The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MS. FARNSWORTH: And I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth in New York. After the News Summary, we hear first from our Democrats about their role in the new Congress, then political analysis from Mark Shields and Paul Gigot, then two looks at modern Russia, a report on its troubled army and a conversation with opposition leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. FARNSWORTH: Palestinian police opened fire on Islamic militants and worshipers outside a mosque today in the Gaza Strip. It was the worst internal fighting since the PLO took control of the area from Israel. At least 13 people were killed, and more than 150 wounded. Robert Moore of Independent Television News reports.

MR. MOORE: This was a scene just minutes after Friday prayers, Palestinian vs. Palestinian. The Palestinian police determined to stop Islamic militants from demonstrating in the streets opened fire into the crowd. These are the most serious clashes since Arafat returned from exile, the blackest day for the Palestinian cause in many years. Hundreds of radicals were arrested and detained inside the old Israeli prison. The irony was obvious: The PLO, now using the old infrastructure of the Israeli occupation. Yasser Arafat attending Friday prayers this morning, oblivious of the disastrous clashes that were about to sweep Gaza. He'd appeared in flamboyant mood, celebrating Palestinian Independence Day only moments before the violence erupted. This evening we could still hear the troops opening fire in the streets, clearly nervous at the thought of a Palestinian war breaking out all around them. Yasser Arafat and the PLO now face a major challenge for power on the streets and in the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip.

MS. FARNSWORTH: This evening a spokesman for Hamas promised retaliation for the incident. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Hurricane Gordon returned to North Carolina today. It came with 80-mile-an-hour winds and 16-foot waves to the barrier islands. The storm headed out to sea yesterday but turned back later in the day and remained stalled south of Cape Hatteras for much of today. Homes along the shore were demolished, and people in low-lying areas were advised to move. This afternoon, as its winds fell below 70 miles per hour, Gordon was re-classified back to a tropical storm. It is headed out to sea in a southerly direction.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Bosnian Serbs launched an air strike on the U.N.- declared safe haven of Bihac today. Two jets fired a missile, as well as napalm and cluster bombs. In the past, the U.N. has threatened NATO air strikes if Bihac is attacked. Serbs also fired shells into the center of Sarajevo near the U.S. embassy and U.N. headquarters. In another part of the city, a seven-year-old boy was killed by sniper fire. His mother and two other people were wounded. A Pentagon spokesman said today the Clinton administration is considering providing Bosnia's Muslim-led government with up to 5 billion dollars in military aid. The proposal was presented to Congress this week. Congress requested the options when it voted to unilaterally lift the arms embargo if the Serbs don't accept an international peace plan. The funds would be used to train government forces and provide tanks and artillery. The future Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, today voiced his opposition to the plan. He spoke in Marietta, Georgia.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, House Republican Leader: I can't imagine given the current budget constraints that this administration would commit itself to $5 billion in aid to Bosnia. Bosnia's largely a European problem. The Germans, the French, and the British, and the Italians are more than wealthy enough to provide the overwhelming bulk of the aid, and frankly, I can't imagine why we would go in and provide that kind of money. So I hope the report is not accurate. It certainly would not be a step towards a balanced budget, and it wouldn't be a step towards a strong American military.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Republican Sen. Jesse Helms said today that President Clinton is not up to the job of being commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Speaking on the CNN program Evans & Novak, the incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee said that many military people share the same opinion.

MR. LEHRER: Vice President Gore said today he and President Clinton opposed having government employees teach children how to worship God or to pray. Earlier this week, President Clinton said he would be willing to negotiate with Republicans on ways to allow expression of faith without violating the Constitution's separation of church and state. Democratic House leaders said today they would work with the Republicans for a smooth transition of power, but future minority leader Richard Gephardt said the Democrats would not yield on principles. He spoke at a Capitol Hill news conference.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Majority Leader: We look forward to working with the Republicans to prepare for the 104th Congress, but at the same time, the Republicans should not mistake our cooperation for our capitulation. We're not about to roll over and play dead while the Republicans rubber stamp their extremist supply-side agenda. We're going to stand up and fight for our party's interest, and we're going to stand up for America's interest during the next two years.

MR. LEHRER: California's Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein today declared victory in her race for reelection against Congressman Michael Huffington. Feinstein has led the vote count since the November 8th election, but both sides considered it too close to call. Huffington has yet to concede.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Commerce Department reported today that the U.S. trade deficit rose to more than $10 billion in September. The 4.6 percent increase included record imports of high-technology products. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Democratic view of the congressional future, Shields & Gigot, Russia's army, and opposition leader Zhirinovsky. FOCUS - DEMOCRATIC ADJUSTMENT

MR. LEHRER: We begin tonight with a new minority, the Democrats in the Congress of the United States. Since the November 8th elections, most of the attention has been on the winners, the Republicans, who will for the first time in forty years control both the House and Senate. But in the last few days, the Democrats have begun to speak out to the public and to each other about how they see their role and their differences as they enter this new political order. We join that dialogue tonight with four Democratic members of Congress: Senators Patty Murray of Washington State and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Representatives Charles Rangel of New York and Charles Stenholm of Texas. Congressman Stenholm, you believe the Democratic Party, the President, as well as those of you in Congress must move more to the center, is that correct?

