The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

TELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is away tonight. On the NewsHour we discuss today's White House proposals for safer skies; report on the House move towards a vote on term limits; debate U.S. aid family planning overseas; and listen in on a David Gergen dialogue with Henry Grunwald about his life and his adopted country. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The White House Commission on Aviation Safety today proposed measures to reduce the number of fatal airline accidents by 80 percent over the next 10 years. In a final report for President Clinton the commission recommended modernizing the nation's air traffic control system and installing improved warning systems aboard all passenger aircraft. To combat terrorism, the panel recommended that bag match and passenger profile systems be implemented within the year. Vice President Gore headed the commission which was formed following the explosion of TWA Flight 800 last July near New York. Mr. Clinton outlined several commission recommendations.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The recommendations in this report are strong, and we will put them into action. We will use all the tools of modern science to make flying as safe as possible. We will bring our air traffic control system into the 21st century, and we will do it by converting to space-age satellite technology. We will also change the way we inspect older aircraft to include an examination of wiring and hydraulic systems, all to ensure that every plane carrying passengers, regardless of its age, is as safe as it can be.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: President Clinton also announced that NASA, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration, will spend $500 million over five years on research to advance the commission's goals. We'll have more on the commission's report right after the News Summary. American Airlines today canceled international flights scheduled to depart Friday night. Americans' pilots have threatened to strike at midnight Friday if no agreement is reached on a new labor contract. The airline and the union continued negotiations in Washington under the auspices of the National Mediation Board. American is the nation's largest airline. Defense Secretary Cohen defended the Clinton administration's military spending plan at two congressional hearings today. Republicans on the House National Security Committee challenged Cohen on the $265 billion Pentagon budget, saying it was not sufficient to keep the military strong and meet global obligations.

REP. FLOYD SPENCE, Chairman, National Security Committee: Once again, the defense budget request before us does not appear to offer many solutions. Instead of representing a bridge to the 21st century for our military, the budget looks more like the same old tightrope without a safety net.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Cohen acknowledged a slight drop in procurement spending compared with last year but told the House Committee the new budget does provide adequate funds for purchases of modern weapons.

WILLIAM COHEN, Secretary of Defense: The massive reduction in force structure that came at the end of the Cold War, the so-called procurement holiday, in many cases was necessary. We were able to achieve or go on that holiday with acceptable risks by virtue of eliminating some of the old weapon systems that we had and calling upon the newest systems that we maintained in our inventory. We can no longer afford to do that. And so the holiday is over. We must start getting back to business, and that business includes the procurement of the new modern systems that we will need in order to face the kinds of threats that I believe we'll be facing in the next century.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Cohen also testified this afternoon before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In the army's sexual harassment story 11 more female soldiers claimed today they were sexually assaulted or intimidated by three male instructors. The women were stationed at an army training center near Frankfurt, Germany. All three instructors were relieved of their duties. Two were taken into custody. And in Switzerland today the government agreed to coordinate a memorial fund to compensate Jewish Holocaust victims. Three Swiss banks opened a fund last week with a $71 million contribution. The Swiss foreign minister said the money will likely be used to aid destitute Holocaust survivors and their offspring. Switzerland has been criticized for its handling of Jewish assets during and after World War II. In Washington White House spokesman Mike McCurry said today the Clinton administration has granted permission to 10 news organizations to operate in Cuba. Permission was necessary because of the U.S. trade embargo against the island. So far Cuba has approved only CNN's application. At a White House briefing McCurry was asked if the move would advance American interests.

MIKE McCURRY, White House Spokesman: We in some measure expect that the reporting of truth about the conditions in Cuba would further our policy, which seeks to bring about a peaceful democratic change in Cuba. And to the degree that the world comes to understand the economic and political conditions in Cuba we believe that builds support for the steps that we're taking to encourage change in Cuba, itself.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: McCurry said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms has endorsed the plan. The Associated Press was the last U.S. news outlet in Cuba. Its bureau was expelled in 1969. The secretary of Health & Human Services today warned managed care providers not to limit hospital stays for mastectomy patients covered by Medicare. In a letter to 350 companies Secretary Donna Shalala did not recommend how long a patient should be hospitalized, saying the women and their doctors should decide. Nearly 1/3 of all mastectomies in this country are paid for by Medicare. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to White House proposals for safer skies, the House moves towards a vote on term limits, a debate about aid for family planning overseas, and a David Gergen dialogue. FOCUS - AIR CONTROL

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: First tonight, the White House proposals for safer skies. Margaret Warner has that.

MARGARET WARNER: When TWA Flight 800 crashed off the coast of Long Island last July, terrorism was immediately suspended as the cause. Amid new public security concerns the Clinton administration appointed a commission led by Vice President Gore to study ways to make air travel safer. In the months since then federal investigators have been unable to determine the cause of the Flight 800 disaster. Many of the investigators now believe that mechanical failure is the likeliest culprit, but the commission continued its work, focusing on ways to avert both security and mechanical failures. Today the Gore commission submitted its report.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: We call on government and industry to work together to cut the fatal accident rate of aviation by 80 percent in 10 years. We believe it's a realistic goal, and we believe the recommendations in this report represent the way to achieve that goal.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It's important to note that air travel is still our safest mode of transportation, and America has the lowest accident rate in the world. We have to keep the lowest and keep working to improve. The FAA and the airline industry have been partners in this effort for years. Today I'm pleased to announce that NASA will join them. NASA has agreed to dedicate up to $1/2 billion in research and development budget over the next five years to help make sure we do achieve our accident reduction goal. Second, aviation security is one of the major fronts of our three- part counter-terrorism strategy. We acted quickly to implement these recommendations. We have begun installing 54 bomb detection machines in America's airports. We are training and deploying over 100 bomb-sniffing dog teams. The FAA is hiring 300 new special agents to test airport security, and the FBI is adding 644 agents and 620 support personnel in 1997 to counter terrorism efforts.

