The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Wednesday, we go to the front in the ad war over health care reform. Fred De Sam Lazaro updates the fast-moving story about genetic research, and Brian Urquhart talks about Ralph Bunche. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton announced the sale today of 50 new airliners to Saudi Arabia's national airline. He said the $6 billion deal will reinvigorate the U.S. aerospace industry and provide tens of thousands of U.S. jobs. The planes will be built by Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas. The Saudis chose the U.S. firms over foreign competitors. Mr. Clinton spoke at the White House.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The purchase is a vote of confidence in American quality, American workers, and the competitiveness of our exports. It underlines the efforts that we have had from NAFTA to GATT to the APEC conference to our national export strategy in lifting export controls on many products which for many years could not be sold abroad, to expand our markets, to reduce trade barriers, to create good, high paying jobs in America in a thriving and open world economy. It proves, again, that we can compete. We don't have to retreat.

MR. LEHRER: The President said he had called King Fahd about the deal. He said, "When I think it is appropriate and helpfully I don't mind asking for the business. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Japanese Prime Minister Hosakawa said today his country would take the initiative in reducing its trade surplus with the U.S. His comments came a day after the Clinton administration announced it would impose sanctions if Japan did not open its cellular phone market to U.S. products. Hosakawa said, "We would like to find a way toward a compromise as quickly as possible." In this country, housing starts fell 17.6 percent in January. It was the sharpest drop in almost a decade. The Commerce Department report blamed it on January's severe weather conditions through much of the U.S.

MR. LEHRER: President and Mrs. Clinton went to New Jersey today to build support among elderly Americans for their health care reform plan. They addressed a crowd of 2,000 in Edison, New Jersey. Mr. Clinton asked them to stand up and fight for the plan. He said it would give older people long-term care and prescription drug benefits and more choice of doctors and hospitals. The President and Mrs. Clinton both criticized a television advertising campaign launched by the insurance industry against the Clinton plan. We'll have more about that health care ad war right after the News Summary.

MR. MacNeil: Bosnia's warring factions today pledged to meet NATO's deadline to remove their heavy guns from around Sarajevo or put them under U.N. control. The agreement was announced by U.N. commanders in the Bosnian capital. NATO has imposed a midnight Sunday deadline for compliance after which it could launch air strikes on the guns. The NATO ultimatum was prompted by a mortar attack in Sarajevo which killed 68 people on February 5th. U.N. investigators today said they were unable to determine which side had fired the deadly shell. Paul Davies of Independent Television News has more on the situation in Sarajevo.

PAUL DAVIES, ITN: NATO warplanes have been delivering a clear warning to the armies on the ground, throughout the day flying sorties low over Sarajevo, looking for heavy weapons still inside the exclusion zone. The U.N. commander in Sarajevo has been reinforcing his garrison ahead of Sunday night's deadline, Swedes and Norwegians joined by troops from Malaysia to supplement his multinational force.

GEN. SIR MICHAEL ROSE, Commander, UN Troops: As you know, we are in the middle of a very delicate period.

MR. DAVIES: Gen. Sir Michael Rose had his own warning for anyone who opposed the UN.

GEN. SIR MICHAEL ROSE: At the moment we are limiting ourselves to collecting weapons together under our control, and if they wish to regain use of those weapons, then they will have to use force so to do.

MR. DAVIES: Gen. Rose says by midnight Sunday he wants all the heavy weapons of both the Serbs and Muslims withdrawn or under his control, but there is still apparent disagreement with NATO over what exactly constitutes under UN control. Under the UN definition of control, these tanks could remain here inside the Serbian army barracks as long as there are UN monitors here to observe them even though this base is less than a mile from the center of Sarajevo. The NATO ultimatum insists the guns be withdrawn 20 kilometers or they'll be attacked. Despite repeated denials of a disagreement in policy this very basic discrepancy remains.

MR. MacNeil: This evening there were reports the UN and NATO had worked out their differences. The reports said they'd agreed any weapons not removed from the exclusion zone would be made inoperable by UN troops. A State Department spokeswoman said the U.S. has been asked to contribute troops to demilitarize Sarajevo but was not expected to do so. She repeated the U.S. opposition to the use of American forces in Bosnia except to enforce a formal settlement of the war. Russia also refused to request for troops. A spokesman said his country had 1200 paratroopers in Croatia but would not allow them to participate in what he called "an armed action in Sarajevo." A Muslim man was killed by a sniper there today. It was the first civilian death since a truce was declared last week following the NATO ultimatum.

MR. LEHRER: Nelson Mandela offered new concessions to conservative black and white groups today. He said his African National Congress would guarantee provincial rights and a new constitution for the country. President DeKlerk later said he would recall parliament next month to enact the ANC concessions. A coalition of conservative groups has boycotted the April election campaign demanding more autonomy for the mainly white or black homelands they have set up. Mandela's offer came as about 30 people were hurt today in a clash with police over a white homeland. Mark Austin of Independent Television News reports.

MARK AUSTIN, ITN: About 5,000 ANC demonstrators have gathered in Standerton to protest a plan by extremist Afrikaaners to incorporate the right wing town into a self-proclaimed state. With conflicts appearing likely, police were on hand to monitor developments and try to negotiate a way out of the showdown. After warning the protesters to disperse, the police open fire with tear gas. In the scramble for cover, several people were injured. After a few minutes the crowd had regrouped mainly it seemed to collect their shoes lost in the melee. But police this time opened fire with rubber bullets and bird shot. The situation in Standerton is reported to be still tense.

MR. LEHRER: An earthquake struck Indonesia today, killing more than 130 people, injuring nearly 1,000. It hit in a remote part of Sumatra Island and measured 6.5 on the Richter Scale. Hundreds of troops were sent to towns in the region for relief and rescue operations.

MR. MacNeil: That's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to the health care ad war, genetic research, and Ralph Bunche. FOCUS - TRUTH IN ADVERTISING?