REP. STENHOLM: That's certainly correct, because that's where the majority of the American people have always been, and that's what we've tried to do over the last 16 years within our own party, is to realize that the agenda to the left is not the agenda of the American people but the agenda in the center, where government has a role to play, but a limited role, is the one that's the most popular.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Rangel, is that where the party must go?

REP. RANGEL: I'm not convinced it's a question of left and right. There's a frustration of taxpayers not believing that their taxes are being used right. They do have a frustration with the welfare system, with crime, and their own lack of insecurities. I think that what Republicans have done is to provide these quick solutions, electric chairs and capital gains tax cuts and changing welfare and cutting provisions for children born out of wedlock, and I think it brought out a frustration that people thought that this one shot could do it. But in the final analysis, I think they're going to be recorded the same way at the end of two years as we were, and they're going to have to show some accomplishments, and I don't think that these emotional 30-second bites are going to resolve anything.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Bingaman, Al Fromm, who's the head of the DLC, the Democratic Leadership Conference, which is the kind of centrist Democratic organization, said yesterday that the Democrats must start governing from the center or face defeat -- he was talking about President Clinton as well as the rest of you all -- or face defeat in '96. Do you agree with that, or do you agree with Congressman Rangel?

SEN. BINGAMAN: Well, I agree that clearly we need to address an agenda and the series of concerns that a broad middle group of Americans are concerned about and that they tried to express in this campaign. But I do think in this election a lot of what was being said was that they did not like what they saw in Washington. They did not want more business as usual in Washington, and, of course, they took it out on Democrats, because Democrats have been in charge here in Washington, and now that's changing.

MR. LEHRER: But to respond to that, do you agree with Congressman Stenholm that the party leadership and all of you, the agenda and everything, must move to the center, away from the left, or do you agree with Congressman Rangel that it's not that simple?

SEN. BINGAMAN: Well, I think that the American people primarily want us to work on things we can make progress on and do so in a bipartisan way. And that means working on issues that we can get both Democrats and Republicans to agree on. So I do think that working on a centrist agenda makes sense because that's where progress can be made, and I think that's what the American people want to see done.

MR. LEHRER: Is that what you want to see done, Sen. Murray?

SEN. MURRAY: Well, yeah. I was elected in 1992 on I think the same message that we saw in this election, which is I'm an average American citizen, I'm paying my taxes, I'm working hard, and I want something in return. And I think the Americans are still saying that. And as Democrats we are going to have to figure out a way that we can be fiscally responsible to all of our constituents, and I think that is going to be our responsibility now. The Republicans have the leadership. They will have the policies put out there. Our responsibility is to those general average Americans who are working, making sure they pay their fair share. I don't think that's changed.

MR. LEHRER: Well, let's go through some specifics here, taking some of the things that have already been mentioned but -- tax -- Congressman Gephardt today called the Republican proposals in the tax area extremist supply-side economics. Specifically, how do you feel about tax cuts, capital gains taxes, and family credit on taxes, would you support that? That's a Republican proposal.

SEN. MURRAY: It will depend on how it's structured. If it means that the people at the top get a tax break and the people in the middle are going to have to pay for that, or not get benefit of it, I won't support it. And frankly, I come from one of those middle income families. I'm raising kids, taking care of my parents. I understand where people are. And when you say tax cut, does that mean I get $500, $200 a year? What do I do with that? I buy another VCR. Does that make my kids' education better? Does it make them safer in our communities? What does it really do for us as middle income families?

MR. LEHRER: So you wouldn't support capital gains alone, a cut in the capital gains tax alone?

SEN. MURRAY: I think that if we're going to restructure the tax system, we have to continue to do it in a way that makes sure that everybody receives benefits from it.

MR. LEHRER: Capital gains, Congressman Stenholm, what's your position?

REP. STENHOLM: I would very strongly support a capital gains tax reduction properly structured, one that rewards long-term investments, not short-term, roll-over investments, but I think the key is to pay for it honestly, and I agree with, with the Senator on that, and I get very nervous when we start thinking and talking in terms of changing the rules of scoring in order to accommodate this. I think it's a very good policy. It makes good sense, because encouragement to people to invest, that creates jobs that we all are interested in. But paying for it under what I believe will be one of the first acts, that's a balanced budget constitutional amendment, it's going to be extremely important that we stay honest in how we score so that we, in fact, end up balancing the budget.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel, Congressman Rangel, about capital gains tax cuts?

REP. RANGEL: The answer I think Charlie gave it, everybody loves a tax cut, and the rich loves them even more when you talk about capital gains. But Charlie said we have to be concerned with a balanced budget. What does that mean? It means we're going to have to pay for that tax cut. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars by cutting spending. Now, sure, I'm for capital gains tax relief, but show me where you're doing the cutting, and I bet your life it's going to be with the poor, it's going to be with education, it's going to be with health care.

MR. LEHRER: And that's where the divisions are going to come and the problems are going to come between the Democrats and the Republicans, or even within you Democrats, is that correct, Congressman Rangel?

