The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is off. On the NewsHour tonight, Steve Forbes bows out of the presidential race; today's GOP in light of its past with regular historians Goodwin, Beschloss, and Johnson, plus James Reichley; Congress moves to avert a government shutdown, Margaret Warner de-briefs Susan Dentzer; and a basketball player's protest, Charlayne Hunter-Gault has that, plus some thoughts from essayist Roger Rosenblatt, all tonight on the NewsHour. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. FARNSWORTH: President Clinton pledged $100 million yesterday- -today to fight terrorism in Israel. He was in the Jewish state for a 24-hour visit following the International Summit on Terrorism held in Egypt yesterday. Mr. Clinton met with Prime Minister Peres and opposition leader Netanyahu. The President said the money will pay for training and bomb-detecting technology, among other things. Mr. Clinton visited the grave site of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Rabin with his widow, Leah, in Jerusalem. The President also visited with students at a high school that lost three graduates in the recent suicide bombings. Later in Tel Aviv, he addressed the Israeli people.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We know that overcoming adversity is the genius of the Jewish people and the history of the state of Israel. No nation on Earth knows better that the path of triumph often passes through tragedy. No people know better through millennia of exile and persecution, inquisition and programs, the ultimate evil of the Holocaust, that you must deny victory to oppressors, that you must flourish, indeed, flourish, not just endure, against all the odds.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The President will return to Washington late this evening. In Scotland today, several children remained in serious condition after being shot yesterday by a lone gunman at a local primary school. Sixteen other children and their teacher were killed before the man committed suicide. Residents of the small town of Dunblane placed flowers, cards, and toys on the sidewalk outside the school. Police could give no reason for the shootings. In the Taiwan story, a Pentagon spokesman today said China has pledged not to attack Taiwan. Navy Captain Mike Doubleday said the United States received that assurance in "public and private conversations with Chinese officials." China is holding war games in the Strait separating Taiwan from the Mainland. The Clinton administration has charged China is trying to intimidate Taiwan in advance of its March 23rd Presidential election. In Washington today, multi-millionaire publisher Steve Forbes ended his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination. He spent an estimated $30 million of his personal fortune but won only two state primaries and seventy-six convention delegates. Forbes threw his support to Republican front-runner Bob Dole, who swept seven states in this week's Super Tuesday primaries. Dole's chief remaining rival, Pat Buchanan, said he would stay in the race. He told an audience in Michigan today he would try to have his anti- abortion, anti-free trade policies included in the party platform. Also in Washington today, Attorney General Janet Reno said the FBI has wiped out the leadership of organized crime in Detroit. Reno said 17 reputed leaders of Detroit's Mafia are in federal custody. Arrests began last night in Detroit and Florida. The defendants were charged with multiple counts of murder, extortion, and racketeering over the past 30 years. In the budget story, the House voted 238 to 179 for a stop gap spending bill today to prevent another government shutdown. The government now has operating funds for one more week through March 22nd. The bill goes to the Senate, where it is expected to be approved. President Clinton has said that he will sign this temporary spending measure. Here's a sample of the debate on the House floor.

REP. FRANK PALLONE, [D] New Jersey: It's irresponsible to act this way. We are now talking about a one-week CR. How can we continue to operate a government on a one-week basis? What does that mean to the federal government? It means that a tremendous amount of time has to be wasted in just gearing up or gearing down because agencies don't know how much money is going to be available.

REP. ROBERT LIVINGSTON, Chairman, Appropriations Committee: This is a debate simply about a continuing resolution for one week so that we can go try to wrap up this whole other exercise on all these bills, three of which were vetoed by the President and one which was filibustered by their guys on the other side in the Senate.

SPOKESMAN: The gentleman's time has expired.

REP. ROBERT LIVINGSTON: I urge the adoption of this poor, measly, one-week bill, and let's bring it up again next week.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Also today, the House passed a crime bill. The vote was 229 to 191. It was stripped of many anti-terrorism provisions some lawmakers wanted. President Clinton said the bill was now too weak to do much good in fighting terrorism. He urged lawmakers to restore the provisions when a Conference Committee meets to iron out differences between the House bill and one passed by the Senate. In medical news today, a new report released by a government-appointed panel criticized the federal AIDS research program. The panel of 114 scientists, AIDS experts, and drug company representatives said the current $1.4 billion program lacks focus and needs to be restructured as soon as possible. The National Institutes of Health, the government's chief medical research center, would implement most of the recommendations. In economic news today, wholesale prices fell .2 percent in February. The Labor Department reported it was the first drop in the Producer Price Index in eight months. The decline was due to a fall in energy prices because of milder weather. That's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to Steve Forbes drops out, history and the GOP, avoiding a government shutdown, and a basketball player's protest. FOCUS - CAMPAIGN '96 - BOWING OUT

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, campaign '96. The Republican Presidential field got smaller today when publisher Steve Forbes dropped out of the race. He had done poorly in the last rounds of voting on Super Tuesday, coming in second in only one state and polling third or worst in six others. He spoke this afternoon at a hotel in Washington.

