The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Wednesday, Senators Pete Domenici and Jim Sasser debate the Republicans' new budget alternative. Kwame Holman reports on the agony of closing military bases, and we have a Newsmaker interview with King Hussein of Jordan. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Democratic and Republican Senators joined battle over the federal budget today. The Democrats' plan based on President Clinton's would cut the deficit by more than $500 billion over five years through spending cuts and tax increases. Republicans charged the Democrats with being tax happy and offered an alternative which they said would cut the same amount but without new taxes. At the White House, President Clinton attacked the Republican proposal as an 11th hour move that would punish the middle class and the most vulnerable. He spoke to reporters outside the Oval Office.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: All the analysts say that it is an honest, that my plan is an honest budget plan, that it will reduce the deficit at least as much, if not more than we're saying, and it is fair. And we're working hard to pass it in the Senate, but it, the, we ought to have some bipartisan support. We ought to have some Republican support for this. And the fact that the Republican Senators are thinking about coming out with a plan now, calling it a no-tax plan, which is really nothing but a shield to keep the wealthiest Americans from paying their fair share even though their taxes went down for the last twelve years while the deficit exploded is a real disservice to this country.

MR. MacNeil: Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole countered the President's attack on the Senate floor.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: We want to reduce the deficit, and some of us have tried in the past, and some of us have tried to make it work. It works better when it's bipartisan. It doesn't work very well behind closed doors where we shut one party out and you tell the other party, well, why don't you be bipartisan, and today President Clinton is hammering Republicans every time he gets an opportunity in the White House, he's out there telling reporters, Republicans are protecting the rich. Yeah, all these rich, these 23.5 million American small business men and women, these are the rich people he's talking about. They're rich. Half the taxes, 49 percent of the tax increase because of rate increase is going to be paid by small business, and they're not rich. They're trying to create jobs and make it work in America.

MR. MacNeil: The Democratic majority in the Senate is expected to vote down the Republican plan tonight. We'll have more on the Senate budget debate right after the News Summary. The House today approved continued funding for the U.S. space station. The amendment to a NASA spending bill squeaked through by a one vote margin. President Clinton last week backed the scaled down version of the station that would cost more than $10 billion over the next five years. In economic news, the Commerce Department cut its estimate of first quarter growth again. The revised .7 percent annual rate sharpened the contrast with the 4.7 percent rise in the previous quarter. In a separate report, the Department said orders for durable goods fell 1.6 percent in May, the third straight monthly decline. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission began making final decisions today. It was the first of five days of voting on the fate of 238 facilities. It's all part of the Defense Department's plan to downsize the military for the post Cold War era. Today the commissioners voted to close Vent Hill Farms in Virginia as recommended by the Pentagon. They also voted to save the army's Ft. McCellan in Alabama contrary to a Defense Department recommendation. He also voted to save Ft. Lee and Ft. Monroe in Virginia, Ft. McPherson, Ft. Gillam in Georgia, and to realign to functions at Ft. Belvoire in Virginia and keep some facilities at the Presidio in San Francisco. Many communities lobbied to protect bases in their areas. The Commission chairman talked about the decisions.

JIM COURTER, Chairman, Base Closing Commission: It is a classic area where the local interest conflicts with the national interest, and in this particular situation we have pledged, this Commission has, to make sure that the national interest is served. That is our master. We have to do that which is necessary for the common good, even though the decision is very painfulfor a location or a region or a county or in some instances a state. But that's our job, and we're not going to shrink from it.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on base closings later in the program. King Hussein of Jordan today denied charges made in a congressional report that Jordan had aided Iraq during the Gulf War. In a NewsHour interview, the King said his country had not shared U.S. intelligence information with Iraq or conducted joint military exercises during the war. He said he had done his best to prevent the war from happening. We'll have the full interview later in the program.

MR. MacNeil: New maps for the division of Bosnia along ethnic lines were presented today at peace talks in Geneva. No details of the plan were immediately disclosed, but they're expected to come at the expense of the Muslims who have lost much of their territory to their Serb and Croat enemies. Jeffrey Archer of Independent Television News reports.

JEFFREY ARCHER, ITN: Serbian President Milosevic thinks he's close to getting what he wants for the Bosnian Serbs. Arriving in Geneva this morning, he and President Tudjman of Croatia are presenting a plan to divide Bosnia into three ethnic states. With Bosnian Muslim President Izetbegovic refusing to attend, Pickert Abdic is the only Muslim voice at the talks, and he's seen as a close ally of Croats. Lord Owen, whose original peace plan failed, said he'd seek a negotiated settlement whoever turned up in Geneva.

LORD DAVID OWEN, EC Envoy: I think there is a recognition now that we have got to get a settlement and we've got to get it soon. The deterioration in terms of water supplies, electricity supplies, health hazards are really great.

