The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth in Washington. After tonight's News Summary, we have a look at religious conservatives and the Republican social agenda, then saving the Tennessee Valley Authority, and a David Gergen conversation. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: Cruise missiles caused severe damage to Bosnian Serb air defenses, a NATO spokesman said today. They were fired late yesterday into Northwestern Bosnia. NATO has said the attacks will continue until the skies over Bosnia are safe for NATO pilots. We have more in this report from Penny Marshall of Independent Television News.

PENNY MARSHALL, ITN: NATO's resolve remained steadfast, its planes launching wave after wave of bombing raids on Bosnian Serb positions. Jets pounded military installations around Sarajevo and Tuzla in a show of might to force the Serbs into submission. This followed overnight missile attacks on a military airport in the North of Bosnia. Using state-of-the-art Tomahawk Cruise missiles fired from the USS Normandy late last night, NATO sent a devastatingly clear signal. They won't stop until the Bosnian Serbs back down.

LT. COL. CHRIS VERNON, UN Spokesman: It is not an escalatory step. It is simply a choice of aweapon that most effectively does that job which is taking out air defense assets around Banja Luka.

MS. MARSHALL: Banja Luka, the target, is the military center of the Bosnian Serb air force. Local Serbs are claiming hundreds of civilians were killed in the attack on the airport. NATO has not yet confirmed that its 13 missiles all hit target, but they're ready to strike again.

COL. TREVOR MURRAY, NATO: So although we have hit targets within that system, no, we do not believe we have destroyed it or removed its capability against us. It still poses a threat, and we still have to posture our operations with that high threat in mind.

MS. MARSHALL: Russia today called for a halt to the military campaign, but NATO representatives meeting in Brussels today are united in their support for the latest peace initiative. They're gambling force will help and not hinder that plan.

MR. LEHRER: Serb leader Radovan Karadzic called the attacks unprovoked and barbaric. He said, NATO has declared war on the Serbs. A State Department spokesman denied there had been an escalation in NATO's efforts to convince the Serbs to comply with UN demands.

NICHOLAS BURNS, State Department Spokesman: Having failed to act demonstrably in favor of peace and to give a sign to NATO that it was interested in going to the next step in peace, NATO had no recourse but to continue the bombing. And the release of the Tomahawk missiles yesterday was simply part of the NATO bombing campaign. So no one right now is actively planning going onto another phase in the bombing war that would require at least at this point any further NATO action. There is NATO authorization for the current bombing campaign, and it will go forward. It will continue as long as the Bosnian Serbs act in such a way that is dismissive of the interests and wishes of the international community.

MR. MAC NEIL: NATO's Operation Deliberate Force began 13 days ago in retaliation for a Serb mortar attack on Sarajevo that killed 38. Elizabeth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Delegates to the United Nations' World Conference on Women today reached a consensus on the controversial issue of sexual freedom. They agreed to language in a proposed resolution stating that women have the right to determine their sexual relationships without coercion, discrimination, or violence. The draft must be formally adopted before Friday, the last day of the conference. Fourteen of the one hundred and eighty-nine delegations say they are opposed to the language. The Vatican said the resolution opposes human dignity and motherhood. If approved, the UN document would not be legally binding on member nations.

MR. MAC NEIL: Angry Senate debate erupted today as Democrats and Republicans resumed their battle over welfare reform. They wrangled over a proposal to cut child care funds for parents who will be required to work if they want to keep receiving welfare benefits. Republicans say the measure is essential to reform. Democrats have dubbed it the "home loan amendment."

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, [D] Massachusetts: Why do we abandon them? Why do we abandon the children? Why do we abandon working families? Why do we abandon workers who want to get off welfare and go ahead? Why do we abandon them?

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, [R] Iowa: The answer to that problem might be in the very neighborhood of the welfare family that wants to go to work by giving income to another welfare mother who wants to provide child care in the home and help them move from welfare to work.

MR. MAC NEIL: California Governor Pete Wilson said today he's shutting down his Iowa presidential campaign operations. He said he would focus on other states where he had a better chance of breaking out of the crowded field of Republican presidential hopefuls. Wilson has lagged in Iowa public opinion polls. The state's precinct caucuses next February lead off the presidential primary season.

MS. FARNSWORTH: California Congressman Norman Mineta announced his resignation from the House of Representatives today. The 11- term Democrat said he has accepted a position with Lockheed Martin Corporation, the nation's largest military contractor. Mineta, a Japanese-American, spent time in a World War II internment camp for people of Japanese ancestry. He was the chief sponsor of legislation that gave $20,000 each to those who were interned. The crew aboard the space shuttle "Endeavour" launched a $25 million science satellite today. The flying saucer-like disk is designed to produce an ultra-pure film of chemicals that scientists hope will make faster computer chips. The astronauts are scheduled to retrieve the satellite on Wednesday. This is the fourth day of "Endeavour's" 11-day science mission.

MR. MAC NEIL: National Transportation Safety Board officials today began investigating a plane crash that killed 12 people yesterday near Richmond, Virginia. The twin-engine craft plunged into a home shortly after takeoff. Ten parachutists and the pilot died. A home owner, a part-time trucker and evangelist, was killed as he sat on his porch. His eight-year-old son was playing in the backyard and escaped injury.

MS. FARNSWORTH: That's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to the Republicans' social agenda, saving the Tennessee Valley Authority, and a David Gergen conversation. FOCUS - SHAPING A SOCIAL AGENDA

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now, the Republican Party and the push for a conservative social agenda. The big tent philosophy of the GOP has come under attack by conservative religious groups associated with the party. We'll debate where the party should be headed, but first, Margaret Warner has this report on the weekend's Christian Coalition convention.

MARGARET WARNER: More than 4,000 Christian Coalition activists gathered in Washington this weekend to celebrate the growing influence of their 1.7 million-member movement. Executive director Ralph Reed boasted that his troops were winning new respect from the press and their political opponents.

