The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Kwame Holman lays out the Washington debate over the Bush tax cut proposal; Mark Shields and Paul Gigot preview the President's speech tonight to a joint session of Congress; Simon Marks and Terence Smith look at the conflict in Russia over control of the media; Ray Suarez talks with the 2000 winner of the Nobel Prize for literature; and Robert Pinsky honors the work of poet A.R. Ammons, who died this week. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Bush will lay out his 2002 budget to Congress and to the nation tonight. It will include a plan to cut taxes $1.6 trillion. And it will call for paying off $2 trillion of the federal debt over the next ten years. Mr. Bush said today there's enough money to do both. He spoke after meeting with the President of Colombia at the White House.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The problem we have often times in America is that people will be asked a question, "do you want tax relief, or do you want somebody not to get their Medicare check?" I'm going to be making the case that with the right leadership and the right priorities and the right focus, that we will fund important programs and have money left over for tax relief and it's important - it's important for the American people to get some of their own money back. One, it will help the economy; secondly, it will help the American taxpayers pay off their own personal debt.

JIM LEHRER: At the Capitol today, Senate Minority Leader Daschle accused President Bush of playing a budget shell game to finance his tax cut plan.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: From where will he get resources to... to fully fund Social Security and Medicare over the course of the next ten years? That money is actually going to be moved out of the Social Security and out of Medicare into other priorities. And that will be one of the most critical aspects of this debate as we go into the coming months.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Daschle and House Minority Leader Gephardt will deliver the Democrats' response to Mr. Bush's speech tonight. We'll have more on tax cuts and the budget fight right after this News Summary. In economic news today, the Conference Board, a business research group, said consumer confidence in January reached its lowest point since 1996. And the Commerce Department issued two reports that showed consumers are spending less. It said new home sales fell 10.9% last month, the biggest decline in seven years. And orders for durable goods, such as appliances and electronics, fell 6% to the lowest level in 19 months. Secretary of State Powell promised today U.S. peacekeepers would remain in the Balkans. He met with NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, concluding his first overseas trip as secretary. Last year, then-Presidential candidate Bush talked of withdrawing the 9,500 U.S. troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. More recently, he softened that position. Today Powell told the allies, "we went in together, we will come out together." Also today, Secretary Powell filled in NATO and European leaders on plans to modify sanctions against Iraq. Many Arab nations have complained the existing embargo puts an unfair burden on the Iraqi people. On Monday, Powell discussed a plan for so-called smart sanctions during stops in the Persian Gulf. He spoke today after meeting with a European community official.

COLIN POWELL: If we move forward with the proposals that I've been shopping around the region, we will tighten sanctions on weapons of mass destruction material. We will tighten sanctions on armaments -- we will tighten sanctions on all the sort of equipment and other materials that put the people of the region at risk. What we would do is then remove some of the restrictions on the materials that can go to civilians and civilian use.

JIM LEHRER: At the United Nations, Iraq's foreign minister dismissed the U.S. proposals. He said secretary Powell was trying to play on words.

MOHAMMED SAEED AL SAHAF: We are hearing stupid statements from the foreign minister of the United States of America -- talking about clever sanctions as if... and he confessed that what had been going on since 1990 is stupid. So there is no place for a compromise.

JIM LEHRER: The Iraqi official was at the UN for talks on the stalemate over weapons inspections in Iraq. In Indonesia today, police reported a massacre on the island of Borneo, the latest in a wave of ethnic killings. They said a mob of native Dayaks attacked and murdered 118 people under police escort. The victims were Madurese refugees. A police spokesman said officers now have orders to shoot rioters on sight. More than 400 people have died in ten days of violence on Borneo. The U.S. Supreme Court today turned aside the strongest challenge ever to the Clean Air Act. In a unanimous ruling, it said the Environmental Protection Agency does not have to consider the cost of compliance when it sets air quality guidelines. The case involved an industry suit over limits on ozone and soot. The high court did rule the EPA must develop a new policy for implementing those limits. It said the existing policy was unreasonable. At least a million people jammed the streets of New Orleans today for Mardi Gras. The celebrations marked the climax of carnival season, which began January 6. Parties lasted through the night in the French Quarter, followed by a day of parades. The season ends at midnight, when the Christian season of Lent begins. That's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to the tax cuts debate; Shields and Gigot; turmoil in and about Russian television; a Nobel Prize winner; and in memory of a poet.

FOCUS - TAXING DEBATE

JIM LEHRER: The President's speech later tonight to a joint session of Congress. Kwame Holman begins our look with a report on tax cut politics. (Applause )

KWAME HOLMAN: Through the first few weeks of his new administration, it appeared President Bush's 10-year, $1.6 trillion tax cut proposal was on a glide path to congressional approval.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I urge the Congress to pass my tax relief plan with the swiftness these uncertain times demand.

