The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Four views of the tobacco legislation introduced today in the Senate and endorsed by President Clinton; an explanation of an official Marine Corps report on the cable car tragedy in Italy; and a look at a new study with some good news about the cancer rate finally going down. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton endorsed tobacco legislation introduced today in the Senate. It would raise the price of cigarettes $1.50 a pack over the next two years. The President spoke to a national meeting of state attorneys general in Washington. He thanked them for negotiating a legal settlement between the states and the tobacco industry over state medical costs related to smoking. He urged them now to lobby Congress to pass legislation to implement the deal.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Today and every day 3,000 children start smoking illegally, and 1,000 will have their lives shortened as a result. This is a national epidemic. It is a national tragedy. We must struggle to end it until we prevail. What I want to tell you is that we can do this, and you have to help us do this. You have to go to the Congress and say, a thousand kids a day is too high a price to pay for another year's delay.

JIM LEHRER: The bill is sponsored by Republican Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island and Democrats Bob Graham of Florida and Tom Harkin of Iowa. We'll have more on the legislation right after this News Summary. Cancer rates have dropped for the first time this century. That was the finding of a joint report today by the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, and Centers for Disease Control. It said the number of people diagnosed with cancer fell .7 percent from 1990 to '95. A spokesman said a number of factors were responsible, including improved lifestyles and better treatment. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Marine Corps commanders recommended punishment today for the flight crew involved in a deadly accident in Italy last month. A jet fighter severed a cable car line at a ski resort, sending a gondola crashing to the ground. Nineteen skiers and the operator were killed. Marine investigators determined the plane was flying below the minimum altitude, even though the ski lift was clearly marked on their map. We'll have more on this story later in the program. On the Kosovo story today ethnic Albanians rejected an offer by Serb authorities to hold public talks on their differences. The Serbs said they would consider the highest degree of autonomy but not independence for the Southern Yugoslav province. Kosovo is 90 percent Albanian. Serb police killed at least 80 people there last week, claiming they were retaliating for acts of terrorism by Albanian separatists. In Washington today, U.S. special envoy Robert Gelbard blamed the Serbs for failing to communicate with the Albanians. He spoke before the House International Relations Committee.

ROBERT GELBARD, Balkans Envoy: This dialogue, as I have described it, has to be unconditioned; it has to start in private because there is clearly a dramatic and understandable lack of trust on the part of the Kosovo or Albanian leaders for Milosevic and needs to be based on the idea of achieving some form of enhanced status for Kosovo, leading toward a significantly greater degree of self-administration in Kosovo.

JIM LEHRER: Gelbard held separate talks with Serbian President Milosevic and Albanian leaders earlier this week. In London today British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he still hoped to meet his mid-April deadline for a peace agreement for Northern Ireland. He spoke after meeting with the Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.

TONY BLAIR, Prime Minister, Great Britain: Maybe I'm stubbornly optimistic, but I am optimistic that we can get to that deadline, provided there's the goodwill there for people to negotiate. And for the time that Sinn Fein have been out of the talks, we've still been pressing on and negotiating, and getting the parties to talk about the details of the settlement because the point is we are agonizingly close to agreeing certainly the framework and the outline of a settlement, but we've obviously got to get the detail right too.

JIM LEHRER: Sinn Fein was suspended from the all-party peace talks last month after two killings were linked to the Irish Republican Army. Adams spoke to reporters after today's meeting with Blair.

GERRY ADAMS, President, Sinn Fein: My own view is that we should seek to go back into the talks at the earliest possible opportunity. But that is not a decision for me alone. We are a collective leadership. We will consult. We will report back, and let me reassure everyone that Sinn Fein remains totally and absolutely committed to a real lasting and curable settlement of the conflict in our country.

JIM LEHRER: The talks are scheduled to reconvene March 23rd in Belfast. Back in this country today the Southeast dealt with a record cold wave. A freeze killed early peach blossoms in South Carolina and Georgia. In Albany, Georgia, flooding was again the concern. The Flint River was expected to rise even more this weekend. So far, it has driven 11,000 people from their homes. In the Midwest, the bitter cold continued. In Northern Indiana, authorities delivered food to thousands of residents still without electricity. A heavy snowstorm blanketed the region earlier this week. In business news today the American Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ Over-the-Counter Market said they were considering a merger. It would make the two smaller markets more competitive with the older and larger New York Stock Exchange. They issued a statement saying many issues remained unresolved. The Senate today passed the huge transportation bill known as ISTEA. The vote was 96 to 4. It allots $214 billion over six years for projects from road and bridge maintenance to light rail and subway development. It also preserves a program that helps women and minorities win construction contracts. The bill now goes to the House. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the tobacco legislation, the Marine Corps' Italian tragedy report, and some good news about cancer. FOCUS - SMOKING ISSUE

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman begins our tobacco report.

