The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. On the NewsHour tonight: A summary of the news; an update on the Israeli siege of Yasser Arafat's headquarters; U.S.- German relations after a close election; smallpox and the potential for mass vaccination; a Paul Solman look at the economics of professional football; and a Roger Rosenblatt essay on banned books.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: Israel came under new pressure today to end the siege of Yasser Arafat. Israeli tanks surrounded the Palestinian leader in his West Bank compound last week, after a pair of suicide bombings. Today, the UN Security Council held an emergency session on the issue. Secretary General Kofi Annan called the suicide bombings "morally repugnant," but he also denounced the Israeli siege.

KOFI ANNAN: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not going to be resolved by military might alone or by violent means of any kind. A policy based on forcing the other side to capitulate is a bankrupt policy. It is not working, and it will never work.

GWEN IFILL: In Washington, a State Department spokesman said the Israeli action has made matters worse. We'll have more on this story in a moment. The Chancellor of Germany today renewed his opposition to launching war against Iraq. Gerhard Schroeder's ruling coalition won a narrow victory in Sunday's elections. During the campaign, he sharply criticized any U.S. plan to attack Iraq. Today, he said: I have formulated a German position, and I have nothing to retract. We'll have more on this story in a moment. Federal health officials sent states a new blueprint today for mass smallpox vaccinations. The Centers for Disease control issued the plan as part of the government's strategy to counter potential bio-terrorism. It calls for shipping 280 million doses of vaccine within a week after an outbreak. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. The Justice Department asked a federal appeals court today to throw out Oregon's assisted suicide law. The law is unique in the United States. It lets doctors give lethal drugs to the terminally ill. The Bush Administration has argued federal law bars doctors from doing that. But a lower court has upheld the Oregon statute. The founder of Adelphia Communications and four other former executives were indicted today on federal fraud charges. The indictments, in New York, charged that John J. Rigas, along with two sons and two other ex-officials, conspired to loot the cable television company. The firm is now under federal bankruptcy protection. All five men have denied wrongdoing. A key gauge of U.S. economic activity fell in August for the third straight month. The Conference Board said today its index of leading economic indicators was down 0.2%. The business research group uses the measure to predict the economy's direction in the next three to six months. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Arafat isolated, U.S.-German relations, the government's smallpox inoculation proposal, the economics of pro football, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay.

UPDATE UNDER SIEGE

GWEN IFILL: Now to the siege at Ramallah. Samira Ahmed of Independent Television News begins our coverage.

SAMIRA AHMED, ITN: In daylight, the destruction in Ramallah was laid bare. The Israelis pulled the bulldozers out of Arafat's compound last night, but then there was hardly anything left to raze to the ground. For the Palestinian leader restricted to a few rooms, the Israelis sent in food and water today. They cut all power and utilities to the compound yesterday. This morning a car with an Israeli army escort returned to the compound. Inside was Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian senior negotiator coming back from the first face-to-face meeting of Palestinian and Israeli officials since the siege began five days ago.

SAEB EREKAT, Senior Palestinian Negotiator: The Israeli decide that they immediately lift the closure and the seizure and stop the attack of the president's compound unconditionally. They said that they want to know the names of everyone inside the compound. Of course, this is absolutely not acceptable.

SAMIRA AHMED: Thousands of Palestinians responded to calls for a general strike across the territory. Here in Bethlehem, they gathered outside the Church of the Nativity and the university, chanting for an Israeli withdrawal. But the Israeli government is standing firm.

DORE GOLD: Israel has said that we will not allow the Mutata compound in Ramallah to become a nerve center for terrorism attacks against Israel. That move of Israel's did not come out of the blue, but came after a horrid bus bombing in the heart of Tel Aviv, which killed six people and wounded dozens of others.

GWEN IFILL: And to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Joining me from Jerusalem is Serge Schmemann, a correspondent for the "New York times." Well, it's late night in Israel and the West Bank. Has anything changed at the siege site in the last several hours?

SERGE SCHMEMANN: Nothing has really changed at the siege site. The Israeli bulldozers have largely completed their task of demolishing all the buildings around Arafat's headquarters, and they have somehow continued to pressure him, to put psychological pressure, either cutting off water or electricity, or allowing food or not allowing food. But otherwise, the situation there remains pretty much the same since it began Thursday night.

RAY SUAREZ: As buildings were destroyed, people vacated them and started to cluster in the remaining intact portions of the compound. Do we know how many people are with Chairman Arafat in the Ramallah compound now?

SERGE SCHMEMANN: We hear from Arafat's people that there are about 250; from the Israelis, about 200. So the number is somewhere between 200 and 250. The Israelis say 38 security men surrendered early in their operation, but these were none of the wanted men on their list. The list has about, we're told, 50 people, but so far, Arafat has refused to surrender any of them. So about anywhere from 200 to 250 men are in there with him.

