The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Friday, we have a Newsmaker interview [Newsmaker] with Sec. of Defense William Perry, excerpts from House floor debate [Focus - Welfare Reform] over welfare reform, and analysis by our regional editors and columnists [Focus - Editors' Views - Welfare Reform] and from Mark Shields and Paul Gigot [Focus - Political Wrap]. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The House passed a welfare reform bill today. The vote was 234 to 199. The Republican Contract With America legislation would change the way welfare is delivered, combining a number of federal programs and to block grants to the states. It also slows the growth of welfare spending. Democrats criticized it as being too hard on children. The bill received only nine Democratic votes.Both sides spoke to reporters after the vote.

REP. DICK ARMEY, House Majority Leader: We are doing several things in the Contract in America in addition to the Contract With America for an awful lot of probably the most heartbreaking cases of children in America, we are giving them welfare reform. For all the children in America, in addition to that, we are giving their families tax relief, and we're saying we have continued confidence in the American family to spend their own money they've earned in their own way on behalf of their own children better than a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington can do it.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, House Minority Leader: I don't think anyone who voted in 1994 were voting to end the school lunch program. I don't think anybody who voted in 1994 thought they were voting to end summer jobs for kids who need jobs. And I surely don't think anybody thought they were voting to cut either of those programs in order to fund a tax cut for the privileged few.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on this story later in the program. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: The head of the Justice Department civil rights division testified before a congressional committee today on affirmative action. Deval Patrick made his comments as the Clinton administration continues its review of affirmative action programs. Patrick said the administration would not retreat from the goal of expanding education and job opportunities, but the chairman of the subcommittee expressed Republican concerns about affirmative action programs.

REP. HARRIS FAWELL, [R] Illinois: We produce out of the Civil Rights Act race-based or gender-based preferences, that is to say discrimination when obviously the act was created to, to eliminate precisely that kind of discrimination. And this is what confuses the populace in general. I think all racial groups are confused by this.

DEVAL PATRICK, Assistant Attorney General: As a law enforcement institution, the Justice Department has considered affirmative action done the right way as one among a range of remedies available to address illegal discrimination. We have used this remedy not as an end in itself but, rather, as but one possible practical tool to address the problem in a given case.

MR. MAC NEIL: In economic news today the Commerce Department reported orders for durable goods slipped .8 percent last month. It was the first drop in four months. Durable goods are higher priced items designed to last at least three years.

MR. LEHRER: Japanese police detained several members of a religious cult today. They will be questioned about the release of nerve gas on the Tokyo subway Monday. The leader of the group denied any involvement in that attack that killed ten people and injured five thousand. We have a report from Liz Donnelly of Independent Television News.

LIZ DONNELLY, Independent Television News: The search for those involved in poisoning commuters on Tokyo's underground has moved to the city of Osaka in Central Japan, where heavily protected troops donned gas masks before raiding the offices of Aum Shinri Kyo, the religious sect suspected of being responsible. After fighting their way into the building, they emerged, having seized materials believed to be chemicals, including an agent used to neutralize nerve gas. The cult's leader, filmed here in Russia, is now in hiding, but he released a video clip shown today on Japanese television denying any of the seized chemicals have been used to make the poison gas.

SHOKO ASAHARA, Leader, Aum Shinri Kyo: [speaking through interpreter] Phosphorus Trichloride is used to make plastic materials and also as a herbicide. I cannot see how one can make Sarin out of these substances.

LIZ DONNELLY: Scientists are skeptical about this, and the police are keen to question Shoko Asahara. In another large scale raid, they seized tons of chemicals inside warehouses owned by the sect in a village west of Tokyo. In all, police said they took 34 truckloads of chemicals away, both liquids and powders. A Russian-made helicopter was also found in one of the cult's compounds. So many chemicals have now been found that if they are linked to the attack on Tokyo's underground, it's possible other attacks are also planned.

MR. LEHRER: Two Americans being held in Iraq are in good health, according to Polish diplomats who met with them. The Poles were representing American interests since the United States has no formal relations with Iraq. The two Americans were taken into custody almost two weeks ago after mistakenly crossing the border from Kuwait into Iraq.

MR. MAC NEIL: PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat today promised a new war on terrorism in the Mideast. He made the pledge to Vice President Gore, who's in the region to promote the peace process. The two met in the Palestinian-ruled territory of Jericho on the West Bank. Gore announced a new $73 million aid package for development in the Gaza Strip.

MR. LEHRER: Former Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey said today he may run against President Clinton in 1996. He's the first Democrat to speak of such intentions. Casey filed papers setting up a presidential exploratory committee. He said he will make a final decision in April or May. President Clinton had his annual physical check-up today at Bethesda Naval Hospital outside Washington. He left the hospital after a four-hour exam. The White House later issued a statement from Mr. Clinton's doctor saying the President was in excellent health.

MR. MAC NEIL: That ends our summary of the day's top stories. Ahead on the NewsHour, Defense Sec. Perry, the House welfare reform debate, regional editors and columnists, and Shields and Gigot. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight to the Secretary of Defense, William Perry, who's with us now for a Newsmaker interview. Mr. Secretary, welcome.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: Thank you, Jim. It's good to be here.

MR. LEHRER: First, on the Guatemala story, what is the current relationship between the United States military and the Guatemala military?

