The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we look in more detail at the Tokyo subway gas attack and the lessons to be learned from it, we have a report updating the Turkish army attack on Kurdish bases in Iraq, as the House of Representatives begins a major debate on welfare reform, we consider why it's become such a hot issue, and essayist Richard Rodriguez comments on the lure of gangs. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: Police in Japan reportedly have one suspect in yesterday's release of deadly nerve gas on the Tokyo subways. But they still have no motive for the attack, which killed eight people and injured more than forty-seven hundred. We have more in this report from Lindsay Taylor of Independent Television News.

LINDSAY TAYLOR, Independent Television News: This morning an air of normality had returned to the Tokyo subway as passengers used stations and trains where just hours before thousands had fallen victim to the poison attack. Passenger numbers were down in part due to it being a spring holiday. Just a casual clean-up this morning, but late into the night a much more alarming scene as specially protected squads ensured the area was free from traces of the deadly sarin poison -- an image from science fiction were it not for the 700 very real victims still recovering in hospital, some in critical condition. Today it was reported that among them was a possible suspect for the attack. Witnesses describe seeing a man carrying a bag which broke open, this woman too frightened to be identified.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: [speaking through interpreter] I saw a man carrying a large paper bag. He seemed to be trying to hide it, and he was acting suspiciously.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: Police are investigating links with two previous incidents possibly involving sarin still have no motive. There are political extremists on both the left and right. Attention too has focused on the secretive Aum religious sect. But today they denied involvement and accused the government of trying to frame them.

MR. MAC NEIL: Today, Japanese police raided the headquarters of that religious group. A Japanese news service said the raid was part of an investigation into the abduction of a public official last month. We'll have more on the subway story after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton today formally opened a new office to deal with crimes against women. It was created in the Justice Department by the 1994 crime bill. Twenty-six million dollars in grants will go to states to help curb violence against women. Former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell will head the office. The President made the announcement at a White House ceremony.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Domestic violence is now the No. 1 health risk for women between the ages of 15 and 44 in our country. If you think about it, it's a bigger threat than cancer or car accidents. The incidence of rape is rising at three times the rate of the crime rate, the FBI estimate that a woman is beaten in this country once every twelve seconds. And we know too that often when a spouse is beaten, children are beaten as well. For too long, domestic violence has been considered purely a private matter. From now on, it is a problem we all share.

MR. LEHRER: A constitutional amendment to protect the American flag was introduced in Congress today. It stems from the 1989 Supreme Court decision that flag burning was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. A flag amendment has bipartisan sponsors in the House and Senate. One of them, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, spoke at a Capitol Hill news conference.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, [R] Utah: The flag, as you know is a unique symbol in our country and of our country. Authorizing its protection from physical desecration would show respect for this symbol of our country and our ideals as well as for those who have sacrificed their lives for it for the last 200 years. The Supreme Court got it wrong on this issue by a five to four margin. It's been wrong before -- the Dred Scott decision, Plessey Vs. Ferguson -- and I think we could even name some more if we had to. The fact is this is an excellent opportunity for us to reaffirm how important this flag is for all of us as Americans, and we intend to do that.

MR. LEHRER: A 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress plus ratification by 38 state legislatures are required for the amendment to become law.

MR. MAC NEIL: Confirmation hearings for Dan Glickman to become Secretary of Agriculture began today. He's a former Democratic Congressman from Kansas. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Richard Lugar suggested to Glickman that budget cuts will be needed in farm programs.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR, Chairman, Agriculture Committee: In February, I proposed a specific $15 billion proposal that reduces agricultural subsidies, gives farmers a glide path for market-oriented production with a modest safety net. We must enact policies that reduce the deficit and, in turn, reduce government intervention in agriculture.

DAN GLICKMAN, Agriculture Secretary, Nominee: My fear is, is that significant additional reductions in agriculture spending will have a marked effect on land prices and farm program stability, and the safety net. I, frankly, think the American agriculture is in better shape now than it was a decade ago, and farm exports are up significantly and, quite frankly, I think we would be disturbing that stability if we made significant further cuts.

MR. MAC NEIL: The House began debate today on the Republican Welfare Reform Bill. It replaces federally managed programs like school lunches with block grants to the states. It stopped cash assistance to unwed teenage mothers and prohibits aid to women who have additional children while receiving welfare. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said it would encourage work and discourage illegitimacy. President Clinton in a letter to House Speaker Gingrich said it was too tough on innocent children. We'll have more on this story later in the program. A group of 102 Republican members of Congress today released a letter they'd sent to Speaker Gingrich seeking modifications in the Contract With America tax cut plan. They want tax credits for children to apply only to families earning under $95,000 a year. The current proposal applies to families earning under $200,000.

MR. LEHRER: Turkey continued its offensive against Kurdish rebels in Northern Iraq today. Troops destroyed one of the Kurds' largest guerrilla camps. Government officials said at least two hundred Kurds and eight soldiers have been killed during the two-day operation. We'll have more on the story later in the program.

MR. MAC NEIL: Three people were killed and seven others injured when part of a building in New York City collapsed today. Police said the outer wall of the six-story residential building gave way. The building is in Harlem. Wreckage fell into an adjoining alley. No cause for the collapse was immediately determined. 80 percent of the structure remained intact. That's our summary of the news. Now it's on to the Tokyo gas attack, Turkey and the Kurds, welfare reform, and the attraction of gangs. FOCUS - TOKYO TERROR

MR. LEHRER: Terror on the Tokyo subway is our lead story tonight. No one has been arrested yet in Monday's poison gas attack which killed eight people, injuring thousands of others. We look at the story from three perspectives: those of Larry Johnson, former director of transportation security in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, he's now a security consultant; Michael Moodie, president of the Chemical & Biological Arms Control Institute; and David Sanger, Tokyo correspondent and bureau chief of the New York Times from 1988 to '94, he's now in the Times Washington bureau. David Sanger, they are holding one person -- they haven't been formally charged -- and they also raided -- the Tokyo police raided the office of this religious sect a few hours ago. What can you tell us about the religious sect, for one thing?

