The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight a preview of the President's defense before the House Impeachment Inquiry tomorrow; a Newsmaker interview with James B. Hoffa, the new head of the Teamsters Union; a season's look at the toy business; and a Pearl Harbor poem read by Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Attorney General Reno today decided against a further investigation of President Clinton's '96 campaign fund-raising. She rejected asking for an independent counsel to look into Mr. Clinton's use of issue ads. Those are advertisements paid for by the Democratic Party, not by his campaign. Reno said in the statement the evidence did not warrant an investigation. The Federal Election Commission's also checking into the use of issue ads by the President and by his '96 Republican opponent, Bob Dole. On the impeachment story today President Clinton's lawyers issued a list of 14 witnesses they will call before the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow and Wednesday. They include legal scholars, judges, and four members of Congress who served on the committee during the Nixon impeachment proceedings. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde told a news conference this afternoon Republicans have made a compelling case for impeachment. He said he would like the President's witnesses to refute it with evidence.

REP. HENRY HYDE: Well, I'd like to hear something on the facts. I'd like to hear some evidence rebutting the facts that we have amassed and that have been received under oath, testimony. We haven't heard anybody say Monica Lewinsky is a liar. There are lots of questions that we'd like to have some evidence on, but we'll hear from professors giving us their interpretation, perhaps unique, of the Constitution.

JIM LEHRER: White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart said the President is keenly aware of his wrongdoing in the Monica Lewinsky matter but that did not amount to an admission of perjury. We'll have more on the story right after this News Summary. There was a spacewalk today by two crew members of the space shuttle "Endeavour." They attached electrical connectors and cables between the first two international space station components. Late yesterday, crew members joined the Russian and US-constructed pieces. The shuttle's robot arm grabbed hold of the Russian section and snapped the two parts together. Russian President Yeltsin fired most of his aides during a brief trip to the Kremlin today. They removed his chief of staff and four other officials, telling them, "You can see how vigorous I am." Yeltsin said they had been too lax about rampant crime and political extremism. Yeltsin then returned to the Moscow hospital where he's been recovering from pneumonia for about two weeks. The aides have publicly questioned Yeltsin's fitness to continue serving because of poor health. In the Middle East today there were protests at a number of West Bank towns. Palestinian authorities fired on 3,000 demonstrators in the city of Nablus. At least 16 were injured. Fifty demonstrators were hurt elsewhere in clashes with Israeli soldiers. We have more from Julian Manyon of Independent Television News.

JULIAN MANYON, ITN: Five days to go to President Clinton's visit and the West Bank has erupted. In Bethlehem, Nativity Street was turned into a battleground as Palestinian rioters clashed with Israeli troops and police. The riot followed another Palestinian demonstration calling for the release of what they regard as political prisoners from Israeli jails. This is the place that President Bill Clinton is supposed to be visiting in just over a week from today. Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ, was included in his itinerary because his journey has taken place just before Christmas. But the question now is really whether he'll be able to come here at all. The riots have provoked the indignation of the Israeli government, which says it wants President Clinton to give the Palestinians a firm warning.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: The Palestinians have brazenly violated every single item of the Wye accords, and I hope that President Clinton uses his visit to demand Palestinian compliance.

JULIAN MANYON: As both Palestinians and Israelis up the stakes, President Clinton will now have to decide what his journey here can really achieve.

JIM LEHRER: Back in this country today the President announced ways to stop Medicare fraud. They're aimed at ending abuses, such as padding the cost of medications and billing for services not provided. Mr. Clinton said his proposal would save the federal health plan more than $2 billion. He spoke in advance of a two-day White House conference on Social Security that begins tomorrow.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Every year, Medicare is cheated out of billions of dollars, money that translates into higher taxes on working Americans, higher co-payments and premiums for elderly Medicare recipients. This has become, as I said, especially significant as we grow older and more and more of us become eligible for Medicare.

JIM LEHRER: The chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee today urged President Clinton to take the lead on Social Security reform. Republican Bill Archer said it's the President's role to bridge the groups that try to protect their special interests in the program. In economic news today it was a record day for the NASDAQ Stock Index made up largely of small and high-tech firms. It closed up 37 points or 1.9 percent at a new high of 2040. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 54 points at 9070. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to a presidential defense preview, Hoffa of the Teamsters, a toy story, and a December 7th poem.% ? FOCUS - MOUNTING A DEFENSE

JIM LEHRER: The President's defense. President Clinton's lawyers will present his no impeachment case tomorrow and Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee. We get some preview perspective now from Douglas Kmiec, a former Justice Department legal counsel in the Reagan administration, now a visiting law professor at Pepperdine University, and New York attorney Bruce Yannett, who was an associate independent counsel on the Iran-Contra probe.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Yannett, based on your reading of the witness list, where does the White House defense appear to be headed tomorrow?

