The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening this Veterans Day. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the "NewsHour" tonight. Ray Suarez looks at a new way to use an old heart drug. Then come two presidential politics segments. Margaret Warner and Dan Balz of the "Washington Post" provide a snapshot of the George W. Bush campaign. NewsHour regulars: Andrew Kohut, Michael Beschloss, Haynes Johnson, Doris Kearns Goodwin and David Gergen analyze new trends among voters and their issues. Betty Ann Bowser reports on faith-based welfare. And poet laureate Robert Pinsky recites some Veterans Day poetry. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton said today a budget agreement was near. He praised the bipartisan spirit that resulted in a compromise over a major sticking point -- federal spending to hire new teachers. A tentative deal reached late last night included nearly $1.4 billion for hiring 100,000 new teachers. But it also gives local school districts some discretion in using those funds. Mr. Clinton said the deal was a "victory for America's children." He spoke at the White House this afternoon.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: All teachers hired under this program must be fully qualified. The program gives school districts the flexibility to use 25 percent of the funds from this program to train and test new teachers. It also increases flexibility with the involvement of the Secretary of Education to get extra funds for school districts that have a high percentage of their teachers that are not certified to teach the subjects they have been hired to teach, so that they can become fully qualified in those subjects.

JIM LEHRER: Republicans also expressed satisfaction. House Majority Leader Armey spoke to reporters this afternoon.

REP. DICK ARMEY: To have a flexibility, to look at any of the needs identified in the schools by the local administrators working with their governors -- I think it is an enormous victory. It certainly is - in my estimation -- a confirmation that our notion that the schools serve the children best when the schools are accountable to the parents, who in turn, are accountable... hold the local officials accountable, is the best model.

JIM LEHRER: The President confirmed he will visit Kosovo November 23. He'll make a brief stopover during his trip to southern Europe. Mr. Clinton said he wanted to thank some of the 6,000 U.S. troops enforcing order between Serbs and Albanians. He departs Sunday for a ten-day tour that includes Turkey, Greece, Italy, and Bulgaria. The FBI announced major changes today. It said they were aimed at preventing acts of terror and espionage rather than just investigating them after they occur. A new counter-terrorism division will unify all efforts aimed at fighting terrorism. Both the President and the Congress signed off on the plans. They were in response to criticism of the FBI's handling of allegations of Chinese spying at U.S. weapons labs. A boiler explosion killed five employees of a nursing home in Flint, Michigan last night. Another 20 workers and residents were injured. The blast blew out windows and collapsed the roof of the 94-bed facility. Some patients had to be evacuated in their beds. In southern Italy today, an apartment building collapsed, killing at least 13 people. Authorities have accounted for 17 survivors; many others may still be trapped. We have more from Bill Neely of Independent Television News.

BILL NEELY, ITN: It was a six-story block of flats that 30 families called home. Tonight, it's a dusty, tangled, flattened heap of cheap concrete. Here at 3:00 this morning, more than 70 people were asleep. Suddenly, a few were awoken by a creaking sound, and the building began to move. They rushed out and began ringing the doorbells of their neighbors. Three minutes later, as others were escaping, the building collapsed. There had been no explosion, no earthquake. This, it's thought, is a manmade disaster, a building shoddily constructed and lacking the reinforced steel to hold it together. The rescue began at first light. There were hundreds of police, firefighters, and residents. It wasn't long before a young girl had been dug out. Like three others, she lived on the top story of the block. It's perhaps the only reason she survived. Nearby buildings have now been evacuated, this, the second time a block of flats has collapsed in Italy with large loss of life in recent months.

JIM LEHRER: And back in this country on this last Veterans Day of the century, President Clinton led the nation in honoring American servicemen and women. He placed a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery -- and then aggressed 800 veterans and their families attending the annual ceremony. He said the nation owed its war dead a debt we can never repay. Mr. Clinton also announced the remains of three American soldiers missing from the Korean War had been recovered and would be returned to the United States tonight. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Togo West also spoke.

TOGO WEST: Every year, we learn anew, the lessons our veterans have taught us. We learn that the purest definition of veteran is one who has served wherever his nation has asked, to do whatever her nation has needed, simply because our nation has asked and our nation has needed. We learn the profound truth that even as life is God's gift to each one of us, every day of the life of this nation is the gift of our veterans to all of us.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have a Veterans Day poem at the end of the program tonight. Between now and then, preventing heart attacks, a bush campaign snapshot, new shifts among the voters, and faith and welfare.

FOCUS - HEART HELPER

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has the heart story.

RAY SUAREZ: There was big news yesterday in the battle against heart disease. A new study of a common blood pressure drug, Ramipril, found it may have a significant effect in preventing death and other problems related to heart disease. The study, released at a meeting of the American Heart Association, looked at more than 9200 people in 19 countries. The study found that Ramipril cut deaths from heart disease by 22 percent, reduced heart attacks by more than 20 percent, cut new diabetes cases by 30 percent and resulted in 14 percent fewer coronary artery bypass operations. For more on the study we're joined by Dr. Robert Bonow, the chief of cardiology at Northwestern University Medical Center. He oversaw scientific sessions at the meeting of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Bono, maybe we should begin by talking about how this drug works, what it does once it's introduced into the human body that helps achieve these effects.

