The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Good evening. I'm Charlayne Hunter-Gault in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Monday, we look at the Supreme Court's big affirmative action decision, Margaret Warner reports on the Newt Gingrich weekend in New Hampshire, and four varied Republicans assess the varied race for the Republican presidential nomination. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: A divided Supreme Court today ruled in an affirmative action case. In a five to four decision, the Justices asked a lower court to reconsider a Colorado case involving the award of federal contracts to minority-owned businesses. The Justices ruled that minority-owned firms should not receive special treatment unless there is a compelling government interest. In another five to four decision, the court ruled that student test scores should not be the sole reason for continuing school desegregation plans. The court agreed with Missouri officials, who argued that the state should no longer be obliged to pay for a school desegregation plan in Kansas City, even though test scores have remained low. We'll have more on both these cases right after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton welcomed Scott O'Grady to the White House today. The Air Force captain described his six-day ordeal in Bosnia to the President in an Oval Office meeting. Then the two had a private lunch. Afterwards, Mr. Clinton escorted O'Grady to an honor ceremony at the Pentagon. During the rain-soaked event, the President praised the efforts of those who rescued O'Grady.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We know that the skill and professionalism of our armed forces and the intelligence that backs them up are unmatched. We know that the months, the weeks, the years of training some day, somewhere will always have to be put into effect, and last week those of you brought life to that training and saved one brave man's life said more about what we stand for as a country, what our values are, and what our commitments are than any words the rest of us could ever utter.

CAPTAIN SCOTT O'GRADY, U.S. Air Force: If you'll allow me the honor to accept all of this fanfare in the, in the honor of those men and women who deserved it more and didn't get it serving their country, not just in the United States but also in NATO and the United Nations Peace Corps, for those men and women who've suffered a lot more than I went through, those who were POW's, those who gave the ultimate sacrifice both in wartime and peacetime for their countries, and if you could do that for me now, I'll accept all of this.

MR. LEHRER: O'Grady was on a NATO patrol mission over Bosnia when his plane was shot down by the Bosnian Serbs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In Bosnia, heavy fighting continued in the capital. The UN accused the Serbs of new shelling in Sarajevo. Four people were killed, including two children. The UN delivered 30 tons of flour to Sarajevo for the first time in three weeks. It was about one day's worth of food in a city where food warehouses are empty for the first time since the war began. UN officials said they would not be able to force aid through as long as the Serbs continued to hold 144 peacekeepers hostage. Serbian President Milosevic said today the Bosnian Serbs would soon release those soldiers.

MR. LEHRER: The first funerals were held today in Medellin, Colombia, for the victims of a weekend bombing. Twenty-nine people were killed, two hundred and five injured, when a 22-pound bomb exploded at a music festival Saturday. Authorities arrested one man minutes before the blast. They are seeking three others. Police speculate the device was planted by leftist guerrillas.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland announced today he will resign his post on August 1st, giving up the chance to run for a ninth term. Kirkland recommended his deputy, Thomas Donahue, service the remainder of his term, which expires in October. Donahue will run on his own after that. Union leaders who oppose Donahue say they will present their own candidate tomorrow. That's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to affirmative action, Gingrich in New Hampshire, and Republicans assess new Republicans. FOCUS - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We focus first on today's Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. In a 5/4 ruling, the court said that federal contract awards based on minority status must show compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to further that interest. To explain what that means, we are joined by our regular court watcher, Stuart Taylor, senior writer for "The American Lawyer" and "Legal Times" Magazine. Stuart, briefly, if you would, summarize the case and tell us what that very complicated-sounding sentence I just read meant.

STUART TAYLOR, American Lawyer Magazine: In essence, the case is one of -- it grows out of one of many federal programs in which in various ways racial minority status is used to grant preferential treatment to minority-owned contractors. This particular case involved a highway contract. And what's more important than details, it was a contract in Colorado and a Hispanic-owned company was favored over a white-owned company, both small companies, for a guardrail subcontract. What's most important about the decision is that for the first time ever a majority of the Supreme Court has said that it will strike down affirmative action programs mandated by Congress unless they can meet a very heavy burden of justification, which in the court's jargon is called strict scrutiny. In doing so, they overruled a 1990 decision -- Metro Broadcasting vs. FCC -- in which the court had said that Congress will normally get a certain amount of deference from the courts in matters of affirmative action. Now, they are saying, we're going to treat Congress just like we treated the Richmond City Council in an earlier decision and these programs are going to have a hard time getting past us. They did not, however, say never.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So affirmative action is still on the table, but it has to meet a "strict scrutiny" standard?

MR. TAYLOR: That's exactly right.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And what does that exactly mean?

MR. TAYLOR: As you mentioned earlier, part of it is compelling governmental interest, that you have to show compelling governmental interest in doing the program. Typically, that would be overcoming past discrimination. And the court has left it very ambiguous whether that has to mean overcoming past discrimination by the governmental unit that wants to use the preference or by somebody else. The second part of it is what they called narrow tailoring, which in essence is first you have to try any non-racial means of solving the problem that might work, it has to be something of a last resort. Second, the court's past decisions indicate that the affirmative action program can't be any broader than absolutely necessary to serve the compelling interest. And third, it shouldn't last any longer than it has to, to create -- to cure whatever past discrimination there may have been.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And this already exists in states, right?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Since 1989, in the decision involving Richmond, the court has applied this standard to state and local governments with varying results so far in the lower courts. Sometimes programs get struck down. Sometimes they get upheld. Today, the dramatic thing about today was that after a series of decisions in the past in which they seemed to give Congress more room to use affirmative action, they have now said -- five of them have said Congress no longer gets deference.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now, this case is being sent back to the 10th Circuit, where it originated from in Colorado, for further study. What will be the practical effect of that, do you think?

