The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is off this Thanksgiving holiday. On the NewsHour tonight, campaign finance reform, Kwame Holman explains the problems, and Margaret Warner explores some solutions; a debate about prenatal care in California, Jeffrey Kaye handles that; a conversation with poet Kenneth Koch, winner of the Major Poetry Prize; and a Jim Fisher essay about a church that's always open. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Defense Secretary William Perry celebrated Thanksgiving with U.S. troops in Bosnia today. He joined members of the 1st Infantry Division for dinner at a base outside Tuzla. Perry also delivered a Thanksgiving message. He expressed gratitude to the soldiers who arrived in Bosnia last month. He said the recent arrival will be required to remain as part of NATO's new stabilization force.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: We see civilization forces facing a very difficult mission. I cannot over-emphasize that point. It is not fighting a war with another army but maintaining security environment in Bosnia, they could be very difficult in the coming year. They will demand the utmost discipline and the utmost leadership from our forces. One of the things that I got today was a very good feeling of confidence that that discipline and that leadership is there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Also in Bosnia, the Bosnian Serb military leader, General Ratko Mladic, formally surrendered his command today. He was fired last month but had refused to quit. Mladic has been indicted by the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. After his visit to Bosnia, Secretary Perry flew to Kuwait. He told reporters on his plane a number of arrests recently in Saudi Arabia had averted terrorist attacks against American soldiers there. A total of 24 U.S. soldiers were killed in two bomb attacks in Saudi Arabia, one in November 1995, the other in June of this year. Investigations continue into those bombings. After Perry meets with Kuwaiti officials tomorrow, he will travel on to Katar and Saudi Arabia. One hundred thousand demonstrators marched in the streets of Belgrade today, continuing a wave of protests that started 10 days ago. They began after President Milosevic's government overturned local election results when the opposition won. Demonstrators today called for Milosevic's resignation. New elections yesterday were boycotted by the opposition. Canada's foreign minister announced today more than 20 nations have agreed to support an international aid operation in Zaire. He said the operation will be formally approved at a meeting tomorrow in Ottawa. The Canadian general, who will lead the relief force, met with Zairean rebel leader Laranc Bila today in Zaire. The men discussed how to deliver food to Rwandan refugees remaining in Eastern Zaire.

SPOKESMAN: I discussed with him that if we all--the means that I had, and we all agreed that it's in the interest of everyone but coordinate our effort for this very specific humanitarian mission that has no political aim or no military aim whatsoever--he understood that, and we'll certainly coordinate our action.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The general also reported another 40,000 refugees were on their way back to Rwanda from Eastern Zaire today. Estimates of the number of refugees still in Zaire vary widely, from a hundred and fifty thousand to seven hundred thousand. And in France today, the truckers strike continued into its 11th day. Roads were blocked and gas stations ran out of fuel. Last night, the government ended its mediation of the truckers' dispute with employers, saying the drivers' main demands have been met. The drivers are holding out for more money. People across the country took time out this Thanksgiving to help others less fortunate. In Washington, on the grounds of the United States Capitol, volunteers served Thanksgiving dinner to hundreds of homeless men and women. In Chicago, more than 250 low-income families were treated to a Thanksgiving meal at the Hard Rock Cafe. And in Atlanta, a 27-year tradition continued. Thousands of people received Thanksgiving dinner from volunteers in the Feed the Hungry Organization. In New York today, thousands of people braved below-freezing temperatures to watch the 70th annual Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. One of the most colorful floats featured the characters from the new "101 Dalmatians" movie. Some old favorites could also be spotted--a giant Barney balloon delighted children attending the parade, as did a 68-foot Bullwinkle, with his sidekick, Rocky, the squirrel. Alice in Wonderland made an appearance with the March Hare and the Mad Hatter. And Betty Boop hitched a hide with the Man in the Moon. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to campaign finance reform, prenatal care in California, poet Kenneth Koch, and a Jim Fisher essay. FOCUS - CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Up first tonight, campaign finance reform. Margaret Warner recorded this segment earlier in the week.

MARGARET WARNER: In the wake of controversy over fund-raising practices during the recent presidential race, campaign finance reform has become, once again, a top legislative priority for some on Capitol Hill. We'll look at three proposed solutions but first, this background report from Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: A year ago in New Hampshire, President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich pledged to support a commission to do what politicians, themselves, have been unable to do, reform the system of financing political campaigns.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I would love to have a bipartisan commission on it. That's our only chance to get anything passed. I accept.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: Let's shake hands.

KWAME HOLMAN: The two leaders made their promise knowing that substantial numbers of lawmakers oppose various approaches to reforming a system of campaign funding that traditionally has favored incumbents. And in Congress this year, they successfully blocked any new legislation.

SPOKESMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, the President and Vice President of the United States.

KWAME HOLMAN: Meanwhile the amount of money spent on political campaigns has continued to grow. Final totals are not yet in, but by mid-October in the presidential race, the Clinton campaign had spent at least 37 million dollars, the Dole campaign49 million, and Ross Perot 16 million dollars, according to the Federal Election Commission, which monitors campaign spending. As he did four years ago, Ross Perot used the campaign reform issue to try to energize voters in the final days of the campaign.