DR. ROBERT BONOW, Northwestern University Medical Center: This is one of a family of drugs called ace inhibitors. And the ace inhibitors have been with us for over a decade or two to treat high blood pressure, and it's also been demonstrated in patients who have advanced forms of heart disease, who've had heart attacks and damaged hearts, that these drugs also prolong life and prevent death in patients who have heart failure. This new study demonstrates for the first time that we can extend that knowledge and treat patients with very early forms of heart disease and blood vessel problems, and, as you pointed out, prevent death and heart attack and stroke, as well. These drugs have multiple possible actions in addition to lowering blood pressure. We know that they also have effects that tend to stabilize the plaques inside arteries in patients who have atherosclerosis, and it would appear that this stabilizing effect to prevent the plaques from breaking up or by preventing blood clots from forming on those plaques is what's responsible for the effects that were observed in this very important study.

RAY SUAREZ: You mentioned that this is already a quite familiar drug to people in your specialty for treating high blood pressure. When a drug is familiar and has been tested for another human malady, is it a shorter process to get it fully ramped up and ready to go into regular use when we find a new application for it?

DR. ROBERT BONOW: That's very true. This drug, again, is a - one of the family of drugs called ace inhibitors. Ace inhibitors have been with us for fifteen/twenty years - there are eleven or so such compounds. And they're approved for various purposes and once these drugs are approved for other purposes it's much easier to get them scrutinized and then evaluated and approved for new uses, such as these.

RAY SUAREZ: Do you have to become - people like you have to become part of a new test just to do further clinical trials, or does the current study already go a long way toward completing whatever needs to be done, as far as a vetting process?

DR. ROBERT BONOW: Well, there are other trials such as this particular trial already underway using other drugs in the class of ace inhibitors. This particular trial, however, was truly a landmark study because it was very conclusive in its findings. As you pointed out, over 9200 patients, the reduction in death and heart attack and stroke, need for bypass surgery was not minimal; it was, as you pointed out, 20 to 25 percent in various categories of patients. One important finding of this study, again, was that he was looking at patients who did not have advanced forms of heart disease, but early evidence of atherosclerosis in the coronary arteries, and, in fact, there was a subset of patients in whom there was no evidence of any disease in the coronary arteries but a group of patients who had several risk factors for coronary disease, in particular, patients with diabetes, who had something else in addition to the diabetes, such as high blood pressure, a smoking history, or a high cholesterol. So a diabetic patient with a single risk factor in this study was shown to benefit dramatically to the same extent that we've been talking about in patients who have severe forms of heart disease -- to suggest that early identification of such patients, early treatment would go a long way to preventing heart attacks and the disability that follows.

RAY SUAREZ: So you could start taking this drug as a form of prophylactic treatment, long-term treatment? I noticed in the study there were very few side effects.

DR. ROBERT BONOW: This is a very safe family of drugs. There are some side effects. They're usually not serious. But one sees maybe 5 to 7 percent of patients who develop a clot, but the clot is totally reversible if you stop the drug; it's not permanent. Some patients develop swelling, something called angioedema, but that also is reversible if you stop the drug promptly, with no long-term effects. So it's a very safe class of drugs.

RAY SUAREZ: While it's undoubtedly good news whenever we find a weapon to treat a serious killer of people, not only in the United States but around the world, I wonder on a more philosophical level whether this isn't something of a double-edged sword, because we know how much lifestyle changes, how far they can go into helping people live longer lives, treat their heart better over the long run, but every time we find a new drug, this may be sort of a safety net, where we say, look, it's much easier to take this drug than to eat better, live better, exercise more.

DR. ROBERT BONOW: I'm glad you brought that up, because I think one cannot emphasize that point enough. We tend to look for simple answers. You know, if we have a drug that lowers cholesterol, then maybe we can eat anything we want to eat, and if we have a drug that makes us lose weight, then we don't have to exercise. The points you make are very, very important. And I think it's the kind of thing that we need to keep emphasizing. Here we have a drug that appears to be effective in lowering the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death. But we still need to do all the other things that we know also work. We need to be eating correctly; we need to be not smoking; we need to be exercising more; and if we have a high cholesterol, we should be taking whatever therapy is required to bring down the cholesterol. And high blood pressure, that should be controlled as well. So we need to bring into play all of the reversible risk factors, have them identified, and treated, and, as you point out, this is just one more way of trying to address this big problem, but it's not the only answer.

RAY SUAREZ: Let's talk a little bit about the business side of all of this. Because this is a drug that has been known for quite some time, does this mean that it's further down the road toward being reproduced as a generic, toward finding wider use in those parts of the world where drugs are often very expensive or hard to get?

DR. ROBERT BONOW: Yeah. This one is a drug that has been available for a number of years. I suspect that not knowing exactly how close it is to becoming generic, it may be reaching that threshold. That will lead to some competition on the business side and probably drugs that are less expensive. My understanding is that taking this drug would cost in the order of $35-$40 per month. It's not that expensive. But there probably will be cheaper forms as well. Now, of course, there are other ace inhibitors besides Ramipril. What we don't know is whether the other ace inhibitors have similar effects because they have not been studied as well as this drug was studied in this particular trial. So right now, Ramipril is the drug that appears to be the one that would be the agent in focus for treating patients such as these.

RAY SUAREZ: Dr. Robert Bonow, thanks for being with us.

