The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight some perspective on U.S. efforts to win support for military action against Iraq; a report on the debate over changing Washington National Airport to Reagan National; a "Beyond the Speech" look at class size with Education Secretary Riley and Congressman Goodman; a Newsmaker interview with the number two man in Cuba; and an El Nino weather update. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton vowed again today to deny Iraq missiles and weapons of mass destruction one way or the other. He said he was heartened by Secretary of State Albright's trip to Europe and the Middle East. He said there was an international consensus for Iraq to submit to U.N. weapons inspections.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: All of us would prefer a genuine diplomatic solution. I want to reiterate that to every single American. All of us would prefer a genuine diplomatic solution. The best way to stop Saddam from building nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons is simply to get the international inspectors back to work with no restraints, one way or the other. We are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on Secretary Albright's tour right after this News Summary. There was a clarification issue today about Russian President Yeltsin's reported claim the United States could provoke a world war if it attacked Iraq. A spokesman said Yeltsin meant if the U.S. used tactical nuclear weapons. Otherwise, he said it was ridiculous to believe Russia would retaliate for a military strike against Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair came to Washington this evening. He arrived at Andrews Air Force Base in suburban Maryland. He'll have three days of talks with President Clinton on Iraq and other issues. As expected, the Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged today. The Federal Open Market Committee ended a two-day meeting without an announcement. That silence means the rate of overnight loans between banks will hold at 5.5 percent. The Fed last changed rates in March '97 .The court martial of former Sgt. Major of the Army Gene McKinney began today. Jury selection started after he pleaded "not guilty" to nineteen charges he pressured six military women to have sex with him. He was the army's highest ranking enlisted man until the allegations were made. Between five and twelve army jurors will be selected to hear the case before a military judge in Virginia. Congress voted today to rename Washington National Airport in honor of former President Ronald Reagan. The Senate vote was 76 to 22, the House 240 to 186. Sponsors wanted the measure passed by Friday, Mr. Reagan's 87th birthday.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: The effort to rename the National Airport the Ronald Reagan Airport is exactly the right effort. It guarantees that every person who flies in from all over the world will be reminded that they are coming to the capital of freedom by landing at an airport named for the man who singlehandedly did more than any other person to defeat the Soviet empire and to extend freedom across the planet. It is exactly the right thing to do.

JIM LEHRER: White House Spokesman Mike McCurry said President Clinton would sign the bill into law. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Also in Congress today the Dornan-Sanchez fight over a 1996 House race in Southern California was settled. A special panel of representatives said it had not found enough voter fraud to overturn the election of Democrat Loretta Sanchez. She defeated incumbent Republican Bob Dornan by 1984 votes. Dornan fought the outcome for more than a year. There was more bad weather around the country today. More than a foot of snow feel in Eastern Kentucky and Tennessee. Three hundred cars and trucks were stranded on Interstate 40, near Nashville. Heavy rains and strong winds lashed the coasts of Virginia and North Carolina. In California another storm was on the way even as some swollen rivers began to recede. At least one death was blamed on high winds and flooding. We'll have more on this weather later in the program. Also to come: organizing support to strike Iraq; the Reagan airport story; class size and Cuba's no. 2. FOCUS - USE OF FORCE?

JIM LEHRER: The Iraq story and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Once again today President Clinton made clear that the U.S. was running out of patience with Iraq's continued defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: One way or the other we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line. [Applause]

MARGARET WARNER: The President's comments follow a week-long trip by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, laying the diplomatic groundwork for a possible military strike against Iraq. Her first stop last Wednesday was Paris. In recent months, French officials have spoken out publicly against using force to resolve the Iraqi crisis, but after meeting with Albright last Thursday, the French foreign minister took a slightly different tack.

HUBERT VERDRINE, French Foreign Minister: [speaking through interpreter] We had a very long conversation, and I can say that at this point every option remains open.

MARGARET WARNER: Her next stop was Madrid to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov. After their meeting, Primakov said Russia continues to oppose the use of military force against Iraq.

YEVGENY PRIMAKOV: [speaking through interpreter] Russia stood for and still stands by the belief that there are still diplomatic and political methods of achieving a resolution to this situation that faces us.

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I made clear to Foreign Minister Primakov our considered view that we have all but exhausted real diplomatic options, and that the time is fast approaching for fundamental decisions.

MARGARET WARNER: Primakov said the Russians will continue to send diplomatic missions to Baghdad, trying to negotiate a solution to the standoff. The secretary's next stop was London for meetings with British officials and Jordan's King Hussein. From there, she took a five-country swing through the Middle East--to Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt. Kuwaiti leaders said U.S. fighters could use air bases there to launch strikes against Iraq. But in Saudi Arabia, despite a six-hour meeting between Albright and Crown Prince Abdullah, the official response was less explicit. After her final meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo, Albright summarized her mission for reporters.

SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Today I can report to you that the United States, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the Palestinian Authority are of one mind. This crisis was created by Iraq's defiance of the Security Council. We prefer to resolve it diplomatically. But if diplomacy fails, sole responsibility for he grave consequences that will follow, will lie at the feet of the government of Iraq.

MARGARET WARNER: Secretary of Defense William Cohen is scheduled to leave tomorrow for further consultations in Europe and the Gulf.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, to two reporters who've been following the Iraq story. Steve Erlanger is chief diplomatic correspondent for the "New York Times." He covered Secretary Albright's just-completed trip. And Mohammed Wahby is political columnist for the Egyptian magazine "Al-Mussawar." Previously, he served as information minister in the Egyptian embassies in Washington, London, and Bonn. Welcome, gentlemen. Before we talk about the secretary's trip, there are some reports today of a new Iraqi offer. How real does the administration regard this?

STEVEN ERLANGER, New York Times: Well, this is a version of what the Russians have been trying to get out of the Iraqis. It is an idea of opening up all of Iraq, except eight presidential sites. They've never actually listed any number before, but subjecting visits to those sites to a number of conditions and perhaps even a time limit, that does not meet what the Americans have said is their standard of unconditional, unfettered, unrestricted access to the sites by UN weapons inspectors. At the same time, while rejecting it today, the American officials have said well, it does seem to indicate that the message is getting through to Iraq that they need to move soon if they want to avoid being hit.

MARGARET WARNER: But the U.S. is very serious?

STEVEN ERLANGER: Yes.

MARGARET WARNER: How--to what degree do you think the Albright trip moved the U.S. closer to military action?

STEVEN ERLANGER: Well, I think it did, quite frankly--I mean, because she had to fend off any idea that the United States would accept something less after all this time--the complete access to suspected sites, and because the UNSCOM inspectors after nearly six years are getting to the heart of the mystery, it means that unless Saddam Hussein really opens up these things, then America is going to have to act. They're not going to wait, according to Mrs. Albright. They're not going to put up with another diplomatic solution that proves illusory, as they did last November. So though she's talking about diplomacy, her trip was really to gather support for war, though it should also be noted that increasing the notion of war is itself a form of diplomacy.

MARGARET WARNER: From your conversations with people in the region, what conclusions did they draw, the officials of some of these governments, about U.S. intentions?

MOHAMMED WAHBY, Al-Mussawar Magazine: You see, Margaret, there seems to be a kind of disconnect here. I mean, what is being projected here in the newspapers and in the media is that Madeleine Albright has got the Arab support for military action, if necessary. The word "if necessary" is very important. In the Arab world what is being projected is slightly different, and that is that they say--they almost quote Madeleine Albright as saying that Madeleine Albright says that the United States and the Arabs are on the same wave length in order to exhaust all political avenues full stop. So there they emphasize the political avenue, you see, and they say they have not been exhausted yet. Here they emphasize the other side and that is the military, that the Arabs are ready for military support.

MARGARET WARNER: But privately do Arab officials see what the U.S. position is from the U.S. perspective, or do they generally see it the other way?

MOHAMMED WAHBY: No, there is no doubt whatsoever that there is unanimity among all Arab governments, that this man is not a very good ruler, to say the least, that he's playing mouse and cat all the time. But the idea is if you want really to have military action, you have to do a couple of things. You have first to exhaust all particular avenues, you have to put across a much clearer message to the Arab man in the street, you see. These are very important, you know, because right now the message in as far as the Arab man in the street, the man in the coffee houses, is not clear at all. And you also allow Saddam Hussein to set the agenda in as far as he plays around about members of the United Nations and so on and so forth.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me get back to the trip. What did Secretary Albright get in the way of concrete commitments from governments there in terms of either support, participation, use of bases, any of these various areas?

STEVEN ERLANGER: What she mostly got--and this is important--is unanimity on the idea that Iraq is misbehaving in a way that will cause it to suffer badly. And that is important because no one, except the Russians, has actually said publicly, do not use force under any circumstances. And that was a very important point. The Saudis didn't say it. Even the Egyptians didn't say it. The point is real, however, that to make diplomacy work, you really need to get into Saddam Hussein's head that something bad is really going to happen so that while the French have reservations about the use of force, they're willing to go along now with the Americans and say military force is a real possibility because to divide the Security Council now would undermine the sense of urgency they want Saddam Hussein to hear. This was an argument I think that also worked in the Arab world. While you're right that the emphasis there is on exhausting all diplomatic options, it was also true that everywhere she went, there was the understanding that Saddam Hussein must comply with the United Nations resolutions, he must open suspected sites to access unfettered by himself, to look for weapons of mass destruction. There's a general underlying feeling he's a menace to the region, and he's been on the agenda, making everybody's life miserable now for seven years, and that if force has to come, which no one wants it to come, no one's going to stop it. Then the question becomes: Will the Arab countries facilitate it, which is a harder question, and Bill Cohen on his trip is going to deal more specifically with that. But Albright felt she had very good understandings, even with the Saudis, who were most careful, that they will allow American military forces who currently fly out of Saudi Arabia, to oversee the no-fly zone in Iraq, that they will allow American forces what American forces need. And that's not to say everything that they want.