CROWD CHANTING: We want Steve Forbes. We want Steve Forbes.

STEVE FORBES, Former Republican Presidential Candidate: Thank you. Because of you, this campaign did achieve what George Bernard Shaw called a mighty purpose. It did serve a mighty purpose. We provoked and promoted a much-needed debate and discussion on a number of critical issues for the future of our country, including a flat tax, tax cuts, honest money and low interest rates, term limits, parental control of education, medical savings accounts, a new Social Security system for younger Americans, not to mention how America can fulfill her unique destiny in the world. Even in New York, we wrestled the political bosses to the mat and opened up a primary system that had always been closed. [crowd cheering and applauding] Let me say something now about the Republican Party. It's not enough simply to be against, either against someone or something. A great party must stand for principles, ideas, and issues that resonate with the highest aspirations of the American people, that appeal, as Abraham Lincoln said, to the better angels of our nature. In the post Cold War world, as we enter a new age that is and will alter the way we live and the way we work, both political parties must renew their legitimacy, must re-establish their purposes with the American people. There is nothing in our Constitution that guarantees the existence of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. If either party or both parties fail to re-establish their basic purpose, their higher purpose with the American people, there's nothing to say that they won't go the way the Federalists or Whigs did in the last century. The Republicans, the Republicans are ahead of the other party in this debate on the direction we should take, and the direction our party should take, but this debate, this debate is obviously still incomplete. The task is still to be completed about the fundamental direction our party will take and our country will take. But I will do everything I can in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead to move the debate forward in a positive, dynamic, pro-American, inclusive way. [crowd cheering and applauding] Okay. Any questions? Yes, sir.

REPORTER: Steve, what happens to your idea of a flat tax? Mr. Dole has been lukewarm at best with it. Does the idea simply go away, or are you going to work towards seeing some other candidate, specifically Dole at this point, work towards the flat tax idea that you advanced throughout your campaign?

STEVE FORBES: As you know, the flat tax is not just economics; it gets to reforming American politics. And while there may be debate on the particulars, I think the concept, the principle, has already won the hearts and minds of the Republican Party, and I'm convinced will win the hearts and minds of the electorate in this election and in future elections. So it's not whether it'll happen; it's just a matter of when it will happen.

REPORTER: Mr. Forbes, at one point, Bob Dole accused you of trying to buy the election. Phil Gramm called you Richie Rich.

STEVE FORBES: I bet you that won't stop them from asking for contributions. [laughter in crowd and applause]

REPORTER: Are you concerned at all that that might be part of the legacy of this campaign, rich man tries but fails to win the Presidency, buy the Presidency? [booing from crowd]

STEVE FORBES: I will now try to give words to those emotions. But obviously, obviously the American people, obviously the American people are not for sale. And unlike my opponents, I took not a penney from the taxpayers to pay my campaign bills. They each took millions of dollars--[cheers and applause]--they each took millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to pay their campaign bills. Also, I took no money from Political Action Committees, so in that sense, I think many voters saw me as a free and independent agency--agent for the American people, rather than somebody who's made many compromises and has compromised his ability to do the best job for the American people. Better that I use my money than their money, someone else's money.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Forbes threw his support to front-runner Bob Dole, and said he would campaign for the Republican ticket. FOCUS - CAMPAIGN '96

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, the Republican Party in historical perspective. Candidates Forbes, Dole, and Buchanan have to a certain extent embodied splits in the GOP that go back many years. For more on this, we turn to three NewsHour regulars, Presidential Historians Michael Beschloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Journalist and Author Haynes Johnson. They are joined tonight by James Reichley, a political scientist and Senior Fellow at Georgetown University. He is the author of the Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties. Welcome to all of you. Doris, you heard what Steve Forbes said about the requirements for a great party, that it had principles, ideas, and issues that resonate. The party was born as a party of principle, wasn't it, it was born as a party devoted to stopping the spread of slavery into the new state?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, Presidential Historian: Oh, absolutely. In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed the Congress, which meant that slavery could expand into the territories, so those members of the Whig Party, the Democratic Party, and the Free Soiler Party got together as an anti-slavery principled group and formed a third party. The Republicanists started as a third party. They also had other principles besides anti-slavery, though. That was the umbrella that covered over everything, and that was that they wanted internal improvements for the farmers in the West, canals, railroads to be built. They wanted a high tower to protect the industrialists in the East, and they also wanted some sort of federal land grant program, so the farmers could get land in the West, so it was very principled at its founding, without a question.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And even then, Mr. Reichley, it united people with different interests, and it was dominant for more than half a century, wasn't it?

