The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth in Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we look at President Clinton's standing in the Democratic Party. We have excerpts from his speech last night and a discussion with three congressional Democrats. Then women and guns. Are they the next market? We have a report and debate, and essayist Phyllis Theroux on age and creativity. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan today issued a warning about inflation that could have an impact on interest rates. He told a congressional committee that while the U.S. was experiencing the best economic performance in three decades, there were signs that inflation might heat up. So far this year, the Fed has raised interest rates six times to keep prices incheck. Greenspan would not comment on whether the fact -- the Fed would act again, but had this to say.

ALAN GREENSPAN, Chairman, Federal Reserve: We must remain alert to signs of inflationary pressures on resources. If we allow these to develop, resources will begin to be used less efficiently, productivity improvements will be harder to find, and firms will be more disposed to raise prices.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Federal Reserve Board will consider another interest rate increase when it meets on December 20th. In other economic news, the Labor Department released revised figures today on non-farm productivity in the third quarter of the year. It increased .2 percent to 2.9 percent. Elizabeth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: House Democrats shot back today at Republican plans to eliminate 28 so-called legislative service organizations. They include the Black, Hispanic, and Women's Caucuses. Also on the list are the Democratic and Republican research groups which supply members with legislative analysis. The new Republican leaders announced the changes yesterday. The decision prompted a heated exchange on Capitol Hill today.

REP. KWEISI MFUME, Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus: We view yesterday's action taken by the Republican Conference as an assault on diversity in the Congress and an attempt to disempower communities through congressional ethnic and philosophical cleansing.

REP. PAT ROBERTS, [R] Kansas: I have people who say I'm anti- minority, anti-women, anti-animal welfare, anti-rural caucus, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee being anti-rural caucus. There isn't any interest group apparently that I have not offended other than one, and that's the taxpayer.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The former head of the White House Travel Office was indicted today on embezzlement charges. A federal grand jury in Washington accused Billy Dale of pocketing more than $68,000. Most of the money was allegedly diverted from funds paid to the Travel Office by news organizations whose reporters travel with the President. The charges cover a period from February 1988 to January 1993. Dale's attorney said his client was innocent and would fight the indictment. The Clinton administration fired Dale and six of his employees in May 1993, after an audit of the Travel Office found poor recordkeeping.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Commerce Department announced today that it will temporarily close portions of a major fishing ground near Massachusetts. Parts of Georges Bank will be off limits to commercial fishermen for the next three months. The Department said the emergency measure was needed to save several fish species from extinction. Today's action could eventually lead to a complete ban in the area which lies between New England and Nova Scotia. Orange County, California declared bankruptcy late last night. It's the largest local government in U.S. history to ask for protection from creditors. The action followed a loss of about $1 1/2 billion in the county's investment fund. The filing is not expected to affect emergency services such as police or firefighters. The Securities & Exchange Commission is investigating whether the county or its former treasurer violated securities laws.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The United Nations is considering pulling some of its peacekeepers from Northwest Bosnia. A U.N. spokesman said the contingent of Bangladeshi troops has only a few days' worth of rations left. Pressure is also mounting on the U.N. to remove other units. We have more in this report narrated by Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News.

RICHARD VAUGHAN, WTN: The outskirts of Bihac in Northwestern Bosnia, an area under siege. Rebel Muslim soldiers fighting their own Muslim countrymen in the Bosnian army, a classic confused, anarchic situation. Twelve hundred U.N. troops in the middle of it all, with no mandate to intervene. The French signalled they'd just about had enough. Their foreign minister, Alain Juppe, told the national assembly he'd ask the U.N. and NATO to plan in detail the withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers, a high risk operation, he said, that would require reinforcements. There are 24,000 peacekeeping troops in Bosnia scattered in about 20 camps. U.N. officials say hundreds of Bangladeshi troops will be withdrawing from the Bihac enclave. The British foreign secretary said there should be only a pullout if the risk to U.N. troops becomes unacceptable, but for the Bosnian prime minister it's the U.N. policy that's become unacceptable.

HARIS SILAJDZIC, Prime Minister, Bosnia: They sent but 1,000 unarmed Bangladeshi U.N. soldiers to Bihac. Now they're taking them out in the middle of the Serb offensive. That is such a confusion. It would be laughable if it were not tragic.