REP. RANGEL: Listen, you'd better hurry up and believe that we may have just as many problems with the Democrats that have survived than we do with the Republicans that have won. A lot of people have to look over their shoulder, especially those that came here with razor thin margins, and they may change their philosophy about what a Democrat really is, but when it comes to cutting, believe me, even the Republican conservatives are going to realize that you just can't believe that death penalties and prisons and punitive measures against kids that are born out of wedlock are going to resolve the problem. They're going to have to make major cuts that's going to affect middle America, but they never talked about where the cuts are coming from!

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Bingaman, has Congressman Rangel put his finger on it? Are there going to be some Democrats who are going to change their philosophy because of what happened on November the 8th? Is that what is required? Let's put it that way.

SEN. BINGAMAN: I don't really think so. I think that there's a consensus, certainly is among the folks talking here this evening, about the need to avoid the, the errors of the 80's, the need to avoid fiscal irresponsibility in the rush to try to, try to --

MR. LEHRER: And are you willing to concede that that's the responsibility of the Democrats, the fiscal irresponsibility?

SEN. BINGAMAN: I think it's partly our responsibility to ensure that we don't --

MR. LEHRER: No, no. I mean the irresponsibility of the 80's, is that what the people were reacting to?

SEN. BINGAMAN: I think, I think that Congress went along with a bunch of irresponsible fiscal policy in the 80's at the, at the urging of President Reagan and then President Bush after that.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

SEN. BINGAMAN: In my view. So there's shared responsibility, but I, but I do think that this time someone was telling me a statistic today which I thought was good, they said if we had not run up the additional national debt that we did in the 80's and the early 90s we would not have, we would not have a deficit this year, we would have a surplus this year, because we wouldn't be paying interest on that $3.5 trillion of additional debt that we ran up. So we've got to avoid fiscal irresponsibility. We cannot just embrace tax cuts. We cannot just embrace increases in defense spending without someone saying where the money's coming from.

MR. LEHRER: All right. One of the key elements of the Republicans' contract with America is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Do you support that, Senator?

SEN. BINGAMAN: Well, it depends on the form of it. Again, the form that I saw in this contract with America I've got some concerns with.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Murray.

SEN. MURRAY: I would agree with Sen. Bingaman, and I think that's an empty promise to the people of this country that we put a balanced budget amendment out there that doesn't take effect till 2010, and then us as, as incumbents at this time can pass off the problems to the future.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Stenholm.

REP. STENHOLM: I support it very strongly, again, the version, but the Shafer, Stenholm, Kennedy, Simon, Craig in the Senate side, I support that very enthusiastically. I wish we would have had it in place in 1981, and we would not have had the $3 1/2 trillion of new debt put in place. So I hope we don't make the same mistake again. I think we must put a constitutional restraint in place, or the Congress and the President will again make the same mistake.

MR. LEHRER: And is your position representative of the "new Democrats" and their position representative of the old Democrats?

REP. STENHOLM: I'm kind of like Charlie was earlier. I think when we start saying liberal and conservative, we muddy the water.

MR. LEHRER: Well, you know --

REP. STENHOLM: New and old Democrat. Sometimes I think I'm an old Democrat rather than a new Democrat, but, again, it depends on what time frame. I go back to when I got involved in politics in the 1970's, and that's when I think I'm an old Democrat.

SEN. MURRAY: And I think I'm a future Democrat. I mean, I'm looking at what's going to happen to my kids if we do this.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Rangel, what about this? Congressman Stenholm falls into the category that is now called "new Democrat," at least outside. You don't label yourself that way, but that's what you're -- that's where you are. And do you agree with those kinds of labels? Do you consider him a new Democrat, you're an old Democrat? Where would you come down?

REP. RANGEL: Well, I got 96.5 percent of the vote on the Democratic line so I know what kind of Democrat I am. I think that those are measuring what percentage of the vote they got and they can describe themselves any way they want. That's one of the reasons why I don't think we need a constitutional amendment. America wants us to balance our books. They don't want us to spend more than we take in. And I think that's -- that is going to be said at the polls. But let me make it perfectly clear. Notwithstanding a constitutional amendment and all that it takes to get one, we're going to have so many exemptions to it. I mean, in case of war we can't have a balanced budget, in case of natural disaster, floods, and fires, we won't have it, and then there will be the President that will be determining what is an emergency, whether it's Bosnia for $5 billion or whether it's Haiti. Listen, leave the Constitution alone, and let the voters be in charge. And if we mandate that we're going to have a balanced budget, and we don't do it, we'll pay for it at the polls.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Bingaman, another division between old Democrats and new Democrats has just emerged this week, and that's where you stand on a constitutional amendment on school prayer. Where do you come down on that, sir?

SEN. BINGAMAN: Well, I have opposed a constitutional amendment on the issue, but I have supported some legislative language that would ensure the right to voluntary prayer, which is constitutionally protected, and I think that's the right position to take. I think that there are -- the courts have made it clear that there are areas in which prayer is appropriate in our schools.

MR. LEHRER: Without a constitutional amendment?

SEN. BINGAMAN: Without a constitutional amendment.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Murray.

SEN. MURRAY: I oppose a constitutional amendment for school prayer. I have been an educator, a teacher. I have been a school board member. I have worked hard for education. I talk to teachers all the time. I talk to administrators. I talk to kids. Not one of them has said to me if we have school prayer, our schools are going to be better. What they do tell us is we do need to strengthen our schools. And I'm all for doing that. But I don't see where requiring kids to be put in an uncomfortable position is going to make our education system better.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Stenholm.