KWAME HOLMAN: It's been more than nine months since the tobacco industry and 40 state attorneys general announced their landmark settlement designed to pay smoking-related health care costs and reduce teen smoking. Under the key points of that proposed settlement: the tobacco companies would pay $368 billion in damages and compensation over 25 years; the Food & Drug Administration would regulate nicotine; tobacco advertising would be restrictive; and the industry would have to take steps to reduce youth smoking. In return, tobacco companies would receive immunity from future class-action lawsuits and from punitive damages for past practices. The public health community, however, began criticizing the agreement almost immediately, charging it gave too many concessions to the tobacco industry and too little power to the Food & Drug Administration.

SPOKESMAN: Not only is it unacceptable but it would be wrong.

KWAME HOLMAN: Still, the tobacco industry has continued to support the agreement. As Congress began to focus on the tobacco issue, the industry launched a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign, including full-page ads this week in the Washington Post and the New York Times. They've also run television spots all aimed at urging lawmakers not to dismantle the proposed settlement.

ANNOUNCER: The tobacco settlement, a unique opportunity to end the conflict and move forward. Get the facts for yourself.

KWAME HOLMAN: And recently, a new breed of tobacco executives also has begun acknowledging the industry should pay for past actions. Steven Goldstone, CEO of RJR Nabisco, appeared on the NewsHour in January.

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: I will tell you, if we were sitting over a beer, I'm sure I could whine a lot about the injustices that we're facing, but I have to accept reality. And I think the industry probably should have come to grips with this many years ago. What it is, is what's necessary to be done to put situations right and have a civil discourse and, in my view, have a regulatory scheme, that's an appropriate thing to do. My biggest disappointment so far has been something that looks to me to be such a good solution has for some reason kind of been orphaned, in my view.

KWAME HOLMAN: Ultimately, any tobacco settlement must be approved by Congress and signed into law by the President. Several bills have been introduced as Congress tries to work toward a consensus. Major sticking points include whether once the tobacco companies have paid compensation they should be granted immunity from future lawsuits. Today, President Clinton addressed the National Association of Attorneys General in Washington. He congratulated them for achieving last year's proposed settlement and their success in revealing internal documents of the industry.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: As the documents are released, we begin to learn the whole story. In an internal document, one company proudly described its brand as "the brand of choice among teenagers." Another described its plan to flavor cigarettes with apples, honey, or Coca-Cola because "it's a well- known fact that teenagers like sweet products." This avalanche of evidence is bringing down the walls of deceit. Now we know the facts, now you have acted. Now Congress must act.

KWAME HOLMAN: The President also took the occasion to endorse the first major bipartisan tobacco settlement bill, which was unveiled today in the Senate. Its proponents say the bill is in some ways tougher on the industry than the original proposed settlement.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I have said I would support any comprehensive, bipartisan legislation if it meets five principles. I believe it must raise the price of cigarettes by up to a dollar and a half a pack over the next decade and impose tough penalties on companies that continue to sell to kids. It must reaffirm the FDA's authority to regulate tobacco products. It must get the tobacco companies out of the business of marketing to our children. It must further our other public health goals. And it must protect the tobacco farmers and their communities. And I take it we are all agreed on that. I think that is very important. Today, I'm happy to report that Senators John Chafee, Bob Graham, and Tom Harkin are introducing the first bipartisan bill that meets all five of these principles. And I strongly support their effort. It is a good, tough bill. I hope it gets wide support.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner has more.

