The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Ray Suarez runs a discussion about children who commit murder and other serious crimes. Then some presidential politics, with snapshots from the Bush and McCain campaigns, followed by analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot. And finally, a conversation about Chechnya, with "Boston Globe" Moscow correspondent David Filipov. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The US Supreme Court set the stage today for major rulings on abortion and gay rights. The court agreed to hear a case on whether states may ban the procedure that opponents call "partial-birth" abortions. A Nebraska law made the procedure a crime, but a federal appeals court struck down that statute. The justices will also determine whether the Boy Scouts can exclude homosexuals as troop leaders. That case is from New Jersey. Thousands of Cuban mothers took to the streets of Havana today. They demanded the return of six- year-old Elian Gonzalez to his father. The boy has been living with relatives in Miami since his mother died at sea, trying to bring him to the United States. Last night on ABC's "Nightline," his father said he'd like to take a rifle and "get rid" of people keeping his son in America. But he said there's no point in going to Miami to argue his case. He spoke through an interpreter.

ELIAN GONZALEZ'S FATHER: (speaking through interpreter) Do you think that if I go, that they will give him to me? They won't. They will involve me in this business of theirs, of complicating this more every day. They simply have to return him to me.

JIM LEHRER: The US Immigration and Naturalization Service has ruled the boy should be returned to Cuba. His Miami relatives now plan to challenge that ruling next week in federal court. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 140 points at 11,722, another record high. The NASDAQ was up 107, at 4,064. Stocks gained partly on news that consumer prices rose less than expected in December. The Labor Department said the increase was just 0.2%. Consumer inflation for all of 1999 was the lowest since the mid-1960's, excluding energy and food. The markets also gained despite hints from Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan that interest rates might be raised again. He spoke at a dinner last night in New York.

ALAN GREENSPAN: Not only is the expansion reaching record length, but it is doing so with far stronger than expected economic growth. Indeed, our goal in responding to the complexity of current economic forces is to extend the expansion by containing its imbalances and avoiding the very recession that would complete a business cycle.

JIM LEHRER: The Fed's next meeting is February 2nd. Overseas today, Russia lifted restrictions that blocked most Chechen males from leaving or entering the republic. The rules had brought criticism from western governments and human rights groups. We have this report from Louise Bates of Associated Press Television News.

LOUISE BATES: A bus waits at Ingushetia's border with Chechnya. 24 hours ago, any Chechen males inside between the ages of ten and 60 would be turned back by Russian forces, trying to clamp down on Chechen fighters masquerading as refugees. Now they can join the Russian military vehicles streaming into their homeland. That's good news for some of the 180,000 Chechen refugees stranded in the neighboring republic. (Speaking Russian) "I'm glad the order to detain Chechen men has been lifted," this man said. "Now I can see my wife and children." Russia says more than 80,000 of the 250,000 people who fled to Ingushetia have returned home. Those who make it back face a country still in turmoil. In the recently bombed settlement of Alkhan-Yurt, near Grozny, refugees have returned to find their villages in ruins. The battle for this former rebel stronghold was one of the toughest of Russia's military campaign.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on Chechnya later in the program tonight. The White House said today it was not out to meddle in the TV networks' creative freedom. Spokesman Joe Lockhart responded to reports that President Clinton's Drug Policy Office consulted on scripts for prime time shows. It also offered financial incentives for including anti- drug messages. The shows included "ER" and "Beverly Hills 90210," among others. Lockhart said the arrangement was proper and innovative.

JOE LOCKHART: There is a real benefit to getting the message out. There is no sense here of the government playing a role of what you can say and what you can't say. It was a sense of partnership between the government that wants to get an anti-drug message out, and I think some businesses that think it's in their interested to get an anti-drug message out.

JIM LEHRER: The heads of several studios said they hadn't known the networks were working with the government to add anti-drug messages to programs. The president of Regency Television called the practice "appalling." The company produces the shows "Malcolm in the Middle" and "Roswell." President Clinton today welcomed word of a possible compromise on providing a drug benefit under Medicare. A prescription drug industry group said they are now willing to consider drug coverage legislation without a comprehensive Medicare overhaul. Before, they had argued it would lead to government price- setting. The President called the companies' change of heart "a good first step." Mr. Clinton also announced an agreement today to protect whistleblowers in the airline industry. It gives pilots and other aviation workers immunity for reporting errors that could cause accidents. The agreement follows more than a year of talks involving airlines, pilots, and the government. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to how to handle children who commit serious crimes; Bush and McCain campaign snapshots; Shields and Gigot; and a foreign correspondence about Chechnya.

FOCUS - KIDS & CRIME

JIM LEHRER: Kids and crime, and to Ray Suarez.

JUDGE:EUGENE MOORE Let there be no misunderstanding...

RAY SUAREZ: This sentence was awaited by Americans on all sides of the juvenile justice debates.

JUDGE EUGENE MOORE: Therefore, this court orders that Mr. Nathaniel Abraham be placed in the juvenile system and be committed to FIA for placement in the boys training school.

RAY SUAREZ: After his 21st birthday, Nathaniel Abraham will be a free man. Under this sentence, he won't serve time with adults.

SPOKESMAN: -- Indicates the court has received a note from the jury that they have reached a verdict...

