The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, Iowans are attending caucuses tonight in the first voter test of candidates' strengths in the 1988 presidential election. Nicaraguan contras cancelled a cease fire meeting with the Sandinistas, saying they need to raise funds. Soviet leader Gorbachev said his troops could begin pulling out of Afghanistan by May 15. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Jim? JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, the Iowa caucuses, as seen by Roger Mudd, Mark Shields and David Gergen, and with a report by Cokie Roberts. Then, a John Merrow education report on questions raised about proprietary schools. And finally, excerpts from Robert Bork's going away news conference.News Summary LEHRER: Some 250,000 Iowans cast the first votes in the 1988 presidential elections tonight. They will do so at precinct caucuses all over the state that are Step One in a process that leads to delegate votes in the national political conventions. It is the first official event of the 1988 election campaign, and its results usually result in a paring down of the field. The latest poll shows Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt leading the Democrats, followed closely by Illinois Senator Paul Simon who campaigned door to door today and Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, who spoke to a high school audience in Des Moines. At a distance behind are Bruce Babbitt, Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart. Republican Senate Leader Robert Dole is the Republican poll leader, ahead of Vice President Bush, who also did a final day of Iowa campaigning. Trailing behind are Pat Robertson, Congressman Jack Kemp and Pete du Pont. But Iowa is also known for its surprises, so the polls are not being given that much weight. Robin? MacNEIL: Leaders of the Nicaraguan contras today postponed a cease fire meeting with Sandinista officials planned for Wednesday in Guatemala. Contra director Alfredo Cesar said the delay would be for a few days or a couple of weeks. He announced a formal fundraising drive for nonlethal aid, saying they would go to third countries for money to buy weapons. Another director, Adolfo Calero, dismissed a claim by Panamanian strong man General Manuel Antonio Noriega that he had been approached to lead an invasion of Nicaragua. The invasion charge on the CBS program 60 Minute was also denied by the White House. In Washington, New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said Noriega current indictment for drug trafficking was delayed because of his relationship to top U. S. officials. ROBERT MORGENTHAU, NY District Attorney: My view is that he should have been prosecuted a long time ago. And I guess the only thing you can say now for General Noriega is that he's been acting in reliance, in reliance of friendship of people in high positions in the United States government, and that he had a right to expect that he would continue to get immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct. But I think it's long overdue. I mean, everybody -- not everybody, but certainly people in law enforcement have known that General Noriega was corrupt for a long period of time. LEHRER: President Reagan said today that drug abuse is not a victimless crime, and urged business and industry to crack down on employee drug users. He spoke at a drug abuse seminar at Duke University in North Carolina.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: The drug user is a victim. His employer is a victim. His fellow employees are victims. The family that depends on his wages are victims. And America, which is only as strong and as competitive as all of us together, America is the victim. It'd be hard to find any crime with more victims than drug abuse. MacNEIL: Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said today that Soviet troops would start withdrawing from Afghanistan by May 15 if final points in a peace accord were settled by March 15. Gorbachev said withdrawal could begin even sooner if Afghanistan and Pakistan signed peace accords before March 15 at the talks mediated by the United Nations in Geneva. He said total withdrawal could take ten months. The Reagan Administration, which has been pressing for a timetable, welcomed the announcement cautiously. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said, ''It sounds like a positive step, and we hope it is. But we need to see the fine print. '' LEHRER: Robert Bork said today he was leaving the bench, but not the fight. He spoke at his first news conference since the Senate overwhelmingly rejected his nomination to the U. S. Supreme Court and since he resigned as a Federal Appeals Court judge. He said he will speak out about his nomination and rejection.

Judge ROBERT BORK: I will of course discuss my constitutional philosophy, which I think has been badly misrepresented. And therefore gravely misunderstood. It's important that it be correctly understood, for that philosophy is the traditional American approach to law. It's probably for that reason that it was distorted by those who want to abandon that tradition. LEHRER: Bork also warned against turning judicial nominations into political campaigns with nominees making campaign promises to win Senate confirmation. MacNEIL: A senior United Nations official said today that Israeli troops beat a Palestinian schoolboy to death after taking him from his home in the Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Bernard Mills, Director of the United Nations Relief & Works Agency said the boy, 15 year old Iad Mohammed Aqel, was found by friends in an orange grove last night and taken to a hospital where he died. At his funeral today, soldiers fired on stone throwing mourners, wounding a teenage boy and girl. News of the death also caused rioting in a nearby camp, and the army said troops shot and wounded four Palestinians. There were also clashes in Arab East Jerusalem, in which two policemen were wounded. Members of an International Commission of Historians said today that Austrian President Kurt Waldheim had not been involved in war crimes, but had known about them. Jon Simpson of the BBC reports.

JON SIMPSON, BBC: The scene was almost as confusing as the precise findings of the report had turned out to be. But at last the Austrian chancellor, Dr. Vranitsky, arranged himself alongside the members of the commission, which he himself had set up, and the commission's chairman, Dr. Kurt, duly handed the finished report over to him. FRANZ VRANITSKY, Austrian Chancellor: There is a lot of critical material in the report concerning Mr. Waldheim's activity as a wartime officer.

SIMPSON: As a West German, Dr. Messerschmidt, who had wanted a harsher judgment, felt the question of Dr. Waldheim's responsibility was perfectly clear. Dr. MANFRED MESSERSCHMIDT, German Historian: We make, I think, the judgment in correspondence with those documents we have seen.

