The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the U.S. decision to join an international rescue mission to Central Africa, two views of how to avoid midair collisions like the big one in India, a Hedrick Smith report on Republican Revolution survivors, and a conversation with a man from East Timor who won the Nobel Peace Prize. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton agreed in principle today to send U.S. troops to Zaire. They will take food and medicine to starving Hutu refugees and help create safe passage for their return to Rwanda. White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said the U.S. will participate in a limited fashion in a multinational mission. He said about 4,000 U.S. ground troops would be involved. At a briefing, he outlined the conditions President Clinton has imposed.

MIKE McCURRY, White House Press Secretary: The mission of the force would have to be very clearly defined. The mission of the force would be both to facilitate a delivery of humanitarian aid by civilian relief organizations and to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of refugees by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. There is an extraordinary amount of very courageous work being done by non-governmental organizations and others currently addressing the very desperate humanitarian situation that over a million refugees now face in the area. The principal goal is to assist them in their work and to make sure, and they can conduct their operations in a safe manner. There is also simultaneously a need to work with UNHCR to ensure that those who have fled Rwanda can voluntarily repatriate themselves to their homes. In saying that, I would also say that the mission of this force would not be to disarm militants, to conduct any type of forced entry, or to police some of the operations in the refugee camps that have now been established in the border region.

MR. LEHRER: Canada has offered to lead the mission. The operation will be under the auspices of the United Nations, but McCurry said U.S. troops would remain under U.S. command. In London, British Foreign Minister Malcolm Rifkind said the United Kingdom would also join the multinational force.

MALCOLM RIFKIND, British Foreign Minister: We believe that that effort should be an urgent response. We will be part of that urgent response. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about some of the wider issues that will be facing any international effort, but that should not be a cause of delay, and we will be discussing with our partners how to take this forward.

MR. LEHRER: And in Zaire today, the distribution of meager rations was interrupted by hungry refugees and shelling. We have more in this report by Lindsey Taylor Independent Television News.

LINDSEY TAYLOR: Food riots again today in Goma, underlining the urgency of calls for an international force to try to help bring some order and help provide security for the proper distribution of relief supplies to those most needing them. But the need for some sort of protection for the humanitarian operation was reinforced this morning when the distribution of aid, the first for several days, was interrupted by shells landing in Goma. Aid workers eventually had to abandon the distribution.

DAMIEN PERSONNAZ, UN Field Officer: Just about three minutes ago we just had a major shell. It just go there--about a hundred meters from here--so, you know, the security is not very sure yet, and it's not going to be an easy situation.

MR. TAYLOR: But with tonight's confirmation that a multinational force will be dispatched to Zaire, then perhaps aid distribution will begin in earnest, and supplies may reach the refugees most needing them. So far, they remain largely cut off from help.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. On the midair collision in India, flight controllers alerted the Kazak cargo plane yesterday it was headed for a Saudi Jumbo jet just before the two collided. Officials are bringing that information today from the flight data recorder boxes salvaged from the crash site near New Delhi. Investigators got a first look at the wreckage today. Crowds gathered to watch crews search through smouldering remains. Three hundred and forty-nine people aboard the two planes were killed. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Stress still appears to be a likely cause of the ailments known as Gulf War Syndrome. That finding was announced today at a hearing held by the Presidential Advisory Commission investigating Gulf War illnesses. Commission members heard testimony from Dr. Stephen Joseph, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. He's the Pentagon's lead researcher on the mysterious symptoms found among Gulf War Veterans.

DR. STEPHEN JOSEPH, Department of Defense: There has been a kind of false--I think in all our understandings--false view that to the extent that we talk about stress and psychological ailments as an important part--not as an explanation--but as an important part of this issue, that somehow we are--we collectively are downplaying it or pushing it aside. Stress-related illness and stress-related symptoms are as valid, as important, as real, and as worthy of effort as any other kind of symptoms in any other kind of illness.

MR. LEHRER: Despite his preliminary findings, the presidential panel still wants the Pentagon to continue investigating whether soldiers were exposed to chemical weapons. A CIA witness told the panel today there was only one major instance of such exposure during and after the Gulf War. Defense Secretary Perry ordered all three branches of the military to investigate training programs for possible sexual harassment. Pentagon Spokesman Kenneth Bacon said the move was precautionary. It followed reports of rape and misconduct at three army training posts. At Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, today, an army drill sergeant was sentenced to five months in prison and given a bad conduct discharge for having sex with three female recruits. Staff Sgt. Loren Taylor pleaded guilty to the charges yesterday. The Federal Reserve did not raise short- term interest rates at its regular meeting today. No reason was given for the decision, but it was seen as a sign the Fed believes inflation is not a threat to the economy right now. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the crisis in Zaire, midair collisions, Republican Revolution survival, and a man from East Timor. FOCUS - RESCUE MISSION

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight to the announcement. The U.S. will participate in an international rescue mission to Central Africa. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the story.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The announcement of the U.S. decision to participate in principle came after days of consultation with other countries. For more, we go to Susan Rice, the senior director for African Affairs on the National Security Council staff. She joins us from the Old Executive Office Building. Thank you, Dr. Rice, for joining us. What exactly did the United States commit to today?