RAY SUAREZ: So the Israelis maintain that these wanted men, that they know them to be in there, or are these men generally wanted, and Israel wants to check whether they're in there?

SERGE SCHMEMANN: Well, there is some debate about that, because Israel says that it wants these men. At the same time, you know, they have asked today Arafat to give them a list of men in there with them. So there is a question whether they know specifically who is in there. I think the general feeling is here that the operation is against Arafat and not specifically to nab these men. During the last operation there in spring, Israel made a similar demand, but then the men were assassins of an Israeli minister. This time these are men who have not been arrested up now, who have not figured prominently on wanted lists, and although I'm sure Israel would like to get them, I think the focus of this operation is Arafat himself-- to isolate him, to make his conditions so horrible that he will want to leave, that he will want, perhaps, to go into exile. He, of course, has been adamant in insisting that he will not leave, that he will not leave either his headquarters, and certainly not the Palestinian lands. But it is a large question whether the demand for these men is really the primary focus of this operation.

RAY SUAREZ: Now confined to just a few small rooms in one building on the West Bank, does Yasser Arafat really run anything? Is he the head of a government, or now just a man with symbolic power and a cell phone?

SERGE SCHMEMANN: Well, first of all, it's more than a few small rooms. He still has the run, I understand, of three floors in that building. Again, there have been varying reports about how much space he has. The fact of the matter is that since... for several months now, he has been totally isolated in his compound, as most of the structures of the Palestinian Authority have been destroyed. The police forces, the security forces, there is no sense that he has had day-to-day operations. I mean, he still has his telephone. He has his aides. He has his symbolic authority. But before this operation began, we were witnessing the beginnings of a Palestinian... almost you'd call it a rebellion against him. The Palestinian legislative council demanded that he accept the resignations of all his cabinet ministers. He did. There was a lot of talk of naming an executive prime minister, Abu Mazin. Now all these things are on ice. And Arafat's symbolic authority, at the very least, has been enhanced by these measures. There have been mass demonstrations in Ramallah and other West Bank cities in his support. But, you know, as for operational authority, that has certainly been reduced almost to nothing.

RAY SUAREZ: The United States has been communicating with the Sharon government. What has it been telling it, and what has the Israeli government had to say publicly in response?

SERGE SCHMEMANN: The American government has shown some displeasure with this operation from the beginning, and that has been escalating, because there is obviously a sense in Washington that what goes on here interferes with the preparations for the war on Iraq. And the Americans were also, I think, quite interested in the first stirrings of reform among the Palestinians. And what they've been telling Sharon is that this operation is a serious setback to those reform efforts, and today they became even more explicit about this, saying that this really is not helpful for a process that had just begun. Of course, the United States is now faced with a Security Council resolution that it may have to veto, which it certainly doesn't want to do, since it would like to get United Nations support for the operation in Iraq. So I think there is a general sense in Washington that this is really hindering them. So far the Israelis have been saying that they will continue until these wanted men surrender, until they achieve their ends, but in the past, Prime Minister Sharon has in general acceded to American demands when they become stirred enough.

RAY SUAREZ: You mention the American concern about the first stirrings of reform among the Palestinians. Wasn't Yasser Arafat in the process of installing a new Palestinian government?

SERGE SCHMEMANN: That's right. On September 11, the Palestinian Legislative Council voted... was prepared to vote no confidence in the cabinet, and to forestall that Arafat accepted their resignation. Under Palestinian rules, that gave them two weeks to name a new cabinet. Now, of course, it will be virtually impossible to meet that deadline, but we still hear reports that Abu Mazin, the man most frequently named as a potential prime minister, has been in meeting with other members of the Palestinian leadership, specifically of Fatah, which is Yasser Arafat's movement to try to continue with this process. I think most Palestinians would really prefer if this process not be side railed at this time, because they very much still hope to hold elections on January 20. Now, whether that's possible or not is anybody's guess. I think most people would bet that it can't happen in these circumstances and in that short period of time. But certainly the Palestinians felt they had a momentum and they'd like to maintain it. So the process is continuing, but not on the timetable that had been set on September 11.

RAY SUAREZ: Serge Schmemann from Jerusalem, thanks a lot.

SERGE SCHMEMANN: Thank you.

FOCUS POISONED RELATIONSHIP

GWEN IFILL: Germany and the U.S. after a tumultuous election. We start with some background from Spencer Michels.

SPENCER MICHELS: Victory for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his ruling coalition came after a campaign in which he emphasized his strong opposition to a us war with Iraq. Schroeder's Social Democrat Party, the left of center SDP, lost seats in parliament or bundestag, but held on to power because its coalition partner, the Green Party headed by Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, secured nearly 9% of the vote. Late returns gave the Social Democrat-Green Party coalition 47.1% of the vote and 306 seats in parliament. The main conservative opponents got 295 seats. Early this morning, Schroeder played down his slim margin of victory.

