The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, Congress worked to pass a new budget agreement, at least 19 Palestinians died in clashes with Israeli police, and two Americans won the Nobel Prize for medicine. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: On tonight's Newshour, the latest in the budget crisis, with excerpts from floor debates [FOCUS - BUDGET GO- ROUND] and the views of House Speaker Tom Foley, Senators Phil Gramm and Jim Sasser. Then the killings of Palestinians by Israeli police [FOCUS - THE WAILING WALL] in Jerusalem. We analyze the hardening attitudes on both sides. We close with a report on the difficulty of getting organs [FINALLY - ORGAN TRANSPLANTS] for transplant. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: A possible way out of the budget crisis moved to the Senate today. The federal government remained mostly closed when Senators began debate this afternoon on a new Democratic alternative. The House passed it in the early hours this morning. It makes smaller cuts in Medicare than the plan rejected by the House on Thursday. It leaves the question of taxes open for later determination by Congressional committees. Like the rejected one, it is designed to bring $500 billion in deficit reduction in five years. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: There was a violent clash between Israeli police and Palestinians at one of Jerusalem's holiest sites today. Police said 19 Palestinians were killed. Doctors at Arab hospitals put the number at 22. It was the highest single day death toll since the Palestinian uprising began nearly three years ago. It began when a large group of Palestinians burned down a police station at Jerusalem's Temple Mount, then used stones to bombard Jews worshipping below at the Wailing Wall. Police used tear gas, rubber bullets, and then live ammunition. At least 140 people were injured, including 20 Jews. The violence apparently started with the rumor that Jewish zealots plan to reclaim the Temple Mount which is holy to Muslims and Jews. In Washington, reporters asked Sec. of State Baker for his comment on the incident.

JAMES BAKER, Secretary of State: Well, we don't have all of the details yet about that violence, but this tragic loss of life is obviously a cause for great sadness. Each side is pointing to provocation by the other, but I do think it's fair to say that Israel needs to be better prepared and to exercise restraint in handling disturbances of this nature. And of course our condolences go out to all of the families of the victims.

MR. LEHRER: Two American pilots were killed in an accident in Saudi Arabia today. Their jet crashed in the Saudi Desert during a reconnaissance flight. Both pilots were from an Air National Guard unit in Alabama. Two Marine helicopters disappeared doing a training flight over the North Arabian Sea. Eight men were aboard. The Navy is still searching for them. On the embargo, Western forces stopped two Iraqi freighters in the Gulf of Oman. One of them stopped only after American, British, and Australian ships fired warning shots across its bow. It turned out to be empty and was allowed to proceed. The second ship was still being searched as of late today.

MR. MacNeil: Two Americans were awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine today. Dr. Joseph Murray, a Boston surgeon, was honored for his pioneering work in overcoming tissue rejection in organ transplants. His work in that field began more than 35 years ago. Dr. E. Donald Thomas from Bellevue, Washington, was the other recipient. He performed the first human bone marrow transplant to treat leukemia in 1956.

MR. LEHRER: David Souter was sworn in this afternoon as the 105th Justice of the Supreme Court. The ceremony took place in the East room of the White House with Palestinian Bush in attendance. Chief Justice William Rehnquist administered the oath. Afterward, Justice Souter talked about what he hoped to achieve in his new role.

HON. DAVID SOUTER, U.S. Supreme Court Justice: I will try to pass on what I have received. Most importantly, I will try to pass on the constitutional authority that I have received this afternoon. I will try to use it as best I can according to the light that God gives me, and in due course, I will try to pass it to another in as vigorous condition as I have received it this afternoon, as it were, from Justice Brennan. I will try to preserve it and I will try to transmit it, I hope refreshed, to another generation of the American Republic which is the inheritance of us all. [Applause]

MR. LEHRER: The new Justice starts work immediately. He is scheduled to be on the Bench to hear his first arguments tomorrow morning.

MR. MacNeil: South African Pres. F.W. DeKlerk said today that political exiles can begin applying to return home. That's been a key demand of the African National Congress. DeKlerk made the announcement after a three hour meeting with ANC Leader Nelson Mandela. They spoke about the recent violence in the black townships which has left about 800 people dead over the past two months. That's our summary of the news. Just ahead, the latest positions in the budget crisis, the killings in Jerusalem, and the scarcity of organs for transplant. FOCUS - BUDGET GO-ROUND

MR. MacNeil: The continuing battle over the federal budget is our lead focus tonight. In a moment, we have a News Maker interview with the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, followed by the views of Republican Sen. Phil Gramm of Gramm-Rudman authorship, and Budget Committee Chairman James Sasser. But first, Congressional Correspondent Roger Mudd brings us up to date on the events in Congress over the Columbus Day Holiday Weekend.