SEN. RUDMAN: Last night, on the eve of the talks, Serb or Croat guns shelled the Muslim stronghold of Zernica, killing nine, perhaps to pressure the Muslims into accepting a settlement. The reality on the ground is that the Muslims with 44 percent of the population control only 10 percent of Bosnia. The Serbs hold around 70 percent and the Croats about 20 percent. The Serb-Croat plan calls for three sovereign mini states in Bosnia based roughly on the current map. Muslim enclaves in the Serb area may have to be evacuated, and the Serbs insist Sarajevo must remain a divided city. Bosnian-Serb leader Radovan Karadzic said today the Muslims were not being squeezed and would get 30 percent of Bosnia. But like most of Mr. Karadzic's statements, this one will be treated with skepticism. In Bosnia, itself, a further mass migration of populations is seen as the inevitable outcome of any negotiated settlement. The idea that Serbs, Muslims, and Croats could live again in mixed communities seems inconceivable.

MR. MacNeil: U.N. officials reported a new wave of ethnic cleansing already had begun in central Bosnia. They said Muslim civilians were being expelled from villages and the Croat control, and Croats were being pushed out of Muslim-controlled villages.

MR. LEHRER: The leaders of South Africa's two main black groups held an historic meeting in Johannesburg today, but African National Congress Leader Nelson Mandela and Ikatha Party head Mangosuthu Buthelezi were unable to agree on plans for the country's first multiracial election. Jeremy Thompson of Independent Television News reports.

JEREMY THOMPSON, ITN: The faces told the story of disappointment and differences unresolved. The two leaders tried to put a positive gloss on their historic meeting as did the man who'd brought them together, Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU, Cape Town: Not all of the barriers and obstacles have been overcome, but we, here we are and they are sitting together and they are smiling to each other. [laughter in room]

JEREMY THOMPSON: But there were few smiles from Mr. Mandela over Dr. Buthelezi's refusal to agree to an election date.

NELSON MANDELA, ANC: Well, it is regrettable that we have not been able to take a common position on such an important question.

MANGOSUTHU BUTHELEZI, Inkatha: You see that an election is not a magic wand and that elections are not a panacea.

JEREMY THOMPSON: The leaders did make a fresh commitment to end the carnage between their rival supporters. Over 15,000 have been killed since the ANC and Inkatha began their power struggle eight years ago. The banning of dangerous weapons and the need for free political activity were agreed. But this was no more than a reaffirmation of a peace accord made two years ago, the long awaited meeting of South Africa's powerful black leaders had taken two and a half years. Yet, after nine hours of talks, it could still not bury the hatchet of hostility and distrust. Both leaders tried to sound positive, but the truth is that if they couldn't agree on a fundamental political issue like setting an election date. There is little chance of them settling their differences on any major issue. The military leaders of Nigeria today voided the results of the presidential elections. They did so on grounds the June 12th vote was rigged. A wealthy businessman was the winner. Today's decree did not say whether a new election would be held in the African nation. The military had been scheduled to hand over power to civilian leaders in August. A State Department spokesman in Washington denounced the Nigerian action and said the United States would consider suspending more than $20 million in aid.

MR. MacNeil: That's the News Summary. Now it's on to the Republican budget alternative, closing military bases, and King Hussein of Jordan. FOCUS - REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE

MR. LEHRER: First tonight is the battle in Washington between Democrats and Republicans over taxes, spending, and what's best for the American people. It takes the form of a Senate floor debate over the Democrats' $500 billion deficit reduction plan. Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole late in the day today offered an official Republican alternative.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: This taxpayer's alternative makes $329 billion in tough, enforceable cuts in federal spending, let me repeat $329 billion government spending cuts. Our plan gets the deficit under control without raising taxes, without raising taxes, without raising user fees, and without going on a new taxpayer finance spending spree. And, as I've said before, it's tough medicine, but we believe that it's the right medicine for the economy. The message is correct. And, again, whether it comes from Democrats or Republicans or independents around the country, it is to cut spending first. We believe that our plan, if enacted, will help keep the economy moving, would create thousands of jobs, and restore some faith in the government. So let's give the taxpayers a chance. This is the taxpayer's alternative. We could call this tax free in '93, and that's not a bad idea either, so let's just call it tax free in '93, but it's also tax free in '94, '95, '96, '97, and '98. And compare this to the President's plan. There's been a lot of talk back and forth. The President, they sing, well, we don't want to tax the rich. Well, we want the economy to grow, we want people to be successful in America. We don't want to go after small business to the tune of $55 billion. 49 percent, I think the Senator from New York said earlier, 49 percent of the increased tax rates hit small business. And that's not the way to get the economy moving. So, Mr. President, we think we've got a good plan. We doubt that it would pass. It should pass, but we doubt that it will pass, because we only have 44 votes. Our colleagues have 56 votes. We expect some support from that side. We hope every Republican will support this bill, so I'm proud to offer it on behalf of myself, Sen. Borg, and Sen. Packwood, the Senator of New Mexico, Sen. Domenici, and others, and all other Republicans on this side of the aisle.

SEN. DALE BUMPERS, [D] Arkansas: You think about people on this side of the aisle who are going to vote for this bill with $250 billion worth of tax increases and ask yourself, do you think they're doing that so they can get defeated next time they run, do you think they're doing that to see how many people they can alienate and how many, how many enemies they could make? I'll tell you why they're doing it. You can call it self-serving. You can call it whatever you want. They're doing it because time is running out on this nation. A lot of people said, Senator, if they don't put your capital gains provision in there, threaten to vote against the bill, tell 'em you're not going to vote for it. That's the only way you get anything around here. I'd like to do that, Madame President, but I can tell you the reason I'm not going to is because it'd be the heighth of irresponsibility.