MR. TAYLOR: I think what happens in the 10th Circuit will affect his particular case. Probably it won't have a huge effect around the country. Around the country, other courts dealing with other affirmative action programs will have to make as much sense of today's Supreme Court decision as they can. One reason they sent it back to the 10th Circuit is the record in the case is very complicated. The federal laws involved are very complicated, and the court said we're not quite sure exactly how these laws are meant to operate or what justifications might be mounted for this particular program, we want the lower courts to sort that out under the new standard we announced today.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You mentioned that this was unusual in that the court reversed its own decision of five years ago. There was some feeling or belief that the court accepted this affirmative action case to make a statement about racial preferences. Can you just elaborate on that.

MR. TAYLOR: I think the court perhaps did accept it to make a statement about racial preferences, particularly the one they made, that Congress doesn't get a free ride, and there have been important changes in the composition of the court since that 1990 decision, which was overruled. The most important of them, if you look at the voting patterns today, was Justice Clarence Thomas by replacing Justice Thurgood Marshall provided the fifth vote for the majority today. There have been four changes in the court since 1990, but the other three didn't affect the outcome. In other words, Justice Brennan, whose last opinion was the 1990 decision overruled today before he retired was replaced by Justice Souter, but Justice Souter voted the same way Justice Brennan would have. What made the difference, what changed the five/four decision in 1990 to a five/four decision the other way today was the replacement of Thurgood Marshall by Clarence Thomas.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Who said, if I remember the quote correctly, that this is the kind of discrimination -- I mean, this is a paraphrase, but that it's not sanctioned -- you can't have a discrimination to end a discrimination, or words to that effect?

MR. TAYLOR: Justice Thomas.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. He held today, as he has long held, that supposedly benign racial classifications to benefit former victims of discrimination are, in his view, just as pernicious as the old fashioned Jim Crow laws. One of the reasons he gave in his opinion for himself alone -- this is Justice Thomas -- was that it stigmatizes members of minority groups to suggest that they need special help to succeed.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: He also took a similar position in another race case that the Supreme Court ruled on today in, in Kansas, in which he, he referred to kind of paternalism in the attitudes of the officials. Can you tell us, briefly, what the Kansas City School desegregation case was about and the ruling.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. It's a case with a very long history, the same judge, a judge named Russell Clark, a federal district judge has been in charge of it for almost 20 years now, and he had ordered a very massive and expensive improvement in the quality of the Kansas City urban schools, which are mostly black, to, in his view, to remedy past discrimination by the state of Missouri and by the city in allowing those schools to be segregated before Brown vs. Board of Education. What the Supreme Court said today to that judge is you've gone too far, you've gone way beyond undoing the effects of past legally required segregation; you're trying to make these schools extravagant palaces of ideal education by spending hundreds of millions of dollars of the state's money. And the state objects to that, and you've been overdoing it. That's what the message from the Supreme Court in a majority opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist to the lower court was in this case. The message it sends more generally --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Right.

MR. TAYLOR: -- is that as the court has been saying for years now, it's time to start winding down school desegregation. Forty- one years after Brown vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court is going to make it harder and harder to continue federal court supervision of local schools.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Stuart Taylor, thank you. We have some more on this, and we're going to go now to a couple of people here in our studio. Harriet Michel is the president of the National Minority Suppliers Development Council. Her organization represents 3500 companies and filed a brief in today's decision in support of minority-owned businesses. John Roberts is a lawyer representing Associated General Contractors, a trade organization that filed a brief on the side of the white businessman whose case went before the court. And let me start with you, Mr. Roberts. Did the court strike the right balance as far as you're concerned in today's affirmative action decision? JOHN ROBERTS, Associated Contractors of America: Oh, I think so. The important thing about the case today is that this was a government contract, and the lowest bidder didn't get it. It went to someone else, and it went to someone else because of that person's race. And what Justice O'Connor said in the opinion for the Constitution requires government to treat people as individuals, not just members of a particular racial group. The government has to act on the basis of who people are, not what they are. And that's a very powerful principle. It's the principle of equal protection. As Justice Scalia put it in his concurring opinion, as far as the government is concerned, we are all one race, American.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Harriet Michel, do you agree with that, right balance struck?

HARRIET MICHEL, Minority Business Developer: Unfortunately not. Well, you know, regrettably, we feel that this is going to have obviously a detrimental effect. The court sent mixed signals today, though. You heard in the discussion earlier of your legal correspondent him talking about there will be some time where everyone tries to figure out just what the Justices meant. I think valuable time and money is going to be lost. The momentum for a lot -- inclusion of minority businesses will be lost. So we regret the decision. It could have been worse, though, considering some of the mean-spiritedness out there and the proposition that's being proposed in California. Obviously, there are a lot of people who would like to have seen all affirmative action eliminated, the program eliminated totally. That did not happen, and for that we are grateful. And we believe that we can begin to work with this decision.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Roberts, what do you think the impact is going to be? Harriet Michel says that, well, first of all, on the mixed signals, do you think there were mixed signals here?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Justice O'Connor said that simply because you're going to apply strict scrutiny to the racial preference programs, it doesn't mean that they're all going to be struck down. But very few federal government programs can survive strict scrutiny. It requires a very close fit and a very compelling governmental interest. It's not going to be enough to say simply that there's been discrimination in the past and, therefore, we're going to give benefits to people on the basis of race. Anyone who's been a victim of discrimination, of course, is entitled to full relief and entitled to be made whole, but that doesn't mean anyone who's a member of a particular racial group is entitled to a government preference.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, you heard Harriet Michel say that this is going to be -- did you say devastating?

