The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

here. On Jim Lehrer, FDA approval of the abortion pill, a media and violence debate, Bush and Gore campaign speeches, and some historical perspective on the 2000 campaign. Tonight on The NewsHour. Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer.

On The NewsHour tonight, Margaret Warner looks at the FDA's approval of R.U. 486, the abortion pill. Ray Suarez runs a media and violence debate between Jack Vellini and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. We have campaign speeches by Governor Bush and Vice President Gore and some perspective on the presidential campaign and its issues from Michael Beschloss, Haines Johnson, Doris Kerns Goodwin, and Richard Norton Smith. It all follows us on R.U. The News this Thursday. It took millions of years to create the world's oil supply in 150 years to deplete it, who is helping to cut the world's need for oil with renewable energy sources. This program was also made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by

contributions to PBS stations from viewers like you. Thank you. The Food and Drug Administration today approved use of the abortion pill R.U. 486. It can induce an abortion in the early days of pregnancy without surgery. The drug has been widely used overseas, but it was banned in this country in 1989. Now it could be available to doctors within a month. We'll have more on this story right after the news summary. And the presidential race today by President Gore warned that the nation's prosperity was at stake in the election and a Washington speech he said Governor Bush's tax cut plan could bring a return of big deficits. Gore promised he'd use two dollars of the projected surplus for debt reduction for every $1 in tax cuts or spending. Governor Bush today charged the vice president what enlarged the role of the federal government, more than any president since Lyndon Johnson. In Green Bay, Wisconsin, he said Gore was proposing more than 200 new or expanded federal programs. He said if Gore wins, the era of big government being

over is over. Well, I've excerpts of the candidate speeches later in the program tonight. Overseas today, Yugoslav president Molosevic confirmed he'll take part in a runoff vote on October 8th. His main rival, Voya Slavkostinitsa, has already rejected that idea. His supporters threatened to call a general strike. We have a report from Gabi Rado of Independent Television News. The Yugoslav electoral commission today announced that Dr. Kostinitsa had gained just under 49 percent in the first round as opposed to 38.62 percent for Slobodan Milosevic. The opposition's own figures say their man got 52.5 percent and therefore a first round victory and Milosevic 32 percent. State run Yugoslav television this afternoon showed pictures of a relaxed Slobodan Milosevic clearly ready to do battle. In their decision to go for a general strike and ignore the second round, the opposition are taking some big risks. Their action may pit them against

the security forces and by-cottling the election could give Milosevic victory by default. Will that not hand Slobodan Milosevic a victory on a plate? Well, it will depend on the readiness of people, of voters, to protect their vote, of solidarity of international community. And also we intend to make reasonable offer to the regime to propose that we counter the votes together. And another side of the president's weakening power base, the Serbian Orthodox Church which hasn't the past endorsed his nationalist agenda, today recognize the voice-love Kostunitsa as Yugoslavia's elected president. In Washington today, President Clinton again called for lifting sanctions against Yugoslavia if Milosevic gives up power. And in the Nezhenkort today dropped all corruption charges against former president Suharto. He's 79 years old and independent doctor said he's too ill

to stand trial. That news touched off violence in Jakarta, anti-Saharto mobs fought with his supporters. And riot police responded with bamboo sticks and tear gas. Prosecutor said they would appeal the court's decision. The man shot in that video survived and was hospitalized by the way. Another protestor was killed. Voters in Denmark today narrowly rejected the euro as their currency, they chose and a referendum not to join 11 other nations in adopting the European Union's common money. The other holdouts are Britain and Sweden. The euro was introduced in January of 1999, but it has sharply declined in value against the U.S. dollar. In Britain today, the parents of Siamese twins decided not to appeal a court ruling to separate their infants. The parents of the seven-week-old girls had offered religious objections to surgery that would kill one child to save the other. There was no word on when the operation would occur.

At the Summer Olympics today, Americans sprinter Marion Jones won the women's 200-meter race. It was her second gold medal of the game. She's trying to win five. And in tennis, sisters Venus and Serena Williams won the women's doubles title. Again, video was not available due to the Olympic Television contract. Former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau died today. The news came from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Trudeau was 80 years old. He'd been ill for several weeks. He served as Prime Minister from 1968 to 79, and again from 80 to 84. The security guard who discovered the Watergate break-in died on Wednesday. Frank Wills was 52 years old and had been hospitalized in Augusta, Georgia. Family Prince said he had a brain tuner. Willis Wills found a taped-over lock at the Watergate Building in Washington the night of June 17, 1972. He called police who found burgers in the offices of the Democratic National Committee. That incident led to President Nixon's resignation among many other things.