BRUCE YANNETT: Well, it sounds like the White House is really going to be trying to draw a parallel or actually draw the differences betweenthis investigation and the Watergate investigation. The witnesses will be testifying that this doesn't compare to what happened in Watergate, that the allegations of abuse of power don't rise to the level, and that the allegations don't meet the constitutional standards for high crimes and misdemeanors that were met in Watergate. And also I think to go further than that and say not only do they not warrant impeachment, they don't even rise to the level where a normal prosecutor in a normal case would bring any criminal charges against an individual. So, what they're trying to do, I think, is really draw a distinction between this and Watergate.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Kmiec, would you agree that that's the purpose? Mr. Kmiec, can you hear me, in California? Mr. Kmiec does not - Do you hear me now?

DOUGLAS KMIEC: Jim, I can hear you now.

JIM LEHRER: Terrific. The question was - did you hear what Mr. Yannett said?

DOUGLAS KMIEC: I did.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Do you agree that that's what - do you read the witness list the same way he does?

DOUGLAS KMIEC: I do read it the same way Bruce does. I think the President is going to make an attempt to differentiate this from Watergate, but I think that's going to be very difficult, Jim. I just took a look at the articles of impeachment from Watergate, and in the first article, for example, which is the general abuse of power article that the Watergate committee drafted, six of the nine elements, one could literally just lift off the page and transfer to this present proceeding, because they deal with things like lying under oath; they deal with encouraging others to lie; they deal with the withholding of evidence either from an ongoing investigation or from Congress, itself. So I think one of the real difficult things for the President tomorrow is - is having people believe that this is not a circumstance that is, indeed, quite like the Watergate circumstance of 1974.

JIM LEHRER: So you don't think - based on the witnesses that they're going to call - that they can make that case?

DOUGLAS KMIEC: I don't think they can make it. And I think one of the most troubling things, of course, and one of the things that Henry Hyde said this afternoon is where are the - where is the factual exculpatory information from the President? We - we've really debated now for months what the standard of high crime and misdemeanor is and what the constitutional process is. This is now well known. The question is: Does the President have any defense for his actions, other than a very extraordinarily unbelievable defense about what is and is not sexual relations and who was alone and who wasn't alone and so forth? The question is: Will he present new facts?

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Yannett, first to the question, to the point that Mr. Kmiec made, that he just doesn't think that the President could make the case, the parallel, in other words, draw the idea that there are no differences between this and Watergate.

BRUCE YANNETT: Well, I think -- I actually disagree completely with Doug on that point. I think the contrast is quite stark. We've talked about this previously, but in Watergate you had a president who was fundamentally abusing the authority and power of the office of the presidency to subvert the Constitution and subvert the democratic process. And here what you have - even if it did take place, as has been alleged in the Starr Report, you have a President who lied about an improper sexual relationship with someone -- and at worst, according to the Starr referral, engaged in some conversations designed to not make that public. And while I'm not condoning that, if that's what happened, the parallels, I think, aren't there, and I think the American public has already decided that. You know, the American public, frankly, is sick and tired of this. And I think that if Congress proceeds down the path outside of the House Judiciary Committee on the floor of the House and in the Senate to try to impeach the President and this drags on for months, I think the country is going to get sick and tired of it, and there's going to be a real backlash against Congress.

JIM LEHRER: And because you don't think these crimes rise to impeachment, you think the public doesn't think so either?

BRUCE YANNETT: Exactly.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Kmiec.

DOUGLAS KMIEC: Jim, I think the public has always been - I think Bruce is partly right. The public has been saying two things, however: they've been saying they view this President as a popular, likeable President. But they've also acknowledged in almost every poll that I've seen that they don't accept perjury; they don't accept abuse of office; and they recognize that President Clinton had not given any factual defense to the wrongdoing that he's committed in office. And so they've - while they've said they didn't want him removed, they have said they wanted a proportionate punishment placed upon him. And the constitutional proportionate punishment is for the full House of Representatives to vote an article of impeachment. Now, it's a separate question as to whether or not that impeachment is prosecuted, and he's convicted and removed from office. I think the public is saying they don't want that, but I think they do want the historical statement that this President has abused his powers.

JIM LEHRER: What about Mr. Yannett's point that these crimes - if these alleged crimes - if, in fact, they were committed by the President - were not an abuse of presidential power?

