The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After our summary of the news this Friday, we'll look at today's massacre of Palestinians by an Israeli settler and President Clinton's move to prevent its destroying the Middle East peace talks. Political analyst Mark Shields is joined tonight by Paul Gigot and Richard Burt to discuss the week's political scene, and Charlayne Hunter- Gault talks to the extraordinary Delany sisters. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: A Jewish settler, armed with an automatic rifle and hand grenades, killed more than 40 Muslim worshipers at a West Bank mosque today. The gunman, an immigrant from the United States, died at the scene. The attack sparked riots throughout the occupied areas, leaving dozens of others dead and injured. We have more in this report from Israel by Paul Davies of Independent Television News.

PAUL DAVIES, ITN: Palestinian fury as the victims of the mosque massacre are rushed to hospital in Hebron. Just minutes earlier, these people had been praying, celebrating the Arab fast of Ramadan. They were mercilessly gunned down by an Israeli settler. Doctors say most were shot in the back as they knelt to pray. The massacre took place inside the mosque that is built over the reputed site of the prophet Abraham's tomb, holy to Muslims and Jews. The Israeli soldiers who surrounded the mosque were too late to prevent mass murder. The killer, an American-born Jew, Baruf Goldstein, was, himself, a part-time soldier, although he worked primarily at a doctor at a nearby Jewish settlement. Filmed here late last year, Goldstein was a member of the extremist right wing Kath Party. He was wearing his military uniform when he walked into the mosque and began firing his Israeli-made assault rifle. It's believe he emptied five magazines before turning the gun on himself. Within hours of the killings, hundreds of Israeli settlers living in Hebron began to evacuate the town. Young Palestinians took their rage onto the streets. As Israeli troops responded, there was more bloodshed, and the violence quickly spread across the occupied areas. From the Palestinians, the repeated demand that the Israeli settlers should now be disarmed.

FAISAL HUSSEINI, Palestinian Negotiator: What we are asking now and immediately from the Israeli authority to disarm immediately all the settlers in the occupied territories.

MR. DAVIES: The rioting spread to Jerusalem. Hundreds of soldiers called in to tackle stone throwing Palestinian youths on Temple Mount. The clashes continued for hours with civilians caught in the middle.

MR. MacNeil: This evening, Israeli police said Goldstein was beaten to death by enraged worshipers at the mosque and had not committed suicide. Israeli Prime Minister Rabin called PLO Chief Yasser Arafat to apologize for the attack. He said, "As an Israeli, I am ashamed of this deed." Arafat accused Israeli soldiers of not protecting the worshipers at the mosque and said the massacre had seriously endangered the peace process. In Washington, President Clinton called the attack "a gross act of murder." He said he doesn't want to scuttle peace efforts in the area. To that end, he made this announcement at the White House.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: This morning I asked the Secretary of State to contact Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat and to invite them to send all their negotiators involved in the Israel-PLO talks to Washington as soon as possible and to stay here in continuous session until their work is completed. They have both agreed to do that. Our purpose is to accelerate the negotiations on the Declaration of Principles and to try to bring them to a successful conclusion in the shortest possible time. Those negotiations have already made considerable progress as marked by the Cairo agreement. It is my hope that the parties can turn today's tragic event into a catalyst for further progress and reconciliation.

MR. MacNeil: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The United States today expelled a Russian diplomat as retribution for the Aldrich Ames spy case. Ames, a longtime CIA official, and his wife have been charged with spying for the Soviet Union and Russia. U.S. officials had asked the Russian government to voluntarily recall diplomats who were involved with Ames but the Russians refused. State Department Spokesman Mike McCurry announced the U.S. action at a news conference this afternoon.

MIKE McCURRY, State Department Spokesman: The United States of America has declared a counselor in the Russian embassy to be persona non grata. We ask that this individual leave the United States within seven days. The individual in question is the chief Russian intelligence official here in Washington, the so-called rez vent of the SVRR. Clearly, the United States believes that this individual is in a position to be responsible for the activities associated with the Ames espionage case, and for that reason, we insisted to the Russian government that he be held accountable.

MR. LEHRER: The SVRR is the Russian intelligence agency which replaced the Soviet KGB. McCurry said the U.S. government would not rule out the possibility of taking additional action against the Russians.

MR. MacNeil: A new truce took effect in Bosnia today between Muslim and Croat forces. The cease-fire is an attempt to build on a successful truce still holding in Sarajevo. U.N. officials in Central Bosnia said there were some violations today but called them minor. Peace talks will resume this weekend under U.S. auspice. Serb, Croat, and Muslim leaders have accepted the administration's invitation to come to Washington. Sec. of State Christopher talked about the U.S. role during a photo session at the State Department this afternoon.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: We're going to be working very hard with parties to try to help them reach a conclusion. There's still some difficult problems to be worked out, and yes, I expect to be involved personally not to interfere with the parties but hope to give them whatever help the United States can. So we'll be working with the parties through the weekend in the hope that they can resolve the rapprochement between the Croatians in Bosnia and Bosnian government.