KWAME HOLMAN: Even before the President signed and sent his plan to Congress, it already had momentum behind it. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan softly endorsed the notion of a tax cut; the expert Congressional Budget Office forecast a big enough budget surplus to pay for it; and one of the new Democrats in the evenly split Senate, Zell Miller of Georgia, came out immediately to say he'd vote for it.

SEN. ZELL MILLER: Remember that old Elvis Presley song, "Return to Sender"? That's what we're wanting to do right here. That's what we're wanting to do with this overpayment of taxes.

SPOKESMAN: Amen.

KWAME HOLMAN: Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill hand-carried the plan up to the Capitol, where Republican leaders were eager to accept it. And before the House Ways and Means Committee, where all federal tax legislation is born, O'Neill urged members to act on the tax cuts right away.

PAUL O'NEILL: And if we were to do it on a retroactive basis to January 1, money could begin to flow very quickly, if the Congress could act on these things quickly.

KWAME HOLMAN: The President held the early advantage in promoting his tax cuts in large part because no one in Congress stepped forward to offer a comprehensive alternative; certainly not one with a realistic chance of picking up enough votes to pass. Congressional Democratic leaders Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt, opponents of Mr. Bush's tax cut plan, didn't propose a plan of their own until just before President's Day. They endorsed a $750 billion tax cut, half the size of the President's, aimed at low- and middle-income Americans. But they provided few details. And the Progressive Caucus, a group of left-leaning House Democrats, propose giving every American man, woman and child $300. They proclaimed it the fair way to distribute the expected budget surpluses.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Unlike the administration's proposal, which reserves over 40% of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of the population, the American people's dividend-- this proposal-- gives those at the top 1%, 1%. This makes the overwhelming proportion of tax relief available for the bulk of the population. Everyone benefits.

KWAME HOLMAN: Meanwhile, an equally passionate group of House conservatives argues the Bush tax cut plan isn't big enough. They want to push the tax cuts beyond $2 trillion.

REP. TOM DeLAY: We don't know how much is out... How much taxes... How many taxes that the government is taking in surplus from the American people. I mean, this is the beginning of a process. It's an ongoing process, and no one should be drawing a line in the sand saying, "it's going to be that number and no number."

KWAME HOLMAN: But each time a new tax cut proposal is offered, President Bush's response remains the same.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think it's going to be very important for us and the members of Congress to work together, but I'm going to make my case that the size of the tax relief package I propose is right.

KWAME HOLMAN: Reporter: Among the most important members of Congress with whom the Bush administration will have to work are the centrists. They're Senators from both parties who meet regularly to promote common moderate goals. Two Republican centrists, Jeffords of Vermont and Chafee of Rhode Island, already are on record saying the Bush tax cuts are too big. Maine Republican Olympia Snowe said she would like to see a triggering mechanism that would suspend major tax cuts if the economy doesn't perform as well as expected.

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE: You know, we anticipate that we will have sizable surpluses. But in the event that they don't materialize to the extent that we expect or anticipate, then we should have a mechanism in place to ensure that each and every year we can keep track of our debt reduction first and foremost. Then we can, you know, phase in the next step of the tax cut. If we don't, you know, meet... we can delay this phase of the tax cut if we don't meet the debt reduction goal of that particular year or spending policy.

KWAME HOLMAN: Just before Congress recessed last week, the centrists invited Bush chief of staff Andrew Card and economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey to meet with them in a capitol conference room. Cameras were allowed to record the welcoming comments.

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE: So we appreciate the fact that you're willing to be here today, and Larry as well, to talk about the President's tax proposal and any other issues that you care to address.

KWAME HOLMAN: The centrists expect to hold several more discussions in an effort to reach consensus on tax cuts. They admit at this point, they're far from it. Nor does it appear President Bush yet has the votes. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici gave the President the running tally during a White House budget session just before the recess.

SEN. PETE DOMENICI: We told him tonight at this meeting of the closeness of the debate in the Senate, and he indicated that he was well aware of that and he was going to do his share to help us. So everybody should understand we're not finished working on this. Right now it would appear that there are a number of Senators who are undecided, and there are between 47 and 49 that are absolutely committed, and we're still working.

KWAME HOLMAN: And President Bush continues to respond optimistically when questioned about his tax cut.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I don't agree with that assessment that there's not enough votes in the Senate. I believe, when it's all said and done, we're going to get a tax bill out of the House and the Senate that will be at the level I think it ought to be. And I know there's a lot of speculation about members, but it's early. It's early in the process.

KWAME HOLMAN: But the debate already has begun. Yesterday, the President was well positioned to hear opposing views from two of the nation's governors: Democrat Parris Glendening of Maryland...