MR. MUDD: Only the weather was harmonious. Everything and everyone else was out of sorts, out of sync, and out of patience. It was not Washington, D.C.'s finest hour. Tourists who had planned and saved for months to visit their national capital found it virtually closed down. The Congress seemed to be the only tourist site in operation and visitors stood in line to watch the one branch of government they like most to make fun of. As Charles Wilson, the Texas Democrat, said of the tourists, "They're all here because the other zoo is closed." And at one point yesterday afternoon when the leadership came out on the floor to announce still another delay in the budget agreement, the crowded tourist gallery erupted with a huge boo. In fact, it was closed to midnight last night before the new budget deal came to the floor. And its arrival was the cause for a fresh explosion of tempers from Speaker Tom Foley and Asst. Republican Leader Newt Gingrich, who had led the fight against the first budget agreement.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Minority Whip: It does seem to me, since I'm often lectured about responsibility, that when the Democratic majority fails to override a veto, it has an obligation to respond to that failure by cooperating with the President. You failed to override the veto, therefore, it seems to me, you have an obligation under the Constitution to allow the government to operate and not simply to close it down.

SPEAKER FOLEY: Would the gentleman yield to me?

SPOKESMAN: I'd be glad to yield to you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. THOMAS FOLEY, Speaker of the House: Of all the people in this House, of all the people in this country that has little claim to cooperating with his President, it is the gentleman from Georgia.

MR. MUDD: The new budget agreement had been crafted by the House Democrats. House Republicans appeared to be too deeply divided even to enter the negotiations. In general, the new plan seeks the same spending and tax revenue totals as before, but major adjustments were agreed to in principle to make it less politically painful.

REP. LEON PANETTA, Chairman, Budget Committee: We tried to address and correct the major concerns that were raised as the result of the defeat of the budget resolution the other night so that we could try to deal with the deterrence that had been raised by members on both sides of the aisle.

MR. MUDD: For instance, cuts in Medicare would be less severe. The $75 deductible for doctors bills might jump to $100, not 150, and the monthly Medicare premiums for the elderly could go to $47 a month in five years, not $54.30 in five years. Also, the agreement would embrace a deal on taxes, a cut in the capital gains tax in exchange for an increase in the income tax rates for the wealthy. Most of the details would be worked out by the tax and budget committees, including work on a 2 cent tax on home heating oil and a 12 cent increase in the tax on gasoline, two proposals from the earlier agreement which aroused so much public opposition.

REP. PANETTA: Those recommendations go forward to the committee. The committees then have the responsibility to meet those members and to present their recommendation. The test is that what they present is real in terms of deficit reduction.

MR. MUDD: But because those committees are controlled by Democrats, many Republicans said they feared the worst.

REP. BOB LIVINGSTON, [R] Louisiana: The flexibility in the gentleman's package is left entirely with the committees and we really don't know what we're getting, is that correct?

REP. PANETTA: The guidance is presented to the summit agreement and obviously it would have to be done in concentration with the bipartisan leadership. Our goal here is to work with the President and with the bipartisan leadership in a package in reconciliation that will be acceptable hopefully to both sides of the aisle.

SPOKESMAN: Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the Vice Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee.

REP. BILL ARCHER, [R] Texas: The summit agreement and all of its ramifications insofar as the restraints as to what could be done and could not be done as to tax rates and many other items has been discarded. And now we have lump numbers assigned to the Ways & Means Committee, which has the major jurisdiction over this legislation. And yes, if I were in the majority, I would like that, and I understand that that was used to get your votes. And the votes that will finally be cast on this agreement will show and demonstrate to the public it is not bipartisan.

REP. FOLEY: The question is on adoption of the conference report. Those in favor will say aye.

MR. MUDD: Not until 2:15 this morning did the House approve this second budget agreement. The vote, 260 to 164, ran roughly along party lines. Then an hour and a half later, at 3:45 AM, the House passed a continuing resolution giving the government temporary authority to spend money again so that thousands of federal employees can return to work tomorrow, and so that the government can make its debt payments. This evening, the Senate is in session preparing to debate both the new budget resolution and the continuing resolution. President Bush returned to Washington this afternoon from Camp David, Maryland, by motorcade rather than by helicopter to save money, although the helicopter flew back anyway empty. The White House has offered no guidance on whether President Bush will keep the government closed down until he sees the fine print in the budget document.

MR. MacNeil: For more on the budget package approved by the House early this morning we are joined by the Speaker of the House Thomas Foley. Mr. Speaker thank you for joining us.

SPEAKER FOLEY: My pleasure.

MR. MacNeil: Do you have a pretty good idea that President Bush will accept this new package if it is passed by the Senate tonight?

SPEAKER FOLEY: I hope that he will. I think that he will accept the conference report on the budget. I have a strong feeling that he will do that. He doesn't have to sign it. It is not a law. It is a budget plan. But I think that he will generally think that it affords a plan to continue to work on the over all budget strategy. I think the continuing resolution legislation. The one that allows the Government to continue until October 20, is very important because if it is not signed we will not have an opportunity for Federal workers to come to work tomorrow morning, for Government operations to continue and I would hope that if the Senate acts on the budget part of the package tonight it will also work on the CR and pass that and the President will sign it.

MR. MacNeil: So things would be back to normal by tomorrow morning at least as Federal employees and the Federal Services are concerned?

SPEAKER FOLEY: That is the objective.

MR. MacNeil: I see.

SPEAKER FOLEY: We don't think the President was wise to veto the authority that was given last Friday to continue Government operations until the 12th, next Friday midnight. But he did. We couldn't over ride the veto so the next step is to see if the passage of the budget resolution and the continuing authority will be signed.