MARGARET WARNER: Unlike the agreement negotiated last year, the bill introduced today would not give the industry immunity from future class action lawsuits, but it would place a cap of $8 billion on the amount of damages the industry would have to pay in any one year. Among other things, the bill would also raise the price of a pack of cigarettes by $1.50 over the next two years, limit tobacco company advertising to black and white text messages only, and grant the Food & Drug Administration full authority to regulate tobacco as a drug. Joining us now are Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, one of the bill's main sponsors; Michael Moore, attorney general of Mississippi, who took a lead in negotiating the earlier settlement; John Garrison, chief executive officer of the American Lung Association; and David Adelman, a tobacco industry analyst for the investment firm Morgan Stanley- Dean Witter.Sen. Graham, how is this bill, in your view, an improvement over what was negotiated earlier?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM, [D] Florida: First, I want to commend the attorneys general for the outstanding service that they rendered to the nation by initiating the state lawsuits which led to this global settlement. If states like Mississippi and Florida had not taken the initiative, we would not in March of 1998 be in a position to consider a national tobacco settlement. So I commend them and recognize their enormous leadership. The legislation that Sen. John Chafee and Tom Harkin and I introduced today differs from the attorney general's proposal in several ways. Two of those are, first, it would increase the price of cigarettes by $1.50 a pack over the next two years. Over the 25-year life of this legislation it would increase the total amount of contribution by the tobacco industry by almost $300 million beyond what was in the attorney general's settlement. And second, it does not provide for any shield of the tobacco industry against class action suits, or against punitive damages.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Garrison, from the Lung Association, what do you think of this bill?

JOHN GARRISON, American Lung Association: Well, the American Lung Association is concerned with one major flaw in the bill, and that flaw does give special legal protection to the tobacco industry. And that is the cap that was mentioned earlier. The $8 billion cap. We just don't think that this industry, this rogue industry, should be given any special protection. It's an industry that over 400,000 Americans die from smoking its product--it's an industry where we have found that they have targeted kids as young as five years old. They've withheld documents. So while this bill has many strong features and certainly is stronger than the deal that was enacted by the attorneys general, it still has this major flaw, and the Lung Association feels that we can have the provisions of this bill without letting the tobacco industry off the hook, and that's the major problem here. And it doesn't have to be a problem, we don't think.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Graham, are you letting the industry off the hook with this cap?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Absolutely not. What the cap is, is every year for the duration of this agreement the tobacco industry must contribute $4 billion into a fund which would be used to pay off settlements that were reached for past or future tobacco-related diseases and injuries. It would then provide if in any year the amount of those judgments exceeded $4 billion, there will be an additional $4 billion or $8 billion per year. If there were insufficient funds in any one year available through that trust fund to meet the judgments that have been secured, they would go over into the next year and can be paid out of the next year's $8 billion allotment. We believe that this is a fair provision. It does not give the tobacco industry any barriers to being sued in a class action format, or for punitive damages. It does not restrict the ability of local, state, or federal governments to sue for claims that they might have against the tobacco industry. It does give the tobacco industry a degree of stability in terms of what their ultimate annual obligation will be. Frankly, this industry is going to be asked over the next 25 years to pay an excess of $600 billion, $600 billion under our legislation. We think this will put the industry in a position that it can meet that enormous obligation, which will be so important in order to achieve the objectives, particularly the objectives of reducing teen-age smoking.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Adelman, how do you think the industry will look at this?

DAVID ADELMAN, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter: I think, overall, the industry would find that today's proposal is seriously flawed. And I think that they would point to three or four different issues. At a starting point, a cap in and of itself, insufficient level of liability and protection, a cap in the June 20th agreement was present, but there were several other protections that the industry negotiated and discussed as the public health officials and with 40 attorney generals, and a cap on a stand-alone basis is going to be problematic. This is not a contract; this is a bill and a bill in the future by a Congress in the future can be changed. So it doesn't provide from a practical perspective any long-term liability protection. I doubt the industry will support it, and, therefore, the marketing restrictions that are proposed are clearly unconstitutional without the industry's voluntary agreement as well.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. I want to get to that point. Sen. Graham, just respond on the point that he just made that from the industry's perspective, an $8 billion annual cap isn't much of a protection.

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Well, the purpose of this legislation, frankly, is not to come on bended knee to the tobacco industry and ask for their sufferings as to what the representatives of the American people can pass. What we are focused on are those 3,000 teen-agers who today started smoking, 1,000 of whom will die prematurely of a tobacco-related disease. Those are the lives that we are trying to save by our legislation. I believe the most significant way in which we are going to reduce teen-age smoking is by getting the price of cigarettes up to $1.50 a pack as quickly as possible, which our bill does, and I believe that it will have a dramatic positive effect in terms of reducing teen-age smoking, and, therefore, the future premature loss of life.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Adelman, couldn't Congress just go ahead and come up with a bill, whether or not the industry likes it? What does it mean when you said it might threaten some other parts?

