The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Friday, we have a Newsmaker interview with Gen. Michael Rose, the commander of U.N. forces in Sarajevo, a Kwame Holman report on the return of the Balanced Budget Amendment, political analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot, and a look at the Olympic struggle over endorsements. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The UN Commander in Sarajevo today indicated the likelihood of NATO air strikes was lessening. Lt. Gen. Sir Michael Rose told the NewsHour he was assured that the Bosnian Serbs would either withdraw their heavy guns overlooking Sarajevo or turn them over to the UN. He said that was expected to happen a day before NATO's Sunday deadline. We have more on the situation in the Bosnian capital in two reports, beginning with Paul Davies of Independent Television News.

PAUL DAVIES, ITN: Tanks and artillery of the Bosnian Serb army on the move this afternoon away from Sarajevo under threat of air strikes. According to the United Nations, the Serbs are well on line to have most of their heavy weapons out of the 20 kilometer exclusion zone by midnight on Sunday. Those that remain will be under U.N. control. At a Serbian barracks outside Sarajevo, the political leader of the Bosnian Serbs has been briefing the U.N. Secretary General's special envoy on the extent of the withdrawal.

RADOVAN KARADZIC, Bosnian Serb Leader: We have been withdrawing already convoys, and we will withdraw even more. Those which can't be withdrawn because of snow would be under full effective control of the United Nations without any reservation.

MR. DAVIES: As Serbian armor was heading away from Sarajevo, a company of British warrior armored personnel carriers was arriving in the city. One hundred and fifty men from the Cold Stream Guards with a similar number to follow shortly. Tomorrow the guards will be deployed between the Muslim and Serbian armies. It is a peacekeeping operation. It may become a peace enforcing operation.

DAVID SYMONDS: Two days and counting before possible air strikes against Bosnian Serbs, the NATO base at Aviano in Italy is on full alert. If air strikes are requested, NATO can call on a strike force of 180 jets and bombers, and the latest in surveillance technology. America has sent 77 military planes to the region, and the aircraft carrier, Saratoga. To put maximum pressure on Bosnia's Serbs, NATO has assembled the largest strike force since the Gulf War, the three aircraft carriers, including Britain's Arc Royal, but if air strikes are ordered, troops on the ground may find themselves exposed.

MR. MacNeil: Russia today warned the NATO alliance that air strikes against the Serbs could lead to an all out war. Russian Envoy Vitaly Churkin issued the warning in Moscow a day after he brokered an agreement for the Serb withdrawal. He said Russia would attempt to impose a similar settlement throughout Bosnia. In his interview with the NewsHour, U.N. Gen. Rose also said the Sarajevo accord would be extended to other Bosnian cities. We'll have the full interview right after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: White House Press Sec. Dee Dee Myers said again today that only full Serbian withdrawal of weapons will prevent air strikes. She said the test will be their actions on the ground. The test has not changed. At the Pentagon, Defense Sec. William Perry had this assessment.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: I am cautiously, cautiously optimistic about the developments of the last few days. And we, among other nations, have been requesting the Russians to assist with whatever they can do to help, help the Serbs comply with the NATO directorate.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. Perry and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John Shalikashvili, will go to Italy Sunday for a meeting with allied defense ministers to review the air strike plans. President Clinton formally notified Congress today that he was prepared to order U.S. planes to bomb Serb positions in Bosnia if the Serbs did not comply by Sunday night. Administration officials said the President will likely address the American people tomorrow about the air strikes.

MR. MacNeil: President Clinton invited a group of business leaders to the White House today to generate support for his health care reform proposal. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton took her campaign for the plan on the road again today. She made stops in South Dakota and Wisconsin. In Lenox, South Dakota, she visited a clinic and spoke at a health care forum. She said the plan was intended to make it easier for rural people to obtain insurance through large purchasing cooperatives, and she responded to critics who say the proposal would create a new government bureaucracy.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: It is not a new bureaucracy. It is not new government. It is a way through businesses and individually, like self-employed farmers, to be able to get the best possible bargain in the marketplace, so that for a change if you're a small business or if you're an entrepreneur, or you're a rancher, you will ge the same low cost insurance that now only governments and big business are entitled to get.

MR. MacNeil: A British clinic announced today that it will make the abortion pill, RU486, available to American women who come to London. It's doing so after the British Health Department eased a ban on distributing the ban to foreign women. RU486 is not available in the United States, although the Clinton administration has called for clinical trials, a first step towards possible FDA approval.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton declared part of Northern Mississippi a federal disaster area today. The region was hit by a winter storm last week which left six inches of ice and caused massive power outages. Mr. Clinton also announced he was releasing $300 million in emergency heating assistance to 23 states. The money will be distributed based on which states had the coldest weather and greatest number of low income households. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the U.N. man in charge in Sarajevo, the Balanced Budget Amendment, Mark Shields and Paul Gigot, and the endorsement Olympics. NEWSMAKER

MR. MacNeil: We start tonight with the Bosnia story and a Newsmaker interview with the top United Nations General in Bosnia- Herzegovina. A NATO ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs to remove their artillery from around Sarajevo or face air strikes expires Sunday. Earlier today, I talked with Lt. Gen. Sir Michael Rose from his quarters in Sarajevo.