MR. MacNeil: After meeting with Sec. Christopher today, Canada's foreign minister said he believed a corner had been turned in the Bosnian crisis by the diplomatic involvement at the highest level of the U.S. government.

MR. LEHRER: Former Housing & Urban Development Aid Deborah Gore Dean was sentenced today to 21 months in prison and fined $5,000. She was convicted last fall of illegally directing federal housing loans to political acquaintances, lying to Congress, and accepting an illegal gift. She was executive assistant to Samuel Pierce, who was HUD secretary in the Reagan administration. Pierce has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

MR. MacNeil: Finally, the much-heralded Olympic women's figure skating competition is over. The gold medal went to 16-year-old Oksana Baiul of Ukraine. America's Nancy Kerrigan won the silver, and Chen Lu of China captured the bronze. Tonya Harding, Kerrigan's chief U.S. rival, finished in eighth place.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the massacre in the Middle East, political analysis, and a conversation with the Delany sisters. FOCUS - ATTACK ON PEACE

MR. MacNeil: We begin tonight with the massacre in Hebron. The murder of dozens of Palestinians at prayer by a Jewish settler and violence that spread across the occupied territories and led to more casualties. Israel's Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin called PLO Leader Yasser Arafat to express condolences and outrage. President Clinton summoned Israelis and Palestinians to Washington to complete negotiations that would allow both sides to start implementing the historic accord of last September. We start with an excerpt from Mr. Clinton's session with reporters at the White House.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: There can be no coincidence that the murderer struck during the holy month of Ramadan and chose a site sacred to Muslims and to Jews. His likely purpose was to ruin the historic reconciliation now underway between the Palestinians and the Israelis. On behalf of the American people I condemn this crime in the strongest possible terms. I am outraged and saddened that such a gross act of murder could be perpetrated, and I extend my deepest sympathies to the families of those who have been killed and wounded. I also call on all the parties to exercise maximum restraint in what we all understand is a terribly emotional situation. Extremists on both sides are determined to drag Arabs and Israelis back into the darkness of unending conflict and bloodshed. We must prevent them from extinguishing the hopes and the visions and the aspirations of ordinary people for a life of peaceful existence.

GWEN IFILL, New York Times: Mr. President, what is it about this massacre, as opposed to other setbacks that have occurred in the Middle East that has brought you to this podium today, that makes you feel it's necessary to make a strong statement?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: First of all, its scope and setting is horrible from a purely human point of view. Secondly, it comes at a time when it appears to be clearly designed to affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of others by derailing the peace process, and I am hoping that the statesmanship of the leaders in the region and the attention that this will bring to the terrible problem will not only de-fuse what could become a much worse round of killings and counterattacks but will actually be used to thwart the purpose of the murder and to reinvigorate the peace process. Yes, Tom.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN, New York Times: Mr. President, in inviting the parties to come here to Washington, do you also anticipate that you or the Secretary of State will adopt a different posture toward these negotiations? Up to now, we've kind of let them handle it and keep a "hands off" approach, maybe wisely, but do you see that fact, now that they're going to be here and given the urgency you've assigned to it, do you see yourself or the Secretary taking a different posture toward the talks?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think, first of all, the very act of inviting them here indicates some sense of urgency on my part. What we have done, to date, as you know, is largely to try to give both sides the security they needed to proceed and the assurances that we would support it, but that they would clearly have to make the agreement. We still believe they will have to fully agree. We believe they are close to agreement. We want to do things that will prevent this last terrible incident from derailing that and to try to send a signal to the peoples in the region to not overreact to this horrible act, that the path of peace is still the right path. Whether that will require us to, to do more in particular meetings I can't say, because we had discussed this with Chairman Arafat, with Prime Minister Rabin, because we wanted to move quickly, and they did too. And we'll just have to wait for that to unfold.

MR. MacNeil: Now we hear from Israel's ambassador to the United States, Itamar Rabinovich and the PLO representative in Washington, Hasan Abdel Rahman. I talked to them late this afternoon. Mr. Ambassador, Mr. Rahman, thank you both for joining us. Mr. Rahman, from the Palestinian point of view, can the peace talk process survive this atrocity?

MR. RAHMAN: Well, it depends on how we are going to handle this situation. Definitely the impact of this outrageous crime is going to be negative on the Palestinians. But if the Israeli government and the co-sponsors of the peace process are willing to deal with the issue of the settlers and the settlements in a manner that will ensure that their activities will not sabotage the peace process, then the process may survive.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Ambassador, just in a general sense, what makes you confident that this massacre is not going to destroy this process that was begun last fall and has gone on all winter?

AMB. RABINOVICH: I think that there are enormous interests and commitments at stake. I believe that there is a very strong will in my country to proceed to the peace process. I believe that the PLO leadership and the Palestinian leadership in general is interested. We have the unfailing support of the United States and the International Community. It is good that the President of the United States and the Secretary of State were on very early today to deal with the problem and to help the parties deal with it. And I think that when one considers the alternatives, and today was a very good reminder of what an alternative to the peace process could be, then I'm almost confident that we could deal with crisis.