DAVID ADELMAN: Well, on a couple of issues, the Senator, himself, you know, characterizes his proposal as a settlement. A settlement involves a degree of negotiation, and I think that the June 20th agreement was a carefully crafted one that took into account the industry, its economics, its importance as an employer, as a supplier, and as a customer of a variety of industries. It took into account the fact that it was going to voluntarily agree to unprecedented degrees or restrictions on its behavior and similarly give up very significant First Amendment marketing rights. And I think that the industries are likely to voluntarily agree to this and, therefore, would challenge and I think ultimately be victorious in challenging the marketing restrictions that are contained in this agreement.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean go to court?

DAVID ADELMAN: Absolutely.

MARGARET WARNER: Mike Moore, your view of this bill, and particularly this immunity liability issue.

MICHAEL MOORE, Attorney General, Mississippi: Well, first, I'm real encouraged by what Senator Chafee and Harkin and Graham have done. I mean, finally we have some movement. There are some real issues that continue to be debated. I think this is probably a real good first negotiation gambit. I mean, the amount of money in this thing I'm certain the industry will fight, but Senator Graham, I'm sure, is trying to provide more money for us to reduce teen-age smoking.

MARGARET WARNER: So it's roughly almost--as he said--$300 billion more?

MICHAEL MOORE: It could be as much as twice as much as the original agreement, it could be even more when you look back--I mean, they could end up paying $35 billion a year and frankly the net assets of the entire industry are $30 billion, so I don't now where we end up, but I have to tell you, I am so encouraged by what they've done on the market in advertising restrictions and the like. There is a point, though, that we need to get something that will get all the marketing advertising restrictions that we've proposed in our agreement, and frankly, they placed in this deal, but we need some level of compliance by the industry, whether you want to call it a consent or agreement. Otherwise, we'll find ourselves back in court with people challenging the market and advertising restrictions. On our agreement, you know, we proposed consent decrees where they agree and waive their First Amendment rights, and these guys do the same thing. But if they don't get some of the protections that they want, they may not be able to comply or to agree. It would be a shame if we didn't get a deal because of that, but this is definitely in the right direction. It's one of the finest deals that I've seen so far.

MARGARET WARNER: But, I mean, briefly, are you saying that you think if they didn't agree and they went to court to challenge these advertising restrictions on First Amendment grounds, that they could--that the tobacco companies could well prevail?

MICHAEL MOORE: Well, a consent decree usually means that the two parties have consent to all the restrictions that are in the bill, and we were going to have them sign contracts too in a protocol, so if we didn't have their voluntary agreement waiver of their First Amendment rights, we might have some problems in court down the line. I'll bet you, though, what's going to happen is the provisions of this bill, the provisions that we have, and the work that McCain and Hatch and other people are doing are going to be put together in a bill they can get enough Democrats and Republicans to get this thing passed. So I'm encouraged.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me go back to Senator Graham. What about the point that for practical purposes, you actually do need the industry to be comfortable enough with this not to go into court and challenge it?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Well, it would certainly be desirable to add to the list of people who are supporting this legislation, which include the President of the United States, the leaders of the major health organizations, such as the American Cancer Society, a strong letter of support from Dr. Koop and Mr. David Kessler for the legislation that Sen. Chafee, Harkin, and myself introduced today. If we could add the industry as a supporter, recognizing their public responsibilities and recognizing their need to atone for past actions, it would be obviously that much better. But we are prepared to proceed forward with the legislation we've introduced, which we think is fair, balanced, will achieve the objective of reducing teen-age smoking, and it is the type of legislation that the American public expects us to enact, so that we can save literally millions of lives over the next generation.

MARGARET WARNER: John Garrison, I know you think that $8 billion cap doesn't go far enough. But listening to this argument on the other side, does it concern you--I mean, would you be troubled if Congress went ahead with a bill that the industry didn't support? How important do you think it is--is it to get the industry in on this?

