The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Congress goes out with a legislative bang on health insurance reform, among many other things, Kwame Holman reports, Senators Kennedy and Kassebaum explain; Paul Gigot and E.J. Dionne, substituting for Mark Shields, analyze that, and with pollster Andy Kohut, they look at some presidential politics. We close with former Ambassador Robert Oakley's thoughts about the death of a Somalia warlord named Aidid. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Congress continued its last minute march through legislation today. In a rush before going on August recess, both the House and Senate passed or moved toward passing a 90 cent an hour increase in the minimum wage, health insurance reform, a drinking water improvement bill, and anti-terrorism legislation. Republicans and Democrats held separate news conferences to congratulate themselves for what they had done.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: When you look at what has happened over the last 18 months, there has been a burst of action and production in the Congress that we haven't seen in 30 years. The only problem we've had is a lot of our good work has been, uh, subject to vacillation by the President and in far too many instances, against the best interest of the American people, vetoed from the President. But we're not giving up. This is a continuing effort.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Minority Leader: It's amazing, if you think about it, but this Congress, which started out to be the Contract with America, the Republican Revolution, has now turned out in this last week to finally accomplish something and the something that they have finally accomplished were Democratic initiatives.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have full coverage of the congressional story right after this News Summary. In economic news today, the jobless rate went up .1 percent last month to 5.4 percent. The Labor Department reported a smaller number of new jobs were created than in the earlier months of this year. Other figures from the Commerce Department said personal incomes rose .9 percent in June, while personal spending fell .2 percent. The unemployment figures caused prices in inflation-fearful Wall Street to rise. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 85 points at closing. On the TWA crash story today the first good weather in three days enabled divers to resume their search for bodies and wreckage on the ocean floor. Flight 800 exploded off the coast of Long Island July 17th, killing all 230 people on board. At the daily briefing, National Transportation Safety Board Vice Chairman Robert Francis said no bodies were recovered today but more wreckage has been located.

ROBERT FRANCIS, Vice Chairman, NTSB: The most significant item, I guess, in terms of what's happened out in the ocean is that, that the Grapple has identified the cockpit of the aircraft as part of the southwesterly major wreckage site. And they are obviously-- that's a place where we would expect to find more bodies so that they are, they are focusing very heavily on that and will be through the night.

MR. LEHRER: Francis said he was hopeful the damaged cockpit could be lifted to the surface within 48 hours. Defense Secretary Perry said today the Saudi government is close to completing its investigation of the June bombing. 19 American servicemen died in that blast at a U.S. Air Force facility at Dhahran. More than 100 were wounded. Perry said Iran was a leading candidate in the search for the terrorists who might be involved. He promised strong action once that is known. He spoke in an interview on National Public Radio. In Somalia today, warlord and self-declared President Mohamed Farah Aidid was buried after being fatally wounded in factional fighting. In 1993, Aidid's troops killed 18 U.S. soldiers and a United Nations peacekeeping force. Dozens of other U.N. troops were also killed during that mission. Both the United States and the United Nations then withdrew from Somalia. We'll have more on this story later in the program. At the Olympics, American runner Michael Johnson shattered a world record and made history last night. He won the gold in 200 meters, becoming the first man to win both the 200 and 400 meters in one Olympics. Here is his run.

ANNOUNCER: -- [Johnson running]--and here comes Michael Johnson--Michael Johnson, he has the lead--Michael Johnson running for--[crowd cheering loudly, drowning out announcer]--and into Olympic history. He's set a world record. He's destroyed the world record! [crowd cheering wildly]

MR. LEHRER: And the American women's soccer team defeated China to win the first ever gold medal in women's soccer. And American Dan O'Brien won the gold medal in the decathlon, with the highest score in Olympic history. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Congress's big day, a health bill explanation, some political analysis, and the death of Aidid. FOCUS - END OF SESSION

MR. LEHRER: This was some day for the Congress of the United States. Our coverage begins with this report by Kwame Holman.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: I have seen legislative team work, hard work like I have never seen before, and it has produced results.

KWAME HOLMAN: Even before this busy legislative day began, Republicans already were taking credit for the most productive week of the 104th Congress.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: We've seen Congress go from gridlock to Olympic gold. [applause] And ladies and gentlemen, I'd just like--the ladies' soccer team last night, when they got their gold medal, this is our Olympic gold medal team, right over here in front of us this morning. [applause]

MR. HOLMAN: Most congressional Republicans will be heading home this weekend to campaign for reelection, and for a while, it appeared they'd be doing so with little to show for their year and a half in the majority. But a burst of legislative activity this week changed all that. On Wednesday, the House overwhelmingly passed a welfare reform bill and yesterday, the Senate did the same. Today, both the House and Senate approved new protections for drinking water by a wide margin. The House also has pushed through a minimum wage increase, health insurance reform, and new anti- terrorism measures all in the last 24 hours.

SPOKESMAN: I hope we can get this bill up, pass it briefly, and send it on to the President.

MR. HOLMAN: The Senate, which does not function under the same disciplined rules of debate, still is expected to approve easily all of those measures before it adjourns tomorrow, which is why congressional Republicans were feeling particularly accomplished today.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: There were a couple of difficult stretches in this Congress, and Trent didn't notice em, but a few of you may have noticed an occasional bump in the road. But I think this week truly vindicated a great deal of what we are trying to do. We kept the faith, we kept working, we ignored the critics, we did the serious, hard, difficult work in a free society of listening to everybody and working our way to find a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate and then a majority in the conference between the House and the Senate, and it is precisely as hard as the Founding Fathers intended in order to preserve freedom by distributing power so that no dictator could force it to work. And we find, as volunteers, we can barely figure it out most days, and that is exactly the way it was designed. And the result is a year and a half into this Congress we can be very proud.