MR. MacNeil: Well, the point that Mr. Rahman raised, how is your government going to restrain those settlers in the occupied territories from acts deliberately designed to destroy the peace process?

AMB. RABINOVICH: I think we ought to distinguish between the settlers, that is to say the bulk of the settlers, and a small, and a small minority. There are over 100,000 Jewish residents or Israeli residents across the green line, and most of them are private individuals who are interested in going to work, coming back home safely and carry the pistol and other weapons for their protection. There is a small radical group. One member of that group perpetrated the crime of this morning. My government was very clear in taking a position on this in promising a series of measures to be announced in the plenary of the government on Sunday to deal with those groups on our side that are unruly and might endanger the peace process. And I wouldn't want to generalize from this minority to the bulk of the settlers.

MR. MacNeil: Well, I didn't intend to do that in my question, but I'm wondering how, legally how constitutionally you can restrain people like Dr. Goldstein when they are legally armed with automatic weapons to protect themselves from Arab terrorism which Dr. Goldstein's friends said drove -- which terrorism they said drove him to this act today?

AMB. RABINOVICH: Today the legal adviser to the Israeli government participated in the covenant session, and he participated precisely in order to help the government find the right balance between expediency and legal requirements.

MR. MacNeil: What does that mean, that you will find some legal and constitutional way to put more restraints on those extreme settlers who want to destroy the peace process?

AMB. RABINOVICH: To give you a short answer, the answer is yes.

MR. MacNeil: Yes. Are you satisfied by that answer, Mr. Rahman?

MR. RAHMAN: Absolutely not. I don't think it does us any good or the peace process any good to try to minimize the danger that the home settlement and the settlers posed to the peace process. Here you have 150,000 men and women, mostly armed, without any control. They roam the territories. They are free to do whatever they can and they want. Today, for example, Hebron is under curfew where this massacre was committed, while Qiryat Arba, which is the Israeli settlement is not. So here we have a whole issue that has to be addressed in a very front, direct manner. If we are really serious about the peace process and from our side we are, and we hope that our partners in this peace are also serious, then we must address this very, very serious and dangerous phenomenon. And that is the phenomenon of the settlements. This is not the first time that settler are shooting Palestinians. This is the largest in the mosque, and, therefore, I think that Israel -- the government of Israel should have the courage to address this issue in a very, very serious manner. Otherwise, we will face similar situations and then neither us, the leadership of the PLO nor anybody else, can control the situation.

MR. MacNeil: Well, let's turn it to your side. How is the PLO going to restrain immediately now your own Palestinian people from acts of reprisal and revenge? For instance, the extremist group on your side, Islamic Jihad, has announced worldwide attacks on Jews in the next 24 hours.

MR. RAHMAN: Well, from our side, we can only appeal to our people to not endanger the peace process. That's what we can do. And we have done that.

MR. MacNeil: There are people deliberately intending to endanger it, to kill it, yes.

MR. RAHMAN: We are not in control of the situation, and that's why we were urging our counterparts to allow us to implement the DOP in the -- in an expedited manner, so we can be in control of the territories. You know, people, especially the Palestinians, their situation has not changed in any way since the signing of the Declaration of Principles. The security situation, as well as the economic situation is worse, so the challenge we face now -- and I think the Israelis face it more so than anybody else, is to show the Palestinians that the fruits of what they have signed is dead. The settlers, the Israeli army, today for example, there were more than eight people killed by the Israeli soldiers, not by the settlers. So how can we deal with the situation?

AMB. RABINOVICH: Mr. MacNeil, if I may.

MR. MacNeil: Those people were killed in the riots that followed the massacre in the mosque, as I understand it.

MR. RAHMAN: Yes, that is what happened.

MR. MacNeil: Yes, Mr. Ambassador.

AMB. RABINOVICH: I think I'd like to underscore two points. It took two years of negotiations in Washington and six months of clandestine negotiations in Oslo to come to the Oslo agreement. The Oslo agreement, the Declaration of Principles, determined that the issue of settlements be address in the permanent status negotiations in the third year. I think it would be erroneous and mistaken to try to push the agenda, as Mr. Rahman has done now and other Palestinian spokesmen have been doing today, because the fragile and delicate structure of the Oslo agreement could be jeopardized. I think we should concentrate on the second point, namely changing reality in the territories. And in that respect, it's been very constructive, that a decision was made and orchestrated by the United States to shift the negotiations to Washington, to accelerate them, to try to reach an agreement on implementation and to start changing realities on the ground as soon as we can.

MR. MacNeil: But let me just ask -- I'm going to come on to the negotiations in a minute, but Mr. Rahman, as things stand this evening, are you, the PLO, and the Israeli government both on the verge of losing control of this situation?

