The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in New York. After our summary of the news this Monday, we focus on the overnight plane crash on the White House lawn, then an update on where things stand in health care reform now that Congress is back from summer vacation, a report on the hotly contested Republican primary in Minnesota, and a conversation with Eli Segal, head of the new National Service program that was launched today.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: A small plane crashed onto the White House grounds early this morning. The pilot was killed. President Clinton and his family were unharmed. They were staying in a guest house across the street because of renovations at the White House. The pilot was identified as Frank Eugene Corder, a 38-year-old truck driver from Maryland. Secret Service officials said he had a history of mental illness. They said his motive was under investigation, but his action did not appear to be directed toward President Clinton. Officials said he stole the single-engine plane from a small airfield north of Baltimore. He flew past the Washington Monument just before 2 AM and turned toward the White House. The plane crashed onto the South grounds, and parts of the wreckage hit the Executive Mansion. Damage to the building was slight. President Clinton mostly kept his schedule today, but a ceremony to launch the Americorps National Service campaign, which had been planned near where the plane went down, was moved to a different White House location. Earlier, during an Oval Office address to Americorps volunteers, Mr. Clinton said this about the plane incident.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We take this incident seriously because the White House is the people's house, and it's the job of every President who lives here to keep it safe and secure. So let me assure all Americans, the people's house will be kept safe, it will be kept open, and the people's business will go on.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Federal officials say a faulty braking mechanism may have caused last week's fatal crash of USAir Flight 427. Investigators found evidence suggesting that the jet's right engine was thrown into reverse while in flight. Problems with the engine's reverse thruster had been reported two and a half months ago. A spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board emphasized, however, that it was too early to draw any conclusion. Clean-up crews continued sifting through the wreckage today. A public memorial service was held in Pittsburgh for the victims. The Boeing 737 was en route to Pittsburgh when it crashed last Thursday. All 132 passengers and crew were killed.

MR. LEHRER: An earthquake shook Northern California and Nevada this morning. It registered 6.0 on the Richter Scale but caused no major damage or injury. Also, wildfires continued to burn in three western states. In Utah, firefighters are working on a 2500 acre fire in Spanish Fork Canyon. The blaze had threatened an explosives plant and caused the evacuation of some 20 homes.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Mel Reynolds of Illinois pleaded not guilty today to charges he had sexual relations with an underage campaign volunteer and then tried to cover up the incident. Reynolds is a first-term Democrat from Chicago. He has vigorously denied the charges since they first surfaced last month. The House and Senate were both back in session today following a summer recess. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell said he was optimistic that significant health care reform legislation could be passed in the next six weeks. We'll have more on the story later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: Preparations have begun to police Haiti after the expected U.S.-led invasion. Some 150 soldiers and police from four Western Hemisphere countries arrived at a U.S. Naval Base in Puerto Rico today to begin training. Sec. of State Christopher said the list of countries involved was growing. He spoke at the State Department.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: The President, the Vice President, myself, and others have contacted a number of other countries, and I can now tell you that 17 nations have agreed to participate in the multinational coalition. Discussion of the nature and extent of this participation and contacts with other countries are still ongoing, but we've already commitments from roughly 1500 people, 1500 troops from other nations. I expect that the number of countries and the number of non-U.S. personnel will grow over the next several days as we continue our contacts.

MR. LEHRER: There are nine U.S. warships currently stationed off Haiti's shores in preparation for a possible invasion. Two of them moved into the Port-au-Prince Bay over the weekend. The Pentagon has also activated 12 cargo ships to carry support equipment.

MS. WARNER: The U.S. Coast Guard is preparing for a last rush of Cuban rafters ahead of tomorrow's deadline. That's when Cuban Leader Fidel Castro has promised to halt the recent exodus as part of last week's immigration agreement with the United States. More than 1,000 rafters made the trip yesterday despite a tropical storm in the area. And 189 have been picked up so far today. North Korea today indicated it will allow increased inspections of its nuclear facilities according to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Meanwhile, in Berlin, technical experts from North Korea and the U.S. reported progress in talks aimed at updating North Korea's nuclear technology with safer equipment.

MR. LEHRER: A bomb exploded at a train station in Dublin, Ireland, today. A Protestant extremist group claimed responsibility for it. Two people were slightly injured. It was the fourth attack by a Protestant group since the IRA declared a cease-fire in Northern Ireland nearly two weeks ago.

MS. WARNER: Beloved stage and screen actress Jessica Tandy is dead. She died yesterday at her home in Connecticut from ovarian cancer. Over her 67-year career, she appeared in more than 25 films and 100 plays, including this 1985 movie "Cocoon," which she starred in with her husband and frequent leading man, Hume Cronin. She first dazzled theater audiences in 1947, when she originated the role of Blanche DuBois in "A Streetcar Named Desire" on Broadway. She won a Tony Award for that part and an Academy Award for her starring role in the 1989 movie "Driving Miss Daisy." Jessica Tandy was 85. That ends our summary of the day's news. Now it's on to the White House plane crash, an update on health reform, Republican politics in Minnesota, and a conversation about national service. FOCUS - CLOSE CALL

MR. LEHRER: We do begin tonight with the nighttime crash of a small airplane on the grounds of the White House. Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: This is the kind of plane that crashed into the White House, a single-engine Cessna Model 172. It happened a few minutes before 2 this morning. The plane breached the so-called "no fly zone," a restricted area around the White House, apparently undetected by radar. The plane approached from the North, flying near the Washington Monument, then turning back toward the White House. A witness said the plane covered the two blocks with only its wing tips lighted.

