The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MARGARET WARNER: Good evening. I'm Margaret Warner. Jim Lehrer is off today. On the NewsHour tonight: The newly raging controversy over the death penalty; today's historic summit in North Korea; more missing nuclear secrets from Los Alamos; and a remembrance of artist Jacob Lawrence. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

MARGARET WARNER: The leaders of North and South Korea met face to face today for the first time since Korea was divided more than 50 years ago. South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il began an historic three- day summit in the North's capital, Pyongyang. Both said they want to end the hostility between their two nations. We'll have more on today's kick-off meeting later in the program. The late Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad was laid to rest today. We have this report from Julian Manyon of Independent Television News.

JULIAN MANYON: The Syrian dictator began his last journey on the shoulders of the military honor guard. Then a gun carriage carried him down to the Omayyad Square, where thousands of mourners were waiting. The regime had called on government workers to attend. Others simply came to honor the man who had led them in peace and war for so long. (Cheering) As the coffin approached, the crowd surged forward to express its sorrow. There were scenes of hysterical grief. The cortege rolled on through the vast crowd to the so-called people's palace, on a hill above Damascus. Assad's son, Bashar, prayed by his father's coffin. He will now effectively inherit the presidency. Foreign dignitaries paid their last respects -- Madeline Albright, for the U.S. Government, and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook chatted with the President-to-be. As defense minister and then President, Hafez Al-Assad led his country into two disastrous wars with Israel, but many Syrians admired his stubborn steadfastness. This evening he was buried in his home village, as his country began to ponder a now uncertain future.

MARGARET WARNER: Secretary Albright said she told Bashar Assad that his father had made the strategic decision to make peace with Israel. She said the son promised, in her words, to continue on that same road. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators resumed peace talks today at two Air Force bases near Washington. U.S. mediators are quarterbacking the talks, hoping to meet a September deadline for a final accord. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is expected to arrive in Washington tomorrow for a meeting with President Clinton Thursday. The Energy Department faced tough questions on Capitol Hill today about security lapses at its nuclear weapons labs. The latest focus is the disappearance of two highly classified computer hard drives from Los Alamos National Laboratory. It comes less than a year of after Congress ordered tighter security in the wake of the Wen Ho Lee episode. The Los Alamos scientist was fired for allegedly downloading nuclear weapons secret on to an unclassified computer. The FBI is investigating. Energy secretary Richardson had to this to say:

BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary of Energy: I'm outraged by the security lapses that have taken place. We're not going to tolerate this. There will be accountability and disciplinary action. I think we have to be careful till we get all the facts. My experts tell me they don't believe that it is espionage. They believe it's probably a misplacement of some of these records.

MARGARET WARNER: Late today Richardson announced that former Senator Howard Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton will conduct a separate investigation into the circumstances around this incident. We'll have more on this story later in the program. A federal appeals court agreed today to hear Microsoft's appeal of Judge Thomas Pennfield Jackson's order to break up the company. The court acted immediately after the company filed its notice of appeal with Judge Jackson. The Justice Department wants the case sent directly to the Supreme Court. Italy's President today pardoned the man who tried to assassinate Pope John Paul ii in 1981. Mehmet Ali Agca shot and wounded the pope as he rode through St. Peter's square. He's been serving a life sentence for the crime. The Italian justice ministry noted today that the Pope has already publicly forgiven Agca, and that the Vatican supports clemency. He will be returned to his native Turkey, where he faces prison for killing a newspaper editor there. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to new arguments over the death penalty, a summit in North Korea, the latest nuclear secrets security lapse, and a remembrance of artist Jacob Lawrence.

FOCUS - DEATH PENALTY DEBATE

MARGARET WARNER: Ray Suarez has our look at the growing controversy over how the death penalty is or isn't working.

GOV. GEORGE RYAN: I have grave concerns about our state's shameful record of convicting innocent people and putting them on Death Row.

RAY SUAREZ: The nation's debate over capital punishment heated up again in January, when Illinois Governor George Ryan, who favors the death penalty, halted all executions in his state indefinitely.

GOV. GEORGE RYAN: We have had 33 inmates that have gone to Death Row because of incompetent attorneys, we have had 35, all black people, convicted because of an all- white jury; we have had 46 people put on Death Row as a result of jailhouse informants; we had had overzealous prosecutors in some cases. Our system in Illinois needs to be fixed, and that is what we are trying to do.

RAY SUAREZ: The moratorium came after Anthony Porter and 12 other Death Row inmates in the state were exonerated, some by the latest DNA technology. In Texas two weeks ago, Governor George W. Bush postponed the execution of Ricky McGinn for 30 days. The reason was to allow a DNA test. McGinn was convicted of killing his 12-year-old stepdaughter in 1993.

RICKY McGINN: I'm innocent. I did not do this. I did not kill. I never raped my little girl, and I never killed her.