MR. HOLMAN: Five major pieces of legislation this week, and it appears each will be heading to the White House after earning veto-proof majorities, but most of the bills would not have passed so overwhelmingly without first having been modified to satisfy the concerns of a large number of Democrats, the most important one being the President, himself. This morning, President Clinton invited to the White House congressional leaders from his party to congratulate them for their efforts in changing many of the Republican initiatives.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I think the American people have a lot to be proud of, and I think the progressive mainstream achievements of this caucus are things that they can go home and be proud of in August. And I have to say that this has been on balance a very good week for the American people.

MR. HOLMAN: And later at the Capitol, congressional Democrats held their own rally.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: You see standing with me today the reason why Democrats have been so united during the 104th Congress. We've been able to look back and to the best of our knowledge, this is the most united Democrats have been in almost 50 years. I want to publicly thank each and every one of the members of the House and Senate leadership for the extraordinary job that they've done in unifying the Democratic caucuses in both the House and the Senate. That would not have been possible were it not for the tremendous work that we were able to do with the White House in accomplishing our agenda this year.

MR. HOLMAN: But while members were patting themselves on the back, no one was signaling an end to partisanship.

REP. DAVID BONIOR. Minority Whip: Republican leaders walked up to the podium today to praise this Congress. But the truth is that they had been running away from the issues most important to working families for the past two years. They have done nothing, nothing to help parents send their kids to school. They've done nothing to make college more affordable. They've done nothing to protect pensions. They've done nothing to increase cops on the beat. They've done nothing to keep our environment clean. They've done nothing to make sure women are paid the same as men. They've done nothing to make child care more affordable. It's only because of the total collapse of the Republican agenda that they turned to two Democratic issues and finally worked with us to pass health care portability and to raise the minimum wage. And I'm glad that they did. And I'm glad they finally gave into the public pressure and worked with us to do something for American families. I just wish they hadn't spent 18 months trying to block them. Now to hear the Republican leaders call this Congress a success is like a baseball player who's batted 100 declaring a season a success because they got a few hits in the last game of the season.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: The only problem we've had is a lot of our good work has been subject to vacillation by the President and in far too many instances against the best interest of the American people, vetoed from the President, but we're not giving up. This is a continuing effort. We're going to continue to work for what is right for the women and men and children of America. And it will continue right on through the fall. [applause]

MR. HOLMAN: The partisanship was just as fierce during the legislative debate.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, [D] California: Mr. Speaker, today is a good day, not a great day but a good day for the American worker. It is a day that the Republican leadership has finally been dragged, kicking and screaming, in support to raise the minimum wage.

REP. BILL GOODLING, [R] Pennsylvania: Isn't it amazing? I hope the American people have been listening to this discussion. We've heard from the other side today that yesterday we had welfare reform that was a bipartisan effort because 98 Democrats supported it. But the last speaker didn't support it, and then on this side, we had 93 who supported minimum wage. But that's a Democrat program. Isn't that amazing?

REP. CHARLES TAYLOR, [R] North Carolina: The chair believes that displaying the pig in front of the honored ranking member of the Commerce Committee is a breach of decorum of the House and would ask that it be removed.

REP. JOHN DINGELL, [D] Michigan: You mean this little pig, Mr. Speaker, is a breach of the decorum of the House?

REP. BUD SHUSTER, [R] Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I have, I have no objection if the gentleman wants to be identified with a pig in front of him. That's perfectly all right with me.

REP. JOHN DINGELL: Uh, I'm happy to comply with the wishes of the chair. I just want to know what it is that, that the chair is finding inconsistent with the rules of the House. I would observe that this pig would probably be more suitably displayed on the Republican Committee table, but, but if the chair desires that this pig be removed, I will, of course, remove it.

MR. HOLMAN: Partisanship aside, Republicans now get to go home probably having shed the label of presiding over a "do nothing" Congress. Democrats go home knowing Republicans couldn't have done it without them. FOCUS - CHANGING TIMES

MR. LEHRER: Now a look at one of the major pieces of legislation, health insurance reform. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The new health legislation is first of its kind in a decade and will affect millions of Americans. Known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the bill requires insurers to offer policies to workers who changed jobs, insurers that workers who lose their jobs cannot be denied individual coverage, guarantees that workers with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage for more than 12 months, gradually increases the tax deduction from 30 to 80 percent for the self-employed who buy insurance, and allows individuals to deduct costs of nursing home and other long-term care. For more on the legislation and its impact, we're joined by the bill's authors. Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, Republican of Kansas, is the chair of the Labor & Human Resources Committee, and Sen. Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is the ranking member of the Committee. Thank you both for joining us. Sen. Kassebaum, just what is the significance of this bill?

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM, Chair, Labor & Human Resources Committee: It will enable, it's estimated 25 million Americans, to feel more secure regarding their health insurance. If you lose--if you're losing a job or changing a job, you worry about whether you'll be able to maintain health insurance. This guarantees that if you've been part of a health plan, you cannot then be terminated, and particularly due to any preexisting health condition.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. I want to get into some of the specifics in a minute, but Sen. Kennedy, let me--do you have anything to add to what Sen. Kassebaum has said in terms of the significance?

