The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

[NETWORK DIFFICULTY] PRESIDENT CLINTON: -- He's distinguished himself as a fighter pilot, a military commander, and a manager. He's a proven innovator, open to new ways of doing business and skeptical of conventional wisdom.

GEN. MICHAEL CARNS [Ret.], CIA Director-Designate: Mr. President, from our conversations these past few days I was struck by your dedication to our intelligence community and your determination to prepare it for the new challenges that we face. The Cold War may have passed into history, but regional instability, terrorism, drug trafficking, crime, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons all loom large as threats to our interests and to our people. For all this change, the mission of our intelligence community remains constant to provide the highest quality information, estimates, and judgments that our government leaders and policy makers need to protect and to advance our national security.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said Carns seemed to be a solid candidate. He said his committee would move quickly to hold confirmation hearings. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Labor Sec. Robert Reich delivered legislation to Congress today that would end the baseball strike. It would give the President authority to appoint three neutral arbitrators who would listen to the players and owners and then devise a settlement. President Clinton failed to reach a breakthrough after meeting with the two sides last night. Mediator William Usery discussed congressional action today with House and Senate leaders, and there was a mix of reactions.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Majority Leader: We're speaking for the fans, the millions of fans out there, whether Atlanta, or Kansas City, or wherever they may be, they'd like to feel that they're represented in this contest too, or this negotiation. What they want is the season to start, and they want their regular ball players there, not replacement ball players. So I would say to the owners and the players, let's give the fans a break and not try to get Congress involved.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: I'm very cautious about getting -- I think the strike is a tragedy. I think both sides are wrong. I think this is just an absurdly destructive behavior that they both engaged in. But I'm not sure that in a free society the fact that both groups seem to be unable to, to behave in a way that solves a problem leads to direct congressional involvement.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, [D] New York: If Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole do not let the President's legislation come to the floor, there will be no spring training, no all star game, no pennant race, no playoffs, no world series, no season. The fate of 1995 baseball is in the hands of Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, and their response is to sit on the bench.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on this story later in the program.

MR. MAC NEIL: The House today passed a Republican-sponsored crime bill which would make it easier for prosecutors to use evidence obtained without a search warrant. The legislation was promised in the Contract With America. The vote was 289 to 142. Opponents claim it violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. President Clinton said today he would oppose Republican efforts to change provisions in last year's crime bill. One such change promised in the Contract With America would let local governments decide how to spend federal money currently earmarked for new police officers and crime prevention programs. Mr. Clinton spoke at a White House ceremony at which he announced that more than 600 communities will receive the police grants.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'm working hard to give more flexibility to state and local governments. I'm working hard to turn more authority back to states and local governments, even to the private sector, where that's appropriate. I support the changes that were made in the last crime bill to give more flexibility in the area of prevention, but I will oppose any attempt to undermine the capacity of the crime bill to produce the 100,000 police officers that we promised the American people, that you came up here and lobbied for, and that you worked so hard for. We must not do that.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Senate today defeated a Democratic attempt to force the Republican majority to reveal specific spending cuts and tax increases they would make to balance the budget. Minority Leader Tom Daschle introduced the measure as an amendment to the balanced budget amendment. It was defeated 56 to 44.

MR. LEHRER: Thirty-five U.S. troops landed in Somalia today to help coordinate the final withdrawal of U.N. forces. Another 2500 U.S. and Italian troops will come next month. They will provide security for the evacuation of nearly 8,000 U.N. peacekeepers from that East African nation. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to defense spending, regional airline safety, and the baseball strike. FOCUS - BATTLE PLAN

MR. MAC NEIL: We start tonight with the latest round in the national defense debate. This time it's part of the first 100 days of the new Republican Congress and part and parcel of the GOP's Contract With America. Though that document focuses primarily on domestic issues, it also addresses defense and foreign policy, and it sharply criticizes the Clinton administration's defense record. But today's hearing on the defense budget opened on a more polite note We start with a report from correspondent Kwame Holman.

MR. HOLMAN: In contrast to some recent hearings, this morning's meeting of the House National Security Committee had Republicans downplaying their general displeasure with the Clinton administration's defense policy.

REP. FLOYD SPENCE, Chairman, National Security Committee: Mr. Secretary, on a personal note, I know that we're all here trying to do the best we can for the defense forces in our country. You have your responsibility, and I hope you understand, on the other hand, that we have a responsibility to people who elected us to defend this country.

MR. HOLMAN: But Committee Chairman Floyd Spence of South Carolina also challenged Defense Sec. William Perry on what the chairman says is a $10 billion cut in defense spending in the administration's 1996 budget.

REP. FLOYD SPENCE: I have a hard time believe that an outlay reduction of this magnitude is fully consistent with maintenance of a capable, ready force, especially after a decade of declining defense budgets and more recently last year's revelations of readiness problems throughout the force.

MR. HOLMAN: Sec. Perry defended the administration's spending plans.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: I do believe that this budget preserves the national security. It funds readiness as its highest priority and will adequately maintain high readiness. It puts people first, not just through readiness but through quality of life programs. It supports what I believe is the right force structure and the right strategy. In a sense, this is the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.

MR. HOLMAN: The overall thrust of Republicans' plans for the Defense Department are contained in the National Security Revitalization Act, part of the Contract With America. Its main components already are working their way through committees in both the House and the Senate. They amount to reforms more than alternative defense strategy and have no exact budget, but one clear target is to reverse what Republicans say is a decline in U.S. military readiness. At this hearing a few weeks ago, Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia criticized President Clinton for deploying U.S. troops too often and in doing so taking funds away from readiness.