MARGARET WARNER: Explain just briefly why do U.S. military planners consider Saudi Arabia so important?

STEVEN ERLANGER: Well, it is--they have big bases where heavy bombers can fly many sorties over Iraq because they're closer. I mean, planes are heavier than they can use easily on aircraft carriers and can carry heavy ordinance and bombs. Now, they can still do that from Diego Garcia, which is a base in the Indian Ocean, but it requires a longer flight and fewer sorties. They can do it from Bahrain. They can do it from Kuwait, which mostly has less bombers and more fighter aircraft. It's just easier if the point is--and it seems to be, because the British don't want an endless bombing campaign--that you're hitting very hard in three or four days, if it come to that--then in three or four days, they want to hit them as hard as they can. And if they can use Saudi Arabia for those raids, they'll be able to hit them harder. Saudi Arabia probably will let them at least use those bases for refueling planes, for AWACS radar planes, even perhaps for ground attack planes. But they may balk at the idea of actually letting American planes take off from Saudi Arabia to bomb another Arab country.

MARGARET WARNER: What does your reporting over there tell you about what the Saudis will do, or plan to do, if push comes to shove?

MOHAMMED WAHBY: I think I agree with Steve actually on most of things that he said. But again the Saudis are always worried about how they would appear. You know, they are the custodians of the two most holy places in the--for the Muslim world. So they always are worried about how they would appear to public opinion not only in their own country but in the Arab world as well as in the Islam world. There's also the fact-- the idea why emphasize the question of putting your case better--because in the Arab mind there is that connection between the United States being very permissive towards Netanyahu and--

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about the Israeli prime minister?

MOHAMMED WAHBY: Yes.

MARGARET WARNER: And the peace talks.

MOHAMMED WAHBY: And at the same time it metes out instant punishment to Saddam Hussein for the same thing--you say always about United Nations resolutions. But United Nations resolutions are being flouted equally by Israel's Netanyahu as by Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

MARGARET WARNER: And do officials tell you this privately, as well as publicly?

MOHAMMED WAHBY: They do. They do.

MARGARET WARNER: And so it's a very different situation than it was in the run-up to the first Gulf War?

MOHAMMED WAHBY: Yes, but also having said that, I also agree with Steve about the question of military action. I would emphasize very much that, for instance, Egypt--I know it for a fact, from what I hear from the Egyptian authorities and Egyptian--Egyptian sources, that the message that--the secretary general of the Arab League, speaking to Iraq--that, listen, the United States really means action, you really have to think twice before you stick to a position of not allowing the United Nations inspection team to go ahead with the work.

MARGARET WARNER: Before we close, one question. Out of the Arab world, how does the--how concerned is the administration right now about Russian opposition?

STEVEN ERLANGER: There are concerns, but, understand, Russia is a much weaker country than it used to be. Russia is looking for a way so that when it stands up, it actually casts a shadow, which is what Primakov has been doing, the foreign minister of Russia. He is an Arabist by training. He has a long relationship with Saddam Hussein. Russia has a lot of debts owed it by Iraq. It would like to see the sanctions end. But being on the side of the Arab street, opposing the United States, which is perceived as being overly friendly toward Israel and not pressuring them hard, this is all part of a Russian plan to restore its diplomatic importance in the world, and it's hard to criticize it for that.

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

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, changing the name of National Airport, class size, some officials words from Cuba, and an El Nino update. FOCUS - NAME GAME

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman has the airport story.

KWAME HOLMAN: Washington National Airport is only minutes from Capitol Hill and is a primary point of arrival and departure for members of Congress. What the Republican majority in Congress now wants to do is rename National Airport after arguably the most popular Republican president of this century, Ronald Reagan.

REP. DAVID McINTOSH, [R] Indiana: Many of us would like to see this airport named after Ronald Reagan so that those passengers traveling to our nation's capital would be reminded of his call for freedom at home and abroad, and that that reminder would greet us every time we entered into this city.

KWAME HOLMAN: Republicans in both the House and Senate today were trying to rush through approval of the name change in order to honor the former president just ahead of his 87th birthday on Friday.

REP. HENRY HYDE, [R] Illinois: This man, Ronald Reagan, gave this country dignity. He gave it hope. He gave it optimism. It was his fervent desire to make this country a city on a hill.