RAY SUAREZ: The delay is a first for Mr. Bush. He's allowed 132 executions, far more than any other governor, including one by lethal injection last night. And last week, Maryland's governor, Democrat Parris Glendening, commuted a death penalty because he wasn't sure of the man's guilt. But governors aren't in lockstep on this issue. New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen recently vetoed a measure by lawmakers to abolish the death penalty, and Mike Johanns, the chief executive of Nebraska, turned back a proposed moratorium on execution. The flurry of activity comes as public support for the ultimate punishment stands at 66%.According to a recent Gallup poll that's the lowest level in 19 years. Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, more than 200 executions have occurred. Today, 38 states allow capital punishment, though 13 of those have carried it out less than five times since 1976. The contentious issue is once again on the front pages. Yesterday, a Columbia University study found that over a 23-year period, 68% of death penalty convictions were overturned due to "serious, reversible error." The lead author is James Liebman.

PROFESSOR JAMES S. LIEBMAN: Most of the errors - the largest proportion -- are egregious incompetence of counsel, the kind of situation where the defendant walks in and says, "I was there, I didn't have anything to do with it; here are ten witnesses who saw the whole thing and can tell you who did it," and the lawyer doesn't got out and interview one of them. Five, ten, fifteen years later, another lawyer does it and finds out that he was right all the time.

RAY SUAREZ: Earlier today, the American Medical Association rejected a policy statement recommending a halt to all executions to accommodate the latest forensic technology. And on Capitol Hill, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch called a hearing today to get feedback on his proposed legislation that would ensure those convicted of a capital offense have a right to a court review in the event new DNA evidence might exonerate them.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: All Americans, supporters and opponents of the death penalty and the like, should recognize that DNA testing provides a powerful safeguard in capital cases.

RAY SUAREZ: Senators, state attorneys general, and defense lawyers at the hearing agreed on the value of DNA evidence.

ELLIOTT SPITZER, Attorney General, New York: DNA testing can provide evidence which his probative of guilt or innocence in many cases, and therefore can determine that individuals who have been incarcerated for years, or even are awaiting the death penalty, may be innocent of the crimes for which they have been convicted. Thus any marginal burdens are far outweighed by the ability to prevent the punishment of the innocent.

RAY SUAREZ: But Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmonson cautioned that legislative action could do more harm than good.

DREW EDMONSON, Attorney General, Oklahoma: In the best of cases, DNA can provide compelling evidence. In most cases, however, including most murder cases, DNA testing is inapplicable because there are no samples connected to the suspect for testing, or irrelevant because the identity of the suspect is not an issue. What Congress may do, if it does not proceed with caution, is establish an ineffective Death Penalty Act that awards new avenues of appeal for convicted murderers, years of additional anguish for the families of the victims, and an attack on state sovereignty that is breathtaking in its scope.

RAY SUAREZ: A bill by ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy has gained support among his party colleagues. It would further defendants' rights with a provision aimed at improving the quality of their legal representation for those who otherwise can't afford it.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN, (D) Delaware: I challenge any one of you to one year, one month out of law school, being admitted to the bar and being assigned to a capital case. You all think you'd be competent enough to handle that case? Mr. Marcus, do you think you would have been?

MARCUS: No, absolutely not.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: You know darn well you wouldn't have been. Look at who we assign to these cases. Nobody makes money in these cases unless you represent an O.J. or somebody like that. That doesn't happen. So what happens? We take the people who either who have no clients because they're incompetent, or we assign people who are brand new and may become competent. Death penalty appeals are complicated.

RAY SUAREZ: Chairman Hatch said he would be open to consider proposals from all Senators to come up with a bipartisan bill to ensure the certainty of death penalty convictions.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on the death penalty debate we are joined by two governors, Republicans George Ryan of Illinois and Frank Keating of Oklahoma, and two United States Senators, Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Chairman. Hatch, let's start with you. What would you like to see in a bipartisan bill on this matter?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, I do think that we need to have post conviction DNA testing in order to, in order to be able to prove the innocence of people. There is no question about it. And that scientific testing is very important and its time has come. Senator Leahy has a bill. I have a bill. Both of them are important. There are some wide disparities between those two bills, but the fact of the matter is both of us are in agreement that we need post conviction DNA testing and especially in these cases where there is a potential of proving some innocence.

RAY SUAREZ: And, to be clear, the proposals that are now circulating around your committee only affect federal cases and people who face execution by the federal government?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, not necessarily. I think Senator Leahy's bill goes farther than that and does require certain mandates on the states that I personally believe are unconstitutional under the nine recent federalism cases that the court has decided. But be that as it may, we're going to try and work together to come up with some way of making sure that in this modern age we use the best tools at our disposal to make sure that innocent people are not only not convicted but after conviction -- if they are -- that there is some way of making sure that their innocence is brought out in the end.