MR. MacNeil: Is the price of this new package which makes your supporters happier, your accepting the capital gains tax cut which was fought over so bitterly in negotiations?

SPEAKER FOLEY: I think that we have gotten to far ahead on that. The arrangement that we made is to modify the budget agreement so that the conference report on the budget stays pretty much along the lines, absolutely along the lines of 40 billion in reduction and 500 billion over 5 years and to make some changes in the aggregate numbers to accommodate some future changes of this kind. The budget resolution is not ever a law that enacts al these changes. It merely sets forth a plan by which the Committees of Congress can come forward and finish the process through the reconciliation bill. What I am saying is that it is possible that the Ways and Means and Finance Committee may look at a capital gains change in accordance with higher marginal and real tax rates for upper income families. That kind of bargain has been a matter of interest for several months. But there is no definite arrangement that will be done. The Committees will have flexibility to look at that but it is not certain that will happen.

MR. MacNeil: No sort of under the table understanding with the White House?

SPEAKER FOLEY: Oh no there is a sense that this might come back in to play as a subject of a possible trade. We had a long series of discussions about it. Many people feel that a capital gains tax reduction by itself would be a very major additional benefit to the wealthiest Americans. It is only tolerable in the opinion of many people and fair if you have an increase on the tax rates on their income. That is higher income Americans, those over $200,000 a year for example. many people thought that if you eliminated the present inequities of the law and had a 33 percent rate for higher income people that would be with other things merged with a capital gains arrangement. But that is just foreshadows a possibility in the coming weeks. It is not already arranged, it is not a deal already done. It is not a certainty.

MR. MacNeil: You would regard the President accepting a higher income tax rate for wealthy Americans as a very important change in principle would you not, a concession of principle?

SPEAKER FOLEY: Well the President has already said in his famous statement of June 26th that he thought among other things such as a reduction in spending and entitlements, and budget reform and growth initiatives tax increase were necessary to meet the budget problem. He has taken some criticism for that. The question now is tax fairness. How we can have moderate increases in tax revenues or even major increases in tax revenues in a five year period and do that in a way which is fair to the tax paying community of our citizens. One very strong feeling about the budget package that was rejected last Thursday is that it wasn't sufficiently fair to moderate and middle income Americans and particularly the highest American incomes still were not being asked to pay a fair share. If we do a capital gains rate reduction or indexing on capital gains there would be a further problem in that area. It could be more effectively balanced if higher income tax rates for the highest incomes in the country not the average or middle Americans but for the top bracket could balance the regressive effect.

MR. MacNeil: Rep. Webber an alii of Newt Gringrich who lead the change against tax increase and was defeated in a vote early this morning. Said. Out on the campaign trail you all have an election coming up in a few weeks and the bi partisan budget will be transformed in to the Democratic tax increase. And apparently many of them think will help the Republicans. How will the Democrats counter that attack that it is the Democratic tax increase that has been voted?

SPEAKER FOLEY: Well we haven't voted for any tax increase. The budget conference report is a plan to try to deal with the deficit. It is now before the Congress. If it is adopted tonight by the Senate to make those plans real in terms what we call the reconciliation bill, when the overall budget bill is presented to the President. If there are reductions in spending and if there are increases in tax revenue in that proposal it will have to be signed by the President in order to become law. I think Democrats and Republicans will have to support it. It can't be passed as a practical matter and without a truly bi partisan effort. Efforts by Webber and others to characterize it as a Democratic package or a Republican package to try to make political capital out trying to deal with the budget problems of the country are both unwise and ultimately will not succeed.

MR. MacNeil: Do you suspect the work which is left to the Committees of Congressto dot the i's and cross the t's and all these items will not be completed until after the election and therefore will leave a lot of you off the hook when you are explaining it to the voters?

SPEAKER FOLEY: No I think that we will get the bulk of this work done before the election. It is still our intention to try and have a budget reconciliation bill finished in both houses. Ready to submit to the President by the 20th of October. That has been our intention all along. To say that despite the rethoric we were not attempting to ride rough shod over the Republicans in passing the conference report last night and I think that it will have bi- partisan support in the Senate. We simply couldn't get an effective response from members of the House how they wished to proceed or whether they would agree or not agree to changes. So we were left with a problem that the Federal Government is due to stop tomorrow morning and we had to take the responsibility of being the majority party in COngress to move and conclude this problem. It is a problem generated in part by the President's unwise action of vetoing the continuing spending authority. But that is the fact and we have to deal with it at this point.

MR. MacNeil: The public seems to be reacting, as far as I can see, with an unprecedented degree of anger at the spectacle as they see it on Capitol Hill and Washington. What do you think about it. Is this the unfolding of a healthy or be it a difficult process or is the system in some way collapsing?

SPEAKER FOLEY: I don't think the system is collapsing. It is in fact working to resolve these problems all be it obviously in somewhat a crisis atmosphere. Again I repeat an atmosphere that was made artificially tense and critical by the President's action in forcing to end Government operations which was otherwise totally unnecessary. But in addition to that we have the reality that our system is a system of separation of powers. It is a system of divided political responsibility. The President is a Republican the Democrats are responsible in the House and Senate and the whole effort of the budget conference, Summit I should say, of the last four or five months was to bridge those differences. In the final analysis I think that this problem is going to be resolved but we are looking at difficult adjustments of any political year or even decade trying to get the American economy shaped up for the future by getting our deficit down and that requires painful decisions which aren't popular, which would never be popular with any circumstance or any public attitude. We are raising tax revenue, we are cutting expenditures and services. That is what has to be done. That is not what people in either party want to do but that is what is necessary.