KWAME HOLMAN: Visitors to Washington might not be aware until they arrive at National Airport that the airport actually is located across the Potomac River from Washington in Virginia and in the district of Democratic Congressman James Moran. And Moran is dead set against the name change.

REP. JAMES MORAN, [D] Virginia: The city of Alexandria, which is directly contiguous to the airport, is opposed to this. The greater Washington Board of Trade, which represents the business community, and the Washington metropolitan area is opposed to this. It's going to cost them hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to change all their advertising material. Why can't we respect the wishes of local government?

KWAME HOLMAN: And Congressman Moran pointed out Washington National Airport already is named after a president.

REP. JAMES MORAN: Many of you may not be aware of the fact that Franklin Roosevelt when this airport was conditioned told the architects he wanted the main terminal to look like Mount Vernon. It was clear that this was to memorialize George Washington.

KWAME HOLMAN: Moran suggested officially naming the airport George Washington National Airport, but that move was defeated. Another amendment would have created a commission on the naming and renaming of federal buildings and monuments.

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD, [D] Connecticut: In a sense, Mr. President, it's become sort of a modern- day graffiti. They'll be running around naming things here willy nilly, both in these buildings on the capitol grounds and throughout this city. We're mere custodians of these facilities. We don't own them.

KWAME HOLMAN: There even was an amendment to remove the name of former FBI director Hoover from FBI headquarters.

SEN. HARRY REID, [D] Nevada: No official in the history of this country has done more to violate the rights of people than J. Edgar Hoover.

KWAME HOLMAN: But all those amendments were defeated as well, and the debate returns specifically to the issue of renaming Washington National Airport in Ronald Reagan's honor.

REP. DICK ARMEY, Majority Leader: When he came to Washington, D.C., as the president of this land, he stood and delivered. In the first two years he whipped in place in a problem of economics that had baffled seven presidents before him. He got this nation on a new standing of prosperity, growth, price stability.

REP. DAVID OBEY, [D] Wisconsin: Would it not be more appropriate, for instance, to name the Bureau of Public Debt the Ronald Reagan Bureau of Public Debt? The act of this Congress that has made me more angry than any act since I've been here is the action that this Congress supinely took in 1981 when it whooped through here, with people in both parties voting for it, the Reagan budgets, which took the deficit, which had never been higher than $74 billion.

REP. JAMES TRAFICANT, [D] Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I question many of the economic policies like many Democrats. And we could take a look at Ronald Reagan, as any other president, and we could question many things. But I think we have to give the gipper his due here today. Ronald Reagan, probably more than any other single individual, was responsible for correctly identifying the Soviet Union as the Big Bad Bear, for pressing Communism around the world, and for challenging people of the free world to really actually tear down the Berlin Wall.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: This is a good proposal. It is a sound proposal. It is one which reflects President Reagan's commitment to history. And I hope every member will put aside partisanship, and every member will put aside pettiness, and decide to honor a very great man on this week of his birthday.

KWAME HOLMAN: This afternoon, the idea of renaming Washington National Airport in honor of former President Reagan was accepted overwhelmingly by the Senate. The House also passed it by a comfortable margin. And President Clinton has indicated he'll sign the legislation into law by Friday, joining in on the former president's 87th birthday celebration. SERIES - BEYOND THE SPEECH

JIM LEHRER: "Beyond the Speech," our series on President Clinton's State of the Union proposals. Tonight, it's reducing class size and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: In his State of the Union address last week the president made smaller classes one of his top education goals.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: [January 27] Tonight, I propose the first ever national effort to reduce class size in the early grades. [Applause] My balanced budget will help to hire 100,000 new teachers who pass the state competency test. Now, with these teachers--listen, with these teachers we will actually be able to reduce class size in the first, second, and third grades to an average of 18 students a class all across America. [Applause] If I've got the math right, more teachers teaching smaller classes requires more classrooms. So I also propose a school construction tax cut to help communities modernize or build 5,000 schools. [Applause]

PHIL PONCE: Now, two perspectives on the president's proposals. Richard Riley is Secretary of Education and Republican William Goodling of Pennsylvania is the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Welcome, gentlemen. Congressman, the idea seems obviously. Smaller class size means better learning.

REP. WILLIAM GOODLING, Chairman, Education & Workforce Committee: I don't argue whether smaller class size in the early grades is important or isn't important. I work hard as a superintendent to do that. And it is my responsibility locally to do that. All I ask the federal government to do is take away my mandates and let me do that on my own. Fund, if you want to help me reduce class, fund the special education program. And what he did in his budget with special education was give it even less than inflation, something that we mandated 95 percent at least and said we'd send him 40 percent of the money. Before I became the chairman, the most they sent was 6 or 7 percent. We're up to probably about 10 percent now. But if you want to help the local school district, then get rid of some of the mandates, or fund the mandates that you're sending down there. And they can do all sorts of things.