RAY SUAREZ: Senator Leahy, your bill is called the Innocence Protection Act. What is in it that goes further than Senator Hatch's proposal?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Well, one thing it's done is it has attracted bipartisan support -- both Republicans and Democrats are joining my bill both here and in the House, both those who support the death penalty and those who oppose it. But what it's done it's somewhat more open-ended. As a couple of our witnesses said today that under Senator Hatch's bill -- including one person who was held for years in prison and then released when they found they had the wrong man -- they would not have been able to get the relief. That's something that I think both of us can work out because you should not have a cutoff -- if you have an innocent person on Death Row or in there for life imprisonment and you have evidence to establish the innocence, it should be available whether it's six months after they were convicted or six years or sixteen years after they were convicted. It also does not mandate the states. It gives a significant amount of money to the states. We give hundreds of millions of dollars to the state and local criminal justice systems in this country today out of the federal treasury out of our tax dollars. It's done to improve the criminal justice system. But I think it's all right for us to say if we're going to give you that money to improve the criminal justice system, then you've got to improve it, especially at a time when two thirds of the cases that are appealed are death penalty cases that's found a serious error was committed in the trials.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, even though it's more common than it used to be, isn't DNA testing still pretty expensive?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: No. DNA is still not that expensive. I mean, DNA is the fingerprint of the 21st century. There are going to be a lot of cases, however, where there is no DNA evidence, just as there is no fingerprint evidence in a case. But when you spend millions of dollars to put somebody on Death Row, for a few dollars more to make sure you've got the right person, I think it's a pretty small price to pay. We should have zero tolerance for mistakes if you're going to execute somebody.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: If I could just add a point or two.

RAY SUAREZ: Surely.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: First of all, my bill was bipartisan as well because we had two state attorneys generals offices and Democrat district attorney and all Democrats testify today in favor of my bill. The problem I have with Senator Leahy's bill - and I hope we can work this out - we work well together and I think we might be able to do so - is that it would require testing in thousands of unnecessary cases and unnecessarily delay execution where it is justified, plus, in addition to all of that, of course, it would require testing in cases where there is no question about innocence, where the people are as guilty as can be. And I just don't think we should go down that road, plus it is expensive. It's expensive to keep the samples; it's expensive to pay for the DNA testing. One person estimated today two to five thousand dollars - I think that is a little high but the fact is it is still expensive. Both of us agree when there is a real question of innocence or guilt that we ought to go the full length to make sure is that people are protected and that the full benefits of the law are given to these defendants.

RAY SUAREZ: Let me turn to Governor Ryan at this point, because it was his announcement earlier this year that reopened this as an issue in a lot of people's minds. After that moratorium was declared, what did Illinois do?

GOV. GEORGE RYAN: Well, we have formed a commission headed up by former United States Senator Paul Simon, we have Scott Turow, the author; we have federal judges; we have William Webster as counsel, former director of the FBI. We have formed a commission to find out what we can do to correct the errors and to see if we in fact can come up with an error free system. Everybody has pointed out the fact that the defense counsel is a big part of the problem. That was certainly the case in Illinois, as I pointed out earlier, but the DNA , whether it's DNA or any new technology that we can use to prove guilt or innocence, I think it's important to use. Cost shouldn't be a consideration when we're talking about somebody being executed for a crime they may not have committed. That is my worst nightmare. That's why I called the moratorium.

RAY SUAREZ: And, this commission in effect will help Illinois preserve this sanction as a viable tool? You are not looking to begin the process of ending capitol punishment in your state, are you?

GOV. GEORGE RYAN: Well, if I don't get the answers that I need come, when this commission returns with the verdict or comes back with their decision on what we have to do, then there will be no more executions in Illinois if I'm not satisfied with all morality certainty that people with innocent.

RAY SUAREZ: Govern Keating, where do you come down on this issue?

GOV. FRANK KEATING: Well, in this debate I think my favorite color is plaid. I think when Senator Hatch and Leahy said, some of that I think is very sound and me of what Govern Ryan says is very sound but let's put things in perspective. First, since 1977, there have been 482,000 homicides -- Our citizens, 482,000 of them killed and 629 executions. That is one twelfth of 1% of the killings resulting in executions, so it's very rare. On the race side since 1977, nearly 60% of the executions have been white. In 1998, alone, 70% of whose those executed were white. Third, I think Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Hatch's approach in the carrotsense would be a better approach -- where we as states are encouraged to have indigent defense systems that makes the decision as to who is going to get counsel and who will have their cases checked with DNA . That's something that we did in Oklahoma so an independent board, the Indigent Defense Board, without interference by the prosecution can decide that this particular case needs DNA testing and that system also will assure there is competent defense counsel. But, again, capital punishment is very, very rare and I happen to thing in most case it is works very well. But in those cases that it simply doesn't work well we want to make sure that the innocent are and the innocent alone are on the street and the guilty and the guilty alone are in prison, much less executed.

RAY SUAREZ: So, if it's applicable you are all for widening the availability of DNA testing. What about Senator Patrick Leahy's concern about beefing up the quality of counsel available to people accused in capital crimes?

GOV. FRANK KEATING: Well, I read the Chicago Tribune story and I'm certainly familiar with what occurred in Chicago in Illinois itself. Obviously we cannot tolerate incompetency as defense attorneys because we're dealing with the life of individuals and we certainly can't tolerate corruption in the criminal justice process on the side of the prosecution or law enforcement. And tough sanctions need to be taken. Prosecutions and disbarment and the like -- if there isn't enough of that we ought to do more but my experience and I have arrested people as an FBI -- and I have prosecuted them as a state prosecutor and U.S. attorney and supervised their lockup and supervised most of the federal law enforcement agencies -- I have never seen this. So, it was a stunning surprise to me that you have judges, defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, everybody basically putting up their feet and looking out the window; I have not seen it. But if it does occur in one case that's one case too many.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Governor Ryan, earlier this year Jeb Bush of Florida said that in his view Illinois had a unique problem with administering capital punishment. Does the recent Columbia study convince you that maybe it's not so unique?