SEN. PETE DOMENICI, [R] New Mexico: I did not see how it was possible to get the deficit in 1998 to the same point that the President did or lower without taxes. I just didn't think it was possible. Well, let me tell you it is and that's what this plan is. In 1998, the deficit under this plan is below $200 billion. Now, the interesting thing about it is that in 1998, if this plan is adopted and no taxes are passed, the deficit continues downward as this yellow arrow indicates. And what happens if we adopt the Democratic plan with $250 billion in real taxes and 15 billion in user fees? Notice the red arrow. This is what the American people ought to be worried about. After we've taxed them and cut very little, here the deficit goes back up, while the deficit under the government plan continues downward.

MR. MacNeil: The debate and vote on the bill are being managed on the Senate floor by the two leading members of the Senate Budget Committee. They join us now from Capitol Hill. Tennessee Democrat Jim Sasser is the committee's chairman. New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici is the ranking minority member whom you've just heard presenting the Republicans' alternative on the floor about an hour ago. Sen. Domenici, give us some of the numbers. How do you magically at the 11th hour, so to speak -- and you, yourself, said you didn't believe it possible --

SEN. DOMENICI: Right.

MR. MacNeil: -- where did you find these numbers that you didn't believe possible until shortly, a short time ago?

SEN. DOMENICI: Well, about a week ago, my staff started working on the details. Frankly, the difference is that we accepted all of the cuts and everything, except the taxes in the Democratic package, so it was a given that everything they had cut, everything they had changed to save money we took up. We hadn't been working on that base line before. And all we did was add two things to it, and it turns out to have the same deficit in 1998 as the President's or lower. In fact, it's a few billion dollars lower. We added two things to it. We froze, not cut, we froze the authority of government for five years for all discretionary accounts, and secondly, so I don't know -- there will be some who will scream about that cutting all kind of programs, but I don't know if the public expected us to have those increases, but we say just freeze them. Then we took the mandatory or entitlement programs, and we accepted the Democratic cuts, and then we said in 1996, in 1996, you begin a reform-oriented mandate which lets the health care programs and other mandatories, it lets them grow at only the new demographics, inflation plus 1 percent. We think we should say to the reformers of health care there's a limit as to what the program can cost. We think the American people expect that. We think the President of the United States should be trying to get that done. He says you can't get the deficit under control without controlling health care costs. What we do is say get 'em under control by putting this, not cut, because it's still going to be growing, and it turns out when you do all of that, the deficit in 1998 has two distinctions: One, it's slightly lower than the President's, believe it or not; and secondly, it is continuing downward, because the entitlements are under control. And lo and behold, the Democratic plan, the 250 billion in new taxes, in about 1997 starts up, and so the American people in asking that we cut first kind of read our minds. If you don't cut first, you're going to have the deficit going up even after you've paid the taxes. So I don't think the President ought to be spouting off as he was today that we have some evil motive here like we're trying to protect the rich, or we're trying to hurt the poor. There's plenty of that to go around. If we want to lay it on the President, he's breached his campaign promises all over the place in this. He's even changed his mind from the day he presented his budget, you know, that the proof's in the pudding.

MR. MacNeil: Oh, let's hear what your opponent there or colleague, Sen. Sasser, thinks. What about the Republican alternative?

SEN. SASSER: I'm delighted to be able to get a word in here for just a moment.

SEN. DOMENICI: Well, he asked me, so I told him.

SEN. SASSER: First, first, this Republican proposal, in my view, is not a serious proposal. It was presented to the Senate approximately an hour before it was actually introduced. This proposal, I think, is nothing more than a political ploy. There are friends on the other side of the aisle who can say, well, we produced a budget program here, and we got the deficit down without raising taxes. Now, what does it really do? First, it accepts the $267 billion in spending cuts that are in President Clinton's proposal. And then it moves forward and uses the same kind of ploy that was used in the Reagan budgets in the early 1980s, unrealistic and draconian cuts in domestic, discretionary spending. When I say domestic, discretionary spending, I'm talking about education, I'm talking about roads, I'm talking about highways, I'm talking about waste water treatment plants, a whole host of domestic needs that have long been neglected in this country. It makes the second group of cuts by cutting Medicare and Medicaid dramatically. Now President Clinton's proposal will reduce Medicare spending by about $70 billion over the next five years. That can be done without harming beneficiaries. Those cuts are imposed on providers, hospitals, laboratories, those sort of things. Now if you go ahead and impose the cuts that our Republican friends want to impose, then you're getting into very substantial reductions in Medicare benefits to beneficiaries, very substantial reductions in Medicaid benefits for the poor. This comes at a time when you find many hospitals, many doctors are refusing to treat, are turning Medicare patients away or Medicaid patients away, because they say Medicaid and Medicare just simply don't pay enough. So they're taking it out of the hides of the elderly, the sick, poor, and the domestic needs.

