The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, Congress passed a bill to aid Americans with disabilities. The mayors of Moscow and Leningrad became the latest Soviet officials to leave the Communist Party. Thousands of Albanian refugees arrived in Italy. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we look at the rising dissent and unrest [FOCUS - THE LAST DOMINO] in the hardline Communist nation of Albania. There's a final report [UPDATE - PARTY APART] from the Communist Party Congress in Moscow. Judy Woodruff reports on the role of the aircraft carrier [FOCUS - CARRIER CUTBACKS?] in the post cold war U.S. Navy. David Gergen & Mark Shields offer their weekly analysis [FOCUS - GERGEN & SHIELDS]. And we close with a few Roger Rosenblatt words [ESSAY - CHECKING OUT] about Checkpoint Charlie. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The Senate today gave final approval to legislation that bars discrimination against disabled Americans. It passed by a vote of 91 to 6. The measure guarantees the nation's 43 million disabled persons access to jobs, transportation, telephone service and public buildings. Legislators said the bill known as the Americans with Disabilities Act marked a new era of opportunity.

SEN. TOM HARKIN, [D] Iowa: The 88 is indeed the 20th Century Emancipation Proclamation for all Americans with disabilities. Today the U.S. Senate will say to all Americans that the days of segregation and inequality are over.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, [R] Utah: This is a banner day, this is a major achievement, and I believe a very, very important day in the lives of all Americans who have to be proud that in this great country of freedom we'll go to the farthest lengths we can to make sure that everybody has equality and that everybody is free, and that everybody has a chance in this society.

MR. MacNeil: Pres. Bush has said he fully supports the bill. He is expected to sign it into law next week. The Senate Armed Services Committee today approved a $289 billion defense spending bill. That's $18 billion less than proposed by the President. The bill eliminates 50,000 troops in Europe. It also reduces the President's budget request for the strategic defense initiative by nearly a billion dollars. The full Senate is expected to consider the bill by August. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: There were two more big defections from the Communist Party today. The mayors of Moscow and Leningrad, the Soviet Union's two largest cities, were the defectors. Boris Yeltsin, the president of the Russian republic, quit the party yesterday, as did a pro reform faction. The party's congress ended the day with the election of a new Central Committee. In his closing speech, Pres. Gorbachev told the delegates he would welcome Western assistance as long as there are no political conditions attached. We will have a full report on the congress after the News Summary. There was a move in Poland today to put more of its economy under private control. One House of Parliament passed a bill that would have the government sell all the industries it owns, which is about 80 percent of all industry. The other House of Parliament is also expected to pass that bill.

MR. MacNeil: Several thousand Albanians are where they want to be today, out of their country. They were put on ships last night for the short trip to the Italian port of Brindisi. About 5,000 of them had sought refuge in foreign embassies in their capital this month with the goal of leaving their hardline Communist nation. After their arrival today, many of them were taken to a temporary shelter outside Brindisi. Others were put on trains for West Germany. Still others are going to France and Greece. We'll have more on the Albanian story after the News Summary. In Romania today, more than 20,000 demonstrators marched through the streets of Bucharest. They called for the release of a dissident student leader and others who were arrested following anti-government protests last month. Those demonstrations turned violent when the government brought in miners from the countryside to crush the protest. Today's march was peaceful.

MR. LEHRER: On the politics of the S&L scandal story, 12 House Democrats today asked Attorney General Thornburgh to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the collapse of the Silverado Savings & Loan. Pres. Bush's son, Neil, served as a director of that Colorado thrift. Thornburgh has 30 days to respond. It follows yesterday's attack by Ed Rollins, Chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. He said Democrats sold out the taxpayers by accepting campaign funds from S&L owners. Today House Speaker Tom Foley called those remarks emotional ravings. In economic news, the Labor Department reported inflation at the wholesale level rose .2 percent in June. That brings the annual rate to 3.7 percent. Retail sales were up .5 percent last month following three straight months of decline.

MR. MacNeil: And that's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to the problems in Albania, the Soviet Party Congress, aircraft carriers in the post cold war U.S. Navy, Gergen & Shields, and Roger Rosenblatt on Checkpoint Charlie. FOCUS - THE LAST DOMINO

MR. MacNeil: We begin tonight with a Country, Albania, that has struggled and largely succeeded in staying out of the news for the past 50 years but the Balkan Nation just slightly larger than the State of Maryland is in the news because 5000 Albanians have fled the Country which is often described as the last out post of Stalinist Communism in Europe. Albania broke his ties with the Soviet Union in 1961 because it had become to liberal. But recently Albania has been making friendly overtures both the Soviet Union and the United States. The U.S. has had no diplomatic relations with Albania since 1939. We'll discuss Albania's prospects in a moment but first a report on the Albanian exodus which bears a striking resemblance to the East German revolution last fall with thousands of its citizens seeking refuge in foreign Embassies. They were allowed out of Albania last night and taken by ship to the Italian Port of Randizie. Our report is from Norman Reece of Independent Television News.