DR. ROBERT BONOW: Thank you.

FOCUS - CAMPAIGN SNAPSHOT

JIM LEHRER: Now, some Presidential politics: Item one is another in our series of snapshots from the various campaigns. Tonight's is George W. Bush, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Texas Governor George W. Bush made it official yesterday, traveling to the New Hampshire capital, Concord, to formally file for the state's first-in- the-nation primary. (Cheers and applause) There was a large crowd waiting for him afterwards.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Thank ya'll very much. Ruthie, thank you very much. I'm honored so many turned out. I just filed my papers. I am in, and I intend to win. (Cheers)

MARGARET WARNER: Bush has stepped up campaigning in New Hampshire since recent polls showed Senator John McCain gaining on him. Bush has been criticized for skipping debates, and for flunking a Boston TV reporter's pop quiz last week to name four foreign leaders. Bush made light of the flap yesterday.

GEORGE W. BUSH: I'mleaving the house yesterday getting ready for the trip, and my wife says, "When you get up to New Hampshire, don't try to be debonair and witty. Just be yourself." Then she said, "Whatever you do, don't show off and try to name all the leaders of the free world."

MARGARET WARNER: Then Bush got serious.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Now probably some neighbor is going to come up to you and say "What is all this business about compassionate conservatism?" You look them in the eye and you tell them it's conservative to cut taxes. It's compassionate to give people their own money back. That's compassion" (Applause) I hope you'll join me as we march through the warm days and the cold days, as we march together to victory. Thank you all for coming. God bless you all. (Applause)

MARGARET WARNER: He then took questions from reporters, and was repeatedly asked about McCain.

REPORTER: Governor, how serious a threat do you consider John McCain, and is that one of the reasons you stepped up your appearances here?

GEORGE W. BUSH: No. I've got strategy all along for the state of New Hampshire. I've been in your state a lot. I'm coming back a lot more. Senator McCain is a good man. He is a friend of mine. I've campaigned with him, I've campaigned for him. We just have an honest disagreement. He thinks he ought to be the nominee of the Republican Party, and I think I ought to be the nominee of the Republican Party. But he is a formidable opponent, and I respect him for it. John is a good man. I like my chances here, though. The crowds have been big. People hear my message of reducing government, lowering taxes, strengthening the military. I've laid out an education plan that I think the people of New Hampshire respect. The key is that this is a competitive race. I understand it's competitive, and I look forward to working hard. If I had to guess why Senator McCain is doing well, it's people respect him, and so do I. He's a good man.

MARGARET WARNER: Another reporter asked if, in light of the pop quiz flap, he felt the press was questioning his depth or sincerity on issues.

GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm asking...let me ask you, are you questioning my sincerity on the issues? No, I don't think so. I think the media is giving me a fair chance. But you know what I'm more interested in? What are the people saying? The people make the decisions in this campaign. The people know that I am a person who has been in a position of responsibility. I know how to lead -

MARGARET WARNER: Bush closed on a question about his foreign policy.

GEORGE W. BUSH: My point to America is I have a plan to keep the peace, and I intend to do so. I'm a free trader. I know the world would be more peaceful if we had free trade around the world.

MARGARET WARNER: Last night, Bush traveled to Manchester to speak to the chapter of the association of the U.S. Army. He vowed to honor American's veterans.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Those who man the lighthouse of freedom ask little of our nation in return. But what they ask our nation must provide: A coherent vision of America's duties, a clear military mission in the time of crisis, and when sent in harm's way, the best support and equipment our nation can supply.

MARGARET WARNER: He also vowed to be sensitive to veterans' needs.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Health care for veterans is often complicated and bureaucratic, involving too many delays and uncertainties in coverage. Soldiers once ordered by their government to stand in the line of fire should not now be ordered to stand in line at the nearest federal bureaucracy with hat in hand. Veterans need advocates in the Veterans Administration, people sympathetic to their interests instead of being suspicious. If I am elected, that is the kind of veteran's official that I will appoint. (Applause)

MARGARET WARNER: Bush left New Hampshire last night, and was campaigning in the Midwest today.

MARGARET WARNER: For more, we're joined by Dan Balz of the "Washington Post." He was covering Governor Bush in New Hampshire yesterday and he has been traveling with Senator McCain there today. The NewsHour is working with the Post and covering the 2000 presidential race.

So, Dan, Governor Bush is talking like a man who thinks he's got a real race on his hand. Do his people think the McCain challenge is becoming serious?

DAN BALZ: They do very much, particularly here in New Hampshire, Margaret. Governor Bush had the first nine months of this year mostly to himself. He raised a ton of money, as we all know, got a lot of endorsements. But the latter part of the fall has been much more John McCain's than Governor Bush's. A couple of months ago the polls here showed Governor Bush with a lead of in the neighborhood of twenty-five or thirty points. There have been two polls in the last week, including one today, that show the race now in single digits between Governor Bush and Senator McCain. And I think that the Bush campaign takes that very seriously.

MARGARET WARNER: Why do you think this is happening? Why do the people up there think this is happening?