JAMES REICHLEY, Political Scientist: Well, that's correct. As Doris said, it brought together members of the other parties of the time. The Democrats and the Whigs were the Free Soil Party that had been set up for the purpose of abolishing slavery. Ultimately, the party was, I think, 80 percent drawn from the Whigs. They did-- there was a famous meeting in the schoolhouse in Wisconsin, just about this time of the year in 1854, and a later participant said they went in Democrats, Whigs, and Free Soilers, and they came out Republicans, and they did form a party that was then dominant from the election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President for about 60 years after that, I think one of the really major cycles in American political history.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Michael, the big changes came when? When did the big questions that have plagued the Republican Party for much of its history really start to come to the fore? In the 30's?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, Presidential Historian: Well, you see an enormous change in about 1930. That was the first election that was held after the Great Depression began, which began in 1929. The Democrats took both Houses of Congress. FDR was elected in 1932. And both the Congress of 1930 and Roosevelt when he ran in 1932 ran on a platform of government getting a lot more active, both to expand opportunity and also improve people's lives. That had an enormous appeal in 1930 and '32 that it may not have earlier because there were a lot of people in need, and I think you could make the argument, and I sure would, that really since then one of the central, if not the central question in American politics has been how active should the government be, particularly in the domestic economy and particularly in people's lives. Now, in the 1990's, the Republican Party has the view, as it always has, at least since the 1930's that government should be less active, rather than more, and that is a point of view I would argue that has become probably near to being the majority in America, as it was not in the early 30's.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Then in the post 30's, the Republicans weren't the dominant party, and then bring us a little more up to date.

HAYNES JOHNSON, Journalist/Author: Well, Jim was talking about 60-year cycles, and it's true. You can take the last 60 years and you can say that's the New Deal, progressive government now comingto an end. It is over now, and we're grappling with something new. The Republican Party is the party of small business, and it's a southern party. It's a southern and southwestern party. The transformation, stunningly, from where it used to be, the Democrats to solid South, now it's the Republicans that have the lock on the sunbelt states, the old Dixiecrats, and the rest, and it's the Republican Party that used to preside over the Middle West and the industrial states and the Democrats are fighting, if they have a survival at all, it's in those areas and the Far West.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And wasn't 1964 crucial here?

MR. JOHNSON: That was the crucial time.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Tell us why.

MR. JOHNSON: The split ideologically between the new Republican Party led by Barry Goldwater, entrepreneur, anti-government, independent, Southwestern in spirit and outlook very much opposed to the old Eastern banks and Nelson Rockefeller to Dewey, all those groups who really dominated the Republican Party, they challenged the Republicans. They won the nomination, and from that point on, you've had what you see emerging as the new party today. People who are in the party today are the heirs of Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan was the heir of Barry Goldwater. George Bush was a Goldwater person. All these people now have are the heirs of that new conservatism, very much anti-government, very much entrepreneurship, small business, and very much wedded to the new, emerging states in the South, where they have the greatest population and electoral votes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And yet, Doris, '64 was the greatest defeat for the Republicans too. That's what's ironic about it.

MS. GOODWIN: Absolutely. In fact, what's important to realize is that three great events I think have covered this whole period we're talking about. The Civil War captured allegiances for the Republicans for nearly seven years because the South was solidly Democratic, but the rest of the country was Republican. But then came the Depression, as Michael said, and for such a long period of time, the Democrats held sway because the Republicans had been inadequate in their laissez-faire ideology to capture the needs of the economic people at that time, but then the 60's came, and what you had, and we have to realize it, is the civilized act, the Civil Rights Movement, which was so important to the progress of the country, destroyed in many ways the Democratic Party in the South because it opened the door for the Republicans to get the disenchanted Democrats. Lyndon Johnson told me that when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, as extraordinary as that Act was, desegregating the South, he knew it was the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party. So you have those events that shape our lives in so many ways that begin to shape the parties as well, and from that moment on, even though Goldwater, as you say, lost disastrously, from that point on, the Republicans had a foot in the South. Indeed, he won five states in the South, and they would build that South, the financial centers of Houston, Dallas, and LA were growing, population was shifting to the South, and there was a backlash in the 60's because of all the excitement of the 60's and the riots, et cetera, that Agnew later was able to capitalize on with speeches written by Buchanan, by the way, that then became part of the social issues of the Republican Party so that they could combine the anti-civil rights and the social issues, and the economic conservatives and become a majority party.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And, Jim Reichley, the regional shifts are pretty clear, but there have been other shifts into the party, haven't there? The Evangelicals, Catholics, these are other changes that are very important for this year.