MARGARET WARNER: Among the recommendations made by the commission were the following: upgrade to a satellite-based air traffic control system by the year 2005; expand inspections of older aircraft; use passenger profiles to identify certain travelers for extra scrutiny; make sure that checked bags of travelers chosen for extra scrutiny match the on-board passenger list; tough employee security checks; and finish installing high technology baggage screening machines at major airports.

MARGARET WARNER: Now a discussion of the new proposals. Elaine Kamarck is senior policy adviser to the Vice President. Michael Goldfarb is former chief of staff at the Federal Aviation Administration; he now runs a management consulting firm. Carol Hallett is president and CEO of the Air Transport Association, which represents the major U.S. airlines. And Larry Johnson specialized in transportation counter-terrorism at the State Department from 1989 to 1993. He now runs a security consulting firm. Welcome all of you. And Elaine Kamarck, starting with you, we just heard the President saythe U.S. air traffic system or air system is the safest in the world.

ELAINE KAMARCK, Gore Senior Policy Adviser: Right.

MARGARET WARNER: Why do we need these extra measures?

ELAINE KAMARCK: Predictions are that air travel will grow exponentially in the next ten to fifteen years. In fact, air travel will be to the 21st century what railroads were to the 19th century. And, therefore, in order for it to grow, we have got to change our air traffic control system to a more modern system, and as traffic grows, if we keep the accident rate exactly where it is, there will still be more accidents. So the only way to decrease the number of fatalities is to make an improvement in what is already a very good and very level accident rate.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying that even if the system doesn't get better, fatalities will get much worse?

ELAINE KAMARCK: Absolutely, because there's going to be so much more travel by air. We need to build a system that can accommodate the growth in air travel. And that's essential to our economic well-being.

MARGARET WARNER: And then as the investigation into the TWA crash which, of course, gave birth to this commission, shifted from great focus on terrorism to more focus on mechanical safety or failure or that possibility, how did that change the focus of the commission or affect it?

ELAINE KAMARCK: The President, when he announced the formation of this commission in Long Island that last summer, said from the very beginning that the commission should look at three things: terrorism, safety, and air traffic control; because, remember, we had--we followed not just the TWA crash but the ValuJet crash, and in the summer of 1995, a lot of brown-outs in the air traffic control system. So by the time TWA happened the President knew that we needed to look at a large number of different aspects of air travel. And that's what the mandate of the commission was from the beginning.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. As we look at these proposals, let's try to do them one by one and first look at the anti-terrorism ones. And Larry Johnson, starting with you, everything from the limited bag match to the profiling of passengers and other measures announced. How effective do you think they're going to be?

LARRY JOHNSON, Security Expert: I think the real effectiveness of the commission was made first in pushing forward explosive detection technology, getting it deployed.

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about these machines now that are already starting to be--

LARRY JOHNSON: That's the machines. They put the money--it was not just saying get the machines out there. The administration just put the money out there to do it. I think the issues of positive passenger bag match and profiling, the fact is those are stop gap measures until technology catches up. The machines that are being deployed right now, they're not working where they should be in terms of really handling the future load demand, but the trend lines are going in the right direction. Profiling and passenger bag match, you know, I think my own view is that unless you do full passenger bag match, you're missing the point, because there are ways that you can get through the existing system. That said, what really needs to be emphasized is the fact that the threat of terrorism to civil aviation is extremely low. When you go back and look at the last 14 years, less than 2,000 people have been killed in terrorist attacks. And when you focus in on it, one country stands up having done three of those bombings out of say eight bombings. That's Lybia. Soit's not a broad threat against generic terrorists; it's a specific threat against specific terrorist states and, in particular, Lybia. And I think Lybia's something that ought to be put higher on the foreign policy agenda as part of this overall effort.

MARGARET WARNER: Carol Hallett, explain the distinction for our viewers between full passenger bag match which Mr. Johnson referred to and the kind that is--the limited kind that's envisioned in these recommendations.

CAROL HALLETT, Air Transport Association: Well, what we're pleased about is that the Vice President and the commission have come up with a multi-layered approach that incorporates not only equipment as well as profiling and of course matching bags to passengers and passengers to bags. The beauty of a multi-layered approach is that you are much more effective. 100 percent bag match not only would create great disruption. It's impractical. Most important of all, it's a real victory for the terrorist. If you talk to terrorism experts, they'll point out that if you have 100 percent of anything, then it automatically allows the terrorist to do it some other way.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. But just to explain, full bag match would mean that if there's any checked bag in the hold and that passenger is not actually in his or her seat, they go in and they get the bag out.

CAROL HALLETT: That is correct.

MARGARET WARNER: And you don't--you don't like that, and that's not in this proposal?