MR. LEHRER: There is combat over the television commercials being used in the health reform debate, and we go now to the front for a look at the commercials and the debate. We begin with some of the gunfire from today. It was fired by President and Mrs. Clinton against the insurance industry for its ad campaign against the Clinton reform plan.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: What we hope as we move forward is that we will get good information and we will eliminate the rhetoric that often clouds the debate that goes on, and we will cut through the television advertising. You know, Harry and Louise, the insurance company's favorite television actors. Well, we want to talk about real people and real medical problems and not actors who are paid to act a certain way to promote a special interest.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: What did Hillary say those people were in the health insurance ad, Harry and Louise -- I always -- I want to say Thelma and Louise. And you know those health care ads where the actors are telling you how scared you ought to be about a program? They never put any real people on there. You know, we've got nearly a million letters from people talking about their real problems in the health care system. These are people you will never see in television ads, unless I can raise a lot more money for this campaign. But they are real people, and they have real problems that deserve to be addressed. They are some of the problems that the First Lady and her task force dealt with over a period of months when they consulted thousands of doctors and nurses and other medical providers and people in the insurance industry and consumers to try to come up with an approach that would deal with the real problems of real people, not the rhetoric that you often see in the campaign.

MR. LEHRER: The flack, of course, is coming in both directions. Yesterday, the Republican National Committee charged that a commercial put out by the Democrats distorted Republican Gov. Carroll Campbell's position on health care. Here is that commercial plus three others that are at the center of the debate so far, including one that has angered the Clintons.

REPUBLICAN HEALTH CARE COMMERCIAL:

PRESIDENT CLINTON: (excerpt used in commercial) Our work has just begun. Many Americans still haven't felt the impact of what we've done.

REPUBLICAN COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER: (reading Wall Street Journal Oct. 18, 1993, excerpt) "There will be rationing ... waiting lines will develop (formedical care)." (reading Feb. 7, 1994 The New Republic excerpt) "You will have to settle for one of the low- budget health plans selected by the government. Selecting the hospital you think is best will be even harder," (reading Sept. 20, 1993 Newsweek excerpt) "...a giant social experiment." The Clinton health plan: Everything good about your health care is at risk.

COMMERCIAL BY DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE:

COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER: The Republicans on health care.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Senate Republican Leader: (commercial excerpt) There isn't any crisis, an American crisis, in health care.

COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER: Fifty-eight million Americans have no health coverage for some time each year.

JACK KEMP: (excerpt) There's not a crisis.

COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER: Eighty-one million Americans pay more or are denied coverage because of "preexisting conditions."

GOV. CARROLL CAMPBELL, Republican: (excerpt) It's not a crisis.

COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER: Three out of four insured Americans have "lifetime limits" which can terminate benefits when they need them most.

DICK CHENEY, Former Republican Cabinet Secretary: (excerpt) I don't believe there is a crisis in our health care system.

COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER: The Republicans, first they said there was no recession, now they say there's no health care crisis. They just don't get it.

COMMERCIAL BY HEALTH INSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA:

WOMAN: I want health care reform.

LOUISE: Make sure everyone is covered.

WOMAN: But not force us to buy our insurance from these mandatory government health alliances.

LOUISE: So we couldn't choose a plan that's not on their list even if we think it's better for employees and their families.

WOMAN: Not according to this.

LOUISE: But Congress can fix that, cover everyone, and let us pick the plan we want.

WOMAN: And they will, if we send them that message.

COMMERCIAL SPOKESMAN: For the facts you need to send Congress a message, call today. (1-800-285-HEALTH)

COMMERCIAL BY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS:

WOMAN: She has nothing in savings?

MAN: Next to nothing. Look! All she needs is somebody coming by once a day, a nurse. It can't cost that much.

WOMAN: Medicare can't cover it.

MAN: Yet, they'll cover the cost of a hospital room? This is nuts!

SECOND MAN IN ROOM: Calm down. We're going to figure this out.

COMMERCIAL SPOKESPERSON: Many of us will need help in keeping a loved one independent and at home. We need health care reform. So let's get it right. Let's include long-term care.

MAN: There's got to be a way.

MR. LEHRER: Now the people behind those four commercials: William Kristol is chairman of the Project for the Republican Future, a Republican advocacy group whose primary focus so far has been the health care debate. Richard Celeste is head of the Democratic National Committee's health care campaign. He's the former governor of Ohio. Linda Jenckes is senior vice president of the Health Insurance Association of America, a trade group representing more than 235 insurers, and John Rother is the legislative director for the American Association of Retired Persons. Ms. Jenckes, your commercial is the one that has angered the Clintons. Do you stand by Harry and Louise and the one we just saw as well?

MS. JENCKES: Absolutely, Jim. I mean, our advertisement is absolutely based on fact and based on what our policy holders told us we are concerned about. We are 100 percent behind reform. In fact, we probably support more of the President's bill than most other groups and maybe even other members of Congress. The only thing we're concerned about is not having a new government bureaucracy. We can get health care done. We can get it done right, but we don't need a new government structure to accomplish it. So that's what Harry and Louise are raising, and we hope they listen.

MR. LEHRER: Governor, what is it about their commercials in particular that angers you and the Clintons so much?

GOV. CELESTE: Jim, the fact of the matter is if you're going to spend $10 million on television and you really believe that people would need universal coverage and comprehensive benefits, it seems to me that you would invest at least $5 million in that message. But that isn't the message that is being conveyed by the Health Insurance Association. They have gone out to create a smokescreen in which first they accused the plan of restricting choice, which it doesn't, it actually enhances choice, and now they say it's going to create a government bureaucracy, which it's certainly not intended to do. It is a decision which states will make, and they could create a series of community foundations that would make this decision. But it does take the place of the insurance bureaucracy. And that's really why there's an opposition here.

MR. LEHRER: But Ms. Jenckes, the governor's point -- your commercials -- at least this one we just ran -- we saw -- we ran - - Harry and Louise -- I've seen some of the other ones, myself, as well -- they, they don't say that your industry's in favor of reform. They do knock the Clinton plan. I mean, that's the point of this exercise, is it not?

