The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Friday, we update the bloodshed that's going on in the African nation of Rwanda. Our regular panel of regional editors and commentators looks at the President's effort to save health care reform, and Mark Shields and Paul Gigot analyze that and other things political. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: There was a second day of brutal violence today in Kigali, the capital of the African nation of Rwanda. Reports from the nation were sketchy, but aid workers said hundreds and possibly thousands of people have been killed. Soldiers rampaged through the streets in a resurgence of violence tied to a decades old ethnic conflict. The victims included priests, nuns, aid workers, and Rwanda's prime minister. The fighting began after the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were killed Wednesday when their plane was apparently shot down near Kigali. There are 255 Americans in Rwanda. Clashes were reported near the U.S. ambassador's residence but so far no Americans have been hurt. The State Department's acting secretary for African affairs spoke to reporters in Washington about their plight.

PRUDENCE BUSHNELL, State Department: Everything is organized through a warden system, and the word has gone out through the warden system for everyone to stay in their homes. And we did this for the past 24 hours, and this morning, the ambassador got on the warden net and said stay home, stay low.

MR. MAC NEIL: We'll have more on the story later in the program. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: South Africa's political leaders held a summit meeting on pre-election violence today. President F. W. DeKlerk and Nelson Mandela met with Zulu leaders but did not convince them to join this month's elections. They did agree to call in international mediators to help settle their differences. More than 130 people have been killed in unrest in Zulu-dominated Natal Province since a state of emergency was imposed there last week. The clashes have been between supports of the African National Congress and the Zulus who are boycotting the elections. Israeli troops shot and wounded at least 25 Palestinians in the West Bank today. The violence took place in Hebron shortly after Jesse Jackson spoke at a peace rally. Jackson was still in the area but was not hurt. Hebron is where a Jewish settler killed 30 Muslims in February during prayers at a mosque.

MR. MAC NEIL: Japanese Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa abruptly resigned today amid questions over his personal financial dealings. We have a report narrated by Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News.

RICHARD VAUGHAN, WTN: Ironically, when Hosokawa took office eight months ago, it was with a pledge to root out corruption. But suspicion that Hosokawa, himself, had been paid out by a Cuban trucking company made him an even greater victim of scandal. After handing the cabinet his resignation, Hosokawa went on national television to address a shocked nation. He's the fourth of Japan's last five prime ministers to step down amid allegations of corruption. During his brief period of office he won credit for pushing through long delayed reforms, but he also leaves behind a host of problems, not least of all difficult trade relations with Washington. His foreign minister, Tsutomu Hata, is the likely successor. He's considered an experienced negotiator, but it remains uncertain whether he can win the backing of the influential Social Democrats. The next few days could well see a scramble for power amongst Japan's seven-party ruling coalition.

MR. MAC NEIL: President Clinton said he was sorry to see Hosokawa step down, but he said the United States would remain firm in its trade policy with Japan. The administration has been pressing Japan to further open its markets and reduce its huge trade surplus with the U.S.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the killings in Rwanda, our regional editors and commentators, and Shields and Gigot. FOCUS - R - ETHNIC VIOLENCE

MR. LEHRER: The violence in the tiny African nation of Rwanda is first tonight. As the death toll keeps mounting, efforts are underway to rescue several hundred foreigners there, including more than 200 Americans. Our coverage begins with this backgrounder by John Scofield of Independent Television News.

JOHN SCOFIELD, ITN: Rwanda has suffered this sort of violence many times before. At least 100,000 people have been killed since the first bout of ethnic killing in the late 50's and 60's. Many of the 150,000 refugees expected from this week's battles between the majority Hutu and smaller Tutsi tribes will have been on the road before. Two and a half thousands U.N. troops are in Rwanda as part of a peace deal signed last August between the two tribes. They're lightly armed. It's unlikely they'll be able to prevent much bloodshed. Ten Belgian soldiers were killed yesterday. Twenty-two Catholic priests and nuns and several aid workers are among the victims reported today. The death of the prime minister, Athe Uwilingiyimana, is one of the biggest blows to hopes of restoring peace. She was from the minority Tutsi tribe brought into the government as a sign that the country could end its hatreds.

DR. IAN LINDEN, Catholic Institute for International Relations: This is a real form of racialism. People are being identified according to physical characteristics and massacred by a machete, including this terrible incident in the Center of Spirituality in Kigali, where a number of church personnel were slaughtered, and of course, the prime minister and a number of other ministers.

JOHN SCOFIELD: Fighters from the Tutsi tribe are based mainly in the North. They are now threatening to march South on the capital Kigali and take on the army. A full scale civil war and blood bath could be imminent now. There are several thousand expatriates. Many are now preparing to flee to neighboring Burundi. Belgium, the old colonial power in Rwanda, now has 800 paratroops on standby to back up its U.N. soldiers already there. The paratroops are expected to be sent in to try and rescue expatriates. Belgium is also demanding the U.N. make tougher measures to ensure the security of their forces there. But as the deaths increase, it seems impossible for the moment for anything to stop the killing.

MR. LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes the story from there. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: I spoke this afternoon with Bettina Malone in Kigali, the Rwandan capital. She's the project director for Catholic Relief Services in Rwanda and one of the 250 Americans still in the country. It was late evening in Kigali when we spoke, and I started our phone conversation by asking her to describe exactly where she was.

BETTINA MALONE, Catholic Relief Services: I'm in my house, which is in the middle of town sort of.

