The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight Newsmaker interviews with Ross Perot and with the foreign minister of Turkey, and "Where They Stand" speeches by President Clinton and Bob Dole. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The Federal Reserve Board decided today not to raise two key interest rates. It was the last meeting of the Fed's Open Market Committee before the November 5th election. President Clinton welcomed the decision, saying it confirmed his view that the economy was strong and showed no signs of inflation. The news brought an instant rally on Wall Street, but stocks then dropped back again. Bob Dole talked about the economy as he campaign in the Midwest today. He told the Detroit Economic Club that recent trade deficit and bankruptcy figures showed a weak American economy. He said President Clinton should not be satisfied with that. Dole also planned campaign stops in Ohio and Missouri. We'll have excerpts from his Detroit speech later as well as from one President Clinton gave today in New Jersey. Ross Perot's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission today. It said TV networks have not allowed the Reform Party equal air time for campaign ads. The party wants the FCC to intervene on its behalf. We'll have a Newsmaker interview with Ross Perot right after this News Summary. President Clinton signed a nuclear test ban treaty today. He did so at the United Nations in New York. Foreign ministers from the other four declared nuclear powers, China, France, Russia, and Britain, also signed. After the ceremony, Mr. Clinton addressed the opening session of the 51st U.N. General Assembly.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: This comprehensive test ban treaty will help to prevent the nuclear powers from developing more advanced and more dangerous weapons. It will limit the ability of other states to acquire such devices themselves. It points us toward a century in which the roles and risks of nuclear weapons can be forever reduced and ultimately eliminated. The signatures of world's declared nuclear powers, the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, along with those of the vast majority of its nations, will immediately create an international norm against nuclear testing, even before the treaty formally enters into force.

MR. LEHRER: The comprehensive test ban treaty makes all nuclear weapons explosions off limits, whether in the atmosphere or underground, but it will have no effect until India signs it. India has refused thus far until the other nuclear powers agree on a timetable for destroying nuclear arsenals. In Congress today, Republican leaders agreed to remove an amendment that had stalled the immigration reform bill. It would have allowed states to bar illegal immigrant children from public schools. Republicans said they will offer it later as a separate piece of legislation. They hail the end result as a compromise.

SEN. ALAN SIMPSON, [R] Wyoming: This is basically a pretty good package with what we've done. We all know what we've done. It's very strong, very tough, very direct, very necessary. And I would urge the support of the conference report and let us not appeal to, to the worst in us and know that this, this is but a start, because these issues will be before us for years and years and decades, the rest of our history. But I thank you for a great run. It's been a wonderful experience, and I have--I have loved it all, and, and learned that you either learn to compromise, or you learn to cry yourself to sleep at night.

MR. LEHRER: Some Democrats disagreed. Sen. Edward Kennedy said the overall immigration bill does not do enough to camp down on employers who knowingly hire illegals.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, [D] Massachusetts: For weeks our Republican colleagues have been meeting in secret among themselves to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House bills. Democrats have been excluded, and now we are faced with a take-it- or-leave-it Republican proposal. I intend to leave it. And I urge the Democrats to do the same. Jobs are the magnet. If you're serious about dealing with illegal immigration, you're going to have to deal with jobs--not welfare, not education, but jobs.

MR. LEHRER: Senate Minority Leader Daschle said if opponents decide to filibuster, the whole bill could be in danger. House leaders said the bill could face a final vote there as early as tomorrow. A California fruit cooperative was convicted today of giving illegal gifts to former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and giving illegal campaign contributions to his brother. Sun-Diamond growers, an umbrella company for thousands of nuts and raisin growers, faces fines of up to $500,000. No individuals were charged in the case. Espy became agriculture secretary in 1993, resigned in 1994. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Ross Perot, the foreign minister of Turkey, and "Where They Stand." NEWSMAKER - CAMPAIGN 96

MR. LEHRER: We begin tonight with a Newsmaker interview with Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot. He filed a federal lawsuit yesterday demanding the presidential debates be stopped unless he is included. He joins us tonight from Dallas, Texas. Mr. Perot, welcome.

ROSS PEROT, Reform Party Presidential Candidate: Jim, how are you?

MR. LEHRER: Just fine, sir, just fine. Your suit claims constitutional rights are being violated. Do you believe that you have the constitutional right to be in these presidential debates?

MR. PEROT: I believe that when 76 percent of the voters want me in the debates, they should have a voice that overrides five Democrats and five Republicans in the Debate Commission who don't want me in the debates. This is about letting the people listen to the candidates. Jim, in today's world, if you're not in the presidential debates, you can't be competitive. The third presidential debate in 1992 had an audience of 97 million people. So let's go back to what this country is supposed to be about. The voters own this country. The people own this country, not five Republicans and five Democrats. Jim, they wouldn't even talk to anyone in the Reform Party while they were meeting with one another all through the two parties. They thinks this belongs to them. The American people don't even know that this is a private corporation, funded privately, and they don't know that this organization won't even tell you who funds it. We'll get that in a few days, and we'll tell you, and you're going to see some really big special interests who fund the Debate Commission. So we're going to pull this little skunk up by the tail and let the American people see how the system is being manipulated and why the people have to pay the price but don't get the benefits.