MS. JENCKES: But they talk about the need for comprehensive coverage. You know, Jim, if I had my druthers, I would like to show the old ad, it's the Surprise ad, because it talks about everything that we're for, insurance reforms. And we're so pleased that that's in the President's proposal, and encouragement of managed care, which is in the President's proposal. Looking at prevention and wellness, we have been aggressive. We passed these reforms in 29 states. We're not going to stop till it's over, and we need the White House to work with us.

MR. LEHRER: What's wrong with the --

GOV. CELESTE: It's all in print. I mean, you know the power -- we understand the power of the electronic media. We understand the power of television, and we understand what it means when you put in print one set of information and on television another set of information. And I -- all I say is I think if there is a sincere commitment to build on the President's proposal and really support comprehensive coverage and comprehensive benefits, that we would see a different allocation in this money by the health insurance industry.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Kristol, looking at this commercial from your perspective, do you think Linda Jenckes and the insurance industry are taking a cheap shot at the Clinton Plan?

MR. KRISTOL: No. I think their criticism is well taken. I think our position in print and on TV is the same, which is that the Clinton Plan would be destructive to the quality of American health care. Linda has more in common with the Clinton administration than we do. I think Bill Clinton should attack us instead of the health insurance industry.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Rother, what's your view looking at this particularly commercial.

MR. ROTHER: Health insurance reform is a very complicated emotional subject. It's easy to throw rocks. It's easy to have negative spots underneath. I don't think it moves us any closer to a solution to raise specific concerns without saying what you're for on TV.

MR. LEHRER: Well, Governor, speaking of negative, the one we ran from your outfit, the Democratic Party, is pretty negative on the Republicans about there is no crisis and all of that. What's the message there, if it's not a negative one?

GOV. CELESTE: Well, I think it's actually pointing out what Republican office holders have said actually following a very thoughtful or thought-provoking memorandum from Bill Kristol suggesting that the Republicans should not let Bill Clinton's leadership on health care dominate the news. And it was answered by the Democratic Party, actually not the national health care campaign, but the Democratic Party, which saw this beginnings of a partisan attack to be totally inappropriate.

MS. JENCKES: I'd just like to say, Jim, in terms of, you know, partisan attacks, you know, most of the media that has looked at our ad in the past has indicated that it's actually mild by -- you know say hard advertising standards, and that the questions are good. All the criticisms do, in fact, seem to be partisan. We agree with the governor. We want choice. Well, if you want the ultimate choice, then you don't need these new government structures. Let's pass insurance reforms, and then that gives the American public the ultimate choice.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think? We're talking about the Democrats' ad now. What do you think of that?

MS. JENCKES: Well, you know, it's a little unfair because I really do believe, as does the industry, everybody is for reform, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: So there is a crisis?

MS. JENCKES: There's a crisis for some. There's not a crisis for most. But everybody agrees it's not whether to have health care reform but how best to do it. And that's why I think we all need to sit down at the table. I hope today is a first start. Let's find out those points of difference and --

MR. LEHRER: We're going to work it out here in a minute.

MS. JENCKES: Yes -- and let's move forward!

MR. LEHRER: All right. Bill Kristol, as the governor said, you're the one who proposed in that famous memorandum that the Republicans take the position that there's no health care crisis. Do you believe that what the Democrats have done with that position is unfair?

MR. KRISTOL: No. I don't think it's a particularly effective ad, because there's a recent poll that suggests that a majority of Americans believe that there is a health care problem but not a crisis. I think it was unfair to Gov. Campbell, whose comment really was taken out of context, but I think the appropriate Republican response to that ad is to pick up the gauntlet they've thrown down and to engage in a debate about whether there is a systemic health care crisis in America that requires radical government overhaul, or whether there are problems that we can face.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah, the specific on Gov. Campbell, Gov. Celeste, the governor has said that that was taken out of context, that the whole line -- he didn't quite say that. Have you all seriously explored his complaint?

GOV. CELESTE: I think that we have. David Wilhelm responded to the Republican National Chairman on that matter. Actually, Gov. Campbell probably said a whole paragraph on crisis, and at the beginning of the paragraph said, crisis was of a limited nature and at the end of the paragraph said, crisis was -- that the American health care system was in a crisis but that wasn't really the issue. I think that Gov. Campbell agreed later at a meeting with Republican leadership that there was no health care crisis. I think there were many people --

MR. LEHRER: You're not going to change the ad, in other words?

GOV. CELESTE: No, the ad's not going to change.

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

MR. KRISTOL: What strikes me about the ad is here you have the Democratic National Committee doing an ad on health care on the President, the Democratic President's health care initiative, and I think it is striking that they're not promoting their own President's health care initiative, and they've got to attack Republicans which says to me that the "no crisis" impact has had some impact and that the President's plan is teetering, and they've turned to an attack on Republicans, which is I think unusual. You would expect the Democratic National Committee to be promoting the Democratic President's agenda.

GOV. CELESTE: This wasn't about the President's health care plan. It was about a position taken by four leaders of the Republican Party who said to the people of this country, there is no health care crisis. And the reality is most Americans disagree. Even Americans who are reasonably satisfied with their health insurance believe that there needs to be a fundamental change. And that's the point that needs to be underscored here.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask Mr. Rother, what do you think of the Democrats' counter to the Republicans on the, on the crisis question?

MR. ROTHER: I think most Americans can't believe that they're seeing this kind of cat fight going on. Let's get on with the job of fixing it, and I mean, a semantic difference between serious problem and crisis --

MR. LEHRER: Is that what it is, is that's what it's all about?

MR. ROTHER: Well, I think really what --

MR. LEHRER: People arguing about some weird definition of a word, rather than what they really mean?

