The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight a rundown on the IRS reform bill signed into law today, perspective on the Chinese connection investigation from Senators Shelby and Kerrey, a four-way debate about the rise of homosexuality as a political issue, and some Roger Rosenblatt thoughts about astronaut Alan Shepard, who died last night. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: A heat wave covered much of the United States today, from the Southwest to New England. One hundred and thirty people have died in seven states, eighty-six in Texas. In Dallas it was above one hundred degrees for the seventeenth day in a row. On the East Coast people took refuge from hot humid weather at so-called cooling centers at the beach and swimming pools. Temperatures began dropping across the great plains last night. Forecasters said a cool front should bring some lower temperatures and thunderstorms to parts of the country by tomorrow. President Clinton signed the IRS reform bill into law today. It moves the burden of proof in some tax disputes from the taxpayer to the IRS and creates a nine-member oversight board that includes six private sector members. At a White House ceremony the President spoke about the new law.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It will help the IRS to serve taxpayers, as well as the private companies, serve their customers building on efforts to offer simple high-tech options, filing taxes, and making tax forms more easily available over the Internet that expands taxpayer rights, extending refund periods, protecting innocent spouses, cutting penalties in half for 2 1/2 million taxpayers who are paying what they owe on installment plans.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Last night the President vetoed the A+ Plus Accounts bill. It provided tax breaks for savings accounts aimed at sending students to private schools. The House and Senate passed the bill with less than veto-proof majorities. The President charged the bill would mostly benefit wealthier families and that the money would be better spent on public education. The bill's sponsor, Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia, called the veto "shameless pandering to teachers unions." The Senate Armed Services Committee today rejected President Clinton's nominee for Air Force secretary. Daryl Jones, a Florida state senator and former Air Force pilot, was turned down on a tie vote. In hearings last week witnesses said Jones made repeated errors while flying as an Air Force reserve pilot and he improperly sold goods to his fellow reservists. Jones denied any wrongdoing. White House Spokesman Mike McCurry said Mr. Clinton regretted the decision and would work with senators to determine what to do next. In another confirmation hearing today Energy Secretary-Nominee Bill Richardson confronted questions about a job interview he held with Monica Lewinsky. Her name was given to Richardson by a White House official when he was UN ambassador. Richardson and two aides interviewed Lewinsky for a public relations post at the US Mission to the UN last year. Richardson told the Senate Energy Committee he offered Lewinsky a job based on her qualifications.

BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary of Energy Designate: I must tell you that in the interview that we had with Ms. Lewinsky she was impressive. She had a resume that showed work in the White House. She was in the Congressional Relations Office. She'd worked in the Department of Defense, where she'd done public affairs group work. My chief of staff felt that she was the best qualified of the candidates that we had talked to, and we offered her the position.

JIM LEHRER: And Lewinsky later turned down the job. The House of Representatives voted today to renew normal trade relations with China. The vote was 264 to 166. It extends to China the same tariffs and trade arrangements the U.S. has with most of the world. China's status must be renewed each year. Alan Shepard is dead. He died last night in a Monterey, California hospital of leukemia. He was one of the seven original Mercury astronauts, the first American to fly in space. That was on May 5, 1961. Ten years later Shepard commanded the Apollo XIV mission and became the fifth man to walk on the Moon. He was 74 years old. We'll have more about him at the end of the program tonight. Between now and then the new IRS law, the China connection, and the new politics of homosexuality.% ? FOCUS - CHANGING THE RULES

JIM LEHRER: Phil Ponce has the IRS story.

PHIL PONCE: The new IRS reform bill the President signed today is the first big overhaul of the agency in decades. Among other things, it puts new limits on charging interest and penalties, gives innocent taxpayers more protection when spouses or ex-spouses fail to pay taxes, shifts the burden of proof to the IRS in many tax court cases, creates a nine-member oversight board, including six people from the private sector, and gives the commissioner more flexibility to bring in managers from the business community. We're joined now by Fred Goldberg, who served as IRS commissioner under President Bush. Mr. Goldberg was on the National Commission on restructuring the IRS, which came up with a basic frame work for the new loan. Mr. Goldberg, welcome.

FRED GOLDBERG, Former IRS Commissioner: Hello, Phil.

PHIL PONCE: Looking at the big picture, what do these changes mean to the individual taxpayer?

FRED GOLDBERG: I think the purpose behind the entire legislation is to reconnect the IRS with the expectations that the American people have for their tax administrator. For the first time in a long time you have the Congress, the administration, individuals, practitioners, and the IRS, itself, speaking from the same page in terms of this is what the IRS ought to look like, this is how it ought to act, this is how it ought to treat citizens that it deals with day in and day out.

PHIL PONCE: And how do you see the citizens are going to be treated from this point on?

FRED GOLDBERG: I think it's common sense. The American people understand and expect to pay taxes, and they're willing to pay their fair share, and they want the IRS to be sure that those who don't get into the system, but at the same time the people want an IRS that is responsive, doesn't treat them like crooks, uses common sense, doesn't follow the rule book blindly and put people in a position where they can never get out of a hole they're in, and it's really a more practical, user friendly kind of system. Today when we deal with financial institutions, we can get through in a telephone call. We can get our account questions answered quickly. Well, the IRS owes, and I believe the IRS wants to give the American people that same kind of service, and that's what this legislation is all about.

PHIL PONCE: So you're saying the IRS is going to be more like a financial services company than like a law enforcement agency?