MICHAEL SANGER, New York Times: Well, not very much is known about this group. They claim to have five thousand to ten thousand members. They've been around for about a decade. They are on the margins of, of Buddhism in Japan. They're an extreme Buddhist sect, and we really have no firm evidence yet to suggest that they were the ones who were responsible in any way to this kind of an attack. They have been over time linked to a number of kidnappings in Japan, and very little has been proven in most of those cases. They've been raided before, and in Japan, when a group is on the margins of society and the police are after they, they tend to be a -- to become rather super marginalized. They are -- they get to be rather paranoid, and at times, you'll see claims, as this group has made, that they were set up, this entire attack was made to embarrass them.

MR. LEHRER: What do they believe in? Are they marked by a single belief, or can it be contrasted with anything that us non-Buddhists would understand?

MR. SANGER: Their beliefs have tended toward sort of the supernatural. They believe in meditation and a number of sort of odd side -- side lights that you wouldn't really call mainstream Buddhism. It's very hard to figure out of if they have any kind of a political agenda, and that's what makes this particular attack interesting, because it's not at all clear that there was a political motive behind this form of terrorism.

MR. LEHRER: Because usually when there's a terrorist attack of any kind, somebody claims credit, because that's the whole point of the exercise. How does that strike you, that there has not been any -- we're almost 48 hours into this now, at least in Japanese time we are -- there's been no claim.

MR. SANGER: It doesn't surprise me. In Japan, it would surprise me more if there was a claim of credit. The left wing and right wings of the political organizations I think would probably view an act like this as something that would alienate them forever from the Japanese public. And while it's possible that they were involved, usually there are strict rules about the forms of political protest that go on in Japan, sound trucks, pipe bombs that could sometimes, but very rarely, hurt people. So that's what makes this unusual. In fact, this religious group has denied that it has had anything to do with it.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Moodie, where does this leave us in terms of traditional -- hate to use that term -- but traditional terrorist attacks, no claim of responsibility? So if there's no claim or public claim of responsibility, what's the point of something like this? How do you interpret this?

MICHAEL MOODIE, Chemical Weapons Analyst: I'm not really sure at this point in part because it happened in Japan, in part because it is different than the traditional ones by no one claiming it. It's also different because of the method of violence they used. This is the first time that anyone, I think, can recall the use of a weapon of mass destruction in this way. And all of those things make it distinct, create some very difficult questions, none of which really we're able to answer yet because the information is still so slight.

MR. LEHRER: All of us non-experts when the story broke immediately so scary, a spooky kind of thing to happen. Is -- did you have a similar reaction as an expert?

MR. MOODIE: Absolutely. The issue of terrorist use of chemical and biological weapons has been of continuing concern to those community of experts in this country that have focused on this issue. In fact, sometimes the question has been asked in discussions why hasn't it happened already. Nevertheless, it remained a theoretical possibility until yesterday. When it really happened, everybody was clearly taken aback by it. It's a significant development. It is one we should be worried about.

MR. LEHRER: And in the transportation area, your particular area of expertise, has this been -- has that been true that you wondered why this hadn't happened before, was it something that was there in your consciousness all the time?

LARRY JOHNSON, Security Analyst: No. I've never wondered why it hasn't happened, because it goes beyond -- just because someone has the capability to do something doesn't mean that they're necessarily going to carry it out, because there's always some consequences to be borne by this kind of action. I personally don't think this was a terrorist attack.

MR. LEHRER: You don't?

MR. JOHNSON: No, I do not. I think it is true that people were terrorized; they were frightened, but I'm pretty Catholic on this as far as terrorism being a political action designed to either boost a group's standing, to weaken the government, or some combination of that. Other possibilities need to be looked at. We had an individual in New York City in December who was putting bombs on board subway trains. The individual, apparently, he's alleged to have been involved in this, and if it pans out to be true, he might have had a financial motive. There are reports that a company that makes gas masks, its stock was being run up on Thursday and Friday in Japan. Now, it may be a terrorist group, but the terrorist group that carried this out runs a very grave risk. It's not likely to have an organized crime connection, because organized crime, by definition, does not like chaos. They like organization. They don't want --

MR. LEHRER: That's the whole point --

MR. JOHNSON: They don't want to have increased police attention to their activities. You're going to see a dramatic crackdown, I believe, right now in Japan, and whoever did this is going to come under enormous pressure.

MR. LEHRER: It's an interesting point, the economic aspect of this, how that would work. Take us through the scenario, but basically it would be okay, we did it once, we could do it again if you don't put $500 million in a suitcase at the bus station. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, blackmail would be one possibility, holding the nation hostage. Another possibility is someone would buy stock in a particular product in hopes that they would spur a demand for it and be able to -- you know, it gets into some rather arcane possibilities. You can't rule those out. I think it's a mistake to jump to terrorism, because terrorism tends to have a fascination over our imaginations that's inspired, in part, by Hollywood.

MR. LEHRER: Well, there's been a lot of it in the world too. Give us a break here.

MR. JOHNSON: Actually, right now we're at the lowest level in 23 years.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. JOHNSON: And international terrorism has been dropping since about 1988, '89. And I believe that's firmly a consequence of policies the United States and other countries overseas put in place.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Moodie, does that make sense to you, that -- let's don't go too quick on the terrorism angle?