SUSAN RICE, National Security Council Staff: [Washington, D.C.] Well, the United States said that it was prepared in principle to play an important role in enabling this mission to get off the ground. We will provide airlift. We will provide an air control element, ground security, and protection for a limited corridor from the town of Goma to the border in Rwanda. Um, these leverage unique U.S. capabilities, and we are hopeful that with this contribution and that of others, that a mission can get off the ground as quickly as possible.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now, when you say in principle, what exactly does that mean?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, that means that we are prepared to go forward, provided that we can reach agreement with other countries on the precise mission, uh, on the composition of the force that we have the agreement of the countries in the region, which is, of course, essential, and that, uh, we're satisfied that the circumstances on the ground enable deployment of the sort of mission that we are all contemplating.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So none of those three key elements have been worked out?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, there have been extensive conversations with the Canadian partners and many others over the last several days, and we're confident that in the next day or two that many of those issues will be formally agreed, but the UN Security Council will have to act. It will have to, uh, decide the mission to the satisfaction of the participants in the force. I think that will happen, but obviously, one can't go forward without a clear understanding of what the mission is and, uh, whether it can be achieved.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How long do you think this is going to take to get this resolution?

DR. SUSAN RICE: That is being worked as we speak in New York, and I am hopeful that it'll be resolved in the next day or two.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is the most difficult of those things you just laid out in terms of what has to get resolved before you go forward?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, there are several things, Charlayne. The first instance, obviously, there's been some discussions among countries that are considering participating about the mission, whether, for instance, it would be simply the provision of humanitarian relief, or whether it would also include a--a component that would involve trying to encourage the voluntary repatriation of many of the refugees that are in Zaire.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And where does the U.S. stand on that?

DR. SUSAN RICE: We feel very strongly that both elements are essential, and we're confident that that will be the view taken in New York by other member states, but that has required some working through. It hasn't been clear cut from the outside.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Because the refugees, many of them are afraid to return for fear of reprisals, right? I mean, most of the refugees are Hutus who committed acts of--some of whom committed acts of genocide in Rwanda, right, and they're afraid to go back?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, I think there's certainly a clear element of fear, although many Rwandans have--Rwandan Hutus have returned safely to Rwanda over the last couple of years, but there's also the fact that there is a leadership in these camps that are the former armed forces of Rwanda and militias that have been very violent in--in their intimidation of the refugees and prevented them from going home.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And so, I mean, would that be a part of the mission, to separate the refugees from the militias?

DR. SUSAN RICE: No. There will be no physical separation of the refugees from them, nor any forced repatriation. That would violate a variety of international conventions, but we think that the current situation creates a climate in which the political hold of the leadership on these refugees may be weakened, and with the careful provision of food and other forms of assistance, and the creation of appropriate conditions by the government of Rwanda inside Rwanda, which they are taking steps to create, that an environment can be established where the circumstances will be right for a number of the refugees to go home. That's certainly our hope.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now, explain the situation in terms of the command situation that the Canadians are in overall charge, that the U.S. will have its own command situation.

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, Canada will lead the force, and, uh, contribute the force commander. U.S. forces, as is always the case in any mission, anywhere in the world, remain under U.S. command and control under the command of the commander-in-chief, however, has been a case in many instances from the Revolutionary War to the Gulf War. On occasion, U.S. forces have been under the temporary operational control of competent foreign commanders.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What does that mean?

DR. SUSAN RICE: That means that they are--they take their immediate instructions consistent with the mission from that foreign commander, but overall, all the time, always remain under national command. In this case, in the case of Canada, which is a strong NATO ally, with which we have very close military to military ties, we are fully confident that the command arrangements will be, uh, very satisfactory. And so we see no problem in this case.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And the U.S. force is--is considering a force of about 4,000?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, the precise numbers haven't been worked out, Charlayne, but the--there will be a substantial number of--of U.S. forces that we anticipate will be in the region in other countries, creating what we call the air bridge, the airlift operation, which needs to have multiple hubs, and then, of course, there will be our component on the ground, in the Goma area. We don't have a precise estimate of the numbers, but we anticipate perhaps in the neighborhood of about a thousand.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And that's based on a total of what, about 20,000 from the various other countries?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, the force size remains to be seen. We anticipate more likely in the range of at least ten thousand. Twenty thousand would be probably more than is necessary or contemplated.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you assess the risk to the troops? I mean, the Goma area has been highly volatile, highly charged with fighting with the militia within the regular army, then this one and that one and the other one. How do you assess the risk to troops that are going to be in that area like the U.S. troops you just described?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, that's--that's a key question, and that is why we have sent out in advance, two days ago, a military assessment team, as we always do before we deploy U.S. forces. It's also one of the reasons why it's important to--to stress that this is a decision in principle. We're going to have to look and assess directly, eyeball-to-eyeball, that environment, and make a final decision accordingly.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think the greatest dangers are? Do you think that--that--well, just what do you think they are?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, this is largely a humanitarian mission. I think it is likely to be viewed as such by the countries in the region, and, in fact, the party's on the ground, and so we are hopeful that it will be--be quite possible to get in quickly, do a humanitarian mission, facilitate voluntary repatriation, to get out very quickly as well, we hope in the range of about four months time.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And as you said, or as I said, it's been a highly volatile area. What are the rules of engagement if, you know, some kind of conflict should erupt?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, the rules of engagement will be robust. Uh, this is what is known--this will be what is known as a Chapter 7 UN mission. That means that the force has all of the authority that it could possibly need to protect itself and its mission. That will involve the use of force, if necessary, and we will not be shy about protecting ourselves or defending the mission.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Will the U.S. be involved in a parallel--or anybody else--in a parallel tract of peacemaking at the same time, or is it just strictly humanitarian, get the people fed?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Charlayne, ongoing for many months, and this will continue--have been very active diplomatic efforts on the part of the United States and many others. We have been very much engaged with the governments of Zaire and Rwanda and others in the region that--to deal with what are the root causes of this problem, and that's going to continue. The fact that we are engaged or may be engaged in a humanitarian mission over the next several months, in our judgment, only increases the urgency of trying to forge a diplomatic solution to a long-term problem.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Very briefly, why did it take the U.S. so long to make this commitment to get involved?