GOV. GEORGE RYAN: Well, I don't know about other states, and I was surprised at the magnitude of the numbers of the Columbia study, but I do know that we had a very serious problem in Illinois, and I couldn't go ahead with the death penalty in good conscience until it was studied to see if, in fact, it could be corrected.

RAY SUAREZ: And how long till the commission report?

GOV. GEORGE RYAN: I didn't give them a deadline. I said go do what you have to do and come back and tell me what you've got.

RAY SUAREZ: And Senators, a similar question. When might we see some form of similar legislation that your 99 colleagues could vote on?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, if we can get together, Pat and I and others and work on this together, I believe we could get a piece of legislation that would pass everybody. On that Columbia study, first of all, I think it's very flawed. They did not cite one case where an innocent person was executed. Secondly, many of the reversals were done in the sentencing phase where they made the mistakes there, and thirdly, you know, instead of - I would have to say the report - report of old cases from 1973-1995. We've come a long way since then so I think the study is extremely flawed.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Actually, I don't think the study is flawed a bit, and I think one of the reasons why so many of the major news media from right to left have supported it so far, they know it is a good study but if you want to know how this could be passed -- we have been in the Congress by every analysis has been one that has not accomplished a great deal. This is one we could accomplish. I would make this suggestion: If both Vice President Gore and Governor Bush said this is going that goes beyond politics. That is a matter of improving the credible of the criminal justice system in this nation. If both supported it, both endorsed it this would go through this Congress. It would pass very easily and the president would sign it and it would be a good thing for America.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Senator Leahy, some of your critics have said your proposals are a stalking horse for abolitionists -- beginning the process that may end capital punishment.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: But we've heard an awful lot of things said about it that aren't so, Senator Hatch suggested it is going to require DNA testing any time anybody asks for it. It does not a bit. The post conviction requires certain hurdles somebody has to go through. We've heard about the terrible cost. In California it cost $5 million to put somebody on Death Row. A couple of hundred dollars more to test DNA is going to break the bank? I down it. If you put somebody in prison for life it's 35-$50,000 a year to be there. A couple of hundred dollars more to do DNA Testing. These are kind of red herrings. The bottom line is is this country going to have a criminal justice system with credibility? If we don't, you are going to reach a point where nobody is going to be convicted even if they are guilty as sin because people are not going to trust the system.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me go back to the governors. Do either of you sense a change in the national sentiment -- the sentiment in your own cities and states about this issue? Governor Ryan.

GOV. GEORGE RYAN: Well, I think people are more cautious about the system than they were prior to our moratorium and I think there is more concern and a spotlight put on it. I don't know of anybody that wants to put an innocent person to death. And I think everybody is concerned about that and they want to make sure that the criminal justice system works for everybody not the wealthy but for everybody and I think that's what we have to be concerned about.

RAY SUAREZ: Governor Keating?

GOV. FRANK KEATING: Well, if an innocent person is in prison or executed, the guilty person is on the street able to strike again. And nobody wants to do that. What we need to do is work in partnership to find the best solution and to focus on the essential fact that only the guilty should be punished, only the guilty should be executed. But it should the not be used as stalking horse for abolishment of the death penalty itself.

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thank you to you all.

MARGARET WARNER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: the summit in North Korea, the latest nuclear secrets security lapse, and the remembrance of artist Jacob Lawrence.

FOCUS - HISTORIC HANDSHAKE

MARGARET WARNER: Today's historic summit meeting between the leaders of the two Koreas. Though the summit is taking place in the North Korean capital, Pyongyang, all western journalists are being required to cover it from the South Korean capital of Seoul. We have this report from Ian Williams of Independent Television News.

IAN WILLIAMS, ITN: Nobody had expected Kim Jong Il to turn up in person, but there he was, the reclusive North Korean dictator, marching purposefully across the tarmac. The crowd cheered on cue as the aircraft carrying the South Korean President taxied to a halt. When President Kim Dae Jung emerged, he scanned the horizon before an aide pointed out the portly man in glasses standing smack at the bottom of the steps. And thus, history was made. The two Kims acknowledged and applauded each other. There was a warm handshake -- the first meeting of the leaders of the two Koreas in 55 years. They'd agreed there'd be no national anthems or flags. The South Korean President had planned to give an emotional speech, but the "Dear Leader," as Kim Jong Il likes to be known, asked him not to. The two Kims traveled in the same car for the 40-minute drive from the airport, chatting casually and sometimes holding hands, according to officials. It seemed like the entire population of Pyongyang had been mobilized for the occasion, lining the streets in national dress and waving identical bunches of paper flowers. The agenda of this three-day summit has been kept deliberately vague. At their first formal meeting, Kim Jong Il promised "dialogue without reserve," while the southern Mr. Kim said he hoped for a new era, something he elaborated on at a state dinner this evening.

