The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. Jim Lehrer is away. On the NewsHour tonight, last minute haggling over the minimum wage, Congress Armey and Gephardt debate, the Navy in troubled waters, we have four views, and "Where They Stand," another in our weekly series of candidate speeches, this one by President Clinton. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. FARNSWORTH: Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives struggled today with legislation to raise the minimum wage. The bill would boost the federal minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour. A vote is expected late tonight. Democrats accused Republicans of trying to scuttle the bill by attempting to exempt millions of workers. Republicans say exemptions are necessary to help small businesses create jobs for entry level workers. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the House join us right after the News Summary. In Groton, Connecticut, President Clinton spoke today to graduates of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He criticized the anti-missile defense system plan endorsed by his Republican Presidential rival Bob Dole. That ground-based project is intended to replace former President Reagan's Star Wars defense plan. Mr. Clinton said the Republican plan would "force us to choose a costly missile defense system today that could be obsolete tomorrow."

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Those who want us to deploy this system before we know the details and the dimensions of the threat we face I believe are wrong. I think we must not leap before we look, I believe this plan is misguided, it would waste money, it would weaken our defenses by taking money away from things we know we need right now. It would violate the arms control agreements that we have made, and these agreements make us more secure. That is the wrong way to defend America.

MS. FARNSWORTH: We'll have more of President Clinton's commencement speech later in the program. Candidate Dole met today at the capitol with one of his sharpest critics during the Republican primary season. Former rival and flat tax advocate Steve Forbes is now a Dole supporter. Forbes paid a courtesy call to talk about Republican campaign strategy. Dole said he and Forbes discussed economic policy and that Forbes had agreed to campaign actively for the GOP ticket. In overseas news, there was more fighting today in the Central African republic. Rebel soldiers exchanged gunfire with government troops. Sixty Americans were flown out of the capital city of Bangui today on a U.S. military transport. They were taken to neighboring Cameroon. At the State Department in Washington, spokesman Nicholas Burns described the situation.

NICHOLAS BURNS, State Department Spokesman: We don't believe that foreigners in general have been targeted over the last couple of days, although foreigners, as we found in Monrovia and Beirut in the past, can be victims, unintended victims of the fighting, and that's why we've advised American citizens not to travel to Bangui. The Marines will remain in Bangui to protect our embassy and to protect the Americans there and to bolster our security forces there.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Burns said the State Department has formally warned Americans not to travel to the Central African republic. At least 12 people have died and 60 have been wounded in the fighting since Saturday. In the ValuJet story, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration said today special inspections of ValuJet planes will continue for another month. Administrator David Hinson held a news conference after meeting with ValuJet officials in Atlanta.

DAVID HINSON, FAA Administrator: We are inspecting with ValuJet- -they're inspecting--let me put it this way--they're inspecting. The FAA's watching the inspection. We do not do anything. Okay. I mean, we watch ValuJet do this, and their employees and their contractors, and we watch every airplane being inspected, and they are inspecting every airplane every day.

MS. FARNSWORTH: In the Florida Everglades, local divers today abandoned further underwater searches at the site of ValuJet's May 11th plane crash. They said it would be up to federal authorities to decide whether and how to continue. The National Transportation Safety Board hired salvage contractors to bring in cranes and other heavy equipment necessary to dredge the crater. Yesterday, divers found only two pieces of the plane. They said because of the high impact of the crash only fragments may ever be found. In national security affairs, a government report released today said as many as 250,000 attempts to break into military computers take place each year. The report by the General Accounting Office of Congress, the GAO, was the focus of a Senate subcommittee hearing. Accounting Office representatives told the committee the break-ins cost the Pentagon millions of dollars and threaten national security. The GAO's director of information, Jack Brock described the magnitude of the problem.

JACK BROCK, GAO Spokesman: Ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, you could protect a lot of this information with lock and key, and physical separation. That's not possible today, and yet, the level of protection that's available today is probably less than it was ten or fifteen years ago. And that's particularly challenging at DOD. I think you mentioned some of the statistics. The computing environment at the Department of Defense, they have over 2 million personal computers. They have over 10,000 local networks. Uh, they have over a hundred long distance carriers. They have 200 command centers. They have 16 mega-centers. They have a lot of computers. They have a lot of systems. They have a lot of opportunities for exposure.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The GAO report recommended that the Pentagon require rigorous computer security training and develop a better method of responding to break-ins. The Federal Trade Commission today announced anti-trust charges against Toys R Us, the nation's largest toy retailer. The FTC said the company has been using its market power to keep toy prices inflated and reduce competition. The FTC has been investigating Toys R Us for two years. Executives at the New Jersey-based company said they will "vigorous contest" the charges. That's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to the politics of the minimum wage, the Navy in troubled waters, and a President Clinton speech. FOCUS - WAGING POLITICS

MS. FARNSWORTH: The political tussle over the minimum wage and other matters is first tonight. Margaret Warner has this background.

MS. WARNER: Democrats have kept daily pressure on the House Republican leadership to allow a vote on increasing the minimum wage. Now that they're about to get their wish, they couldn't be unhappier.

REP. DAVID BONIOR, Minority Whip: Mr. Speaker, after months of prodding our colleagues who run this institution on the Republican side of the aisle, to bring a minimum wage bill to the floor so we can get people who have chosen work over welfare an increase from $4.25 an hour to something that they can at least approach to live on, what do we get today? We get a rule and we get a bill that's got odious poison pills in it that will kill the minimum wage.