MR. MacNeil: Has the deficit now become a monster which is paralyzing this Government. I mean the U.S. is just taking on additional commitments overseas. There are many problems here at home to deal with yet it causes such chaos just to nibble at the deficit a little bit?

SPEAKER FOLEY: Well this is not nibbling if I can quarrel with that part of the Question, Robin. We are talking about the largest single deficit reduction measure in our history. Forty billion dollars the first year a half a trillion dollars over 5 years. If the effort weren't so great. If the magnitudes of deficit reduction weren't so large then I think that we would have a much easier time resolving it because we are doing something real and very difficult that we have this problem. I do think that if we don't act it will become a monster. If our economy slows down the deficit will rise because of reduced Government revenues and some increased costs and it is limiting Government decisions in many areas. We simply have to put the fiscal house in order and it can't be done, I feel, with out a large degree of bipartisan cooperation. Difficult as that is and troublesome in obtaining neither party can go on with out tackling this problem and if we don't tackle it together it will be further postponed and will grow larger.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Speaker thank you for joining us.

SPEAKER FOLEY: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Now to some flavor of the debate that is going on in the Senate. It is provided by two Senators who see the new agreement very differently. Jim Sasser Democrat of Tennessee is Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Phil Gramm Republican of Texas is the member of the Budget Committee. He was co author of the Gramm/Rudman deficit law which triggers the mandated budget cuts that all of the negotiations and all of the agreement have sought to avoid. Both are with us tonight from the Senate Gallery. Senator Gramm you oppose this new alternative. Why sir?

SEN. GRAMM: Well Jim let me make it clear that I was for the bi partisan Summit agreement. I thought that it was a tough package. It is very unpopular in my state and the country but I thought it was a bitter pill that we had to take but at least I knew what we were agreeing to. The problem with the new budget agreement is that it is a promise to deal with the budget deficit in the sweet by and by. We are not going to tell how we are going to deal with it. We aren't going to tell you when we are going to deal with it and obviously if you listened to the debate in the House what is happening is that different members are being told they are voting for different things. The problem is the budget is the promise. The reconciliation bill which changes law and achieves a savings is a program and if we can't even agree on the promise how are we going to agree on the program. I think that we are going in the wrong direction and I think that we are setting up a bi partisan confrontation that will not produce a result and can easily continue the paralysis. So we traded off two days of relief for a month of agony in my opinion.

MR. LEHRER: Senator Sasser you support it on the other hand. Why?

SEN. SASSER: If I can use the baseball analogy as an unhappy Red Socks fan, Jim. The budget resolution itself simply gets you to first base and we are going to pass a bi partisan budget resolution which will be simply an aggregate of numbers. And then as we have done traditionally and as required frankly by the budget act. Then the Committees themselves will make the necessary policy changes to either make the savings, cut the programs, or raise the revenues to hit the budget targets. Now as the Speaker told you this is a budget resolution of historic proportions. This is the largest deficit reduction package in the history of this Republic and I might say that it has bi partisan support here in the Senate. Senator Robert Dole the Minority Leader expressed himself in the press this morning as being supportive and I am hopeful that Senator Gramm will reconsider. He was one of the principle architects of the original budget Summit agreement. He did good work there and we want to have him on board on the final role call in the Senate.

MR. LEHRER: Senator Gramm what is wrong with the Committees of the United States Senate and the United States House and the members of the United States Senate and the United States House doing what they were elected to do which is to work this thing out now?

SEN. GRAMM: Well Jim let me say that I want a solution. I supported the bi partisan agreement that the Summit came up because it represented a positive program, a tough one, an unpopular one but in my opinion a necessary one. The reason that I am opposed to this approach is that I don't see it getting us home. I see it as really an effort to put off making a hard decision.

MR. LEHRER: In other words you do not trust your fellow Senators and fellow House members to do it?

SEN. GRAMM: It is not a matter of trust. It is basically if we can't agree on the promise how are we going to agree on the ultimata program. I think that we are simply deceiving the public and ourselves by saying look we couldn't agree on a concrete program that we promised to adopt. So let's not promise to adopt any particular program. Let's just say that we have got a goal, we will vote on it, we will claim victory. We will ask the President to call of the fiscal crisis based on a promise of future delivery and at the same time we will have the Democrats tell their people that this raises marginal rates. We will have Republicans tell their people that it doesn't. We will have Democrats say that it doesn't effect medicare substantially. We will have Republicans say we are reforming entitlements. The problem is that you ultimately come to the moment of truth and I want to get to the moment of truth and this is like trying to have a wedding where the bride won't say that she promises to love, honor and obey but what she promises it is going to be a great marriage. I think that if you can't agree on the promise how are you going to agree on ultimately adopting the law. If they come up with a good program I will vote for it but I don't think this is the road home.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Sasser, Sen. Gramm makes it sound really like an awful piece of legislation.