MS. MICHEL: I said potentially significantly damaging to minority businesses.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Damaging to minority businesses. What do you think?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I don't know what the answer to that is. People are looking at how much business minority businesses have been getting and saying they're going to lose that. I don't think that's necessarily true.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why isn't it?

MR. ROBERTS: Because I think many minority businesses provide the best product at the best price with the best service at the best price, and under free competition, they'll continue to get business. And if they don't because they're being discriminated against, they're entitled to relief. I'm not sure -- you know, one of the problems with a lot of the affirmative action setaside programs is that what's meant as a floor can become a ceiling. It may be that more minority businesses get the contracts that they're entitled to when the government stops looking at people on the basis of their race --

MS. MICHEL: But history doesn't do that at all.

MR. ROBERTS: -- and just looks at who gives the best product for the best price, without discrimination.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: He's right about that?

MS. MICHEL: Well, the example, certainly in the states and cities hasn't proven that all, unless there is an organized, specific effect to include minority businesses. People who are program officers, who are under no mandate, go back to what they've always done. They end up giving contracts to the people they've always given them to before. There is no question but that -- no one is debating whether minority businesses can offer superior products or services at good prices. The issue is: Will those people who are out reaching to suppliers, will they make that special effort to ensure that minority businesses are included in there? And I'm not so sure they will.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why? Why do you think that? Because --

MS. MICHEL: Because the history of these programs show that when you have a, a specific defined effort, the -- with, with goals, not preferences necessarily or quotas but with goals, that people work toward those goals, they go that extra step to do that outreach to ensure inclusion of minority suppliers on a bid list. When that - - when the mandate -- or when the objectives are no longer there, then people go back, they revert back to the same suppliers that they've always used, people with whom they're most comfortable.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Roberts, why do you think they won't revert back, or do you agree with that, that they -- that there is that tendency? I mean, that was why affirmative action was created in the first place, to try and integrate some of these bids and so forth. Do you agree with that, and do you think it's going to happen the way she described?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, there's nothing wrong with outreach programs. I think any government contracting officer is going to want to have as many people, as many qualified firms bidding on his or her contracts as, as possible. What's wrong is what happened in this case. The lowest bidder didn't get the contract, not because somebody else had a better product, but because of the race of the owner of another company.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But what she's saying is that with this ruling today, those outreach efforts, those voluntary outreach efforts are just going to stop and that it's going to revert back to people doing business with whom they're comfortable.

MR. ROBERTS: It's not a question of who they're comfortable with. It's a question of who provides the best product at the best price. And government contracting requires adhering to those principles, and if the firms are not being considered because of the race of the owner, that's racial discrimination, that's against the law. It can be prosecuted, and you can bring lawsuits on the basis of it, and those people are entitled to full relief. All this is saying is, we don't give preferences, we don't give benefits on the basis of race. That violates equal protection.

MS. MICHEL: Well, I just think that reverse discrimination issue is just a specious one, but Charlayne, one of the things that's going to become very important now in interpreting this law is the behavior of the administration. When we talk about compelling government interest, the signals that the Clinton administration sends now, the case that it makes for compelling government interest is going to be very important, and we are very eager to see what the President does. He will, of course, set the stage for this. I think it won't just be left to the Congress. This review that has been taking so long, the way the court has interpreted this ruling or has made this ruling now, I think it puts even more burden on the President to say -- for him to say what's in the best government -- the government's best interest.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Roberts, what about that? Are you going to all be -- is your organization going to be weighing in on this with the President, trying to influence his review of these policies?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, my client is still considering the opinion and will be coming up with its view on it, but the President has announced that he's undertaking a review of affirmative action programs, and I assume that his review will take into account what the Supreme Court has now said is the law of the land.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What can the President do now, given what the Supreme Court has already done? I mean --

MS. MICHEL: Well, I think they can begin to define what's in the best interest of the government. It seems to me what's in the best interest of the government is the fact that there are as many people as possible, including -- included in producing for this society. If -- I mean -- if you look at the review of the Crowson case, which this resembles, there are programs --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Which one --

MS. MICHEL: The 1989 decision in the Richmond case, where the strict scrutiny standard was applied, which says if you can prove specific incidents of discrimination, then you can have race-based remedies. And while many of those programs have fallen, there have been some programs that have stood up to that scrutiny. And I think that the government can come forward, the administration, rather, can come forward and devise a program that can begin to meet that -- those requirements. And I think the President should take leadership in this. It would be a very sad day if within the administration they didn't begin to define what's in the best interest of all citizens.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Roberts, do you think that there are going to be a lot of new court cases as a result of this decision now, or do you think that this will pretty much put a lid on that, on those kinds of challenges?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, if the -- if government persists in programs that single out or give benefits, preferences on the basis of race, certainly those will be subject to legal challenge, and there will be suits. But if the government undertakes a review and eliminates those types of preferential programs, then the number of the lawsuits that need to be brought should be reduced.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about Congress, because you heard Stuart Taylor say that this is a court telling the Congress, sending a message to Congress? Do you think that -- Harriet Michel -- that Congress should step into this area once again and pass laws about federal policy on minority hiring? What should Congress be doing at this point?