SEC. PERRY: We have not any military -- provided any military assistance or aid to Guatemala since 1990. We have a single program going on today in Guatemala which is we have about 600 reserve troops, engineering troops that are providing humanitarian engineering assistance in Guatemala. That's the only activity --

MR. LEHRER: No military advisers or anything like that?

SEC. PERRY: No.

MR. LEHRER: This CIA thing, the killing of the two -- the American and then the other Guatemalan citizen and the CIA is involved in a flap over this now. Was the Defense Department one of those that should have been notified about this, or what role does the Defense Department play in that kind of action down there?

SEC. PERRY: We're not really involved in that action, so I don't have anything to add to what you've heard from the White House and the CIA that are looking in, of course, very intensely into this report.

MR. LEHRER: But not -- it's not a military situation?

SEC. PERRY: It's not a military situation, as far as I know.

MR. LEHRER: All right. On to other things, Mr. Secretary. This week, you expressed concern about the buildup of troops and arms by Iran. Tell us what that's all about.

SEC. PERRY: Iran has been deploying forces for the last few months on about five island located near the Straits of Hormuz, which is the critical strait going out of the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. They have deployed about 6,000 military forces there. It includes anti-shipping missiles, anti-air missiles. It includes some chemical weapons. In addition to that, they have been building up the Navy. They bought three submarines from the Russians, submarines we call kilo submarines. They're diesel electric submarines. Just in the last week, they were training them in exercises. They were dropping mines, simulated mines. They also have bought five patrol ships from the Chinese which have anti- shipping missiles on. All of this added together represents, I think, a potential threat to shipping, and that's -- the Straits of Hormuz is a very narrow exit from the Gulf.

MR. LEHRER: We have a map up there that shows that.

SEC. PERRY: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: So a lot of -- all the oil from the Gulf States goes through there, does it not?

SEC. PERRY: All the oil from the Gulf States go through there, so it's a very vital link, and that's why we have placed so much significance on this action.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think they're up to?

SEC. PERRY: They are in a position to threaten their neighbors. They're in a position to harass or interdict the shipping that goes out of there. We have a very substantial naval force in that area. We and some of the other Gulf countries at any given time would have fifteen to twenty warships in that area. The -- I visited just two days ago the Constellation, an aircraft carrier we have there, and McCluskey, which is a perry class frigate. I am quite confident that the naval forces we have there, along with our correlation naval forces, are quite capable of dealing with the, with the Iranian forces if they were to use them in an offensive manner, so it makes no sense for them to consider using them.

MR. LEHRER: Is there any indication that they intend to use them in an offensive manner?

SEC. PERRY: We have no such indications. We just see the capability. The capability worries us, but we see no indication of intent, and we also know we know how to -- we have the counter- measure to that capability as well.

MR. LEHRER: How do we deliver messages to Iran? I mean, you delivered it publicly when you were in the Gulf.

SEC. PERRY: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: In Abu Dhabi, I think is when you made this statement.

SEC. PERRY: Yes, I did.

MR. LEHRER: But what else has been done, besides your making a public statement?

SEC. PERRY: The message we're delivering is first of all we know in detail what they're doing. We understand what the capability is. We also want them to understand that we know how to deal with that capability if they were to make the mistake of trying to use it in an aggressive way.

MR. LEHRER: Do you anticipate the U.S. taking some kind of unilateral action? I mean, in other words, is the threat so significant --

SEC. PERRY: No.

MR. LEHRER: -- that you might have to act without some kind of offensive action by the Iranians?

SEC. PERRY: No, it is not. Until or unless they use those weapons in an offensive way, in an aggressive way, we will simply continue watching them and observing them. We have sufficient forces there to deal with the problem. We do not have to move in more forces to deal with them. We have a substantial naval force there enforcing the sanctions for a different purpose altogether, but those forces are quite capable of dealing militarily with that problem if that were to become necessary.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, what is the U.S. position now on this, moving on to the same part of the world, but what's the U.S. position now on this Turkish incursion into Northern Iraq? Is that still okay with us?

SEC. PERRY: We understand what the Turks were doing. We understand that they are concerned with the PKK terrorist actions in Turkey, and that this is a move on their part to preempt, to try to get at the terrorists and their home bases, and so we can sympathize with that part of it. We've been very clear in our discussions with Turkish officials that this should be -- they should make every effort to protect the lives of innocent civilians and they should limit the size, they should limit the scope of this operation and finish it quickly. We have been assured by Turkish officials that they will finish this quickly.

MR. LEHRER: How quickly?

SEC. PERRY: No time limit has been given, but we cannot accept a permanent extension of this effort.

MR. LEHRER: Have the discussions been about time constraints? In other words --

SEC. PERRY: We have discussed it, not in terms of days or weeks in making clear that we want it over with quickly, and we have been given assurances by Turkish officials that it would be over with quickly.

MR. LEHRER: There was a report late this afternoon which I'm sure you have that there -- that some Turkish airplanes were reported to have bombed some civilian targets, where there were some refugees that possibly were not part of this terrorist groups.

SEC. PERRY: I cannot confirm the accuracy of that report, Jim. I've seen it but I cannot confirm its accuracy. We would be very concerned if it turned out to be true.

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of Iraq, what, what's the -- I reported just in the News Summary just now that these Polish diplomats -- talking about these two Americans, two civilians -- are they, in fact, this is not a cover story, is it? These truly are American civilians; these are not CIA people or anything like that?