MR. REICHLEY: Yes. That's very true. The Republican Party is growing, and as it grows becomes more diverse. All the majority parties in American history, our country is itself so varied and diverse that in order for a majority coalition to exist it must include many different elements. The Republicans have been drawing in some groups that were forming not with them. At one time, as Haynes said, the Evangelicals in the South were solidly Democratic. They began swinging over in response to some of these social issues. One of their leaders once told me that they had stopped voting with the unions and started to vote with the Lord. Their economic interest had gone to the Democratic side, but they had been pulled over to the Republican side--the Catholics somewhat less so. Evangelicals went from being a Democratic group, devoting about 80 percent to Ronald Reagan in his second election, and have continued to be heavily Republican since then. Catholics are now about 50/50, but they used to be overwhelmingly Democratic, so that too marks a gain for the Republicans, but the result of this, this change, this broadening of the party, is there's an opening for new kinds of appeals and new kinds of issues.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Michael, where does Bob Dole fit into this? He's from my home state, Kansas. He's from the high plains or the plains of Kansas. Long populist tradition, sockless Jerry Simpson and all kinds of people in Kansas, but he doesn't quite fit into that tradition, where does he fit into this history?

MR. BESCHLOSS: He is, as you say, Elizabeth, not a sockless Jerry Simpson. He is someone who is in a way a bellwether of where the Republican Party has moved. Only 20 years ago this year, Gerald Ford was nominated for President in that very close race against Ronald Reagan that suggested Ford, who was in a way the candidate of that old Northeastern group, had just barely managed to edge out Reagan. He felt that his margin was so narrow that he should give Ronald Reagan some input on who his Vice President would be. He went to Reagan; he suggested a number of names. Reagan said as the most conservative on your list, I think you should nominate Bob Dole, so Bob Dole in the politics of 1976 was a conservative. The Republicans have moved so far in the last 20 years, and so has the country, that Bob Dole in, in a way is a little bit more the era of the Northeastern group, perhaps the Republican establishment, certainly the congressional establishment, and that has allowed someone like Pat Buchanan to come in from the right and make a very forceful appeal.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Haynes.

MR. JOHNSON: Dole has a far more interesting position today when you look in the context of where it was. He is now a creature of the government. He's a deal maker. He's someone that works within the system, making it work, and this is not where much of his party is going. You saw the debate on the Hill today, angry over immigration and, and the terrorism, real ugly splits within the party, and Dole is right in the middle. You say you're from Kansas. He's poised on both feet, right, the ground underneath him is right moving as he sits.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You think that we're in the middle of a really historic change right now, right, we're on the verge on it?

MR. JOHNSON: I do, and I think, you know--

MS. FARNSWORTH: What is it?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I think both parties are up for grabs. I don't think the identity of either party is solid or secure, and when, when you heard Mr. Forbes saying that we could go the way of the Whigs, in fact, that's what Bill Clinton was telling me two years ago. He was wondering if the Democratic Party wasn't going the way of the Whigs, and you could make a case. There is no Democratic Party. There are five Democratic Parties. The Republican Party has been more unified, but it--you're seeing the fissures within itself, so I think the whole idea of the political parties in the country, which have been stabilizing, important, giving ideology, consensus, for both we've been very lucky to have a stable government, for all these period of time, is now up for grabs, and I think the public reflects that. There's new inter-party movement, third party movement, it's all there.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you agree with that?

MR. BESCHLOSS: I do, and it used to be the case that you'd have a realignment perhaps once every 60 years or so, and that shows how stable American politics has been through most of our history. I agree thoroughly with Haynes. That is changing, and you may see huge groups in America moving back and forth among not only the two main parties but other parties or perhaps no parties, almost like a metronome and a much more volatile government and system which has its own very grave implications for a way of governing ourselves.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you agree with that, Doris?