MR. MacNeil: We can come back to some of these details in a moment. Just, Congressman -- Senator Domenici, I'm sorry, how do you respond just to the main charge that you're not serious in this proposal, it's a political ploy?

SEN. DOMENICI: I tell you we are serious, and I think --

MR. MacNeil: If you were serious, why didn't you do it a long time ago?

SEN. DOMENICI: Well, first of all, I just told you that we offered a similar kind of proposal on the budget resolution, but we added up all of their cuts and then built two issues on top of that and found that, that the budget deficit came out less than the President's in the fifth year. We found this out numberswise about a week ago. We shared it with all the Republicans in an effort to get things moving, and we'll give the Democrats as much time as they need. We don't have to vote on this tonight. We can take all day tomorrow for 'em to search it out.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Sasser says you're going back to the sort of, as he put it, unrealistic and draconian cuts that were offered back in, during the Reagan presidency.

SEN. DOMENICI: Well, let me tell you, we can go back to the Reagan presidency and look at the numbers, and many of the things that are said that were cut weren't. But let me tell you this. Not one single American program is removed from this budget under the name of reinventing government and cutting spending. The President promised to get rid of one. It was the bee keeper subsidy. Even that's back in. So if we say freeze the size of government, there are plenty of opportunities for the appropriators to pick and choose. If they want more for law enforcement, they can find it. They've got to get rid of some federal programs. I think that's what the people thought cutting the budget was. So I don't think there's anything draconian about it. It's whether we could do it, want to do it or not, or is it easier to raise taxes than it is to readjust the priorities of government and spend the same amount for five years that we've spent?

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Sasser?

SEN. SASSER: Well, I think the difference between the President's budget and the budgets being proposed by our Republican friends here is this: Do you want to really reduce the deficit, or do you just want to talk about it and posture around the issue? Now, the Clinton budget bites the bullet. It comes in and reduces this deficit by $516 billion over five years. It will reduce the deficit as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product by 50 percent over five years. It does it with a balanced approach of $1.07 in spending cuts for every $1 in increased revenues. And bear in mind, Robin, that it's those who benefited from the Reagan years, and I'm one of those, and I'm in that income bracket, myself, we're the ones who are getting the taxes. 89 percent of revenues under the Clinton proposal will be raised from those making more than $140,000 a year.

MR. MacNeil: But is --

SEN. SASSER: 79 percent of the revenues are raised from those making over $200,000 a year.

MR. MacNeil: Isn't the difference, Sen. Sasser, that the President and your side wants in addition to cutting the deficit, you also want to spend some money, you want to spend some money on what is called the social deficit by, by Democrats on things you think have been neglected, isn't that the fundamental difference, you want to spend so much?

SEN. SASSER: No, that's just part of it, Robin, but that, that is a portion of the difference. Now, President Clinton would spend money to put 100,000 more policemen on the streets. I think the people of this country want more cops walking the streets, and when I look at the crime statistics, I think we desperately need 'em.

SEN. DOMENICI: Come on, Jim. We don't know we're going to have 100,000 new policemen.

SEN. SASSER: Well, that's what his --

SEN. DOMENICI: There's no money in the budget for it.

SEN. SASSER: That's what his budget proposes.

SEN. DOMENICI: It's not in the appropriations.

SEN. SASSER: He's got the money in that budget. But I'll tell you this. We won't have 100,000 more policemen if we adopt the budget of our Republican friends. Indeed, you will see cuts, in my view, in police forces all across this country.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Domenici, what do you see lost if the taxes the Democrats would raise are not raised?

SEN. DOMENICI: Well, first of all, I see the gain. If you want to put taxes on, put 'em on later, but get these cuts done. The gain is that the economy is apt to recover and we're apt to get more jobs. Actually, I view this package that the Democrats have as a job destroyer. I really am not a betting man, but every intuition I have says you can't get more jobs with the, with the package that the President has proposed and the Democrats have put together. You're going to get less jobs. What I see about our proposal is that it proves the point that if you get the mandatory, the entitlement programs under control, you solve the budget problem. If you don't, you don't fix it with even $250 billion in new taxes from wherever you get 'em.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Sasser, what would be lost by the Republicans just elimination of any new revenues?

SEN. SASSER: Well, I think you're going to lose a whole host of things. But let me just say this, Robin. We tried that. We tried that for 12 years between 1981 and 1992. We cut revenues in 1981 by 20 percent. Now, the majority of those tax cuts went to the wealthiest among us. And all during those years, we heard the continual refrain, we can do this, we can deal with this deficit without raising revenues. What was the result? We saw the national debt of this country triple in the space of 12 years over what it had taken us 200 years to build up in the two centuries prior to it.

SEN. DOMENICI: That's not true, Jim.

SEN. SASSER: But we simply cannot get there from here without some additional revenues. It just can't be done.

SEN. DOMENICI: That isn't true. We raised taxes three times in those years he's speaking about. In fact, President Bush lost the election because he raised taxes and the deficit went up.

MR. MacNeil: Let me just ask each of you before we go, Sen. Sasser, is, is the plan Sen. Domenici has offered and Sen. Dole so seductive that some of your Democrats are going to buy it this evening?