GOV. PARRIS GLENDENING: ...That some of us are very concerned that the tax cut that's being proposed is too large and will not permit funding for some key issues, such as education and prescription drug coverage.

KWAME HOLMAN:...And Republican John Engler of Michigan.

GOV. JOHN ENGLER: Many of us have the perspective on the tax cut: Big, fast, across-the-board, and right now, so... ( Laughter ) ...I'll say that, and... ( Applause )

KWAME HOLMAN: The President will make his own case for tax cuts during his nationally televised address to Congress tonight.

JIM LEHRER: Now, some speech preview words now from Shields and Gigot: Syndicated columnist mark Shields and "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. Paul what's at stake for the President tonight?

PAUL GIGOT: His agenda.

JIM LEHRER: Everything?

PAUL GIGOT: Not everything -- one speech. I do think it is more of an opportunity for any President but especially for this one in the opening bid. This is a chance to go over the heads of Congress - speak to the American people in order to move the Congress. He's had this charm offensive with individual members and groups of Democrats, Republicans, and that's fine. It's good to be liked, but more important to be feared, to have that sense in the minds of Congressmen and women that, you know, "if I go against this... this guy, it may cost me." And I think that this is the beginning of the process where he can show the members of Congress that he can move the country and then help his agenda along.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Mark, that he must demonstrate his strength as much as charm tonight?

MARK SHIELDS: I think so, Jim. I think that Paul is absolutely right that every President want to be able to go over the heads of Congress at least have Congress know that he's capable of doing it in and marshaling public opinion behind him and there is some political cost to be paid for opposing the President. The problem with President Bush is that facile with language he is not and command of facts has not been his strong suit. He's given two - I think -- really good speeches. I thought his acceptance speech at the convention was superb. I thought his inaugural speech was more than adequate. He has worked hard on this one. It is important, it is not decisive, but it's the first time American people have seen him in all the panoplies. Bush people have said this is a state of the union.

JIM LEHRER: We should explain that. A state of the union is reserved for Presidents after they have been in after the first year. This is just an address to a joint session of Congress.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right, but for all practical purposes -- if you turn on the set tonight, it's "ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States." Mrs. Bush will be in the galleries. For the first time, Jim, in 50 years, it will be an all- Republican setting. There will be a Republican Vice President, a Republican Speaker of the House, a Republican President. So it's important in that sense as a table setter for this administration, because George W. Bush, I think, tonight has to make the case that he's in command.

JIM LEHRER: You would agree with that?

PAUL GIGOT: I do. I do. He has to lay out, I think, a philosophy of government. What he wants as a different kind of....

JIM LEHRER: Beyond what he has already said?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, no, I think be thematic and lay it out, and put some meat on the bones as well for the agenda and set priorities and make good arguments that can carry that agenda -- in particular, find a consistent argument to sell the tax cut.

JIM LEHRER: You don't think he has done that?

PAUL GIGOT: No. I think you've had different ones. You've had Larry Lindsey say, "it's a stimulus." He's Bush's chief economic advisor. Paul O'Neill, Secretary of the Treasury, said, "I don't buy the stimulus." Others say deny the money for Congress to spend and others say it's immoral. I think he needs to focus on three or four ideas and drive them home in a persuasive fashion and stick on that from now until the tax bill pass.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, is there a special target audience for the tax cut proposal that he must speak to tonight? Who has the power to keep from getting it?

MARK SHIELDS: I think the power... That Paul is right in the sense he hasn't made a defined argument. I mean, the President has been talking up a recession. You know things are really bad. There has been a certain gloomy Gus. That has been sort of the Keynesian argument. I don't think Larry Lindsey would like to be called a Keynesian. Stimulate the economy-- that's what the tax cut is about. The prediction of the Federal Reserve Board is that unemployment will go to 4.5% this year. That's serious for the unemployed. During six of eight years of Ronald Reagan's presidency-- the golden era according to most Republican legend-- unemployment was over 7%. He didn't want to be in the position of saying things are really bad and awful, talkinga recession. I think what he has to reach... He starts off ahead of Clinton. Bill Clinton in 1983 with his package didn't have a single Republican vote. Zell Miller of Georgia is onboard and a sponsor of the tax cut. But he has to persuade people this is not a favorite of the wealthy. By a six to one margin in the "Washington Post"/ABC Poll, people think the tax cuts benefits the wealthy more than middle class.

JIM LEHRER: And you think that target audience is more out in the country than it is in the hall tonight; he's got to make that case to the folks and then they will help make the case to the folks inside?