FRED GOLDBERG: In some ways. I mean, I know there is a law enforcement aspect that's important, but at the same time, most Americans try to pay what they owe. They're dealing with a system that is grotesquely complex, with rules that none of us can really understand, and when you have a system that's inflexible, it doesn't respond quickly, it doesn't acknowledge what we acknowledge with each other when we're dealing with our families and our friends and our colleagues and our people with whom we have business dealings, or sports, that there are some basics about how you deal with each other, and the IRS ought to function under those same rules. You shouldn't-and you mentioned innocent spouse-when you have a spouse who had nothing to do with something that's very wrong on a tax return and it turns out that is the former spouse the IRS can find, and they chase her and chase him and chase her and chase him and chase and chase, because that's the law. It's not they're doing anything wrong, but at some point that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Penalties and interest-I mean, most taxpayers end up paying more penalties and interest than they pay in tax. Well, that doesn't make any sense. You can't explain it to your kid and say, yes, this makes sense, this is reasonable, because it's not. You call to find out what your account is. You call to figure out what you owe. You get nothing but a busy signal. That's not right. You're trying to figure out how to get right with Uncle Sam and you pick up the phone to get it resolved, nobody answers. And that's just-it's real easy. It's common sense. And I think that's what this bill is all about.

PHIL PONCE: And how would common sense apply to the area of audits, which is something that so many taxpayers are concerned about?

FRED GOLDBERG: It's interesting. The way common sense applies to audits is you want it done quickly; you don't want to deal with four or five people over four or five years. You want to deal with one person. You want to get it done quickly. And you want the person to look you in the eye and respect you, treat you as a citizen, as someone that in a sense you are working to find a right answer, you're not a bad guy, and that's what I think the American people want, and that's what they expect when you do surveys about audits. You know what people complain about? It takes too long; they were rude; they treated me like a crook. That's what bothers the American people. I think at the end of the day most folks want to get it right, are willing to try to get it right, but want it to happen in a less hostile kind of judgmental environment. And, again, I think that's what this bill tries to accomplish, both in its specific provisions and its general provisions.

PHIL PONCE: So the provisions of the law are going what-they're going to have an impact on how IRS employees actually approach customers-how would-

FRED GOLDBERG: There are two different levels of impact. The one is very specific-the innocent spouse provision, the reduction in penalties that the president mentioned-that's really very significant for 2 1/2 million Americans. The innocent spouse provisions-those are very specific provisions that will benefit very specific individuals. At a completely different level it's really a question of attitude. It's a question of how you think about your job if you work for the IRS. And that's where this oversight board becomes so important. It's where the commissioner's flexibility, in terms of personnel, becomes so important. It's where the fact the commissioner is going to be there for long enough to get done what his vision-carry out what his vision is and be held accountable for results.

PHIL PONCE: A five-year term.

FRED GOLDBERG: The five-year term. Commissioner Rossotti is doing a terrific job. The president, Secretary Rubin, deserve enormous credit for recruiting him and getting him in the position. Give him the time to do it. Give him the time to deliver. If you have an oversight board that doesn't change, you can get coherence, you can get focus, you can-

PHIL PONCE: And who's on the oversight board?

FRED GOLDBERG: You can get to that attitude-

PHIL PONCE: Who are the members of the oversight board?

FRED GOLDBERG: Well, the representative of the secretary, the treasury, the commissioner, a representative of the workers at the IRS, and six private life, private sector individuals. And, again, they're not running the IRS. They're not making decisions about day to day operations. They have nothing whatsoever to do with tax-

PHIL PONCE: What is their authority?

FRED GOLDBERG: Their authority-in a sense, their authority is to look at the forest, not the trees, to kind of look at where we ought to be heading with the IRS over long periods of time. Change is difficult. It takes years to get done, and think about-you can't think about your colleagues. If you're telling them march left one day and march right the next and go forward one day and back the next, it'sa mess; it's chaos. And what the service needs, the IRS needs, is continuity. The notion that what they are being told to do today they will be told to do tomorrow.

PHIL PONCE: And this oversight board is-

FRED GOLDBERG: That's because-

PHIL PONCE: --because of what the length of their term-

FRED GOLDBERG: The length of their terms. The fact they bring expertise from the private sector. Measures are very important. There's been all of this stuff in the news lately about the IRS misusing measures, misusing enforcement quotas. That's a terrible problem. Well, on the other hand you've got to measure performance, you've got to figure out how you're doing. This board can play a critically important role in defining what success is. If you tell the IRS success is how many foreclosures you get, what are they going to do? They're going to do foreclosures. If you tell the IRS success is also treating taxpayers reasonably, is getting cases over quickly, is not-is not acting in the sort of grotesquely unreasonable ways, and if the IRS believes you're serious, that's what the IRS will do when the board can define those standards and come up with the kinds of measures and follow through on those measures.

PHIL PONCE: So there is a connection between the existence of this board and how the taxpayers are treated.

FRED GOLDBERG: Absolutely. I guarantee, Phil, all you do is a specific provision, the burden of proof, innocent spouse, interests and penalties, that's all you do, we'll be back here in five years, three years, talking about the problems, because they're symptoms, they don't get at the core question of what do we want from the IRS, how do we hold them accountable, how do we provide for the continuity to deliver on that vision that I think Commissioner Rossotti has laid out in very compelling terms. It's not hard when you're raising your kid. You've got to be constant with the message if you're working with colleagues, you need to be consistent with the message, you need to follow through. And having been there, I have enormous respect and affection for the individuals at the IRS. It is a group of individuals who, by and large, if they know what is expected of them are going to deliver. Good, bad actors, like every organization-I mean, all of us see it in any walk of life. There are their problems, and one of the points you mentioned about for flexibility in dealing with the work force-it will get rid of the few bad actors, and you can reward and promote the overwhelming number who were trying to do a good job. The commissioner could never do that before. Well, it's real hard to do the job if you don't have that authority and the commissioner has that kind of authority now under this legislation. And the issues are going to change; the problems are going to change; but if you have a management structure and an oversight structure in place, then maybe you don't run in to the next batch of problems as severely as this last set.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Goldberg, thank you very much for being with us.