ROSS PEROT: I never thought I would live to see a major drug dealer give 20,000 bucks in Florida and then be invited to a big Democratic reception by the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, and then be invited to the White House for a reception. Now keep in mind you can't get into the White House unless the Secret Service clears you. This guy had been convicted, arrested twice in the Eighties. It's in the computer. Forrest Gump on the Secret Service -- and they don't have one--would have picked that up, right? But every now and then, the White House just overrules them and says let 'em in anyhow. I promise you that if I am ever your President, drug dealers will not be invited to the White House. [applause] And I am personally offended that the President is now selling the Lincoln Bedroom to any $100,000-a- night contributor.

KWAME HOLMAN: Fund-raising records also were set in House and Senate races. According to the latest filing weeks before the election, congressional candidates had raised a total of l.6 billion campaign dollars-- the most ever. Leading the way in spending among Senate candidates was Democrat John Kerry, who won re-election in Massachusetts. This summer, Kerry and his opponent, Republican Governor William Weld, agreed to limit campaign spending on advertising to five million dollars. But in October- -with the race in a dead-heat--Senator Kerry's campaign announced it was breaking the cap. Both candidates eventually ended up over the limit, with Governor Weld spending 6.6 million dollars and Senator Kerry spending nearly nine million to keep his Senate Seat.

SPOKESMAN: Our new Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich.

KWAME HOLMAN: Among House Races the two top spenders were the two top House office holders. Democratic Minority Leader Richard Gephardt spent 2.6 million dollars winning re-election from his district in St. Louis. And Speaker Gingrich won the most expensive House race this year. The Republican from Georgia spent 4.5 million dollars and his opponent, cookie manufacturer Michael Coles, spent 2.3 million. Part of the current system of federal campaign finance law was shaped by Supreme Court rulings that prohibit any limits on campaign spending as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. But currently presidential candidates who accept public funding can be made to abide by some spending limits. And though there are no spending limits on congressional campaigns, Congress did place restrictions on the amount of money individuals and groups may contribute to a candidate's campaign. Individual contributions are limited to $1000 per candidate in each election. And Political Action Committees may contribute $5000 per candidate. But there are ways around the limit.

AD SPOKESMAN: When Bruce Products abandoned their Howell plant site, they left behind vats of toxic chemicals.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Supreme Court has ruled that so-called "independent expenditures," money spent by interest groups, like labor unions and business organizations, cannot be limited by Congress as long as the money goes toward general election activities, like issue education and voter registration, and is not coordinated with a specific campaign. This year, the nation's largest labor organization, the AFL-CIO, waged a much publicized TV and radio ad campaign against two dozen House Republicans.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: [ad] But we believe it's going to wither on the vine.

AD SPOKESMAN: Last year, Congressman Steve Stockman voted with Newt Gingrich--

KWAME HOLMAN: The ads never mentioned Democratic challengers but the 35 million dollar effort was designed to aid them. Tennessee freshman Representative Van Hilleary was re-elected, despite being one of the AFL-CIO's targets.

REP. VAN HILLEARY, [R] Tennessee: It's just low ball politics and there's really no place for it, and I don't care who's doing it.

KWAME HOLMAN: Jim Neally is the head of the AFL-CIO in Tennessee.

JIM NEALLY, AFL-CIO: If they vote against working families, we're going to explain their positions to the workers in this state.

KWAME HOLMAN: Another major source of campaign money is subject to no regulation. It's so-called "soft money"--money donated by individuals and Political Action Committees to the political parties. The parties are supposed to use it for general party building activities but, in practice, they frequently direct money to benefit certain candidates. Soft money fund-raising practices became an issue in the presidential campaign after it was reported former Democratic fund-raiser John Huang may have solicited five million dollars in contributions from foreign donors. It is illegal for non-residents to contribute to U.S. campaigns. After its own inquiry, the Democratic Party returned more than a million dollars that were traced to foreign sources.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me begin by once again thanking the American people for the honor they have bestowed upon me.

KWAME HOLMAN: But the push for campaign finance reform will begin again with the new Congress, and his first press conference after the election, President Clinton again pledged his support for campaign finance reform.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Our campaigns cost too much, they take too much time, they raise too many questions, and now's the time for bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation.

KWAME HOLMAN: But even before the first day of the new Congress, members who oppose various forms of campaign finance reform have indicated next year may be no different from this one.

MARGARET WARNER: Joining us now are three lawmakers with very different solutions to the campaign finance problem. They are Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, co-author of the McCain-Feingold bill, which was filibustered to defeat last year; Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, author of a proposed constitutional amendment to let Congress impose campaign spending limits; and Republican Congressman John Doolittle of California -- who plans to introduce a bill next year to eliminate all limits on campaign contributions, in return for full disclosure. Thank you all, gentlemen, for being with us. We've had a number of discussions on the show the past month about what's wrong with the current system, and what we want to do tonight is look individually at your solutions. Starting with you, Sen. McCain, outline for us, simply if you can, the basic provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: Yes. And the main provision that is of the utmost importance, Margaret, is it's bipartisan. You're not going to get a solution to this problem unless it's bipartisan. That's a fact and a reality, and the sooner we face up to it, the better off we're going to be. Now, what it calls for is voluntary restraints in spending in return for which free television and low bulk rate mail will be given to the candidates. This would bring down the cost of spending, and it would bring down, in my view, the money chase that so many politicians complain about and yet engage in so avidly. It would also require full disclosure, obviously. It would require a ban on soft money, a ban on Political Action Committees. If that were unconstitutional, then it would reduce the PAC contributions to the same as an individual contribution. And it would make the candidate responsible for the messages that the candidate gives, which we hope would cut down on the negative aspects of campaigning.