MS. GOODWIN: Oh, absolutely, and I think the reason is, that this shift is possible, is because people are not attached emotionally to their parties the way they were in the past. In the old days your party was part of your entertainment, it was part of your livelihood, it was part of your patronage. You lived every day. 90 percent of the people in the 19th century were either Democrat or Republican, and they felt passionately about it, but nowadays, most people get their news from television. The conventions no longer pick the people; the primaries do. And you don't even have to be a member of the regular party to run in the primary, it seems lately, so that the whole emotional and psychological hold that parties have is so much less today, and as a result, then people are much more up for grabs when somebody comes along like Forbes did, who seems like an outsider, absolutely no political experience. This could not have happened in the old, old days, when bosses picked the people, and yet, he can attract initially a following, because that loyalty is just no longer there in the same way.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Doris, you heard what Michael and Haynes said about Bob Dole. Do you think that he can unite the party?

MS. GOODWIN: Well, I think he's certainly a centrist enough that he is going to be able to make people on the right feel comfortable with him in terms of his stand on abortion, and the moderates are going to feel that he's certainly better than the peasant pitchfork of Buchanan. So I think it's possible that he can. The one thing we have to look at, though, is unlike the past, when Reagan was able to unite the party, Reagan tried not to make personal attacks on anybody. Those campaigns weren't as negative as now. How do you bring Buchanan and Dole, who have been so angry, so negative toward one another, and just say, oh, I'm sorry, I forgive you, here I am? The other irony is somehow that Dole is considered the establishment candidate. That always used to be the Eastern guy who was the establishment. The Western guy was always the pitchfork peasant, and now you've got Buchanan who lives in the East and is more of the peasant from the past--from the West, and you've got Dole who's looking like the Eastern guy. So it's all screwed up in some ways. And whether these two forces and whether Buchanan can drop his anger and his movement and bring it to Dole, I'm not sure.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think? Can Dole unite the party?

MR. REICHLEY: Well, I think he can. As Doris says, he's a centrist candidate. And all these things that we've been talking about have happened in earlier realignments. You look at the 1850's and 1920's, exactly the same kind of the break-up of parties seemed to be going on, third parties emerging, protests, a lot of disaffection, voting was down, actually the parties in Congress are more united than they've ever been. It's remarkable what the Republicans, in particular, have been able to put together in Congress. Of course, Dole has played a large role in that. He's a unifying force. I think Dole in many ways harks back to the old Bob Taft tradition in the Republican Party, except that unlike Taft, he is not an isolationist. He brings together one might say the Eisenhower and the Taft traditions and the Republican Party, which is a pretty powerful force among Republicans.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Doris, gentlemen, thank you.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, avoiding another government shutdown and a basketball player's protest. UPDATE - BALANCING ACT

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, the continuing struggle to balance the federal budget. Margaret Warner has an update.

MS. WARNER: With another possible government shutdown looming at midnight Friday, the House of Representatives today passed yet another temporary spending bill. This one keeps federal agencies open one more week through March 22nd. The Senate is expected to follow suit by approving the measure possibly as soon as tonight. Here to bring us up to date on this latest twist in the budget story and to explain what it means, we turn to one of our budget watchers, Susan Dentzer, chief economics correspondent for "U.S. News & World Report." Welcome back, Susan.

SUSAN DENTZER, U.S. News & World Report: Nice to be back, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Here we are in a budget year. It's almost half over. We are on our 10th temporary spending bill. What is going on?

MS. DENTZER: Well, if we only knew. What we do know is that, of course, Congress came back at the end of January and passed this measure to get them through to March 15th. The hope was that that would be ample time to work out a number of differences between both Houses and with the White House over this measure to fund nine remaining cabinet departments that had not yet been funded for, as you say, the rest of the fiscal year. As I say, the hope was to have enough time to work out all these differences. In fact, the time has come and gone, and many, many differences remain, some of them over money. The White House has argued that at least $8 billion needs to be put back into these various measures to fund priorities it cares deeply about chiefly in the realm of education, training, and social spending. The Republicans have insisted that much of this money is squandered and duplicative and shouldn't be spent if you really are serious about balancing the budget. In addition to that, there are lots of differences over the policies that are inserted in these bills, for example, policies having to do with timber cutting in the West and so forth. So all of this has led up to this point where, in fact, nobody could agree on anything, except to put this argument off for another week and buy some time to work out the remaining differences.

MS. WARNER: All right. Let's look at the issues in the big budget bill. Now, the Senate did this week move somewhat toward the President's direction.

MS. DENTZER: Yes.

MS. WARNER: They restored some money.