MS. WARNER: Democrats and a number of Republican moderates want to raise the current $4.25 hourly minimum wage by 50 cents on July 1st and another 40 cents next year. The new minimum wage would be $5.15 an hour.

REP. BRUCE VENTO, [D] Minnesota: Let's vote for a clean minimum wage bill and give the American people the type of empowerment and working families what they need, a raise.

MS. WARNER: Republicans want to amend that proposal with a so- called opportunity wage. That would let employers pay the current $4.25 an to workers younger than 20 years old for the first 90 days of their employment.

REP. GREG GANSKE, [R] Iowa: The opportunity wage will encourage hiring of low-skilled, entry level workers by firms, while maintaining the protections of the current minimum wage for a short period of time.

MS. WARNER: But what Democrats find more objectionable is another Republican proposal to exempt some companies from minimum wage obligations, those companies dealing in interstate commerce that have annual revenues of less than $500,000.

REP. ALBERT WYNN, [D] Maryland: That is to say 2/3 of the companies wouldn't have to pay the minimum wage, which means up to 10 million workers would not get the minimum wage.

MS. WARNER: Some Democrats were predicting consequences far worse than that.

REP. GEORGE MILLER, [D] California: Newt Gingrich is once again going to bring back the ability of employers to exploit children in the workplace, to exploit women in sweatshops, to exploit the disabled in sheltered workshops. This is not what the American people want.

MS. WARNER: If the Republican proposals are added to the minimum wage increase, some Democrats indicate they might vote against it, which would be fine with many Republicans, who oppose any increase in the minimum wage.

REP. J.D. HAYWORTH, [R] Arizona: It comes down to this basic premise, and it is one of fairness. Do you empower all in this country to achieve all they can achieve, or would you have government through capricious action tell those who create jobs no, you're not entitled to create any more jobs, no, we are going to say to you we are going to penalize you for trying to create job opportunities?

REP. JACK KINGSTON, [R] Georgia: I say let the private sector get out there and compete, let's save the jobs and cut out the talk about--

SPOKESMAN: The time of the gentleman has expired.

REP. JACK KINGSTON: --increasing the wage.

MS. WARNER: Debate and votes on the various minimum wage proposals are expected to last late into the evening.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now the party leaders of the House of Representatives, Republican Dick Armey of Texas and Democrat Dick Gephardt of Missouri. Thank you both for being with us. Congressman Gephardt, starting with you, where are we right now? Does it look to you like the minimum wage hike will pass?

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Minority Leader: Well, I guess the first issue is whether or not it's going to actually come off. We're debating a procedural rule for bringing it up. I'm not sure yet that it will pass because a lot of us are dissatisfied with that procedure. If that passes, then we have to see what happens on the amendments that are scheduled. I don't know yet whether or not the final product will pass.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Would you be able to vote for it if the Republican amendments described in our report were attached?

REP. GEPHARDT: I think if the one that exempts a lot of the small businesses that arenot non-exempt passes, I would not vote for the bill. I don't think we ought to take a step backwards. I think we ought to move forward and increase the minimum wage. This is a simple proposition. It's one we've been asking for a vote on for some time. We think that it ought to be a simple straightforward up or down vote on increasing the minimum wage, and we're for that, and we want to do that. We don't want to take people out of the minimum wage.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Congressman Armey, why was it necessary to exempt the companies in interstate commerce with less than $1/2 million in revenues?

REP. DICK ARMEY, Majority Leader: First of all, what we're trying to do with that particular amendment is correct a problem that was created by way of--the way it was written in the past. But let me just say this. You know, the minority who did not, in fact, when they had the majority for two years and controlled the entire government even talk about raising the minimum wage have been demanding this goal, now we have gotten them a minimum wage vote on the floor in the only way it can be there. And as soon as it's there on the floor and it's staring them in the face and they have a chance now to put their vote where their mouth has been, they're starting to nit pick the whole process and say, oh, Lord, have mercy, we can't do it this way, now the up shot of the Republican amendments around which this minimum wage will be wrapped is that instead of having 250,000 people that lose their job opportunity by this increase, we'll have 100,000 people that'll lose their job opportunity. And I don't know what their purpose is, is it to maximize the number of unemployed, unskilled, untrained, inexperienced workers, they would give us the exact formula to do that. We have an obligation to those workers, and we intend to minimize the damage that will be done to them by the amendments that we offer in conjunction with the minimum wage increase.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Congressman Gephardt, what's your response to that?

REP. GEPHARDT: Well, again, what we seek is to get the minimum wage increased. The reason we didn't bring it up two years ago is we had a proposal for health care that would have cost business, and we didn't want to have a proposal to raise the minimum wage at the same time. We didn't think that was a sensible idea. We failed in the health care. The moment that was finished the President brought up this proposal for a minimum wage increase. And let me just say that, you know, this is about getting people reward for work. I had a woman the other day tell me she's earning the minimum wage, $8500 a year, she said she can't pay her bills. Some of her friends came to her and said go back on welfare, you'd even get Medicaid if you went back on welfare, she said, I don't want to go on welfare, I want to work and I want to support my family. This is a simple effort to give her the ability to do that. What we don't want to do as we do that is to take a step backward and take people out of the application of the minimum wage. That would be a really wrong thing to do.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Explain that. Would the exemption, these companies that have 1/2 million dollars or less in income, they would be removed from being covered by the minimum wage altogether?