RAY SUAREZ: Last November, 13-year-old Nathaniel Abraham became the youngest person ever convicted of murder in the United States. He was the first minor tried under Michigan's three-year-old juvenile justice law which allows juveniles to be charged and sentenced as adults. Two years earlier, on October 29, 1997, Abraham came here to the woods near a convenience store in Pontiac, Michigan. With a borrowed rifle, he shot a stranger, Ronnie Greene, in the head, killing him.

SPOKESMAN: Will you raise your right hand, please? Your right hand.

RAY SUAREZ: In his early court appearances, the then-11-year- old Abraham looked and sounded like an ordinary kid. At 4'9", he was so small that witnesses say his feet reportedly dangled above the floor when he sat in the witness chair.

SPOKESPERSON: This is a working Remington Nylon 66, .22-caliber rifle. He knew that it worked, he knew how to use it.

RAY SUAREZ: Prosecutors argued that Abraham intended to kill Greene. The boy had had numerous run-ins with police and had been accused of assault, burglary and robbery.

SPOKESMAN: All of us know that if we give a child like Nate a gun, they will shoot it.

RAY SUAREZ: The defense-- led by Geoffrey Fieger, who had represented Dr. Jack Kevorkian-- contended Abraham had been shooting at the trees and was not guilty of murder.

SPOKESMAN: Were you in a special education class?

NATHANIEL: Yes, sir.

RAY SUAREZ: Abraham's attorneys said Nathaniel was mildly retarded, with the reasoning ability of a six-year-old, and therefore could not have planned and carried out the crime. Abraham was acquitted of the four original charges, including first-degree murder, assault and two firearms charges. He was convicted of second- degree murder. Under Michigan law, a first-degree murder conviction would have meant a life sentence without parole. Judge Eugene Moore rejected a delayed sentence, while acknowledging it would be less controversial. He said the looming deadline of this young killer's 21st birthday will focus the system on the need for effective rehab.

JUDGE EUGENE MOORE: If we commit ourselves to this, we can ensure our safety now and in the future. The safety net of a delayed sentence removes too much of the urgency. We can't continue to see incarceration in adult prison as a long-term solution. The danger is we that won't take rehabilitation seriously if we know we can utilize the prison system in the future. To sentence juveniles to adult prison is ignoring the possibility that we are creating more dangerous criminals by housing juveniles with hardened adults.

RAY SUAREZ: Finally, the judge addressed the 13-year-old directly.

JUDGE: Do you begin to understand what you have done? You clearly need to put yourself in another person's shoes. You need to learn to think before you act. You need to look at the consequences of your behavior for yourself and for others. You have probably done the worst thing that could be done, and that is kill another human being. You are going to have to come to terms with this before you can begin to grow as a person and develop the potential that all children possess. In the long run, you'll best have your own needs met by concerning yourself with the needs of others.

RAY SUAREZ: Now two perspectives on juveniles and the adult criminal justice system. Linda Collier is a practicing attorney, and professor of criminal justice at Cabrini College. And James Fox is a criminologist and the Lipman family professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University. Linda Collier, your reaction to the verdict?

LINDA COLLIER, Cabrini College: Well, I think the judge missed a prime opportunity to do some good. He had an opportunity to transform this young man from a bad situation into a better situation. And he's actually giving some trust to a system that's been derelict in its duties for so very long to improve itself within eight years. I don't have that kind of confidence. And I think that he should have given him a blended sentence.

RAY SUAREZ: James Fox, your reaction?

JAMES FOX, Northeastern University: I was surprised by the sentence -- pleasantly surprised. This was a bold move by the judge to be sure -- working against the trend in America of sending more and more kids into the system. They don't belong them most of the time. They may look like adults, they may act like adults; they may even shoot like adults. But they think like children. And we shouldn't forget that fact. I, too, had expected a blended sentence; that is, that he would be sentenced to a juvenile facility until the age of 18-21 and then be evaluated thereafter to determine if he needed more time in an adult prison. That's what the prosecution was pushing for. However, when we look at ten years for second-degree murder, nationally adults average 11.5 years for second-degree murder. This is not just a slap on the wrist. It's the appropriate sentence given the crime.

RAY SUAREZ: Linda Collier this, was mentioned in the report that this was not young... Nathaniel's first run-in with the law, --

LINDA COLLIER: Exactly.

RAY SUAREZ: -- but he had never been arrested, processed or punished in the juvenile system before. In his sentencing statement, the judge said the people of Michigan had failed Nathaniel Abraham.

LINDA COLLIER: Exactly. I do agree with that. As I said, our criminal justice system has really been derelict in its duties for setting up a system where young men have to answer and be accountable. I think the judge could have transformed him by putting him into a blended sentence, giving us the opportunity... and I agree with Mr. Fox, that the system right now as it is situated, the old system, the adult system, would not be able to rehabilitate this young man. And I'm not calling for that. But I am calling for something better, something different. Even a boot camp situation would have been better than what the judge has given him in detention.

RAY SUAREZ: James Fox, one of the Michigan legislators who helped get this new law passed said that when you play the numbers game, you always lose. If you set it at 15, somebody will bring you a case involving a 14-year-old. If you set it at 14, someone will bring you a case involving a 13-year-old. What do we know about the age of responsibility?