MR. MOODIE: Until there is someone trying to take credit for it, I think you have to leave that as an open possibility. My concern in all of this is regardless of who is behind it and for what purpose, the new, the novel dimension of this is in part at least the use of poison gas.

MR. LEHRER: And that's the scary part?

MR. MOODIE: And that is very scary.

MR. LEHRER: Whatever the motivation.

MR. MOODIE: Absolutely.

MR. LEHRER: And it is -- we had a little report on last night, some expert said on tape that it was -- all of the ingredients that went into this are more or less readily available. That's the scary part too, is it not?

MR. MOODIE: That's right. If it is sarin, and it's not confirmed that it is --

MR. LEHRER: It's not confirmed? I thought it was confirmed that it was sarin.

MR. MOODIE: Well, there are some questions about it because of the lethality and some other things. But sarin is very similar to pesticides that are readily available, perhaps not in this country, but there are commercial chemical companies in Japan that makes pesticides that are not very different, and they are very toxic as well, so the materials for this kind of capability are commercially available.

MR. SANGER: And there was a past case that also involved -- seemed to be a similar compound in Japan, in Matsumoto back in June, and I think that that link is probably also going to be explored because there was a lot of suggestion at that time that pesticides could have been a base for that.

MR. LEHRER: What level -- what was proved about that, anything? What do we know about that?

MR. SANGER: Very little was proved about it. For a while, there was a theory that it involved a lone individual who lived in the area. That person, it turns out, was still in Matsumoto, when this attack happened in Tokyo the other day.

MR. LEHRER: But not a terrorist thing? He wasn't --

MR. SANGER: No, in fact, at that time there was suggestion that it could have been accidental or not. There's a lot of question now about whether the police went down the wrong road in that particular case, and, in fact, that that had been a dress rehearsal for this case. It probably will be a long time, if ever, before we figure that out.

MR. MOODIE: Our institute was invited by a private Japanese concern to investigate the Matsumoto incident. And we had a person on the ground there after it was over for a couple of weeks. After hearing what he heard and the facts he gathered, one of the conclusions to which we came was that an explanation at least consistent with the facts as we knew them was that this could be a, a trial run by someone interested in the open air release of sarin.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. MOODIE: And, in fact, he speculated that -- he said, geez, what would happen if this happened in the Japanese subway system?

MR. LEHRER: Wow. If -- whether it's a terrorist attack or whether it's some other motivation behind this thing, and five or six people decided to do this, would they have to go out and hire somebody who was an expert on this, or could somebody with a very small knowledge put these kinds of things together?

MR. MOODIE: I think it's generally agreed that someone with a good college chemistry degree, certainly an advanced academic degree, would understand the chemistry involved in putting this together.

MR. LEHRER: But, I mean -- it would take that kind of knowledge. I mean, you couldn't --

MR. MOODIE: It's not something --

MR. LEHRER: -- you couldn't go buy a book and read the instructions?

MR. MOODIE: It's not something you're going to make in your bathtub overnight on the weekend and then use Monday morning in the Tokyo subway. There was more planning, more organization than that, and it does require some chemical knowledge.

MR. LEHRER: David Sanger, listening to Larry Johnson here, the idea that this may not be terrorism, based on your knowledge of Japan, do any of the possibilities that he laid out make sense to you?

MR. SANGER: Well, certainly financial extortion has a long, long history in the Japanese corporate world, and there have been many cases, none involving mass terror in this case, at least that I know of, of extortion of corporate officers and efforts to run up stocks and so forth. So that makes sense as a potential motive for this. In some ways, for ordinary Japanese, I'm not sure that it really matters, because what this has done is pricked the balloon that Japanese live in, the sense that their island is separated from many of the ills that affect the rest of the world. You sense this very much every day in Japan. There's an expression that roughly translates to the "fire across the river," which you hear frequently when people are describing violence on the streets of New York or Washington or describing the war with Iraq or any of a number of other international incidents. And when something like this strikes in Japan, there would almost be a relief if it was a foreign terrorist. If it's happening at home, if it is, in fact, home grown, I think that in some ways that would be much more disturbing within the society.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Johnson, is there anything that could be done or should be done outside of Japan as a result of this incident to - - just as a matter of simple prevention?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, this is sort of an international fire break, if you will. It's along the lines of people discovering that they have to put lock on their doors. The remedies that could be put into place --

MR. LEHRER: Like somebody I read today said this is kind of like the first time somebody hijacked an airplane.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: Does that make sense?

MR. JOHNSON: Exactly right, because I think all of us at this table can recall in the United States, back in the early 70's, you could get on board an airplane and not have to go through a metal detector. Your carry-on baggage didn't have to be x-rayed. That's no longer the case. If there are copycat incidents like this, which is a possibility, if terrorists decide to do this or other people for whatever reason, it then faces public transportation, which is extremely vulnerable around the world. The Japanese have really no public transportation system right now in the world -- they use the subways -- has a method in place to detect these things before they get on board. The Japanese, to their credit, had a very effective crisis management response. Personally, I'm not sure that we have that same kind of capability in place, ready to go, in the United States. There has been some planning, table-top exercises done, about two years ago, but the fact of the matter is working together, an exercise with state and federal authorities, to handle this, it's a little different from going after an earthquake or a fire or a flood.

MR. LEHRER: How would you judge the level of readiness for this kind of thing, not only in the United States but elsewhere in the world?

MR. MOODIE: Well, I think, as was just said, there are some preparations going on that probably haven't been as elaborate as we would like, but I think we also have to remember that if this is a terrorist incident, terrorists by design attack society at its vulnerable points. And one of the prices we pay for living in a free and open society is the fact that we do leave ourselves vulnerable sometimes so we, I don't think, should have the expectation that despite all the measures that we can do -- and I think some of the things we can do is ensure that law enforcement and intelligence capabilities that are really the core of our counter-intelligence or counter-terrorist activities, get the kind of funding they deserve. Despite all of that, I think we still have to live with the uncomfortable fact that to some extent we are going to be vulnerable.