RICHARD VAUGHAN: As the fighting escalates, it's a bitter twist of fate that the U.N. is withdrawing from zones that its own representatives declared as safe areas.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Defense Secretary Perry today defended the decision not to send U.S. troops into Bosnia. He said that Bosnia was not a vital national security interest, unlike the Persian Gulf area. PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat told Secretary of State Christopher today that Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza would be protected from Islamic terrorists. The promise came during their latest meeting in the Gaza Strip. Christopher said he supported Arafat's desire to hold Palestinian elections soon. Christopher met with Israeli Prime Minister Rabin earlier in the day.

MR. MAC NEIL: At least four people were killed and forty-eight injured today in Seoul, South Korea, when a natural gas tank exploded. Four people are still missing. The fire burned out of control for more than an hour, destroying dozens of homes and commercial buildings. Hundreds of residents were evacuated. The cause of the explosion was not immediately known.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Today is the 53rd anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In Washington, veterans of the surprise attack met at Arlington National Cemetery. They laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to mark the event that brought the United States into World War II. President Clinton spoke by phone to a group of survivors meeting in Florida. He told them Pearl Harbor stands as a constant reminder of the need for a strong military.

MR. MAC NEIL: That's our summary of the top stories. Now it's on to President Clinton and the Democrats, selling guns to women, and essayist Phyllis Theroux. FOCUS - FIGHTING BACK

MR. MAC NEIL: Up first, whither President Clinton and the Democratic Party. Many members of the party have blamed the President and his policies for last month's congressional turnover. Last night, President Clinton responded combatively. He spoke before the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist organization whose members have been among President Clinton's harshest critics.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: [last night] In 1992, late '91 really, I got into the race for President basically because I was convinced deep down inside that there was something amiss in this country, that we were in danger of losing the American dream, that more people were working harder for less, that people who were poor but wanted to work themselves into the middle class weren't able to do so, that we were coming apart when we ought to be coming together, and that the political system had reached the point where it was almost incapable of dealing with fundamental problems. I ran out of a conviction that as a citizen I ought to try to do something about it. I knew that there were many dangers. One is just taking on tough issues as taking on tough issues. If they were easy issues, somebody else would have done them because a poll would say it was popular to do. The second is, if you try to do a lot of things in a short time, you're going to make some mistakes, and I've made my fair share, and I accept that. I think I was right when I opposed discrimination and intolerance, but a lot of folks thought I was just more concerned about minorities than the problems of the majority. I believe we were right when we fought to bring this terrible deficit down. Let me tell you something, folks. The budget would be in balance this year were it not for interest payments on the debt accumulated when they had control, and they ran this country into the ditch. [applause] And before you listen to the siren songs that will be offered in the next year, you just remember this. Next time you make out your federal income tax check, 28 percent of it's going to pay interest on the debt accumulated in the last 12 years before we took over. So I think we were right to do that, and yes, I think we were right to try to find a way to stop health care costs from going up three times the rate of inflation, to stop people from losing their health care or having it explode if they have a kid sick, or if they change jobs, to try to find an affordable way for small business people and self-employed people to buy private health insurance. But by the time it got to the American people, in both cases, it was characterized as Democrats are the party of government and factions. And they don't have a lot of trust or faith in government, because they're working harder for less, but we've got to let these folks know that we heard 'em. We've got to reaffirm our convictions with clarity. We've got to say what we did and be proud of it. And we've got to engage the Republicans in a spirit of genuine partnership and say, you have some new ideas, we do too, let's have a contest of ideas, but stop all this demonization, and get on with the business of helping America to build this country. [applause] We believe the promise of America is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. The Democratic Party's fundamental mission is to expand opportunity, not government. America must remain energetically engaged in the world, not retreat from it. The United States must maintain a strong and capable defense. The right way to rebuild America's economic security is to invest in our people and to expand trade, not to restrict it. We believe in preventing crime and punishing criminals, not explaining away their behavior. The purpose of social welfare is to bring the poor into the economic mainstream, not to maintain them in dependence. Government should respect individual liberty and stay out of our private lives and personal decisions. We believe in the moral and cultural values most Americans share, individual responsibility, tolerance, work, faith, and family. We believe American citizenship entails responsibilities as well as rights, and we mean to ask our citizens to give something back to their communities and their countries. I believe that, and if you do, we've got a great future. [applause]

MR. MAC NEIL: Now three Democrats look at the future direction of their party: Two Senators, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut; Paul Wellstone of Minnesota; and one outgoing House member, Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma, he's the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. He was defeated last month in his bid for a Senate seat. Starting with you, Mr. McCurdy, the President says the answer is not to reverse what we have done but to build on it. Do you think President Clinton has got the right message?