JOHN GARRISON: I don't think it's important at all to get the industry into it. I don't think that Congress needs to worry about the industry. The advertising part I think is a red herring because there are Supreme Court case law that indicates that if you have--if you're doing illegal advertising or deceptive advertising, you can't do that, and certainly what has been revealed by the documents that have been covered so far is that this industry has done exactly that, marketing to kids. So we shouldn't be put aside. This is a diversionary tactic. While we can go ahead and we can get the taxes on the cigarettes, we don't have to have the immunity. We don't have to have a cap. Even Doctors Kessler and Koop and their support of certain parts of this bill indicated they did not support the cap and so I think we need to keep that in mind. But this--a lot can be done, will be done. The American people does want it done. But we don't have to have the tobacco industry telling us what we can do, or influencing what we could do, or making a deal with them.

MARGARET WARNER: Attorney General Moore, you've been up on the Hill a lot trying to sell your earlier proposed deal. What would you say are the political prospects for it or for this bill? Where do you think this is headed?

MICHAEL MOORE: Well, I have to tell you again, I'm so proud of these three senators because I've read what they've done today, and it is a tremendous piece of work. I think what's going to happen, practically speaking, is they tell me that McCain's Commerce Committee--

MARGARET WARNER: This is Sen. John McCain, Republican--

MICHAEL MOORE: The Commerce Committee is where most of the action is going to take place, and I'm not a senator, so maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but I seem to believe it because that's where all the evidence is. I think what you'll see is this bill go there. I think you'll see Senator Conrad's bill go there, and I think--

MARGARET WARNER: Kent Conrad.

MICHAEL MOORE: Pieces of--

MARGARET WARNER: Democrat.

MICHAEL MOORE: -- all those bills, see what they can get enough votes for, both Democrats and Republicans, and frankly, I'm so encouraged I think we're going to get this thing done and have a bill marked up in the next three weeks. And that's--I really do. I think that's an important piece. I mean, Sen. Graham has done an outstanding job working with--bipartisanly with Sen. Chafee and Sen. Harkin. They're headed in the right direction, and I think we're off to the races. I just want to say thanks again to Bob because he knows how hard we've been fighting this in Florida.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Graham, three weeks away?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Well, that's very encouraging. Mike, I appreciate what you've said. I don't know if I could quite bet on doing it in three weeks, but I think that the chances of passage of a comprehensive tobacco bill have moved up substantially in the last few days, and I'd hope that the legislation that Sen. Chafee, Harkin, and myself have introduced will contribute to that, and it's very important to get--this is a rare opportunity. There is no step that America could take that would have a greater impact in terms of the health of these people, the reduction of unnecessary deaths, than this legislation on tobacco. We cannot miss this opportunity, and I am confident that what happened today will bring that opportunity closer to reality.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, Sen. Graham, Mr. Adelman, and Mr. Garrison, and Attorney General Moore, thank you all four very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Marine cable car tragedy and a cancer update. FOCUS - CABLE CAR REPORT

JIM LEHRER: The Marine Corps report on the Italian accident. We begin with this report from Kevin Dunn of Independent Television News.

KEVIN DUNN, ITN: The military investigation confirmed what had been obvious from the moment the tragedy occurred. The plane, which severed the ski lift cable in the Italian resort of Cabralasi, was flying far too low. Twenty skiers in a cable car plunged 300 feet to their deaths. The four-man crew of the plane, an A-6 Prowler used for electronic warfare, were apparently unaware they had sliced through the cable until they returned to their base at Aviano, near Venice. They were immediately grounded. The accident investigation found they were wholly responsible.

MAJ. GEN. MICHAEL DE LONG, U.S. Marine Corps: The cause of this accident was not the weather or aircraft malfunctions or equipment failure but the actions of the air crew.

KEVIN DUNN: The crewmen have refused to be interviewed, so the reason for their actions remains a mystery. Since the accident, minimum flying levels over Northern Italy have been raised. The accident prompted a surge of anti-American feeling in Italy and gave weight to demands long made by the Communist Party for American bases in the country to be closed.

JIM LEHRER: Now to Mark Thompson, national security correspondent for Time Magazine.Mark, the Marine investigation had several--drew several conclusions. The plane was flying too low.

MARK THOMPSON, Time Magazine: Right.

JIM LEHRER: And what altitude was it at, and what altitude should it have been?

