The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, excerpts from President Clinton's newsconferences, dominated by Starr report questions; two newsmaker interviews with Treasury Secretary Rubin on the economy and Senate Minority Leader Daschle on the President's problems; plus a Betty Ann Bowser report on the teacher shortage. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton said today the Starr Report has not hampered his ability to lead. He took reporters' questions for the first time since the independent counsel's report was released last Friday. He said Americans are now aware of the details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and have demonstrated they want to put the matter to rest. He spoke at the State Department at a joint news conference with visiting Czech President Vaclav Havel. Mr. Clinton was asked whether he expected the videotape of his grand jury appearance would someday be made public when he testified August 17th.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think that I knew that the rules were against it, but I thought it would happen. I think that's where I was on that. But it's not of so much concern to me. I mean, you know that I acknowledged an improper relationship and that I declined to discuss the details, and that's what happened. So I'll leave it for others to judge and evaluate. That's not for me to say. I want to work on my family and lead this country, and others will have to make all those judgments. They're not within my range of authority anyway, so it's pointless for me to comment on them.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have extended excerpts from the news conference right after this News Summary. Releasing the President's videotape testimony was the subject of discussion in dispute in the House today. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: House Republicans emerged from a closed-door meeting this morning united. Speaker Newt Gingrich wouldn't discuss the President's videotaped testimony but vowed to stick with the decision of the House last week to release to the public most of the information contained in the Starr Report.

REP. JAMES ROGAN, (R) California: We're hoping that we'll get as much bipartisan cooperation on that issue as possible.

KWAME HOLMAN: But coming out of their own meeting this morning, Democrats opposed release of any videotape of the President's August 17th grand jury testimony.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL, (D) New York: Unless the president, the witness, and the grand jury waves their constitutional rights to secrecy, I don't think his testimony should be made public.

REP. JAMES MORAN (D) Virginia: I think the purpose of releasing the tapes would be, one, to humiliate the President and secondly, to gain political advantage.

KWAME HOLMAN: Nonetheless, late this afternoon, Republicans defended the principle of releasing the videotape. Christopher Cox of California referred to the President's own comments just moments before.

REP. CHRISTOPHER COX, (R) California: We should note that as recently as his news conference today, the President has not lodged an objection to this. There is some political discussion of this. But it is not - the President or the White House or the President's lawyers who are objecting to this. To the contrary, the President's lawyers have repeatedly said that the Congress and the country must judge the Starr Report in the context of the President's presentation of his side of the story, and that is precisely what this evidence does.

KWAME HOLMAN: The President's videotaped testimony may be released only by a vote of the House Judiciary Committee, which meets tomorrow.

JIM LEHRER: We'll talk to Senate Minority Leader Daschle about this, among other things, later in the program. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin made a joint appearance before the House Banking Committee today. They testified on the global financial crisis. Greenspan was asked about future interest rates.

REP. JIM LEACH, Chairman, Banking Committee: Obviously, legislatures always tilt a bit towards lower interest rates, but I think it would be fair to say at this time there wouldn't be any great criticism of the administration if there is a movement in a lower interest rate direction.

ALAN GREENSPAN, Chairman, Federal Reserve: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that I can safely say that at the moment there is no endeavor to coordinate the interest rates cuts. I will say this, that we are in fairly extensive conversation amongst the G-10 Central Bank governors, and we're clearly exchanging views on all of various different aspects of our economies, and our views of the overall international situation.

SPOKESMAN: Would Secretary Rubin care to comment?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: Not particularly.

JIM LEHRER: We'll talk to Secretary Rubin later in the program. There were primary races in nine states and the District of Columbia yesterday. In New York, 1984 Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro lost again. She was defeated in the Democratic Primary for U.S. Senator by nine-term Congressman Charles Schumer. He'll oppose incumbent Senator Alfonse D'Amato in November. In Minnesota, Attorney General Hubert Humphrey, III, son of the former vice president, won the Democratic nomination for governor. He defeated two other sons of famous politicians; Ted Mondale, son of former Vice President Mondale, and Mike Freeman, son of a former agriculture secretary. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the President's news conference, Secretary Rubin, Senator Daschle, and the teacher shortage.% ? FOCUS - FIELDING QUESTIONS

JIM LEHRER: It was a joint news conference at the State Department with the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, but the bulk of the questions for President Clinton were about the Starr report. Here's an extended excerpt.

HELEN THOMAS, UPI: What do you say to people who have said that you have lost all the moral authority to lead this nation or to conduct foreign affairs?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I have never stopped leading this country in foreign affairs in this entire year, and I never will. The issues are too important and they affect the way Americans live at home. Just in the last several days, of course, we have taken action against those who killed our people and killed the Kenyans and Tanzanians. We have -- I and my administration have been working for peace in Northern Ireland, for stability in Russia. I have been personally involved in the peace process in the Middle East again, as it reaches another critical phase. I gave a speech Monday, which I think is about the most important subject now facing the world community, how to limit this financial crisis, keep it from spreading, how to develop long-term institutions that will help to promote growth and opportunity for ordinary people around the world in a way that permits America's economic recovery to go on. After that, my objections were embraced by the leaders, the financial leaders of the largest industrial countries in the world. Yesterday, as it happens, I got calls from the Presidents of Mexico, Brazil, and the Prime Minister of Canada, all thankingme for what I said on Monday and saying they wanted to be a part of it. So I feel verygood about where I am in relation to the rest of the world. I had a good talk with President Chirac of France, who called me a couple of days ago to talk about some of our common concerns, and the U.N. inspection system in Iraq and other things. So I feel good about that.

