes they needed to bring the bill up for a final vote.

SPOKESMAN: On this vote the yeahs are 53, the nays 47, 3/5 of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative the motion is not agreed to.

PHIL PONCE: At that point the McCain-Feingold reform bill effectively was killed but Sen. Daschle wasn't ready to accept the defeat.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: We're now stating that at least for purposes of this week, perhaps this session of Congress, debate on the campaign finance reform bill is over. We're not prepared to accept that. I think we ought to have a good discussion this afternoon about whether we really want to do that.

PHIL PONCE: --explained the Senate had other business to consider and that efforts to reform the system of financing political campaigns would have to wait till another day--

SEN. TRENT LOTT: We will be back--equity issue--and allowing people to have some say over how their dues are used, to have voluntary contributions to campaigns, I don't see how we can ever resolve this issue. So I hope that we can mend some of the problems that have developed, go on and do our work on a lot of important issues, and perhaps someday we can find to get--a way to find an opportunity to come together on this issue.

PHIL PONCE: But even though Senators failed to end debate today on two key issues each side drew its own conclusion. Republicans said the majority of Senators do favor prior approval before labor unions can use membership dues for political purposes while Democrats countered that the majority of Senators do favor campaign finance reform.

JIM LEHRER: Now, to four key players in today's drama, the authors of the reform bill, John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, and two of the bill's principal opponents: Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma, the assistant majority leader. Sen. McCain, how do you feel about what happened today?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: Well, obviously, I'm not happy, but I'm not happy about the fact that we are not allowed to vote on amendments, and the proper way that we should address issues today, especially important ones like this, but I want to assure you we're going to be back, and we will be amending bills that are on the floor until we do get an up or down vote, which we think is our right as Senators.

JIM LEHRER: Do you feel you were treated unfairly, Sen. McCain?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Oh, I wouldn't say that. The majority operated under the rules and I respect those rules. And we will operate under the rules as we attempt to attach amendments to pending legislation, so there's no reason for me to be resentful, except to say that as the rules were used against us in order to prevent a full airing of this issue will use the rules to attempt to gain that.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with what Sen. McCain just said, Sen. Feingold? Is that your reaction as well?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD, [D] Wisconsin: No. I'm very upbeat about this. I think the dam is about to break on this issue. Today I think was progress. The reports of the death of the McCain-Feingold bill are premature. We have 49 solid votes to defeat this bill killer Lott amendment, and today 53 Senators voted for the McCain-Feingold bill, in effect; that's double the number of Republicans. We had four before. Now it's eight. We're moving in the right direction. And I think by the end of this week there will be some key votes on this bill that I think will yet lead to a victory, and I think it's going to be fairly soon.

JIM LEHRER: By the end of this week?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Yes. There will be cloture votes on Thursday that could break this open again, and that's something that I think we ought to be clear about. There could be a very important vote on this on Thursday with regard to cloture and ultimately the success of the Lott poison pill amendment to kill the bill.

JIM LEHRER: How would that happen, Sen. Feingold?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, Sen. Lott has already fired a cloture petition, and it may well be that the Senate would choose to take up that amendment at that time. That would bring the bill back up. So, again, the reports of the death are awfully premature because that could happen in just two days.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. McConnell, do you agree, the reports of the death of McCain-Feingold are premature.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL, [R] Kentucky: No. I don't think so. The 47 votes today is the highest mark we've gotten on a cloture vote on this in 10 years. In fact, the opposition to McCain-Feingold is greater today than it's ever been. As you know, this bill has been around in one form or another for the last 10 years. So it was an important victory for the First Amendment and an important victory in the effort to keep the government from being in charge of the political speech of individuals, groups, candidates, and parties. So I feel very good about it. It's a great victory.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Nickels, how do you feel about what happened today?

SEN. DON NICKLES, Assistant Majority Leader: Well, I just wanted to mention I think one of the issues--I've heard the Lott amendment called a killer amendment and so on--I disagree with that. I hope everybody realizes what we're voting on, or what we had up. The amendment really said that campaign contributions should be voluntary for all employees. That is a critically important issue, and unfortunately, we find out that millions of Americans don't have the right to say whether or not they have campaign contributions taken out of their check every month. We want to make sure that everybody has that right, and so we're saying that's a fundamental case, and it needs to pass; it needs to become law. We need to make sure that no one's compelled to contribute to any political campaign organization without their consent.

JIM LEHRER: What about Sen. Thompson's point that we just had the clip from that he made on the floor that even if the Lott amendment had passed, you Republicans still wouldn't have supported McCain-Feingold, is he right about that?