MR. ROTHER: I think it goes deeper than that ultimately as to how ambitious we're going to be in really trying to tackle the health care problem, and for the people I represent, older Americans and their families, there are serious problems that need a very ambitious solution.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Mr. Kristol, in your --

MS. JENCKES: Jim --

MR. LEHRER: Yes, go ahead.

MS. JENCKES: I'm sorry. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. It shouldn't be Democrat versus Republican, big business versus small, or the insurance industry against anybody. Everybody acknowledges we've got to do what we can to cover the 13 percent who don't have the coverage at the most affordable price, as I suggested before. Now everybody's got ideas.

GOV. CELESTE: It is much more than that. It is much more than that.

MS. JENCKES: Let's go forward and work on those details.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask Mr. Kristol. Your commercial that we ran ends with this line: Everything you like about health care is at risk under the Clinton health care proposal. Is that -- is that your position?

MR. KRISTOL: Yeah. Everything good about your health care is at risk.

MR. LEHRER: Did I say -- everything you like about health care is at risk or good, whatever, sorry.

MR. KRISTOL: Yeah. It's true. I really do think the Clinton Plan threatens the quality of health care in America.

MR. LEHRER: So that is not -- that is, in your opinion, a very legitimate part of the very serious debate to say that?

MR. KRISTOL: Yeah. I think our ad raises, obviously to the degree one can in 30 seconds, the quality issue. It quotes respected sources, arguing that the Clinton Plan will have an adverse effect on the quality of American health care.

GOV. CELESTE: Respected sources. There's a good article in The New Republic.

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me, Governor. Let him finish.

MR. KRISTOL: And the point of the ad was simply to focus attention on the quality issue. A lot of the criticism, including from many of my fellow Republicans, has been on cost, bureaucracy, those kinds of things, and I think the key issue is the quality of health care. And the point of this ad coming out right after the State of the Union is to try to guide Republicans to focus on that as the key issue to raise about the Clinton Health Plan.

MR. LEHRER: Is that -- you don't think that's fair, Governor?

GOV. CELESTE: Well, I don't think it's an accurate criticism of the -- the President's health reform proposal. And the reality is that now even people with health insurance often lack quality care when they need it. They are hit by lifetime limits. They are hit by all kinds of problems. I -- when I insured my family after I left the governor's office, for our small business, was confronted by a restriction on preexisting conditions. I mean, these are realities today. And when you say that all that's good about the health care system is at risk, nonsense! What the President is trying to do is to make sure that all Americans have the same benefits that are there for the best covered Americans today. He would like everyone to have the same benefits that members of Congress have, or federal employees have.

MR. LEHRER: Ms. Jenckes, let me ask you, when you see Bill Kristol's commercial, his organization's commercial, as a representative of the health insurance industry, do you say, yes, that's true, everything that's good about the health care system in this country today is at risk under the Clinton Plan?

MS. JENCKES: No, unfortunately, we're going to disagree with that. The biggest concern we have, Jim, right now is that we move into a new government structure which is not necessary, as I said, and I think there's a unanimity --

GOV. CELESTE: But we take business away from insurance agents and insurance companies.

MS. JENCKES: Well, but you're also relying on insurers for managed care. The First Lady yesterday challenged us on the very point. It's our companies that are out marketing HMOs and various networks as an option, as a choice option for the American public. So whether it's the administration, whether it's Republicans or independents on the Hill, we are in this for the American public, our policy holders. So what we'd like to suggest is let's take what's good, let's build on what's good, and let's have insurance reform. We want to eliminate those preexisting condition restrictions for everyone. We want cradle to grave or I like to say start to finish coverage for everyone. That is what we are for. We're in it for the long haul. We're glad that the administration complimented us a year ago when we came up with that position. We find it a little awkward that they're attacking us today.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Mr. Rother, your commercial, your -- beg your pardon --

GOV. CELESTE: The health insurance industry is attacking the President. She should not turn it around.

MR. LEHRER: You take the position that they started it?

GOV. CELESTE: Absolutely.

MR. LEHRER: And you take the position they started it?

GOV. CELESTE: They were on television first, and they were on television --

MS. JENCKES: We started health care -- well, let's get beyond the politics of it. Let's get to the public policy aspects of it, and that means, let's get health care reform, let's get it done right, and let's get it done now.

MR. LEHRER: Now speaking of --

MR. KRISTOL: -- attacking each other --

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of the policy, your commercial, as I read it, Mr. Rother, is aimed at an issue. You're advocatinga particular position that you want in health care reform, is that correct?

MR. ROTHER: Absolutely, right.

MR. LEHRER: And that's your sole message, you're not out -- are you knocking the -- is that -- is that -- should we read into that commercial a criticism of anything, anybody, any plan, any proposal?

MR. ROTHER: Well, we're hearing from various members of the Congress today, although we're not sure we can afford to take care of those with chronic illness or disability. We may have to cut that back. And we know the American people are not in that place. They want to see something that really deals with everyone, including those who are most vulnerable. And so we're running this ad to remind members of Congress, as well as the American public, that this is at risk, and people need to speak up if they want to see something that's truly comprehensive come out of this congressional year.

MR. LEHRER: Where would you put that, from your own, from the AARP's perspective, where would you put that on the, on the front in terms of the ad wars over health care reform, is that -- would that be considered pro-Clinton plan, pro-Cooper plan, pro-managed, where would you put it?

MR. ROTHER: Well, of the plans that have been introduced, only the single payer plan and the administration's plan really make a serious effort to deal with home care, long-term care issues.

MR. LEHRER: Why doesn't your commercial say that? Why don't you say we're in favor of long-term and as a consequence support Clinton or support single payer?

MR. ROTHER: What we've decided to do is to add to just the ad campaign with a very serious grassroots effort, hearings, forums, the kind of thing where people have got a chance to interact face- to-face with resource people, and that's where we're giving them the comparative information. It's very hard to do that in 30 seconds on a TV spot. I think what we're trying to do on TV is motivate people and call attention to something, and then you need all the rest of the printed work and the face-to-face work to really help people work their way through these issues.