And that's it for the new summary tonight. Now it's on to the abortion pill decision, a media and violence debate, gore and bush campaign speeches, and an overview of the 2000 presidential race. Margaret Warner has the abortion pill story. Today's decision to approve the abortion pill RU486 was characterized by FDA Commissioner Jane Haney as giving women new choices. FDA is approval today of this drug, MIFA Pristone, essentially is the first medical alternative for early termination of pregnancy. So for women who are making a decision to terminate their pregnancy in those first 49 days, now have a choice whether it will be the more traditional surgical approach or this medical alternative.

Abortion opponents have fought for more than a decade to keep this drug already available in Europe out of the U.S. market. The drug also known as MIFA Pristone can be used only within seven weeks of the patient's last menstrual period. A woman takes three MIFA Pristone pills which block a hormone, progesterone, that's needed to maintain pregnancy. Two days later she returns to the doctor to take another already approved drug, mesoprostol. That drug triggers uterine contractions that expel the embryo. Under the new FDA guidelines, the woman must see her doctor a third time within two weeks for follow-up to make sure the abortion is complete. Side effects include bleeding, cramping, and nausea. And in about 5% of the cases in U.S. clinical trials, surgery was required to complete the abortion procedure. Nearly half a million women have used the drug in Europe in the 12 years since it was introduced in France by the pharmaceutical firm Rousselou Clough. Research in France has shown that the

majority of women prefer this non-invasive technique of early pregnancy termination. But amid political pressure, the firm decided not to market RU486 in the U.S. Instead, it donated U.S. rights to a non-profit research group, the Population Council. The council contracted with denco laboratories to market the pills. The drug's fate in the U.S. has been mired in abortion politics from the outset. In 1989, President Bush banned its import into the U.S. Four years later, President Clinton asked the FDA to reconsider. Here in the United States, RU486 has been held hostage to politics. It is time to learn the truth about what the health and safety risks of the drug really are. The FDA gave the drug preliminary approval in 1996, calling it safe and effective in terminating early pregnancies. But the agency said additional manufacturing and marketing concerns had to be addressed before final approval could be given. Today, in granting that

final approval, the FDA added several requirements. The doctor has to be able to provide surgical, have the requisite surgical skills if those are needed to handle any problems that may arise or to have a physician that they can refer to if those kind of interventions are needed. There are very strict requirements about where this drug will be stored and accounted for and the like to make sure that those doctors who desire to prescribe this drug are under obligations to the company for its use for its intended purpose. RU486 will be marketed under the brand name MIFA PREX and is expected to be available within a month. For more, we turn to Gloria Felt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Laura Echeveria, the chief spokesperson for the National Right to Life Committee.

Ms. Felt, what is the significance of this medically for women? We applaud the FDA's decision today. It is a giant step forward for women, a quantum leap in reproductive health technology, and an option that American women have wanted for many years so that we can have the same option that our sisters in Europe have had during all this time. It's been an arduous process. The scientific process has been long and arduous, but quite frankly, the political process has been even more arduous and longer and having to overcome those hurdles of the pressures of anti-choice hardliners who want to keep this very safe early option from American women has been quite a battle and we're very grateful that today the FDA has approved the early option. But let me just ask you about the medical side of this. For a woman who is seeking an abortion, how does this compare to the surgical alternative in terms of safety, risks, benefits?

Well, since it is a very early option and the earlier in pregnancy that an abortion can be done, the safer it is, it is a very, very safe alternative. Also, the fact that it is done without surgery means that there are lower to virtually no risks of infection. Now surgical abortion is also extremely safe and in any case, either of these options is much safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and full term and delivery. But it's very important for women to have the information and the counseling so that they can decide which one of these procedures best fits their personal needs. All right, Mr. Chivariya, how do you see this decision today? Well, we see it as a tragic and tragic, excuse me, tragic and sad that American women are going to suffer as a result of the use of RU-46 in the United States. Certainly, their child is going to die and that's something that is tragic right then and there of itself.