PRESIDENT KIM DAE-JUNG, South Korea (Translated): It is my earnest hope that through this half century of distrust and compensation will turn into reconciliation and cooperation.

IAN WILLIAMS: There is an enormous divide to overcome. Up to two million troops face each other across the heavily fortified border separating the two Koreas-- the South backed by 37,000 Americans with nuclear weapons. Little wonder President Clinton has called this border the "scariest place on earth." There's been hardly any contact across it since the end of the Korean War. This is as close as most South Koreans can get to their cousins in the North. The buildings across the river here are perhaps a mile away, but they are a world apart. While the South has prospered, the economy of the North is crumbling and can barely feed its people. There are few cars to be seen on the streets of Pyongyang, just a traffic policewoman performing without an audience. Cynics say the North is opening up to the South out of economic desperation. Tightly controlled North Korean Television usually heaps unadulterated abuse on South Korea. But today, they gave extensive coverage to the summit, describing it as "an historic moment to open the gate between North and South." The South's Mr. Kim was afforded unusual respect. Tonight he was treated to a folk performance, heavy on tradition rather than politics. Hopes have been raised and dashed before. But the fact this summit is taking place at all is the most hopeful event in 50 years of Cold War on the Korean Peninsula.

FOCUS - DISAPPEARING DATA

MARGARET WARNER: Now, more missing secrets at the Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Lab. Reports surfaced last night that two highly classified computer hard drives were missing from a vault at the national laboratory in New Mexico. It was the second major security breach at the labs in a year. The news provoked sharp criticism of the Department of Energy-- which runs the country's nuclear weapons labs-- at a congressional hearing this morning. President Clinton also expressed concern. We take up the story now with Edward Curran, director of the Department of Energy's Office of Counter Intelligence and Bob Drogin, national security correspondent for the Los Angeles Times. We'll start with Mr. Drogin.

Welcome, Mr. Drogin. First, tell us about these two hard drives. What was on them? What was the data on them?

BOB DROGIN: They are about the size of a deck of cards. They are used by a group called the NEST -- The National Emergency -- Nuclear Emergency Security Teams. What they do is they assist the FBI in investigations of terrorists threats involving nuclear weapons, these two hard drives are taken out by the team and used when there is a problem. They were last seen on April 7 -- when there was an inventory at the lab.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me interrupt you just one second just so I understand what is on them. So, basically, they are kind of a road map how to diffuse a nuclear weapon say if it fell into the hands of terrorists.

BOB DROGIN: That's apparently correct.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, go to the chronology.

BOB DROGIN: It seems to be a case of a cross between Harry Houdini and the Katzenjamer kids. What you have is the hard drives were stored in a locked container in a locked bag inside a huge locked walk-in vault at the Los Alamos lab. This vault is about -- picture this: It's about 10 to 20 feet in size. To get in you have to have passwords and all kinds of clearances, there are censors in case there is an unauthorized breach of that lab. That said, apparently the lab doesn't require anyone who gets into the lab to sign out if they take anything from the lab. And that's what seems to have happened. This stuff disappeared, though it was noticed that it had disappeared on May 7.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, go back to when was it last seen from your reporting or from what you've been told? When were they actually last seen, and then go on to when they were found there.

BOB DROGIN: They were apparently last seen on April 7th, when there was an inventory in the vault, and then someone went in - two people went in on May 7th, a month later, to take them out, because a fire was about to run over the lab, and they wanted to get one of these kits out and get it out of harm's way.

MARGARET WARNER: Was it also -- I think today in the testimony they were suggesting that also they thought if there were a nuclear accident during the time or nuclear incident or terrorist incident during the time that the fires had the labs closed up, that they wanted to make sure they had the road map, right?

BOB DROGIN: That's correct.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay.

BOB DROGIN: So they went in just before midnight on May 7. They grabbed these things and suddenly discovered it wasn't there. So, they took another one of the kits and stored it somewhere else. The lab itself was closed until May 22 at which point they went back in and two days later launched their own search. For reasons that are still unclear and that have infuriated the Congress, they didn't tell the lab director apparently until much late later that month, and he did not notify the Secretary of Energy until June 1. He then -- the Energy Department then brought the FBI into the case and they have now launched a very large criminal investigation into this case.

MARGARET WARNER: Now you were actually also there during this period right as the fire was starting. Describe the atmosphere there.

BOB DROGIN: The lab itself is in a very rugged and very remote and very beautiful area. It is on the side of a mountain in Northern New Mexico and there are all of these volcanic fingers from come off the edge of a mesa and the fire - as we all know -- was started on May 4th as a controlled burn. As it approached the lab, it started obviously - sparked massive concern. They organized an evacuation in a remarkable spirit of cooperation. They got 12,000 people as I recall out of Los Alamos in about four hours. I don't think wecould have evacuated my office in that time frame, and without any fender benders or fist fights or all of rest of it, but people ran for their lives really from the lab and from the community and were in the allowed back in until more than two weeks later. There was quite a lot of damage at the lab. This fire forced them to evacuate a number of the buildings where they still had guards that ran over their command post. It caused a great deal of damage.