MS. DENTZER: Yes. They put back in some money, particularly on some programs that the President cares deeply about, for example, summer youth jobs programs, which had been completely zeroed out as the language goes under the House measures. That money has been put back in. Money has been put back in to fund the Head Start program at levels comparable to what was spent last fiscal year, so there is some progress being made. There still are some differences, and now, as I say, many differences have emerged on the policy level, and the White House has sounded the gong about vetoing the measures once they get, in fact, to the White House, unless some more differences can be worked out.

MS. WARNER: The President clearly feels he has the upper hand here.

MS. DENTZER: Well, yes and no. I think that both sides are very leery about seeming to be the entity that prompts another government shutdown. And, in fact, that's precisely what would happen if the White House vetoed these measures outright sometime when they finally get to him after next week. So there's a bit of a dance going on here to try to avert that situation, to try to work out the differences. Whether this can be accomplished in a week's time remains really very much an open question, and it could be that we are staring at a series of continuing resolutions, the 11th, the 12th, the 13th, and so forth, between now and the end of the fiscal year on September 30th.

MS. WARNER: Now, there was another issue on which the White House and the Congress were at loggerheads which had to do with extending the debt ceiling. Where does that stand now?

MS. DENTZER: Looking more hopeful than at any time in the most recent past. Specifically, the limit on the federal debt has stood at 4.9 trillion dollars, has needed to be raised for some months. We have finessed the issue of, of a default on the federal debt by a combination of special measures that the Treasury Department has undertaken and Congressional moves after, after some decrying of those steps on the part of Treasury Congressional moves to accommodate them. There has been the desire on the part of Congress to use the debt ceiling legislation as an action-forcing mechanism to force the administration to come to heel on entitlement spending restraints and so forth. Now people have pretty much given up that strategy and have started to talk about a long-term--

MS. WARNER: You mean the Republican leadership.

MS. DENTZER: The Republicans have agreed now to look for a longer-term extension of the debt ceiling, probably getting accommodating federal barring that would need to take place into next year, with a couple of other measures tacked on. So it does look as if there is a bright light on that horizon.

MS. WARNER: Does that mean now that Dole and Gingrich have backed off on attaching this entitlement reform that entitlement reform is dead for this year?

MS. DENTZER: No, I don't think so at all. In fact, now that we are maybe in the middle of the movie of the great budget battle over fiscal 1996, we're about to start a new movie which is the "Great Budget Battle," the sequel, in effect, the budget battle pertaining to fiscal 1997 and beyond. Next week, the White House will release its formal budget request for the next fiscal year, which starts next October. At that point, the House will get busy with a budget resolution which is going to be, in effect, a six- year budget balancing deal which, which in turn will launch another process on reconciliation, which will have those entitlement reforms in it. So the movie gets going again, now a six-year discussion about reigning in entitlement programs, rather than a seven-year discussion.

MS. WARNER: But, of course, we have this election in November. How is Presidential politics going to now play into this whole budget struggle?

MS. DENTZER: Intimately. The single greatest sign of that is that the President will appear at a press briefing next week when the budget is unveiled, which never happens usually. It's the dreary job of the budget director and some of the staff people to talk to the press. The fact that the President is going to claim the spotlight tells you that if you had any doubt, the campaign has officially begun.

MS. WARNER: But is it in either Majority Leader Dole's interest or in the President's interest to, for instance, actually come up with something on entitlement reform, or do you think we're just going to see this stand-off all the way to the election and let the election decide?

MS. DENTZER: I continue to believe that despite all evidence to the contrary, that it really still is in the interest of the President and Sen. Dole to reach a deal. It is the kind of thing which sends a signal to the public not only that they can work with each other, but that they can really handle the reins of government. And I think the, both sides in a way feel that. The problem is that the details that have to be agreed upon, the differences that have to be broached to get to that, now a six-year deal, still remain so immense it's just not clear that those differences can be broached. And, in fact, if you look at some of the things that are most contentious, welfare reform, for example, is the President--is it to the President's advantage at this point to reach a deal on welfare reform, having promised to end welfare as we know it, or is it to his advantage not to appear to give in to Republican demands that the President still feels would imperil the well-being of children going forward? Again, these are the kinds of things that I think, if anything, the polls over the next few months will help to decide what happens with this process in the final analysis.

MS. WARNER: You're probably right about that. Thanks, Susan, very much.

MS. DENTZER: My pleasure. FINALLY - PERSONAL PROTEST

MS. FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, a controversy on the basketball court. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has that story.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: A battle of wills between the National Basketball Association and one of its star players ended today. It was a struggle that stirred up strong feelings about religion and patriotism. Tom Bearden begins our report.