MS. MICHEL: Well, I would hope they would. But obviously, given the tenor of Congress right now, that's going to be a hard battle to fight. I know that the Congressional Black Caucus, for example, is holding a meeting within the next two weeks where they're trying to organize a battle plan with minority businesses on how best, what kind of legislation to consider, but this ruling is so new that I think everyone is going to have to spend some time interpreting it. And, remember, it just came out this morning. We need to look at it some more. There will be lots of interpretation yet to be made. And as people make proposals, those proposals will be measured against the ruling and that sort of thing. So I don't think there's a definitive answer right now, but there certainly is a role for Congress to make. Remember, when you had city and state legislatures, when you had the Congress of the United States who voluntarily put these programs into place, obviously they felt that there was a reason to do so which was not just a strict political reason. They did it for the purpose of inclusion, of making sure that all Americans had an opportunity to participate in the economy. And I would hope that that same philosophy prevails again. We can't go back to a, a period where people begin to be discriminated against because of race, and I think the argument which says you consider this case by case, that people, you will only consider it based on individual discrimination, that you can't consider people as a class, the truth of the matter is the way discrimination happens in the United States is not on a case by case basis. And very often it is because there's an a priori reason based on race.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You don't accept that, Mr. Roberts, right?

MR. ROBERTS: I certainly accept the fact that there is discrimination in the contracting industry and many others. The question is: How do you go about curing that? And what the Supreme Court said today is that you don't overcome racism by engaging in it yourself, but when you start, no matter how good the intentions are, and no one questions the good faith of people who are supporting these programs, but that when the government gets into the business of drawing lines on the basis of race, it's in a dangerous area and should only do it if that program can satisfy strict scrutiny.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think Congress should do? I mean, do you think Congress should get involved, and do you think perhaps that Congress should roll back the existing laws that havebeen put in place, or what?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, keep in mind that this is a constitutional decision. This doesn't say it's up to Congress to decide what it wants to do in this area. There are limits. I think it would make great sense for Congress to undertake a review of the preference programs that are out there, eliminate those that don't satisfy the strict scrutiny standards, and engage in the sort of outreach programs that make sure that government contracting officers are looking at all of the available talent and ability that's out there. That's the best way to ensure that discrimination is eliminated, and of course, always, the administration has the obligation to rigorously enforce the anti-discrimination rules, and only that will make sure that equal opportunity is guaranteed for all.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think that will ensure, Ms. Michel?

MS. MICHEL: I don't think -- in the past, the evidence of the past has suggested that that's not sufficient, good intent is not sufficient. You've got to have laws in place.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, we'll have to see. Ms. Michel and Mr. Roberts, thank you for joining us.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Newt Gingrich in New Hampshire and the Republican presidential field. FOCUS - ON THE ROAD

MR. LEHRER: The Speaker of the House of Representatives was in New Hampshire this weekend. Newt Gingrich was there to give some speeches and to look for moose and to cause quite a stir eight months before the first Republican presidential primary. Margaret Warner reports.

MS. WARNER: New Hampshire Republicans have never seen anything like non-candidate Newt Gingrich's non-campaign trip to their state this past weekend.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Newtmania, I mean, it's unbelievable.

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MAN: He's exciting. People are excited by him. People want to hear him. They don't know much about him. They want to touch him. They want to get to know him. He's a new phenomenon in this country.

THIRD UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Here we have a celebrity who's a political celebrity who is not well known in New Hampshire, just has come up here. It's like the Pope coming up here. It doesn't mean everybody's going to be a Catholic.

MS. WARNER: The House Speaker insisted he was not trying to convert anyone to the cause of supporting him for President. He said he came to New Hampshire simply to take advantage of the state's annual moose watching season and to influence the unfolding presidential race with the force of his ideas.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: I am here because I care passionately about American civilization. I'm trying to shape the entire language and ideas of the 1996 campaign. If you were going to try to set the intellectual framework for the 1996 campaign, and you knew anything about American politics, where would you go?

MS. WARNER: But before a sellout crowd at a Nashua Chamber of Commerce dinner Friday night, Gingrich did little to dampen speculation that he might also be testing the waters for a possible presidential bid.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: To be very, very honest, there is a certain kind of four-year-old impishness inside me, and I thought, gosh, if I went to Nashua for the Chamber of Commerce, would the national media think anything, and so I decided recently that what I've learned is if I keep the door open just this much, they'll all show up. And I can teach, and they'll actually cover it, and they'll go, ah ha, this is a very sneaky way to run for President.

MS. WARNER: The media responded with coverage that exceeded most presidential candidates' wildest dreams. Political insiders here were asking themselves, would all the hoop-la affect Gingrich himself?

JOE McQUAID, Editor, Manchester Union Leader: When Gingrich started this trip -- I believe him when he says he has no intention of running for President, but I also believe that this weekend, the dynamic, itself, may change that. It just has a way of doing that.

MS. WARNER: There's something intoxicating about the political air here in New Hampshire, even now, eight months before the presidential primary. After all, where else but in New Hampshire could the weekend begin with Gingrich challenging the Republican presidential field with his ideas and end with him sharing a stage with the President, himself? For ordinary folks in New Hampshire, this was a typical June weekend. But for party regulars, who thrive on New Hampshire's status as site of the nation's first primary, this weekend trip was the political highlight of their year so far. Former Gov. Hugh Gregg, an icon of the Republican Party here, was on hand for Gingrich's first event, a fund-raiser for freshman New Hampshire Congressman Charles Bass.

HUGH GREGG, Former Governor, New Hampshire: I don't think any of our Republican candidates have really stirred up any universal excitement, as sad as it may sound. They've all got supporters; they're all good men; any one of them will make a great President, but they just haven't stirred up the masses yet.

MS. WARNER: Early polls show Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole dominates the large Republican field here, with close to 50 percent of the vote. Still, say the party pros, Republican voters are hungry for something more.