RALPH REED, Executive Director, Christian Coalition: They had names for people who dared to bring their faith into the public square and their issues of conscience into the political process. They called them extremists, radical, right wing, Christian Coalition types. Well, we have our own name for them today. We call them Senator, Congressman, Governor, State Legislator. [applause] We have gained what we have always sought- -a place at the table, a sense of legitimacy.

MS. WARNER: The Coalition's president, television evangelist Pat Robertson, praised his group's success in taking over many state Republican Party organizations. But he said much more political work remains to be done.

PAT ROBERTSON, President, Christian Coalition: We can put together right now a grassroots network that's unparalleled, but we're only a portion of the way there. We must complete the job in all 50 states.

MS. WARNER: But other social conservatives urged coalition members not to let their growing involvement with the Republican Party distract them from their longtime social causes, issues like banning abortion, restoring school prayer, and condemning homosexuality.

GARY BAUER, Family Research Council: My fear is that if we ever fall into the trap of thinking that we are Republicans first and men and women of faith second, then inevitably we will fall prey to certain temptation, to the temptation of thinking that a balanced budget, as needed as that is, is as important as unborn children.

MS. WARNER: Coalition President Reed has been pressing congressional Republicans to enact his group's social agenda, what Reed calls the Contract With the American Family. But this weekend, while thanking Coalition members for their political support, House Speaker Newt Gingrich did not give them any firm promises on how quickly he would move on their agenda.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: You helped us win a majority last year. You helped us pass the Contract With America through the House in the spring, and in 1996, you're going to help us continue to move America back on to the right track. And I want to thank you for your involvement. [applause]

MS. WARNER: The 1996 political year seemed very much on the minds of Christian Coalition members. They invited virtually all the Republican presidential contenders to come pitch for their support, and seven of the candidates responded eagerly.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Republican Presidential Candidate: In fact, I read in this morning's papers about how all these candidates are coming down to court all of you. Well, maybe we are. What's wrong with that? [applause] The important thing is this: You're going to make the choice. You're going to have a big, big say in what happens in 1996.

MS. WARNER: The one candidate the group did not invite was Sen. Arlen Specter. Specter supports abortion rights and has campaigned against what he calls the political extremism of religious conservatives. The candidates who did speak tried to outdo one another in embracing the Christian rights agenda, and on abortion, Sen. Phil Gramm tried to put front-runner Dole on the spot.

SEN. PHIL GRAMM, Republican Presidential Candidate: As all of you know, this May every presidential candidate was asked to sign a pledge to preserve the Reagan pro-life plank in the Republican platform. I signed the pledge. [applause] I understand that my dear colleague, Bob Dole, is going to be here this afternoon to speak. He has not signed the pledge, and while he is here, I want to ask you to ask him to join us.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: If we don't have enough love in our hearts for the most innocent among us, all our talk of a less violent, more caring society will come to nothing, unless we protect the sanctity of all human life, and that's very important. [applause] Look at the record. Don't look at pledges. Look at the record. Look at the record, folks. And it's been good, and it's been solid, and it's been consistent.

MS. WARNER: On many of their social issues, the Christian Coalition believes the Republican Party's record still leaves much to be fulfilled.

MS. FARNSWORTH: We go first tonight to Ralph Reed, the executive director of the Christian Coalition. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Reed. At the convention Friday night, Christian Coalition President Pat Robertson said, "that we can put together right now a grassroots network that is unparalleled. Would you describe that network, please. I'm not hearing you, sir. [audio trouble] We're not hearing you, Mr. Reed. We may have to just wait and come back to you in a minute. Okay. Joining us now while we wait for Mr. Reed and for the sound to be cleared up are three Republicans with different perspectives on the role of religious conservatives in theparty. Pennsylvania Arlen Specter is campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, Ann Stone is chair of the Political Action Committee Republicans for Choice. Bill Bennett is a former cabinet member in the--in the Reagan and Bush administration. He is now co-chairman of Empower America. And I just learned that Arlen Specter, Sen. Specter is voting, so we will begin with you two while we clear up the sound and wait for Sen. Specter. Let's start with you. What is wrong with what the Christian Coalition and other conservative groups are doing in your mind? What's wrong with pushing conservative social agendas right now, Ms. Stone?

ANN STONE, Republicans for Choice: I think the elections of '92 and '94 were quite clear, and lessons should have been learned. In '92, we lost because we fought. In '94, we had a contract that very studiously avoided social issues. We united, and we won. Those people that Ralph in the opening segment said they can now call Senator and Congressman, they didn't get their with just the Christian Coalition's votes. They got their with the votes of pro-choice conservatives and moderate Republicans as well, and they won't stay there without our votes as well.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But isn't it true in last November's election that they were crucial in getting the Republican Congress, getting a majority in Congress?

MS. STONE: They are part of the coalition that elected Republicans, only a part. The coalition has to stay together, or we won't have victory again.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. We have Sen. Specter. Now, let me just go to you, Sen. Specter. Thank you for being with us. I understand you may have to vote again, but we'll hope that you'll be here as long as you can. What is your concern about the growing power of religious conservatives within the Republican Party?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, [R] Pennsylvania: [Capitol Hill] My concern is that they want to make basic changes in the way America lives. Pat Robertson says there's no constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state, that it's a lie of the left. Ralph Reed, Jr., wants to change the constitutional right of a woman to choose. I think that real conservative doctrine is the lease government is the best, and Barry Goldwater said it best when he said we ought to keep the government off our backs, out of our pocket books, and out of our bedrooms. And the mandate of 1994 was to have core Republican values of smaller government, less taxes, strong national defense. There's nothing in the Contract With America about any of these divisive social issues. And if we start to take those up on the Senate floor, we will not get to those core values, and we will lose a unique opportunity to win the White House in 1996.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think about that, Mr. Bennett?