MR. REECE: The first of the refugees entered Italian waters under Coast Guard escort. The Ferry flying the United Nations flag ferrying a 1000 Albanians who sought refuge in Western Embassies. They entered Brandizi shouting liberty and freedom. As the day wore on the scale of this remarkable international rescue mission became clear. 5000 people were evacuated in the space of several hours. But right to the last the refugees had lived in fear that the Albanian Government might suddenly ban their exit but they defied their government and won. First off a baby born just 5 days ago at the German Embassy and some of those wounded when Albanian Soldiers opened fire. Several pregnant women were also taken to hospital. The rest walked free their feelings needing no description. They carried no belongings just their children. Many of them were in bare feet. Doctors said many of the Children were suffering from malnutrition. But now there were caring hands to look after them. Men like Albert Thacker introduced his family and described their week long ordeal at the German Embassy praying for escape. Why do you want to leave Albania?

REFUGEE: We work much and get paid a little.

MR. REECE: Nearly a 1000 of the Albanians under the care of the Italians were taken to military camps outside of Brandizi. They will stay here until permanent jobs and accommodations can be found for them. But after years of isolation these Albanians at least were savoring their escape ahead of them an unsure future but a free one.

MR. MacNeil: Now two perspectives on the situation in Albania they come from Rep. Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr. Lantos was in Albania a month ago where he met with that Country's President. And Elez Biberaj a native of Albania and Author of the Book Albania the Socialist Maverick. Mr. Biberaj is currently the Director of the Albanian Service at the Voice of America. Mr. Biberaj is letting these 5000 people out take the pressure off the Albanian Government?

MR. BIBERAJ: I think for now it does serve the purposes of the Albanian regime but this does not mean that they have solved their problem. Rabazilia will have to move very fast in order to take care of the problems with which he is faced. Now the reasons which caused all of these people to enter the foreign missions have to be dealt with. The Albanian Government initially blamed foreign pressure and foreign interference but the causes are internal.

MR. MacNeil: Since this is the way that the Communist Collapse began in East Germany is it likely that Albania will follow? Do you think?

MR. BIBERAJ: I think that a lot will depend on what measures are taken in order to deal with the internal problems that Albania faces. He already has positioned himself as the reformer in the Albanian Leadership. He has also indicated that he will push for more reforms. At the same time he has replaced some hardliners with in the Albanian Party politburo and the Albanian Government and has indicated that he will move a head.

MR. MacNeil: Representative Lantos all the news reports portray Albania as the last Stalinist State in Europe. How hard line a Country is it. What is life like inAlbania?

REP. LANTOS: Well they were the most hard line of the East European Countries. But in recent times there have been changes. There is no doubt in my mind that if the hard line faction were still in power you wouldn't be seeing these joyous people arriving in Italy. I am sure that the winds of freedom and change and pluralism are not going to stop at the high mountains of Albania. It is only a question of time and in my judgement it is not a very long time we will see the same kinds of changes that we have seen elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe. I believe, however, that we have a role to play. When I saw President Alia he asked me to convey to President Bush the desire of Albania to have regular diplomatic relations reestablished between the United States and Albania. I strongly support this request. It seems to me that the sooner we establish a full scale diplomatic mission, the sooner we send a large group of Peace Corp volunteers, the sooner we develop some trade ties large numbers of Albanian Americans who would like to go back to visit, to develop business relations the faster the process will be.

MR. MacNeil: Can I interrupt you a moment? Why doesn't the U.S. have diplomatic relations with Albania? I mean it had it with all the other Communist regimes of Eastern Europe even at the height of the cold war. Why no relations with Albania?

REP. LANTOS: Well I think that there are a number of historic reasons why during the 50s and 60s and 70s it made sense. At the present time it makes no sense. Clearly several of our allies in NATO such as West Germany, Italy others have diplomatic ties and the Albanians are anxious to establish diplomatic ties. As a matter of fact Robin every time you hear about the Italian Embassy in Tirana they are talking about our Embassy. This is the Embassy of the United States of America which happens to be leased by Italy and the Italians are looking for new accommodations because they assume that sooner of later we will be back.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Biberaj, all those people arriving on Italian soil today were deliriously happy. What are they leaving that was so oppressive. I mean I want another definition why the State is regarded as so hardline? What have living conditions been like there?

MR. BIBERAJ: I think that there are two main reasons why they chose to escape from Albania. First the Albanian regime has had the worst record on human rights of any regime in Eastern Europe during the last four decades. It is a repressive regime although there have been some significant reforms in the Albanian context.

MR. MacNeil: The worst human rights that is saying a lot over the last four decades. That is comparing it to East Germany and comparing it to Stalin's Russia, the Soviet Union. I mean are there many political prisoners still in jail?

MR. BIBERAJ: There used to be many political prisoners. There have been two amnesties in the last four or five years and they have taken actions. Now the other factor that has caused these people to leave Albania is the economic situation which has apparently deteriorated rather dramatically in the last three or four years.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Lantos why should the United States be granting diplomatic recognition now? Wouldn't that appear to be supporting the regime and endorsing its recent reforms in so on instead of promoting change there, further change?

MR. BIBERAJ: By the our very presence Robin we will accelerate change the process of change. Granting diplomatic recognition to Albania is not a favor that we would be making for them. This is a step that enables the United States to exert its positive influence of pluralism in the last of the Eastern European Countries where there is still one Party rule. There is no doubt in my mind that the American presences, academic, cultural, touristic, will make for pluralism much faster than if we continue to stay away.

MR. MacNeil: Do you agree with that Mr. Biberaj?

MR. BIBERAJ: Yes, I do. Right now the United States Government is in no position to influence in a positive way developments in Albania. By having a presence there we can tell the Albanian Government what our main concerns in Albania are concerning the human rights situation and other things in Albania and would be in a position to really influence in the right direction.