REP. McCURDY: Well, I believe the speech last night was an important step. I think, clearly, again the President has an opportunity here with a fresh start after the midterm elections to define not only his presidency but also to lay the future course for the Democratic Party and for America. And as you listened to the clip in the speech last night that was enthusiastically supported by those in attendance and the DLC, you heard the President talk about the principles on which he ran on. He actually cited the New Orleans Declaration, which we developed when he was chairman of the DLC, talking about equal opportunity, talking about investment, and I think that is not only an important message, I think it's one that connects with the American public. He talked about whey he ran for President, and that was to reach out and help solve the problems facing average Americans, working Americans who work hard and yet see their incomes declining. He talked about the fear and the insecurity that people feel economically. And I think much of that fear was expressed in anger in the midterm elections because they felt that Congress and the administration, those in power, basically, did not address those problems sufficiently.

MR. MAC NEIL: Excuse me interrupting, but you said very directly yesterday in your speech to the same conference that the President as President had not -- he had not been the President he ran as, you said, and that he -- and that he still -- while he may have had his head as a new Democrat, as the DLC Democrat, his heart was still in the liberal, in the old liberal thing. Now, do you believe he's shaken himself out of that position, that he's fundamentally changed that?

REP. McCURDY: Well, Robin, only time will tell, because I think again the American public really doesn't want to hear words. They want to see action. And that was, again, a very clear message sent in this election. And I think that's what we have to address. We need to talk about not only strategy to -- and again the President said we want to engage the Republicans in a real debate, not these commercials and demonization that occurred in the campaign, but actual debate on issues such as their Contract with America. We just released an alternative to the Republican Contract with America that embraces again those ideals and those principles that's designed to engage them directly, talking about how you reduce the deficit through wasteful spending but invest in those programs and those efforts to help people find job security, to have a GI bill for workers so they can have vouchers they can take with them so they can have continuous job training, to, in fact, try to reform the welfare system as we know it today but also to address the health care problems that we have not by some huge government program but using private sector forces and working incrementally to solve those problems.

MR. MAC NEIL: So you say huge government programs. You just heard the President say last night that his efforts to reform health care had been characterized as a huge government program and bigger government and taxes. Do you think it was mischaracterized, or that's what it really was?

REP. McCURDY: I personally supported alternatives to the health care program, and I think the President in conversations with me and others has admitted that the approach taken was too complex, it was too big, and it relied too much on government, and that it didn't obviate the need to discuss health care. And we ought to have an honest debate, and it's clear that the American public didn't understand the debate, but more importantly, they lost faith in government. They don't believe that government can solve the problems. Until we restore faith and work with them and try to find solutions that do not rely on government to address these fundamental problems, I don't think we're going to see a restoration of faith.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let's talk to a couple of your colleagues now. Sen. Wellstone, do you think the answer, the salvation of the Democratic Party right now is for the President to reclaim the mantel of the Democratic Leadership Council and the -- and be a new Democrat?

SEN. WELLSTONE: Well, you know, I listen to the discussion and I think of -- I was in Wilmer, Minnesota, last night in cafes. Nobody a cafe ever asks me if I'm a member of the DLC. They don't want to know whether I'm an old Democrat or a new Democrat. This is insider discussion. I mean, the real point is not left, right, or center. It's the politics that speaks to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives, and I think there are two major issues here. One is the economics of people's lives. People feel the squeeze. They don't feel that government is on their side. And a lot of people are really worried about themselves and their families. And they're worried about the economy, and they want to see good public policy that can help them. They want to see government on their side. The second thing is people are kind of angry. The populism is in the air. People feel ripped off. They don't feel well represented. They see a lot of sort of powerful interests that dominate the political process. All those issues of campaign finance reform, ethics, lobbying disclosure, gift ban, too many people, Democrats and Republicans alike, trivialize those issues. They just didn't get it. They thought it wasn't important. People want to see us clean up our process. They'll have more confidence in the outcome of the process if they think the process is open and accountable, so I think we have a lot of work to do, and I don't think it has anything to do with DLC or left, right, and center, and I think the President should be someone who has conviction, who has principles, who makes it clear to people he's going to fight for what he believes is best for the country.