FRED GOLDBERG: A pleasure, thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the China connection, the homosexuality debate, and remembering Alan Shepard.% ? FOCUS - CHINA CONNECTION

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman beings our China story.

KWAME HOLMAN: A handful of congressional committees is investigating whether the Clinton administration allowed a U.S. company to do business with China in return for campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. The committees also want to know whether U.S. companies illegally shared missile technology with the Chinese. In 1996, a satellite built by Loral Communications and Hughes Electronics was launched atop a Chinese rocket. It exploded shortly after takeoff. After the accident, Loral faxed the Chinese a report about what may have gone wrong with their rocket. Republicans say that information may have helped China's military improve its ballistic missile capability. Republicans also point to an earlier failed launch of a Hughes satellite aboard Chinese rocket. In that case too the American companies shared a post crash report with the Chinese in violation of U.S. export procedure. Beginning in the Bush administration U.S. government policy encouraged American satellite makers to pay Chinese companies to launch the satellites into orbit. However, strict controls on American companies' sharing of technology with China have been in place since the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising. Earlier this year Loral Communications was granted a waiver for another satellite launch on a Chinese rocket. Republicans question whether Loral got that waiver because its chairman, Bernard Schwartz, was the largest individual contributor to the Democratic Party during the 1996 election. Schwartz denies there was any connection. But last week Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott launched into a point by point litany of China connection charges against the Clinton administration.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: First, the Clinton administration's export controls of satellites are totally inadequate. They have not protected sensitive U.S. technology. NASA's fear and concerns are regularly downplayed and even ignored. Second, in violation of stated U.S. policy, sensitive technology related to satellite exports has been transferred to China. We know that is the case. Third, China has received military benefit from U.S. satellite exports. Every day there continues to be additional information that comes out in this area. In fact, in today's, Washington Times there's a new article that says U.S. technology builds bridge for China missile. Fourth, the administration has ignored overwhelming information regarding Chinese proliferation and has embarked on a de facto policy designed to protect c and U.S. satellite companies from sanctions under U.S. proliferation law.

KWAME HOLMAN: At the White House Spokesman Mike McCurry dismissed Lott's charges.

MIKE McCURRY, White House Spokesman: Senator Lott today tried to conduct a lot of dots that frankly don't commit. And our judgment here is that that is not a serious statement by a serious person. It was a political argument made by a politician for political benefit. We've addressed these issues and made it quite clear that if the license waivers granted by the Clinton administration pursuant to a policy developed by President Reagan and first implemented by President Bush have been consistent with U.S. interests and have been consistent with our desire to be competitive in the global satellite and technology market. And they have now had, I think, something like 18 hearings on the Hill. They've got more scheduled. There'd be administration witnesses from Commerce, from Defense, from the intelligence community, from the State Department, who have testified in excruciating detail about this matter, and made it quite clear that what this policy is and what it is not.

KWAME HOLMAN: Since Lott's charges a week ago, the administration turned over 6,000 pages of documents to Congress. But a spokesman for Lott says that's a long way from fulfilling the demands of investigators.

JIM LEHRER: And to Elizabeth Farnsworth inSan Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, how all this looks to the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is playing a lead role in the investigations: Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama and Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. Senator Shelby, do you-the charges that we just heard from Sen. Lott reflect what your committee is finding?

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence: Well, that might be a matter of opinion. I have said last week after Sen. Lott's statements that I, as the committee chairman and I think Sen. Kerrey is vice chairman, basically reiterated the fact that we're not going to make a conclusion until we've finished our inquiry, but I believe myself that a lot of the evidence support what Sen. Lott has said, but it's early. We've only had, I believe, six meetings, six scheduled committee meetings. We have a number of them scheduled in the future. At the end of the day I don't know where we'll be. A lot of this is very troubling to me. Was it bad policy? Was it bad judgment? I think it's too early to make even preliminary judgment on it, but people do every day, and I have some reservations and some troubling thoughts on it, but it's just too early for us, I believe, to come out on it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sen. Kerrey, what was your response to the Majority Leader's remarks?

SEN. BOB KERREY, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence: Well, I thought he endangered national security as a consequence of decreasing the chances that Sen. Shelby and I through our committee will be able to produce a bipartisan report in the tradition of this committee. This committee has never been partisan. Going back to Barry Goldwater, it has been a committee that's evaluated the nation's security and kept the nation's security foremost in our sights. And in this case there is a national security question having to do with the decision to allow American satellites to be launched on Chinese missiles. It has been a process that's been altered over the years, and we're taking a hard look both at the decision to allow this to happen and the process and the alteration of that process, and the question is: Was national security endangered? And can we make some recommendations to improve that process? And, secondly, did the Chinese effort to influence US elections have an effect on national security? And I think this committee, if it's allowed to do its work in a bipartisan fashion, will produce a report that will enable us to increase national security.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sen. Shelby, do you agree with that, that the remarks may have made it more difficult for your committee to do what it has to do?