DR. SUSAN RICE: Well, I think one needs to look at this very carefully. I'm not sure that it's fair to say that it's taken us that long. We have been very concerned to move as quickly as possible. On the other hand, this is a very serious undertaking, and it's essential that we do it right.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Susan--

DR. SUSAN RICE: We've learned from past experience and in other peace operations we've learned some valuable lessons, and we thought it essential to apply those lessons and do everything possible to get it right and get it done quickly.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Susan Rice, thank you.

DR. SUSAN RICE: Thank you. FOCUS - COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?

MR. LEHRER: Now the largest midair collision in history. It happened yesterday near the New Delhi airport between a Saudi Arabian airliner and another operated by a Kazak airline. All on board the two planes, some 349 people, were killed. We begin with this update by Kwame Holman.

MR. HOLMAN: The Saudi airline's Boeing 747 had just taken off from New Delhi airport, a Kazak Ilyushin 76 cargo plane was about to land--the two collided apparently at about 13,000 feet. Today, Indian authorities released a transcript of the final conversation between air traffic controllers and the two planes. The Kazak pilot says, "Good evening, 74 miles from Delhi." Ground control answers, "Descend 150," meaning 15,000 feet, "report reaching." The Kazak pilot responds, "150." Then the Saudi pilot is heard saying, "Approaching 100," meaning 10,000 feet. Ground control clears the Saudi pilot to 14,000 feet. Ground control tells the Saudi pilot to maintain 14,000 feet and stand by for a higher altitude. Controllers then ask the Kazak pilot for his distance from the airport. The Kazak pilot responds he is 46 miles away. Then ground control tells the Kazak pilot that the Saudi 747 is 14 miles away. "Report when in sight," the pilot is told. The Kazak pilot asks, "How many miles?". Ground control repeats, "14 miles now." The Kazak pilot says, "Roger, 1907," his flight number. Ground control says, "Traffic," meaning the Saudi jet is 13 miles at 14,000 feet. The Kazak pilot answers, "1907." Then nothing more is heard. At a press conference today in New Delhi, an Indian official said the pilots seemed to be aware of each other.

C.M. ABRAHIM, Indian Aviation Minister: Both the planes were aware of each other's approach, especially the Kazakhstan airline. It asked question on what is the distance now between us.

MR. HOLMAN: Investigators searched amid widespread debris for remains and pieces of the two planes. The so-called "black boxes" were recovered, and it is hoped the flight data they contain can provide further clues into the cause of the crash.

MR. LEHRER: Now two perspectives on midair collisions. Jim Burnett is the former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. He's now a practicing attorney and transportation safety consultant in Little Rock. Michael Goldfarb is a former FAA chief of staff. He now runs an aviation consulting firm. First on the India crash, how do you interpret that exchange, Mr. Goldfarb, that Kwame Holman just read to us?

MICHAEL GOLDFARB, Former FAA Chief of Staff: Incomplete. Normally, in congested air space, when planes are that close together, the ground controller provides the same instructions to both sets of pilots. And from the transcript we saw, it was unclear whether both planes knew where they were. When you couple that with the fact that the ground radar didn't have the kind of modern sensors needed for the ground controller to understand where both planes were in the air space, you're creating a situation that raises questions, both about the communication and the role of the equipment in providing the final moments of flight.

MR. LEHRER: But just listening to that, or just reading that, did it say to you, hey, these planes are on a collision course?

MR. GOLDFARB: It doesn't say that, but, let's remember, in that region we have the fastest-growing air space in the world, the Indian air space, with 700 flights a day coming from the Pacific region to Europe. That airport alone--

MR. LEHRER: And how does that compare say with JFK or Chicago or- -

MR. GOLDFARB: It doesn't compare, but it compares in contrast to where they were. Several years ago, they only had 100 flights a day--a week or--I believe it was a week. The airport alone has tripled the amount of air traffic. When you have that kind of congestion, that kind of growth in your traffic and you don't have that modern aviation infrastructure, modern radars, you don't have modern navigates, you're setting up conditions on the marketing of- -

MR. LEHRER: Navigates mean navigation--

MR. GOLDFARB: Navigation equipment, sensors that tell planes where they are. So all those factors together create a condition where it makes it incumbent that the communication between pilot and controller is crisp and clear and unequivocal.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Burnett, you want to add or subtract anything from that on the New Delhi thing?

JIM BURNETT, Former NTSB Chairman: [Little Rock, Arkansas]

MR. BURNETT: Well, there was a broadcast to the Kazak plane that they were--that traffic was 12 o'clock reciprocal, and I think that--

MR. LEHRER: What does that mean? What does that mean?

MR. BURNETT: I interpret that--and I don't know that I've seen that language before--but I think it indicates that they were head on to each other. They probably--they were not advised, however, of the altitude of the oncoming plane. So I'm not sure that the pilots realized the criticality in the situation.

MR. LEHRER: And they were not advised because maybe the control tower did not know what their altitudes were?

MR. BURNETT: That's part of the problem is apparently there was no capability to display transponder data on the radar that the-- that the air controllers were using. At least, that's the information that's coming out of India.

MR. LEHRER: We don't know yet obviously what happened in that particular case, but based on your past investigations, Mr. Burnett, and the fact that they did have the black boxes and the data recorders and the type of airplanes these were and there-- there--the equipment that's aboard them, do you think that we will eventually find out what caused these two planes to crash into each other?

MR. BURNETT: Oh, I'm certain. I think there will be some debates over what factors were most important. Clearly, we already have an issue here of the capability of the equipment--of the air traffic control equipment--the radar, and about the procedures in an airport that had this heavy a traffic level.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Do you agree, Mr. Goldfarb, we will find out?