MARGARET WARNER: And then so the building that this vault was in was one of the buildings evacuated?

BOB DROGIN: Well, all of the buildings were evacuated except for their security guards and their emergency personnel. This vault is in the X Division. The wonderful name it is the nuclear weapons design center it's actually is my understanding when I was there it's kind of a yellow cinder brick hallway -- rather dingy on the third floor of the administration building at Los Alamos. There is a vault there, a waking vault where they apparently kept the hard drives.

MARGARET WARNER: And this is the same division that Wen Ho Lee worked in.

BOB DROGIN: That's correct. That's correct. There doesn't seem - obviously -- there isn't any connection, Wen Ho Lee was the scientist who was fired last March and arrested last December for downloading qualified information from the X. Division but he has been in jail since last December awaiting trial.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, today the Department of Energy officials were worked over pretty thoroughly at this congressional hearing which had actually been called before these reports came to light because there seem to be larger concerns. How does what came out today fit into what you understand about congressional concerns about this whole security issue?

BOB DROGIN: Well, the hearing today is the first of what are going to be a series of hot - white, hot kinds of hearings. I think there are three or four scheduled for tomorrow. Essentially what happened is the Wen Ho Lee case sparked enormous concern. There were allegations that there were Chinese spies essentially running rampant at the lab and its security was being ignored. Chinese espionage was never confirmed but the concern was real and Secretary -- I'm sorry Secretary Richardson promised that there would be zero tolerance for security infractions, so now you have this kind of incident.

MARGARET WARNER: And it seemed as if at today's hearing they felt that in general DOE hadn't responded quickly enough.

BOB DROGIN: Well, part of the concern was that DOE, itself, was not notified for three weeks after these hard drives were found to be missing.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you, Bob.

MARGARET WARNER: At this morning's hearing, the ranking democrat on the committee Congressman Bart Stupak questioned the procedures that governed access to these particular computer drives.

REP. BART STUPAK, (D) Michigan: I have to tell you, my hometown in Menomenee, Michigan, if I want to check out the library book at the public library, you have to have a library card and they make a record of it if you remove the book. If you keep the book too long, they send you a notice asking to you return it. Eventually they charge you a late fine. While most Americans would find it hard to believe that Menomenee Public Library has a more sophisticated tracking system for "Winnie the Pooh" than Los Alamos has for highly classified nuclear weapons data, that's exactly the situation we're faced with. Mr. Kern, a director of the Department's counter-intelligence office, is quoted as saying, "At this point there is no evidence that espionage is involved in this incident." How are we going to find out? Does Mr. Curran expect someone from Baghdad or Beijing to call and ask for a software update? Has anyone yet told you or anyone else that the disks were set down or misplayed and just can't remember where they were? You don't have any idea who was the last person who had access to the kit number two?

GEN. EUGENE HABIGER (Ret.), Department of Energy: Sir, there's no requirement to inventory the disk. As a matter of fact, because of changes in security policies across the entire government, there is very little requirement to inventory classified material.

REP. BART STUPAK: So if I get in the vault and I take kit number two, I don't have to sign it out or anything?

GEN. EUGENE HABIGER: No, sir.

REP. BART STUPAK: So my library book in Menomenee is more secure than these disks, once I get access, my hands on it?

GEN. EUGENE HABIGER: Sir, the individuals who have access to these kits are dedicated, loyal Americans.

REP. BART STUPAK: I don't dispute that, but you can't dispute we have two of them missing.

GEN. EUGENE HABIGER: Yes, sir.

MARGARET WARNER: And now to Edward Curran, chief of counter-intelligence at the Department of Energy. So, Mr. Curran, is Congressman Stupak right? I mean, does his local library have better procedures for tracking Winnie the Pooh than you have for knowing who is taking sensitive material in and out of these labs?

EDWARD CURRAN:I wouldn't agree with the description as it was just cited. I think Mr. Grogan in his opening statement indicated this vault where these computers are maintained is within an X. Division. There is a whole security process that you need to go through to get access to these. There is a -- in the vault sits a person. The point is that 26 people of this NEST team that has to respond or be able to or capable of responding to any possible nuclear emergency that happens in the United States or otherwise -- they have to have the data that is available to them to address that issue, to be able to dismantle a nuclear weapon or terrorist act -- whatever. You have so many number of people who have gone through background investigations, all kinds of testing, that have access to this type of material.

MARGARET WARNER: And these are the people who have what is called unescorted access, they can go in and out as they wish?

EDWARD CURRAN: There is a certain number of the team, I believe it's around 26, that have unescorted access. These are scientists who work in the X Division process itself who need access to the vault. The other members of the team have to be taken into the vault before they go in. The point being is that this equipment has to be available to them immediately if a situation occurred.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, what about the point that the Congressman raised in that General Habiger confirmed ore explained. Why is there no procedure for signing stuff in and out or for recording who has gone in and out and when?

EDWARD CURRAN: Well, the Secretary of Energy is obviously very upset with this too and I think the word is "enraged." We have put through many procedures during the past year and a half prior to Wen Ho Lee and after Wen Ho Lee. The first priority we have right now is try to find or locate these disks.