MR. BENNETT: Well, one thing that we, I think we ought to do is to decide whether we're talking about abortion, or whether we're talking about social issues.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let's talk about social issues in general, and then we'll go more specifically to abortion. You feel that they do have a place in this debate.

MR. BENNETT: Sure. But there are a lot of issues, and abortion isn't the only one. And I would point out about the Christian Coalition, according to the "New York Times," when its members were polled about the relative priority of issues, 62 percent said moral decline was the thing they were most worried about; 10 percent said abortion. Now, I think the place of these issues in the party is critical, because the place of these issues in the minds of the American people is critical.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Now, let me interrupt you. I want to talk about how you are raising those issues. You have your own project. What do you think about the way the Christian Coalition is raising those issues?

WILLIAM BENNETT, Empower America: Well, I think the Christian Coalition is raising these issues in a very forceful and effective way, and I agree with the Christian Coalition on almost all of its position. I think the central issues of family decline, education, welfare reform, crime, and abortion is part of the mix, are central to the American debate. And if we don't talk about values, I think we'll be left by the American people. The '94 elections in which I participated, was invited to participate in, people know me, I'm not in economics--that's not my issue. I was asked to come and support fifty or sixty candidates, and I spoke about the social issues. Now, again, the social issues are a whole lot of issues. They're not just abortion. When I spoke to the people at the Christian Coalition, the questions they asked me about were can we do anything about crime, what about school choice, what about restoring the fabric of moral and social values in this country, and those are very, very important, and they are deeply central to the American people's worries about the future, not just to Christians but to all Americans. The question I was asked most often on the campaign trail, and I am asked most often now when I go around America is: Are the wheels coming off? What's happening to our country? Are we in decline? And to the degree that the Christian Coalition addresses that, and I believe it does, I think it's right on track.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. We have Ralph Reed again. I think we can now hear you, Mr. Reed. Thank you for waiting.

RALPH REED, Christian Coalition: [Virginia Beach] You bet.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I want to ask you a few questions to clarify some things about the Christian Coalition before we go into this group discussion. Tell us about the grassroots network. How widespread is it? How does it function? How have you brought it to bear on your two--your lobby for your Contract With the American Family?

MR. REED: Well, I think what we aspire to be is what the AFL-CIO is for labor, what the Chamber of Commerce is for business, what organizations like the National Organization for Women do for feminists. We want to be a permanent voice, a permanent fixture on the American political landscape, giving a voice to their views, and so what we do is it's not an inside-the-beltway phenomenon. We don't have a big headquarters in Washington. We don't have a lot of high-priced lobbyists. I think what makes us effective is 50 state affiliates, 25 of which, by the way, have a full-time staff. We have 1700 local chapters out of 3300 counties in America. We have about sixty to seventy thousand churches that receive and distribute our literature. We have neighborhood and precinct coordinators, and we have 1.7 million members and supporters, and that's growing at a rate of about ten or twenty thousand a month. So it's really an emphasis on grassroots, and it's about people who are doctors and lawyers and businessmen and women and housewives who want to have a voice in government. I would just point out one other thing about our membership. In contrast to the stereotype of poor, uneducated, and easy to command, their average household income is about $45,000 a year, above the national average. 62 percent have either attended or graduated from college, and 56 percent are women. It's actually more women than men, and I think these are aspects of this grassroots movement that a lot of people may not be aware of.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And what is your goal vis-a-vis the Republican Party? I noticed that Pat Robertson said, or at least was quoted as saying in the paper, that the goal was to have substantial influence, if not full control over the Republican Party apparatus in all 50 states. Is that the way you see the goal?

MR. REED: No. I think, in fact, he was not quoted. He was misquoted to that effect. What he said was he wanted to have an effective voice in the Republican Party. I think that voice is there, and I don't think it's there because of the Christian Coalition ultimately, I think it's there because the grassroots of the Republican Party are for lower taxes, limited government, term limits, and they're pro-life and pro-family. There was a survey taken by Luntz Research and Marketing Research Institute in March of this year that found that 71 percent of likely Republican primary voters nationwide are pro-life and want the existing pro- life plank to stay. 53 percent go to church four times or more a month. 42 percent self-identify themselves as born-again evangelicals. So I don't think the Republican Party or either political party should be the wholly owned subsidiary of our organization or any organization. What I do believe in is a policy of inclusion rather than exclusion. Just as African-Americans and women and young people who had previously been marginalized came into the process in the 60's and 70's and impacted the largely-- largely the Democratic Party but really both, so too do I think in the 80's and 90's that people of faith who've had their noses pressed against the glass of our political culture for the better part of five decades are now making their voices heard. But they're not dominating. There are a lot of different voices.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And last spring, you bewailed the lack of a conservative candidate, saying it's the Kentucky Derby, you're all dressed up in your best jockey clothes, and there's no horse to ride. Do you still feel that way?

MR. REED: Well, I think I'm not sure that I don't feel that there is a candidate out there talking about the values that we talked about, but I think if you look at the message that Bill Bennett was just talking about a minute ago, it isn't just one issue, although we're obviously deeply pro-life, and we'll never retreat from that. It really is an overall critique of what ails America, and what we're saying is that what ails America isn't just its budget is out of balance, or just that its taxes are too high, or just that it isn't creating enough jobs. It isn't--in the words of the famous sign in the Clinton campaign headquarters--the economy's stupid. It's the culture, it's values, it's a coarsening of the cultural environment. It's a break-up of the family, and these are the things that we want to see addressed. I would just point out that we did a survey of our members this weekend. There's no clear favorite. The top three or four front-runners are all within 2 or 3 percents of each other, so there isn't a Christian Coalition candidate for President now, and I doubt that there will be in the future.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Specter, do you think that the numbers and the clout of the Christian conservatives are being inflated by the press right now and by the organization, itself?

SEN. SPECTER: No. I think it's a very powerful force, but I think it's only a 4 percent factor nationally, but--

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you mean?