MR. LEHRER: But isn't the ultimate decision up to President Clinton and Bob Dole whether they want to debate you or not, Mr. Perot?

MR. PEROT: No. No. This country does not belong to the Democrats and Republicans.

MR. LEHRER: No. What I mean is, aren't they the ones that made the decision ultimately to exclude you?

MR. PEROT: I don't know. The five commissioners made the decision. President Clinton said he wanted to debate me. Sen. Dole made it very clear he didn't want me there under any circumstances. And I can understand that. They don't want to talk about the real issues that will determine the country our children live in. The last thing they want me to do is go through their figures, from their budgets, like the 95 budget, page 25, where they say that a little baby born tonight will pay an 82 percent tax rate. They don't want to talk about that in an election year. We do because we want to leave our children a better country.

MR. LEHRER: Do you--you really do want a federal judge to order President Clinton and Bob Dole to debate you? Do you think that's a legitimate function of the federal government?

MR. PEROT: I think that when the people want a candidate to participate in a debate, and when that candidate meets all the objective criteria of the Debate Commission, that that candidate should not be excluded based on their subjective criteria that they come up with just to manipulate it. Jim, this is what's wrong with our country now. The two political parties and the people who fund their campaigns control this country, not the people who own this country, the voters. The voters want me there. I have given five years of my life to the American people to give them a voice in government. I don't want to even spend a minute trying to get over to you how tough it was to create this party in all 50 states. Every impediment that could be put in front of us was put there, but the people did it, and now to deny them the vital access that is necessary, if you can't get on television, you can't be competitive, and I can prove that from 92. You can see before and after the debates my ratings went through the roof after the American people got to hear straight from me, as opposed to hearing indirectly from other people, uh, their analysis of me.

MR. LEHRER: Would you want--would you have wanted a federal judge to intervene--let's say that Dick Lamm--you chose not to debate him--let's say that he had gone to federal court and asked that you be ordered to debate Dick Lamm in front of the Reform Party.

MR. PEROT: It wouldn't havebothered me a bit.

MR. LEHRER: Would you have gone along with that? You'd have gone along with that?

MR. PEROT: Well, sure, because we went along with everything he wanted to do. Every time--keep in mind--I bore all the costs of the conventions and what have you. Tell me one time in the history of politics when somebody spent money to give another person a voice again and again and again. We did that for Governor Lamm-- right at the last minute--we had to do all the planning, all the execution, pay all the bills--we were delighted to have him participate. We--he raised a big issue. He raised a new issue every day to get press attention, and one day he was all upset about in what sequence he would speak. So I called him. I said, Dick, what is this, and he says, well, I want to know what--when I'm going to speak? I said, when do you want to speak? He said, I want to speak first. I said, fine, you can speak first. Then he said, I want to put other people on to speak for me. I said, fine. We humored everything he wanted to do. Then in about the last two or three weeks before the debate, he came up with this idea one day. We did not have time to plan a debate, get a convention center, pay for it, and what have you, because he had an opportunity to speak back- to-back with me and, in effect, have a debate at our convention, and we did it exactly the way he wanted to do it. Jim, you know, as bright as you are, that these are two irrelevant comparisons. This Debate Commission has been set up and established, and it was so corrupt that the League of Women Voters got away from it.

MR. LEHRER: "Corrupt" is a very strong word, Mr. Perot. What do you mean, "corrupt?"

MR. PEROT: Well, you--

MR. LEHRER: In what way is it corrupt? What is that--what is your charge in terms of corruption of the Debate Commission?

MR. PEROT: Because they're denying the people in this country access to a candidate that they want to hear from. 76 percent of the people want to hear from me. All the objective criteria I met.

MR. LEHRER: Well, that--

MR. PEROT: Because the establishment didn't want us to have a voice and because they want to protect the two-party system and because they do not want a third party under any circumstances, they subjectively froze us out.

MR. LEHRER: Well, let me--let me go back--

MR. PEROT: Now you pick the right word, Jim. I chose the word "corrupt."

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Let me go back to the--to my earlier point, though. If, if Bob Dole wanted to debate you, he's free to do that any place. If President Clinton wanted to debate you, he's free to do that. If they wanted to together, what I'm trying to get to-- the Debate Commission has no power, does it? Is--you just said it was a private company. They can't force anybody to do anything. I don't understand why you're not suing them, in other words, President Clinton and Bob Dole, rather than the Debate Commission. That's the bottom line.

MR. PEROT: Well, I'll have my lawyers talk to you in the morning. I followed their advice, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. But I mean, you don't see--

MR. PEROT: The point is, obviously you feel very, very strongly that I shouldn't be doing this, that we should maintain the status quo.

MR. LEHRER: No, no.

MR. PEROT: See, I have--

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Perot, please, do not put words into my mouth, sir. I did not say anything--I'm--

MR. PEROT: The question you have asked me is defending the Democrats and Republicans for what they did.