HELEN THOMAS: So you think you do have the moral authority to lead this nation?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, you might -- in my view, that is something that you have to demonstrate very day. My opinion is not as important as the opinion of others. What is important is that I do my job.I said last Friday and I'd like to say again, I am seized on two things: I'm trying to do the still quite painful work that I need to do with my family in our own life; and I'm determined to lead this country and to focus on the issues that are before us. It is not an option. There is no option. We have got to deal with these things. And I'm very, very heartened by what world leaders have said to me in the last two weeks about what they want us to do. And there was an enormous positive reaction here in America and around the world to the steps that I outlined on Monday. It was very, very heartening to me.

TERENCE HUNT, Associated Press: Mr. President, from your understanding of events, is Monica Lewinsky's account of your relationship accurate and truthful? And do you still maintain that you did not lie under oath in your testimony?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Mr. Hunt, I have said for a month now that I did something that was wrong. On last Friday at the prayer breakfast, I laid out as carefully and as brutally honestly as I could what I believe the essential truth to be. I also said then, and I will say again, that I think that the right thing for our country and the right thing for all people concerned is not to get mired in all the details here, but to focus -- for me to focus on what I did, to acknowledge it, to atone for it, and then to work on my family -- where I still have a lot of work to do, difficult work -- and to lead this country, to deal with the agenda before us, these huge issues that I was just talking about internationally, plus, with only two weeks left to go in this budget year, a very, very large range of items before the American people here at home -- doing our part to deal with this financial crisis, with funding the International Monetary Fund, saving the Social Security system before we spend the surplus, doing the important work that we can do to help educate our children, dealing with the patients' bill of rights for these people, 160 million of them, in HMOs. These are the things, to me, that I should be talking about as President, without in any way ever trying to obscure my own personal acknowledgement and chagrin about what I did wrong, and my determination to put it right.

REPORTER: Mr. President Havel, you said today that President Clinton is your great friend. I wonder if the discovered misdeeds of President Clinton have anyhow influenced your approach to him, your relations with him.

PRESIDENT HAVEL: I didn't recognize any change. I was speaking some minutes ago about these faces of America which I don't understand.

LAWRENCE McQUILLAN, Reuters: Mr. President, as the Lewinsky matter continues to unfold, can you foresee any circumstance where you might consider resignation -- either because of the personal toll on you or the toll on the country? And do you think it's fair if the House should release these videotapes?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The personal toll on me is of a no concern except insofar as it affects my personal life. I think -- and I feel the pain better now because I'm working on what I should be working on. I believe the right thing for the country -- and what I believe the people of the country want is, now that they know what happened, they want to put it behind them and they want to go on. And they want me to goon and do my job. In terms of the question you asked about the House, they have to decide that. That's not for me to decide. They have to do their job, and I have to do mine. There are some things, though, we need to do together. And again I would say, it's been quite a long time during this session and there's still only one appropriation bill passed and a lot of other things still out there. So I hope we can work together to do some things for the American people. I think that the time has come to think about the American people and their interests and their future. And that's what I'm going to focus on, and that's what I would hope the Congress would focus on.

REPORTER: Mr. President, you have mentioned in your speech that you appreciate the personal contribution of President Clinton to the NATO enlargement, and you see him also as a personal friend. I'd like to know, how do you think that an eventual resignation or impeachment of President Clinton would influence the American foreign policy and the Czech-American relations.

PRESIDENT HAVEL: Excuse me, I am a little bit tired. I prefer to speak in my language.

PRESIDENT HAVEL: (speaking through interpreter) I believe that this is a matter for the United States and for the American people, who will be their President. When I have made a friendship with someone, I remain that person's friend, no matter which office he or she holds or doesn't hold.

JIM LEHRER: The Clintons will entertain President Havel and his wife at a state dinner tonight at the White House.% ? NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: A Newsmaker interview now with Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. I spoke with him a few minutes ago from the Old Executive Office Building.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, welcome.

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: Nice to be with you, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: First, let me ask you the same question President Clinton was asked his news conference earlier this evening. Does he have the moral authority to lead the country right now?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: Oh, I think he certainly does, Jim. You know, it's interesting. He gave a very thoughtful speech, as you know, this past Monday in New York with respect to the global financial situation and the issues that we're facing. And in the aftermath of that speech, he had calls from something over 20 leaders, countries around the world. I don't actually know how many he spoke to. These were calls that were coming in. But it gives you a sense of how important he is in terms of providing leadership in the world on these really critically important issues, partly I think because people simply - he's President of the United States - but partly that leaders around the world recognize that he understands these issues and is extremely well grounded in thinking about and trying to deal with them.