MR. MacNeil: What is the nature and strength of a dissident or opposition group now that these 5000 people have left and what opportunities do they have to express themselves?

MR. BIBERAJ: The political situation in Albania is improving. The question is can they control the pace of reform. There appears to be a wide spread perception that this Government can not be trusted. They will therefore have to take some policies which restore the credibility of that regime in the eyes of the Albanian population. Can he do it? Only time will tell.

MR. MacNeil: Do you think the reforms that he made indicates that the winds of change have reached Albania or are they just tactical moves to deflect it?

MR. BIBERAJ: There is no question in my mind that he is very serious about trying out these reforms. Although he has indicated that he has no intention whatsoever to open up the political situation and to permit a multi party system in Albania. I think that will have to change. Developments in Eastern Europe as well as the internal pressures in Albania have made the Albanian Government change its stand on issues including its stand toward the Super Powers and its stand toward the Helsinki process. Now the most significant thing that has happened in Albania in two or three months is the change in the Albanian perception about the Helsinki process. Now the Albanian Government has declared that it is willing to engage in this process and to accept the main principles of the Helsinki agreements which were reached in 1975 and as we know one of the main concepts of these agreements is the concept of political pluralism. And Albania is moving in that direction.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Lantos how serious do you think Aleia is about the reforms that he has made and how far does he want to go?

REP. LANTOS: I don't know how far he is prepared to go but I am sure that the process will go on. I Think that what is in motion here is an irresistible trend. After all the Albanian people are watching Italian and Greek television. They are listening to Western Radio broadcasts. They are not isolated intellectually from the West. When my wife and I visited the University of Tirana we spoke with students who were well informed, were fluent on English and were dying to come to the United States. I would love to see 500 Albanian students all over the United States at University campuses. I want to see our Peace Corp volunteers all over Albania. I want to see this country opened up. The people as you could see on the ship are dying to be part of the West.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman what is the importance of Albania to the United States, it's million people, apart from our promoting human rights?

REP. LANTOS: Well I think that in itself is significant but it is an important country in terms of its geographic location. It isan Adriatic Country. It is important to realize in the early 1960s there was a Soviet Submarine base which the Albanians closed when they felt that the Russians were getting over powerfully in their country. I think that it finishes the process of opening up Central and Eastern Europe to the West, to pluralism, to the West type of life and I think we are ideologically and emotionally committed to this.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Lantos and Mr. Biberaj that you for joining us. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight the end of the Soviet Party Congress, aircraft carriers, Gergen and Shields and Checkpoint Charlie. UPDATE - PARTY APART

MR. LEHRER: Now a final report on the Soviet Communist Party Congress in Moscow. The 11 day event ended today with Mikhail Gorbachev firmly in control, but with attention focused on the defectors, Boris Yeltsin, the head of the Russian Republic, and the mayors of Moscow and Leningrad, who quit the Communist Party. Our report is from David Smith of Independent Television News.

MR. SMITH: Boris Yelstin at the headquarters of his Russian Federation this morning doing what he says he likes most, talking to ordinary people. Most of them were congratulating him on his decision to leave the Communist Party. But Mr. Yeltsin was expressing some hope that he can work with Pres. Gorbachev.

BORIS YELTSIN, President, Russian Federation: [Speaking through Interpreter] I'm not interested in personalities and I wish to have a professional relationship with Gorbachev as the President, a working relationship.

MR. SMITH: Would he now be joining the Democratic Platform, the party being set up by the radicals?

MR. YELTSIN: [Speaking through Interpreter] The Democratic Platform has been established, but I haven't signed up as an individual. But the fact that they've set themselves up will be a good enough reason for lots of people to leave the Communist Party.

MR. SMITH: Today they've been doing just that. The mayor of Moscow is gone, so too Anatoly Sbcek, the mayor of Leningrad. The two biggest cities in the union are no longer led by party members. By lunchtime, the Democratic Platform was holding a press conference presenting themselves to the nation. Even the army was represented. Their leader, Vladimir Shastokovsky, said he expected thousands of party members to join in the next few weeks. It all looked rather orderly, compared to the party congress now in its eleventh and final day. Here there was uproar as they argued about procedure, their finances, and the new Central Committee. Party leaders seemed to be saying, crisis, what crisis? How much weaker is the party for the loss of Boris Yeltsin?

ANATOLY LUKYANOV, Deputy Prime Minister: [Speaking through Interpreter] I see this congress as having strengthened the unity of the party. It's a constructive start. It's also further defying the shape of the party. It's a normal process. If someone isn't in agreement with this process, then he can go. We're not going to stop anyone. His departure would be a logical development.

MR. SMITH: The original purpose of this congress was to revitalize the party and to give it a program to deal with the country's crisis, to look beyond the congress hall to reach the people, and to address their problems, the cues, the shortages, the waste and inefficiency. So much of this congress though has been devoted to party matters, to party in fighting and so little time given to the key issues, the economy and the break up of the Soviet Union. As it ends, there are a few delegates here on either side of this party who believe that it'll change anything. On the contrary, many are going home dismayed. Upstairs in the dining room of the palace of congresses you see the country's crisis at large. They've been cuing here as well, even delegates, because most of the staff are either resting or doing whatever they please. Few are working and nothing we've heard down in the hall suggests there's any appetite for the economic reforms the party knows are necessary. Do you think that you'll be able to speed ahead with the economic program after this?