CAROL HALLETT: Not liking it has nothing to do with it. The point is that when you have statistics from the FAA today, one out of every seventy-one passengers coming into a hub airport does not for some reason get on to that connecting flight. And so when you multiply that to all of the places that plane is going, not only are there delays, but it was estimated it would mean an approximate 30 percent reduction in flights, changing in schedules that result in laying people off from work, having an enormous impact on not only the business community but the travel and tourism community as well.

LARRY JOHNSON: Well, Margaret, as a terrorism expert let me say I do disagree with Carol on this. And I think the fact is the positive passenger bag match will work, and the airlines recognize it. It could impose some enormous costs. The seventy to one ratio is not--I don't think that's accurate based upon my understanding, and--

CAROL HALLETT: Well, the tests actually proved that out.

LARRY JOHNSON: --in fact, the tests--well, the test hasn't been performed yet. And it's going to be performed in May. You know, I think one of the issues that remain--and Vicki Commic, who is also on the President's commission, was a very adamant supporter of this--she insisted on it. And I think a full 100 percent bag match is really the only way to give you the guarantee. The profiling and automated system that's being proposed is really--is more illusion than reality.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. I want to get your view, Michael Goldfarb, on this, and, again, just to explain, the way it's going to work, I gather, is only those passengers that are identified as perhaps potential problems, their bags will be subjected to bag match, correct?

MICHAEL GOLDFARB, Former FAA Chief of Staff: Right.

MARGARET WARNER: And what do you think of that?

MICHAEL GOLDFARB: Well, first of all, I think that the kind of discussion we're having here is illustrative of what's going to be the difficult part of this. The administration has given civil aviation the strongest push in 20 years to reform aviation, civil aviation security. That's the good news. Implementation is going to be the key. And as we look at some of these proposals and we look at where the funding is going to come for them, and on the question of security, the question is: are the American people ready for the kind of invasive procedures used elsewhere in the world? I think Larry would agree we don't have the level of threat at U.S. airports that we experience around the world; therefore, some of these things really aren't yet appropriate for U.S. airports to be full-scale implementation.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, are you saying, what they recommended is not appropriate?

MICHAEL GOLDFARB: Security is as good--security is as good as the lowest link. It's people; it's procedures, and equipment, and they all have to work together.

MARGARET WARNER: No, but I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

MICHAEL GOLDFARB: Yes.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you saying you think the steps they took go too far?

MICHAEL GOLDFARB: No, no, no. I think the steps they took were the first steps. There are many, many other steps. They become essentially public policy issues. Will the American people be willing to wait an hour and a half when a positive bag match requires a plane to be unloaded, all the bags to be taken off that plane, and people are going to a hub and spoke system to get the- -to get to the destinations. That's a public policy issue. I don't think we've solved that. I think it was an excellent start in that direction, but we have a lot of debate ahead of us.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask--let me get Elaine Kamarck in here. What was the thinking in the decision you came on in the bag match issue?

ELAINE KAMARCK: We want to do full bag match. We recognize, as Larry says, that, in fact, it's an interim measure until we can get to a point where we've got enough fast technology that you don't have to do this; that, in fact, we've got explosive detection systems checking all the bags. The thought was that for the next year probably the only thing we could do would be this partial bag match. But the fact is that the FAA is going to conduct a test in May. We need to find out one essential fact, what is the extent of the disruption now. Carol and the airlines think the disruption is extraordinary, 30 percent, et cetera. The fact is we don't know. And until we know that, we don't know how to go about making a rule to actually implement full bag match, so we have taken a halfway step but we intend to take the rest of the step as soon as we have the right information. We just didn't have enough now to make a credible judgment. And one thing that the Vice President has always been careful about is we promise what we know we can deliver, and that's what we've done in this report.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's turn to the issues dealing with both mechanical safety and air traffic control. And Michael Goldfarb, let me hear from you on that. What do you think of the steps in that area, increased inspectors, inspecting aging aircraft better, and, of course, this new satellite-based system of air traffic control?

MICHAEL GOLDFARB: Anything that provides the FAA with the resources it needs to keep pace with an industry that is dynamically growing and changing. We've been playing catch-up for 20 years in the FAA. It's an agency held to the same sets of standards of every other federal agency. They cannot assure a steady stream of funding, and one of the issues is, can the FAA have either a user fee scheme, or some way that they can plan to meet the President's goals of having satellite navigation over eight years? Can they put safety technology into air traffic control without being held hostage to a congress every year who continually under-funds some of those requirements?

MARGARET WARNER: What's your view of whether these recommendations give the FAA the tools it needs in this area?

CAROL HALLETT: Well, there's no question but what the tools are now going to be established. There are going to be a variety of different things that will happen not only in terms of the creation of the National Aviation Review Commission; they will be involved with determining the funding; there will be a number of different people involved in determining how will the satellite system be utilized, how will GPS be utilized. The key is this is an enormous push to getting the aviation architecture in line to by the year 2015 being able to take the capacity that we know will be there. This is really a launching pad. And now it's up to us to prioritize, to figure out what has to be done first, and get it done. And this is one time when the government, the administration, the commission have said here we are; we've given you the capability of doing it. Now get it done. And we should all be very grateful.

MARGARET WARNER: As a launching pad, do you think in the safety and air traffic control area, these are the right steps?