MR. RAHMAN: I must tell you that we are weaker today than yesterday because of this crime, because whatever happens on the ground is going to impact on the support that the people have for the peace process and for their leadership. And if their leadership is unable to protect them and provide them an alternative to the situation that they live under, which is a terrible situation by all standards, then you are weaker. And that's why I think again that it does not serve any good purpose to minimize the question of the settlements, and I ask our Israeli counterparts or our partners in this peace process really to address this issue very, very seriously, and leave political expediency on the side. We know that there's an Israeli public opinion, that there are certain difficulties for the Israeli government, but I believe the overwhelming majority of the Israeli public support a serious addressing of this issue.

MR. MacNeil: Well, I think --

MR. RAHMAN: And therefore they should.

MR. MacNeil: I think it's an indication of how far you've come that you are both willing to come here together, which a year or so ago was not the case. But let me ask you, Mr. Ambassador, the talks were already taking place in a calm and secure place in Egypt. What difference is it going to make moving the talks to Washington?

AMB. RABINOVICH: The difference is going to be both of psychological and practical nature. And I think that shifting the negotiations here dramatically drives home the point that time is of the essence, and agreement on implementation should have been reached on December 13th, and had agreement been reached on December 13th, we would have been today in the midst of the implementation in a much better state of affairs. Secondly, talks take place in Cairo, in Tabah, in Paris, they're orchestrated from a distance, in practical terms creating a pressure cooker situation. A continuous session until agreement is reached I think may be conductive to agreement, and we definitely are of the opinion that we ought to reach agreement swiftly and to work on changing the realities on the ground.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Rahman, how close are the two sides to agreement on implementing the Oslo accord?

MR. RAHMAN: I believe that we have agreed on some issues. There were issues that left for, for discussion, especially for the first part of the agreement which is Gaza-Jericho, but the rest of the DOP, Declaration of Principles, items are going to be negotiated. So we have made some progress but not sufficient to change the situation on the ground. Again, this crime introduced very seriously the question of the settlements which we have to address. We have, again, you know, 150,000 people who are on with an agenda. Their agenda is to sabotage the peace process.

MR. MacNeil: But I mean --

MR. RAHMAN: Can we let them do that?

MR. MacNeil: Has enough progress been made in these talks on implementing the agreement that started with the handshake that President Clinton orchestrated last fall, has enough progress been made that a really strong push, non-stop negotiations in Washington are going provide the breakthrough and finish it off? Are you confident that can happen?

MR. RAHMAN: I believe that we moved considerably towards the implementation of the first stage of the DOP. But it is incomplete, obviously, otherwise we would have that breakthrough by now. So there are many other issues that were not settled. And we felt that there was really a dragging of feet by the Israeli side. They want to -- they are not as in a hurry as we expected them to be.

MR. MacNeil: Is that true, Mr. Rabinovich?

AMB. RABINOVICH: No. You know, on a day like this I wouldn't want to engage in argument and debate because we ought to join forces on trying to improve the situation, but the foot dragging has not been ours. Let me say that I am confident, given the agreement between Minister Peres and Chairman Arafat in Cairo that most controversial issues have been sorted out. There are other issues that need to be finalized. Introducing the issue of the settlements now as an added item on the agenda, instead of dealing with it in the third year, would complicate matters and make us, take us to a greater distance from an agreement. It would be a mistake.

MR. MacNeil: Well, let me ask you both briefly, starting with you, Mr. Ambassador, President Clinton said today that this atrocity, this terrible event, could be a catalyst to speed the negotiations. Mr. Rahman, is it going to be a catalyst to speed the negotiations, or a way of opening the door to getting the settler issue into the talks?

MR. RAHMAN: Let me say first that neither I am interested in debates and polemics with the ambassador, but what I stated is a matter of fact. It is in the eyes of the beholder anyway. But going back to your question, I believe that we should not really concentrate too much on the form. The substance is the most important thing. We have to share the initiative of President Clinton by inviting the parties, and I think we responded positively. But what's going to make it or break it is how we deal with the substance, and the substance are the settlements as well as the other issues left on the DOP.

MR. MacNeil: Is this tragedy, Mr. Ambassador, going to provide a new spur to Israel?

AMB. RABINOVICH: I believe it will to Israel, to the Palestinians, and to everybody. Sometimes when one negotiates for several months on implementing an agreement, one becomes mired in detail. And it takes a tragedy like this morning's tragedy in order to remind us what are the real issues at stake, and I believe that the lesson was driven home in a very tragic and a very powerful way, and that it will serve as a catalyst.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Mr. Ambassador, Mr. Rahman, thank you both for joining us.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields, Gigot, and Burt, and the Delany sisters. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Now, our Friday night political analysis. Syndicated columnist Mark Shields is in Raleigh, North Carolina, tonight. Joining him here in Washington are Wall Street Journal Columnist Paul Gigot and Richard Burt, former New York Times reporter and Reagan and Bush administration diplomat. First, on the CIA spy story, Mark, the United States expelled the top Russian agent here in the United States today. Is that enough to close the book?

MR. SHIELDS: Is that enough to close the book? No, Jim. There's obviously a lot more questions to be, to be answered that remain out there. The fragile coalition, bipartisan, that supported aid to Russia is, is I still think in some jeopardy at this point.