MR. LEHRER: No, sir. I'm just trying to get at why you believe- -why you're doing what you're doing. That'sall.

MR. PEROT: I'm doing this because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country. I want our children to have the same and better opportunities than we had. That's my only interest. And when I look at these numbers, if you go to the Office of Management & Budget memo in 1994, one year after the biggest tax increase in history, the President's office forecast that in the year 2030, our debt will be increasing at the rate of $4.1 trillion per year. That's 4/5 of the amount each year of new debt that it took us 200 years to accumulate the $5 trillion we have today. And then finally when I go to page 18 of their 1997 budget, I read that using the accounting formula assets minus liabilities equal net worth, they calculate that our country has a negative net worth-- that's called bankruptcy in business--of $2.98 trillion, and they left out $17 trillion in unfunded federal guarantees, which would make it close to a $20 trillion negative net worth. Any business would have to put in those unfunded federal guarantees. We've got to deal with these problems. They don't even want to talk about them. And we have created a new party to give the people a voice because the two parties are bought and paid for by the special interests. And we're proving that again here in the Debate Commission because when I get the names of the people who fund it, you're going to see the same people and the same special interests who give a lot of money and get a huge return for their contributions.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Perot--

MR. PEROT: And we're going to stop that, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: --was the Federal Reserve right not to raise interest rates today?

MR. PEROT: I'll have to leave that up to them. Uh, I--I can answer your question the next--the first time they meet after the election if they raise interest rates, uh, I'll say, no, that was wrong because it's all politics. Now, that's to say why don't we do what's good for our country, instead of playing this game and the game right now has really hurt the American people. It's time we stopped it.

MR. LEHRER: The President said today that the Federal Reserve did the right thing because it indicated that the U.S. economy was in good shape, that inflation was under control. Do you agree with the President's assessment of the U.S. economy?

MR. PEROT: No. The U.S. economy is not in good shape. Four out of--the standard of living for four out of five working Americans is down. One paycheck today has about the same--excuse me--a man and a wife working together today, getting two paychecks, have bout the same buying power as one paycheck twenty-five years ago. Twenty million jobs have been exported overseas from our country. Everywhere you go, get the ten part series in the "Philadelphia Enquirer," and you'll see fact after fact after fact, and if you don't have time for that, look at our cumulative trade deficit of $1 trillion. That's the largest trade deficit in the history of man. That's 20 million jobs that have gone overseas. We have got to rebuild our job base in this country, or we have no chance to balance our budget and pay our debt because people without jobs or people with low-paying jobs don't pay the taxes we'll need. Plus, we need a strong middle class. The middle class is going down now, and that is a terrible signal for the 21st century.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Senator Dole's solution to that is his economic reform plan which includes a 15 percent tax cut. Do you think that's a good idea?

MR. PEROT: That's free candy just before an election. In 1992, when George Bush was proposing almost the identical idea, Bob Dole said it didn't make any sense. It didn't make any sense then. It doesn't make any sense now. Let me give you an example. Let's assume I'm hopelessly in debt, Jim, I can't pay my bills. That's the way the good old USA is. And I come to you for advice, and I say, Jim, I'm hopelessly in debt, I can't pay my bills, what should I do? You look at me and smile and say, Ross, get your boss to cut your salary. That's a perfect analogy. You can't get dumber than that. Now, Jim, we tried trickle down economics in the 1980's, and everybody called it voodoo economics. It didn't trickle. It didn't work, and that's when the debt started just taking off like a rocket. Only in America would we try it again, and to bring that up in an election is nothing more than trying to manipulate the American people with free candy, and before you take that candy, folks, remember this one--from 1988, watch my lips, no new taxes- -how many of us voted for that? And then we got the mother of all tax increases a little bit later. That's politics, and if we allow ourselves to be manipulated that way, we deserve what we get.

MR. LEHRER: If you were elected president, in general terms, what would you do to improve the economy?

MR. PEROT: First thing you have to do is understand that all of these things that are hurting the economy are interrelated like pieces of a complex puzzle. Washington doesn't understand that. Here's what you have. You have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, all the--and a declining job base which gives you a declining tax base--all these things have to be worked on together. You've got to do something that Washington has never done before, and that is when you have a big program like let's say Medicare, you've got to design it and engineer it carefully. You cannot have a noble concept, massive legislation, with no detailed blueprint, nationwide implementation with no pilot testing, optimizing, and debugging, because all you get is mediocre and sub-par performance with the costs going through the roof, and that's true of all of our social programs. They've got to be carefully, thoughtfully, and rationally redesigned, re-engineered, tested, and made to work. Then you've got to build your job base so that you have a tax base. We've got--

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me. How would you build the job--how would you as President build the job base?

MR. PEROT: We would create jobs here in the United States, instead of shipping jobs overseas.

MR. LEHRER: But how would you--as President, how would you do it?