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: Well, I'm not going to criticize my leader. You know, I'm a good friend, and I support him. And I believe that what he said he had a right to say. I don't believe he endangered national security, but I do, like Sen. Kerrey, want to carry on the bipartisan nature of our inquiry and we're going to have to continue to work together to do that, and I believe we will at the end of the day.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Sen. Shelby, will the Senate delay confirmation of nominees from some of the agencies that Sen. Lott mentioned, which are not cooperating in the investigation, according to Sen. Lott? He mentioned Department of State, Defense, Commerce, Justice, White House, and some others.

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: Well, Sen. Lott is the majority leader, and he's already spoken on that, but as far as the Intelligence Committee people that come before this committee, we have had hearings on their nominations, we've worked together, and we tried to move them. We moved some recently. I think we ought to move people on the merits.

SEN. BOB KERREY: And understand that, you know, in this entire process, I mean, there was substantial letters and pressure from Congress to transfer the authority from State Department to Commerce. Governor Pete Wilson of California sent a letter urging the administration to make this transfer over to Commerce. A bipartisan group of members of Congress did the same. I mean, there was a lot of pressure coming from Congress to make this change. And the question is: Did the change and to the process of monitoring these satellite launches and did the original decision to allow satellites to be launched period on Chinese missiles increase their military capability and, as a consequence, decrease American security?

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: I think during this inquiry we're going to find out if anybody in the National Security Council, anybody at the State Department-when I say anybody I use it loosely-really spoke up on national security as they spoke up for Commerce in general-we're all for commerce, and I think it's important, but we should never forget the national security interests of the American people.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is that your main concern at this point, Sen. Shelby, that commercial interests were placed before national security interests?

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: That is a troubling thought of mine. It's-whether it's backed up on all the facts we don't know yet, but it's very troubling.

SEN. BOB KERREY: Well, I understand this thing began with the Challenger disaster, and the United States at that point in 1988 had only the capacity to launch military satellites with domestic launch vehicles. And so what President Reagan decided in 1988 was to allow U.S. corporations to launch on a foreign satellite launch vehicle. And what we have today before us, by the way, is the need to launch between sixteen hundred and two thousand commercial satellites between now and 2008. Those satellites have been tremendous value added to U.S. national security, as well as creating jobs for this country. So it's not as clear cut an issue as it might appear on the surface, and I think what this committee could do, if we are allowed to stay in a bipartisan mode, as we've been for years, what this committee can do is make some recommendations that enable the process to be improved so as to keep Americas safe.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sen. Shelby--

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: If Sen. Kerrey and I have our way, we're going to work together. We've worked together for-this is the second year on the committee-four years together on the Intelligence Committee-but we've worked on other committees, and if we can have our way, that is, and work together, I think before the end of the day will come up with a bipartisan report.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Sen. Shelby, what would you say to Americans who have been watching this and kind of want an update on where the investigations are right now? Is the conclusion that Sen. Lott gave are perhaps a bit early at least for your committee? Where would you say your investigation is at this point?

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: Well, I'd say we're at the halfway point at best, but we'd like to pursue it. A lot of it will depend on information that we receive in our committee. You mentioned earlier all the documents that the White House released last week. Our committee is working on that. We should know something and be able to move when we get back in September.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And you have said you've expressed your concerns in remarks before the committee. You said, for example, the process is ad hoc and hasn't been--the monitoring process hasn't been adequate to prevent technology transfers. Is that the kind of thing that you're most concerned about, or you're very concerned about now?

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: Absolutely. I've given you my opinions, and I'm sure other people share it. But I would not give a judgment as to what we would recommend. Sen. Kerrey and I talked privately about this but at the end of the day if we can get a report-and we hope we can-maybe we'll make some recommendations that will make this process work a lot better, more efficiently, in keeping first of all security and a balance of national security and commerce together.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. I'm going to come back to the recommendations but Sen. Kerrey, what would you say to Americans who've been watching this and are very interested in where you are right now in the investigation?

SEN. BOB KERREY: Well, I think we're making progress. We're coming up with a report that will enable us to improve national security. But Americans ought to ask themselves the question: Are we less secure today than what we were in 1988, relative to China? We've learned a great deal from the Chinese. There's no question in my judgment the Chinese have gotten better at launching our satellites. We want them to get better. These satellites can cost $200 million a copy, and they're extremely important all by themselves for national security. It's not so easy to figure this thing out. If American businesses are not able to launch these communications satellites, it's not just commercial interests that suffer, it's also military interests that suffer as well.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sen. Shelby, what are you thinking about in the way of changes? For example, a monitor for every license issued?

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: I'm not sure yet. I think that we ought to wait till we finish our inquiry, but I believe-as I think you used the phrase that I used earlier-that I think it's an ad hoc system. I don't like some of the changes, but I think what we need to do on this committee working together is to make some positive recommendations to how they balance between national security and commerce. We're all interested in commerce. We're interested in jobs. There's a need to launch satellites, Sen. Kerrey said. Why? Because we don't have the capacity here yet. I'd like to see us do it in America and do it all here, but we'll never be able to do it all. But when this inquiry is over, if we can make some positive recommendations-and I wouldn't telegraph 'em now-that would improve the process and take care of national security at the same time balance it with commerce, we will have done our work.