SEN. JAMES SASSER, [D] Tennessee: Well, I think Sen. Gramm's analogy of the wedding is a good one, Jim. What we just experienced was a shotgun wedding that occurred partly out at Andrews Air Force Base and here at the capital, where negotiators for the White House, Chief of Staff Mr. Sununu, and Mr. Darman literally held a gun I think and imposed on them specifics, specific Medicare cuts, specific taxes, but in the final analysis, the House of Representatives in a bipartisan overwhelmingly rejected and rejected it in the face of a national address by the President of the United States who urged its passage, who urged the passage frankly of the revenue measures, but the American people were having none of it. So what we're seeing now is an effort by the Congress working I think in hopefully a bipartisan way to take the deficit reduction targets. We found out where the hot spots are, the American people told us that. Now we're going to make some policy changes and have a policy mix, but at the end of it, we're going to have the same deficit reduction, hit the same targets, make the same savings. Now if we fail to do that, then the President can exercise his veto, veto his spending bills coming out of here or the taxing bills. And I might say that this President has vetoed 14 bills this year and from my standpoint, unfortunately, we've not been able to override a single veto so far.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Gramm, as Robin said to the Speaker a few moments ago, the people out there in the country seem to be laughing at you all, you the members of the Congress, the Executive Branch, at what's been going on up here. Should they be appalled? Should they be lacking, sir?

SEN. PHIL GRAMM, [R] Texas: Well, Jim, let me put it this way. Having watched the debate in the House for the last three days, that's not the kind of American democracy in action that I read about in history books growing up as a child. I think it has turned into a sham and my concern about the budget, and I'm not urging other people to vote against it, I'm simply saying this. If we can't even agree on the promise, how are we two days from now, four days from now, a week from now, going to agree on the program? I think we're simply trying to get off the hook without making a tough choice and ultimately, if you go and reduce the deficit, you have got to make tough decisions. In my mind, when the summit agreement failed, we should have sat down and made concrete changes and gone back and voted on it again. At least then we would have a road map, a blueprint. Now we are going to adopt a budget that basically makes a promise without setting out how we're going to do it, and I think the same forces that have failed us in Congress in the past are likely to fail us now. I hope I'm wrong. If they come up with a good package, I'll vote for it, but I'm concerned that we're simply deceiving the public and ourselves. And I don't think the President ought to let us off the hook in terms of returning to business as usual based on a promise.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Sasser, is Sen. Gramm now one of the problems? You said he was part of the solution earlier. Is his position on this resolution now a serious problem from your point of view?

SEN. SASSER: well, I think there'll be the votes to pass the resolution.

MR. LEHRER: Even without Sen. Gramm?

SEN. SASSER: Yes, I think so. I think you're going to get votes from both sides of the aisle to pass this resolution and frankly, as I said, I hope in the final analysis, Sen. Gramm, himself, will reconsider, but this whole exercise I think has been a very good tonic for the country. I'd like to remind our viewers that in January of this year, the President of the United States stood before the Congress in the State of the Union message and said that this deficit was under control, that in fiscal year 1991 it would be down to $64 billion, and thereafter, it would be laid to rest. Well, now the President is telling the American people the truth about it. We have a $300 billion deficit; it's going up. We have a very serious problem. The President has agreed that we have to have revenues to solve this problem. At long last this President and the Congress are telling the American people the truth. That means some hard, unpleasant choices, and now the dialogue across the land is should we cut Medicare or should we raise taxes on upper income people, should we reduce defense, or should we raise the gasoline tax, those are real issues that the American people in this Congress are now discussing, so I'm encouraged, although frustrated, encouraged that at long last, we're dealing with real issues in facing the problem.

MR. LEHRER: Is he wrong about that, Sen. Gramm, that the problems are not being faced?

SEN. GRAMM: Jim, I don't see us addressing issues. We're adopting a budget that says we're going to let committees decide. These are the same committees that have authorized $111 billion of new spending this year --

MR. LEHRER: But you don't think --

SEN. GRAMM: -- at a time when the deficit's been exploding.

MR. LEHRER: But then won't these committees and the full House and Senate have to actually vote on these things somewhere down the line?

SEN. GRAMM: They will, and the problem with not being able to come up with a blueprint is how are we going to write something that is then going to be adopted. If people won't promise to reform entitlements, how are they going to vote to actually do it?

MR. LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you both very much.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the Newshour, today's killings in Jerusalem and the scarcity of human organs for transplant. FOCUS - THE WAILING WALL

MR. MacNeil: In Jerusalem today, more Palestinians were killed by Israeli police at one time than in any single incident since Israel occupied the West Bank and Jerusalem in the '67 war. We'll explore the hardening attitudes on both sides after an extended report on today's incident by Lindsay Taylor of Independent Television News.

MR. TAYLOR: The shootings occurred after the Israeli police moved in in force to disperse protesting Palestinians. The demonstrations had been over a planned march by extreme right wing Jews. Police responded with live ammunition, rubber bullets and tear gas. As the police attempted to secure the area, ambulance men carried some victims away. Others, many badly injured, were driven away in cars to hospital. The police said they were forced to act after Palestinian demonstrators began hurling rocks and stones. Initially, their target had been thousands of Jewish worshippers praying at the Wailing Wall. Palestinian feeling had been stirred up by the right wing Jews' reported plans to establish a religious center at Jerusalem's Temple Mount, a site which is both Islam's third holiest shrine and is equally sacred to Jews. As the fighting intensified, the death toll rose and police find themselves forced to defend their action on the worst day of violence in the 23 year history of the occupied territories.