REP. GEPHARDT: It is not only the small businesses that have a certain amount of revenue. It's businesses that have interstate commerce, and it's opening it up to that that we think opens it up to a lot of people falling out of the minimum wage. They have a grandfather provision to try to hold onto some of the people, but we think that any new employees, and you have to understand there's a lot of turnover in minimum wage jobs, new businesses being formed. It would not apply to them, so we think that lots and lots of people would fall out of the application to the minimum wage, and we think that's a step backward. We ought to be increasing the minimum wage in a simple, straightforward manner. That's what we've been trying to do.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Congressman Armey, is it a step backward?

REP. ARMEY: No, it's not as a matter of fact. We know from all the studies that have been done and all the textbooks that have been written that the principal cause of the chronic youth unemployment rates in the inner city is the minimum wage, the increasing in minimum wage aggravates that. Now in the, in the inner city, where these youngsters get these jobs is from small organizations, small mom and pop organizations, and we say if we exempt these organizations from this trial which would cause them to hire fewer people, that we will have less job harm. Now here's the problem with this interstate deal. Let's say it's a restaurant. They put a salt shaker on the table, and the salt was brought in from another state. That, that brings them in. This is closing a loophole, Dick Gephardt knows it's closing a loophole from an amendment that was passed in '88 or '89 that pretended to do exactly what we're trying to do now. We had a big objection out of the Democrat caucus, after they discovered the ill effects of this in their own communities where they tried to repair it then. We're repairing it now. Still, nevertheless, the Democrats have not raised this point, and the fact is they're raising this point now as a payoff to the AFL-CIO and Washington Union bosses that have joined with them in this big time reelection effort, and this is exactly as your program billed it at the outset, this is the politics of the minimum wage, and the victims of this political game are the least experienced, the least trained, the least skilled workers in America, who lose their opportunity for work altogether and will, in fact, be forced onto the welfare rolls.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Congressman Gephardt, what about the point that this is fixing something that should have been fixed before?

REP. GEPHARDT: Well, I just totally disagree with that. None of us have come forward and asked for this amendment. This is not an amendment that we want to see. Talk about special interests. We think this is caving into the special interests that don't want an increase in the minimum wage. And in fairness, my friend, Dick, has said in the past that we shouldn't have a minimum wage at all. Now, that's a position you can take. I totally disagree with it. If we're going to honor work in this society and say to people if you go to work and stay off welfare you can support your family and get by, then we've got to keep the minimum wage up with inflation. We haven't done that. It's at a 40-year low. It was raised last five years ago, in a bipartisan way, I might add, and what they're doing now is throwing up an obstacle through this amendment that will keep us from raising the minimum wage as we should be.

MS. FARNSWORTH: It sounds like you're saying that if this is-- this restriction, this exemption is in the bill, you'll have to vote against it, and other Democrats will too?l

REP. GEPHARDT: That's correct.

MS. FARNSWORTH: All right. I want to move on to the gas tax. Congressman Armey, the House voted last night to cut the fuel, the federal fuel tax, the 4.3 cent rise in it. Do you want to make this permanent? This is temporary. Is it something you plan to make permanent?

REP. ARMEY: Well, in terms of the budgetary repercussions, we can do it until the end of the year now. The President of course, as you know, is very excited and willing to sign the repeal of his 1993 gas tax increase. When we get into the budget reconciliation process, we have every hope that we'll be able to make it permanent. We expect to make it permanent, but in the meantime, we'll give people relief now as soon as we can. If it doesn't get bottle-necked in the Senate by whatever new political strategy that might be devised by the Senate Democrats and Sen. Daschle, we ought to be able to move it forward. If they bog it down over in the Senate, that might not meet our stipulated goal to get it down by Memorial Day. I'm sure the President will be disappointed, since he's so anxious to sign this repeal of his tax increase.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And Congressman Armey, what guarantees do consumers have that this will be passed on to them?

REP. ARMEY: The market works, and it's a very simple thing. If I have a gas station on my side of the street and I drop the price by 4.3 cents a gallon, the guy across the street that chooses not to follow is going to watch everybody turn into my lot instead of his. He will follow. We've seen it work a million times.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Congressman Gephardt, do you think that's true, it'll follow?

REP. GEPHARDT: Well, it would have been much better if we could have gotten an amendment passed yesterday that would have said that it has to be passed on the consumer. A lot of oil companies may have sticky fingers and hold on to that 4 cent increase. There was no harm that would have been done by saying we want it go through and that we'll be watching to see that it does. I hope that will go on in the Senate, and I hope that winds up in the bill finally. If we're going to do this, we need to get that surely through to the consumer. Second, we've got to keep working to get the price down. The price has been up 50 cents in some states. Obviously, there are reasons for that. We ought to hope that we can get those reasons put aside and get the price down by more than 4 cents.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I want to ask you both, starting with you, Congressman Gephardt, how do you respond to the criticism I've read at various places that both the minimum wage and the gas tax are just political posturing, that the gas tax--let's start with the minimum wage since I'm talking with you, Congressman--it doesn't really address the large economic problems, the growing wage gap, and other problems, it's just about politics, and then we'll go on to Congressman Armey on the gas tax, which is criticized for the same reason, that it increases the deficit, it's just politics, it doesn't really put money in--much money in people's pockets.