SIMPSON: But the report does make it clear that Dr. Waldheim bears an important share of the blame for the various war crimes carried out in the places in which he served, because he knew about them and didn't do anything to stop them. Later, I'm told, the foreign ministry here tried unsuccessfully to get the commission to leave out some of the more critical parts. It threatened to refuse to accept the report. But the commission took no notice. MacNEIL: The Austrian press agency which obtained a copy of the report quoted the panel as saying it could not find a case in which Waldheim opposed an order to do something he undoubtedly recognized as unjust. Reacting to the report, Waldheim said, ''Knowledge is not a crime. '' LEHRER: And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to the Iowa caucuses, a John Merrow report on proprietary schools, and Robert Bork's news conference. Caucus Countdown MacNEIL: Tonight for the first time in the 1988 presidential campaign, the voters get a chance to say something. Democrats and Republicans in Iowa will gather in more than 2400 neighborhood caucuses to declare support for their candidates. Although only a fraction of the eligible voters may take part, their support can catapult a candidate into frontrunner status, and the media limelight. So, eleven of the candidates are pinning their hopes on tonight's results. Joining them are thousands of members of the national press corps, including our own political analyst and essayist Roger Mudd, who's in the studios of Public Station KDIN in Des Moines. Roger, from afar, the '88 caucuses seem to be getting a lot more attention in every way. On the ground, does it feel different this time? ROGER MUDD: It's different because you can't get as close to candidates, Robin, as you could four years ago and eight years ago. And I think the reason is this is the first time in the history of the Iowa caucuses where both parties have a full slate of candidates, and the White House is going to be empty. Four years ago, it was no contest on the Republican side, and a Democratic contest only. Four years before that, it was the other way around. So this is the first time you've got two full slates of candidates running at each other. In addition, all the networks are originating their broadcasts from out here, which brings in double the number of accredited ''newses. '' Half the number are estimated at about 2500, probably can be labeled technicians and cameramen. So I think the actual number of working reporters is probably about 1,000. And given the number of candidates and the size of the state, and the speed with which candidates go back and forth, that's probably what it takes to cover Iowa. MacNEIL: Now, all this bigger atmosphere, is that going to make a difference tonight? I mean, are more people likely to go out? MUDD: Well, if you read any daily Iowa paper, and read in particular the Des Moines Register, there are stories not only about the candidates and what they're saying, there are also stories about all the sideshows and the circuses and how the TV is going to cover the story, side bars, Iowans are polled, Iowans are flattered, Iowans are denounced, because they are the first, they're praised because they're the first. And all of that is going to tend to -- it seems to me -- to increase the turnout. They're very proud of being first, and they take their assignment seriously. MacNEIL: The Des Moines Register poll, which everybody is looking at, shows Gephardt for the Democrats ahead, but Simon and Dukakis fairly close behind. Could this end up as a fairly muddled result, which would give no big springboard to anybody? MUDD: I think that's a distinct possibility. The poll that the Des Moines Register takes has been a fairly good poll. Its accuracy has been uneven over the years. It's usually good at spotting trends. And the last trend they spotted was that Gephardt had moved into first place. The trouble with that poll is that the people who say they're for Gephardt are also people who say they're not sure they're going to the caucus. The Simon followers and the Dukakis followers seem more committed to their man than Gephardt's do to theirs. So it's possible -- weather appears not to be a factor tonight -- it's possible with a good turnout that Gephardt could win. But I don't think anybody here this early before the caucus has begun, is willing to say that Gephardt is an easy hands down winner. MacNEIL: What about the Republican side, where the polls show Dole substantially ahead of George Bush and the others? MUDD: Well, the game that the Republicans play is the same game the Democrats play. It's just called the game of expectations. And you low ball the fellow who's ahead of you. George Bush is behind. And his own people acknowledge that he's behind. And they say that Dole is so far out ahead that he'll be lucky -- George Bush'll be lucky -- to finish a close second. I think he knows better than that. He's going to finish in second place, and it would not embarrass him. The danger, as you pointed out, is that Iowa is very capable of a surprise. And what most Republican politicians are scared about is the potential for Pat Robertson to overtake George Bush. If that happens, George Bush, known to some in the Republican Party as a political hemophiliac, might start bleeding. And he would then run into trouble in New Hampshire, and his campaign indeed would be in serious trouble if he cannot maintain a strong second place position here this evening. MacNEIL: Okay, Roger, thank you. We'll come back. Jim? LEHRER: We move now to the wisdom of Gergen and Shields, our regular political analysis team of David Gergen and Mark Shields. David is editor of U. S. News & World Report, and Mark is a political columnist for the Washington Post. He is in Des Moines tonight. Let's start where Roger and Robin ended and work back: the Republicans. Dave Gergen, is it possible that Pat Robertson could come in second tonight? DAVE GERGEN, U. S. News & World Report: It's possible he could come in second. It's even possible that he could come in first. LEHRER: First? Mr. GERGEN: I must say I doubt it. I think it's very unlikely he'll come in first. But I must say for reasons that are almost -- very difficult to fathom, perhaps Mark and Roger being on the ground out there to help us with that, the political community and the journalistic community is atingle tonight with the idea that suddenly there's a surge with Robertson. Bush seems to be fading a little bit in some of the tracking polls, the intensity for Bush seems to be fading. This spat that he's been having -- the running spat that he's been having with Bob Dole is apparently hurting both Dole and Bush, but Bush more than Dole. And Robertson apparently is surging ahead. LEHRER: Does that jibe with what you've heard out there, Mark? MARK SHIELDS, Washington Post: Yes. The Des Moines Register reports, Ann Seltzer, their polling director, reports that among those most likely to report to the caucuses tonight, those most committed, most intensive, passionate about their support of a candidate, that Pat Robertson runs a virtual dead heat with George Bush in their last poll. I think the Robertson thing is a wild card, the Republicans -- Roger's right, they're terrified, scared, and Democrats are exhilarated at the prospect of a Robertson surge. LEHRER: Why are they exhilarated? Why is that good news for Democrats? Mr. SHIELDS: Well, it's good news -- two reasons. One, Pat Robertson himself carries an unfavorable to favorable ratio among Republican voters of four to one unfavorable. He has an intense true believer constituency, but has demonstrated so far no ability to reach beyond that. The second factor is that Pat Robertson brings into the Republican debate all sorts of social issues which the Republicans have kept out of this campaign. And which they'd just as soon not see the dialogue and the debate move to the right on those questions. LEHRER: David Gergen, how seriously could Vice President Bush get hurt tonight? Mr. GERGEN: Well, Bush is in a clear position that he still possibly could win. I mean, I think this is volatile enough, and we know so little about the real intentions of the voters that he could -- Mr. SHIELDS: See, it's great to talk about it before the results are in -- see (laughter) Mr. GERGEN: It's possible that he could win. I think that the great fear on the Bush camp is that he comes in third. And he does finish behind Robertson and Dole, he would be badly hurt. But I must say -- LEHRER: How badly? Mr. GERGEN: Badly enough hurt that there are journalists in Iowa tonight and in Washington and elsewhere who are ready to write his political obituary if he comes in third. I don't think the damage would be that