MR. MacNeil: Gen. Rose, thank you very much for joining us. To what extent have the Bosnian Serbs removed their heavy weapons by today?

LT. GEN. SIR MICHAEL ROSE, Commander UN Forces, Bosnia: Well, there's been a steady move of weapons out of the 20 kilometer total exclusion zone, and there's also been quite a number of weapons coming into the designated locations. Tomorrow there will be a very large move of weapons both out of the exclusion zone and into the designated locations. And by tomorrow evening we have the absolute assurance that the Bosnian Serbs, that all weapons will be moved or under our control. So the effect will be 100 percent compliance both with the United Nations peace plan and with the NATO ultimatum. And that will occur by midnight our time tomorrow night.

MR. MacNeil: How are you checking that? Do you have your own observers watching each individual weapon being moved?

GEN. ROSE: Well, of course, we have a very large number of troops already deployed in the total exclusion zone. And we will be adding to that number immeasurably. The process by which we will be verifying their compliance is that each suspected site, whether it's been a site identified from the air, whether it's been reported to us by others, or whether it's the result of our own observations, every site will be inspected every day from now and henceforth for the foreseeable future.

MR. MacNeil: Gen. Rose, when weapons are placed under your control, what does that really mean literally?

GEN. ROSE: Well, what under control means is that we will have an armed presence at each of the sites. If anybody wishes to recover those weapons from under our control, they will have to use force to gain access to them. And not only that, they will then be in total breach of the -- the conditions placed upon them. And we will then use force against them.

MR. MacNeil: Your spokesman, Col. Aikman, says, "We will have physically checked them." Does check mean disabling the weapons in any way, removing the firing mechanisms?

GEN. ROSE: Well, we certainly don't want to get in public into what our actual measures are, but I can assure you that when they're under our control, they will not be available for use in any way at all.

MR. MacNeil: Have the Bosnian government forces turned in their heavy weapons?

GEN. ROSE: Yes, they have, indeed. And we had assurance this evening from the Bosnian government authorities that they will have produced all the weapons they have under our control in one site here in Sarajevo also by tomorrow evening. So by tomorrow evening at midnight both sides will have completely fulfilled the conditions laid upon them.

MR. MacNeil: Will it be you, personally, who decides whether the Bosnian Serbs have complied by the NATO deadline, midnight Sunday?

GEN. ROSE: Well, there will be a number of measures put in hand. I've described one of them. And that is every single location and site that we can identify from either the ground or the air will be visited. And depending on those reports, an assessment will be made as to whether they've been in full compliance. But every indication at the moment is that there will be full compliance.

MR. MacNeil: But it will be you who makes that assessment, is that correct?

GEN. ROSE: It most certainly will be me that makes the assessment on the ground, yes.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. So you are the man really who will determine whether a NATO air strike is justified or not?

GEN. ROSE: Well, I don't think really we should get into all the "what if's" that can happen, but certainly if anybody is in breach of the conditions that have been laid upon them both by the United Nations peace plan and by the NATO ultimatum, if they're in manifest and flagrant breach, then they can expect to be subject to NATO air strikes. Let nobody be in any doubt about that at all.

MR. MacNeil: How will you determine what is flagrant or what is only minor breach? I mean, does it -- must it be 100 percent of the weapons of which you have a list, or if there are a few they don't get out, will that still be regarded as full compliance?

GEN. ROSE: Well, there are all sorts of eventualities, of course, that could occur, but if, for example, and I'll take an extreme case, and it's a case which really is not going to occur, but if you've asked me to produce an extreme example of a flagrant breach, if there is an artillery position observed firing into Sarajevo, then that would be a flagrant breach of the conditions and of course would be subject to air strikes. But that situation is not going to occur. What we're going to find is that there may be objects, weapons, vehicles identified as possibly being in breach. Now, there has been a war, a ferocious war fought in and around Sarajevo for the past 22 months. There are derelict tanks. There are dis-used weapons. There are fake weapons littering the countryside. And it is our responsibility to be able to go and visit each one of those positions to ascertain whether that weapons system is, indeed, a derelict or a fake, or whether, in fact, it is a weapon that could be used. Now, that's the judgment that I shall be making on the ground.

MR. MacNeil: How does the chain of command work, Gen. Rose? Suppose you decided there is not full compliance. What happens then? Do you call up the NATO commander in Aviano and say, go, or what happens?

GEN. ROSE: Most certainly not. I work through a chain of command which goes from me to Gen. Cot, who's the force commander for the whole former Republic of Yugoslavia. He works through the civil authority, Mr. Akashi, and there's -- there's a very well rehearsed command and control mechanism which can be brought into play if such an occasion should arise. But I would like to go back to my original point, and that is that all the indications we have at the moment and the assurances that have been given today to Mr. Akashi and to Gen. Cot and, indeed, to myself are that there will be full compliance of all the conditions by tomorrow night, midnight. And so these continual harpings on what may go wrong at this very delicate time when we're trying to build confidence on both sides in each other, and, and establishment of a situation that is stable is actually not very helpful.

MR. MacNeil: Let me change the subject. What is the status of the 800 troops the Russians are sending?