REP. CHARLES BASS, [R] New Hampshire: Republican voters in New Hampshire don't like to support the person who is a -- who has it in the bag. They like to surprise people, and if you look back through these key elections, there's always been a dramatic surprise at the end. And that would be the, the appeal of Newt Gingrich.

MS. WARNER: Many supporters of the active presidential contenders came to hear Gingrich on Friday night. They left impressed.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: I think we are at one of those unusual moments which is sort of a hinge of history. I think down one road a great country filled with good people revitalizes itself, catches the flavor of the kind of the 21st century we could have, creates a wonderful moment of dialogue, and launches a partnership for a generation, and in six to ten years, it's a remarkably different country.

MS. WARNER: Harold Akers is the Nashua chairman for the Dole campaign.

HAROLD AKERS, Dole Nashua Campaign: Newt was vintage Newt tonight. He was evangelical, had a message, as always, articulate, and emotional and enthusiastic about what he has to say. You know, it comes across with Newt that he really believes in what he's talking about. And I think that's what the audience was getting tonight.

MS. WARNER: Bernard Streeter is state co-chairman for Sen. Phil Gramm's campaign.

BERNARD STREETER, State Co-Chair, Gramm Campaign: I like Phil Gramm, but Newt has -- Newt has personality, you know. Newt has a newness. He understands New Hampshire. You saw the crowd tonight. Would 800 people come out for Bob Dole? Would 800 people come out for Phil Gramm? Would 800 people come out for Pat Buchanan? No. He's -- he just has a special charm, a special wit. If he runs, he could do it.

HAROLD AKERS: In sound bites, you see some kind of an abrupt, non-feeling, you know, very firm, sometimes abrasive character. Here you see an American human being that cares about his country.

MS. WARNER: Gingrich's message seemed to hit home as well with the folks who turned up at the Nashua Fish and Game Club's family day picnic on Saturday.

THERESA MURPHY: I thought he was excellent. I, I like him mostly because he inspires people to think. He inspires people to think common sense and logic.

MS. WARNER: The excitement generated by the Speaker's visit also seemed to hearten the state's most conservative and influential newspaper the "Manchester Union Leader." A front-page editorial on Sunday all but called for a "draft Gingrich" movement. Joe McQuaid is the paper's editor.

JOE McQUAID: He said in Nashua on Friday night that the country was at a turning point and it was a very crucial point, and I think people up here are going to be saying to him that's right, and you are the guy.

JOEL MAJOLA, Chief of Staff, Sen. Judd Gregg: Well, I think if you are Pat Buchanan or Phil Gramm, you're hoping that he stays on the sidelines, because I think that he would put the final nail into their coffin.

TONY BLANKLEY, Gingrich Spokesman: Well,he could be tempted, but he also knows how to resist temptation.

MS. WARNER: How do you do that? TONY BLANKLEY: Years of experience.

MS. WARNER: Supporters of the declared presidential candidates tried to put the best face on all the speculation generated by Gingrich's trip. Attorney Tom Rath is advising Lamar Alexander's presidential campaign.

TOM RATH, Adviser, Lamar Alexander: But I do think it means that no one has yet closed the sale on the Republican electorate.

MS. WARNER: These partisans are hoping that Gingrich will heed the polls here, which show that many New Hampshire Republicans, despite their admiration for Gingrich, want him to stay put as Speaker for now.

THERESA MURPHY: I like him so much I think he needs to continue in the Congress. I would be very happy to see him wait a few years, complete the job he started, and then run for President, if he so desired.

MS. WARNER: Activists like Rath insist that Gingrich can influence the race without becoming a candidate himself.

TOM RATH: He is in this race. His ideas are going to be the agenda that drives this race, and it's going to be pretty hard for whoever the Republican nominee is not to adopt all or part of Newt Gingrich's agenda.

MS. WARNER: And they were delighted when Gingrich found a way to get included in a New Hampshire event President Clinton was planning for Sunday at a senior citizens' center in the working class town of Claremont.

TOM RATH: It demonstrates the political relevance of Newt Gingrich, that the President of the United States in order to capture media attention needs to appear on the same stage with him.

MS. WARNER: Nearly 300 mostly elderly citizens gathered in the backyard of the senior center to hear the President and the House Speaker.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: I am grateful that you all would allow me to come and join the President who you already invited. I hope today we can talk in a positive way about the positive things we Americans need to do.

MS. WARNER: The two men agreed right off the bat to set up a bipartisan commission to look at lobbying reform.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: That's our only chance to get anything passed. I accept.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: Let's shake hands right here in front of everybody. How's that? Is that a pretty good deal?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I accept.

MS. WARNER: On subjects they disagreed about, like the President's National Service Program, Americorps, they tried to explain their differences without the hot rhetoric they've been using in Washington.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: This is an area where I think the President has a good idea but we disagree I think about philosophy of government and about setting priorities. It's not a bad idea. I don't think Americorps in any way is a bad thing.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think it's important for us to find some ways for people of different racial and income backgrounds and regional backgrounds to work together for the common good in a non-bureaucratic way. So I think it's a tiny cost for a big gain, and that's our difference.

MS. WARNER: Afterwards, many life-long Democrats in the audience spoke to Gingrich. One of them was Dorene Mills.

DORENE MILLS: I told him this, that I didn't like him in the news, but that I liked him more since I've seen him. He sounded a little softer.

MS. WARNER: In an interview late last evening, the House Speaker insisted that the Gingrich New Hampshire voters saw this weekend was the real Newt Gingrich.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: When you get me for twenty minutes, thirty minutes, an hour, I am a very different person than when you get sixty seconds. And that's been true almost for my whole career.