MS. WARNER: Tell us now what you've seen and heard over the last two days.

BETTINA MALONE: From where I'm staying I can see -- last night especially -- saw a lot of firing of mortars and what not between two different hills in Kigali. From my front door, not me, myself, personally, but a person who works at my house has reported seeing a lot of trucks filled with bodies of dead military going back and forth, presumably taking them to the hospital from the area where the fighting has been going on.

MS. WARNER: Can you tell who is doing the killing?

BETTINA MALONE: Everybody. There have been apparently -- my boss is at the hospital. My Rwandan co-worker, who is my, my supervisor, was beaten up on Wednesday night, and he and his pregnant wife are in the hospital. I talked to him just a little while ago, and he told me that there are bodies being brought there constantly of civilians who have been wounded. The ICRC, which is the Swiss Red Cross, is going through town with convoys picking up wounded and bringing them to a hospital. What's going on in some of the neighborhoods is just looting and pillaging by civilians and military alike.

MS. WARNER: Are there clear sides in this, or is it just total random violence? I mean, is it an ethnic conflict between these two groups, the Hutus and the Tutsis, or is it just a free-for-all?

BETTINA MALONE: It's a little bit of everything. Another thing that's been going on today is that people have reported soldiers coming into neighboring houses, firing a few shots, and then leaving, which we would translate as people coming in and settling scores. Some people have said that they are trying to rub out everyone who was a member of the opposition, meaning anyone involved in the multiparty movement. Anyone who is not a member of a certain political party they're trying to, to sort of get rid of those people.

MS. WARNER: But is this occurring on both sides, as you can tell?

BETTINA MALONE: It's hard to say, because, because it's happening on both sides. And, and, of course, some of the violence has an ethnic base to it, and some of it does not. Some of it is just random, people taking advantage of the situation and looting.

MS. WARNER: Now, the State Department tells us they don't think Americans are being targeted. Is that true?

BETTINA MALONE: As far as I know, yes, that's true. We're worried because there are several people in our community that don't have radio contact. One co-worker of mine in particular, I haven't talked to her since last night, and she's in an area in which there was a lot of fighting going on.

MS. WARNER: Do you think -- are relief workers being targeted, as far as you can tell?

BETTINA MALONE: There was one incident today where a relief worker, a local staff person of a relief agency, a Belgian relief agency, was shot in front of his co-workers, in front of ex- patriots. But as far as their being targeted, I can't say that's true.

MS. WARNER: Do you feel safe?

BETTINA MALONE: No. I don't feel safe. But I feel safer than a lot of my friends and people that I care about who are in places that are under a lot of stress right now.

MS. WARNER: And do you get any sense that anyone in particular is in control here?

BETTINA MALONE: It's hard to say. Apparently, at 4 o'clock they were supposed to have made a cease-fire, and it seems to me that there have been UN vehicles and Rwandan military vehicles traveling together past my door, which means that this could be something associated with efforts towards a cease-fire. I don't know for sure though.

MS. WARNER: And these U.N. peacekeepers, there's something like 2,000 plus in Rwanda, as I understand, do they appear to have any kind of control or any ability to stop this violence?

BETTINA MALONE: At this point, I don't think we've been able to see them capable of doing very much. In Kigali, itself, there are 1,000 U.N. peacekeeping troops, and during the middle of the day, radio communications around Kigali, people were decrying the fact that the U.N. has basically not even been able to make patrols of the area to make sure that people are safe.

MS. WARNER: What do you think it will take to stop this?

BETTINA MALONE: It's hard to say. We don't know what the situation is now. It's relatively quiet. There is shooting still going on in certain areas. But as to what is going to happen next, no one knows. And it doesn't seem to me that anyone has control of the situation.

MS. WARNER: Now joining us from the State Department is Prudence Bushnell, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. She visited Rwanda and Burundi two weeks ago and met with the presidents of both countries. The two men were killed in a plane crash Wednesday, touching off the wave of violence in Rwanda. Welcome, Mrs. Bushnell, thanks for being with us.

MS. BUSHNELL: You're welcome.

MS. WARNER: That was a pretty horrific description we just heard from Bettina Malone. Does that jive with what you're hearing, the reports you're getting of the situation on the ground there?

MS. BUSHNELL: We're in touch with our ambassador and some embassy officers who are at the embassy and have an open communication telephone line with the ambassador. We are communicating through radio and from the embassy through the telephone. So our information is pieced together from very specific viewpoints of people who are in building whom we want to stay in buildings and who are -- who, again, are piecing information from telephone reports and radio reports. We have nobody out on the streets. We don't want anybody out on the streets. I think the -- the comment about -- the comment that the CIS woman made about not feeling safe is something that we are taking very seriously here. We are not talking about American citizens feeling safe. We are talking about all American citizens injured or injured. We have a 24-hour task force that is operating with one objective in mind, and that is the safety of American citizens and how do we get them out without injuring anyone. So her comments were interesting to me and jived with other telephone reports we've been getting from the embassy and from the ambassador.

MS. WARNER: Now as far as you know now, are all Americans still safe?

MS. BUSHNELL: As far as we know now, all Americans are not injured, but as the woman mentioned, there are people who are not - - who don't have radios and with whom we don't have contact, and that concerns us. We are trying to figure out how we can get in touch with them. What we do is to operate through a warden network which is in touch with our embassy offices who are in the embassy. So the embassy is command control if you will, and through radios, through radio networks, they are keeping in touch with as many American citizens who have radios and who are in our warden net.