MR. LEHRER: Mister -- yes.

MS. JENCKES: I'm sorry. That's absolutely correct. We're doing the same thing as well. In fact -- this, you know, last run of spots, we've generated over 200,000 phone calls from people who want more information at which point we tell them about all the areas that we're in agreement with the administration as well as others. This process cannot be accomplished successfully if we don't hear from the American public. It's extremely important.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Kristol, based on your experience in politics, is there something when you get down to putting together a commercial like this that normal rules don't apply, the political campaign rules, in other words, it's okay to stretch a point here and there, and you, you could say something in a commercial that you might not say if you were sitting here on MacNeil-Lehrer or the Sammy Sue Newshour or whatever, what -- is -- it's something different, is it not, a different culture involved?

MR. KRISTOL: Well, I don't know. I think everything is compressed and has to have a simple, straightforward message in 30 seconds, but I think the rules of honesty and probity should apply to commercials as they do to us sitting around here today.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Do you think they do?

MR. KRISTOL: Sometimes.

MR. LEHRER: Sometimes.

MR. KRISTOL: I they do in ours.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about that, Ms. Jenckes? Do you think that there's a different -- when you put together a commercial as compared with your written stuff, that a different rule applies?

MS. JENCKES: Absolutely not at all. It's obviously, as Bill said, the message has got to be simpler, because it's 30 seconds only or perhaps a minute that you've got. Our ads, whether they be print ads or whether they be TV spots, have stood up, you know, to the test. We have asked not only focus groups to look at it. We have asked media experts to look at it, and they have deemed they are factually correct.

MR. LEHRER: Does the point --

GOV. CELESTE: The fact of the matter is that virtually every newspaper that's editorialized about the HIA advertising campaign - -

MS. JENCKES: Oh, not true.

GOV. CELESTE: -- has criticized that campaign as misrepresenting the facts.

MS. JENCKES: That is not true.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you --

MS. JENCKES: In fact, you acknowledged, Governor, earlier that there was nothing factually incorrect in our ads.

GOV. CELESTE: They misrepresent --

MS. JENCKES: However you felt --

GOV. CELESTE: They misrepresent the case.

MS. JENCKES: -- that they were misleading, but they were factually correct --

GOV. CELESTE: They misrepresent it.

MS. JENCKES: -- advertisements.

MR. LEHRER: Is the point of your commercials, of your advertising campaign, to defeat the Clinton Plan?

MS. JENCKES: Absolutely not at all. We want the bulk of that plan passed, pure and simple, as Mrs. Clinton has suggested.

GOV. CELESTE: Then why not support it with commercials? Then why not support the bulk of the plan with commercials?

MS. JENCKES: We are always at the ready to reexamine what we're doing. These are the ads that ran before that, you know, indicate everything we support. We may reevaluate it. We may come up with a new advertising strategy.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Rother, based on your organization as -- has chapters and members all over the country --

MR. ROTHER: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: -- is all of this, what we're talking about, have any -- making any difference out there?

MR. ROTHER: Oh, yes. I think that most people do get their information from TV, and when they see Harry and Louise raising doubts about aspects of the President's proposal, that's definitely made an impact, especially when you put that kind of money behind it.

MS. JENCKES: And all we're saying is that everybody should sit at their kitchen table, look through the proposals, whether it's the administration's, whether it's the, you know, variety of Republicans, and determine what they feel is best for them and then let their members of Congress know. That's what that ad says.

MR. LEHRER: And Governor, clearly, the President -- now this is - - we -- this is just today. The President and Mrs. Clinton have been beating up on the HIA commercials for a long time. This obviously is really getting to people.

GOV. CELESTE: I think the fact of the matter is that the first sound out of the box, and I discussed this with Bill Gradison before the ads went on the air and right after they went on the air --

MR. LEHRER: He's the head of --

GOV. CELESTE: He's the head of HIA, a former Congressman from my state of Ohio, and a good friend. I said, look, if you're serious about --

MR. LEHRER: Still a good friend?

GOV. CELESTE: Sure, he's still a good friend. I can disagree with friends. If you're serious about supporting the key ingredients of health care reform, whether we call it the Clinton reform or anything else, but universal coverage, a comprehensive package benefits that includes long-term care and prescription drugs, some kind of way to pay for this, an employer mandate, and the rest, and focus on that, then you can come back and criticize afterward.

MR. LEHRER: More commercials coming?

MS. JENCKES: And we did. We don't know, Jim. We're in the process of reevaluating.

MR. LEHRER: More commercials coming from you?

MR. KRISTOL: I hope so. The reason Bill Clinton's beating up on the insurance industry is that insurance companies are unpopular to a large degree, and he doesn't want to defend his own plan.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Rother, more of your commercials like the one you're running, more of them coming?

MR. ROTHER: Yes. I think we feel the need to go to TV as well as print and radio, as well as every other way.

MR. LEHRER: Are you going to continue to pop the Republicans?

MR. ROTHER: No. My focus is going to be on the President's plan and how we pass that at a congressional district level.

MS. JENCKES: We'll help where we can.

MR. LEHRER: Thank you all very much.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the NewsHour, moves in genetic research and thoughts on Ralph Bunche. FOCUS - UNRAVELING THE MYSTERY

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight, the pros and cons of genetic research. Medical Correspondent Fred De Sam Lazaro reports on medicine's growing ability to predict disease before it occurs and what happens to people when they have that knowledge.

MR. LAZARO: Philip Engel is one of an estimated 20 million Americans who are at risk for cancer of the colon, a disease that claims 64,000 American lives each year, second only to lung cancer which takes the highest toll.

DR. JOHN ALLEN: You said that your mother died of colon cancer at the age of 46?

PHILIP ENGEL: That's correct.

DR. JOHN ALLEN: What age was she diagnosed?

PHILIP ENGEL: Age 45.

DR. JOHN ALLEN: Forty-five, okay. And your father was diagnosed at about age 70?

PHILIP ENGEL: Actually Dad was diagnosed when he was 66.