TOM SMITH, Witness: What I saw was the running light of an aircraft. I used to fly, was a student pilot in the United States Air Force, a propeller-driven aircraft, so I know what it sounds like. And the motor was on. And then I heard a crash. What I could see was the green light through the trees, the running light on the wing. And it, more or less, made an upside down loop, and then we heard a thud and a secondary thud just a couple of seconds later, I presume when the wreckage whatever it hit, and it turned out to be the White House, then the wreckage hit the ground.

MR. HOLMAN: Entering White House air space over the South Lawn at what an official called "treetop level," the Cessna slammed into a 160-year-old Magnolia tree but did not catch fire. The fuselage came to rest against the first floor of the White House two floors below the presidential residence. Debris gashed the White House wall and broke a window of the White House physician's office. A preliminary investigation identified 38-year-old Frank Eugene Corder as the dead pilot. Investigators said the Baltimore area truck driver had a criminal record and a history of unspecified mental illness. President Clinton and his family had spent last night across Pennsylvania Avenue at the Blair House while scheduled renovations were made in the White House. This afternoon, the President put the plane crash in an historical context.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We take this incident seriously, because this house is the people's house. It's the job of every President to keep it safe and secure. On his second night here, our second President and the first person to live in the White House, John Adams, wrote, "I pray heaven to bestow the best blessings on this house and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it." That prayer has been answered. In times of war and peace, in hard times, in good times, the White House has remained an enduring symbol of our democracy.

MR. HOLMAN: Later, at White House news conference, officials of the Treasury Department, which oversees the Secret Service, gave few details about the plane crash.

CARL MEYER, Secret Service: As soon as that plane came in, the first thing that we looked to make sure is that it wasn't just a plane crash. And that was searched, and we determined that there were no explosives or hazardous devices on board.

REPORTER: Was the plane fire caused by you?

CARL MEYER: And no weapons.

REPORTER: Was the plane fire caused by you?

CARL MEYER: I'm sorry.

REPORTER: Was the plane fire caused by you?

CARL MEYER: A little too early to get into that.

SECOND REPORTER: How would the security of the President by letting us know --

CARL MEYER: The answer is no.

RITA BRAVER, CBS: Could you go over what exactly the procedures were once you were aware that this plane was here. Then what did you do?

CARL MEYER: The first thing we had to determine was what was the situation. I mean, was this just a plane that ran out of gas? Did somebody have a heart attack? We just didn't have a good sense of what was involved here. Or was it a diversion? Was something going to come? So we immediately deployed and put our emergency plan into action, which includes a number of things, one of which is to checkthat aircraft to see if it had any hazardous devices on it, whether it be bombs or whatever, and then notify the various departments that would be involved, the fire department, obviously, the fire rescue, and the others would get in to cover each of those scenarios, just exactly was it, when we didn't know what we had. So it took a little while.

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC: Can you tell us, to the best of your knowledge so far, how something like this could happen.

RONALD NOBLE, Treasury Department: That's precisely the sort of question I can't answer.

ANDREA MITCHELL: You don't know how it happened. How can you assure the American people that the First Family and the White House are currently safe and secure?

RONALD NOBLE: Well, let me tell you that speaking on behalf of Sec. Bentsen and Director Bowen of the Secret Service, you know, it's probably obvious to everyone here that there's no [more] important mission than protecting the First Family, and they take it seriously, and you and the American public should rest assured just as if you had a security measure or alarm system in your house, you wouldn't give me the code for it, I'm not here to give you at this point any specific answers until I complete the review. Now I said you would be frustrated, I said you'd want to know things right now before the review began, and I just can't answer them. I'm sorry.

MR. HOLMAN: A full investigation into the plane crash is now underway, as is a thorough review of the procedures to protect the President and the White House.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, is health care reform still alive, Minnesota Republicans, and National Service. UPDATE - CHECK-UP

MS. WARNER: Next, can a health care reform bill be salvaged this year? The White House has given up on passing a comprehensive health care bill this year. But over the late summer recess, some lawmakers continued working on more limited approaches. Now returning members of Congress must decide whether to push to pass some kind of modest health care bill before the November elections or drop the effort altogether and return to it next year. We discuss that now with Senators Harris Wofford, Democrat of Pennsylvania, and David Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota. They've both been working on possible, though different, compromise measures. We also hear from Congressman Jim McDermott, Democrat of California, a long-time advocate of a single payer government-run plan, and from Congressman Dick Armey of Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference. Sen. Wofford, let me start with you. Can some kind of health care reform legislation be salvaged this year?

SEN. WOFFORD: I think it can if we can work together the way we finally did on the crime bill, with moderate Republicans like David Durenberger. We'll reach out, and if we reach out, if we sit around the table round the clock and see -- stop focusing on what can't be done -- but see what the first good step could be that would put us on the road to covering all Americans the way members of Congress have arranged for private health insurance choices for themselves and millions of federal employees. Yes.

MS. WARNER: And, very briefly, what exactly is it that you and your group have been working on that you think might be -- you might be able to get through this year?

SEN. WOFFORD: Well, I am working with a number of my colleagues, but I'm also working with David Durenberger and the mainstream group, and above all with George Mitchell to see what a common denominator is. And I think that certain insurance reforms can be done practically so that people can move from job to job without preexisting conditions preventing them from getting insurance. I think we can put children first and the additional support that almost all the plans propose for low income people should begin with children, so we move toward universal coverage for children. And then I would like the federal employees' benefits plan, which members of Congress arrange for themselves and millions of employees, to be open to small business, individuals, and to be the group, the range of private health insurance choices that families could choose for their children.

MS. WARNER: Sen. Durenberger, what kind of measures do you think could still pass this year?

SEN. DURENBERGER: Well, I agree with Harris, that not only is there a time to do it but there is a vehicle to do it. It's a project that we've been working on for several years, those of us in the mainstream. I don't agree with him that the crime bill is a great finale. But the good news is that you don't have to go the crime bill route, which really was a little, little blood in the streets at the end. There is a non-partisan, bipartisan vehicle that's got a very close cousin in the House of Representatives right now, and I think if the political leadership around this place could get together fairly quickly and decide that that's the vehicle for health care reform, we can see that done in a few weeks.