LARRY JOHNSON: It is the right step. The one step that's not being taken that really ought to be seriously considered is you need to pull the security mission out of the FAA's other regulatory missions. I think the commission is exactly right in saying this is a national security priority. I would also make the argument that, therefore, a national security type agency should handle it. At this point a regulatory agency like the FAA is not a national security agency; it's a regulatory agency. And it ends up being very much more of a battleground between people that have very legitimate interests. I don't want anything that I'm suggesting to imply that somehow the airlines are out there doing something nefarious or underhanded. They are representing their interests. And that's appropriate. But when you're dealing with security issues, you need to pull security out of that debate because I think on an--

MARGARET WARNER: You mean and let the FAA focus on the other things?

LARRY JOHNSON: Exactly.

MARGARET WARNER: What about that point?

ELAINE KAMARCK: That's a very interesting point, and it's fairly complicated because security for aviation actually crosses all sorts of boundaries. You have our intelligence community in the United States looking at overseas and foreign threats. You have FBI. You have BATF. You have local police authorities. You have local airport authorities. This is--security is already divided into all sorts of pots. One of the things we did was we said let's make sure that security is tied together in airport consortia, so that state, federal, local, FBI, foreign intelligence are brought into one coherent security plan per airport.

MARGARET WARNER: But what about also the point I think both the gentlemen were making that the FAA, you've given then an awful lot of things to look at in the safety area, but that they may not be equipped financially and in terms of mission and authority to do it.

ELAINE KAMARCK: They are equipped, in fact, financially to do everything that we have given them to do. And they have total authority to do what we have given them. In fact, most of the things in the report--I was just looking through it today--most of the things are regulatory or many of them are simply administrative that the FAA can start doing under their own authority tomorrow.

MICHAEL GOLDFARB: Well, the Vice President and the President have given a very--it's half-time, and the wind's been at our backs. Now it's the second half of the game, and we're facing the wind. And that wind is a very difficult budget reduction requirement. And while I, respectfully I agree that they've been given the tools, I'm not certain the resources are there, but mostly the institutional change at the FAA must occur. They must think differently about air traffic control. They must think differently about the regulatory responsibility and not just kick tires but go to the airlines and see, in fact, if the airlines have the systems in place that assure compliance with the requirements. That's more than just financing. That's a cultural change.

ELAINE KAMARCK: That is--he just said it very eloquently--that is the core of reinventing government. And the FAA will be under intense pressure from the White House to reinvent, just as other agencies of the government have been.

CAROL HALLETT: And the change is so positive. You know, one time you will have a need here, and it is ignored. Now, everyone is focusing on all of the needs. And just as the airlines make security and safety their number one priority, now we're also making the future of the entire system a number one priority.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And let me ask you, Carol Hallett, how soon will a great many of these changes really take place to the degree that passengers feel the effect? And what's going to be the impact in terms of cost and convenience for passengers?

CAROL HALLETT: Well, you never know what the cost will be because obviously much of it has absorbed. Another aspect of it is that there are costs that are passed on to the passenger. The key is this: Just as it relates to the profiling bag match and the use of technology, there is a deadline. The plan has to be completed and ready to go December 31st. And it will be. All of us have to take this with the spirit that we are going to work cooperatively, as has been recommended, and we'll work in partnership to make sure this all gets done.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you all four very much.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight the House debate over term limits, U.S. aid for family planning overseas, and a David Gergen dialogue with Henry Grunwald. UPDATE - SERVING TIME

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Next tonight, Congress and term limits. How long is long enough? Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: This is the second time in two years a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of Senators and Representatives has arrived on the floor of the House. And by this evening, the latest proposal is expected to leave the same way as the last ones, defeated.

SPOKESMAN: Mr. Chairman, term limits is an idea whose come and gone.

KWAME HOLMAN: Two years ago term limits was one of the ten priority items House Republicans wrote into their Contract with America. The idea grew out of the grassroots work of United We Stand, America, the organization created by supporters of Ross Perot. And its members pressured the Congress right up until the vote.

ROY DOWLING, United We Stand, America: We called and actively campaigned for the biggest change in 40 years. And we were successful. If that didn't send them a powerful message, they're not smart enough to be the most powerful people in the world.

KWAME HOLMAN: But most House Republicans wanted to show they were smart enough and made a very public push to get the 2/3 vote of Congress needed to amend the Constitution. Florida Congressman Bill McCollum led the charge.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM, [R] Florida: We are interested in whipping, that is, gaining the votes we need to have to get to the number of 290. And that means to ask the public to knock on the door of every one of their congressmen who they may be in doubt about and make sure, if they believe, as we know, 76 percent or better of the public does, that they vote for a term limit amendment final passage.

KWAME HOLMAN: But while 80 percent of Republicans did vote for term limits two years ago, most Democrats voted against them. And support fell far short of the 290 votes needed for passage. House Speaker Newt Gingrich conceded defeat even before the votes were counted.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: [1995] But I can promise you if the Democratic Party tonight defeats term limits, the contract may have been postponed in one of its ten items but it will be back. And when we have picked up enough additional seats in 1996, we will pass it as HR-1 in '97.

KWAME HOLMAN: Actually, term limits was reintroduced today as the second item on the new Congress's legislative agenda.

SPOKESMAN: The Joint Resolution HJ Res 2.