STANISLAV SHATALIN, Presidential Council: Yes.

MR. SMITH: Really?

STANISLAV SHATALIN, Presidential Council: Yes.

MR. SMITH: Why?

STANISLAV SHATALIN, Presidential Council: I believe in God. I trust in God.

MR. SMITH: What about Gorbachev?

MR. SHATALIN: I don't know.

MR. SMITH: So how is this congress going to be received out in the country? There weren't many expectations, but the hope was for something concrete. Today we spoke to Victor Sidorchuk, a party leader in Siberia and the man who runs Siberia's crucial oil fields. We'd first met back in January when he'd led a revolt within the Siberian Party. He'd spearheaded the demand for new, liberal leadership and wholesale reforms of the system. Today he was bitterly disappointed.

VICTOR SIDORCHUCK, Communist Party, Siberia: [Speaking through Interpreter] Speaking frankly, this congress hasn't given any answers or a way out of the crisis. I expected more.

MR. SMITH: So what's the message you're going to be taking back to your people in Siberia?

MR. SIDORCHUCK: [Speaking through Interpreter] You know, I feel such emptiness. The ideas are still in my head but there's nothing in my soul. My spirit has gone. And I look at the congress and I see some people at the top who care only about their own position.

MR. SMITH: Tonight President Gorbachev insisted that despite the defection of Mr. Yeltsin and now the mayors of Moscow and Leningrad, the party wasn't finished; it was being reborn. Independent observers say the party's living in the past and that the congress has proved it.

PROFESSOR TAIR TAIROV, Political Scientist: They are still living with all the illusions that the decision of the politburo, secretariat will mean something. The people don't just care about this position anymore. The power is shifting and politics are gravitating towards Yeltsin, towards independent legislative bodies, city council, and that's very significant. But they are still living with the illusion that the Communism, the Leninism will lead us to the bright future.

MR. SMITH: Tonight at the congress they finally elected a new Central Committee. It would be bigger and more representative, they said, but it looks anything but radical. FOCUS - CARRIER CUTBACKS

MR. MacNeil: Now to a story about the aircraft carrier, the pride of the U.S. fleet and the politics of a shrinking defense budget. Today the Senate Armed Services Committee finished work on its annual defense bill. It advised reducing the number of carriers from 14 to 12. But that may be only the beginning. There are other suggestions in Congress for even sharper reductions. Judy Woodruff reports on this battle over the carriers.

MS. WOODRUFF: As an instrument of war, the aircraft carrier came into its own during World War II. Carriers in the Pacific played a vital role in crippling the Japanese Navy. In the 45 years, the Pentagon has drawn up a list of 250 military crises involving the U.S. Naval power was used in more than 80 percent of them. From Korea to Vietnam, from Lebanon to Grenada, there have been repeated examples of ships and Navy air power called into action, such as last year's shootdown of two Libyan MiGs by a pair of Navy F-14 fighters. In most of these incidents, aircraft carriers played a major role.

SPOKESMAN: They are a primary way of showing presence, at yet the same time not committing acts of war.

SPOKESMAN: The carrier has the long range striking punch, longer than any other asset we have.

SPOKESMAN: It gives the mobility to be anywhere in the world.

SPOKESMAN: They're really just movable pieces of real estate that can be configured for whatever the area or task at hand might be.

MS. WOODRUFF: Depending on its mission, an aircraft carrier battle group consists of an aircraft carrier working in concert with an armada of various cruisers, destroyers, submarines, supply ships, and 80 some combat aircraft.

WILLIAM KAUFMANN, Former Pentagon Adviser: It's a combination of the Bolshoi Ballet and Evil Knevel. It's a fantastic performance.

MS. WOODRUFF: If trouble were to break out tomorrow at virtually any spot on the globe, the Navy is positioned to reach the scene in a matter of a few days. Aircraft carriers like the USS John F. Kennedy every week are prowling the waters of the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, and the Pacific. Every one of the fourteen carriers in the American fleet is a formidable presence by itself; with at least four and a half acres of flight deck and if stood on her stern taller than the Empire State Building, each is the equivalent of a small city, population around 5,300. But carrier groups have been costly too, $18 billion to build and $1 billion a year to operate, and for every carrier deployed, there are at least two more in maintenance or training. During the big defense build up of the Reagan years, the Navy based its growth, the necessity for a large carrier force, on the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Now, however, that threat has changed dramatically.

SEN. SAM NUNN, [D] Georgia: The Warsaw Pact has disintegrated as a fighting military force. The Soviet Union still has considerable presence in Western Europe, but in terms of a short warning attack against Western Europe, which is what NATO has been postured for for a long time, that kind of threat has dissipated very significantly.

MS. WOODRUFF: In light of the reduced threat, many experts believe the Navy no longer needs to have its carriers forward deployed constantly around the world. Former Asst. Sec. of Defense Lawrence Korb.

LAWRENCE KORB, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense: The feeling was that we had to have the Navy in places like the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf and the Western Pacific all the time, because again if this attack would come with short warning, we would want the Navy to keep the ceilings over to attack the flanks of the Soviet Union. Now that we know that they can't do it very quickly, in fact, some of the Intelligence community say it would take them a year to get ready for an attack, the Navy no longer has to be constantly on patrol.