REP. GEPHARDT: Well, let's put ourselves in the shoes of the people that are earning the minimum wage or, for that matter, the person driving up to the gas pump who's only making the minimum wage. The minimum wage increase would put about fifteen to eighteen hundred dollars a year more in the pocket of that minimum wage worker. This lady I talked to--and there are millions like her-- are doing everything in their power to work, to support their kids. She was a single mother with a son. She can't pay her bills today. And if she got this increase, believe me, the $1800 additional a year would be immediately spent, would help the economy from the bottom up, not the top down, it would be a jolt into the economy becauseshe'd spend all that money paying her bills, which she can't do today. So if you put yourself in her shoes, this is not just politics, and it's not a trivial matter. For her, it's the biggest thing in the world, and we need to put ourselves into the shoes of the hard working Americans that make this country great.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. And Congressman Armey on the gas tax--

REP. ARMEY: Well, let me first correct the record on that lady that Dick keeps bringing up. First of all, if she is a mother with children, she qualifies for the Earned Income Tax Credit, she qualifies for Aid to Dependent Children, she qualifies for other benefits that raises her effective rate to $6.16. Now, the gas tax, it's very simple, the gas tax was levied in 1993 by the President, the revenues from that increase in the tax were for the first time in the history of the tax not dedicated to highway construction and maintenance. It was wrong then. It's been wrong ever since, and it is only now that we have the President looking for some way to endear himself to the American people that he's willing to sign a repeal of this tax and therefore we're moving it on to him for that purpose so he can do so.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us.

REP. GEPHARDT: Thank you. FOCUS - NAVY BLUES

MS. FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour, the U.S. Navy after the death of its top admiral and a "Where They Stand" speech by President Clinton. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the Navy story.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The suicide of chief of naval operations Jeremy Boorda is the latest crisis to hit the service. We'll get four views after this background report from Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: Monday was supposed to be a day of celebration on the sprawling campus of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. A thousand graduating midshipmen took the parade grounds before proud family members, friends, and Navy leadership. But the day began with a moment of silence for Admiral Jeremy Boorda, a somber reminder of the latest tragedy for a beleaguered service. These college-age midshipmen will form the leadership core of the Navy of the future. They are intimately aware of the run of bad luck and controversial bad policy that has marred the Navy repeatedly over the last eight years. It began in 1988, with the accidental downing of an Iranian jet liner by the Navy warship Vincennes in the Mediterranean. All two hundred ninety on board were killed. A year later an explosion during a training run aboard the USS Iowa that killed 47 sailors. Official reports said the Navy badly botched the investigation of the accident and falsely implicated a sailor. And the 1991 Tailhook scandal has become the emblem for the Navy's troubles. After a fractious and prolonged investigation, it was determined 83 women were sexually assaulted at that annual Navy fliers convention. The Tailhook scandal eventually forced the resignation of chief of naval operations Admiral Frank Kelso--

ADM. FRANK KELSO, Former Chief of Naval Operations: [February 1994] Good morning. As you know from my statement, I have requested to retire from the Navy as of 30 April.

MR. HOLMAN: Along the way a spate of crashes of Navy planes has added to the image of a service in distress. When Admiral Jeremy Boorda was selected chief of naval operations in 1994, the Navy was seen as sorely in need of a leader to lift morale and restore confidence. [music in background] The Naval Academy too has had problems with scandal and leadership. In 1993, 28 midshipmen admitted to cheating on an exam. Many more were thought to be involved. Last fall, another two dozen midshipmen were charged with selling and using illegal drugs. This spring more headlines about sexual assault, a car theft ring, and other crimes on campus. Finally in April, the academy's superintendent ordered an unprecedented week-long stand down during which all 4,000 midshipmen were to review their conduct. In the middle of these difficulties came another blow to the Navy's most venerable training institution and the service itself. A civilian professor and Navy veteran of Vietnam wrote a scathing analysis of the Naval Academy published in the "Washington Post." Prof. James Barry infuriated his superiors by concluding the Academy is a breeding ground for a rigid, corrupting style of leadership that characterizes the Navy today.

PROF. JAMES BARRY, U.S. Naval Academy: The system, once again, the system, does not promote ethical behavior, ethical, honest, and open behavior whether it's dealing with sexual harassment or dealing with a broken pipe. The incentive is not there. By the end of their first year they know, they know the rules. They know the informal rules and they know the formal rules, and they don't match. And that's when you start to get this disconnect. Their loyalty then doesn't become to the Constitution, the Navy, the Naval Academy. Loyalty becomes to their peers and their values then start to come from their few, close trusted friends.

MR. HOLMAN: Barry based his charges in part on a values survey conducted by the academy itself when the midshipmen arrive on campus.

PROF. JAMES BARRY: Being in a position to command respect from others. That's a real key one here. 80 percent want that, agree with that the day they arrive at the academy. A year and a half later only 68 percent want that, think that's important. Now you would expect those numbers to be going in the opposite direction. Stealing when necessary, the day they arrive, 76 percent think that's wrong. A year later, 67 percent.