large. But he would be fighting those kinds of headlines going into New Hampshire, and then the softness of the Bush support in New Hampshire would be a major question mark, and he could easily lose New Hampshire, in which case he really would be in serious trouble. LEHRER: Now, what about Dole? What does he have to do tonight to stay where he is, or gain on Bush? Mr. GERGEN: Well, the expectation (unintelligible) is such now that Dole really has to win. I think if Dole were to be beaten by Bush he would be very badly hurt and then Bush would be in situation where he would also have a lock on the nomination. On the other hand, if Dole were to lose to Robertson, then, you know, the whole house of cards comes down for everybody, and we have to start all over again to figure out this race. I don't think anybody knows what happens if Robertson wins and beats both Dole and Bush. In New Hampshire, I don't think Robertson can win New Hampshire. He's in very weak condition there. It's a state which has not only rejected a candidate like that, Robertson, but after that, into Super Tuesday, of course, would become a much more interesting fight. LEHRER: Back to you, Roger, quickly, on the Republicans, how do you feel -- what the result could be in terms of the damage it would do to George Bush tonight? MUDD: Well, Jim, you know, George Bush is the Heir Apparent to the Reagan Administration, and the idea that this Vice President has served eight years, this Vice President could not get the Republican nomination, it seems to me, would be such a crippling blow that I think he would have considerable difficulty putting his machinery back together. I don't think he would survive a third place finish in Iowa. LEHRER: All right. Mark, let's talk about the Democrats. Do you agree with everything that's being said, that Gephardt has got a surge, and has he still got it today? And is it likely to hang? Mr. SHIELDS: Gephardt does have a surge, and Roger's absolutely right. The people who are most with Gephardt, because of the process itself, Jim -- it's an intimidating process. You -- there's no secret ballot, there's no curtain you pull. You go into a schoolroom, you go into a church hall, and all those for Jesse Jackson over here in the corner, all those for Dick Gephardt stand over by the door. And that's inhibiting for people, especially older people, especially people who aren't used to it, blue collar people. And I think in that sense, there's a problem for Gephardt. Again, the social inhibitions of the whole process are a little intimidating and daunting for his own supporters. But I guess the thing that I would say about the race is I think whoever wins is given such a push. I don't think if he wins first by a thousand votes or ten percentage points really makes a difference, because there is no dynamic to this Democratic race. There's no issue that divides them that is galvanized candidates. And I think therefore whoever does win is given such momentum that even if the third place finisher is 7,000 votes back, he might as well be 700,000 votes back. LEHRER: Do you agree, David? Mr. GERGEN: I think that's absolutely right. I think one footnote to this is on the Robertson story -- is that there are a number of tracking polls among the Democratic camps, are finding a crossover potential from the Democrats going to vote for Robertson. That -- LEHRER: Is that right? Mr. GERGEN: That -- The polls of Republican voters don't pick that up. And that's part of the unknown here tonight. That's why nobody knows how big the crossover could be. And all sorts of questions arise there. LEHRER: Yeah, Mark, you want to say -- Mr. SHIELDS: David is right. I heard that last night as well. And the other thing I'd add is part of the resistance to Robertson is an institutional resistance. There's always a resistance to anybody new. Parties always talk about we want new blood, new people. That is baloney! Parties always want the same people (laughter). And (unintelligible)'s right, and they're comfortable with them, we know who wants to be county recorder and who doesn't. Now, whether it's George McGovern, George Wallace, Pat Robertson, or Adlai Stevenson, the prospect of newcomers is always unsettling to party structure. Mr. GERGEN: I'd like to say at one point on the Gephardt side, if Gephardt wins tonight, particularly if he gets a clean victory, I think a lot of us are going to be assessing by tomorrow the importance of not only Gephardt's improvement as a candidate, but the message that he has brought to this campaign. He has tapped into a sentiment of the kind that Reagan was tapping into in 1980, of a sense among a lot of Americans that we're losing control of our destiny. And in Reagan's case he was arguing lost control of our national security. He's arguing we've lost control of our economic security. LEHRER: We ran Gephardt's stump speech here the other night. And the $48,000 car bit, the Korean -- that's terribly effective. Mr. GERGEN: It gets a real charge -- LEHRER: Roger, would you agree that that's what's pushed Gephardt to where he is? MUDD: I don't think I've ever seen a candidate improve in as short a time as Gephardt has improved. Just -- you can see him get better and better in a matter of days. He spent a lot of time here, built very slowly, and then got his message sharply focused, got a lot of hardworking congressmen in from the House to help him, and now he has got 3 points, and that's all he concentrates on. He feeds off the crowd, the crowd begins to like him, and when a politician knows that the crowd is with him, he gets better, and as he gets better the crowds get better. He was really impressive the other day. LEHRER: Mark, let me ask you this: Does Gephardt now have an expectations problem? In other words, does he have to win tonight or is he going to be written off? Mr. SHIELDS: Oh, I think Gephardt has to win tonight to go south. I mean, I think if Gephardt does win here, and it's interesting, Roger's point is a good one, and I'd add one thing to it. And that is that Gephardt's leadership quotient -- in other words, those people in Iowa who saw him as a strong leader, went from 15% of the electorate to 47%. I think that is the Hyundai, I think it's standing up for the country being perceived as somewhat -- and David is right as well -- standing up in framing that issue in patriotic, forceful terms. Because the Democrats got wiped out in 1984 on the issue of leadership -- between Mondale and Reagan. They got wiped out in 1980 on the issue of leadership. And that's where Gephardt has tapped into. But he has to win tonight for him to go into New Hampshire and have a shot against Dukakis. LEHRER: Let me ask each one of you quickly, speaking of wiped out. Starting with you, David, who probably gets wiped out tonight? Anybody going to have to drop out? Mr. GERGEN: Well, everyone's going to go to New Hampshire, because it's only eight days away. But I think that du Pont in this race, and perhaps Bruce Babbitt -- could be very bad -- LEHRER: What about Gary Hart? Mr. GERGEN: Gary Hart -- I think was wiped out (unintelligible) LEHRER: What about Kemp? Mr. GERGEN: I think Kemp can stay alive and fight another day. A lot depends on what happens to Robertson. LEHRER: Roger, who's on your wipeout list, if any? MUDD: Well, we haven't mentioned Al Haig. I think the big winner so far is Al Haig. He's having a lot of fun. And he has finally shed himself of the Dr. Strangelove image he had. He went off to play tennis the other day. He's prepared to drop out, but I think that the nation's opinion of Al Haig has changed a lot for the better. LEHRER: All right. Mark, do you have a drop out list? Mr. SHIELDS: Well, I do. I would say Calgary and the Winter Olympics are the only place where you win a third. Okay? I mean, there's two places in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's first place and there's no place. If you finish second, you can go on. But if you finish third, you're really crippled bad politically. I was with Jack Kemp last night. It's the mystery of 1988 to me why Jack Kemp hasn't surged, hasn't caught. I think he's an appealing, attractive, dynamic candidate with a very positive message. But he hasn't. And I think he's going to do a fourth tonight, and I think it's devastating. LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you. Robin? MacNEIL: As the nation focuses on tonight's caucuses in Iowa, we shift our attention momentarily to one of the last primary states, California. Last week, 59% of those polled in a nationwide USA Today/CNN poll felt that he Iowa caucuses have too much of an influence in the selection of candidates. Our correspondent Cokie Roberts has this report on how some people in California view the hoopla in Iowa.