GEN. ROSE: Well, the quantity of troops I think is going to be slightly less than that, but the status of the Russian troops here in the former Republic of Yugoslavia is that they are under command, as any other United Nations Protection Force troops of Gen. Cot. And he, I understand, has asked some Russian troops to be relieved from their present commitments in Croatia and sent to help with this extremely difficult and true consuming process of building confidence here in Sarajevo.

MR. MacNeil: So they will, they will be transferred to your command?

GEN. ROSE: They will be transferred to my command, that is so.

MR. MacNeil: Have you decided how you will deploy them?

GEN. ROSE: I don't think you'll find many military commanders giving their future intentions in front of the world before they actually happen.

MR. MacNeil: Right. The Bosnian Muslims fear that the Russians may be partial to the Serbs. Do you have any anxiety on that score, yourself?

GEN. ROSE: I have absolutely no anxiety. All the United Nations Protection Force troops here are impartial; we're neutral; and we're here to serve the interests of peace and the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And I'm sure all elements under my command are as committed to that as I am.

MR. MacNeil: Do you in the United Nations in Bosnia and NATO see eye to eye? Are you perfectly in sync on all this now?

GEN. ROSE: We are totally in sync, and I believe we have been since the 9th of February, when we put together a peace plan here in Sarajevo, as a result of an enormous amount of hard work by Mr. Akashi and Gen. Cot over the previous four or five days. And NATO, the North Atlantic Council also came to a similar position and came out with their ultimatum. Yes, since that moment we have been in total step.

MR. MacNeil: There appeared to be or were reported to be some differences earlier in the week, some American officials suggesting that your idea of putting the Serb weapons under U.N. control was too lenient. Do you have any comment on that?

GEN. ROSE: No, I have absolutely no comment at all on that. I mean, NATO and ourselves are completely satisfied with the control measures that we have designed. There is no way that anybody who has put weapons under our control will be in a position to use them again.

MR. MacNeil: Gen. Rose, the, the Russian, Vitaly Churkin, who was in Sarajevo yesterday, who negotiated the Serb withdrawal agreement, he said today that air strikes would lead to all out war, that the choices were either negotiation or all out war after air strikes. As an experienced general, do you -- is he right that if there were air strikes, it would result in all out war?

GEN. ROSE: Well, sir, I work at the tactical level. And I'm sure he works at the strategic level. All I know is the rules of engagement that I have been given by both NATO and the United Nations. A judgment as to whether this has ramifications outside Bosnia-Herzegovina is one that I'm not prepared to make.

MR. MacNeil: Right. Finally, if all is quiet in Sarajevo next week, are you going to try to extend this process to other cities in Bosnia?

GEN. ROSE: Well, certainly we are, because I think the, the logic that has been applied here and the processes that have been agreed by the two elements involved are certainly applicable elsewhere. And I also believe that the fact that Sarajevo is the capital city of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the return to normality there, and the peaceful existence of its citizens is bound to have a read-across elsewhere in this war-torn country.

MR. MacNeil: Have you chosen another city as the next target to try and apply this process?

GEN. ROSE: Indeed, we have. We are looking closely at Mostar, Gornji-Vakuf, Vitez, and probably Maglaj. But there's a limited amount of resources we have to work with. It has been a very true consuming business, building confidence here in Sarajevo, but as soon as we are able, then we will start the same process working in these cities elsewhere.

MR. MacNeil: Yes. Well, just to conclude, as we talk here on Friday evening your time in Sarajevo, you do not expect there to be air strikes on Monday?

GEN. ROSE: Sir, if we can bring peace to Bosnian-Herzegovina without bombing, then we will have brought a much better peace than we could ever achieve by the use of air power.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Gen. Rose, thank you very much for joining us.

GEN. ROSE: Not at all.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Balanced Budget Amendment, Shields and Gigot, and the endorsement Olympics. FOCUS - BALANCING THE BOOKS

MR. LEHRER: Now the fight in Congress over balancing the federal budget the easy way. The Senate will debate a proposed constitutional amendment that would simply require a balanced budget. The argument is over the many divisions, most of them within the Democrats. Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Paul Simon of Illinois usually find themselves on the same side of most issues in the United States Senate, but today the two liberal Democrats couldn't be farther apart on how to balance the federal budget.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD, [D] West Virginia: Sen. Simon, it is a pleasure to have you here this morning, and you may proceed in any fashion that you would like.

SEN. PAUL SIMON, [D] Illinois: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you first of all for your courtesy. We differ very strongly on this, but we differ with respect.

MR. HOLMAN: On Capitol Hill this week, while most of their colleagues were working back in their home states, Senators Simon and Byrd were conducting dueling hearings on Simon's proposal to amend the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget. Those hearings culminated in a face-to-face meeting this morning.

SEN. PAUL SIMON: We have a debt addiction. I don't think, Mr. Chairman, we're going to get rid of that debt addiction without a constitutional amendment.

MR. HOLMAN: For the soft spoken and well-liked Simon, the upcoming vote on his amendment is another chance for a victory that narrowly escaped him eight years ago.