MS. WARNER: And, again, very briefly, how does what you have been working on with the so-called mainstream group differ, if at all, from what Sen. Wofford suggested?

SEN. DURENBERGER: The only place in America that prices are actually going down in health care and costs are being contained is out where people are redesigning and restructuring markets in local communities. What we do with this bill -- and we've been working this up now for three or four years with insurance reform, buyer reform, medical liability reform, antitrust reform, changing the rules of the road -- we set national rules so that local markets all over this country can work the way they're currently working in some places to contain costs. That's the heart of our proposal. There is also some coverage extension. I think traditionally Sen. Wofford and others have been very interested in the coverage expansion. The heart of our proposal is to get the system changed, have it make sense to Americans, bring the cost down, and later Congresses can deal with expanded coverage.

MS. WARNER: I see. Congressman McDermott, do you hear anything in either of these proposals that you and other House Democrats, particularly those who supported single payer, could support?

REP. McDERMOTT: No. They are talking about a bill over there that's financed by gutting Medicaid and Medicare. They are talking about taking away the entitlement to health care for 30 million poor people in this country. That's no way to finance anything. If they were really serious in the Senate, they would have stayed and put a bill together. Now, they come when we've probably got three weeks left, and they're going to throw a 1500 page bill on the table that none of the four of us will have read. I'm really fearful that we will make things worse. The first rule in medicine is don't make things worse. And I really think that they can do that at this point by putting together something that they don't know the implications of.

MS. WARNER: And do most of the supporters -- there were some 90 of them in the House who supported the single payer plan -- do most of them agree with you, that this is a mistake to try for a partial bill?

REP. McDERMOTT: Most of us are not willing to vote for anything that's going to move us 30 years back in history. When we see the financing that says by 1997 there is no entitlement for poor people in this country, that is a step backward of 30 years. And we simply won't go for something like that.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Armey, can you go for either of these proposals that the two Senators just sketched out?

REP. ARMEY: Well, first of all, there is a serious question of time. We have too much to do in even what you might think of what is the most minimal bill and too little time to do it. This is only minimal by comparison with the very, very broad plan the President was pushing for two years. But I think both the Senators misjudged the condition of the American people on the question of health care. Frankly, they've got anxiety exhaustion, and they've got trust dissipation, and they're telling us clearly, across the country, and I've been across the country, let the thing drop now. Get back to work in the next Congress, get systematic about it, be careful, take your time, and do it right. The American people are scared to death that we're going to do something in the 11th hour in a big rush, and we're going to do the wrong thing, and it's going to be dangerous. And I think it's time to step back now, let the thing rest, have time to recollect our thoughts, start the process over, use the committee systems appropriately, get it more open, entertain a broad base of ideas, and come to focus on the issue in a more orderly fashion.

MS. WARNER: Sen. Wofford, how do you deal with that? Like Congressman Armey has said, that the public is now saying, why don't you wait till next year?

SEN. WOFFORD: Well, I've been all around Pennsylvania just recently, and people are saying, try to get a good first step. If that first step was anything like what Congressman McDermott is fearing, I'd oppose it as much as he would. I don't know whether we can come to a first step that will make sense to the American people. I think we can. I think it's like the struggle for civil rights. I campaigned for comprehensive civil rights legislation to get the right to vote and end segregation. 1957 we had our first real chance. We fell far short of what could be what we were seeking and Lyndon Johnson said, "If you take this first step, every Congress thereafter will take another step and the expectation and the pressure will be there." And I want us to take a first step and then carry on the fight. I, myself, am ready to fight alongside of Congressman McDermott to go all the way until we get every American the kind of health insurance that members of Congress have. And I give back my contribution from my employer, the taxpayer, every month, and I will continue to do so until we get that kind of health insurance for the American people. But we can take the first step to break the log jam if we'll put aside partisan politics and get around that table.

MS. WARNER: Congressman McDermott, what about this point that if you can't have the whole thing, at least this would be a down payment, this comparison to civil rights or Social Security legislation?

REP. McDERMOTT: Well, you see, I think it's very nice to talk in generalities, but you can take any specific and start dissecting it like the Dole Bill financing. What you find is that they are taking away Medicaid. Now, Medicaid was a first step we took in 1967, and now this proposal says we're going to finance it by taking away the entitlement of all these people, all these women and children that people say they want to cover, and we're going to use that money, and somehow we're going to come up with something better by giving them a voucher that if the money happens to be there, they can buy insurance. There is no guarantee whatsoever for women and children in that Dole financing if you've taken away Medicaid.

MS. WARNER: Just so I can understand and the viewers can understand, because there are so many bills out there. Are you saying you're unalterably opposed to any kind of partial bill, or are there just -- are you objecting to specifics in the partial bills that are out there?

REP. McDERMOTT: I -- what I am worried about is the pieces that I've seen talked about so far, and I'm very worried about somebody handing me a 1500 page bill and saying, vote for this, it's the first step, we've got to do it, we've got to take the first step, and I don't know what I voted for. I won't do that.

MS. WARNER: Sen. Durenberger, let me ask you -- now you just heard Congressman Armey from your party complaining about what he didn't like about this push to get something. Can you in the mainstream group bring something about without the support of people like Congressman Armey?

SEN. DURENBERGER: I don't know whether we need Dick or not. I mean, I'd love to have him.

MS. WARNER: I guess I meant the conservative Republicans.