COKIE ROBERTS: Torrance, California. The sprawling city of 140,000 just a few miles south of Los Angeles, is trying to grab a piece of the 1988 political action. Although the California primaries don't happen until June, Torrance plans to figure prominently when the campaign comes west. Torrance lays claim to one of the world's largest shopping malls, a mile and a half of California coastline, and generally year round perfect weather. Now it's also been selected the site of the last presidential primary debate. KATY GEISSERT, Mayor, Torrance, CA: This is going to more or less put Torrance on the map and increase, tremendously increase the name recognition. ROBERTS: The National League of Women Voters chose El Camino College to host the final confrontation of candidates. This quiet little campus will be overrun by an exhausted explosion of media and its auditorium will provide center stage for one last war of words among the surviving contenders. LOLA UNGER, Torrance League of Women Voters: It was a long time in coming, but we finally were able to announce that we are going to be a debate site. DAN McCLAIN, Chamber of Commerce: The business community, the city government, the college, the league, we're all working together on a single, unifying project that really everybody in the community sees as a great benefit. Mayor GEISSERT: It's really captured the imagination of a broad range of people. We're very, very excited about it.

ROBERTS: Though Torrance is looking forward to taking its turn in playing a role in election '88, the fact is most of the major decision will have been made by the time the political bandwagon rolls into California. This might be the nation's largest and most diverse state, a microcosm of the rest of the country, but it has far less to say about presidential nominees than the smaller, more homogeneous state of Iowa. MAN: Two thousand voters in Iowa can pick a president, and same thing in New Hampshire and Maine. That's something that I've never been able to understand in all the years of my being in politics.

ROBERTS: Because Iowa goes first in selecting nominees, because frontrunners will emerge with momentum spurred by the media, and because those in the back of the pack will have trouble raising enough money to stay in the race until June, some of the people of Torrance are concerned the decisions will be made without any discussion of the issues important to them. WOMAN: If you're here in Torrance, it's more of an -- I don't know -- more upscale. And the issues definitely will be different. Mr. McCLAIN: More concerns about some of the issues having to do with development, growth, the issues that are related basically to success.

ROBERTS: Voters voiced that same concern over lunch in Los Angeles. MAN: We have problems with pollution, we have problems with the homeless. We have an AIDS epidemic that no one seems to want to do anything about. And perhaps these problems aren't exactly what is going on in Iowa -- they have the farm crisis, and I don't think we really have that in California -- we have other problems. REPORTER: -- If you were looking for candidates, or issues that were representative of issues in this country, would you feel as though those were the more significant issues? MAN: Yes! I mean most people live in urban areas than rural areas. I mean, the statistics show that. We have a terrible pollution problem, we have a terrible AIDS epidemic, we have a homeless problem. What's anybody doing about it? Nothing!

