The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Ray Suarez looks at the explosive elections in Zimbabwe, Kwame Holman chronicles Attorney General Reno's Senate testimony about the campaign fundraising investigation, Susan Dentzer and Margaret Warner examines the prescription drugs political debate, Elizabeth Brackett reports from Chicago on alternative schools for disruptive students, and essayist Richard Rodriguez considers multicultural America. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Zimbabwe's ruling party will keep a majority in parliament. Results from weekend elections were announced today. President Mugabe's followers won 62 seats, but the opposition won 57. International observers said months of political violence had badly tainted the results. Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe virtually unchallenged for 20 years. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The proposed merger of Sprint and WorldCom ran into trouble today. The Justice Department filed suit to block the deal. Then, the companies withdrew their merger application with the European commission. Regulators there had questioned it, too. Company officials said they haven't given up the idea of combining. But Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein warned it would undo benefits of the AT&T breakup 20 years ago. He spoke in Washington...

JOEL KLEIN: Despite significant progress toward increased competition, many important markets are still dominated by the big three: WorldCom, Sprint, and AT&T. In critical telecommunications markets, this merger would reduce those big three to a big two, too few. And the elimination of an important competitor would lead the higher prices and fewer choices for America's consumers.

JIM LEHRER: The deal was valued at $129 billion dollars. It would combine the nation's second and third largest telephone companies. House leaders agreed today to allow direct sales of U.S. food to Cuba. Critics of Cuba's Communist government reached a compromise with farm-state representatives. It would allow the food sales for the first time in nearly 40 years, but it would bar the federal government and private banks from subsidizing the arrangements. The full House and the Senate still have to approve the deal. Attorney General Reno today faced new questions about campaign finance investigations. She appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but she would not discuss the latest matter before her. It involves whether Vice President Gore misled prosecutors about his 1996 activities. Reno is again considering whether to name a special counsel in the matter. We'll have more on the Reno hearing later in the program tonight. Vice President Gore unveiled a long-term energy plan today. In Philadelphia, he announced he'd spend $75 billion over ten years. He said he wants to reduce dependence on foreign oil and promote non-polluting cars, among other things. The plan would offer tax breaks and other incentives to industry, power companies and homeowners. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to an important election in Africa, Reno before the Senate, the politics of prescription drugs, a special kind of alternative school, and a Richard Rodriguez essay.

FOCUS - ZIMBABWE - POWER SURGE

JIM LEHRER: The elections in Zimbabwe. Tim Ewart of Independent Television News begins our coverage.

TIM EWART: Zimbabwe's opposition went into the sunlight today. The movement for democratic change was narrowly defeated, but still regarded its 57 seats as a victory over President Mugabe.

JOB SIKHALA, Opposition Member of Parliament: We must move away from the statehouse and go into the rural areas.

TIM EWART: You want him to resign?

JOB SIKHALA: To immediately resign. That would be my first statement in the... In parliament just next week.

TIM EWART: These scenes were in one of the poorest areas of Harare, the new NDC heartland. There's been a lot of tension in areas like this for a long time, a lot of intimidation and a lot of violence. There were Zanu PF celebrations too, their winners included the war veteran's leader who organized the invasion of white-owned farms. He will not be backing down.

SPOKESMAN: We are not moving anywhere. We're not going to be deported to some other land. That's our land.

TIM EWART: President Mugabe campaigned hard during the election. He knew there was much at stake. He remains in control, but his power base has been weakened. Zanu PF no longer has the parliament needed to change the constitution. Opposition leader Morgan Changerai was defeated in his constituency yesterday, but he's eying a much bigger prize. Today he declared he'll run for president in two years' time.

SPOKESMAN: Anybody who believes that the future destiny of this country

relies on Robert Mugabe must have his head examined.

TIM EWART: But it's not Zimbabwe's jubilant opposition that may threaten Mr. Mugabe so much as it's wretched economy. These people queuing for paraffin this evening were kept at bay by riot police and security guards. And it was announced today that petrol will soon be rationed.

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez takes it from there.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on the election in Zimbabwe we turn to Simbi Veke Mubako, Zimbabwe's ambassador to the United States, and Kenneth Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute, a non-governmental organization that monitors election. The government of Zimbabwe refused to allow his organization to reserve their recent election.

Mr. Ambassador, let's start with you. Would neutral observers conclude that this election just concluded was free and fair?

SIMBI VEKE MUBAKO, Ambassador, Zimbabwe: Well, I think the people of Zimbabwe had the opportunity to express themselves, and they did express themselves in large numbers, in my view quite freely. Both sides showed that whatever violence had gone before did not, in fact, stop them from coming out and voting the way they wanted and expressing themselves sometimes publicly that they voted this way or that way.

RAY SUAREZ: Mr. Wollack.