MR. LEHRER: But it was a justified -- it was justified to kick the guy out?

MR. SHIELDS: Absolutely, absolutely justified. I don't think there's any question about that. It is kind of fascinating how over the period of the end of the Cold War and even preceding that how our spies changed. I mean, there was a time at the time of the Rosenbergs that people did it for ideological reasons, that they were sympathetic to the Soviet cause or some misunderstood concept of world peace or whatever. Now we're into designer greed is what we're into. You know, this guy was living like a rock star and spending cash like a drug king.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Rick, what do you think about the action of expelling this guy, does that make sense?

MR. BURT: Well, yeah, it clearly makes sense. We're going to have to see now what the Russians do, and typically what happens, you get into a tit for tat thing, and what's interesting to me is the Russians could have helped President Clinton on this. They sent a high level CIA delegation to Moscow. They could have talked, tried to work something out. They sort of closed the door in their face.

MR. LEHRER: They asked them to do this on their own, did they not?

MR. BURT: That's right. And then secondly, they could have done something here and in Washington. They could have perhaps sent somebody home. I think what this really reflects is something deeper, which is very interesting. Almost the same week that this has happened you're seeing a new turn in Russian policy. Yeltsin gave a very tough speech yesterday. Clearly, Mr. Zhirinovsky, the Russian nationalist, is having an impact on Russian politics. We saw this dramatic action on the part of the Russians late last week to send their troops into Bosnia, and so I think if this had happened maybe two or three months ago, it wouldn't have been a problem for the administration, but I think it all comes together. People begin to ask: Isn't it time for the administration to really rethink its whole policy towards Yeltsin, their whole policy towards Russia.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think that's -- it's -- something should be done, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: I do think it's something that should be done. I think it is going to be done. I think we're going to have, we're on the verge here of a debate over Russia, U.S./Russia policy, as Mark pointed out. The consensus, the bipartisan consensus in favor of aiding Russia, helping Russia, that has existed since the end of the Cold War, I think this week broke apart. And whether the President can stitch it back together again I think will depend upon in part him demonstrating through things like expelling this - - the Russian embassy person and taking some stiffer action to Russian attempts to establish its own national interest, as Rick says. A lot of Republicans are saying this week that what's been happening is the Clinton administration has been identifying U.S. interest with Boris Yeltsin's fate. I think those are diverging.

MR. LEHRER: But, Mark, a lot of the Democrats are arguing, wait a minute, come on, there's a spy thing, we've got spies over there, we've got the interests of the -- as a matter of fact, the President has even said the interests of the United States are what we're really talking about here as far as Russia is concerned, not the interests of Russia. Let's not get -- let's not let the spy thing cause us to overreact in terms of our own interests in helping Russia come into this new world.

MR. SHIELDS: Jim, I think it's impossible to argue that a democratically vigorous and economically vital Soviet -- Russia is not in the best interest of the United States and any hope and expectation of their being a stable partner in dealing with problems whether it is in the Balkans or whether it's with Korea are just internationally and acting in unison is helped by, by that stability that we're hoping to aspire, to nurture, to encourage by, by our aid. I think that's the argument that the Secretary, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell made, the argument that the President was making as well, and it's not really as compelling, of course, as they've got a spy in our pantry. And I think that does arouse some emotions in the country.

MR. LEHRER: Rick, do you see a danger of overreacting?

MR. BURT: Well, I think there could be overreaction, but I don't think that's the problem. I think Mark is right, of course. If we could through our aid get a democratic Russia, if we could get a free market Russia, an economically developed Russia, that would be great. But I think increasingly what some people in the Congress are saying and some outside experts are arguing is that doesn't seem to be happening. The problem in economic development of Russia, in the creation of a free market economy is not that just that they're not getting enough aid. They don't seem to be interested in establishing that kind of economy. Yeltsin yesterday said the state should have a bigger role. Clearly, they want to keep their military industrial complex intact. Here's a country that still spends a large percentage of its Gross National Product on defense, and he clearly indicated yesterday that they don't want to cut back on their defense, so the real question is, is -- in the long run I think -- is, is the Marshall Plan analogy right? We thought we'd looked at Russia like a defeated country like Germany and other European countries after World War II, and we just needed to give them some money to get back on their feet. There's a real question of whether we can really reform Russia, the former Soviet Union, as quickly and easily as we want to do, and particularly if the Russians start playing a much more aggressive game, we can very well see in the Ukraine next year Russian troops going in there, going into Crimea, going into the Eastern Ukraine, to aid Russian nationalists in that former republic and other areas. What will be the Clinton administration's reaction to that?

MR. LEHRER: And what will be the reaction, Paul, not only of Republican Senators but the American people? That's what you were suggesting earlier, that the domestic politics here for Clinton and for the, for the Congress are changing too, are they not?