ROBERTS: And in Sacramento, where legislators considered moving up the primary date, but didn't, the sound is one of frustration. ROBERTS: Should a state like that be determining the nominee? WILLIE BROWN, Speaker, California Assembly: Not at all. That state has no relevance to who the Democratic nominee is or will be, in reality. And for purposes of total electoral victory. It's just awful that we would even plague ourselves with messing around in the snows in the middle of the winter for those insignificant number of people that ultimately do not play a role in November of the year in which the president is actually elected.

ROBERTS: So what if California went first? What if candidates could run along sandy beaches rather than through cold corn fields? Mr. BROWN: I suspect that you'd probably have a clearer indication of who could win in November than you get by going into Iowa. California has 314 of the delegates, and that's almost 10% of the total -- actually nine percent of the total delegates. If you started out with 314 votes, or a substantial number of those 314 votes, you would be a serious contender for the remainder of the primary season.

ROBERTS: The chairmen of both political parties in California, Peter Kelly and Robert Naylor, agree something needs to be done. ROBERT NAYLOR, Chairman, Republican State Party: We have a population that has Oklahomans, and Iowans, and people who came from Minnesota, people who came from all across this country and from all nations of the world, tremendous influx of immigrants. I think we have the most representative cross section of people and interests in this state. And I think in terms of choosing a president who's going to represent the whole country, California's a heck of a place to start with the primary. PETER KELLY, Chairman, Democratic State Party: Any time that you weight something so that a small group of people has a disproportionate amount of the influence, there's something wrong with that. It ought to be --I suppose having regional primaries and moving California up. It's just another way of saying one person, one vote, in terms of any individual's impact on the process. It's clear that 90,000 people in Iowa have infinitely more to say about the next nominee of the Democratic Party -- or the Republican Party for that matter -- than do 6. 5 million California Democrats. I mean, that just doesn't seem to me to be very fair.

ROBERTS: A primary season that begins here would mean launching one long media blitz, eliminating that personal grass roots politicking that has characterized the Iowa campaign. But Californians, like longtime political activist Mickey Cantor, contend that even in Iowa, the campaign is almost entirely media driven. MICKEY CANTOR, political activist: You couldn't have more coverage than you have right now. It's impossible. And I don't care how big the state is, you could never have more coverage than you have today in Iowa.

ROBERTS: That media campaign does bring the candidates to California for one purpose only: money. They all came here before the campaign started, but have rarely been seen since. Mr. NAYLOR: As Chairman of the Republican Party, I've been able to get only one presidential candidate to come to a major state convention since I've been chairman for almost a year. We're having our third convention in two weeks. Bob Dole visited us in September. Not one other presidential candidate will even come here except to raise money. Mr. CANTOR: What it does is of course make most Californians irrelevant to the process. If you're a normal Californian, and you don't' have a thousand dollars in your pocket to give away to a particular candidate, but you're interested in the process, you're not a player until the first week in June, and the last day of the primary season.

ROBERTS: The surviving candidates will come back to California during that first week of June. But whether there's still a contest by then, or one candidate has the nomination already locked up, remains an open question. Mr. KELLY: Sure, California could play a role. But in the role they would be by luck if that's true, Mr. NAYLOR: The coin is being flipped right now in Iowa. If it lands on its edge, California will make a difference.

ROBERTS: Californians hope that's true. They, like voters around the rest of the nation, will watch and wait tonight as Iowans begin to separate frontrunners from the rest of the pack. And come June, as the long primary season finally sets in the West, the people of Torrance hope there'll be enough candidates around so they can still hold their debate. MacNEIL: David Gergen, you're not in Iowa tonight. I'll ask you first. Do you agree with Willie Brown, the Speaker of the California House, that Iowa has no relevance, that it's just awful that all this emphasis is being put there? Mr. GERGEN: Well, I'm sure that very few people in Iowa would agree with that. One has to sympathize with the Californians. On the other hand, this race has to start somewhere. And while it's true that California's the end of the line, there are two big points to make. One is that the candidates do have this face to face contact in a smaller state. And I think that's been very healthy for most candidates who face the electorate in this country. They do learn how life is for real people, as opposed to sitting in TV studios or going out and raising money. There's a great advantage to starting in a smaller state. Secondly, let's remember that as the election approaches November, the people in Iowa are going to mostly see candidates flying overhead in airplanes on their way to California on their way to talk to voters out there, because that's where -- that's the kind of state that's going to determine who the eventual president is. MacNEIL: Roger Mudd, you're actually in Iowa tonight. Is it the wrong place to start? Is it, because it is so unrepresentative in terms of demographics, and perhaps some national issues, distorting the process to give it that much influence? MUDD: Well, as David said, it's got to start somewhere. And it seems to me that if it's going to start here, this is -- Iowa voters are as good as any in the country to make the first cut. They take the job seriously, they listen. I think 35 to 40% of Iowans have actually heard or seen a candidate live. And it seems to me that the politicians that are running for the presidency would much rather take their chances with serious, educated Iowa voters than they would out in California, which is not always reliable. MacNEIL: What about the points, Mark Shields, that were raised by one of the people in Cokie's report, that the issues that concern many other parts of the nation, which is so largely urban, homelessness, AIDS, pollution -- he mentioned several -- development growth -- just don't surface in a place like Iowa? Mr. SHIELDS: I can say that the nation has been wired. The issues are every candidate has had to address every one of the issues that was raised in Cokie's piece. The fact of the matter is that the caucus goers themselves, some 97% of them by a survey of a university professor out here in 1984, watched C Span once a week, or more. They watched MacNeil/Lehrer. They're absolutely informed. Their issues agenda is not limited to the farm crisis, although that's obviously of concern. The other point is what Iowa offers here, Robin, as opposed to California, or New York, or Texas, or Illinois, is the chance for the underdog candidate not to be outspent and overwhelmed by a leader in a Gallup or Harris national poll, who is able therefore to raise a lot more money. All you would do in a state the size of California is ratify national poll results. Because people would not have to go into living rooms, save those of the Malibu mafia, the fundraising group, who you go and you go with hat in hand and issue papers in tow, and ask for their financial help. MacNEIL: So, David Gergen, you wouldn't agree with the man in California who said something has to be done about this? Mr. GERGEN: Well, I think something has to be done about the way we conduct our campaigns, they're far too long. Back in 1960 we had a campaign that was 45 weeks long. This campaign's going to be about 127 weeks long. MacNEIL: Something has to be done to get Iowa out of front place? Mr. GERGEN: No, I don't think that's right. And I think it's also important to remember with regard to Iowa that Iowa's counterbalanced by New Hampshire as we go into next week. Iowa is a state which is very much a farm state, there are strong protectionist sentiments as we're discovering out there through the Gephardt campaign. And you go into New Hampshire, which is more free trade, it's very high tech these days, Iowa's dovish on foreign policy, New Hampshire tends to be more hawkish on foreign policy. That's why we have different frontrunners in those two states. We have Dole and Gephardt leading in Iowa, and Bush and Dukakis right now leading in New Hampshire. So I think there is a nice balance right now. MacNEIL: Well, David, and Roger and Mark, thank you all. We'll be talking to you tomorrow night when we know what happened tonight. Jim? LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, schools for profit, and Robert Bork. School or Scam? LEHRER: Next we look at schools for profit, those institutions that offer specialized job training for post high school students. In December, Education Secretary William Bennett told a Senate hearing 40% of those schools were rip offs. Tomorrow his department will issue a report that takes a critical look at the number of students that drop out of profit making schools and then default on their government student loans. The department places the blame not on the students for defaulting on their loans, but on the poor quality education that many of these schools provide. Our education correspondent John Merrow looks at how these schools for profit operate.