MR. BEARDEN: Twenty-seven-year-old Mississippi-born Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, is a five-year NBA veteran. Formerly known as Chris Jackson, he changed his name in 1991 after converting to Islam. Abdul-Rauf is one of the Denver Nuggets' best players, averaging 19.6 points per game. He leads the league in free throw percentage, making 93 percent of his foul shots. Unlike his teammates, Abdul Rauf has not stood during the National Anthem for the entire season. Most of the time he didn't come onto the court until the opening ceremonies were over. But his actions escaped widespread public attention until this week. Reaction was immediate and overwhelmingly negative.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I think it's ridiculous! I respect his religious beliefs, but he should also respect the fact that he lives in a country greater than any other, and it's a matter of standing out of respect.

MR. BEARDEN: Two days ago, Abdul-Rauf said his Muslim faith prevented him from worshiping at any nationalistic ceremony.

MAHMOUD ABDUL-RAUF, Denver Nuggets: [March 12] It's a belief, and I won't compromise my beliefs. And that's my stance on it. I didn't--I didn't intend to make it a public issue, but it's, it's at that level now. But I won't waiver in my decision. The Supreme Court even issued it's constitutional to burn the flag, so why give me a problem for not standing? I come to play basketball, so watch me play basketball. I think because I'm in the public, the public eye, I'm visible, it's easy to target.

MR. BEARDEN: Abdul-Rauf's comments about what the American flag stands for drew the most ire.

MAHMOUD ABDUL-RAUF: It's also a symbol of oppression, of tyranny, so it depends on how you look at it. Uh, uh, I think this, this country has a long history of that. If you look at history, I don't think you can argue the facts.

MR. BEARDEN: The NBA suspended Rauf without pay yesterday on the grounds that League rules require players to stand in a dignified manner during the playing of the National Anthem. Abdul-Rauf's actions have drawn qualified support from teammates and other NBA players, but Houston Rockets center Hareem Olajuwon, also a Muslim, said his understanding of Islamic teaching was different.

HAREEM OLAJUWON, Houston Rockets: [March 13] In general, Islamic teachings require every Muslim to obey and respect the law of the countries they live in. You know, that is--that is Islamic teachings. You know, to be a good Muslim is to be a good citizen, to be an example. If you worship none but God--well, you expect the flag--you expect, the, you know, the honor America, but not worshiping it--that must be distinguished between worshiping and respect, you know.

MR. BEARDEN: But today, Rauf said he would stand for the National Anthem at future games.

MAHMOUD ABDUL-RAUF: Am I sorry for it? No. Do I feel I'm wrong for doing what I did? No. Uh, this is what I believe, and, and I'm not wrong for the stance that I took, and in no way am I compromising, but I'm saying I understand and recognize that there is a better approach, and in Islam, it says if there's something, uh, you honor, it's, it's about honoring a contract and making decisions, but after making a decision, if you see that which is better, you do that, and I understand that there is something better.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Abdul-Rauf said he would pray while standing for the National Anthem. After his comments today, the NBA lifted its suspension. The case has opened a window on a growing phenomenon in America, African-Americans practicing Islam. For some insight into that, we turn to Dr. Aminah Beverly McCloud, a professor of Islamic studies at DePaul University in Chicago. Dr. McCloud, there seems to be a range of opinion within the Islamic community about the conflict between religion and patriotism. What explains that?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD, DePaul University: [Chicago] I think it's because of individual interpretation and individual expression within religion itself. There is a great deal of diversity, umm, spanning ethics, spanning nationalities, and just very individualistic a how people understand what they are supposed to do Islamicly and also how they read and interpret how they are to express themselves as Muslims.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is there anything that is unique to the African-American interpretation of Islam?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: Well, I think that the African- American interpretation is one that's done by conscious choice. There are--Islam has been in America since the beginning of the century. And while there are Muslims who have come through the generations, there are always Muslims moving--I mean, individuals moving into Islam. And, therefore, by conscious choice, they're looking to be very reasonable and rational about what they're going to do, what they're not going to do in a society that's largely secular.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How many African-Americans practice Islam today?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: Well, the estimates have gone from a million, one point five million, all the way to four point five million. It depends upon who you ask, which scholar is doing the research.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But is there a growing--is there a sense that whatever the number is between that one and four point five million or whatever, that the numbers are growing?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: Definitely, definitely growing.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Within a recent period of time?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: I would say probably since the 60's. There's been a decade kind of increment, but in recent years, there has been phenomenal growth.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Hmm-hmm. Abdul-Rauf converted when he was about 22. I think that was in 1991. Is the pull strongest among the younger people, younger African-Americans?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: I would think it is. Uh, in talking with people across the country on the East Coast and on the West Coast, there seems to be between eighteen- and twenty-five-year- olds the greatest amount of conversion.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is it to any particular branch of Islam, or--