MR. LEHRER: It's an unsafe world, and that's the bottom line?

MR. MOODIE: Unfortunately so.

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen, thank you very much.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead on the NewsHour, Turkey and the Kurds, the emotions fueling welfare reform, and a Richard Rodriguez essay. FOCUS - UPDATE - TURKISH ATTACK

MR. MAC NEIL: Next tonight, an update on the Turkish assault against Kurdish separatists in Northern Iraq. More than 30,000 Turkish soldiers are in Iraq pursuing guerrillas of the PKK separatist movement. One question today was how many other Kurds who happen to be in the same safe zone seeking refuge from the Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein will become casualties. Our report is from Nik Gowing of Independent Television News.

NIK GOWING, Independent Television News: To the public and the world, the biggest ever Turkish incursion into Kurdish Northern Iraq was meant to be a surprise, but the 35,000 men, material, and heavy hardware have been assembling inside Turkey for several days. By the time Turkish forces entered Iraq yesterday, some through the Ibrahim Arch Kurdish checkpoint, large numbers of PKK fighters had realized what was happening. They'd already melted back North into the rugged mountains of Eastern Turkey to avoid the Turkish offensive. Last week, 18 Turkish soldiers were killed in a PKK ambush on one of the convoys inside Turkey, underlining how the Turkish operation had lost much of its surprise. For the second day, the Turkish army has pounded suspected PKK positions. The Turkish defense ministry said its forces pushed across the border at four points, supported by warplanes from Diyarbakir and helicopter gunships from Sirnak. There is no hiding their aim: "To cause as much destruction as possible," said the general staff spokesman. But Turkish troops are now inside a United Nations safe haven set up after the Gulf War to protect the Kurds from Saddam Hussein's forces. Officially, Turkey set itself a southern limit of 40 kilometers into Iraq, all under U.N. control too, but Turkish Radio says that at Bote, 110 kilometers into Iraq close to Iran, Turkish warplanes destroyed what was described as a big PKK camp. The kind of aerial bombing seen today can be reliably imprecise, even with the kind of on-the-ground intelligence the Turks must have gathered and Turkish military spotters on the ground to guide the planes. Inside the U.N. safe area, United Nations workers fear that after the kind of casualties seen during past Turkish incursions, despite their claims and planning, the Turkish forces cannot discriminate between PKK fighters and bona fide Kurdish refugees.

RUPERT COLVILLE, UNHCR: [speaking from Geneva] From the ground, it's the fighter is not advertising the fact, and how do you tell the difference? I think we're very concerned that the refugees that we recognize under our mandate could easily be mistaken for, for the people the Turks are actually searching for. So we're really urging great caution on the part of Turkey, when they're conducting these operations.

REPORTER: We understand more than 200 people have been killed so far?

TANSU CILLER, Prime Minister, Turkey: Yes.

REPORTER: How can you know they are all guerrillas?

TANSU CILLER: We have given plenty of direction, and we have put a lot of determination on the part of the government to make sure that the NGO's and the civil people and whoever might be there are well protected. The places and locations of the PKK was well, well known by us, and this -- this operation is geared to those areas only.

NIK GOWING: Tonight, Turkish television has shown what are said to be weapons and ammunition seized from PKK locations during the operation which is continuing. Before it began, it is now clear, the Turkish government had carefully prepared the diplomatic ground with its main NATO allies with whom there has been an increasingly fragile relationship over the use of Interlik Air Base, the no-fly operation in Northern Iraq, and others in the Gulf.

CHRISTOPHER GREENWOOD, Cambridge University: Since self-defense only justifies action which is in proportion to the threat posed, they would have to show evidence of a very considerable threat to Turkish security emanating from Northern Iraq to justify an operation on this sort of scale.

NIK GOWING: And as Turkish troops move on through the mountains, Ankara believes it has that evidence of a major PKK threat. FOCUS - WELFARE REFORM

MR. LEHRER: Next tonight, welfare reform. It is on the House agenda this week, and, thus, on ours as well. We begin with two reports: Kwame Holman on the congressional debate, Betty Ann Bowser on the past.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In the depths of the Depression, the Roosevelt administration created a little-noticed program within the Social Security Act of 1935. It was called Aid for Dependent Children, designed to help widows and deserted mothers from having to give up their children to institutional care. The program was supposed to wither away as widows and their children became eligible for Social Security benefits, but, instead, it grew as the families of divorce, illegitimacy, and desertion remained under the AFDC program. Their numbers increased from 300,000 in 1935 to 3.1 million in 1960.

LYNDON JOHNSON: This administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America.

MS. BOWSER: Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty increased the number of federal programs assisting the needy, and more people were allowed to qualify for benefits. Under Johnson and his Republican successors, Nixon and Ford, the welfare system continued to expand. By 1974, the number of recipients on AFDC alone, tripled to 10 million. Before he resigned, Richard Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual income for all poor families, regardless of whether the parents were able to work. Jimmy Carter had a similar proposal. By 1980, conservative Republican Ronald Reagan was calling the guaranteed income proposal a megadole. He campaigned on a platform of cutting aid to so-called welfare queens and other recipients who refused to work. The Reagan administration pursued tough work requirements and states began to experiment with approaches that required welfare recipients to undergo job training or continue their education. Also in the 1980s, self-help movements in minority communities began to grow. They criticized government welfare programs for creating a culture of dependency and long-term poverty.