JOHN MERROW: Profit making schools may have the toughest assignment in all of education. They're trying to reach those who've already failed in, or been failed by, the school system. The courses they teach generally last from six months to two years, and include everything from medical technician training to court reporting. Sometimes the system works the way it's supposed to. Take Penny Dean, for example. She spent two years and $12,000 in tuition and fees, studying to become a court reporter at American Business Academy, a profit making school in Hackensack, New Jersey. MERROW: Will you make more than $25,000? PENNY DEAN, court reporter: I would think around there. Maybe more this year. It's hard to project. MERROW: Not bad for a 20 year old. Ms. DEAN: No, not bad at all! MERROW: Must be kind of fun getting a pay check. Ms. DEAN: Yes. Nice change.

MERROW: The system did not work for Sandra Muniz. She spent nearly $10,000 for a 15 month training program to become an executive secretary. SANDRA MUNIZ, MTI graduate: I finished it, and I got the certificate stating -- a big certificate -- stating that I'm an executive secretary. I'd have wonderful jobs in different places. They say, ''You don't qualify for this job. '' And it's humiliating to me that, you know, I got a big certificate stating I'm something, and I'm really not.

MERROW: In between those two graduates of profit making institutions is a vast army, literally millions of young people who dropped out without completing their training. Hopes dashed. Losers once again. But the schools they dropped out of generally made a profit. You can't call this $9 billion a year free enterprise, because government puts up a large part of the money and guarantees its student loans will be repaid. You can't call it socialism either, though. Because the schools are privately owned. What exactly is it? The best way to understand the system is to take a look and see how it works. MAN on the Street: At (unintelligible) School, we offer training courses. We have secretarial, we have typing, we have a good course that we just started, called security specialists. WOMAN: Yeah, I like that. MAN: Okay. And our courses are four to six months. Right? This is the securities specialist, it's 600 --

MERROW: It begins here on the streets, because that's where the customers are. Many profit making schools recruit outside places like this -- job placement office in downtown Brooklyn. While private colleges often turn away applicants, for profit schools have to recruit hard to fill their classrooms. WOMAN on Street: I'm out here doing a survey for theschool, trying to get people interested in going to school for computers. Okay? You have financial aid that's available to you if you qualify. You're not obligated to take these things. I'm not promising you the world. But I am promising you a nice job after you finish. We guarantee that.

MERROW: Harriet Falls calls herself a surveyor, but she is actually a recruiter. Her job is to interest people in becoming students at MTI, a chain of business schools in New York City. MTI employs ten so called street surveyors. Falls earns $250 a week, plus a $10 commission for every person she persuades to enrol in MTI. HARRIET FALLS, MTI recruiter: We really need to have more people going to school instead of out here in the streets doing nothing. This is my job. I try to (unintelligible) substantial people, working people, people unemployed, you know, people with children, everybody. (unintelligible) MERROW: On a good day, how many people will you survey, or interview? Ms. FALLS: On a good day I try to do about 25 to 30. MERROW: And then those names you turn in to MTI? Ms. FALLS: Yes, I do.