MARGARET WARNER: So, tell me how you would deal with--when you say a ban on soft money, do you mean that no longer could people give huge contributions to the parties, which then they could turn around and spend, as we saw this past year, indirectly, but on behalf of candidates?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: We would just put the same restrictions on it that you do for individual contributions.

MARGARET WARNER: I see. Sen. Bradley, critique, if you would, the McCain-Feingold bill.

SEN. BILL BRADLEY, [D] New Jersey: I think the McCain-Feingold bill is a good start. I mean, I agree with many of the provisions of the bill. I don't think we'll be able to get fundamental campaign finance reform though, until we have a constitutional amendment that allows Congress to limit the total amount of money that can be spent in a campaign and the total amount of money an individual may spend on his or her campaign. I think that that is the fundamental issue here. I think voluntary restraints are fine, but I think ultimately--unless you have the Supreme Court change its ruling--you'll have to have a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court has said, essentially, that a rich man's wallet is the same thing in free speech terms as a poor man's soap box.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Senator, I want to get to your proposal in a minute, but let's just go back to the McCain-Feingold bill. Why do you "not" think that the voluntary spending limits which, as the Senator explained, would be in return for getting reduced TV rates and so on, why would that not do the same thing?

SEN. BILL BRADLEY: Well, I think [a] because it's voluntary. Reduced TV rates, some free TV, I'd like to have free TV too as a part of a proposal. I just do not think that it will be comprehensive enough. The reason is--I mean, I think that money in politics is a little bit like ants in your kitchen. You have to block all the holes, or some of them are going to find a way in. And I think that the McCain-Feingold bill is a good start. I do not think that it is comprehensive enough.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. McCain, what do you say to the point Sen. Bradley made that your bill doesn't seem to do anything about the really rich man or woman who doesn't need any kind of free TV time, that can afford anything, and essentially can buy his or her way into the Senate or the House?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: That's an excellent point. If the rich person violated those voluntary spending limits, then the person who did not violate would then receive significant relaxations in his or her ability to raise money. So there would also be an added benefit if the opponent did spend--did not abide by the voluntary limits. And, by the way, there would be free TV time, which 70 to 80 percent of any Senate race is devoted to, and low bulk rates for mailing.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Doolittle, what is your assessment of the McCain-Feingold bill?

REP. JOHN DOOLITTLE, [R] California: I think it's headed in the wrong direction, as the present policy that we have in effect right now is. This reminds me of a doctor who is treating a patient. He makes a diagnosis and begins a treatment. The patient gets sicker and sicker, and then the new remedy is to simply double the dosage. You know, at some point, you're going to kill the patient. And I think what we need to do is go back to the drawing boards and examine what really is the problem and then figure out the solution. I mean, you know, these are basically approaches--Sen. Bradley's and Sen. McCain's--that deal with more restrictions, more regulations. What we have as law now "is" the reform of 22 years ago. I don't think it'll work.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. McCain, what about that point, that it's more of the same, albeit in a slightly different form and that hasn't worked up till now?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, again, I think this proposal, which has broad bipartisan backing--all the public interest groups ranging from Common Cause and others who are expert in the area--is indicative that this can work. And by the way, in six different states in the last election, the states' voters enacted measures similar to this. We have in Arizona somewhat similar law, as far as campaign spending is concerned. And it's been working in state races. And in all due respect to the Congressman, I don't think that the American people believe that spending should be unlimited on political campaigns.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Sen. Bradley, your turn. Now outline exactly what your constitutional amendment would say and what you think that would lead to.

SEN. BILL BRADLEY: Well, the constitutional amendment would simply say that the Congress and states and local municipalities may limit the total amount of money spent in a political campaign and the amount of money an individual may spend on his or her campaign. After that passed, it would then be up to the states and the Congress to enact legislation that would set those limits. I have my own view as to what that limitation should be-- a couple of hundred dollars in terms of a primary campaign. And in a general election, what I'd like to see is the election, itself, financed, where people would contribute in a Senate race to a fund and then that fund on Labor Day would be divided equally among Republican and Democrat, or qualified Independent. And that would be all the money in politics. I don't think people would agree with Congressman Doolittle that there's not enough money spent in politics. I think the American people are very suspicious of politicians, in many cases misplaced suspicions, some cases, justifiable suspicion, because they believe politicians are controlled increasingly by special interests and by wealthy interests that provide the bulk of the money for a political campaign. The point is that the system now is so bad that we need to be willing to take some real, significant changes, and so what I'm suggesting is that we can do politics in a better way that's more responsive to the people and to the voices of the people, and less responsive to the special interests, and this would be an important step in the right direction.

MARGARET WARNER: What would your proposal--I know it's not in the constitutional amendment, but would you also hope that then that would lead--what would it lead to in the way of PAC's, in the way of soft money?