TONY BROWN, Tony Brown's Journal: [1991] We now have created a welfare plantation in which we have a cyclical approach to poverty: One generation breeds another generation.

MS. BOWSER: Critics began to tag the welfare system as one of the causes in the decline and despair of central cities. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Democrat Bill Clinton coined the phrase "End welfare as we know it," and made welfare reform a centerpiece of is campaign.

BILL CLINTON: People on welfare are the people who dislike it most of all. Most people on welfare are dying for another alternative, willing to seize it, and they'd like to end the welfare system as we know it.

MS. BOWSER: By the early 90's, AFDC payments alone had reached $22 billion to 14 million recipients. When President Clinton focused on health care, instead of welfare reform, Republicans saw an opportunity, and welfare was made a major part of the Contract With America.

KWAME HOLMAN: Scores of Democrats and Republicans alike marched to the floor of the House of Representatives this afternoon, all to speak out in favor of welfare reform.

REP. CHARLES NORWOOD, [R] Georgia: Mr. Speaker, as we study the welfare system, I am absolutely certain of one thing: We could do nothing worse than to preserve the current welfare system.

MR. HOLMAN: Where the parties split, however, was over the best methods of achieving reform.

REP. GENE GREEN, [D] Texas: I agree, we need to reform welfare, we need to take away the incentive of someone or the tragedy of a person being on welfare, but we don't need to cut the programs that provide the most effective safety nets that we have for our children.

MR. HOLMAN: The Republicans' bill, as currently written, cuts welfare spending by nearly $65 billion over five year. It does so, in part, by replacing dozens of federal programs with block grants for the states that allow them to allocate the money.

REP. SAM JOHNSON, [R] Texas: We believe that states, not the federal government, should be given the flexibility to design a system that will fix the problems that are unique to their communities.

MR. HOLMAN: But the Republican plan does put some requirements on welfare programs. Cash benefits would be banned to unwed mothers under the age of 18, children born to families already on welfare and anyone on welfare beyond five years. The plan also calls for new work requirements in order to receive continued welfare and food stamp assistance, and it cuts welfare aid to legal immigrants.

REP. HAROLD VOLKMER, [D] Missouri: Why did they do all of that? Why did they make all these big cuts? Well, here's why. They want to give later on, next week, not this week, a big tax cut. They're taking the money from the poor, the needy, and they're going to give it -- and kids -- they're going to give it to the wealthy.

MR. HOLMAN: Republicans responded by blasting Democrats for not making changes in welfare programs when they were in the majority.

REP. THOMAS EWING, [R] Illinois: We have a serious problem because of our welfare system, and yet, the other side of the aisle who controlled this body for so many years did nothing to reform that system. Now that we have a reform plan before us, we have partisan rhetoric, bickering, and half truths.

MR. HOLMAN: However, some of the provisions of the bill are expected to change over the next few days as Democrats and a number of moderate Republicans will offer amendments to change the impact of welfare reform.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: I think you've got to be sensitive to the fact that it's very easy for moderates to get the feeling that they're crowded out, that they're not getting a fair shake. And that's very dangerous, because our majority depends on having the moderates and the conservatives stick together. So I think you're going to find us working very hard to make sure that everybody has a fair opportunity, that everybody is involved, and that everybody has a chance to participate in drafting bills.

MR. HOLMAN: But until those specific welfare reform amendments are brought up, Democrats are keeping up their spirited attack on the existing Republican plan.

REP. JOHN LEWIS, [D] Georgia: They are coming for our children. They are coming for the poor. They are coming for the sick, the elderly, and the disabled. This is a Contract With America.

MR. HOLMAN: The House will take up amendments to the Republican welfare reform plan beginning tomorrow.

MR. LEHRER: Now to a discussion that will be led by Elizabeth Farnsworth in Denver.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why has the welfare system become such a major issue just now? What is the debate in Washington say about Americans' attitudes across the country toward the poor and toward the government? Those are some of the questions we ask now. I'm joined here in Denver by Marshall Kaplan, who is dean of the University of Colorado's Graduate School of Public Affairs, and by Tom Tancredo, head of the Independence Institute, a Colorado-based think tank, and in New York, by Richard Lamm, former governor of Colorado and now director of the Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues at the University of Denver, and Patricia Williams, a law professor at Columbia University. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being with us. Gov. Lamm, I want to start with you. Why is this such a big issue right now? Why now? What's happening in the country?

RICHARD LAMM, Former Governor, Colorado: It seems to me it's perfectly logical. There are three reasons that I immediately think of. No. 1 is that most political parties believe that the welfare system has failed, that it's causing more problems than it's solving. Second, I think it's the changing role of women. When welfare started back in the 30's, very few women worked outside the home. Now, a lot of women work outside the home, so the taxpayers look around, and they say, gee, the woman that checked me out in the grocery store or down the street is working two jobs to support her children, why shouldn't those people on welfare? And I think the third one is more subtle but very big, is that you know, the average American is making a little more money than they were 20 years ago, and they're just not in the mood to be generous. And I think that they've got all social programs on a much shorter leash.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Dean Kaplan, what do you think? Why now?

MARSHALL KAPLAN, University of Colorado: Well, I share Dick's views generally. I think the slow growth in income has caused a reaction among most people who are not poor. I think the poor lack a strong constituency at the present time, and I think America is changing. We're no longer arguing one community. We argue many communities, and I think all of that has made the poor vulnerable at the present time. I think everyone would agree that welfare reform is required. Where we don't agree is how it should be done and whether or not we should bring in the, I guess, non-means- tested entitlement programs. I think there's an element of real fairness here that we ought to discuss tonight.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Prof. Williams, what do you think? Is it basically that there's a new feeling in the country, or not so new, but a feeling in the country that welfare just hasn't worked, or is there something else happening?