SEN. PAUL SIMON: The year we missed it by one vote was 1986. And at that point we faced the same arguments we do right now. 1986, the big argument was we can balance the budget without a constitutional amendment. Interesting that in 1986, the deficit was $2 trillion. Now it is $4.4 trillion. We made a great mistake in not passing it in 1986. If we don't pass it this year, we'll make a great mistake again.

MR. HOLMAN: In Robert Byrd, Simon is pitted against the man considered by many to be the virtual embodiment of the Senate, its rules, and its history. For the powerful chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the fight against the amendment is the fight for the integrity of the Constitution and takes on near moral significance.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: It's a popular amendment. The American people think and they've been led to believe that by some of our elected members of the legislature and by some of our chief executives in the White House it's popular, it'll be easy, just pass a balanced budget amendment, adopt that, our problems will go away. But our problems will have just begun.

MR. HOLMAN: If not easy, the main features of the Simon proposal to amend the Constitution found relatively simple. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year. The government cannot spend more than it takes in. And the limit on the debt shall not be increased. Both those provisions could be overridden by a three-fifths majority vote in both the House and the Senate. The Simon bill also states no bill to increase revenue, i.e., raise taxes, shall become law unless approved by a majority of the House and the Senate. If Congress does pass the Balanced Budget Amendment, it still would have to be approved by the legislatures of at least 38 states. It then would become the 28th amendment to the Constitution and take effect in the year 2001. And Simon says the government already is moving toward a balanced budget, thanks to the work of President Clinton.

SEN. PAUL SIMON: The Clinton program, according to the CBO, saved about 433 billion over a five-year period. They suggest that over this period that we would have to balance there would have to be a $600 billion savings. The 433 billion has not hurt me that much. I don't think it's hurt you that much. Yes, we're paying a few cents more than we would be otherwise for gasoline, and I'm paying a little more in income taxes, but this country has benefited by that. You'll have to look at some areas where you may have to increase revenue, or you may have to have some additional cuts. But we're talking about a glide path that is much less severe than the cuts we've had the last two years.

MR. HOLMAN: You reject Sen. Simon's contention that balance can be achieved by 2001, using the Clinton plan, plus some more budget discipline and new taxes.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I reject it categorically. I suggest that those Senators who advocate a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget be required to say what they would do on it, what will they do in 1990, will they raise taxes? And Simon's honest in saying apparently he thinks that would be the thing to do. But how many of them will advocate raising taxes? If they don't advocate it today, they won't advocate it then. And if they don't advocate cutting Social Security today or education or veterans' compensation or pension benefits or federal workers' retirement benefits or federal workers' pay or military pay or military retirement, if they don't advocate those things today, what do they plan to do? Do they plan to retire before 1999 so they won't have to make tough choices? It's a bad idea.

MR. HOLMAN: Byrd says what's more likely is that the job of balancing the budget will fall to the President.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: His advisers will say, Mr. President, you have a responsibility to balance this budget. Congress didn't do it, and we advise you to impound sufficient moneys to balance this budget this year. Then suppose we cut Social Security payments or veterans compensation or some other entitlement programs, let's say, and the American people who are the recipients of such payments, could say, well, I'm going into court, I'm entitled to this by law.

SEN. PAUL SIMON: The courts have said Congress has the ability to determine who has standing to come into the courts on things. We can, we can make sure that there is just not endless litigation on this thing and that the courts are not in there dictating what should happen.

MR. HOLMAN: But it was the scenario of large, mandated spending cuts that helped sway at Byrd's share of the hearing. On Tuesday, administration and cabinet officials predicted such massive cuts and fiscal chaos if the amendment is approved.

LEON PANETTA, Budget Director: What they are doing is taking a country with the largest economy in the world, with a six, seven trillion dollar GDP, and basically binding our hands so that we can't operate. I mean, no other country in the world would do this to themselves, no other country in the world.

DONNA SHALALA, Secretary, Health & Human Services: The Balanced Budget Amendment would take the security out of Social Security. The Balanced Budget Amendment would take the care out of Medicare.

MR. HOLMAN: And Sen. Byrd was not reluctant to help his witnesses along.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: The Department would be forced to close the FBI and DEA field offices throughout the country?

JANET RENO, Attorney General: Clearly, most of the small and mid- sized offices would have to be closed.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Would you then foresee an increase in violent criminal and illegal drug activity in these virtually unmanned areas?

JANET RENO: Well, again, Mr. Chairman, as I have said --

MR. HOLMAN: One floor above, Sen. Simon had mustered up a supporting cast of his own.

PAUL TSONGAS, Concord Coalition: But it's pretty clear that we have now accepted deficit spending as, as American as apple pie. It's simply what we are. We are addicted to it.

DAVID STANLEY, National Taxpayers Union: We have had 25 consecutive years of deficit spending and rising debt. For 25 years, every President, regardless of party, every Congress, regardless of party, has promised trust us, we don't need a Balanced Budget Amendment, we're going to solve this problem, but it hasn't happened yet.

MR. HOLMAN: Though he has enlisted the support of some Democratic colleagues in pushing the amendment, Simon mostly is allied with conservative Republicans. He's put himself in the unique position of opposing both the President and traditional Democratic constituencies, such as labor and social welfare groups.

SEN. PAUL SIMON: I wish they were all with me, but I have to ask, what is the best long-term interest of the country including those very groups.