SEN. JOHN WARNER, [R] Virginia: [January 19] We have deployed our armed forces to too many places in the world and thereby robbing the cash account of ONMM, which is readiness. That's been the cookie jar into which the hand dips to get the needed dollars when we elect to send our troops here, there, everywhere in the cause of freedom or otherwise.

MR. HOLMAN: Republicans also charged the Clinton administration with gutting plans for a national anti-ballistic missile system to protect the continental United States. That program, often referred to as Star Wars, originally was proposed by the Reagan administration. But the part of the Republican initiative that most offended the Clinton administration is the proposed commission that would decide the long-term national security needs of the United States. Recently, Sec. Perry denounced the idea, saying it infringed on executive authority.

SEC. WILLIAM PERRY: You should not dilute the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense by trying to turn a key part of them over to an independent commission. Rather, you should hold me accountable for meeting those responsibilities. And if you find that I'm incapable or unwilling to meet those responsibilities, you should ask me to step down as a Secretary of Defense.

MR. HOLMAN: A few days later National Security Chairman Spence took offense publicly at Sec. Perry's remarks.

REP. FLOYD SPENCE: [January 31] Frankly, I was astonished to hear Sec. Perry sit in this room and suggest that an independent commission like the one chartered in Title 3 of HR-7 might be a usurpation of his authority, and if we did not approve of his job, the job he was doing, we should ask for him to step down.

MR. HOLMAN: The National Security Revitalization Act is scheduled to come down to real votes in the House next week. That will draw the battle lines between an administration that wants reductions in military spending and a Republican Congress that wants to spend more.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now we look at the question of how much the nation needs to spend on defense with two members of the House National Security Committee and two former defense officials. Republican Duncan Hunter of California chairs the subcommittee on military procurement. Pat Schroeder is a Democrat from Colorado. Harold Brown served as Secretary of Defense during the Carter administration, and Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security during the Reagan administration. He's now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Congressman Hunter, you're one of the Republicans who feels the President is not spending enough on defense. Explain why.

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER, [R] California: Well, clearly, the President is bringing a budget to each year that steps the defense budget down $127 billion below the cuts that President Bush and Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney put into effect after the Berlin Wall had fallen. That's $127 billion below what we had figured we needed. And in terms of what we're doing, we are buying fewer fighter aircraft this year than the country of Switzerland. We have cut procurement of tanks, of ships, of missiles, of other vital military equipment by about 70 percent, and the General Accounting Office that rely on very strongly has told us that Sec. Perry has underfunded the defense accounts for the next five years by about $150 billion. I think that's one good reason to go to an independent commission and see who's right, Sec. Perry or the GAO.

MR. MAC NEIL: Congressman Schroeder, on the other hand -- Congresswoman Schroeder, I'm sorry -- on the other hand, you think they're spending too much, right?

REP. PAT SCHROEDER, [D] Colorado: Well, absolutely. I think the relevant thing is comparing the world that we're in today. Today is the only thing that matters, and what does the threat look like out there, and what are our allies spending, and where are we going? Yes, we may not be buying quite as many airplanes as Switzerland, but part of the reason is we've already got wings and wings of airplane. We ought to be encouraging Switzerland and other allies to do more to help us. When you look at what we're spending, we're spending three times as much money on defense as the Soviet Union, that China and all the rogue nations you can think of that could possibly be opponents, and when you look at all of our allies in Asia and Europe, we are huge. We're humongous. The issue is: What do we do today, rather than historically looking back and missing the Cold War and saying, oh, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could bring all those toys back? We have to figure out how we play in today's environment, which is very different, and no one is quite sure. But Idon't think we need an independent commission. We've got the GAO. We've got the Congress. The Congress is under Republican control. The Pentagon is under this administration. That ought to be about as many voices they need. How many nannies does the Pentagon need?

MR. MAC NEIL: Let's turn to our two outside experts now. Mr. Perle, are they spending too little or too much?

RICHARD PERLE, American Enterprise Institute: I think we're spending about the right amount, a little bit more might be useful. The more important issue, in my view, is whether we're spending the money wisely, whether the funds are going to those crucial programs that will enable us to make the transition from the world of the past in which we focused on dealing with the Soviet Union to the future, where the threats are going to be around the globe and very difficult to identify and anticipate.

MR. MAC NEIL: And Harold Brown, too little, too much?

HAROLD BROWN, Former Secretary of Defense: I believe that the budgets that are proposed are about right. Again, one can argue a few billion dollars a year either way, and, of course, the numbers that Congressman Hunter mentioned were over a period of five years, not per year. The Secretary of Defense has two responsibilities, two most important responsibilities. One is to be prepared, have the forces be prepared to fight now or soon. They have to be ready, and they have to be sufficient. I believe the administration has sized them correctly for the near-term, and that the two places that they've considered in trying to decide how to size the force are the right ones, the Persian Gulf and Northeast Asia. In fact, we had to fight in the Persian Gulf. I would remind Pat Schroeder of that. And last year, we had to send forces over to deter it. So that's not an imaginary threat. Korea is not an imaginary threat either. We had plans to send forces to deter fighting in Korea, and that was averted by the agreement that was struck with the North Koreans. So that's one important role for the Secretary of Defense. The other is to do the things that are necessary to provide the right capability 10 years from now. And that's a lot harder to decide. That's where procurement comes in. One could not have known in 1930 who one was going to fight in 1941. And we don't know where the threats will be ten or fifteen years from now. And that, I think, arrives at Richard Perle's point, what should we do now to deal with what's going to be necessary 10 years from now? And that's a rather important question.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, let's go back to the Congressmen -- persons who are going to have to vote on this and see, starting with you, Congressman Hunter, where should -- and then we'll get the critique of the others -- where should more money be spent, in your view?