PAUL GIGOT: I think that's right. I really do. I don't think that the class war argument the wealthy argument is selling as well from the Democratic point. I think their ultimate argument is going to be, "there is not enough money. He's going to take it from Medicare and Social Security." I think Bush's more important task, specifically on the tax cut, is to inoculate Republicans and himself on that argument and say, in fact, "there is enough to do both" -- I plan on having both of those things as priorities, that is, entitlement changes and reform and security and a tax cut.

JIM LEHRER: How does he handle the argument that the Democrats throw back, which is, hey, "wait a minute. We need to spin down the department"? That's a number one priority before we do tax cuts. Isn't that a good thing? What does he say to that?

PAUL GIGOT: I think particularly they'll spend it first. The second thing, the surpluses have been coming in so large, that by 2006, according to Congressional Budget Office, the surplus is so large, you won't be able to pay down the debt any particular year because it is going to exceed in the year the debt that comes in and repayable in that year.

JIM LEHRER: Is it improper for the average person to be skeptical about these surplus figures?

MARK SHIELDS: Of course it is. Any time you're out beyond a couple of years there is great skepticism. You recall, Bill Clinton came to office with predictions of the budget office of his predecessor of his own Congressional Budget Office they were going to have deficits as long as the eye could see. In the space of seven years, a surplus was achieved. That's a testimony to not only why stewardship, as Clinton would argue, but to the United States economy. I think, Jim, as you look right now at President Bush's position, he has to be not only the preacher in chief - which a President has to be -- but the teacher in chief. I think Paul made the point he must explain this. I don't think the case has been made to people as to why this is important and urgent. And most of all, every Republican prays that doesn't happen to George W. Bush what happened to Bill Clinton on September 22, 1993 when he gave his defining signature speech of his presidency on health care and he looked... he did not have his reading glasses in his pocket and he looked and the teleprompter didn't have the speech. For seven minutes he had to give his own speech from memory and did almost seamlessly.

JIM LEHRER: I remember, we were on the air that night. It was an astonishing performance.

MARK SHIELDS: It was a remarkable performance.

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I can tell you what George W. Bush would do; he'd say, "somebody get my speech."

JIM LEHRER: "You all take a break. Send me... you bring me my speech."

PAUL GIGOT: He doesn't have that arrogance, and then to think he could pull it off.

MARK SHIELDS: There was more than arrogance. That was mastery at exact detail and knowledge of the subject matter.

JIM LEHRER: George W. Bush, you both said at the beginning, that he has to show he's in command. How does a man do that?

PAUL GIGOT: I think he did it... He's done it on two occasions I think quite well. Mark mentioned the inaugural and acceptance speeches. Those were set speeches where he would work on it and practice it and get comfortable with delivery and work over the language. This is one of those speeches. This isn't an off-the-cuff exercise. So he ought to be able to put together the language and arguments. I know they have been working on them for sometime. He ought to be able to do that. The presentation and delivery-- I don't think he's ever going to... at least for a few years, remind anybody of Ronald Reagan with that command of a stage. Ronald Reagan was doing that 30 years before he was President of the United States. He showed in the speeches, the kind of speeches he can still do pretty will.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, we'll see, and on most public television stations we'll be back. I'll mention that again at the end of the program and Mark and Paul will be back at that time as well. Thank you both.

FOCUS - PUTIN & THE PRESS

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight; a Russian television story; a Nobel Prize winner; and a tribute to a poet.

JIM LEHRER: Special correspondent Simon Marks in Moscow begins our Russian report.

SIMON MARKS: He has been called Russia's Walter Cronkite, but today, as Evgeny Kiselev anchors his news program on the NTV television network, he wonders whether each appearance might be his last. For the past seven years, Kiselev's Sunday night news program, "Itogi"-- it means "in conclusion"-- has been required viewing for Russia's political class. But for the past year, the program and the network that carries it have been struggling for survival in the face of an onslaught by the government of Vladimir Putin that many here say is a litmus test for the future of free speech in Russia.

EVGENY KISELEV: If the government, which is trying to put NTV, the last independent television station which is broadcasting nationally, under government control, if the government succeeds in it, then with high probability Russia will go on the wrong path. If we survive, that's a chance for the whole country, for the whole people of Russia, to go in the same direction we are trying to go for the last ten years. So this is an issue of a state against an independent media.

SIMON MARKS: Simple as that?

EVGENY KISELEV: Simple as that.