MR. HOLMAN: Barry says the Navy's super-competitive atmosphere breeds such negative attitudes, while at the same time making personnel feel that they must appear to be perfect.

PROF. JAMES BARRY: There's a saying on the fitness report system, which is the evaluation, that if you receive one B instead of all A's, your career is over. So there is no--you're not allowed to fail. And of course, one B might be perhaps speaking up, you know, speaking up for your troops, speaking up for someone who has maybe been harassed.

MR. HOLMAN: But spend a day during commissioning week here at the Naval Academy and you get a very different picture. Here the view is of a Navy unfairly set upon by the news media and therefore understandably defensive, a Navy that acknowledges it has problems and is well on its way to correcting them. The Navy assigned four star Admiral Charles Larson to a second tour as superintendent in 1994. His mission is to turn the 151-year-old institution around.

CAPT. TOM JURKOWSKY, U.S. Naval Academy Spokesman: Admiral Larson has identified many of those issues. He's working on them. We've got a lot of great programs in place and we're going to get there. And bear with us and these are--the things we're trying to do here is answer some pretty stiff societal challenges.

MR. HOLMAN: Naval Academy Spokesman Captain Tom Jurkowsky says those reforms make Prof. Barry's criticisms outdated.

CAPT. TOM JURKOWSKY: The article that he wrote in the "Washington Post" probably would have had some, a lot more validity three or four years ago, but this isa changed institution.

MR. HOLMAN: Admiral Larson returned the Academy to a more military environment, tightened up on privileges, and created a leadership program based on fundamental principles, all moves reportedly desired by most midshipmen. Their families say it's time for the Navy to be given a chance to right itself.

CAROL PRITCHELL, Parent: A lot of the things that have come out have been investigated already, and the problems that were there have already been addressed, and in large part things are being done to make sure they don't happen again.

MR. HOLMAN: But criticism of the kind of leaders the Navy fosters has come not only from inside the academy. In April, James Webb, an Annapolis graduate who became Navy Secretary under President Reagan, told a Naval Institute audience the service's top officers are too accommodating to the Navy's critics.

JAMES WEBB: Some are guilty of the ultimate disloyalty--to save or advance their careers, they abandon the very ideals of their profession in order to curry favor with politicians.

MR. HOLMAN: Navy supporters in the audience reacted strongly.

MAN IN AUDIENCE: I was the guy--

JAMES WEBB: Let me finish.

MR. HOLMAN: Despite all the controversy, the official Navy view is that things are on course.

CAPT. TOM JURKOWSKY: We feel that some of the problems that we've had here are just aberrations. We see nothing systemic with some of these problems. People make mistakes. All I'm saying is that we have some wonderful new programs in place that are going to strengthen the foundations of the Navy and of this great institution, and we're just trying to make it better.

MR. HOLMAN: As for these midshipmen, the Navy would not make any available for formal interviews. But several told us off camera that while they're tired of all the attention, some of the criticisms of the Navy and its academy are accurate. Whatever their views, by the end of the week, these midshipmen will be officers in a Navy in pitching seas--its core values under attack and its role and budget uncertain in a post Cold War world.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We get four perspectives now. Adm. Leon Bud Edney was vice chief of naval operations and Atlantic commander before his retirement in 1992. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, is a Naval academy graduate, Navy pilot, and Vietnam prisoner of war, he is now a member of the Armed Services Committee; Gail Mattox is a professor of political science at the Naval Academy; and David Evans is a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who served in the office of Secretary of Defense and also a former defense reporter for the "Chicago Tribune." Thank you all for joining us. And starting with you, Mr. Evans, the problems we've just seen at the Naval Academy, as they reflect the problems of the Navy generally, do you see this as a systemic or aberrational?

DAVID EVANS, Defense Analyst: Well, I think the Navy is, you know, standing tall, tall ships, and standing proud with its heritage and its traditions, but its--frankly its credibility is low in the water right now and listing. There have been a series of problems for which the corrective action may not have been taken as smartly as it should have been. I think Sec. Webb delivered some very trenchant remarks about the state of the Navy today. Certainly we've seen nothing in the Navy in terms of corrective action like we saw with Gen. Fogelman, chief of staff of the Air Force, after the Black Hawk helicopters were shot down, and 26 were killed, and no officers were punished or lost their commission. He issued a videotape to everybody in the Air Force saying, we have a fundamental problem of professional ethics and accountability.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So basically your answer is systemic, not aberrational?

MR. EVANS: Well, certainly Prof. Barry's new report out to Adm. Larson talks about how the Navy is "sorrowfully ruptured ethically and rotting."

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Sen. McCain, sorrowfully ruptured ethically and rotting?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: Well, I think first we should understand that this is still the finest Navy in the world, and we have every right to expect it to be. I also think we all should acknowledge that there are problems, and I believe that the Navy is going about perhaps not in the most efficient fashion to rectify many of those problems. I meet and talk with the young men and women that I send to the Naval Academy that I nominate for appointments in the Naval Academy. I talk with men and women in the Navy all the time. Overall, they are an outstanding group of people and we have to understand that the environment from which they come, an all-volunteer force, is very different from the one when Mr. Evans came in the Navy, when I came in the Navy, and when Adm. Edney came in the Navy. When I came into the Naval Academy, I didn't know anyone that used drugs. There was no metal detector at the entrance of the high school that I attended, and we have to maintain the highest standards in the Navy, but we also have to understand that the indoctrination effort we have to make is incredibly more severe. And in your lead-in, when you talk about the Vincennes and those other problems, we also should mention Grenada, Libya, Panama, and, and Operation Desert Storm, where-- and today in operations like Provide Comfort and around Bosnia, where our Navy is performing exceeding well.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Thank you, Senator. Let me just go to you, Mr. Evans--I mean--sorry, Mr.--Adm. Edney. Do you see a connection between all of these problems, the bad things that were cited, as well as the death of Adm. Boorda?