SEN. SPECTER: The 71 percent of the Republicans who support a woman's constitutional right to choose are on the sidelines. Let me say this, Elizabeth. I agree with what Bill Bennett has said when he talks about an important place in public life for people with deep religious and moral convictions, and I'm one of them. But when Mr. Reed has made the assertions he just has, the facts are contrary to what he says. He talks about a party of inclusion, but as the "New York Times" pointed out, I was the only major Republican candidate for President who was not invited to come to the meeting. And the disagreements that I have with Mr. Reed and Rev. Robertson are specifically on what Rev. Robertson says, there's no constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state, and my disagreement with Mr. Reed, where I think his fundamental thrust, contrary to what he says, the fundamental thrust is to eliminate the woman's constitutional right to choose. And those are the constitutional issues that I stand on. I have supported abstention. I have supported strong values, family values, legislation on education, but I was excluded from their meeting, because I insist that those constitutional rights have to be enforced. And the real thrust of what Mr. Reed is trying to do and Rev. Robertson is change the way we live in America.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Reed, what's your response to that?

MR. REED: Well, a couple of things. First of all, I don't represent the Republican Party. I'm not required, nor do I think it's appropriate for me to be required to invite every single Republican presidential candidate. I invite candidates who express and espouse a viewpoint that is consistent with the mission and purpose of the Christian Coalition. Having said that, we did invite Sen. Specter, as well as Gov. Wilson, both of whom are pro-choice. Pete Wilson was invited to speak. He had a conflict in California. Sen. Specter was invited to address our state and county leaders, and he chose not to come.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, Elizabeth, that's the critical--

MR. REED: I guess I would say that I would hope that in the future when we invite Sen. Specter to meet with our local and state leaders, who are some of the finest people in the country, I hope he'll come.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Specter.

SEN. SPECTER: Well, Elizabeth, that's the critical point. I was not given equal treatment. And when Mr. Reed makes the representation that he made on CNN until he was corrected about it, it was not equal treatment with the others. And when the Associated Press made an inquiry of Mr. Reed's spokesmen, they said I had been invited and they sent me a back-dated letter. They sent me a letter dated September 1st on September 5th as shown by the stamp on Federal Express to try to cover their tracks. And when Mr. Reed talks about the principle of inclusion, their specific action in refusing to give me equal standing with the other Republican candidates for the presidency shows that if you don't agree with them on these constitutional rights, the right to choose, on separation of church and state, you're not wanted.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Is this--

MR. REED: Well, that's just simply untrue.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let me just go to Mr. Bennett one minute, Mr. Reed. Is this an example of how addressing social issues right now could divide the Republican Party?

MR. BENNETT: Well, I would make one point. This is the interesting point, I mean, that we're all Republicans. You wouldn't have this debate in the Democratic Party. There there's a single party line. So I'd say three cheers for us on that. I've worked with both Ralph Reed and Arlen Specter, and I must say--I must say to Arlen, equal treatment, I mean, this is not a court of law. This is a Christian Coalition. Maybe, Arlen, if you'd said pleasanter things about him, you would have been invited. I mean, you have every First Amendment right to say what you want about the Christian Coalition. I don't see any reason that Ralph has to hand you the club with which to beat his members. I mean, you know, why, why abuse the membership as what's his name, the Democratic chairman, did a few years ago, when he was invited. I mean, I don't see that Ralph's under any obligations. It's not your pro-choice position, because Pete Wilson was invited.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let me ask you. Your Project for American Renewal, which I'd appreciate it if you'd summarize it for us, seems to seek a kind of middle ground between those who don't want social issues raised and the Christian Coalition, and other groups like Focus on the Family, is that right?

MR. BENNETT: Well, I think the Project for American Renewal, which is really Dan Coats' idea, is something that--

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Dan Coats?

MR. BENNETT: Yes. Something Sen. Specter, I think, would be interested in, as well as Director Reed, and that is to take a middle position or a different position from the liberals who say government is the solution to all our problems to--from--and from the position of some Republicans who seem to believe that no government is the solution to all our problems. What Coats is saying, what I'm saying with Sen. Coats, is that we've got to rebuild the social fabric. There are institutions in America that need rebuilding, communities, neighborhoods, families, schools. Can the government be in any way helpful to this? There's a big move to send power from Washington back to the states, but can we possibly send some power out beyond government, to some of these institutions which will really make, really make the big difference?

MS. FARNSWORTH: Like PTA's, church groups.

MR. BENNETT: Like PTA's, like church groups, which have an excellent record of helping people overcome drug treatment. Like schools, which do an excellent job with kids in the inner city. That's what this question is about. And one of Coats's proposals which I think is very interesting is to allow people to deduct the amount of money they give to a charity from their taxes, not from their taxable income, but from their taxes, so that you eliminate the government. Supposing you find St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home does a splendid job with mothers and children, bringing them along. Eliminate the government's role in this. Say, I want to give my money to Saint Ann's and take that charitable deduction. Adoption is another very important area. I think adoption may be one area where a lot of us here would find common ground in this very divisive issue of abortion. So those are examples.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I want to get back just for a minute to the impact on the Republican Party. I noticed that former New Jersey Governor Thomas Keane announced he would not seek to replace retiring Senator Bill Bradley, because he was afraid there was no role for a moderate in the party anymore.