KENNETH WOLLACK, National Democratic Institution: Well, one has to look at an election process not only what takes place on election day, but has the look at the environment we leading up to the election, as well as election day and the post election complaint process. And I think that most groups who have monitored elections throughout the world have come to the same conclusion, and that is that the environment leading up to the election day was fundamentally flawed. It was an environment of fear and anxiety. You had a campaign of violence and intimidation directed primarily at the opposition. You had an unlevel playing field, biased news coverage. You had the legal framework that was also flawed, lack of an independent election commission. It was very positive that election day was peaceful. The process is not completed. There will be a complaint press, and how those complaints are handled by the courts will also contribute to the overall view of this election process. But certainly the process itself was not free and fair and should not be seen as a process that many of Zimbabwe's neighbors have gone through in recent years.

RAY SUAREZ: Mr. Ambassador, why did your government feel it was called forward to keep Mr. Wollack's group and others out of your country at election time?

SIMBI VEKE MUBAKO: For the British the reason is quite clear. The British have gone out on a campaign against the government from the very beginning. The British government, the British opposition, they even send a member leader of the opposition to Zimbabwe to campaign clearly for the opposition. So they were clearly on one side. They were not unbiased. There's no reason why it should have been allowed to come and observe a process over which they had already made their own judgments. As for the NDI, as you know the NDI was in fact allowed to observe the process before the election and they made their statement. And the statement appeared to the government not to be unbiased. It was ready for that reason mainly that the government then failed. If they already made up their minds, there's no reason to allow them to continue to do that.

RAY SUAREZ: Zanu P.F., the party in power in your country, held on to its parliamentary majority but in much, much reduced circumstances. What would have to be concluded by the government today over what the people were telling you?

SIMBI VEKE MUBAKO: Well, again, the message I think is very clear. The dissatisfaction with the way government has been running the economy of the country, that's a main message, and the government is aware of that. And they have to change their management of the economy to improve on it. That's the main thing. There are personal attacks on the president, and so I don't... that you can expect in any election. That's all right, but that's their own opinion. I think the main problem is the economy of the country.

RAY SUAREZ: Kenneth Wollack, do you agree that this was largely a bread- and-butter vote?

KENNETH WOLLACK: Well, that had a large measure for the voter turnout, particularly in the urban areas. But there was something deeper, I think. I think democrats throughout the world were inspired by the struggle in Zimbabwe, by Zimbabwean democrats for their independence movement, for the movement to end white minority rule in Zimbabwe 20 years ago. But over the past decade, as the rest of the countries in the region, Southern African region and many countries throughout the world, were moving to more open political systems, it seemed like Zimbabwe was going in a different direction. More and more power was being concentrated in the hands of an executive presidency. And I think, in large measure, the citizens of Zimbabwe also said that we believe not one party has all the answers to the country's problems, that it required different voices. And you had a basically united opposition that provided an alternative. And I think it was a desire also to have a more pluralistic political system, real debate, real discussion, and decision- making that included people across the political spectrum.

RAY SUAREZ: Does this election result, Mr. Ambassador, perhaps stay your president's hand, Robert Mugabe's hand, when it comes to the land distribution idea he's put forward? He said that if he won, it would commence right after the elections, but you've had an electoral setback, even though you hold on to power. Might this mere those plans?

SIMBI VEKE MUBAKO: Well, I shouldn't think so, because to start with, the president has not lost the election. It's true that he has had a rebuke from the electorate, if you like. His majority's reduced, but he has the working majority in parliament. Indeed, he will have 92 out of 150. That's a fairly good majority to work with, and I think his policies, main policies will go ahead as he has planned them. It's true he won't be able to amend the constitution, as you have said in the introduction, without the support of the opposition, but any other side of the policies can in fact be carried out just as the party program says.

RAY SUAREZ: And to take land from current owners and distribute it to other people, he wouldn't need a constitutional amendment? He could do that with the current working majority in the parliament?

SIMBI VEKE MUBAKO: Oh, yes, very much so. The constitutional amendment has already passed, and all that remains now is to implement the policy. And the policy is already being implemented. Land will be distributed from the first of July. And everything is on course, unless there are objections, which will be dealt with.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, as an observer of the country for some time, Mr. Wollack, do you think that this can be carried out in an economically feasible manner? These are the men mostly who grow the export crops of the country.

KENNETH WOLLACK: Well, I think everyone agrees in the country and internationally that the land reform issue is an important issue. And I think the question becomes how the issue is resolved. There is a new parliament, a parliament that represents divergent viewpoints on how many of the economic and political issues should be resolved in the country. And I think in a sense Zimbabwe is at a crossroads. If the government now recognizes that Zimbabwe today is a multiparty state, de facto and not just de jure and that the parliament is allowed to debate public policy issues and decide on those public policy decisions rather than decisions being made by decree or being made by the executive, then this could be a very positive future for Zimbabwe. And so the question is how the government and how it deals with this new parliament and the new multiparty system that is a reality. The people of Zimbabwe have now given the opposition a voice and the right to participate in the political life of the country.