JIM LEHRER: The Financial Times of London asked a similar question today in its lead editorial. I don't know if you saw that. The headline was "Power Failure at the White House." And it said it was particularly important now "when hopes of stabilizing global economic turmoil hinge on Washington's ability to take the lead." Would you agree with that?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: I think that the basic notion that the United States has to provide leadership, if, in fact, there's going to be sufficient leadership is correct. We started about a year ago I guess it was when problems developed in Thailand focusing on this issue of possible - what was then possible global crisis. Now it has become a global crisis. And throughout this whole process, Jim, while we've worked very well closely with G-7 and other countries, there was no question that American leadership is indispensable if things are going to actually happen. And it's equally no question that the President has provided that leadership, and the world looks to him for that leadership.

JIM LEHRER: And there's no question in your mind then that the President is right not to resign, another question he was asked today?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: Oh, I think absolutely that would be terrible, Jim. Look, he made terrible - I've said this before - I'll say it again - he made terrible mistakes. He feels that way more than anybody else could possibly feel. But I've worked with him for close to six years now - I have enormous respect for the job he's done and I have enormous respect for him, and I will tell you -- I said this a moment ago, I'll say it again - he is exceedingly thoughtful and well grounded with respect to the kinds of issues that we're facing now in this global crisis, and that - important not only to the rest of the world but have the potential for so affecting us.

JIM LEHRER: And it's not affecting your job as Secretary of the Treasury at all?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: I think the answer to that is a little more complicated than a yes or a no, Jim. We are very focused on this. I can tell you, it does not take a minute away from what I'm doing -- I can also tell you the President is enormously focused on these issues. I think it was a week ago this past Monday - it was a week ago this past Monday - Labor Day night - when he called us over to the White House to spend about two hours with him, focusing just on these issues, and he was intensely focused, intensely involved in an extremely substantive participant in the discussion. Obviously, there are people who are focused on this other set of issues, and obviously, he has to spend some time on it. But as far as I can see it, it has not taken anything away from his focus on these critical issues.

JIM LEHRER: You and Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified before Congress today. And many expected Greenspan to kind of hint at a further - further hint that there might be some cuts in interest rates coming to help this global financial situation. There were no such hints, and a lot of people were disappointed. Were you among the disappointed?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: I was not surprised by his testimony. Let us put it that way. I think he spoke with his usual clarity, and I think it will allow people to decide what they think he said. I also said I think at the testimony that I agreed with Alan Greenspan, whatever it is that he may have said.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think just --

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: No, I was not surprised at his comment.

JIM LEHRER: But as a matter of principle, do you think a cut in interest rates would be good for the situation right now?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: Jim, I think the G-7 did something very important in their announcement. 1:30 on Monday afternoon it was something that we - we being the Fed - and Treasury together -- worked on all over the weekend, which was to have the G-7 central bank governors and finance ministers, say that there need to be heightened emphasis on growth, given the shift in the risks in the global economy. In terms of - but there are all sorts of policies that that relates to - interms of the actual question of the Fed lowering interest rates, that is an issue that we never comment on, and I think very rightly, totally respect the independence of the Fed. And I can tell you, when you talk to people around the world, the respect that the President and the administration have had with the independence of the Fed clearly has contributed to the credibility of our system.

JIM LEHRER: But as the Secretary of the Treasury, if you thought that our economy and the rest of the world economy was in jeopardy, in serious jeopardy, and it could be helped by a cut in U.S. interest rates, you would not go to Chairman Greenspan and say, hey, fellow, give us a break here?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: Well, you're asking a different question now.

JIM LEHRER: All right.

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: The Fed and the Treasury work with each other very, very closely. We discuss all sorts of issues. We express our views, whatever they may be, on all sorts of issues, and as you may imagine, if Secretaries of the Treasury and Chairman of the Federal Reserve get together, exchange rates and all sorts of other matters, possibly even interest rates might come up, but when all is said and done, we totally and completely respect the independence of the Fed with respect to making those decisions.

JIM LEHRER: Wall Street today - when Greenspan failed to give the hint that they were listening for, the Dow took a dive. Then later - a couple of three hours later - the President says he's not going to resign, and the Dow goes back up. Now you spent all of your pre-government career on Wall Street. Help us understand what that kind of thing means.

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: Jim, I spent 26 years doing this kind of thing in what was basically a very large investment banking and trading firm. Markets react in all kinds of ways to all sorts of influences, and on different days can react in exactly the opposite ways to exactly the same kind of news. My focus has been, and I think rightly, on what we need to do as a nation, and there our focus has been on doing the kinds of things that we think will promote economic growth, and right now comparatively, in my judgment at least, getting full funding from the International Monetary Fund - which is, as Chairman Greenspan said today at the hearing - whatever its faults may be - it is the best vehicle we have in the international community to help deal with these issues, and we must get full funding when Congress adjourns.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Mr. Secretary, as you know, you've been criticized for that. Some have suggested, in fact, that is your only tool, that is the only U.S. policy for helping the global situation, which is say, IMF go out and solve this.