SEN. SASSER: I don't think that you'll find many Democrats buying the proposal as being advanced by Sen. Dole and my good friend, Pete Domenici, here. I think they realize that we've got to be responsible, we've got to do our duty, and even though it may be unpleasant at times, we've got to march up, tell the American people the truth, take the bitter medicine, and start reducing this deficit.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Domenici, do you expect to lose tonight?

SEN. DOMENICI: Well, frankly, I think our leader, Leader Dole said it right. I think we're going to lose. We don't have the numbers. But I'll tell you, if we had 51 Republican Senators, we'd pass this package. It will do as much for the deficit reduction as the Democratic package, and there is no hurry, no hurry to put taxes on the American people and on American business, I assure you.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. Thank you both, gentlemen. We need to leave it there. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the base closings agony and King Hussein of Jordan. FOCUS - ENDANGERED SPECIES

MR. LEHRER: Next tonight is the base closing battle. It's a high stakes political struggle over which congressional districts keep their military bases and which lose them to the Pentagon budget cutters. Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: Within a few months of taking office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan, true to his campaign promise, set the United States on a course towards the biggest peacetime military build-up in history.

PRESIDENT REAGAN: [1981] Let friend and foe alike know that America has the muscle to back up its words, and ships like this and men like you are that muscle.

MR. HOLMAN: As part of its military build-up, the Pentagon announced ambitious plans for a 600 ship navy. New ships were designed, old ships were refitted, and under the direction of then Navy Sec. John Lehman, a string of new home ports was mapped out for every major city along the East, West, and Gulf Coasts.

JOHN LEHMAN, Secretary of the Navy: [1984] In an era when we have now virtually every day Soviet nuclear attack boats with mines and conventional cruise missiles off our coasts that dispersing to additional home ports makes military sense.

MR. HOLMAN: Of course, the Cold War ended a few years ago, and there's no longer a threat from Soviet nuclear attack boats. These days, the navy is thinking more along the lines of a 350 ship fleet and instead of dispersing them all along coastal America, the Navy wants to consolidate instead. And so in 1991, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission was created to do what Congress was unable to do, close military bases. The Commission, chaired by former Congressman James Courter, is powerful. It has the authority to add and subtract from a list of bases the Pentagon wants to close. Congress and the President can only approve or reject the entire list. So when the Commission took the Pentagon's original list of 31 major bases to be closed and added 47 more for consideration, all Defense Sec. Les Aspin could do was plead for leniency.

LES ASPIN, Secretary of Defense: I believe that the base closure list that we sent up is essentially right. I wouldn't rule out some additions and subtractions from it at the margin, but I would ague strenuously against a dramatic cut in that number of bases that are to be closed, and I would also argue against a dramatic increase in the number of bases that are to be closed.

MR. HOLMAN: However, most of the pleading during the 14 weeks since the Pentagon released its list has come from members of Congress. During three days of hearings last week, 56 Senators and 153 House members went before the Commission in one last attempt to get local bases subtracted from the base closing list. New Jersey's delegation, for instance, fought to keep the Pentagon from shifting much of its air transport operations from McGuire Air Force Base to Plattsburg in Upstate New York.

REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, [R] New Jersey: McGuire already has cargo loading and handling facilities. Plattsburg does not. McGuire already has a large passenger terminal. Plattsburg does not. McGuire already has abundant warehouse space. Plattsburg, again, does not.

SEN. BILL BRADLEY, [D] New Jersey: What is this Commission's duty if not to reject the recommendations? And I hope that is what you do, Mr. Commissioner, and the entire Commission.

SPOKESMAN: Thank you, Senator.

MR. HOLMAN: But few members of Congress have been more adamant in support of their local base than has New York's Susan Molinari, working to save the navy home port at Staten Island. Her determination is something even members of the Commission could joke about.

COMMISSION MEMBER: Sen. D'Amato, do you think Congresswoman Molinari is energetic enough in trying to protect Staten Island?

SEN. D'AMATO: Even those who opposed it have been turned around as a result of the persuasiveness of Susan Molinari.

MR. HOLMAN: Indeed, the home port at Staten Island has had its share of opponents and problems. When we visited the site during construction three years ago, almost the entire congressional delegation from New York City was opposed to its completion. New housing for sailors had been built, but the home port had lost its primary occupant, the USS Iowa. The battleship was mothballed after an explosion in a gun turret. Concerns that other ships carrying nuclear weapons would be allowed to visit the port led to protests in New York Harbor, and New York City Mayor David Dinkins went to Washington to ask that the home port be shut down.

MAYOR DAVID DINKINS, New York: [1980] Its strategic rationale has collapsed. Its economic underpinning was flawed from the start, and its political support, at least in New York, is rapidly disappearing.

MR. HOLMAN: But work on the home port continued due primarily to Staten Island's new Congresswoman, Susan Molinari, who fought off senior members of the House Armed Services Committee who wanted to scuttle the project.

REP. SUSAN MOLINARI, [R] New York: I had to lobby members before I was in here long enough to even know who they were, so it was a lot of looking at the books, looking at the faces, and running and trying to deal with them. And I think that part of what weighed in my favor was the fact that they did not have all the facts, and they thought it was unfair for two members of Congress and their colleagues to say that of all the military structures that exist throughout this world we are going to make the decision that this one should go.