JAMES FOX: Well, we do know, and there's even some neurological evidence that the portion of the brain that controls reasoning ability does not develop until late adolescence or maybe even early adulthood. 11 year olds simply do not have the capacity to think things through. Yes, I do believe despite his limited reasoning power and perhaps the possibility that he is retarded -- mildly, I do believe he knew what he was doing. But kids simply don't have the same ability to sort of think things through the way that adults can. We need to punish juvenile offenders and punish juvenile murderers but they're not the same as adults and they shouldn't be treated the same as adults. We need a lesser degree of criminal responsibility. Let's not forget that. What we need to do is to go back to what we did before. Let juvenile court judges decide which kids are so beyond the possibility of rehabilitation, that they should be tried as adults. Most kids can be rehabilitated if we try, and they should be kept in the juvenile system. If you want to make the juvenile system more punitive, fine. But just don't throw it away. Let's' not pretend that 11, 12, 13 year olds are adults. They're not.

RAY SUAREZ: Linda Collier, can we ever, very accurately, set that number somewhere between 11 and 21?

LINDA COLLIER: Oh, I think we would honestly be arbitrary if we did try to set a certain number. I think that what we need to do at this point is to look at the system, see what works. It's been proven by all the sociology persons that if you have attachments to certain institutions, you have religion in your life, you have school in your life, you have family in your life, you have people who are there encouraging you to do good and be successful, then you have a recipe for success, for bringing juveniles around and for making sure that they don't engage in criminal activity. I think with those things lacking in Nathaniel Abraham's life, I don't think that we're going to come out eight years from now and say okay, this child has been rehabilitated; let's just throw him back into society and be satisfied with the result. We need to give him something more.

RAY SUAREZ: But his own mother had asked local authorities to... about having him declared an incorrigible. She was clearly looking for help. Do we have to also set our focus wider than just an individual suspect and their terrible crime looking at other places in the system?

LINDA COLLIER: Oh, sure. I think that there need to be preventive measures. I don't think that we need to wait until somebody commits such a heinous crime and then gets the criminal justice system involved. I think it has been proven time and time again even with the case in New Jersey, where the kid had killed 11-year-old or 13-year-old Eddie Warner that the criminal justice system needed to be involved long before that child was murdered. But we don't have the mechanisms in place to address those kinds of problems. And we need to put those mechanisms in place. And we need to be able to monitor our children, to make sure they get what they need to succeed.

RAY SUAREZ: James Fox.

JAMES FOX: What we really need to do is to build the child rather than try to rebuild the teenager.

LINDA COLLIER: That's true.

JAMES FOX: We do know that prehabilitation works better than rehabilitation.

LINDA COLLIER: That's right.

JAMES FOX: If you look at some of the bills that are going through the Congress and the many state legislatures, prevention and punishment is out ever whack. There has been so much more emphasis on punishment. After all, it's the politically expedient position to take. Yet, we know that prevention does work. It may not always been popular politically but it does work. We need to invest more money in prevention and save punishment for the sad cases where the system fails.

RAY SUAREZ: But aren't sentences, James Fox, supposed to work on more than one level, both responding to the individual crime and the individual defendant, and sending a message to the wider community about the judgment of the court about the seriousness of the crime, and reassuring people that they take crime seriously?

JAMES FOX: Well, of course, to the family of Ronnie Green, it doesn't matter at all whether the person who pulled the trigger was 11 or 41. He's still dead, and we have to understand that and empathize with the family, that the age of the perpetrator makes no difference. Yet we also, as a society, have to take the view what kind of perpetrator are we talking about? 11 year olds are not the same as 41 year olds in terms of their capacity to reason things through. As far as deterrence, sending a message, we do know that long prison sentences given to juveniles do not deter other juveniles. Kids don't think about consequences for themselves much less for their victims. Many of these kids don't perceive that they're going to live past the age of 21 anyway, so why worry about long-term prison sentences. Deterrence may work with adults; it doesn't really work with kids. The best that we can do is really to invest much more money in prevention programs and prevention strategies for kids and in the cases where kids commit horrible crimes, take on it a case-by-case basis, decide which kids have culpability, full culpability and they should be tried as adults because of their long criminal record that they have proven that they are not rehabilitatable, versus other kids who can be turned around and should be kept in the juvenile system. I think we should have discretion in the hands of the judges the way we used to and not allow legislators to take all the discretion away and decide ahead of time which categories of kids, which categories of crime are going to be sent into the adult court.

RAY SUAREZ: Linda Collier, judge in this case had wide discretion even with the new Michigan law.

LINDA COLLIER: Exactly. That's why I said I think he missed his opportunity. Trying Nathaniel Abraham in adult court gave him the opportunity to actually give him an elongated sentence. Juvenile court, of course, the sentence is going to be very brief. And that's exactly what the judge did. He basically acted as though he was trying a juvenile case in juvenile court, gave him a very brief sentence of eight years, something that doesn't make him truly accountable in my opinion since he did take someone else's life.

RAY SUAREZ: But do you agree with James Fox that deterrence doesn't work with juveniles?

LINDA COLLIER: Sometimes deterrence doesn't work, Ray, with adults, and I recognize that. But I do think preventive measures -- as I alluded to before -- with making sort of institutions responsible for children's behavior, religion, the family and the schools and institutions of that sort, I think that would help. It would at least prevent some of the more heinous crimes if we make a child feel invested in his community, as though he is losing something or as though he is taking something away. I don't think Nathaniel felt as though he took anything away from anybody, whether it was a robbery or murder or whatever. I think he just -- he basically dismissed the heinousness of his crime.