KWAME HOLMAN: But with fewer, not more, Republicans in the House this time around, term limits hardly is receiving the same fanfare and enthusiasm as it did two years ago. Nonetheless, Florida's Bill McCollum is back leading the charge.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: If you ask the public, they understand this reform is important. It is not just a passionate issue with them at the moment. That happens to be the truth. On the other hand, we in my party, the Republican Party, as opposed to the Democrats, the years they were in control, believe that we ought to continue to raise this issue, and that ultimately we'll get the term limits constitutional amendment if we do, and only if we keep raising it are we going to get there. And it's not cynical. It's very objective. It's very driven by those of us who believe deeply in term limits. And we say and we know we don't have the 290 votes yet, but we also know that if we don't raise this up and have the votes and put people on the record and have this debate, we'll never get there.

KWAME HOLMAN: McCollum's own term limit plan calls for a 12-year limit on service in the House and 12 years in the Senate. The plan would not be retroactive to include the terms of sitting members. It's the plan that seems to have the most support among members. Yesterday, McCollum went before the House Rules Committee asking that it limit the number of alternative plans members would be allowed to consider on the floor.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: While there are a variety of amendments that are going to be offered obviously now, it was the desire of most of us, who are very strong term limits supporters, that really this Congress be only one.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Rules Committee, however, permitted nine different plans to be brought to the floor today, allowing term limit opponents the opportunity to poke fun at the resulting confusion.

REP. MEL WATT, [D] North Carolina: And you've got one that would gives us three two-year terms and the Senators two six-year terms, the so-called Arkansas version. You've got one that they call the Colorado version. You've got one that they call the Idaho version. You've got one they call the Missouri version.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: We'd like to have a single vote up and down on one that has the best chance of success. And even those who supported in theHouse last time the six-year version or an eight- year version, some preferred that on the House side, said in meetings we had over the past year let's work together towards a single vote on the 12-year version, 12 in the House, 12 years in the Senate, simply because that has the best chance of success, and we won't splinter. We'll focus. We won't let somebody divide, and we won't let somebody hide behind these other votes.

KWAME HOLMAN: But today some members felt compelled to test other votes. Ballot initiatives approved in nine states last November instruct their congressmen to vote for a plan endorsed by a group called U.S. Term Limit. It calls for a six-year limit on House terms and twelve in the Senate.

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON, [R] Arkansas: The voters of Arkansas have specifically detailed the constitutional amendment that they want. And out of respect for the people of Arkansas, I'm offering this substitute amendment. And out of respect for them, I will also vote against any version that does not comply with the Arkansas language; therefore, I will vote against Mr. McCollum's bill not because I'm opposed to term limits but because this particular resolution does not comply with the term limit instructions approved by the voters and the people of Arkansas.

KWAME HOLMAN: Throughout the day, while the House considered nine different plans, members squared off in a debate over the need for any term limits plan at all.

REP. MARGE ROUKEMA, [R] New Jersey: We do need congressional turnover and fresh ideas, but we need those ideas to be combined with a balance of experience and expertise. Mr. Speaker, there is a learning curve for every job. And the same is true for members of Congress. To impose automatic term limits would greatly increase--and I think this is very important--greatly increase the power of paid congressional staff, lobbyists, government bureaucrats, and I might add all those unelected government regulators.

REP. DEBORAH PRYCE, [R] Ohio: I remain convinced that limits are not only beneficial; they are essential to making Congress more effective, productive, and accountable. The Congress was meant to be a citizen legislature. The founding fathers and those that followed after them were laymen, not career politicians. And just think of the many benefits that would come from term limits: a regular influx of new ideas, fresh, motivated members, a Congress close to the people and issues facing them out there in the real world, a greater emphasis on merit, rather than seniority, and a better chance to guard against legislative gridlock.

KWAME HOLMAN: In the midst of all the arguments term limits opponents, especially Republicans, were comforted by the support of one of the most influential members of the House, Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde.

REP.

HENRY HYDE, [R] Illinois: When we amend the Constitution, we should expand liberty, not diminish it, not contract the voters' choice. This amendment isn't conservative; it's reactionary. It echoes the 60's theme "Never trust anybody over 30." The last time we debated this issue we opponents were accused of arrogance; that we were the only ones who were qualified to govern. On the contrary, the beginning of wisdom is knowing how much you don't know, and if there's any arrogance here, it's among those who have no idea how difficult it is to draw the line between liberty and order, and would deny the voters the right to choose whom they will to help draw that line.

KWAME HOLMAN: Nevertheless, the chief House sponsor of term limits gave one last push.

REP. BILL McCOLLUM: You can have all of the rotation you want in the numbers of members here. Three quarters of the body somebody said have turned over in the last couple of Congress elections. And you can still have the power vested in the hands of the few who do stay here who are not term-limited in any way. They're the committee chairmen. They're the powers in the leadership. They're the ones who control this place. And that isn't right. We need term limits for the same reason that we need to end careerism and special interest considerations when it comes to those few members who do stay here.