SEN. BILL BRADLEY: PAC's would be eliminated. There would be no PAC's. In terms of soft money, you'd close that hole as well.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. McCain, what do you say to that?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, I say that if you look at the history of our ability to pass amendments to the Constitution, it's very rare; it's a long, drawn out process. It's one that I think would be extremely difficult, especially if you began with Congress approving it, because you'd run into the same kind of problem that we're running into now. So I think, in theory, what Bill is talking about is probably, in the purest sense, a good way to go, but I just don't see the Congress of the United States and the required number of states passing a constitutional amendment within a relatively short period of time. And obviously, the problem is compelling.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Doolittle, let's go on to your proposal, because you have already critiqued both of theirs. Outline what the bill is that you're working on now that you're going to introduce.

REP. JOHN DOOLITTLE: Well, Margaret, my proposal is based really on these two key premises: one, that an individual ought to be able to freely and voluntary contribute to a campaign; and two, that campaign contributions ought to be fully disclosed. I mean, the basis of our constitutional republic is an informed electorate. Now, the Senators seem to take the approach, and I acknowledge they're well intentioned, but they same to believe that the people are too busy or not well enough informed to properly make these decisions, so we've got to have a command and control bureaucracy set up to police this. My position is that, as Jefferson said, don't take the power from the people but inform them in their decisions. I don't believe, like they do, the system is awash with money. I believe it's "starved" for cash. That's why we have the independent expenditures. That's why we have the soft money, donations over here. That's why we have the so-called "educational" ads by labor unions, environmental groups, and groups of all ideological stripes.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying that if you eliminated all the limits that now limit people in what they can give to a candidate, they just, what, give directly to the candidate, they wouldn't be going the soft money route or the PAC route?

REP. JOHN DOOLITTLE: Sure. Before this reform, you didn't have- -nobody had ever even heard of PAC's, for that matter. Speaking of that, PAC's is an illustration that we have today. You wouldn't necessarily eliminate the PAC's--you wouldn't by law do it under my proposal--but there'd be no incentive. Remember, now, PAC's can give $5,000; an individual can only give $1,000.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me get Sen. McCain. Address that particular point.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I didn't think that Thomas Jefferson had in mind that if you're rich, then you can give millions of dollars, and if you're poor, then, obviously, you can't, so, therefore, you're all on an equal basis. I don't subscribe to that theory, and I do believe that to just open this up to unlimited amounts of money is not appropriate. Nor do I believe that most Americans share that view, but this is why this debate is important to take place both in the House and in the Senate.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Bradley, I know you have such an opposite proposal, but do you see any merit in what Congressman Doolittle's saying?

SEN. BILL BRADLEY: Margaret, I really--I really don't. I don't see any value to having unlimited contributions, no change in PAC's, and calling for the system to have more money to flow in from whatever source. I mean, I think we already are headed toward an election season in the next term where people have learned from this election, where because of the Supreme Court ruling in the summer, you found got special interests essentially taking out ads that directly attack candidates. I think you're going to find corporate interests, special interests, labor interests that are going to go directly with very damaging ads, because you cannot limit. You cannot limit the amount of money that's spent in a political campaign under the Supreme Court ruling. That brings us back to the issue, don't we need to amend the Constitution in order to put limits, and my answer is, yes.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman, you wanted back in on this?

REP. JOHN DOOLITTLE: I just couldn't disagree more with that view. I mean, here's our Constitution--I will give Sen. Bradley credit for this, he's honest in seeking to actually amend it. What he wants to do is to amend the First Amendment, which says, amongst other things, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Sen. Bradley wants to abridge the freedom of speech and wants to do it in the name of leveling the playing field for elections. I just think it's an analysis that's wrong. It will not work. It would be unconstitutional under the present Constitution. And even setting that aside, it's totally undesirable. Freedom works. We need to go back to freedom, where individuals make these decisions, not where they're constrained by new laws, and where we have a bureaucracy dictating that broadcasters give away free time. There's no constitutional precedent for that.

MARGARET WARNER: We're just about out of time.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Could I make one additional point.

MARGARET WARNER: Yes.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: One, the broadcasters are required to act in the public interest in return for the use of the spectrum, but more importantly than that, we have lower and lower voter turnout. We have higher and higher level of voter cynicism, we have less and less confidence and respect for the Congress because of the types of campaigns that are carried on. And I believe that all the trends are in the wrong direction, as far as elections are concerned, except in those states where already those states have passed referendums which are basically along the lines of mine and Russ Feingold's bill. And it has to be bipartisan.

MARGARET WARNER: And briefly, before we go, Sen. Bradley, I'm going to turn to you for a brief prediction, since you're leaving the Senate, of what do you think will actually happen on this front. Do you think we'll see--

SEN. BILL BRADLEY: Well, if history is any guide, you're going to find gridlock here. I hope that it isn't the case. I hope some progress will be made. One of the reasons I'm leaving the Senate is to go out into the country and try to lead a grassroots movement for fundamental campaign finance reform. I think it's going to begin in the states. I think the referendums this year in California, Colorado, Alaska, Arkansas, and Maine, all said, look, we need to reduce the role of money in politics. I think that that is going to be a very powerful grassroots effort, and I also believe that there will be connections drawn between what happens in Washington and the money that's in politics. And once that connection is properly drawn, then you're going to find things change dramatically. You'll see McCain-Feingold pass, and you'll see a lot more happen. And I hope you'll also be able, ultimately, to limit the total amount of money spent in a political campaign.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. We have to leave it there. Thank you both Senators and Congressman, thanks very much.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour, paying for prenatal care, poet Kenneth Koch, and a Jim Fisher essay. FOCUS - LIMITING CARE

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, prenatal care for illegal immigrants. At issue is a California proposal to cut off state-funded assistance. Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles has our report.