SEC. PERRY: I can state flatly and unequivocally no. This is not a cover story. These were two, two Americans working for a contractor in Kuwait who made a mistake. It was a very innocent mistake, though. They just -- maybe a few tens of yards blundered across the border, and the Iraqi exploited the situation, took advantage of it, seized 'em, and are holding them now. They -- the Americans -- there's no question that they made a mistake. They were across the border, and that was illegal, and the Iraqis are now going to charge them with that. We understand that there's going to be a trial very soon, possibly in the next few days. We hope that the Iraqis will understand -- first of all we understand they're being treated well based on the report you already have.

MR. LEHRER: And can you add anything to that? Is that same, basically that's it?

SEC. PERRY: No. You have full information. What you reported was the same information that we have on the, from the Polish intersection there. We're only speculating as to when the trial might begin, but we have heard reports that it might begin in a few days.

MR. LEHRER: The Deputy Prime Minister was quoted in an interview on a petroleum magazine late today as saying that these two Americans might be sentenced to prison, from six to eight years, is that -- is that possible?

SEC. PERRY: That would be outrageous, absolutely outrageous, as two men just a simple, innocent blunder of, of wandering a few tens of yards across the border. The humane thing to do would be to rebuke them for that and send them back home, and I hope that the Iraqi government has the good sense to do that.

MR. LEHRER: Do you smell a real crisis coming over this, Mr. Secretary?

SEC. PERRY: I hope not. I hope not.

MR. LEHRER: Gen. Shalikashvili, moving on to Haiti, Gen. Shalikashvili is going to Haiti this weekend, I understand. How many troops do we have there? What's the status of things? How's it going from the U.S. military point of view?

SEC. PERRY: We are in the process now of converting from the multinational force to the U.N. force, and that transfer will take place the 31st of March. There will be -- the U.N. force will have six thousand personnel of which about twenty-four hundred will be American forces. Today there are about six thousand, the multinational forces there, of which about thirty-five hundred are American forces, so there's going to be a slight shift from where we are slightly more than 50 percent of the multinational force to where we're slightly less than half of the U.N. force. There will be, I think, very little change in the security situation when that changeover occurs, because it's been a very gradual and evolutionary transition.

MR. LEHRER: How's the big transition going to peace and democracy?

SEC. PERRY: There have been very important positive developments in that regard. The security situation generally has been very good, certainly relative to before the United States forces went in there. The economic situation has improved but has a long way to go. But you can go in the stores and the shops, and you find full shelves, and you can buy produce and clothes. Generally, the economy is starting to get back on its feet, but it just has a very long way to go.

MR. LEHRER: The government functioning?

SEC. PERRY: The government is functioning. There will be elections for congress, their congress, the parliament, in June. That'll be a very important development, and I think that's the first major step since the return of Aristide in moving forward in their re-establishing the democracy.

MR. LEHRER: So you feel good about that?

SEC. PERRY: I feel very good about what has happened to date. We have a long way to go yet, so we cannot pocket at this stage a success in Haiti. It's been successful to this point. So far, so good.

MR. LEHRER: On Bosnia, just to complete the circle around the world, the cease-fire that is supposed to -- anyhow, the cease-fire has broken down again apparently, and is there -- is that just going to be the state of Bosnia for a while? I mean, is there ever going to be a peace in our lifetimes as we look ahead, Mr. Secretary?

SEC. PERRY: It would seem to me, Jim, that the combatants all believe that their best interest is served by continuing the fighting. And so every time we get a cease-fire agreement, the fighting breaks out again. And we have not made any substantial progress towards a real peace agreement. We've got cease-fires, which last for a while, but we have not gotten a real peace agreement. There's nothing we can do to force that outcome. We can try to promote it. We can stimulate, we cannot force it. Because we may be in then for a long period of time in this fighting, the actions we are taking I think are very significant to minimize the level of violence, to minimize the damage being done, and the actions being taken by the U.N. forces on the ground and by the NATO forces in the air have been really quite successful in doing that, and in the delivery of humanitarian aid. So, on the one hand, we're making very little progress, and demonstrable progress towards peace, but on the other hand, we've been very, very successful holding down the levels of violence if you compare it with just over a year ago when there were a thousand shells a day landing in Sarajevo, for example, when there were perhaps ten thousand people killed in Sarajevo in the few years before that time. So there has been very substantial progress but not in this very critical area of getting a peace agreement.

MR. LEHRER: It's gone off the American screen publicly. Is that where it deserves to go?

SEC. PERRY: No, no. It continues to be an important security problem not only in former Yugoslavia but for all of Europe. There's always a danger of that war spreading, and our security interest in that area has to focus, first of all, on where our most vital national security interests are which are keeping this war from spreading, and that is -- that remains a danger. And we have to -- we have to pay very close attention to that. The best way of keeping that war from spreading is to reach a peace agreement. Failing to do that, then we continue to do things we're doing to contain and to limit the violence.

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

SEC. PERRY: Thank you, Jim. Nice to talk to you again.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead on the NewsHour, the welfare debate, regional editors and columnists, then Mark Shields and Paul Gigot. FOCUS - WELFARE REFORM

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, welfare reform. Today House Republicans were able to pass a key element of their Contract With America but not without a bitter fight. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Of all the elements contained in the House Republicans' Contract With America, the promise to reform America's welfare system has proven to be the most politically polarizing.