KWAME HOLMAN: By day's end the House had taken a series of votes but only the McCollum amendment, limiting members to 12 years of service, appeared likely to get even a majority of votes but still well short of the 2/3 needed for passage. If it fails in the House, term limits apparently will not be considered again in the 105th Congress. FOCUS - PEOPLE PLANNING

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, we turn to the debate about whether the U.S. should aid family planning programs overseas and to Charlayne Hunter-Gault.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: This debate has remained red hot since the days of the Reagan administration. It put tight limits on how funds of four population programs could be spent, insisting that none could be given to any family planning groups that also performed or subsidized abortions. The Clinton administration reversed that policy but congressional Republicans tried to reinstate the limits. To avoid an impasse, a compromise was reached that suspended financing for up to nine months. Now, the administration wants to lift restrictions and gain early release of the money. Tomorrow, the House will vote on that proposal. There is also a vote on a second measure aimed at making sure that none of the money goes to financing abortions overseas. The Clinton administration opposes that, and yesterday Secretary of State Madeleine Albright went to the House International Relations Committee and took issue with its sponsor. Here is a part of their exchange.

REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, [R] New Jersey: [Yesterday] In your presentation you asked for early release of the population control funding. I too will push for release of even more funding for population control but with the very modest pro-life conditions that were in effect during the Reagan and Bush years that separated abortion from family planning. I believe the real consensus is with providing family planning funds but now, however unwittingly, empowering the pro-abortion movement overseas to bring down the right-to-life laws as they exist in approximately one hundred countries of the world.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of Defense: The U.S. does not fund the performance or promotion of abortion anywhere in the world. And what we are concerned about is that the restrictions that are envisioned in your language would preclude USAID from working with organizations that provide effective voluntary family planning and women's health services in countries where abortion is legal. I think the issue here, sir, is that we desperately need the money in order to try to get women out of the terrible poverty that has existed, the family planning programs, not to fund abortion.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Now for two perspectives. Gloria Feldt is president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Helen Alvare is spokesman for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. And starting with you, Ms. Alvare, you just heard the Secretary of State say that this money is not going to be used for abortion, abortions. What's your problem with it? Why do you think the legislation that we just heard described needs to be there?

HELEN ALVARE, National Conference of Catholic Bishops: We support putting a ban on giving moneys to groups that use even their own money to perform or promote abortions for this reason--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: You mean their private money?

HELEN ALVARE: Their private money. It's well known--and it was one of the things that led Congress not to give money to these groups beginning in 1970 on a domestic basis--that when you give money to groups that not only promote contraception but also promote abortion in an integrated way, you actually drive abortion rates up, not down. The major argument that our opponents have been making is we want this money released to us in order to make abortions rare. But, in fact, if you give money to groups who also provide abortion, the one thing you're going to be sure of is that you will make abortions not rare but more frequent. And I want to make clear here that there is no question that some money will be released for family planning here. The two legislative options on the table are less money for family planning, but it goes to groups that perform abortion, or more money, but it doesn't go to groups that also perform abortion. They're opting for less money. They would prefer to have less money, even though they're claiming that contraceptives are the answer to lowering the abortion rate, just because they want that money to groups that perform abortions, and they are rejecting the option of having more money.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Is that right, Ms. Feldt?

GLORIA FELDT, Planned Parenthood: No. Let's be real clear about what's going on here because as a matter of fact, the effort that Congressman Smith is making right now will result in no money being released, and here's why--and I might also add that it's well known that the organization that Ms. Alvare represents opposes family planning, and they're using the abortion issue, using abortion politics in the most cynical possible way to keep family planning from the world's women when they need it so very, very desperately. The fact of the matter if that Rep. Smith has voted against family planning 27 times during his congressional career. He has never cast a vote for family planning. And his measure is in no way designed to release more money for family planning. He knows that his resolution will die in the Senate, and that no funds will be released at all.

HELEN ALVARE: Gloria is actually mis-stating the case here. In fact, his resolution clearly states that more money will be released for family planning so long as it doesn't go to organizations that promote or perform abortions. As to our position on--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Is that mis-reading?

GLORIA FELDT: No.

HELEN ALVARE: That's what is says in black and white.

GLORIA FELDT: That is what it says, but that is not what will happen because it is not a measure that will pass in the Senate because a gag rule will not be accepted in this country. What physicians are able to tell their patients about their medical situation is--should not be subject to a gag rule. And what we should be telling other countries to do about their policies on these matters should not be subject for this kind of legislation. Let me finish, if I might. The reality here is that the world has changed since the Reagan and Bush administrations when there was this kind of an international gag rule in effect. And what has changed is that women's organizations worldwide will not accept this kind of censorship. They will not accept this. And so most of the organizations that provide family planning will not even accept the money. So let's assume for a moment that the measure passed, which it will not, with the gag rule on it. The organizations that provide the family planning the most effectively would not take them, and more women would be without family planning worldwide.

HELEN ALVARE: As to the statement that our position on contraception is at play in this debate, there is no legislative possibility in this debate, either the one supported by her or the one by Congressman Smith, that would not give money to family planning. The only question at stake is whether it will go to groups that perform or promote abortion. It is well known and statistically proven that if you give it to groups that not only provide contraception but provide abortion, it's an integrated part of their services, abortion rates go up, not down.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Let's just take that point. Is that the--I mean, does that square with your statistics?

GLORIA FELDT: It simply is--it doesn't make sense. And when you look at--when you look at, for example, the family planning services that are being provided now with some of these funds in Russia where abortion was, has been for many years the primary means of birth control, and the abortion--the number of abortions in Russia in the last--I think it's been about seven or eight years since these family planning services have been introduced have declined from 4.4 million to 2.7 million. And they are continuing to decline. And one program that was, in fact, not funded by these funds but was privately funded through Planned Parenthood--Planned Parenthood of America's international division--the number of abortions per births when we started in 1992 was 2.2 per--2.2 abortions to every single birth.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: So your point--

GLORIA FELDT: Once--in just three years that had declined to .6 abortions per birth.