JEFFREY KAYE: Norma Floris's recent medical check-up went well. The mother-to-be seemed reassured hearing the heartbeat of the baby growing inside her. But for many, the sight of a pregnant illegal immigrant getting a government-funded examination is less than heartwarming. And California's governor, Pete Wilson, is determined to put a halt to such services. In August, the governor, acting under the new federal welfare law, told California agencies to move toward a cut-off of social services to illegal immigrants. He said first to be cut would prenatal care.

GOV. PETE WILSON, California: [August] Yes. Our question is not whether prenatal care is beneficial. The question is whether or not the United States should discard its immigration laws, throw open its borders, and simply say we will take all comers, whether they are citizens or not. We cannot afford to do that.

JEFFREY KAYE: The state of California spends $69.3 million a year providing prenatal care to some 70,000 illegal immigrant women, according to officials. But the new welfare law signed by the President makes illegal immigrants ineligible for most federal, state, and local public benefits, with the exception of emergency health care, disaster relief, and immunizations. Under the legislation, states may pass their own laws to make illegal immigrants eligible for state and local assistance. The new federal law overturns a 1987 California statute providing prenatal care to illegal immigrants under Medicaid. The nonprofit Community Health Foundation of East Los Angeles operates three clinics which offer Medicaid finance services. Applicants for prenatal care under Medicaid, known as Medical in California, are required to declare their immigration status on a government form. Rodolfo Diaz is the foundation's executive director.

JEFFREY KAYE: What do they have to do, to show on this form?

RODOLFO DIAZ, Community Health Foundation: Basically, it's a self-declaration of their eligibility for medical services under the Medical program.

JEFFREY KAYE: A self-declaration, meaning what?

RODOLFO DIAZ: That they are undocumented, they'll declare that they're not eligible for aid under any other category, and they are undocumented, therefore, eligible for prenatal care only.

JEFFREY KAYE: And if they're undocumented, they can get whatever would be available to anyone, documented or not.

RODOLFO DIAZ: For prenatal care, yes.

JEFFREY KAYE: Because the state already has a process to identify pregnant illegal immigrants who apply for aid, Governor Wilson is acting rapidly to cut off prenatal care. He issued an emergency regulation that would have eliminated prenatal care to illegal immigrants by December 1st. But civil rights groups, along with the city and county of San Francisco, sued. On Tuesday, a state judge said prenatal care could not be cut without public hearings. Los Angeles County supervisor Gloria Molina believes her county will continue prenatal care no matter what.

GLORIA MOLINA, L.A. County Supervisor: And what I anticipate is that the county, more than likely, is going to continue its prenatal care and is going to try and make the legal argument with the governor and the legislature about the responsibility of prenatal care, since we're going to be delivering these children, and it is better that they have the preventive or theprenatal care beforehand, as it has proven to be a much, much cheaper approach to providing--or providing for healthy babies.

JEFFREY KAYE: These children are U.S. citizens.

GLORIA MOLINA: Absolutely. When they're born here, they become U.S. citizens, and they're entitled to all the benefits.

JEFFREY KAYE: The Community Health Foundation provides prenatal care to about 1500 illegal immigrant women a year. Rodolfo Diaz said continuing the care is a matter of conscience.

RODOLFO DIAZ: We're doing what's humanitarianly correct for the population. It would be against the edict of the health center if people in the health professions deny service or become enforcers of a political policy at the access level to our patients. And, yes, there would be civil disobedience.

JEFFREY KAYE: Here now to debate the issue is California State Senator Diane Watson, a Democrat who chairs the Health & Human Services Committee of the State Senate, and Kim Belshe, the director of the Department of Health Services for California. Her agency administers the state Medicaid program. Welcome both of you. First, Ms. Belshe, why should prenatal care be denied to illegal immigrants?

KIM BELSHE, California Health Services Department: First, I think it's important to emphasize that from a medical perspective, there is no question that prenatal care is very important, very beneficial to the mother, and to the baby. If an individual is pregnant, they need to do everything they can to get early and ongoing prenatal care. The real issue here, however, is whether or not the taxpayers should be paying for prenatal care services and other services for illegal immigrants. Congress and President Clinton, when they enacted federal welfare reform this past summer, answered that question no, and, in fact, directed states to terminate state-funded programs currently being provided--providing services to illegal immigrants. Governor Wilson agrees with that direction. In fact, he, for many years, has stated that he's very concerned with the idea of rewarding people who've entered the country illegally with the provision of taxpayer services, particularly when our legal residents and citizens are going without. So California has begun the process of coming into compliance with the new federal welfare reform bill. We have begun initially to focus on prenatal care because that's one of only two programs that clearly falls within the requirements of the new federal law. But I would note that we are also reviewing hundreds of other programs which we anticipate will also be affected by the new federal welfare reform bill.

JEFFREY KAYE: All right. Sen. Watson, staying on the prenatal care issue, why should the government pay for prenatal care for people who are in this country illegally?