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: People may say that, but it's not true. We have basically - we have done is gone through this just to focus on maintaining the strength in our own economy, which makes enormous contribution to the rest of the world. We have worked with the other industrial nations of the world cooperatively to encourage growth and financial stability in those countries, and particularly we and the rest of the world have had a tense - an intense and almost constant conversation with Japan about Japan doing what it needs to do to get back on track. We have worked with developing in emerging markets around the world, put in place policies to make them less vulnerable, and obviously we've worked with the countries in trouble to try to help them get back out of trouble.

JIM LEHRER: The number 1 criticism you hear of the IMF, speaking of the countries in trouble, is the IMF tends to come in and have one solution for all countries, and that is, do this to your banks, do this, free market economy, et cetera, and that some people are suggesting that that one solution fits all is wrong, and it's triggered a lot of the problems we're having right now.

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: I think the criticism is simply not true. At least in my judgment, what's happened in the world is over the last five or six years you've had vast capital flows into these emerging markets, and some portion of those capital flows have involved far too little focus on an analysis of the risks that were involved. The result - excess capital flows into countries that had all sorts of problems and in most, though not all cases, badly flawed financial systems. And the result turned out to be combustible. The IMF, in response what really are unprecedented and extremely complex situations - and I would argue the worst global financial situation we've had in the last 50 years -- the IMF has very carefully tailored its programs to the specifics of each country, both with respect to the macroeconomic considerations, fiscal policy, monetary policy, and also the structural problems that exist in these countries, particularly the problems around the financial sector.

JIM LEHRER: Well, as you know, a lot of people just identify the IMF with the United States, and they say, well, the IMF's controlled by - that's a U.S. solution - the IMF is implementing U.S. policy. Is that a correct reading of things?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: No. I think it is fair to say that we are very deeply involved with the IMF, as are quite a number of the other members. I think it is also fair to say that we believe very deeply in a market-based economy, and in doing the kinds of -- and taking the kinds of measures that are consistent with that belief, but the IMF is an independent institution that makes its own judgments. We have been very closely involved in consulting with the IMF and in trying to be helpful as they've worked their way through the decisions that they've had to make.

JIM LEHRER: Now speaking of the market economy --

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: We also work bilaterally with a lot of these countries in providing advice and our views as to the issues they face.

JIM LEHRER: In terms of the market economy internationally, Malaysia, for instance, has recently said forget it for a while, we're going to put some exchange controls in place, meaning this free flow of capital you were talking about. Russia may be about to do the same thing. Other countries are beginning to think about it as well, because the problems are so severe. Does that concern you?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: It concerns me very deeply, Jim. I think that is the wrong way to go for the global economy. I think the global economy has benefited enormously from both trade liberalization and the flows of capital that have taken place over the last ten or fifteen years. I think we, the United States, have certainly benefited enormously, and look at our economy today. I think however there is a real risk of a backlash and for that reason I think the president is absolutely right on what he said on Monday. One, we have to do everything sensible to deal with this crisis so that we can work our way -- help the world work its way through this with as little difficulty as possible, though I think we're going to have a sustained period of difficulty, and this is not going to be an easy situation. But secondly and very very importantly, we have to do exactly what the President said, which iscontinue the focus that we've had now for quite some time on long-term reforms of the architecture of the global financial system, so that we have better preventive measures and, therefore, have these kinds of occurrences less frequently and with less severity and then better ways of dealing with these kinds of developments when they occur.

JIM LEHRER: But then what would you say to somebody in Russia who is confronted now with a cold winter? People haven't been paid for months and months. The ruble has gone down. They don't have any - no hope - financial hope, at least a lot of people do not. And for -- to say, hey, well, we got a short-term solution, which would be to stop flow, you would say, forget it, look at the long-term, look at the architectural thing?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: No. I would say something a Russian citizen, were such a citizen to ask me, that they have an extremely complex and serious set of issues, I think that we, the United States, have an enormous stake in their being successful, for obvious - for economic reasons but even more in many ways for national security reasons. And I would say that the basic problem in Russia is a political system that instead of implementing reform, as many of the other Eastern European countries did, the former parts of what has, in effect, the Soviet sphere of influence, as many of the other countries did, who are now doing quite well, the Russian political system simply did not take ownership of reform, and that is, in my judgment, where the problem lay in Russia, and why Russia's facing such serious issues and such serious problems today.

JIM LEHRER: But in the mean-till they solve those problems, what can be done to keep people from going hungry right now?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: I think what we're going to have to do in the international community, Jim, is to think through how we can help on a humanitarian basis, help the Russian people, and at the same time try to work with the Russian government so that the Russian government gets back on a track of putting in place the kinds of measures that can lead to a stable and successful economy in Russia. But there is a very immediate issue, the issue that you raised, conditions as they - Russia now goes into its winter - and that is there's got to be and I can tell you is a focus of very serious concern in the West. We're going to have to simply - we, the nations - industrial nations have to decide how best to deal with that.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, go back to the general from the specific, a lot of doomsayers are now saying that the whole world - 60 percent of the world could be faced with a recession in the immediate, if something - the immediate future - if something is not done. When you look to the immediate future, what do you see?