RAY SUAREZ: At independence, Mr. Ambassador, a lot of the members of the new government proclaimed that Zimbabwe would be what it hadn't been before, a multiracial state. If the land is seized from the commercial farmers, do you foresee them leaving the country and maybe your country stepping back from that dream proclaimed 20 years ago?

SIMBI VEKE MUBAKO: Zimbabwe is a multiracial state and has always been. The farmers represent only a very small section of the white community, even if I take that. It's 4,500 at most out of about 80,000 white people in the country. The rest of the people are not affected by the land reform program. And what is going to happen is... I don't think most of the 4,500 will leave. If any, I think there will be very few. Most of the farmers, as I gather, like to stay in the country, and they will have an opportunity to stay in the country. The government has said that not one of the farmers need leave farming. If they want to continue doing so, they will do that. But under the regulations which are promulgated by government, smaller farms and no more than one farm per person. That's all. But everybody will have a farm if they want to farm.

RAY SUAREZ: Ambassador Mubako, Kenneth Wollack, thanks for staying with us.

KENNETH WOLLACK: Thank you.

SIMBI VEKE MUBAKO: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Attorney General Reno at a Senate hearing, the debate over prescription drugs, alternative schools for disruptive students, and a Richard Rodriguez essay.

FOCUS - PROBING QUESTIONS

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman has the Reno/Gore fundraising story.

KWAME HOLMAN: Probably no member of President Clinton's cabinet is more familiar with the inside of a congressional hearing room than Attorney General Janet Reno. She was there again today, this time for a matinee appearance before the Senate judiciary committee.

JANET RENO: Since my first hearing before you on March 9, 1993, we have worked together in a bipartisan manner on many issues that affect the American people in very significant ways. And I want to thank you all for the thoughtfulness and the kindness that you have shown me.

KWAME HOLMAN: The issue today, however, was one that congressional Republicans have challenged Reno on time and again, her continued resistance to appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the fund-raising practices of the 1996 Clinton/Gore campaign.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: It seems to me, however, that the "press run" to appoint an outside counsel is coming from inside the Justice Department. From people she has chosen at various times to advise her and to head the campaign finance task force.

KWAME HOLMAN: Last week, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter announced he'd learned that the head of the Justice Department's campaign financing task force recently recommended Reno appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Vice President Al Gore.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: And I do not take lightly the comments of the Vice President's surrogates, accusing me of McCarthy-like tactics and being in cahoots with the Bush campaign. I have not and would not discuss this matter with the Bush campaign. And as to the reference to McCarthy-like tactics, that is a matter which I will take up personally with the Vice President to see if it was authorized, and if so, I'll take it up with him in some substantial detail.

KWAME HOLMAN: Among the allegations against Gore is that he made phone calls from the white house to solicit soft money or general campaign contributions for the party, as well as hard money contributions for specific campaigns. That would be a violation of federal election law.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: The established record shows that four witnesses testified that hard money was discussed in the Vice President's presence at the famous November 21 meeting; that one of the witnesses, Leon Penetta, even went so far as to point out that "the purpose of the meeting was to make sure they knew what the hell was going on;" that included, among those four witnesses, was the Vice President's chief of staff, David Strauss, who had a memorandum written, putting in writing the fact that there was a discussion about 35% hard money.

JANET RENO: You have spoken of four people who remembered. Mr. Strauss did not remember. When shown his notes, he said that must have been the case, but he had no memory. We interviewed 15 people, two of whom remembered the discussion -- the wide variety of, and everybody gave information, nobody seemed to withhold information.

SEN. JON KYL: What other evidence did you consider that may have suggested that the Vice President knew or should have known hard money was involved?

JANET RENO: Such an inference might be supported, for example, by information that these facts were discussed in sufficient detail and focus at the meeting that many of the attendees specifically recalled them, that the Vice President made comments or asked questions in the course of the discussion that would seem to reflect an active understanding of the details, that the participants understood the need to raise hard money for the media fund, and the Vice President read memoranda that made these points or that anyone spoke directory to the Vice President on any occasion about the need to raise hard money.

SPOKESMAN: Was there not evidence to support some of those possibilities?

JANET RENO: We found none.

KWAME HOLMAN: But not once throughout the afternoon hearingwould Reno discuss what may have led her current task force director to call for an independent investigation of the Vice President. In fact, she would not even confirm such a recommendation was made. The hearing ended with several Republican senators concluding the Attorney General is very unlikely to appoint a special prosecutor before the presidential election and probably not at all.

FOCUS - RX FOR CHANGE

JIM LEHRER: Health Correspondent Susan Dentzer begins our look at the political debate over prescription drugs. Our health unit is a partnership with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

SUSAN DENTZER: Among the hottest issues this election year is providing senior citizens with insurance coverage for ever-more-costly prescription drugs. Take this commercial run by Democrat Brian Schweitzer - he's a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Montana and one of many politicians hoping to ride the issue to victory.

SPOKESPERSON: Across America, people are beginning to listen to one Montanan's crusade to lower prescription drug prices.

SUSAN DENTZER: Schweitzer wants the elderly to get new drug benefits under Medicare. Meanwhile, he's taken some to Canada where retail drug prices are lower.