GERHARD SCHROEDER ( Translated ): A majority is a majority and if we have one, we will use it my dear friends. That much is clear.

SPENCER MICHELS: The rival Christian Democrats, or CDU/CSU led by conservative Edmund Stoiber, got as many votes for parliament as Schroeder s party, but the CDU's prospective coalition partner, the Free Democrats, fell short, in part because a Free Democratic leader was accused of making anti-Semitic remarks during the campaign. Still, Stoiber warned Schroeder that his party might gain power soon. Early in the campaign, the 58- year-old Schroeder, who was first elected chancellor in 1998, had lagged in the polls by as much as ten points. Schroeder was saddled with a sluggish economy and a rising jobless rate. Four million Germans, or 10% of the registered workforce, are unemployed. But massive flooding in Germany last month provided an opportunity for Schroeder to show leadership. That and his outspoken rejection of military action against Iraq boosted his poll numbers. He repeated his stance on Iraq several times during the campaign.

GERHARD SCHROEDER ( Translated ): Under my leadership, Germany will not take part in an intervention in Iraq.

SPENCER MICHELS: But Stoiber, the governor of Bavaria, accused Schroeder of isolating Germany not only from the U.S., But also from its European Union partners.

EDMUND STOIBER ( Translated ): Europe has to take a united approach to achieving peace and chancellor, for election reasons, you have for electoral reasons departed from the European path and played up war scenarios.

GERHARD SCHROEDER ( Translated ): For what happens after the possible option of military intervention, no one, ladies and gentlemen, has put any concrete and workable plan of action on the table. And that's why, ladies and gentlemen, I say that my arguments against military intervention remain, and it is still clear that under my leadership, Germany will not participate in military action.

SPENCER MICHELS: The campaign's anti-American tone hit a low point last week when Schroeder s Justice Minister, Herta Daeubler-Gemlin, commented on president bush's foreign policy. She was quoted in a local newspaper as saying: Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It s a classic tactic. It s one that Hitler used. Schroeder stood by her saying he believed her when she said she'd been misquoted. The White House responded angrily. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said in an interview with the "Financial Times" said There have clearly been some things said way beyond the pale. And she added: An atmosphere has been created in Germany that is in that sense poisoned. Today, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had this to say.

DONALD RUMSFELD: I have no comment on the German elections outcome. But I would have to say that the way it was conducted was notably unhelpful, and as the White House indicated, has had the effect of poisoning the relationship.

SPENCER MICHELS: On the first day of his new term, Chancellor Schroeder announced Daubler-Gemlin had submitted her resignation. Schroeder said that the two countries could have differences without endangering the basis of U.S./German relations.

GWEN IFILL: Margaret Warner takes it from there.

MARGARET WARNER: Three perspectives on the election, and the fallout for the U.S.-German relationship. Wolfgang Ischinger is Germany's ambassador to the United States. Robert Kimmitt was the U.S. Ambassador to Germany in the first Bush Administration. And Ivo Daalder was director for European affairs on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. He's now a senior fellow at the Brookings institution, a public policy think tank in Washington.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Ivo Daalder, how big a factor in Schroeder's campaign was this anti-U.S. policy in Iraq? Is this something just that the U.S. media has played up, or was this a big factor?

IVO DAALDER: It was a big issue, to be frank. A month or two ago, Mr. Schroeder was well behind in the polls, as your piece earlier indicated -- nine, ten points. The flood that set across most of Eastern Europe including in Germany was a major factor to lift Schroeder up to give him another issue. He was on the defensive on the economy. Now he could show his leadership potential but at the same time making the case that going to war against Iraq was a bad idea, distinguished him from everybody else at that point, and he used it quite effectively to gear up the percentage points and by early last week he was equal and then he stayed equal through the election.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Ambassador, even five years ago it would have seemed unconceivable that a German chancellor would be running... would make the political calculation that the way to run was to run against a U.S. policy that is so important to an American President. Why did he make that such a centerpiece of his campaign?

WOLFGANG ISCHINGER: I think it's important to understand that from my perspective this is not really this was not really about being for or against America. What was at stake here in the German context, the context of this election, was a very German question, the question of war and peace. I think it's important if one wants to understand how Germans speak about war, it's a very different concept for them than it is for Americans. When war... when the question of war against Iraq was raised, and of course the news came from America, many Germans started to panic again. We never spoke of war in the context of the Kosovo intervention because we didn t want --

MARGARET WARNER: Which Schroeder supported.

WOLFGANG ISCHINGER: Which Schroeder supported. And we did not use the word of war in Afghanistan which we continue to participate in combat troops and with more than 10,000 soldiers deployed overseas in a very close cooperation with the United States.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you explain it, Bob Kimmitt, from your years in Germany and I know you're still involved there, in terms of why Schroeder who I think is considered a very good politician decided that this was the way to go?