SEN. BOB KERREY: And the other thing is the Americans need to understand is that from 1988 to 1998 there's been a substantial change in the number of satellites that need to be launched. We have iridium; we have teledesics; you know, we were launching fifteen/twenty satellites a year in 1988. You know, that's gone up by a factor of ten or so. We have tremendous new demand.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Just briefly-

SEN. BOB KERREY: If you want to launch a satellite today, takes you three years to get a launch so-

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And just briefly, Sen. Kerrey, do you want to telegraph any of the changes you think should be made?

SEN. BOB KERREY: No, I do not. I think it's inappropriate for me to be telegraphing any changes. Otherwise, youknow, why would the Intelligence Committee take this thing on? No, I think we need to take it one step at a time and try to produce a report as we have done for the last 25 years or so, produce a report that people can trust.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sen. Shelby, Sen. Kerrey, thank you.% ? FOCUS - POLITICS AND GAYS

JIM LEHRER: Politics and homosexuality. Spencer Michels begins.

SPENCER MICHELS: Congress began debating today several pieces of legislation that confront the issues surrounding rights for gays and lesbians. Those rights have taken center stage on Capitol Hill after Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott discussed his views on homosexuality with conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams.

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS: The act of homosexuality in and of itself was a sin. It is a sin.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: It is. My father had that problem, as I said, with alcoholism. Other people have sex addiction. Other people, you know, are kleptomaniacs. I mean, there are all kinds of problems and addictions and difficulties and experiences with things that you-that are wrong, but you should try to work with that person.

SPENCER MICHELS: Lott's remarks prompted outrage from gays and lesbians and others nationwide, including Representative Barney Frank, an openly gay congressman.

REP. BARNEY FRANK: But it's one thing to say that you personally, your religion believes something is a sin. It's another to demean people by comparing a basic personal condition, which doesn't hurt anybody else, to kleptomania, to alcoholism. It's that kind of negativism that makes me think we're really into some sort of political demagoguery here.

SPENCER MICHELS: Following Lott's comments, a coalition of conservative religious groups started a major lobbying and advertising campaign aimed at stopping Congress from passing what it considers gay rights legislation. The coalition spent $200,000 for ads in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today, focusing on Senator Lott's opinion that the lifestyle is a sin and that gays can be cured and become straight by having counseling. The gay rights organization, the human rights campaign, countered with its own advertisements in USA Today showing a family seen with a contented couple and their gay daughter. And today in another attempt to limit gay rights, the House is scheduled to vote on an amendment to a housing appropriations bill. If passed, the amendment by California Republican Frank Riggs would cut off federal housing money to San Francisco because the city requires contractors to offer benefits like insurance to the gay partners of their employees. The city and the people who use federal money to pay for their housing could lose as much as $260 million. Later this week, GOP Congressman Bill Hefley from Colorado will try to cripple President Clinton's executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal work force based on sexual preference. An amendment to a House bill is expected that would prohibit the government from spending any money to enforce the President's order that was issued last May. In a statement written in June Hefley said, "We do not support discrimination. We also do not believe in giving special protected status because of sexual orientation." Today the National Organization for Women held a rally opposing Hefley's measure.

SPOKESPERSON: The Hefley amendment is clearly an election year effort to placate the right wing of the Republican Party and not mobilize those who believe in equalities in the work place.

SPENCER MICHELS: Another battle is continuing in the Senate, where a group of conservative Republican Senators are blocking the confirmation of openly gay philanthropist James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg because of his sexual preference. Sen. Lott said this week the nomination is not likely to come to the floor this year.

JIM LEHRER: The perspectives now of Gary Bauer, president of the Family Research Council; Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign; Rich Tafel of the Log Cabin Republicans; and Congressman Steve Largent, Republican of Oklahoma. So, one at a time here, beginning with you, Gary Bauer. Is this a debate about morals or politics?

GARY BAUER, Family Research Council: Well, I think it ends up being a debate about both. When Sen. Lott was asked a question, it became a debate about morality and one's concept of sin, et cetera. The part that I'm comfortable with and I've devoted my time to is to public policy debate. What do we want to do as a matter of law in our country and things like same sex marriage. I'm against it. I think the institution of marriage should be a man and a woman. Are we going to let the schools be used to promote gay acceptance or acceptance of that lifestyle? I don't think so. I'm against gay adoption. Those are legitimate public policy issues. I think they're going to be fortunately or unfortunately a larger part of the American debate, and I hope my party, the Republican Party, will stand for traditional values in those areas.

JIM LEHRER: Public policy debate or politics or morals, Ms. Birch?

ELIZABETH BIRCH, Human Rights Campaign: These ads are crassly manipulative. They have everything to do with politics. They were designed in an election year to really charge up the firebrand right wing grassroots of the Republican Party. My organization works with good Democrats and Republicans. We think that these are-this is very bad medicine for the Republican Party. We think this is a disaster, and that it's short sighted, and it's not what most Republicans want.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Largent, is this not what most Republicans want?

REP. STEVE LARGENT, [R] Oklahoma: Let me say, Jim, that in all fairness that both sides have used this for political purposes. This hasn't been a one-sided debate or issue. And I think that's truly unfortunate, but the honest truth is that any time you're discussing public policy all the decisions that you make are moral issues.

JIM LEHRER: In what way is this a moral issue to you?

REP. STEVE LARGENT: Well, I think that what we have to understand is that you have to rely upon 2,000 years of Judeo Christian history when you start talking about the issue of homosexuality. Believe me, before I came to Washington, D.C., I wasn't aware of how aggressively the homosexual community is pursuing a very well thought out, well financed agenda in Washington. And so I'm here as a legislator to defend those 2,000 years of Judeo Christian history that I follow. And that's the moral guidelines that I use.

