thumbnail of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Hide -
MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight Bob Dole leaves the U.S. Senate, Kwame Holman reports, Senators Cohen and Bradley assess. The Republicans' abortion problem rises again, two activists debate; "Where They Stand," President Clinton speaks in Glendale California; and World Bank President James Wolfensohn, we have a conversation. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.NEWS SUMMARY
MR. LEHRER: Bob Dole left the U.S. Senate today to run full-time for President. His departure ends a 35-year career in Congress. Senate members and their aides gathered in the chamber to applaud Dole's service: eight years in the House, twenty-seven in the Senate, an unprecedented eleven years as Senate Republican Leader. Dole submitted two identical letters of resignation, one to Vice President Al Gore, the presiding officer of the Senate, and the other to Kansas Governor Bill Graves. Dole's successor, Kansas Lieutenant Governor Sheila Frahm was sworn in as soon as Dole's resignation became effective. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. In Glendale, California, President Clinton also paid tribute to Bob Dole. He asked an audience at Glendale Community College to recognize Dole's years of public service. He also promoted his tax credit plan to help pay for two years of college and called for a White House summit next month on children's television programming. He said the industry should dedicate three hours a week to educational TV. We'll have excerpts from the President's speech in our "Where They Stand" series later in the program. The Senate Whitewater Committee had a difficult last day today. Democrats blocked the Republican majority from granting immunity to President Clinton's chief accuser in the Whitewater matter. The vote was ten to eight, two votes shy of the two thirds needed for approval. Former Arkansas Banker David Hale refused to testify before the committee without him. Hale is serving time for making a fraudulent loan he claimed then Governor Clinton pressured him to make. Mr. Clinton has denied that accusation. Before the vote today, Republicans on the committee knew they were going to lose.
SEN. ROD GRAMS, [R] Minnesota: Democrats have tried to make the case that they aren't hiding anything, that they want to see David Hale testify as much as anyone. But actions, Mr. Chairman, speak louder than words. And by their actions, the Democrats have made one thing quite clear. They don't want David Hale to testify in public, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. And so it will be, David Hale won't testify before the public. This committee will file its report without all the evidence, and many dirty little Arkansas secrets will be kept hidden from public scrutiny.
SEN. RICHARD BRYAN, [D] Nevada: I don't think that the American people ought to be confused this morning. This, this is all about partisan politics, an attempt on behalf of the majority to seek to embarrass the President by prolonging this hearing that's gone on for many, many months. What we are not prepared to do on our side of the aisle is to give a twice-convicted felon a "get out of jail free" card to further the partisan interest of the majority.
MR. LEHRER: The committee will now prepare a report on its findings. Committee Chairman Alfonse D'Amato told reporters he will ask independent Whitewater Counsel Kenneth Starr to consider perjury charges against three White House aides who testified before the panel. He would not identify them. In economic news today, the Labor Department reported wholesale prices were down .1 percent last month. A slowdown in food and energy prices contributed to the decline. American Airlines announced a joining of forces with British Airways today. The two airlines will market and sell seats on each other's planes and link their frequent flier programs. The proposal has to be approved by the U.S. and British governments. At Fort Bragg, North Carolina, today, a military jury convicted an army sergeant in a sniper attack on soldiers in his own unit. Sergeant William Kreutzer was found guilty of premeditated murder and eighteen counts of attempted murder. He killed an officer and wounded eighteen soldiers in a pre-dawn assault as troops assembled for a morning run. Defense attorneys had argued the action last October was not premeditated. Kreutzer could face the death penalty. In New York City today, 19 top leaders, members, and associates of an organized crime family were indicted on racketeering charges. Federal prosecutors said the charges include murder and extortion. U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White said all of those indicted are members of the Genovese family. Eighteen of the nineteen are in custody; one remains at large. The Genovese family is considered the wealthiest of New York's five crime families. One out of four women in developing countries dies or is disabled by pregnancy or childbirth. That is the principle finding of a report released today by the United Nations' children's fund. It said 600,000 women die giving birth each year. UNICEF Director Carol Bellamy called it one of the most neglected tragedies of our time. She spoke at a news conference in Paris.
CAROL BELLAMY, Executive Director, UNICEF: These are areas that with some small but very important improvement in simple obstetric care at a community health level, the training of not all doctors and nurses but midwives and village health workers in simple obstetric emergency intervention could make a differences in saving women's lives.
MR. LEHRER: In Russia today, three people were killed, at least seven injured by a bomb in a Moscow subway. A police spokesman said the explosion was at a metro station three miles South of the Kremlin. There was no immediate claim of responsibility. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Bob Dole's departure from the Senate and his problems over the abortion issue, "Where They Stand," and the man who runs the World Bank. FOCUS - CITIZEN DOLE
MR. LEHRER: Bob Dole's life and last day at the U.S. Senate is our lead story tonight. Kwame Holman reports on the last day.
KWAME HOLMAN: Bob Dole arrived at the capitol this morning appearing nonchalant about the significance of the day.
REPORTER: How hard a day is this for you?
SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Majority Leader: Well, I woke up early but otherwise I'm all right. It's going to be, it's going to be a good day. The sun's out, I think, and I'm going to go open up the Senate for the last time. And, uh, at 2 o'clock--3 o'clock walk down the steps. It'll be the last official visit.
REPORTER: Any regrets?
SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Well, it's mixed feelings, no regrets.
MR. HOLMAN: Ironically, Bob Dole chose to leave in the middle of the first Republican-controlled Congress in more than four decades, but Dole had become somewhat frustrated. Last year, President Clinton vetoed the major pieces of legislation on the Republican agenda, Medicare and welfare reform, and their seven-year balanced budget plan. This year, Democrats set up a road block on the Senate floor, refusing to allow action on several bills unless Dole first scheduled a vote on increasing the minimum wage. But the focus today was on Dole's accomplishments as one Senator after another, Republicans and Democrats, came to the floor to pay tribute to their colleague.
SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM, [R] Kansas: Mr. President, through all of these years, no challenge has been no too large and no concern has been too small for Senator Dole. Our state motto is "Ad aster per oospora," "to the stars through difficulty." I've never known Sen. Dole to not look at a challenge and find a way to address it. He has been a tireless champion for our state in every farm bill, every tax bill, every bill of any kind that touched Kansas, and more importantly, then by extension, the nation.
SEN. PETE DOMENICI, [R] New Mexico: I think my feet will find me walking down that hall, and my feet will find me going into that office because I have done that so many times when we needed leadership. The legacy of leadership that he leaves will be sorely missed and only history will indicate its true depth.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD, [D] West Virginia: It isn't enough to say in our heart that we like a man for his ways. It isn't enough that we fill our minds with sums of silent praise. Nor is it enough that we honor a man as our confidence upward mounts as going right up to the man himself and telling him so that counts. So when a man does a deed that you really admire, don't leave a kind word unsaid, for fear to do so will make him vain or cause him to lose his head, but reach out your hand and tell him, "Well done," and see how his gratitude swells. It isn't the flowers we throw on the graves. It's the words to the living that tell. And so I say to my friend, Bob Dole, well done. [applause]
MR. HOLMAN: At noon and on schedule, Bob Dole returned to give his final speech in the Senate. The Senate was packed, and Dole nearly was overcome with emotion as he began to speak but then settled himself with a few quick jokes.
SEN. ROBERT DOLE: It's been a great ride. A few bumps along the way. I've learned a lot from people in this room. I've even gone to Sen. Byrd when I was the Majority Leader to ask his advice on how to defeat him on an issue. [laughter in room] And if you know Robert Byrd as I do, he gave me the answer. [laughter in room]
MR. HOLMAN: Dole spoke of his family and staff, but he spoke mostly of his Senate colleagues and their accomplishments, and in doing so, gave his audience a short history of the institution.
SEN. ROBERT DOLE: And I remember back in the Vietnam debate, some of us were here and some were on each side of the issue. The so- called Hooper-Church amendments, it went on and on and on, week after week after week, about whether we ought to withdraw our troops or shut off funding, which I thought was wrong. And as I looked back on it, I think I was right because we had courageous men like Bob Kerrey and John McCain and others in this chamber who were risking their lives, and they deserved our support. And the first speech I ever made on the floor was April 14, 1969, about disabled Americans. Now there are a lot of people in this room who have worked on that program. And I know Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin and Senator Durenberger when he was here--and Senator Jennings Randolph before--maybe before many of you came was in the forefront. We stood with many who couldn't stand on their own. And the highlight was passing the American with Disabilities Act. Forty-three million Americans, they're not all seriously disabled, but there are many in wheelchairs, many who can't even sit up, and it was a very impressive sight to be at the White House the day that bill was signed by President Bush. And I'm forever grateful. I know Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Harkin and others are. Have you ever seen so many wheelchairs at the White House at a signing ceremony? Never.
MR. HOLMAN: Bob Dole's last speech as a Senator probably was his least partisan, and he barely alluded to his Presidential campaign.
SEN. ROBERT DOLE: So the Bible tells us to everything there is a season, and I think my season in the Senate is about to come to an end. But the new season before me makes this moment far less the closing of one chapter than the opening of another. And we all take pride in the past, but we all live for the future. And I agree with the prairie poet, Carl Sandburg, who told us, "Yesterday is a wind gone down, a sun dropped in the West. I tell you that there is nothing in the world, only an ocean of tomorrows, a sky of tomorrow." And like everybody here, I'm an optimist. I believe our best tomorrows are yet to be lived. So I again thank you. God bless America, and God bless the United States Senate. [applause]
MR. HOLMAN: Dole spoke for 45 minutes with his colleagues surrounding him with applause at the conclusion. [applause] The spontaneous tribute lasted until Dole left the floor. [applause] And at 3:30 this afternoon, Citizen Bob Dole walked down the steps of the capitol. [applause and cheers]
REPORTER: You're going to miss this place, though, aren't you, Senator?
SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Yeah. I never knew that many people knew me up here but--it's really been a great day, and I just had a call from the President awhile ago. We've had a good day. I wished him well, and he wished me well.
MR. HOLMAN: Dole now will be able to give "his" run for the Presidency full-time attention.
MR. LEHRER: Now some thoughts about Bob Dole's life as a Senator and as a Senate leader. They come from two Senators who are also retiring this year, Republican Bill Cohen of Maine, and Democrat Bill Bradley of New Jersey. Senator Cohen, what was it like on the floor of the Senate today, there this morning, while this was going on?
SEN. WILLIAM COHEN, [R] Maine: Well, it was one of the most historic moments I think I've experienced in nearly 24 years of being in both the House and the Senate. I can't recall ever being present at a, at a session in which there was such an overwhelming feeling of, of love and admiration for a, a Senator or a Congressman. He, umm, I think in his final remarks really brought forth the Bob Dole that people on both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, have come to admire over the years, and so it was very emotional at times. I think we were sort of betting how long would it take for Bob Dole to break, and he had a little bit of a rocky start, but as your piece indicated, he told a few jokes and got himself going, but it was very emotional, I think, a memorable event for me.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Bradley.
SEN. BILL BRADLEY, [D] New Jersey: Well, I was struck by his generosity and the fact that he reached out to people on both sides of the aisle, that he spoke to who I think he really is. He spoke from the reservoir of the self-knowledge. I found it a very moving time, and he did break it a couple of times with wit, which is, of course, the way he's always been.