DAN BALZ: Two things, one, John McCain has had very good fall through what's happened. He published a book about his life in Vietnam prison camp. That has turned into a big bestseller -- has earned him a lot of publicity and favorable attention. He fought for campaign finance reform, unsuccessfully, but, again, that drew him attention, particularly among those people here in New Hampshire who care about that issue. And third, and probably most important here is that he has devoted a lot of time to town meetings, to taking questions and giving answers to people. But, on the other side of the ledger, I think Governor Bush has been criticized here even by his supporters for not paying enough attention to New Hampshire. As you know, he skipped the two forums that have been held here among the candidates. He has not done a lot of the kind of Q&A with voters that people expect here. He has done handshaking, but not done the substantive work. And he has suffered - I think -- as a result of that.

MARGARET WARNER: So, what is the Bush strategy for dealing with this? I notice from the clips we just saw that he certainly is very polite and deferential about McCain. He doesn't criticize him.

DAN BALZ: No. They do not think they're going to get into a negative war with John McCain. In fact, they think quite the opposite, that this is likely to be a positive, positive campaign. It's certainly not what they had anticipated. They thought they would be dealing with a negative attack from Steve Forbes. And, instead, they've got a different kind of campaign. So, it will require some reorientation. But I think, more fundamentally, there are a couple things they anticipate. One is that they're going to step up their commitment to New Hampshire. I think they will pour more resources in here than they had planned. They are already on the air with television ads. The size of that buy will increase as we get closer to the primary. They will do more direct mail, they'll probably do more phoning, and, most importantly, he will spend more time here. But there is a second element to this as well. And I think this is, to them, the thing that gives them the most hope at this point, and that is that they have the resources to go the long haul in this campaign. They believe that they could absorb a loss in New Hampshire, though they are not counting on that. They think they could absorb it and still win the nomination. Senator McCain has focused mostly on New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Governor Bush's campaign says that they're prepared to play everywhere and that they have the resources to do it. But they're in a fight here, no doubt about it.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, since this flap about flunking the pop quiz, there have been a lot of columns questioning a larger issue, which is Bush's seriousness. Is he really serious about issues? Is he really deep? Do the Bush people think this is just a press invention, or do they think there is a perception problem that may be growing that they have to deal with?

DAN BALZ: I talked to a Bush person months and months ago. And we talked about this very question. He's known the governor for a long time. He said there's no question in his hind that the governor is bright and that he is substantive and that he can be a quick study. But he said, if the perception sets in that he is not, then they could have a problem. And I think that's one of the things they're grappling with right now. He is trying to diffuse the foreign policy quiz with some humor, as you saw in the piece that preceded this. But, in addition to that, I think they're going to have to take it on more directly. So far, he has not talked much ability his policies -- with the exception of education. He has foreign policy speech next week in California, where they hope to again put out more than principles about what he would do, but some specifics, but there is a lot that he hasn't talked about. I'll give you an example. He's running an advertisement here in New Hampshire that says Social Security, saving and reforming Social Security is one of his top priorities. I asked him yesterday if he's running that ad, why he has not had more to say about it. And we had - you know -- a brief exchange about it. And in the end, he said, "I may or may not put out a plan on Social Security this year." I think what voters are looking for and particularly here and in Iowa where they demand a lot of candidates, they will be looking for more specifics. Governor Bush may be able to begin to do that in the debates. He may be able to do that with some more speeches. But it will take some time to offset this question that he isn't prepared.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thanks again, Dan, very much.

DAN BALZ: Thank you, Margaret.

JIM LEHRER: You can get more information on this story on the "Washington Post" web site, and on ours.

FOCUS - PEOPLE AND POLITICS

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the "NewsHour" tonight: presidential politics from the voters perspective, faith-based welfare, and a Veterans Day poem. Now, our electorate survey and to Andy Kohut of the Pew Center on the People and the Press. And then, for some historical perspective, to Presidential Historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss, Journalist and Author Haynes Johnson, and David Gergen, former senior official in the Nixon, Reagan and Clinton administrations.

Andy, you've just finished your annual survey of the electorate. First, explain the survey, how long you've been doing it, how you do it, and what its purpose is.

ANDREW KOHUT: Back in 1987, we started out surveying people's underlying political attitudes, their values, social, political and economic. And we've been tracking them ever since. And every four or five years, we do a major survey, in this case, 5,000 interviews, to get the lay of the land. What does the political landscape look like? And that's what we've just done. And we've found a very changed political landscape compared to the mid-1990's.

JIM LEHRER: Give us the overview - what you found.

ANDY KOHUT: We found more moderate attitudes, and not too surprisingly, we found more political moderates as a consequence. We have -

JIM LEHRER: Define moderate. What is a moderate and the way you use the word?

ANDREW KOHUT: Moderate in terms of attitudes, less hostility toward government, the American public hasn't fallen in love with big government, but they're not as concerned about it and angry about it as they were five years ago. There's a little less political cynicism even though Americans are still pretty cynical about politics. The public is more willing to see government do something about the problems of needy people. There's... there's less appetite for political change. There is a toning down of most of the political attitudes that have animated politics from 1992 to 1999, largely because there's more financial satisfaction and also because the public has a sense that there's been some accomplishment and they don't feel nearly as pressured as they did earlier, either by real economic discomfort or worries about such discomfort.

JIM LEHRER: Are there any overarching issues that touch this big new moderation?