MR. MAC NEIL: But hasn't he been doing that?

SEN. WELLSTONE: That's what people yearn for.

MR. MAC NEIL: Hasn't he been doing that all along?

SEN. WELLSTONE: Well, I think that, listen, I'm not going to do the piling on on the President of the United States. Too much of that is going on right now. I just would simply say that we're going to have a real opportunity with this contract, which I think is very mean-spirited, once people see --

MR. MAC NEIL: The Republican contract, you mean?

SEN. WELLSTONE: That is correct. One point two or three trillion dollar cut promise by 2002, the effects, Chris, it's going to have on children, eliminating nutritional programs. What's going to happen to Medicare and Medicaid? Yeah, let's decentralize government. Let's make more things happen at the community, but let's not walk away from public policy that provides real opportunity for citizens in this country which has made this a great nation. People aren't going to like it. There's goodness in this country. We ought to stand up for what we believe as Democrats. We ought to have a real debate. We ought to have concrete alternatives. That's what politics should be in the United States of America, and the President should stand for that.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Dodd, how much do think President Clinton needs to reclaim the center in order to -- as the DLC was saying - - what does he need to do, as you see it?

SEN. DODD: I sort of agree with what Paul had to say. Sam Rayburn used to say, "I'm a Democrat without prefixes or suffixes." And I think we've got to be careful not to balkanize our party here and add geography and sort of ideological labels to it. I listened to Dave McCurdy and Paul Wellstone, and I know they've had their differences, but I also heard some core values being expressed by two people who have disagreed on some issues, but I think would probably agree on most, and that is the idea of getting back to the point that this is really about average Americans out there every day who are trying to hold body and soul and family together. They pay the taxes; they fight the wars; they play by the rules and by the book; and all they seem to ever be asked to do is pay taxes. And every other issue seems to be discussed that doesn't affect them. So I think the President in many ways has been on the right track. You may argue the menu was too crowded, tried to do too much in too short a time. We didn't prioritize issues well so that the tax cut that he managed to cut through and the budget that reduced the deficit was put on the same plane and level as issues that have marginal importance, and they were almost given equal weight. I think we can certainly claim that was part of the difficulty. But this is a President who also fought for GATT, for NAFTA, who can claim a full responsibility, along with Democrats in the House and the Senate for putting together a budget that did reduce the deficit for three straight years for the first time since the Truman administration. I don't think you need a big change in message necessarily. I think you've got to get back again, and this Congress ought to, to talking about how you can do a better job on providing more secure and better-paying jobs for Americans, how you can educate these young people, as Dave said, on health care, look at it intelligently deal with things like portability, preexisting conditions, the long-term health fears that people have for their parents, if they've got a mother or father with Alzheimer's, that they don't lose their home or destroy everything they've built up over the years. I think if Democrats across the country will do that, come together around those core issues that we agree on, not divide among ourselves, our strength is in our diversity. It only becomes a weakness when we cannibalize ourselves. And if we don't do that, I think we can do well.

MR. MAC NEIL: You've all been talking issues, as the President did. Back to you, Mr. McCurdy. Let's just talk mechanics for a moment. Some Democrats are saying, and some in the DLC are saying that in order to convince the public of where he is the President should have a mass firing of some of the aides in the White House, and people mention people like George Stephanopolous and Harold Ickes, who it's claimed are the ones responsible for pulling him over away from the center, and that Mrs. Clinton should be -- should be moved more into the background. Do you believe something like that is necessary to convince the public?

REP. McCURDY: I think the President has an opportunity in the coming weeks, because -- and he needs to fire back, because there is a certain Republican momentum coming from the elections but also the fact that they're now assuming control of the Congress, and you're seeing specific proposals being made there. That's why we have to have clear alternatives. But I also believe that the American public wants to see action and some results. I think there are going to be changes. I think there have to be changes in the White House and the administration, and I think it sends a very powerful signal. That's something the President can control. He cannot now control the Congress. There is no longer Democratic control, so he has to focus on the executive branch that he does have control and talk about -- and he mentioned last night -- let's engage in debate on how to protect government, how to reduce a lot of the federal, heavy top-handed concentration here in Washington and try to move it out to the states, let's reinvent government in an appropriate way. He can control that part of the debate and the dialogue, and I think that's one of the few areas that he actually has that.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sen. Dodd and Sen. Wellstone, Sen. Dodd first, do you think that some big changes in the White House staff are necessary to convince the public of where the President is and what he's doing?