REP. MAXINE WATERS, [D] California: Don't be mean. Don't be cruel. Don't knock children on disability off welfare. Don't make the children victims, and let me reiterate, whatever penny, whatever dollar, whatever dime was invested in this welfare child, it has paid off for America and for our people.

REP. DAN BURTON, [R] Indiana: Believe it or not, some of the Republicans grew up in very difficult situations. I, myself, did. Oh, you don't believe that? Listen to this. One of the great things that we had going for us was that we lived in America, and we were a land of opportunity. We could pick ourselves up by the boot straps and move out of that white ghetto and make something of ourselves. We want to break the cycle of dependency, and you don't. You want to keep the people of this country dependent on you so you can get reelected and reelected and reelected. The times have changed. The times have changed.

SPOKESMAN: The time of the gentleman has expired.

MR. HOLMAN: This afternoon, after four days of fractious debate, the House passed the Republicans' welfare reform plan with only a handful of members defecting on either side.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: Two hundred and thirty- four; the nays are one hundred and ninety-nine. The bill passes. Motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

MR. HOLMAN: The Republican plan would dismantle some 40 federal welfare programs and send money for assistance directly to the states through a series of block grants. It would cut $66 billion in welfare spending over the next five years. It would do so, in part, by tightening welfare eligibility standards and by limiting the amount of time a recipient may receive assistance. Democrats fought to keepparts of the current system in place by attaching new work and job training requirements to the promise of continued assistance. That alternative was sponsored by conservative Democrat Nathan Deal of Georgia.

REP. NATHAN DEAL, [D] Georgia: We believe that work is the only long-term solution to the issue of welfare, and we believe that our plan presents the best alternative with the resources to the states to achieve that transition.

REP. JOHN TANNER, [D] Tennessee: Our bill is the only one that really and truly tries to get people back to work with self- sufficiency contracts, with a partnership with the state, we try to fix the things that are wrong with the federal system before we dump it on the governors and the legislatures and the cities of this nation.

MR. HOLMAN: The deal plan won unanimous Democratic support but was roundly criticized by Republicans.

REP. E. CLAY SHAW, JR., [R] Florida: You increase taxes. That is a mistake in this atmosphere. It is a mistake to increase taxes, and you increase it on over 2 million middle income families. That is a very, very big mistake. You shouldn't have done it. You shouldn't have weakened to that, and it's weak on work. There's no question about it, when you say someone is looking for work, that counts as work, and you say you're tough on work. All you have to do is go home and say I'm working on my resume and send your resume to be the president of General Motors, and, by God, you're looking for work, but that shouldn't score.

MR. HOLMAN: Last night, the Democrats' alternative welfare plan went down along a straight party line vote, and this morning, a more liberal approach sponsored by Hawaii's Patsy Mink also failed.

REP. PATSY MINK, [D] Hawaii: The Republican attack against our efforts to build back a future for welfare families, by job training, job search, and child care argues that all we do is defend the status quo. For most of this century, America has stood tall as a country that helped its poor and fed its children and nursed its sick. If this is the status quo, I'm proud to defend it because this is what I believe America is all about.

REP. WALLY HERGER, [R] California: This substitute is anti- growth and anti-job. It does little to fix a failed welfare system that has already consumed over $5 trillion in taxpayer dollars since its inception 30 years ago. Mr. Speaker, the Republican welfare reform proposal promotes personal responsibility and creates incentives for families to remain intact, instead of creating lifelong dependency on welfare.

MR. HOLMAN: With the defeat of the two Democratic plans and passage of the Republican plan assured, members of both parties spent the remaining minutes of debate this morning unloading any remaining resentment and frustration.

SPOKESMAN: I represent Florida, where we have many lakes and natural reserves. If you visit these areas, you may see a sign like this that reads: "Don't feed the alligators." We post these signs for several reasons; first, because if left in a natural state, alligators can fend for themselves. They work, gather food, and care for their young. Secondly, we post these warnings because unnatural feeding and artificial care creates dependency. When dependency sets in, these otherwise able alligators can no longer survive on their own.

DEL. ELEANOR HOLMES-NORTON: I want to say don't feed the alligators but please feed the children. When I go across the river to Anacostia, my friends, no one ever says to me, brother, can you spare a dime or give me some more welfare? They say, sister, can you get me a job? This bill will not get anybody a job, and that is what we need to do.

MR. HOLMAN: And at the White House, chief of staff Leon Panetta had this reaction to the Republican plan.

LEON PANETTA, White House Chief of Staff: This is really like parents who are taking their kids' lunch money in order to have a night on the town. That's not something we ought to be doing.

MR. HOLMAN: But welfare reform still must go through the Senate, where the Republican plan almost certainly will be modified.

SEN. DON NICKLES, [R] Oklahoma: Oh, I don't doubt that it would be changed. It's going through the legislative process, but the changes that the House has made are historic, and I compliment them for it, and I think they've taken a giant step in the right direction.

MR. HOLMAN: The Senate is not expected to take up welfare reform until June. FOCUS - EDITORS' VIEWS - WELFARE REFORM

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, how the welfare reform debate is playing around the country. We hear from our panel of regional editors and commentators. Our five regulars are with us: Ed Baumeister of the Trenton Times; Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution; Gerry Warren of the San Diego Union-Tribune; Lee Cullum of the Dallas Morning News, and Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. Joining them tonight is Patrick McGuigan of the Daily Oklahoman. Clarence Page, has the debate on welfare reform produced among your readers the passion and the anger it has in the House of Representatives?