MERROW: Those who agree to visit MTI get the red carpet treatment from admissions representatives like Jim Blackwell. Admissions representatives earn a commission for every one they enrol. In a good year, an admissions representative can double his salary in commissions. But there's no commission at all unless the applicant buys the sales pitch. JIM BLACKWELL, admissions rep: All right, let me tell you a little about the school and then I can show you some of the programs in the evening, okay? STUDENT: Yes. Mr. BLACKWELL: Okay, fine. When you graduate we will help you to get a job. It's a good placement service, and it's free to you and it's free to the companies. So there are a lot of jobs that are available through the school that are not available through, say, employment agency or a newspaper. IRMATINE MARSHALL. MTI dropout: I was guaranteed to leave MTI, I would be working a good job, making $40,000 a year. MERROW: Are you making $40,000 a year now? Ms. MARSHALL: Oh, no, I'm sure not! I'm making $3. 35 an hour. MERROW: Joseph, when she said $40,000, you suddenly smiled. Why? JOSEPH FIGUEROA, MTI Dropout: It was like the first thing that came out of her mouth. You know? Well, if you come to this school, there's job placement assistance after your graduation, and if you cannot find -- if they cannot find you a job, they will place you in school as an employee. But the digits that she had told me were $40,000. At entry level.

MERROW: Betsy Imholz, an attorney with South Brooklyn Legal Services, has heard hundreds of stories like these. One student came to her for help when she was about to be evicted from her apartment. She had used her welfare check to pay the tuition for a fashion design course at another profit making school, not MTI. BETSY IMHOLZ, South Brooklyn Legal Services: Someone had approached her on the street and said, ''Would you like a career in fashion design? It looks to me like you might have a real flare for it. '' And I said had you ever thought about that before? She said, ''No, not at all. I have no artistic talent. Didn't have any interest in it. '' I said, ''Well, why on earth did you listen to this guy?'' And she said, ''Well, he was the only person in my life who'd ever told me that I had hope. He had such confidence in me that I believed him. I wanted to believe him, and then I did. '' And so rather than pay her rent, she paid some money over to the school. And she fell behind, and there she was. But it is a real confidence game. He inspired her confidence. He made her feel hopeful about herself, and in the end all she had was despair.

MERROW: MTI's owner, Milton Lang, doesn't deny that false promises may be made occasionally. But he says they're the exception, not the rule. MILTON LANG, owner, MTZ: Certainly I'm not going to tell you here that it couldn't happen. Someone couldn't say it. But I'll tell you this. They'd better not say it in front of me, or they'd better not say it when I find out about it, they will not be working for this company any longer.

MERROW: Profit making schools are not all that difficult to get into. Some don't even require an admissions test. To qualify for federal aid, applicants must have an ''ability to benefit. '' But that's left up to the school to judge. These schools are expensive. MTI's 15 month executive secretary program costs almost $14,000. A year's tuition at Harvard is only $12,000. But although the cost is high, most students do not end up paying out of their own pockets. For example, government grants and loans cover most of the cost of MTI's executive secretary program. MERROW: Is that just a coincidence that the tuition happens to add up to the same amount that you can get from the federal government and the state government? Mr. LANG: No, I don't think so. I don't think it's a coincidence, no. MERROW: Just happens? Mr. LANG: No, that's what we're charging. That's what we're able to get, and that's why we're charging it. MERROW: You understand the cynical question, however, the skeptical question. Mr. LANG: Yeah, I do. I understand -- MERROW: The grants and the tuition came out exactly the same -- it's funny -- Mr. LANG: I knew -- it's not funny -- we need to charge that, and it happens to be we're able to, and that's why we're charging it.

MERROW: Profit making schools make it easy for students to get financial aid. Officials fill out all the loan and grant applications. All the student has to do is sign the forms, and then later on endorse the checks. Banks generally go along with the schools and make the loan. Why not? Their profits are guaranteed by the federal government. For schools and banks, the system is virtually risk free. But applicants don't always read the small print and may not realize that some of the money is a loan that must be repaid. Mark Williams is an investigator for the New York State Department of Education, responsible for keeping an eye on profit making schools. MERROW: Do you think many students sign up for these loans without realizing that they're loans? MARK WILLIAMS, NY State Dept. of Education: Yeah, a lot of students I've spoken to didn't even realize they signed up for a loan. Some of them don't even remember signing the back of the checks. And yet if you look at the loan applications and all the documents in the folders, it's very clear that these are loans that they're signing for. Unfortunately, a lot of the students are not sophisticated, or they're rushed through the admissions process and they don't realize what they're signing. But if they read those documents, it's very clear they must repay those loans.

MERROW: Profit making schools spend a great deal of money getting people to this point, the first day of school. MAN: I want to thank you all for choosing MTI as your career building school. And yes, we do build careers.

MERROW: MTI, for example, spent a million and a quarter dollars on recruiting on 1986. Even more than it spent on teaching. That's not unusual for profit making schools. And critics say that's why their dropout rates are so high. Over 70% in one recent study of New York business schools. Ms. MUNIZ: When I first enrolled there were 60 of us that enrolled. And only 11 graduated out of 60. So this is telling you how many students are dropping out. Mr. FIGUEROA: When I left the school, they didn't care who I was. When I went back to the school to, you know, get a withdrawal paper, it was like they were happy to give it to me. And it seems like, you know, all they wanted from me was the money. They didn't want to teach me anything. All they wanted was the money. That was their main interest. Mr. LANG: Our school philosophy is to have students -- that's what we're in business for, and dropout is something that we work very hard not to have, and that is a big thing that we always are hiring, getting people to counsel students and get them to complete their courses. And that's what builds -- we're building -- we're looking to build a reputation. And we are not in the business of dropping out students. I mean, that doesn't even make sense -- from a practical point of view, from educational one, and also from a financial point of view. We don't want people to drop out. MERROW: Why not? Mr. LANG: Because if they drop out, strictly from a selfish point of view, we have to refund the tuition.