SEN. DON NICKLES: Well, he's right when he says we wouldn't support "the" bill. That's the bill that McCain and Feingold and they're good friends and they're good colleagues and they work hard. But that's a Democrat bill that has all the Democrats supporting and maybe a handful of Republicans. A lot of us will support some campaign reform. We will support a bill but not necessarily the bill, not one that they've crafted that we think would be very much to, as Mitch McConnell said, to the detriment of the First Amendment, take away some rights, but we're willing to pass some campaign reform. It doesn't have to be "the" bill that most of all the Democrats support. So we're willing to do it but we want to make sure that all campaign contributions are voluntary as a first step towards real reform.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Let me just say--could I real quick--if--in all due respect--my friend, Don--if he feels so strongly and feels that he has so much moral sway on his side why don't we have a vote on that amendment? Instead, we were precluded from having a vote on it. We really had a vote on a cloture motion, so I would urge Sen. McConnell and Sen. Nickles, who claimed to such high ground here, that he would have a vote on this particular amendment. Instead, they don't want to have a vote on it, and there must be some reason for that.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: As a matter of fact, Sen. Daschle offered just this week to have Senate Bill 9, the Nickles amendment, come up as its own bill, and, in fact, he offered to have the Democrats guarantee there would be no filibuster on it. So if their concern is passing this piece of legislation, getting it through the Senate, they've been given a golden opportunity. The truth is they just want to use it to kill campaign finance reform. That's really what's going on here, and they're not going to get away with this.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. McConnell.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Well, as you know, the President would veto paycheck protection, if it were sent to him freestanding. So it's a pretty easy offer for the Democrats to make to say, oh, we'll give you a freestanding up or down 51-vote majority vote on paycheck protection. They know it'll never become law. The point we're making is this is inextricably intertwined with the campaign finance debate reform. And every time they bring up campaign finance reform, they're going to get paycheck protection.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. McConnell, was Sen. Nickles speaking for you when he said that he--that the Republicans want campaign finance reform? You don't want campaign finance reform, do you?

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Well, it depends on what it looks like. If we were going to index contributions so that we could bring them up to what they ought to be, they were set back in 1974, when a Mustang cost $2700, if we do an inflation adjustment for that, I'd certainly be for that. If we could pass paycheck protection, I'd certainly be for that. That would be an important step in the right direction to provide genuine democracy for workers all across America. That would be very good campaign finance reform.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Sen. Nickles, I'm going to start with you and I'm going to go back to Sen. Feingold on this one point. You all--you Republicans who were opposed to McCain-Feingold would not allow a vote on McCain-Feingold. The Democrats, who were opposed to the Lott amendment would not allow a vote on that. What's going on? Is that the way the Senate should do business?

SEN. DON NICKLES: Well, we both know that it's going to take 60 votes to pass anything. And so we need to work together. What I've been saying is that I'm willing to work with my colleagues, John McCain, Russ Feingold, I'll work with anybody trying to pass legitimate reform, but I am saying--just think about this, Jim--I am saying that let's make sure if we're going to pass campaign reform, let's make sure that all contributions are voluntary. That's American. An to say that people should be compelled to contribute to somebody's political campaign they don't agree with is just wrong. And so we're saying if we start with that basis we can find some other things that we can agree with, Democrats and Republicans.

JIM LEHRER: All right.

SEN. DON NICKLES: Mitch McConnell mentioned one, indexing, increasing what individuals can do, and there are some other things we can put in I think that would help reform the system, improve the system, and really move us towards I think real positive reform.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Let me ask Sen. Feingold, why would Democrats not permit the Republicans to have a vote on the merits of the Lott amendment today?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Because the whole reason this was set up the way it was, was to destroy campaign finance reform. The Lott amendment was set up to allow no other amendments. All these ideas that Sen. McConnell and Sen. Nickles are bringing up couldn't even be brought up until this Lott amendment was resolved because it's set up to not allow free amendments. No other Senator can offer any amendment till it's resolved. So even their ideas can come up. That's not a real debate. Not even having one vote on any amendment is a mockery of having a real debate on campaign finance reform, and we are determined to get it before this is done.

JIM LEHRER: A mockery, Sen. McConnell?