REP. STENHOLM: I'm very strongly in favor of prayer in our schools much as we open every session of the House of Representatives with a prayer. I would prefer it not to be constitutionally imposed, but I would stay open on that as, as a difficulty that we've had in getting it, as Jeff has mentioned. And my preference would be his way.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Rangel.

REP. RANGEL: Of course, I will want government out of the affairs of local government, especially the churches and the schools, but it would seem to me that we ought to focus on what prayer, since I represent Jews and Muslims and Catholics and Protestants. So since we have decided -- some are deciding that we would have the constitutional amendment to have prayer in school, I'd sure like to know which prayer they're talking about.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Stenholm, back to the more general questions, it's been suggested now that Newt Gingrich, who's about to become the Speaker of the House of Representatives, this is the single most powerful political force in the country right now. Do you agree with that as we sit here tonight?

REP. STENHOLM: Well, only time will tell that. Obviously, today with the tremendous victory that the Republicans have had there is a tremendous impetus behind the programs that they ran on and got elected on.

MR. LEHRER: Do you feel influenced by that as a member of the House of Representatives, a Democrat, a "new Democrat?"

REP. STENHOLM: Not influenced by that perception of power but I have always throughout my almost 16 years in the Congress I've tended to be very bipartisan after elections, and I certainly will be working with the new Speaker and with the majority party in accomplishing most things where I agree, and then where we have disagreements, where we will try to be just as vocal in providing the loyal minority now. But I have a difficult time assessing power. It's very fleeting, and it depends on the record, and there's going to be a lot of interesting times as our colleagues on the other side learn how to operate in the majority. It's much different.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Rangel, you know Congressman Gingrich. What kind of speaker do you think he's going to be?

REP. RANGEL: Well, I knew him when he was throwing grenades at Democrats. I don't know him now he has to catch those grenades. He has adequately shown the frustration that people have had. I don't know really whether the Republicans and certainly not the Democrats agree to the solutions of the problems that he's pointed out. I for one will be working with, with the Republicans, because if we're talking about what causes crime, then we have to make certain that kids have options. If we're talking about family values, we have to make certain we don't throw kids in orphanages, but we keep the family together, where we're able to give them training and jobs. And so I think that when it all settles, that the Speaker is going to realize that a report card's coming out in two years, and he would have a responsibility not to point out the frustrations but to work with Democrats, to work in a bipartisan way, to work with the administration, and to show that we have provided some solutions.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Bingaman, as a Democratic Senator, do you feel the force of Newt Gingrich in this election and the power that this election gave him?

SEN. BINGAMAN: Well, I think the spotlight has been on him and on the contract with America that he came up with obviously. I do think that when they get down to the implementation of that contract, the passing of it, they're going to find that there are some problem areas. I mean, when you start reading through the contracts, I mean, the idea of term limits that don't apply to the incumbents is going to be a hard sell. I mean, if they think they can pass that through the Congress without a scream, I think they're confused. So there are problem areas in this contract, and I think that when they run into those, they're going to find out that, that, as always, power is fairly well dispersed around, around Washington.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, that he looks more powerful today than he may look say in two weeks or two months or whatever?

SEN. MURRAY: I certainly believe that with the Republican sweep we saw across the nation that there was a message that was sent in terms of fiscal responsibility and getting our own house in order but I certainly don't think my constituents voted to give Newt Gingrich the baton in terms of some of the social issues that he's come out on, putting kids in orphanages and abolishing Head Start and prayer in school. That was not a mandate, I believe, and I think that if the Republicans govern from a fiscal responsibility that is fair to, to all people, they will do well, but if they start crossing the line into social issues, they will not do well in two years.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Well, Senators, Congressmen, thank you all very much.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Still ahead on the NewsHour, Shields and Gigot, then looks at two forces in modern Russia, the army and opposition leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, political analysis of the week. We get it from our team of Shields & Gigot. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Welcome, gentlemen. Let's start with you, Paul. You've just heard some Democrats trying to redefine their role, and we've been hearing Democrats all week redefining their role. How do you think they're doing?

MR. GIGOT: Well, it's a little too early I think to try to give them a real final grade. I mean, they just had the shell shock experience. But I think what we're seeing is that -- is that Bill Clinton is going to have two problems. One is going to be Newt Gingrich and the Republicans -- they're going to present a problem as a new majority. But he's also going to have another problem, the Democrats. There's a great tendency whenever you have a blow of election like this to walk on the field and shoot the wounded. And one of the big walking wounded right now is Bill Clinton. There are an awful lot of Democrats who think Bill Clinton at the top of the ticket in his two years as President really hurt them. And I think you're already seeing in the school prayer debate some back biting and some blame shifting onto the President, and it's going to be a rough time here before they sort themselves out.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think, Mark, rough time for the Democrats? And also, let's talk a little bit after that about the Republicans, the differences within the Republican Party that we've seen this week.