But we also see that if RU-46 is administered to American women that certainly tragedies can result as a result of that, we know that there are side effects associated with RU-46 that can be quite severe, including nausea and vomiting and excessive bleeding. We know that in the studies 2% of the women who take RU-46, hemorrhage severely enough that they require surgical intervention. And so certainly, we see this as a sad day for American women and certainly for unborn children. And do you find the FDA did add certain restrictions as we just heard the commissioner describe? What do you think of those? Does that allay the safety issues as far as you're concerned? We don't think that they go far enough. They are minimal requirements in order to protect American women. But certainly, the chance of a woman dying as a result of taking RU-46 still exists. We know that during the trials, during controlled clinical trials, that one woman in Iowa almost died as a result of taking RU-46. And certainly, if that can happen during U.S. drug trials, then it can happen if RU-46 is introduced at large to American

women. Ms. Felt, what is your view on these extra restrictions and what that does in the safety area? Thank you. First, let me just say that Laura has greatly overstated and misrepresented the facts. But that should come as no surprise because after all, she does represent an organization whose goal it is to make sure that women do not have the right to safe legal abortion. And we need to remember that. The additional requirements. Did you find them appropriate? Yes, actually, they really are by and large. I think that as we use Mifapristone, we may find that some of these requirements can go by the wayside. But I think, for example, it's entirely normal standard of practice for a physician to be able to either provide the surgical abortion or to be able to refer it to another doctor who can. That happens all the time when we go to our primary care physician and he or she doesn't have the

specialty to be able to follow up on a medical problem that may be diagnosed. So I think by and large, they are appropriate and that providers will be able to work within them very well. Do you see, Mr. Chebary, this drug being used for other purposes, for instance, as a prevent preventive measure to prevent pregnancy? Well, the way it works, it blocks the progesterone and to prevent pregnancy. At this point in time, nothing has indicated that it could do that. Certainly, we've never opposed its use to treat brain tumors or uterine fibroid tumors or cancers of any type. Certainly, if it can provide life-saving solutions, then we would not oppose that. In this particular case, though, are U-46s been introduced into the United States? It will be used in the United States and has been promoted for using the United States only as an abortive patient. And let me ask you about the examples in Europe. I gather, I understand that in France, for instance, it did not trigger any more abortions. Do you think it will trigger any more abortions

here? I don't think so. I think that what we're going to see is someone will choose U-46 as opposed to surgical abortions. It is up in the air as to what result nationally we're going to have if we are going to see more abortions. But in all likelihood, we will find the same results that they have in France. I do think that, unfortunately, some women will end up suffering severe health consequences as a result of using R-U-46, but certainly I don't see an increase in the number of abortions. Ms. Felt, do you think the fact that this drug and the way it's described that it expels the embryo and it's not a fetus and it's not a baby, it's very early? Do you think that's going to change or does change the nature of the moral debate about abortion? Well, I know that many people have said and maybe want to believe that mythopristone will change the whole course of the abortion debate in this country because, frankly, I think

people are tired of arguing about abortion and would prefer to spend more time as Planned Parenthood does trying to prevent the need for abortion through family planning and responsible sex education. But I'm not quite so sanguine about what I think mythopristone will do to the debate here in this country because those who oppose a woman's right to choose have the same opinion of mythopristone as they have of abortion in general and I think they will continue fighting on the political front and they will continue their attempts to harass and to vilify abortion providers. Now, that having been said, the promise of mythopristone is that more doctors will provide mythopristone than currently provides surgical abortion procedures and that should make it more geographically accessible to women and it should, over a long period of time, several years make it more likely that it will be more private decision and that women will be more likely to get mythopristone

from their OBGYN or their family practice doctor that they normally go to. So, Chibbary, what's your view on how the earlyness of this procedure and the fact that we're talking really about embryonic life here, whether that has any impact on the moral nature of the debate because there are many people who have moral, deep moral objections as your organization represents to abortion. Right. No, it doesn't make a difference. You're still talking about an abortion, regardless of how it's done, the life of an unborn child is taken and whether... So, it isn't a child yet, that's correct. We were talking about a child at this point in time when our U-46 is administered by the time a woman realizes she's pregnant, the heart most likely has already begun to be. That takes place between 18 and 22 days after conception. So, we're talking about an unborn child whose life is developing on the outside end at seven weeks of pregnancy. That's about the time that brainwaves can be detected. So, most of the development of the child takes

place in the early stages of pregnancy. The brain is developed, the heart is developed, the major organs are developed, fingers and toes. At the point when a child enters the fetal stage, that's when growth takes place. Body fat is added. All of those things take place at later stages in the pregnancy. So, you're talking about developing human being genetically different from his or her parents. Whose life is taken as a result of the use of our U-46. So, it sounds as if the moral and ethical debate isn't going to change. I think you're right about that, Margaret. I think the principle that a woman's life is the life, first of all, that it's really a responsible thing to bring children into the world thoughtfully and carefully, and that women are capable moral decision makers. Women can look at the options and, frankly, make better decisions for themselves morally and ethically, as well as medically, then the government or any other institution of society can make for them. This is such a personal decision. And