SIMON MARKS: NTV has been on-air since October 1993. The "N" stands for "nyezavisimaya," "independent," and it quickly established a reputation for pugnaciously challenging the Yeltsin government's official line. Its coverage of the first war in the breakaway region of Chechnya in 1995 was unsparing and helped mold the antiwar sentiments of Russian public opinion. That established NTV as the country's leading independent editorial voice and established its owner, a former theater producer, Vladimir Gusinsky, as a central player in Russia's political life, one of the so- called oligarchs who came to prominence during the Yeltsin era. Today Gusinsky's company, Media- Most, also owns a 24-hour radio station, a satellite TV network, a newspaper, and a weekly newsmagazine. Gusinsky's outlets operate in a media environment that has changed significantly since the Soviet era. Dozens of national newspapers-- many of them privately owned-- now compete for readers, but the country's only two other national television networks are under state control, and Vladimir Gusinsky's empire has run into massive trouble. Last May, the Russian prosecutor's office carried out armed raids on his businesses, and in June arrested him on charges of embezzlement. Released after three days in a notorious Moscow prison, Gusinsky maintained that he was the innocent victim of a heavy- handed Kremlin campaign to silence him.

VLADIMIR GUSINSKY: ( Translated ) It is absolutely obvious to everyone that not only is this investigation politically motivated, but that also it is generally a falsification, because ordinary economic arrangements, even complicated ones, are being presented as criminal.

SIMON MARKS: To get out of jail, Gusinsky agreed to sign a document handing control of his businesses over to the Russian state gas company, Gazprom. Gusinsky had turned to Gazprom in August 1998 in the midst of Russia's financial collapse. It agreed to underwrite loans the mogul used to shore up and then expand his empire. But after signing his companies over to Gazprom when he came out of jail, Gusinsky fled the country claiming the deal had been struck under duress. Today he's under house arrest in Spain and the Russian authorities are seeking his extradition. He was not immediately available for an interview. Back in Moscow, NTV continues to broadcast, Gazprom maintains it now owns a controlling stake in the network, and the future is confused and unclear. NTV supporters say that what's at stake here is nothing less than the future of free speech in Russia, but others say things aren't that simple. They argue that just to become one of Russia's most successful businessmen, Vladimir Gusinsky must at least have cut some legal corners in the '90s. And they say that in 1996, by turning the broadcasts that emanate from these studios into a tool of then-President Boris Yeltsin's reelection campaign, Mr. Gusinsky himself raised some questions about the editorial independence of NTV. NTV, for example, suppressed the news that Boris Yeltsin had suffered a heart attack during the election campaign. Its executives joined the Yeltsin campaign team, and the network offered barely any airtime to his Communist rivals. And while NTV executives today say they regret their support for Yeltsin, the reelected President richly rewarded the networks that had stuck by him. NTV won broadcast licenses and those loans underwritten by Gazprom, the very loans the Putin administration is today, in effect, calling in.

ANDREI ZOLOTOV: This is more complex than the way either side tries to present it.

SIMON MARKS: Andrei Zolotov has spent the past year covering the NTV story for the "Moscow Times," the city's independent English language daily.

ANDREI ZOLOTOV: Of course it is not just a business conflict. It's not only about debts, because if you look at other Russian television stations, they have nearly the same humongous debts to the state as Gusinsky does. In a way, the government told Gusinsky, "if you want to be in opposition, don't do it with the government's money. No more debt cancellation, no more tolerance towards lack of financial discipline. If you want to be against the Kremlin, do it on your own, and we'll see how you do that."

SIMON MARKS: Many in Moscow believe that President Vladimir Putin is personally orchestrating the campaign against NTV. Among other things, he's said to have been enraged by the way in which he's portrayed on "Kukly," the network's weekly satirical puppet program. On a recent episode, the President was lampooned as a sinister monk hatching evil plans for the country. Mikhail Shenderovich is "Kukly's" creator.

MIKHAIL SHENDEROVICH: (Translated ) Vladimir Putin's image of the press is the image traditionally held by a career intelligence officer. He thinks the press should be something that serves the interest of the party, the interests of the state, and the private interests of the President. He has no use for a media, which has thoughts of its own, which serves as an independent public watchdog. I realized this when I looked into his eyes and listened to his words about freedom of the press.

SIMON MARKS: Mr. Shenderovich and many of his NTV colleagues had an opportunity to look into the President's eyes last month. They were summoned to the Kremlin to hear Mr. Putin say that he is committed to a free press, but that their boss, Mr. Gusinsky, must answer the criminal charges against him. Anchorman Evgeny Kiselev says the President is deliberately engineering the NTV network's collapse.

EVGENY KISELEY: He wants to be a member of this elite club of world leaders, and if you want to be a member, you have to obey the rules. That's why he doesn't have the guts just to shut us down in the Soviet-style manner. That's why the state is trying to suffocate us by financial measures.

SIMON MARKS: Not so, says the government in the form of Mikhail Lesin, the minister of press and information.

MIKHAIL LESIN: ( Translated ) The constitution guarantees the rights that we're talking about: Freedom of speech and freedom of journalistic activity. There are no threats, no limits to it, and no problems; and there can't be any, because the law clearly indicates that won't be tolerated.