MR. LEHRER: Well, when both of you say the Senator, the real Senator Dole, the ones that--the one that you knew, describe that Senator Dole, Sen. Cohen.
SEN. COHEN: Well, the one that I have come to know over the years is a truly warm and a generous individual, as Bill Bradley has talked about. He has a generosity of spirit that many people never see.
MR. LEHRER: Why did we not see it?
SEN. COHEN: Well, I think because we are portrayed almost immediately by the press, we are painted into a corner, so to speak. We wear labels, one is liberal or conservative or moderate. And Bob Dole has had the image, I think, over the years that he is somehow either dark or mean-spirited, and it's an image that doesn't fit the character because the character that we know is a generous and loving person, someone who has suffered tremendous hardship and overcome that hardship, who identifies with the under- dog, the handicapped, the under-privileged, and you really never get to see much of that. He covers a lot of it up with a wit that in the past seemed a bit too sharp for some people but in more recent years he has turned toward himself, and I, I think you saw really a glimpse of the best of Bob Dole today, and that's the Bob Dole that everyone turned out to see. We had as many Democrats on the floor as Republicans, not quite, since they have a slight deficiency on the Democratic side in numbers, but virtually every seat was filled. They were there to pay tribute to the man that they have worked with over the years and someone that they know as someone who believes that government needs to work, that he's willing to reach across, as Bill Bradley just said, to work with Democrats and to drop the partisan rhetoric, and to produce something on behalf of the American people. So that's the Dole you saw today. That's the real one.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Bradley, much has been said about the fact that he was not an ideologue, he did not go to the Senate floor every day with his own agenda, his own ideology. Was that your experience with him as well?
SEN. BRADLEY: Absolutely. I mean, the Senate does not reward extremes. Power in the Senate is in the center, and Bob Dole knew how touse power because he understood how to make things happen in the center of this institution. And that is ultimately built on a couple of personal facts. I mean, he always kept his word. He listened very carefully. He never held a grudge.
MR. LEHRER: Did he listen to Democrats? Did he listen to you Democrats?
SEN. BRADLEY: He listened to us from time to time. Obviously, he's going to listen more to Republicans--
SEN. BRADLEY: --than to Democrats. But, you know, as an adversary, I didn't agree with him on many things, but I always respected him, and I always knew that when he told me something, that you could count on it.
MR. LEHRER: You said in your recent book, Sen. Bradley, that being the Senate Majority Leader now is more like being an air traffic controller than it is being a real leader. What did you mean by that?
SEN. BRADLEY: Well, I mean that the Senate has changed over the years, and you have to arrange everything by unanimous consent agreements. You frequently have more--Senators who are less willing to give those agreements, so it's a constant negotiation process. Uh, that is tiring for many people. I think Sen. Dole handled it effectively and he, he was able to do it quite well.
MR. LEHRER: But he did not, Sen. Cohen, have a kind of a Dole philosophy that drove him? I mean, did he ever come to you and say, Bill Cohen, I need you on this, this is something that matters to me, personally, I believe in this very strongly, et cetera?
SEN. COHEN: Well, no, as a matter of fact he did. On a number of occasions he would come to me and say, I really want this to pass, I need you to help me, and will you help me. To his credit, Bob Dole never tried to break arms or twist them to the point where he would produce some lasting resentment. He would gently say, this really is important to me, and I need it. Umm, but that's the extent to which he would go. Some might criticize that, but that's the reason why again the reverence for Bob Dole as an individual and how he conducted himself and how he worked with Democrats to produce a compromise and a consensus.
MR. LEHRER: Senator Bradley, it's also said, you know, he was a great legislator. Is that a compliment?
SEN. BRADLEY: Well, I think it is. That's what I am. [laughing] I don't know if I'm a great legislator.
MR. LEHRER: Wait a minute.
SEN. BRADLEY: But that's my profession, sure.
MR. LEHRER: I hear you.
SEN. BRADLEY: I mean, by that, you mean he knows how to pass laws in a body of disparate personalities representing a country as diverse and large as the United States where geographic, ideological, partisan differences could produce gridlock in a body where the minority always controls. I mean, if you're on the extreme, you're not going to get anything done in the Senate, and I think Sen. Dole understood that and that's why he was able to get things done.
MR. LEHRER: And yet, Sen. Cohen, some people have speculated and one of the reasons he decided to leave the Senate to run full-time for President was that being a member of the legislature--being a legislator, even in the United States Senate, the great deliberative body, is not really good politics right now.
SEN. COHEN: Well, it's difficult. He is the first Majority Leader ever to be nominated to run for the Presidency of the United States. And obviously, the goodwill that you saw exhibited today did not extend beyond the partisan lines that divide us, namely that the Democratic minority was not about to have Bob Dole use the position of Majority Leader to wage an effective campaign against President Clinton. And so it became clear that there were a number of whether you call them sand traps or fox holes or other types of snaring devices, they were out to make sure that Bob Dole could not be as effective as he's been over the years because otherwise it would be aiding Bob Dole in the quest for the Presidency. So it became imperative for him to step down or step aside, and he felt that he might be criticized for stepping aside, missing votes, being out on the campaign trail trying to wage the battle, and he came to the conclusion that the best thing for him to do was to go out there and campaign full-time and to turn responsibilities over to his successors.
MR. LEHRER: Do you--
SEN. COHEN: I agree with the decision. I think it was the right thing for him to do.
MR. LEHRER: Sen. Bradley, do you agree with that analysis by Sen. Cohen?