MR. HOLMAN: Expert Congress watcher Norman Ornstein says the more Simon's traditional allies complain, the more Simon holds to his position.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Institute: He's dug in his heels, and I think what's happened is that the more Sen. Byrd and opponents of this amendment, including, of course, as we know, the President of the United States and everybody in the administration have decided that they're going to fight this all out, the more it's cost him, I think, to decide that he's going to fight right back.

MR. HOLMAN: And Ornstein, who thinks the Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad idea, says Simon is being deceived by his Republican co-sponsors, who would never vote for a tax increase to balance the budget.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Forty Senators can block any tax increase, and so many of Sen. Simon's allies are saying he's just being naive on this, that Phil Gramm and Orrin Hatch, and the other conservatives are going to use this as leverage to cut spending.

MR. HOLMAN: When the two antagonists got together this morning, neither had succeeded in changing the other's mind.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Your statement says those of us who hold public office generally like to get re-elected, and faced with a choice of unpopular decisions or simply drifting, we would choose the more popular but infinitely more harmful course of drifting. Senator, I don't believe you really mean that.

SEN. PAUL SIMON: I mean it. I mean every word.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I don't believe you really mean it. I believe that there are many in this room who faced with an unpopular decision will not simply drift.

SEN. PAUL SIMON: I know you are sincere in this, and I respect that, and I think you understand that I am sincere in this, and genuinely believe in it.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: We will continue our debate on the floor of the Senate.

MR. HOLMAN: Simon now needs 66 other Senators to support the amendment when it comes up for a vote next month. Congressional observers say the vote is too close to call, but they also say with apparently enough support for the amendment in the House and out in the states, the Senate vote will determine whether the Balanced Budget Amendment lives or dies. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Now some Friday night political analysis from our regular syndicated columnist Mark Shields joined tonight by Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Mark, what happened on this Balanced Budget Amendment? What happened within the Democratic Party that allowed this to happen?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, it's an enormously popular proposal. I mean, I don't care where you go in the country and say, how about shouldn't they have to balance their budget, I mean, for goodness sakes every household in America does, isn't it time they did it in Washington, they've had these enormous deficits, and basically, when it comes to matters of spending, legislators historically have adopted a position of being in favor of general economy and specific expenditures. And nobody has identified that better than Sen. Byrd, a masterful legislator from West Virginia. Anybody who travels through West Virginia by auto or foot is hard pressed not to run into some federal installation before he or she has to stop either for refreshment or refill a gas tank. So what you have on this one is an awful lot of people who are publicly committed to a proposal, and the question is whether they can get 34 Senators to publicly stand up and say, no, I'm not in favor of a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.

MR. LEHRER: Paul, what about the point that Ornstein made in Kwame's piece, that if Paul Simon believes that the Republican Senators are going to stay with him at crunch time after there's an amendment that he's wrong, how's that sound to you?

MR. GIGOT: Well, he's right about that. There's different philosophies at work here. The Republicans want to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to shrink the size of government, and they'd vote for, presumably against tax increases and for spending cuts, whereas, Sen. Simon says, look, I want to have an honest debate, and he's willing to say on a pay-as-you-go basis let's raise taxes. But he's not going to get many Republicans coming along with him. And he's not going to get many of his fellow Democrats to agree with him on this. And it is fascinating. I never thought I'd see the Balanced Budget Amendment be the issue that was the rehabilitation of Democrats of Robert Bork. Do you remember the judge they all voted against? Now they're all bringing him out, because he's against it.

MR. LEHRER: Is that right?

MR. GIGOT: Because he's against the amendment, he thinks it will end up throwing the budget, which ought to be essentially a political decision, over to the courts, and we decide too many political issues now in the courts.

MR. LEHRER: But if you had a Balanced Budget Amendment, wouldn't everything in the Congress be a to-the-wire priority political vote, because you would always be voting on that dilemma, would you not, deciding whether or not you raise taxes, or whether or not you cut spending? Then everything would have to fit in there?

MR. SHIELDS: I think you're absolutely right, Jim. What Sen. Byrd and the critics are doing now is laying out the litany of horribles.

MR. LEHRER: Close the FBI?

MR. SHIELDS: Close the FBI, the $605 increase -- cut in our Social Security benefits over a year, a $450 cut in Medicare benefits, $723 increase in taxes, and then going through all, all the cuts it's going to be, the Marine Corps will be, you know, basically a cocoon somewhere. So that, that's the case. But I think Paul put his finger right on it, which is the key. I mean, you've got two different groups: Democrats who want to say, okay, let's do it on a pay-as-you-go, and others who say, hey, this is the greatest opportunity in the world to shrink this behemoth down to the size we would like to have, which is a lot smaller.

MR. LEHRER: Paul, Mark said, you know, the politics of this are terrific because it sounds good in any audience, you always get a cheer for this one. Are the politics such that Simon's going to get his votes? What do you think? Sixty-six is a lot of --

MR. GIGOT: It is. I don't think he's going to -- I don't think he's going to get the vote. I mean, Bob Dole put it when he said you never go wrong voting for something that fails. And I think there are a lot of Republicans here who would like to see this thing get to 66 with a lot of Democrats who they can then run against if they vote against it but not quite get 67, because who knows, because a lot of unintended consequences when you fiddle with the Constitution.