MR. SHIELDS: Yes, there are rough times for the Democrats. First of all, when you feel that it's been divinely ordained that you control the Congress and you have for 40 years, it's a shaking experience. Add to that, Elizabeth, there's sort of a rhythm to these events when a party unexpectedly is routed from power, as the Republicans have suffered in the past, as the Democrats have as well, and the party immediately divides into two separate warring camps. Call them the skins and the shirts. Call them the reds and the blues. But one camp says the reason we lost was that we weren't true enough to the original faith of our party, whether it was conservatism on the Republican side or liberalism on the Democratic side. And the other side says, no, the reason we lost was that we didn't modernize enough, we weren't as current, as topical, and we weren't as salient and relevant to people who -- that's the battle that's going on right now among Democrats. You can hear whether you're a new Democrat or an old Democrat or a modern Republican or an old guard Republican so --

MS. FARNSWORTH: Before we move on to Republicans and go on with that, who do you think is likely to win that battle?

MR. SHIELDS: Who do I think is likely to win it? I think right now that the Democrat who engages Newt Gingrich will probably win it, because Newt Gingrich has hit the -- he has taken over the political dynamic in the city. There is no doubt about it. I mean, Gingrich has taken over the speakership -- he's made the speakership the central place of energy and ideas and advocacy in the entire governmental structure. The President's 10,000 miles away, and he's sort of removed from the list right now, and what is fascinating is that Gingrich -- at least in my judgment -- has recognized something the Clinton folks didn't in 1993, and that is he's probably got a window of opportunity that lasts three months, as long as he's fresh and new and kind of intriguing and interesting, and he's going to seize it, he's going to -- January, he's coming out swinging, this is what I'm pushing, and I think the Democrats are going to find themselves at the outset reacting to him.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Three months, Paul, do you think that's right?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I don't know. It's not a big window, that's for sure, I mean, maybe until Labor Day at most, but they have to -- certainly Mark is right that they have to show some momentum within the first few months. They have to do some things that show they can govern. And what's interesting is the dispatch with which Gingrich is moving. I mean, he really -- in many respects he's saying I am the domestic President, Bill Clinton and foreign policy, he's deferring a little bit, but on domestic issues, we're going to set the agenda, and the Congress proposes and the Congress disposes. And he's, he's really not wasting any time.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about the Republicans, Mark? We've seen some signs of division within the Republican Party too and some signs of division between House and Senate. What do you think about that, is that serious?

MR. SHIELDS: There's tension there. There's a big difference between the Senate Republicans, who have kind of thought, and have been very much involved in running the Senate. They -- as recently as 1986 -- they were in the majority. They have been in a position in the Senate where nothing or very little can happen without their concurrence or acquiescence or cooperation, so they've been in a very formidable position. They've been part of the running of the - - the House Republicans are an entirely different group. I mean, these are people who are kept under lock and key in the basement somewhere and then my God Almighty, on November 8th, they emerge as the majority, and they've got scores to settle, they've got ideas that have been gnawing at their innards for generations. I mean, now these are newly-ascendant people. Don't expect them to be house broken in a hurry.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Differences within the Republican Party?

MR. GIGOT: I think there are two big differences between the House and the Senate. One is, as Mark says, you have the House people who really feel that this was an insurgency, and Newt Gingrich led it, and we finally -- like Moses, he brought us in from the wilderness, and now we really are going to change things. If you look at the Republicans in the House -- they've been elected in the last two years -- last two elections -- there are 121 of them. That's more than half of the entire membership in the House. Those people are coming here not to get a seat at the table but turn the table over. And they're really loyal to Newt Gingrich. And they represent a new generation. That generational shift hasn't been completed in the Senate yet. You still have a lot of people from the kind of Nixon Old Guard. They've been in there twenty, thirty years, in the case of Strom Thurmond, you know, pre-Civil War Republicans they've been there so long. So there's a little different mindset, and they're more of the kind, they're corporate CEO type, they're going to manage, they're going to get along, so you've got some clash tensions there, no question about it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let's move on to the White House now. Mark, to the President specifically, let's talk about school prayer. In Indonesia, he seemed to open the door to a constitutional amendment allowing school prayer, and then the White House, his advisers, the White House counsel closed that door. What do you make of all that?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think when the President's overseas, the President is overseas, and the President is representing the nation, and for that reason, Elizabeth, the political sniping at home of a partisan nature is considered petty and in one sense unpatriotic. The President really -- any President -- should not comment on domestic political ideas, initiatives, or debates, unless it is of such overwhelming crisis importance that he probably ought to end the trip and come home. So first of all, engaging in the discussion from 10,000 miles away did no good at all. Secondly, at a time when people are concerned about or express concern about the President's core convictions, to see him introduce an issue that had not occupied his administration in the first two years and then seemingly flip flop on it with qualifications and corrections coming out of the White House weren't helpful to shaken Democrats who are yearning desperately for a sense of leadership and strong purpose and energy to be exerted from their President.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Paul.

MR. SHIELDS: Well, at the risk of hurting him among Democrats, his reputation is -- let me defend the President a little bit. I think that his instincts were right on this. I mean, the school prayer issue was entered in the debate. It was going to be an issue people asked him about. He said -- and he came from the state of Arkansas, where he had signed legislation that was part way to where Gingrich wants to go -- he knows -- he's from the South -- he knows it's popular, and he's better frankly on some of these social issues than say Michael Dukakis was. I mean, his instincts on the death penalty, for example, on crime and welfare, were kind of mainstream instincts, and they helped the Democrats in '92, and I think he understands that sort of whole values agenda had hurt the Democrats ever since going back to the McGovern era right up to now, and he had moved the Democrats in, in another direction. So he's getting beat up by a lot of people who don't want to move at all, and I think he may have had the right point.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But what about the argument some people are making that he shouldn't be moving in that direction because he can't satisfy the Republicans, they don't really want to compromise with him, that they'll just move the debate further if he moves that direction?