MR. PEROT: --jobs--Jim, I'd stop making stupid, one-sided trade agreements. I am for fair, free international trade. I am not for stupid, one-sided international trade. And if you don't think ours is, look at our trade deficit, our cumulative trade deficit of a trillion dollars, look at NAFTA that was supposed to make us all rich, the trade deficit is going through the roof, getting bigger every year, not working. The people of Mexico are not benefitting. They've been devastated in the year since NAFTA started. But look at our trading partners. Look at the car deal that the Europeans negotiated with Japan; it's a whole lot smarter than ours. We are bought and paid for by the special interests. For example, most of our chief trade negotiators become foreign lobbyists when they leave. If we get elected, all that will stop. We will stop coming to Washington to cash in when you leave. You come to serve and you go home. All those things are in our principles. That's what the American people want. We will see that it gets done. We will have a new tax system, Jim, but it will be carefully and--we won't run up and down the streets screaming flat tax or some other buzzword. We'll take the computer, use it as a wind tunnel, carefully analyze all the different options, pick the best ones, then explain them in detail to the American people, show them how it impacts each one in his paycheck, then we're going to have a referendum and let the people choose the tax system that they think makes the most sense because they own the country and they have to pay for it.

MR. LEHRER: You mean have a national referendum on it?

MR. PEROT: National referendum among these systems and let the people say that's not what we think.

MR. LEHRER: Not do--not let Congress do it?

MR. PEROT: No. Have a referendum and then let Congress if they want to stick it in their eye. I don't think they will because they'll know what the people want. But we will have done it. We will have designed it in detail. We'll have tested it in detail. We'll know what it will do, and then here is the best part of it. We're going to have a provision in the law that says from this point forward, Congress cannot increase taxes without putting it on the ballot in the next federal election. Think this one through, Jim. The whole House is running. A third of the Senate is running. The President of the United States is running. They'd better have a really good reason to raise taxes. Now, that plus a balanced budget amendment will put discipline on spending. Now, do you understand why they don't want us in the debates? They don't want to talk about this. They want to hand out free candy. They want to build bridges. They want to feel your pain. They want to do these little things. See, we want to change the campaign. We--we want campaign reform, where if you're a congressman, you have to get all the--

MR. LEHRER: Let me--

MR. PEROT: --money from your district. If you're a senator, you've got to get it all from your state, and you can't take it from the special interests. You take it from the people.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you about an issue that's been raised in this campaign by Sen. Dole. And it has to do with the increase in drug use by teen-agers. He blames this partly on President Clinton. What do you think the cause is?

MR. PEROT: Well, if we weren't using them, it wouldn't be an issue. The real cause is that as a people, our morals and ethics are declining. I went around the world as a young naval officer. We were gone for a year. Drugs were everywhere. The sailors on my ship were products of the Depression. They grew up in hard times. Nobody ever touched drugs. They knew that stuff would ruin your life. A different time today--we've got to teach our people, then we're going to have to be very, very firm with all these countries that are dumping drugs into our country and just make it clear that if they want to trade with us--and they all do--they've got to stop shipping drugs, and then finally we've got to be very, very aggressive against the major drug dealers and the countries that are growing these drugs, and just stop playing patty cake or since drugs are so addictive--now think how hard it is to give up dessert--drugs really grab a person. As you may know--as you do know, Jim, I spent a year and a half of my life on this, have very strong feelings that a big part of the future of our country, a huge part of the crime problem, the violence, the things that permeate our country today come from drugs. If I'm your President, we are going to deal with it, and we are going to deal with it in a very direct way, and I'm going to have the American people involved in every little neighborhood in the country, and we're going to get rid of drugs to protect our children. I sound like a broken record, because my whole interest is what the country, we leave our children. Jim, you're my age roughly. You and I grew up in the Depression. We know how our parents sacrificed. Look at the country they gave us in spite of those sacrifices. And I can't live with, and I know you couldn't either, being the first generation in our country's history that didn't pass on a better, stronger country because we spent our children's money and we let society decay to the point where drugs and every other strange type of behavior is now a way to be a hero and get on the front pages of the magazines. Good, decent people you never hear of. If I get to be President, you're going to hear a lot about good, decent people, and they will be our heroes, not these folks that are just aberrations that you really should regret are even in society.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Perot, thank you very much.

MR. PEROT: A privilege to be with you, and thank you, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Yes, sir. FOCUS - UNEASY ALLIANCE