JAMES FOX: That's because he's 11. Three years ago the state legislature in Michigan opened the flood gates said, okay, you can be tried as an adult no matter how young you are. And in 1999, when the decision was made whether to send Nathaniel to adult court or juvenile court, that may have been where the mistake was made, to treat him as an adult.

LINDA COLLIER: Oh, I don't think so.

JAMES FOX: What the judge did in this case, I think, was to rectify the mistake made when he was charged in adult court rather than juvenile court. He is 11 years old. He belongs in juvenile court and he belongs -- he deserves to receive a juvenile sentence.

LINDA COLLIER: But, James, he has a mental capacity of a six-year-old. In eight years he'll only have the mental capacity of perhaps an 11-year-old. What's going to happen then? We're not going to go back and reevaluate him. We're just going to basically wash our hands, throw him back into the system and whatever crime happens, happens. But we're done. And that's unfortunate because I don't think we need to be done. I think this kid deserves our interest. He deserves our attention. And we should stick with him and try to help him transform a very bad situation into a better one if we can.

RAY SUAREZ: Linda Collier, James Fox, thank you both for being with us.

LINDA COLLIER: You're welcome. Thanks, Ray.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, McCain and Bush campaign snapshots, Shields and Gigot, and aforeign correspondence about Chechnya.

FOCUS - CAMPAIGN SNAPSHOTS

JIM LEHRER: Now, two snapshots from the presidential campaigns. We heard from the Democratic candidates last night. Tonight it's the Republican front-runners turn, both from campaign stops in New Hampshire, where the first presidential primary is two and a half weeks away. On Wednesday, Senator John McCain held a town meeting at a school in Dublin, New Hampshire.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I want to just talk for a minute about what our young people will view as a mundane issue. Please feel free to take a nap while I'm talking, if you so choose. And that's the issue of what we're going to do with this surplus. As you know, for the first time since the Eisenhower administration, we now are running a budget surplus, which is your money, your tax dollars. And the question has arisen, of course, as to how we should handle this "surplus." Some want to use the entire surplus in tax cuts, use the entire surplus for tax cuts. I want to use some of it for tax cuts. I want to also eliminate corporate welfare and wasteful spending, and give tax cuts to middle-income and lower-income Americans. My friends, there's recent studies, one by the Department of Commerce, that says there's a growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in America, that the very rich are getting richer faster than those who are further down. I believe that maybe we ought to do everything we can to let those have-nots get a break, a tax break, an incentive, and training, so that they can... (Applause) ...So that they can also... (Applause) I don't think it's important right now to give 37% of any tax cut to the top 1% of the wealthiest people in America. I think... (Applause) I think we are aware that there's a ticking time bomb out there called Social Security. There was a recent poll that showed that more young Americans believe that Elvis is alive than believe that they'll ever se a Social Security check. You know, at least Elvis has been spotted several places. Don't you think that we owe these young kids? Don't you think we should make Social Security solvent for them, as well as those who are the present beneficiaries? (Applause) I think we ought to repeal the marriage penalty. Nobody should pay more taxes because they get married. I think we should repeal the earnings tax that penalizes people over age 65 who want to work. I think we should lift as many Americans as we can into the 15% tax bracket. Under the proposal I have-- and I hope you'll examine it-- we put 85% of American taxpayers today in the 15% tax bracket, or no taxes at all. I want to make this tax flat from the bottom up. I thank you very much for being here today. I'm appreciative of it, and I'd like to begin with the first question or comment that you might have.

QUESTIONER: Could you please explain your position on abortion?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I'd like to, yes. Thank you for your question. I am pro-life, and that is my 17-year voting record, and I hold that position, as does my party. And I hold it based on the belief that life begins at conception. But I'm very disturbed, as most Americans are, about the polarization that has existed and continues on this issue. I am committed... I am committed to beginning a dialogue between pro-life and pro-choice Americans to work in a productive fashion on issues that we share common goals and we can work together on, to make for a better nation and better families. Yes sir, in the back.

QUESTIONER: I spent some time over in Europe and Asia, before I retired this last summer, and the people I talked to were very negative about the strength of the United States in foreign affairs. And I hate to say so, but it was because of the lack of trust and truthfulness of our government. Could you address how you would correct those affairs, other than the fact that you have integrity?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Obviously, the first obligation of the President of the United States as commander in chief, and ensure the security of our nation. That's our first and most important responsibility. This administration has conducted a feckless photo-op foreign policy, for which we may have to pay a very heavy price in American blood and treasure. You look at all around the world, with the notable exceptions of Northern Ireland and the Middle East peace process, where the president and the administration deserves credit, and you see potential trouble spots or existing trouble spots that could threaten our security.

QUESTIONER: Hi. I was wondering what your support was for homosexuality, and that in general, and also in the military?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I thank you. I do not believe in discrimination of any kind in America. I think it's wrong. I think we should eliminate it where it exists, and all Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I strongly oppose any discrimination. I support the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. The architects of that policy were people who I respect as much as anyone I've ever known, including General Colin Powell. The policy is working. There have been problems with it, and there will continue to be problems with personnel policies which have... Which touch on such sensitive and difficult issues as this one. But I will support the policy. And if there's a need for review of this policy, my friends-- which there is a need for review of every personnel policy from time to time-- I would like to do that in the far less partisan and highly charged atmosphere of a political campaign.