BRUCE YANNETT: Well, the difficulty with that is, yes, it's true that Richard Nixon misused the FBI and the CIA in ways that as far as we know, William Clinton did not. But Richard Nixon was punishing his enemies while William Clinton was apparently allegedly lying in a judicial proceeding to have himself be exonerated from a very serious sexual harassment charge. And he was also lying in front of apparently a federal grand jury. These are things that the rule of law just simply can't tolerate, and so I think the public is quite willing to go along with the House of Representatives and say as a matter of historical record we want it to be understood that the President is to keep his presidential oath, and the way to do that is to vote an article of impeachment whether or not he's convicted in the Senate.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Yannett.

BRUCE YANNETT: Well, Jim, according to a poll that I read today, two thirds of the American public not only give the President a favorable approval rating but two thirds say Congress should stop this impeachment stuff right now, and another two thirds say at most, they should censor him. And so this notion that the American public is behind the House voting an article of impeachment and then leaving it up to the Senate to do with it as it sees fit, I don't know where Mr. Kmiec gets that from.

JIM LEHRER: Well, let's go back to what's going to happen tomorrow for a moment. And Mr. Yannett, Mr. Kmiec's point that there are no witnesses, none of these 14 witnesses are being called to challenge the evidence against the President, how do you read that?

BRUCE YANNETT: Well, you know, actually this is sort of I think one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole process. The House Judiciary Committee takes the position that we've established our case, but, in fact, they've done nothing, other than receive the Starr referral and give them its blessing. They've called no fact witnesses; they've not tried to resolve any factual issues. And, in effect, Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp have all become sort of hot potatoes with the Republicans saying we don't want to call them, you call them, Mr. President. And the President, of course, not wanting to be the first to call them, and so we're left with these hearings, which really are nothing more than hearings both by the Republicans and now by the White House about the standards for impeachment. There have been no fact hearings in this entire proceedings.

JIM LEHRER: That's true, is it not, Mr. Kmiec?

BRUCE YANNETT: For the most part it is true, but it's merely a reflection, I would suggest, of the manner in which the law has divided the investigation from the deliberative process. At the time of Watergate, the investigation for the most part was, in fact, still within the House of Representatives. There was not a formal statute creating an independent counsel. Leon Jaworski was a special appointee of the Department of Justice. So it's not at all unusual that the House of Representatives - unless they're given some evidence otherwise - would accept the meticulous record that Judge Starr has given to the House of Representatives. I think, again, Jim, I think the real problem for the President tomorrow or over the next couple of days is, are any of these witnesses going to be capable of convincing the American people that no punishment is warranted for the President, given what is now going as stipulated fact, namely that the President has not been entirely forthcoming and that the reason he wasn't forthcoming was that he was trying to deny a private citizen their civil rights.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Yannett, picking up on that point about the American people, the point that Mr. Kmiec just made, that - do you agree that the audience for this tomorrow and the next day is, in fact, not those - those members of the House Judiciary Committee, maybe not even the members of the House, but it is the American public?

BRUCE YANNETT: Well, Jim, I think the American public's perception of this is important. But my sense of it is the public has made up its mind and is by and large part of this and wants it over with. I think the real target audience of these hearings are the moderate Republicans and the full House. The committee is hopeless, but the moderate Republicans and the full House who are the fence, who are undecided and really who carry with them the power to decide whether this President will be impeached or not, and to that extent, I think these hearings could have an impact, although, frankly, if I were in the White House, I'd feel a little bit concerned that the hearings could have a counterproductive effect and inflame some of those moderates if the position taken by the White House lawyers at the beginning of the hearings and more importantly, I think, Chuck Ruff's testimony, the White House counsel's testimony, at the end of the hearings, if when he's questioned and he goes into any of the evidentiary issues, if those statements by Mr. Ruff inflame the moderate Republicans and the full House, then that's where the danger lies in these hearings.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, Mr. Kmiec, that the target audience are the moderate Republicans in the House and not on the committee but in the full House?

DOUGLAS KMIEC: Yes. I think that makes tremendous sense, and I think Bruce's point is underscored because the President has to date not been particularly responsive to the committee. You know, the committee proffered to the President 81 questions where they basically said, will you admit or deny the following factual matters, and most of the answers came back saying, well, I don't have any recollection of these things, or see my prior statements and other venues, and totally non-cooperative. And I agree with Bruce. If that's the posture that's going to be taken by the White House counsel, it is going to inflame the moderates and the movement for a successful vote of impeachment will I think proceed accordingly.

JIM LEHRER: Well, we'll see what happens. Gentlemen, thank you both very much for being with us again.

DOUGLAS KMIEC: Good to be with you.