SEN. BRADLEY: Well, more or less. I mean, I think it's worthy to note that in the 20th century only two sitting U.S. Senators have ever been elected President. Everybody knows John Kennedy. Most people have forgotten Warren Harding. That's in part because of schedule, it's in part because of what it takes to be an effective Senator. Process more than direction, moving things forward isn't always what it takes to win a Presidential campaign. Umm, I think Sen. Dole saw a need to free himself of some of these responsibilities so he could concentrate more on what he's attempting to do.
MR. LEHRER: Sen. Cohen, is there anything that you'd look back on and say, hey, if Bob Dole had not been here, this would not have happened? Is there a "this" that you could fill in the blank?
SEN. COHEN: I think you could take virtually every major piece of legislation and say, but for Bob Dole this would not have happened, whether it's the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Voter Rights Extension for 25 years. You name the issue, and but for Bob Dole, I think you would have had a, a great deal more partisanship, a great deal more angry rhetoric exchanging across the aisles, being exchanged across the aisles. I think that his genius really was to hold back and not to take as prominent a role, to allow the exchange of, of viewpoints, and then when it came down to a time to really striking the deal, so to speak, of arriving at an appropriate compromise, as he mentioned this morning, getting 90 percent is a pretty good victory, and he hopes to get the next 10 percent in the following years as such, and I think that was his genius. But you can point to every major piece of legislation that we have talked about over the years, Bob Dole's hand is there, and but for his hand being there, I doubt very much whether you'd see it.
MR. LEHRER: Do you have a "but for" list, Sen. Bradley?
SEN. BRADLEY: I sure do. I'd put at the top of that the Voting Rights Extension in 1982, I think it was, any tax bill the last 15 years has been a Dole bill, even tax reform in 1986--
MR. LEHRER: These were not bills that he originated, but these were bills that he got enacted, is that what you're suggesting?
SEN. BRADLEY: Yeah. That he got enacted, absolutely. No, these were not ones he proposed. I think that certainly the 1982 bill that closed a lot of loopholes was clearly his bill. I think that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 happened in large part when he was the Majority Leader because he was pushing for it, as well as having strong support from the Finance Committee. I think that he said today, summarized his idea of leadership by saying it's a matter of, of background and backbone, and Ithink that is what typifies him as a public servant.
MR. LEHRER: Well, gentlemen, we'll leave it there. Thank you both very much. FOCUS - CAMPAIGN '96 - ABORTION PLANK
MR. LEHRER: Now, candidate Dole and the politics of abortion. Margaret Warner has that.
MARGARET WARNER: Abortion is a potentially explosive issue for Republicans this year. The 1992 party platform called for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, and pro-life forces within the party want the '96 platform to remain the same, but pro- choice Republicans, including some powerful governors, have threatened a convention fight unless the anti-abortion plank is struck or radically amended. Last Thursday, Bob Dole tried to defuse the issue. In an interview with ABC's Peter Jennings, he expressed support for adding some conciliatory language on the issue.
SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Republican Presidential Candidate: My view is that I want to bring people into the party, not keep people out of the party. I don't want to build a fence around our party and say everybody has to agree with me on this issue. I happen to be pro- life. And I've tried to explain to some of the pro-life people if we're going to win elections and build our party, we can have different views on this issue. And that'll be my hope when I determine precisely what that plank should be.
MS. WARNER: Later that evening, the Dole campaign released a statement suggesting that the platform would include a "declaration of tolerance for divergent points of view." Aides said that the so- called tolerance language would be in the overall preamble to the platform, not in the abortion plank, itself. Many anti-abortion leaders were quoted as saying that was acceptable to them. And for a while, it looked like the argument had been defused. But yesterday in an interview with CNN, Senator Dole weighed in again.
SEN. DOLE: It has been resolved. I think I make that decision. It's not negotiable. It's the decision, and that's going to be in the plank. And it's probably going to be in the abortion plank, not in the preamble. It seems to me if you want to make it clear to the people out there that we're tolerant, make it--this is a moral issue. It's not like all the other things in the platform, and it ought to be right up there where people can see it.
MS. WARNER: Now two perspectives. Ann Stone is chairman of Republicans for Choice. Phyllis Schlafly is chairman of the Republican National Coalition for Life. Ms. Schlafly, give us your reaction to Sen. Dole's statement yesterday.
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY, Republican National Coalition for Life: [St. Louis] Well, it's really amazing. He changed his mind over a couple of days. Last week he indicated that he was for the text just as it has been in the last three Republican National Conventions, and then yesterday he wants to water it down by putting in a statement that indicates that we're equivocal about it. And the pro-lifers who have supported Bob Dole are not willing to have that statement watered down or made ambivalent. It's, it's very unfortunate that he has reopened this controversy after we thought he had cooled it. Over the weekend, he had kind of conciliatory statements from both Christine Whitman and Pat Buchanan, and now he's opened it up, and I think that's really very unfortunate because I'm convinced that the majority of the delegates to the Republican Convention will be pro-life and as you pointed out in your statement, it is the handful of pro-abortion governors who seem determined to precipitate a fight.
MS. WARNER: All right. Let me just be clear here. So you're saying if he had stuck with just his statement of last week or what his aides said that this statement would be in the overall preamble to the platform, that would have been fine with you.
MS. SCHLAFLY: Yes, because it is a fact that Republicans are very divided on a lot of issues, including trade, taxes, SDI, immigration, and so forth. And that is a fact.
MS. WARNER: All right. Let me get Ann Stone on this. Now what's your reaction to this?