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: Well, when you say if something's not done, Jim, starting with Thailand about a year ago - and I would argue actually starting with Mexico about three years ago - there was an enormous amount that's been done by the international community. I think we need to carry that further in various ways. And the President referred to some of those ways in his speech on Monday, and then the G-7 communiqu did the same thing. My best guess as you look forward is that the powerful forces that produced the global crisis that exist today are going to have to work their way through the global system, and that we are going to go through a difficult period. On the other hand, by continuing do the kinds of things that make sense I think what we can do is try to minimize that difficulty and help the world - all of us working together - help the world get through this as quickly as possible and with as little economic difficulty as possible. That is also enormously for our own economic self-interest. I think, as I said a moment ago, the most immediate thing we can do is give the International Monetary Fund the resources to equip it to deal effectively with the sorts of problems we face, and that means giving full funding before Congress adjourns.

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

SECRETARY ROBERT RUBIN: Thank you, Jim. It's nice to be with you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Senator Daschle and the teacher shortage.% ? NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner will interview the Senator.

MARGARET WARNER: And joining us now from Capitol Hill is the Senate Minority Leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

MARGARET WARNER: Welcome, Senator.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Thank you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: I don't know if you were in your chair at the beginning of Jim's interview with Bob Rubin, the Treasury Secretary, but he - Secretary Rubin said he thinks the President still has the moral authority to lead. Do you agree with that?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: I do. I think that the Presidency, itself, is really the source of authority in many respects, and because of its long history, because of the tremendous standing it has around the world and in this country, because of the power associated with the presidency, there is no question that the authority is there.

MARGARET WARNER: And how did you react, what is your assessment of how the President at his news conference today dealt with the Lewinsky matter?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Unfortunately, I didn't have the opportunity. This has been one of those days on the Hill that has kept me away from my desk, much less a television, so I didn't get a chance to see it.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, one of the questions he essentially declined to answer was whether he still was saying he did not lie under oath in this whole matter, and he said he just didn't want to get mired in the details. Does that sound like the right tack for him to take?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I, of course, have made myself very clear on that particular issue. I think that it is important not to get mired in all the details and split hairs, as we've noted. And I think the President chose not to do that apparently, from what you've just said, and I think that was the right decision.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, when you called on him on Monday to stop all this legal hair-splitting, or I think you said hair splitting on legal technicalities, explain what you meant by that a little more.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I guess I saw more than I needed to over the weekend, and I think that it's important for us to be as truthful and as blunt spoken and as open and candid about the circumstances as possible, and I didn't think I saw enough of that over the weekend, and I think that for our purposes, especially here on Capitol Hill, as we contemplate taking this into an investigatory phase, I think it's important that there be a cooperative environment on both sides. I'm not sure the House is demonstrating that cooperative environment today or to date, but I think the way it starts is that both sides have to demonstrate, and I think legal hair splitting precludes it.

MARGARET WARNER: Were you talking about the President or the President's lawyers, or both?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, the President's lawyers, in particular, based upon what I saw over the weekend.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, what is it you think he should say that - what they should say that would not - that would roll back from legal hair splitting?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, Margaret, I'm the last person to ask about what he should say. I'm not going not get into that. All I think is that the American people have a pretty clear picture of what happened and what happened after the circumstances that are described in the report, and I think that now we've just got to figure out what to do about it, and I don't think that any degree of the kind of semantic tap-dancing that I sometimes see will solve that problem. We just have to be open, candid, and acknowledge, as the President has on several occasions now, that he was wrong in what he did, and I think go from there.

MARGARET WARNER: Have you told the President yourself to essentially call off his lawyers and stop making these semantic distinctions?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I don't want to talk about what conversations I have with the President. I think it's important that I have the opportunity to communicate with him without telling the rest of the country about it, and this probably isn't a good place to start - stop doing.