CLARENCE PAGE, Chicago Tribune: Well, I think we're past that, Robin. Illinois has been a leader in various types of welfare reform experiments. And I'm speaking to you tonight from Milwaukee, right next door, which has also been a leader in these kind of experiments. There's a general consensus across the land that welfare needs to be reformed. The question is: Is this the kind of reform that's going to work? I don't see that much confidence that we're really going to see a reduction in out-of-wedlock births, for example. This whole measure seems to be heavy on the punitive side and very light on the job production side. And that's, in our experience, why people go on welfare. So I think they moved in the right direction, but it's basically tinkering. I don't know if the American public is really that impressed.

MR. MAC NEIL: Lee Cullum, is this an issue that's being followed passionately in Texas, and are you confident that the solutions are going to work well?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: Robin, I wouldn't say it's being followed passionately, but it certainly is being followed with interest in Texas. I think that the bill that the House of Representatives has approved is going to get mixed reviews in Texas, is getting mixed reviews in Texas. The Dallas Morning News said this morning that it's a good beginning, it's flawed, it is a good beginning. The News made the point that it's not a very good idea to make too many rules for the states, rules about cash benefits to 18-year-old mothers, for example, and denying cash benefits to women who have babies when they're on welfare. These decisions should be left to the states, and I think there would be another benefit to leaving them to the states. Then we could see experimentation across the country and not make a blanket rule about a measure that may or may not work. It may be a restraining influence on pregnancy among teens; it may not. But we could know that from the experience of various states before it becomes proforma across the country, before other states take it up, so I hope the Senate will take a look at this measure. I think it's controversial, and I think it needs to be revisited.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ed Baumeister in New Jersey, how do you feel about the approach that's being taken by the Republicans in Congress?

ED BAUMEISTER, Trenton Times: Well, last year, the New Jersey state legislature passed a law that cuts off additional payments to women who are receiving welfare, so there's no "reward" for having more children. The full study isn't it, but it does show, at least initially, that there's been a drop in that group of births between 13 and 16 percent. So if that's a desired outcome, then I think people in New Jersey who supported that legislation feel good about it. But I'm struck by the New Jersey case and by the national case that this all looks at really surface manifestations of a broader problem that no one is addressing. This goes back, of course, 30 years ago when the grand Democratic coalition was falling apart, and they enacted many of these things, the $5 trillion we spent in the last 30 years. They did what they could with the power they had left, but really we should have looked at why the economy produces this, or why the society produces this. I mean, if we look, we might find, for example, that the economic and social phenomena that require the two-income family may also have something to do with the reason you have so many people on welfare. But there's no investigation of that whatsoever. We're looking at all these things we don't like about it without looking at the thing that caused it in the first place.

MR. MAC NEIL: Patrick McGuigan, do you think the approach is addressing the correct problem and addressing it right?

PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: I think it is addressing it right. I think I would agree with much of what's already been said about dealing with surface issues. However, I would reinforce what Lee Cullum offered earlier. By sending these issues back to states, we're going to allow the kind of experimentation that will enable us to enable us to solve these problems over time. This is the beginning of a new era. I don't know what the Senate will do to the House's proposals, but I think we're going to see very different welfare systems in three or four years all over America, and we'll be able to copy from the successful one.

MR. MAC NEIL: Cynthia Tucker in Atlanta, how do you feel about the principle of ending entitlement status for many of these programs?

CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: Well, I have little confidence that in giving these programs back to the states, Robin, I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that the states are any better able to handle this than the federal government is. In Georgia, like in several other states, we've already begun to experiment, to tinker with the welfare system. Last year, Gov. Zell Miller requested a waiver to do the same thing that New Jersey has done, I believe, which is to cut additional payments to women who have additional children while they're on welfare. I haven't seen the stats, but I wonder if, in fact, that's the answer to the problem. What is more interesting to me in Georgia's experience is this: For five or six years now, Georgia has had a program called "Peach" which is a training program for mothers on welfare. That program has hundreds and hundreds of women on the waiting list. There are far more women who want to be trained for jobs than there are slots available, which suggests to me that the myth that there are all of these women sitting around, not wanting to work, is not true. I certainly think all able-bodied adults should work, and I think most welfare recipients think the same thing. The problem is that they have little training, and secondly, there are very few jobs for them to go to, and that remains the case.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gerry Warren, how do you feel about the anger and the rancor by which this result was achieved in the House of Representatives and what it argues for solutions when it does go back to the states?

GERALD WARREN, San Diego Union-Tribune: Well, I think the messiness of the process should not obscure the importance of the result. We have finally, after 40 years of House rule in the -- by the Democrats -- we have finally taken some steps to correct the welfare problem. Now, I didn't like the name-calling in the House. I didn't like the hooting and the hollering and all of that, and I didn't like the alligator reference, nor did I like the Democrats saying the Republicans are going to kill children; that is not the case. We've heard about experiments in Georgia, in Illinois, and in New Jersey. There have been experiments in California. I cannot believe that if you take it out of the federal government's hands and give it to the states, we will not have an improvement in our welfare situation.

MR. MAC NEIL: Patrick McGuigan, one element of the -- adopted from the Democratic side, something President Clinton was backing, was this requirement that states refuse driver's license and professional licenses to parents who don't pay their child support. How do you feel about that?