JIM LEHRER: And Mr. Tafel, do you see it in moral terms, or in political terms?

RICH TAFEL, Log Cabin Republicans: I see it as a moral debate that's playing itself out in the political arena. I see the gay rights movement frankly-I'm motivated to be involved with it because of my morals and my Christian faith. I believe it's a movement about people who want to love each other. It's a movement about people who want to be honest about who they are. Personally, I care about young kids-when you hear of a third of teen suicides are gay young kids, it is a moral debate, and I think throughout our country there's always been an attempt to demonize people who are different and very often back that up with-quoting scripture or saying it's God given.

JIM LEHRER: Well, let's take the moral issue for a moment. Define it in your terms, Mr. Tafel. What is at the heart of the moral debate here?

RICH TAFEL: At the heart of the moral debate for me is how we treat people who are different. We've always had people who were different. We've always had a hard time with it. Our country has done well at times and bad at times, and each generation has had to confront people who are different, whether it was blacks, immigrants. At the Salem witch trials people of different faith-we've struggled with it, we've failed at times, and then we've moved forward as a more tolerant country. I see that as the core of this issue. Gay people are different. Some people are uncomfortable. We're a small minority in the country, easy to pick on, and it does charge up certain people in the country to pick on us.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Largent, is that the way you see it, that these people are different, and that's why they're being targeted?

REP. STEVE LARGENT: Well, I don't believe that's the case at all, but I would agree with Rich in this case. The thing that is fascinating to me about studying the life of Jesus is how he was able to confront people with their sin, but at the same time, they never felt rejected; they always felt loved. And I think that that's the way that we need to deal with this issue as well.

JIM LEHRER: So what you said a while ago is the moral issue for you, that it's 2000 years, it's a sin, homosexuality is a sin in your eyes, correct?

REP. STEVE LARGENT: That's correct.

JIM LEHRER: And that is the heart of the argument and from a moral standpoint for you?

REP. STEVE LARGENT: It is, but let me say at the same time that I don't think that there's a hierarchy of sin that I would say the same thing is true about adultery or any sort of promiscuity that people are committing today.

JIM LEHRER: Ms. Birch, where do you come down on the sin part of this, or the moral part of this argument?

ELIZABETH BIRCH: First of all, theologians disagree, and we obviously disagree with Rep. Largent, who really does spout really the views of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. The fact is, is that in a world full of divorce and adultery and in a country where we haven't adequately figured out how to care for the sick, the poor, the dying, our children, how we can take care of all of our community, it is curious this obsessiveness with one sin that didn't even make it into the top ten-the so-called sin of homosexuality, a characterization with which we do not agree-didn't even make it into the top ten and about which Jesus didn't utter one word-the central message of the scriptures is about love. It's about unity. And what this is all about is what kind of a nation are we going to be? Are we going to be a nation that discriminates and singles out one group for discrimination? And what is the Republican Party going to be? Is it going to be the party of discrimination?

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Bauer.

GARY BAUER: Well, there's absolutely no question in my mind as a Christian that homosexual conduct is a sin. Every major faith teaches that. Theologians may disagree. Theologians today-you can find a theologian that will spout almost anything-but there's no doubt that over thousands of years the Christian faith has taught that-Orthodox Jews believe the same-every major religion does. There are a lot of things that Christ mentioned, but certainly the overall message of the gospel is that there's a natural order that God intends for man, and among the things in that natural order is that marriage, the family unit ought to be a man or a woman. But, again, you know, the theological debate is extremely important. We're going to have that debate in churches and synagogues. I think in this city, however, the debate turns on public policy. What is the public policy we want for our country?

JIM LEHRER: How do you-so let's go back on that one, beginning with you, Mr. Bauer. If you believe that homosexuals are, in fact, committing sin, how should they be dealt with by the rest of society?

GARY BAUER: Well, the question is what share of public policy they earn. Public policy-we take an institution like marriage-there is a heated debate now, in Hawaii, in Alaska, California is going to have a referendum. It will come to your state soon, wherever you happen to live-over whether or not we should take thousands of years of civilization and redefine marriage, which has always been a man and a woman, to be two men or two women. That is a fundamental. It's hard to imagine something more fundamental in society to do. I want my party-without shame or embarrassment or hesitation to say we stand for marriage as being a man and a woman. It would be suicide politically for the party to do anything else, and I think the overwhelming majority of the American people will agree with us on that.

JIM LEHRER: Do you challenge that, Mr. Tafel, the overwhelming number of the American people would agree with Mr. Bauer's approach?

RICH TAFEL: I don't think they would agree with this approach. His interpretation of scripture-in fact, the Roman Catholic-

JIM LEHRER: I mean, on what he just said on the issue of single sex marriage.

RICH TAFEL: On same sex marriage I think that, yes, I think that you can just look at public opinion polls. That's a new concept and people are having-it's a new idea. Again, he is justifying again, saying this is the way it's always been in scripture-for example, if you go into the Old Testament, you find out that Solomon has 500 wives and 300 concubines. I mean, it hasn't always been that man and woman in the sense of marriage. I should also point out that every time people have tried to keep a group down they've always said it's always been this way, and so it must always remain this way. We realize it's a difficult issue. All we're asking for is the tolerance for people to live their lives as they want, and we will have public issue debates, and that's fine.

JIM LEHRER: When you say a difficult issue, what-define difficult issue. Why is this so difficult?