MS. WARNER: Tell us about the situation at the embassy. What kind of protection is there at the embassy say for the ambassador and people who are there?

MS. BUSHNELL: The ambassador is in his residence which is in a residential neighborhood. The embassy is located downtown. There is local guard protection for the embassy downtown. At one point this afternoon there some UNIMER troops who were at the ambassador's residence.

MS. WARNER: Excuse me. Those are the U.N. troops.

MS. BUSHNELL: The are the U.N. troops, yes. I'll have to not talk in acronyms. And there are five U.N. troops who were at the residence. They are not there any longer.

MS. WARNER: I see. Now let's talk a minute about the role of the U.N. troops, because from what Bettina Malone told us, they seem quite powerless to do anything. Is that true, and why?

MS. BUSHNELL: Let me take you back to the Arusha Accords. There was some discussion in your initial report about the civil war that has been going on. The civil war was ending last August through the Arusha Accords where the Rwandan patriotic front and the government decided to stop the civil war to -- to put in place a government of transition to disarm, to demobilize, and to set on the path toward elections. They came together, the Rwanda patriotic front, with members of the government, to ask the U.N. and ask the international community to provide a small number of U.N. troops to whom they could disarm, because the lack of trust between the two groups was that great. It was under that understanding that the U.N. troops were there to serve as a force to whom the people could disarm, to provide protection for the transition government ministers, and to provide protection for the Rwandan patriotic front people who were coming into Kigali.

MS. WARNER: Excuse me for interrupting, Ms. Bushnell, but are you saying they don't really have the ability to interfere in this fighting? That's not their role.

MS. BUSHNELL: Exactly. The agreement was that we are coming to do this very specific job. Under the Chapter 6, which is the legal agreement under which they come, they cannot fire unless they are personally endangered, unless they are fired upon.

MS. WARNER: I see.

MS. BUSHNELL: And I'm sure it is exceedingly frustrating for everybody to see this happen and to be able to do nothing.

MS. WARNER: I see. Now, you spoke about wanting to get the Americans out. What kind of plans are there to evacuate them?

MS. BUSHNELL: We're looking at several different options. And I frankly don't want to talk about them publicly, because, as I said, my No. 1 objective was to get people on it safely.

MS. WARNER: Well, let me ask you this. What are the major obstacles to getting them out? For instance, could forces fly into the airport, or is the airport shut down or unsafe?

MS. BUSHNELL: At this point, our understanding is that the airport is not safe. And clearly, from what the woman from CRS described today, nothing in the area of Kigali is safe, and that is a major obstacle.

MS. WARNER: Are there any American forces even in a position to go in and, and rescue these Americans, or would you have to rely on say French troops or other troops in that part of Africa?

MS. BUSHNELL: Well, as I say, I would -- there are several different plans that we're looking at, several different options, and I really don't want to get into specifics, because anything that we talk about could endanger the plan or the lives of Americans, and that is, again, my No. 1 priority. I don't mean to sound misleading, but I really do want to be careful here.

MS. WARNER: No. We understand. Let me ask you about one specific situation you mentioned today at your briefing. There's a mission school outside Kigali --

MS. BUSHNELL: Yes.

MS. WARNER: -- with a number of Americans. You've said some forces had come in there or tried to storm in there. Tell us about the situation now.

MS. BUSHNELL: This is a school to the north of Kigali, which is run by Seventh Day Adventists. And there are about 25 Americans there, teachers and their dependents, and I think 15 ex-pats of other nationalities. A mob came over and began looting. This started yesterday. They were in touch with our consul office here at the embassy. We advised them to come together to find a central location, to pool their valuables and to negotiate with the mob to -- so that they would go away. I am happy to say that they followed this very common sense advice. And as a result, the mob is away. It is fairly stable there. They, of course, continue, I'm sure, to be very frightened but there is no mob in the area, and they are uninjured and at the moment safe.

MS. WARNER: Thank you, Ms. Bushnell. Thanks for joining us.

MS. BUSHNELL: Thank you.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead on the NewsHour, regional views of the health care debate, and Shields and Gigot. FOCUS - EDITORS' VIEWS - HEALTH CARE

MR. MAC NEIL: Now we look at the full court press on health care reform mounted by the White House and how it's playing out in the country. For the past two weeks, the Clinton administration has been barnstorming the country talking up health care. Over 40 senior administration officials, including 11 cabinet secretaries, have participated in over 70 health care events across the country. The President and Mrs. Clinton made 11 separate appearances in nine towns in the past five days. Today the President addressed a rally in Minneapolis.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: This is an opportunity for us to come together across regional and racial and income and party lines to do something that is good for America. All of our jobs are at stake, all of our health care at stake. Our children are at stake. Our parents are at stake. This need not be an issue that divides us. But we are going to have to have a clear message from the American people that it will not be tolerated to do nothing to walk away, to be divided, to have hot hair, to turn it into a political issue. Tell the American people, tell the Congress, you want us to act an act now! Thank you!