ANN STONE, Republicans for Choice: Well, in response to what Phyllis has just said, this is "the" only issue in the platform that the majority in the party is on one side, and the platform is on the other. None of those other issues that you mentioned is there that kind of dichotomy. In terms of this whole debate over preamble versus plank, Dole was always clear that it was going to be in the plank, I thought, and I think Christie Todd Whitman thought so as well. And the fact that we would have people, you know, lashing out at Bob Dole and accusing him of selling out, or accusing him of diluting, you know, his position and not really being pro-life for doing this, this is a silly debate. This is Ronald Reagan's plank for 1980. That's really what we're talking about here, and they're, they're, you know, absolutely tearing Bob Dole apart over this, and yet we're talking about Ronald Reagan's language. It's not exactly a radical position for him to take.
MS. WARNER: Ms. Schlafly, what about that? Why does it matter so much where this language is?
MS. SCHLAFLY: Well, it matters what, what the language means. If it means we're tolerant about the killing of unborn babies, that really isn't acceptable, and we don't want to go back 16 years. Millions of Americans have come into the Republican Party since 1980. Bob Dole is Majority Leader, and Newt Gingrich is Speaker of the House because of the enormous influx of pro-life voters in 1994. We had tremendous victories, and we don't want to turn those people away. They're very important. There are not enough just Republicans to elect a President. Abortion is, is an issue that attracts people, and of those who care about this issue, they vote pro-life two to one. We need all those votes, and we want to welcome them into the party.
MS. STONE: Margaret, I mean, Phyllis is just flat out wrong. The lesson of '92 was when we fight over a platform on an issue like this, we lose. The lesson of '94 was we weren't fighting over a platform. We were united by a Contract with America that dealt with everything but the social issues--
MS. WARNER: You mean '94, you're talking about.
MS. STONE: It brought the party together. Did I say '92?
MS. STONE: Yeah, '94. We were united by the Contract with America that left the social issues out. It wasn't millions of pro-life voters coming into the party in '94 that gave us a Republican governing majority. It was the party came together, and those who left in '92 came back and made the difference.
MS. SCHLAFLY: Well, anybody who thinks that it was the contract that elected all those Republicans I think doesn't understand where the votes come from. They were, they were pro-life voters who came in and voted for those pro-life Republican Congressmen, and they were pro-life two to one. And, of course, there wasn't any controversy in 1992, except in the media. The convention was practically united. The platform plank was, the platform was adopted on a voice vote without any kind of controversy, and it will be that way again unless the pro-abortion governors decide to make it a fight.
MS. WARNER: All right. Let's go back to what Senator Dole has said, and let's look forward here. Are you and the pro-choice forces satisfied, Ms. Stone, with the statement Sen. Dole has made, with having this tolerance language in the platform plank?
MS. STONE: Yes, we're satisfied that this is a good first step. This is an open, conciliatory statement much like the kinds of statements that Bob Dole made as he was leaving the Senate today. He showed himself to be a bridge builder, somebody who wants to unite the country, wants to unite our party, and this is a good first step. We appreciate the fact that he's welcoming the majority back into the party, but we do have to go beyond this, and for his own sake, and we are very concerned about keeping the human life amendment in the platform as we look to fall because I think Bill Clinton laid out his strategy will be a fight over should there be a constitutional amendment or not, and that--
MS. WARNER: You're talking about an amendment to outlaw abortion?
MS. STONE: Right. Outlaw abortion, and if that is the discussion in the fall campaign, Bob Dole will lose that discussion. Once people understand what such an amendment would include, it would be a real problem for us.
MS. WARNER: So you--Ms. Schlafly, let me just ask you, now what are you and the pro-life forces going to do about what Sen. Dole- -you heard him, he said, "I think I make that decision"--where do you go from here?
MS. SCHLAFLY: Well, I think he will find that the decision is made by the delegates to the convention in San Diego and the platform committee, and they will be overwhelmingly pro-life. And I think possibly a majority of them will be more pro-life than they are pro Bob Dole. So if there is a fight in San Diego, the fight will be started by the pro-abortion governors who are determined to divide the party over this issue. If they want to help Bob Dole get elected, they can unite with the majority of the Republicans in San Diego and let the platform plank be the same as it was in '84, '88, and '92.
MS. WARNER: But Ms. Schlafly, Sen. Dole, himself, said he wants this change in the language. Are you prepared to go forward and fight him, the presumed nominee of the party?
MS. SCHLAFLY: The pro-lifers will fight for the same language that we have--the beautiful language that we have been so successful with in '84 and '88 and '92, when even the exit polls showed that it was a big plus for George Bush and the Republican candidates. We can't afford to throw away all those wonderful pro- lifers who have come and swelled the Republican ranks over the last few years. They're important as a vitality to the party, and it means that we're standing up for principle, and not getting in the way of principle.
MS. WARNER: All right. Let me get Ann Stone back. All right. If the anti-abortion forces stage this kind of a fight, is Ms. Schlafly right, do they have the power to go ahead and--
MS. STONE: First of all, there are no pro-abortion governors. That's a pejorative term. They're pro-choice governors. Second of all, it's quite interesting, the majority of primary voters, which are the most conservative part of the party, in the primary said they wanted out of the plank. Even large segments of the Buchanan vote said they want silence. People don't want to fight about this anymore. They want candidates to run on what their real position is, and stop this silly fight. I mean, it's silly that we're fighting now and saying that the Reagan language is too severe and too radical. That is ridiculous.
MS. WARNER: All right, but--
MS. SCHLAFLY: But all those--all those primary voters--
MS. WARNER: Ms. Stone, just a minute--Ann Stone, what about, though, what Ms. Schlafly just said, that when you're looking at the universe of delegates at that convention that they have the forces?