DIANE WATSON, California State Senator: [Los Angeles] It doesn't make any difference whether they're here legally or illegally, they are taxpayers, they're here working. Somebody is employing them. What is my real concern is that mother and that child, because if that child is born here, that child is a citizen. It's cynical to me that the governor would want to move out ahead of the federal regulations and ahead of the policies that will come out of the legislature. We have been working on welfare reform since August, and what we want is a thoughtful process that we can review where the public can have the input and advise the governor and the Department of Health Services to implement a program that takes into consideration the health of the mother and the health of the child.

JEFFREY KAYE: And so are you saying that the government should continue, the State of California, to provide health care, prenatal care for illegal immigrants?

DIANE WATSON: If it were left up to me, children need to be taken care of. Mothers, who are the bearers of those children, need prenatal care. If we don't invest somewhere around $1500 per pregnancy on the average, then we end up having to invest through emergency services and other programs later on. And it's short- sighted to say we can just cut people off, when we know they're going to be here.

JEFFREY KAYE: When you're saying this later on, you mean if the baby needs the care?

DIANE WATSON: Born at low birth weight, born addicted to a substance, born with alcohol, born with other diseases, the conditions that would be identified if there were prenatal care. And we can prevent these conditions if the care is adequate.

JEFFREY KAYE: Ms. Belshe, what about that?

KIM BELSHE: Well, again, I don't think anyone would dispute--and I certainly as a health official wouldn't dispute the importance of prenatal care. Prenatal care is very beneficial to the mother and the child. Pete Wilson has been one of the chief proponents of promoting the affordability and the availability of prenatal care in California, and, indeed, I would argue has a stronger record than any other governor in the nation on this. But, again, the question is really who is going to pay for these services, is it appropriate, is it legal now for taxpayers to be paying for these services to illegal immigrants? That really is the question. And Congress made it very clear, that there's a compelling government interest in reversing the incentives provided by the availability of public benefits for illegal immigration. That really is the broad policy that was established by Congress. That's the broad policy that was governing our actions, and I think in response to the issue of the importance of prenatal care, I certainly as a state health director would say to a pregnant--any pregnant individual you have got to get prenatal care early and ongoing throughout your pregnancy. But if that person is illegal, I cannot tell that person that the taxpayers of California are going to pay for that care. I'm going to have to say to that person, you're going to need to pay for it yourself, you're going to need to rely upon a charitable organization or a charitable provider, or you're going to have to return to your country of origin to receive those services. Legally, the taxpayers of California, under federal law, will not be--

DIANE WATSON: Our difference here--

KIM BELSHE: --able to provide those services.

JEFFREY KAYE: Yes.

DIANE WATSON: Our difference here is why does the governor want to push this by December 1, when we have not yet started to deliberate the issue. We might agree on maybe 75 percent of what you're putting forth, but we need to debate it, we need to understand that just because we cut off a person from prenatal care, we do not see that person or that infant and another program later on down the line. So what we need to do in terms of policy is to logically and in some orderly fashion come up with a policy to deal with the legal and illegal immigrants in the state of California.

JEFFREY KAYE: Ms. Belshe, could you address that question that others have put this way to suggest that it's penny wise and pound foolish, as Sen. Watson said, that it might cost the state more money down the line.

KIM BELSHE: Well, again, it's a question of what was the policy addressed by Congress when they enacted welfare reform.

DIANE WATSON: They really don't know. They're asking for us to tell them.

KIM BELSHE: Well, I would suggest, Senator, that the Congress and the President were really quite clear when they stated very explicitly that as a matter of policy, there is a government interest in reversing the incentive to illegal immigration that the availability of public benefits broadly provides.

DIANE WATSON: But then they say--

KIM BELSHE: If I may--regardless of the merits of a particular service, regardless of the cost effectiveness of a particular service, that was the broad policy that was established. They did not single out specific services, really, with the exception of immunizations. So from a policy perspective, that is now the law, and that's why California has been moving ahead, because we feel not only is the law clear in terms of our now being required to terminate existing services being provided to illegal immigrants, but secondly, that prenatal care, which is one of only two 100 percent state-funded programs clearly is affected by this law. And as a matter of equity, when we have tens of thousands of legal residents and citizens who are not able to access the very same services that are now available to illegal immigrants, the Wilson administration feels that's a significant equity problem, we need to move ahead expeditiously.

JEFFREY KAYE: Is it an equity problem, what about that?

DIANE WATSON: Well, I don't see that as the biggest problem. Let me tell you what the problem is right now. The governor, through executive order, through letters to all the directors in the 58 counties, the social services, says I want the cutoff as of December 1. What we are trying to say is that we need to take time to look at the issue, we need to take time to find out what the feds really meant, and what they wanted us to do was tell them how we would fix it for the state of California.

JEFFREY KAYE: Ms. Belshe, a state judge yesterday told the governor apparently he couldn't make this cutoff by December 1st, correct? What are you planning on doing?

KIM BELSHE: Well, the judge spoke to the process by which the administration had proposed to move forward with implementing the new federal law. The judge also acknowledged, though, that the federal law was very clear, that pregnant or soon-to-be pregnant illegal immigrant women who want prenatal care will no longer be eligible for those services under the new federal law. So it's really a question not so much of what the law says. It's a question of what's the process for moving forward. Again, the administration feels the law is very clear on this matter. States have been directed to terminate programs that are funded with state dollars being provided to illegal immigrants. It is very clear in California that prenatal care is one of only two programs that meets those definitions. So that's why we had proposed to move ahead.