BRIAN SCHWEITZER: This busload of people will save $24,000 by buying prescription medicine in Canada for a 12-month period.

SUSAN DENTZER: This week this election-year drug war shifts to the nation's capital. Over the weekend President Clinton proposed a new version of his earlier plan to add prescription drug coverage under Medicare. The President proposes to make drug coverage available for all elderly and disabled citizens enrolled in Medicare. For month premiums starting at $25 a month, the plan would cover one half of beneficiaries' annual drug costs up to $2,000. The government would pay the premiums for low-income beneficiaries. But the revamped plan has some additional features that the President cited in his weekly radio address.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I will unveil specific protections for catastrophic drug expenses, to ensure that no senior pays more than $4,000 in prescription drugs and keeping premiums at $25 a month. And I'll propose making that benefit in the full prescription drug initiative available in 2002, instead of 2003.

SUSAN DENTZER: As a result, Clinton said his new plan would cost $79 billion over five years, or more than double his earlier proposal. Over ten years, the costs would rise to $253 billion. Some experts think they could go higher still. Bruce Stuart is a University of Maryland professor who's studied prescription drug coverage. He says offering a broad drug benefit under Medicare makes sense, but he cautions it could also lead to sharply higher use of drugs and swell overall drug expenditures that are already rising rapidly.

BRUCE STUART, University of Maryland: There's a study actually that's been conducted in our department here at the University of Maryland that suggest that the rate of increase that we can expect over the next five years will be between 15 and 20 percent. It's quite clear that the, that Medicare cannot afford an unrestricted prescription drug plan that doesn't have some impact on rising pharmaceutical prices.

SUSAN DENTZER: The President's souped-up plan was clearly intended to pressure Republicans to switch gears on their own plans for seniors' drug coverage. Last week, a House panel approved a proposal for coverage for seniors-- but one delivered largely through the private sector rather than Medicare. Under the proposal, health insurers would have to offer private drug coverage plans for sale to all Medicare beneficiary, starting in 2003. The plans would feature a $250 annual deductible; pay half of all drug costs up to $2,100 a year; and cover all expenses that topped $6,000. Proponents say premiums would probably average $37 a month. Like the President's plan, the House Republican plan would pay those premium costs for low-income beneficiaries. The projected cost of the proposal is $40 billion over five years. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert says the President's plan is woefully inferior to the Republican approach.

REP. DENNIS HASTERT, Speaker of the House: It's just reproducing, government doing something that the private sector already provides that we think is redundant. We also think it's very expensive.

SUSAN DENTZER: But among those who question the Republican plan are private health insurance companies themselves. Earlier this month, their trade group, the Health Insurance Association of America said in a written statement that the plan "simply would not work in practice." Bruce Stuart agrees. He argues that these private sector policies will be a magnet for some seniors, even as they're shunned by others.

BRUCE STUART: Individuals who have relatively modest or in some cases no demand for prescription drugs are not going to be purchasing these policies, no matter what the premium is. By the same token, or on the other hand, those individuals who have very high drug expenditures are going to be jumping at the gate ready to buy these policies.

SUSAN DENTZER: Stuart says that means insurers will have to set premiums very high to cover huge drug expenses-- making the policies unaffordable, but Hastert rejects that analysis.

REP. DENNIS HASTERT: I think we can work with the companies. We've had several insurance companies that say, yeah, they can write these policies. So if several can, I'm sure many can.

SUSAN DENTZER: To drum up support among Republicans, the President proposed a deal yesterday. He says he'll back their plan for a large tax cut he previously opposed if they'll buy his Medicare plan.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If Congress will pass a plan that gives real voluntary Medicare prescription drug coverage, then I will sign a marriage penalty relief law which also costs roughly $250 billion over ten years.

SUSAN DENTZER: The House is now expected to vote on its drug coverage proposal as early as tomorrow.

JIM LEHRER: And to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: For more on both plans and their prospects, we turn to two members of the house ways and means subcommittee on health. Republican Congressman Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking Democrat, Congressman Pete Stark, who's also from California.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Chairman Thomas, what is the advantage of the Republican plan, as you see it, over the President's?

REP. BILL THOMAS, (R) California: Well, it depends on which plan of the President's you're addressing. If it was the one that he introduced originally in his budget...

MARGARET WARNER: Let's stick with the one he has on the table now. First tell us about yours.