SEN. DURENBERGER: Yeah. What you really need is 60 to 70 percent of the vote. You need the people that have been working on this issue for a long time and who, themselves, are having trouble with the partisan nature of this debate to come together. That's why what is unique about the situation we're in right now is you do - - people -- what people object to is the partisan nature of what's going on here. It's either a Democratic bill or a Republican bill. Everybody's criticizing each other. We have a non-partisan solution to that problem. Secondly, if you wait till next year, neither party has an incentive to get any health care reform passed. The Democrats have an incentive this year. We Republicans ought to take advantage of that. Next year, they'll blame this on us, they won't try to pass a bill. We can't pass a bill as Republicans. This is the time to do it. We've got the right vehicle to do it, and we ought to do it right now.

MS. WARNER: Well, Congressman Armey, what about that point, that it's not going to be any easier next year?

REP. ARMEY: First of all, I've been working on health care as long as anybody in this body, and I feel like I have a right to continue the process. The fact is the Republicans have wanted to do something about health care, and certainly as minority, we've known the need to do it on a bipartisan basis since before this President came to Washington. We are still anxious to get something done, but we're listening to what Americans say, and they're saying, don't do the wrong thing in a hurry just to save face before you leave town. You're right. There are so many people that cobbled on so many different health care Senate -- health care bills, it's hard right now to keep track of what's out there. There are five, six, seven ways to write the fine print on any measure you want to. New York State passed some insurance reform, results in 500 people -- 500 million people dropping their insurance. So, again, the law of intended consequences is a big risk factor in here, and three weeks is not enough time to study the details and make the predictions of the outcomes of the fine print when something gets thrown together in the last minute quite frankly, I believe, for no better reason than to save face before you go home to meet your electors. I don't think this is the time for that kind of a rush.

MS. WARNER: Go ahead, Senator.

SEN. DURENBERGER: This proposal is not thrown -- this proposal has nothing but Republican roots to it. It goes back to small group insurance reform. As Dick pointed out, President Bush laid a proposal almost identical with this on the table in February of 1992. The Democrats wouldn't let us pass it then, because they needed to hook universal coverage to it. But every place you look in this proposal, it's been around a lot longer than Clinton's been here. Administrative simplification, elimination of fraud and abuse, setting these national rules, the in-depth insurance reform that will change these markets, these have all got Republican roots. And I think every Republican ought to be -- ought to be for getting it done now. I know what the people think out there, and I know that President Clinton and a lot of people have contributed to how they think. But once in a while you do the responsible thing -- and I think this is the time to do it.

REP. ARMEY: Let me just say every detail of the bill you mentioned should have been attended to by the House Energy & Commerce Committee that declined to deal with any bill. So the fact of the matter is we've got a very well, systematic, organized committee structure where we ordinarily take legislation through the process, and you're talking about bringing in something that's never been taken through the process and systematically examined by the people and the professional staffs and expertise to deal with it. It ought to be like that.

MS. WARNER: Let me get Congressman McDermott in here, because I want to ask about the other player in this, which is the President. If one of these bills or one of these proposals gets cobbled together, how do you think the President should handle it? Should he lobby for it, first of all? Should he put his weight behind it, or if it comes to him, should he sign it?

REP. McDERMOTT: I think he ought to be very critical in his analysis of it; if it doesn't at the end of the day make it better for people in this country, I think he ought to veto it. Just to sign a bill to say we signed a bill and wind up the next day and find out that you have taken away thing that people already have and not replaced it with any more certainty -- children's hospitals in this country in the financing that is being talked about in the Senate will be decimated, as will city hospital. I don't think the President should sign a bill that does those kinds of things.

SEN. WOFFORD: Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Yes, go ahead.

SEN. WOFFORD: I -- I fully agree with you, Congressman, that this President should not sign a bill unless we can come together on a bill that does make sense, that does not do what Congressman McDermott fears. Give us a chance in the Senate. Let's see if in the spirit of David Durenberger just now and George Mitchell and a whole group of Republicans and Democrats we can't look at those things that we agree upon and which have been thoroughly studied and carefully presented and come forth with a quite simple bill, much shorter bill that will make sense. Then I think the President should sign it, and we should come back to take the next steps next year.

MS. WARNER: Sen. Wofford, I assume you have been in contact with the White House. What's your understanding of where the President is on this right now?

SEN. WOFFORD: I think the President has said he will sign any significant bill that moves us toward assuring all Americans the kind of coverage that members of Congress have. And how big a step forward it will be he has to measure, we have to measure, the American people have to measure. I think children first is a good measuring rod.

MS. WARNER: Congressman Armey, how do you see the choice before the President?

REP. ARMEY: I think the way the Senator describes his bill and the President's hope for what he might be able still to get at this late hour is exactly what is scaring the American people. A first step toward what, they're going to ask. The fact is we've spent two years staring the devil out of the American people with this hyperbolized rhetoric in these grand plans and schemes. They really need us to take a rest and to get serious and get focused and get sober and get systematic. This is not a serious, systematic way to make legislation. It's a last minute frantic panic to save face, and that's the way the American people will see it.

SEN. WOFFORD: If you take a rest, how about giving up the employer -- the employer -- your employer, the taxpayer, paying for your health insurance while you're resting?

MS. WARNER: Congressman, let me just before we leave, let me just ask all of you since the November elections are eight weeks away or eight weeks from tomorrow, Congressman McDermott, if nothing passes, how do you think that affects incumbents in your party running for reelection?

REP. McDERMOTT: I don't think it does. I think what it says is we're going to come back tougher and smarter next year. We've learned a lot in the Congress. A lot of people have learned a lot. And we'll be in a better position to deal with it. This issue will not go away. It's going to get worse, not better, by leaving it alone. So we'll be back working on it within six months.

MS. WARNER: And Sen. Wofford, how do you see it playing politically -- you're up for reelection -- if nothing is passed?