SIMON MARKS: Reporter: Mr. Lesin says NTV is a victim of financial mismanagement, of self-inflicted wounds that obscure a generally more positive media picture.

MIKHAIL LESIN: ( Translated ) I'm sorry that you're only interested in Vladimir Gusinsky. I think that if you guys showed the whole picture and not only Vladimir Gusinsky, you would see lots of positive things in Russia, lots of media outlets working normally, newspapers being printed, normal criticism, and real freedom of speech.

SIMON MARKS: NTV's future may now rest on the role western investors decide to play. Both Ted Turner and the financier George Soros have expressed an interest in making a $300 million investment in NTV's parent company. Vladimir Gusinsky says he will sell to them if the network's editorial independence is guaranteed. The government says it can't guarantee NTV's independence, because it insists it's playing no role at all in determining the network's future. Evgeny Kiselev, struggling to produce his weekly political program now government leaders routinely refuse to appear, maintains the Kremlin even tried to bribe him to come off the air.

EVGENY KISELEV: Six months ago we were offered $300 million in cash to sell NTV and other businesses and leave the country. You know, it's a lot of money. It's a lot of money. But Mr. Gusinsky, together with me and other partners, decided not to accept this offer. There are things in this country, in Russia, more important than money; for example, freedom of the press. So you can treat us as helpless idealists, but we really believe that we have a mission, and we have to carry on, period.

SIMON MARKS: Despite the questions about its financial background and the strategic errors its managers acknowledge they made, all sides in this battle agree that NTV has changed the face of Russian television. The question now is whether it will be allowed to continue doing so, or whether Russia's most vibrant symbol of media freedom will simply fade to black.

JIM LEHRER: And to media correspondent Terence Smith for more.

TERENCE SMITH: For a further look at the delicate state of press freedom in Russia, we are joined by Ellen Mickiewicz from the Sanford Center of Public Policy at Duke University. She is the author of "changing channels: Television and the struggle for power in Russia." Welcome to you. Tell us since you've written about this, how important to Russians in terms of getting their news is television?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: Television is absolutely overwhelming dominant much the newspaper industry has just imploded. People depend for news and information heavily on television which is free and over 85% of the population gets its news and information solely from television.

TERENCE SMITH: And as it was mentioned in the piece there are three national networks.

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: There are.

TERENCE SMITH: But the other two are government controlled?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: other two are government controlled. One directly owned by the state out right. And NTV is the only fully commercial independent studio... Channel.

TERENCE SMITH: Why should Americans care whether or not NTV remains independent?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: Freedom of the press doesn't equal democracy. But it certainly is impossible to have democracy without it. And I think it's very much in the American interest and concern whether or not and how Russia develops her democracy. This is a vast country with huge natural resources. It's our neighbor. It's got nuclear capacity and an extraordinarily, well educated labor force. This is a major presence and it affects very much the world in which the United States lives in.

TERENCE SMITH: Secretary of State Powell has raised this issue with his Soviet counterpart. What does that say to you?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: I think it says the United States is interested for those reasons but I think there is another reason too. I don't know it went into the Secretary's thinking but whatever happens with NTV and the foreign investors might send signals about the attractiveness of the climate in Russia for foreign investment and trade relations.

TERENCE SMITH: This offer to invest up to $300 million to buy a quarter share in NTV from George Soros and from Ted Turner is sort of an extraordinary expression of their feeling, I suppose, of the important of the independence?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: It is. And one could say...I do think that NTV of all the media properties in the long have you been probably the best bet for investment.

TERENCE SMITH: So they might make profit?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: Well it's a highly risky investment. It would have been very long term I think before it satisfies expectations. So I do think given that -- that these other reasons, these reasons about the development and growth of democracy in Russia must be paramount.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, if Messers Turner and Soros get the guarantees they say they need to invest - namely a guarantee of continued independence -- would their involvement, that foreign American involvement, be enough do you think to guarantee that independence?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: I think that NTV, which isn't perfect, it does present an alternative -- it's by far the most professional and has the highest credibility and trust in every national poll in Russia -- I do think NTV has a professional staff that will continue. And as long as the Turner investment -- should it come about --enables that staff to maintain its editorial autonomy, then it might well be enough.

TERENCE SMITH: I guess what I'm asking is was there involvement in theirinvestment -- make the Putin government more reluctant to step in and close it down?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: Well, I think if the Putin government were to do that, it would sense signals about investment in Russian. And I think those are the kinds of signals that President Putin doesn't want to send. He's very interested in attracting foreign investment and indeed has to. So I do think it would be insurance.

TERENCE SMITH: Tell me whether you think his background, President Putin's background as a KGB officer, affects his attitude towards an independent press.