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, [D] Massachusetts: Just really one point, and I think she has said it well with regards to portability and preexisting condition, but I think the power of this legislation is relieving families of a lot of anxiety. A lot of parents have a child that has some difficulty, some disability, and the family worries what is going to happen to that child when he or she grows up, or that worker that might be laid off and is not as well or healthy, as robust as they might have been and is going to be out there and unemployed and really wondering whether they're in their senior years are going to be able to get any kind of health insurance, or someone that would like to move to a job and have a much greater opportunity for themselves and their family, and that says, no, I can't do it, because I just don't know about that health insurance because I have my wife is sick or my husband is sick. That kind of anxiety is an enormous burden on so many millions of American families, it's a real one. You might not be able to put it into dollar and cents, but it's a real one. This bill addresses that degree of preexisting condition, and it gives assurance that people will be able to continue their health insurance, and it means that they'll be able to move from job to job and still carry the health insurance. That's important.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Let's go through some of the specifics on it then. That is the first major thing about it, that it requires insurers to offer policies to workers who change jobs. Explain how that will work, Sen. Kassebaum.

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: Well, it's just that if you've lost a job or changed a job and you have had health insurance, you can't just walk off the street and say, I want this job and I want health insurance. You have had to have been on a health care plan. But if you moved and changed jobs and your COBRA benefits have run out as well, then an employer must offer a health insurance plan. And you cannot be excluded because of a prior health condition.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mm-hmm.

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: Also, someone can start to work and if they have, umm, a heart--a health condition, ulcers, heart condition, whatever is determined as a preexisting condition, after a year's time, then they have to not be excluded again from an employers health plan that he would be offering employees, she would be offering employees.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now, on the first one, Sen. Kennedy, one that requires insurers to offer policies to workers who change jobs, who bears the cost of that? How does that work?

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: The employee and, therefore, this is--we have to see within the states, as the states are going to have important responsibilities, that some of it's shared with the federal government to make sure that the premiums are not going to go up out of sight, and one of--that was one of the real differences between the House and Senate bill under Sen. Kassebaum, our bill. It meant that all insurance policies were going to be available to people that were going to be moving out or have some preexisting condition, and the House would have tried to put them all in one policy, which would have meant that the premiums were absolutely up through the roof, and it made it inaccessible for people, but I--if I could just get back to one point, you know, what happens so often in, in Main Street America, as these families have paid into insurance companies for a long period of time, for ten, for fifteen, or for eighteen years, and suddenly they find a husband or a wife, a preexisting condition. They may develop cancer. You know, what happens in so many instances, they are cut off, they are terminated. That policy is ended, or if a child is very, very sick, that policy is ended. That happens, every community in America, and this addresses that issue.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But explain to me this part, where it says it guarantees that workers with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage for more than 12 months, why is that there, for more than 12 months? What exactly does that mean?

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: That's because, as I said earlier, if you have moved to a job that is offering health coverage but you have a preexisting condition, and you have not been covered before, that you cannot be--you cannot be denied for more than 12 months. During that time, you would be urged to be a participant in the plan, but you may not have a preexisting condition covered until the end of 12 months time. But that's for someone who has never been part of a health plan.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Oh, I see.

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: Let me just say too, umm, it's like any other health plan. I mean, this isn't something new. We're not dictating the terms of new health plan. It could be Blue Cross-Blue Shield, or whatever an employer is offering, so an employer may pay part of the benefits as they do in, in many plans, or it would be employee contribution. That is to be determined. It's just that they cannot be denied.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mm-hmm. Now what about--there's also individuals can deduct costs of nursing home and long-term care. Now tell me about the importance of that.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Well, I think as all of us know the growing numbers of elderly in our communities, in our homes, we're blessed with the fact that our parents are living longer, and I think in an ideal world, we would like to have them have the option of either remaining at home or in a community setting so that they can remain at home in a community setting, or in terms of having nursing home help and assistance. The amount of resources in a family that's extended in the final several months of one's life are really extraordinary. And what we have tried to do, this program, is to try and provide through the tax program help and assistance to those families both in terms of getting insurance and being able to cover some of those extraordinary expenses. It's one of the areas of greatest concern, I think first of all to the parent, because the parent knows that they are draining the family's resources and of course, the son or daughter knows that because they are seeing that they have to want the best in terms of the parent, the best in the care, and they're worried because they're sacrificing the children's future education. So this, again, provides enormous tension and anxiety for those families, and this provides some relief. It doesn't do all of the kinds of things we'd like, and let me just finally say I would hope that we can build on this in the next Congress. We didn't achieve all we would have liked, or at least I would have liked to have seen, that President Clinton would have liked to have seen in the last Congress, but we've made a great progress in this one, and I hope we can continue the bipartisan effort, and that we can continue to make progress--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Sen. Kassebaum, let me just ask you about the part about the self-employed, who can buy insurance now, or get an increase in tax deductions. Explain that one, briefly to me and the significance.

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: Yes, and also let me say on the long-term health insurance credit, this was something that Sen. Dole added, and which was unanimously supported in an effort to encourage people to take long-term insurance. This has been very expensive, and this will be a tax credit designed to encourage that people take that type of insurance. The self-employment--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me. How much of a tax credit?

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: What is that amount? I can't think of what it is.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Well, it's a modest credit, and it builds up over a period of years.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Right.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: It's not going to offset the types of costs but it'll help relieve, I suppose, people probably 30, 35 percent of the kinds of burden that they would have for maintaining someone in, in a nursing home.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Let's go--

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: But it's the beginning of a program. I think it could be built over a period of time. It's constrained really because of the cost of it, but it's a down payment; it can be expanded; hopefully, it will over a period of time.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Sen. Kassebaum, for the self- employed, yes.