MS. STONE: Right. Although the chief people running for that office will be moderate Republicans and likely, that seat will be- -the primary will be won, and the seat will be held by a moderate Republican, probably somebody like Dick Zimmer, but I might want to get back to Ralph Reed's point about 71 percent of the primary voters being pro-life and that this is going to shape our presidential candidate. Ralph, you missed the point. Primary is one thing. It's called the general election. That's what elects the President. And again, in '92, the moderates and the pro-choice conservatives were shunted aside. We were really very badly treated at the convention, and people decided, well, we'll just not vote for George Bush, we'll vote for Ross Perot or Bill Clinton or anybody else. And, in fact, in critical large number electoral states, it was the, the loss of the pro-choice Republican vote in suburban areas that cost us many of the states that were necessary for us to win that election. My great fear is that there is no reason for moderates or pro-choice conservatives to vote for a Republican for President. There is reason to keep a Republican Congress, but more and more, I'm hearing feedback from not only members of our group but also moderates all over the country that they don't see any advantage to having a Republican in the White House. They see an advantage in having Republicans in Congress in the House and the Senate.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And the--

MS. STONE: So that's going to be a real problem.

MS. FARNSWORTH: --Democrat is a kind of a check on--

MS. STONE: As a safety valve.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You're hearing Republicans say this?

MS. STONE: Yes, yes, lots of Republicans, and it is, it is a great fear. So I would ask Bill and Ralph both to address what is there for Republican moderates and also pro-choice conservatives in terms of what's on the agenda, the social agenda, what is it that's going to keep them from walking away from the presidency while still voting for the House and the Senate?

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Reed.

MR. REED: Well, I think, again, if you look at what happened in 1994, you saw pro-life, pro-family activists, as well as people committed to lower taxes and term limits. It was really a three- stool or a three-legged stool. You had the Perot message of term limits, political reform, lobbying reform. You had our message of addressing the decay of the culture and the break-up of the family, and defending innocent human life. And then you had that traditional message of lower taxes and balanced budgets. And that's--that is the key to maintaining a majority of 55 to 60 percent of the vote. We know from looking at exit polling in 1994 that 33 percent of all the voters who went to the polls were either self-identified born-again evangelicals or traditionalist pro- family Roman Catholics. They voted about 70 percent Republican, only 24 percent Democrat. And they are one of the decisive, not the only one by any means, but one of the decisive reasons why instead of a normal off-year pick up of say fifteen to twenty seats, you had a fifty-three seat pick up in, in the House, and then an eight seat pick up in the Senate. So I think to take that vote for granted would be a mistake. I do think that you've got to find a way to accommodate those of differing views within a political party. I'm not a Republican Party official. I don't have to do that. I speak for a very specific constituency. But, you know, if you go back to the '92 Republican convention, you had speeches by Lynn Martin, who's pro-choice, she gave one of the nominating speeches for George Bush. Pete Wilson, pro-choice governor of California, he spoke. Bill Weld, pro-choice governor of Massachusetts spoke. There were lots, and who can forget Mary Fisher's speech? She spoke on Tuesday night, in fact, shortly after Pat Robertson, and delivered a stirring address about the need to do research to help people who are infected with the HIV virus, so I think it's a big party. There are lots of different views in it. We don't want to exclude anyone. What we do want to do is include and provide a place at the table for people of faith.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And briefly, Ms. Stone, you dispute some of the figures?

MS. STONE: Absolutely. And also, talk is cheap. It's very nice they'll let us come and talk at the convention, but that is not what we're talking about. We're talking about getting into areas of issues that do trouble moderates and pro-choice conservatives. Abortion is primary among the social issues that divide us. There are a lot of other things that Bill mentioned that certainly moderates and pro-choice conservatives agree, although I was very happy to hear that he clarified that government is not always the solution to everything that ails us from a cultural standpoint, and, in fact, I'm excited to hear about your project. I want to talk to you more about it later. But the bottom line is, you know, Ralph still misses the point, and that is, yes, they represent a very large part of the constituency. You know, he even admitted it was probably about 30, 33 percent of the vote. Well, who does he think the other 70 percent was?

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Briefly, I want to go to Sen. Specter, just briefly. We only have a couple of seconds left. What is your biggest fear right now with the growth of the religious conservatives?

SEN. SPECTER: That they will--

MS. FARNSWORTH: --the growth in their clout.

SEN. SPECTER: That Rev. Robertson and Pat Buchanan will dominate the convention in 1996, as they dominated it in 1992. Look here, Mr. Reed can quote all those other people, but go to Vice President Dan Quayle. He wrote in his book that when the convention was dominated by Pat Buchanan and Rev. Robertson--

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Specter, I'm getting the word that we have to go. I'm so sorry.

SEN. SPECTER: Okay, but that was the loser, according to Quayle.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Thank you. Okay. Thank you all very much for being with us. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still to come, the future of the Tennessee Valley Authority and a David Gergen conversation. FOCUS - TVA - POWER PLAY

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, to another part of the congressional effort to reduce the federal budget. Many popular government programs have been targeted, none more popular than the 62-year-old Tennessee Valley Authority. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: By the time the Great Depression hit the country in 1929, the poor rural counties of the Tennessee River Valley already had endured years of economic deprivation. A main source of the misery was annual late winter flooding that cost lives, devastated crops, and washed away fertile soil.

REP. JAMES QUILLEN, [R] Tennessee: For more than a hundred years, the river going through Sevierville flooded the town every spring.

MR. HOLMAN: Congressman James Quillen, how 78, grew up in Eastern Tennessee.

REP. JAMES QUILLEN: The stores downtown, they had built second stories, and when the floods started, they had to move their merchandise to the second floor.

NEWSREEL ANNOUNCER: Miss Katherine Hill of the TVA waits for the signal. Okay, Katherine. Let her go.

MR. HOLMAN: In 1933, Congress acted decisively to uplift the region, allocating millions of dollars to create the Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA used the money to construct a system of dams along the Tennessee River and its tributaries to end the flooding and the resulting erosion of the regional economy. Eighty- one-year-old Henry Whitlow is an attorney in the Western Kentucky Town of Paducah.

HENRY WITLOW, Lawyer: The fact that the dam was coming, it lifted the enthusiasm and the feeling of people to the point where they were willing to open a store, to start a business.