I think no one really knows what their own personal, moral and ethical decisions will be about it until they're faced with that situation. Mr. Cheverea, you heard Gloria felt earlier predict that abortion opponents would continue to be active against abortion. Do you and your organization, other groups, have hopes of turning this around? For instance, if there were new president, as there will be, and George W. Bush opposes abortion, do you still hold out hope that you can reverse this? Well, certainly. We know that George W. Bush opposes RU-46. There is the hope that under a different administration, one not so politically motivated to see RU-46 in the United States, that we may very well find the FDA will review, RU-46 review, the dangers associated with it, and possibly look into those dangers and a different decision would be made. And Ms. Feld, how about you? How final do you think this decision is? Well, I think, Laura, for making that point, as President also of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Planned Parenthood's political arm, I think Laura is exactly

right. A pro-choice president will make sure that women continue to have the right to choose an anti-choice president, like George W. Bush, has already pledged to try to make abortion illegal. We can count on an anti-choice president to make appointments to, for example, the head of the FDA or the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, who would want to try to roll back access and perhaps even prevent access to MIFA Pristone. And the person who signs or vetoes bills is the next president, the person who issues executive orders. There are many powers the president has, and it's important to have a pro-choice president if we're going to have the right to choose in the future. All right. Thanks, Ms. Feld and Ms. Cheverey. Thank you both very much. Still to come on the news hour tonight, Hutchison versus Valente on selling violence, Bush and Gore campaign speeches, and some historical perspective on campaign 2000.

Ray Suarez has the violence debate. Hollywood executives testified on Capitol Hill yesterday about their voluntary plan to limit the marketing of R-rated films to children. The Motion Picture Association of America released the plan earlier this week in response to a Federal Trade Commission report that accused the industry of selling inappropriate material to children. The industry plan sets a goal of not inappropriately specifically targeting children in advertising R-rated movies. It also calls for theater owners not to show ads for R-rated films during G-rated movies, and for studios not to include people under age 17 in focus groups for R-rated movies without a parent. Here to debate the issue, Jack Valente, president and chief executive officer of the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents seven major

film studios, and Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a member of the Congressional Committee that held yesterday's hearings. Mr. Valente, that phrase, not inappropriately specifically targeting children, came in for a lot of attention and a lot of criticism yesterday's hearing. When your industry says that it accepts that as an undertaking, what do you mean by that phrase? Well, as a grammarian, I find the sentence awkward as the chairman. But what it means is, for example, not going to middle school or grammar school and handing out passes to a theater showing an R-rated movie, and not including the Girl Scouts or the Boy Scouts or those genuinely young people's organization, any kind of advertising. I think what we need to understand is that in today's avalanche of available programming, 100 channels on cable, 300 channels on satellite, 1,000 plus over the air television station, it is almost impossible

if you're going to advertise on television to find a program that doesn't have some children watching. It's one of the anomalies and the unsuitableness, I guess, of this modern audiovisual world. But we are not going to specifically target children, and that's a pledge that all eight companies may. These 12 initiatives, which were presented to the Senate Commerce Committee, represent a platform on which all these eight companies stand. Now, many of these movie companies will leap beyond this and do more than the 12 initiatives are accountable. And that's fine. I have no problem with that at all. And this is not to say that over the next six months, we won't even do more. But keep in mind, we also are going to give reasons for ratings. In almost every four of them, you can possibly think of in print ads and posters and television and websites. So that a parent whose ultimate

responsibility it is to guide the movie going or the schools or the reading or the friends of their children will have ample opportunity to find out what's in a movie before they make the crucial decision of whether or not they want their children to see it. Senator Hutchinson, those guidelines that Mr. Valente has been talking about, those voluntary codes that the industry wants to enter into, got a pretty rough ride from your committee. What did you find lacking about it? Well, certainly we are glad that there is some effort being made and that some of the people representing the movie industry seem to be getting the point that there is a frustration level out there about the kind of material that young people are seeing. But let me tell you the biggest problem I have with the 12 point program. And that is when I go to a movie, that is a PG rated movie. And I

see an advertisement, a preview of an R rated movie, even if it's not the violent part of that R rated movie, it entices me to want to see it. And of course, it entices young people especially to want to see it. What they have said is that they will ask movie theater owners not to put an R rated preview into a G movie, but it doesn't say anything about a PG movie, a movie that most young people probably will be in the audience to see. So I think they haven't gone nearly far enough even in their voluntary measures to really try to stop enticing young people to go to movies that are not appropriate for people 17 and under. Well, during the hearing you said, I'm sending a signal across the bow that if you don't try to make this really work, then you're going to see legislation. What can the Congress of the United States do in this matter?