ANDREW KOHUT: There are no overarching issues. There is education. There is keeping the economy strong and entitlements and all the things we've heard about. But if there's one overarching issue, it's Bill Clinton and how to respond to continuity and whether people are going to vote in favor of the times given displeasure with Bill Clinton and also still Newt Gingrich and the ways in which he's colored attitudes toward Republican national leadership. So, the issues are almost less the issues and more these major political figures which have created big political change in our time.

JIM LEHRER: What about the moral health of the country, does that come through in this? Are people concerned about that, while they're happy with economics and other things?

ANDREW KOHUT: When we ask people what is the most important problem, moral concerns predominate - they don't predominate the way the economy did eight years ago, but a third of Americans say, we have some moral concerns. But when we ask people about the priorities for the next President, it's mostly conservative Republicans or populist Republicans who say moral issues should be number one. The moderates say it should be either health care or education or keeping the economy strong or entitlements. So, morality seems to be a great overarching concern, but it's difficult for people to see it in policy terms.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. David Gergen, do you see from your perspective, a mellowing of the electorate that Andy does? Is mellowing the word?

DAVID GERGEN: I think mellowing is actually a very good word, Jim, maybe not in the same sense as we used it in the 60's to describe flower children, but in terms of what we see in the country at large, this rise of centrism, this rise of moderation, a desire to have both parties come more to the center and stop the bickering, stop the polarization and stop all the paralysis in Washington and get on with things, I think it's both what we sense about the electorate and also because this comes from Andy Kohut and from the Pew Foundation -- they are both very respected in this field of public opinion survey work -- I think it's extremely good news for what we can look forward to, both in the campaign and what follows.

JIM LEHRER: Good news, Haynes?

HAYNES JOHNSON: Absolutely. It's practical, it's sensible, it's wise. And, as you say, it's toned down. And I think it's interesting. Jim, there's one figure that's not in Andy's wonderful poll. 77 percent of American college students today in a recent survey say they expect to be millionaires in their lifetime. Just think about that. There you are. We're happy, hey, it's going to be great tomorrow. Why am I worried? The absence of anger, absence of all the things we've gone through, Vietnam, Watergate, the impeachment -- one year ago tonight, we were waiting for the President to be impeached. So it's a practical sense - in the middle -- we're in the mushy middle in America. We're not in the extremes.

JIM LEHRER: Mushy middle, Doris, is that where we are?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: What I find most heartening is that the poll shows that people are feeling more generous, more compassionate, more tolerant toward homosexuals, toward different racial groups, toward immigrants, all of which suggests a more fundamental decency is showing itself. The only part of that that saddens me, is at the same time they say that, and they say government should help the needy and we should do more things for people, they have a fundamental boredom with Washington. They're not interested in political news. They're not watching the news the same way as before, which means there is a linkage missing. You know, when you look at the 1900's, or you look at the1960's, similar times where there was a progressive feeling, wanting to help people, compassion, people cared deeply about public issues. And they were active; they were out there marching, doing things. Right now, it's as if they are spectators, pleasantly viewing the American scene, feeling good about it, wanting to help people, but not realizing the connection between doing that and leaders that can mobilize their activism to get these things done.

JIM LEHRER: Michael, how do you see it?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Well, you know, I've been groping for some way of understanding this in terms of looking for an earlier period that's like this, and there really is no period that's been like this in the century. I was thinking about the 1920's, another time with a big rich economy and not burning differences between the two parties -- same thing with the 1950's. But there was something true of those two decades that's very different from now. In the 1920's, Americans elected Presidents like Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover largely because they were exhausted with World War I and with what Woodrow Wilson had tried to do with progressive reform. They basically said, give us a breathing space. They said the same thing to Dwight Eisenhower when he was elected in 1952. They said, we have been through the Great Depression and World War, the beginning of the Cold War -- essentially do nothing during the 1950's to deal with social problems. And that was what Eisenhower responded to. The interesting thing is that we're now 30 years after the last big period of progressive reform which was LBJ and the Great Society, and I think one thing that may happen that's different now is that people are going to get ready to do things that are fundamental about issues like health, education, and poverty, because so much time has passed there is not that same sense of exhaustion.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Does your polling reflect that, that... first of all, to Doris's point that the people seem to be turned off to government and yet there are opportunities to do things because of this - no? You're shaking your head.

ANDREW KOHUT: No. Absolutely. There's no question that people are more compassionate, are more willing to see the government take on social problems. But at the same time, they're more indifferent. You know, we did a poll back in September which found only 47 percent of the American public able to name Al Gore as a Democratic candidate. I mean, the American public and our news interest surveys, are not paying more attention to a two-party race than they were to a one-party race four years ago.

JIM LEHRER: David Gergen, how do you explain that?

DAVID GERGEN: Well, I do think that there is this disengagement from politics that is a hangover from the past. Haynes said that 77 percent of American college students now think they might be millionaires. It's also true of those same college students that the voting rate among the young has fallen down from around 42 percent in presidential elections to around 30 (percent). So, there is that big gap now that exists between people who are optimistic about the future but are disengaged from politics. But I do think people are expressing themselves and their idealism in a different way, Jim. College students are volunteering in record numbers now. And also we just learned a few days ago that charitable giving in this country went up 16 percent in 1997, 1998 -- one of the biggest jumps we've ever seen. So that even as people think the government is not the best vehicle to get, they are interested in seeing social improvements. And I think if the right candidate can come along and stir the idealism of the country, it would be possible to begin rebuilding this link between say, the young and government - that there is a receptivity to government doing better. It's just that people are a little bit resigned to the fact that they are weary of what they have seen - all the bickering in Washington.