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Not at all. If you're going to draft a bill that affects the First Amendment and both parties deeply, you're going to have to have a negotiation. And that negotiation has really not occurred. And until you do that, I think it's clear this bill is not going to be written on the floor of the Senate with an amendment after amendment after amendment procedure.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. McCain, both Sen. Nickles and Sen. McConnell have said they were willing to negotiate. Are you willing to--what is your reading of the history of the willingness to negotiate?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, we have, and there's been a good faith effort under the leadership of Sen. Nickles. The problem is that the solution that they've come up with as a Republican solution and not balanced and this favors Republicans. We all know that the provisions that were just articulated favor the Republican Party.

JIM LEHRER: Explain why.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Because the more money that--the more you lift the spending limits, the more money comes to Republicans than Democrats for example. We all know that. The other point and the Paycheck Protection Act would put severe constraints on labor and there would not be commensurate restraints on corporate donations and business donations. So that favors Republicans. You've got to have a balanced and unbiased proposal that meets frankly the referee's view that it is balanced between both parties. I have urged that we continue to sit down and negotiate, but we also have to bring in Republicans, as well as Democrats, if we want to have true and meaningful negotiations. Finally, I'll tell you--I look forward to debating the First Amendment rights that people have when we bring up an amendment that just bans soft money. We know it's out of control. We know it's egregious. We know when someone says next time I'm going to give $600,000 instead of $300,000, we've got big problems, and we're going to have a vote on that one way or another.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Now, Sen. Nickles, let's go back to Sen. Feingold's point right at the beginning. He said there's going to be a vote--there could be a vote as early as Thursday, another cloture vote on that. Is that how you read the possibilities?

SEN. DON NICKLES: Well, I think we have actually a couple of cloture votes that are still in the works, and my guess is we'll probably have those before the week's out. My guess is also both cloture votes will not get to 60.

JIM LEHRER: So there will be no change.

SEN. DON NICKLES: I don't see a change now. Unless--some of us are always willing. We're adults, and John McCain said that he thought that having voluntary contributions favored Republicans. I think it favors Americans. I also think it favors union workers. A lot of union workers came to me and said, hey, I want to have voluntary contributions. But I will also tell you, I think the McCain-Feingold certainly--the proposal it is right now certainly favors the Democrats. That's why you have every Democrat supporting it, and you have a handful of Republicans. Well, we're not going to pass that, and so if we're going to pass anything, we're going to have to get together and see if we can work out what is mutually agreeable, and it's going to have to be agreeable between Democrats and Republicans and come up with more significant bipartisan support.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. Feingold, Sen. Nickles just said they're not going to pass that.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, that's what they said about the gift ban too--but we did--98 to nothing. And the fact is there are some Republican Senators who aren't with us yet that are negotiating with us right now. All we need is one more vote to crack this poison pill of a Lott vote. We have 49 solid votes, and they have some squishy votes, so I feel very good that this whole thing can turn around in a couple of days. No bill has been declared dead more often than McCain-Feingold but it's still kicking.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Sen. McCain, Sen. Daschle said today--I think you even said earlier--that you were prepared to put this bill in some form as an amendment on all kinds of legislation until you get to your vote. Do you still feel that way?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Yes, I am, because I think that the American people deserve an up or down vote on these issues. I'm willing to go before the American people and vote on Sen. Nickles' amendment, Sen. McConnell's proposals that you just heard, and we'd like to have a vote on some of our proposals. That's the way I think the American people expect the system to work but also Sen. Nickles is correct. If at the end of the day it's going to require bipartisan negotiations to come up with a package that is acceptable to both sides, but it may require some tough votes between now and then.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. McConnell, I assume you're prepared--no matter how many times they bring it up--to fight, is that right?

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Well, I think the First Amendment is worth fighting for. And it's important to remember, Jim, that it's not unusual for controversial measures in the Senate to require 60 votes. The Democrats have even made us get 60 votes for comp time for American workers. A 60-vote requirement in the Senate is very common. This is not at all unusual.

JIM LEHRER: What about--Sen. Daschle said that it was unusual because this was such an important measure. You disagree with that, that an exception shouldn't have been made in this case.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: Oh, I think it is very, very important to protect the First Amendment, absolutely important. I couldn't agree with him more.

JIM LEHRER: No. But I mean--rather than to use a filibuster, to go ahead and have the vote was the point he was making.

SEN. MITCH McCONNELL: A filibuster to save the First Amendment is well worth engaging in.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Okay. So we'll see what happens, gentlemen Thursday. Would you agree, Sen. Nickles, a big day, Sen. McConnell, a big day, Sen. McCain, Sen. Feingold, this thing is not over even this week?

SEN. DON NICKLES: I don't see any change made in the next couple of days. I'm always willing to work with my colleagues to see if we can't come up with something that we can get a strong vote both with Republicans and Democrats. And part of that will be making sure that all Americans make voluntary contributions to campaigns.