REP. BILL THOMAS: If you look at the one he has on the table now, it costs between $80 and $100 billion. The budget resolution, both in the Republican budget and the Democratic budget said we had only $40 billion to spend. So first of all, it busts the budget. But most importantly, the Republican plan decides that seniors want prescription drugs, but they want them by choice. Freedom of choice is a proposal we have in our plan that's not available in the Democrats' plan. This is a Medicare program that, as we say, is an entitlement. It's just like the doctor payment and the skilled nursing home payment. And so we say, let them have a choice. If they like the program they have now, let them stay with it. If they don't like it, certainly this would be available to them. But the real advantage is what the President just announced, as you saw. He has now decided to add the so-called stop loss or catastrophic, the idea that seniors above a certain amount of money should not have to pay any more out of their pocket to get the drugs they need. This was an integral part of the bipartisan plan from the beginning, working with responsible Democrats to guarantee that we have insurance for all. The President's plan was a one-size-fits-some. He's now added that insurance provision, and as your chart showed, he doubled his costs. If you're going to put a program that doubles its costs with that one item added, then look at ours. We stay inside the budget. It's a Medicare program. It's insurance for all. And most importantly, it provides seniors choice. They can choose between plans or keep the one that they have if they like it better.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Stark, give us your sense of the relative merits of these plans and explain why the President's plan costs twice as much. Are the benefits twice as good?

REP. PETE STARK, (D) California: Yes. Precisely. You get what you pay for. There is no health care fairy who's going to put prescription drugs under the seniors pillows at night without all of us and/or the seniors paying for something. It's illusionary to think otherwise. The Democrats have a bill which says, this will be a Medicare benefit that is an entitlement that is guaranteed by the federal government, and it will be the same price in every part of the country, which the Republicans will not... the Republicans may or may not offer a bill, because they have no assurance that the insurance companies will provide it. In the last analysis, the Democrats' bill could under extreme circumstances be actually distributed and paid for directly by the government. It's very unlikely, but it is that underlying guarantee that would do that -- as we used to do in Medicare. We used to pay the bills directly for Medicare out of Health and Human Services. So we have a plan that costs $25 a month. It will provide limited benefits up to $4,000, provide half of the drugs up to $5,000. It will have a $4,000 out out-of-pocket cap. It should be more. We'd like to spend more. The reason we can't provide an alternative on the floor tomorrow is because the Republican budget, which they refuse to give us a waiver for, won't allow us to offer more. We'd be happy to come out with a bill that costs $100 billion, $150 billion and provide the seniors what they need. We should also be providing some cost containment. We have every Republican opposed bill recently, the Allen Bill, which we voted on in our committee, to provide seniors a discount, at not cost to the federal government. So they don't want to do anything that would hurt the drug companies, who, after all, are really writing this bill. It's the drug companies that are in the pockets of the Republicans, and they're fiddling, and the Republicans are dancing to their tune.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me see if I can focus on the two big differences. One has to do with the Democratic charge that the Republican plan, seniors aren't really guaranteed that the health insurance industry's going to offer these plans or that they'll be similarly offered all overthe country for a similar price. What about that availability of coverage issue?

REP. BILL THOMAS: Well, this is an argument that the Democrats like to make, but if you actually read the bills, and I know very few people read them, they're actually going to offer their program through private structure, which they negotiate the price with exactly the same way that we are.

REP. PETE STARK: No, not exactly the same way.

REP. BILL THOMAS: The key here is...

REP. PETE STARK: It is not exactly the same way.

MARGARET WARNER: I'll get right back to you.

REP. BILL THOMAS: The key here is to realize that you heard Congressman Stark say that the government...

REP. PETE STARK: You are in the pocket of the lobbyists. That's what I said.

REP. BILL THOMAS: Margaret, can I...

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman, let him finish and I'll get back to you, sir.

REP. BILL THOMAS: Thank you very much ... that the government is going to run it. We don't think that seniors should have to make decisions about drugs with a bureaucrat looking over their shoulder, telling them which ones they should take and how they should take it.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. But he me just ask you about this...

REP. BILL THOMAS: Pete Stark said it was a government-run program.

MARGARET WARNER: But the issue of whether seniors under the Republican are guaranteed there will be something available. In Susan's piece, she quoted a statement from the Health Insurance Association saying it simply would not work in practice. Will the insurance companies take part in it, and if they don't, what happens?

REP. BILL THOMAS: The answer is yes. We have now two major insurance companies who have said they'd be glad to participate. The one that's probably most important is a company called Merk Medco. They currently provide the prescription drugs for more than 1,100 companies, more than 52 million Americans... more than 52 million Americans have the drug coverage from this company that says we want to participate. Now, the irony of this, is Merk Medco also supplies the prescription drugs for the federal employees health benefits program, the program that members of Congress have. So if someone who gives the members of Congress their drugs says, "we are willing to participate in the senior program," how can you say insurance companies won't play?

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Congressman Stark.

REP. PETE STARK: Yes, Margaret. What I'm suggesting is that the bill was written by the lobbyists for the drug companies, given to Mr. Thomas, who just is parroting what they want. First of all, the risk is not assumed by these... the risk is assumed by the private insurance companies who don't want the risk. They will only insure people that they can make money on. In the Democratic plan, the government guarantees that the benefits will be there. So this is the major difference. We have an entitlement that is like the rest of Medicare. And what Mr. Thomas is suggesting is something like the managed care plus choice plans, which are dumping seniors left and right. And he's trying to privatize Medicare. Make no mistake about it, this is an attempt to turn the program over to the free market -- the free market which leaves 12 million children uninsured, 45 million Americans uninsured. This is not the federal Medicare program which seniors have come to depend on since 1965 when we initiated the program because the private insurers refused to insure seniors.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Congressman Stark, let me ask you a question placed on something the analysts said in Susan's piece, which is that the President's plan is so generous and it has no detectable and the senior is protected from out-of-pocket costs over $4,000 that it will encourage much greater use, it will be much more expensive than...