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: If you're self-employed, currently you've been able to deduct 30 percent of your insurance costs. Umm, this will now enable you to deduct 80 percent. Umm, this is to balance what an employer can deduct 100 percent of the costs that they have to cover employees, for instance, and this will be a balancing of fairness to those who have--are self-employed.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: See, this has the larger employers are able to take the whole deduction. The small employers are not individuals, and what happens is you find out that in small businesses, as well as individual, they pay about 35 or 40 percent higher premiums. So they don't get the favorable tax treatment, they're paying more, and it's, it's amazing to me that smaller businesses are, or individual, self-starting companies provide the coverage that they do.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I understand that the Senate has just passed this bill, and the House earlier and just a few minutes ago the Senate passed it 98 to nothing, so what does that mean in terms of- -Sen. Kassebaum, there's a wonderful smile on your face, listening to that news.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Well, she should--if I can take--before she answers, under Sen. Kassebaum's leadership, it passed unanimously in the Committee a year ago today, it passed unanimously on thefloor, and now she's got a unanimous win.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Congratulations. When does this go into effect, Sen. Kassebaum?

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: July 1st of 1997.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In other words, a year from now?

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now, Senator, you said a few moments ago that this bill obviously doesn't do everything that you wanted it to do, it does little for the 40 million people who don't have insurance, there's no equivalent coverage for mental health. Is legislation to cover those and other things likely to happen in the future? I mean, is there now a mood to move on, on health care reform?

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: I'm sure there is, and Sen. Kennedy, of course, has been a real pioneer in that. I am retiring at the end of my term this year, and Sen. Kennedy will be here to carry on. Sen. Domenici just today introduced legislation regarding mental illness and coverage for such. Both Sen. Kennedy and I have joined as co-sponsors, and there'll be a hearing on that bill in September.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Right.

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM: We're also supportive of the 48-hour stay for newborn mothers in the hospital, which Sen. Bradley has introduced, and we are both supportive. So these are measures that are out there, I think designed to help in particular areas where there is a real need. And let me say on the legislation that we're talking about that we've just passed and that's upcoming, after having a clip of what you showed earlier, this shows where bipartisanship can come together. It's not always easy, and we don't always agree, and we can spend some countless hours debating, but at the end of the day for the best interest of legislation that we felt was important, it did take bipartisanship, and that did come together, and I think that's what made it successful.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Great. Well, thank you both for joining us.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Could I just add--mental health has been the stepchild of our heath care system, so we hope we can make some progress.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you, Senator. Bye. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Now to some analysis of what Congress has just done, among other political things. Mark Shields is on vacation, but Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot is here. Joining him tonight is Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. Paul, so the so-called "do nothing" Congress suddenly started doing everything. What happened?

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: Well, there's nothing that concentrates the mind of a politician like a hanging, a potential hanging in November, and I think the incumbents, the incumbent in the White House wanted something to his name on welfare and health care, and the incumbents in Congress, the Republican Congress wanted something when--that they could go to the voters with in November and when the President vetoed their budget, which had been the catch-all, it had everything in it, they had to go to phase two, and what they did was they began breaking things out, and they've done a fairly substantial amount this week, and it's a real record they want to run on. So it was the incumbent imperative.

MR. LEHRER: The incumbent imperative, D.J.?

E.J. DIONNE, Washington Post: Well, I think what you saw this week is that the Republican Revolution ended. This is not the Republican Contract with America. On most of these items it's Ted Kennedy's Contract with America. Big government is going to help people keep their health insurance. Big government raised the minimum wage. On one big issue, big government is not going to take care of the poorest kids in society. And I think this--

MR. LEHRER: That's welfare reform.

MR. DIONNE: The welfare reform. This awful welfare bill where President Clinton signed it repudiating basically his own position. His own position had been if you're going to put people to work, you've got to spend more money because it's cheaper to write checks than to train people and to give them jobs. This bill cuts money, doesn't help people to work, i.e., if you want to call it a victory for the Republicans. But on these other items, I think you're seeing the Republicans say, gee, we want to tell the people that we can use government to help you too.

MR. LEHRER: Do you see the victories that way, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: I admire E.J.'s ability to see silver linings of big government in these items. Look, welfare reform is the first time an entitlement has been repealed. It was supposed to be the centerpiece, in many ways represented the centerpiece of the great society. This is the first time one of those has gone. That's an historic moment. It's not only--

MR. LEHRER: And that's a Republican victory?

MR. GIGOT: It is, and all this stuff about hurting children, it's really not going to happen. We don't know what's going to happen. Any good conservative knows the law of unintended consequences and is modest about what government can do. But we're shifting the responsibility from Washington to the states to try to experiment. That's a big victory. Umm, the health care bill is an amalgam. There's no question there's some regulatory elements in it, but there are also some real free market innovations that Republicans have wanted for a while. The deductibility increased to 30-- that's a more mixed bag. But when somebody--what happened to the revolution is it lost its "R." It became an evolution. And they--the driving force of American politics which tends to wear down any fast change happened, and so you're getting a slower pace of change.

MR. DIONNE: On this welfare bill, this notion of not caring about the law of unintended consequence, I mean, the unintended consequence of this bill are going to happen to very poor children, and I think it's outstanding that people were willing to walk away from that and say, well, we're not really--we don't know what's going to happened here, so we're going to take the chance with their lives. And I think that this is one of those things that in his heart of hearts President Clinton is going to regret. The only good thing about it is I think as Mayor Schundler, good Republican, said on this show last night, this won't work. It's going to collapse, and we're going to have to revisit it.

MR. LEHRER: Whatever you think about it, E.J., just the pure politics of this, we--in Kwame's piece at the beginning, and we also had in the News Summary, the Republicans were taking full credit for all this that happened this past week. The Democrats are taking full credit. Politically, how does it play?