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the foreign minister of Turkey and "Where They Stand." Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the Turkey story.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Turkey occupies several important crossroads in the world between Europe and the Middle East and Central Asia. That's why it's been important to the American government since World War II, even though it's rarely in the headlines or on the public mind. Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country but one with an 80-year old secular tradition. In June, a coalition dominated by Muslim fundamentalists, headed by Premier Necmettin Erbakan, came to power. Since then, the U.S. has expressed concern that this NATO ally has embarked on its own course, changing its views about Iraq and other issues of strategic importance to the United States. UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright stressed Turkey's importance in a NewsHour interview after visiting the new prime minister.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.: [July 23] I think that we will have to see how now that he is a responsible leader, rather than an opposition leader, how he assesses what our various relationships are and the proof of it will be in his deeds.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Turkey was a member of the coalition against Iraq during the Gulf War in 1990 and 91. But last month, when Saddam Hussein's army crushed a Kurdish group in the North, Turkey refused to join the American military response. It also wouldn't allow American planes based in Turkey to attack Iraqi targets. It has, however, continued to participate in enforcing the allied no- fly zone in Northern Iraq, established to protect the Kurds in the wake of the Gulf War. Turkey's support of the economic sanctions against Iraq has cost it billions of dollars in oil pipeline revenue. Saying it needed the money, Turkey recently made a natural gas deal with Iran. The new Turkish prime minister Erbakan has worked to improve relations with other Islamic states as well, while insisting Turkey remains a part of the western alliance. Like Iraq, Turkey has a large and sometimes troublesome Kurdish minority. The Turkish government argues that a Turkish Kurdish element called the PKK is a terrorist organization which has attacked Turkey from sanctuaries in Northern Iraq. The critical issue for the U.S. is whether Turkey is supporting Iraq's effort to secure further control over Northern Iraq, thereby helping to crush the PKK. Over the weekend, Ciller was quoted in the "New York Times" as supporting Saddam Hussein's activity in Northern Iraq. But yesterday, she told reporters and Secretary of State Christopher that she had been misquoted and that Turkish policy had not changed.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now to Foreign Minister Tansu Ciller. She also holds the position of deputy prime minister in the coalition government. She joins us from New York. And, Ms. Foreign Minister, welcome.

TANSU CILLER, Foreign Minister, Turkey: Hello.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why wouldn't Turkey allow the U.S. to use its bases to attack Iraq last month?

TANSU CILLER: Well, because the United States never asked us to, to be of help and assistance to them within that regard. The United States had asked us to do four things, and we delivered them immediately. The first thing was that they wanted assistance in the evacuation of U.S. civil personnel, government officials that is to say, and we did give--provide the assistance for that evacuation. And then they asked us to assist them in the evacuation of the U.S. citizens living in Northern Iraq, which we did promptly, and then we were asked to expand and increase the number of flights within Provide Comfort from Turkey--and that we delivered as well, and then finally, fourthly, we were asked to assist in the evacuation of the Kurdish people, 2500 of them, who were working for the U.S. government and for their families. And for humanitarian reasons we did that as well. What I am trying to say is that Turkey has been an ally of the United States for a long time in Korea. And then in the Cold War, we had a border with Russia, and we were there in the first Gulf crisis we were there, and in the second Gulf crisis we're also there.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So the issue of the U.S. planes taking off from bases in Turkey to fly to Northern Iraq. Are you saying that never came up?

TANSU CILLER: That never came up because the United States never asked us to provide that kind of assistance.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But your government did oppose the air strike on Baghdad, did it not--I mean, on the Northern part of Iraq, did it not?

TANSU CILLER: Well, what we--we were never asked whether the United States should be bombing North Iraq, but our concern was the following. We have a neighborhood. That neighborhood is Syria and Iran and Iraq, and North of us is Russia, and West of us Greece, and each time a crisis occurs, everybody goes back home and forgets about it, but we are left with the neighborhood. And it has cost us $27 billion during the last five years, and our allies don't turn around and recognize the need for that compensation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you think you should have been asked by the United States?

TANSU CILLER: Absolutely. We feel that some sort of a compensation should be provided by all of our allies.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: No. I mean a conversation. You think you should have been--excuse me--you should have been asked whether or--

TANSU CILLER: Asked to do what?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Whether the United--you should have been--you should have been consulted about the bombing of Iraq, is that what you're saying?

TANSU CILLER: No, no, this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should have been provided some sort of a compensation for our economic losses which has cost us economically up to about $30 billion--together with the potential for becoming a distribution of petroleum within that area because we have connections with Iraq, and 25 million tons are being consumed on a yearly basis in terms of petroleum in Turkey, but our pipeline that we built in Turkey between Iraq and Turkey provide three times that consumption that Turkey has, which means we would have been distributors of petroleum now to the western world, which would help us integrate with Iraq even further.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So what are you saying, that the United States should not have done anything that jeopardized the resumption of the, umm, oil--the limited amount of oil that the Iraqis were going to be able to, um, to sell if this hadn't happened?

TANSU CILLER: I am being very open, and I will say it again. When Saddam decided he would send his troops--I was the first one--my country was the first one to say that he should withdraw immediately. We, uh, respect the United Nations resolutions, however, we need to be compensated for our losses.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: There's been some confusion here about your country's views on Iraq's presence in the North. You were quoted earlier as saying that if Saddam wanted to impose his central authority in the North, it would be all right with Turkey, and later, it was reported that you had not said that. Could you clarify that for us.

TANSU CILLER: Yes, of course. What our position is, and we have been discussing this with all our neighbors, is that first of all, we need a buffer area, security zone, right next to our borders because the PKK has settled down right next to our borders, and they are trying to infiltrate through our borders and kill innocent people. On a daily basis, three of our soldiers are being killed in the attempt to try to protect our borders, so we need a security area right next to our borders. We're not going to conquer Iraq. We respect the territorial integrity of Iraq. We respect the sovereignty of Iraq, but we need to provide stability and security to our borders, which we are determined to do. Secondly--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So it's all right if Iraq stays--would stay there in Turkey's eyes, would stay in the Northern section of the country?