JEFFREY KAYE: Finally, Senator Watson, the legislature under the federal welfare law could override this if it wanted to.

DIANE WATSON: Absolutely.

JEFFREY KAYE: Do you believe the legislature, that California should adopt a law that would override this policy?

DIANE WATSON: I absolutely do. Let me tell you something about the illegal immigrants in the state of California. They come here to work. People employ them. They buy homes. They pay taxes. They contribute to the economy. Their children that they bear while here are citizens, and I don't understand how a Department of Health Services director and a governor would want to push them off altogether,without considering the bigger picture. And all I'm asking is that they slow the process down, they allow us a chance to get the input from the community and those who will be cut off. That's the human way to handle it. That's the logical way to handle it. That's the reasonable way to handle it. If we cut 70,000 women off December 1, as the governor wanted to do, then where do these people go, what happens to their offspring?

JEFFREY KAYE: Let me get Ms. Belshe's response to that. What is the rush?

KIM BELSHE: Well, I think there really is--responding to Sen. Watson--I think the governor really is looking at the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is consistent with federal welfare reform provisions, is the array of services that are provided to undocumented immigrants, which taken together do provide an incentive for people to come here illegally to access our services at the very time that we have tens of thousands of legal residents and citizens who are going without the very same services, in this case prenatal care, that illegal immigrants are able to access. So there is an equity issue. There is an incentive issue. It is that broad perspective that the governor is bringing to this issue, not necessarily specific to the merits, or the cost-effectiveness of a particular service. But what incentives are we establishing through our policies to encourage people to come here illegally? And I think it's that broader policy picture that will govern the governor's consideration of any legislation that the Senator and her colleagues may wish to consider.

JEFFREY KAYE: All right. Kim Belshe, Sen. Watson, thank you very much. CONVERSATION

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now a conversation with Kenneth Koch, winner of this year's Rebekah Johnson Bobbitt National Prize for Poetry. It's a privately-funded award, $10,000, given under the auspices of the Library of Congress. Last year, Koch won the $25,000 Bollingen prize given by the Yale University Library. He received these awards for his book "One Train" and for his lifetime achievement. He has published eight collections of poetry, a novel, short stories, plays, and several works on teaching children about poetry. I spoke with him late last month.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Thank you for being with us.

KENNETH KOCH, Columbia University: Thank you.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I've been reading your poetry. Much of it is very funny, very playful and witty. It's not what many people expect poetry to be. There's this view that poetry should be kind of somber, isn't there?

KENNETH KOCH: Oh, I suppose some people have that view. It's a confusion between seriousness and solemnity. The intention of my poetry is--I mean, I don't intend for my poetry to be mainly funny or satirical, but it seems to me that high spirits and sort of a comic view are part of being serious.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And you like that in other writers too.

KENNETH KOCH: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I've read that you like Aristophanes. You like the comic in Aristophanes.

KENNETH KOCH: Yeah.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And you like the comic in Wallace Stevens.

KENNETH KOCH: And in Byron. Yeah. Yeah.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Was it always that way, or when you were say 20, did you feel tortured about things and write more tortured poetry?

KENNETH KOCH: I guess I felt more tortured in a way at 20, but I don't know that my poetry was ever tortured, although when I was at Harvard, there was a time when I was very influenced by the poetry of Yates, so everything that happened to me tended to turn into mythology and legend, I remember. But that stopped happening.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Read from "One Train" for us, or read the poem about John Asbury.

KENNETH KOCH: All right. Maybe we can--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And we should say that the sistina that you refer to here is a poetic form.

KENNETH KOCH: Okay. This is a very short excerpt from a poem called "A Time Zone." It's about a 10-page poem which is about life in New York in the 50's and early 60's, when I was very close to John Asbury and Frank O'Hara and James Sklyer and Larry Rivers, and Jane Frylocker and other friends. And it seemed to me a very dramatic time for all of our work. And we collaborated a lot. And this is the brief passage about some collaborations that I did with John Ashbury. "He is not writing much this year, but he likes to collaborate. So do I. We do a set of sistinas as a speedy rate, six sistinas, each about an animal, with one concluding one called 'The Bestiary'. There is also a three-page poem in which all the lines rhyme with the title, 'The Casuary.' Next, we do a poetic compendium called 'The New York Times, September 8, 1951,' both with and without rhymes. Our poems are like tracks setting out. We have little idea where we're going, or what it's about. I enjoy these compositional duets, accompanied by drinking coffee and joking on Charles and Perry Streets."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I love that image of the two of you playing and working at this poetry the way some people would go out and play golf or ball or something.

KENNETH KOCH: Well, it was--I've always found it a great pleasure to collaborate with other poets and also with painters, which I've done too, but it's like having the muse in the room with you. I mean, I get some ideas, some ideas come into my head, but if I write a line and then John or Frank writes another line, then I have to respond to that, and it's--it's interesting. I like it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You write in that poem "Our poems are like tracks setting out." When you're working alone, how do you get started? Do you just start writing? Does an idea come into your head?

KENNETH KOCH: It varies. You know, I think a lot of poetry just comes from what you might call the language of poetry. Paul Valerie said that poetry's sort of a language within the language. And what makes it different from the ordinary language is that music is just as important as grammar and meaning. And--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You mean the music of the poem?