ADM. LEON "BUD" EDNEY, U.S. Navy [Retired]: No, I don't see any correcting link. I agree with the assessment that has been given here that you have got some problems that need fixing in the Navy, and they're being addressed. I would like to add, though, that a lot of these problems, it's difficult to get a starting point and find where the corrective action goes, and I don't see a connectivity between the outstanding performance that we see with our ships over Liberia where the Marines and the Navy team are supporting that very difficult situation, or that the recent Nimitz went up into Taiwan with independence, and the carrier battle groups that came back from the Gulf off the Adriatic, those ships all performing magnificently. Now I see direct dichotomies, therefore, I go to the Naval Academy and Mr. Barry. I would think he was talking two to three years ago. He described an environment that was hypocritical and was tolerant of sexual harassment, and was covering up. That is exactly the opposite of the environment that I see there. I see the most open communications between the faculty, the professional development and commandant in the athletic shop. I see better morale and I see upbeat spirit there. And so it looked like you were looking at three years ago. One of the problems we have is that we're still using Tailhook as a whipping post. That was five years ago. It's time for the Congress to get over holding up the promotion and assignment of officers because they've already had accountability and it is just wrong to be doing that. So there's a lot of contributing factors here, but I agree that we have got a perceived problem, and we have to work on it harder.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is it a perceived problem, Ms. Mattox? You teach at the Naval Academy. Is it perceived, or is it real, and do you see a connection with all these things?

GAIL MATTOX, U.S. Naval Academy: Well, there's no question that we've had some problems at the Academy. That's why Adm. Larson was brought in, and that's why we have undergone tremendous amount of changes over the last few years, last two years at the academy. To me, umm, what I look at is whether or not we address the questions immediately. To my mind, some of the problems before have been not taking action when we really should take action. And I think that's the difference that occurs now, and I think that's one place where the Barry article, where it's quite good in some of the problems it points out, because we have some problems, but what I think he fails to see is sometimes when there has been action taken very quickly. Let me cite the example, for instance, of the drug case, where the Academy moved very very quickly to take care of that problem. Now, you know, we have a student body that is a cross section of American society. We work very hard at having that kind of student body to train and to put out in the fleet as Naval officers, and, inevitably, I think you're going to have when you have a cross section of American society, you're going to have some problems. And the question to me is that you've moved to correct those problems.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But, Mr. Evans, you've made the point, and I think both former Sec. Webb and Mr. Barry made the point that, that this buck stops with the leadership, and, and you and he and the rest of them made the point that there's no incentive to promote ethical behavior, and that the officer ranks lack morale courage. That was Mr.--former Sec. Webb's direct quote.

MR. EVANS: I agree with a lot of what he said. But I would also argue that you have to start somewhere, and I think Adm. Larson is starting somewhere right at the Naval Academy, where all the students are not in Lake Woebegone above average. We've got a very select body of students; however, in years past, I'm informed that students who have been involved in some of these transgressions would have been quietly just dismissed. Adm. Larson is holding court martials, and he is trying to do something, I think, in a very positive way to say you are going to be held accountable as an officer candidate.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, let me go back to you, Ms. Mattox, on that, because one of the other things that Mr. Barry charges that he leveled that the people who would be making criticisms that might be addressed in the constructive way fear retaliation. He, himself, was relieved of this position and then reinstated. Is, is there an atmosphere like that, that prevents airing of issues that could be addressed directly, immediately?

MS. MATTOX: There, there are, of course, over time, I think, there has been a reluctance to come out and, and be very openly critical, but the atmosphere that's been set at the Academy over the last, over the last few years, I think is a very open one, and I think it's one that it's unfair to say that that is really the atmosphere that exists today. I just don't--I don't see it. There are grievance procedures. There certainly--they certainly have opened channels of communication.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Sen. McCain, what about the larger issue as we broaden this out to the Navy as a whole, this whole question that the--that the charge that Mr. Webb made, that the officer class lacks moral courage, do you see evidence of that?

SEN. McCAIN: Well, I think you could see evidence of that from time to time because so many officers are very frankly from time to time have been destroyed for political reasons, but I also believe that we need to have people who will stand up for what they believe in. I think there should be more of them. And by the way, that's easy for me to say as a politician. It's a little harder when you're in the military but it's a little bit of a paradox here. We expect the military to act under the orders and instruction of their civilian superiors. That's the fundamental basis of our democracy. At the same time we expect them to perform at the highest standards. I think we can achieve that, and I want to emphasize I understand that we have problems and difficulties, but I also think that the finest young men and women in this country are in the Navy, and they are a reflection of the society from which they come. That's the very nature of an all-volunteer force.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what do you see as the biggest problem that needs to be addressed now to start to get this back on course?