MR. HOLMAN: A year later, in 1991, Molinari fought and won again when the Base Closing Commission considered closing the still to be completed Staten Island home port.

REP. SUSAN MOLINARI: Well, it was a number of things that we asked them to take into account, not the least of which was and still remains that naval station in New York is one of the most modern facilities that is in the repertoire of the United States military, that we believe that a Northeast presence is extremely important relative to the United States Navy, and that we believe that we are cost effective when you look at all the numbers properly, which the United States Navy has failed to do now on two occasions.

MR. HOLMAN: In the past year, the home port at Staten Island became operational and Molinari's arguments for keeping it that way may have won over at least one convert. At a recent regional base closing hearing in Newark, New Jersey, none other than Mayor Dinkins, himself, was on hand to testify in support of Staten Island. But when Commissioner Harry McPherson made an on-site inspection of the facility last month, it wasn't Mayor Dinkins but Molinari who made sure he saw everything and heard everything.

SPOKESMAN: The pier is built with all the environmental systems that are required these days and have to be added elsewhere, so - -

REP. SUSAN MOLINARI: We understand this is a difficult job, and all other things being equal that this is such a modern facility that's really built to accommodate today's navy ships, and there's few other piers that we think that can duplicate the services relative to where we are today, so I don't mean to put pressure on you, but I think that's my job, is to, to point out, you know, some of the benefits that this facility has. And while we are small, we really are made to handle today's navy.

MR. HOLMAN: McPherson toured the inside of the navy's state of the art maintenance facility, where he was double teamed by Congresswoman Molinari and her father, Guy Molinari, Staten Island's borough president.

GUY MOLINARI: The point is the money has to be spent.

MR. HOLMAN: They argued about the $350 million the navy has already invested in Staten Island. They brought up the cost of relocating 2200 sailors and the problem of what to do with 10,000 local reservists who would no longer have a place to train should Staten Island's home port close down. And as the tour ended, a group of local home port enthusiasts gathered, hoping that Commissioner McPherson would say something good about Staten Island, and he did.

HARRY McPHERSON, Base Closing Commissioner: I'm convinced that it is a state of the art facility. The pier down there is as modern as anything in the navy.

MR. HOLMAN: But McPherson also told the crowd what it didn't want to hear.

HARRY McPHERSON: The Staten Island home port does not have a high military value to the navy and most other ports have a higher military value.

MAN IN CROWD: [yelling] They have a value to us!

HARRY McPHERSON: Exactly so.

MR. HOLMAN: The base closing commissioners concluded their hearings last week by questioning the navy's logic behind some of its more publicized recommendations sure to affect thousands of military and civilian personnel and the economies of some fairly large communities. For instance, why close the naval station in Alameda, California, and not the still under construction home port in Everett, Washington?

CHARLES NEMFAKOS, Navy Base Structure Evaluation Committee: If you look at it both in the context of annual costs of operation as well as the net present value analysis, keeping the additional capacity at Alameda ends up costing the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy more money than keeping Everett.

MR. HOLMAN: And why propose shutting down large facilities in Charleston, South Carolina, and leave open the home port in Ingleside, Texas?

VICE ADMIRAL STEPHEN LOFTUS, Naval Operations [Logistics]: When it came to reducing capacity across the navy, Charleston came up over and over again. No matter what kind of combinations you ran, Charleston kept coming up, because most of the excess capacity on the East Coast was at Charleston in terms of the naval station.

MR. HOLMAN: But for the navy and Charles Nemfakos, the chief architect of its base closing list, there were no questions about the logic of closing down Staten Island.

CHARLES NEMFAKOS: I would say that capacity represented by Staten Island which is in excess of that that we need for the 1999 force structure is not something that they would want to keep open. Clearly, arguments have been made by the local community and the congressional leadership and the commission I'm sure is going to consider all those arguments, but in the final analysis there, there is a finite number of ships that need to be berthed, home ported somewhere. And you run out of ships before you get to the point of needing the capacity represented by Staten Island.

MR. HOLMAN: And during New York's final pitch last week before the Base Closing Commission, it became apparent that not all members of the congressional delegation shared the same enthusiasm for the home port at Staten Island.

SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, [D] New York: The decision of Defense Sec. Lehman to dribble these home ports around the East Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast was an appalling decision, blatantly political, however, you have a fine base there, the one site in the Northeast where naval reserve training is possible, is welcomed, and could be carried out most efficiently. If I may say, I sailed, I once was at sea with the Iowa, and the idea that they would bring it back, those World War I -- II battleships, the greatest ships of the line that ever went to sea, but the thought that they were going to encounter the Soviets off Iceland in the epic surface engagement of World War III was nutty.

MR. HOLMAN: But Susan Molinari's last pitch was to ask Commission members to give the home port at Staten Island more time, at least until the next round of base closings scheduled for 1995.

REP. SUSAN MOLINARI: You can give us at least those next two years to make sure that we don't throw away one of the most recent advanced investments made for the United States military before it's too late. It is a cost that will never be recouped. Thank you.