KENNETH KOCH: Yeah. The music that you have in the words, in the lines, which is really sound, and the rhythm. And then there are all these other inclinations of the poetry language like comparisons, exaggeration, omniscience, lying, being in all times and places at once, and once one starts to--once one writes a line or two, this language kind of takes over and suggests other lines, but as to how the--how the first line comes into one's head, I don't know. With the poem "One Train," which you asked me to read a little of, the way I was inspired to write that poem was I was in Africa, I was in Kenya. And I was on a bus going from one game preserve to another, these 10,000-mile expanses where you see wild animals in their native habitat. And we had just passed a Masai village and right at the end of the Masai village, in the middle of the bush, were railroad tracks and a sign that said, "One Train May Hide Another." And it seemed--I figured out after a while what it meant, but in the middle of the bush of Kenya, it seemed to me to mean everything, very mysterious. And this sort of stayed in my mind for six years, and then I wrote the poem about it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Would you read the poem, or read from it.

KENNETH KOCH: Well, I'll read some of it because of time limitations. It's called "One Train." I'll read the beginning and the end. "In a poem, one line may hide another line, as at a crossing, one train may hide another train. That is, if you're waiting to cross the tracks, wait to do it for one moment at least after the first train has gone. And so when you read, wait until you have read the next line. Then it is safe to go on reading. In a family, one sister may conceal another. So when you are courting, it's best to have them all in view. Otherwise, in coming to find one, you may love another. So always standing in front of something, the other, as words stand in front of objects, feelings, and ideas." Now I skip to the end. "One sidewalk may hide another, as when you're asleep there, and one's song, hide another song, a pounding upstairs hide the beating of drums, one friend may hide another. You sit at the foot of a tree with one, then when you get up to leave, there is another whom you'd have preferred to talk to all along. One teacher, one doctor, one ecstacy, one illness, one woman, one man may hide another. Pause to let the first one pass. You think, now it is safe to cross. Then you're hit by the next one. It can be important to avoid it at least a moment to see what was already there."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: It seems like this poem has everything that you've been doing in it, paying attention to this very specific--whether it's a person or a train or whatever it is--it has humor, but it's also very full of meaning. It's full of energy. Each line's full of energy, which you call for. Do you feel that way about it?

KENNETH KOCH: Oh, Picasso said that you shouldn't be your own connoisseur. I don't know. I hope it's good.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So you thought about that line for six years, and then you just kept adding to it?

KENNETH KOCH: It's not so much that I thought about it. It's just that it would keep coming into my mind. And I didn't--once I started to write the poem, I wrote the poem. However, I did work on the poem for a long time, because once I sort of understood what that sign was saying as far as my poetry was concerned, I could write hundreds and hundreds of lines, but that's too much. So after I wrote a lot of lines, I had to cut it, and then, you know, it was like that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, Kenneth Koch, thank you very much for being with us. ESSAY - HIGH ON THE HILL

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Finally this Thanksgiving night, essayist Jim Fisher of the "Kansas City Star" visits a church where the door is always open.

JIM FISHER: Northwest Missouri, bean fields swept clean, the stubble where the summer's corn and milo grew, a khaki world this time of year, the brief fall color gone, only the oaks holding their lives until another spring comes around. Amid the low hills of Gentry County is a creek, a bridge, and a community: Island City, a quite name, almost ethereal in the ease with which it can be said. Say it a couple of times. There is none of the dissonance of other place names, the Wichitas, the Buttes, Albuquerques and Bangors, Schenectadys and Milwaukees. Island City. Legend is that a century ago Little Turkey Creek flooded, marooning what then was a new fairly sizeable town, one with a dentist and a doctor, several thriving stores, even a blacksmith. The water soon receded. The name remains, but the hoped-for railroad never came, and over the years, Island City shrank to a combination store-odd fellows home, now gone to ruin, and a paved road that turns to gravel. [Choir singing] Then this, the Island City Christian Church. [Choir singing] Membership, 100. Average Sunday attendance, 40 plus. Founded in 1860, the present building dates from 1878. Gleaming white, set above the little tributary that occasionally floods, believe it or not, in this go-go age of emergency committees and task forces, it still has a ladies aid society.

REVEREND: We ask every person this morning that believes that Jesus Christ is our master and savior to break bread with us.

JIM FISHER: Still the sight of a congregation could be a postcard, not only of reality here, but as representative of a good part of that rarely mentioned America, one of peace, community, friends, caring, and this year's good crops, things all attributed to a higher power. Despite what's beamed here on television and in satellite signals, the cacophony of politics and mayhem, the outrages of the powerful, Island City is still the rule, rather than the exception. Just a church, just folks. The door is never loved, a fact almost impossible to believe in 1996. What's here sometimes seems hard even to imagine in a world increasingly bounded by a 21-inch screen, with its celebration of the dysfunctional and its worship of the celebrity. But it's real. A Missouri autumn, people visiting afterwards, in a small white building high on a hill. The thing is occasionally you have to look. I'm Jim Fisher. RECAP

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, Defense Secretary Perry joined U.S. troops in Bosnia for Thanksgiving dinner, and Canada's foreign minister said more than 20 nations meeting in Ottawa tomorrow will give formal support to a relief operation in Zaire. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Happy Thanksgiving, and good night.