MS. WOODRUFF: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn, considered the Senate's leading expert on defense policy, says the Soviet Navy is still strong, but not as threatening as it used to be.

SEN. NUNN: They've become more defense in their deployment to the Navy. They're not as forward postured as they have been in the past. They're not patrolling their submarines off the shore of the United States to the extent that they did once.

MS. WOODRUFF: Nunn's view of the Soviet threat is much more benign than that of the Navy, itself. The just retired Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Carlisle Trost.

ADM. CARLISLE TROST, Former Chief of Naval Operations: The Soviet Union continues its modernization programs in all of its strategic weapons systems. It continues its upgrade of qualitative capability in their Navy as well as in their ground forces. And we military leaders have to recognize that there still is a capability there which a changed political situation could exploit.

MS. WOODRUFF: The officers at sea put it more bluntly.

CAPTAIN HERB BROWNE, USS John F. Kennedy: I'd like for somebody to tell me that Russia doesn't want America, and then I'll say, okay, let's reduce our forces, and I'm not seeing that. I see ladies standing in line to by the single remaining tomato in their grocery stores and I see our families walking into grocery stores and having to make the horrible decision as to which type of a half a dozen apples they're going to purchase. So I don't want Russia, and I think that we need to defend what we have in our country, and I think the aircraft carrier is key to that.

MS. WOODRUFF: As deeply as many sailors feel it, that argument doesn't carry a lot of water in Washington these days, so when the Navy is asked to justify its size, it now has an alternate argument.

JOHN LEHMAN, Former Secretary of the Navy: The fact is in the 240 uses of Naval force over the last 40 years, not one directly involved the Soviet Union. So the threats of the Gadhafis and state sponsored terrorists, the Iranians, the drug runners in Central America, coups against friends, and all of, I mean, pirates in the South China Sea, these are not going to go away. Indeed, one can make a case where it's going to be a much more violent world at that level of intensity without the polarization of the East-West confrontation.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: The enemy are the terrorists. THe enemy are those who engage in conflicts such as the Iran-Iraq War which could jeopardize the flow of oil. The enemy are those nations ranging from Syria to frankly, Argentina and Brazil, who are acquiring nuclear capability and the means to deliver them, as well as biological and chemical weapons which are proliferating at an incredible rate.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. John McCain, a former Navy pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war, says with the U.S. cutting back it's land based forces overseas, the Navy is now more important than ever.

SEN. McCAIN: It seems to me with the withdrawal from bases, with the withdrawal from Western Europe, and Asia to a large degree, that places more emphasis on maritime capability, the backbone of which remains the carrier battle group.

MS. WOODRUFF: Virginia Congressman Norman Sisisky who represents the area around the Naval base at Norfolk carries the argument one step further.

REP. NORMAN SISISKY, [D] Virginia: I told you I was in the Western Pacific, took a 28,000 mile trip, worrying about where we would put our ships in case we lose the Philippines, the Philippine base rights. We talked to Esion nations and the one thing that they told us is that they would love, it may not be able to be our allies, but they want to see the American fleet over the horizon. They must see the American fleet over the horizon. That's what's going to keep peace out there.

MS. WOODRUFF: What's forced all this debate are not foreign considerations, however, but domestic pressure to get the budget deficit down underlined by negotiations now taking place in Washington. Nunn and others say Soviet threat or no Soviet threat, there will be cuts in defense,most deeply in the Army and the Air Force, but the Navy will have to absorb its share as well.

SEN. NUNN: We're still going to have to have a strong Navy. They're going to have to be in forward areas all around the world from time to time. The real question is though do they have to be there all the time, do they have to be there in the numbers they've got now, and if the Soviet threat has gone down, which it has certainly in certain areas of the world, do we need the same number of ships postured against a third world country that we would against the Soviet Union, and the answer to all those questions is clearly no, it's time for the Navy to adjust to reality.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Navy and its allies acknowledged that some adjustments must be made, but they contend that anybody who argues for reductions in the centerpiece of Naval strategy, the aircraft carrier battle groups, is irresponsible.

ADM. CARLISLE TROST: I say they're gambling with national security and they're willing to take that gamble because they unlike me are not responsible for the --

MS. WOODRUFF: When you say they're gambling with national security, what exactly are you saying?

ADM. TROST: That says that when you need them, you can't say my goodness, I suddenly need an aircraft carrier, I'd better go build one, or pull one out of mothballs. If you're going to build it, you'll have it in eight years, you won't have the airplanes to go with it unless you start building them right now, you won't have the people unless you have some core capability already. We need to recognize that we can get down to a certain level of capability and then our national leadership has to know what it is they can't react to, what they can't respond to, because they will no longer have the capability either to successfully deter or to engage in certain kinds of operations.

MS. WOODRUFF: Other experts disagree. They believe the Navy can safely go to nine or ten carriers and even eventually six, especially given the nature of third world conflicts where they say carriers have not been crucial to the outcome. Defense Consultant William Kaufmann.

MR. KAUFMANN: Certainly Ho Chi Minh didn't pay any attention to the presence of three carriers in the Western Pacific. In the other situations where there hasn't been any real shooting, it's not at all clear that their presence has made any difference in the situation.