DR. JOHN ALLEN: Okay.

MR. LAZARO: Engel's vigilance has long been advised for people with a family history of colon cancer. Doctors like John Allen say early detection is key because colon cancer is highly curable when caught early.

DOCTOR: So this is a normal colon. These are the glands, and you can see how nicely circular they are. These --all these dark blue staining cells are the cancer.

MR. LAZARO: Late last year, the treatment of certain colon cancers advanced a giant step far beyond early detection. Doctors can now virtually predict the likelihood of its occurrence.

DOCTOR: This is cancer from a patient with hereditary colon cancer.

MR. LAZARO: Dr. Bert Vogelstein at Johns Hopkins University and Finish colleague Albert De La Chapelle isolated the gene responsible for familial colon cancer, a type of colon cancer that accounts for a significant number. The newfound gene is one of a number of genes that have been discovered or cloned recently. But the way this gene functions is different and its significance far beyond the colon cancer context. Most cancers are thought to develop when genes which control cell growth malfunction. This leads to the unbridled growth of cancer cells. The gene discovered by Vogelstein & Company, however, works differently and is best explained with a word processing analogy. The gene acts as a spell checker looking for mutations which normally occur in the human genome and correcting them. When it is defective, the errors build up uncorrected. Scientists are now certain this phenomenon leads to some familial varieties of colon cancer, but they suspect it could also be responsible for other cancers.

DR. ALBERT DE LA CHAPELLE, Geneticist: Even though most members of these families have colon cancer, many members who have colon cancer also get uterine cancer, whereas other members don't get colon cancer but do get uterine cancer, and several other cancers like cancer of the stomach, cancer of the kidneys, cancer of the pancreas, either together with colon cancer or totally independently, so that the gene does have an effect on many organs.

MR. LAZARO: The doctors warn that people with a normal gene could still develop other types of colon cancer, but those who have a mutation are at very high risk, perhaps 90 percent, for developing the inherited colon cancer and perhaps cancer in other organs.

DR. BERT VOGELSTEIN, Geneticist: Clinically, perhaps the most important message to the public is that if their close relatives are affected with cancer of one form or another, that information should be made available to the physicians and appropriate surveillance measures, and eventually genetic tests, should be performed on those patients.

UNIDENTIFIED SPOKESPERSON: This is a Johns-Hopkins familial colon cancer study.

MR. LAZARO: As news of the breakthrough has spread, calls have poured in by the thousands to the Johns-Hopkins oncology center which is capable of screening for the genetic defect.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: (on phone) I had a hysterectomy at the age of 35 due to they said pre-cancer, and my grandfather had colon cancer, and I know I have trouble with my colon.

MR. LAZARO: Tests for the colon cancer gene are expected to move from university research centers to the marketplace in about a year. The commercial test will cost about $1,000 at first, and the potential market is thought to be in the millions. But many experts fear the current health care system is unprepared for this and other advances in genetics both from an ethical and clinical standpoint. Dr. Francis Collins heads the federally-funded Human Genome Project.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS, Geneticist: There are only a thousand genetic counselors in the country right now, and that's just absolutely completely insufficient to deal with the needs of this situation where genetics is about to invade mainstream medical practice. We certainly need to urgently educate physicians about genetics. Many practicing physicians have never had a course, never had much exposure to this.

MR. LAZARO: That's even more true for the general public, according to Collins, himself a former genetic counselor.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: People are going to be asked to make personal decisions about themselves, do I want this information, do I not, and then if they choose to have it, how do we provide information to them about the results that was useful?

MR. LAZARO: How useful the genetic information is will depend largely on how it is used and the disease in question. For those found to be at risk for colon cancer, there are steps, like a fiber rich diet and heightened surveillance that could stave off the cancer. For those like Phil Engel, who have well-founded suspicions, genetic tests provide an element of certainty.

PHIL ENGEL: The gene testing that will be available, I think, could give us, I think, some peace of mind, whether we really need to keep up the vigilance that we currently have, or whether it's something that could be relaxed a little bit.

MR. LAZARO: But there are other diseases for which genetic predictors exist but no preventative measures and no cure. Huntington's Disease, a fatal muscular deterioration, can now be predicted from a very early age. A gene for late-onset Alzheimer's is also expected to be cloned soon. Lastsummer, scientists isolated the gene responsible for Ataxia, a rare, untreatable, and fatal disease. Ataxia has been the scourge of the Swier family of South Dakota. The disease, which destroys the central nervous system over a period of about five years, has afflicted several members of this family, most recently forty-year-old Larry Swier.

LARRY SWIER: My mother was 52, and my brother, Jim, was 49, and my sister, Joyce was 42, and she just died last year.

MR. LAZARO: Last summer, when the gene responsible for Ataxia was cloned, Larry and Linda Swier decided to have their only daughter, Karlena, tested for it even though knowing she'd inherited the genetic defect would not even help slow the onset of the killer disease.

KARLENA SWIER: She's always had in the back of her mind that she's had it so we just decided that it'd be best to find out for sure one way or the other so she could plan her career around whether she had it or not.

MR. LAZARO: Eighteen-year-old Karlena Swier was an honor student at the start of a medical career when she found out that she does, indeed, carry the Ataxia gene. Karlena expects to show symptoms in her mid 30s as her aunt and father did. She has since decided on a career in research, foregoing her ambition to become a neonatologist.

KARLENA SWIER: It's just kind of unrealistic, because by the time I would get out of school, I would have probably five or six years that I could work before I would be really bad where I'd have to be in a wheelchair or a walker. And it's just not worth it.

MR. LAZARO: That specter causes deep pain for her parents, who are haunted by wrenching second thoughts, even about their choice to become parents.

LINDA SWIER: What I know now with what we went through with Karlena, wondering whether she's going to have it or not, I guess I would never have a child. I mean, I would hate to not have her, but I wouldn't -- I would have suggested that we just adopt.