JIM LEHRER: Sen. McCain, do you feel any squishiness on the part of the Republicans, any other Republicans that could come to your side in the next few days?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I think there's a desire on a number of Republicans to negotiate out a package, and I think there's a desire on the part of a number of Democrats as well because I think they think this issue has now become one that's important--as I said before, we should vote on these issues if the First Amendment is that critical, which I agree that it is, why don't we vote on these issues, rather than not allow votes on it, and I don't quite understand the logic, but I look forward to the opportunity.

JIM LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, thank you all four very much. SERIES - THE MONEY CHASE

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight the other Senate campaign reform story, an Israel debate, and a report on El Nino. Kwame Holman reports on the day's Senate hearings on campaign money.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee two weeks ago paused its investigative phase to focus on reforming campaign spending laws. Committee members have complained since then the hearings have been attended by few members of the press or public. Both were back in full force this morning to hear Harold Ickes, former Deputy White House Chief of Staff, and the principal strategist ofthe 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. First, however, Chairman Fred Thompson gave a long statement of his frustration with the White House and the Justice Department beginning with yesterday's belated release by the White House, a videotape of 44 coffees held in the Executive Mansion.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON, Chairman, Governmental Affairs Committee: How could White House personnel, including the President and all of them saw a camera in the room, not recall that they were being videotaped when these coffees have been at issue in this country for a long period of time? It is clear that the White House is trying to run out the clock on this committee. There's a clear pattern of delay, foot dragging, concealing with regard to this committee. These are the same people now who want to be trusted who say that this time we were merely incompetent. Our defense is that we were incompetent. That defense is wearing a little thin. Mr. President, I would suggest this is your campaign. These were your supporters, and these are your tapes. And now I think the American people expect you to step up to the plate and take responsibility because surely nobody wants this to go down looking like a successful cover- up of much more serious activities. No one who loves their country wants that.

KWAME HOLMAN: As members' opening statements continued, Republicans focused not on the President but on Attorney General Janet Reno.

SEN. PETE DOMENICI, [R] New Mexico: The attorney general is so inconsistent in her statements that I share with you a concern that the President of the United States ought to relieve her of her responsibility in the interest of seeing that the American people at least can feel a tiny bit like justice might be taking place in the Justice Department of the United States. She was not telling the truth. She told us every--every stone is being turned, every bit of evidence is being sought. Not so. She told the FBI they couldn't investigate certain things because she and her people had an interpretation of what they ought to be investigating that is absolutely incredible.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, [R] Pennsylvania: You, Sen. Domenici, are a very careful Senator, and when you say the attorney general is not telling the truth, that comes from a man who is a senior Senator on this committee. And it may be that the ultimate answer is to replace the attorney general with a judicial appointment here because this attorney general is not doing the job and this President cannot be called upon to credibly replace the attorney general.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, [D] Connecticut: It's very important to speak in a measured responsible way when we're speaking about the chief law enforcement officer of this country. You can disagree with her judgment. You can say that the people under her have been incompetent but I have seen nothing in this woman's life or record that tells me that anything she has done in this matter has been done for political reasons. It just doesn't fit.

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI, [D] New Jersey: Let me finally just say this about the circumstances in Janet Reno. The criticism she has received--the threats that have been made against her and the position she holds are the political equivalent of an obstruction of justice. In an ironic sort of way members of the majority have made it almost impossible for the attorney general to actually name an independent counsel. She's been threatened with impeachment, hearings. She should be immediately replaced. If the woman names an independent counsel, it's going to appear she was intimidated.

KWAME HOLMAN: Finally this afternoon, after being delayed by today's showdown Senate votes on campaign finance reform, President Clinton's top aide of the 1996 campaign, Harold Ickes, read his statement.