PATRICIA WILLIAMS, Columbia Law School: I think that in a time of dwindling resources welfare recipients have been mythologized to provide an easy scapegoat, and I think the typical welfare recipient generally characterized as somebody who is black, who is teenage, and who is producing babies for the sake of getting on welfare is driving much of this debate. And that mythology trumps every statistic. Statistics show that, in fact, only 38 percent of recipients are African-American, that 1.2 percent of all welfare recipients are underneath the age of 18. There's a mythology that it's entirely consuming the federal budget, and again, single women on welfare constitute 1 percent of the federal budget, 3 percent if you count food stamps.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So but you're saying that it is because of dwindling resources that the people who are in this category are mythologized to have basically a scapegoat, is that your view?

PROF. WILLIAMS: I do think that the combination of dwindling resources allows the resurgence of very old historical scapegoating in our country. One is aHester Prynne phenomenon, the single mother who becomes demonized.

MS. FARNSWORTH: In The Scarlet Letter.

PROF. WILLIAMS: In The Scarlet Letter, yes. The -- we now don't wear Scarlet A's. Perhaps women are wearing a big scarlet W it seems to me, that there's some part of that history of misogyny that's being tapped, Puritan misogyny that's being tapped in this - - as well, I think the image of the welfare recipient's been racialized in a particularly dangerous way. The statistics you cited at the beginning of the program about the enormous growth during the 60s and 70s had to do with the civil rights movement making it accessible to women who had always been eligible from the 30s onward, but black women joined those rolls, thanks to social workers and programs of integration that made those public benefits available to a population that had always been entitled, and it accounted for a significant up-growth, or growth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. I'll come back to some of those issues. I want to get to you, Mr. Tancredo, on this issue of why now? Why do you -- your institute studied this; you've looked at it.

TOM TANCREDO, Independence Institute: We have. I certainly have to disagree with especially Ms. Williams, because it's got nothing to do with dwindling resources. It's got a lot to do with the public's dwindling respect for and reliance upon a government system that can work, government welfare system. It is extremely important to understand who we are talking about when we talk about welfare and who are the recipients. First of all, there's that category of recipients that we would call the elderly and the needy. These people are long-term recipients of welfare, but very few people begrudge them that payment. The second group are the people who are using welfare for what it was originally intended, i.e., a safety net, something to tide them over between where they are now, sort of a low spot in the road, to where they can become financially solvent again, although these people are not on for any great length of time, most people don't begrudge them that payment. It's the third group, however, a third group of people that, in fact, are able-bodied, and who stay on for long, long periods of time. This group, unfortunately, it's predominantly -- it's made up of women, women with children, women who are not married. 83 percent of single mothers on welfare will stay on welfare for five years or more. The figures are, I think, unfortunately, in contradiction with Ms. Williams' figures entirely because this is a social pathology that we are subsidizing it. I think a majority of Americans are wakening to this fact that we are subsidizing this behavior pattern; it is incredibly destructive; it's going to get worse; and as they awaken to that, you're going to find the debate on welfare becoming more raucous.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Well, what do the polls show? Is it true that people are waking up? What do people think when you poll them about, about these -- the poor people?

DEAN KAPLAN: It depends what you ask. If you ask, do Americans really want to support people who need a chance in life, they're by and large in favor of it. Americans are decent people. If you ask the question, are you in favor of supporting the welfare queens, their answer is going to be no. But I think by and large most Americans -- and the polls are showing that at the present time -- are against being unfair. We have a noble opportunity now to restructure the federal budget to bring down, you know, the real deficit. We're now talking about taking $65 billion of a $180 billion tax cut from poor people. Now, again, I think welfare ought to be reformed. It ought to be restructured.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Should we have a welfare program at all?

DEAN KAPLAN: We should have a welfare program. I think a block grant approach with standards is important, but if we're going to require jobs for people on the -- on the welfare system, we need to have training, there's no extra funds --

MS. FARNSWORTH: I'll come back to you in one minute. I want to stay at a fairly general level for one minute.

DEAN KAPLAN: Can I just give you one statistic? Out of all the entitlement programs, only 20 percent of it go for social needs tested programs. Now, there's something wrong if we're keeping Social Security off the table, if we're keeping farm supports off the table, and I think we have to sit down, because the American people can reach consensus on events if it's fair. It's not fair at the present time.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Gov. Lamm, on this broad question, should we have a welfare system at all, or should this all be reorganized in a different way? What do you think about that?

GOV. LAMM: Well, I do think we do. I do think that the original purposes of giving people a port in the storm -- I mean, people get abandoned, they have kids that -- people turn into alcoholics and don't support their family. I think, however, that it is not a question -- it's not a question, in my mind, of an amount of money that is being spent. I think the American public is particularly upset because of the social pathologies that seem to flow out of illegitimacy and out of the welfare program. One last thing is I think that Marshall Kaplan is dead right, if we're going to do welfare, we should put all welfare on the table. I think it's important to do.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Prof. Williams, what about that, is the problem of social pathologies that flow out of welfare, should we have a welfare program, should it just be a port in the storm, should it be more than that, should there be entitlements?

PROF. WILLIAMS: I think that issue of pathologies is part of the mythologizing that I'm talking about. Again, that mythologizing trumps statistics every time. I don't know what part of my statistics the other gentleman was contesting, however, my statistics come from government abstracts, from books that, that the House of Representatives and the Senate use. Those statistics show that 70 percent of all welfare recipients are off the rolls within two years. The -- the concern that I have --

MR. TANCREDO: And back on within six months.

MS. FARNSWORTH: To come back or not?