MR. MAC NEIL: Last night, the President was in Kansas City, Missouri, where he fielded a wide range of questions from studio audiences in four Midwestern cities.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Mr. President, could you please explain why Washington continually fails to put the country's priorities back in the order in which they belong, and why our officials can't or won't take a serious and compassionate look at our health care reform?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I didn't write that question. [laughter in audience] Let me try to give you an answer that's not so -- that's a little more objective, maybe not quite so favorable to my position. This is a complicated issue. You wrote us a letter, didn't you? Didn't you write a letter to my wife?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes, I did.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And your mother got health care late and expensive because she was afraid she couldn't afford it.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: People are scared of change, skeptical of the government. Small business is sensitive, and the health insurance financing system will be changed. That's what's against our changing the system. I think the arguments for it are much more powerful but oftentimes it's harder to change than it is to stay the same. That's why we haven't done it. That's why we need stories like your mother's stories out there to remind us of the human issues at stake.

ANCHOR: Mr. President, meet John Sanders, a college student here in Tulsa.

JOHN SANDERS: Mr. President, I'm a full-time college student. I have a part-time job, and I have no health insurance. How will your plan help me, and how will I be able to pay for it?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: How many hours a week do you work?

JOHN SANDERS: I work twenty-five to thirty hours a week, sir, and I am currently taking 13 hours at a college here in town.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good for you. When you get your degree, you'll be glad you worked for it like that, if you can get it, and I think you can. Under our plan, the cost of insuring part-time workers would be shared between the employer, the employee, and the government, so that if you worked -- let's just say you worked 20 hours a week, which is half-time -- your employer would pay half the premium that the employer would pay if you worked 40 hours a week, and you would similarly pay your obligation. Then the difference would be made up with help from the government. But you would have to pay and so would your employer if you worked more than 10 hours a week. But you'd be eligible to get health care coverage.

OTHER ANCHOR: Mr. President, I'd like you to meet Dr. Jane Naff from Children's Mercy Hospital, and she's very concerned about the toll violence is taking on our health care industry and our nation as a whole and especially our young people. Dr. Naff.

DR. JANE NAFF: Good evening, President Clinton, and thank you for taking the time to come and meet with us in Kansas City. Over the years, I've seen many changes in my practice as a pediatric emergency medicine physician. By far and away most frightening is the escalation of violent injuries involving our children both as victims and as witnesses. My question for you is this: Are we going to be able to provide these children the acute care, the rehabilitation, and the mental health services they need, both the victims and the witnesses, under your plan for health care reform?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The short answer is yes. The long answer is what I said earlier about mental health benefits. We phased them in, and we don't fully have them until the year 2000, so that except in extreme circumstances they wouldn't all becovered under all health insurance practices. Now, some children's hospitals will be eligible for certain payments that will permit that to be done, but the short answer is, yes, the comprehensive services will be provided, but we won't have full mental health coverage until the year 2000 under the plan as it is presently drawn.

ANCHORMAN: Mr. President, this is Paul Degner, and he's lived in the capital of Kansas for 18 years. And Paul doesn't have a lot of faith, frankly, in the government's ability to administer health care, and he's got a question about that for you, sir.

PAUL DEGNER: Mr. President, good evening.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening.

PAUL DEGNER: In view of the government's past poor performance, i.e., Social Security, welfare, the federal budget, the deficit, and pork barrel spending, can you explain to us how the federal government can manage health care, another socialistic program, in an economical and efficient manner?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I have two things to say about it. No. 1, the federal government is not going to manage this program. Under our program, if my program passes, the private sector will manage it. The only thing the federal government will do is two things basically. We will require everybody to have health insurance and employers and employees to share responsibility for it. That includes good primary preventive benefits. We will then say that insurance has got to be what it used to be when it started. You can't cut people off because somebody in the family got sick. You can't charge old folks too much if they're still working and they're healthy. And small business people and farmers and self-employed people have the right to be in big buying groups so they can get the same kind of deal that government employees and that big business employees get today. That's not a big government program.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now for an assessment of how this is playing around the country we're joined by our regular panel of regional editors and columnists: Ed Baumeister of the Trenton, New Jersey Times; Lee Cullum of the Dallas Morning News; Erwin Knoll of the Progressive magazine published in Madison, Wisconsin; Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta, Constitution; Gerald Warren of the San Diego Union Tribune; and Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, who tonight joins us from Indianapolis. Clarence, has this big health care blitz been effective, do you think?

MR. PAGE: I think it's effective in the cities, first of all, where he appears, because naturally there's going to be a lot of curiosity and higher viewership in those areas. I don't think the ratings for his tour so far, however, have been competitive with the other programs on television. There were probably a lot more people concerned about who won last Monday's Cubs game than were about Hillary Clinton's appearance at the game and her health care plan. But I think it helps to put a couple of important messages across. One, that the President cares about health care, the public does see a health insurance crisis whether or not they see a health care crisis, and that No. 2, that the debate is beginning, and it is only beginning. It is a complicated debate. Public awareness is just really beginning to rise. This is why the popularity of the Clinton plan is suffering, because people are seeing details, but I think Bill Clinton, the more he gets the discussion going, the better chance he has of improving the popularity of it.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you agree with that, Lee Cullum.

MS. CULLUM: No. I don't agree at all. I think the more he talks about it, the more the program suffers, to tell you the truth, Robin. I'm sure there are people in this part of the country who support the plan but I simply haven't met them. There is great apprehension about it. People are afraid they're going to give up too much and get too little. There has been very good response to an idea that I heard about from a Dallas hospital administrator and read about in a column that said let's expand Medicare to cover the 37 million that are not covered. That would cost taxpayer money but, remember, the Clintons propose to spend $100 billion by 1999, subsidizing the poor and small business. And, of course, such a plan expanding Medicare could charge premiums on a sliding scale. I think people want simplicity. I think they're worried about wrecking health care for 220 million Americans in order to solve it for 37 million.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you agree with Lee, Ed Baumeister, that the more the President talks about it, the less there's support for his plan?