BRUCE YANNETT: Thank you.% ? NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: The new head of the Teamsters Union and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: James P. Hoffa declared victory this past weekend in the government-supervised union election after his opponent, Tom Leedham, conceded defeat. It was Hoffa's second try for the presidency of the 1.4 million-member Teamsters Union. He narrowly lost in 1996 to Ron Carey, but Carey was later ousted following charges that his campaign benefited from an illegal fund-raising scheme. Hoffa, a 57-year-old Detroit labor lawyer, is the son of the late Jimmy Hoffa, who headed the Teamsters from 1957 to 1971 and made it that era's most powerful labor union. James Hoffa joins us now for a Newsmaker interview.

MARGARET WARNER: Welcome, Mr. Hoffa.

JAMES P. HOFFA, President-Elect, Teamsters: Nice to be here.

MARGARET WARNER: You ran for this position vowing to restore the Teamsters to the power and strength that endured when your father headed it. How do you plan to do that?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Well, first of all, we're going do what we're already doing, unify the union. This union has been divided in like a civil war - brother against brother - sister against sister. And I'm pulling it together. We've already seen evidence of that in New York, in Pennsylvania, in California. The first thing is we have to get on the same page. We have to be united in one cause. The second part of the program is that our finances of the union are completely a shambles. We're going to pull that together, rebuild the finances of the union. The third aspect is for us to start going out and organizing. If we're all together, we have money, and we start to organize, you're going to see the Teamsters Union start to bloom.

MARGARET WARNER: And by organize you mean try to build up your membership?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Absolutely. We've been drifting right now. There are members out there that want to join the Teamsters Union in the public sector, regional trucking, food warehousing, traditional areas that we've been strong in, and we're going to emphasize that with a new director of organizing and allocating money to make sure that we have enough money to go into these areas and to grow our union.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, how about in the way you deal with employers, are we going to see a militancy, the kind of militancy that we saw say last summer, when the Teamsters struck UPS?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Yes, we are. We're going to be very strong with employers in all of our aspects, because I think there's been too much of this idea let's try and get along here, and we've eroded some of our standards. We have to get very militant with some of these employers to say there's no shortcuts, our people have a right to a fair day's wage for a fair day's pay, and we've got to get that done. And that's going to happen.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, some of your critics, including your opponent, said that some of your plans include things like say making the locals more powerful again and that whether you want it or not, that's going to open the door again - the Teamsters Union - to corruption, to possible mob influence. What do you say to that?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Well, you know, first of all, my opponents were just beaten soundly in the election, so it shows what people think about what they're saying. They've really been discredited as being people that are dishonest and don't honestly talk about the major issues of this campaign. I do not want to decentralize power, and I think probably the most important thing that was said yesterday was election officer Michael Churkowski, who was a former prosecutor, made a statement that said the Teamsters Union is really now free of organized crime. I agree with that. I agree with Mr. Churkowski, I think that's an important statement.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think that the Teamsters as a union, though, is still vulnerable to that kind of influence?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Well, I think - I think your network is probably vulnerable to that kind of influence. We're going to be ever vigilant to make sure it doesn't come back in our union. We've had a democratic election. We've got an executive board that is really the top people in the union. The mob's not coming back in the Teamsters Union. We've gotten rid of them, and we're free to be free of government supervision.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, would you say that actually this government oversight almost government control of the union has been good for the union?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Well, I think to some extent it has, but now it's at the point where it's oppressive. It's cost us $80 million. We're going on 10 years. And it's time for us to have a meaningful dialogue with the Justice Department, which we're going to begin when I come to office in January, to start saying, you know, what are our goals here, what are our objectives, and the answer is let's have a diminished presence of the government. There is no other international union that has been subject to the scrutiny and to the continued oversight that the Teamsters has, and there really is no reason for it because, as Mr. Churkowski says, we're basically free of organized crime.

MARGARET WARNER: Going back to your plans for the union, can in today's economy - can any union recreate the glory days of say your father's era?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Well, it's very difficult. These are hard times right now. We all know that. We've got a global economy. We seem to have a death spiral to the bottom of what you read in the papers every day -- thousands of people let go every day from Boeing, from Johnson & Johnson, huge hallmark companies. What's going on in this country? Unions stand against those trends. We've got to somehow insulate the robust American economy from this global economy that seems to want to devour our standard of living. And the question is, is Americans, should we sit here and let that happen, should we see our standard of living lower - lowered, because of some idea that there's a global economy out there and we have to make sure that we have a global economy? I think we have to insulate our economy, which is robust and strong, to make sure it provides jobs and the type of benefits that come from that kind of economy.