MR. GIGOT: Well, if the Republicans move the debate so far to the right to where it goes beyond where the public is, sure, I mean, he can then say, look, you're out of the debate and paint them as extremists. But on a lot of issues, he's going to have -- I mean, the election did send a message, and it said we didn't like the direction you were going in. I don't think he can sit and say, I'm going to sit in that old direction, because that's a 40 percent, 43 percent strategy in 1996. He's got to go to the center on some things.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mark, what about GATT, is this what we're going to see in the future, where we have Sen. Jesse Helms, the upcoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying to President Clinton put off GATT and then maybe I'll cooperate with your foreign affairs agenda more in the future? What do you make of that?

MR. SHIELDS: I think Senator Helms is, is Senator Helms. I mean this is nothing new. It's a position that he has occupied and a position he's taken, and it's a role that he's occupied since he came to the Senate in 1972, speaking of term limits. This is 22 years, 24 in 1996, for him. But I think that there's no question that now the President is in the position that anybody he wants confirmed as an ambassador, as anybody at the State Department has to go through Sen. Helms' committee, so this is just more than holding his breath and throwing a tantrum, this is a very real, hard political ball. Let me just add one thing on the prayer amendment. I agree with Paul that Bill Clinton has, has had a long tradition in this issue. I don't think it was helpful, as the President is signing an agreement, I don't know if anybody is even aware of the fact that 17 nations signed a free trade agreement for the year 2020 when all of the occupation and attention was given to a discussion of school prayer. I don't think that was helpful. I don't think it served the purpose of the President, the nation, or the Democratic Party to engage in some long-range -- I don't know -- bickering or backing and forthing about whether school prayer ought to be part of the recovery of the country.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Paul, back to GATT just for a minute, do you think it's likely that the General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade I should say, do you think that it's likely to pass, or do you think we're going to see a real battle over it?

MR. GIGOT: You know, this should have been a give me -- I mean, this thing was -- Ross Perot was in the debate for a while the way he was in the North American Free Trade Agreement -- I mean, this was a zero campaign issue this year. There was nobody in this campaign who even declared themselves on GATT. You couldn't find it anywhere. It's going to be a close-run thing. I would look towards Jesse Helms, who has always been a protectionist. I bet you he's never voted for a trade agreement, but I would look to Bob Dole and Phil Gramm, leading Senators, and it's in trouble in the Senate, GATT, in the House it's going to pass with Newt Gingrich's help, but both of those fellows are running for President. And both of them are looking to the right, and there's a new kind of anti- free trade movement in a part of the Republican Party, kind of a Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot right, and they're putting pressure on them to -- on this issue. And you can see Dole and Gramm both kind of finessing it, wanting to show, well, we care about your concerns, even especially a guy like Phil Gramm, and he's a committed free trader. But even he's hemming and hawing.

MS. FARNSWORTH: That's all the time we have for tonight. Paul, Mark, thank you very much. FOCUS - RUSSIA HOUSE

MR. LEHRER: Next tonight, dissension in the Russian ranks. This week, President Yeltsin summoned his top military commanders to Moscow for a dressing down about their military preparedness and the need for internal reform. The military had already been shaken by charges of scandal and corruption. And one military commander in Moldova has emerged as a popular candidate not only to lead the military but as a possible political candidate as well. Ian Williams of Independent Television News reports.

IAN WILLIAMS, ITN: Soldiers of Russia's 14th army go through their paces at their base in the break-away region of Transdinistra region of Moldova. For two years, these crack soldiers have carried out a controversial peacekeeping role, protecting Russian separatists in bloody clashes with the Moldovan authorities, while the hard-line commander of these troops has turned this area into his virtual fiefdom. From here, General Alexander Lebed has vented his growing anger at the Yeltsin government. He's become a mouthpiece for disgruntled soldiers, resisting Moscow's attempts to sack him. In so doing, he's become the most popular general with offices in the demoralized armed forces. Now, with his superiors in Moscow battered by accusations of corruption, General Lebed is in open revolt.

GENERAL ALEXANDER LEBED, Commander, 14th Army: [speaking through interpreter] Under the democratic flag, everything has been destroyed. Everything is getting worse and worse. The more you talk about democracy, the more people become allergic to it. They have abused the word to the extent which makes people vomit.

MR. WILLIAMS: Last month, Russia's deputy defense minister was due to come and inspect these troops, but his visit was cancelled after Gen. Lebed described him as a swindler who wouldn't be allowed off his aircraft. It was an unprecedented act of insubordination. Now, the commander of these forces has gone further still, demanding the clear out of all corrupt officials and saying the minister of defense, Havel Grachov, himself, must go.

GENERAL ALEXANDER LEBED: [speaking through interpreter] When a minister is facing such an avalanche of criticisms, he must resign immediately. In his place I would resign. My only advice to him is to resign. Forget your own ambitions, save the army and resign.