MS. WARNER: Did you find people here urging you to run for President?

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: No. I mean, if anything, I think I took a half step back. The No. 1 positive was people who'd say I think what you're doing is really important, and I want you to keep doing it. And I think that the Speaker's job is an enormous job, and so, if anything, I think I'm -- if the odds were one in ten when I landed, I think the odds are now say one in twenty.

MS. WARNER: The Speaker thinks he would be diminished if he joined the presidential field right now.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: I think it would change how people hear me. I think coming here as the Speaker of the House and focusing on ideas intrigues people. I think I would actually in a sense become more normal and, therefore, they could compartmentalize me, oh, yeah, he's a candidate. I went to a Florida state party meeting. There were three presidential candidates there. They got three minutes each. I was the honoree. I got 40 minutes. Now, if I decided to announce tomorrow morning, I would get three minutes. I'd be one of I think twelve or eleven, I'm not sure what the number is right now.

MS. WARNER: But if you ran this year, do you think you could win the nomination?

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: I wouldn't run unless I thought I could win the nomination.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Charlie Bass believes non-candidate Gingrich is a plus for himself and the whole Republican presidential field.

REP. CHARLES BASS: I think because Newt Gingrich is not a candidate for President, he didn't have to attack the President. The Speaker came out as a well, as a measured, intelligent, calm individual, not irascible and jumpy. I think the other candidates for President did very well this weekend, all of them, and however, I would suspect that they'll probably -- will be glad to see him good. FOCUS - PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

MR. LEHRER: Now, four Republicans assess the Republican presidential field with our without Gingrich. Ralph Reed is the executive director of the Christian Coalition. Michael Deaver was a major political and White House adviser to Ronald Reagan. He's now a Washington public relations man and an advisor to the 1996 Republican convention. Lynn Martin, who served four terms in the House of Representatives from Illinois, is the former Secretary of Labor during the Bush Administration. John Danforth spent 18 years in the United States Senate.He's now with a law firm in St. Louis. Mike Deaver, is the Republican nomination Newt Gingrich's for the asking if he wants it?

MICHAEL DEAVER, Former Reagan Aide: Oh, I don't think it's anybody's for the asking right now, you know. Nobody is really concentrating on this out there in the country, except all of us in the media, so if you ask me that question three or four months, six months from now, I can give you a better answer.

MR. LEHRER: But is there any question, Ralph Reed, that he's the dominating force, the leader of the Republican Party now, whatever else he is?

RALPH REED, Christian Coalition: Oh, I think it's far beyond that. I think outside of Ronald Reagan, I think Newt Gingrich is well on track, Jim, to being the most consequential Republican since Theodore Roosevelt. I think he not only is one who is providing the ideas and setting a tone for the party. He's becoming the face and the voice of the party, and whether he runs for President or not, I don't really see that changing, because if this Congress is re-elected, as I think it's likely to be in 1996, it will be the first Republican Congress since 1928, the first Republican Speaker in 60 years to hold that office for more than two years. If that happens, whether there's a Republican or a Democrat in the White House, a lot of the energy, a lot of the focus, a lot of the intellectual fire power is going to come from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

MR. LEHRER: But even -- but if Gingrich was the President --

MR. REED: Well, I think the difficulty is this. I do -- not only do I not think it's his for the asking, I think that in many ways it's hard to see the window for him at this moment. I think that Bob Dole is ahead in most polls by thirty or forty points. He's ahead by 45 points in Iowa. He's ahead by 40 points in New Hampshire. I'm not saying Newt couldn't do it, but most of the surveys that I see show undecideds in the 10 to 20 percent range, and he would risk an awful lot if he were to leave the Speakership to jump into that kind of an imbroglio.

MR. LEHRER: John Danforth, how do you analyze the Gingrich factor in the presidential nomination race right now?

JOHN DANFORTH, Former Missouri Senator: [St. Louis] Well, what's unique about Newt Gingrich is that he's not just another presidential candidate but that he's the Speaker of the House. And he's the first Republican Speaker of the House for about half a century. And he went into that job with a very, very clear idea of what he wanted to do and what he wanted the Republican Party to be in the Congress. And he was very successful in executing that. And he presented in a clear fashion what the Republican Party stood for, that it stood for less government, trying to move the power of government back to the state and local level, and that was a clarifying kind of thing to do, very much like the Reagan presidency was. I don't think that the strength of Newt Gingrich is that he is yet another person traipsing through New Hampshire or Iowa. I think it's that he is "the" leader, the Speaker of the House.

MR. LEHRER: He's not the leader of the Republican Party?

MR. DANFORTH: I think that that would be very hard to say that he's the leader of the Republican Party. I mean, there certainly is Bob Dole, the Majority Leader in the Senate. He's very well known. He's very able. He's highly regarded. There are a number of Republican governors. There are other people around, but Newt Gingrich is the Speaker of the House, and there hasn't been a Republican Speaker of the House. And it's the nature of theHouse of Representatives, unlike the Senate, which has unlimited debate and the procedures tend to get things slowed down, but it is the nature of the House to move with great speed and to be able to move with great clarity, and Newt Gingrich seized that possibility and made the most of it.

MR. LEHRER: Lynn Martin, what is your analysis of the Gingrich factor?

LYNN MARTIN, Former Bush Secretary of Labor: [Chicago] I think first of all Newt helps everyone there. It's rather amazing. He certainly helps Bob Dole as a non-candidate.

MR. LEHRER: How does he help Bob Dole?