MARGARET WARNER: But I mean, what was the reason for the procedure? I don't want to put words in your mouth. But why wouldn't there be a sign in, sign out?

EDWARD CURRAN: Because these people have to have direct access. I mean, we're looking at that separately now. The first priority we have is to find the missing disks. The second priority, which the Secretary has, is to find accountability. What procedures were in place that were not followed; what procedures need to be in place. For instance, there is a procedure in place that we are to be notified within eight hours after a security incident. Obviously we weren't notified. That needs to be addressed. Our main concern working with the FBI at this point is to find out where these disks are. You have two major events that occurred around this missing disk time. You have the fire, which was a catastrophic event in Los Alamos, not only to the surroundings buildings but the people involved, the town was evacuated -- and you also had a training exercise that took place just a week before this with the NEST team. What we need do to determine first of all is -- is it missing or lost and that's what we're trying to do as of right now - the accountability is going to go.

MARGARET WARNER: Let's look at the stolen or lost, because that's another big issue, obviously. And you were quoted by the Congressman as being quoted in the "Times" saying you didn't have any evidence or you didn't feel there was evidence yet that it was espionage. Why do you come down on that side versus the fact that it might be --

EDWARD CURRAN: We're not ruling it out. You have to take one course or another at this point. What I'm saying is you have to look at the most obvious to begin with. That is the forest fire that had a tremendous impact on the people - and the training exercise before that. You look at the people who had access to this information, which is being done now who had the last possession of it - who updated it the last time - and from there we're going to go on. That's being done as we speak.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask and Bob Drogin described what was on these drives, but of what interest would it be or would it be -- let me repeat the question. Of what use would it be say to a foreign power or a terrorist to have these drives?

EDWARD CURRAN: There is nobody that is minimizing the information.

MARGARET WARNER: I'm asking a question.

EDWARD CURRAN: We're asking right now is for the -- we have asked the intelligence community to answer that question for us, if a particular country or a particular individual or terrorist group received this information what impact, what damage can that do. This is being done as we speak now right now. But our first review is to find these tapes.

MARGARET WARNER: One of your colleagues who was testifying today said to a congressman - he was asked how usable is the data on these - and he was asked - is it plug and play - and General Habiger said, yes. What does that mean?

EDWARD CURRAN: That means that the drives - that the information contained on these drives could be used in another computer; you could take these drives out and plug them into another computer.

MARGARET WARNER: You wouldn't need all these special codes to get to the information.

EDWARD CURRAN: Correct.

MARGARET WARNER: And so on. What have you all been told - and I know it's early in your investigation - but I'm just trying to understand this - about why there was this delay? There was one suggestion again at the hearing that the people who first discovered it - and saying - were kind of scrambling, hoping they could find it themselves and never have to get into telling higher ups. Do you -

EDWARD CURRAN: Whatever reason there is, it's inexcusable. The minute those tapes or drives were found missing, they are required to have reported that to us immediately. That was not done. The Secretary is looking into that; he's appointed former Senator Baker and Hamilton to do a complete administrative review of this. That is a significant point that we need to address. Why was there this delay in reporting this very sensitive and very legitimate problem to DOE?

MARGARET WARNER: Let me just go back to the possibility of them being lost. So you're saying there are scenarios under which one of these people might legitimately take these out?

EDWARD CURRAN: Absolutely.

MARGARET WARNER: And then, what, maybe forget they had or -

EDWARD CURRAN: Well, again - and I don't like to speculate on what it is, but it was -- it's not unusual for members of this team to take these drives out and update them and change the information on them. It also is not unusual for members of this team to have the exercises which we did have in Livermore a week before the fire and use these tapes and send them out. So, what we're trying to determine were they in Livermore, were they back in Sandia - but because the laboratory was closed down the next day, that investigation was not done. We're saying it should have been done at that time, and we should have been notified. The reason that the -- they identified it or positively identified the fact they were missing on April 7 is the fact they went in to the vault to remove them -- to put them in Sandia so if an emergency did occur, they would have access to it, because once that lab closed, you could not get back in there. All these issues are being addressed right now. We are very concerned; the Secretary is obviously very upset - with all the procedures we've put in placed during the past year and a half. And, as he says, there is going to be accountability for this.

MARGARET WARNER: And then finally, where are you in the sort of what I might call the "who dun it" phase of the investigation in terms of how many people have been interviewed and so on?

EDWARD CURRAN: I don't want to go into expect details. When DOE was notified, we immediately brought in the FBI. The FBI was extremely cooperative with us; they provided us all the resources. It was a joint effort as of two days after we started this thing. We are interviewing all the employees -- the employees that have access to this information, polygraphs are going to be initiated very soon here -- and hopefully by the end of the week we'll have a better direction of where we're going on this. I've never ruled out espionage. All I'm saying is you have to look at the most obvious leaks first.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thanks, Mr. Edward Curran and good luck.