MR. GIGOT: Well, take foreign aid, for example. Foreign aid is about as popular as term limits on Capitol Hill, probably less popular. In an election year, there's no way that this administration is going to be a one billion or two billion dollars for Russia without Republican support. There aren't a lot of Democrats who are going to walk out on that limb to see it sawed off in November. It's just too good an issue for somebody who opposes it. And I think they misunderstood the resonance this week of the spy issue. This is something that people pay attention to. Allies and partners don't typically spy. And we've been hearing from this administration that our interests and Russia's are synonymous. Well, why are they spying? This is something that people pay attention to, and I think that while the expulsion helps a lot, it probably would have been, as Sam Nunn pointed out, the Democratic Senator from Georgia, more helpful if he had done it right away.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. You know, the one thing that I have noticed, because we've done two or three segments on this since this thing, nobody has come up with a really good answer yet as to why the Russians are still spying on us, other than oh, well, they've got to -- they want to know technology. Mark, have you got an answer for that?

MR. SHIELDS: I think, Jim, it's a tough habit to shake, as we proved with our CIA. We've got spies in Tokyo, and we've got spies in Tel Aviv. We've got informers. I think that's part of it. I think the other thing is that Russia probably feels incredibly weak and vulnerable and boy, any information they could get would be helpful. Don't forget, I mean, we had a fellow, if the allegations are true on Ames, I mean, that was a gift. I mean, he walked right in and said, hey, I can turn over the whole, the whole thing at a time of suspicion and mistrust in Russia, itself. He said, I can tell you who's telling the Yanks everything that's going on in your country. You know, that's a tough one to turn down.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. But, Rick, explain this to us non-diplomats. I think the pros really kind did just kiss this off this week. They said, hey, come on, don't get excited about this, but the average - - it's just what Paul was saying, the average American was saying, wait a minute, these people are taking our money, they want to be our friends, and what's going on here?

MR. BURT: Absolutely. Well, Russia is still a great power, and diplomats say we've got to deal with these guys, and spying is going to go on. And the reason I think --

MR. LEHRER: But, why? Why is spying going on?

MR. BURT: Because Russia believes that it has a role in the world, and great powers need to spy. They need to know what the United States is doing. We negotiate an agreement on nuclear weapons. Both sides are reducing nuclear weapons. Both sides want to know if the other side is cheating. There is still an under side of suspicion regardless of the end of the Cold War. I mean, one thing that it's important to recognize, that the end of Communism in Russia did not mean the end of Russia as a great power. Geopolitics persist, and I think that we're beginning to see with Yeltsin's speeches and with some statements of others in Russia that Russia still has very big bold ambitions. They want to be a powerful country in Europe, and that means you spy on the one world superpower.

MR. LEHRER: Now most people thought here in this country that Russia was going to put all that behind us, and we were all going to march arm and arm down a path to a, a new world order. Forget it. Is that what you're saying, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: You know, there still is a lot to be said for pursuing some kind of a condominium between Russia and the United States, no question about it. But it took us an awful long time after World War II with Germany, and even for a while, if you think back long enough, with Great Britain. I mean, we fought a war or two with them, and it takes a while for these habits to change and for interests to coincide. Sometimes our interests will coincide with Russia's, but I don't think they will, for example, if Boris Yeltsin's nationalist pressure begins to force him to make him meddle in the Baltic states for example, or force some kind of confrontation, as Rick said, with the Ukraine. Then our interests are going to diverge, and then we're going to have some kind of confrontation.

MR. LEHRER: Rick, let's switch signals -- I mean, just like that -- to a, Mark, to real domestic political thing, and that is one we keep talking about because it's still on the front burner, and that's health care reform. The President and Mrs. Clinton out again this week particularly talking to, again, to older audiences trying to sell their plan, the report said, the Washington Post, the New York Times keeps saying that the health alliances are dead. We did a piece on that, had a discussion on that last night. What pulse reading do you get on the Clinton health care plan this week?

MR. SHIELDS: The pulse is irregular but still strong. I think that in all likelihood there will be some action in the House of Representatives next week, and Pete Stark's Ways & Means Subcommittee. I think that there will be a movement and report, was reported out of that committee, and I think that will be the first look, but there's no question, Jim, that nobody at this point has a majority. Nobody's anywhere near the majority. Watching it legislatively is like watching a new Italian government form. I mean, everybody's got 20 percent, but I think that there will be a health reform law passed in 1994. There will be 500 pens distributed at that ceremony but there will be one signature. That will be Bill Clinton's. And I don't think -- I don't think anything we've seen in the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons backing off, I don't think anything has changed my mind on that.

MR. LEHRER: Anything change -- with all of this going on, Paul, do you agree that nothing has changed the fact that there's going to be something, the only thing that we're still arguing about is what the something is going to be?

MR. GIGOT: I think that's right, but the devil is all in the details. Are we going to have the radical reform that I think is part and parcel to the Clinton program, or something much more incrementalist, which there is a consensus for across the parties? That's where the real debate is. And I take the AARP reluctance to endorse --

MR. LEHRER: That was yesterday. They declined to do that.