HAROLD ICKES, Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff: I know that it is customary for witnesses to express their great pleasure to appear before you. But because I am under oath, I am unable to say I share that sentiment. I want to state categorically that I know of no violation of law or inappropriate action by the President or the Vice President. I was unaware of any violation of law by the White House staff, the leadership of the DNC, or the Clinton-Gore re- election campaign, or by the staffs of those two organizations. And I personally did not violate any law. To raise the funds to stay competitive it was necessary and fully appropriate to involve the President and Vice President in fund- raising activities. I so advised them and I have no regret. In that regard I did on occasion ask the President and the Vice President to make a limited number of fund-raising telephone calls. I advised the President that it was proper to do so. I confirmed my understanding of the law with the White House Counsel's office before asking the President to make the calls and was told that he could make those calls from the White House, preferably from the residence. To my knowledge, the President made few of those calls I asked him to make but the controversy that has arisen over these calls only illustrates that there is much misunderstanding and confusion about the laws that apply to the presidency and to the White House in connection with political activity. The laws pertaining to political activity explicitly recognize the presidency as the unique institution it is. Based on these unique realities and the practices and precedents of former White Houses, sophisticated counsel and other experts generally agree on the following propositions with respect to the presidency and political activity. A president may entertain and meet with friends and political supporters, contributors, fund-raisers, and otherwise, as well as with members of Congress and heads of state in the White House. He may have coffee, or even tea with his friends and political supporters. And it is perfectly permissible for them to stay overnight. A president and a vice president and certainly senators and members of Congress may--indeed, it is a custom of longstanding that they do--meet with supporters, including contributors and fund-raisers, as well as ordinary citizens, be gracious to them, discuss matters of public policy with them, and, yes, listen to their concerns. It simply is not illegal or untoward for a President or vice president to grant access to supporters.

KWAME HOLMAN: At mid-afternoon of what he called a long day Chairman Thompson decided to postpone the questioning of Ickes until tomorrow morning. FOCUS - FRACTURED PEACE

JIM LEHRER: Now to the Israel story and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Major furor has erupted inside Israel over an attempted assassination in Jordan. The target was this man--Khaled Mashaal--a leader of the militant Islamic movement, Hamas. On September 25, in Amman, Jordan, two men carrying Canadian passports attacked Mashaal with some kind of poison-injecting instrument. Once apprehended, his attackers were widely identified as agents of Mossad, Israel's intelligence service. The news became public last week when Israel--responding to the demands of an infuriated King Hussein of Jordan-- released the imprisoned founder ofHamas, the ailing 61-year-old Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. It was also reported that earlier King Hussein had also demanded that the Israeli government provide the antidote that saved Mashaal's life. Yesterday, Yassin returned to Gaza to a hero's welcome. Israel also released about 20 Palestinians and Jordanians from Israeli jails, and reportedly promised to free 50 more. In return Israel won the release of the two Mossad agents. Over the weekend there were calls in the Israeli press for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's resignation. But on Sunday the prime minister's cabinet stood behind him. Yesterday Netanyahu spoke publicly for the first time about the affair. He appointed a commission to investigate the incident. But he vigorously defended the way Israel has conducted its fight against terrorism.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: In recent moths we witnessed two suicide bombings in Jerusalem. Hundreds of our citizens were wounded and 21 Israeli men, women, and children, small children were murdered. It was a tragedy. It was an outrage. As prime minister it is my responsibility to do everything in my power to fight this terrorist evil. In fighting terrorists there is always risk of failure. We, of course, have many successes in the battle against terrorism. We have some failures. But we do the right thing for the right reason, for the right cause, as we've been doing all along.

MARGARET WARNER: Now for more we turn to Dore Gold, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations. Previously he served as Prime Minister Netanyahu's chief foreign policy adviser. And Ehud Sprinzak, professor of political science at Hebrew University in Jerusalem who's written extensively about terrorism in Israel, among other things. He's currently a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington. Professor was this assassination attempt a good idea as the prime minister said, the right thing for the right reason?

EHUD SPRINZAK, Hebrew University: It was a terrible idea. It was a miserable decision. It lacked thinking and you have to judge by the results, but the point is that many of these things should have been seen in advance. You don't succeed in every attack. And then the question is what comes next. It was not difficult to see what happens if this is a failure, and this, indeed, was a failure. The only victor in this campaign is Hamas, exactly the opposite of what Mr. Netanyahu wanted to achieve, exactly the opposite of Mr. Arafat, troubles for Jordan, this was a very, very poor decision.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Ambassador, respond to the overall point, a terrible idea, poorly conceived.

DORE GOLD, UN Ambassador, Israel: Prime ministers of Israel have the responsibility to defend the people of Israel. As Prime Minister Netanyahu stated just a few minutes ago, we have had a situation where innocent Israelis have been repeatedly killed, attacked through a series of bombings in the heart of our cities, in Jerusalem most recently but of course in the past years in Tel Aviv, in fact, in all Israeli cities. The prime minister must do what is necessary to protect the people of Israel. We're not going to sit with our hands down. We have to do what is necessary. Now we're not going into details about what exactly happened in Jordan, but we are enunciating a very clear principle: terrorists all over the world have no safe havens. In the 1970's, in 1972, 11 Israelis were killed in the Munich Olympics, and the Prime Minister Golda Meir knew what had to be done to protect the Israelis from more terrorism from black September. She took courageous decisions. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin faced a spate of terrorist attacks from Hamas. He also had to take special actions sometimes overseas, sometimes in the areas around Israel, itself. Prime Minister Netanyahu is equal committed as his predecessors, Golda Meir and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, to defend the people of Israel. We cannot be in a situation where we are repeatedly facing massive terrorist bombings in the heart of our cities, and we say we won't do anything.