MARGARET WARNER: But isn't part of the robustness to the American economy that we benefit from the global economy because we sell overseas?

JAMES P. HOFFA: I don't think so. I think we're seeing that like the European economy right now is turning into a balkanization, they're trading amongst themselves, what do we see in China? They're not taking our products anymore. What do we see throughout the world? We see people turning inward, saying, we're only going to buy our products, we're not going to buy American products, but we're going to export to the United States; we're going to dump tons of products, cheap products into the American economy. And as we see with Boeing, the economy can only sustain so much dumping. And what we're seeing in steel and everywhere else is it's starting to have a drastic effect. And what's happening, Americans are being laid off as the Koreans and the Japanese and the Chinese keep dumping cheaper products into our economy. So we have to have some kind of control and some - we're not saying no trade. We're saying there has to be some type of insulation to make sure that our whole economy is not destroyed by this dumping of cheap goods.

MARGARET WARNER: So what are you talking about here? Are you talking about pushing the White House, Congress for higher tariffs? What specifically?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Well, I think we have to do the common sense thing. We can't wink at the world. You know, we're basically - some economists who run our country evidently are worshiping at this altar of global economy and not being blind to the fact that the damage is being done. I mean, I'm reading the papers, I'm watching the news, and what do I see -- thousands of good jobs, good-paying jobs with health care, with pensions - being destroyed. Now, where are they going to go - work at McDonald's? Oh, they'll get jobs at McDonald's; they'll get jobs at the cleaners, but will they have health care? No, they won't. And what we've got to do is to slow this thing down. I just noticed that USAir, for instance, is buying 300 airplanes from Airbus. Why are they not buying those from Boeing? And if they were, you know what would happen? We wouldn't be having those layoffs with Boeing.

MARGARET WARNER: And what's the answer to your question?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Well, the answer is we've got to take measures to have fair trade, not free trade.

MARGARET WARNER: I know, but I mean your example of USAir, what is it, is it that Airbus had a better price?

JAMES P. HOFFA: They should be buying American right now, because what's happening over there in the European economy, do you think they're buying Boeing airplanes? Absolutely not, they're not going to buy them at all, and so what we have here is, again, a cannibalization of our own economy. We're destroying our own economy, even though it's robust, because we're buying everything else. We're buying in the world economy but no one's buying our product. That's the problem.

MARGARET WARNER: Is this a harder case for you to make because, despite all these layoffs, unemployment is still so low, the stock market is up, personal incomes up, people tend to feel -- if you believe these consumer surveys - they tend to feel kind of good about the economic state of their lives?

JAMES P. HOFFA: I know people that have two and three jobs to survive in America. Maybe you don't know those people, but I do. I know UPS drivers - they're Teamsters - they work at one job; they run to another job and then they run to a third job to survive in America today.

MARGARET WARNER: No, but what I mean is -

JAMES P. HOFFA: Do you think that's good? That's not good. That's a concrete example of what's going on in the country today.

MARGARET WARNER: But is it harder - I take your point - but is it harder, nonetheless, to make the case say to Congress, given the state of the economy? Are they listening to these people who have two and three jobs to keep up?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Well, I think what's happening is we have to - the organized labor, the AFL-CIO - have to make that point - to tell people - tell the lawmakers of what's going on in this country. Basically, all the studies show that less people today have health care than they did 10 years ago. Studies show that less people today in America have pensions that had 10 years ago. Is that good for America? No, it's not. And that's part of this cannibalization of our own workers.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, do you think that - you said earlier today in another interview - you said we've got to slow this globalization down - won't you be swimming against the tide? Can you really - given the way capital moves around the world today - given the fact that governments have limited control even on the sort of pace and intensity of globalization?

JAMES P. HOFFA: Well, don't forget, globalization has only been brought about perhaps in the last 10 years, and it's a contrived effort, by the moneyed interests of the world to move money around. They're the ones that are making the NAFTA laws; they're the ones that are making these laws that are basically knocking down the protection we used to have in our economy. You know, take NAFTA. Look at the thousands and thousands of jobs that have moved out of this country to Mexico. We're putting Mexicans to work, and we're laying off Americans. Is that a good idea? I don't think so. And that's the problem. We've got to somehow slow it down. We're not against trade, but we have to have fair trade, not free trade.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thanks, Mr. Hoffa, very much.

JAMES P. HOFFA: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a toy story and remembering Pearl Harbor.% ? FOCUS - TOYS ARE US?

JIM LEHRER: Now a toy story and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: It was a red carpet ceremony befitting the head of state or a Hollywood star when FAO Schwartz rolled out this year's must-have toy. And the hype wasn't just for the kids.