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: Most are converted to Sunni Islam.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And what does that mean? What's the difference?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: There are two major branches of Islam. One is Shia Islam. The other is Sunni Islam. And they are historically different, philosophically different and have developed over the centuries a little bit different. Uh, the main core of Islam, prayer, fasting, making the pilgrimage to Mecca, the attestation that there is no God but God belongs to all the groups, but how they understand history, how they understand the treatment of their communities differs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is there anything distinct about Sunni that you can tell us briefly to understand perhaps this appeal to African- Americans?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: Well, I think on the face of it one appeal is that it is the first Islam that has come to the United States. I don't know that African-Americans would convert in larger number to Shia Islam, although some have.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is one more conservative than the other, or is there--I mean, how can you establish the difference?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: Well, Shia Islam is historically ethnically, has grown to be historically ethnically kind of particular. It's bases now are in Iran and although there are Shia Muslims who live all over the world, it's more ethnically specific than Sunni Islam.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And they differ from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, is that right?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: Well, Farrakhan's Nation of Islam and the movements he's making to accommodate the group toward more, a more orthodox Islam, when and if he does that, it would probably fall under the category of Sunni Islam.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But right now, there's a distinct difference between the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Nation of Islam?

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Doctor, thank you for joining us.

DR. AMINAH BEVERLY McCLOUD: Thank you.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now for some thoughts from our regular essayist, Roger Rosenblatt, who's been listening in to our discussion and who has followed the Abdul-Rauf case. Roger, you've been listening to all of us and following the case, as I just said. What do you see through the window you're looking through?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Well, the window I'm looking through is not the specific religious window, Charlayne, as much as it is the one that when such events occur as this, they're always equally infuriating and instructive and in some way exhilarating. The idea that someone can, and I think the League should have allowed him, apart from this compromise that they worked out, that someone can protest the flag, can say things bad about the country, umm, is the, is the strength of the country. We only really know that this class document, the Constitution, was tested when somebody like Abdul- Rauf comes along and says, well, I don't really share your beliefs, and I'm not going to share your traditions, and I'm actually going- -going to insult you directly. It's the nature of the insult, oddly enough, proves the strength of the symbol.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you're saying that sometimes the worst brings out the best in--

ROGER ROSENBLATT: That's exactly right.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: --Americans.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: And actually, the demonstration of the worst shows what, what the quality of the best is. Our Constitution is really a class document. Our democracy is a class form of government. If everybody followed the rules all the time, we would never know it. But every once in a while, a Roseanne comes along to denigrate the "Star Spangled Banner," or there's, as there was a few years ago, an exhibit in a Cleveland Museum where people have to walk on the flag in order to look at the museum, and people rightly get furious at this, because we love the country, and we love what it's--those things symbolize.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you see this much more in that context than say Mohammed Ali refusing to serve in Vietnam because of his religion or Sandy Cofax refusing to play on, was it Yom Kippur?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: On opening day of the World Series.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Exactly. They just shifted a day for Cofax, and the League would work this out, right. I see it as yet another demonstration, because, after all, Abdul-Rauf added to his expression of wanting to retain his religious beliefs, that he felt that the flag was a symbol of an oppressive government. That obviously gets under people's skin; we get very angry, and rightfully angry, when we hear that, but when we hear it and allow somebody to say it, allow somebody, as long as he doesn't do harm to anybody else, hold onto his beliefs, however unpalatable they are, however unattractive they are, then we know how strong we are.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In brief, is this just a blip on the media landscape, or is this part of the cultural landscape changing that we're going to see in coming years, weeks, years, months?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: I don't know if it's a blip or something big. I think every once in a while we have these things. If we had them all the time, there'd be something to question in our Constitution and in our form of government.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Right.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: I obviously don't think there is.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Right.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: But every once in a while, something like this will happen. When it does, it's instructive.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Roger, thank you for joining us.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Thank you, Charlayne. RECAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, President Clinton pledged $100 million for training and technology to help Israel fight terrorism. Publisher Steve Forbes ended his quest for the Republican Presidential nomination. He spent around $30 million of his own fortune and won only two primaries and seventy-six delegates. And Attorney General Janet Reno said an FBI sweep netted 17 leaders of organized crime in Detroit. They face murder and other criminal charges. We'll see you tomorrow night with our Shields & Gigot wrap-up of the political week, among other things. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.