PHIL PONCE: But getting to the issue of class size, does smaller class size necessarily mean that more learning is taking place?

REP. WILLIAM GOODLING: The administration has shown two small studies from, I believe, two small states. [beeper going off] Excuse me.

PHIL PONCE: Luckily you're not in a federal court. [laughter among group]

REP. WILLIAM GOODLING: As I said, that all depends on who the classroom teacher is. An outstanding classroom teacher probably can teach twenty-five or thirty. A poor classroom teacher--I don't care how many you give them--it's not going to be very--they're not going to do very well. Now, the one thing you save, I guess, if you have eighteen with a poor teacher, instead of twenty-five, then at least seven people didn't have that poor instruction. But, again, that's a responsibility of the local and state government that would love to do it if we get off their back with other things. Just to give you a little idea--the President's budget--Washington bureaucracy gets a $143 million increase; classrooms get a minus $476 million in his budget. One of the areas, of course, it's very successful, is Even Start. Now, that I suppose was to send me a message or something of that nature, so they cut that. Last year, they had a great study which showed how effective it was. But chapter two, when the secretary was governor, I bet he used chapter two money--it's now called Title VI--in order to bring about reform because reform only works if you start at the bottom and work up, not from the top down--they cut out.

PHIL PONCE: Secretary Riley, some would argue that in other countries class sizes are much larger than they are in the United States. For example, Japan class sizes, reportedly, are forty or fifty students in a class, and yet, their math scores are higher than in the United States. What's the correlation between class size and learning?

RICHARD RILEY, Secretary of Education: Well, I don't think any parent or any teacher or any principal will tell you that it's not advantageous, especially in those earlier years--this is for grades one, two and three-- and it would bring the class size down to eighteen, as the President said, and with a specialty in reading. And it's not poor teachers. As Bill indicated, poor teachers throws a whole different wrinkle into it. This is for qualified teachers, and it's over a seven-year period, and the reason for that is to be able to have teachers be tested, certified, and so forth, so you'll have qualified teachers with a specialty in reading in those first three grades giving individualized attention. He mentioned special education, which is not what we're talking about, but I'll tell you this, the special attention by a teacher could probably impact the number of children going into special ed, teach 'em how to read early to teach 'em the basics of math very early in those first three grades, I think is a wonderful way to have a foundation for their learning and the federal government, by saying that's important for this nation, the state-run local government does the picking the teachers and picking the students and what they teach, but this is a national priority to try to say to all schools out there this is a national thing that we want to do for this country, and I think everybody agrees with it.

REP. WILLIAM GOODLING: Let me tell you--

PHIL PONCE: Just a second. Let me follow up on something he said because I think you raise an important point. Setting national priorities, are you comfortable that national priorities are being set based on good research? Is there research that shows--that makes a correlation between class size and results?

SEC. RICHARD RILEY: There's some very good research coming out of Tennessee, the Star Study it's called, it's over--it's a longitudinal study--over a period years--it was K through 4. And it clearly showed that if you get the class size down to fifteen to eighteen, that you do have achievement scores up. And also those follow the student. They don't drop off then if they go into a higher number of pupils later on. So I think that study is very clear and is very convincing to me.

PHIL PONCE: Well, are you persuaded by that study?

REP. WILLIAM GOODLING: Well, again, as I said, there are two studies with two small states. There's no massive study that's out there that really tells you very much. But let me tell you about the cost. I've been through this. If you have ten sections in first grade, second grade, and third grade and you only want to reduce by six in each one of those, you're talking about almost a million dollars, almost a million dollars to do that. And this is the federal government who's saying this, the federal government who won't pay for the mandates that are already out there, so that local districts as a matter of fact can take care of initiatives like this. If that's what the local people want and if that's what the parents want and that's our whole agenda, let's talk about basic, let's talk about quality, let's talk about parental involvement, let's build it from the bottom up, not from the top down.

PHIL PONCE: How about that, too much federal involvement in something that some people perceive to be a local issue?

SEC. RICHARD RILEY: Well, I mean, it's up to them to want it, and I would presume all the states would want it. It's such a basic--he talks about basics. This is the very basic of basics, the number of pupils in a classroom. And I think it's very clear that you could take Title I funds under this proposal and use them for the state match. So you could use the federal funds to match these funds. And it would have just an enormous benefit, improvement, in my judgment, in education in this country.

PHIL PONCE: How about the whole issue of 100,000 more teachers, is there a teacher shortage?