KIDS CHANTING: Furby! Furby!

PHIL PONCE: In the shopping days since Thanksgiving parents across the country have been scavenging through store after store trying to find one thing - a Furby.

MAN IN CROWD: Well, I was told by my daughters and my wife not to come back without some today. They just - it's the hottest new toy.

WOMAN IN CROWD: I was calling my sister-in-law to tell her that it's possible I may get two Furbys for her kids. And that's why we're here - the three of us - we left work today to come try and get some Furbys.

PHIL PONCE: The toy known as "Furby" is a furry fully interactive pet able to interact with its environment. Using an on-board sound sensor, Furby can hear. The toy also has sensors that tell it when its surroundings or light or dark, when it's right side up or upside down, when it's being tickled or petted. It even has a sensor that allows it to talk to other Furbys. The maker of Furby, Tiger Electronics, a division of Hasbro, Inc., expects to sell more than 2 million Furbys by the time the holiday season ends. The company says it's producing Furbys as fast as it can, since demand is high and people are fighting to get their hands on one. It sells for $30. On the black market, though, it can fetch a lot more. But Furby is just the latest toy craze. Back in 1983, Cabbage Patch dolls sparked an even bigger hunt. In 1994, Power Rangers were kings of the toy hill, and two years later, everyone wanted to Tickle Elmo. But Elmo, like the others, belongs to Christmas Past. MAN: A Tickle Me Elmo - the tickle's out of it. There's nothing - there's nothing funny left there at all.

PHIL PONCE: Still, some toys do manage to maintain their appeal, to be part of holidays past, present, and seemingly the future.

COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER: It's a happy land, Candy Land -

PHIL PONCE: Since it came out in 1949, Candy Land has sold more than 20 million copies, and the game remains a top seller today. Yet, for many shoppers, times have changed.

JOAN McCOY, Holiday Shopper: We're just looking and reminiscing how things were in years gone by. You know, it used to be easy because you just got a doll and a bicycle. Now you have to get the latest software, or we wanted fingernail polish but not like fingernail polish we know. It has to glitter and it has to glow, and it's just different.

PHIL PONCE: And with the new pace, the pressures to get the latest thing are greater than ever.

[Scene from "Jingle All The Way"]

PHIL PONCE: For more on toy trends and what they mean Gary Cross, a history professor at Penn State University and the author of "Kids Stuff, Toys in the Changing World of American Childhood," and Chris Byrne, editor of Playthings Market Watch, a weekly newsletter on the toy industry. Gentlemen, welcome.Mr. Byrne, interactivity is a big theme this year. You have some other examples. What have you got?

CHRIS BYRNE, Editor, Playthings Market Watch: It's huge. These are three toys that are really hot this year. This is "Amazing Amy" from Playmates Toys. She's got - she wants -

PHIL PONCE: She's talking.

CHRIS BYRNE: She wants pizza. What she works on is she's got an interactive heart right here, where you can see, and it actually sets the time and she knows what time of day it is, so that now when I give her pizza, you can - and if I gave her juice or something, she wouldn't want that. So it really adds a level of nurturing play, reality to the nurturing play.

PHIL PONCE: And the second toy?

CHRIS BYRNE: This is a talking Teletubby. This is talking LaLa from Hasbro. It says four different things that appear on the show. It's really great for one-year-olds. They really love them, cuddling up to it. And then finally this is Bull Frog from Ohio Art. He's really great. He's a complete - he's a great friend. He's got - he's a frog with an attitude. He's kind of a fun playmate. He's got Ben sensor technology in him, which is the same thing being used in the automotive industry right now for telling a seat when to deploy an airbag. So it really gives him a nervous system. It's really great.

PHIL PONCE: So depending on where you touch that particular toy, it comes up with a different response.

CHRIS BYRNE: Comes up with a different response. So if I grab his tongue - TOY TALKING: -- Let go. Let go.

CHRIS BYRNE: He wants me to let go of his tongue. So he's really funny. He says over 100 different things, and he really plays really well with the kids.

PHIL PONCE: Professor Cross, are these high-tech toys what you think of when you think of - when you think of a traditional toy?

GARY CROSS, Penn State University: Well, of course, toys until about a generation ago were really miniatures of adult life. They told a little girl what it would be like to be a mother when she had her Bylo Baby or what have you and it told a little boy what it would be like to be in a world of business and industry where there's an electric train or erector set.

PHIL PONCE: So that's -

GARY CROSS: They changed a lot.

PHIL PONCE: Okay. What are these toys telling kids?

GARY CROSS: Well, they're listening to - they're telling children that they can play out the fantasy of the television shows that they see to some extent, they're telling children that - that machines or gadgets are fun.