REP. HUNTER: Well, clearly, what I would start out with are the weapon systems that Sec. Perry said last year we should be starting in this next fiscal year. The Secretary has actually cut his own budget by $9 billion this year over what he said just 12 months ago we should have. And specifically, we're cutting cruisers, we're cutting F&A 18 aircraft. That's our base aircraft that we're going to be using on our carrier task forces. We are cutting our long range standoff precision missiles which we know from Desert Storm were a very vital part of our war inventory, so the Secretary really has a debate with his own people, and he made a decision to try to shore up some of the readiness that was slipping. Where you had the army divisions that were showing decreased readiness, he took money and placed it against those problems and assured us that the divisions would now be ready, but he pulled it out of the procurement account. He said the procurement account this year would be $48 billion. That was what he said last year. He's taken $9 billion out of that. So the Secretary is actually cutting not just below what Republicans want, not below what GAO says he should be spending. He's cutting below what he said last year he would be needing, and the problem is, if we go through the entire 1990s on this procurement holiday and we don't modernize our forces, in the next century, in the next five or six years, we're going to be faced with deteriorating, aging systems, and we're going to see enormous expenditures required to bring the forces back up to a modern level.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Brown, are we on a procurement holiday?

MR. BROWN: I'd make two points. Indeed, if we don't do any procurement in the 1990s, we will have a problem ten years out. The fact is, however, that because the forces have been reduced in size and we have discarding older aircraft, for example, the average age of the aircraft in the force has actually be declining. They're newer than they used to be on the average. But Mr. Hunter's right that if no procurement is done in the 1990s, there will be a problem in the future. Where the money is going to come from to do that is a problem for the Defense Secretary and for the Congress. And Sec. Perry hopes to get the money, expects to get the money out of infrastructure reduction, base closures, for example, out of better management, and out of avoiding having unnecessary things put into the budget. And I hope that the Congress will go along with that. I think that it's also the case that no matter what we do, 75 percent of the equipment that we have ten years from now is going to be the equipment that we have now. So this is, in effect, the margin. And it's very important to put the money for procurement into the right systems, the more advanced systems, the systems that will be able to operate in the future.

MR. MAC NEIL: And, Mr. Perle, what do you think? Are we in a procurement holiday? Are we not planning enough for the future?

MR. PERLE: I think Congressman Hunter is right to worry about the extent to which we've been dipping into the procurement account in order to finance unexpected contingencies in the dispatch of forces around the world. If that continues, we will deplete procurement in a dangerous way, and so some additional money to compensate for that would be a very good idea. What I worry about is that we are not --

MR. MAC NEIL: Could I just interrupt you a moment. I just heard Mr. Brown say we haven't been dipping.

MR. BROWN: Well, the money for past -- for the recent use of American forces has not come from procurement. It's come from operations and maintenance as Sen. Warner was saying, and the problem, of course, has been that the Congress does not fund, nor should it fund, four such operations in advance.

REP. HUNTER: This year, though, this year --

MR. MAC NEIL: Let's go back to Mr. Perle.

MR. PERLE: What we are now doing in replenishing some of that money that was taken from the operations and maintenance account is shrinking the procurement account for the future. And it's quite right that the program now proposed is smaller than the Secretary of Defense proposed last year. And that's because of the guidance he's been given in order to stay within budgetary limits.

MR. MAC NEIL: Congresswoman Schroeder -- I'm sorry -- had you not finished?

MR. PERLE: I just wanted to say that what troubles me most is that we are not investing adequately, in my view, in the transition from the forces oriented toward defending the center of Europe, which was our principal military mission during the Cold War, to the development of agile, mobile, and highly effective forces that will be able to operate in -- at great distances from the United States, which is where I suspect we will have to fight in the future. And unless we make that investment, we will not be capable of defending our interests around the world in the next decade.

MR. MAC NEIL: Specifically investing in what, just to name five things that you think should be?

MR. PERLE: In precision munitions, for example; in stealthy aircraft that can travel great distances without depending on local bases and deliver munitions with extreme accuracy -- the B-2 is a good example of that; in standoff weapons that will enable us to strike targets accurately from distances that will protect American forces, so that we don't have to be in harm's way all the time.

MR. MAC NEIL: Things like Cruise Missiles, Tomahawks, things like that?

MR. PERLE: Indeed. We have enormous technological potential that is not going to be realized if, if we spend what money we have on maintaining current forces, maintaining readiness in the face of significant reductions.

MR. MAC NEIL: So, Congresswoman Schroeder, what do you think about that list?

REP. SCHROEDER: Well, first of all, I think the end game is not how much you raise the budget but your priorities in the budget. The United States of America is almost spending more than all the rest of the planet combined. So I don't think you want to add on. The issue is about the priorities in it. And as we talk about these priority and procurement issues, remember the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Perry, pointed out earlier on one of the bleeders was also that Congress pushed some procurement items on 'em they didn't want last year. So it's not only deployment of missions, but we pushed some equipment that they didn't want on 'em. And he and I think John Deutch are two of the smartest R&D people around. They are so gifted. That is their specialty. And I think they're really looking at how we keep that edge in research and development without spending a tremendous amount of money deploying it. So we keep our sharpness, and we know where we're going. I think the issues in the budget are now the new tooth to tail ratio. I think they put the right priorities out there in saying we ought to deal with readiness and we ought to deal with morale and we ought to deal with family housing. We've got to do those kind of things. And my answer to Sec. Brown, yes, we went to the Gulf War, and, yes, we went to those places, but we also spent six months getting ready to go to the Gulf War. So we've got to get those forces ready. We've got to keep our edge. But certainly, if 257 billion dollars isn't enough, there's something wrong in how we're spending our money.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is the line item veto going to help on this kind of thing?