MR. HOLMAN: This is the gateway to the modern day domain of the Tennessee Valley Authority. From here at the Kentucky Dam just North of the Tennessee border, the TVA's system of dams and power plants safeguards navigation, controls flooding, and sends cheap hydroelectric power to eight million people in seven states. Southern Virginia and Kentucky, all of Tennessee, and parts of North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, all get their power from the TVA, making it the largest utility in the country. The relatively cheap power attracted industry to the region and today customers pay TVA $5 billion a year, most of which is plowed back into power production. But the TVA continues to receive federal money--last year, $143 million--to run flood control programs, operate an environmental research center, manage a 170,000 acre national recreation area, and to support a wide range of economic development projects.

MAYOR GERRY MONTGOMERY, Paducah, Kentucky: TVA has been like a catalyst to the city in trying to restore our downtown riverfront area.

MR. HOLMAN: Gerry Montgomery is mayor of Paducah, a few miles from the Kentucky dam.

MAYOR GERRY MONTGOMERY: They helped us with some funds for a boat launch on the riverfront. They also helped us with some funds of economic development in our area in the information age part, which is a telecommunications park that we have developed here locally.

BEVERLY McKINLEY, Businesswoman: They're a big company, corporation, but boy, have they helped the little guy, even down to me.

MR. HOLMAN: Paducah businesswoman Beverly Mckinley says TVA engineers helped restore Paducah's historic downtown district, showing the city how to bury utility lines and put down new sidewalks.

BEVERLY McKINLEY: I wouldn't want to be downtown if, if they weren't underground. It's such an eyesore. Downtown six years ago you could rent a building for a dollar a month. Now, you can rent buildings for $1200 a month, same square footage.

MR. HOLMAN: TVA also showed McKinley how to renovate old buildings which helped her launch several small businesses, including a successful bed and breakfast. But TVA's record of success has not shielded it from budget cutters in Congress.

REP. SCOTT KLUG, [R] Wisconsin: I think you have to ask yourself why it is in 1995, sixty years later, the federal government is still involved in any way, form, or fashion.

MR. HOLMAN: Wisconsin Republican Scott Klug was hand picked by House Speaker Newt Gingrich to find ways to consolidate, eliminate, and privatize federal programs, the TVA included.

REP. SCOTT KLUG: Tennessee gets the usual kind of economic development aid targeted at poor communities that the rest of this country gets. Tennessee also gets the regular amount of public works money that states get to do bridges and highways and places like that. Then in addition, Tennessee's available to get money from something called the Appalachian Regional Commission, and then finally now, TVA gets additional economic development money targeted just at the TVA regions. So in my mind, that makes some triple dippers. There are some poor regions in Wisconsin and Nebraska and New Mexico. You shouldn't single out one corner of the country for essentially triple the amount of aid that the rest of the country is available for.

MR. HOLMAN: Tennessee Republican Quillen heads a bipartisan group of members from the Tennessee Valley who are defending TVA's unique semi-governmental status and its annual appropriation.

REP. JAMES QUILLEN: Dams have to be operated, flood control has to be maintained, the navigation of the Tennessee River. In other states, the Corps of Engineers do the same thing. So therefore, the work that Klug wants to cut out would have to be embraced by other federal agencies.

MR. HOLMAN: Congressman Quillen reluctantly agreed to reduce the TVA's $143 million budget by 1/3 for next year, then had to fight off an effort by Rep. Klug to eliminate all TVA funding.

REP. SCOTT KLUG: I think we have to ask ourselves fundamentally why is it in 1995 that the federal government is still involved in the business of generating electricity and then selling that electricity off.

MR. HOLMAN: Klug wants the federal government to sell the TVA power system to a private owner. But that would require finding a buyer willing to take on the utility's $26 billion debt, virtually all of it resulting from long delays and cost overruns as the TVA expanded into nuclear power. For instance, one of TVA's five nuclear plants, Watts Bar One, in Central Tennessee, will be completed next year at a total cost of $6.8 billion and after 22 years of off-and-on construction. The massive debt that TVA carries was criticized in a report last month by the General Accounting Office, the numbers crunching arm of Congress. It accused TVA of deferring its nuclear debt, carrying it off the books in order to keep electric rates artificially low. But Joe Dickey, TVA's chief operating officer, rejects the GAO analysis.

JOE DICKEY, Tennessee Valley Authority: TVA is not financed that way. We're a pay-as-you-go utility, so the customers today are paying interest on all of our debt. It's not deferred.

MR. HOLMAN: The TVA also is under pressure to give up its exclusive rights to sell power in the Tennessee Valley and allow other utilities to enter the market.

MR. HOLMAN: How would you feel if the doors were thrown wide open for any other provider to provide electricity in this area?

JOE DICKEY: Provided we could the same, not afraid of that at all. In fact, I think we'll find that TVA is a very, very strong competitor.

MR. HOLMAN: But not all TVA's supporters agree.

MAYOR GERRY MONTGOMERY: What you will do is destroy TVA, because of the fact that you're going to be able to buy cheaper power from Edison or somebody else, because it's going to be able to be brokered anywhere. If you're going to keep TVA or if you're going to privatize it, either one, it's going to have to keep very competitive rates if it's going to be in the market.

REP. SCOTT KLUG: There are a number of commercial, investor-owned utilities around this country who also made bad decisions about investing in nuclear, and they had to figure out a way to do it to deliver prices at a reasonable return to their rate payers.

MR. HOLMAN: For the time being, cheap TVA electricity will continue to flow through the Tennessee Valley as federal dollars continue to flow to the TVA, though both Houses of Congress have agreed to cut TVA's federal subsidy by a third. But the push to privatize is generating steam on Capitol Hill and within a few years, keeping the TVA and its various programs on-line could become strictly a regional problem, with no involvement by the rest of the nation's taxpayers. SERIES - FROM LEFT TO RIGHT

MS. FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, David Gergen continues his talks with authors of books and articles that have become part of the debate over public policy. Tonight it's with two new editors of magazines on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Bill Kristol is the editor of the "Weekly Standard," which made its debut on newsstands today, and Katrina Vanden Heuvel took over as editor of "The Nation" earlier this year.