PHIL PONCE: Why do think, Professor, these interactive toys are so popular?

GARY CROSS: Well, I think they're popular in part because they - they're hyped, in part. One of the real attractions of Tickle Me Elmo a few years ago or some of the other interactive toys like the Virtual Pets of last year was that they were part of a fad, and one of the real attractions is simply to be a part of that fad, to be the only kid on the block who has one, or for the - to be the parent who's able to get one.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Byrne, do you think that's it, that it's a fad, it becomes a hyped thing, and that's why everyone wants the same toy?

CHRIS BYRNE: Well, very often I think that you have to remember that the toy business is the fashion business with one season out of the year. So it's become fashionable to have a Furby. It was fashionable to have a Tickle Me Elmo. You can bet that all those Tickle Me Elmos did not go to two-year-olds. So that it's something that people want as a way of expressing themselves, just like they want a certain car or a certain brand of cereal.

PHIL PONCE: Well, Mr. Byrne, how does one - how does the industry determine which toy is going to be it in a particular year, which toy is going to be a Cabbage Patch, which is going to be the Furby?

CHRIS BYRNE: Well, you can't predict it. You really can't predict it. A lot of people try to, but it really doesn't work. What has to happen, you have to start with a good toy. And I think Furby's a great toy, or Amazing Amy, because they really have an interactive play with the kid. Play doesn't change that much, but how kids relate to their toys, they live in a technological world, so it's natural their toys are going to talk back to them. It just enhances the play experience. When something catches the public imagination like a Furby, a Tickle Me Elmo, or a Cabbage Patch doll, then it's Katy By the Door. You just never know. You can't predict that kind of thing.

PHIL PONCE: Professor, what role did toys play in the past?

GARY CROSS: Well, one of the things that toys did was they, in effect, told children what their adult roles - what their adult life would be like, and they did it in a playful kind of way. One of the things that an erector set did was tell you about the mechanical world. A lot of toys were miniatures of real machines. And they introduced then children to the roles they would eventually play. And, of course, they also gave parents ways of telling their children that, well, you've reached a certain age, you're ready for an electric train, and that they also gave parents a way of sharing in the play with their children. This was particularly true when toys changed much more slowly than they do now, so a father could play with an electric train with his son and feel really part of the world of his child.

PHIL PONCE: Professor, do these interactive toys sort of interrupt that relationship between parent and child in your opinion?

GARY CROSS: Well, in some ways they're a substitute for that interaction. I mean, after all, a parent could sing to the child when it's ready for bed or read a story, instead of having an interactive toy do it. It's not to say that these toys are bad in and of themselves. They're great fun. But they really are in some ways a poor substitute for a parent or, for that matter, a real pet.

PHIL PONCE: Do you think, Mr. Byrne, that these toys are fulfilling the role of companion, as opposed to something that a child brings his or her imagination to, like an erector set or a tool kit?

CHRIS BYRNE: Well, nothing can replace the parental interaction. I think this can be enhanced by it. These are all toys that really aren't complete without the child, even though they do amazing technological things. Kids live in an amazing technological world. And toys and playthings reflect the world they live in very much. So, it's perfectly natural that toys are going to talk to them, and parents can share in teaching kids the nurturing process and realize that Amazing Amy wants her milk now, so that it's part of really dealing with a child. It just enhances the whole play. And it really is about the connectiveness, and I think that these do enhance that.

PHIL PONCE: Professor, you've been studying toys in history. What do toys tell us about the culture?

GARY CROSS: Well, they tell you a lot. They tell you in some ways where the child really lives. For example, back in the beginning of the century, again, the electric train was a toy that children could connect to because they saw trains all the time; they knew machinery or a playhouse, the same kind of way, or a baby doll. They had a lot of babies in their lives. But since the mid 1960's, toys have been increasingly about fantasy, maybe not so much these interactive toys, but I'm thinking of things like, oh, action figures or perhaps Barbie dolls that really are a break from the play of the past. And there the child in play participates in his own fantasy world, maybe built around TV shows or movies but very much a child's separate world -- quite distinct from the world of adults or the world of their parents.

PHIL PONCE: So, Professor, you're saying that in this fantasy world these toys come sort of with a pre-packaged fantasy world like Star Wars, that you tap into the Star Wars world, as opposed to creating one's own story line characters.

GARY CROSS: Well, sure. The Star Wars toys are really props; they're really miniatures of the characters and of the gadgets in the story. Millennium Falcon, or what have you. And they give a child a chance to play, admittedly quite often quite creatively, with these toys, but to play along the story line.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Byrne, do American kids get too many kids?