REP. PETE STARK: Margaret, that's right, and I stipulate to that. As a matter of fact, I don't think the President's plan is generous enough. Seniors should have the drugs they need to stay healthy. There is nothing that's wrong with the federal government, when we have a trillion dollars extra in our budget surplus, the richest country in history at the most economically glowing time that the world has ever seen, that we can't afford to provide pharmaceutical benefits to seniors -- two-thirds of which live at a very modest income is obscene. And I'm willing to spend that money before I'd like to give $50 billion a year to the richest 2% by getting rid of the inheritance tax, which is what the Republicans are doing with this surplus. The Republicans want to cut taxes. That's all they want to do. I want to spend some of this surplus to protect the seniors, to see that they can live a decent life in their old age, get the kind of drugs that will keep them out of hospitals, probably save us money in the long run if we can control the outrageous profits that the drug companies are making today by holding them up when they can't afford their pharmaceutical benefits and charging whatever the market will bear. So you're right, your piece was right. We would like to spend more money to protect the seniors and give them a decent drug benefit.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me get Congressman Thomas to respond to that. Could the United States afford to spend more money, and does it need to? Or can you really...

REP. BILL THOMAS: First of all, we need to put a senior prescription drug program in place. The Republicans, the majority, working with responsible Democrats, have moved legislation to the floor.

REP. PETE STARK: That's two Democrats.

REP. BILL THOMAS: The Democrats, who were in charge for years, never did it. The program we're offering is under what they call Title 18.

REP. PETE STARK: I beg your pardon...

MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry, Congressman Stark, please don't interrupt. Let him finish and I'll get back to you.

REP. BILL THOMAS: Thank you, Margaret. It is under Medicare, afternoon it is an entitlement. They don't like that, but it is. Here is the concern: Yes, we need to put a program in place, but two-thirds of seniors get their prescription drugs from other sources. You don't want to create a government program that's so rich that they leave the program they have and now we have a larger public cost than we would have had otherwise. He said the federal government. It's not the federal government's money, it's the taxpayer's money, and what we have to do is always build a balanced plan. Yes, the seniors need the prescription drugs, but the people who will be paying the bill are their sons and daughters. What we have to build is a balanced program. What the President has... he's afraid that this bipartisan plan will actually pass. And he's begun to throw money at the problem. You heard the expert. You get over utilization. You'll get an enormous expanse of costs. We should pay to take care of seniors but it should be a prudent plan in balance with the entire society. Seniors need it, but the young people are going to have to pay for it, and it should be balanced.

MARGARET WARNER: We have just about 30 seconds, Congressman Stark, give us a prediction. Will there be a bill this year? Is there some way to compromise here?

REP. PETE STARK: There will not be a bill unless the Republicans step up to the bar and do what's right. They have shown no indication to do that. They've been stalling us on managed care patient protection. They've been stalling us on every bit of good legislation. All they want to do is have a fluffy name and something that was written by the drug lobbyists. You won't see a decent benefit this year because of the Republicans.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Thomas, will we see a bill?

REP. BILL THOMAS: Tomorrow the House of Representatives will pass a prescription drug bill by a bipartisan vote. It will go to the Senate, and we will have done our job. If the Democrats would join with us, get rid of the partisanship, work together in a bipartisan way, the seniors will have the drugs they deserve. I'm pleased to say this bill will pass the House with a bipartisan vote.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you both very much.

REP. PETE STARK: Thank you.

FOCUS - ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS

JIM LEHRER: Now, alternative public schools for disruptive students. Elizabeth Brackett of WTTW, Chicago reports.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Sitting quietly in class, 16- year-old Amy Allen doesn't look like a troubled teen-ager, but last year Allen was expelled from her Chicago high school after stealing the school watchman's car. She wound up in this alternative school in Chicago, which she now says is the best thing that could have happened to her.

AMY ALLEN: If it wasn't here, I really think I would have went a lot farther downhill than uphill -- 'cause when you come here, it's like the teachers, they motivate you, and they give you, like, better things to think of. And they give you more goals to look at. And they make sure you don't do anything bad, you know? They're like, "you are going to finish high school, go on to college." And you know, that gives you, like, self-esteem. You're like, "hey, I can do it. If she thinks so, then I have to think so."

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The Crawford First high school is one of 12 alternative schools in the Chicago system. Though alternative education once meant a whole range of options to public education, in Illinois it now means public schools for disruptive students who are about to be expelled or Chicago School Board President Gery Chico says it is essential to provide options other than expulsion.