MR. GOLDFARB: Absolutely. I think we'll find out in relatively short order, unlike some other crashes where it really takes many, many months to find out. We have to be careful about the speculation about what caused the crash, but I think it's the combination of factors--the equipment, the people, the procedures, the language conditions. You know, the pilots talk their native language in flight and only when they talk to ground control do they talk in English in this case. Lots of issues around pilots, how well they understood the instructions, were those instructions metric, were they in feet, those kind of things will come out in the investigation.

MR. LEHRER: English is the international language of airport control, is that right?

MR. GOLDFARB: That's correct.

MR. LEHRER: And everybody has to speak that language.

MR. GOLDFARB: Right. We had an example in the United States. I believe Mr. Burnett was at the board at that time, or maybe not, when Avianca in New York ran out of fuel, and the crew was talking in, I believe, in Spanish and was not communicating to the ground control in precise enough language in English to understand the requirements. So these are growing problems around the world when you have such an increase in air traffic.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Mr. Burnett, that the language problem is a problem?

MR. BURNETT: It is a problem, and it is a problem not only in India but around the world. And part of the problem is that in a crisis people tend to revert to the--to their native language, so that you have controllers who may speak Portuguese instead of English, or in this case, you could have had five or six languages involved, putting a communications problem. There's nothing on the transcript that suggests that, although I--

MR. LEHRER: In other words you had--you had a Kazak pilot and co- pilot in one plane. You had Saudis in another plane. You had Indians on the ground, and who--and then you had all kinds of other folks who could have been involved--flight controllers--

MR. BURNETT: The controllers may have had--their native languages may have been the same or different--

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. BURNETT: And that could be also true of the Kazak pilots.

MR. LEHRER: Sure. Well, Mr. Burnett, let me ask you this more general question. For those who fly more in the United States than they do internationally, particularly in and out of the New Delhi airport, the immediate question that came to mind when this news came to people who were on their way to airports say to get on airplanes--including me--I happened to be one of them yesterday, and I heard it on a car radio--that these two planes had collided- -what is the situation in this country in terms of preventing this kind of thing? What kind of systems do we have in place?

MR. BURNETT: Well, we have a very good record. The Indian record is not enviable in terms of overall aviation safety. We do have a good record in this country, but we--we--there have been times when we could say that we've had ten recent near-misses in this country. So it's a matter of maintaining vigilance. I think progress is being made in advancing the level of technology within our air traffic control system, which is not what it should be. But it's- -we have not gone as far as was expected at this date, and some reforms that are being made at the Federal Aviation Administration are designed to, in fact, make it possible to implement technological reform more rapidly.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Goldfarb, explain in language that we can all understand, that if a similar situation had--had occurred at a large American airport, comparable size American airport--would there be equipment or procedures in effect that could have-- that might have prevented this from happening?

MR. GOLDFARB: Well, first of all, the separation standards are universal. They're worldwide, so the thousand feet vertical separation, the five miles on trail in that kind of air space are followed around the world. In the U.S., in most of our major facilities, I think Mr. Burnett's right, we have improvements to continue. We have modern--modern radars that will provide positive control anywhere in the United States in the entire air space, and that means that there are sensors that provide precise readings. There's very well trained air traffic controllers. There's been a lot of concern--do we have enough? We have a very well trained traffic controller force, and so we have margins of safety built in--in the equipment, in the training, and in the procedures. But I must tell you that given the budget problems that both--that the United States and other civil aviation authorities are facing, the question is, can we safely handle the traffic growth? And I think around the world we're seeing those pressures. In the United States we do not let more airplanes into the air space in New York, for example, than we can safely handle from a capacity standpoint in terms of how many planes can a controller handle. That means, as traffic grows, you'll experience delays at LaGuardia. You'll be held on the ground at JFK. You'll be held on the ground in National Airport before you'll be put in the air space in unsafe conditions, so we have the safety margins built in, but we need to modernize and upgrade, and there's, quite frankly, not enough money to do that.

MR. LEHRER: But would you agree, Mr. Burnett, that the problem is more of a capacity problem than it is a technology problem now potentially?

MR. BURNETT: Well, it's both. I think until we can make technological advances that will increase capacity, we have to be very careful. I certainly agree with Michael on this, that the safety of the system is based on our ability to control the--the amount of traffic in the system and to limit it to levels that can be handled. But that is--that's a much more difficult thing to do than it is to say, because the pressures from the airline community and from passengers who want to be able to fly where they want to, when they want to, and not to have delays caused by air traffic problems. So the FAA has to maintain discipline as far as letting too much traffic into the system at any given time or point.

MR. LEHRER: Someone suggested today, Mr. Burnett, that all midair collisions are the result of human error, just ipso facto, as they say in the legal business. Would you agree?

MR. BURNETT: Well, I think there must be systems in place to keep them from happening. The question is, is it human error? I don't think you can necessarily say at this point in our analysis of this accident that it's necessarily that some individual failed to do his job on this particular day. It may be systemic. It may be that the system was not properly designed to accommodate the-- the traffic they had and at some point it was going to result in--in some sort of tragic failure. We can't point that to any individual. It's a policy issue.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Gentlemen, thank you both very much. UPDATE - SURVIVING THE REVOLUTION

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Republican Class of '94 and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Special Correspondent Hedrick Smith has the Republican story.

HEDRICK SMITH: One week ago, the voters re-elected 57 Republican freshmen to a second term of office. One got elected to the Senate, fifteen others are gone, either they lost or they quit, but in this once brash revolutionary class, more than the numbers have changed. There's been a significant shift in mood and in where the class is headed.