JIM LEHRER: Yesterday, Governor George W. Bush had a town meeting in Londonderry, New Hampshire.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: We're in a tax debate here in this state and around the country. And let me explain my position as clearly as I can. First, unspent surpluses in Washington, D.C. will be spent, you mark my words, you leave money sitting around the table in Washington, Washington politicians will spend it. Now, I believe there's enough money. If you lockbox the payroll taxes, there is $2 trillion to make sure the Social Security system is safe and secure-- $2 trillion. I intend to lockbox the payroll taxes and spend them only on what they're supposed to be spent on, and that's Social Security. And by the way... (Applause) and I intend to work with both Republicans and Democrats to allow younger workers, if they so choose, to manage their own personal savings accounts, to make sure that Social Security exists tomorrow as well. There's a baseline of a budget that I projected that meets basic need. And there's money left over. And the fundamental question is: What we do with it? Do we keep it in Washington to expand the reach of the federal government, or do we give it back to the taxpayers? I believe we ought to give it back to the taxpayers. I believe we ought to have a tax cut in America; a tax cut that does two things: A tax cut that encourages economic growth, and a tax cut that addresses some unfairness in the tax code. My plan that I've laid out cuts taxes on everybody who pays taxes in America. I believe it's importantto cut the marginal rates. I subscribe to the theory that by cutting marginal rates, it will enhance productivity and growth in America. But my plan also addresses the fairness issue. The debt tax is unfair, and I intend to work to eliminate it. The marriage penalty needs to be mitigated. It's unfair. The earnings tax on Social Security recipients is unfair, and we've got to rid of the earnings tax. For some who don't understand what that means, it means if you've worked all your life and earned your Social Security and you decide you want to continue to work, you get penalized on your benefits, the benefits you've earned. That's not right! That's not fair, and that's counterproductive. Yes, ma'am.

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: Our health care system is a mess, we have 45 million people with no health insurance, most of those people working families and we have HMO's and seniors who can't afford drugs. We've got to say right here and now that you will put this at the top of your agenda, in your speeches, in the debate, and please swear that you will make health care right at the top of your agenda.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I appreciate that, and it's an important issue. Let me talk about the uninsured real quickly. Some of the uninsured are working uninsured, and some of the uninsured are able-bodied folks who just don't want to buy insurance. And that's why we ought to have medical savings accounts available, because what medical savings accounts will do is provide an economic incentive for people to put money aside for their health needs when they get older in life. But let me talk about the working uninsured, because this is a big problem. I agree with you. And it's an important problem. What we need to do in our society is to encourage states to design basic catastrophic health care plans for people that are affordable, that become affordable. And then work with programs like CHIPS programs, if you're a single mom with children, to be able to supplement the employers' payment, so that people can afford to plan. Let me tell you what I'm afraid of in the health care debate. I'm afraid of a plan that encourages the nationalization of health care. I think that would be the wrong approach. Yes, ma'am.

YOUNGER PERSON IN AUDIENCE: What do you think America's role in the world community should be?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I think a president must explain to the American people what is our national strategic interest. Our hemisphere is our national strategic interest. It's in our interest to have a hemisphere that's a free trading hemisphere and a peaceful hemisphere. And therefore, if I'm the president, I'm going to ask the congress for fast-track negotiating authority to negotiate market agreements, trade agreements, with people in Central and South America. It's to our nation's advantage to do that. It's in our national strategic interest to protect our friend and promote the peace in the Middle East, our friend Israel and our other Arab friends. Promote peace. The only lasting peace agreement, though, will be one which the parties themselves agree upon without the United States imposing a peace settlement. The Far East is another area of strategic interest. We must redefine our relationship with China from one of strategic partner to competitor. But competitors can find areas of agreement. One area where I think we ought to have agreement is on trade. I think it's to our nation's best interest to trade with China. I know it's in the best interest of farmers to trade with China and entrepreneurs to trade with China. It's also, by the way, inour interest to trade with China, to support a growing entrepreneurial class. Entrepreneurship is freedom. When people get a taste of the marketplace, they will demand freedom and democracy. I do not support what China's done with religious freedoms in its country. But I believe if we turn our back on China, China will easily become more repressive. I'm also going to make it clear to china that our alliances in the Far East are important to us. Our alliances with Japan and South Korea. We must develop a theater-based antiballistic missile system for that part of the world as well.

JIM LEHRER: The six Republican candidates will debate In Iowa tomorrow night.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: And to some Friday night political analysis Shields and Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot.

First, on McCain and Bush. Both of you have spent time with their... with both of their campaigns. Our snapshots, Paul, were those good examples of the two men at work?

PAUL GIGOT: I think they were, and I think particularly on the issue of taxes, which has emerge as a central dividing line between the two of them, Jim. You saw the nub of the argument there. And it's a classic Republican argument that's gone back 30-40 years between the tax cutting wing and kind of the fiscal uprightness wing, the balanced budget wing. Now it's the debt reduction wing. It's taken place in 1980 between Reagan and George Bush Sr., who was kind of in the McCain camp at that time. You saw it in 188 with Bob Dole in the austerity wing versus George Bush who then had become a tax cuter and took the tax pledge. And now you're seeing it replayed again. Every time in the last 20 years that this debate has taken place within the Republican Party at the presidential level, the tax cuter has won. And what's fascinating about this is that john McCain is saying that because of the prosperity we're having, I can maybe win this argument this time by saying Social Security and debt reduction trump tax cuts. If it happens, it will be the first time in an awful long time with the Republican Party but that's the gamble he's making.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, do you see the tax issue the same way Paul does; that it is really the defining one between these two men?