MR. WILLIAMS: In happier days, Grachov and Lebed were close. They fought side by side in Afghanistan. But Lebed now blames the defense minister for humiliating the army. Grachov's response has been weak and defensive, denying corruption and claiming foreign spies murdered a journalist who was investigating corruption in order to discredit the army. It's that murder last month which has provoked the latest crisis. Dmitri Kholodov, who worked for the newspaper Moskovski Comsabolus, was killed by a briefcase bomb. He'd alleged massive corruption among Russian armed forces in Germany and accused defense ministry officials, including Grachov, of being part of the racket. The man in charge of the army in Germany was General Matva Berlakov. When they withdrew in the summer, he returned to Moscow as deputy minister, and it was he that Lebed called a swindler. Last week, Berlakov was sacked by the President, though Grachov continues to support him. The main headquarters of Russian troops in Germany was Bunsdorf, near Berlin. As the last of the troops withdrew in August, Channel Four News witnessed trucks being loaded with whiskey and all manner of consumer goods. The army was able to buy such goods tax free and did so in massive quantities. But instead of going to the soldiers, they were allegedly sold at enormous profit through companies in Germany and Russia. German police also showed us photographs of stolen cars waiting to be loaded on Russian military aircraft. Hundreds are said to have been smuggled out this way. It now appears much of this and more was discovered by a Russian government investigator two years ago. He identified 19 commercial enterprises established by the generals for selling military property, including arms, and recommended the dismissal of six generals, including Berlakov. The investigator was Yuri Boldyrev, who has spoken out for the first time. His report, which was never published, implicated top defense ministry officials too. It was ignored, and he was sacked, even though he personally presented his findings to President Yeltsin.

YURI BOLDYREV, Former State Investigator: [speaking through interpreter] The information presented to him was more than enough to draw proper conclusions and verbally I reported much more than was in the documents. Had the President acted on this and other reports, then maybe the journalist Dmitri Kholodov would not have had to risk his life.

MR. WILLIAMS: We have also learned of yet more death threats against Russian journalists trying to investigate army corruption. At the weekly Moscow News, Alexander Jillian has written a series of damning reports on the activities of the army in Germany. So far, the defense ministry has largely resisted the avalanche of accusations, but not, it seems, for much longer.

MR. LEHRER: Now a conversation with a man who wants Boris Yeltsin's job, Russian opposition leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky. He was in the United States last week for the first time since his party won last December's parliamentary elections. His views have caused some to label him a racist and an anti-Semite, charges he says are not true. Charles Krause spoke to Zhirinovsky last week in New York.

MR. KRAUSE: Zhirinovsky's rise to prominence began last December, when his liberal Democrats won more seats in the Russian parliament than any other political party, a sign that many Russians are disillusioned with the country's slow economic progress and Russia's loss of prestige and power. Since entering parliament, Zhirinovsky's popular support is said to have decreased, but he's also credited with slowing Russia's economic reform and moving Moscow toward a more independent foreign policy away from close cooperation with the West. Mr. Zhirinovsky, thank you for joining us. Some of the things that you've said about the United States and the West include that this is an "evil empire." Why are you here?

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY, Russian Opposition Leader: [speaking through interpreter] Well, I think it's best for me to be heard directly in the United States to avoid distortions, because very often, there are distortions of what I say, various phrases are taken out of context, so direct contact, so I want to have communications with USA. I'm not sure you have the correct impression that I have a bad attitude to the U.S.. I have a good attitude to the U.S.. I like the democracy here, but we do have problems between our two countries. And these problems are connected with the poverty-stricken situation in Russia, because what happened in Russia happened because of advice from the U.S., and certain actions were guided from here. It's in that connection that I got the view it would be wrong for the U.S. to interfere, to intervene in the affairs of Russia, especially when it's been happening in recent years. As to the evil empire, after all, there are a lot of military actions on the part of U.S. in recent years: Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Balkans right now. American soldiers are everywhere, American troops are in Southern Korea, Germany, and other points. And broadly speaking, we get the impression that the U.S. wants to impose a Pan American peace. so in that regard I did express my view that this is undesirable, that it would be better if we had regional cooperation, each country developed relations with neighboring countries. But what I'm worried about most is the participation of the U.S. in the processes which are occurring in the former Soviet Union. Gorbachev under the influence of the leaders of Germany and America agreed to reforms which didn't do any good to our country. We just took the reforms but in terms of what's happening, it was pernicious in all areas. The statehood is ruined, the economy is a sharp lowering of standard of living, sharp growth in crime, nothing positive in the cultural field or science, sports. Nothing has happened that's good. Everything is going in the wrong direction, is going bad, so in this connection, Russia does have a certain anti-American mood.

MR. KRAUSE: You say that you've been misinterpreted, that you need to be heard directly here in the United States, but I must say, from what you've just said, it sounds very much as if you blame the United States and the West for your country's problems. Do you view the United States as your enemy?