Well, I think we can take a page from the tobacco issue where we don't outlaw tobacco in this country, but we do say that you can't sell it to people 17 and under and you can't market it to people 17 and under. None of us wants to tamper with the First Amendment. I wish these movie industry people wouldn't make movies that are mindlessly violent. I really do wish that they wouldn't, but I'm not going to pass a law that prevents them from doing it. But I think we could look at passing laws that say you really can't have a 17-year-old go into a movie that is rated our for violence. And I think that this is not a step we want to take. We really don't want legislation because all of us revere the First Amendment. But we are really frustrated with the movie industry because they've talked a good game for a long time, but we still get trash in our young people's hands and these

young people are not ready to be able to make the judgments that this is trash. Was this voluntary code, Mr. Valenti, drafted just to avoid that eventuality that the Senator is talking about? Well, I'm a Texan, so I count Senator Hutchison to be my senator. And I'm always reluctant to debate with her because I admire, and as I said, Jesus Senator from Texas. I don't know how you make judgments about this. The R rating specifically says, Mrs. Mrs. Parent, we're sending up an advanced cautionary warning. You may take your child to this R-rated film if you accompany them or have an adult guardian go along with the child. So children, 14, 15, 16, 13, aren't barred from seeing an R-rated movie. So I think it'd be very difficult to pass a law saying you can't go in there when the rating system says the parent must make that judgment. What we are doing, the rating system

is built on parental responsibility. If parents have a casual regard for movies, their children or watching, or what schools they go to, or what books they're reading, or what music they're listening to, then this rating system is feckless. It has no meaning. It's built on parents exercising their solemn duty, which no one else has the power to wield the authority to shape the conduct of their children. I'm not for one moment suggesting that of the 443 films that were released last year, that all of them are above reproach, and none of them at all call universal comfort of those who watch. Of course not. But that's part of what happens in this society. You must make judgments about what you want your children to do. Senator? Well, let me say that I have high regard for Jack Valenti just as he has spoken. He represents his industry well. But in fact, a parent can also give a 15-year-old child a cigarette.

We know that that is going to happen. But just because we can't control every single action that a young person might be exposed to, we can make an effort to bring down the mass marketing, the actual targeting to young people of inappropriate material. And in fact, the FTC study showed that 80% of the PG-13 and R rated for violence movies were specifically targeted to children. And I think we can take some better steps. I think we could say you aren't going to try to entice people under 17 to come to an R rated movie for violence. And yes, there will be parents who will make the decision that they want their children to go in. But you at least could keep young people from going into a movie. If we have to take these kinds of steps, now I would like to see the movie industry

truly settle this voluntarily. But we have been talking about this for a long time. We have tried every way to control the movie industry to be more responsible. I wish they would be more responsible in the kinds of movies they make. It's just there is no appropriate reason to make a movie like natural born killers. I mean, why would you want to make a movie like that? But nevertheless, they have the right to do it under our Constitution. I just wish they would exercise more discretion. Well, the two of you are talking at a little bit cross-purposes about the same thing. You're Mr. Valenti talking about things that you can't control once they are off your rod and out of your distributor's hands like what parents do and what exhibitors do. Senator, you've noted that the FTC report found that the movie industry itself and its marketing practices were looking for these audiences.

Well, I will tell you this. I think the FTC report caused me and others to want to take a fresh look at how some of these pictures were marketed. I long before this hearing when I read the report, I said having 11 and 12-year-olds in a focus group, I found unacceptable. And we're saying that we're not going to have any young people and any kind of a focus group unless the parents approve and the parents are there. And we're trying to do what is right. Keep in mind that while eight companies were at that witness table, there are 72 other distribution companies smaller that were put out 243 films last year. So it's very difficult to corral, as it were, and in this fragmented and very disparate kind of industry. Well, let me quickly go to the Senator because you're going to ask a question. Why would you want a nine-year-old and a focus group if you weren't trying to

market that film to a nine-year-old? They are in focus groups because sometimes these are unrated pictures. And they might want to have to see what young people think about it so that they could put this picture out maybe as a PG or a PG-13 or whatever. I already acknowledge Senator that I think that was an ill-considered idea and it's not going to be done anymore in the 12-point initiatives we have. There are specifics in that that address the three broad recommendations of the Federal Trade Commission. I'm not saying this is lapidary, written concrete, but I do believe this is a large step forward. And I would hope the Congress would find this a useful first step. Well, the Congress has promised to continue looking over your shoulder, Senator. Mr. Valenti, thank you very much. Thank you. Now two more in our ongoing series of campaign speeches by the leading presidential candidates.