MR. KORB: For example, when the Navy went into the Persian Gulf, they found that the carrier battle group was virtually useless. In fact, they had to keep it out in the North Arabian Sea. What they didn't have was mine sweepers, and they actually had to take the mine sweepers from the reserves and tow them across the ocean. What they ought to do now is buy more mine sweepers and less aircraft carriers, and not that you won't need carriers. You're still going to need some carriers, you won't need as many. Nor will have to get aircraft that are as sophisticated. I mean, certainly one can't compare Libya to the Soviet Union in terms of their air defenses.

MS. WOODRUFF: Defense Sec. Dick Cheney has spoken out for a smaller reduction to 12 carriers. But many carrier advocates say even that is a mistake. They cite past crises where the U.S. has deployed as many as four carriers at once. Former Navy Sec. John Lehman.

JOHN LEHMAN: If you're going to have four ready to go at a moment's notice in the Atlantic, then you've got to have at least 14, because some are going to be in overhaul, some are going to be in the West Coast, some are going to be deployed in the Pacific deterring, so we don't have enough carriers.

MS. WOODRUFF: But Lehman does concede that continuous forward deployment of carriers around the world is no longer necessary. He says keeping the carriers in their home ports for longer periods of time could save money. Congressman Sisisky, on the other hand, believes anything short of continuous deployment is taking a risk.

REP. SISISKY: I think we answer crisis situations by ships on station. For instance, if we did not have a carrier out there, we would never have intercepted the plane that was carrying the hijackers. Whoever thought that an ocean liner would be hijacked but the ship had to be there. It couldn't wait to come from Norfolk in 14 days to do the deed.

MS. WOODRUFF: But Navy officers at sea argue that if there are cuts in the number of carriers, the ones that remain will be doing more work, and that means a real hardship for the sailors on board.

CAPTAIN HERB BROWNE, USS John F. Kennedy: I'm just absolutely convinced that as we reduce the number of aircraft carriers, that my kids are going to go to see more and I'm going to have to make more demands on them right now and I think right now that they're paying more than their share for democracy and freedom and I just don't think that the commitments are going to go away. I think the congress and the commander in chief is going to make demands on aircraft carriers and I think it's going to come out of the hide of the American blue jacket if we continue to reduce forces, and that's my concern as a carrier commanding officer.

CMDR. JOHN LEENBOUTS, USS John F. Kennedy: Along with deployments, it's very difficult on a family without a doubt. I've been in the Navy when deployments were eight, nine, ten, eleven months at a time, and that's a very difficult time period to be away from your family.

MS. WOODRUFF: But many analysts say that won't be necessary except in a wartime situation.

MR. KORB: You can have more random controls. You can have not just carriers. You can substitute smaller ships, because now you're concerned about presence, rather than actually getting into a fight on very short notice.

MS. WOODRUFF: All sides in the carrier debate agree on at least one thing, that the arguments will continue until the President decides what the new strategy of the Navy should be.

SEN. McCAIN: He's got to tell the American people and their representatives exactly what he views as what the role of the military is in the decade, in the next century.

REP. SISISKY: We're dealing without any military strategy, and I don't want to cut back fast enough to be making a mistake until we now what we're going to do, until they come up with a sound policy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Sam Nunn complains that the military budget submitted by President Bush and Defense Sec. Cheney is based on fiscal requirements rather than on what he calls rethinking the threat and rethinking the strategy. He says it will be fall at the earliest before the administration comes forward with the force structure it believes is necessary, the number of ships, Air Force wings, and divisions of the Army and the Marines. Nunn insists that it is only the civilians at the top of an administration who can make those decisions.

SEN. NUNN: If you let the military services draw up their own requirements, there is no end to the threat that they can postulate. You don't necessarily have to have an aircraft carrier and either ten or twelve support ships and a hundred aircraft to have a presence in the world. The question is what kind of presence at what cost will be effective, and the Navy has not thought about that yet. They've got to think about it in the future.

MS. WOODRUFF: Just last night, Sen. Nunn's Armed Services Committee voted cuts in the Navy's budget and directed the Defense Department to tell the Congress what sort of global presence the Navy can provide with fewer aircraft carriers deployed less frequently. FOCUS - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MR. LEHRER: It is indeed Friday and time for some analysis from Gergen & Shields, David Gergen, editor at large of U.S. News & World Report, Mark Shields, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. David, first, is there anything to say about the politics of what happened at the Houston summit?

DAVID GERGEN, U.S. News & World Report: I don't think it has much fallout in American domestic terms. I think what we did see here was a lot more scuffling in the wheelhouse among the leaders and it seems to me that reflects a couple of changes. One is that of course the glue that's held the leadership together, the industrialized nations together, has been the cold war. With that disappearing, countries coming into these summits now are going to be asserting their national interests much more, their economic interest. The other thing we see --

MR. LEHRER: Particularly on the issue of aid to the Soviet Union; they just kind of made that decision.

MR. GERGEN: Absolutely.

MR. LEHRER: You do yours, we'll do ours, and don't worry about it.

MR. GERGEN: With a thousand flower bloom, everybody go their own way and the United States, the other interesting thing is that what we've got now emerging in the world is a new triangle of power with the United States being one of three players, the other two being Europe, of course, Western Europe, and Japan. And so the United States is no longer first above everyone else. It is part of a three way triangle and it means that the United States doesn't have as much control in these summits. You know, the fact that they've been growing and we've haven't grown as rapidly as we should, we've lost some of our power.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, anything you want to add to that?