SEN. McCAIN: In my view, an understanding that the young men and women that enter the service academies and also enter the services are exposed to temptations and pressures and an environment that people of previous generations weren't exposed to, and, therefore, need a higher level of indoctrination, is the standards we must expect of them because we place such great responsibility on them. We cannot fail to appreciate that some of the, the things that we took for granted in previous generations simply must be made the subject of indoctrination today and also, again, tell our officers we expect them to lead and if they lead incorrectly, we always won't punish them with, with absolute dismissal, as long as they're trying to do that the best that they can.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Adm. Evans, can you--I'm sorry--Edney, respond to this for me. There are those who argue that given what Sen. McCain has said needs to be done, that this is a problem that's unique to the Navy. Why is it that this problem, that there's a culture of this kind of behavior in the Navy that isn't in place with regard to the other services?

ADM. EDNEY: I don't accept that. I don't think the culture that my good friend John McCain is talking about is unique to the Navy. It's unique to the society in which we live, and that is the difference in the environment when the students come out of the high school background these days.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But why don't we hear about this in other services? I mean, why is it always the Navy?

MR. EVANS: Well, I'm sure hearing a lot of it from Navy officers, guys of my generation, who recently completed their careers or are still serving, and indeed Vice Adm. Bob Spain held a series of seminars last summer on the West Coast, and one of the major parts in their report about where the Naval aviation components needs to go is we've got a cultural problem, said the report, you know, we've got an attitude here of looking good and avoid looking bad at all costs. And this has put us on a very slippery ethical slope as far as Adm. Spain's report is concerned.

SEN. McCAIN: They had--

ADM. EDNEY: I would like to make--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Sorry, one at a time. Sen. McCain.

SEN. McCAIN: I agree with Mr. Evans. We've got to let these enlisted and officers, people know that they can fail, as I said before, they can--we will allow for mistakes, but obviously in combat, there's very little room

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you don't, you don't think that there's something that has to be done specifically to the Navy because these problems are unique to the Navy?

SEN. McCAIN: I would say not, and the only addition I would make to your previous question about the Navy, the Navy is unique in that we send people to sea for long periods of time in confined spaces. It is steeped perhaps more in tradition than any other branch of the service, and perhaps we've had more difficulty in the Navy adjusting the changes in our society such as the integration of women into the service and other aspects of it. But overall, I don't think that the challenge is much different in the Navy than the other services.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Ms. Mattox, what do you see as the major problem that needs to be addressed? You said many of them had already been addressed by Adm. Larson. What's the biggest one that stands out in your view now?

MS. MATTOX: I guess, I guess the, probably the biggest one is just to carry through with some of the reforms that are underway, to make sure, for instance, as Sen. McCain had mentioned, it's the- -we have a student body right now that has 11 percent females, that has minorities, and we have--we need to make the students aware of the need that all are treated as up and coming officers, that they all get an equal type of training, and that they're all treated with equal respect. And that's something that just has to take some time. The first steps have been made. There's still a ways to go.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you think the problems, Mr. Evans, the current problems or the perceptions of the problems are affecting current operations and planning in the Navy?

MR. EVANS: Well, I think the Navy feels put upon, and certainly, umm, a lot of officers are voting with their feet and leaving. Sec. Webb indicated that for the first time in, in memory, more than half of the post command commanders, officers at about the lieutenant colonel level, have left the Navy. So if people &ze voting with their feet, that's a very damning sign. At the same time, if we look at the Air Force and the Army, the Navy works extraordinarily hard. It is a hard life.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Senator, they're voting with their feet.

SEN. McCAIN: There's no doubt that Adm. Boorda's tragic suicide was a blow to the morale of officer and enlisted alike. The enlisted loved Adm. Boorda. He was the first one of them that became head of the Navy, and there's no doubt that there are morale problems in the junior officer ranks and some of the senior officer ranks today in the Navy and obviously we can't afford to let that continue, and that's why these reforms are lent urgency and we must accelerate the pace of correcting them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Admiral, I want to go back to your point about the, the Congress, because you believe the Congress has some blame in all of this.

ADM. EDNEY: No, it's not blame. It's responsibility to get the integrity of the promotion and asTTment system. There are--there's a connectivity here when you're looking for connectivity. There's a connectivity between people that are out there on those carriers risking their lives five years after Tailhook and getting legitimately placed on a promotion list, then going before the Congress and being withheld from that promotion. That's double jeopardy, and when you find that that's going on, then they're saying, I'm not going to work in an outfit like this, so I'm not placing blame on anyone but when you talk about connectivity, I see what the Navy needs. They need a strong dynamic, vibrant pair of leaders in the CNO and the vice chief to take on and heal the wounds of the tragedy of Adm. Boorda's situation. They need to have strong interaction with the Congress and get control and integrity back into the promotion system. Congress is not in the business of punishing officers. We hold accountability for our officers, and we have a duly selected promotion process. And yet because of social issues, you can hold up a promotion assignment or a promotion in itself over a social issue in Congress. These are demoralizing for people that work as hard and put as much risk on the line and are out there having these situations where they're representing their country, and yet their promotion is at risk.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you agree with that, Sen. McCain?