MARGARET WARNER: So I won't, of course, ask you what he said in response if you have spoken to him, but, as you know, the President's lawyers are saying if he were to come forward and say that he did, in retrospect, lie under oath, that might satisfy people on Capitol Hill but it would open him up to possible criminal prosecution. What do you say to that? What to you say to his lawyers on that point?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, frankly, I think that's down the road in ways that I wouldn't be too concerned about at this point. I think the more immediate concern is what we've got to face here on Capitol Hill. We've got to take these things one step at a time. And the step I'm mostly concerned about is what happens here, how do we address it, how do we resolve it, how do we bring it to closure, like the American people really want us to do? Those issues have to be addressed, and the more we think about some legal technicality that could or could not occur six or eight months from now, or a year from now, the less we're able to resolve the immediate situation that I think is a lot more problematic.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Turning to what is going to happen now, first of all, the most immediate issues that the Judiciary Committee on the House side seems to be occupied with is whether to release a videotape of the President's grand jury testimony. Do you think that should be released publicly?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: I think it's unfair to release it. I think it's just another in a series of unfair decisions that the Judiciary Committee thus far has either taken or is contemplating taking. I think it's wrong. Obviously it has to be viewed in its entire context, and viewed in isolation could present an array of misconceptions about the testimony and about the circumstances, and I think the House Judiciary Committee needs to be very careful. They pledged just last week they would be non-partisan, not only bipartisan but non-partisan; they would be objective. They've already begun to violate that, and this is just yet another indication.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're essentially saying if they decide to release the videotape, you would take that as what, an example of extreme partisanship?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I said yesterday that I don't see our role as being an advocate for the President. But I think we feel very strongly about being an advocate for a fair process. I believe that that really ought to be what we all consider as what is the fair process and anybody can be the arbiter of what a fair process is and how it's defined, but I think when you do something like that, it is unfair. It is wrong. The American people would realize, I believe, that it's wrong, and there would be a very negative reaction, probably not only directed toward the President but certainly at the Republicans in Congress for taking the short-sighted and very, very partisan approach that they appear to be contemplating.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the Republicans are arguing - as I'm sure you know - that since all House members will be sitting ultimately and having to vote on this that everyone, not just the committee, and perhaps also the public, needs to see all the evidence, and that the videotapes - since the nub of this issue is, did the President commit perjury or not - that that's the nub of the case and that everyone should see the best evidence, which is the President's own performance, what do you say to that?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I think that there are other ways to do this. If they truly are interested in getting all the information, first of all, it seems to me they have to decide whether they want the inquiry. They haven't even decided that. They're already releasing evidence and information and very, very sensitive information at that before they've even come to a conclusion as to whether we should have an inquiry. Why are they doing this? Is it to embarrass the President? Is it to thwart the process? Is it to make Democrats feel uncomfortable? What is their motivation here? What's wrong with the text? What's wrong with finding ways with which to excerpt out irrelevant parts? I mean, why is it that they have to throw raw data out to be consumed yet again by the American people? I think we need to be careful about that, and they appear to be unwilling to answer questions like that.

MARGARET WARNER: Based on what you've - have you read the Starr report in its entirety?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Yes, I have.

MARGARET WARNER: And based on what you read, where do you think this thing should end up? First of all, do you think a full-blown inquiry - impeachment inquiry - is warranted, and what do you think is the best outcome?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I'm certainly not going to give you a prognosis about where this is all going to go. I would say that what I believe - what we ought to do - what is most important to do is to try to find a non-partisan way with which to bring this to some closure, and I don't think that there is much disagreement in the - in the American public about this. I think they want it to come to closure. I think we ought to stay here, which is the first step. I think we ought to try to find ways with which to expedite our consideration; we all want due process. We've got to absolutely make sure that every consideration is given a fairness, which isn't happening so far, I might again remind everyone, but I do think that due process - but an expeditious consideration of all these facts - since we really are pretty cognizant now of what the facts are - is warranted and would do a real service to the country and to this particular issue.

MARGARET WARNER: So but expedited process - are you - are you talking really about something that short circuits or adds up to a full blown inquiry, a big impeachment inquiry in the House, a trial in the Senate, perhaps some sort of arrangement, such as - that would end up say with censure?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I'm certainly not adverse to taking a look at that, as I said in my statement on Monday. All the different scenarios and options ought to be carefully considered. I think some people already jump to a conclusion about what ought to be done and I think some people would love to have it all done in the year 2000. But the question is: does the country really need to be subjected to that, that elongated, drawn out, embarrassing process, and what does it do not only to the presidency but to our ability to govern? Those are issues that I don't think some of our Republican colleagues have thought about very carefully.

MARGARET WARNER: But some of your Republican colleagues are saying that a censure - a quick censure - would essentially be a slap on the wrist and also sidestep the whole constitutional process that was set up by the founding fathers to deal with situations like this.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, again, I'm not advocating for a censure, so I'm sure that that's a legitimate concern, but obviously there are other ways with which to address the issue of censure. And I'm not sure that there is any particular way with which it would be even described at this point. That's all a function of the Congress and what we might consider as we look at our options. But clearly, to completely discount anything short of a full impeachment inquiry and then action to be taken by the Senate seems to me to be not again in keeping with the fairness that we all say we want.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think the President should resign, or consider resigning?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: That's a decision that the President should make, and, no, I don't at this time.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, Senator Joseph Biden, a Democrat, was reported yesterday to have said I think in your caucus luncheon that at least some Democrats are saying, he said, he wasn't saying it but some Democrats were saying that it might be better for the party's chances in November elections if the President did resign. Are you hearing that? Do you share that view at all?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, first of all, that isn't what Senator Biden said, and secondly, I don't think that it's widely held, that point of view is widely held in the caucus. I think that most senators are taking the same position that many of us are, which is that we really need to advocate for a fair process. We really want to see ways with which to make sure that the Congress doesn't fail to address the myriad of other responsibilities that we have before the end of this session. We ought to be doing that. We ought to be taking up the Patient's Bill of Rights and the array of issues that are dealing directly with the farm crisis right now. We're not doing that, and I think that's a real tragedy.