MR. BAUMEISTER: I don't know if there's a direct relation between the two. This is complicated. I think the President, himself, said once that he had read his own health plan till his head hurt. It is complicated, but I'm not sure that the decline in, in popularity is necessarily related directly to his, to his being on the stump with it.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you think, Gerry Warren, is he doing himself some good this week?

MR. WARREN: Well, I think he's doing some, some good, but I believe he's late. I think this big push came two or three weeks too late. Before he started this, Congress, members of Congress were back in their districts, and I think they heard that the American people by and large do not believe that this will not be a massive government operation. And they distrust massive government operations. If the government doesn't regulate the health care system, as Mr. Clinton said, then it will regulate the insurance system. And either way, it's a mistake. The American people are, I believe, more concerned about crime and violence and welfare than they are about health care right now.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you agree with that, Erwin Knoll?

MR. KNOLL: No, I'm not sure I do.

MR. MAC NEIL: They're more concerned with crime than health care?

MR. KNOLL: I don't think so. I think people are concerned about health care, but the President says we can't afford not to do something. And I think most people agree with that. But they don't know what to do, and they don't know what he's proposing to do. Everyone who's spoken on this so far has mentioned the complexity, and there's a lot of confusion. I think the opportunity was missed to present a simple, dramatic plan that would be regularly understood and on which the issue could be joined. Do we or do we not want a genuine health care reform in America? And I think many people feel we do want that, but I don't think they have a clear sense at all of what this administration is proposing to do about it, and I think that's because from the very beginning the President has announced to the whole world that he's willing to compromise virtually every single aspect of this plan. Well, that's hardly a banner to rally around.

MR. MAC NEIL: Cynthia Tucker, has the President helped his health care plan, or the case for reform this week, do you think?

MS. TUCKER: I don't think he's helped it nearly enough. Robin. There are two separate things going on here, I think. One is that health care reform is, as all my colleagues have already said, an extremely complicated issue. Even if the President had started out doing everything exactly right, had not encountered any political controversy, this would have been a very difficult and very hard sell, because while I think most Americans agree that the system needs to be fixed, there is very little consensus about what those fixes ought to be. It is very easy to scare people that you can make the system even worse. The second issue, of course, is that the President hasn't done everything right. He's had an awful lot of political distraction, and that has made his job that much harder. And so he's gotten out there now, but he's got a lot more suspicion to overcome. He's got the Whitewater credibility issues to overcome. He's got lost momentum to make up for, and he may have done himself a little bit of good this week but he hasn't done himself nearly enough good on health care reform.

MR. MAC NEIL: You don't think he has refocused the nation's on health care after the distractions like Whitewater that you're talking about?

MS. TUCKER: No, I don't, not yet.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you feel about that, Ed?

MR. BAUMEISTER: No, he probably hasn't, but there are a couple of things about this whole proces. One, it's being waged as a campaign, either vote for it or vote against it. And that's where the complication comes in. The other thing is that the press wades in and tries to assess it as a campaign. And I don't think it plays that way. I mean, in our county, in Princeton, a task force of local people have come up with yet another plan. I'm reminded by Lee's doctor's suggestion that it be run like the old Communications Satellite Corporation as a sort of a semi-regulated public utility. I think people are really engaged in this issue, but they're not prepared to tell us what the score is. You go in and ask what the score is and you inevitably come out with one from our surveys and polls and so forth. I think the issue has arrived. I think people generally credit the President with working hard at it, and they do, I think, expect something to be done.

MR. MAC NEIL: Clarence Page, was, was Whitewater seriously distracting attention from health care, and has the President refocused the nation's attention this week?

MR. PAGE: I think Whitewater certainly seriously distracted attention from health care right at a time when the public's awareness of it was really -- and curiosity about it was generally rising. The public's yearning to learn more about health care was rising. All of a sudden, Whitewater came along. The President scored some effective points when he noted that we in the major media gave more attention to Whitewater than to health care for several weeks. I think he was right. I think the public didn't like that. Now, I think Lee Cullum's suggestion there of expanding Medicaid -- Medicare, excuse me, was a good idea. It's hardly a new one. It's one that Clinton thinks was a non-starter because it is very close to the Canadian model, a single payer type of plan, not quite, but it's close. And I think there's been very little debate on that side, even though the Congressional Black Caucus, the AARP, the retired persons, and various other groups look favorably upon a single payer plan. So far we've been hearing mostly the Harry and Louise side, which is the insurance industry side. And, folks, while you're right, people don't like the complexity of the Clinton plan, and they don't like the idea of government intrusion, they also don't like the way the insurance industry is running health care right now. So that's where Bill Clinton is scoring his best points, that he's showing he's trying to do something about this problem.

MR. MAC NEIL: Lee Cullum, what is your sense right now of what health care reform, assuming a bill is, is passed this year, will look like?