RONNIE MILO, Israeli Minister for Police: I'm very sorry to say that as a result of these stones that were thrown on the people that were preying on the policemen, the policemen had to do what they were obliged to do and to keep back the security here and on that effort of the police, we have casualties here.

MR. TAYLOR: In addition to the deaths, more than a hundred Palestinians were injured; at least half of them from gunshot wounds. As some were led away carrying their injured with them, the outside world was just beginning to contemplate the repercussions. The PLO described the shootings as a massacre and called for the United Nations Security Council to protect Palestinians and force an Israeli withdrawal.

MR. MacNeil: Now some analysis of today's incident and the political climate. Judy Woodruff has more. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: We have two perspectives. They come from Khalil Jahshan, director of public affairs at the National Association of Arab-Americans, a Washington-based lobbying group. Mr. Jahshan is an Israeli born Palestinian and has served as a consultant to the U.S. State Department and to the PLO, and Oded Ben Ami, the Washington Bureau Chief for Israeli Radio. Before coming to Washington, he covered the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office. Mr. Ben Ami, we just heard earlier on the newscast, Sec. of State Baker saying that "Israel needs to be better prepared and to exercise restraint in incidents of this sort." Why did the Israelis use this much force?

ODED BEN AMI, Israeli Radio Correspondent: I think that the question, Judy, must be directed to those who provoke the event. Of course, everyone must regret death and loss of lives, but once you find yourself praying in front of the holiest site of the Jewish people, the Wailing Wall, and all of a sudden, without provocation, a huge wave of rocks, which is a deadly weapon, is thrown at you, what else one can expect from the Israeli police to do? I mean, this is the only way for Israeli police to protect Jewish people praying in front of the Wailing Wall, to use their weapon. Now, while the Palestinians using their weapon, the stones, the rocks, they're very well prepared before night, the only way for the police to maintain law and order in Jerusalem is to use their weapons.

MS. WOODRUFF: But there was, and we just heard again in the report, this group of ultra nationalist Jews who had said they were going to try to build a new Jewish Temple at that location. Was that not a provocation of some sort?

MR. BEN AMI: We have to rely on the facts, Judy. A week ago, the Supreme Court of Israel stated and issued a statement forbidding this group of extremists to come and to climb over the Temple Mount today. And this is, Israel is a democracy and it's a law and order maintained in this country and once the Supreme Court issued this statement, there was no way for this group to climb over the Mount. So it was a rumor and it was a provocation relied on this rumor.

MS. WOODRUFF: So why then do you think the Palestinians did what they did?

MR. BEN AMI: I think that the Palestinians realized very well that they lost a lot of points by supporting Saddam Hussein, by - - removed from the focus of the world by supporting Saddam Hussein, and the only way for them and for Saddam Hussein to bring back the Palestinians and the Palestinian issue to the focus of the world is by provoked kind of event, kind of riots.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Jahshan, is that what's happening here?

KHALIL JAHSHAN, National Association Of Arab-Americans: I don't think so. I think what we have just heard is a typical Israeli explanation that has its chronology in trouble in a sense that what the ultimate provocation that exists in this particular wave of violence and in previous waves of violence is the existence of Israeli occupation. Occupation is the ultimate provocation, and whether this particular group, the faithful of the Temple, provoke the Palestinian population or not, it's the continuing existence of Israeli occupation that continues to provoke Palestinians. There is no symmetry here. There is no issue of provocation. It's the right of the Palestinian people as the occupied to resist occupation and we give that right to any people on earth. I mean, this is part of this new era that the President is talking about. Occupation is occupation and it must end.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you're saying that the rocks were thrown simply because of the occupation -- you must be suggesting that there was something more than that.

MR. JAHSHAN: I hope I'm not surprising you or anybody else in the media that rocks have been thrown, you know, for a long period of time. The Palestinians have been engaged since 1987 in an uprising, an intifada, against the continuing Israeli occupation of their country. This is part of the rebellion that the Palestinians have been leading against Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967. It's not new.

MS. WOODRUFF: And then, well, what about what Mr. Ben Ami just said though, that this was something that had been planned, that it had been in the works for several days, that it wasn't just something that spontaneously occurred?

MR. JAHSHAN: I don't think that it has been planned and there is no such infrastructure in the West Bank to plan activities of this sort based on international events and regionalevents and local events. What has happened is in the past few days based on the increased tension in the areas, some of which is based on the Intifada and Israel's dealings with it, some based on the crisis in the Gulf, and the U.S. reaction to that crisis, and specific news about this particular incident that certain calls from the religious leadership in the West Bank, in Jerusalem, the clergy, have issued an invitation to come to people specifically this morning for prayer and for meetings on the Temple in order to discuss this particular intrusion planned for today during the Jewish celebration celebrated today because of the Holiday of Sucourt, and to establish, to place the founding stone for some sort of a facility on the Temple Mount. And the appeal was very clear over the past couple of days, come to the Temple now in order to protect it against this intrusion. There was no conspiracy of logic.