MR. DIONNE: I think Paul is right. Nothing concentrates a mind like an election, and I think the Republicans do want a record. I think there it could play one of two ways. This helps the Republicans in the short-term because they've got something to run on, individual Republican members will be able to say they did something. But if the Republicans succeed in creating such a big margin for Bill Clinton in this election, which is what they could do, then they could all get dragged down from this. I think--

MR. LEHRER: Meaning he could take some credit too, and that would--

MR. DIONNE: He will definitely get credit.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. DIONNE: I mean, you may soon see Bob Dole ads saying, you know, Clinton-Gingrich, because I think what you saw this week is the Republicans cutting off Bob Dole's vote and saying, we got to go this alone.

MR. LEHRER: Clinton-Gingrich, Paul, did he really say that?

MR. GIGOT: There is something of a condominium here of, of purpose, which is to get things done, and that's--this is what the Republican Presidents did in the 1980's with Democratic Congresses driving to distraction the minority wing of the Republican Party in the House and for a time there in the Senate. And they want something done, and what they've done is they've hurt Bob Dole, the Republicans, by denying him issues. I mean, Bob Dole wanted to use welfare against Bill Clinton because he promised it in 92. Now he probably won't be able to. And, uh, health care was not going to be a big issue in the campaign, but when you deny somebody issues, especially against a President who has been so good at robbing Republican issues and moving to the right, it makes it harder for Bob Dole, puts a premium, I think, frankly on his economic plan as a divisive issue.

MR. LEHRER: It's going to come up on Monday. And don't go away, because we want to talk some presidential politics now, and to set it up we have Andy Kohut, who's director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and he released a new poll yesterday which reports President Clinton with a 52/42 percent lead over Bob Dole but with congressional Republicans pulling even with Democrats. Andy, what do you think is the most important finding in your poll? ANDY KOHUT, Pew Research Center: Well, not only the horse race numbers but the fact that 71 percent of the American public feels that Bill Clinton has this thing won already, and as a consequence, they say this is a dull campaign, and we may not participate.

MR. LEHRER: Republicans said that as well as Democrats?

MR. KOHUT: Republicans as well as Democrats are leery about Bob Dole's chances of beating Bill Clinton. The public doesn't see, has mixed opinions about Bill Clinton but doesn't see Dole as a credible candidate, and that comes out very clearly in this poll.

MR. LEHRER: And dull is the word?

MR. KOHUT: Dull and Dole.

MR. LEHRER: Dull and Dole.

MR. KOHUT: It's not--I don't mean to say that Dole is seen as dull. He has lots of problems, and he hasn't been able to give the American public a reason to vote for him, and Bill Clinton is still pretty vulnerable on the basis of just the numbers.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah, but explain that, because you--your reading of these numbers is, is that it isn't over yet by a long shot.

MR. KOHUT: Not if you look at the numbers. 53-42 is not--

MR. LEHRER: I said 52. It's 53-42.

MR. KOHUT: It is 53-42.

MR. LEHRER: I'm sorry.

MR. KOHUT: It's not much of a margin.

MR. LEHRER: No.

MR. KOHUT: And if you ask people, most of them say, we're-- we're not really strongly committed to our choice. As much as 14 percent of all voters say, they might change their mind and vote for Bob Dole, add--

MR. LEHRER: What percent?

MR. KOHUT: 14.

MR. LEHRER: 14.

MR. KOHUT: Add 14 to his 42 percent, and that would be a majority. But if you look at his image, it's going backwards, the American public has a less favorable opinion of him than they did after the drubbing he took from his opponents in the Republican primaries, and Bill Clinton is seen as better than Bob Dole on all of the issues, not only traditional Democratic issues but also making wise choices about welfarereform, Republican--really Republican strong points.

MR. LEHRER: As a practical matter of history, what do polls-- horse race polls, in particular, how important are they at this stage, in other words, the full pre-convention, this close to convention, what do they mean?

MR. KOHUT: Well, what they mean is they set up the challenge for the candidates, and they're not--pre-convention are not always right, and the Gallup Poll--the post-convention Gallup Poll, August Gallup Poll has been right since 1948, so that--which means that basically Americans make up their mind before they--before the actual campaign, and just September to October thinking about it, and reinforcing their views, net, net.

MR. LEHRER: Did the people who said--who the poll reflected that they thought it was dull, was, was there a result, did that result in a lack of interest? Were people following it closely, or did they think they're waiting until September, until the conventions and the big thing starts?

MR. KOHUT: Well, the consequence is that all of the measures of interest, probable turnout indicators are down. Earlier in this season in a year forward of the election during the early primary season, it looked like voters were more interested in this campaign than they were in 1992. But now if we compare measures of interest, measures of voting intentions to 1992, they are lower.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Now what about the, your poll also showed that the Republicans are making a comeback in terms of Congress, right?

MR. KOHUT: A small comeback. The race has evened up 47/46 earlier in the--

MR. LEHRER: That's a generic question that you all ask, right?

MR. KOHUT: It's a generic question.

MR. LEHRER: What is the question?

MR. KOHUT: If the election were, the House elections were being held today, would you vote for a Republican candidate or a Democratic candidate, and two or three months ago, we had a small Democratic plurality, a pretty consistent one over a couple of surveys, and now we have it even.

MR. LEHRER: Paul, what do you think of the dull, the dull finding, that people find this campaign dull?

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: Well, frankly, I find it dull, and I get paid to cover this, this stuff. I mean, it is dull. You've got--

MR. LEHRER: Now, why is it dull?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think, I think you've got the President of the United States running for reelection, in essence, as a moderate Republican, and Bob Dole is a moderate Republican, so you're lacking the friction that normally comes with a clash of ideas or philosophies. What you're getting is a kind of a small campaign. It's about meat inspections, and is tobacco addictive, and where does the word tolerant go in the Republican platform, paragraph one or paragraph sixteen? There's no big ideas here that are really clashing. There might be if Dole puts a tax cut on the table. That is certainly a big idea that can be wrestled with, but it's a tactical campaign. It's not a real clash right now.