MR. GIGOT: Yesterday -- a little -- fairly seriously, because what you're seeing is a divergence, I think, in a lot of areas between the Washington lobbyists who are willing to support the Clintons and the Clinton plan and the grassroots, where there's a lot more anxiety and a lot more apprehension about what exactly is on this bill. I think they are, this grassroots effort is hampering some of the insiders who would like to promote this plan.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, what do you think of the Moynihan thesis, which is that hey, that this is a really big thing, reforming the health care system, and that consensus should be leading the way, rather than winning it by one or two votes or whatever, if you're going to make this big of change in something that affects so many people in this country, what do you think about that? Is that going to catch on, do you think, at the White House and among the Republicans as well?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I don't think there's any question, Jim, that Pat Moynihan speaks with great wisdom when he makes that point. I mean, that was no more better demonstrated in this country than the Civil Rights Act in 1964 where an 18-week filibuster in the Senate finally persuaded the American people of the wisdom of proposed changes in the civil rights law. And I think that we haven't had that kind of a debate on this. I think the President is reaching out. He was reaching out this week. He had the single payer people over. He had the reasonable Republicans over, as the White House calls them.

MR. LEHRER: End quote.

MR. SHIELDS: End quote. But I think there is a real concern, and that is the Republican Senators talking about going off on retreat. If they come away with a single position from that retreat, you know, a quite unanimous position or almost overwhelmingly held position among them which is totally contrary to the Clinton plan, then I think that then you're really into some real problems, and the negotiating's going to get tough.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. We're into a time problem. Gentlemen, thank you all three very much. CONVERSATION

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight, this is Black History Month, and Charlayne Hunter-Gault has a conversation with two women who've lived it and made it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: They were born close to the turn of the century, Sadie and Bessie Delany, two of the ten children of Henry Beard and Nanny Logan Delany. Mr. Delany was born in slavery in Georgia but rose to become the first African-American bishop of the Episcopal Church. Mrs. Delany was born free in Virginia. While raising the children, she worked with her husband on the campus of St. Augustine School in Raleigh, North Carolina. By the turn of the century, the Delany family had become one of the nation's preeminent black families, with Sadie and Bessie carving out special places for themselves. Neither ever married. Sadie Delany graduated from Columbia University in 1920 and later earned a masters in education. Bessie graduated in 1923 and went on to earn a doctor of dental surgery. She was the second black woman licensed to practice dentistry in New York. Last year, Sadie and Bessie Delany shared their history with Amy Hill Heart in Having Our Say: The Delany Sisters' First Hundred Years. Bessie Delany is 103- years-old, and Sadie Delany is 105. I reminisced with them recently in their suburban New York home. Sadie, when your father talked to you about what it was like being a slave and what it was like getting his freedom, what do you remember about that? Did he say it was terrible being a slave?

SADIE DELANY: He was only seven years when surrender came, and he really didn't know very much about slavery. So the only thing he remembered was of a child between six and seven years old, little boys then used aprons, and they buttoned, the one button in the back, and that was all and the sleeves, so he remembers going around the house saying, "Freedom, freedom, I'm free, I'm free," and "I'm free," so that's the only thing he remembers about real slavery.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And when you talk about surrender, you mean, tell me a little bit -- the surrender means what?

SADIE DELANY: Means slavery is over, you're free.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And the surrender was Lee at -- Lee surrendering to the union at Appomattox.

BESSIE DELANY: That's right. When Lee surrendered, that was surrender at Appomattox. That was surrender.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And your mother was, was unusual, wasn't she, being a mother and being a working person?

BESSIE DELANY: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Did that inspire you later on to choose a career?

SADIE DELANY: All the time.

BESSIE DELANY: There was never anything that happened in my life, Mama used to say, if anything happens, you can always tell Mama. And there used to be a book Tell Mama, and if Mama asked us anything, she didn't have to take anybody else's word for it, she knew we were telling the truth. And you know, until today, she says, "You don't lie to anybody." She says, "If you lie, you are afraid of them."

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Your parents always told you to present yourselves in a dignified way, but Bessie, you had a pig that your father didn't approve of. Tell me a little about that.

BESSIE DELANY: They had connected with the school a farm, and this little pig, a little white, a male pig was thrown over to be dead. Well, I, of course, grabbed him right up, went in and got my bottle and taught him how to suck the bottle. And he just -- I was -- he just thought I was God, because everything that pig wanted I gave it to him.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But your father didn't like that.

SADIE DELANY: Well, he grew to be so big. He was afraid.

BESSIE DELANY: He weighed about 500 pounds, and he would follow me all over the campus, everywhere.

SADIE DELANY: He had to take him away from there.

BESSIE DELANY: And he had these great tusks grow up over his snout. And he would -- if I'd call him, I don't care where he was, he would break and run. But Papa didn't like me running around there with that bold pig.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why?

BESSIE DELANY: Well --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, but he thought it wasn't dignified.