MS. MARTIN: I know this is not what everyone else is going to say --

MR. LEHRER: Okay. All right.

MS. MARTIN: -- but I happen to believe he helps Bob Dole a great deal because Newt is able to keep the focus off of Bob Dole for a little. Now, just pause with me here.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

MS. MARTIN: The other candidates, who have very little -- some of them like Lamar have low name recognition or Pat Buchanan has to pull up -- Bob Dole already has that, and so instead of people asking him and pushing on him, and the media sort of -- the self - - the destructive kinds of things that happen when you're the front runner, they're concentrating on Newt. I don't think he does end up the candidate. He may be hurting Phil Gramm a little and Pat Buchanan a little by being -- by taking part of whom they would consider their voters away but the reality is by focusing on issues, and Jack just said -- Newt's actually accomplished something. When is the last time you heard anyone talk about government as accomplishing, as managing? So he helps all Republicans, but oddly enough, he helps the front-runner who needs the exposure the least, Bob Dole, the most.

MR. LEHRER: Does that make sense to you, Mike Deaver?

MR. DEAVER: Yeah. I think Bob Dole probably is not worried about this very much.

MR. LEHRER: Not worried about seeing the Speaker of the House debating the President of the United States on national television?

MR. DEAVER: No.

MR. LEHRER: Rather than him, the leading candidate?

MR. DEAVER: No. I think that Bob Dole understands something that I believe about Newt Gingrich, and that is that he believes that the power in this country has shifted to the Congress, and he thinks that's where the action is, and I think that most of this what we saw today is the media hype, and I think Newt Gingrich is courageous enough to dare to jump into the middle of it and take advantage of it. And I think Bob Dole understands all of that. Bob Dole probably also understands one of the reasons Newt is doing it is to keep the heat on the Republicans in the Senate as far as the contract's concerned. And --

MR. LEHRER: Because as long as he's out there talking about the contract and as the representative of the Republican Party, the heat stays on the Republicans?

MR. DEAVER: That's right. And there's another good reason for Newt Gingrich to be doing this. And it reminds me a lot of back in the early days of Ronald Reagan. You know, Newt has been characterized by the media as all kinds of things, the Grinch that Stole Christmas, and all these sorts of things. For years, Ronald Reagan was the right wing, former actor, cowboy governor of California, until the people got a chance to see him directly on television and Newt had a chance when he did his own State of the Union for half an hour, and now he's had another chance where he had an extended period of time where he's not interpreted by the media but where he's able to express his views and people can watch it themselves on television. And I think it's another reason why he took this chance to do this visit to New Hampshire.

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

MS. MARTIN: You know, I'd like to ask a question, and maybe -- I am still stunned that the President of the United States, who handled himself beautifully, as did Speaker Gingrich, or these two equals sitting there, why they would give that kind of a role to the Republican Speaker of the House? Perhaps -- I agree that Newt and many of us think that the power's beginning to switch, but the idea of more than just being relevant, being the President of the United States seems to be escaping this administration, and so I think that's good news for most Republicans.

MR. LEHRER: Does the President not get points for that, Sen. Danforth, for being open and willing to, to appear? What's your view of that?

MR. DANFORTH: Well, I think that that was a plus for the President, because I think that it gave the President the chance to basically sugar coat reality. And I think that that was the problem yesterday. It was a very good thing to have civility back in political discourse in America. I mean, political campaigns have become outrageously mean in recent years in recent elections, but I think the problem yesterday that it gave both of the -- of the people who were there, both the President and Speaker Gingrich, an opportunity to be so affable, so civil, that they really ended up sugar coating reality. The President went right into the Medicare issue, and that is one of the hardest issues, one of the hardest set of truth issues that the American people are going to have to face, and yet, when both of them came out of that, you had the idea that this really isn't hard, there's no difficulty here, there are no real issues, it's just a question of a couple of nice guys sitting down and trying to work it out. Unfortunately, it's much harder than that, and I think that the President had an opportunity to depart from the hard job of real public policy leadership, and he was able to get into the sort of "aw shucks" version of politicking, and that's a major advantage for a President who is very good at coming across as a nice guy to the American people.

MR. LEHRER: Ralph Reed, do you agree with that, that while this was a very nice event yesterday, that it did not reflect the reality of what's really going on here in trying to sort through legislation and other priorities, as Sen. Danforth just said?

MR. REED: Well, I think it was sort of a political version of rope a dope. I think they both went in there, and neither one wanted to get knocked down, and so there wasn't really the kind of slugging that you would normally see. I think overall it was a good thing but I agree with Lynn Martin. I, I can only imagine that the White House staff had to be slightly appalled when the President in a sort of undisciplined remark to the media said, well, if I'm up there and I bump into him, I'll take him here, I'll take him there, and so forth. And then Newt, of course, whose political instincts are, you know, absolutely flawless with regards to these kinds of things immediately jumped in and accepted a non- invitation, and then the next thing you know the President of the United States is sharing, I think, an office and a platform and a podium that really from the standpoint if it were my boss and it were my President, I would not share that with anyone, including the White House chief of staff.

MR. LEHRER: As an experienced presidential adviser, Mr. Deaver, what do you feel? Would you advise the President to have done what hedid yesterday, your President?

MR. DEAVER: I would have advised my President but I would tell you that any time that it appeared to the American public that the people in Washington were acting like adults, everybody, everybody benefited.

MS. MARTIN: That's a plus.

MR. DEAVER: So I think that from that standpoint, that the President probably did benefit from this.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Let's talk in the -- for the President - - the Republican nomination race, assuming Gingrich -- for discussion purposes, assuming Gingrich is not a candidate, has Dole got it, Michael Deaver?