FINALLY - IN MEMORIAM

MARGARET WARNER: Two renowned American artists, Jacob Lawrence and George Segal, died last Friday night. We begin a two-part remembrance tonight. First, Jacob Lawrence, considered one of the century's great American painters. Here's a report and interview by former NewsHour correspondent Charlayne Hunter-Gault that was broadcast in 1995.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jacob Lawrence's canvases are mostly small panels, but they explode with images larger than life, images of everyday life in the black community, expressed in brilliant colors, in his distinctive cubist-expressionist style. Works like "Pool Parlor," "Bar and Grill," "Funeral Service." In his artistic repertoire of the past 50 years are drawings, prints, book illustrations, and large murals. Jacob Lawrence was born in 1917, in Atlantic City. His mother, a single parent with three other children, tried to support them by doing domestic work, but was often on welfare. The family lived in Philadelphia for a few years, before finally moving to Harlem when Lawrence was about 13 years old. It was the 1930's, in the midst of the Great Depression and the tail end of the dynamic literary and artistic period known as the Harlem Renaissance. The young Lawrence absorbed the influences of economic hard times and a burgeoning black consciousness. Lawrence was inspired by his first mentor, artist Charles Alston, and the sculptor and painter Augustus Savage. Also, Romaire Beardon and another budding young artist, Gwendolyn Knight, whom he later married. It was during this time that Lawrence began spending long hours in places like Harlem's Chambourg Library, diligently researching the epic struggles of the heroes and she-roes of the black community. The results, painstakingly depicted in each brush stroke, earned Lawrence a unique place in black history, and the title "History Painter." The first of Lawrence's history paintings was done in 1937, a sequence of panels chronicling the late 18th century liberator of Haiti, Toussaint L'Ouverture. In the series, Lawrence was to establish the pattern of not using titles for his work, but numbers accompanied by simple sentences to help tell the dramatic story he was portraying. For example, number ten of the series is called "The Cruelty of the Planters Towards the Slaves Drove the Slaves to Revolt, 1776." Black American Liberators followed next. A Frederick Douglas series of 32 panels followed in 1938; then, a Harriet Tubman series of 31 panels in 1939. But the first of Lawrence's series to be featured in a major downtown exhibition was "Migration," 60 panels completed in 1941, when Lawrence was 23 years old. It's a story of the black exodus from the South to the North after World War I, and it too followed the now-familiar pattern. The line accompanying this painting was "They Were Very Poor." Critics have called the "Migration" series Lawrence's greatest achievement, establishing him as the pictorial griot of his own African American community, griot being the African word for the village storyteller who passes on the history and tradition of his people.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Your series about the great migration has been called by critics one of your greatest achievements, and yet you grew up in the North. What inspired your interest in the great migration?

JACOB LAWRENCE, Artist; Because we were part of that -- my family, it was part of that. So many people of my age, we were born in the North, but our roots were southern because of our parents, the peers of our parents, our customs, mores, were all southern. I... my first trip into the South was after I completed this series.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After?

JACOB LAWRENCE: I'd never been South before.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: What do you want the audience to experience, looking at this series?

JACOB LAWRENCE: The... I'd like them to experience the beauty of life, the struggle, how people can overcome certain things that could be very frustrating or very demeaning. And people have the capacity to overcome these obstacles by various means, and this is an example of that. And I'd like the people to look, feel, "look, this is me. This is mankind or womankind." And I'm talking about people in general, and I would like it to be a universal statement. That's how I feel.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: How available was the art world to blacks during those years?

JACOB LAWRENCE: It had been closed. And this was true for artists in general. The art world is a very elitist world. One did not just go into galleries... you could go into galleries, you could into the museums, but you didn't feel that you were welcome. Physically you could go in, but you weren't going to be a patron, you weren't going to buy works of art.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: You just went to see.

JACOB LAWRENCE: Yeah, you just went to see.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: I read once that you used to walk 60 blocks from Harlem to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, just to see.

JACOB LAWRENCE: That's right.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: What story or experience would you like next to capture on canvas?

JACOB LAWRENCE: You know, for a number of years I've been working on, periodically, the theme of the builders. I like tools. It's not a series, because it's not a narrative form, of people working with tools, and using this as a symbol or metaphor for building as a symbol of that. And I'd like to continue that. I don't have any special stories now I can tell, or that I'm thinking of.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: But why is building important?

JACOB LAWRENCE: Well, to me it's a symbol of progress. It's a symbol of hope, on various levels, where you look at it. It's a symbol of our... again, our capacity, the human capacity to build, to not tear down. I guess all animals have this, more or less. And we are animals. The beaver builds, the cat builds. It seems like every living thing builds. And I think it's a beautiful symbol.

MARGARET WARNER: Tomorrow we'll have our remembrance of artist George Segal.

RECAP

MARGARET WARNER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday: The leaders of North and South Korea held their first summit since Korea was divided more than 50 years ago. The Energy Department faced questions about the disappearance of two highly classified computer hard drives from Los Alamos National Laboratory and a federal appeals court agreed to hear Microsoft's feelings on a breakup. The Justice Department said it still wants the case sent directly to the Supreme Court. We'll see you on-line, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Margaret Warner. Thanks for being with us, good night.