RICH TAFEL: It's difficult because if you are a heterosexual person, you can't-it's hard to imagine, hard to think about, it's hard to understand. It's different from you. The same way-a hundred years ago-or two hundred years ago-the idea about slavery, that, you know, there was-people believed that blacks were second-class citizens, they were demonized, they were--all kinds of horrible things were said about them. We actually had slavery. There was an evolution in thinking that took place, that had to take place.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Largent, why has this come up now?

REP. STEVE LARGENT: Well, I think that it's not an issue that has just come up now. This is an issue that's been around for a long, long time.

JIM LEHRER: But why in such a major way, in a public way, as we did in our setup piece, as Spencer Michels laid out, just in the last two or three weeks, it's become a real public issue?

REP. STEVE LARGENT: Well, I think it's a reflection, Jim, of the fact that there are some very deep-seated emotions on both sides of this issue, and it's flash point, there's no question about it, and I don't know if there was a lull in anything newsworthy, but whenever this issue is struck up, it becomes a flash point, it becomes very, very heated, because, as I said, I mean, people have very, very strong feelings on both sides.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think, Congressman, that it should be talked about openly and debated just the way we're doing it here tonight?

REP. STEVE LARGENT: Well, I do, and the thing is I think that you have to try to get to the actual heart of the issue. As Gary said, we're talking about public policy. We could have a long discussion about the theological ramifications or justifications on this, but in this town what we're talking about is legislation, about public policy, about where we want to see this country move on issues like same sex marriage, on issues like in the employment non-discrimination act, and other issues like that, about confirming a nominee for ambassador to Luxembourg. Those are public policy issues that we need to talk about, and I just believe that America is not ready to move in the direction that the homosexual agenda wants to push us.

JIM LEHRER: Ms. Birch, is America not ready to go where you want it to go?

ELIZABETH BIRCH: America is completely ready to go where we want to go, and the reason that people like Rep. Largent and Mr. Bauer here love to cling to the notion of gay and lesbian marriage, which is a brand new concept, has rarely been debated, discussed, or analyzed, and I mean here civil marriage, not religious marriage, is they know that is a flash point. The fact is, is that on something like employment and many other issues affecting gay and lesbian Americans, the American public is there. The majority of Republicans, Democrats, and independents agree that the Employment Nondiscrimination Act should be passed precisely because you can be fired in most jurisdictions in this country simply because you're gay, and most Americans think that is wrong. If I could just add that I think that Rep. Largent is being very disingenuous-the fact is that this add campaign was paid for by the exact same organizations that went up to the Hill, met with Sen. Lott, issued an ultimatum, a set of ultimatums, threatened to bolt the Republican Party if they weren't that, and, in fact, that the product of that became Sen. Lott's comments, and he has emboldened these people, organizations like Mr. Bauer's, to run these ads. Mr. Bauer would like to be President of the United States, and he'd like every representative in Congress to be a fundamentalist, born-again Christian. And I thought we settled the issue of the division of church and state over 200 years ago.

GARY BAUER: You know, Jim, what's really striking about this debate to me is how often my opponents, our opponents on this get to this kind of personal insult. I mean, Rep. Largent and I are supposed to be the intolerant ones, and yet you can't have a debate on this issue without the kind of rhetoric that Ms. Birch just used. You know, it's-we're not going to be intimidated. Sen. Lott's not going to be intimidated. The overwhelming majority of American people believe broadly speaking in a set of fairly traditional values-let's just take the issue of tolerance-groups like Boy Scouts and Salvation Army have been under incredible attack across the country because they won't change their basic religious views and their traditional values to accommodate Ms. Birch, so she's willing,and that movement has been willing to use the force of law not to allow the Boy Scouts or the Salvation Army to be tolerated for their traditional views but to brow beat them into changing their most deeply held values. At the end of the day this is a really important decision that's going to face the country. Are we broadly speaking going to promote family values, traditional values, or are we going to go down this road that no culture that has succeeded in centuries has ever gone down without incredible impacts on their children, their families, and their values.

JIM LEHRER: Ms. Birch.

ELIZABETH BIRCH: Well, Mr. Lehrer, first of all, I take offense at Mr. Bauer characterizing my conduct in any way. I think that I show sort of amazing discipline to sit here next to him, given that the tactics and strategies that he uses and engages in on a day to day basis. The fact is, is that we've always stood for free speech and protecting the right of people to hold their religious views. That has never been at issue. On the issue of whether any organization can use public funds to foster those views, that is where we separate company.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Tafel and then to Congressman Largent, is this an issue for which there can never be-I mean, unlike some issues, well, we'll go off and we'll have a compromise and we'll work this thing out-is this one so deep-seated that there can never be a compromise-there's always going to be an agreement to disagree?

RICH TAFEL: No. I think some day we will look back on the people who oppose equality for gays, as we do with George Wallace right now, or, you know, the Civil War. I think we look back on history and certain people said this is the way it always will, it always will be, and you look back and things do change, and I think it will change, and I think we will win. I just want to respond on a personal level. We're talking about this-this is not just a public policy discussion, and this is why we get so upset-this is very personal. We are being personally-Gary Bauer said that a litmus test for him, for George W. Bush is will he allow gays to be in the GOP? We had a rally down in Texas, the Texas GOP, we were called queers, faggots, sodomites, God hates you, I hate you-this is really serious. These words have consequences beyond the public policy debate in Washington.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman, what's your reaction to that, that this is more than just politics? Just respond to what Mr. Tafel just said.