MR. LEHRER: E. J., how do you see it?

E.J. DIONNE, Washington Post: Well, we should bring back Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes because people seemed to like the campaign better back then.

MR. LEHRER: When people were yelling at each other.

MR. DIONNE: Yeah, that's right. I mean, I think when one person is throwing all the punches, it's a very--not only is it a brutal fight but it's a dull fight, and I think that's what happened in 88, say at the end, between Michael Dukakis and George Bush, and people kind of pulled away from the campaign. I think Bob Dole's inability to really gainany ground here and his inability to inspire Republicans, I mean, he's having some problems in Andy's poll sort of coalescing all the Republicans right now. So I think that it looks dull, but I think there's a second thing that's going to kick in, which is I think Americans are going to realize that this really is one of the most important elections we've had in a long time, and we say that in a lot of elections, but at the beginning, we were talking about the possibility of a unified Republican government in Washington for the first time since 1952. That doesn't seem likely now, but that's why this presidential race is very important. I think people realize that.

MR. LEHRER: And this--these congressional results of this last week, it all happened so fast, is that, is that going to change things, do you think, the complexity of this campaign?

MR. GIGOT: Well, it's going to be--it's going to make it tougher for the Democrats to run--first of all, they can't run against a "do nothing" Congress now because it isn't. It's much more difficult though to run against even an extremist Congress because it's very hard for Democrats to say this is an extremist Congress when a Democratic President has signed a bill that was supposed to be the most extremist, namely on welfare. There's a certain--

MR. LEHRER: You agree with that, E.J., do you not?

MR. DIONNE: Well, I think it makes--I mean, I agree with that up to a point, the words Medicare and Medicaid and education and the environment are not going to go away. I think as time goes by from the budget fight, from the government shutdown, just time, itself, helps the Republicans, but I think those issues are still there in people's heads, and that's what got the Republicans in trouble in the first place.

MR. LEHRER: I interrupted you.

MR. GIGOT: No. I think, Jim, this is probably, if Republicans win, this will be the week in Congress, I mean, to keep their majorities, this will be the week they did it, uh, because they now have something to go campaign on, and you also have, uh, uh, when these generic numbers close and when the approval ratings for Congress go up, it's not something that Dole has to decide, he has to split from, so you have Republicans who can maybe reunite. For a while there it looked like they were going completely separate ways, and maybe they can reunite on, on the tax agenda, on the economy, and have a united--

MR. DIONNE: It's going to be very odd though to see Republicans- -Dick Armey said the minimum wage is going to pass over my dead body, and I didn't see any doctors out there on the floor trying to bring him back to life. I mean, they're going to be running on Democratic issues this fall, and you know, people say Clinton's a liberal Republican. Well, what does this make them?

MR. LEHRER: But what happens to Newt Gingrich, who everybody-- all the Democrats are running against? This is his Congress now who passed all of this legislation that the President is signing.

MR. DIONNE: Well, I think Newt Gingrich has gained a lot this week because President Clinton embraced him on this one very important issue, and he's been out there. He's hardly made any partisan comment at all about the President this week, which is very unusual, because I think he knows that the very partisan Newt Gingrich, who is very easy to parody or to attack is an extremist, and he's running away from that as fast as he can.

MR. LEHRER: Andy, what do you think about Paul's idea that there are no ideas, there's no huge stakes involved in this election thus far, and it's going to evenbe more so as a result of what happened this last week?

MR. KOHUT: Extraordinary, given the fact that we've had the big debate about government a long time that this just doesn't come through, but I think one of the elements that--apparent here is that we have not populism but we have popularism. We have the single most important to the public element of the Clinton health care reform plan passed, portability, and when we asked people what about health care reform most interests you, they said portability. So that passes. And the single most important element of the contract, non-controversial element of the Contract for America, welfare reform, so we have--and that passes.

MR. LEHRER: And that's a Republican thing. Of course, portability is identified with Democrats, right?

MR. KOHUT: Right.

MR. LEHRER: And health care reform.

MR. KOHUT: But they're both good for incumbents.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. KOHUT: Bill Clinton and those Republicans.

MR. LEHRER: All right. The Whitewater verdict, a new set of Whitewater verdicts yesterday, acquittal and mistrial, what are the politics of that?

MR. GIGOT: It's a blow to the independent counsel, Ken Starr. It really does I think mean that Bruce Lindsey, the right-hand man of the President, will not be indicted in this case. It closes off this--

MR. LEHRER: His--he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in this case involving the two bankers in Arkansas. He denied all wrongdoing. He was never, never charged with anything, but he was named as--but you think that's over now, right?

MR. GIGOT: Yeah, yeah. I think that they tried--the prosecution tried to make the case of conspiracy. The jury didn't buy it, and I don't see the prosecution going back to that road again, but for the next month, at least, I think until Labor Day, really, there is going--there is still a mine field of Whitewater problems, potential problems, that Ken Starr could create for the administration with Filegate and Travelgate--we don't know what he's going to do. Ken Starr is really the final arbiter of this. And he's the sort of fellow I think that beyond Labor Day he's not going to--he's not the sort for an October surprise. So at least for the next month, there really is still some reason to be jittery over at the White House because they don't know exactly where this ongoing investigation is going.

MR. LEHRER: How do you read it, E.J.?

MR. DIONNE: They are so enormously relieved down there at the White House right now because of this verdict, I mean, imagine what this program would have been like if they had gotten a guilty verdict here.

MR. LEHRER: You mean, this particular program, what we are now on, right?

MR. DIONNE: Exactly, because, see, they would have been on a roll--they would have been on such a huge roll, Ken Starr would have, and you would have heard all sorts of things, ah ha, this is getting, this is getting closer and closer and closer to the President. This really stops this for a while.