REP. SCHROEDER: Well, I think it will because it will help take some of the pork out. You know and I know part of defense has become jobs. Part of defense has become people putting things in for their pet rocks because it was one of the ones where there was so much money. And I think the President being able to go after those will be very, very helpful because that is not where you want anything other than defense priorities, and that's been one of the problems that Defense Departments have. We keep pushing congressional priorities on them.

MR. MAC NEIL: Does Congressman Hunter agree with you on that?

REP. HUNTER: The line-item veto could be with a liberal President, could be very dangerous. For example, in, in the Republican Contract, we have made a decision to deploy theater defenses against incoming missiles and a national defense against incoming missiles, and Sec. Perry thinks he could build some sort of national defense for about $5 billion. But a President could veto that. He could veto, for example, the B-2 bomber, i.e., a stealthy bomber with the ability to go great distances. So a Secretary of Defense could be --

REP. SCHROEDER: But Congress can override it.

REP. HUNTER: -- or a President who's liberal could be very dangerous to what I consider to be a strong defense agenda.

REP. SCHROEDER: But Congress can override it. I mean, there is that -- and if it's that serious, I would think they would. I don't think --

REP. HUNTER: The President requires 2/3, and I think he can hold 2/3 almost every time.

REP. SCHROEDER: Well, I would be surprised if any commander in chief --

MR. MAC NEIL: One item I haven't heard mentioned here yet, Mr. Perle, I think you're in favor of it, is something that I believe is in the Republican approach to the Contract With America, and that is spending more on a missile defense system, not a theater defense system, but a strategic missile defense system. Explain why you think -- you support that, I believe, the so-called "Star Wars."

MR. PERLE: Indeed. I think it's important to say first that as things stand today, we have no capacity whatsoever to defend the territory of the United States against a missile that might be launched at us, even a single missile, even a missile launched accidentally, and this is not understood by most Americans who believe that we are defended today against such a threat, when, in fact, we are not. President Reagan launched a program in the mid '80s. The amount proposed in the budget by the administration this year for work on a national ballistic missile defense is trivial. It's less than we were spending 10 years ago before the Reagan proposal. It's not going to move us toward the development of the ballistic missile defense. The Contract With America calls for changing that, and I think it's exactly right. It should be reinvigorating that program.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let me just go to the two Congresspersons, because they're going to have to leave for a vote in a second. What do you think of the -- spending more on missile defense, Congresswoman Schroeder?

REP. SCHROEDER: I think it's wrong. I think it's the wrong priority. I think we keep doing the research out there which we've been doing, but I think the Secretary had no idea what it would cost if we had to do the space deployment that we're talking about, and I think the major threat is really people coming in here with a nuclear weapon like what we saw in New York City, with the World Trade issue.

MR. MAC NEIL: And, Congressman Hunter, what do you think of the ballistic missile defense system?

REP. HUNTER: Well, obviously, we just saw the new designate to head the CIA, and he has said, as every one of his predecessors has said, that the big threat is going to be nuclear systems and nuclear missiles, which is the weapon of choice for all the third world nations which are our adversaries. We live in an age of missiles. That's what the Gulf War taught us. We have to be able to defend against missiles. If we don't, we're going to be like the generals in the 1920s who thought we could just have faster cavalry. We live in an age of missiles. We have to defend against slow missiles in the theater, fast missiles on a national basis.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. And Harold Brown.

MR. BROWN: Yes, on theater missile defense. I'd be very cautious about a national missile defense because there are other ways to deliver nuclear weapons into the United States. And it may be the weapon of choice but it's far from being the capability of other countries who might use 'em against us for a long time.

MR. MAC NEIL: Richard Perle, am I right, about $35 billion was spent under the Reagan and Bush administrations on -- and the conventional wisdom or the popular wisdom is that very little came of that? Is it really worth spending the amounts it would be needed to pursue that?

MR. PERLE: Well, the money that was spent under the Reagan program -- and it tapered off substantially under Bush -- was research and development money. And I think a great deal came out of that. Some of the approaches that were tried were not successful, but the accumulation of technology was very impressive, indeed, and we have the capacity today to envision defenses of the future based on that research and development. So I think it was a very valuable base for what we may do in the future. If we don't make the decision to reinvigorate this program, then we will find ourselves a decade from now, as we are today, without any capability whatsoever, and when we then look at a North Korean missile or at a Libyan missile -- and it's impossible even to guess -- we will have no response whatsoever, so I --

MR. MAC NEIL: Don't we still have deterrent capability in the U.S. own nuclear arsenal which could be retargeted at other --

MR. PERLE: We will certainly have the capacity to fire nuclear weapons at someone who may fire a nuclear weapon at us if we know who fired it at us in the first place, and if we're prepared to do that.

MR. BROWN: We do know that. An intercontinental ballistic missile, we would know where that came from. We did deter the Soviet Union for several decades.

MR. PERLE: I would be very uncomfortable if I thought the only way we could deter someone like Saddam Hussein or the leadership of North Korea was by threatening retaliation, because it's not at all clear that they would be deterred in that way.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let me just ask each of you very briefly, before we close this, where do you see the threats within the next sort of three or four years, five, six years, that we need to be prepared against?