ROBERT KIMMITT: I think Ivo put his finger on it. That is, he was not going to win based on the economy. He had to find another issue, not just in which to demonstrate leadership but to put some distance between himself and his opponent. I would agree with the ambassador that it did not start off perhaps in an anti-American sense. It was more anti-war/pro peace. Unfortunately as the campaign moved on and as it got to its final stages it did take on a very anti-American cast. And that's why I think the administration went from disappointment to outrage.

MARGARET WARNER: That raises a question, Mr. Ambassador, when the remark that the justice minister supposedly made came up, I think a lot of people in the administration were surprised that Schroeder stuck with her. Why at least do you think-- and I hate to put you on the spot like this, but maybe you can enlighten us-- didn't he demand her resignation, which would have sent a certain signal?

WOLFGANG ISCHINGER: I think we're talking about the difference between Friday and Monday. Friday was the last day... the last working day in Germany before the election. This morning, and the first day after the election, the minister in question offered her resignation, which as far as I have understood has not been rejected. Therefore, I think that that point at least should be now cleared up.

MARGARET WARNER: Ivo Daalder, why do you think this resonated with the German public? I'm talking now really more about the anti-American, anti-U.S.... Excuse me, anti-Iraq war scenario? Why did that resonate so?

IVO DAALDER: Clearly as the ambassador said, war and peace is debated in a very different way in Germany. Indeed in most of Europe than it is in the United States. But I think there's more to that. I think there's a growing sentiment in Europe, particularly in Germany, that the United States by this administration has time and again ignored its concerns. It has not cared very much about what Germany thought about global warming or about international justice or indeed about arms control, whether it's the ABM Treaty or the biological weapons convention. And on issue after issue the Bush Administration has without much consultation and at times without any consultation made major decisions on issues that deeply care... ones that the Germans deeply care about. Now in essence we have turned the labels. We see unilateralism come home to roost. What we see is a German government that said if it's good for you to make your positions on basis of principle and basis of what you think is right, it's good for me. As Schroeder says this is not about U.S.-American relationship. This is about the issue of Iraq. We oppose-- I oppose, as the head of this government-- going to Iraq. That's what you asked us to do, to express our policies, to be principled by our policies. You do it on those issues you care about; we do it on this issue, which we care about deeply.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you see it that way?

ROBERT KIMMITT: I don't see it that way at all. I mean, to suggest that the U.S. Government is responsible for someone taking an anti-U.S. line in a campaign, I just don't has a basis in fact. Sure, we've had differences with Germany and other Europeans on a wide range of issues but we've never personalized those differences the way they were personalized in this campaign. What I think is most striking about what the Germans have done in this instance and so at variance with they ve done in the past is it has put them out of step not just with the U.S. but it seems with the United Nations, NATO and the European Union -- three institutions that have formed the multilateral basis for Germany's post war policy. They need to come back in my view not just with us but with their European friends and allies in NATO and interestingly in the UN where they will join the Security Council in three short months.

MARGARET WARNER: Ambassador, if you could first reply to Mr. Daalder's point that Schroeder realized... I mean, he was tapping into a certain resentment in the German body politic about... I mean I think I'm pair phrasing you correctly, about kind of U.S. unilateralism.

WOLFGANG ISCHINGER: I'm not sure there was a lot of that kind of consideration as my government defined its position on the Iraq issue. I think it's been said many times that what we have been concerned with is the question of, is this the issue to which we must together-- the West-- address the highest urgency? And if that's so, have we found answers to all the questions that we would be confronted with if we went down that road? I have to say that I have still not heard neither from German analysts nor from Americans for that matter really substantive answers to the question, what would we do together? What would our role have to be? What would be expected of Germany for example after the departure of Saddam? Who would take care of that country and who would make certain what kind of huge international effort would be required to keep the region under control? These are some of our concerns along, of course, with the immediate and direct concern that's being played out on television again today about the extremely dangerous situation in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. If we go back to the U.S.-German relationship, Ivo Daalder, how much damage do you think has been done here and what can be done to heal the rift?

IVO DAALDER: I think on a personal level between the leaders of our two countries, the damage is quite severe. This has become personal particularly for Mr. Bush, particularly after what happened with regard to the Hitler remark late last week. And personal relationships are important in diplomacy. They're particularly important among close friends. So in that sense I think there is quite a bit of damage. That doesn't mean that we're about to break, that the American troops are going to run away from Europe or any of that. We're not at that level. We're at a level of which trust between two leaders may have broken down. And that will affect the tone of the relationship. But on the major issues, even in the end I think on Iraq we will find that Germany that will be supportive, if not actually participating, in much of what will go on. We already seen Germany willing for example to take over the peacekeeping mission perhaps in Afghanistan and a whole host of other issues, the relationship will go ahead. But on a personal level, we're in for some rough time.