MR. SHIELDS: The apprehension is, of course, that it would sail through the House.

MR. GIGOT: If the Senate did pass --

MR. SHIELDS: If the Senate did pass it. And then --

MR. LEHRER: Suddenly, of course, there is a long process of it has to go to the states for -- it would be a long time before it actually was enacted into law.

MR. SHIELDS: Thirty-eight states.

MR. LEHRER: But even, again, the politics of that could make it go quickly --

MR. SHIELDS: It could very well, and the House vote -- the House will vote even if it doesn't pass, I think.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. SHIELDS: Because a lot of people just want to be on the record on that one.

MR. LEHRER: Look, let's talk for a couple of minutes about the health care reform debate, our weekly subject as well. The fights this week seem to be over television commercials rather than over substance. We did a thing here the other night, in fact. And one in particular, Mark, that's raised a lot of heat is the one the Democrats put out where they had all these cuts of Republican leaders saying there is no health care crisis. And then there was one, Carroll Campbell, the Republican governor of South Carolina, saying, wait a minute, you took me out of context. What's your view of that?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, they didn't take him out of context, Jim. They just basically totally created the opposite impression of what he, in fact, did say. He said, Gov. Campbell, Republicans should not say there's not a crisis. And so they just said, not a crisis, and just did that. Look, I mean, it's a little bit like Abraham Lincoln had said a house divided itself can stand. And we just -- we just - - [laughing] --

MR. GIGOT: He wouldn't have been elected. [laughing]

MR. SHIELDS: Well, he might. You know, it was a tough issue.

MR. GIGOT: McClellan was a tough candidate.

MR. SHIELDS: The -- the real critical point here to me is this is the kind of thing you can get away with in any governors race in a medium size state, but you're not going to get away with it when there's limited press attention or limited public scrutiny of the candidates or the campaign. And you're talking about the President of the United States and the most ambitious domestic initiative of half a century. You're going to get scrutiny. You should not have your ads being controversial, being criticized, and being censured editorially by papers that are supporting your position.

MR. LEHRER: Like the Washington Post.

MR. SHIELDS: As the Washington Post did this week. And the other thing is I don't know why they're attacking Republicans. I mean, if you're going to pick a villain, pick the health insurance industry. A final thing, why do they use that phrase, which is the most obnoxious in the world, "They just don't get it?" I mean, if there's a more patronizing, condescending, divisive phrase than "they just don't get it--"

MR. LEHRER: Well, other than that --

MR. SHIELDS: Other than that, I like the production value very do that.

MR. LEHRER: Of course, some people suggested even on our little thing the other night that, that this is kind of a weird way to conduct a debate over something that is as important and as complex as health care reform, the little battle of the 30-second commercial. But is that just part of our system now, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: I think it is, the phenomenon of the permanent campaign, but I actually think that there is a lot more conversation going on on this issue. This is a debate that's being issued -- an issue that's being debated in doctors' offices and hospital rooms, in businesses all over the country, because it affects so many people. It's trench warfare.

MR. SHIELDS: And there was a good piece -- the Chamber of Commerce this week voted sixteen to seven for some -- to endorse some form of employer mandate. I think the health alliances, as I said earlier in the show, I think are in big, big trouble. I think employer mandates are still alive.

MR. LEHRER: Another subject, the trade problem between the United States and Japan, is there political mileage there for the President on that? What are the politics of that domestically?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, the President contrasts the two foreign policy crises of the moment. I mean, it's really not of the same magnitude that Japan and Bosnia. The President has total bipartisan support in Japan among elected politicians. There are those in the press editorially, and those --

MR. LEHRER: You don't mean in Japan, you mean on Japan?

MR. SHIELDS: On Japan, excuse me.

MR. LEHRER: It's quite all right.

MR. SHIELDS: But as far as, I mean, Sen. Dole and Republicans stand with the President, this is -- because the President in this case is invoking what our, our traditional as well as consensus American values, a two-way street, reciprocity, not be enrolled, not being taken advantage of, not be an Uncle Sucker, standing up for American jobs, American workers, and all the rest, so I think he's got very much the moral and rhetorical high ground politically on this issue.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: I don't. I mean -- there are no electoral votes in Yokohama. That's for sure. So it looks good right away domestically, but, you know, if trade wars and trade fighting were good politics, I mean, Dick Gephardt might be President today, because, remember, that was one of his signature issues. I think what's going on here is really sort of domestic coalition repair. I mean, the President went after NAFTA and GATT and broke with his base, the unions, and a lot of members of his own party on trade. And I think that what he's trying to do here, he's trying to suggest to them before the AFL-CIO Committee next week when Vice President Gore is going to go over and he's going to make a peace offering, he's suggesting to them, look, we can play tough on Japan, and we can look after human interest as well.

MR. SHIELDS: I think the early returns though show that the President is in, is in far stronger position. I don't think there's going to be a trade war. I don't think that the Japanese will cooperate and will comply, and I think that the President's going to come off unlike any previous administrations who have made -- issued threat after threat and then eventually dropped any threat.