MR. McGUIGAN: Well, I think it's another area where, if anything, we might want to go in the more conservative direction and leave this up to the states entirely. Again, I would reinforce what Lee said. You know, one of the beauties of our system and the brilliance of the design of the framers of the Constitution was to leave most difficult questions to the states and the people. It's time to start exercising a muscle we haven't been using, we haven't been permitted to use as much lately, and that's the 10th amendment. Let's turn the resources, as well as the authority and the power, back over to the states and communities to solve the problems in their area. People care about their neighbors. They care about the people that live on the other side of town, and they're much better situated to solve those problems than the bureaucracy is in Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: How did you feel about that element, Clarence Page, the driver's license and professional licenses to, to try and get child support paid?

MR. PAGE: Right. I've had deep arguments with myself over this, Robin, because I agree with Patrick that this should be left to the states. I think it was grandstanding by -- on the part of the House. But sometimes a grandstand can be awfully grand. Look at the overwhelming vote by which this passed. That's a reflection of how popular this idea is across the country. Let's face it. Fathers shouldn't have kids if they aren't going to take care of them; neither should mothers. Having a driver's license is a privilege, not a right. It's a very popular notion to affect behavior by threatening one's driver's license. It can be carried too far though. Some states want to lift the licenses of kids who don't get good enough grades in school and this sort of thing. We have to watch that, but it's a popular idea, and I don't see any reason to oppose it.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let's turn to another subject, Ed Baumeister. Recent polls show public opinion hardening against affirmative action, majorities saying that it should be rolled back, it should be ended, and of course, a couple of Republican presidential candidates, Phil Gramm and Bob Dole, have been saying that. Is the white backlash now hurting race relations in this country more than affirmative action programs are helping it, do you think?

MR. BAUMEISTER: Boy, that's a difficult calculation, but I think one ought to be made. It's undeniable, I think, that the affirmative action requirements have changed literally the complexion of work forces, of television commercials, of, of all sorts of things.

MR. MAC NEIL: Of newspaper newsrooms?

MR. BAUMEISTER: Of newspaper newsrooms, exactly. I administer an affirmative action program. But it has, I think, created a sort of a new category. There's a new adjective. There's a so-called qualified black now called the qualified minority, you know. You'll hear managers say, well, all right, but it's got be a qualified minority, but they never say it's got to be a qualified white, and I think that is evidence of what you're asking in your question - - has it worsened race relations. I think when this was all passed 30 years ago, when this grand coalition got it through, Lyndon Johnson and all, that the support for this kind of social legislation, its time had passed, and very quickly, by 1968 or '69, we saw the shift, traditional working class Democrats going over to Republicans. I think it's, it's part of what has -- what is the race relation problem now. But it's a hard calculation to make, because if you look at, at my kids, who've seen a different world growing up than I saw, my kids' attitudes towards race relations are very different than mine because of their very different experience seeing folks doing things.

MR. MAC NEIL: Cynthia Tucker, do you feel that it's reaching a point where -- the same question I asked Ed -- is it harming race relations now because it's producing such a backlash, more than it's helping them?

MS. TUCKER: Well, I'd have to say the same thing Ed said. That's a very difficult calculation, and I don't know the answer to the question, but I don't think that we end affirmative action programs just because there is a backlash against them. You know, I was reading the stories about the polls this morning that say the vast majority of Americans, particularly white Americans, oppose affirmative action and think the programs ought to be at least changed, if not ended. And I think that's because of the widespread misperception of what affirmative action is. If I believed that affirmative action programs were programs in which highly qualified white male candidates were constantly being displaced by hordes of unqualified candidates of color and women, I would be opposed to affirmative action as well. But I don't think that's what it is. But there is clearly a backlash against it, but I think that is in part because of widespread misperceptions about what affirmative action is and what it does.

MR. MAC NEIL: Lee Cullum, do you think that's the reason, that there's a misperception of what affirmative action is, and that's why people are so angry about it?

MS. CULLUM: That's perfectly possible, Robin. I don't hear a great deal of anger or any sort of a backlash against affirmative action in Dallas. Now, the one area that seems to attract some concern is city hall, city contracts. I think there's a feeling that maybe one standard is applied and that all of a sudden it is increased and made higher and higher and much more difficult for people who want to do business there. But the people I've talked with about it lately seem to want to continue affirmative action. They want it to be fair. They do want it to deal with goals and not quotas, however. I think they want it to be reasonable.

MR. MAC NEIL: Clarence Page, do you -- how do you read the polls and where it's leading American -- they're leading American politics at the moment?

MR. PAGE: Well, to quote Yogi Berra it sounds like deja vu all over again, Robin. I was just hearing Ed saying that this term "qualified black" has just entered our vocabulary. No, it hasn't, Ed. You remember 30 years ago, people were talking about qualified blacks when I was looking for a job in the late 60s. There was a question, well, is he a qualified reporter? Having helped my paper win two Pulitzer Prizes since then, I feel somewhat justified, but I wasn't hired because of government affirmative action. I was hired because it was the late 60s, there were riots going on, and white newsrooms around the country were looking for reporters and photographers they could send to the "ghetto," without looking too conspicuous. Back in the 60s, though, there was a national consensus in favor of that kind of action, even among working-class white males, there was a general agreement that maybe women and minorities deserved a break. Wedges were driven into this by Richard Nixon in '72; he didn't sign his executive decree because of the goodness of his heart, he wanted to drive a wedge between organized labor and minorities. And similarly, what's happened now is the real problem in the country, ladies and gentlemen, is the widening gap between rich and poor. Blacks, women, minorities are becoming a scapegoat this year and next year as immigrants were, illegal immigrants were in California this past year. That's all that's really changed, and I think the national consensus is breaking down. The excesses of affirmative action, the quotas, are going to be disappearing over the next few years, but we're always going to have some kind of affirmative action. That's the American way.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ladies and gentlemen, I have to end it there. I'm sure we're going to be coming back to this issue, so save your good comments for later. Thank you very much. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, our Friday night political analysis with Shields and Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Margaret Warner is in charge.