MARGARET WARNER: But some Democrats - such as Congressman Jim Moran - a close ally of the President - said today he thought - and he'd like to get it resolved quickly too - that resignation might be the only way, as he put it, to stop this hemorrhaging within the party, this hemorrhaging within the country. Are you hearing that privately from some of your fellow Democrats?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I haven't talked to Jim Moran, so I can't say that I've heard it directly, but no, I don't think that is a very prevalent view today.

MARGARET WARNER: And how much do you think this current affair is affecting your ability and the ability of the President to promote the Democratic agenda on the Hill that you just talked about?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, the biggest by far, the biggest factor in our agenda is the Republican intransigence and reluctance to take it up. We didn't do anything the entire afternoon because of Republicans'refusal to allow Democrats to speak on the Senate floor. We wanted to speak on the Patient's Bill of Rights, and we were precluded from doing that, so rather than allow us to speak on the bill, the Patient's Bill of Rights, we were not able to even have session. That kind of thing is far more damaging and far more detrimental to the overall ability for us to produce some meaningful legislation and address the problems of this country than anything related to what the President's experience is.

MARGARET WARNER: And Senator, before we close, just to make sure I understand this, do you think the President can count on Democrats on the Hill to stand with him?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Well, I think the President can count on Democrats advocating for a completely fair process. As I said, none of us see ourselves necessarily as advocates for the President as much as we are advocates for a process that will be fair, not only to the President but to the American people.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you very much, Senator Daschle.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: For the record, we invited Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to appear also on the program tonight, but he was not available. We hope to schedule an interview with him soon.% ? FOCUS - TEACHER SHORTAGE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, another back-to-school report on teachers. Last night, Betty Ann Bowser had a look at testing teachers. Tonight her subject is the teacher shortage.

CRYSTAL McLEARY, Teacher: Whisper to your neighbor how many sides this square has.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Crystal McLeary graduated from Stanford University in June with a degree in African Studies. Now she's teaching elementary school in Oakland, California. But McLeary was not an education major. She has no teaching certificate. In fact, she has no experience as a teacher whatsoever.

CRYSTAL McLEARY: I don't want you to use the Algebra on this problem.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: That's why Oakland is running programs to teach young people like McLeary with emergency teaching credentials how to teach.

CAROLE QUAN, Superintendent, Oakland School District: This summer we have offered a number of workshops and a number of classes to prepare our young teachers for the classroom. And this is brand new people who haven't even stepped into our classroom before September, and it could very well be first and second year teachers.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Oakland has had to hire teachers with no experience or teaching credentials because it faces a critical shortage.

SPOKESMAN: Let's give a warm National Press Club welcome to Secretary Riley.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And in a major policy address yesterday Secretary of Education Richard Riley said the Oakland situation is not unique.

RICHARD RILEY, Secretary of Education: And a lot of people ask me whether we have a real teacher shortage, and I tell them we do. School districts usually find a way to put somebody in front of every classroom, and that is part of the problem. Too many school districts I'm afraid are sacrificing quality for quantity in order to meet the immediate demand of putting a warm body in front of a classroom. That is a mistake.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The problem got nation attention this summer when the New York City Board of Education had to go to Austria via satellite to interview for math teachers. These were three of the teachers who took the jobs. But when school systems can't hire qualified teachers, even by going to Austria, they are faced with hiring people who have no education background and no experience.

TEACHER: In terms of roving classrooms, what is the policy on who roves and when?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: These are all brand new teachers, yet only one of them has a teaching certificate. Like so many states, California has issued these new teachers emergency or temporary credentials. This summer they attended a crash preparation course at the University of California Berkeley Extension School. Not only did the new teachers get this kind of instruction - they also spent many hours actually working with children in the classroom. The shortage of qualified teachers has forced 42 states to issue emergency credentials. And National Education Association President Bob Chase says it's a dangerous precedent.

BOB CHASE, President, National Education Association: That's not the quality of teacher that we want in the profession. It's as simple as that. Our society all too often is willing to allow anyone to come in and teach. It'' ludicrous. It just doesn't make any sense. Would we let anybody practice law, or anyone practice medicine, or take any - anyone build a building without an architectural background?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Not only do an increasing number of teachers not have credentials, they also lack a background in the subject they teach. The Department of Education says one third of all new teachers neither majored nor minored in college in the subject they teach. Stanford University's Linda Darling Hammond, executive director of the National Commission on Teaching in America's Future, says the situation is even worse in high poverty areas.

LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND, Stanford University: In inner-city schools those proportions go way up to over 50 percent. In fields that have shortages, like mathematics and physical science, we have very high proportions of teachers who are not trained either in their field, or in teaching. And in a school that is a low-income school you have less than a 50/50 chance of getting a math or science teacher who has a degree and a license in that field and is really prepared to teach it well.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: One of the things driving teacher shortages is professional burnout.

KRISTY BLEGAN, Former Teacher: That one looks kind of interesting.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Kristy Blegan grew up in a family of teachers. Her mother, Mary Beth Blegan, is the Department of Education's teacher in residence. In 1996, Blegan went to the White House, where she was honored as the National Teacher of the Year. So it was no surprise when daughter, Kristy, graduated from high school and decided to follow in Mom's footsteps.