MARGARET WARNER: What about the point that an assassination like this might be a legitimate tool in the fight against terrorism, do you disagree with that point?

EHUD SPRINZAK: I am talking about prudence not about morality. Not a single Israeli citizen is today better secured from Hamas than two weeks ago. On the contrary, it played right to the hands of the Hamas. The issue is not whether or not Israel has the right to do it but how you do it. Mr. Netanyahu is--in the 70's forgot that he is now the prime minister, that he has to be very judicious. The last thing you want to do with the consequences we have just seen. In addition, you don't want to create, to make yourself the laughing stock of the rest of the world. I don't think this is a good protection. It's not enough to be emotional about terrorism. It's not enough to invoke what everybody feels--about terrorism. You have to be smart; you have to be prudent; and you have to think. And I'm afraid this was a shooting from the hip. It was not serious thinking.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Ambassador, respond to that point because it's one the Israeli press has used a lot. On the prudence test, on the competence test, that this operation failed--

DORE GOLD: Well, look, nothing succeeds like success and if suddenly certain terrorists around the world disappear, most of the world will applaud. I remember in the recent number of years, without going into who did what, people like Halil Shkali suddenly disappeared--in places like Malta--other cases. Now what I'm trying to say is this: You sometimes have military mishaps that occur. I remember when there was a rescue mission that was attempted by the United States in Iran. That rescue mission failed. But the world didn't come like a pack of wolves against President Carter for attempting it. The fundamental problem you have here is the war on terrorism has existed in the past, will continue in the future until terrorism is no longer a threat to the peace process. But if mishaps occur--and mishaps can occur--the world shouldn't come running after the political leadership in Israel for military mishaps.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor, the President you said--our President, President of the United States said yesterday and today--pointed out that the U.S. had given up assassination as a tool about 20 years ago, and the New York Times said today it was time for Israel to do the same. Do you agree with that point, or do you agree more with the ambassador that at times it is justified?

EHUD SPRINZAK: I think there are indications that Israel has given up on the idea of assassinating, for example, leaders of Hezbollah. They've done--

MARGARET WARNER: That is the group operating in Lebanon.

EHUD SPRINZAK: The Shiite organization in Lebanon. They have done it not because Hezbollah is after the Hamas. They have done it because they have come to the conclusion that as a result of such assassinations you have more terrorism. Now, I am all for very intense struggle against terrorism but again I will have to insist it's about prudence. If you know that something may go wrong, and many things may go wrong, then you want to consider this. I will have to suggest to you that even if this person has been successfully assassinated, I'm still not sure what would have been the consequences because one way or another it is covered. Now the ambassador has mentioned Malta. Now Malta, with all due respect, is not Jordan. Jordan is the war list of all our allies of Israel and perhaps the only one. You don't go and embarrass the king a mile from his palace. You just don't do it. And all this instinctive drive to be gung ho to fight the terrorists, to eliminate that, all this return to the Golda Meir decision in the 1970's is immaterial to the case. You have to consider what is at stake, and right now and in this case it's very clear it's been a major blunder.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Ambassador, respond to something, if you would, that the professor said earlier, which was even if this had succeeded, it wasn't a good idea but, furthermore, because it failed, Israel is less secure. What do you think is the impact or the result, the fallout from this in terms of Israeli security?

DORE GOLD: Well, first of all, let me say that our relations with Jordan have been excellent and will be excellent in the future. There are mutual strategic interests that bind our countries, as well as warm relations at the highest levels. I know that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his majesty, King Hussein, spoke last night. I know that there are also major military meetings to occur in the next few days that are very important--of great importance to both countries. These two countries have a strategic alliance that cannot be torn even when certain mishaps occur in these types of wars against terrorism. I believe also that some of the points of concern about the release of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin are also exaggerated. There's been a big debate in Israel about where Sheikh Ahmed Yassin should be. Here's an aging man who could die in an Israeli prison. The implications of that would be extremely negative. So there have been pros and cons in the various--among various decision makers in Israel about Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and whether he should be released. One thing is for certain. We've recently seen polling data in the United States. The American public understands that terrorism and the peace process cannot coexist. About 70 percent of the American public in an extensive poll done by Mr. Pipe's organization have shown they agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu; that the peace process cannot move forward as long as terrorism continues. We must continue the battle against terrorism. That's what the prime minister is trying to do so that he can put the peace process back on track. And in the past few days our foreign minister, Levy, has met with Abu Masin from the Palestinian Authority in the presence of Amb. Dennis Ross, and all three are trying to put the process back on track. They've announced the resumption of the peace talks, not the termination of the peace talks, so that we can continue with this process.