MARGARET WARNER: Mark, let's look at this welfare reform bill from the inside, the politics of it from the inside. Speaker Gingrich had to contend with some major qualms from members of his own party, both anti-abortion conservatives and moderates. What was going on here? Are we starting to see some serious strains in this Republican majority, do you think?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: I don't know if we're seeing strains, Margaret. I think that even Newt Gingrich's severest critics, in whose company Paul might occasionally place me, would have to admit that he has presided over and orchestrated a legislative blitzskreig. It has been a tour de force legislatively, and the problem is, while it's been a legislative success, it's been a communications failure. It's a blur for people. Gov. Mike Kassel, the former governor of Delaware, now Republican Congressman from Delaware, told the Wall Street Journal's John Harwood this week that the Democrats have clearly won the battle of words, we can't be seen as just cutting costs, we must -- it must be seen that we have a plan. And Jeff Geran, the Democrat pollster, who's appeared on this show, said that one thing people know about the Republican welfare plan is that it cuts school lunches. So I think it's become a political problem for Republicans.

MS. WARNER: So you think that's what was driving the moderates on --

MR. SHIELDS: I think there are real differences. I think there is no question -- I mean, I think that the fault line that we saw over abortion which you mentioned was very real. I think the Christian Coalition was exposed as caring more about capital gains tax cuts than they were about cutting, cutting abortions. The Catholic bishops and the National Organization for Women, and the National Abortion Rights Action League all found themselves on the same side of this debate on the basis that said the feminists that they were depriving women of choice by cutting off all, all support for any women 18 years old who had a child, that baby would get no support under the Republican plan, and -- but states like California and New York still make abortion available, and the -- so I think that really led to fractures and fissures within, within that coalition.

MS. WARNER: Paul, how serious do you think the strains we saw this week are?

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: Well, welcome to the majority, Margaret. I mean, when you have to -- when you're in the minority, it's much easier to be united. But when your actions have consequences, when you're trying to put together 218 votes, and you're the majority, it's much tougher to do that. And I think these are the kinds of strains that Newt Gingrich and the leadership are trying to balance. On abortion, there was a real difference of opinion. I mean, some -- the bishops -- and for the first time in history the National Abortion Rights Action League agreed on something. I think the bishops have to ask themselves why they're agreeing with the abortion rights group for once, but they thought that if you reduce payments to welfare mothers, maybe you'll increase abortions. On the other side, you have Bill Bennett, you had an awful -- you had the Christian Coalition. You had an awful lot of people saying, no, wait, if you reduce illegitimacy, you might over time reduce abortions. That's an honest difference of opinion, and, in fact, in the end, the leadership only lost fifteen pro-life votes in the House out of maybe a hundred seventy-five, a hundred and eighty pro-life Republicans.

MS. WARNER: Well, Paul, explain to me what Speaker Gingrich's strategy was here, because, as you point out, he sent this abortion thing to a vote and defeated the anti-abortion faction, whereas, with the moderates, he actually let some amendments go through to soften the bill. Why did he play it that way?

MR. GIGOT: Well, he had some tensions on this welfare bill, especially from some of the moderate urban Republicans who, who, let's face it, to some of the Democratic criticism were scoring some points, at least rhetorically, at least in a communications sense. And some of this stuff they were coming to him and saying look, we want some amendments to be able to demonstrate our differences with the raw Republican plan. And so it was a way of letting them demonstrate that they weren't marching completely in lock step, and demonstrating some difference with the leadership, but still, nonetheless, keeping everybody on board and ultimately passing the bill.

MS. WARNER: Mark, what do you think is happening also with the mini-revolt Gingrich has on his hands over these tax cuts, with half the House Republicans suggesting that the child credit be scaled back?

MR. SHIELDS: Paul is right. Paul is right. It is tough to hold a majority together, and it's a lot easier when you're running in a campaign because everybody sees that victory as the vindication and validation of everything that they've stood for their entire life. Then you get into managing a coalition, and it becomes more difficult. Let me take serious issue with something Paul said. Paul said bishops ought to look at -- go in for a bout of introspection as to where they stood on this issue. The bishops don't have to - - the bishops have not been afraid to make themselves unpopular, whether they stood up for undocumented aliens, or they broke with Bill Clinton -- they had endorsed national health insurance for 75 years, long before any Democratic office holder or Republican office holder had, and they broke on the question of abortion, so that's nothing new, and I don't think they have to explain why they -- why -- in every political fight you're ever in Margaret, there's always somebody on your side you wish to devoutly was on the other side. I'm sure Paul has had that experience, even occasionally --

MR. GIGOT: Occasionally agreeing with you, Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: -- with some of his friends, between the, you know, the extreme right, and the far right. But as far as, as far as the tax issue is concerned, this is one more example. Neither party comes to this debate, Margaret, pristine or clean or with a clean slate. Democrats, the prejudices against Democrats are that they are too quick to tax and that they are a little too bleeding heart and maybe a little light in the loafers. Republicans are seen as too close to the rich, a little mean, and not really concerned with the ordinary guy. This has caught up with the Republicans, and when they had a $500 tax credit going to people up to $200,000, Republicans were feeling the heat, Republicans in the House. A hundred and two of them signed a letter to the Speaker saying, let's cut this back to $95,000, then we can make the case that it's for middle class relief.