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of threats and the President, the other thing you mentioned too, Mark, is Bosnia. Paul, the word from the White House this afternoon is, if there are -- and, of course, listening to Gen. Rose in the interview with Robin earlier in the program makes you think there aren't going to be air strikes, but if there are going to be air strikes, the President is going to go on television probably tomorrow and explain it to the American people. Is there a big explanation due? Do you think the people are with him on this, or is there any way to know?

MR. GIGOT: Judging by his remarks, or lack of remarks this week, I'm not sure most Americans know that we're in this at the edge of actually military action. I mean, he's selling the health care plan all over the country when we've got an ultimatum, NATO's first offensive military action in history threatened, and he hasn't told the American people why, at least not that I've heard, he hasn't told the American people what the potential risks are, what the potential consequences are, and if, if we succeed, something like fifteen or twenty thousand Americans are going to have to go there to enforce the peace.

MR. LEHRER: In a word, Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: I think that he has to make the case. He has to lay out how we define our mission, what its limits are, what its objectives are, how we'll measure success. I don't think that has been done. I think he has to persuade the nation as to why our national interest is involved here. I think that he has, quite frankly, the Russian willingness to send peacekeepers expressed today, I think is certainly a plus for the Clinton policy which has been criticized of tilting too much toward Yeltsin in Russia, the fact that the Russians are willing to come in with, with the Serbs and the historical allies and all the rest, and apparently in the interview with Gen. Rose earlier on the hour it's encouraging that maybe this time the threats sounded so serious, looked so serious, that the Serbs may be complying.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, Paul, thank you both. FINALLY - GOING FOR THE GREEN

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight, the other Olympic competition. For athletes competing in Lillehammer, Norway, there is more at stake than just Gold medals. It's the riches that come with victory. But the endorsements can be as illusive as the Gold. Correspondent Lee Hochberg of Oregon Public Broadcasting went along recently as Nancy Kerrigan's agent competed in his own sport, the endorsement game.

JERRY SOLOMON, Kerrigan's Agent: One of the things that we have wanted to do, you know, going back for quite some time actually is get to the point where there is a Nancy Kerrigan line of clothing. I hadn't actually thought about shoes, but --

MR. HOCHBERG: As figure skater Nancy Kerrigan prepared to chase the Gold in Lillehammer, her agent, Jerry Solomon, was chasing endorsement gold for her in Boston.

JERRY SOLOMON: You can touch Nancy Kerrigan. She is accessible. She is --

MR. HOCHBERG: She's a real person.

JERRY SOLOMON: Yeah. So if these were going to be shoes that would go in high-end boutique stores, we, we wouldn't do it, because she wouldn't be comfortable with that. And it might be exclusive to K-mart, which would be fine with them, and they're huge, and maybe she becomes their next Jacqueline Smith.

MR. HOCHBERG: Kerrigan is the hottest endorsement property of this year's crop of Olympic athletes. Her fresh-faced beauty and glamorous sport have lured manufacturers of products from shavers to shoes. New England shoe manufacturer David Necktow is sure Kerrigan's name will attract the typical female shopper.

DAVID NECKTOW, Shoe Manufacturer: I think subliminally she's going to say, hey, this is something that Nancy Kerrigan's going to wear, and I should be wearing it too. Whether it's true or not, whether Nancy will wear that product, the consumer's going to relate, hey, you know, I can be like Nancy.

MR. HOCHBERG: Kerrigan already has filmed television commercials for Reebok athletic shoes as well as Seiko watches, Campbell's Soup, Northwest Airlines, Evian Water, and Ray-Ban Sunglasses. Earlier this month, a frenzied Solomon met with representatives from Remington and Revlon. He settled on a deal for Kerrigan to promote Disney theme parks, and he inked a reported $1/2 million Kerrigan movie deal.

JERRY SOLOMON: [on phone] Hello. I'm here. Where are you, on an airplane?

MR. HOCHBERG: Then he talked to a literary agent about a Kerrigan book.

JERRY SOLOMON: There may be another book here that would be more of a pictorial book about her with her skating in her different outfits and just a, you know, almost even a coffee table book.

MR. HOCHBERG: Kerrigan has been popular since the 1992 Olympics, but her market value has soared since the January 6th attack on her.

MR. HOCHBERG: Were you interested in having Nancy associated with your product before the assault on her?

JERRY SOLOMON: Prior to that, no. She now will earn four or five times more from endorsements. She will get four or five times more press than she would have before.

MR. HOCHBERG: David Burns, who casts commercials, predicts Kerrigan will earn $5 million in endorsements after the Olympics even if she fails to win a medal. Winning gold could mean $10. He says rival Tonya Harding, whose roughhouse image might have limited her endorsement value to $50,000 without the Kerrigan assault, now will be worth nothing.

DAVID BURNS, Casting Agent: Zero. Absolutely nothing. Even if she were found innocent, she would still not receive any calls, appearances, or commercials. Remember, Tonya referred to herself as the "Charles Barkley of skaters." I mean, that's almost the kiss of death, because Charles Barkley can be Charles Barkley, but a dainty little doll-like figure skater, you'd better not compare yourself to Charles Barkley.

CHARLES BARKLEY: [commercial] I am not a role model. I am not paid to be a role model.