MR. LEHRER: You'd think that's what Gigot would be saying.

MR. DIONNE: I suspect that's what Gigot would be saying. And I think this stops that, this prevents that, and that's good for them.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Andy, what do the polls show about public interest in Whitewater?

MR. KOHUT: No matter what happens, the public, American public, doesn't pay attention to Whitewater. Bill Clinton's image seems to be well formed on the part of the public, and they just don't seem to feel that there's enough in this story to pay attention. Only 15 percent, 14 percent pay close attention to it, another third pay some attention to it, the rest of the American public completely ignores it, and that's just about what it's been over the course of the two years of the President's first term.

MR. LEHRER: What about the FBI files case?

MR. KOHUT: 15 percent. I mean, the public seems to be--

MR. LEHRER: That was a big mushroom cloud when that thing happened here a few weeks ago.

MR. KOHUT: It takes a lot--it takes a lot to get a scandal jaded or sated American public to pay attention. Something really has to appear to be wrong. The President has to appear to be very guilty, and the bottom line on Whitewater from the public's point of view is probably the Clintons did something wrong but it isn't very serious, and we're not going to pay attention to it.

MR. DIONNE: Bill Clinton is like one of those characters in an old British detective novel who takes a little bit of arsenic at a time to immunize himself, and I think now people have gotten so many stories about Bill Clinton that it takes something really huge to knock him down, and I think that's where he is now.

MR. GIGOT: It's funny, we have sovereign immunity here for accountability unless somebody's indicted. I mean, this really ought to be a big, a big deal, and there's a little bit of truth to that, uh, but I still think that the Whitewater and the files, they do fit in a little bit, into the, the trust, the problem of trust the President still has, the trustworthy numbers, he's still not, uh, great on, and that creates a vulnerability for them if not strictly on Whitewater or anything else, but if they can link those--Republicans can link those doubts about his trust to his behavior in the White House and behavior as President and what he might do in a second term.

MR. LEHRER: Well, now you said early on, Andy, that the polls still show that there's a great question about Bill Clinton regardless of--it's more of a Bob Dole problem than it is a Bill Clinton problem in some ways, right?

MR. KOHUT: Oh, Bill Clinton's image for honesty and truthfulness is not very good. But when we say to the public what's the most important basis for judging him, is it his record, is it keeping the Republicans at bay, or is it the allegations made about him, overwhelmingly, people either say his record of keeping the Republicans at bay, a very small percentage say, less than 20 percent say, uh, it's these allegations. Even a minority of Republicans and Dole supporters look to the charges about Clinton as the most important basis for judging him. It just hasn't had an impact in relationship to Dole because Dole cannot make these reservations about Bill Clinton work.

MR. LEHRER: What does that say about how people judge who they want to be President of the United States, E.J.?

MR. DIONNE: Well, I think people look at the Presidency as-- somebody once said if you look at the gender gap, then Clinton is way ahead among women, women made a distinction between choosing a President and choosing a husband--I think when we look at the personal characteristics of a President, we know we don't always look for the same things that we would look for in a best friend or in a neighbor. I think the second thing is that if Bob Dole were more acceptable and more popular to more people, he could make these issues stick. What's so striking about some of these polls is that Dole's own popularity has been going down, so maybe the American people would listen to a case on this, but they don't seem ready at the moment they heard it from Bob Dole.

MR. GIGOT: People don't vote for President on the basis of character alone. They base--the character is part of the mix, and it's a mistake for Republicans to think that they can simply run against Bill Clinton on character. It has to be linked to how he behaves as President and how he would govern and to certain issues of trust and so on, and I think that maybe that's dawning on them as the character strategy still leaves Bob Dole about 15 points behind.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Thank you all three very much. UPDATE - DEATH OF A WARLORD

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight to the Aidid of Somalia story and to Margaret Warner.

MS. WARNER: We'll get reaction to the death of Somali clan leader Mohamed Aidid in a moment but first, this background report from Steve Scott of Independent Television News.

STEVE SCOTT, ITN: To many Mohamed Farah Aidid will be remembered as the African warlord who humbled the might of the U.S. Army, and as the thorn in the side of the countless peace plans for Somalia, a man who led his militia into years of civil war, bringing famine and virtual anarchy to his country. It was against this background in 1992 the Americans led a U.N. peacekeeping force to restore law and order. Their efforts to capture Aidid were disastrous. His fighters shot down two U.S. helicopters and killed eighteen Army rangers, dragging some of their bodies through the streets of the capital, Mogadishu. Well ahead of schedule, the Americans pulled out, after suffering their worst losses in combat since Vietnam. Again, Somalia was left to its warring factions. On many occasions, the self-appointed President Aidid and his bitter warlord rival, Ali Mahdi Mohamed, appeared in public and signed peace pacts, but the warring continued. Last weekend, Aidid's supporters say he was shot twice. A few days later, surgeons operated on him. Soon afterwards, he suffered a heart attack. Aidid will be buried today. Many aid workers in Somalia hope a decade of factional violence may well be buried with him.

MS. WARNER: For more on this story, we turn now to Amb. Robert Oakley, former Special Envoy to Somalia during both the Bush and Clinton administrations. He is now a visiting fellow at National Defense University. Welcome, Mr. Ambassador.

ROBERT OAKLEY, Former Special Envoy to Somalia: Margaret, how are you tonight?

MS. WARNER: Very well, thanks. What kind of a mark did Gen. Aidid make, do you think, both on his country but also on ours?