HELEN ALVARE: If I might respond--

GLORIA FELDT: That is really an effective way to reduce the number of abortions.

HELEN ALVARE: If Planned Parenthood's ultimate goal were really to provide the maximum amount of contraception that money could buy to any particular country, then as to the legislative choices offered to them, it would seem choose the one that provided more money, $385 million this year, versus the proposal that they're supporting, $215 million a year. The reason why they're supporting less money for contraception, which they claim is the answer to making abortion rare, is because they do not want any strings on their ability to promote or perform abortion.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Is that--let's just take that point, Ms. Feldt. Is that right? I mean, is that Planned Parenthood's primary goal here, to promote abortions and support groups that perform abortions?

GLORIA FELDT: Planned Parenthood's mission is to make sure that every child is a wanted child. And that means first and foremost family planning, preventing family planning services to enable people to plan and space their children according to their individual means and choices in life. We are certainly pro-choice. We believe that safe legal abortions should be available to people. But that's not what this legislation is about. Let's get back to what the issue is. 90 percent of the American people believe that family planning services should be available. 72 percent of Americans are willing to back that up with their pocket books, to spend more of their tax dollars to make family planning services available to prevent unintended pregnancies. If we are just applying simple logic, abortions only occur because of unintended pregnancies. Our main goal, as Planned Parenthood and the main goal of international family planning, is to enable women, enable families to plan and space their children. And as part of the U.S. foreign assistance, it is incredibly important to enable families to have this option because then they can get educated, women can enter the work force. It makes sense from a humanitarian perspective, from an economic perspective--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: What about--excuse me--because the Secretary of State also made the point that this money goes to a lot of other things, and all of them will be curtailed, if not obliterated, if this money is not--

HELEN ALVARE: Well, if Congressman Smith's proposals go through, not only will those be funded, but they'll receive more funds than they would receive under the proposal that Planned Parenthood supports. One of the most dangerous things about giving money to Planned Parenthood is that it has proven again and again in the U.S. and abroad that when organizations like Planned Parenthood that promote abortion and a very broad permissive abortion license are subsidized, the one thing you can count on is what happened in the United States after abortion became legal. The numbers of abortions per day went up to six to eleven times per year. You can count on it here and you can count on it abroad.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: We can't--

GLORIA FELDT: We started counting them at that point in time. This is about family planning. It's really--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: We can't resolve that. What do you think will be the impact if Congressman Smith's legislation passes, briefly?

GLORIA FELDT: If Congressman Smith's legislation passes, if his resolution passes, it will not pass the Senate. The funds will not be released, and women around the world will die and suffer as a result.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think the effect will be?

HELEN ALVARE: I think the effect will be that Planned Parenthoods abroad will no longer have the ability, as they did in the past, to have U.S. subsidies while at the same time promoting abortion illegally in countries where abortion is not legal and promoting abortion as a longer license for people, and, thus, upping abortion rates in countries, not making it more rare.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, we'll see what happens tomorrow when the vote is taken. Thank you both for joining us. DIALOGUE

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, a Gergen dialogue. David Gergen, editor at large of U.S. News & World Report, engages Henry Grunwald. He's the former editor in chief of Time Inc. and was Ambassador to Austria during the second Reagan administration. He's the author of "One Man's America: A Journalist's Search for the Heart of His Country."

DAVID GERGEN: Mr. Grunwald, as background for our viewers, I found one of the best capsules of your life came from a very familiar publication, Time Magazine. And it said in a review of your book: "When Henry Grunwald left Vienna in 1938, he was a boy alone carrying a single suitcase and fleeing the Nazis. When he returned in 1988, he was the ambassador of the United States of America. In intervening years he had become the editor of this magazine, Time, and, thus, one of the most powerful people in American journalism." Tell us a little more about that life.

HENRY GRUNWALD, Author, "One Man's America": Well, departure from Vienna was, of course, quite a shock. I had led a rather sheltered life in Vienna. Suddenly, our world--my world collapsed completely, and we were refugees overnight which, believe me, is a sobering experience. As Dr. Johnson said in another context, 'it concentrates the mind." I had really wanted to be a playwright and like my father and I felt, however, that playwrighting was not going to be immediately lucrative, and so I thought I'd better do something else, and journalism seemed like a good idea. So I-- really by accident--got a job at "Time," and as an office boy and then gradually persuaded some of the editors to print some of my stories, and then--that I had submitted--and then gradually I was formally hired and so it went.

DAVID GERGEN: What was it like coming up in the house of Henry Luce?

HENRY GRUNWALD: Well, I was a bit of an outsider because I still considered myself--I still felt very much as a refugee, an immigrant. But the wonderful thing about "Time" in that sense I think it was--to my mind--the reflection of America as a whole was that merit prevailed.

DAVID GERGEN: That's one of the things that drew you to America, itself.

HENRY GRUNWALD: Exactly. It at the time was and is a meritocracy, as is this country as a whole.

DAVID GERGEN: You had a chance to meet many prime ministers and presidents along the way, but I had a sense reading your book you enjoyed perhaps a little more meeting Marilyn Monroe and others of that type.