MARK SHIELDS: I really don't, Jim. But can I just say about the excerpts we just saw, those were testimony to this campaign and John McCain's influence upon it. I mean John McCain made this campaign a campaign of town meetings. Everybody has to do town meetings now. Governor Bush, who is a fine candidate and absolutely marvelous with people, would prefer to be in a closely choreographed, scripted studio, as would most candidates. But McCain out of necessity or what, made this his virtue. And now every candidate in both parties... I mean Al Gore can't turn along island sound without having another town meeting. It's John McCain's influence and it has been... the amazing thing is that John McCain leapfrogged over everybody else in the Republican race except George W. Bush solely on the basis of this approach. Without spending a nickel on radio or TV advertising of any kind, he moved into the mid-20's in all the polls in New Hampshire after millions have been spent by the others. As far as the tax thing is concerned...

JIM LEHRER: Hold on one minute. Let me just see if Paul agrees with this, on the town meeting thing, that McCain has led the way here just as a campaign technique.

PAUL GIGOT: I think New Hampshire does that to the candidates every time. Give John McCain credit no, question about it. He has been the most accessible candidate I have ever seen at the presidential level of politics and he has made George W. Bush improve as a candidate by forcing him to get off of his pedestal and get down and mix it up by making New Hampshire a contest. But, ultimately, I think the voters in New Hampshire are going to make Bush do that no matter what happened.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Taxes, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: On taxes, Jim, I think that Paul has drawn the issue very classically for Republicans, and that's certainly been the truth in the past. McCain takes it and makes it...it's a character campaign. I mean, John McCain's story is a character story. And his campaign is a character campaign. Bill McInturf, the pollster, makes a very good point. He said the Republicans have lost two presidential elections in a row - got - average less than 40 percent of the vote naturally. And what's the knock been on them? That is, that we the Republicans are for the rich and indifferent to the little guy and we're also going to hurt grandma with our indifference and callousness on Social Security and Medicare. What McCain does is address this by saying we're going to cut $150 billion in corporate welfare. These are sweetheart deals that have been cut by the Congress and the Presidents of all administrations. And it has led to other people, ordinary folks on payroll taxes, paying higher taxes. And then McCain turns around and makes the case that what we've done is given ourselves a party, run up this debt and passed the bill on to our kids. So it is - it's a different kind of argument. It isn't just cold showers and root canal work. It's a question of what kind of character we have as a people.

JIM LEHRER: Some Republicans have put the rap on McCain that his argument sounds more like Democrats than Republicans, Paul.

PAUL GIGOT: When you invoke the Citizens for Tax Justice as your source of intellectual argument --

JIM LEHRER: What is that?

PAUL GIGOT: That's a labor-backed think tank here in Washington which routinely denounces tax cut proposals for helping the rich. That's a classic Democratic argument. But there's one other issue that that... of identification that Bush is trying to use tax cuts to identify, and that is, the tax cuts put you on the side of smaller government. That's been a classic Republican principle.

JIM LEHRER: He says that over and over again about money on the table, they'll spend it.

PAUL GIGOT: That's right. And it also... I mean, John McCain has very skillfully portrayed himself as the outsider as Mark says, as the anti-establishment character. The tax issue and the small government issue lets Bush come back and say wait a minute, Senator McCain, you want to keep that money here in Washington where you know, I mean, despite your best intentions, despite all the work you do in Congress to try to stop from spending it, it's spent anyway? And the best thing to do -- keep it out of Washington in the first place.

JIM LEHRER: Horse race question, Mark. First let's back up to Iowa. McCain is not running in the caucuses there but what's your reading on that race and where it stands at that point?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think Iowa is a lot more...

JIM LEHRER: That's January 24, about 10 days away.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right. January 24, a week from next Monday. And they will debate here tomorrow. And McCain would have one hope and that is somehow the issue becomes national security commander in chief; it's the one place where he enjoys an advantage over George W. Bush but Governor Bush, as Ann Seltzer the pollster for the Des Moines Register told me this afternoon, he doesn't have any chinks in his armor. He is well liked; he's well regarded. I think his support in this state matches support among Republicans nationally. New Hampshire is fascinating, it's up for grabs. It's a real horse race. That is not the case in Iowa. Steve Forbes has made an all-out effort. He has got some very good people on the ground here, and the question is will they turn up on caucus night and support his message of libertarian almost as far as government is concerned, especially as far as taxes economically libertarian, but at the same time quite traditional even conservative on social matters.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read the race in Iowa tonight?

PAUL GIGOT: It's similar. I mean I think George Bush is very strong. There is no question about it. No Republican in Iowa in a contested big caucus has ever gotten more than 37%. And the Forbes campaign would desperately love to keep George Bush below that number. It's going to be hard to do. But I think... I followed Forbes around this week and I was very impressed with his organization. He has thousands of volunteers out there, 4,000 captains in all 99 counties. I think he is going to do better than his polling suggests that he will. The question is will he do well enough to make it look like... to cast some doubt on George w. Bush as a vote getter because remember, this is the first time George W. Bush is going to be tested as a vote getter outside of Texas. This is important for him. Meanwhile George W. Bush wants to do so well that he blows away Forbes for good and then gets some momentum and a boost going into New Hampshire.