JIM LEHRER: Haynes, how do you make the connection between what we've been talking about and a new President, not by name or anything like that, or by candidate, but what the folks are looking for?

HAYNES JOHNSON: Well, I think what David just said, the weariness with the past, all the anger, all the fighting, and they look at Washington, and they think it's irrelevant to their lives - except they know it's not - because there are things here that they know they need - that is health care if you're older -- or if you're younger. Those young people know - and I know - I teach, myself. And you talk to those students today, they know they're going to pay a terrible price. They don't expect to have Social Security benefits.

JIM LEHRER: They don't expect to have them?

HAYNES JOHNSON: They don't expect to have them. They don't think it's going to be there for them. They expect they're going to have to pay more in taxes for it. They know there's something fundamentally... if someone can be practical and say here's how we're going to fix these things in the long term, I think there's a great opportunity, and that is, as Andy says, in the middle. That's pulling it across all the ideological -

JIM LEHRER: Don't attack people in the process, just tell me what you're going to do.

HAYNES JOHNSON: And how you can actually make it work in practical terms.

JIM LEHRER: Feel better, Doris?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, I think there is a readiness on the part of the people. Yes, I do feel better. I think what it's going to take is leaders able to mobilize those sentiments and have success. Suppose a new leader comes in, a new President, and one of these bills passes, that people feel it's really substantial, as opposed to the minor moves we've made in these last years. Success breeds success. I mean, Lyndon Johnson's first Civil Rights Act got him to do the second one on Voting Rights Act. Medicare gets you to do aid on education. It's like these muscles haven't been used by our citizens in a long time. They don't know success with government and feeling good about themselves when things are large and they contribute and they know they've done things that will stand the test of time, so, yeah, I feel optimistic that if something can go right with the next President, he starts out with some success, that success could breed more, and maybe we'll have another progressive era. It would be great.

JIM LEHRER: Michael, you've also studied presidential leadership and looking at this particular period. What kind of leadership - and based on what Andy has said - what kind of leadership would get the country to move in any direction, whether it's progressive, to use your term, or whatever term you want to use? How do you move this kind of electorate?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Well, you have to have a leader who has what President Bush once called the vision thing. And that is someone who says not what Eisenhower has said and what Warren Harding said which was, here we've got a rich country, everyone's happy and unified, let's do nothing, but instead, a leader who says, here we are with a surplus. This is a time that we can really attack basic problems of poverty and health care and education. That's what Theodore Roosevelt did in the first decade of the century. It's so interesting to look at the effect of TR becoming President in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. Had McKinley served, you would have had pretty much a status quo presidency, a lot of what we now think of progressive reform would never have happened. It was because Theodore Roosevelt saw the potential in our system and was willing to spend a lot to try to bring that out, that things changed.

JIM LEHRER: Andy, how do you read your survey in terms of what kind of President the people are looking for -- here again, not by name or by party or whatever? What would move these folks?

ANDREW KOHUT: What would move them...

JIM LEHRER: The 5,000 folks that you talked to.

ANDREW KOHUT: An absence of what's pushed them away. There is a willful disregard of what's going on. This isn't a matter of people just not paying attention. The public is fed up with two years of impeachment. And they're also fed up with what they see as a lot of intense partisan squabbling. We have an American public that is moving towards the middle. And we have political parties that - you know-- have their shotguns out. So what will move them will be some kind of leadership here which comes together. You know, we could have Republicans controlling both the House and the Congress and the White House or Democrats doing both. And that could possibly change this psychological gridlock that occurs in the minds of American public about Washington.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. But David, isn't that going to be difficult, to lead people, no matter who the leader is, at a time when there's no crisis, because isn't crisis what breeds leadership or at least that's what way we see it as - see it in those terms at least?

DAVID GERGEN: Not always. It's often true, but to go back to Michael Beschloss's point, you know, Teddy Roosevelt came, and there was no crisis. He seized the country by its lapels and shook it and said, we've got to get move Pentagon.

JIM LEHRER: There was no problem there laying out there on the table that he had to deal with?

DAVID GERGEN: There was some concern about the trusts, about the fact that people seem to be losing controls -- and the average mutt - as Roosevelt called it - just wasn't being responded to properly -- but Roosevelt came in and just transformed the presidency. And he said, this is a large office and I can take it somewhere. He understood that the office could be larger. I think, Jim, remember a few years ago you went to Texas and had this conversation about a character above all -

JIM LEHRER: Right.

DAVID GERGEN: -- and you had a series on public television about that. Many of the people here on the program participated.

JIM LEHRER: Right. Michael and Doris.

DAVID GERGEN: Exactly. And I think if you have a person with character and with vision and with passion, the country's ready to respond to that, who is going to bring to it -- this idealism on either side now. I think on both sides, some of the candidates are now competing for that. It's going to take a lot of political skill. But we could be on the edge of what we thought maybe Bill Clinton represented eight years ago but for a lot of reasons, that didn't happen -- not to the extent that we expected. I still think the country is ready for that.

JIM LEHRER: As they say on television, stay tuned. Doris, gentlemen, thank you very much.