MR. BROWN: I think the threats are what are called major regional conflicts. I mean, I think the Persian Gulf is one such area, Northeast Asia is another such area. There are lots of smaller problems, and they could come out -- they could come anywhere in the world. If you ask where will we have to worry about ten or fifteen years from now, then that is where you put your procurement money and work on the new systems that Richard has proposed and that I'm rather familiar with too. That's a lot harder to say, except that it is likely to be far from the United States, so you need to be able to move forces a long ways --

MR. MAC NEIL: Let's give --

MR. BROWN: -- and be able to strike a long ways.

MR. MAC NEIL: -- give Richard Perle a few minutes to -- a few seconds to say where you think the threats are.

MR. PERLE: I agree. I think Harold Brown has correctly identified where the threat is likely to come. And I think it's important because we are talking about the size of the budget here, that while we're arguing about a few billion dollars that could make a difference in our readiness in the future, the cost of getting it wrong in fighting a war is enormously high. Just look at the Gulf War. Defense is not cheap, but war is horribly expensive in every sense.

MR. BROWN: But defense is only 3 1/2 percent of the Gross National Product, 15 percent of government expenditures.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay, gentlemen, and Congresswoman Schroeder, thank you. FOCUS - SAFE FLIGHT?

MR. LEHRER: Now, how safe are the planes used by regional airlines? A fatal crash in Indiana last October raised questions about one particular type of plane known as the ATR. Elizabeth Brackett of public station WTTW-Chicago reports on the search for some answers.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, WTTW-Chicago: Regional airlines are the life blood of the small and mid-sized cities that lie between the country's major urban centers, towns like LaCrosse, Wisconsin, population 52,000, located between Minneapolis and Chicago. There are 15 flights a day out of LaCrosse. Without those flights, the mayor said the town would be in big trouble.

MAYOR PAT ZIELKE, LaCrosse, Wisconsin: There's a difference between day and night. If we did not have that commuter service, I think we would close up a lot of doors. It's almost a difference between making it and not making it.

MS. BRACKETT: The G. Heileman Company has been brewing beer in LaCrosse since 1853. Air transportation has been a critical part of the brewery's success, says former CEO Russ Cleary.

RUSS CLEARY, G. Heileman Brewery: Well, there's just an innumerable number of people when you get into a business of this size that have to come to your facility, or our people have to go to their facilities, and with the whole hub process of, you know, Chicago is a major hub, probably the biggest hub in the world, and the twin cities being the other hub, the inability to get to those hubs is a real handicap.

MS. BRACKETT: Could your business exist without it?

RUSS CLEARY: I don't believe so.

MS. BRACKETT: Even so, many who fly in and out of LaCrosse are apprehensive about flying regional airlines. Jim Kurlish was concerned as he waited to board an American Eagle flight to Chicago.

JIM KURLISH: Everything that I've heard and read seems to indicate that the safety records for the commuter airlines aren't nearly as good as they are for the larger airlines.

MS. BRACKETT: Passengers' concerns were intensified after an American Eagle plane crashed in a farm field near Roselawn, Indiana, last Halloween night. Because of bad weather that night, icing was suspected as a possible cause. The aircraft that went down was an ATR-72, a high-wing, propeller-driven plane. Pilot Steve Frederick has flown ATR-72's for American Eagle for the last five and a half years. He had flown through the same icing conditions the night Flight 4184 crashed. He was devastated by the loss of three close colleagues on the flight. The company suspended him after he began speaking out about his concerns about the ATR.

STEVE FREDERICK, Suspended Pilot: It's just got one problem. In certain types of ice it will try and kill you. And they've been telling us that since day one of my classroom training. It's almost a paranoia with ATR pilots, and that should not be. You should not have a transport category airplane that's carrying paying passengers on a scheduled airline that can turn into a brick with ice on it.

MS. BRACKETT: Frederick says he experienced his own problem with icing in November of 1993. The ATR he was flying into Marquette, Michigan, nearly crashed after ice built up on the wing and the tail.

STEVE FREDERICK: On our aircraft, we had a severe shaking of the tail. Basically it's known as a buffet. And that's the warning to - - when the tail just gives up the ghost and stops flying -- and at that point the airplane noses over. So fortunately I was hand- flying and took the warning.

MS. BRACKETT: Were you worried? Were you scared?

STEVE FREDERICK: I was real scared. In fact, it's a little anecdotal, but I was wearing argyle socks that night. I hadn't changed from the day, and the only thing going through my mind was, my God, they're going to know I don't have regulation socks on tonight.

MS. BRACKETT: You thought maybe you were going in?

STEVE FREDERICK: We both did. In fact, the captain now still wears a guardian angel pin on his lapel whenever he flies.

MS. BRACKETT: Is he also convinced that it was icing?

STEVE FREDERICK: Very much so. Very much so.

MS. BRACKETT: The Federal Aviation Administration says that incident was investigated and the data was not consistent with the tail-icing problem. At a news conference, the agency said pilots had been given instructions on how to resolve tail-icing problems with the ATR. FAA associate administrator Anthony Broderick.

ANTHONY BRODERICK, FAA: Tail plane icing. Tail plane icing is something that we addressed several years ago. We have, in fact, addressed it not only for the ATR aircraft but for all other aircraft, and it's a problem that is behind us.