REP. RICK WHITE, [R] Washington: I don't think we'll have the same chutzpah that we had last time--you know, we've been there two years--we're going to be a little bit more measured, a little bit more cautious, perhaps--

REP. MARK FOLEY, [R] Florida: I don't think it's going to be this lockstep, this army marching after the leader, saying, we'll do whatever you want, Newt. It'll be a much more independent voice saying, hey, wait a minute, I'll go with you on some of these things, but don't count on me on the whole, whole agenda.

REP. RANDY TATE, [R] Washington: I think there needs to be more bipartisanship. There needs to be more of an effort to work together instead of just see them as a number, or just, hey, that's folks from the other party.

HEDRICK SMITH: Two years ago, the Class of 1994 rode into Washington as the vanguard of a political revolution and quickly made its mark. It was a class of firebrands and upstart neophytes passionately committed to the dream of toppling the old political order and dramatically shrinking the federal government. Over the past two years, the Class of '94 has changed greatly--reshaped by its bruising encounter with the hard realities of American politics. This is the story of the greening of the Class of '94. When these freshmen arrived, they were unlike anything Washington had seen before--more partisan, more ideological, far more united.

REP. ROGER WICKER, [R] Mississippi: We came to the nation's capital January 4th determined to turn this nation around.

REP. ZACH WAMP, [R] Tennessee: There was a sense of destiny about it. We were brought here together for a purpose. A lot of people that had never severed in elected office--fewer lawyers, more real business people from the heart of America, sent here with that common mission.

REP. JOE SCARBOROUGH, [R] Florida: It's pathetic. It's the way Washington worked in the past. And it's why we're here to make a difference.

REP. SAM BROWNBACK, [R] Kansas: You've wandered for forty years, and finally you're moving in. And it was just this huge sense of exhilaration.

HEDRICK SMITH: In the first 100 days, the freshmen happily enlisted as the shock troops of Speaker Newt Gingrich's political army--helping to pass nine out of ten items in the Contract with America. When more experienced politicians hesitated, the freshmen tried to stamped them into action.

REP. ZACH WAMP: The people spoke clearly last year. They believe they've been over-regulated, over-taxed and over-litigated. And I rise in grave concern tonight.

HEDRICK SMITH: They called not only for curbing the power of federal agencies but for shutting down entire cabinet departments.

REP. SAM BROWNBACK: Agencies such as the Department of Commerce and Energy, HUD, and Education. This is an absolute need.

REP. MARK FOLEY: This class knew from Day 1 they could be players, and that we could, if we stayed together, force our party to go along with our intentions, rather than be told how to vote and how to act.

HEDRICK SMITH: With the braze self-confidence typical of his class, freshman Zach Wamp of Tennessee boasted to the New York Times, "The freshmen are the purest, most worthy group of leaders elected to this body in my lifetime."

REP. HENRY HYDE, [R] Illinois: That sounds like a living, breathing definition of hubris.

HEDRICK SMITH: Republican veterans like Henry Hyde of Illinois watched with growing concern that freshman cockiness and aggressiveness spelled trouble for Republicans.

REP. HENRY HYDE: I think if you've knocked around a little bit, you've had your victories and your defeats, your triumphs, and your disappointments, you're more modest.

HEDRICK SMITH: In fact, over-confidence proved an Achilles heel for the freshmen in the biggest political battle of their first year--over what Republicans saw as their crowning achievement-- their plan for balancing the budget in seven years.

REP. RICK WHITE: The budget process was kind of the apotheosis of everything we tried to do during our first year. You know, this was a very important thing. We felt that our entire agenda was wrapped up in this one particular bill. We kind of had this, in retrospect, kind of false sense of confidence that somehow, some way we'd get President Clinton to sign it.

SEN. BOB DOLE: It's truly a historic document. It's actually going to balance America's budget.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: For the first time in a generation, a Congress has sent to the President a balanced budget--

HEDRICK SMITH: But when President Clinton rejected their package, Republican leaders forced a government shutdown, to build pressure on the President to sign the Republican budget. For the freshmen, what began as a tactic became a holy crusade.

REP. ANDREA SEASTRAND, [R] California: [December 1995] It's obvious the President doesn't know what the Americans want. So I'll tell him. The American people want a balanced budget, and they want it now.

HEDRICK SMITH: After several weeks of deadlock, Gingrich and Senate Leader Bob Dole saw their public support slipping away, and so they agreed with Clinton to reopen the government, without realizing a balanced budget. But freshmen militants brooked no compromise. They torpedoed the deal. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Today, the most extreme members of the House of Representatives rejected that agreement. I won't yield to these threats. We should reopen the government now.

REP. LINDSEY GRAHAM, [R] South Carolina: We're not going to go anywhere, and the blame lies on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and nowhere else.

REP. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, [R] New York: I think, in a sense, the Speaker created a monster.

HEDRICK SMITH: Senior Republicans like New York State's Sherry Boehlert saw Gingrich's tactics with the freshmen backfiring.

REP. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT: He effectively used the freshman class in dealing with the White House by saying--or the Senate too--I can't do such-and-such because the freshmen are just united, and they won't let me do it. So by the end, they were able to sort of turn that around and force things on the Speaker that maybe he didn't want.

HEDRICK SMITH: In one stormy confrontation in a little antechamber off the Ways & Means Committee room, a group of freshmen cornered Gingrich.

REP. RICK WHITE: It was one of these moments that you know I'll remember for a long time--you had about 20 freshmen and Newt Gingrich just absolutely duking it out on, uh, what the approach was. And basically the freshmen were saying, Newt, don't sell us out. Hang in there. Don't give in an inch.