SEN. McCAIN: I think that Adm. Edney makes very valid points. There have been people who were selected for promotion who were held up here and it wasn't just the Senators, it was some very vindictive staff people, and it's been a huge disappointment to me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Admiral has already alluded to what he thinks needs to happen. Today Sec. of Defense Perry said that probably by the end of the week he was going to send up a recommendation for a CNO commander, chief of naval operations to replace Adm. Boorda, that he wants to bring the Navy together. Now we don't have a lot of time, but Mr. Evans, what do you think it's going to take to do that?

MR. EVANS: That new chief of naval operations needs to issue a very simple policy. It'll fit on about three lines of a piece of paper, and the first policy is, all liars will die professionally. If you commit a lie on behalf of a program that's even important to the Navy, you're over and second, there will be no retribution for committing truth. That'll change the culture.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Thank you all for joining us. SERIES - WHERE THEY STAND

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, "Where They Stand," our weekly look at major policy speeches delivered by candidates Dole and Clinton. Tonight we excerpt a speech by President Clinton today at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduation ceremonies in Groton, Connecticut. He focused on security issues.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: One of the most important lessons of the last 50 years is that democracy and free markets are neither inevitable nor irreversible. They need our support, the power of our example, the resolve of our leadership. My job as President is to match the need for American leadership to our interests and to our values, to act where we can make a difference, to do so wisely, not reflexively, relying on diplomacy and sanctions when we can, force when we must, working with our allies whenever possible, but alone when necessary, rejecting the call to isolationism, refusing to be the world's policeman. It also means, as the Secretary said earlier, from time to time making some decisions that are unpopular in the short run. But if you consider some of those, imagine the alternative. Imagine what the Persian Gulf would look like today if the United States had not stepped up with our allies in Desert Storm. Then two years ago we had to do it again to stop Iraqi aggression. Imagine the ongoing reign of terror and the flood of refugees to our shore had we not backed diplomacy with force in Haiti. And, by the way, you ought to be proud that it was a Coast Guard cutter that led our forces into Port-au-Prince Harbor on that mission. Imagine the shells and the slaughter we would still be seeing in Bosnia, had we not brought our force to bear through NATO. Imagine the chaos that might have ensured that we not use our economic power to stabilize Mexico's economy. Imagine the jobs we would have lost if we hadn't taken the lead to expand world trade through GATT and NAFTA and over 200 specific agreements. In each case, there was substantial, sometimes overwhelming opinion against America's force, but because we followed the course, Americans are better off. For all the new demands on our troops and our treasure, the basic tools of leadership still require a powerful military and strong alliances, but there is more to be done for America to keep moving forward and to pass on an even safer and more prosperous world to our children as we enter this new century and a new millennium. First, we must continue to seize the extraordinary opportunity to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We have set the most far reaching arms control and non-proliferation agenda in history, and I am determined to pursue it and complete it. Already, there are no Russian missiles pointed at our cities or our citizens. We are cutting our arsenals by 2/3 from their Cold War height. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have been convinced to give up their nuclear weapons. Our diplomacy backed with force persuaded North Korea to freeze its nuclear program. We have now secured the indefinite and unconditional extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We must continue to help people who will work with us to safeguard nuclear materials and destroy those nuclear weapons so they don't wind up in the wrong hands. We have got to stop an entire new generation of nuclear weapons by signing a comprehensive test ban treaty this year. We have to ban chemical weapons by ratifying the chemical weapons convention now. All of these things are focused on reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but we also have to be prepared to defend ourselves in the extremely unlikely event that these preventive measures fail. That's why we're spending $3 billion a year on a strong, sensible national missile defense program based on real threats and pragmatic responses. Our first priority is to defend against existing or near-term threats like short and medium-ranged missile attacks on our troops, in the field, or our allies. And we are, with upgraded Patriot Missiles, the Navy lower and upper tier, and the Army Thad. The possibility of a long range missile attack on American soil by a rogue state is more than a decade away. To prevent it, we are committed to developing by the year 2000 a defensive system that could be deployed by 2003, well before the threat becomes real. I know that there are those who disagree with this policy. They have a plan that Congress will take up this week that would force us to choose now a costly missile defense system that could be obsolete tomorrow. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this cost will be between 30 and 60 billion dollars. Those who want us to deploy this system before we know the details and the dimensions of the threat we face I believe are wrong. The right way to defend America includes eliminating weapons of mass destruction, stopping their spread, and building a smart missile defense system. It also includes continuing the fight against the increasingly inter- connected forces of destruction like terrorism, organized crime, and drug trafficking. As Coast Guard officers, you will be on the front lines of this struggle against these forces of destruction, especially drugs. With every seizure like last summer's record haul of 12 tons of cocaine from a Panamanian fishing vessel, you are literally saving the lives of American citizens. Today I pledge this to you, with our military and law enforcement agencies, you will have the tools you need to get the job done. [applause] For 50 years now, our country has been the world's leading force for freedom and progress around the world. And it has brought us real security and prosperity here at home. If we continue to lead, if we continue to meet the peril and seize the promise of this new era, that proud history will also be your future and the future of your children.

MS. FARNSWORTH: President Clinton today at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Tomorrow we'll have a speech from Sen. Dole. RECAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote later tonight on a bill raising the federal minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour. State Department warned Americans not to travel to the Central African republic because of fighting there, and the Federal Trade Commission filed anti-trust charges against Toys R Us, the nation's largest toy retailer. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.