First Governor George Bush. He spoke this afternoon in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Today, I want to talk about our government's finances. We have a surplus and our nation has a choice. One of the clearest choices of this campaign. Will we use the money wisely or will we spend it on permanently larger government? That's the fundamental question. Today our projected surplus is $4.6 trillion. Now that's extra money after government budgets have been increased. I see America's $4.6 trillion surplus as an opportunity to protect and extend our present prosperity. We will use half of the surplus to strengthen Social Security and pay down debt, national commitments that we must keep. We will make important investments in Medicare and education the environment and national defense. And we will return about

one-fourth of the surplus to the American people who earned it, who earned it, who paid for the surplus, and deserve to have part of it back. A family of four in the state of Wisconsin, making $50,000, will receive a 50% cut in federal income taxes. Ours is a plan that simplifies the code. It makes it easier to understand. It reforms the code by eliminating the death tax, doing something on the marriage penalty, and drops the bottom rate from 15% to 10% and increases the child credit from $500 to $1,000.

We not only hear the voices in our tax reform of the entrepreneurs and small business people, we hear the voices of those struggling at the bottom end of the economic ladder of well. See, this is a matter of principle for me. A surplus after all means a surplus of tax collection. It means Americans have been overcharged and they should see some of that money back again. This tax reduction serves another purpose. It is an insurance policy against an economic slowdown or a recession. You see, putting more money into the hands of the earners and creators of wealth before trouble comes would give our current expansion a second wind. My opponent has a plan for the surplus as well. He's proposing the largest increase in federal spending in 35 years since the presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The contrast between our two economic plans could not be clearer. I see our record surplus as an opportunity to save Social Security, pay down debt, provide families with tax relief, improve public education and extend our prosperity. He sees this as the foundation for permanent expansion of government and his plan to spend it all with threat in our current prosperity. I want tax reductions that are broad and fair. He wants tax cuts as a reward for good behavior as he defines it. I believe government should help people live their lives, not run their lives. He believes. He believes in choices, but he makes most of them for us. In this election, I'm trying to earn the trust of the Americans by trusting them in return. I want this country

to have a president you can believe in, but also a president that believes in the people. Now Vice President Gore, he spoke this morning at the Brookings Institution here in Washington. The choice we make in the next 40 days could well shape our future for the next 40 years. You ought to be able to know what the candidates are proposing to do with our prosperity so you can judge for yourselves. If we do things right, we now have it within our grasp to completely eliminate the national debt by the year 2012, saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments. If we make the right choices, we can make social security financially sound for more than 50 years and make Medicare financially sound for another 30 years. If we make the right choices, we can reach the day in the next few years when seven in 10 Americans live in their own homes and family incomes

rise by one third. So let me tell you where I stand when it comes to the economy. I believe in fiscal discipline and paying down the debt this year, next year, and every year. I believe in smart investments in the future, not massive tax cuts for the few that could bring us back into deficit. And above all, I believe prosperity has to work for the working and middle-class families who built this economy, the families who are the hope and soul of this country. That's who I'm fighting for. I'm talking about people making house payments and car payments. Parents struggling to find more time to spend with their kids and pass on the right values. Families that need help affording college to tuition, health care for their kids, or job training to earn more and lift themselves to a better life. And I will not accept a massive tax cut that gives almost half the benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent, which would hurt middle-class families and make today's

balanced budget tomorrow's distant memory. Under the Gore-Leberman Economic Plan for every new dollar that we put into tax cuts or new investments, we'll set aside $2 to pay down the debt. And for every dollar we put into new spending, we'll also put a dollar into tax cuts for working and middle-class families. So here's the bottom line. Our plan gives $500 billion in targeted middle-class tax cuts. It makes the right investments in education, health care, a clean environment, and a secure retirement. It provides an additional $100 billion for our national defense. And it balances the budget and pays down the national debt. This isn't just about numbers. It's about the standard of life for America's families. And it's about what's good for America's businesses. If we pay down the debt and keep interest rate slow, then the private sector

doesn't have to compete with the federal government for investment capital. Productivity rises. Jobs are created and the economy prospers. Now is the time to pursue economic policies that are good for our families and good for business. This is not the time to invite new deficits and high interest rates that could stifle both our growth and our hopes. That is why this issue is so important. That is why 40 days from now prosperity itself will be on the ballot. You deserve a president who will honor your hard work by making the hard choices on economic policy. If you entrust me with the presidency, as I've said before, I know I won't always be the most exciting politician, but I will work every day to keep the economy strong, and I will never let you down. Thank you. God bless you, and let's

win this fight. Thank you very much. Now an historical context look at this 2000 campaign. It comes from news hour regulars, provincial historians, Doris Kerns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss and journalist author Haynes Johnson, plus tonight historian Richard Norton Smith, executive director of the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, professor of history at Grand Valley State University and Grand Rapids, Michigan. Michael, comparatively speaking, how would you describe this campaign so far? It's a campaign that's had it's high and low moments. High moment, I think actually today I think those were very two very good speeches gave you a very good idea of where these two people were coming from. George Bush essentially is saying where there's a conflict between more government or less government, I want less. Al Gore is saying I'm probably a little bit quicker on the trigger in allowing government to do things, but at the same time