HEDRICK SMITH: But Gingrich had another problem, Republican unity was fraying on his moderate flank, he pleaded for Republicans to stay together.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: A years' work has put us in a strategic position where they can't beat us now, unless we beat ourselves. And if you'll stick with us, we will not beat ourselves.

DEMONSTRATORS: One, two, three, four--Boot Newt!

HEDRICK SMITH: Home for Christmas, moderates found a growing public backlash against the Republicans over the government shutdown. When they got back to Washington, 51 Republican moderates, including freshmen like Mark Foley of Florida, pushed to reopen the government.

REP. MARK FOLEY: Nobody likes government to be in this kind of chaos. It's still gridlock, no matter whose fault it is.

HEDRICK SMITH: Are you saying that the confrontation strategy itself was kind of wrong in conception, it's a wrong way to go?

REP. MARK FOLEY: I don't think confrontation in and of itself is bad, but you have to decide who you're having the confrontation with. We were having it with the American public. We're supposed to be having it with the White House and the Democrat. But all of a sudden we broke out in a war with the people. We were fighting our won constituents.

HEDRICK SMITH: Still militants like freshman Mark Neumann of Wisconsin held out against what they saw as caving in to the President.

REP. MARK NEUMANN, [R] Wisconsin: There is a huge amount of pressure at this point in tome to fold under this thing and to give up what we came here to do, and I think the freshmen in particular have come here basically with a one-track mind, and that's get a balanced budget using real numbers.

HEDRICK SMITH: With his party dangerously divided, Gingrich saw no choice but to reopen the government, and he forced that strategy through the House. It was a painful defeat that left some chastened freshmen talking like the party veterans whom they had once mocked.

REP. ZACH WAMP: One good thing about every now and then being knocked down is it keeps you humble, and that--the struggles that we experienced during those three months, I'll guarantee you, taught every one of us a lesson; don't beat your chest in this business.

HEDRICK SMITH: And Speaker Gingrich, once the freshman hero, became the target of their dismay.

REP. GINGRICH: It's a little bit like a marriage. You, you initially have very high expectations for the honeymoon and then about the third time you're cleaning the House and you're looking at your bank account, you wonder, did the--you know, this is not all totally perfect.

REP. MARK FOLEY: You can't necessarily follow the leadership on every issue if you want to truly represent your constituents.

HEDRICK SMITH: And survive.

REP. MARK FOLEY: And survive. And survival is what this is all about.

HEDRICK SMITH: In their battle for survival this fall, class solidarity gave way to every member for himself. The tougher the election, the more the freshmen played down the Republican Revolution and their loyalty to Gingrich, and wherever they could, they played up their own political independence. During a debate in a heavily labor district around Erie, Pennsylvania, freshman Phil English eagerly trumped his vote to raise the minimum wage.

REP. PHIL ENGLISH: And that's why I broke with my part leadership to fight to raise the minimum wage. It was something we needed to do for working families in Northwestern Pennsylvania. It was long overdue.

HEDRICK SMITH: In an environmentally sensitive district in the Pacific Northwest, Rick White made an issue of his moderation on the environment to the editorial board of the Seattle Times.

REP. RICK WHITE: And starting on May 16th and continuing with the environmental riders, you know, where they wanted to zero out 17 environmental programs in a big budget bill, I voted against that three times.

HEDRICK SMITH: To Mark Foley, the key to re-election was putting local priorities ahead of Republican unity.

REP. MARK FOLEY: I came here and followed the leadership on several EPA riders that had turned out to be disastrous in my district. People were offended that I would approach environmental regulation with such an overkill, if you.

HEDRICK SMITH: That flexibility and pragmatism saved 57 freshmen, including Foley.

REP. MARK FOLEY: If you pay attention, focus on what matters to them, you, in fact, will be re-elected by wide margins.

HEDRICK SMITH: But 13 others did not move far enough, fast enough to satisfy their voters. Some like Jim Longley in Maine and Dick Chrysler in Michigan were beaten, in part, by a massive media campaign by labor and environmental groups linking them to Newt Gingrich.

DICK CHRYSLER: Labor union bosses bought back some seats, including this one.

HEDRICK SMITH: Others, like Andrea Seastrand of California, and Fred Heineman of North Carolina lost rematches to candidates whom they had only narrowly beaten in 1994.

FRED HEINEMAN: Listen, we win some, and we lose some.

HEDRICK SMITH: Still others, like Mike Flanagan of Chicago and Randy Tate of Washington State, came across this year as too conservative for their traditionally Democratic districts. Tate had some parting advice for the winners in his class.

REP. RANDY TATE: I would tell those freshmen, Do what you said you were going to go back there and do, even if the political heat hits you. You know, stand up for what you believe in. You know, change Congress. Don't let it change you. Stick up for your guns even if it gets rough.

HEDRICK SMITH: But today that means different things to different members of the Class of '94. To conservative budget hawk Mark Neumann, who narrowly held his seat, it means pressing ahead undaunted.

REP. MARK NEUMANN: The American people tonight said through this election that they want us to keep on course.

HEDRICK SMITH: You're reading the election as a mandate to resume the revolution?

REP. MARK NEUMANN: Absolutely. Absolutely. And if we call it a revolution, I think it's just doing what the American people want done.

HEDRICK SMITH: And do you think there's a loss of taste for confrontation in the Congress, in your--in your class?

REP. MARK NEUMANN: Not on my part. I mean, I have to tell you, if, if the question that you're asking me is would I vote for a government shutdown again, if that's what was necessary to keep us on track to balancing the budget by the year 2002, the answer is definitively yes. If it means I get unelected in the next term, then so be it. They can have the seat.