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY: [speaking through interpreter] Yes. No, no. I don't want to see an enemy in the United States or in Western countries. But before '85, we had a lot that was positive. There were defects but destruction of everything of good which we had began under the influence of the trips of Gorbachev to Europe, particularly to the U.S., and on the influence of meetings with former President Ronald Reagan. That's when perestroika began. It was precisely under Reagan from '85, '80, '90. So the Russians got the impression that America was actively participating in that process. One way or another we seized this kind of connection with all the negative events which are occurring in our country with certain officials of the U.S.. For example, the recognition of the new states, it's a painful process, the great Russia, Soviet Union, it was U.S. who sent ambassadors to Kazakhstan, to the Baltic states, central Asia, Baker visited those countries when, in fact, the question had not been finally resolved whether they were going to be independent states. Tadjikistan, Guzia, for example, now in Armenia. There's too much activity on the part of U.S. in recognizing all these pseudo-states and their attempts to pit them against Russia, and this causes certain negative emotions.

MR. KRAUSE: The last time we talked three years ago, you blamed many of your country's problems on the Jews, who remain in positions of influence in Russia, and you also talked about Hispanics and blacks in the United States, who you've said were threatening the white population in this country. Do you still hold those views?

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY: [speaking through interpreter] As for the U.S., you have your own democracy, your own laws. If you don't have any restrictions on immigration to the U.S., in the next five or ten years you're going to have many immigrants who will make the situation worse. There will be more unemployment among the indigenous inhabitants as food and housing will be affected too. These painful processes are going on in Germany and France today, therefore, it's an entire reality, but this is the business of U.S. I am simply saying this is a process which is worldwide. It's not a desirable process for people to immigrate throughout the planet. It's best for them to live where -- stay where they're living. As for the Jews and in Russia, they do occupy prominent positions in culture, most of the theater directors or cultural institutions are headed by Jews, and the new banking system, its prominent positions are occupied by Jews, also the new mass media, the newspapers, they occupy leading positions within Russia, where there's a vast preponderance of Russians. They are speakers, they are journalists, and they -- it become obvious that these are people who are not of Russian ethnic status. And this irritates people. In our party, there's no anti-Semitic ideas at all. We clearly understand this is historical phenomenon. The reasons are that the Jews are scattered throughout many countries, and that's the way it worked out.

MR. KRAUSE: Does it bother you that in Russia and in the world you are viewed as a racist and as an anti-Semite, even if it isn't true? Does it bother you that that is the reputation you have?

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY: [speaking through interpreter] It certainly does, because it's a total distortion. There's never been any racism or anti-Semitism, but they're trying to scare the world not only for example our potential supporters in the U.S. or Western Europe but throughout the world this propaganda is going on. Through certain papers, publications, is to misrepresent me as a racist and anti-Semite, ultra-nationalist, that's all they write anywhere. In New York, I came -- ultra-nationalist Zhirinovsky came to you. And I'm not only not ultra -- I'm not even a nationalist. The name of our party is Liberal Democratic Party, and in the work of our party nowhere is anything even near to anything that's nationalist, let alone ultra. But unfortunately, this is the image they've tried to create. Now it's being destroyed. Many people have understood that this is propaganda but is a form of political combat.

MR. KRAUSE: The last couple of questions, the last time we spoke, you said that if you became president of Russia, you would attempt to reincorporate the Ukraine, the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, and many of the other parts of the former Soviet Union back into a greater Russia. Is that still your program?

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY: [speaking through interpreter] It's not so much part of the program as of reality. Today, even now Tadjikistan, Armenia, Abkhazia, the Ignestia region want to become part of Russia, Georgia. There was a war in Georgia. People understood that independence is not just a national flight. You have to have an economy. You have to have your own forces, your borders. You have to have a lot of things to be an independent state. And our program is that if we stopped helping today, Russia is helping -- 30 percent of our resources are going there to support these new independent states. They would collapse. But we can't keep on helping maintain it. We're giving our money free of charge but without our economic support, they wouldn't be able to exist as independent states, so what we have here is the possible restoration of the borders of Russia with the borders of the former USSR on an economic basis only as a result of a voluntary entering into the state of Russia.

MR. KRAUSE: Do you plan to run for president in 1996?

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY: [speaking through interpreter] I will participate in the presidential elections, and I have a chance of victory because I got third part in '91, first place, our party took in the last parliamentary elections, and we have three forces in parliament society, the Communists, the Agrarians on the left, but they'll never have a candidate who gets a majority and the radical Democrats, they might get even 20 percent of the vote, so we do have a chance.

MR. KRAUSE: Given that, given that you say you will take part in those elections, why should the West -- or why shouldn't the West view you as a danger, as someone who if you came to power would threaten the interests of the West and of Russia itself, in terms of having peace in this world of ours?

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY: [speaking through interpreter] For the West, quite the contrary, it will be a good idea if we have stability in Russia. But democratically through elections, the new political force came to power in Russia, and where a new clean political force, and it would be a good idea if our party won for the West. We would stabilize Russia; we would introduce reforms, which would create a proper, normal market, with a lot of goods, differing in prices. We'd stop inflation. We'd lower crime. We'd put an end to civil war. We would strengthen our frontiers to make them clear to everyone where they are. We'd stop the flow of refugees. We'd fight against disease. This is all reality. We could do this today. That's why they voted for us last December.

MR. KRAUSE: Mr. Zhirinovsky, thank you very much for joining us. RECAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories this Friday, Palestinian police fired on a rock-throwing crowd in the Gaza Strip, killing 13 and wounding 150. And Hurricane Gordon lashed the North Carolina Coast. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Elizabeth. We'll see you on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.