MS. STONE: Pro-life, there's pro-life and there's pro-life. There are people who will take the Schlafly-Buchanan stance, and there are people who say enough is enough, let's build some bridges, let's work together, that's when we win. And those are the people we're reaching out and working in coalition with. We've made tremendous progress all over this country in starting to bring the party back together by trying to work together instead of fighting over silliness.
MS. SCHLAFLY: Well, I would point out that all those pro--those primary voters in the Republican Party voted for pro-life candidates because pro-abortion candidates had to drop out; they couldn't get any support.
MS. STONE: They don't want to fight, Phyllis. You want to fight.
MS. STONE: They don't want to fight.
MS. STONE: We want constructive--
MS. SCHLAFLY: We will have the majority.
MS. STONE: Want to be constructive in the future.
MS. WARNER: Ms. Schlafly--
MS. SCHLAFLY: We will have the majority if there is a fight that is started by the pro-abortion governors.
MS. STONE: We want to be constructive.
MS. WARNER: Ladies, one at a time. Ms. Schlafly, do you--what impact do you think it has on the party's prospects, if there is such a fight, very briefly, because we're almost out of time?
MS. SCHLAFLY: Well, I think it will be very unfortunate if the pro-abortion choice governors do stimulate this fight. They tried to last time but they could only get two states to go forward with it.
MS. STONE: That's not true.
MS. SCHLAFLY: And I--they were not able to have a controversy on it, and, uh, I think they are a minority of the convention. It will be very unfortunate if they instigate a fight just for the sake of a fight.
MS. WARNER: Very briefly.
MS. STONE: Right. Phyllis, you've spread those lies since '92. We had many more than two states, but we won't go into that. We made the decision not to go forward with the fight for a lot of reasons, and they were good decisions--it was a good decision at the time.
MS. WARNER: Ladies, we'll have to leave it there.
MS. STONE: Okay.
MS. WARNER: Thanks very much.
MS. STONE: Thank you.
MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, "Where They Stand" and World Bank President James Wolfensohn. SERIES - WHERE THEY STAND
MR. LEHRER: Now, "Where They Stand," our weekly look at major policy speeches delivered by candidates Dole and Clinton. Tonight, a speech by President Clinton today at Glendale Community College in Glendale, California.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: One way to think about how we're all going to live five, ten, twenty years from now in this exciting global economy, with all the opportunities that are open to you, one way to think about it is to think about how we can create a country in which people can succeed at work and at home. That is what I want. The first thing we have to do obviously is go give people economic opportunity. I'm proud of the fact that in the last three and a half years we cut the deficit by more than 50 percent. It's wrong to leave you with a legacy of debt. We got interest rates down so we can grow the economy. [applause] I'm--I'm proud of the fact that we are now seeing an all time record in the products and services. We're exporting more than ever before to the Asian Pacific region here out of the West Coast. I'm proud of the fact that in each of the last three years we've had a record number of new small businesses, and that there have been 3.7 million more Americans move into their own homes in the last three and a half years. [applause] I am very proud of that. [applause] And I'm proud of the fact that when we passed our economic program by one vote in both Houses, the Vice President had to break the tie, and some of the people who were against it, said it would bring on a recession and crash the economy. We said it would bring 8 million jobs in four years. Well, they were wrong, but so were we. It brought 9.7 million jobs in three and a half years. [applause] And 600,000 of them in California and a lot more to come after four years of losing jobs. And so we're moving in the right direction, but it's not enough. We also have to think about what about all those working people, how are they going to succeed at home? We passed the Family and Medical Leave Law to say that if you have to take a little time off, you won't lose your job because your child is sick. And I think that's important. [applause] We strengthened child support enforcement--40 percent increase in three years in child support enforcement. [applause] We worked with states all over America to help people who were on welfare move into school, move into work. There are 1.3 million fewer families on welfare today than there were the day I became President. I'm proud of that. We've worked hard to reduce the welfare rolls. [applause] We also recognize what you recognize every day when you come to this community college, that we simply cannot create the kind of America we're working for until every single American has access to a higher level of education, and we cannot allow this country to become a more divided society. One of the most disturbing things that has happened in America in the last 15 years is that after spending almost 40 years after World War II in which we were growing together, in which the poorest Americans who were working were increasing their incomes at roughly the same rate as the wealthiest Americans, for the last 15 years we've become a more divided society. And about half of our people are working harder and harder without getting raises. Almost entirely, the division is due to the lack of skills that are marketable in the global economy. This community college and community colleges like it all around America can turn that around. That's why I said it is time to guarantee every single American not twelve but fourteen years of education. We should guarantee it for every American. [applause] I also think there are some more things that Washington has to do. This was not very popular when I started it and it's still unpopular in some places, when we became the first administration ever to ask the tobacco industry to accept, to undergo regulation in terms of the advertising targeted at children. We should not be spending hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars a year to advertise to children to do something that's illegal that's going to take a third of them out of this life sooner than they ought to leave. It is wrong. [applause] It is not right. [applause] One other thing I want to mention that I think affects a lot of parents who are particularly busy is that more and more of our children are spending more and more of their time in front of the television instead of with their parents or in other places. We got the Congress to pass something called the V-chipwhich will go into television sets which will enable parents to control that. And I think that's a positive thing. But there's one other issue that I want to mention, which is that I have been trying now for some time to get a few hours a week--and keep in mind, kids watch about four hours a day of television on average- -I've been trying to get the Federal Communications Commission for a year to just say that three hours a week ought to be devoted to children's educational programming by every network in the country. I believe that. [applause] I think it would be a good thing. [applause] And today I want to formally re-issue an invitation to the people from the entertainment industry involved in television to come back to the White House before the end of July to discuss that. The best days of this country are still ahead of us if we can figure out how to make opportunity available to every person who will exercise the responsibility to seize it, and if we can figure out how to come together with all of our diversity, if we can respect each other and share the basic values of America, we're going to do fine. You're going to have a great, great future.