HENRY GRUNWALD: Well, I was always drawn to show business and to the culture partly because of my father's playwrighting, theatrical background. Certainly, meeting Marilyn Monroe was a highlight. We developed a brief and very nice but entirely platonic friendship.

DAVID GERGEN: You said unfortunately I think.

HENRY GRUNWALD: I said unfortunately, and I will repeat that. [Gergen laughing] I've always found it wonderful that she--that- -when I first took her out for dinner, I was a little condescending because I thought I knew much more about literature and so on, and she suddenly said in that little voice of hers, "You know, have you ever read the 'Catcher in the Rye'?". And I must confess that I hadn't heard about the "Catcher in the Rye" at that time. So she one upped me there, and I became a great addict of Salinger, of course.

DAVID GERGEN: Right. And Holden Caulfield for you became a figure too of some importance, thinking about America.

HENRY GRUNWALD: Yes. Well, he was a little--he was kind of wonderful, innocent, and I think too thin-skinned for, for reality. I'm not sure that he was in that sense particularly typical of America but--

DAVID GERGEN: I'm wondering how much you think journalism has changed. You wrote about the time when you were having so much fun at "Time Magazine" that the covers of "Time Magazine" were so often graced by religious thinkers, by diplomats, or university presidents, and you look across the news magazines today, that's just no longer the case.

HENRY GRUNWALD: Well, I think that's entirely true. In fact, it began to get a little difficult to do very serious covers of that sort even when I was still there. I think, for instance, the cover of "Time" was a tremendously influential feature. It still is to an extent, but getting on television now for a politician is perhaps just as important as being on the cover of "Time." And, moreover, in this present climate, politicians, to be crass about it, don't sell very well. Foreign statesmen don't sell very well. Diplomats don't sell very well. And magazines, being profit-making institutions, you can't quite ignore that. Nonetheless, I wish not just "Time" but all popular publications, I wish that a bit more could be done in the way of serious journalism, especially covering the rest of the world.

DAVID GERGEN: You've written your memoirs, wide-ranging, reflective on your whole life. Walter Cronkite has just published his memoirs. Kay Graham has got memoirs coming. Ben Bradlee just published them. Why is it we have so many memoirs coming from people out of journalism and so few coming from those who've served in public office? Do journalists have more fun?

HENRY GRUNWALD: I think it's true that journalists have more fun, although politicians very often have more power, but they perhaps also have more to hide. [Gergen laughing] And maybe that's one of the reasons journalists don't hesitate quite as much to write their memoirs. Most politicians' memoirs are ghostwritten and very carefully tailored to put the subject in the best light. I'm not saying that all journalistic memoirs are full of stark honesty, but I think we're a little bit more above board about our careers.

DAVID GERGEN: Henry Luce was the man, of course, who called this the American century. At the end of your book you write "The next century could again be America's if we want it and if we are willing to commit ourselves to extraordinary effort, determination, and discipline." Can you elaborate on that?

HENRY GRUNWALD: Yes, I certainly can. What I'm trying to say there is that nothing is foreordained. We are not fated to be--to remain as important as we were or are. We are not fated to decline even. It depends on us. We have free will as individuals and as a country. I think that we must do two things above all others if we want to have this next century to be characterized and typified by America. One is that we have to re-think education. You will notice that I am not saying reform education because the tinkering with vouchers and charter schools and so on, while possibly important, is not going to solve this. We have to have a different attitude about education. We have to get away from John Dewey's philosophy that you educate people for life, for living, for self-expression, and so on. I think we need to get back to more rigor, more academic rigor beginning at the very start, beginning in the lower class-- in the lower grades, and this can be done only by one of those kind of marvelous, I call them secular crusades, that changes--that have changed opinion in this country profoundly. It goes all the way back to what happened with the environment, which was not an issue for a long time, then became a major issue. It also is typified by the extraordinary change in attitude toward homosexuals. I'm not necessarily saying that I like it or don't like it, but it is a stunning change in our attitude. But I think we must get--we must achieve a similar change of attitude about the importance, the selectivity, and the rigor of education. The other thing that I'm terribly worried about and that if we don't do something about it, if we can't as a society do something about it, although certainly not give as a second American century, and that is what has been called, what I have called tribalism. It is the tremendous emphasis on ethnic, religious, racial communities, with much less regard for the well-being of the country as a whole and much more regard for the rights and privileges of each community. This is quite disastrous and a long way away from what we all meant by fighting for civil rights.

DAVID GERGEN: Are you optimistic?

HENRY GRUNWALD: I cannot help but be optimistic about America because I've seen this country pull itself together and renew itself in so many--after so many crises, and if I may add this, I think one of the forces that has helped our renewal very often is immigration. I know that there are serious problems now perceived about immigration, and that there's no question that some of it, some of its nature and some of the practices could be reformed, but I think it has renewed America. Immigrants have renewed America in every generation, and I very much hope that that will continue.

DAVID GERGEN: Well, you write your book with what you called an immigrant's special love for America. We thank you very much.

HENRY GRUNWALD: Thank you. RECAP

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, the White House Aviation Safety Commission proposed measures to reduce fatal airline accidents by 80 percent over 10 years, the term limits amendment under consideration by the House of Representatives failed to get the 2/3 majority needed for passage, and 11 female soldiers claimed they were sexually assaulted by male instructors while stationed in Germany. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.