TANSU CILLER: No. We want stability in the sense that the PKK should evacuate that. And how are we going to do that? We can do this on our own, not because we want to do--conquer Iraq but because we need the PKK to be removed away from that, and there is the lack of authority there, and that authority can be provided as we were discussing with Secretary Christopher today--I mean, yesterday--in the sense that there are the two commands there speaking Turkish who happen to be Turks, very much educated in the secular group of civilian people in Northern Iraq, they amount to about 700,000 people, and that's South Irbil, where Saddam Hussein's forces entered--there are about 3 + million Turkamans. We feel that we can bring them together and, and they should be brought together with the Kurdish people, including the Barzani people, to try to protect each other and form some sort of local administration if that is necessary in that form of cooperation. That might fill the vacuum of authority in Northern Iraq, which is badly needed. It has become a no-man's land as far as Northern Iraq is concerned.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Does Turkey think it's now time to normalize relations with Iraq, that Turkey should normalize relations with Iraq now?

TANSU CILLER: We want peace and stability in the area, and the way we can provide it right now, as I have talked to Barzani last Monday, and as I have talked to Secretary Christopher on Monday, it's to bring the Turkamans and the Kurdish elements together in some sort of a cooperation there, whereby this cooperation will stop the influx of refugees into Turkey. This will provide the authority that is needed there, as well, if they can work together.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is Turkey being driven to be more hospitable to governments in the area, umm, because--especially Iraq because of the oil revenue it's losing, uh, that you just mentioned a few moments ago, or is it more because of the prime minister's reported desire to bring all Islamic nations together in a kind of Islamic NATO?

TANSU CILLER: Well, you have to recognize that Mr. Erbakan has become partner of other governments prior to this government, and they formed the coalition with Mr. Ejavit, who was the former prime minister, and the head of, uh, a leftist party, and also with Mr. Demerel. He formed a coalition. So this is not the first time. The people of Turkey have made up their minds, they are very pro- western, and are dedicated to democratization and human rights, and we're moving in the right direction. We've always done that, no matter what, and we have the--we have been protecting European borders in the Cold War, and we are a dedicated member of NATO.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

TANSU CILLER: It is true that I formed the coalition with Mr. Erbakan, but you have to recognize that this is a new kind of thing for Turkey in the sense that we have adopted and accepted the rotating prime ministerial system--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

TANSU CILLER: --whereby in the first two years, Mr. Erbakan will be the prime minister to be followed by me in the second, uh, two years, uh, to, to follow the first two years.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, I'm sorry--

TANSU CILLER: And we are co-signers in everything.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well--

TANSU CILLER: A new rule, a new act has come up from the parliament.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

TANSU CILLER: So this is not Mr. Erbakan. It is my party and Mr. Erbakan working together on a coalition protocol.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Foreign Minister, thank you very much for joining us.

TANSU CILLER: Thank you. SERIES - WHERE THEY STAND

MR. LEHRER: Now, "Where They Stand," our series of speeches from the presidential campaign. Tonight, one each from President Clinton and Bob Dole. Dole is first. He spoke today at the Detroit Economic Club.