MARGARET WARNER: And you don't--

DORE GOLD: But to make the process work, to make an impaired peace process work, we cannot have buses blowing up in the heart of our cities and have Israel sitting back and doing nothing. We must take action that's necessary to defend our people in coordination with our allies around the world.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think this incident does, if anything, to the prospects for the peace process?

EHUD SPRINZAK: First, I would like just to take a moment and to invoke a tragedy of the 1980's--the Paul Allard affair. For many Israelis this was a mishap--

MARGARET WARNER: This was a spy case in which--

EHUD SPRINZAK: A spy case in which Israel--in a rogue operation Israel conducted spying in the United States. I think it was a miserable decision, regardless of the great relations and the strategic relations between Israel and the United States. But for many Israelis it was a mishap, so I'm saying this is almost the same thing. You don't do these things to your friends, period. As for the peace process I don't think that it is going to hurt the peace process. Paradoxically, as a matter of fact, I think that this situation has weakened Mr. Netanyahu significantly. And one of the major reasons why the peace process has not progressed has been a conscious decision by the Israeli prime minister to slow it down and to change the parameters.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me just get the ambassador to respond on that point before we go. Briefly, do you think this has weakened the prime minister?

DORE GOLD: I don't believe so. I think the people of Israel, as well as the people of the United States, understand that military mishaps can occur. What normally happens under reasonable circumstances is that the people of the country gather around the military leadership, support the political leadership when unfortunate incidents occur and don't start nitpicking and trying to analyze and second guess, or Sunday morning quarterback. Mishaps have occurred under previous prime ministers, mishaps have occurred under previous American presidents. What we have to do now is keep our strategic aim in mind.

MARGARET WARNER: All right.

DORE GOLD: That is, eliminate terrorism and put the peace process back on track.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Ambassador, Professor, we have to leave it there. Thank you both very much. FINALLY - BRACING FOR EL NINO

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight getting ready for El Nino. Jeffrey Kaye of KCET- Los Angeles reports.

JEFFREY KAYE: Surf's up in Southern California. That's normal. What's unusual is the unseasonably warm water delighting surfers.

SURFER: It's about 70/71 degrees. It's great.

JEFFREY KAYE: The unusual weather has also produced a bonanza for sports fishing. Intense currents have pushed fish normally found hundreds of miles to the South off the Coast of Mexico into American waters.

JEFFREY KAYE: These are what, warm water fish?

DAN SANSOME, Fishing Boat Captain: Warm water fish.

JEFFREY KAYE: What kind of fish are we talking about?

DAN SANSOME: Yellow fin tuna, yellow tail mali mali, and some marlin.

JEFFREY KAYE: Good fishing and comfortable surfing are minor evidence of the powerful global weather pattern known as El Nino. The term is Spanish for the Christ Child, coined centuries ago by Peruvian fishermen to describe a phenomenon they observed around Christmas time every two to seven years. At the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, scientists are tracking this weather system's progress. Tim Barnett is an oceanographer and climatologist. He says data gathered by Scripps and other researchers indicates much of the surface of the tropical Pacific is warming, affecting trade winds and ocean currents.

TIM BARNETT, Scripps Institute: A lot of things happen during an El Nino. The water temperatures along the equator from South America out to the date line, which is a quarter of the way around the Earth, will warm up anywhere from one to in this case six degrees Centigrade near the coast. Sea level will rise off the Coast of South America as it has this year by almost afoot and sea level drops in the Western Pacific by about the same amount. The trade winds weaken, sometimes die, in some cases right now even are reversed in the Western Pacific. So the ocean and the atmosphere are working together in some way that we think we understand it at least a little bit, but the changes in them are remarkable.

JEFFREY KAYE: Barnett says the cause of an El Nino is uncertain but its effect is foreseeable. Scientists say this El Nino may eclipse the worst one this century. That was 15 years ago when storms battered the West Coast of the United States. There were droughts in Australia, Indonesia, and India. Worldwide, 2,000 people died. Economic losses amounted to billions of dollars. Barnett says this El Nino seems to be taking a somewhat predictable course.