REP. STEVE LARGENT: Well, I think, again, as I said earlier, it is very hard to get to the facts and to the figures and to debate this in a non-emotional setting, I mean, even in our conversation today people have been offended and said, you know, I've been disingenuous, been accused of being disingenuous. It's hard to keep it on a level debate structure, and I think if we could do that, and believe me, I don't condone the types of things that Mr. Tafel said took place in Houston, Texas. That's not right. I mean, this should not be a political issue that we bash people with. That's not right. It's clearly wrong.

JIM LEHRER: All right.

REP. STEVE LARGENT: But what I would say is that when you get to the facts that this homosexual sex between men is an unhealthy lifestyle, totally unhealthy lifestyle, and that it's unnatural-when you start talking about things like that and we could have a good debate-and I hope we do-but I do believe that it's an issue much like abortion, that I don't think that there's a middle ground.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you. We have to leave it there.% ? FINALLY - FIRST IN SPACE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight remembering astronaut Alan Shepard. Kwame Holman begins.

KWAME HOLMAN: In 1959, Alan Shepard and six other men were chosen from a pool of 110 pilots who volunteered to go into space. NASA picked Shepard to guide its very first manned space flight. On May 5, 1961, Shepard became the first American in space. He flew for 15 minutes aboard the Mercury Freedom 7 Spacecraft and splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean. In an interview years later the former Navy test pilot explained his desire to be an astronaut.

ALAN SHEPARD: I think all those who volunteered and certainly all of those who ended up the finals like I did really sort of looked at it as an extension of what they're doing. See, as a test pilot you sort of keep flying bigger and better and faster and farther and higher, et cetera, et cetera. In other words, you're expanding, as we call it, the boundary of the envelope, the envelope being the curve describing where thou shalt not pass if you're flying an airplane. And I think all of the original seven looked at it that way. It's not a brand new frontier really. It's just taking what we have and pushing it out. And I think all of us looked at it as a natural extension of what we'd been doing-flying strange-looking airplanes, and that sort of thing.

KWAME HOLMAN: Ten years after his Mercury flight Shepard walked on the Moon, the fifth astronaut to do so. As commander of that Apollo 14 mission, Shepard brought along a six-iron and became the first and so far only golfer on the Moon.

ALAN SHEPARD: And one more-for miles and miles-

KWAME HOLMAN: Thirty-seven years ago astronaut and Senator John Glenn was Alan Shepard's backup on the original Mercury flight.

SEN. JOHN GLENN, [D] Ohio: No one was more dedicated to this country and to the astronaut program, to flying, to the Navy, to being a dedicated patriot in this country, no one is going to exceed Al Shepard in that regard.

KWAME HOLMAN: President Clinton also remembered Alan Shepard today.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I can't help noting that there on the Moon he lived every golfer's dream-taking his six-iron and hitting the ball-in his words-for miles and miles. Alan Shepard truly had the right stuff. His service will always loom large in America's history.

KWAME HOLMAN: Alan Shepard died of leukemia last night at age 74.

JIM LEHRER: And to essayist Roger Rosenblatt. Roger, Alan Shepard, why is he an important man to all of us?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Two things. The geopolitical importance and the human importance, Jim. The geopolitical importance we remember because he represented America rising from its humiliation by the Soviet Union when they had successes with Sputnik and again successes with Gagarin in space, the cosmonaut who flew in space. We tried to send up a satellite and it just fizzled on the launch pad, and the press was ruthless about it. Instead of calling it Sputnik, called it Kaputnik. And then Alan Shepard got in his rocket ship and took Americans back where they were supposed to be, where we believed we are supposed to be through invention and technology at the top of the heap. And then there was the human aspect of it that a person did it, that it was a person. We talk about conquests of various things. Lindbergh flies the ocean or Columbus sails the ocean, or we conquer space, but it's not the abstractions we're interested in as much as I think a person doing it, someone with whom we can identify, someone superior, more courageous, more technically adroit, but in the end a person representing us who does something marvelous.

JIM LEHRER: And, Alan Shepard, as the President said today, he kind of exemplified Tom Wolfe's phrase, "The Right Stuff," did he not?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: He did. He was-I mean, he was-I mean, one imagined the grave sense of grace and humor playing golf on the Moon, but it wasn't just that. The "Right Stuff" had a moral element too. He looked back from it-when he was on the Moon, he looked back, and he saw our planet, and he was brought weeping, he said, because of its fragility. What he meant was that there were so many wars going on at the planet at the time and we were so careless with what we had, but from the perspective of the Moon he knew that he saw a treasure.

JIM LEHRER: Roger, you brought something that Tom Wolfe wrote in his book, "The Right Stuff," about Alan Shepard. Set it up and then read it for us.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: This is good. Here's Tom Wolfe as he's sort of imagining Shepard taking off and the thrill of getting a go. "Now he could feel his heart pounding. The most critical part of the flight, next to the launch itself, was only a moment away. The separation of the capsule from the rocket. You heard a muffled explosion from above, and the escape rocket blew off, and the capsule was now free of the rocket. The force of the rocket pulling away accelerated his speed, and he felt as if he had had a kick from below. A three-inch long rectangular light lit up green on the instrument panel. On it were the letters 'Jet Tower,' 'Jettison Tower.' With the tower gone, the periscope would start operating and he could look out. But he had his eyes pinned on the green light. It was beautiful."

JIM LEHRER: "The Right Stuff." Roger Rosenblatt, thank you very much.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Thank you.% ? RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, a heat wave covered much of the United States from the Southwest to New England. The death toll reached 130 in seven states. President Clinton signed the IRS reform bill into law, and the House voted to renew normal trade relations with China. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.