SEN. WOFFORD: I tell you, I've fought for this for the next generation. At this moment, I don't care how it affects President Clinton. I don't care how it affects me. I care about our taking this chance to do something that will help millions of people in the next four or five weeks.

MS. WARNER: And Congressman Armey, what do you think of the political implications here?

REP. ARMEY: This is not the last chance to address it. I think Congressman McDermott's right. We'll come back smarter, rested, ready to be more focused on it. I have -- my own fear is if something gets railroaded through in the 11th hour, any member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, that voted it would put their reelection in jeopardy, and the frank fact is it's time now to settle down, finish up our work, get out of town, come back refreshed with a fresh perspective, and a whole new methodologically, well defined approach to the subject based on what all we've learned up to this point.

MS. WARNER: Well, Congressmen, Senators, I'm sorry, that's all the time we have. Thanks very much. Jim. FOCUS - POLITICAL SLUGFEST

MR. LEHRER: Now, Betty Ann Bowser tells the story of one of the many primary election contests that will be decided tomorrow. It's the one in Minnesota between the Republican Party's official candidate for governor and the state's Republican governor.

BARBARA CARLSON, Radio Talk Show Host: [sitting in hot tub fully clothed, doing radio show] People from all over the country are tuning to Minnesota to find out what in the world is going on.

MS. BOWSER: When Minnesotans want to know what's going on in politics, they may tune in theunconventional Barbara Carlson, who last week did her radio show from a hot tub at the state fair. Right now, most of the callers want to hear about the equally unconventional race for the Minnesota governor's mansion.

BARBARA CARLSON: How someone can rest the endorsement away from a sitting governor who has been a Republican since the early 60's, who has won race after race after race in Minnesota as an endorsed Minnesota!

MS. BOWSER: That sitting governor just happens to be Barbara Carlson's first husband, 60-year-old Republican Arne Carlson, who is the first Republican incumbent in the state's history to run for reelection without his party's official endorsement.

GOV. ARNE CARLSON: [preparing to be guest on radio talk show] Am I okay now?

BARBARA CARLSON: Just get very close to it.

GOV. ARNE CARLSON: Love the mike.

BARBARA CARLSON: I hate to tell you what to do, Governor.

GOV. ARNE CARLSON: But you will.

BARBARA CARLSON: No. I have done that in the past.

MS. BOWSER: Carlson is almost the accidental governor. Four years ago, he lost the Republican primary to Jon Grunseth, who was charged with sexual misconduct at the 11th hour.

JON GRUNSETH, 1990 GOP Gubernatorial Candidate: Today I offer you new evidence and a new challenge. On Wednesday, I voluntarily submitted myself to a lie detector test.

MS. BOWSER: But 10 days before the election, Grunseth was forced to step aside, and the party turned to former state auditor Carlson as a stand-in. Carlson narrowly took the state house. Republican Party leaders breathed a sigh of relief. But almost from the day he was elected, Carlson pursued a liberal agenda, antagonizing conservative forces within his own Republican Party.

PAT KESSLER, Political Reporter, WCCO-TV: Gov. Carlson was elected on a fluke, then did not pay attention to many of the people who elected him.

MS. BOWSER: Pat Kessler has been covering politics in Minnesota for 16 years.

PAT KESSLER: Carlson signed a bill which raised taxes, supported abortion rights, supported gay rights, did all sorts of things like that that did not endear him to the conservatives, the economic conservatives, the Jack Kemp conservatives. Those are the reasons that Gov. Carlson is in trouble.

GOV. ARNE CARLSON: I think I'm going to auction off some hogs.

SPOKESPERSON: That's why we're here.

GOV. ARNE CARLSON: Really? Okay.

MS. BOWSER: Then there was the matter of Carlson's style, which Carlton College political science professor Steven Shier says further alienated the governor from members of his own Republican Party.

STEVEN SHIER, Carlton College: Arne Carlson is sometimes called "governor unloved," i.e., he has the personality of a porcupine. A lot of the problems that he's facing this year are self-imposed. He's not a very good retail politician. He doesn't reach out to people. He's -- has a quick temper, and he's been known to promote discord in his own party.

MS. BOWSER: Nothing promoted discord more than Carlson's signing of a gay and lesbian rights bill. It also galvanized conservative religious Republicans against Carlson. After mustering clout in caucuses around the state, Carlson's enemies went to the state convention this summer and denied him the Republican Party's endorsement.

SPOKESPERSON: And the District 51 casts one vote for Arne Carlson, one uncommitted, and twenty-eight for Allen Quist.

MS. BOWSER: It went, instead, to forty-nine-year old Allen Quist, a religious conservative farmer from rural St. Peter who is philosophically the opposite of Arne Carlson. Quist convinced Republicans tomake him the nominee on a strong pro-family platform, opposing abortion, gay rights, tax increases, and universal health care.

ALLEN QUIST, GOP Gubernatorial Candidate: We have experienced an unparalleled breakdown in the family. I happen to believe, by the way, that the family is the basic unit of society and the basic unit of government, and we are not, we are not going to solve the crime problem, and we are not going to solve the problem of poverty, and we are not going to solve the problem of education until we rebuild the family.

GOV. ARNE CARLSON, Minnesota: Those are kind of, you know, trigger issues that get people excited and revved up, and in a caucus state, you can get a small minority to take over a caucus system. Less than 1 percent attend caucuses in Minnesota. More people attend the Cleveland Indians Minnesota Twins baseball game than attend our caucuses.

MS. BOWSER: Quist's supporters say Carlson is out of step with mainstream Republican Party thinking, so much so that he might as well be a Democrat. Darrell McKigney is chairman of a new political action committee that is supporting Quist.