FOCUS - FAITH BASED WELFARE

JIM LEHRER: Now, faith based welfare. Betty Ann Bowser reports:

PERSON SINGING: I sing because I'm free..

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Cookman United Methodist Church in North Philadelphia sounds like any church in America.

PERSON SINGING...And I know he watches me

ANOTHER PERSON SINGING: And I sing...

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Songs of prayer rise up from a basement community room.

PERSON SINGING: ...Because I'm happy...

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But this is not the Cookman choir.

PERSON SINGING: ...His eyes...

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In fact, these women are not even members of Cookman's congregation.

SPOKESPERSON: Let's go to Matthew Chapter five, Verse four.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: They are welfare mothers, and the reason they're at Cookman United Methodist Church is to try and get off welfare. Reverend Donna Lawrence Jones is Cookman's pastor.

REV. DONNA LAWRENCE JONES, Cookman United Methodist Church: We bring hope. We bring a power higher than ourselves to tackle really complex issues. And what we've found is that many of those men and women that are on assistance have very complex issues.

REV. DONNA LAWRENCE JONES: How you doing?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Working with the poor is not new to churches, and helping the less fortunate is not new to Reverend Jones. She spends much of her time ministering in low-income neighborhoods surrounding the church.

REV. DONNA LAWRENCE JONES: Hi. How you doing?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Yet Reverend Jones' welfare- to- work program at Cookman is a novelty. That's because it's one of only a handful of faith-based programs across the country paid for with taxpayer dollars. Last year, the state of Pennsylvania awarded Jones' church a $150,000 three-year grant to help people get off welfare. (Choir singing) As part of a little-known provision in the 1996 welfare reform law, religious organizations can get federal money to start welfare-to-work programs without giving up their religious identity. In the past, churches that wanted government money had to set up separate secular organizations devoid of all religious symbols and teachings. The provision is called Charitable Choice, and it's a reform Jones' home state of Pennsylvania has embraced. Sherri Heller manages Pennsylvania's Offices of Public Assistance.

SHERRI Z. HELLER, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare: We learned that no matter what laws you pass, no matter what deadlines you set, what does it really take for a young single mother to get up at 6:00 in the morning and put a toddler in a snow suit and stand at the bus, and go to an entry-level job? And the answer is they have to be inspired by something, by someone. For some people, it's a vision of a better future; for some people, it's caring about their children's future; for some people, it's faith in God.

INSTRUCTOR: You will double-click on one of those icons to open...

BETTY ANN BOWSER: At the Cookman welfare-to- work program, daily classes are offered in computers, math, literacy, life skills, and job placement. But the class that Reverend Jones believes is crucial is a faith development class.

REV. PAT WILLIS: Lord, we just bless you this morning. We just give you praise and glory and honor, God, for who you are. We just thank you for this privilege, Lord, to just be part of this program, Lord, and that you're molding and shaping us in the way that you will have us to be, lord.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: It's here, Reverend Jones says, that students learn how to keep a job. Statistics show that most welfare mothers can get jobs, but the hard part is keeping them.

REV. DONNA LAWRENCE JONES: We feel in our hearts that that curriculum is probably more important than a math class or a computer class, because it's that curriculum that is going to sustain them when the kid is sick, the boss is calling, they have to work overtime, and they have to take the third shift.

REV. PAT WILLIS: The Holy Spirit has come to dwell with us, and He's the one that came to comfort you.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Reverend Pat Willis uses the Bible to teach conflict resolution for the workplace.

REV. PAT WILLIS: We will experience a lot of difficulties in this life. Jesus said in this world, you shall have tribulations, but be of good cheer. He's letting us know there's going to be trials.

STUDENT: I don't know. But it says in the Bible something about forgiving your neighbor 70 times, 70 times a day. I don't know about that. I don't know, I'm a forgiving person, I am. I'm a really, really forgiving person. I just don't see how. I just don't know.

REV. PAT WILLIS: It's real. It's real. It's saying, "no, I will not allow this thing to hurt me." You know basically -- because basically, Jesus says you will be offended in this world. People are going to offend you, they're gonna hurt you, and they're gonna do you wrong. I mean it's real, but you can't allow that to affect you, so the only way you can do it is in Christ. And say "okay Jesus, you forgave me of my sins, now I'll forgive them in Your name." And yes, you can forgive. You can forgive.

STUDENT: Amen.

REV. PAT WILLIS: Thank you, Jesus. Just watch how you think. Alleluia.

REV. DONNA LAWRENCE JONES: The sisters of faith curriculum that we use is trying to build that inner strength, so that when the stressors come, you know, people have some tools that they can use to manage the stress, whether it is prayer, or reading, or meditation, or just going in the living room and screaming out to God, "look I'm mad at You about this, and if You don't do something about it, I'm just going to shake my fist at You until you move," you know?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Giving government funds to faith-based organizations has been heralded by Presidential candidates in both parties. Vice President Al Gore made a speech in February endorsing faith-based services.

AL GORE: And Americans profoundly, rightly believe that politics and morality are deeply interrelated. They want to reconnect the American spirit to the body politic.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Then in August, Republican candidate George W. Bush chose the topic for s first campaign speech.