PROF. WILLIAMS: The concern that I have again has to do with the fact that so many of -- there is such a correlation between, for example, the kind of glass ceiling statistics that have come out and other aspects of our debate, the relationship between women being driven out of the marketplace. These -- the people on welfare are the face of our employment statistics; they are the face of abuse. There is a tremendous correlation between violence and poverty. This is something we need to be looking at. The description able-bodied doesn't begin to take into account the relationship between over 50 percent of those who are teenage mothers have been impregnated by -- not just teenage mothers but who are minors, that is to say under the age of 18 -- have been impregnated by adults, indicating at least statutory rape and in many instances much more. There are emotional problems, again, having to do with circumstances that can't be described as a culture of pathology, but that are specifically the conditions of, of immediate and emergency circumstances in our society that are related to abuse, unemployment, and things that we have to bring into this -- as correlates of this debate.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So given this view, do you think that the Republicans are just going the wrong direction here, that what is currently in Congress is not the way to reform the welfare system? Do you think there should be reforms?

PROF. WILLIAMS: Again, I disagree with almost every one of the reforms proposed simply because I think they are driven by the sole logic of it being a culture of pathology, rather than to look at some of the larger concerns that -- the actual statistics that -- that represent the conditions of, again, the largely female population that welfare benefits. I'm also extremely concerned by the focus kind of social engineering of the habits of mothers, a kind of puritan ethic, use of so-called "incentives" to control the behavior when, again, the issue is hunger for children. There are children who are hungry, and that's what AFDC's purpose is.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. What do you think about that, Mr. Tancredo, what's your response to that?

MR. TANCREDO: Well, of course, I don't care how a woman chooses to live her life as long as she doesn't ask me to subsidize a particular lifestyle, especially one that is as destructive as the one we have been describing here that is a woman, a child, no father in the household. That is a destructive -- that is a -- if there is anything we have seen in all of the studies we have done - -

MS. FARNSWORTH: But let me just interrupt one minute. Here we're having both views presented, because you're saying that this is - - Prof. Williams, I'm referring to you here -- you're saying that what you're saying is not the correct way to view it, that, in fact, it's not a pathology that's being subsidized by welfare.

MR. TANCREDO: Well, it is.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Am I right there?

MR. TANCREDO: It is being subsidized by welfare, and there are a number of experiments around the country that are designed to test this hypothesis and that, in fact, are showing that it's working, New Jersey being one.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But you're saying that welfare makes the pathology worse, right?

MR. TANCREDO: Absolutely.

MS. FARNSWORTH: All right.

MR. TANCREDO: Absolutely.

MS. FARNSWORTH: That's the question I want to have some debate over.

DEAN KAPLAN: If you are now moving towards, you know, a reform, as we seem to be doing -- it's supported by both parties -- what reforms would you see are essential and would you then ask your - - I think you'll agree even that jobs tying to, you know, to welfare is important reform -- would you then ask for job training? Would you then cut back on health?

MR. TANCREDO: Let me tell you, Marshall, let me tell you, first of all, that what we have to come to grips with is that we may have, in fact, lost this generation. There isn't much we can do. We have tried every imaginable approach, including the jobs programs of the 60s and 70s. They don't work. For one thing, of course, you've got the problem with the, with the academic ability of many of the people who are in welfare today.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you mean we've lost this generation?

MR. TANCREDO: Well, we've lost it. I think this is an important thing, and it's a tough concept to come to grips with, but we have to. The possibility is that there is nothing we can do with those people who are presently on welfare and who are, in fact, existing in this pathology. It's -- there's no solution that we can bring to it as a government that will change that situation and to, in fact, take them off of it is probably something that is not politically viable, so --

MS. FARNSWORTH: And you think it's partly because welfare has done this to them?

MR. TANCREDO: It has absolutely encouraged this kind of situation.

DEAN KAPLAN: Tom, there's no credible evidence that that is true.

MR. TANCREDO: Oh, there is, Marshall, absolutely, there is.

DEAN KAPLAN: There is no credible evidence.

MR. TANCREDO: New Jersey is going through an experiment today that brings credibility to this evidence, but let me, let me suggest to you that, that there is that possibility that we can't do anything about those people now. We have to freeze them on the system as it is. It is in a way keeping them as junkies. Unfortunately, I have no other way to describe it, but what we do have to worry about is that 15-year-old girl who is today still in school, is not pregnant, and is looking forward to becoming upwardly mobile. What can we do to make sure that she achieves that dream, stays off the welfare system? And one thing, unfortunately - - I say unfortunately because it seems rather like a negative approach -- but one thing is to close the door to the welfare system for her.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Let's just go around and get your reaction, each of your reactions, starting with you, Dean Kaplan, to that, briefly.

DEAN KAPLAN: There is only anecdotal support for any of the impregnation and the welfare assistance, higher pregnancies. I think Tom is wrong.

MR. TANCREDO: Marshall, you're wrong there.

DEAN KAPLAN: But Tom is quite willing to subsidize the $8 billion of people who are on Social Security who earn over $100,000 a year.

MR. TANCREDO: Who said so?

DEAN KAPLAN: Well, then why isn't Social Security, Tom, on the table?

MR. TANCREDO: Nobody asked me. Nobody asked me.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Let's not get into Social Security. Stay on this idea of sacrificing a current generation.

DEAN KAPLAN: I don't think we need to sacrifice a current generation. I think that would be harsh and cruel.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So your answer is more work programs?

DEAN KAPLAN: My answer is work, education, health, and some decency on the part of where we're going. We all have to cut back. We've got to look at the whole budget.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Gov. Lamm, what do you think about that? We're getting to the nitty-gritty here.