I want to be fiscally responsible. At the same time we've had low moments like the rats, controversy, the so-called subliminal appearance of this word in a commercial. Other things like that. And the mole in one. Supposedly there's a Gore mole in the Bush campaign that took the debate tape or the prep tape, etc. The rodent analogies are getting out of control as made a campaign, but it's happened a lot of times. In 1960 Kennedy and Nixon got sidetracked on Kimo and Matsu, a slightly larger issue, but you know 1980 I was looking back at the New York Times. There were some times that the 1980 campaign which was momentous. Reagan versus Carter, Warren piece, what you do about a big recession did not even make it under the front page of the New York Times. Doris context, where would you put this campaign? I think actually the focus that we've just seen in these two speeches, which is where I think it's going to keep going until the election hopefully is very encouraging. I mean think about the campaigns in the last 20 or 30 years. In 1988 for example, it wasn't really about the fundamental economic issues and choices

that are being given to us now. It was about symbolic things as to whether or not Dukakis had enough patriotism in dealing with the pledge of allegiance, whether or not cultural issues such as soft on crime should be the center of conversation. Things that the federal government really couldn't do a lot about. Think about 1992 when Jennifer Flowers played such a large role in the primaries and through Clinton's whole presidency the private lives of public figures became a major source of campaign conversation. It's still there. Subliminally if I can use that word it's hard to pronounce but it's not being made the center of Bush's campaign. And then you think about in a certain sense even a couple weeks ago we talked about personality was going to be the main focus of this campaign because we're in an age of television and issues don't matter and what matters is whether the person is likable. Well both candidates it seems to me have come down to recognizing they have to tell the voters what kind of leader they're going to be, what kind of choices they have to make. And I say good for democracy this is a pretty encouraging moment. And for democracy Richard Norton Smith. Oh absolutely. You know this year is so unusual.

We're accustomed to seeing sharp differences philosophical conflicts aired at times of crisis. You think of a war or the aftermath of a war or a depression or times of cultural upheaval or Roosevelt Wilkie in 40 a Nixon Humphrey Wallace in 68. This year we have peace we have prosperity we have general contentment and on behold we have arguably the most substantive policy debate going on between these two candidates in 20 years. And there are a number of factors that are at work many of them beyond the control of any either candidate demographic changes the aging of America the financial condition of Social Security Medicare cultural changes. This is a more entrepreneurial country than 20 years ago. If you look at prosperity prosperity levels the field and and you have a feeling that both candidates are pushing the old buttons they're they're kind of groping for this post new deal post Reagan consensus and neither issue is quite working because of prosperity. I mean for example the vice

president talks about Social Security and yet in this kind of entrepreneurial culture for young people what is risky is not investing their money in the market. At the same time governor Bush is having trouble getting traction on the tax issue most people feel more prosperous they don't need a tax cut. You ever see anything like this one Haynes? It's different you know Jim it's wonderful the timing of this those two speeches as my colleagues and friends have just said really are about very important differences about where we're going what kind of government we have how to serve people and their big difference they aren't ideological differences as such as philosophical differences. Now what's the difference? The difference is in philosophically how do you use the public treasury do you give it back to people say this is an entrepreneurial nation which it is and then you use it for yourself and that will generate another boom and keep it going or do you say that we have needs in this country Richard just said about an aging America there are people going to live a lot longer at greater expense technologically how do you pay for it where do you deal with all these

other questions of social they're big questions that are before the house right now and we've been looking back you said where is the context and who kissed Oprah or how they kissed the wife or where the mold is burrowing in or out and so forth. I mean this is really important stuff and I hope as Doris said we've all said it in a different way I hope the country will now have this from here on out don't count on it but this was a good setup Michael what's driving what has driven this down this good road is this the the result of just simple politics at the highest level in other words the candidates and their advisor said hey well look maybe we need to talk about issues or did the press drive this agenda or what what's going on it's the environment let's say we were in 1980 Jim Americans were held hostage in Iran the Russians were marching into Afghanistan we had 21% interest rates let's say Ronald Reagan had wanted to talk about rodents or about prescription drugs people would say get on the program that's not what we're thinking about but in the year 2000 thank God we haven't gotten overwhelming crisis