REP. WILLIAM GOODLING: No. As a matter of fact, there isn't anyplace that you can't go that some young person is clerking in a store who is a certified teacher and can't get a job. Now, you know, if you want to talk about quality, that's one thing, but let's make sure that those who are presently teaching--you know, my whole argument with the President last year was if 40 percent of the youngsters have a difficult time reading in the third grade level by the time they get to the end of third grade, wouldn't you first look at teacher preparation, wouldn't you look about preschool readiness programs for those youngsters? Of course, our idea was no, let's just test them and somehow or other the problem will go away. But there are 100,000--200,000 maybe--young people out there, certified Now, do they need additional training? Yes. Probably everybody in the school district needs additional training at the present time. Do elementary teachers need help in math and in science? Of course. They haven't had all of the basic math and science courses in high school, and they don't have any in college, and all of a sudden you're asking them to teach math and science. And so the teachers are out there. Now, you know, can we give them an incentive to go where they're most needed, center city, real rural America? Yes, I don't have any problem with that.

PHIL PONCE: Enough teachers?

SEC. RICHARD RILEY: Well, these programs can be used to recruit good quality teachers to help with their education and to then of course make sure the state has a test to give them to see that they're competent. It is quality teachers. This is not just bodies to bring the numbers down. We're talking about quality teachers. And we're also talking about modernizing school buildings. Those are two very basics. If you bring the numbers down, you need more teachers, and you need more space. This is a thoughtful program that the President has come forth with, a federal government priority just like we did in Sputnik, prioritizing math and science, and it has worked beautifully. We did that with the GI bill. The government now, the federal government is saying we've got the highest enrollment ever in the history of the country. It's going up for the next ten years. So we think this is a good national priority for us to help states and local school districts with and makes a whole lot of sense.

PHIL PONCE: How about that, Congressman, 5,000 more buildings the president talked about--either modernize or build?

REP. WILLIAM GOODLING: It's amazing. In '95 they cut that out, any modernization, any additions. '96, the administration cut out all of that money. They said that that's the responsibility for the local school district and for the state. And I agree with that. But we have to get off their back to free up the money. He says now you can take your chapter one money and use it as a match. What happens to the rest of the chapter one program throughout there if you did that? You see, it's the old we throw out the carrot and then we promise but we don't deliver the money.

PHIL PONCE: But at this point, 5,000 more either new buildings or renovated ones, is that a national need?

REP. WILLIAM GOODLING: Is it a national need? Well, there are some center city schools--there's no question--we tried to modernize here in D.C.. We tried to renovate. We couldn't get it through. The Congress couldn't get it through the administration. Why don't you remove Davis Bacon? You want to help 'em back there do renovating of school business, you want to get 'em new buildings--propose the elimination Davis Bacon. You cut the cost by a third.

PHIL PONCE: We'll have to take up Davis Bacon some other time. We're out of time. Thank you both.

JIM LEHRER: Tomorrow night a "Beyond the Speech" look at the proposal to create a consumer's health bill of rights. NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Now, a Newsmaker interview with Ricardo Alarcon, president of Cuba's National Assembly, often mentioned as a successor Fidel Castro. Charles Krause talked with him last week in Havana, shortly after the Pope's visit.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Alarcon, welcome. Thank you for joining us.

RICARDO ALARCON, President, National Assembly: Thank you.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Was the Pope's visit a success from your government's point of view?

RICARDO ALARCON: I am sure that it was successful for Cuba but also for the Vatican and for the Catholic Church.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Would you anticipate that the Catholic Church will have more room to operate in Cuba as a result of this trip?

RICARDO ALARCON: Without any doubt, because first of all, they received the biggest attention possible, the--our bishops and our priests had the opportunity of being seen by the rest of the population with none other than such a personality like the Pope to spread their message to mainly Cubans who are not Catholics. The Pope also brought a very important message for them, for Catholics. He urged them to be more involved in the civilian life of the country, in the economic, in the social, political spheres, and I welcome that.

CHARLES KRAUSE: On that very point, he talked about inalienable rights of the individual; he talked about human rights. He talked about a more pluralistic, a more democratic society, opening the society politically to more political parties, some of the things that he talked about. Will any of that result from this visit?

RICARDO ALARCON: Well, I don't think that His Holiness specifically mentioned political parties or some of those specific manners of organizing some democratic societies. He then said that his doctrine was not a new political or social or economic program. It was, rather, a moral, spiritual content that he tried to put on every political, economic, and social system. And that's fine. That's his role as the leader of a very important spiritual movement. What I think should be expected is that we will continue trying to improve our own system that is not based on political, electoral machineries, which you know in other countries are referred to as political parties, but a system that tries to get involved as much as possible as many individuals as possible, including Catholics, and in this sense, I believe that his message, his teachings in Cuba, will certainly contribute to an effort that from our side, from the parliament side or from the political side, we're precisely to do, to develop more and more.

CHARLES KRAUSE: As you know, in Miami, among the Cubans in exile, there were some who were hoping that somehow this trip by the Pope who went to Central Europe, and the Communist regimes there sort of fell afterwards--some of them were hoping that your government was going to fall apart as a result of this trip. Do you sense any impact internally in terms of what it may mean for the future of your government?