MR. BEN AMI: But Khalil, I mentioned that the Supreme Court decision or statement, and let me tell you that I can understand, I can't blame the Palestinian people, I can blame the Palestinian leadership, Mr. Arafat, for instance. I just interviewed Mr. Butaswali, the state minister of foreign affairs of Egypt in the UN a couple of days ago, and he said, first, we must overcome the Gulf crisis, then we have to try to solve the Palestinian problem. The Secretary General of the UN just stated that first we must overcome this crisis in the Gulf. Then we have to sit down and to solve the Palestinian problem which nobody in Israel, nobody in the Israeli cabinet, is I think otherwise.

MS. WOODRUFF: So how are you saying that's connected to what happened today?

MR. BEN AMI: What happened today is again the fact that the Palestinians feel themselves -- I think that they feel themselves a little bit confused. Who's the leader? Saddam Hussein, who tried to become the leader of the Palestinian people, he cannot deliver any goods. Only by trying to make the Gulf crisis as an Israeli- Arab problem, by using the Palestinians. Again, the Palestinian people are the one who suffered the mistakes taken by their leadership, by Arafat and a bunch of leaders. They are sitting somewhere in Tunis outside the area.

MR. JAHSHAN: But I don't have to remind you of your own country's political map. I mean, we have a government sitting in Israel today, running the country that does not believe in the political process. This is the same government that has prevented the U.S. peace process from taking shape and from proceeding forward. It's the same government that Mr. Baker blamed the failure of his initiative on and there is no change in this process. It is true that the Palestinians are frustrated today. There is no doubt about it that the fact that after three years of the Intifada, they do not see the light at the end of the tunnel. There is a heightened tension as a result of the Gulf crisis, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and there is a disappointment in the reaction they see from the United States and from the West in opposing occupation in one part of the Arab world and yet condoning it in another.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you two see as the immediate outcome of this? Do you expect more violence? Do you think this is going to be an end to the violence for a time? What do you see, Mr. Ben Ami?

MR. BEN AMI: Let me remind you, Judy, that we are talking about the Middle East. It's almost impossible to predict what will be the next step. Maybe the next step will be much more violence in the territories which we'll all regret, and of course, this much more violence will never lead to any solution, to any reasonable solution. If everything will calm down, then it will be a possible or if everything will calm down, then the Shamir initiative will be implemented somehow.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Jahshan.

MR. JAHSHAN: I think there will be most probably increased violence considering the enormity of the massacre that took place today, the fact that at least one key religious clergy was killed in the process, was the head clergy at the Mosque. I just do not see things calming down as easily as some would expect, also especially in light of the tension generated by the crisis in the Gulf. This is a crisis of measured proportion for the United States and it's time to move from a foreign policy making in Washington that's based on one issue at a time and try to deal with this major crisis that tends to continue to have a spill over effect on other crisis and try to come up with a credible solution to the Palestine issue.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, gentlemen, we thank you both for being with us. Mr. Jahshan, Mr. Ben Ami, thank you both. FINALLY - ORGAN TRANSPLANTS

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight a medical story. Two American doctors won the Noel Prize for medicine today. Doctors Joseph Murray and E. Donald Thomas were honored for their pioneering work in the 1950s that paved the way for organ and cell transplants. Now decades later, doctors are confronting a complicated problem created by such advances in medical technology. We have a report by Gail Feitinger of public station KCTA Minneapolis, St. Paul.

MS. FEITINGER: Thousands of Americans die each year waiting for organ donations. Hoping to increase the number of available organs, three years ago, Congress passed a federal law mandating that hospitals develop policies to approach families and request donations. But a recent University of Minnesota study shows that there has been little improvement in compliance from the medical community.

ARTHUR CAPLAN, Bioethicist: People have commented that there's been a leveling off in the supply of organs in the past couple of year, and that seems true.

MS. FEITINGER: Arthur Caplan heads the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Minnesota and is co-author of the recent Minnesota study of required requests. His survey of Midwestern hospitals and health care professionals shows that many hospitals are not approaching donor families.

ARTHUR CAPLAN: There are now state laws, hospital accreditation requirements and indeed, a federal law that says if you don't make the option of organ and tissue donation available to family members when someone dies, you can lose Medicaid and Medicare funding. Compliance is still very poor.

MS. FEITINGER: Gayl Rogers Chrysler is director of transplant donor services for the American Red Cross. Like others in the transplant field, Chrysler is disappointed that the number of available organs has not dramatically increased.

GAYL ROGERS CHRYSLER, American Red Cross: Maybe we were a little naive thinking that legislation this way would by one single stroke solve the problem. The results of required request laws are mixed throughout the country. They are positive in that we have a formal structure now to this process in hospitals, but again the laws are not enough.

MS. FEITINGER: This year more than 19,000 people are on organ transplant waiting lists, but the same public that in opinion polls supports donation requests says no when asked. In Caplan's study, only 1/3 of the families opted for donation. Like many parents, Jerry and Linda Brooks never discussed donation until they had to. Two years ago, their 11 year old son, Mikie, was struck by a car while sledding and died at the hospital. Asked to donate Mikie's organs, the Brooks at first hesitated.