SEN. BOB DOLE, Republican Presidential Candidate: Actions speak louder than words. I'm here today to talk about the stakes of this year's election. And today I want to put focus on my plan to balance the budget and to cut taxes and abolish the IRS as we know it. Now that's a big, big item. [applause] And for those who may doubt my resolve, let me make it very clear that I intend to keep talking about this plan, how it will benefit American families virtually non-stop from now until the election. In every state I visit, on every talk show, at every rally I will be saying to the American people that you know how to spend your money better than the government. We trust the people. More often than not, President Clinton trust the government. And you'll hear President Clinton in the course of the campaign to tell you what he's trying to do is to make the federal government smaller. Actually, it's gotten bigger. In politics, I believe actions speak louder than words. So permit me just a couple of minutes to review the record that President Clinton would rather have us forget because I know we have short memories. We're always moving ahead in America, as we should. But we've got to go back and take a look at what happened when Bill Clinton was sworn in as President of the United States.His first major economic policy proposal, and I was there at the time, called for a $16 billion stimulus package of pork barrel government spending. One of the examples, a casino in Connecticut, an art ark in San Francisco, a bike path in Oregon, carousel renovations in Rhode Island, a shopping center in Indiana, an alpine side in Puerto Rico--that's a stretch--an indoor baseball field in Alabama, and all of it was at your expense. And here was another insight into Bill Clinton's economic philosophy. His first proposal was a huge spending bill. His second was the largest tax increase in American history. That's the Clinton economic strategy, try to spend and tax America to prosperity. And that is always the liberal strategy. That is always the liberal strategy. But what was his third major attempt, in case you've forgotten? I want you to get--think back to who got elected. He tried to impose a government takeover of the greatest health care system on earth. That was his third proposal. It was a kind of massive expansion of the federal government that America had not seen in three decades. His nationalized health care plan would have resulted in $1.5 trillion--1.5 trillion--in new federal spending and imposed a total of 17 new taxes on American workers to pay for it. It would have created 50 brand new federal bureaucracies, a myriad of new laws and penalties, price controls, and put 1/7, 1/7 of our economy under government control. Then the people have had a referendum on Bill Clinton in 1994, President Clinton, excuse me. We had a landslide. We took over the House. We took back the Senate. And ever since that time, the President has been trying to recast his agenda, taking credit for Republican ideas. And I remember in his Chicago acceptance speech I can list 15 things that passed the Republican Congress you never heard about from the Democrats, but he stood up there and told you from Chicago he was happy that they passed this and this and this and this. But the clearest indication of where the President's heart and mine really are must come from the first two years of the administration. His party controlled the House, and they controlled the Senate, and they had the White House. So I want you to focus on that, because in politics, unlike any other endeavor, you can't run from your record, a clear record of liberalism run rampant, and while saying the era of big government is over, since entering office in 1993, he's proposed 484 new spending initiatives. The price tag--over $2 trillion. When you look at everything he's promised, talked about, and hinted about, it seems he's got a million little plans on how the government can tell you how to run our lives or tell us how to run our lives. And Jack Kemp and I, we have one big plan. I'll start with the division that brought the most criticism, at the same time created the most excitement. Our plan to reduce taxes on working Americans, and let them start this economic recovery--the terms are simple and they're straightforward: a 15 percent across-the-board tax cut is phased in over three years; a $500 per child tax credit, one child $500, two children $1000, ten children you're probably too busy to worry about it but that'd be $5,000. We're going to cut the capital gains rate in half. We're going to create jobs and opportunities in America that have been tied up and tied up and tied up. [applause] And the bottom line, under our plan, a family making $30,000, a family of four, will save $1261 on their tax bill, a lot of money to some here now, not a lot of money, a lot of money to people making $30,000. This tax cut is designed for Main Street, not Wall Street. This is a Main Street tax cut. This is for families with children and hard working families. Keep one thing in mind, if you haven't heard another word that I've said. It's not about me. It's not about President Clinton. It's about you. It's about your job. It's about your family, it's about your children you'll see when you go home tonight. It's about their future. Oh, it's about crime and drugs and a lot of other things I won't talk about today, but right now we're talking about the economy, and will they have the same opportunity, the same opportunity that you've had, or your mother had, or your grandfather had, or whatever. And I believe we're on the threshold, and the opportunity is there, and we will get it done. Thank you and God bless America.

MR. LEHRER: Bob Dole speaking today to the Detroit Economic Club. President Clinton took a campaign swing through New Jersey today. He spoke this afternoon at a rally in Monmouth County.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Four years ago when I came to New Jersey and asked for your support, I said I had a simple vision for our country on the edge of a new century. I wanted us to go into the 21st century with the American dream alive and well for everyone who is willing to work for it. I wanted us to go into the 21st century as a country that respected our diversity and relished it, that was coming together more closely as a community, not drifting apart as so many other nations of the world are. And I wanted us to continue to be the world's strongest nation for peace and freedom and prosperity. And I say to you today the strategy we adopted, opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and a community in which every person has a role to play and a part is working. We not only have a stronger economy, the crime rate has gone down for four years in a row, the welfare rolls are down by nearly 2 million, child support collections are up by $3 billion, 40 percent. There are no Russian missiles pointed at the children of the United States. And today I became the first head of state to sign the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty to ban all nuclear tests forever. [applause] Now, this did not happen by accident. These things happen because we changed the way Washington works. We got out of who's to blame, and we asked what can we do about our problems. We invited everyone to help us. We invited everyone to put aside their partisanship, their extremism, to roll up their sleeves, and tackle America's problems, seize America's opportunities. It worked. That's why we're on the right track. Now you have a great choice to make. And it has been clearly--and I must say candidly--articulated not just by me but also by my opponent. Are we going to build a bridge to the future, or a bridge to the past? Are we going to say you're on your own out there, we can't afford things like family leave, or are we going to say the First Lady's right, it does take a village to raise our children and to build up our country? [applause] All across the spectrum, if you look at what is at stake here, I offer you a bridge to the 21st century that you have to help build--no guarantees but opportunity--and the challenge of responsibility, and the reminder that we have to do it together. Think about our economy. If I had told you four years ago we have 10 + million new jobs, a seven and a half year low in unemployment, virtually no inflation, the lowest combined rates of unemployment, inflation, and home mortgages in 28 years, you'd have said that's prettygood. Bring it on. But we can do better. I want to build a bridge to the 21st century that gives all of our children the best educational opportunities in the world. We want to hook up every classroom and every library in America to the information superhighway, to the Internet, to the World Wide Web. Let me tell you what that means. It means for the first time in history the children in the most remote rural districts and in the poorest urban districts will have access to the same information and the same way at the same quality and the same time as every other child in America. It will revolutionize education, and we intend to do it if you'll help us build that bridge to the 21st century. [applause] We want to build a bridge to the 21st century in which every American can go to college, every American of any age, and we propose to do it in the following way: No. 1, more people than ever will be able to save through an IRA and withdraw from that IRA tax free if the savings are used to pay for college, medical care, a first-time home. No. 2, we're going to say in the next four years we want a community college education to be just as universal in the United States as a high school diploma is today. Everybody needs more than a high school diploma today, and here's how we're going to pay for it. We want to say to working Americans if you go to a community college, you can deduct from your taxes dollar for dollar the cost of tuition at a typical community college in the United States. We can do that, no bureaucracy, no extra hassle, and we can pay for it in the balanced budget amendment. And finally, we want to permit every family to deduct the cost of college tuition, any kind of college, undergraduate or graduate school, up to $10,000 a year from their taxes so that we can educate our people. [applause] Will you help me build that bridge to the 21st century? [applause] I'm mighty proud to be here with you, proud to be representing the people of New Jersey, grateful for the support you have given me, and asking you to think among yourselves not about party, not about politics, but about what you want our country to look like when we start a new century in a new millennium, and what you want America to be like when your children are your age. That is all that matters. I believe as strongly as I can say that if you want the kind of America I believe you do, we've got to build a bridge to the future, we can revere our past, but we can't recapture it. The best days of America are still ahead. The children in this audience today, many of them will do jobs that have not been invented yet. Some of them will do work that has not been imagined yet. All we have to do is to build the right kind of bridge that's broad enough, big enough, and strong enough for all of us to walk across. I hope you will help me build it. Thank you, and God bless you all. [applause]