MARGARET WARNER: Your take, Bob Kimmitt, on how much damage and what it would take to heal it?

ROBERT KIMMITT: I worked at senior levels of the government for almost 20 years. I never once heard the national security advisor or the Secretary of Defense use the term "poisonous" to describe a relationship so certainly the damage has been severe. At the same time this is a bilateral relationship, of strategic importance to both countries. We have to figure out the way forward, and frankly Mr. Schroeder, having introduced U.S. interests into his campaign, I think needs to find now a way working with the United States, working perhaps through his foreign minister and his ambassador to reengage on those issues of common concern. I also agree with what the ambassador said. I think Mr. Schroeder left the door open to what appropriate role under UN auspices in concert with the European Union and NATO that Germany might play in Iraq. Remember, Mr. Schroeder answered a question that was not asked. He said, "I am not sending troops to Iraq." No one asked him that but there might be more that they could do.

MARGARET WARNER: You don't think that he was so unequivocal that he was saying German territory couldn't be used to launch attacks. I mean you think he limited himself just to the question of German troops?

ROBERT KIMMITT: I think he was very specific in what he said. I think what he said was at variance with the U.S. position. I think that caused some disappointment. His justice minister personalized that disappointment. I think we now have to find a practical way forward.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think it will take to heal the breach?

WOLFGANG ISCHINGER: Well, first of all, I think that this relationship is at core a very healthy relationship. I would need an hour to describe the many areas beginning with Afghanistan, with the Balkans and many otherissues on which we worked together beautifully. I cannot believe that our two governments on the basis of shared interests and shared values cannot find a way together again to move forward. That's my job -- to work in that direction. And you will see I'm quite certain that the new Schroeder government will continue to make the German-American relationship as well as its commitment to NATO one of the core elements of its foreign policy. No doubt about it.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, you have a big job, Mr. Ambassador. Good luck. Thank you, and Bob Kimmitt and Ivo Daalder.

GWEN IFILL: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight the government's smallpox inoculation proposal, the economics of professional football, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay.

FOCUS GETTING READY

GWEN IFILL: Now the government and smallpox. The Centers for Disease Control today outlined steps for potential mass vaccination in the event of a smallpox outbreak. The new guidelines spell out for the first time how complicated it could be to guard against biological terror attack. For details of the report, we're joined by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Julie Gerberding. Welcome.

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Thank you.

GWEN IFILL: So why is it that we are preparing for a smallpox attack at all?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Well, you know, we know that the United States and the Soviet Union had the smallpox virus, but we're worried that some other nations may have it as well. And since we've been working on it for the last two years the preparedness for bioterrorism attacks, we've got to take this one seriously too.

GWEN IFILL: We started paying attention to all this of course after the anthrax outbreaks last year. But now that we are at this point where we're beginning to make proposals for how one copes with the unthinkable, how did mass vaccination get on the table, I guess?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: The most important thing we need to do if there's a smallpox exposure is to find the infected people, immunize the contacts of those people as well as the contacts of the contacts. Once we've gotten that done, we also need to look and see whether or not there's evidence of a broader exposure risk to the community. And if there is, we need to be prepared to scale up and do a whole community level immunization. And that's what we really mean by mass vaccination, that scaling- up process if a particular exposure situation indicates that's necessary.

GWEN IFILL: And so who does this? Who gets to carry out this what sounds like would be a pretty massive task?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Well, you know, the local health agencies including local and state health... public health officials and so forth, have a tradition of doing immunization programs for a whole variety of infectious diseases so they're going to be our first army to handle this at the local level.

GWEN IFILL: It's coordinated from the top to the bottom or do they alert you? How does that work?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Well, in general if there was a suspicious exposure, a suspicious case in a particular, let's say, community, the local health officials there would be notified. They would work with the state and then if it looked like there was a serious problem, they'd contact CDC right away.

GWEN IFILL: Every day I read about the red ink in state and local governments. Can they afford to do? And how does the federal government help them?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Well, this planning process is something that we supported through the investments that HHS made this year in preparedness planning. So the $1.1 billion that went out already is to help support this planning process. But should we actually have to implement an immunization program at that level of course additional resources would probably be required. I'm sure in that kind of an emergency situation, we would be able to find the support that's necessary to get the job done.

GWEN IFILL: If an attack crossed jurisdictional lines, it was more than one state, more than one city involved would the federal government, would the President or the Secretary of Health and Human Services? How high would it go before a decision was made that all 288 million citizens of the United States should get a smallpox vaccination?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: What you're really describing is the whole spectrum of things that might happen. If this was a small localized event, then it would be the local and state health officials that have jurisdiction. If it is something that is multi-jurisdictional then of course Secretary Thompson and the CDC, I as the CDC Director would be working together to determine what kind of resources need to be deployed. Then the secretary would be communicating with the White House and making sure. If we were actually dealing with a disaster or a national emergency, the President could declare a state of emergency and then that would activate the whole federal emergency response plan, HHS has the role there for dealing with the health consequences in that situation.