KARLENA SWIER: I just want to live my life like everybody else does. I want to go on vacations and get married and have kids, and I'll have a big wedding and everything. and those are going to be the best years of my life. And I might as well plan for those now. I just want to live my life to the fullest as long as I have it.

MR. LAZARO: Whether she'll be free of discrimination because of her genetic status is unclear. What worries many medical ethicists is there are virtually no laws in the United States that protect the privacy of genetic information, and no one's quite sure whether people found predisposed to a genetic disease would be protected by existing civil rights laws.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: We have to work harder on protecting people against genetic discrimination. It's not happening at the present time on a wide scale, but not that many people are being tested.

MR. LAZARO: A major worry for Collins is health and life insurance for people who are healthy now but have high risk for a genetic disease. At issue is whether insurers have a right to genetic test results. Dr. Elizabeth Bennett of Northwestern National Life, a group life and health insurance company, argues they do.

DR. ELIZABETH BENNETT, Insurance Executive: I think we do have to have that information too because it's part of the medical record. If we specifically do not exclude that information, then we, we run a big risk of anti-selection.

MR. LAZARO: Anti-selection?

DR. ELIZABETH BENNETT: Anti-selection. People who, who know or think they have some sort of a genetic factor that may have indications for their mortality or morbidityare more likely to take out insurance than people who feel healthy and don't have that.

MR. LAZARO: But Dr. Bennett says genetic testing is far from ominous for insurers. In many cases, she notes, it will lead to prevention or early treatment that will be less costly. Dr. Collins agrees DNA testing offers huge potential savings in disease prevention if there are safeguards against its abuse.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: I think there's a very real concern that if screening gets to be very straightforward and if there's a profit motive on the part of companies, that we will start finding ways to do this on a broader scale than is really necessary. Take the colon cancer example. This sounds like a cost effective and highly appropriate thing to do for somebody who has a strong family history of colon cancer. Is it appropriate to do it for just anybody? We don't know the answer to that. It may not be.

MR. LAZARO: Meanwhile, patients like Karlena Swier tread carefully, trying to cope with their predicament.

KARLENA SWIER: I have life insurance. We took it out before I was diagnosed.

MR. LAZARO: In planning her children, Karlena Swier says she'll use the same DNA technology or donor eggs to ensure the offending Ataxia gene does not affect future generations of her family. All this planning though has not happened in an emotional vacuum.

MR. LAZARO: Do you ever have your moments when you get bitter at all?

KARLENA SWIER: Yeah. Usually it's just at night before you go to bed, you know, when you think about things. That's the only time I ever get bitter. And, you know, I say, you know, God, why did you do this to me, you know? You made me smart. You ought wanted me to go to school, and then now you're trying to take it away from me, but -- I'm going to cry.

MR. LAZARO: As policy makers and professional societies ponder guidelines to manage the emerging genetics explosion, doctors at Johns-Hopkins say they expect to clone genes responsible for other types of colon cancer soon. CONVERSATION - RALPH BUNCHE

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight, a special black history month conversation. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the details.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The name Ralph Bunche in the not-too-distant past was well known on the world stage. He was one of the first international civil servants of the United Nations. Starting in 1946, he traveled the globe trying to make peace from Palestine to the Suez, from Yemen to the Congo, from Cyprus to Kashmir and Vietnam. In 1950, he was the reluctant recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for the armistice he negotiated between the Arabs and the Israelis. Bunche's journey started in August 1903 in a one-story frame house that was his birthplace. His childhood days he once wrote were poor but happy. Raised mostly by his grandmother who was born in slavery, Bunche excelled in school, ultimately graduating with Phi Beta Kappa honors from UCLA in 1927. A year later he received a masters degree in government from Harvard and later a doctorate. Bunche also taught at Howard University where he headed the political science department. Ralph Bunche's career in government service began in 1931 and spanned some 30 years. He died on December 9, 1971, just two months into his retirement. For a whole generation, the story of Ralph Bunche has largely gone untold. Recently, the author of Ralph Bunche, An American Life set out to change that. He was Bunche's longtime colleague at the United Nations, Sir Brian Urquhart. I asked him recently about Bunche's near invisibility.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: If you had to sum it up in just a few words, what would you say that he -- his major contribution was?

BRIAN URQUHART: Well, I think his major contribution in general terms was that he was really an extraordinary model of a public servant and certainly the greatest international civil servant that there's ever been in terms of results. And specifically, he was an extremely important African-American radical intellectual in the '30s. He founded the National Negro Conference, which is the first effort to have a sort of an across-the-board black institution in this country. He founded it with Randolph. He wrote the Basis of an American Dilemma, which was the landmark book on black American History.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Gunner Mierdol.

BRIAN URQUHART: Gunner Mierdol. He was the leading expert in the United States before the war on Africa and on colonialism.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Right. And he was -- but he was there at the U.N. founding, was he not?

BRIAN URQUHART: Well, he not only was there at the U.N. founding. He was in this brilliant team of people who did what was called post war planning, which was, in fact, figuring out a structure for the world after World War II. Bunche I think is the only person I know who actually drafted two chapters of the UN Charter. He drafted chapters on trusteeship and on de-colonization. He was the person who kept it going after the war and really made the colonial powers account for what they were doing and account for the large liberation movements which were growing up in all the colonies.

MR. MacNeil: Many of the black radicals have criticized Bunche for his involvement in Africa during that period, particularly in the Congo, where the first premier, Patrice Lumumba, was murdered, and after he called for UN troops to come in. What light can you shed on that, and has he been unfairly judged on that?