SEN. DODD: Well, some may be necessary, but I wouldn't go so far as to say then to convince the public. I think Paul Wellstone said it well a few moments ago. Most people in this country don't have the vaguest idea who these people are you must mentioned. I think it comes back again to these issues that they care about, and they want to see Washington. People don't get up in the morning and think of themselves as Democrats or Republicans. They get up, and they worry about their families, their neighborhoods, their personal security, and so changes may occur, and those are more of the pyrotechnics. But if you get back to the basic issues, then whether or not he changes some of the personnel and some of the names change won't mean a tinker's worth of a damn in all of this if he doesn't, and we don't, together, start focusing again on the issues that made us the most popular political party over the last 40 years. We didn't enjoy the voters' confidence for so many years because it was a political accident, or we were better at the politics. People honestly felt that their hopes and their dreams and their visions were going to be better met in the hands of Democrats generally. That was true in local, state, and the federal government. We lost their confidence over the last two years for reasons that are very complex, but we can get them back if we get back to those core issues. Changing heads in the White House may have some value, but it's not going to change a single voter's mind on election day.

MR. MAC NEIL: Dave McCurdy, on one other -- there's another hard question for you -- but some people in your ranks -- for instance, Joel Cotkin, who is an editor with the DLC Journal, says one option would be to run somebody else against Mr. Clinton in the presidential primary. He mentioned Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. You have said the President is a heavy burden for the party. Is the President such a heavy burden that you should dump him?

REP. McCURDY: Well, I'm not saying that at all, and Mr. Cotkin can speak for himself. It's clear that what we've talked about here is we Democrats did have the confidence of the American public for quite some time. When we grew up, we grew up in Democratic households, the children of working families. But today after this midterm elections, the Democrat Party in the South has been decimated, and I think we have to address some of the cultural concerns that Americans have out there. I think we have to again present real ideas and new ideas that really do try to find innovative solutions to the problems that they face and the fears, the legitimate fears that they have, and they can't be just seen as governments going to help you. The Democratic Party became too identified with just government, and I think the empirical evidence is clear.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let me ask Sen. Wellstone, what do you think about suggestions that somebody -- there should be a rival to President Clinton in the primaries?

SEN. WELLSTONE: I don't think that that's really the challenge before us right now, Robin. I think two things happened in this election. One, you had, roughly speaking, a 61 percent hole in the electorate, 112 million people didn't even vote. That's something Democrats ought to think about. Who were those people? They've become alienated from politics. That's something everybody in politics ought to think about. Second of all, people in the country are in a downright anti-status quo mood. They were saying very clearly -- I will say this as a Democrat -- I think Chris and Dave will agree with me -- that they want to see real change, but that begs the question what kind of change. I don't want to see Democrats make the mistake that they made in 1981. I was teaching then, where there was a collapse of opposition, Democrats lost courage, didn't stand up for what they believed in. There was no real debate, they just kind of rolled over. I'm telling you right now that this contract and this agenda of Newt Gingrich and others is, is not the goodness in America. I do not think that this is the change people want. We ought to be willing to stand up to that. We ought to have alternatives. I think a lot of this debate is going to be in the Congress. It, certainly Chris, is going to be on the Senate floor. I'll be ready with lots of amendments to hold people accountable so people know where we stand.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, gentlemen.

SEN. DODD: That you can be confident of, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Sorry we have to leave it there, gentlemen, but we'll come back I'm sure. Thank you all very much.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Are women the newest market for the gun industry, and essayist Phyllis Theroux ponders age and creativity. FOCUS - TARGET GROUP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, women and guns. Are women the new marketing target for the gun industry? It's a question we will debate after a backgrounder from correspondent Betty Ann Bowser.