MR. HOLMAN: The base closing commission will decide Staten Island's future when it votes on Friday, but the navy's Charles Nemfakos recommends against giving it a two-year reprieve.

CHARLES NEMFAKOS: It's better to get out now and get a head start on, on conversion. If I were a community and had a choice of getting out now or getting out later, I'd just as soon get out now, because I, I think the opportunities will be greater. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: We go finally tonight to a Newsmaker interview with King Hussein of Jordan. He's in the United States for talks with President Clinton and other U.S. officials all aimed at improving Jordan's relations with the United States. They went sour with Jordan's perceived support of Iraq in the Gulf crisis three years ago. I spoke with King Hussein earlier this evening. Your Majesty, welcome.

KING HUSSEIN: Thank you very much, indeed.

MR. LEHRER: You said the other day that spring has come again to the relationship between the United States and Jordan. What has brought this about?

KING HUSSEIN: I believe that a relationship of friendship and mutual respect and cooperation is one that we have cherished over many, many years, but I believe with the visit to Washington this time and my meeting with the President and the impression he left on me and with the leaders in the new administration, I have great confidence that it won't hesitate our relationship, and that we will be working together as partners in pursuing common, worthy, and noble goals.

MR. LEHRER: Do you now regret the pro-Iraq position you took during the Gulf War?

KING HUSSEIN: I not for the first time would like to say that I never took a pro-Iraq position during the Gulf War. I have tried my utmost to deal with the situation within our region and to reverse the unfortunate invasion of Kuwait peacefully. I was concerned for all the losses, human, material, and for the long range effects, including those in the environment at the time. I don't think I was popular with a lot of people as a result of that, but I believe I did the right thing.

MR. LEHRER: Well, let me put it to you another way then. Do you regret your decision not to join the coalition with the United States and the United Nations in trying to get Iraq out of Kuwait?

KING HUSSEIN: I did my utmost to try to get Iraq out of Kuwait peacefully and to avert all the disaster that followed.

MR. LEHRER: So you have no regrets about Jordan's position, even though it's caused you some problems?

KING HUSSEIN: I believe that between friends we have to be very, very frank and very open, and friendship implies that we give and take, and this is what we have done over the years. I don't believe there was anything that would cause me now to say that I would have done it any differently. I faced a crisis in our region, a terrible one. I tried my best to resolve it to the best of my ability, and I believe that my feelings were shared by many throughout the world, including here in the United States.

MR. LEHRER: As you know, there was a recent report from the General Accounting Office of the U.S. Congress which said that your country actually provided help to the Iraqis during the war against the United States and other U.N. forces. Is that true?

KING HUSSEIN: This is totally untrue. And I would like to know if the subject is to be pursued and if ever were and what evidence there is of that. We have our honor, and we have our word, and that means a lot to us. And we are not involved in helping any against any, nor do you know that Iraq intended to do what it did in the first place.

MR. LEHRER: Well, there are, the words of the report were "These activities included joint training exercises with Iraq, two cases of providing access to U.S. technology, one case of purchasing spare parts, and one case dealing with the sharing of coalition and Israeli intelligence information." That's out of the report. That did not happen?

KING HUSSEIN: I didn't realize that we were going to discuss this report. I have really not read it all that seriously, because there has been a lot of mud slinging as regards Jordan, a very staunch friend of this country throughout its history, and as far as that was, yes, strengthening the training, but at a time way before the war and the events that took place in 1990 we were in what was called Cooperation Council and that included Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Yemen then, and within the Arab context, yes, we did have joint training, and we had facilities open to all Arabs to come and join and benefit from our experience. But this didn't happen during the crisis or after the crisis.

MR. LEHRER: During the war, itself, you were not sharing U.S. intelligence information that you had gained as a result of your relationship with the Iraqis. You're saying that's just not true.

KING HUSSEIN: We never had any information to share with anybody.

MR. LEHRER: Well, as you know, Your Majesty, I've heard what you've said and I've heard what you've said elsewhere before you came here today, the perception of the United States, like it or not, was that you were supporting Iraq against the U.N. forces. You're saying that is just not so. Is that your position now?

KING HUSSEIN: I never supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, nor did I support in any way in that regard. We were very close to Iraq during the terrible eight years of war which caught us by surprise withIran, but so was the United States and probably the relations between the United States and Iraq at a certain time were much more intimate than ours.

MR. LEHRER: And is it your feeling after talking to President Clinton and the new administration that whatever may have happened or whatever the perceptions may have been that they have now been put aside about your role in, during the Gulf crisis?

KING HUSSEIN: I'm not born of today. I've been in a position of responsibility for the last 40 years and they are the record of which I am proud, and so is Jordan. I hope that the chapter is closed, and I hope those who would like to say every now and then this issue or that issue to cast doubts about our integrity would realize that it is futile and it is in bad taste.

MR. LEHRER: Did you talk to President Clinton about this? Did he talk to you about it?

KING HUSSEIN: We talked about a variety of things. I think President Clinton knows where we stand, and we had a very, very good talk, and we see eye to eye on many matters.