RICARDO ALARCON: Well, certainly, it was not the apocalypse that happened with the Holiness visit. We anticipated that. I can tell you that I was interviewed by many journalists before the arrival of the Pope and the question was always asked: Aren't you afraid, isn't he going to change Cuba, as he allegedly did in Eastern Europe--I don't think so--and my answer was always that we were not afraid at all, that we were very interested, eager to receive him, and I think that the developments confirm our convictions. I think that our society today is stronger than a week before; that Cubans are more united, that the Pope's visit served as a rallying point for Christians, for believers, and non-believers alike. He was greeted everywhere by Cubans of every persuasion, and it was a demonstration of the civic and civilized attitudes for everybody, from the Church--our Church--to the last citizen of this country, including His Holiness, I have to say, and we have no problem with that. Today we are more united than before, and we are stronger and also with the encouragement of his message and his friendship that contradicts completely this reality, the forecast that some people in a rather precipitous way were making before.

CHARLES KRAUSE: The Pope also was critical of the U.S. embargo of your country. Do you think that this trip and his statements about the embargo will change the political climate in the United States?

RICARDO ALARCON: I cannot say that will be the consequences. I would like to hope that his message, particularly his appeal for an ending of the embargo would have some response that would be listened to and in the same manner that we take every other comments that he made--I think he is a person that deserves to be listened. His views have to be considered, and perhaps his visit will contribute--not to change immediately--not drastically adopt a particular attitude by the U.S. authorities, but let's hope that it will contribute to promote a necessary reassessment of a policy that His Holiness has said is unjust and morally unacceptable. I think that those are two concepts that should have persons of goodwill, whatever their political persuasions, think a little bit about.

CHARLES KRAUSE: And you, during the course of the Pope's trip here, there were several American congressmen here who you met with. Do you sense that there is anything underway now that might result in some lifting of part of the embargo, or a reassessment of the overall policy?

RICARDO ALARCON: That's a very good question. We received five congressmen. The five of them had a critical position regarding the U.S. embargo, but we also received three advisers of Senator Helms and Congressman Gilman. And I think that in itself is something very interesting. It is the first time that we have together people from such a diverse reflecting of the American political spectrum and the first time that these gentlemen from the Helms office, which are obviously a little bit apart from what Cuba needs now, but to receive them and to be able to talk to them, as I did personally yesterday afternoon, was in itself a very interesting experience for me, because I have to tell you that at least we were able to talk in a civilized, very proper, very businesslike manner. I don't mean that we wouldn't like a change of their minds. I wish they would learn something here that may inspire them to take a new look at the situation in Cuba. It is the first time for them to visit this country. They didn't know Cuba before. They were rather involved in activities not very friendly to Cuba. Let's hope that by improving their knowledge of the Cuban reality, by getting more acquainted with how Cuba feels and thinks, that may be a contribution to some sort of reduction of tensions between the two countries and the amelioration of the relations.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Ricardo Alarcon, thank you very much for joining us.

RICARDO ALARCON: You're welcome, sir. UPDATE - THE EL NINO EFFECT

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the storms and El Nino and to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Strong storms socked California this week, causing heavy damage yesterday. Some meteorologists tied the first winds and rain to the weather pattern known as El Nino. Fourteen counties in California declared local states of emergency. Northern California has been hit particularly hard since Monday night. More than 11,000 people were evacuated because of 80-mile-an-hour winds and floods. At least one death has been attributed to the storm. High water was reported in every major California river, and flooding occurred on several highways, forcing authorities to close or divert traffic, leading to long backups. More than 400,000 people around the state lost power for at least part of yesterday.

WOMAN: It's a little surreal. It's amazing to see the amount of the damage.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Southern California got its share too. Waves 40-feet high crashed into beaches near Malibu and Santa Barbara. Trees were toppled near homes, and even some emergency crews had to scramble to help themselves. Residents were awed by the spectacle.

ANOTHER WOMAN: We saw the cars start floating toward the house and the storage shed, and this was a patio room with my washer and dryer. That's all my stuff across the street.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Another storm clobbered the Southeast about the same time yesterday. Tornadoes plowed through Florida, and strong rains hit as far North as Chesapeake Bay, leaving serious damage in their wake. More than 160,000 people lost power in Florida yesterday. One person was killed, and some boats were driven aground. The storms in the Southeast continued today, leading to heavy winds, rain, and snow.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The sun came out in San Francisco this afternoon, providing some relief from the bad weather, but more rain is predicted tonight or tomorrow morning. For more on all this we turn to Jan Null, a former lead forecaster with the National Weather Service who now teaches meteorology at San Francisco State University. What has made these California storms so broad, so huge, and so powerful?