BESSIE DELANY: I don't know. He just didn't like it, but I insisted, and so when he -- finally he bit one of the attendants and bit him in his privates, so that was a good excuse to get the pig away from me and me away from the pig.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. But on the issue of respect, tell me the story, because that goes to your father's core, he insisted on respect, and you respect people, and they respect you like the white people would always call people by their first names. Tell me about how your father insisted that black people be called by "Mr." and "Miss"

SADIE DELANY: There was only one way. If they didn't know your first name, he decided that they were called -- he said, "Mr. and Mrs. Delany," and that's what they did.

BESSIE DELANY: They set the example. And when we would ask him, they call Aunt Amy, he says, "Is she married?" I says, "Yes." "Well, if she's married, she's earned her title, and you give it to you.

SADIE DELANY: She's Mrs."

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And he insisted.

BESSIE DELANY: He insisted. All the people around there would call you Aunt Suki and Aunt Anything to keep from calling you "Miss." So it must have dawned on him that "Miss" and "Mr." were titles of respect.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The other thing is that you grew up very protected, your parents were nervous about exposing you to white men who were taking advantage of black women.

BESSIE DELANY: I liked to have gotten lynched when we were all meeting at Waycross, Georgia, because I was a fighter. I didn't take tea for the fever. I had long hair, came down here, and this - - had plenty of it. I used to go the barber once every six months and have it thinned out I had so much. So I was there in this colored waiting room. They had everything colored and white. And this was down in Waycross, Georgia. It was a place that they trains met to go to Birmingham. So anyway, while we were there, this white man that I called a "reb," he came by and saw me combing this long hair. I can imagine it now, but it never occurred to me then. And so he began to make passes at me. Well, I ain't never had anybody make any passes at me. I had been brought up with decent people. And they treated me in a decent way. And when he made I pass, I said, "Get out of here and go on around there with your other whores on your side." So he, "Oh, this nigger bitch has insulted me!" The crowds gathered and they looked in to see this woman. I didn't seem to be bothering anybody. But he just insisted this nigger bitch had insulted him. When the train came, they got on the train and let me go on. And I think that the people were very glad. I think most of the people realized that he was drunk.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now in your book, you say that Jim Crow, which came in in 1896 and established the segregation laws, Jim Crow changed everything. How did it change your life?

BESSIE DELANY: We loved. The whole family, two families of us would get together once a year and go to the park.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And then something changed all of a sudden, right, Sadie?

SADIE DELANY: Well, when we went to the park, we'd always get in front of the streetcar -- five cents to go out to the streetcar - - and this time the man said, "Get back to the car." I said, "Well, why? We want to get to the park."

BESSIE DELANY: We didn't want our hair to blow.

SADIE DELANY: We didn't want the wind to blow through our hair, you know. He said, "It's against the law. You have to get to the back." And then we found out that it was Jim Crow. And so we could go on, got in the back of the car, and we got out there. And then when we went to get water, then every place had a dipper, a tin dipper, and you'd just take the tin dipper and dip and get your water. And this pool had a round place, but they had put something all over the middle of it, just a slat over the middle, and said white on this side and colored on that side. And so Bessie took that dipper took that dipper and she just had to dip over there, and she said, "I'm gonna get me some white water," and she dipped - - just dipped over there and drank her water.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now, tell me when you got up North, you found Jim Crow up North too, right?

SADIE DELANY: In dentistry, all your work is more or less about, around the mouth, and you had to set up teeth. And I could ever more do it. And all the children would come to me. Bessie said to me, let me get mine up. And I went and got up, and he said, no, this wouldn't pass. So Sadie, the youngest child in the class, she had to wait to take her state boards she was so young, and she said, Bessie, let me take yours and check it. I said, they won't take it. I said, they failed me. She said, let me try anyhow, so she must have had an idea that there was something wrong. She took my work that they failed me on and passed on it, and all the other students, I was the only one that failed. That was a case of real mean discrimination, because they didn't have to do that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Wasn't there a school where you didn't let them know you were coming, you just showed up?

SADIE DELANY: That was after -- when I got appointed, you had three years to get appointed after you passed this examination, which was no easy job for a colored person, and they wrote me. The took the three top on the list -- and of course if you were colored, they'd just skip over you and take the other two. And so my brother knew a fellow that worked down at the Board of Education, and he told Hubert --

BESSIE DELANY: He was colored.

SADIE DELANY: Yeah. He said, you tell your sister when they write her to come for an interview at the school, don't go. He said, they won't know she's colored, and then they'll appoint her, and then when you go up there and you're appointed, you can't do nothing about it. So I made an excuse, and I didn't go. And they just appointed me. And when I appeared there, this colored girl, they could do nothing about it, so I was appointed.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When you look back, what do you think has been harder, being black or being a woman?

SADIE DELANY: Black, being black. Being black. That's the hardest.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Sadie and Bessie Delany, thank you for joining us. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, a Jewish settler with an automatic rifle and hand grenades killed more than 40 Muslim worshipers at a mosque in the West Bank. At least 10 others died in riots throughout the occupied territories that followed. And the United States expelled the chief of Russian intelligence in the U.S. as retribution for the Aldrich Ames spy case. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll see you again Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.