MERROW: Actually, it's more complicated than that. Only when a student drops out in the first week does the school have to refund all the tuition. But suppose someone stays for one month in a one year program and then drops out. The school gets to keep almost half the tuition, and it has an empty seat to fill. Nothing illegal going on. That's how the rules are written. Mr. WILLIAMS: Many of the things that schools do that are unethical are not necessarily against the law. And that's a problem, because you know that someone's getting hurt, but if it's not a violation of the commissioner of education regulations or of the New York State education law, you can't take the license away, and you can't discipline the school. MERROW: These schools are set up to make money. Can you make more money running a good school, or running a bad school? Mr. WILLIAMS: I would have to believe you do make more money running a bad school, just by the fact that so many people drop out, you could use the same seat over and over again.

MERROW: According to the U. S. Dept. of Education, there's a direct correlation between dropping out and defaulting on student loans. Not surprisingly, profit making schools with high dropout rates also have high loan default rates. In fact, most of the institutions with default rates above 35% are profit making schools. MTI's default rate, according to a federal audit, is now 50%. MERROW: Do you think it's valid to be suspicious of a school with a 50% default rate? Mr. LANG: No. Let's take a look at this default rate. Why are the schools blamed? If you go out and buy a car, and you take out a loan from the bank, and you don't pay your loan, is the bank going to go to the car dealer? Or are they going to come to you? I mean, it is really the student's responsibility to pay back that money. Mr. FIGUEROA: It cost me maybe $5,000 over the years of paying the loan. I plan to pay the loan back, because I want to go to school. And if I don't pay this loan, I can't go to school. And I wanted to go to college. I couldn't get into college becauseI can't receive any financial aid.

MERROW: That's true. A bad debt. A defaulted loan will stay on a former student's permanent record until it's paid back. However, profit making schools and their owners play under a different set of rules. Mr. WILLIAMS: We've seen in the past where a school closes up, he starts a brand new corporation, sometimes comes right back into business at the same location. That also is very painful. MERROW: How does that happen? Mr. WILLIAMS: Schools are incorporated. When the corporation is closed down, the corporation dies. A new corporation is formed, it's formed with a clean slate, it starts all over like a brand new person.

MERROW: In 1981, New York State audited Milton Lang's first school, Business Academy of Westchester, and found that it owed the state $379,000 in state grants the school had illegally applied for and received. Subsequent to the audit, and without paying back the $379,000, Lang closed the school. Mr. LANG: Absolutely not true. That's the first I've ever head this. Absolutely not true. MERROW: No judgment against you? Mr. LANG: Absolutely not.

MERROW: However, New York State officials reconfirm that the debt has not been paid. But they note that Lang himself and the corporation that hold MTI are not legally liable for the money. Despite the problems, MTI's business is booming. What began as one school in Brooklyn in 1979 is now five schools in three states. In fact, the industry as a whole is doing well. The number of schools who students get federal funds has jumped 42% since 1980, when federal funds have tripled. The only cuts have come in inspection and regulation. These days, federal inspectors visit for profit schools on the average of once every four years. Education for profit, with its guaranteed loans and lax rules, is virtually risk free for owners and banks. Who is taking a chance? Only the ones the system is supposed to be helping: the students. Making His Case MacNEIL: Finally tonight, Judge Robert Bork. The defeated Supreme Court nominee resigned last Friday from his seat on the U. S. Court of Appeals in Washington. This morning, Bork held his first news conference since the Senate voted down his nomination to the Supreme Court. He talked about the confirmation process and his experience as a nominee. Here are extended excerpts from his comments.

Judge ROBERT BORK: Initially, I intend to reflect upon and write about the experience I have just been through. The purpose is to discuss the nature of the confirmation process to assess what it may mean to future nominations and for the course of our law, our politics and our public discourse about such matters. I will, of course, discuss my constitutional philosophy, which I think has been badly misrepresented, and therefore gravely misunderstood. It's important that it be correctly understood. For that philosophy is the traditional American approach to law. It's probably for that reason that it was distorted by those who want to abandon that tradition. Now of late, when I make a statement, some of the press characterizes it as anger. What I have just said is not angry. It is simply a statement of my intention to resume my place in the debate about law and courts. When I was nominated, I had written so much on relevant topics, particularly constitutional law, perhaps more than any other nominee that I can think of in that area, more widely. And the public distortion about what I had written became so intense that I felt that I had no alternative but to offer to discuss my judicial philosophy. And therefore I was more open about discussing that then other nominees have been. Unfortunately, some senators imagine the constitutional philosophy is a question of whether the results are politically popular or not, whether the methodology is legitimate. So I had about 15 litmus tests put to me by various senators. And I couldn't agree with all of them. Some senators are now saying that this hearing set a precedent for future hearings. I think that would be extremely unfortunate, because if hearings go that way, nominees will be forced in effect to make campaign promises on how they will vote on the court. And that means two things. It means the independence of the judiciary is threatened. It also means that the senate will begin, or can begin, through extracting promises, to control constitutional law. I trust the future nominees will not answer as much as I did. And I trust the senate will rethink the advisability of that kind of a hearing. The enormous amount of publicity and public relations and so forth that was going on, was really unprecedented with respect to a judicial nomination. And I think it caught me -- I know it caught me -- I think it caught others in the Administration by surprise and they weren't ready to respond. Nor was I. I think that I became a small battleground in a continuing war for the control of the law, of the legal culture. And that has been going on for a long time, and it will go on for a long time in the future. And I intend now to participate in it rather more freely than I could before. MacNEIL: Bork held that press conference at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. He's joined the conservative think tank and plans to continue writing on legal issues. Recap LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday. The first votes in the 1988 presidential nomination campaigns are being cast tonight at caucuses throughout the state of Iowa. And Soviet leader Gorbachev said Soviet troops could begin pulling out of Afghanistan by May 15. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight, and we will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.