GOV. LAMM: It seems to me that almost every pathology that a society has -- when welfare started, there was about 4 or 5 percent of Americans born illegitimate -- now, it's 30 percent -- and I think whether you look at juvenile delinquency, drug use, crime, whether you look at spousal abuse, every one of these pathologies has increased dramatically and particularly in people that are on welfare, so I think that there's a great consensus, and I think that it really essentially is right. I mean, President Clinton is calling for welfare reform. Virtually every newspaper is calling for welfare reform. You can hardly find anybody in Congress that doesn't say welfare doesn't have to be reformed, and I think to say it's just a matter of scapegoating really misses the big problem. We've got a problem.

DEAN KAPLAN: How do we do it, Dick?

GOV. LAMM: I think that -- I think, by the way, that we really do have to stigmatize illegitimacy. We stigmatize illegitimacy. I do not think that a woman can any longer be able to have the taxpayers support her children while she sits around and waits at the mailbox for the check. I do think that very strongly that people are -- this program is going to end. It has no support in America at all, so -- I had a woman serve me breakfast the other day. She had three kids. She was working two jobs. She was out working very hard to support those families, and I just don't think that -- people look around and see women like this, and they're saying, why am I supporting a woman who doesn't want to work.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Prof. Williams, respond both to the sacrificing of the generation point, please, and also to the points that Gov. Lamm just made.

PROF. WILLIAMS: I'm concerned that if you have statistics that actually show that at least 60 percent of poor women have been the victims of some form of abuse and a much higher percentage of the - - of minors, of the under 18 group, to talk about making them go into marriages or, or hook up with men misses the entire point -- for the sake of paternal sanctity. Again, I don't want to put down the importance of fathers. It seems that you are -- that the argument becomes driven, instead, by making typical that 15-year- old in high school. This, again, assumes that women and young women and poor women are choosing to be on welfare, like some sort of rational economic choice. It ignores the actual data about who applies for welfare. These are the victims of coercion, by and large.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Prof. Williams, would you change the system at all?

PROF. WILLIAMS: I'm sure there are many, many things I would change. I would expand certain programs permitting women to be schooled while on welfare. I would, I would expand, again, correlations between or provide battered women's shelters. It seems to me that we are simultaneously having a debate about O.J. Simpson and domestic abuse that doesn't extend to what we might be doing for women who fall into poverty because of that. I would hook up this discussion of welfare reform to the problems in the labor market that women face, particularly in lower socioeconomic strata. I would hook up the consequences of harassment that drive certain women particularly again on the lower strata out of the market altogether.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Actually, I want to bring up the issue of work now, this -- the various -- all the versions of the welfare reform, including President Clinton's ideas emphasize work. How realistic is that? There have been critics who say that twoism myth, that a very large portion of people who are currently -- the young women who are currently on aid to -- AFDC, or receiving cash grants have learning disabilities, can't read a map, can't fill out a Social Security card. I want to ask all of you how realistic you think this current pressure to get people to work is, and whether the states have the resources to do it. Does Colorado have the resources? Actually, let me start with you.

MR. TANCREDO: First of all, I would say, again, what group are we talking about?

MS. FARNSWORTH: I'm sorry, we have to do this fairly quickly in a round --

MR. TANCREDO: Providing the work incentives for the people who I mentioned before, I call a welfare junkie -- go ahead -- I mean, you've got nothing to lose. A few of them will actually take advantage of it and make their way out of welfare, very few. There is no work program, but I say this -- there should be no welfare program --

MS. FARNSWORTH: Take the 15-year-old that you want to say --

MR. TANCREDO: That 15-year-old should not be able to access the welfare system to begin with, so we're not worried about a work program for her. When talking about that other group that's already there, it's probably lost, sure, why not tie some sort of behavioral change to the welfare check? That's a very important aspect of any welfare reform.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What are the jobs?

MR. TANCREDO: Well, quite frankly, I'm intrigued by some of the social service providers and some of the things that we could do to privatize the whole process of social services and maybe use some of the people who are now recipients, maybe train them to become providers in the -- in the case work, in the different situations.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay.

DEAN KAPLAN: I'm convinced over time we can do a better job than we have in getting people into jobs, but I think we have to be careful. We have to be strategic. We have to acknowledge the fact that by shifting these things to the states, by shifting to block grants to the states, we're not going to save 25 percent, even in Wisconsin, which has the most successful program of sort of a block grant type effort. Their administrative costs have increased, so the idea of a 25 percent administrative cost reduction is myopic, is unfair, and it means that, in effect, we're going to be cutting certain people out of support.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gov. Lamm, is this a myth, or can it happen?

GOV. LAMM: It's a sobering question. I think that because we're not -- it's not like tax policy, where you can run it through the computer and find out some answers. There's a lot of unintended consequences in social policies, so I think that what we have to do is let a thousand flowers bloom, we should really let fifty states experiment and see what we can do on the job market. There's a variety of different ways where we can create jobs. I think the thrust of it has to be to get people back to work.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Prof. Williams, just very briefly, we just have a couple of seconds.

PROF. WILLIAMS: It seems to me that getting the people back to work is not a function of the welfare system. Getting people back to work has to do with a larger policy of expanding work opportunities, of dealing with harassment, of dealing with abuse, of dealing with glass ceiling problems women face, of exclusion in the workplace.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay, gentlemen, Prof. Williams, thank you all very much. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the main stories of this Tuesday, Japanese authorities are continuing their investigation into the release of a deadly nerve gas that killed eight people on the Tokyo subway yesterday. President Clinton announced the opening of a new Justice Department office to deal with violence against women, and this evening, at least four people were shot and killed during a robbery and hostage-taking at a post office in upper Montclair, New Jersey. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. As you may have noticed, our discussions ran over, so we'll bring you the Richard Rodriguez essay on another night. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.