MS. BOWSER: Recent polling data shows that less than 10 percent of all women in America own guns, and that statistic has not changed dramatically since 1980. What has changed is the mass marketing of firearms to female consumers. In the mid 1980's, sales of handguns to men dropped, largely, experts say, because the white male market had reached a saturation point. To counter that loss, gun makers started big advertising campaigns aimed at women. Recently, the nation's largest manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, even came up with a line of firearms called the Lady Smith designed and made specifically for women. The Colt Company produced an ad declaring, "Self-protection is more than your right, it's your responsibility." The ad featured a mother sitting at her daughter's bedside. Even little girls have become part of the marketing strategy. New York Congressman Charles Schumer, an outspoken advocate for gun control, has been following all of this from the sidelines until now. Soon he will file an official complaint with the Federal Trade Commission charging false advertising.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, [D] New York: They've put together a series of ads which are aimed at frightening, deceiving, and otherwise misleading women and telling them, go out and buy a gun, your personal safety is at stake. Sometimes the ads say, oh, it's fun to have a gun, but usually, they play on fear. You could be in a dark alley all alone, you need a gun to protect yourself. And this is despite the fact that just about every statistical measure shows that when you have a gun on your person, in your home, and you try to use it in self-defense, you're more likely to get hurt or killed than if you didn't have a gun.

MS. BOWSER: Schumer's criticism comes on the heels of a report released last week by the Violence Policy Center which took the gun industry to task for a marketing campaign it says is based on fear. The report says in part, "The pitch to women is simple: You're a woman. Some stranger is going to try to rape you. You'd better buy a handgun." The report also criticizes the National Rifle Association for tacitly supporting its marketing strategy and by producing public service spots like this one.

CHILD IN PUBLIC SERVICE SPOT: Mommy, what's wrong?

SPOKESPERSON IN PUBLIC SERVICE SPOT: You can refuse to be a victim, and we can help. [on screen: 1-800-861-1166 Courses Now In Your Area]

MS. BOWSER: The NRA says the spot is not designed to promote the use of firearms, but to promote the organization's self-defense courses which they're offering around the country.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Two different perspectives now on women and guns. Kristen Rand is the director of federal policy at the Violence Policy Center, the nonprofit educational foundation that released last week's report on the gun industry's marketing campaign. Tanya Metaksa is the chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. She joins us tonight from Oklahoma City. Welcome. Thank you both for being with us.

MS. METAKSA: Thank you for having us.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Kristen Rand, what prompted your organization's study? What did you see in society that concerns you?

MS. RAND: Well, what we saw, as your setup piece alluded to, was there was a significant drop in handgun sales in the 1980's. And in response to this, the gun industry and the NRA simply needed to find a way to sell more guns, and the way of doing that was not to wake up and say, gee, we're really concerned about women's safety, but they said, gee, we've got to protect our profit margins. And so they started these ad campaigns targeted at women. And what really prompted this report was our analysis that showed that these ad campaigns by the NRA and the industry seriously distort the reality of firearms violence, and the usefulness of handguns for self-protection.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You don't think they are useful? I, if I'm worried about my safety, should not have a handgun?

MS. RAND: No. And I think if you looked at the ad campaign by the NRA, it shows a young mother with her child in a dark parking structure, scurrying to her mini-van. Now, that's intended to provoke fear of stranger attacks. Now a more realistic image of risk to women would be that same woman sitting at the kitchen table arguing with her husband. FBI statistics show that more women are killed by arguments with their boyfriends or husbands than are killed in rapes, robbery, burglary, or any other type of felonious attack combined.

MR. MAC NEIL: Ms. Metaksa, what is the NRA's position on this? Do you think that I would be safer if I had a handgun, if I were worried?

MS. METAKSA: First of all, let me explain to you the "Refuse to be a Victim" program. The Refuse to be a Victim program is not a program that's designed to talk about gun use or gun purchase. The NRA has no interest in purchasing of firearms. We are not part of the industry. We are the citizens' lobby, the consumers' lobby that work for our members, 3 1/2 million of them. What that program is set up to do is to teach women how to become more aware of their surroundings and how to make themselves safe from becoming victims. We talk about locks. We talk about walking in the street. We talk about driving your car. And it's a program designed for women, by women of the NRA to keep them from becoming victims in a society in which criminal misuse of guns is rampant and the absolute predation by criminals upon women and men and children is also going up. After all, 14 people a day will be killed, 48 women will be raped, and 578 people will be killed -- robbed, excused me, by criminals who have been paroled or early-released. These are awful statistics, and the NRA as the Red Cross of gun safety is interested in trying to keep people from becoming victims of criminal predators.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But what about the question? Do you think women should have a handgun if they're concerned about personal security?