DARRELL McKIGNEY, Quist Supporter: There's been a whole variety of things that have painted a picture of Carlson as being someone who's a Bill Clinton type liberal. The social issues, signing of the gay rights bill, I think the abortion issue is always a part of that. There's the passage of major health care reform legislation which a lot of people see as a Clinton style plan.

MS. BOWSER: Determined to let voters decide if he's too liberal for the Republican Party, Gov. Carlson is running against Quist in the primary tomorrow.

GOV. ARNE CARLSON: I want to see the broad base of the Republican Party really come back together again. You know, this state was developed as a great state because both of its political parties recognize that most people tend to be in the middle. They don't like to go to the left wing. They don't like to go to the far right. They want to be kind of in the middle.

MS. BOWSER: From opening day, it has been an ugly campaign, waged along personal as well as ideological lines.

QUIST CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL SPOKESMAN: Arne Carlson and Bill Clinton have a lot in common. They've raised your taxes, they support government-run health care that will lead to rationing. They support gun control as an answer to gun. They favor legalized abortion into the ninth month.

MS. BOWSER: The Quist campaign has tried to portray Carlson more in step with President Clinton than the Minnesota Republican Party. Another spot criticizes the Carlson camp for turning the campaign into a mudslinging contest.

CARLSON CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL SPOKESMAN: If you believe in less government and less taxes, then Carlson is throwing mud at you. If you believe schools should reinforce the values of parents and grandparents, then Carlson is throwing mud at you.

MS. BOWSER: There has been plenty of mud to go around.

ALLEN QUIST: Arne Carlson compared me to Adolf Hitler, which is absolutely not true. He called me a cult leader. I mean, I'm a Lutheran. I say since when is being a Lutheran being a cult member? You have campaign manager Joe Weber called me the David Koresh of Minnesota. Then he's got his surrogates, his former -- his first ex-wife has a talk show -- she calls me a demon; she calls me a liar.

MS. BOWSER: And Carlson has criticized Quist, who as a state representative spent nearly 30 hours on the floor of the House talking about sex.

GOV. ARNE CARLSON: That really bothered people. It wasn't about taxes or spending or education or the environment or the future of Minnesota. It was just on this one narrow issue of sex. That makes a lot of people very uncomfortable.

MS. BOWSER: D.J. Leary, a Democratic political analyst, says that kind of rhetoric has characterized the whole campaign.

D.J. LEARY, Political Analyst: On one side, they mean -- they being the Quist people, they look at Arne Carlson as the anti- Christ of the North. On the other side, they just demonize Allen Quist and his people as being the crazies of the week, which gives you an idea of the depth of the substance of the debate in this campaign. It's absolutely nowhere.

ALLEN QUIST: The time has come to turn the corner on high taxes and to start bringing taxes down, down.

MS. BOWSER: Quist has tried to talk about taxes, education, and health care, but a chapter from his personal life has received a lot of news coverage and is a frequent topic of conversation. It is how Quist handled the funeral of his first wife. In 1986, when Diane Quist was six and a half months pregnant with their tenth child, she was tragically killed in an automobile accident.

ALLEN QUIST: We talked about the birth of the baby. We talked about names. The other children had felt the child moving inside of the mother's body, and we came -- we faced the question: How are we going to grieve for the child? We came to the conclusion, No. 1, if we could give the child a name, identifying it as male or female, it would be useful. We came to the conclusion, No. 2, that if we could see the child and say our good-byes, that that would be useful too. So for that reason, we had the dead child removed from her mother's body, placed in her arms in one casket. And I have no question in my mind at all but what for the good of the family, it was absolutely the right thing to do.

MS. BOWSER: Barbara Carlson's radio show is where Quist first talked publicly about his wife's funeral. Most Quist opponents are also willing to talk about the funeral but not for attribution. The talk show hostess is one of the few Carlson supporters who will discuss the incident on the record.

BARBARA CARLSON: I have lost a baby. It's devastating. It breaks your heart. But it is so unusual to remove a dead fetus from a body. I just -- I thought -- it just speaks volumes.

MS. BOWSER: Another subject Quist has been criticized for is his view of women.

MS. BOWSER: Do you really believe that men have a genetic predisposition to being heads of households?

ALLEN QUIST: I really believe that -- I really believe that's true. And I think there is a complementary relationship between the sexes in romance, in family, and in marriage. I think it's totally different in the business world, the political world, and the like.

MS. BOWSER: Quist contends that his wife's funeral and his views on genetic predisposition have no place in a political campaign and were planted by the Carlson camp.

PAT KESSLER: The No. 1 goal of the Carlson campaign has been to define Allen Quist not just as the enemy but as an evil enemy. They've been very successful at that, not just through what could be called a whisper campaign among Republicans but by planting strategically stories in the press.

MS. BOWSER: And late polling shows the strategy is working with some Republican voters.

ERNIE KRETZSCHER: I think that's a consensus at this table, that Mr. Quist is too far to the right, and this being a hotbed of Swedish Lutheranism conservatism, that we don't, you know, we don't like too many chile peppers on our roast beef and mashed potatoes.

MS. BOWSER: Ernie Kretzscheris a member of the 9 O'clock Coffee Club that meets every morning at Meister's Bar & Grill in Scandia, a town of about 3,000 people one hour Northeast of Minneapolis.

NELS GRONQUIST: I think they have been sort of brainwashed by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robinson [Robertson].

MS. BOWSER: Who has?

NELS GRONQUIST: Quist and so many born-again Christians; it's going a little too far.

BRUCE SWENSON: I think we sometimes have a cloud built in front of us with this type of thing to cloud the issues that are as important or maybe ten times as important, our economics, our loss of business, and what's happening with our work comp. situation in this state.

ERNIE KRETZSCHER: I'd like to know what any candidate can do for me that will simplify my life and not cost me any money. I want to mind my own business. Bruce wants to mind his own store, and the retired fellahs around here would like to stay healthy and be the - - we'd like to be the masters of our own destiny.