JAN NULL, Meteorologist: Well, it has had a little bit of the influence of El Nino, tapping into some subtropical moisture. El Nino is a phenomena that happens on the Equator. It actually never comes to the United States, so it is--there are no El Nino storms per se, but it changes the climate pattern during the winters of El Nino years, and that is what gives us some of these very powerful type storms.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So explain how it works. It seems to be a warmer kind of rain. What happens? How does El Nino make it so powerful and bring so much water?

JAN NULL: Well, what normally happens along the Equator is that the trade winds have all the warm water pushed in the Western Pacific. During an El Nino year that warm water is in the Eastern Pacific, and so the storms coming into the West Coast of the United States and then on across the southern tier of the United States can tap into some of that warm, moist air that's above that water, and that adds to the effect and the strength of these storms.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So all the months that we've been having everything blamed on El Nino-- it's this is El Nino, that is El Nino--is this the first time that you're willing to say this really might be caused by El Nino?

JAN NULL: This is probably as close as we're going to get. Again, El Nino is something that happens in the tropics, that has an effect upon the entire season, but this one had a good tap into that warm pool of water that I mentioned. And so I think we can say at least this has a direct type of relationship to El Nino, where some of the previous storms--probably every storm this season has had an indirect effect from El Nino.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, how does it relate to the Florida storm and the storm that's moving all the way up the coast? And we should say that Governor Chiles has just declared a state of emergency in Florida as a whole because of the storm and more storms coming.

JAN NULL: Well, the--one of the signatures of El Nino is for the Pacific jet stream to be a little bit farther South than usual and to go across the southern tier of the United States, so these warm, moist storms we get in California track on across the Southwestern desert, Texas, and the Gulf states. And this one is now turning on up into the--up into the Atlantic seaboard.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Could this be happening even if it was just a normal winter?

JAN NULL: Yes. And that's where, from a scientific point of view, it's real hard to say this is an El Nino storm because we had disastrous flooding the first of 1997, during a non-El Nino year. And back--the storm that just passed Northern California most looked like to me meteorologically was the floods we had in February of 1986 in California. And that was a non-El Nino year. So, yes, we can see these type of events in El Nino years and not El Nino years.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So we can't blame everything on El Nino?

JAN NULL: No, unfortunately, we can't blame everything on it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Going back to the California storm, every major river in California was either flooding or was reaching close to flooding. Is that unusual, to have a storm that's dumping the whole length of the state?

JAN NULL: Yes. That is a little bit on the unusual side. Usually they'll impact about a half a state at a time. This was just--had a lot of energy to it. It was a real broad front. The way that it spread into the state sort of broad-sided the whole state at one time, rather than moving from North to South like a lot of these storms do.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And people talked about the--you mentioned the Gulf Stream--and people have talked about the streams that are carrying this from--the Gulf Stream goes down along Japan and then comes up and hits this warm current. Could you explain how that works? And I may have it wrong.

JAN NULL: Well, what goes on is the--this transport of the warm water that I mentioned along the Equator over to the South American coast. And then there is some movement of that water up the Central American coast. And that is what some of these storms are tapping into. The connections all under the other currents around the Pacific are not as strong as that one.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Explain El Nino is a current. I mean, in Peru, they call it El Nino, but it's a current, right? Explain what happens that makes it bring these warm, warm rains in.

JAN NULL: Well, what happens to bring in El Nino is this big sloshing of warm water across the Pacific. It's not really a current in the way like the Gulf Stream is. It's not that well defined. But we're moving this big pool of water from the Western Pacific into the Eastern Pacific. And that has to do with something called the Southern Oscillation, which is when the pressure patterns--normally we have the trade winds across the-- blowing from the East to the West along the Equator. Those either break down or during strong El Ninos, like this one and in 1982 and 1972, those trade winds reverse, and they push this warm water over to the Eastern basin of the Pacific Ocean.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What can we expect in California in the next couple of days, and also, what can the East Coast expect?

JAN NULL: Here on the West Coast it looks like we're going to have another storm coming in either late tonight and tomorrow. The rainfall amounts look like there would be almost this high, a little bit farther North the impact in Central and Southern California will be a little bit less, but, again, very strong winds. The problem we have now is with saturated soils. Tree roots are weakened. We'll be seeing damage from that. We'll be seeing a lot more in the way of slides. There just isn't any more water carrying capacities for a lot of the hillsides. Along the East Coast the storm that's been on the Gulf Coast the last few days is now working its way up the Atlantic seaboard and is promising to bring some real heavy rains to the--into the Washington, D.C., area and on up into New England.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, Jan Null, thanks very much for being with us.

JAN NULL: You're welcome. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, President Clinton vowed to deny Iraq missiles and weapons of mass destruction one way or the other. The Federal Reserve left short-term interest rates unchanged. Jury selection began in the sexual misconduct court martial of former Sgt. Major of the Army Gene McKinney, and Congress voted to rename was National Airport after former President Ronald Reagan. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.