GERY CHICO, Chicago Board of Education: The faculties of our schools have asked for there to be a mechanism to rid the classroom of perpetually troubled students so that they have a fair chance of teaching and the children who are not causing trouble have a fair chance of learning. And finally, the students themselves that have been... that have caused problems for some time need to get out of that setting in many cases and get the more individualized attention that can be provided in these alternative schools.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Alternative schools began appearing in greater numbers across the country after Congress passed the zero tolerance for weapons legislation in 1994. Illinois was among several states that responded to the growing number of expulsions as a result of the zero tolerance legislation by funding programs for alternative schools. When Amy Allen first heard she would have to go to an alternative school, she thought it would be like a reform school.

AMY ALLEN: For like really bad people. I thought it's like that's the end of the line like. You go to alternative school, next you're going to juvi or something like that.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Her classmate Tervarious Hampton got expelled from his high school for truancy, fighting, and drugs. At first, he was afraid to come to Crawford.

TREVARIOUS HAMPTON: I was thinking, "my head busted open, 'cause it was, like, "man, alternative school." I'm thinking, I'm going to be there with a bunch of too old kids supposed to been graduated that's gonna have attitude problems and just like to start a lot of trouble. So I'm thinking I was going to have to fight every day.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: And there are some things about Crawford that do seem like a reform school. Security is very tight. Students are swept with hand- held metal detectors every morning. Bags are carefully inspected. And the school day is very tightly structured. Jerome Damasco was a practicing child and adolescent therapist before he took the job as principal.

JEROME DAMASCO, Principal, Crawford First High School: When students do first come to this school, you notice that they are quite guarded. They try to present themselves in a more negative way, maybe to will show that no one can mess with them, for example. But eventually, as they get used to the expectations of the school and the way the daily routines are, students slowly pull that guard down and benefit from the program.

TEACHER: (working with child) How much money will he have paid at the end of the year?

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: But security issues are not handled the same way at all alternative schools. For example, the community school in suburban Harvey, one of 119 state sites, is guided by a different philosophy, says community high school principal Sylvia Walter.

SYLVIA WALTER, Principal, Community High School: We don't take a lot of stringent security measures. We do have a locked door, an outside door -- but through the model that we use where we teach them to respect the rights of one another, to be comfortable, to feel secure and to trust, we try to teach them that it comes from within.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Walter says the school involves all students and staff in creating a community that is both physically and psychologically safe. 18-year-old Amanda Mirelez reflects the schools efforts.

AMANDA MIRELEZ: At our school, the community is a community. And if there's one thing wrong with one person, the community always involves everybody and, you know, says, "well, what do you think? Should we do... How can we help this person?"

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Where would you be if this school didn't exist?

AMANDA MIRELEZ: I probably would have still stayed dropped out and never would have come back.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Like most alternative schools, teacher-pupil ratios at Community are very low -- five staff members including a social worker and vocational counselor for 36 kids. A basic high school curriculum of English, math, social studies, and science is offered. And all academic instruction is done through the computer. Community says the computerized instruction allows each student to work on an individualized program. It works for Jamal Rowell.

JAMAL ROWELL: You work at your own level, you know. They put the work in front of you, and the computer, it does everything for you, so it's like you're working at your own pace.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: How is it different than sitting in a classroom, say, in math? How is it different than learning it on the computer or learning in a classroom?

JAMAL ROWELL: Well, I mean, you have to listen to the teacher for 50 minutes. And I mean, just listening to that teacher, you might miss a lot, whereas you're looking at the computer in front of you, and I mean, it's just words you canread. I mean, it's comfortable... It's a little more comfortable than being in a classroom for 50 minutes with students -- you know.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: What do you think would have happened to you without this school?

JAMAL ROWELL: Well, most likely, I probably wouldn't have graduated this year if I wouldn't have had the help of this program.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: In addition to academics, each student must also spend at least three hours a day developing vocational skills, either job shadowing or in a paying job. Damasco, at Crawford First, also says individualized attention is the key to success. The standard high school curriculum is taught here, though not through computers. But that one-on-one attention is expensive. It costs $10,000 per student to educate a Crawford student, just over $5,550 at a regular Chicago high school.

JEROME DAMASCO: What we try to do at Crawford is that every period there is communication between teacher and each student going over the expectations of that class.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Students could be out on the street if they don't live up to a rigorous set of goals and objectives created for eh student. The message worked well for Hampton, who rarely went to school and was flunking all subjects before Crawford.

TREVARIOUS HAMPTON: I can get along with the teachers in here. My old school, I used to curse at the teachers, I used to throw chairs, stuff like that. I used to act up 'cause I really didn't know what they was talking about. Then when I'd try to be good, they'd kick me out of class and stuff, so I personally really didn't really care about school. But here, teachers, they take time, make sure you know the work.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Amy Allen's biggest concern now is that she'll be sent back to her old school.

AMY ALLEN: I'd be afraid that I wouldn't get the attention I got here. I'm so used to if I have a problem, you know, I can ask the teacher and they will help me. I don't want to go back. That's how a lot of people are here.