MS. BRACKETT: However, after the Indiana crash, the FAA agreed that wing icing needed to be investigated more closely. Two weeks after the crash, the FAA banned ATR flights when icing was predicted until tests of the plane's performance in icing conditions could be done. Because of the Great Lakes, the Midwest is more susceptible to icing conditions than anywhere else in the world. After the ban, American Eagle decided to send its ATR's at O'Hare and other northern airports to warmer climates and bring up dropped-wing Saab 340's. But ten Saab 340 pilots protested and said they were not prepared to come North and fly in wintery conditions at one of the world's busiest airports. The president of the Allied Pilots Union backed them up.

JAMES SOVICH, Allied Pilots Association: You just can't take a pilot who is very adept and proficient at what he does and grab him let's say out of San Juan in December and throw him up into Chicago and say, here's the approach plates, you're ready to fly.

MS. BRACKETT: The company called the pilots' protest a labor dispute, not a safety dispute. They accused the union of threatening to go public with charges of unsafe operations unless the company agreed to negotiate over non-safety-related contract issues. American Eagle's Peter Piper said that left the company with no choice but to shut down the airline over the busy holiday season.

PETER PIPER, American Eagle: There were some issues that were raised by the union that we, frankly, didn't want to have to deal with in the media or in any sort of public forum at the time. And so we felt that rather than extend the controversy and make it more public that we would just eliminate the flying.

MS. BRACKETT: But Sovich says the union never tried to link contract concerns with safety.

JAMES SOVICH: What they did, in fact, was take a shot at the union which was inappropriate, absolutely dishonest, inaccurate, and patently untrue. You know, rather than blame the operation, itself, and respond responsibly, they, they preferred saying we're doing this because the union tried basically to blackmail us.

MS. BRACKETT: And did you try to blackmail them?

JAMES SOVICH: No.

MS. BRACKETT: American Eagle did shut down, and customers in places like LaCrosse were left without any air transportation to Chicago. Heileman Brewery's Russ Cleary says his company got on the phone.

RUSS CLEARY: We sure did. We tried to find out, you know, what they would do, and, of course, they informed us they were studying the situation and trying to bring some planes up from the South up here to the North that would be able to fly in icing weather conditions.

MS. WARNER: Did you express your concern?

RUSS CLEARY: I certainly did.

MS. BRACKETT: Would you say you put pressure on the airlines to get the planes back in the air?

RUSS CLEARY: No. I did write some letters and talk to a few of the political leaders, the mayor and the governor, about it, because this is a real economic hardship for the community not to have direct air service to Chicago.

MS. BRACKETT: On January 4th, American Eagle restored partial service out of O'Hare, flying Saab 340's with pilots mostly from unions other than APA.

ROBIN COOPER, American Eagle Pilot: Individually, we may not like to slip and slide in snow, but we are trained to fly the aircraft in adverse conditions, and if management sends us here, then we'll come and do the job as we are trained to do.

MS. BRACKETT: But there was no doubt that the ban on ATR's continued to have a big impact on American Eagle's bottom line. The airline wanted it lifted.

PETER PIPER: We're very, very interested in seeing it lifted as soon as everybody is comfortable that it should be lifted. It's a big part of our service. We have reduced our capacity in Chicago by probably about 50 percent as a result of substituting 34-seat airplanes for 46 and 64-seat airplanes.

MS. BRACKETT: As the pressure from customers in the airlines mounted, the FAA, the manufacturer, and others began intensive in- flight tests of the ATR in both ice and the more dangerous freezing rain. As this video from the manufacturer shows, the test plane flew behind a tanker that sprayed it with freezing rain died yellow for visibility. The test plane showed ice building up beyond the de-icing equipment, the black rubber boot on the wing that inflates and breaks off ice that is formed. The test found that the ATR could go into an uncommanded roll if ice built up beyond the boot and the flaps were retracted. The FAA's Anthony Broderick said that was very similar to what happened to the ATR that crashed in Indiana.

ANTHONY BRODERICK: The ailerons were given an uncommanded full roll right input. At that time, the nose of the airplane began to drop, the pilot attempted, apparently, to recover, and was able to do so briefly but on bringing the nose back up, as is the normal procedure, control of the airplane was lost once again by another uncommanded input to the control yoke, and control was never regained by the crew.

MS. BRACKETT: As a result of the tests, the FAA issued new procedures for flying ATR's in icing conditions, required that pilots and dispatchers undergo training to learn them, said larger de-icing boots must be installed by June 1st, and lifted the ban. FAA Administrator David Hinson.

DAVID HINSON, FAA: And I want to say without equivocation this airplane is safe to fly in known icing when the procedures we have developed are followed.

MS. BRACKETT: American Eagle says the ATR's will be brought back to northern airports like O'Hare after retraining is completed, and schedules are again readjusted. But Steve Frederick says passengers should think twice before getting on them.

STEVE FREDERICK: If it's a nice day in the wintertime, go ahead and get on it. If it's cloudy, snowy, rainy, cold, 40 degrees or so, and it's raining out there, find some alternate transportation, because I am not going to get on it, and I'm not going to put my family on it until they fix these airplanes.

MS. BRACKETT: But the president of ATR Marketing, Alain Brodin, says passengers have nothing to fear from the ATR.

ALAIN BRODIN, ATR Marketing: No other aircraft on creation has undergone the flight test behind an icing tanker in freezing drizzle configuration has been able to develop procedures to cope with this situation, so I would tell them that they should feel very, very safe.