MS. CULLUM: Robin, I would expect a health care reform that is simple, that has very little resemblance to the Clinton proposal. It seems to me we have four problems we're trying to solve. One is the problem of the uninsured; one is the problem of trying to curb growth of health care expenditures as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. I think it'll be about -- it's 14 percent now, due to go up to 70 percent under the Clinton plan, 2 or 3 percentage points more without the Clinton plan. I wonder how much those 2 or 3 percentage points matter. Thirdly, we're trying to solve the problem of being able to take your health care with you no matter where you work, and fourthly, we're trying to solve the problem of denying health care to those who are now sick or ever have been sick, which is a ridiculous thing to do. Any bill that will address those problems in any reasonable way I think stands a chance of passage. But I think we are suffering now from an excess of complexity, and a lot of it is because it's simply more interesting to work with than a simple approach.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gerry Warren, William Kristol, the Republican strategist, a Young Republican strategist, who suggested a while ago that the strategy should be there is no crisis has now come out with a new one, and he's advising Republicans to oppose the concept of universal coverage and to take the position of being proud to oppose it. How do you feel about that? Is that a smart thing for them to be doing?

MR. WARREN: Well, if he is correct in that universal coverage leads to a single payer system where the government runs the entire operation, then I think he's correct. As I read his proposal, he is saying, come up with a plan, do not stick with the administration plan, do not stick with the Republican plan or the Chaffee plan or the Cooper plan, but come up with a new plan which provides portability, which does not penalize for pre-existing conditions, using the tax system and using some subsidies to take care of those things. Do not mandate employer payment, and have the same thing. But do not try to get universal coverage. I think he's accurate on that. I talked to a very eminent cancer surgeon and doctor here in the San Diego area about whether or not she felt the President's plan would work. She said she believed something has to be done along those lines, but what she feared was that the project would be so complex and that, that care would be rationed in such a way that the American people would rise up in protest and from that, the government would automatically go to a single payer system, which would be a disaster.

MR. MAC NEIL: Cynthia Tucker, what do you think of William Kristol's advice to Republicans as a strategy to, to oppose the concept of universal coverage?

MS. TUCKER: I think it's a mistake. I mean, it may be true that Kristol is at bottom advising the Republicans to come up with something that they can support, but the first statement he makes off the bat is oppose universal coverage. So it is an advice to oppose, oppose, be against. And I think that's a mistake for the Republicans. You talked about how Whitewater has overwhelmed the attention that the President was trying to put on health care reform. Well, who has helped that to happen? The Republicans. The Republicans have been happy to have Whitewater overwhelm press attention because they didn't want to talk about health care reform. The Republicans have not been able to settle on a strategy for their own reform. They're just opposing the President's plan and opposing most of the other plans that have been put forward. I think that's a mistake. I think that the American public does expect something to be done to fix the system and if the Republicans continue to oppose it, I think the Democrats would do well to accuse them of creating gridlock. So I think the Republicans need to find something to be for.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you feel about that strategy for the Republicans, Clarence Page?

MR. PAGE: Well, Bill Kristol's a very bright young man. I consider him to be a friend. I'm sitting here in Indianapolis, where Dan Quayle, of course, you know, was Bill Kristol's boss. Kristol was his chief of staff. And I also think Bill Kristol's living in a right wing dreamland. I read that memo, and I said, this is Cloud Cuckooland. I mean, this is the same young man who tried to tell the Republicans, tell everybody there's no health care crisis, and it backfired so bad that now the debate has shifted over to how do we solve this crisis? I think Cynthia is absolutely right. It's wrong to take the negative tact of going around saying that universal coverage is a bad idea. That makes, again, the Republicans sound like they don't care.

MR. MAC NEIL: How would you answer that, Gerry Warren?

MR. WARREN: I think if you read Bill Kristol's memo carefully, he is pointing a way for Republicans show they do care, Republicans to show that we can provide health care for the majority of our people, the vast majority of our people, and that the system which now exists, the super system that now exists can take care of the rest of the people who do not have health care. So I think he's pointing a way for Republicans to really stand for something. And he is opening an extremely interesting debate, it seems to me, on whether or not this country wants and can support universal health care.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. Well, Lee and Cynthia and gentlemen, thank you all. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Finally this Friday night our analysis team of Shields and Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Mark, Congress comes back to work next week with what kind of message on health care reform, do you think, as a result of the recess and the result of what we've just heard?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, from the editors' candid, direct message, they set a standard for directness that I hope -- I don't know if can match -- I'm sure Paul can. I think the President --

MR. LEHRER: Don't have any cuckooland lines?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't have any cuckooland lines. Bill -- I like the way Clarence put it -- Bill Kristol, whom I like, admire, and respect, is in cuckooland, but I don't think he's in cuckooland, but the -- I think President Clinton has two purposes in doing this. One is a wholesale purpose when he goes on television. The other is retail. He's going into districts and areas and states where he needs support for his plan. The reason for Kansas, quite frankly, is Jim Slattery. Jim Slattery is a Democrat on the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. He is getting up this year. He's a moderate Democrat who may -- who's been a supporter of the President's but not an all out liberal by any means. He's running for governor of Kansas this year. And small business in Kansas is, as you know, is an important component politically, socially, institutionally in that state. So part of Bill Clinton's --

MR. LEHRER: And they're all over Slattery.

MR. SHIELDS: They're all over Slattery, and part of the message there was to call out the wolves, maybe even neutralize, maybe even proselytize some of those people for Jim Slattery so that when slattery comes back, he can support that legislation.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. GIGOT: I think Mark's essentially right. He's trying to provide air cover in a sense. And he's the big B-52 coming over and providing some cover and say, look, we want some kind of health reform, and now they'll go back to Capitol Hill, we'll work on the details. The problem I think he had -- I think the best day of the week he had this last week was probably Monday when his razor backs won in the NCAA's because I'm not so sure that he sold the country on the details or even in Kansas.