HEDRICK SMITH: But to Florida moderate Mark Foley, another winner, it means serving the district first, and that requires applying the brakes.

REP. MARK FOLEY: The moderates are going to say to Newt, listen, we have to be more careful. We let you lead us over a lot of cliffs, and there was a deep drop. Pushing people to the far right extreme is not a solution, nor is it a strategy that will win the electoral votes for our individual members.

HEDRICK SMITH: Still, other victorious freshmen like Pennsylvania's Phil English and Washington State's Rick White see the election returns as a public demand for bipartisanship.

REP. RICK WHITE: I think the message voters sent us last night is that we're going to make you guys work together, whether you like it or not.

HEDRICK SMITH: The returning Class of '94 sound less like brash newcomers and more like politicians, humbled by hard experience.

REP. ZACH WAMP: If I were in the summer of 1994, and they were saying how would you draw it up, I wouldn't use the word revolution.

HEDRICK SMITH: Why not?

REP. ZACH WAMP: Because it's too strong. This country doesn't want a revolution. They want a correction. They want a government that works. They don't want no government. Revolution would imply no government. We're not going to overthrow the government. We're going to take this government, we're going to make it work.

HEDRICK SMITH: Even so, members of the class, like Sam Brownback, who won Bob Dole's old Senate seat in Kansas, claim credit for turning around Washington--on welfare reform, and by successfully pressuring President Clinton to accept their own continuing priority of a balanced budget.

REP. SAM BROWNBACK: And we really did change Washington. It's different. I mean, because of the 104th Congress, and the people coming in, it's a different--it's a different beast--this--this ship of state's turned, and I can look back on that two years and say, I waspart of something real.

HEDRICK SMITH: Clearly, Washington has also changed the Class of '94, gone for the most part is the heated rhetoric, the vaunted unity, the aggressive partisanship of two years ago. Instead, there's a more familiar political pragmatism, accepting piecemeal progress and some compromise instead of demanding an instant revolution.

SPOKESMAN: Quite wisely, the founders of our country made it very difficult to get anything done in a short period of time. They were probably very smart to set it up that way because it takes a real consensus in our country if you're ever going to do anything. And while it may be a little painful for those of us who are in the process, um, that's probably the way it should be. CONVERSATION

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a conversation with one of this year's Nobel Peace Prize winners, and to Elizabeth Farnsworth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: This year's award went to two people who have been part of the struggle for independence in East Timor since Indonesia took over the Portuguese colony 21 years ago. The Nobel committee chose them in hopes of calling attention to what it views as an under-reported conflict. East Timor makes up one half of the island of Timor in the remote Southeastern corner of the vast Indonesian Archipelago. The world's fourth largest country, Indonesia is a nation of almost 200 million people scattered across more than 13,000 islands. It's a strategic crossroads with vast oil reserves, and it's also a top trading partner for the United States. Since Indonesia gained its independence from the Netherlands in 1949, and throughout the Cold War, the United States has courted Indonesian leaders to make sure that the country stayed out of Communist control, the U.S. looked the other way in 1975, when Indonesia seized and occupied East Timor. According to the Nobel committee, up to one third of the population of East Timor, as many as 200,000 people, have lost their lives due to starvation, epidemics, war, and terror during Indonesian occupation. Events like this--an Indonesian army massacre of unarmed demonstrators in a cemetery in the capital city, Dili, have been denounced by the UN and human rights groups around the world. The Nobel peace price winners are Carlos Ximenes Belo, the Roman Catholic bishop of East Timor and Jose Ramos-Horta, an exiled resistance leader and now the key international spokesman for the Timorese Independence Movement. When the Nobel committee announced the awards, the Indonesian government was immediately critical.

ALI ALATAS, Foreign Minister, Indonesia: I'm quite astounded at the choice of the Nobel committee this time, and I wonder what the criteria are for such a choice.

MS. FARNSWORTH: In response to continued Indonesian criticism of the Nobel laureates, students in East Timor staged protests yesterday on the fifth anniversary of the Dili Cemetery massacre. Ramos-Horta, who frequently travels to promote the cause of East Timor, is in Washington for several speaking engagements.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Ramos-Horta is with us now. Thank you for being with us.

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA, Nobel Peace Prize Winner: Thank you for inviting me.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Nobel Committee said they hoped to shine a spotlight on your struggle by giving you this award. Have you gotten a lot more attention because of it?

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Oh, yes, definitely, and we are profoundly grateful to the Nobel Committee for having thought about among so many other worthy individuals like Richard Holbrooke, Jimmy Carter, Wei Jingzhen of China, Layla Zana of Kurdistan, in jail in Turkey, for having thought of us for this year; we are extremely grateful for them.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Have there been any bad consequences because of it? Has there been a crackdown?

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Yes, there has been a major crackdown, particularly directed at a person who should not have done it, and that is Bishop Belo, the head of Catholic Church in East Timor. He is a most peaceful man--uh--the only disagreement I always had with him over the years, you know--we like each other, I respect him enormously--the only thing we disagree is very simple--he's always against demonstrations, and I know that if I ever ask him whether he would authorize me telling the people to demonstrate, he would say, no. Sometimes when people demonstrate in East Timor it is because we go behind his back, and that is our only disagreement, and--so he's the most peaceful person, but even demonstrations he does not approve. He goes to Indonesia the other day to the--on invitation of the National Council of Bishops in Indonesia. He was met with 3,000 demonstrators orchestrated by the Indonesian government, insulting him, kick his car, spitting at the car. There have been so much threat on him--just a few days ago I was in Lisbon when I got an urgent message from him to give him a call, so I did, and he came on the phone, and he said in the beginning- -referring to the Nobel Peace Prize announcement--they wanted to eat you alive--referring to the attacks on me by the Indonesia army--now they want to eat me alive. He was referring to the attacks on him. It started because of an interview in a German magazine, he criticized rightly the human rights situation in East Timor, and that's how they reacted, so, so out of proportion.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Tell us how this all began with you. You grew up in a family in East Timor. And how did you get involved, just briefly, how did you get involved in the liberation movement?