GWEN IFILL: Since smallpox as a disease has been basically eradicated for decades, what would it take to trigger an action, whether it's the just inoculating people in the ring, that is to say, the medical professionals, the first responders or the wider mass inoculations that you're talking about today?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Well, we re kind of talking about two things here. One is what we might want to do to ensure that we could make a response, and that's where our advisory committee has suggested that we immunize a team of initial responders in a community. These would be the people who would go out and investigate any suspect cases. But when we talk about ring vaccination, we're actually talking about something different. That's a situation where we have a case and then we identify their close household contacts or the people that they would most likely have spread virus to in the stage of infection, and then immunize those contacts, but to be extra sure we also then immunize the contacts of the contacts. So we've got kind of a double ring around the infectious case.

GWEN IFILL: And just a single case would be enough to trigger this?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: We do the ring vaccination for a single case. Now if we saw that there were many cases in a community or that many communities were connected with a single exposure or multiple exposures, that's the situation where we might have to scale up and do a community level vaccination program or even what people are calling now kind of mass vaccination.

GWEN IFILL: If smallpox is such a dread disease, why not vaccinate people before they have a chance to... it seems almost backwards. Why wouldn't you vaccinate someone against the disease instead of after the disease has been discovered?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Well, the problem with this particular vaccine, the one we have right now, is that it has some real serious side effects. And there are some people who are at very high risk for the most serious problems including people with eczema or skin conditions, people have to immuno suppressive disorders and little children. When we use a vaccine like this forwhat is a theoretical risk we've really got to be aware that there's going to be some very bad complications for some part of the population. So it's that balance that we're struggling with.

GWEN IFILL: If this trigger happens would these vaccinations be mandatory? We would just order people to go out and get them or would they be voluntary, it s up to you to figure it out.

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Our vaccination program is designed to be voluntary. If we were dealing with an exposure situation, people would still have the choice of whether they wanted to take the vaccine or not. But if they were exposed or could pose a risk to others by not being vaccinated, then we might have to isolate them so that they couldn't transmit to other people.

GWEN IFILL: Are you counting on people to just want to do this?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Well, our experience with public health emergencies in the past has been that with -- people are given the right information and we communicate with them honestly and openly trusted people are necessary to that, of course, that people will really do the right thing because they can understand and respond to that sort of information.

GWEN IFILL: Based on what you said a moment allege about the potential risks of giving this vaccine in advance, have you had to factor into the possibility that the risks may outweigh the benefits?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Well, in the pre-event situation, I mean, before we actually have a case of anthrax that's exactly what we're struggling with. We know the vaccine will carry some risk. We can do a lot of things to minimize it but we want to have enough protection in our population so that if we needed to go forward with the full court press, that we would have the doctors and the clinicians and the front line responders protected enough to be able to do that. And at the same time we don't want to expose those people to unnecessary risks either.

GWEN IFILL: This is the best balance you could come up with for now?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: We still are working on the pre-event policy. That's something that is still under active discussion. But this post exposure policy that went out today is sort of the "just in case we really have an emergency" we want to make sure that the state and local personnel are ready to go.

GWEN IFILL: If an emergency happens, how long does it take to ramp up... to make this vaccine available to the maximum number of people?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: I think the time it would take depends on how much practice we have and how prepared we really are. That's kind of why we're pushing it out saying we hear you, we know you need help with this, you need some specificity around the suggestion that you be available to immunize say a million people in ten days. Here's the first round of help that we can provide in terms of technical support. But now let's work with it. Let's find out what's going well and then when we get a reasonable plan together, we need to practice it.

GWEN IFILL: Do we have enough vaccine in stock now to provide vaccinations if this attack were to happen tomorrow?

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: If we had an emergency, we have enough vaccine that we could protect every American today. We do have the vaccine. That's not the rate limiting step here. What we don't have the plan and the practice to make sure that we could get that vaccine to every single person quickly. And our goal now is to ensure that every American, whatever jurisdiction they live in, can have access to this vaccine if an emergency arose.

GWEN IFILL: Dr. Julie Gerberding, thank you very much for joining us.

DR. JULIE GERBERDING: You're very welcome.

FOCUS GOAL LINE ECONOMICS

GWEN IFILL: On the field, it's the St. Louis Rams against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on "Monday Night Football" tonight. Off the field, another game is going on. Our business correspondent Paul Solman reports.