TIM BARNETT: For instance, Southern California or the Southwest tends to be wetter, as does the Southeast part of the United States. The Northwest tends to be drier, warmer. Brazil tends to have droughts, particularly Northern Brazil, as does Australia. Those are during normal El Ninos. The probability of those things happening is roughly 70 percent. But we have an event now that we have experienced with only one like it in history, and so it's a little hard to rely on the past because it's not an average situation that we have now.

JEFFREY KAYE: So far this El Nino has brought drought conditions in parts of South and Central America, Southeast Asia, Australia, and South Africa. Its worst effects have been in Indonesia and Borneo, where dry conditions fed raging forest fires that consumed hundreds of thousands of acres. Smoke blanketed the area, causing public health problems and economic losses throughout the region.

SPOKESMAN: Particularly of concern for I think the nations of the world was the southern part of Africa.

JEFFREY KAYE: The United Nations and World Bank have held unprecedented meetings attempting to respond to possible disasters before they strike.

ANNOUNCER: Tracking El Nino's every move--

JEFFREY KAYE: In the United States TV stations are already promoting what they promise will be dramatic weather coverage. El Nino is also prompting disaster preparedness seminars at all levels of government. California coastal communities are bracing for severe storms, clearing out flood control channels, reinforcing piers, and building berms on beaches. Los Angeles Sheriff's Lt. Dennis Beene says if disaster strikes, officials from a number of government agencies will quickly gather at an emergency operations center. Computer models show areas susceptible to flooding.

JEFFREY KAYE: So you've got evacuation routes?

LT. DENNIS BEENE, L.A. Sheriff's Dept.: There are evacuation routes that basically are designated. A number of county fire and public works, we have routes that basically we would use those as primary evacuation routes.

JEFFREY KAYE: Residents of Malibu are also making plans. The coastal city is an epicenter for disasters, with its cycles of summer fires and winter storms. In Malibu, residents simultaneously rebuild from the last catastrophe and prepare for the next. Four years ago Jack Teuffel placed sand bags around his Malibu house to prepare for mudslides. The home survived. Recently, he placed more sand bags in anticipation of an El Nino-generated storm. In Malibu preparedness is not just a question of survival; it's a matter of law and politics. Teuffel and his neighbors are suing the city, claiming that bad planning left them vulnerable to fires and mudslides. Their lawyer is Richard Norton.

JEFFREY KAYE: Will El Nino bring a flood of lawsuits?

RICHARD NORTON, Attorney: Probably, yes, because storms like El Nino happen--this El Nino--have happened five or maybe ten times this century. And history tells us, yes, there will be lots of failures; people will lose their homes; governments will try to look the other way; and there will be lawsuits.

JEFFREY KAYE: Which is where you come in.

RICHARD NORTON: That's what I've done for my career, yes.

JEFFREY KAYE: Lawyers are not the only ones who see opportunity in El Nino. Insurance agent Mark Ball says he is writing three times as many flood insurance policies than last year. Roofing contractors are also benefitting from public apprehension. Steve Harrer's Malibu business got started in the last big El Nino.

STEVE HARRER, Roofing Contractor: El Nino has started the business, and what it's doing in this year of '97 is it's probably bringing threefold the business that a normal year would otherwise bring.

JEFFREY KAYE: Opportunity is also knocking in commodities futures trading.

SPOKESMAN: I'm sure you saw all this stuff about El Nino.

JEFFREY KAYE: Worldwide markets are being disrupted. Unusual weather is threatening production of Indian vegetable oil, South African wheat, Australian corn, Brazilian cocoa, West African coffee, and more. Reduced supply means higher prices. But despite the indicators some weather forecasters are hedging their bets, at least as far as California is concerned. They say--anyone who pays attention to forecasts can attest the weatherman or woman doesn't always get it right.

TIM BARNETT: But the probability is the dice have been loaded--towards those kinds of scenarios and those kinds of situations. That doesn't mean that every time you throw 'em it's going to come up that way, but the dice are loaded.

JEFFREY KAYE: And because they are, says Barnett, planners should prepare for calamity but shouldn't be surprised if the worst doesn't happen. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, the Senate gave up on campaign finance reform for a while when prolonged debate could not be stopped. Former top Clinton aide Harold Ickes accused the Thompson committee of trying to tarnish the Democratic Party and Secretary of State Albright urged the Senate to approve expansion of NATO to include three former Soviet Bloc countries. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.