KRISTY BLEGAN: A lot of engineering -

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But today she's looking for a job in the private sector because in her first years of teaching she was assigned to the most disruptive, low-achieving students, got no peer support, and had no permanent classroom.

KRISTY BLEGAN: I had all of this going on, and I didn't have support at all. I did not have somebody coming to me saying you need help with this class; you need somebody in here, you know, to help you get through this, because this is way too impossible for you to handle, you know, all on your own.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: When Blegan does land a job, she is likely to double her teaching salary. Education Secretary Riley says Blegan's story is all too familiar.

SECRETARY RICHARD RILEY: Once a new teacher enters the classroom, we allow a perverse sink or swim approach to define the first years of teaching. New teachers are usually assigned the most difficult classes, in addition to all the extracurricular activities that no one else wants to supervise. Then we wonder why we lose 22 percent of our new teachers in the first three years, close to 50 percent in those urban areas.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Teacher burnout is not the only thing driving shortages of qualified teachers. The average teacher today is 50 years old. Over the next 15 years, that generation of teachers will be retiring. Meanwhile, the school-age population is booming, creating new national enrollment records. States all over the country are mandating smaller class size, creating new demands for more teachers. And because the average salary for a first-year teacher is only $25,000, schools are losing some of the best and brightest to private industry. Harvard Education economist Richard Murnane says all this means the country faces having to hire more teachers in a shorter period of time than ever before.

RICHARD MURNANE, Harvard University: This country faces an enormous problem over the next few years. There will be a need for at least 1 million new teachers over the next few years. And the question is: Where will they come from, given the relatively low status of the teaching profession, relatively poor working conditions in a great many of the nation's school districts, and the relatively low pay?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: To head off potential shortages, the New Haven Unified School District near San Francisco decided to invest in teachers more than 10 years ago. Today, the average starting salary here is $38,000. That's $13,000 above the national average.

DONNA UYEMOTO, New Haven School District: This our home page, and you'll see by going down that we are visiting the home page and we are now - we're at 56,572 hits on our home page.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: New Haven recruits like a Fortune 500 company. Donna Uyemoto is director of personnel.

DONNA UYEMOTO: It's a major recruiting tool. Our salary schedule is on here. A teacher could look up the teacher contract and find out what is covered by the contract. They can get a wealth of information. They can get minutes from the board meeting; they can get the superintendent's newsletter; they can get the newsletter from a principal.

DONNA UYEMOTO: Okay, Jennifer. I'm Donna Uyemoto. Welcome to New Haven via video interviewing.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: When perspective schoolteacher Jennifer Root from Minnesota was moving to California, she found the New Haven web page and filled out an application on-line. She was fully credentialed, with four years' teaching experience. So Uyemoto wasted no time. Root was interviewed the next day.

DONNA UYEMOTO: So, Jennifer, are you ready to pack your bags and come out to California? Okay.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: New Haven is a small school district to have such sophisticated recruiting techniques - just 14,000 students. But out of its teaching force of 700 only five teachers currently lack credentials. New Haven also spends a lot of time on teacher development.

SPOKESPERSON: We will be working in here on a particular model called "concept attainment."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: What's surprising is that New Haven is one of the poorest school districts in California. Yet, New Haven's students perform above the national average on standardized tests.

SPOKESPERSON: And I was actually wondering if you guys would think it was a good idea if I sent a letter to every child's parent?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Superintendent Ruth McKenna says there is one down side to all of this.

RUTH McKENNA, Superintendent, New Haven School District: We made the choice well over 20 years ago to have one big high school that served the whole community. Our elementary schools are 900 students, but they have fully credentialied librarians, they have media centers, they have fully credentialed reading teachers, they have principals and assistant principals. They have a lot of extra resources that we're able to provide because we're not opening little schools.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Experts say if other school districts don't invest in teaching soon, the implications will be enormous.

LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND: For one thing, we're going into a knowledge economy. 50 percent of the jobs require very high levels of knowledge and skill. We're still only preparing about 20 percent of our kids for those jobs. The factory jobs that we used to have are now 10 percent of the economy, and we're still preparing most kids in that way. By the year 2020, there will only be three workers for every person on Social Security. Now, imagine if all three of those workers are not able to produce a living wage, to be productive members of society, because they've been under-educated, and, therefore, they're all the welfare side of the economy, or on the prison side of the economy, what that's going to mean for everyone.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Education Secretary Riley wants the Congress to pass legislation that would fund the hiring of at least 100,000 new teachers, but his agenda may face an uncertain future in the wake of the President's ongoing problems with the Congress.% ? RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Wednesday was more comment and action on the Starr Report. President Clinton said its disclosures have not hampered his ability to lead. On the NewsHour tonight both Secretary Rubin and Senate Minority Leader Daschle said Mr. Clinton still retained the moral authority to govern the nation and to handle the world's economic problems. And House Republicans moved toward a decision to release the President's videotaped grand jury testimony of August 17th. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.