MR. LEHRER: What about the wholesale thing, Mark, that you were talking about? As Clarence had mentioned, he said, well, it helps where he was, that people did watch it on television, but the fact of the matter is every one of these town halls has gotten national coverage not only on this program but on everybody else's program, national coverage in all the newspapers, so there is a wholesale thing going here too.

MR. SHIELDS: There is a wholesale thing going. Every President, every leading politician eventually develops some format of dealing with the public that they're most comfortable with, either that or they perish. Jimmy Carter was, was absolutely effective in small groups of people. He died in a large audience. He died in an auditorium speech. Ronald Reagan was brilliant head to camera, and he was brilliant delivering an auditorium speech. Bill Clinton is probably unmatched in a situation such as this, in these town hall things. But the problem is, what he has used them in the past was to show a breadth of information and great personal empathy with his audience; when it gets prosecutorial, as it did in a few of those towns, it puts anybody on the defensive.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think about the town hall thing, how that has worked? There have been three of them now this week.

MR. GIGOT: Historically and during the campaign it went very well. In the campaign it worked beautifully. Where it doesn't work as well is when he gets a confrontation. And I'm not so sure he should shrink away from that. I mean, he went head to head with a fellow from Godfather's Pizza.

MR. SHIELDS: Yes, he did.

MR. GIGOT: Which I thought -- a small businessman doesn't like - - doesn't like the program.

MR. LEHRER: This was last night in Kansas City. He was calling him -- he was on the Interconnect from Omaha.

MR. GIGOT: Right. Despite the fact the President probably did an awful lot for Godfather's sales.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. GIGOT: And said that. You know, the guy went head to head with him, and I think that sort of exchange actually could go a long way to alleviating some of the concerns that people had, because otherwise they get the sense that maybe they're getting just one side of the picture, and then they turn around, and small business groups come in and say, sorry, that isn't the truth. He ought to face those issues head on more, and I think that he could be effective in that, because he's unmatched, as Mark said, in that kind of a forum.

MR. LEHRER: Paul, what do you read the Kristol memo that Robin was just talking to the editors and commentators about?

MR. GIGOT: I think he's on to something. The -- I think Clarence and some of the other people were right. If the debate is framed as a choice between health care reform or nothing at all. And the President's going to win that every time. He hasn't won the debate about what kind of health care reform and the nature of the government involvement and whether or not this country is willing to accept a really great government role. And what he's saying is universal coverage means a federal entitlement. It means the government isn't just a referee. It is also ultimately going to be the coach, the commissioner, and running the whole system. And that's the kind of debate he wants to have, and I think that's the answer for Republicans, and the President says to them, you're not providing universal coverage. And notice the President isn't even saying universal coverage anymore. He's calling it guaranteed private insurance. Of course, the question is what kind of guarantee, who does it, and how big is the government role?

MR. LEHRER: Mark, the government really is the enemy, is it not? I mean, that is still worth an awful lot of salt out there, isn't it?

MR. SHIELDS: It really is, Jim. I mean, we've had -- and I think in part it's not simply the Reagan-Bush running against government. I don't think it's that. I think it's government has contributed to that. It's just a little figure that was driven home to me. In 1970 in this country, 3/4 of the rivers were unchartable and unfishable. The Great Lakes were dying. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire. Richard Nixon got the Environmental Protection Act passed and the agency created. Twenty years later - - almost twenty-four years later, 3/4 of the rivers are swimmable and fishable. The Great Lakes are vibrant, alive, and full of recreation and fishing, and all the rest of it. The Cuyahoga River is alive and well, and 99 percent of the lead's been removed from the air, and nobody tells the story. Why? Because it hasn't been in the Republicans' or the conservatives' interest to tell a success story for the federal government. Couldn't admit the federal government did anything right. And it hasn't been in the liberals' interest, because they didn't want to acknowledge that anything was done right during Reagan or Bush with Republicans in control. So as a result, people are sitting out there, and they're saying, geez, nothing works. Here's an enormously successful program that nobody is talking about. I mean, our environment, our air is healthier, our lives are better, because of something the federal government, in fact, did do, but you're right -- I mean, there is --

MR. LEHRER: As you say, Paul, when somebody like Bill Kristol says that hey, you don't want the federal government to run your health care system, that's the end of the debate. You don't have to say to run it this way or that way or this way or that way, you just get an awful lot of momentum, negative momentum just saying that.

MR. GIGOT: I think that's right, and particularly among Perot voters, who are a swing portion of the electorate. They are very skeptical of government. I mean, the President -- this is the most interesting thing about this week. He's had to acknowledge this at every opportunity. He says my plan isn't a government plan. He says people think the government --

MR. LEHRER: Private.

MR. GIGOT: Yeah. Private plan. Every chance he gets he says that.