CHRIS BYRNE: Well, sometimes I think they do. I think it's really important -- that American kids get about 250 to 300 dollars' worth of toys each year on average - and it's really important - parents often overwhelm kids at Christmas time, and I've seen - observed families where kids go from toy to toy to toy, and they're just completely overwhelmed. And I think that one toy - especially like a doll or something that a child develops a relationship with - is really important, because, again, it's about relationship. It's about relationship to the toy and projecting that into the larger world.

PHIL PONCE: Professor, what's your reaction to the amount of toys that American kids seem to have available to them?

GARY CROSS: Well, I think one of the reasons why parents give so many toys to children is because each individual separate toy means very little to the parent as such. This is particularly true of what I call the fantasy toys, the action figures, perhaps some of the fashion dolls. In an age when toys really said something about the parent, it said that by golly, you've reached the stage in life where you need this toy, this is a toy that I played with, you could give one or two toys, and that would mean a lot, but today when the toys don't relate to the world of parents, very often the parent makes up for that by simply giving a whole lot of toys.

PHIL PONCE: How about that, Mr. Byrne, does the gift of a toy mean less than it used to?

CHRIS BYRNE: I think the gift of a toy really in a proper environment it means a lot. I think that parents need to understand that what they bring into their homes reflects their values, whether it's what they buy for themselves or what they give to their kids. So every time you're bringing a toy into the home it's teaching your child something. People always ask me, what's the best educational toy for my kid, and I always go, well, what's the child and what's the lesson, because every toy really can teach nurturing or socialization or fair play, and really it's about those values that you want to communicate through what you bring into the house.

PHIL PONCE: Professor, your advice to parents?

GARY CROSS: Well, my advice to parents is to think about what the toy says about them when they give the toy to the child and to think - and to think at least about giving some toys that they can relate to, as well as the child through the advertisements and the media, perhaps even some simple toys like yo-yos or marbles or those kinds of things, because I think a lot of children really want to have toys that they can share with their parents, as well as with each other and by themselves.

PHIL PONCE: Well, Professor, thank you very much. Mr. Byrne, thank you.

CHRIS BYRNE: Thank you.% ? FINALLY - DAY OF INFAMY

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Here's NewsHour contributor Robert Pinsky, Poet Laureate of the United States.

ROBERT PINSKY, Poet Laureate: It's interesting that some of the national dates we remember best like December 7th and November 22nd are dates that have to do with loss and vulnerability. The anniversary of Pearl Harbor with its loss and vulnerability changes its meaning as time passes, inevitably. Each war ages as those who remember it age -- respect for those who fought in the Second World War and the loss of those who fell, the suffering of the wounded, the fears of those at home, all tend to become gradually more generalized and impersonal. My generation roughly is those whose fathers fought in that war. The poet, James Tate, makes emotion about World War II personal and specific in his poem, "The Lost Pilot" about a father who did not return from war to his child. "The Lost Pilot" by James Tate. "For my Father, 1992-1994." "Your face did not rot like the others, the co-pilot, for example. I saw him yesterday. His face is corn mush, his wife and daughter, the poor ignorant people stare as if you will compose soon. He was more wronged than Jobe. But your face did not rot like the others. It grew dark and hard like ebony. The features progressed in their distinction. If I could cajole you to come back for an evening down from your compulsive orbiting, I would touch you. Read your face as Dallas, your hoodlum gunner now with the blistered eyes reads his Braille editions. I would touch your face as a disinterested scholar touches an original page. However frightening, I would discover you, and I would not turn you in. I would not make your face your wife or Dallas or the co-pilot, Jim. You could return to your crazy orbiting, and I would not try to fully understand what it means to you. All I know is this: When I see you, as I have seen you at least once every year of my life, spin across the wilds of the sky like a tiny African god. I feel dead. I feel as if I were the residue of a stranger's life, that I should pursue you. My head cocked toward the sky I cannot get off the ground, and you, passing over again, fast, perfect, and unwilling to tell me what you are doing well, or that it was a mistake that placed you in that world, and me in this, or that misfortune placed these worlds in us." As James Tate says in those last lines of "The Lost Pilot," the worlds of the past do live in us -- sometimes in their unknown effects and sometimes in memory.% ? RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, Attorney General Reno decided not to ask for an independent counsel to look at President Clinton's '96 campaign fund-raising, and Mr. Clinton's lawyers announced they will call 14 witnesses at the House impeachment hearings tomorrow and Wednesday. The list includes members of Congress who served on the committee during the Nixon impeachment, among others. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with full coverage of that House impeachment inquiry. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.