MR. DEAVER: Well, I think Dole's way ahead. I think it's Dole's to lose.

MR. LEHRER: Dole's to lose. What happened to Phil Gramm then, Ralph Reed?

MR. REED: Oh, I think it's way too early to start writing premature obituaries. I think that there's still a lot of give out there, if somebody were to grab onto a message involving the fraying of the social fabric and the coarsening of the culture. What I've always said is very simply this: I think if you go back and you look at the Republican presidential primaries of the 70's and 80's, the ones where Ronald Reagan was running, the sort of center ideological ballast of the party was with this -- the movement conservatives. These were the people who were concerned about lower taxes and concerned about economic growth and Communism and the Cold War and so forth. Now, with the Cold War over and with the deficit in Washington, that power and energy has really shifted to the religious conservative constituents.

MR. LEHRER: To your people, to you?

MR. REED: I think to a very great extent. We conducted a survey of likely Republican primary voters in January of this year and found that 42 percent of all primary voters are self- identified, born-again evangelicals, 53 percent go to church four times or more a month and 71 percent don't want the pro-life plank watered down or removed from the platform. So whoever speaks to those issues in my view is going to be the next nominee. And that's why Bob Dole's Hollywood speech resonated as powerfully as it did.

MR. LEHRER: Lynn Martin, has Ralph Reed just laid out reality?

MS. MARTIN: Not quite, but it's fair for him to represent his group, and so I won't argue with his desire to have power. That's what nominations are about, each group arguing its constituent power. The nominee then has to win the election, and so we see that nominees have to be able to hit on those things that matter to not just Republicans, as they ought to, certainly Republicans first and then the nomination for the presidency nationwide, I think it's important too that it is Dole's too lose, but I also think that we have forgotten that one of the things Americans like -- I do -- all Americans do -- is the people that come back. Bob Dole was counted out in 1988 after New Hampshire, and I almost think that there's a residual feeling of goodwill that he didn't get up and give up. He came back, but that can also be true for Phil or for Lamar or some of the other candidates who don't give up. It may be early. Bob Dole -- it's his to lose -- but that earliness that we self put in -- Republicans put in -- in the long run could mean some difficulties later on for our nominee, whoever he is.

MR. LEHRER: Are you -- well, let's be specific. The pro-choice issue, you're pro-choice.

MS. MARTIN: I'm pro-choice, yes.

MR. LEHRER: You're pro-choice, and the, the conventional wisdom is that there is nobody who's ever going to get a Republican nomination in 1996 who is pro-choice because of the very points that Ralph Reed just laid out. Do you agree?

MS. MARTIN: Well, there's only one running who's pro-choice.

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

MS. MARTIN: I would say the reason there isn't going to probably be one is -- happens to be mathematics, not necessarily the Christian Coalition. Most Republicans are going to agree on most subjects, but the reality is that for instance Ralph Reed and I might agree on 90 percent of them -- if anyone tries to define the Republican Party in only one issue, not just Bob Dole's speech but just one issue, we end up with real problems. The idea is to get past 50 percent, not to re-talk always to the same 23 percent, whether it's pro-choice or pro-life. I wouldn't ask Ralph Reed to give up his opinion, certainly. In fact, I respect it, but he also, I think, respects that I'm going to be free and open about mine.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Danforth, do you agree with Ralph Reed that in order for anybody to win this thing, they've got to, they really have to bend their -- they have to be in agreement with the Christian right?

MR. DANFORTH: No. In fact, I'm concerned that there's a very strong chance that President Clinton is going to be a two-term President, which in my opinion would be a terrible thing for the country. I think the Republicans can blow the election, and I think Ralph Reed has just pointed the way to blowing the election. What the Republican Party has to offer is a view of government, a view that government should be one that has a light load on the American people, that government should not be a big taxing machine, that the regulatory burden should be light, that the power of government should be back in the states. To the extent that the Republican Party is transformed into an ideologically pure, very religious party that appeals to the religious right, it just doesn't have a chance in the world, that, plus the fact that it was clear yesterday that President Clinton is prepared to use the Medicare, pay the Medicare card, which is very, very shrewd politics and a terrible thing for the country for him to do, to me really gets me concerned that he's going to be a two-term President.

MR. LEHRER: Ralph Reed.

MR. REED: Well, I obviously have nothing but the utmost respect for Sen. Danforth, but I would say that that isn't what I said. I didn't say that whoever the Republican nominee was would have to agree with religious conservatives on everything. The point I would make is that if you look at what kind of leader the American people are looking for it isn't just somebody who's talking about lower taxes or balancing budgets, it's about someone who's addressing the most important issue in American politics today, and that's the fraying of the social fabric, the break up of the family, and the coarsening of the culture. And that was the point I was making. I'm not saying that the Republican nominee has to agree with my organization or any other organization on every single issue.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Mike, what do you think about this, in a word?

MR. DEAVER: Could the issue --

MR. LEHRER: Do you go with Reed, or do you go with Danforth?

MR. DEAVER: Well, I share some of Jack's concerns about, about trying to make the Republican Party or all the nominees adhere to any one part of the party's beliefs or philosophies, so --

MR. LEHRER: All right. We have to leave it there. Thank you all very much. RECAP

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Again, the major stories of this Monday, the Supreme Court ruled federal contracts cannot be awarded based on minority status unless there is a compelling government interest. The court also ruled that low test scores cannot be the sole reason to continue school desegregation plans. And U.S. Pilot Scott O'Grady lunched with President Clinton at the White House four days after being rescued from Serb territory in Bosnia. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.