MR. GERGEN: The question might well be asked, in fact, many liberals are asking it. Michael Kinsley I think has posed it. With the "Washington Times" in Washington as a daily voice of conservatism and with the "National Review," a venerable publication now there bi-weekly, as well as the "American Spectator" on a monthly basis, why do we need another conservative magazine?

BILL KRISTOL, Editor, The Weekly Standard: I don't know that we need one. The country would survive, I suppose, if we hadn't decided to start the "Weekly Standard," but I think there's room for weekly that reports on the new political era, that criticizes it, and seeks to guide it. We'll be Washington-based, unlike "National Review." We'll be weekly. And we'll really try to cover the Hill, the presidential race, and politics, in a real time sort of way, you know, so you can pick up the Standard on Monday morning and find an interesting discussion of what happened last week on Medicare or what's about to happen this week on the budget train wreck. So we'll try to be current in a way that I think it's hard for a bi-weekly or a monthly to be.

MR. GERGEN: So the first issue did come out today, as you say. The--and has this drawing of Newt Gingrich and the title line, permanent offense--I wasn't sure when I first looked at this-- permanent offense, does that mean you tend to be offensive to people on a regular basis as part of the establishment, getting in the establishment, or in this case, I guess, is Newt Gingrich being on the permanent offense?

BILL KRISTOL: Well, I told Newt Gingrich that it's the latter, Newt Gingrich being on the permanent offense, but I'm sure certain of our readers will take it to be that he's a permanent offense to that--and what they hold dear, and that's fine too.

MR. GERGEN: What surprised me a bit in reading the first issue, and I must say I haven't had a chance to complete it, was that it was not quite as much of a siren song of the--of strong, very conservative voice. In fact, you wrote a lead piece on Colin Powell saying you would put his--your money on him being the Republican nominee for 1996, and he seemed comfortable with that prospect. And someone else wrote your lead editorial saying the conservatives should be willing to compromise with Bill Clinton on a budget, at least come forward with something and avoid a train wreck this fall. Tell me a little bit about what--[a] about Powell and secondly, about the kind of conservative voice you would like to pose in your magazine.

BILL KRISTOL: Well, on the second point, we won't all be one voice David Fromme has a criticism of the Republican Congress for not going far enough, for not uprooting more of these liberal welfare state programs by the roots. Charles Krauthammer, by contrast, has a piece on Newt Gingrich's book and on his thinking, criticizing Gingrich for a kind of conservative utopianism, and asking for a more sober moderate kind of conservatism. So we'll have a diversity of voices, obviously, mostly from the conservative point of view. And the reason, if we seem un--surprisingly moderate to some, I think it's because conservatives now have to govern, and that means making some tough choices and being serious, for example, on the budget about whether if you can get 80 or 90 percent of what you want you shouldn't get it. Republicans won the November '94 election. The American people, I think, are going to hold them accountable for governing successfully, the first Republican Congress in 40 years. They need to think a little differently than they did when they were in opposition.

MR. GERGEN: Would many of the conservatives in this town be prepared to accept Colin Powell as the nominee of the Republican Party?

BILL KRISTOL: Well, that's the question I pose in my little essay, and I think more conservatives around the country, more conservative primary voters would be prepared to accept Colin Powell than some of the more ideological conservatives in this town would expect, and I make clear that I'm ambivalent about this. Colin Powell wouldn't be the kind of ideological leader that I personally would entirely agree with, but I think he--if you think as I do that Dole was weak and if you think that the rest of the field isn't gaining much momentum, I just think as an analytical matter, you can make a case that Powell has a good chance to be the nominee, and you can make a case that he will be able to make a case to Republican primary voters that, look, you've got Newt Gingrich running the House. You probably got Trent Lott running the Senate. You don't need a Ronald Reagan kind of ideological president in the way you did 15 years ago.

MR. GERGEN: Katrina, how do liberals look at Colin Powell?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, Editor, The Nation: Well, I just wanted to welcome Mr. Kristol to the world of opinion journalism. As you know, the nation has been around for 130 years. It would be nice to be invited back in 130 years and see how both publications are doing. "The Nation" is very much not a magazine for the governing elite of this country. "The Nation" is a place where we will find news and views that you won't find in much of the media. We are an independent, muckraking journal at a time when I think such diversity of voices is not being represented in the conglomeratized media. How do we feel about Colin Powell, just like in the standard diversity of voices? We have been out there talking about the need for independent political forces in this country. I think Colin Powell is someone people know very little about, know very little about. It represents the hunger in this country for independence, for alternative points of view, and perhaps in a country where we really have a party and a half, if that, the need for a third real party. Colin Powell won't bring that, particularly if Mr. Kristol's point of view prevails, but it's interesting that Mr. Kristol, who really pushed the Republican Party to a much more strident conservatism, now sees the need for a more moderate voice. Whether Colin Powell can really draw on what he calls the silent majority of the Republican Party, people of the Nelson Rockefeller, more moderate tradition, at a time when the Christian Coalition has so energized the Republican Party, it's going to be difficult to say.

MR. GERGEN: Let me ask you this question. I'm curious about the future of liberalism. Your magazine does represent that voice. And you've really gone on offense against the conservatives. You've written a number of very strong attack pieces, but what can be said about conservatism on a positive way about what it offers the country? Mr. Kristol, for example, has called it a dying philosophy.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Has called liberalism a dying philosophy.

MR. GERGEN: Liberalism a dying philosophy.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I think that if the desire for decent wages and decent jobs, for national health care, for social justice in this country, for maintaining environmental standards so we don't have unclean air and water, and a whole range of issues really touching on the corporate control of this country, I mean, I would say that left and right--and I don't think of "The Nation" as a left publication, I think of it is an independent publication that because the center has so shifted in this country is on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I think the right has touched on the problems of government, but in a way that the liberal side with its values wouldn't. There is a legitimate role for government in this country, but I think the issues of corporate power are something that conservatives could touch on in interesting ways.