MR. HOCHBERG: The bad-girl image that may haunt Harding doesn't hurt bad boy pro-basketball player Barkley. He has this endorsement with Nike, the sports shoe company. NIKE spokesman Liz Dolan acknowledges that even a hint of controversy disqualifies female athletes from the endorsement game.

LIZ DOLAN, Nike: We seem to need our women athletes to be the girl next door, but we don't require the boys next door to behave the same way.

MR. HOCHBERG: Athletes are learning that properly crafted images can sell. Before basketball star Shaquille O'Neil ever set foot on a professional court, he and his agent mapped out an image for the 21-year-old they hoped would sell.

LEONARD ARMATO, O'Neil's Agent: He's a combination of the Terminator and Bambi which really blends two very, very different types of characteristics.

MR. HOCHBERG: O'Neil's $3 million a year endorsement package with Reebok promotes that image.

LEONARD ARMATO: He pulls down backboards, he breaks ribs, I mean, that kind of thing. On the other hand, he's also very personable and doesn't let his size interfere with his warmth.

[PROMOTION]

MR. HOCHBERG: Through promotions like this one at this month's National Sports Apparel Convention in Atlanta, Reebok has pumped $50 million into sales of its Shaq Attack sneakers for which O'Neil receives royalties.

ANGEL MARTINEZ, Reebok: Well, our business in Shaq year one has been tremendous. Without disclosing too much detail, let's just say it's in excess of $100 million around the world.

MR. HOCHBERG: Only one year into his pro career, O'Neil has a $12 million deal with Pepsi, contracts with Spalding Basketball and Kenner Toys, his own rap music CD which has gone gold. He's estimated to be earning $10 million a year off the court, with career potential of 100 million. It's less common for Olympic athletes to strike endorsement gold. Gymnast Mary Lou Retton did earn a record five to ten million dollars in two months after her 1984 Olympic performance. But very few of the 300 athletes doing endorsements today are Olympians. Advertisers seem loathe to shower riches on athletes who quickly fade from view. And they seem to prefer females with Retton's pixy-like qualities.

LIZ DOLAN: Companies that sell products to women in particular are looking for beautiful women, so it's hard for women in sports. Men in sports are not necessarily judged by thosestandards.

ANN MEYERS, Former Olympian: I think that there are a lot of women out there that can do a good job. You know, why Mary Lou Retton?

MR. HOCHBERG: Female athletes find they also need to be in the right sports to land endorsements. Former Olympic and women's pro- basketball star, Ann Meyers, is a member of the Women's Hall of Fame. She was also married to late Baseball Hall of Famer Don Drysdale and is a mother of three. She thought she'd be a natural for endorsements.

ANN MEYERS: Maybe something with diapers or Geritol, because Nancy Lopez had done Geritol with Ray Knight and so forth, so we were looking at different things, family products and also athletically or whatever, and there really was not a positive feedback.

MR. HOCHBERG: Meyers says corporate leaders are uncomfortable with the image of female athletes in seemingly unfeminine sports.

ANN MEYERS: A businessman could really relate a lot better to a Don Drysdale than they could an Ann Meyers, no matter how much they respect the things that I have achieved athletically.

MR. HOCHBERG: The image barrier may be especially hard to break for minorities. Track and field champion Jackie Joyner has run slowly in the endorsement game.

DAVID BURNS: Jackie Joyner is considered one of the greatest women athletes in the world. There's no question about it. And what she earned is almost embarrassing. I mean, she got about four endorsements, and each one probably paid a hundred, two hundred thousand.

MR. HOCHBERG: And there's the case of figure skater Debi Thomas, who electrified American television audiences with skating performances that won her the national championship in 1988. [audience cheering] Thomas, then a Stanford University student, went on to win the bronze at the Olympics. National skating champion, top student, bright, and outgoing, she still received only two small endorsement offers. She believes her being African- American scared advertisers away.

DEBI THOMAS, Figure Skater: You expect to see an African-American in basketball or in football, but in figure skating, it's like, well, that's not what we expect. We want like this, you know, cloned American sweetheart, I don't know.

MR. HOCHBERG: Thomas made a million dollars skating professionally for four years and is happily studying medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, but she says she's learned what advertisers are looking for.

DEBI THOMAS: You see Nancy Kerrigan and, you know, like she's a good skater, but she hasn't really proven that she can really handle it under the pressure, you know. I mean, but they still want her for everything, and, you know, now this whole incident with Tonya Harding, she's got it made. You know, it's like I wish somebody would have whacked me in the leg. I wouldn't even had to skate, you know.

MR. HOCHBERG: The grace with which Nancy Kerrigan has handled the Detroit assault is only one of many reasons she's poised to leap to the top of the endorsement pack. A great athlete in the right sport, very feminine, and not a minority, it's clear Kerrigan will be very visible in the months to come. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Friday was NATO's Sunday deadline for Serbian withdrawal from Sarajevo, the UN commander in Sarajevo said on the NewsHour the Bosnian Serbs had assured him they would withdraw their weapons or turn them over to the UN by Saturday, and he said the process for lifting the siege of Sarajevo would be used in other Bosnian cities. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight.Have a nice weekend. We'll see you again on Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.