GERY CHICO: The alternative schools are not an end in themselves. We are not looking to that. We are looking at them as transitional assistance to return the student back to the general population.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Of the 4,600 kids in state- funded alternative schools only 40% received academic credit for their work. 12% dropped out or were kicked out. And 26% returned to their home schools when their alternative school time was up.

SYLVIA WALTER: I think we're on the cutting edge of what's taking place in education today. What I think we want to do is see it broaden. We're servicing kids, kids are being successful and, the only way we'd change it is to offer this service to more kids.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Alternative schools reach only a small number of students in Illinois. 130,000 students were suspended or expelled last year. Just under 5,000 students were in the state-sponsored alternative schools program. Illinois state school superintendent, Glenn McGee, says he will support legislation that would require local school boards to at least consider alternative schools as an option for kids who otherwise would be expelled.

GLENN McGEE, State Superintendent of Education: Frankly, I think that it should be mandatory that before any student is expelled, local school board at least considers and looks at the different range of alternative programs and services available. Again, it's not the answer for every student. And some children, frankly, will not make it there. And some children, young men, young women do need to be expelled. But I think that local boards would serve the students well and serve their communities well by considering these programs and services and doing what they could to support them.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: And with the rate of expulsions climbing rapidly, many educators say the need for alternative education will increase, as well.

ESSAY - THEOLOGICAL CURRY

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Richard Rodriguez of the Pacific News Service considers our multicultural future.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: The other day, I saw the future on a movie screen at bargain matinee prices. The movie's called "east is east," and it's about a Pakistani immigrant in England and his British wife. To describe their marriage as a "mixed race" is to miss the movie's larger point. Papa in this case is Muslim and mama is Catholic; the results are comic and not.

WOMAN: Didn't know you had -

MAN: This is my friend. His daughters are going to be married...

WOMAN: Gorgeous. You're a lucky you, two, aren't you?

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: On this side of the Atlantic, we Americans have only lately grown publicly candid about miscegenation. The erotic secrets of Monticello and the old black-and-white racial descriptions of our country are giving way to the multiple choices on the current census form. Mixed blood may end up being the least of it. In cities across America, there are marriages that unite, or at least join ancient, often quarreling creeds. Mixed blood, our old preoccupation, is being replaced by mixed soul. When I was a Catholic school kid, I remember my wonderful Irish nuns warning us away from the dangers of "mixed marriages." They meant, principally, the marriage of a Catholic and a Protestant. Nowadays, I meet hybrids that defy every known theological borders; one of my friends describes herself as a Baptist Buddhist, other days she's a Buddhist Baptist. In those newspapers that still publish wedding announcements, one can sometimes glimpse at a future that is already here. In the Sunday "New York Times," for example, the marriage of the week invariably celebrates the talented and the rich and the beautiful. Routinely now the marriage is between religions, as this one-- Hindu Jewish. Our politicians do not yet have a grammar that keeps up with our racial complexity. Neither do our theologians know how to speak of the theological complexity is evidenced throughout the country. Demographers expect Islam to replace Christianity as the world's most populous religion within several decades. In "East is East," we see lives on the borderline on this new Muslim century. The children are raised Muslim in a Christian neighborhood within the larger secular metropolis. Theological mixing has already given rise in the world to a hunger for orthodoxy. The other possibility is we are entering an age of astonishing ecumenism --religious traditions flowing into one another, deepening and enlivening one another, within the soul of a single child. The future could well belong to those religious traditions that can tolerate impurity. (Speaking in Spanish) In Latin America in the 16th century, the success of Spanish Catholicism among the Indians was its syncretism-- it was not afraid to absorb indigenous traditions to itself. No better example of this syncretism exists than the virgin of Guadalupe-- the Virgin Mary dressed as an Aztec princess. Today, as evangelical Protestantism is converting Latin America, its success may similarly depend on Protestantism's ability to absorb a Catholic culture. But marriage can end in divorce. And children can end up rejecting the difficult theological balance between religious traditions, refusing both, longing for only one, loathing the theological confusion within themselves.

WOMAN: What the bleeding hell is that?

MAN: Bloody bargain.

WOMAN: It's an old barber's chair.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: "East is East" is a comedy but more-- a love story. It ends up with a family in turmoil. One son is an orthodox Muslim; another son is gay. Papa ends up bewildered by children who refuse his orthodoxy. His wife ends up bruised and battered, literally. Finally, the marriage survives. Christianity stays married to Islam -- which is only to say, this is a love story, more than it is a story of happy and clear endings.

MAN: You see, it's so relaxing.

WOMAN: A bleeding barber's chair to make me relax around you.

MAN: You're always relaxing with me because your my lovely.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: I'm Richard Rodriguez.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, election results showed Zimbabwe's ruling party will keep a majority in parliament. The Justice Department went to court to block the proposed merger of Sprint and WorldCom, and House leaders agreed to allow direct sales of U.S. food to Cuba. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.