MS. METAKSA: Well, I think women have the right and have the intelligence to make the choice themselves for how they want to conduct their personal safety program. Some women will opt to own firearms, and others will not. That's their right under the Constitution, and that's also their personal choice.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What's wrong with that, Kristen Rand?

MS. RAND: Well, first of all, the NRA operates by spreading two big lies, the first of which is that the Constitution protects an individual right to own firearms. That is simply not the case. The Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that there is no individual right to own guns. Second of all --

MS. METAKSA: What is she talking about?

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let's get a response to that. Ms. Metaksa.

MS. METAKSA: I have no idea what she's talking about. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the individual right to keep and bear arms, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the Bill of Rights are individual rights, and the Second Amendment of the Constitution is in the Bill of Rights.

MS. RAND: I would suggest to Ms. Metaksa that she read U.S. Vs. Lewis 1980. Second of all, it's curious that the NRA tries to appropriate the language of the pro-choice movement in talking about a woman's choice. A woman choosing to buy a handgun is akin to a woman choosing to expose herself to asbestos or DDT, and what we -- the way we look at it is, it's like saying, why can't I choose not to wear a safety belt, or why shouldn't I be able to choose not to put my child in a child safety seat, because the resulting carnage from women thinking that guns are going to protect themselves, the statistics show that every -- for every time a gun is used in self-defense, four -- more than four firearms are stolen.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But, Ms. Rand, let me interrupt you one minute.

MS. METAKSA: The statistics show -- let's take a good look at this. Two and a half million times a year a gun is used to prevent a crime, and most of that time --

MS. RAND: Not according to the Department of Justice.

MS. METAKSA: -- over 90 percent -- excuse me -- over 90 percent of the time a gun, a shot is never fired, and nobody is ever hurt. The perpetrator or the aggressor leaves the scene, leaving the person with the firearm free of becoming a victim. I think that's an interesting statistic that Ms. Rand will not acknowledge is there, but it is and has been proven by several different studies that have been conducted over the past two years.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Ms. Metaksa, I want to get one thing straight. Ms. Metaksa says that the NRA just is proposing guns as one way for women to defend themselves, but you seem to think the NRA is part of the whole industry push to get women to buy guns.

MS. RAND: Well, the NRA certainly is in bed with the industry, and if it's not for money, it's for love, and I would point out that the NRA will be conducting a seminar at the annual shot show in Las Vegas this year, which is the annual gun industry trade show "dealing with the media," what to say and what not to say, how to act, and how not to act when you're talking to the media. Now, this is for any industry representative that cares to attend. The program is by the NRA's PR firm, courtesy of the National Rifle Association.

MS. METAKSA: Let me explain to you that there is -- I wish you'd come to see our Refuse to be a Victim program that's happening this Saturday. It's free. It's in Fairfax, Virginia, and it's on Route 50 at the Marriott courtyard. I hope you come and take it, and then you'll find out exactly what the Refuse to be a Victim program is, because nobody who's taken it has said that it is trying to sell anybody guns. They all go away with the great gratitude that we're giving this program to help them become free of fear.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. I want to go through some of the myths that your study lays out, some of the facts that you all assert about violence against women in the society, and then Ms. Metaksa, have you respond to this. Go through a couple of those myths for us, and let's get a response, briefly, because I'd like to get clear something about violence against women and what we should do about it.

MS. RAND: All right. Well, the NRA relies on fear of stranger attack, particularly rape, murder, and when we look at the statistics, we see that 75 percent of rape victims are raped by someone that they know. And six out of ten of those victims aren't even old enough to own a handgun; they're under eighteen.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Ms. Metaksa.

MS. METAKSA: Well, first of all, I'm not going to respond to those statistics. We're going to talk about the decrease in homicide rates, domestic homicide, in the past few years. What this study does is it brings back a whole bunch of statistics and information and repackages it. We've gone through this for the last five or six years, and what we're seeing here is the Violence Policy Center is now trying to get into an attack upon firearms and women firearms owners by telling women that they are not smart enough to make the choice on their own.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But what about this argument, just on this issue, that a woman is much more likely to be raped by somebody that she knows, and so a gun wouldn't necessarily help her there, is she going to shoot him? What is your response to that sort of thing? And this is a general argument about whether women are the victim of strangers or of people that they know, and I know that the figures sometimes are disputed on this.