MS. BRACKETT: Still, American Eagle knows it will take time to restore the flying public's confidence in regional airline travel. FOCUS - SQUEEZE PLAY

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, the game about the game of baseball. It's being played by the owners and the players of Major League baseball who have been locked in a bitter labor dispute for six months. Their impasse caused most of the 1994 season and the World Series to be cancelled. The 1995 season is now in jeopardy. President Clinton's efforts to force a solution came to naught last night. He said Congress was now the last hope. We measure that hope with two House members who see it all very differently: Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Peter Blue, Republican of Massachusetts. Congressman Schumer, is this a job for the Congress of the United States?

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, [D] New York: Well, I think it is. Usually it wouldn't be. I think that Congress should be very careful before getting in labor disputes. But this one's a little different, because Congress messed us up to begin with, with the anti-trust exemption. Because we gave baseball an anti-trust exemption, we sort of insulated the owners and the players from any competition, and that's part of the reason we have this problem. So I think it's our obligation really to come back in and try and help out, as well as the right thing to do. You know, the public, Jim, is sick of the argument between the billionaire owners and the millionaire players. It's the fans that ought to get a place at the table and by requiring some nonpartisan, binding arbitration. We could do just that.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Blute, do you agree that the Congress has an obligation to do something about this?

REP. PETER BLUTE, [R] Massachusetts: I think it's a dubious proposition that the Congress of the United States working on all the issues that we're working on in the national interest should weigh in this private dispute, this private matter involving financial differences. I think it's a real mistake. I think it sets a bad precedent. Are we next year going to be involved in an NFL dispute, an NHL hockey dispute? I just think that it's not the right role of Congress to get involved in this type of labor dispute.

MR. LEHRER: Why isn't it, Congressman?

REP. BLUTE: Well, we don't get involved in all kinds of labor disputes, management disputes throughout the country. We have a way of solving these things in the private sector through negotiations through bargaining. Now, it is true that it is taking some time for them to come to the table. I think the fact that the pressure is building now towards the beginning of this season, I think that's the type of pressure necessary to break this logjam. But to have the Congress come in, which is busy doing the people's business, passing important tax and spending issues to spend one minute of time on a labor/management dispute I think is not well thought out.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Schumer.

REP. SCHUMER: Well, you know, you spend time on National Strawberry Week, and we spend time on National Lampak Day and things like that. We could certainly spend a few hours on this. Mind you, we're not saying those of us who think we should pass the President's bill that Congress should mete out the dispute. We should simply pass a law which requires binding arbitration. Second, I would say to my good friend, Peter, no, we shouldn't be involved in basketball, and we shouldn't be involved in football, and we shouldn't be involved in most labor disputes, however, this one is different, because we've mixed in a long time ago with the anti-trust exemption, which says that no other team can move to New York, that no other team can negotiate separately with the television studios. Right now there are several owners who would like to break free of the clique of the owners from the little areas and can't because of the anti-trust exemption, so that's the difference.

MR. LEHRER: But what about Congressman Blute's point that once you go down this road, you go down this road, and there's always a different set of circumstances, but it's basically still a labor dispute?

REP. SCHUMER: Well, you know, we have been involved in certain labor disputes in the past involving railroads and steel and other kinds of things, and I would say, Jim, that the big difference here, the major difference is that we don't get any other industry exemption from the anti-trust, not only any other sports teams but any other industry at all, and that's what would distinguish this case from the others. Those who say, like Peter, that let the owners and players work it out, well, that's what's messed it up to begin with. You have this guy Fair for the players and this guy from Milwaukee from Milwaukee, Bud Silig, from the owners, and everyone who's in on any negotiations say they hate each other so much that you can't even stop, you can't even start 'em talking.

REP. BLUTE: Well, if I could just simply make this point, that I submit to you that if it did come to the Congress, it could delay the process of closure on this issue. As you know, it takes some time to pass anything through the House and through the Senate and to finally come to agreement through the committee process, the floor debate. It could take months to come to closure on this and I believe could actually delay the start of the season, irregardless of what happens in the negotiations.

REP. SCHUMER: With all due respect to my friend, Peter, I think that's sort of a strawman. We could pass this in less than a few days. And look what's happened to everyone, everyone, on the players' side, on the owners' side, on the fans' side -- it's the fans who need to be at this table -- has said if Congress doesn't intervene, the odds of baseball resuming in April are next to none. Spring training is only in eight days.

REP. BLUTE: I'd also point out though that the polls show, when asked, that the public does not think that the government should intervene here.

REP. SCHUMER: Those are old ones. Ask 'em after what happened at the White House yesterday, and I'll be the public's changed 'em.

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of what happened at the White House, let me read you a couple of quotes from Tom Boswell, who's a sportswriter for the Washington Post. He had a column on this today. Let me read you his big quote here. "Now we see how low baseball has sunk. The people who run the sport, owners and the players union, are literally without shame. The egos and wealth of the owners and players have become so great that both sides have treated President Clinton and mediator W. J. Usery as disdainfully as if they were fans seeking a free autograph." Do you see it that way, Congressman Blute?

REP. BLUTE: I would agree with that. I mean, clearly, both sides are at fault here. You have a situation, as Charlie said, of billionaires versus millionaires, with the fans left out, and that's something that they're going to have to deal with. The market has ways of dealing with that, and I think fans should be very reluctant to put down their dollars to subsidize this type of display which is absolutely outrageous.

MR. LEHRER: What is it -- what is your reading, Congressman Blute, of what caused these people to get into this kind of position? I mean, they're being attacked by everybody. You want to attack somebody and get away with it, attack the owners and the players of Major League Baseball right now. What happened?

REP. BLUTE: Their poll numbers are probably less than ours now in the Congress.

MR. LEHRER: Right down here with the media, right?