MR. LEHRER: What is your assessment of where the Middle East peace talks are right now?

KING HUSSEIN: They are at a very interesting moment, at a very critical moment, and I believe that we did whatever we could out of conviction in Jordan when we had the meeting, and all schools of political thought in the country decided that we should go to Madrid, and we started the process and the umbrella for Palestinians to be involved in the process, because without the Palestinians, I can't see any solution to the Palestinian problem. It is, after all, one that concerns a people who have suffered so much and who really want to share in bringing about the peace that future generations can live with and protect. I feel that we need more help. There is a conviction in the area amongst a vast majority of people on either side of the divide that this is a chance, the last chance. It should be taken to have peace come to existence between the people of the region and between the river, but the kind of peace that can last, the kind of peace that future generations can accept and live with and protect. I believe that anything that can give Palestinians some idea as to what the end of their efforts is going to be like will encourage rapid progress on all matters in terms of the talks ongoing.

MR. LEHRER: Do you, is it your feeling that that is, that steps are being taken toward doing that, in other words, towards giving the Palestinians those kinds of assurances that they feel that they need to move this thing another step along the way?

KING HUSSEIN: I believe that what at the moment appeared as an area of concern is that. I salute the courage of those who came out of the territories to represent the Palestinian dimension, physical and moral courage, and that commitment to the cause of peace. I hope that somehow we can engage in getting over this hump and moving ahead, and with the help of the United States and with the participation of the United States as a full partner.

MR. LEHRER: Is it your feeling that, that it's ripe for a dramatic breakthrough, or is it going to take just more of this kind of slow plotting course which seems to result in very small steps, if any steps at all, or how do you see this playing itself out from this point on?

KING HUSSEIN: I believe that a lot of steps have been taken, and I think that in the future maybe the people in the region all to be apprised of what is happening so that the -- after all they are involved and it is their future that is in the balance, that they know what is happening. I think that we need just a renewed effort to move ahead and move rapidly.

MR. LEHRER: A renewed effort on whose part, whose job is it now to move it over the hump as you say?

KING HUSSEIN: Well, as you know, there are talks ongoing between different countries involved. On the Palestinian dimension there is talk of the transitional period, the transitional period to what I kept asking this question in the past without obtaining any, any answer. Israel probably views the matter in the way that it would like to consider it a transitional period at this stage and nothing else. Palestinians feel that they would like to know some shape of what the end result is going to be to encourage them to go on, so it is that in addition to the need for the United States to hopefully be with us in this process now.

MR. LEHRER: Is it a matter of, where the United States felt finding a form of words that would satisfy the Palestinians as far as what this thing could eventually lead to which would then make it possible for say you all, the Jordanians, the Syrians, and others, to embrace the whole thing and move it the next step, is that really what it's going to take?

KING HUSSEIN: I believe it shouldn't be a next step. It should be a series of steps. We should really get involved and continue until we arrive at a happy conclusion to this process and establish a just and doable peace in region, and I think that the Palestinians need a bit of reassurance at this stage. We have suffered enough as well.

MR. LEHRER: In the general way, Your Majesty, some Americans are asking the question now for the first time, particularly since the Cold War was over, is: Why should we care so deeply about whether or not there's a peace in the Middle East? There are no open warfare there. There are people actually killing each other in Bosnia and other parts of the world. What's so important about the Middle East right now?

KING HUSSEIN: Well, peace, if it comes to that part of the world, will mean a great difference to a lot of people and the areas important to the rest of the world. It will mean peace between the followers of the three great religions. It will mean an entirely new future for that entire region, and it will mean the removal of the root cause of a lot of instability within the region and beyond. So isn't that worth the effort?

MR. LEHRER: If this effort does not make it, if this particular set of talks -- I don't mean this round, but I mean this, this peace effort does not make it, then what's the down side? What could be the down side, the consequences?

KING HUSSEIN: The down side is the success of extremists on either side of the divide in destroying this chance which is, in my view, not maybe, is the last chance for, for peace and the future could be a very, very grim one for everybody concerned.

MR. LEHRER: Are you talking about the possibility of a shooting war between Arabs and Israelis?

KING HUSSEIN: There have been enough. Wars haven't produced any results. People are committed, I hope, to finding a solution peacefully, but if that is lost, then there'll be a lot of turbulence and we will be sliding into, into a very dark abyss.

MR. LEHRER: Is your reading that the parties, that all of the parties involved in this, whether they be Israelis, whether they be Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, or whatever, that everybody agrees that this is this moment and it must be seized?

KING HUSSEIN: It is how I feel, and that's what I've seen in the way of evidence of this period, particularly since meetings are held regularly between representatives of the countries involved and Palestinians, and we see no other option. And we're determined to do whatever we can, but we hope that we will be able to do so.

MR. LEHRER: Your Majesty, thank you very much.

KING HUSSEIN: Thank you so much. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of this Wednesday, President Clinton attacked an alternative budget plan by Republicans as an 11th hour move that would punish the middle class and the most vulnerable. Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole said it would cut the deficit by as much as the Democratic plan without raising taxes. The Commerce Department reported that the economy grew by .7 of 1 percent in the first quarter. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.