MARK SHIELDS, Washington Post: I think the Houston summit, we confirmed the validity and wisdom of Tip O'Neill's great line that all politics is local, as David said. I mean, the Germans have their reasons for wanting the good will of the Japanese, of the Russians with their aid. The Germans have their good reasons, Helmut Kohl does, not to support the elimination of agricultural subsidies, because Bavarian farmers are key to his coalition. There's a December 2nd, all German election. He's counting on their votes, and the Japanese have their own deal to cut with the Northern territories that they want back from the Russians.

MR. LEHRER: And the Japanese went ahead with their huge deal with China.

MR. SHIELDS: With China, that's right.

MR. LEHRER: And nobody else is doing anything --

MR. SHIELDS: Exactly.

MR. LEHRER: Let's go to some domestic things. The Republican National Committee is meeting in Chicago as we speak. Do they meet in an atmosphere of optimism, David?

MR. GERGEN: Not at all. The Republicans are getting scared about the elections coming up and frankly about their long-term prospects for --

MR. LEHRER: For the fall election of 1990.

MR. GERGEN: Yeah. The 1990 elections are very much on their mind now and the Republicans frankly think the Democrats are starting to make some headway on some of the problems the country is facing. We've talked before here about the voters being very angry, but that anger has not been very focused. They haven't known whom to blame. The Democrats a few weeks ago said, look, we've got two big issues out there the voters are angry about. One's called the savings & loan scandal, the other's called higher taxes, and now this week they say, we can draw a little dotted line between those two scandals and that dotted line is called Neil Bush, the President's son. And so their strategy, obviously, is to hook those two things together and to wrap it around the Republicans' neck, and so the Republicans have now gone to Chicago this week unhappy, wanting to fight back. And now they're coming charging out, Ed Rollins, of course, came charging out and said, look, the Democrats bear a huge amount of responsibility for the S&L scandal; they're not going to stick this tar baby on us.

MR. LEHRER: But, Mark, Tom Foley, who is not a man who uses a lot of strong words, at least since he became Speaker of the House, said about Ed Rollins, "He's a panicked man, out of control. He's an out of control person. These are wild statements, unrestrained, and totally raw partisan accusation yesterday in Chicago.".

MR. SHIELDS: Did Tom Foley say this?

MR. LEHRER: Yes. I'm reading from the Associated Press wire that I have right here.

MR. GERGEN: It sounds like you called him and pumped him up.

MR. LEHRER: What's going on?

MR. SHIELDS: What's going is that Ed Rollins is the Republican co-chairman of the Republican House Campaign Committee. He managed Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign, very effective, Paul. And he's scared stiff.

MR. LEHRER: He's a pro by the way, not a member of Congress.

MR. SHIELDS: No, no. He's a real pro, a genuine pro, and he's scared. And he's scared to the point where, first of all, on taxes, as David mentioned earlier, when George Bush just said they're going to be on the table, Ed Rollins said straight off the reservation, said, that cost us 10 House seats this fall. And now this has compounded their nervousness, because as one Republican strategist put it this week, Neil Bush gives them a poster child for savings & loan, a poster child in the sense that he personalizes this issue. This has been an enormous issue. There's been a lot of what's a Keating, we don't know what that is, but all of a sudden you've got a story of the President's son getting a $100,000 "loan" from a fellow who doesn't ask for it back, all right, from a fellow who wants to invest in your business and as you sit on there, as a director of the savings & loan, this same fellow comes before the savings & loan for help, you serve as his advocate, and as he's negotiating a settlement of his inability to pay back those loans he's secured from that savings & loan, you're also receiving investments in your own company, as Neil Bush was. This is a problem for them. People understand a $100,000 loan that isn't paid back. They don't call it a loan in most neighborhoods. They call it something else. They call it gravy, they call it grease, and so all of a sudden, you've got this connection and it's a terribly difficult thing for the President because you can see it's personally painful.

MR. LEHRER: You could see him at that news conference.

MR. SHIELDS: It was very painful. And you expect the President to be loving, to be loyal to his own son, but what makes it tough politically is if you're in the White House, you can't develop a strategy. How do you develop a strategy when the President's emotions are involved? You can't do it.

MR. GERGEN: Well, I agree with that, but they could develop a strategy perhaps to help Neil Bush lower his profile. I frankly think he has not been his best advocate this week when he gave an interview to the Washington Post this week and called the loan Mark just described "an incredibly sweet deal". That did not advance his case very much. But two points, Mark, I think should be borne in mind. Basically, this young man deserves a real opportunity for a fair hearing and I don't think we've had that totally. For instance, he got this loan well before he joined the savings & loan board. He also disclosed to his partners he was in business partnership with a man who was getting the money from the bank, but I think, all things considered, I think the real problem for the Republicans is that they had in Mr. Keating someone who was very tied into the Democrats as the personification of the savings & loan scandal, and now Neil Bush comes along and replaces Mr. Keating and he has simply Republican ties, whereas, Keating had Democratic ties. It makes it more difficult for the Democrats and Mark is right --

MR. LEHRER: For the Democrats?

MR. GERGEN: I mean for the Republicans and Mark is right, that the Republicans are scared of this and they're going to try to fight back.

MR. LEHRER: Somebody mentioned to me today that the worst thing about the Neil Bush thing is that there's no way to end it.