MS. METAKSA: Well, first of all, it depends on the situation. If awoman is likely to be raped by somebody she knows and she has a firearm, she is less likely to be raped by that person. Nobody is going to rape somebody who is holding a gun on them. However, what we're really talking about is: Does this woman have a choice whether she wants to own a firearm or not? And what the people at the Violence Policy Center want to have happen is to tell the woman she has no choice, she shouldn't own a gun, she shouldn't be responsible for her own personal safety, and I find that very amazing.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. One more myth just quickly, and let's get a response.

MS. RAND: Well, the biggest myth is the myth that a handgun is a self-defense tool, and the only reliable data on self-defense use of firearms comes from the FBI and the Department of Justice, and we looked at unpublished FBI data and found that for every time a woman uses a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 239 women lose their lives in handgun homicides.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Quickly, we just have a couple of seconds here. Ms. Metaksa.

MS. METAKSA: First of all, the real statistic is: How many times has a gun been used to defend oneself and a shot and a killing does not have to occur? We have many, many instances, and Prof. Clark from Florida has proven that 2.5 million times a year a firearm is used for defensive purposes, and for most of that time a shot is never fired, nobody is killed, but a crime is averted.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Thank you. I have to interrupt you. Thank you both for being with us. ESSAY - STILL WORKING

MR. MAC NEIL: Finally tonight, essayist Phyllis Theroux, a Washington writer, considers aging and productivity.

PHYLLIS THEROUX: One of the most devastating myths in our culture is that old age is inevitably a time of diminishing powers. Oddly, we don't seem to hold our politicians to this standard. We routinely elect men and women to represent us who are near or past the time retirement age, and a lot of us like our doctors and lawyers on the well done side too. But elsewhere, we tend to discriminate against the elderly on the rather unfounded assumption that youth and truth, or at least youth and productivity, go together. Tell that to Michelangelo, who was 71 when he accepted a papal commission to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica. Tell that to Matisse, who was old and nearly blind when he produced some of his most brilliant work. Or, for that matter, tell that to my own mother, an artist who last year, at the age of 76, decided she needed a change of scene and moved to France, where she doesn't even speak the language. France is also the home of Emily Carls, the peasant woman who 20 years ago successfully campaigned against the government to save her mountain town from environmental destruction. Carls was 77 when her autobiography, A Life of Her Own, became a national bestseller. History and our own families are full of examples of men and women whose creative powers lasted as long as they did, because they used them. Still Working, as in, oh, is he or she still working, is the title of a new and quite serious art exhibit that is currently working its way through museums across the country. The exhibit is exclusively composed of the painting and sculpture of 32 American artists between 60 and 98 who are not using their sunset years to relax but to labor over easels and work tables to produce the best works of their lives at the highest artistic level. Myriam Beerman, Constance Cohen, Sherman Dexter, Sid Gordin; all of the artists in the exhibit are widely respected by their peers. Julius Hatofsky, a San Francisco artist, is not only still working but still teaching at the San Francisco Art Institute. Art critic Hilton Kramer called him an unjustly neglected painter, an American master whose work almost nobody knows, which may bother Kramer more than Hatofsky, who treats his obscurity like an old friend.

JULIUS HATOFSKY, Artist: You know, in some ways I've been fortunate. I've been able to go my own way. I don't have to produce the successful thing over and over, and I have a range of work I do now, and feels real good.

PHYLLIS THEROUX: All the artists had to meet the same entry requirements: Be at least 60, without a national reputation, and producing work that demonstrates a continuous capacity for self- renewal. In a society that worships the Fountain of Youth, the capacity to self-renew is the next fountain down. These artists have it. Their work is joyful, shocking, playful, and like fresh water in motion, one of the prerequisites for self-renewal, or in more common terms getting a second wind. When philosopher William James examined the phenomenon we call "the second wind," he concluded that it was real, that there are false barriers of exhaustion that will dissolve, oftentimes two and three times, to give us new energy on the other side, if you will only persevere. James also concluded that most people don't persevere. The human individual, he wrote, lives far within his limits. He possesses powers of various sorts which he habitually fails to use. But "Still Working" is fresh proof of the second wind at work within 32 American artists who are using their powers as they should be used, until the last possible and passionate moment. I'm Phyllis Theroux. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major story of this Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan signalled that renewed inflation could mean higher interest rates. Good night, Elizabeth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you, and good night.