MS. BOWSER: It sounds like you all are almost turned off by the debate that's been going on.

MAN IN COFFEE CLUB: I'm definitely turned off by it. I'm with Ernie and Bruce and the rest of the guys. They're talking about the wrong thing.

MS. BOWSER: So you don't like either one of them?

ART PETERSEN: No. I don't like any of them that's running for governorship in Minnesota. They're all a bunch of deadbeats as far as I'm concerned.

MS. BOWSER: All of 'em, Democrats too?

ART PETERSEN: Yeah. I don't have any choice of them.

MS. BOWSER: Are you going to vote?

ART PETERSEN: I don't know.

MS. BOWSER: Again, political scientist Steven Shier.

STEVEN SHIER: In Minnesota, we have an electorate just as we do nationally that's fed up with politics. And our nomination politics are becoming more and more consumed by issue activists on the extreme. This is a trend we also see nationally, and quite frankly, it's a disturbing trend for politics.

MS. BOWSER: Why?

STEVEN SHIER: Because we have a small group of people firmly convinced that they have a monopoly on truth who are trying to run politics for everybody else. And, in fact, they benefit by everyone else's apathy and alienation.

MS. BOWSER: Shier expects less than a third of Minnesota's registered voters to go to the polls tomorrow in a state that traditionally has had one of the highest voter turnouts in the nation. CONVERSATION - GOOD DEEDS

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a conversation with Eli Segal, the man in charge of Americorps, the federal government's new national service program. President Clinton christened its operation at a White House ceremony this very day. Mr. Segal, welcome.

MR. SEGAL: Thank you. Glad to be here.

MR. LEHRER: And in doing so today, President Clinton told the recruits or the volunteers to the Americorps that their oath of office was more than an office, it was a "creed for America." What did he mean by that?

MR. SEGAL: I think in the aftermath of the eighties, frequently dismissed as a time of cynicism and greed, I think we believe there's a new spirit among young people in America today, Jim. We know that right now that 2/3 of young people who are freshmen in college are involved in some kind of volunteer activity. We think that young people are prepared to put something back into their communities, and the President's campaign commitment to reward young people who are going to make this kind of commitment to service in their communities will help to pay for the college education is the creed he was addressing.

MR. LEHRER: All right. This program that started today,how many are involved initially?

MR. SEGAL: We expect this first year there will be 20,000 people. We expect that next year there will be at least 35,000. And the President's committed to there being 100,000 by the end of 1996.

MR. LEHRER: All right. This first group, who are they? Tell us about them. Who are these kids?

MR. SEGAL: Broad cross-section of people of various races, religions, regions, and income levels. They can be as young as high school dropouts studying for their GED degrees who can do valuable work even with lower skills. They can be doctors trying to pay off their loans from medical school. We expect that a miracle is going to be a cross-section; as the President is stated, he wants Americorps to look like the face of America.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Are there other age limits? I mean, you have to be a certain age, you can't be too old, or what are the ground rules? What are the qualifications to join Americorps?

MR. SEGAL: Numerically, you have to be 17 years old, and there are no upper age limits. When I went to college, you did it between the time of ages of 18 and 21. But we know that our country has changed a lot at this point and that people are going to college far later, community college, et cetera. There are no upward age limits at all. So someone at age forty or fifty or sixty, if he or she chooses to, can make a commitment to his community and can be rewarded with an opportunity to pay for his or her college or graduate school as well.

MR. LEHRER: Now, they sign up for how long?

MR. SEGAL: It can be a one-year program. It can be a two-year program. The person in that program will receive a minimum wage stipend, which is roughly $7500 a year, plus his or her health care benefits, and when and if he or she finishes that year, an educational award of just about $5,000 for each year up to two years. So one could be receiving as much as $10,000 in the form of scholarship if one does it before college, or in the form of loan forgiveness if one does it after he or she is finished with college.

MR. LEHRER: That's instead of being paid, you mean?

MR. SEGAL: In addition to --

MR. LEHRER: Oh in addition to being paid? In addition to the minimum wage.

MR. SEGAL: Much like the Peace Corps and the Civilian Conservation Corps, which also had a minimum salary for a young person who, in fact, was going to give this service to his or her country, we provide that, so frankly we do that largely so we do not make it out of consideration for just the -- for people of limited means. If we did not make the minimum wage stipend available, then we were afraid that Americorps would be simply a program of noblesse oblige in which only people with more means would be able to do this. By making it available to everybody, it is not an income tested program, so people with low income and high income hopefully will participate together.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Participating doing what? What are these first fifteen thousand kids going to do? I've got to quit calling them kids, because the ages, as you just pointed out. What are these volunteers going to do?

MR. SEGAL: We like to say the young people or people young in spirit.

MR. LEHRER: Got you.

MR. SEGAL: The legislation essentially asks that they work in four major areas. They're going to be working in the areas of education, the environment, public safety, and human needs. What they will do will be largely determined by the communities in those broad parameters. For example, they could be working on immunization programs; they could be working on block associations and community policing and tutoring and mentoring and recycling. It's a wide variety that will fall within our broad national priorities. Many communities will tackle a similar problem in a different way, and what we like to think of our corporation National Service as the kind of the bully pulpit of this, is to make sure that we will be there to invest in those programs which are working, which are, in fact, getting things done, solutions that will work at the grassroots. We will reward and hopefully replicate and grow over time.

MR. LEHRER: But it works on an individual basis, does it not? In other words, you're not funding Program A in a certain locality and then that locality goes out and gets 15 volunteers?

MR. SEGAL: Yes, we are.