MR. GERGEN: There is no way to end it. Well, they have to have a hearing, of course. But, Jim, I think this issue of the savings & loan is going to be with us a long time not only because of the cost, but every director who is going to be sued by the government, and we know that there are hundreds of them like Neil Bush who may be sued, the press is going to check out every campaign contribution they've made. They're going to check and see whether they've given to the Bush campaign, whether they've given to Republican or Democrats.

MR. LEHRER: There are going to be a lot of Democrats come out on this.

MR. GERGEN: A lot of Democrats are going to get in this.

MR. SHIELDS: You saw that in the reluctance when Pat Schroeder, Democratic member of Congress from Denver, pushed for a special prosecutor, an independent counsel, to investigate, saying that the President's own attorney general would be hard pressed, might be under some conflict, and she had a very difficult time getting a majority out of the House Democratic controlled majority judiciary committee. Virtually none of the senior Democrats on the committee, Subcommittee Chairman with the exception I think of John Kastemyer and Don Edwards, would sign that letter. Jack Brooks, the chairman, was not for it, a whole bunch of them were, and I think for this reason that there are Democrats out there who would be vulnerable. I would just hope -- you talk about Tom Foley's anger and ire, and that's fine, because Ed Rollins did include Tom Foley in his list of people who had received money from the S&Ls, but at the core of this, at the base of it, Jim, is really the money grubbing, feverish pursuit of campaign funds. That's what's fueled this whole thing, and it's at the core of it, and it's a lousy, corrupt system, and if we're ever going to change it, I mean, now would strike me with the Democrats and the majority and Republicans feeling that this is a lousy system under which they all operate, this is the time to clean it up. I mean, it really is.

MR. GERGEN: I couldn't agree with that more. I think he's absolutely on target. I'd just like to make one other point about it, Jim, because I think that the attitudes -- see people went home over the July 4th recess, and they found a lot of anger out there, both Republicans and Democrats, and they came back here more geared up as partisans. This has been a very partisan town this week, and the result is that these very sensitive, very important budget negotiations, poison is starting to creep into those budget negotiations.

MR. LEHRER: Nothing's happening there.

MR. GERGEN: No, some very important things are happening. This has not been a very good week for the budget negotiations. Essentially they met in a much more highly charged atmosphere because all of the anger that's out there. Then in the middle of the week, George Mitchell, the Democratic leader in the Senate said, I will oppose any package that includes the President's capital gains thing unless it raises taxes on the upper income people, the income taxes on the upper income people. Mitchell said, I'll oppose that. The Republicans last night came out and said, we oppose any plan that raises the upper income levels, that raises the taxes. This, essentially, we're at an impasse over this question over the bubble we've discussed before, this tax rate for upper income taxpayers. Jim, if they can't resolve that issue, the net result is going to be we may get a budget package but it would be much smaller. It will not be sufficient to do what was hoped for on the economy. It means higher interest rates. So this is very important, what's going on this week.

MR. LEHRER: You bet. All right. Thank you both very much. ESSAY - CHECKING OUT

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt of Life Magazine has some thoughts about yet another symbol of the cold war that has been mothballed recently. Checkpoint Charlie is on its way to the Smithsonian Institution.

MR. ROSENBLATT: There was something unfinished, something temporary about it, said Major Gen. Raymond E. Haddock, Commander of U.S. Forces in Berlin, as the crane hoisted the prefabricated shack near the Berlin Wall up and away, wisdom in retrospect, but the General was right. From the moment Checkpoint Charlie was first set up as the only crossing point for surface traffic that the Communist permitted allied personnel and civilians to use, the building looked made for dismantling. Still, it took 30 years of cold warring and the deaths of 77 would-be escapees to the West before this odd last Berlin airlift could happen. Remarkable how easily minds alter structures. Checkpoint Charlie, soon to be a museum exhibit, was for years the house of deadly confrontation, rifles at the ready, border guards glowering at one another across the space. The checkpoint was like a fort filled with enemies. Here in cold war novels and reality, prisoners and spies were exchanged, usually at night, in the secret dealings of the super powers. On August 17, 1962, Peter Fecter, an East German, was shot while trying to escape and was left to bleed to death near Checkpoint Charlie as a lesson to others. During the Berlin crisis of 1962, American soldiers in jeeps deliberately probed the crossing point to assert the right of Americans to pass through. Soon Soviet tanks rolled into East Berlin for the first time, positioned for a face-off. That's about as hot as things ever got at Checkpoint Charlie. Shortly before the shack took flight recently, the atmosphere of the wall had reversed itself completely. Guards didn't even make searches. They were giddy. Soon they were going to be out of a job. Present at the hoisting ceremony for Checkpoint Charlie were dignitaries representing the two Germanys, the U.S., France, Britain, and the Soviet Union. It was as if they were all noting the end of the second world war again, as if no other war had existed in the interim. Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze praised the unification of two once hostile sides. Sec. of State Baker envisioned a new journey away from cold war tensions. In a few days, East and West Germany would be using a single currency, all as if Checkpoint Charlie had never been there. But the feeling of the event was caught in the temporary quality of Checkpoint Charlie. Charlie symbolized the prevention of free movement, free access, and free thought. Comes a new liberation of attitude in politics and the house flies off like Dorothy's in the Wizard of Oz. But Charlie was destined for departure from the start. The checkpoint was created to deny freedom. When you deny freedom, you build for obsolescence. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, Congress passed a disabilities law opening up transportation and other facilities to the handicapped, and thousands of dissident Albanians fled their country by boat to Italy, Greece, and France. Good night, Robin.

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