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Well, nothing extraordinary about it because I'm an East Timorese, so my country's invaded.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Excuse me. Your father is--was Portuguese, right?

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Yes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And your mother was Timorese.

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Yes. My father was a Portuguese. He was in the Portuguese navy in the 30's--a sergeant in the Portuguese navy. There was a civil war in Spain, pitting Republicans against Franco, and my father belonged to that class of people in the navy at the time that were very revolutionary in the sense that they were against the dictatorship, so he and other fellow sergeants decide to take two war ships from the Portuguese navy to go to Spain to fight against Franco, but--uh--

MS. FARNSWORTH: So you come by this naturally.

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Well, maybe that's so. My mother is an East Timorese, an extraordinary woman of enormous courage, she survived World War II, lost every single person in her family--on her family's side--in the hands of the Japanese, because they sheltered the Australians. You know, during World War II, the East Timorese sided with the allies against the Japanese--and my mother lost every single relative, with the exception of one sister, who she met 40 years later--remind me so much about the Jewish Holocaust- -you know, and the families that were split and met 40/50 years later.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But just briefly, how did you get involved, and how did you get exiled?

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Well, I got involved because I dreamed of independence, freedom for East Timor, and then I was given the job, the assignment of diplomacy. I was never involved in anyof the armed resistance or anything. I was a journalist by training.

MS. FARNSWORTH: This was with the resistance movement, though.

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Yes. Yes, in the 70's. Then the invasion was approaching. You know, we knew that sooner or later within days, the Indonesia army was going to invade the country, so I was assigned by the leadership of the movement to lead a delegation to get out of East Timor and go to the United Nations in New York, and so I left. I had never been to United States--New York. I had never been to a big city in my whole life. I had never seen snow in my life. And so I was thrust into Manhattan into the hands of the Security Council, and I probably was the youngest person ever to address the UN Security Council in December '75.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And you've been in exile ever since '75, haven't you?

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Yes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What is your--what have you been trying to do? And what is your goal now? Are you working for a negotiated solution to this conflict? Is that your goal?

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Oh, yes, and that's what I have done since '74. You know, I was only 24 years old. I was the founding member of the Social Democratic Party of East Timor, which also claimed independence at the time--I traveled to Indonesia on my own and met with the Indonesian foreign minister, in Jakarta, in his home residence three times, and I said, the people of East Timor want independence, but an independent East Timor does not mean necessarily that it will be on the wrong side of Indonesia--it would be in the interest of Indonesia--and that we would apply to join ASEAN within days of our independence.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Association of Southeastern Nations.

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Yes. The Association of Southeastern Asian Nations.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Southeastern Asian Nations.

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Of which Indonesia is the largest partner, and I said our people--much could be trained by you--by Indonesia. Our security force could be trained in Indonesia, and I was a great admirer of Indonesia--in fact, the founding father of the republic, President Sukarno, whose daughter today is a leader of the opposition was--I was a great admirer of him.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you now think that a negotiated solution can be arrived at under the auspices of the UN, is it closer, or is it as far away as ever? This has been going on for so many years.

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Oh, no, it's much closer than ever, and I must commend the UN for what they have done, in spite of the lack of support from so many countries--from the international community- -the secretary general, with a lot of patience, determination, at least one positive side of the negotiations, it has kept the issue on the agenda, and for that we are grateful to the UN. And I believe as the dust settles, as the Indonesians recover from the shell shock--shock therapy provided by the Nobel Committee--in the next few months from now, they'll wake up to reality, and the reality we know today is different from 1975, of the Cold War, of the Communist witch hunt, and so on, and so they have no choice but come to terms with reality and negotiate much more seriously an honorable, durable solution to the East Timor conflict.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What is your specific solution? What do you want to have happen?

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: For us, it is sacred, the right to self- determination, to make a choice freely by the people of East Timor, and I believe the people of East Timor will choose independence if there is a referendum under UN supervision, but, at the same time, we are prepared to move step by step gradually, without Indonesia losing face, and we put forward a proposal just a few years ago-- it's very similar to the Middle East, the Palestinian-Israeli agreement--whereby they move step by step towards a final settlement in a few years from now, and that's exactly what we--we have proposed.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And just in the last couple of seconds we have left, what should the U.S. be doing? Has the Clinton administration done what you think it should do?

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Oh, he has been good to East Timor. His administration did some very good things like stopping the arms deliveries--like M-16's--criticizing Indonesia, voting with us at the Commission of Human Rights in Geneva, but he can build on this in his second term to exert considerable pressure on Indonesia behind the scenes, discreetly, for Indonesia to withdraw from East Timor to stop torture, stop the killings, and allow the people of East Timor a free choice to exercise the right to self- determination; he can do that, and Clinton would be received in East Timor by the end of his mandate as a hero of an independent East Timor--if he does something good now. I believe he's a very good man, and I believe he will help us.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, Mr. Ramos-Horta, congratulations on your award, and thank you for being with us.

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Thank you. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, President Clinton agreed, in principle, to send U.S. troops to Zaire to aid a million Hutu refugees facing starvation. Flight data recorders showed a Kazak plane was warned by air traffic controllers before it hit a Saudi jetliner over India yesterday, and Defense Secretary Perry ordered all three branches of the military to investigate training programs for possible sexual harassment. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.