BRIAN URQUHART: Well, I think so. Bunche had to deal with him as a person who was trying to put on its feet, an enormous country, the second largest country. It's a country the size of the whole of Western Europe, a very complex country, where there was no preparation for independence at all. The Belgians simply hadn't done anything about it. There were only 16 Congolese who even had university degrees. There was no basis for an independent government. Lumumba was the prime minister and Kasubul was the president. Bunche came to the conclusion and Bunche was a very honest man, he was quite incapable of saying something he didn't believe, that Lumumba was extremely irresponsible, not to mention homicidal, and that he was destroying what chance there was that the Congo had of becoming an organized country. This made him extremely unpopular at home where people had idolized Lumumba as a kind of heroic figure. I think, you know, it's hard to marry these two points of view. Bunche, after all, was the father of de- colonization. But when he saw de-colonization and liberty going disastrously wrong, he said so. This went very badly obviously with, with people at home who saw him in a completely different light. I think it's unfortunate.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And then of course Lumumba was killed by who knows --

BRIAN URQUHART: Well, Lumumba was -- yes, nobody knows. A lot of people had tried to kill Lumumba, including the United States, which actually we had stopped in the United Nations. Bunche was a, was a great hero in Africa to the end of his life. If you go to Africa now, you'll find Bunche Boulevards and schools and things all over the place.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about South Africa, because he was very early on involved in South Africaas well?

BRIAN URQUHART: Yes, he was.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What was his contribution there?

BRIAN URQUHART: He went to South Africa in 1937 to write a book on non-white South Africans, which meant particularly that the coloreds and the black South Africans. He did an astonishing amount of research which actually was published in note form the other day by a man called Bob Edgar. And he was way ahead of his time. And he was one of the very few people who'd ever done this. And he published an analysis of how it was, that's what he called this tiny handful of whites managed to keep this very large population in check. He never had time to write that book, because when he got back, he got sidetracked onto writing The Basis for an American Dilemma, and then the war came, and he went into Warwick so that he never wrote it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But he was also very instrumental in brokering a peace between the Arabs and the Israelis eight months after Israel became a state.

BRIAN URQUHART: That's right. Bunche was taken off his de- colonization and trusteeship work and made the -- and went through Palestine. First of all, he wrote the two alternative plans for Palestine, the partition plan and the federation plan. And then the next year he went to Palestine with Count Bernadoff who was the mediator in Palestine after the -- Israel had become a state and the Arabs, five Arab countries, had invaded Israel. And he was Bernadoff's right-hand man. And then when Bernadoff was assassinated in Jerusalem by the Stern Gang, Bunche became the mediator.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Stern Gang was a group that was --

BRIAN URQUHART: It was an extremist Israeli terrorist group. Bunche then did something which nobody thought was possible, which was to negotiate an armistice agreement between Israel and her five Arab neighbors. And this was considered something you couldn't do, and he did it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And he also got -- that was what he got the Nobel Prize for.

BRIAN URQUHART: Yes, he was given the Nobel Prize and tried to turn it down on the grounds that he was just doing his job, and he didn't think it was suitable to be given a prize for it. He was then ordered rather sharply by the then Secretary General, who was Norwegian, that he had to accept it for the good of the United Nations, so he did, rather reluctantly, accept it. Of course, the thing Bunche was proudest of, I think, was inventing peacekeeping, which he did, which nobody's ever given him any credit for.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And tell us a little bit how that came about.

BRIAN URQUHART: Well, it came about like all good things by accident mostly.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After Israel became a state.

BRIAN URQUHART: When Israel became a state, they declared statehood one day and the next day five Arab countries announced that they were going to go into Palestine "to restore order." And they tried it. It was a horrendous mess. They -- Bunche and Bernadoff managed to get a four-week truce, and they realized very early on, which we had a chance to prove a lot of times since, that you can't have a truce in a very violent war without having some third party monitoring it and actually doing something about it. And so Bunche mobilized first of all every civilian he could get hold of, and then later on got military observers to monitor all the aspects of the truce. The essence of the truce was that neither side must gain from it, neither side must be allowed to bring in armaments and new soldiers, or get new ground. It must be an absolutely non-gaining situation. And he organized the first group of U.N. military observers.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: At the same time, his success in the international arena, I'm told, caused him a lot of conflict because he was torn between using his talents on the international stage and using them back home to fight for civil rights. That caused him some problems too.

BRIAN URQUHART: I think a great deal. He, like many people, had believed in the '40s and '50s with the integration of the armed forces and then the various legislation, like Brown Vs. the Board of Education and so on in the '50s, that things were going absolutely in the right direction on civil rights and began to have very serious doubts about this in the '60s. He was very much -- he very much supportive of Martin Luther King, for example. He went on the marches with King and so on.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Selma.

BRIAN URQUHART: Yes. And, indeed, was heavily criticized in the United States Congress for doing this, where he succeeded with de- colonization and he wanted to get back to the civil rights in the United States. He had by that time become hopelessly indispensable. I mean, the --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In the international --

BRIAN URQUHART: In the international world. I mean, whenever he - - he put in his resignation originally in 1961, and Dag Hammarskjold absolutely even refused to read it and said you cannot leave me in this very difficult situation and Bunche agreed to stay. The next Secretary General did the same thing.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think African-Americans and all people can take away reading the life of Bunche, and why should we remember him, do you think?

BRIAN URQUHART: I think several things. First of all, a complete integrity of purpose, and that Bunche was incapable of doing something he didn't believe in or thought was dishonest. In the second, having very good valid, long-term objectives to which he devoted his life, which were initially civil rights in this country, justice and equality and abroad human rights and liberation of the colonies and peace. After all, he was the world's best known and most sought after mediator for something like 25 years. I would remember him personally, quite apart from being a most delightful friend and someone to work with, but apart from that, as a really great model of a public servant, Bunche really believed that results in public service were all that mattered, and after that, he couldn't care less, couldn't care who got the credit for it, and couldn't have cared less what people thought of him, so long as he tried to do what he ought to do. And that's I think, again, is an example which we could do with a good deal more.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Brian Urquhart, thank you.

BRIAN URQUHART: Thank you. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, President Clinton announced the sale of 50 U.S.-made airliners to Saudi Arabia. He said the $6 billion deal would create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs, and both warring sides in Bosnia pledged to meet a NATO ultimatum on removing their heavy guns around Sarajevo. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll see you again tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.