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: I don't know. One could also say that as a KGB officer he saw how the press operated in other countries, which those who stayed at home didn't. I think the real question with Putin that he has he sees as his mission pulling Russia up by its boot straps from its very difficult condition. He wants everybody on the team and I don't think he perhaps realizes that, that a press with different points of view that does offer criticism actually helps that.

TERENCE SMITH: Now in the piece, in Simon Marx's piece, we saw the Russian Minister of Information, Mikhail Lesin, argue that there are many voices in Russia today that, that his phrase was, there is real freedom of speech. Is there?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: I think there is. There is nothing stopping it. But if the other side of it is, if you're a Russian and you do depend on television, because the newspapers either team of pensive or you can't get it, then you're really dependent on three channels, two of which take the same position and one which offers different views and perhaps in this cases different information.

TERENCE SMITH: I suppose while there may be other independent voices you're saying they don't have the reach that NTV does, the national reach?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: That's right. In many ways it's a market question. It can be out there but it's not accessible.

TERENCE SMITH: What are the prospects? You have studied this a long time. Obviously you don't know and can't. If you had to guess how do you think this will play out?

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: I think that's certainly speculative. But do I think that NTV has a special place. I think that Gusinsky, who's clearly tarnished as are many of the businessmen, if he were separated from the actual operation of NTV, while the editorial autonomy was more or less guaranteed, that would be the best solution and it might happen depending on the talks that are going on now. I certainly hope it does happen because I think that overall it would be a strength for indeed -- for the kinds of things that Putin wants to do to advance the economy.

TERENCE SMITH: Well in fact, those talks seem to be in a very delicate stage. We should say we invited both George Soros and Ted Turner to be on this evening. And they both declined and George Soros' office indicated that there may be some developments next week. We'll have to stay tuned. Ellen Mickiewicz, thank you very much.

ELLEN MICKIEWICZ: You're welcome.

CONVERSATION - NOBEL WINNER

JIM LEHRER: Now, a conversation with the winner of literature's highest prize, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The most recent Nobel Prize for literature marked the first in the awards history; it was given to a writer working in Chinese. Gao Xingjian is a painter and playwright, as well as novelist. He has been living in France since 1987, and the Nobel Prize only brought fresh denunciation from the government in Beijing. Gao Zingjian's first work published in English in America is called "Soul Mountain." His translator for the interview,Mabel Lee, also translated "Soul Mountain" from Chinese.

Nobel Laureate Gao Xingjian, welcome.

RAY SUAREZ: How has winning the Nobel Prize changed your life?

GAO XINGJIAN: (speaking through interpreter) This has had a great impact on my life. I was quite busy before, but it was a very quiet and ordered life. But after the announcement, for four months I've been dealing with media all the time. And I have no time for writing. So this is the huge change.

RAY SUAREZ: Is it also a gift at the same time, because it has the possibility of bringing new audiences to your work?

GAO XINGJIAN: (speaking through interpreter) Previously I had an audience and I had readership, but it was very narrow-- it was French and Swedish. I had audiences particularly in France, but now suddenly do I have a very huge readership and I have never imagined this would happen to me -- that I have this huge number of people reading my books, and that it has made the bestseller here in America.

RAY SUAREZ: One place a lot of your work can't be read is your homeland of China. Do you think this is a temporary condition? Is this something that's frustrating for you?

GAO XINGJIAN: (speaking through interpreter) It doesn't really matter all that much that readers can't read my works in China. When I lived in China, my works were already being banned and I couldn't publish. In those days, when I was in China, I was writing for myself, so that's the process of writing for myself that was the most important thing. But now that I have won this prize, I feel that people in China should be able to read it.

RAY SUAREZ: I ask because you write about a time in the life of your country where you make it very clear that you want to talk about the destruction of the old, the destruction of past, the destruction of history, and people have to discuss that. It's almost political automatically even if you don't want to be a political writer, to write about today's China that's rushing into the future and trying to forget its past.

GAO XINGJIAN: (speaking through interpreter) The destruction of Chinese traditional culture didn't start in 1949. It started long before that, with the succession of revolutions. It was particularly bad during the Cultural Revolution, the destruction of traditional Chinese culture. Probably the destruction in the period was worse than it has ever been in any part of China's history, in the world. I don't know when China will start investigating that destruction that took place.

RAY SUAREZ: As a writer who in a book like "Soul Mountain" is writing about China, is exile particularly challenging? Will there come a point where you will need to recharge your batteries, be in China again, see it face-to-face?

GAO XINGJIAN: (speaking through interpreter) When I completed writing "Soul Mountain," I more or less closed the accounts with China for myself. I was 50 years old when I left, so China is already within me. China has since then become more and more commercialized than what I want to know of China. I can't see what I want to see of China by going back there.