MR. SHIELDS: I think Bill Kristol has done two things. First of all, a lot of Republicans have been nitpicking at the numbers of the Clinton program. He just met it head on. I mean, there's a certain intellectual consistency and honesty about Bill Kristol's position. He has said there was not a health care crisis in the country. He was the first, strongest on that, and, therefore, if there isn't, there's no need for a cosmic, comprehensive, omnibus universal program to answer the non-crisis. So he is really attacking it root and branch in his own phrase, rather than simply nitpicking at the edges or the margins or coming up with Clinton lite or Clinton cheap or, you know, no fat and no cholesterol Clinton plan or whatever. So I think in that sense what you're seeing, Jim, most of all, is the fault line in the Republican Party. It always to a party out of power. One side of the party says, we lost because we weren't enough like the other guys. And, you know, that was sort of the DLC Democrats. The other part said, no, no, we lost because we weren't --

MR. LEHRER: DLC meaning that --

MR. SHIELDS: Democratic Leadership -- that's right. That was their position. We lost because there have been changes in the country, and we haven't acknowledged them. The other part of the party says, no, no, the only reason we lost is because we weren't, we weren't faithful, in the true, inherited belief we weren't consistent with our values.

MR. GIGOT: I'd say there's also another difference. It's generational. I mean, you have some of the older Republicans, John Chaffee from Rhode Island, who remember sort of the era of bigger government, the Nelson Rockefeller Republicans versus some of the younger activists. And it's also -- like Bill Kristol -- and it's also geographical. The Republican Party moved South and West during the '80s.

MR. LEHRER: That's true.

MR. GIGOT: And it's not as strong in the Northeast anymore.

MR. SHIELDS: But there's only one true believer who's ever been elected President, and that's Ronald Reagan. But I mean true believer, Barry Goldwater, got crushed; true believer George McGovern got humiliated. So I mean, you know, true believers generally haven't done well, whereas Eisenhowers, Kennedys have won; Nixons have won.

MR. GIGOT: That was in the heyday; that was in the post New Deal era of the New Deal coalition, and the country has changed. It's moved South and West, and that's why Reagan could win.

MR. LEHRER: But do you think that Kristol can sell this to the anti-Republican Congress?

MR. GIGOT: He can't sell it to the entire Congress.

MR. LEHRER: No, I know, but picking up on Mark's point, he said John Chafee's already committed himself to universal coverage.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right, the Republicans in the Finance Committee --

MR. GIGOT: There are some ways universal coverage is in many ways it's a Roshak test. You know, I mean, in a way you can see what you want, and it's really not -- I wouldn't be surprised if the President at the end can define it in a way that is acceptable to him, even if it doesn't have a big government rule. I think he -- he's beginning to -- Kristol has begun to sell this to a lot of the rank and file on the Hill. Some of the seven Republican freshman Senators, for example, had coalesced into a group and are very interested in the kinds of things that Kristol has promoted. They're going to be a force as this debate rolls along.

MR. LEHRER: Quickly, before we go, the retirement of Justice Blackmun from the Supreme Court, Sen. Mitchell, the Senate Majority Leader, is on the top of all the short lists. What do you think about that, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: I would point out that on this very show when George Mitchell retired, Paul Gigot said this very thing, I mean, that Harry Blackmun, if he did retire, that George Mitchell would be a likely --

MR. LEHRER: I had forgotten that.

MR. SHIELDS: He did say it.

MR. GIGOT: You know, I had -- [laughter] --

MR. SHIELDS: I just wanted to give him credit for that. I think, I think George Mitchell, I don't pretend objectivity about him, I think he would be a wonderful judge. I'd love to see it for a very simple reason. I'd like to see a politician go to the bench. I mean, I think he --

MR. LEHRER: Why?

MR. SHIELDS: Because somebody --

MR. LEHRER: -- judges go to the bench?

MR. SHIELDS: He has been a judge and a --

MR. LEHRER: Very briefly.

MR. SHIELDS: He was a U.S. attorney. He's been a trial justice - - attorney for the Justice Department. I just think that the richness and breadth of experience of dealing with real issues, I think that this is a court that is in strong need of leadership, of a consensus builder, and I think George Mitchell brings those special gifts.

MR. LEHRER: Paul, what do you think?

MR. GIGOT: I've talked to a lot of conservative activists this week who might be inclined to oppose a President -- President Clinton appointment, and their opinion is, well, this guy is our worst nightmare because he is a liberal, and he's going to sail through the Senate, and we can't touch him.

MR. LEHRER: You can't touch him. Why not?

MR. GIGOT: The Senators happen to like the guy. I mean, he's a nice guy, and Senatorial courtesy is such that unless you're somebody like John Tower who they really didn't like or you have some ethical problem, they're going to put him right through.

MR. LEHRER: But Robert Bork was defeated because of all the things he had written and said and all of that. I mean, here's a man who's been a United States Senator with a long public record. Why can't they go after that? They don't think that he's vulnerable on all of that?

MR. GIGOT: Well, some may, and -- but it's going to have to be outside the Senate, because he's going to be -- I can't see Bob Dole -- can you see Bob Dole going after --

MR. LEHRER: And he can keep everybody else off?

MR. SHIELDS: He's been absolutely fair with Bob Dole. Bob Dole has said that. His word is his bond. I mean, those are things that count. Those count more than ideology in a legislative body.

MR. LEHRER: Even to the Supreme Court?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't know what counts to the Supreme Court. What do you say about people that wear robes all day, Jim? I don't know.

MR. LEHRER: Boy, I think that's a really good place to leave this. Thank you both very much. We'll see you next week. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the main stories of this Friday, violence waged in the African nation of Rwanda for a second day. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people have been killed in the ethnic fighting. The State Department's deputy assistant secretary for Africa, Prudence Bushnell, said on the NewsHour that a task force was urgently planning the evacuation of the 255 Americans in Rwanda. And Japanese Prime Minister Hosokawa abruptly resigned over a personal financial scandal. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.