MR. LEHRER: President Clinton speaking today in Glendale, California. We'll have a speech by Bob Dole tomorrow night. CONVERSATION
MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, the man who runs the World Bank. Economics Correspondent Paul Solman of WGBH-Boston has the story.
SPOKESMAN: At Breton Woods, New Hampshire, delegates from 44 allied and associate countries arrive for the opening of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference.
PAUL SOLMAN: Looking forward to the end of World War II, these leaders met in 1945 and established the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the purpose, to provide a global game plan for a peacetime world economy. The World Bank's job would be to raise money for war-ravaged economies by borrowing on their behalf at very low interest rates. Today the bank still makes low interest, sometimes no interest loans but to the world's recently developing countries for a wide range of projects in recent years emphasizing health care and nutrition, education, and, as always, economic development. Over the decades, though, the World Bank has been criticized left and right. The left says that the bank's famous mega projects and promotion of unbridled free trade have left small economies at the mercy of sophisticated multinational corporations which drive down wages, suppress unions, and destroy both local industry and the environment. No wonder the protesters chanted--
PROTESTERS: Hey, hey, ho, ho, World Bank has got to go!
MR. SOLMAN: When the World Bank celebrated its 50th birthday two years ago, there were widespread protests that "50 years is enough." The political right has blasted the bank as well, charging that it has plowed money into inefficient, government-run economies and bungled the job private investors do better. In short, says the right, who needs the World Bank? Enter one year ago, James Wolfensohn, born Australian, naturalized American, superstar investment banker to some of the world's biggest firms whom "BusinessWeek" dubbed "the man with the golden Rolodex." Out in the field 100 of his first 300 days on the job, the multi-lingual Wolfensohn has been a crusader everywhere he goes for what he sees as compassionate economic development.
JAMES WOLFENSOHN, Chairman, World Bank: I have learned that the real test of development can be measured not by the bureaucratic approval process but by the smile on a child's face when a project is successful.
MR. SOLMAN: Wolfensohn has pressed for development lending tied to political as well as economic reform, and for the first time at the bank has regularly consulted human rights and other non- governmental groups in the process. And he has vowed to "break the arm lock of bureaucracy" on his famously bureaucratic bank. Now the only question is: Can he do all this or even very much of it.
PAUL SOLMAN: Now a talk with the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn. Mr. Wolfensohn, thanks for talking to us. I guess the first question is a blunt one. Who needs you? I mean, private investors are now pouring money into the developing world and dwarfing the money you're putting in by comparison, and is the World Bank simply obsolete?
JAMES WOLFENSOHN, Chairman, World Bank: Well, I think 4 1/2 billion people need us which is some number, and the reason they need us is not that we are trying to fight against the private sector investment, but we need to complement it. The needs of the world are so great that even the 179 billion that has gone from private sector into the developing world is not sufficient. And where it's gone is into profit-making enterprises even in the countries that it's gone, and 80 percent of it, as you know, is 12 countries, and 75 percent is Asia. So we have Africa, we have got Latin America, many countries, and they're not prepared to put money into schools, into health care, into judicial systems, into the framework which attracts people to come in. And then in terms of absolute poverty, those people really need help in ways in which the private sector cannot reach them. And there are a billion, two hundred million people that live under one dollar a day.
MR. SOLMAN: Under a dollar a day?
JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Under a dollar a day. That's exactly right, a billion, two hundred million people. Nine hundred million people don't have water. Two billion people don't have power. So I'm afraid that I'd love the private sector to take it over and allow me go to fishing but I regret to say that that's not possible.
MR. SOLMAN: Well, critique on the right has been by giving money to these countries, to countries that don't make market reforms, you put off the day when they're going to have to. In other words, in a sense, without meaning to, of course, you or the World Bank subsidizes poverty because they don't have to make the tough choices they'd have to make if you weren't there.
JAMES WOLFENSOHN: The first thing you've got to understand is we don't govern these countries. The World Bank assists these countries, and we can give them advice. And the second thing is most cases we don't give, we lend. So we have to try and influence the countries on the basis of our experience. And the last thing in the world that I think we're doing is to try and keep them in some sort of methodology in a world which is a post-Cold War world where we have many transition economies, the last thing in the world you could say about the World Bank is that we're trying to keep people back in an area where they're just getting handouts. That is not our policy.
MR. SOLMAN: No, it wouldn't be that you were trying to, it would be that by giving the money where the private sector would be tougher about the terms, i.e., the private sector would say, hey, look, you have to make those free market reforms before we are going to give you anything, that by doing that you're forestalling that day.
JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, that would be true if we were putting it into cigarette factories or into manufacturing or into power projects, which might better be done by the private sector. The fact is that we're set up to try and encourage the private sector to come in wherever it can. But we're putting $2 1/2 billion a year into education, $900 million into educating young girls. I don't see a queue of people in the private sector to do that. So these generalizations about us I think are particularly false, and I would say categorically that the aim of the bank is to be a partner with the private sector, and where they can do it, we will help them.
MR. SOLMAN: All right. Let's take you from the other side. Now the left says for years, for decades, you've been funding these mega projects.
MR. SOLMAN: It's lined the pockets of politicians, corrupt officials, private sector people, and so forth, and it's impoverished the economies of those countries in the process.
JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well again, it's another wonderful generalization which can be made, particularly from people who make a living out of criticizing the World Bank. I have now been to 40 countries. I have seen a number of these projects. I have no doubt that in the past there have been examples of corruption. I can equally tell you I spent the whole morning with a group on what, what we can do in the bank to eradicate corruption because we're dead against it because if we have corruption, we're not going to get money and support. And we've also been criticized for pulling away from some of these mega projects and putting too much into the social sector and into the people. My judgment of the institution after a year here is that we're serving the people and it is the social and human elements that we need to be advocating and supporting in these countries, and you'll see a major shift in the bank in that direction.
MR. SOLMAN: Do you ever worry that you're--by promoting free markets, free trade and the like, that you are, uh, traumatizing countries that just aren't ready for that process and can't make the transition that abruptly? I'm thinking of places like Russia, for example.
JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Yes, I do worry about it, and that's why we're trying to get in each country a country specific strategy and in some cases they'll move quickly, in some cases they'll move slowly. I'm just back from Vietnam, and of the whole of the leadership of Vietnam, they want to move more slowly, we're not forcing them to move at a pace that is in excess of what we're doing. We're trying to complement them. We're trying to work with them, so that the generalization that we come from Washington with a single timeframe, with a single privatization is simply not right today. Whether it was in the past, I can't tell you, but it's not right today.
MR. SOLMAN: Let's talk about the problems that you face with the U.S. Congress at the moment. The administration has put in a request for about a billion more dollars than the Congress at the moment seems willing, or the House seems willing to give. And one of the most contentious elements of that bill or that discussion, argument is the IDA, the International Development Association, which lends to the poorest of the poor.
JAMES WOLFENSOHN: That's correct.
MR. SOLMAN: And Congress wants to cut that substantially.
JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Right. The real problem in this country is that with Republicans and Democrats alike there is a softening in the interest in terms of our obligations, the U.S. obligations to international activities. And that is the sadness. That is a terrible sadness because we're losing leadership. And it's not just a moral and social issue. The issue is economic. Half of our growth in exports comes from the developing countries. So even if you have no moral or social feelings in terms of the American worker we are inter-dependent with the developing world, and I wish that could be understood.
MR. SOLMAN: But American workers think, gee, we're being competed with cheaper wages abroad, and American companies think who needs the World Bank, and you're caught in the middle, aren't you?
JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, I have spoken to many trade union leaders about it too, but the administration and the Republicans would both agree on the statistical examination that 50 percent at least of our export goods in the first five years has come from exports to developing countries, and I think that is a--that's not an arguable thing. That's fact.
MR. SOLMAN: Let me quote from Patty Waldmyer of the "Financial Times," and a very interesting article and a tough one who said, "He," you, "manages to sound like a moral crusader"--when the Bank of the 21st century--"What the Bank of the 21st century needs"-- pardon me--"is a tough manager." And we've heard over the decades also that the World Bank is pampered, that the--you have too many staff, 10,000 or more--
MR. SOLMAN: --and that it's an unsolvable problem.
JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, there are those who think it's unsolvable. I guess if I had, I wouldn't have come here. But the fact is that Patty Waldmyer doesn't work in the bank. There are very few people in the bank that would say I'm a soft touch at this moment--in fact, quite the contrary. What we're trying to do here- -not just me--but my top management team--is to make the bank totally results-oriented. We're taking it from the concept--the bureaucratic concept of approval of projects to talk about effectiveness because we owe it to our clients and we also owe it to the citizens of this country and other countries to make sure that every dollar that they put into the institution is used effectively. So that's what we're trying to do.
MR. SOLMAN: Why should you be able to succeed or why can you hope to succeed where your predecessors, distinguished people all, have really failed to, to bring the bank bureaucracy to heal?
JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, I have self-confidence, but that's not the only thing. I also have a lot of very good colleagues, and we're putting it, we're nailing it to our mast, and the fact is it has to happen, it has to happen, because at a moment when there is a decline of interest in development, the only way that we will sustain the interest of the American public and public around the world is to demonstrate that we're the most efficient and effective user of their money in terms of international development. Now, will I succeed? I guess some of the people, "Financial Times" and others, think it's--I think they gave me the benefit of the doubt this week, and maybe the economist says it's not such a good idea, and I don't know what you think, but I must tell you I am very confident that the team here will be able do it and I'm looking forward to it.
MR. SOLMAN: James Wolfensohn, thank you very much for joining us.
MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, Bob Dole left the U.S. Senate to run full-time for President. Democrats blocked Republicans from calling a key accuser of President Clinton to testify in the Senate Whitewater investigation, and late today, the FBI said it transported a key member of the Freemen group from their compound on a remote Montana ranch. A statement said Edwin Clark would be taken to meet with another member of the group jailed in nearby Billings, Montana. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Producing Organization
NewsHour Productions
Contributing Organization
NewsHour Productions (Washington, District of Columbia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/507-w08w951f0q).
Episode Description
This episode's headline: Citizen Dole; Abortion Plank; Where They Stand; Conversation. ANCHOR: JIM LEHRER; GUESTS: SEN. WILLIAM COHEN, [R] Maine; SEN. BILL BRADLEY, [D] New Jersey; PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY, Republican National Coalition for Life; ANN STONE, Republicans for Choice; PRESIDENT CLINTON; JAMES WOLFENSOHN, Chairman, World Bank; CORRESPONDENTS: KWAME HOLMAN; MARGARET WARNER; PAUL SOLMAN;
Asset type
Global Affairs
Film and Television
Politics and Government
Copyright NewsHour Productions, LLC. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: NewsHour Productions
AAPB Contributor Holdings
NewsHour Productions
Identifier: NH-5547 (NH Show Code)
Format: Betacam
Generation: Preservation
Duration: 01:00:00;00
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” 1996-06-11, NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 28, 2022,
MLA: “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.” 1996-06-11. NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 28, 2022. <>.
APA: The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Boston, MA: NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from