MR. LEHRER: Is that how -- that's how --

MR. SEGAL: That's the model. Unlike the Peace Corps in which the Peace Corps itself chooses the members and the Civilian Conservation Corps, we're investing essentially in the programs. There are 330 programs that we've selected in an extraordinarily competitive process just concluded a while ago. They, themselves, select the young people. We participate in that. We serve as a referral mechanism. We now have a database of over 100,000 names of young people who want to serve but essentially we're going to hold the organizations that we select to the highest possible standards in recruitment, et cetera.

MR. LEHRER: Are these privately run organizations, church organizations, government organizations? What kind are they?

MR. SEGAL: It's as broad as we can determine. It is both existing non-profits, government organizations, police departments, universities, any community-based organization that wants to apply, wanted to apply, could, in fact, apply. We had extraordinary competition. We think these 330 represent some of our finest institutions, from the American Red Cross down to very, very small non-profits just getting their feet wet but were able to convince us that they knew how to get things done, how to get quality young people, and how to monitor those results.

MR. LEHRER: And what kind of monitoring are you going to do, you going to do, you or the organization going to do at the national level?

MR. SEGAL: We like to think that we are an example of reinventing government. We are certainly not creating a new federal bureaucracy. We think that would be a serious mistake. Those are one of the lessons that we can learn from the past. We think that we have developed a system using state commissions, et cetera, by which we can monitor the programs, make sure that the program quality is built in, that program improvement will happen, and if, in fact, it's not just like the private sector, we will give every entity an opportunity to prove itself. But if it doesn't, we're just not going to go forward with it. In this time of difficult budgetary circumstances, we want to make sure the federal taxpayer is well handled in this.

MR. LEHRER: Where is the focus on this? Is the focus on the individual volunteers, in other words, to get them an experience of giving something back, or is it on the organizations and what they actually give back in the process?

MR. SEGAL: We've elected to focus as much as possible in communities. Given the kind of cynicism that exists from the federal government at this point or government generally, we think we need to show the American people that we can get things done. We are not going to solve the problems of crime and illiteracy and the like. Those problems are decades in creation, and we don't expect to solvethem. So we've lowered our rhetoric. But we can make a difference. We will focus on the communities. We will go to communities, and the non-profits we've invested in have told us they're going to immunize young people. There are going to be measurable standards wherever possible. If they get the job done, we want those programs to grow; if not, we are going to move elsewhere. So in short, our focus is the communities. If those community programs work, we're sure the young people who are working in them will get the kind of life transforming experience that we think service is all about.

MR. LEHRER: But you're not going to -- you're not going to -- that's not going to be one of your measuring sticks for success, is it, in other words whether volunteer Billy Bob came in kind of not sure about his life but came out two years later a changed person, committed to something good and wonderful?

MR. SEGAL: We honestly believe that will happen, but we do think that we're going to need at least -- there are several things we're trying to do here. I think there's certainly a youth development theme here as well, but we really believe that this time we have to first show communities that they're getting a dollar's worth for a dollar's labor, that this, in fact, is a program which is driven by the bottom line which is a good program producing quality results.

MR. LEHRER: What is your bottom line? You, Eli Segal, who put this thing together, as you said, in a very cynical time, the attitudes that people have toward government and also young people, for that matter, what, what would be a success for you?

MR. SEGAL: I must tell you that I was actively involved in the President's campaign. And I saw whenever he discussed this issue of national service the reaction it had in young people. And frankly, one of the reasons I was so honored to take this on is that I honestly believe that if we ran this like an ordinary business start-up, recognizing that we were going to make mistakes, if we held the bar high, if we established high standards, that this was not going to be a make-work program. We believe that we can get things done, and I think that is essentially the standard we've got. If we can show community improving, if we can show that we're encouraging responsibility in young people, if we can show that we're strengthening communities, if we can at a time that we celebrate our differences, then new national service is a time that we can bring different kinds of people together, then we're all going to be satisfied if on top of that is young people who do that great work are going to get help paying for their college education. And at a time of dramatically increasingly costs, that will be the added bonus.

MR. LEHRER: Do you have any dream scenario at the end of this? I mean, do you see this as an experiment, or do you see this as the beginning of something new and huge that could actually transform the way we do business in this country?

MR. SEGAL: Well, I certainly expect that it's more than an experiment. I believe that this is very much in the tradition of the Peace Corps, the Civilian Conservation Corps, even broader than that. It's really about America. America really is an optimistic people, Jim, and it's really been a little bit disturbing how much cynicism there is at this point. We believe this is one of the kinds of ways that the American people can delight in themselves again, that they can, in fact, see that they can get on top of their problems and that their young people, who I think they want to admire and respect and revel in, can get it done for them. My dream is that this will change the way people think about young people and it will end talking about generation X, et cetera, and that we will see young people who are really prepared to invest in their communities.

MR. LEHRER: Are you confident it's going to happen that way?

MR. SEGAL: Well, I would be honest -- I want to be as honest as I can. This is hard work. Every other start-up there are going to be some terrible burdens, terrible mountains that we have to climb and mistakes are going to be made. But I do think we've put together something that makes sense. If we learned in the 1960's that government couldn't do it all, we learned in the 80's that forgetting about your government wasn't going to work either, we think we have that right mix between an aggressive government but citizens engaged in their activities that's going to work. Yes, I'm optimistic that we're going to come back a year from now, we're going to see some dramatic successes in which we can all take great pride.

MR. LEHRER: Eli Segal, thank you very much. Good luck to you.

MR. SEGAL: Thank you, Jim. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the major story of this Monday, a stolen single-engine plane crashed on the grounds of the White House, killing the pilot. President Clinton and his family were staying across the street in a guest house and were unharmed. The pilot was identified as a 38-year-old truck driver who reportedly had a history of mental problems. Federal officials began an investigation into how the plane penetrated the restricted air space around the White House. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Margaret. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.