REP. BLUTE: Right down there with you in the media. I think it's all about money, no doubt, and when you talk about the big money in major league sports, there's a great competition. And that's true in a lot of industries. But I don't think that argues that the Congress should intervene every time there are major financial disputes between labor and management. This is something that happens in a free society in all kinds of sectors of our economy.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Schumer, I've heard that argument too. In fact, some of the sportswriters have said, hey, Congress, leave these people to their own, let 'em destroy themselves, and then baseball will remake itself, and everybody will be fine again.

REP. SCHUMER: Well, that would be just fine, Jim, if there weren't fans. You know, who cares, you're right, about the owners, who cares about the players? But the consequences of what Peter Blute says is letting these two sides which have become scoundrels in the American people's eye try and resolve this, and the difference is it's not -- it is a plague on both their houses but there should be a third party at the table. There are some 600 players, there are 28 owners, there are 50 million fans. They haven't been represented in all of this, and that's all we're trying to do by compulsory arbitration. And the argument that says if we do it now, we'll do it for every other one, that's bunk, because, again, [a] the anti-trust exemption -- I don't want to beat a dead horse but that's there -- but [b] we have - - Congress has been involved occasionally in irascible disputes in the past usually with good consequence, and that it hasn't done it for years and years and years.

REP. BLUTE: But there are clearly penalties here for prolonging this strike financially for both sides. The owners are losing money. The players are losing money in short career spans. I think what we need to do is get them together and let them sort it out, because if we set the precedent of intervening in these types of disputes, I think that's all we're going to be doing up here, Charlie. We're not going to be balancing the budget. We're not going to be dealing with the crime issue.

REP. SCHUMER: But we're not balancing the budget anyway.

REP. BLUTE: But we're working towards that if we get your support of that.

MR. LEHRER: If I may introduce a note of partisanship to this, Congressman Schumer you said -- in fact, we ran it in our News Summary a few -- earlier in the program -- you said, if the season does not open, it's the fault of Congressman Gingrich, Speaker Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Dole, because they wouldn't allow the Congress to vote on it. Do you really mean that?

REP. SCHUMER: Yeah. I do. I mean, the President I think -- and I disputed him on some issues recently as today -- but on this issue he deserves credit. He, so to speak, stepped up to the plate and tried to negotiate. He's now come up with a solution. We may have disputes, Peter and I and others, about the solution, but Gingrich and Dole said they wouldn't even allow it to come up for a vote. They should. If it fails, well, then it'll be back to the owners and players, and I'm not optimistic, but at least we would have had our shot.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Blute, do you think it's a fair shot to your leaders to take?

REP. BLUTE: No, not at all. I think that's the ultimate in hyperbole, and certainly the Speaker and the Majority Leader didn't start the problem.

REP. SCHUMER: But they could end it. They could help solve it.

REP. BLUTE: But in so doing, they would establish a very negative precedent, and I believe we would be dealing with all kinds of labor disputes throughout the country, citing that precedent.

REP. SCHUMER: We would not.

REP. BLUTE: This is not a proper role for government, not a proper role for Congress to intervene in what is a private dispute.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you your private opinions now, beginning with you, Congressman Blute. Let's say Congress doesn't act.

REP. SCHUMER: Are we whispering like Connie Chung?

MR. LEHRER: No. I mean private individuals. [laughter] Okay. But if baseball -- there is no 1995 season, or if there is one with replacement players, is that a national tragedy, or how big of a national tragedy would that be to you personally?

REP. BLUTE: Well, personally, the fact that there was no World Series last year for the first time in how many years -- 90 years - -

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

REP. BLUTE: -- was a great national tragedy. There's no doubt about that. I think it's something that we all have to, you know, look at.

MR. LEHRER: It's important. In other words, you're thinking it's important?

REP. BLUTE: I think it's important. Not as important as some national security issue, or --

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

REP. BLUTE: -- some of the other great issues that we deal with every day that are very, very important. I'd like to get this deficit under control for future generations, for my children.

REP. SCHUMER: Let me say --

REP. BLUTE: And that's important, but there's a lot of important issues, but the idea of Congress meddling in a private dispute, and I think in so doing choosing sides, because ultimately we're going to choose sides.

REP. SCHUMER: We're not choosing sides. No, no, no. Peter, you don't understand the solution.

REP. BLUTE: I do understand the solution.

REP. SCHUMER: It's we just choose some impartial arbitrators, and they decide and who's already meddled -- we've already meddled. We've put in an anti-trust exemption.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Schumer, why is this so important to you?

REP. SCHUMER: I'll tell you why it's important. First, it's important economically. A guy just called me up today, he sells hot dogs at Yankee Stadium, he won't have a job. The owner of the second largest newspaper in New York City, circulation is down 30,000, so they have an economic reason, but more important than that, there are 50 million fans -- I'm one of them. Every morning when I wake up, I turn to those baseball scores, and I turn to the pages. It's one of the greatest things that brings America together, that crack of the bat in the spring, the white uniform, the clean field when you go to the stadium. There's nothing like it. And if we could help a little bit by passing this legislation, we ought to.

MR. LEHRER: All right. We --

REP. BLUTE: Well, I'm a fan also, but I think we're heading down the wrong road here if we intervene.

MR. LEHRER: We have to go. I have to intervene. We have to go. Thank you both very much.

REP. SCHUMER: Nice to talk to you. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major story of this Wednesday was President Clinton's nomination of retired Air Force General Michael Carns to be CIA director. If confirmed, Carns would replace James Woolsey, who resigned in December. Good night, Jim.

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