GEORGE W. BUSH: I believe in power of faith. I believe faith can transform lives. I believe it is important for us to fund services in faith-based institutions.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But having governments support faith-based charities is not without controversy. Barry Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

BARRY LYNN, Opponent: I think it's the nature of the church to be evangelical, and it's very difficult-- in fact, I think it's impossible-- to separate the function of trying to save souls from the function of trying to provide these social services in that same church setting. That's why I think these things are clearly unconstitutional. Two hundred-and-some years ago, the framers of our Constitution decided that we are not going to fund religious programs-- not the church itself, and not the church program that works in these important areas.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Both the charitable choice provision of the welfare law and the state of Pennsylvania require that any kind of worship or faith development be optional, and welfare recipients are always given the choice between faith-based welfare-to- work programs and similar non-religious ones.

SHERRI Z. HELLER: We're not promoting religion, we're not favoring a religious as opposed to a non-religious organization. But over the years, people have grown to expect government to be ineffective. Over the years, people measure how government is doing by what we spend money on, and not whether the money has accomplished anything. I think people are going to be real refreshed by the idea that we're buying what works, and when you are asking a young parent to find good child care for her child and go to work, build a new life for herself, what works is for her to have a network of support.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But Mark Pelavin of the Religion Action Center for Reform Judaism argues that accepting government money is also bad for religion.

MARK PELAVIN, Opponent: Whenever the line between government and religion is allowed to evaporate, is allowed to be diminished, it's inevitably bad for religious institutions. The heavy hand of government presses down upon those institutions in a way that' unhealthy for them. They're... they're not subject... they're not free to fulfill their own mission, their own calling, as they see fit. They're instead - they're trying to answer to their calling; they're trying to answer to the government. That's a very different kind of responsibility.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: That's an argument endorsed by many conservative churches as well. When the grants to churches first were proposed, conservative leaders supported them, while liberals complained that it was part and parcel of the religious right agenda. But on a local level, in fact, a University of Arizona study showed more liberal churches than conservative ones have indicated interest in applying for the funds. For those who do apply, critics fear the lure of government money could set church against church, faith against faith.

MARK PELAVIN: We have a depth and variety of religious life in America as nowhere else around the world. I think it would be tragic to turn at this hour and start pitting those religious groups against one another for an increasingly small slice of federal funds. I worry about competition-- Catholics against Protestants against Jews against Muslims-- in local communities across the country for a piece of the federal budget which is shrinking every year.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Jones says that for years she too stayed clear of government money. But now that charitable choice allows her to offer prayer to clients, she's comfortable accepting funds.

STUDENT: For He dwelleth with you and shall be in you.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And even though only half her clients attend voluntary worship classes, Jones still feels she is making a difference. Most of her students are now working, and she is applying for an additional government grant of $200,000.

REV. DONNA LAWRENCE JONES: We want to make sure that as we send out this new work force, it's faith and that inner strength that comes through faith that allows us to continue to do a good job, and not to give up on ourselves, because God doesn't give up on us.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But for critics like Barry Lynn, the question remains, is that the church's job, or is it the government's?

BARRY LYNN: It really gets down to politicians saying, "you know, we don't really know how to fix most of these social problems," so we'll dump the poor, or people in gangs, or whatever category of people they can't figure out a way to deal with, on the church steps one day. Then we'll dump a bag of money there the next day, and we'll pray that the two get together. That's no way to run a government. That's no way that we ought to be dealing with these social problems.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Religious organizations may get a shot at even more money. An amendment to expand the charitable choice provision to drug rehabilitation programs currently is making its way through Congress.

FINALLY - VETERANS DAY

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, some Veterans Day words from "NewsHour" contributor Robert Pinsky, Poet Laureate of the United States. He recorded this earlier today at the Iwo Jima Memorial in Washington.

ROBERT PINSKY: Veterans don't always talk about the dramatic valor and sacrifice represented by the great image behind me. Sometimes they talk about military life as though the military were a foreign country with its own language and customs that make a person feel homesick. Henry Reed was a British airman in World War II. His poem about a rifle lesson, the naming of parts, contrast it is language of the rifle lesson representing the military with the vegetation, the flowers, and branching surrounding the soldiers, taking the lesson. Here are a few lines "The Naming of Parts" by Henry Reed. "This is the lower sling swivel. And this is the upper sling swivel, whose use you will see, when you are given your slings. And this is the piling swivel, which in your case you have not got. The branches hold in gardens their silent, eloquent gestures, which in our case we have not got. This is the safety-catch which is always released with an easy flick of the thumb. And please do not let me see anyone using his finger. You can do it quite easy if you have any strength in your thumb. The blossoms are fragile and motionless, never letting anyone see any of them using their finger. And this you can see is the bolt. The purpose of this is to open the breech, as you see. We can slide it rapidly backwards and forwards: We call this easing the spring. And rapidly backwards and forwards the early bees are assaulting and fumblingthe flowers: They call this easing the spring. They call it easing the spring: It is perfectly easy if you have any strength in your thumb: Like the bolt, and the breech, and the cocking-piece, and the point of balance, which in our case we have not got; and the almond- blossom silent in all of the gardens and the bees going backwards and forwards, for today we have naming of parts."

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the major stories of this Veterans Day: President Clinton said a budget agreement with congressional Republicans was near. He praised last night's bipartisan agreement on federal spending for teachers, and he confirmed he will visit Kosovo November 23 to thank U.S. troops keeping order there. We'll see you on-line, and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night.