MS. WARNER: Paul, what do you think is going to happen on the tax cut issue here?

MR. GIGOT: I think there's still going to be a tax cut. I think that the leadership has slowly been bringing some of those Republicans back and saying our promise to pass this is more important, particularly to some of the non-traditional Republican constituencies. I mean, the Christian Coalition, and there's a lot of the social conservatives, and a lot of the working people that used to be Democrats but moved over to the Republican Party because of concerns with this issue or that, I mean, they don't -- they're not concerned with a capital gains tax cut, but a family tax credit that if they have two kids puts a thousand dollars on their table, that's important money. And I think that ultimately is going to help pass this in the House. In the Senate, it's probably going to be reduced some, but I still think a tax cut is going to pass.

MS. WARNER: So you're saying politically you think it's smart if Gingrich sticks with the full tax cut that he is talking about?

MR. GIGOT: I really do. Let me take on one point that Mark makes. When tax -- when a tax debate is about fairness, when it's about distribution, when it's about equalizing incomes, Democrats are going to win, Democrats are better than that, that Mark is right, they're better on that issue. Democrats, it fits into their stereotype. They're going to win that, but when the debate over taxes is about growth and rising opportunity or a rising high tide lifts all boats, that tends to be when the Republicans are going to win. And one of the main weaknesses of the Republicans now on the tax front is that there isn't somebody in the Jack Kemp growth wing of the party really speaking forcefully about why tax cuts can spur the economy. You get a lot of talk about budget balancing and root canal and Republicans as a nation's accountant, which is one part of what they have to do is cut spending. You don't have them saying, on the other hand, let's spur the economy, let's drive initiative, and that growth wing that's missing is hurting the Republicans.

MR. SHIELDS: I would simply say, Margaret, it's a tough thing the Republicans have carved out for themselves, this burden of trying to persuade people, yes, we are going to cut taxes by $200 million, and yes, we're going to balance the budget and cut $17 billion at the same time we're cutting the deficit -- we're cutting the deficit at the same time. I would just ask you, Paul, any of our viewers, whom are they more aware of? Who has been the more visible, vocal, dominant figure, John Kasich, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, who's committed to cutting the budget, or Bill Archer, the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, who's committed to cutting taxes? And I just think that it's a tough -- it's a tough -- when the Democrats come back and respond by saying, sure, you want to cut $17 billion, so you can finance your tax cuts, that puts the Republicans back on a letter to Newt Gingrich saying, let's get it down to ninety-five thousand.

MS. WARNER: Before we have to end this, let me ask you for a quick comment on the '96 presidential race and what's happened this week. Paul, Pat Buchanan is formally in; Lynn Martin, former Secretary of Labor, has declared she's out; and Pete Wilson has announced an exploratory committee. How do you see all that?

MR. GIGOT: Pete Wilson is, by far, the biggest news there. While he hasn't declared yet, it looks like he's moving to. I mean, here you have a governor of the state of California, the one state in the union the Democrats have to win if they're going to take the White House. I mean, they cannot win without California. I think Mark has pointed out in the past that Pete Wilson has won statewide in California more elections since 1980 than all Democrats combined. He's a formidable character. He's got a lot of money. He's disciplined, and he's fairly flexible in terms of some of the issues which he's willing to use. I mean he's going to run in some as a liberal, some as a moderate, some as a conservative, so he's the most formidable player there. Pat Buchanan, I think, was successful as a protest candidate in 1992 against George Bush. I think he's going to find some of his appeal reduced without George Bush as his only other opponent.

MS. WARNER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: Lynn Martin deserves great credit. When she said today she wasn't running, she did not go to the typical politician explanation saying she wanted to spend more time with her family. She specifically said she didn't want to spend more time with her family, and I think for candor alone, she deserves our admiration and respect. Pat Buchanan is going to be underestimated by everybody this year. Pat Buchanan is an authentic populist. He was transformed, in my judgment, by his 1992 experience. He will raise issues that Republicans don't want raised, such as Mexico, the bail-out, NAFTA, all of that anti- establishment stuff, anti-Wall Street, where -- which is financing Phil Gramm, Bob Dole, and everybody else in the Republican -- and Bill Clinton -- and everybody else in the race, so he will -- he will be a formidable factor. Pete Wilson will move thedebate to the right because in order to compensate for his pro-choice position on abortion, he will emphasize his culturally conservative immigration, three strikes and you're out, get tough, and so it's going to be a fascinating race.

MS. WARNER: On three strikes, we're out, gentlemen. We'll be back again. Thanks very much.

MR. SHIELDS: Thank you, Margaret. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major stories of this Friday, the House passed the welfare reform bill. It would downsize federal welfare programs and instead give block grants to the states. President Clinton criticized the bill as being too tough on children. And on the NewsHour tonight, Defense Sec. Perry said the U.S. has heard reports that two Americans being detained in Iraq may be put on trial. They were arrested almost two weeks ago after mistakenly cross into Iraq. Good night, Jim.

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