MARK SHIELDS: Now, Mark, the Democrats, Gore and Bradley, what's your reading of that in Iowa?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think again Iowa is more like the nation, where the Vice President has a big edge over Senator Bradley. And I think he has, according to the Des Moines Register among caucus goers, a 21-point margin, 54-33. They did a very tight screen in the polling parlance of people who do go to caucuses. And his people are confident. The Bradley people are spending a lot of time out here low balling it telling, my goodness, we'll be lucky if we get 11%. It reminds you of the old Frank Leahy, the Notre Dame football coach who said we'll be lucky if we make a first down this season and his team went undefeated. I don't know if Bradley will go undefeated here but they're lowering expectations and hoping again to get a lift coming out of Iowa based upon a closer than expected outcome.

JIM LEHRER: Paul, what is your reading of what the issue is in Iowa between Bradley and Gore? What's separating them? What is getting people interested, if anything?

GWEN IFILL: I think it is Bill Bradley's attempt to separate himself on leadership. I mean on actual issues like health care and some others, there aren't really great differences. There are differences in detail, there are differences in degree, but there aren't a lot of differences in kind. And what you see Bradley trying to do is to say I really mean it. I plan to do it. And he's looking for some hooks to say after seven or eight years of Dick Morris, small incremental change and poll-driven politics, I'm somebody who is going to tell you what I'm going to do and then I'm going to lead and do it. I think it's admirable in a way because he's trying to say, "I can lead and I'm going to take some risks." Now in good times, as we have, and Iowa is a pretty prosperous place except on the farm as well as the rest of the country, you have to pare away those Democratic voters and say are you unhappy enough with the leadership you've got from this administration to do that? And he's having a harder time in Iowa because of the organization -- this is the organized Democratic Party here. He's having a harder time doing that than he is in New Hampshire where you have a much smaller union base and you have a lot more independents.

JIM LEHRER: What would you add to that, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I would add, Jim, that Bill Bradley and Al Gore have copied their campaigns respectively from previous Republican playbooks. Al Gore's campaign, which is a quick hit, very attack mode, very aggressive, is like George Bush's 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis when he ran on issues like pollution of the Boston Harbor and the Pledge of Allegiance and Willie Horton, sort of keeping that tactical advantage, playing sort of a gotcha game, keeping your opponent very much on the defensive. And Gore has successfully kept Bradley on the defensive. Bradley by contrast, has almost a Reaganesque approach in the sense of a big, big picture, large ideas and very specific about them, just as Reagan was. What is missing in the Bradley candidacy, I have to say, is an emotional connection, a sense of we can do it as Americans, let's move on; we've done this in the past. And I think, you know, at no point do you hear what was said after Demastanes spoke, "let us march." I mean, it's not a question of being a great speaker; it's a question of making an emotional connection and enlisting your audience and your listeners to a project larger than themselves. And I think that's what John McCain -- quite frankly -- has been able to do on the Republican side and Bill Bradley up to now has not been able to do on the Democratic side.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, we'll leave it there for tonight. We still have many other opportunities to talk about this. But as you said earlier, Paul, at least the people are about to start voting -- soon.

PAUL GIGOT: And we'll stop talking.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you both very much.

CONVERSATION - FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, another foreign correspondence, our occasional conversations with reporters posted overseas with American news organizations. Margaret Warner has this one.

MARGARET WARNER: Our foreign correspondent is David Filipov, Moscow bureau chief for the "Boston Globe." He spent considerable time in recent months covering the conflict in Chechnya. Welcome back, David.

DAVID FILIPOV: Thanks for having me.

MARGARET WARNER: A lot of the TV footage, most of it out of Chechnya that we see, all focuses on the Russian soldiers, setting off artillery or whatever. We see very little... We had a little bit today earlier in the show, but very little of normal life, the Chechens, the countryside. What's it like there on the ground?

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, if you're talking about the part of Chechnya that's occupied, that's controlled by the federal forces, the situation there is pretty bleak. There isn't that much of an economy. There's not much to do. It's very muddy there. There hasn't been any commerce or really anything for anyone to do any work. So really there's a lot of people standing around. Any place where there's been fighting, those villages are ruined and very little has been done to put them... To repair them in any way. So the closer you get to the areas where there have been fighting, the worse things look. ..A lot of people standing around sort of wondering how to put their lives back together.

MARGARET WARNER: Now you've also talked to Russian soldiers on the front a lot. How is their morale?

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, the first few minutes of any conversation with Russian soldiers, usually the more senior they are as officers, the more they've been instructed to avoid saying things to journalists that might later on come back to haunt them. So they're often very optimistic and they tell you that everything's under control, that "we're confident. We know we have an army." The more you talk to Russian soldiers, and Russians like to talk, so sooner or later you... The more you start...

MARGARET WARNER: And you speak Russian.

DAVID FILIPOV: And I speak Russian, right. I speak Russian. My wife is Russian, so we speak Russian at home. The more you hear some of the other side of the story, they're a lot less confident about their ability to hold ground. They talk about attacks from the rear; they talk about the various problems they've run into in taking territory when the Chechens defended hard. The other thing is the less senior soldiers, draftees, privates, I mean, I ran into privates who were begging for food on the road. They would stop a car. You stop thinking they want to see your documents. And they say, you know, "do you have anything we can eat?"

MARGARET WARNER: Really?

DAVID FILIPOV: Other soldiers who sign contracts to sign up, and there has been a lot of talk about them and their effectiveness as a fighting force there, they were complaining about how their contract lasts until February and they want to go home.