RAY SUAREZ: How about as a translator? Let's talk a little bit about how difficult it is to render Chinese, given the way it's organized, given the way a writer like Mr. Gao Xingjian might organize his thoughts, and is it a sort of compromise and negotiation?

MABEL LEE: I don't think so. I think a lot depends on the actual writing that one is translating. I found his language almost like poetry. His writing is very sparse, very minimalist, and he's looking at things that are concerned not just very specific culture, but he's really looking at things that concern human beings. And I didn't find this difficult. And I found there was a... almost like a thread through the whole thing, even though, as you know, when you read it, lots of things seemed disjointed, separate, completely different from chapter to chapter. But there seemed to be what I'd describe as a chi that goes through it. You know the chi, what holds something together, and this goes right through it I found, and when I was translating, I found that I had to tap in on that. And once it started, I was almost just moving - it was moving me on in a certain direction.

RAY SUAREZ: A lot of the critical commentary that came after the announcement of the prize made a lot of the fact that you're the first writer working in Chinese to win the Nobel Prize for literature. Did it mean that '90s culture has arrived, has a world, as a full member of the world cultures? Did it mean that the West was finally ready to accept the East? What was the significance of this year's Nobel Prize?

GAO XINGJIAN: (speaking through interpreter) When I first heard that I had won the prize, I thought that it was something for myself, that it was something personal, recognition of my writings. But there is such a strong reaction from Chinese people in particular. It's been very passionate, overwhelming and passionate, Chinese people from all over the world. So I feel that it's no longer my own personal thing that it's transcended being something of my own but that it means something for Chinese literature. And I myself have somehow become a sort of symbol. This was not something that I wanted, but it's become fact.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you make such a strong point about writing for yourself. It must be tough to recognize that you belong to a billion and a half people, whether you like it or not.

GAO XINGJIAN: (speaking through interpreter) Yes. I do feel uncomfortable in this new role. I don't think I suit this new role and I'm really anxious to get back to my writing, which is the role I feel is most important with me.

RAY SUAREZ: Gao Xingjian, Mabel Lee, thank you both.

MABEL LEE: Thank you very much, Ray.

GAO XINGJIAN: Thank you.

FINALLY - IN MEMORIAM

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, one poet remembers another. Here is former poet laureate and NewsHour contributor Robert Pinsky.

ROBERT PINSKY: On Sunday, the wonderful poet A.R. Ammons died. Ammons won many prizes for his poetry, including two National Book Awards: One for his collected poems in 1973, and 20 years later in 1993 for his book-length poem, "Garbage." In his work and personally, Ammons never had the airs of the pretentious literary figure, or of the academic. In the course of his life, he had been a high school principal and a businessman before becoming, through his poems, a professor at Cornell, where he became a beloved teacher. The mischievous title, "Garbage," is in part quite literal as well as philosophical, including the stuff that society piles up, that stinks and turns the brooks foul, and the question of what to do with it. Recycling and regeneration also become attributes of poetry, which Ammons saw as omnivorous and linked to bio-reclamation. He dedicated "Garbage" to, "the bacteria, tumblebugs, scavengers, wordsmiths, the transfigurers, restorers." Here is a passage from the poem. "What are we to think of the waste, though? The sugarmaple seeds on the blacktop are so dense; the seed heads crushed by tires, the wings stuck wet. They hold the rains, so there's no walkway. Dry: So many seeds, andnot one will make a tree, excuse the expression. What of so much possibility, all impossibility? How about the one who finds alcohol at 11, drugs at 17, death at 32? How about the little boy on the street who with puffy-smooth face and slit eyes reaches up to you for a handshake? Supposing politics swings back like a breeze and sails tanks through a young crowd? What about the hopes withered up in screams like crops in sandy winds? How about the letting out of streams of blood where rain might have sprinkled into road pools? Are we to identify with the fortunate who see the energy of possibility as its necessary brush with impossibility, who define meaning only in the blasted landfalls of no meaning, who can in safety call evil essential to the differentiations of good? Or should we wail that the lost are not lost, that nothing can be right until they no longer lose themselves until we've found charms to call them back. Are we to take no comfort when so much discomfort turns here and there helplessly for help? Is there, in other words, after the balances are toted up, is there a streak of light defining the cutting edge as celebration? Clematis, which looks as dead and drained in winter as baling wire, transports in spring such leaves and plush blooms." A.R. Ammons was 75 years old.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Tuesday. President Bush will lay out his 2002 budget to Congress and the nation tonight. It'll include a plan to cut taxes $1.6 trillion. It will call for paying off $2 trillion of the federal debt over the next decade. We'll be back at 9:00 P.M. Eastern Time on most PBS stations with full coverage and analysis of the President's speech. And we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.