LINDA BROOKS: Amy, one of our daughters, had a lot of concern whether it was going to hurt him, whether Mikie was going to be in a lot of pain.

JERRY BROOKS: I think our concern was that we didn't want the organs just to be taken out and then all of a sudden, oh, well, you know, you can't use 'em, there's no match. Well, in that case, don't take them, you know. If you can't use 'em, don't disturb the body.

MS. FEITINGER: Reassured by nurses, Jerry and Linda Brooks gave their consent. One of Mikie's kidneys went to a 45 year old man with lupus, the other to a 50 year old diabetic father of two. Mikie's liver sustained the life of a 48 year old mother of seven, and his eyes were donated to the eye bank.

JERRY BROOKS: He was always there to make people laugh, whatever. Oh, he liked to wrestle.

LINDA BROOKS: Play football.

JERRY BROOKS: Yeah. He was just an all American kid, you know, just a good boy.

LINDA BROOKS: To us, he's still alive because of what we did. [BROOKS LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS]

MS. FEITINGER: For the most part, the Brooks were pleased with the care they received, however, in a complaint echoed by other donor families, the specialist who notified them of their son's death seemed incentive and rushed.

JERRY BROOKS: There was not much feeling. He was like a robot.

LINDA BROOKS: He was there to do his job and he said it and it was over with and that was it.

MS. FEITINGER: Dr. Ronald Cranford is a neurologist at Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis. He says neurologists are on the front lines of the donation process, making life and death calls. They often have little time or experience at making donation requests.

DR. RONALD CRANFORD, Neurologist: It's not just a question of being answered. It's a question how they're asked and education sensitivity and training in telling people how to ask the right questions and finding someone to do it is just as important as not asking at all. [TRAINING SESSION]

MS. FEITINGER: Workshops like this one put on by the Red Cross teach health care professionals how to approach grieving families. Chrysler says professional training not only increases compliance, but consent. She has seen a 30 percent jump in organ donations at hospitals with specially trained staff.

GAYL ROGERS CHRYSLER, American Red Cross: We can see a difference that when hospitals had more training that definitely referrals where they are at least asking questions or they have approached a family or they've recognized someone who could be a potential donor. [PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT]

MS. FEITINGER: Besides educating the medical community, Chrysler says the challenge includes getting the word out to the public, the donor side of the transplant equation. Education campaigns seem to be helping.

YOUNG MALE DONOR: Well, when I first got my driver's license, they made a comment to look at the back, and I just thought, well, what am I going to use my organs for if I die.

FEMALE DONOR: The last time I applied for my license, I changed it to a donor.

YOUNG FEMALE DONOR: It's every person's right and responsibility to donate their organs.

MS. FEITINGER: But there is still fear, uncertainty and reluctance to sign up as a donor.

MS. CHRYSLER: People are concerned that as it relates to organ and tissue donation, they can't have a normal funeral if they donate.

MAN ON THE STREET: Death issad enough as it is without having to worry about picking up bodies.

MS. CHRYSLER: Probably the most unusual, but unfortunately I still hear this misconception, is that some people feel that if they do sign a donor card that upon an accident health care professionals would not look out for their best interest in life saving measures.

YOUNG MAN: And that is a reason why I'm changing from a donor to a non-donor, is that I don't want them to take my life away prematurely to benefit other people.

MS. FEITINGER: Neurologist Cranford said sentiments like this are not uncommon. They reflect another barrier in organ and tissue donation, acceptance of brain death.

DR. RONALD CRANFORD, Neurologist: People still confuse brain death with a vegetative state and they still hear about patients who came out of a coma and confuse brain death with coma, because the person is lying there perfectly normal, and so you have to explain to the family or to loved ones that the brain is destroyed.

MS. FEITINGER: Were you a donor on your other card?

YOUNG GIRL: No, I wasn't.

MS. FEITINGER: You weren't. Are you considering it?

YOUNG GIRL: I've thought about it, but not yet.

MS. FEITINGER: If individual Americans have reservations about transplantation and organ donations, they're not alone. The University of Minnesota's Caplan says so do public policy makers.

ARTHUR CAPLAN, Bioethicist: The United States hasn't yet grappled with the question of what does it want to make of transplants. It says it's very expensive. It says it only affects a few lives. It says that transplantation is something we can't even afford. On the other hand, it keeps demanding that we ask everybody about organ and tissue donation, that we run all kinds of educational campaigns, that we have all kinds of advertising efforts to solicit people to donate. That kind of schizophrenia breeds some pretty disparate attitudes on the part of the public and the part of the people doing the asking.

MS. FEITINGER: Unless these conflicting attitudes are resolved, Caplan says required request laws alone won't solve the problem, and he isn't optimistic about a turnaround in the supply of organs and tissues in the near future. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Once again, Monday's top stories, Congress worked to revise a budget agreement in time for the federal government to reopen tomorrow, Israeli police killed at least 19 Palestinians during a riot at Jerusalem's Temple Mount. Two American pilots were killed and eight Marines are missing in two separate accidents in the Persian Gulf area, and David Souter was sworn in as the 105th Justice of the Supreme Court. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night when among other things, Charlayne Hunter-Gault continues her conversations with U.S. Service personnel in Saudi Arabia. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.