PAUL SOLMAN: While sports news has been dominated lately by the harsh reality of economics-- baseball, with its bankrupt teams, labor strife, and the like-- the economically dazzling sport of football is again grabbing the spotlight. To some, football is merely mayhem, with tackles that feel like slamming into a brick wall at full speed, careers barely four years long, some two-thirds of the labor force physically disabled in retirement. But football is also a multibillion-dollar business, and to your economics correspondent, a pigskin fan, as in "fanatic," what's striking is that pro football has arguably become America's most popular sport by practicing non-free-market economics, and that baseball is now following football's non-free-market model, in which firms compete furiously, yet share the industry's revenues, with labor and with each other. In fact, as the new season gets under way, the NFL could be called a wildly "successful planned economy," though some have described it as a "communist state."

ROBERT KRAFT: I'd say we're not communists, we're socialists, in that we all have the same budget to spend.

PAUL SOLMAN: Owner Robert Kraft of "my" team, the once lowly, now Super Bowl champion New England Patriots, explains that equal competition comes from equal budgets.

ROBERT KRAFT: And then those who manage their budget more efficiently and get the best value should over time do better, because we want everyone to be competing with the same ground rules.

PAUL SOLMAN: In baseball, richer teams like the Yankees have a real advantage, able to buy players poorer teams can't afford. But in football, every team has the same amount to spend on players, and thus, longtime laggards like the Patriots here can suddenly win it all, thanks to a system which bypasses the free market. It works like this: The National Football League, the NFL, gets most of its money from TV contracts, then shares that money equally with each team, regardless of how many viewers that team brings in. The league imposes a salary cap, so no team can spend more than the maximum-- $71 million this year to prevent big spenders from amassing the top talent. Schedules are adjusted every year-- tougher for the better teams, easier for those who have dropped the ball. Yet there's precious metal and glory galore for the ever- changing winners who beat the system within the system.

SPOKESMAN: It's good for the game, it's good for the country, it's good for the NFL, for those who love football, not have someone dominating. So then the company that has the best business practices is the one that'll do better over time.

PAUL SOLMAN: If the league's success is due to equality, the Patriots' surprise supremacy may be even more so. The team came out for the Super Bowl as a group, despite individual introductions, causing Rush Limbaugh to complain, "working together for the greater good is so close to 'the communist manifesto,' it's frightening." On the other hand, quiet coach Bill Belichick, ultimately responsible for making the product on the field, has been called "brilliant" by others for shaping a team of equals.

PAUL SOLMAN: When people call you brilliant or a genius, what do you think they mean?

BILL BELICHICK: I'm not really sure what they mean. And I've been called a lot of other things, too, that would balance that off.

PAUL SOLMAN: But before I take this too far, Belichick, a former economics major at Wesleyan, doesn't value equality at the expense of competition. In fact, he teaches his players to surmount all obstacles, demolishing everything that stands in their way. Now, when Belichick took over in 2000, the Patriots were in decline, stuck with stars-- many no longer in the picture-- at whom big money had been thrown in the form of long-term contracts that could make a coach's hair turn gray.

SCOTT PIOLI: What we wanted to do was put a limit on the spending, put a limit on the borrowing.

PAUL SOLMAN: So top aide Scott Pioli and his boss, coach Belichick, decided not to keep signing the most highly touted players.

SCOTT PIOLI: Because there's not always a direct correlation between marquee names, marquee salaries, and good football players.

PAUL SOLMAN: And in the NFL, "Good football players" is just what you need lots of, since this is a sport where injuries often sideline many of a team's two dozen starters. So when high-priced Patriots quarterback Drew Ble suffered a life-threatening hit, a low-priced but high-value backup, Tom Brady, was on the 53-man roster, ready to replace him.

SCOTT PIOLI: Our 45th through the 53rd players on our roster were probably better than many of the other teams' backup players.

PAUL SOLMAN: So you have to have the money on hand to be able to afford those better backup players that you'll have on board.

SCOTT PIOLI: Absolutely, absolutely. We have only certain amount of dollars to spend, and we have to build a team. And if we overspend in one area, we're not going to be able to fill in in certain other areas where it's going to affect the team.

PAUL SOLMAN: Economics majors like Belichick may remember that this is called "opportunity cost." If he had paid too much for prime running back Antowain Smith here, given the salary cap, that would have cost him the opportunity of signing other players. So by figuring out how to build a more competitive team within the limits of the salary cap, the Patriots laid the groundwork for success. But a team also has to generate enough income to pay the cap. TV revenue doesn't cover it all. And there are non-capped expenses, like a great coach, executives, assistants, facilities, transportation. Where does that money come from? Well, there are some revenues you don't share with the rest of the league: The revenues from your stadium. Cities desperate for football usually build stadiums for teams. The Kraft family, however, has just built the NFL's first privately financed one itself. The idea is to eventually make more money than rivals, from parking, concessions, and 68,000 seats the Krafts totally control, including cushy Red Club seats at up to $600 per game, luxury suites upwards of $100,000, both of which come with rights to use the stadium for social events.

JONATHAN KRAFT: The idea was to make the clubs and the suites bigger and more spacious than anything that had ever been done, and then give it 365-day-a-year use to the members. And that way you'd be selling a higher value-added product to the end user, but also generating enough revenue to help pay for the building.