or an overwhelming national need of the magnitude of something like civil rights so what you've got basically is the candidates returning to the same difference between the republican and democratic parties that have been there really for the last 78 years what do you do about government and also a more minor issues important to us but in the stretch of history more minor like aspects of health and education and social security and gore and bush have differences on those things they relate to their feelings about the size of government when you compare that to Reagan Carter for instance in 1980 a Roosevelt and Wilkie as Richard was saying in 1940 on World War II diametrically opposite positions on central issues of our times it's really pretty small potatoes you agree with that Richard kind of small potatoes when you put it to put it in the historical put it on the historical table well I guess I say it's a it's a luxury we have in effect because of because of the surplus but there are a couple of other factors

that work here as well these candidates in some ways have been driven to deal with substance because the other things weren't working a government bush discovered that attacking alga was character or personality wasn't getting him anywhere in the polls the vice president for his part is not getting the usual bounce that you would expect from incumbent party presiding over this kind of peace and prosperity so to some degree they almost have to talk about real things because the usual strategies and diversions and one winers just weren't working Doris real and important things they're talking about would you agree I think that's right I think that over the years the public has expressed its anger and disgust when candidates don't do this I mean after 1988 for example one of the most negative campaigns in our history a lot of people didn't vote a lot of people said it was the worst election they knew and then the media stepped up to the plate and said we'll watch over these ads we're not going to allow them to be negative and unfactual after the whole Clinton scandal the public in poll after poll kept saying we want to talk about

the country's problems not simply his private problems and that I think has reduced some of the extent to which the Republicans might have made Bill Clinton the central issue in this campaign so now you've got the Republicans and Democrats as was said earlier I think falling back on more of their own philosophical differences and they're pretty large because at this moment in time when you do have a surplus like this you have peace and prosperity you really can shape the future of the country in different ways and I think the fact that the public has asked these leaders and they're responding to it means they're responding to polls the very things I don't usually like but the polls are telling them do this right this time so the public has taken over this this election process he's well I hope so Jim my movie got 40 days to go as they say right now but we'll see but it's going to get tough from here but behind all of the polling and so forth there is something really important this is an absence of crisis war and depression and all the rest that we've had civil rights and murders in the streets and assassinations and it really is a chance where you look to the future elections are about the future and that's what people are talking about now

it's a fascinating disconnect almost that people say 64 percent of the American people today think they're better off when they were four years ago you would think that it in the election it hasn't it was Richard's point yeah and they're really saying okay where do we really go from here what else do we need to do with it I salute it and I hope I don't know let's let's hope it keeps going Michael also for most of American history if you were a candidate who wanted to get through a campaign and not to discuss something you could 1968 there were no debates the media was not what it is nowadays Richard Nixon was able to get through an entire campaign without telling Americans what he was going to do about the Vietnam War the biggest issue of that year in the year 2000 that could never happen you agree Richard that this this is just a different year to run for president that has a lot to do with it as well as all the other things in terms of another way well in other words you agree with Michael oh absolutely absolutely but you know it's interesting because Haynes is right elections are about the future but if you listen to those two speeches today it's also a referendum on the past each candidate accuses the other

of planning to squander the surplus Al Gore says that George Bush will take us back to the deficits of the 80s and trickle down economics Bush says that Gore will take us back to spend in tax policies of Lyndon Johnson so in that sense they both agree they're both fighting over the same turf and they're both looking over their shoulder even while they're appointing the way to the future okay speaking of the future we have to go thank you all for very much again the major stories of this Thursday the Food and Drug Administration approved use of the abortion pill are you 486 Yugoslav president Molosevic confirmed he'd take part in a runoff election the opposition again rejected a runoff and called for a general strike and former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau died this afternoon in a statement this evening his family said he'd suffered from Parkinson's disease and prostate cancer he was 80 years old and before we go tonight a follow-up to our recent two-part series on truck safety congressional

negotiators agreed yesterday to a one-year delay on new limits for truck and bus drivers the transportation department wanted to restrict them to 12 hours of driving in every 24 hour period where junior congressman frank wolf said a compromise calls for the department to do for the research we'll see you online and again here tomorrow with shields and jigo among others i'm Jim Lara thank you and good night modern practices have made american farmers the world's most productive who helps put to people who grow the food in touch with those who need it helping serious investors relax knowing their investments are truly diversified see how we earned it salamence mith barney and by the corporation for public broadcasting

this program was also made possible by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you thank you video cassettes of the news hour with Jim Lara are available from pbs video call 1-800-328-pbs-1 for this is pbs