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton speaking this afternoon in New Jersey. ESSAY - OUT OF THE COOL

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Clarence Page of the "Chicago Tribune" has some thoughts about what's hip.

CLARENCE PAGE: [music in background] Once upon a time, jazz was hip. Then it went mainstream. [music in background] Bob Dylan was hip. Now he's taught in high school poetry classes. Hippies used to be hip. Now they're teaching high school. The post office has stamps for Elvis and James Dean. No sooner is something hip than vendors are selling it on street corners. What is hip? The line that distinctly divided the hip from the unhip has all but evaporated, and the change has upset liberals and conservatives alike. "Hip is dead," proclaims the cover of the liberal "Nation" Magazine. "Corporate culture has coopted it," the writer laments. Against conservative cool, demands Rupert Murdoch's conservative "Weekly Standard." Ever since Nixon shook hands with Elvis, the writer complains, conservatives have been trying too hard to be hip. For better or worse, the anti-bourgeois world of hip has melded into the anti-hip bourgeoisie, but when everything is hip, is anything?

SPOKESMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I break your concentration?

CLARENCE PAGE: Is pulp fiction director Quentin Parentino still hip, or do Oscar nominations cancel hip out? [music in background] How about Seattle Grunge, Hootie and the Blow Fish? Sorry, dude. [music in background] Fashion is the marker of hip but not hip, itself. Once the "New York Times" calls you hip, you know it's over. Is Dennis Rodman, the Rupaul of Chicago basketball, hip? It takes more than tattoos, rainbow hair, and body piercing to be hip these days. Just about every teen-age mall stone who wants to outrage his or her elders has been there, done that. Is heroin hip? It's back in vote in some circles, and the body count mounts--taking Jerry Garcia and others too hip in this for their own good. [music in background] Is "Trainspotting" the heroin movie, hip? It is certainly successful, which threatens its hip status even before it's established. Even before the hip musical "Rent" opened on Broadway, the mainstream embraced it with a Pulitzer Prize for drama, a movie deal, the cover of "Newsweek," and middle class respectability, surely the death of hip. There was a time when hip implied a certain level of awareness that transcended the mundane, bourgeois world. The hip delighted in their sense of opposition, even superiority to the masses. Hip was counter-cultural, underground, limited to a self-selected pantheon of taste makers. Lack of popularity was a virtue, for it solidified the tantalizing specialness every elite craves. Ah, we few, we hip and happy few. But then hip became marketable. Trend-spotting modern media like "Esquire" and "New York" Magazine made hip a weekly obsession, and the yuppie was born. Suddenly, the bourgeois life had no value without knowledge of the new jobs, the new neighborhoods, the new dining out, the new strip clubs, the new newness. The commercial world's rapid response mechanism so improved and accelerated that the hip can seldom stay hip for long before it becomes fashionable. What happened to hip? It was embraced, then consumed by the very establishment against which it rebelled. Neither will ever be the same again. Lenny Bruce once said there are no rubes anymore. He died in the mid 1960's. He hadn't seen anything yet. I'm Clarence Page. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, the Federal Reserve left key interest rates unchanged. President Clinton signed a nuclear test ban treaty at the United Nations, and a House Senate Conference Committee cleared an immigration reform bill for final action, after removing a provision banning illegal immigrant children from public schools. We'll see you on-line and here again tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.