PAUL SOLMAN: The Krafts were also economically savvy about sponsors-- fewer, more prominent signs for more money per sponsor. So for all the talk of socialism, the owners try to, in economic terms, maximize their return-- in football lingo, "kick butt." And the Krafts pay their coach a hefty $2.5 million to usehis noggin to get the most out of what they've got to work with-- the primary goal in any economic textbook. Case in point: The Patriots' last drive in the Super Bowl. Patriots' ball, score tied, seconds left. An interception would be fatal. But Belichick had his bargain quarterback throw short passes. Why? Because the Rams were likely to protect against long passes.

BILL BELICHICK: So there's no way you can predict what they're going to do. They just do too many things. But what you can do is play the percentages, follow the odds, and that's really what it's about.

PAUL SOLMAN: Plus, Belichick's many above-average yet affordable team-driven players would do as told, avoid the heroics, and maximize the chances of getting close enough for a field goal that won the game. The team that came out as one rejoiced as one, in a win for competition and cooperation, for team, coach, and the NFL.

PAUL SOLMAN: Why is this league different from all other leagues?

ROBERT KRAFT: Here's the bottom line of our league, why I think we're the best sports league in this country, if not the world, is that in the end, we only really compete three hours on Sunday with one other team. The rest of the time, the progressive owners in our league understand we have aligned interests, and we should always be a partnership and put our selfish interests down, so that we can share and do what's in the league's long-term interests.

PAUL SOLMAN: As the new season begins, the NFL's system of parity will only make winning tougher for the Patriots. The Super Bowl triumph meant they picked last in the college draft. Their schedule, easy last season, was made much tougher this year. But maybe that's why more and more fans follow pro football these days. In some measure, because of its economic model, you truly never know who will win.

GWEN IFILL: Well, so far, at least, Paul Solman's Patriots are acquitting themselves well in the new season. After an overtime victory yesterday, they're 3-0.

ESSAY BAN THE BOOKS

GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, some thoughts from essayist Roger Rosenblatt about books that have been banned from some schools and libraries.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: The week of September 21-28 is declared Banned Book Week by the American Library Association and other organizations interested in publicizing attempts to ban books in schools and libraries. Except for a concern about the future of democracy, I don't understand what the fuss is about. Ban all the books, I say. They clutter the mind with thoughts. They clutter rooms, indeed whole buildings, with dust-collecting objects. As the banners of books know too well, they also promote evil acts. The "Harry Potter" books are kept away from children in many places because they promote sorcery. For a long time, the three most frequently banned literary works in this country were "Macbeth," "King Lear," and "The Great Gatsby." The explanations offered always centered on what these works promoted. "Macbeth" promoted witchcraft, they said. "King Lear," I suppose, promoted ingratitude. "The Great Gatsby," Long Island? In Springfield, Oregon, a book was banned called "Hitler's Hang-Ups," about Hitler's unusual sexual practices. You know, given Hitler's other tendencies, you'd think that the sexual stuff would be relatively acceptable. Ban 'em all. Don't pollute those readers' minds, especially the children's minds. The children's book, "Where's Waldo?" was banned by a school board someplace for containing "explicit subject matter." A plea for surrealism, I suppose. Another book called "Wait Till Helen comes" was taken off the shelves for offering, "a morbid portrayal of death." I hate it when that happens. I can't prove this of course, but I would bet that every civilization that destroyed itself began its self- destruction when someone in power wanted to control what the people were reading. Control is a fairly easy thing once you've established overseeing laws or committees. You get an idea of what books are proper-- that is, safe-- for the public to read. You define safe as that which is least threatening to your power. Finally, you justify your restrictions by telling the people that you know what is best for them, that control of the possible use of their minds is really in their best interests. Ban the books, and if you can't ban them, make sure at least that you know what everyone is reading. In October 2001, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, a perfectly correct and sensible law in terms of its general desire to protect the country. But then there was section 215 about books, which said that the government investigators can compel booksellers and librarians to turn over information as to what their customers were reading. The law also forbade booksellers and librarians to make public the fact that they had even received such orders. How this provision got past Congress can only be explained by the heat of a moment. But as soon as you start controlling what people read, you knock off the country you were trying to protect. You can read that in the Constitution. Ban the books? If you really want to keep the country safe, put up more bookstores, put up more libraries. Come to think of it, put up a library on the World Trade Center site, a local public library branch of the kind where millions of Americans learned how to think and dream for themselves. And in this local library, put as many different books as possible. Put every book under the sun. The sun is known for casting light. I'm Roger Rosenblatt.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major developments of the day: Israel came under new pressure to end the siege of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in his West Bank compound. And Chancellor Schroeder of Germany renewed his opposition to launching a war against Iraq. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you and good night.