AMB. OAKLEY: Well, he made two marks on his country. First, being the most important leader to eliminate Siad Bari, who was truly a very, very nasty dictator and who had done terrible things to his country and who was hated by almost everyone, except his immediate sub-clan. And Aidid was the man who really got rid of Siad Bari, therefore, at that point, he was a hero to a lot of Somalis. But when his personal ambition to become president and to have all the power, much as Siad Bari had had the power, carried him away, he then led his country into all sorts of disaster, which we all know only too well. So in Somalia, I guess, it'll be a mixed blessing. On the other hand, he does have, from the Somali point of view, unfortunately, the image of a hero who stood up and fought against foreigners who were shooting and killing Somalis. He was in that position sort of accidentally. We misplayed our cards. We misjudged, I think, what type of man Aidid was, and what the situation was on the ground. And so he certainly left an indelible impression on this country.

MS. WARNER: Well, the Somali intervention which was the largest commitment of U.S. ground forces since the Vietnam War at the time, is now widely regarded as a disaster. Was that more history, or was that ours, the fact that it's now considered disastrous?

AMB. OAKLEY: I think it was a combination but it certainly was traumatic for the United States, as traumatic as what happened in Lebanon 10 years earlier when the Marine barracks were blown up and we had to leave Lebanon. It had a profound impact upon U.S. public opinion, upon our attitudes toward the United Nations, upon our attitude toward ourselves. I think that we're recovering from that, and the Clinton administration has recovered, but it's a really deep shock and a great trauma. Now I think that it was a combination of both. I say we and the United Nations misjudged Aidid's obsession with becoming president and all the power. He wouldn't share it with anyone else. He had to have it all. And when we saw him in that mode, we said, well, this man is an obstacle to the sort of Somalia we would like, and so we're going to marginalize him politically. He said, well, I will not be marginalized; I'm the man that got rid of Siad Bari, I'm going to fight my way back. And if it means war, it means war, but I am here and I'm a Somali. And so it turned to military confrontation. And at that point, the whole U.N.-U.S. operation in Somalia became get Aidid, not save the country, or rebuild the country. It became get Aidid.

MS. WARNER: And that was our mistake?

AMB. OAKLEY: That was our mistake.

MS. WARNER: So what lessons do you think, rightly or wrongly, the U.S., both public opinion and sort of political opinion, has taken about this kind of a humanitarian military intervention that, that our venture in Somalia was?

AMB. OAKLEY: I think we've learned several very important positive things, Margaret. One is to assess the situation much more carefully and not take anything for granted militarily or politically. The second one is to recognize the interrelationship between the political, the military, the humanitarian, the economic development. The third one is to move with care and not get too deeply involved, try to adapt to the cultures and realities of the situation, and not try to impose too much upon it. I think Haiti has been a very successful example of the lessons which we've learned from Somalia and elsewhere.

MS. WARNER: So you don't think it's made the United States timid or more timid about this kind of an intervention?

AMB. OAKLEY: It certainly did for a while. You remember the Harlan County which turned tail and ran from an angry mob in--

MS. WARNER: The U.S. warship that--

AMB. OAKLEY: Old U.S. warship which turned around, rather than trying to land U.S. soldiers by an angry mob of civilians on the dock in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, came only 10 days after what happened in Mogadishu. And I think that was probably the low point of our self-esteem and our courage and our willing to look at things and to assess them carefully and then move ahead once you've made the decision, not suddenly retreat. But I say, I think Haiti later on showed that we've recovered from that syndrome, and currently Somalia has also been an object lesson in caution which we're applying in Bosnia by not getting too deeply into things, but, nevertheless, in being prepared for any eventuality.

MS. WARNER: It also introduced, didn't it, sort of a rally and cry politically about never putting U.S. troops under a U.N. command?

AMB. OAKLEY: It has really soured U.S. congressional attitudes toward the United Nations. There's a lot more popular support for the United Nations and for U.S. membership in it,and for the U.S. to pay the debt which it owes, which is about half the total debt up there, rather than welch on a debt. But the Congress is certainly turned off on the United Nations, and yet, ironically, U.S. troops were never under U.N. command. The troops that were out trying to get Aidid were under U.S. command the whole way. They were doing what they were told to do by U.S. military and political commanders. They were not following the orders of the United Nations at any time.

MS. WARNER: But as you say, the political image that lingers is very different.

AMB. OAKLEY: That's right.

MS. WARNER: Now there were comments today both from the White House and U.N. officials, very cautious ones, but suggesting that with Aidid out of the way, dead, that there was now a chance for peace in Somalia. Do you think it will have that kind of an impact?

AMB. OAKLEY: I think, Margaret, that there is a chance, but it'll take patience and time. Aidid's obsession with having personal power and wanting to gain all the power for himself blocked all the compromise proposals that have been put forward, and there were a number of them. I think the other Somalis have been willing to have Aidid as a president with some sort of checks and balances, but Aidid didn't want any checks and balances; he wanted all the power, therefore, there was no way they could reach a political solution. Now the way is open, provided that they give it time. In other words, Aidid supporters are going to be traumatized, and one needs to give them time to settle down, rather than attacking them or coming to them with a peace proposal right now. I was told that his supporters in this country raised a terrible raucous at the State Department on Monday after Aidid had been killed but before people--at least when he was seriously ill--they wanted him recognized by the United States, so you have it--I think if they calm down and people give them time to calm down, the outside world should watch, rather than trying to intervene, and let the Somalis work it out for themselves.

MS. WARNER: Well, thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Thanks very much.

AMB. OAKLEY: You're welcome, as usual. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, Congress passed or moved toward passing several pieces of major legislation before the August recess. The Senate unanimously passed the health care bill 98 to nothing. It then passed the minimum wage bill 76 to 22. Both measures already passed the House. And the unemployment rate went up .1 percent in July, to 5.4 percent. We'll see you Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.