MARGARET WARNER: Now you seem to suggest that even though we get these glowing reports from... Of their progress, that they don't have great control on the ground.

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, the Russian force there obviously has been able to bash its way through two-thirds of Chechen territory, three- quarters of Chechen territory.

MARGARET WARNER: The northern part.

DAVID FILIPOV: The northern part. But when they go through a town, if there's any resistance, they level it, and then they move on. If there's no resistance, they go through, make sure there's no fighters, rebel fighters, and then they move on. The parts that they've moved through are then empty. And you go through them later and there's no Russian military presence, or maybe there's a couple of police standing on the outskirts checking documents, but that's it. So when they take territory, they don't necessarily hold it after that.

MARGARET WARNER: How hard is it as a journalist to cover the war there? You've been there a couple of times just recently.

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, it gets... It's getting harder. There are a couple of problems. The first problem at the beginning of the war, of course, there has the many kidnappings of foreigners, journalists included. And...

MARGARET WARNER: By Chechens mostly?

DAVID FILIPOV: Well...

MARGARET WARNER: No?

DAVID FILIPOV: I've never been kidnapped, so I can't say. The accusation is that it's Chechens, although Russian police officials have told me that there were also copycat kidnap groups that would kidnap people and then make it look like the Chechens did it. It became a big problem, a big black hole, a big area of lawlessness. But then once you get over your fears of kidnapping, then the next problem is, is how to get through Russian lines. Well, it's not as easy as it might look, but it's also not as difficult as it might look because the Russians are notoriously incapable of controlling territory that they control. And then the third problem is getting around, and that's what ultimately did me inthe last time I got there. When I got close to the front line, that was when the Russians say, "hey, what are you doing here?"

MARGARET WARNER: So you detained by Russian soldiers?

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, they held me up for a little while and a couple of other people who were with me, and took us back to the main staging center in Mostov and asked us a lot of questions of who we were. But basically the point was, you're not supposed to be getting this close to the front line.

MARGARET WARNER: So you were quite close to Grozny at that point?

DAVID FILIPOV: We were on the outskirts of Grozny, at the front, where the Russians were trying to advance and not really doing it because they couldn't break through the heavily defended Chechen lines.

MARGARET WARNER: Is it fair to say that the Russian government is actively discouraging journalists from covering the war there?

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, they have an official line, which is that they don't think it's safe because of the kidnapping and because of the fighting. But then they have what they really are seeking, which is they'd like to control this. And they know that when western journalists go there, for example, we tell a story that they don't want to be told. And it makes perfect sense. All militaries try to control journalists. But there's another level, which is that they have gone out of their way, I think, in trying to censor the reports of Russian mainstream media who are reporting from the area. And so the western journalists who do get through really put... Make that effort look bad. And that's why I think they try hard to keep us out. A lot of people have been discouraged, and a lot of Russian journalists don't want to cover it because they're... They're offended at the Chechens for the kidnappings. They share the view of many Russians that it's not safe to be a Russian in Chechnya, so a lot of people just don't go of their own volition. It's a combination of things.

MARGARET WARNER: Has the Russian public, though, been getting a sanitized view of, say, the number of casualties, how the war is going? Or does it depend on what media you're looking at?

DAVID FILIPOV: If all you do... If you're living outside of Moscow/St. Petersburg and all you do is watch television for your news, then you're getting a very sanitized view. The further you get... There are two major state-run Kremlin- influenced state television stations that are seen all across the country, and those are showing the view that the military and that the government would like people to see. If you're in Moscow, there are a lot of alternative sources for media. A lot of print media have been writing pretty much the same way that the western media has been writing from the beginning of the war. You see stories about how the media coverage is slowly getting more anti-war. In fact, there have been a lot of print publications that have been covering the war rather fairly objectively since the very beginning, but they don't have a lot of influence outside the big cities.

MARGARET WARNER: But how do you explain that the polls, if they are to be believed, show that at least up to now the Russian public seems to be gung-ho about this war and about Vladimir Putin, the new president, for the way he has been handling it?

DAVID FILIPOV: You have to go back to the causes of the war, or at least the official reason for the war was a series of apartment bombings in Moscow and other cities that the Russian government very quickly blamed on Chechen rebels, although there's never been any proof. Now recently, they've brought out a videotape saying this is proof that the Chechens were bombing... were making bombs to bomb apartments. There's never been the kind of conclusive proof that would make you want completely back -- Russians think that, "yes, we have to do away with this. The Chechens have been de facto independent for three years, since the last war there, and you know, we have to put an end to this."

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think, though, that that support is strong enough to withstand if there are reports of greater casualties over the coming weeks?

DAVID FILIPOV: This is the big question. I don't think that anything that happens in Chechnya, unless it's an inconceivably big disaster for the Russian armies, can stop Putin from being elected in March 26 elections. But after that, he will be the new president with a real serious and long-term problem on his hands. Then the popular support for this thing will slowly erode.

MARGARET WARNER: All right David, thanks very much. We'll have you back.

DAVID FILIPOV: Thanks for having me.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday: The US Supreme Court agreed to consider whether states may outlaw what opponents call "partial birth" abortion. The court also agreed to decide whether the Boy Scouts may exclude gays as troop leaders. And thousands of Cuban mothers marched in Havana. They demanded the return of six- year-old Elian Gonzalez. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.