MR. GERGEN: But do you feel liberalism has lost its way?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I think that liberalism, to be honest, as so many categories in this country, is in need of rethinking. And I think "The Nation" is a place where some of that rethinking can go on. But I think conservatism is also in crisis of a sort. If Colin Powell is now the conservative candidate, it indicates that there's real despair about the kinds of alternatives conservatives- -conservatives have put up.

MR. GERGEN: I don't see a look of despair over here. I think I see a cheshire cat grin here on the other side, but tell me about- -

BILL KRISTOL: A mixture of despair and grinning--no, there's a lot of unhappiness about some of the Republican presidential candidates. I do think we are at the beginning of an era which could be from my point of view a promising era of conservative governance. But nothing is ordained. I do think we're at the end of the New Deal great society era. It's not fore-ordained that conservatism will succeed, and I think one thing our magazine can do is provide a forum to help guide that era but also for debates on public policies in that era. There isn't agreement among conservatives on an awful lot of issues. And we hope to be a forum for vigorous and lively debate on a bunch of issues.

MR. GERGEN: Do you think that the conservatives have somehow lost their sheen in this Congress, or do you think that's going to be- -that in the next few months, Newt Gingrich and company will have a chance to reestablish a momentum they had earlier in the year?

BILL KRISTOL: I think they can, they can pull it off. The advice we gave in the editorial was to pull it off, which is not to be over-ambitious, even though my conservative heart, I'd like to get everything. I think, as I say, that they were elected to govern, and if they can go back to the people in a couple of months and say, we did really bring about changes, we cut taxes, we reduced the rate of growth in government, we reformed welfare, we at least began to reform welfare, the voters will say, well, you made a good start, you did what we voted for in 1994. So I think that the Republicans and the conservatives are in reasonably good shape but there's lots of thinking that has to be done; there's lots of debating that has to be done among conservatives and between conservatives, and moderates and liberals over the next few years if we're really going to have a vigorous and successful governing conservatism.

MR. GERGEN: Do you, in turn, think that if the conservatives are reasonably successful by the end of the year we'll actually open the door to a greater push for liberalism? Your magazine, for example, has been gaining strength and gaining circulation in the last few months since the Republican victory of '94.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I think that we need to continue as Bill Kristol says in his magazine, we will continue to debate many of the issues, not just on the liberal side but many of the issues in the politics of this country, and I think unless this Congress really begins to understand the mistrust so many people in this country feel toward Washington, it's not going to really move ahead. And I think that's why "The Nation" is well positioned, because "The Standard" is drenched in Washington, and I think there's great mistrust of Washington, particularly a magazine that not only chronicles but celebrates the party in power and is gridlocked and hiplocked to some of the corporate money in this country.

MR. GERGEN: Do you agree about the money? Is that one thing you may all agree on--there's too much money in our politics, and we ought to deal with that question?

BILL KRISTOL: I'm not sure there's too much as a percentage, of you know, corporate spending, but I think--

MR. GERGEN: Special interests.

BILL KRISTOL: But I think--

MR. GERGEN: Too much dominance.

BILL KRISTOL: --I think the system doesn't work, and we have a kind of chaotic campaign financing system that grew out of a liberal reform of the early mid 70's as distorted by a Supreme Court decision in 1975, and it's been unchanged for 20 years. And I'm open to fairly radical views of our campaign finance reform.

MR. GERGEN: I'm curious about that--whether, in fact--Victor Novasky, who was a previous editor of "The Nation" before you took the helm this year--said that he welcomed "The Standard" in one sense. He said, "I think it would be wonderful if we could have a dialogue with "The Standard." Is there a way, in fact, between the two magazines you all can get into a vigorous debate? It would be an interesting--I think moving debate forward into the future.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I think it goes to the nature of opinion journalism, I think on both sides. The nature of opinion journalism is: Would the values we hold to have lively, interesting debates, and to be honest about the values we hold? I think there is a pretense of objectivity in the media that is not honest, and both journals are engaged in that.

MR. GERGEN: And both need to drop that pretense. Both of you need to drop that pretense.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, I mean, I think we are honest about the values in forming our analysis. We are not superficial. We are not simple, and we are not biased in a glib, simplistic way, and I think on that level, and I think the diversity of views within the conservative spectrum and the diversity of views within our side of the spectrum are issues that will lead to some kind of conversation.

MR. GERGEN: Do you take up that challenge? Are you willing to have some debates with your magazine, with "The Nation," editors?

BILL KRISTOL: Sure. Sure. I think--David Brooks, a young journalist, has a piece in our first issue which looks at some of the material in "The Nation" and other magazines on the left, and it's a humorous treatment of, of politically correct sex manuals, but that's not Washington drenched and not one of the more sober policy pieces. No, no. Look, I think a healthy politics requires healthy debate. There's a certain tendency in Washington, and I agree with your criticism of Washington in this respect, to sort of avoid ideological debate. If only we could put--you know--ideas and issues aside, we could all come to amorphous consensus. I don't think that works. And I think we--it's a new era. It's an unformed era, and we'll benefit from a vigorous debate on issues.

MR. MAC NEIL: With that discussion tonight, we welcome David Gergen back to the NewsHour as a regular member of the team. Each week, he'll be engaging writers whose works are attracting attention in the public policy arena. RECAP

MS. FARNSWORTH: Again, the major story of this Monday, NATO said Cruise missile attacks on Bosnian Serb air defenses caused severe damage. Serb leader Radovan Karadzic called the raids barbaric, and Russia warned that the air strikes could reignite Cold War tensions. Good night, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Good night, Elizabeth. That's the NewsHour for tonight. And we'll see you again tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.