MARK THOMPSON: It should have been at 2,000 feet. The Marines were told they could fly as low as 1,000 feet, which was wrong. But, in any event, they were far below even 1,000 feet, and they struck the cables at roughly 360 feet.

JIM LEHRER: Now, did the report conclude as to why they were flying so low?

MARK THOMPSON: It was it was "crew error." I mean, they blamed it on the guy behind the wheel. They didn't blame it on any equipment; they didn't blame it on weather. But they could not reach a conclusion as to why he was flying that low.

JIM LEHRER: It wasn't part of any particular training exercise--

MARK THOMPSON: No.

JIM LEHRER: --that said, hey, fly that low.

MARK THOMPSON: No. IN fact, they said it was not an aberration, it was not a one-time snafu, that throughout the mission they were too low and too fast.

JIM LEHRER: Now, how about too fast, how fast were they going, how fast should they have been going?

MARK THOMPSON: They are not supposed to go any faster than 450 knots at these low altitudes. They were somewhere between 451 and 550 knots for the bulk of the flight. So it might have been a little faster than what they were supposed to be doing, or quite a bit faster. They didn't specify.

JIM LEHRER: Here again, why?

MARK THOMPSON: Nobody really knows. I mean, what was interesting about the report was it really was two reports. All of the commanders and the pilots said this crew was great. Yet, when you read the report and look at the details, you see all of these things that are raising red flags, and the report really doesn't square those two contradictory things.

JIM LEHRER: And it does not speak of motivation, right?

MARK THOMPSON: No, it does not because the crew submitted written statements. They refused to answer questions. And, in fact, it was eight days before their lawyers turned their statements over to the investigators. So there are a lot of open-ended questions.

JIM LEHRER: Is that unusual for members of the military to decline to be interviewed in a matter like this?

MARK THOMPSON: Yes, it is unusual, but it seems to be becoming more and more common. And it wasn't only the four on the airplane who refused to answer questions. Several others did as well. But we saw this in Tailhook, and I think it's part of the world we're in now today.

JIM LEHRER: In other words, individual members of the United States military have Fifth Amendment rights, just like everybody else?

MARK THOMPSON: Exactly.

JIM LEHRER: And they--in the past, they didn't--somebody--a commander says, tell me what happened, and somebody stood at attention and told 'em what happened; they don't do that anymore.

MARK THOMPSON: That's right. I mean, it used to be the military took precedence and the individual was subordinated, but that balance is coming a little back the other way now, I think.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Now, the report also makes some recommendations as to what should be done now about these four crewmen.

MARK THOMPSON: Right.

JIM LEHRER: What are they?

MARK THOMPSON: Basically, they're going to get an Article 32 hearing, which is a military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding, where they'll be looked at for potential charges of involuntary manslaughter, of negligent homicide. Involuntary manslaughter under the UCMJ carries--

JIM LEHRER: It's the Uniform Code of Military Justice, right?

MARK THOMPSON: The Uniform Code of Military Justice carries up to 10 years' per count, and with 20 people dying, it's conceivable that these fellows could face 200 years in prison.

JIM LEHRER: And is that seen within the Pentagon as a real possibility now?

MARK THOMPSON: I don't think it seems a real possibility. I think there's a lot of people in the Pentagon who believe this was a tragedy and not deliberate, but there is some sentiment that it was deliberate, that they were hotdogging. And we may learn more.

JIM LEHRER: Showboating, hotdogging.

MARK THOMPSON: There was a video camera in the front cockpit. There was nothing on it when investigators looked at it, and there was a still camera in the back seat. Pilots are allowed to take cameras, personal cameras on board to take pictures, but this shows there might have been something going on.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Now, the report also speaks to responsibilities on further up the chain of command.

MARK THOMPSON: Right.

JIM LEHRER: Explain that. What do they say?

MARK THOMPSON: Basically, what they say is that these guys should have been flying at 2,000 feet, and they should have been briefed to fly at 2,000 feet. The Italians complained last August that the planes were flying too low, and they were making too much noise. And that time they were allowed to fly at 1,000 feet. So--

JIM LEHRER: You mean, in this specific area?

MARK THOMPSON: Right. In this specific area. So the Marines agreed and boosted it to 2,000 feet. But that message never got down to the people who are flying. Even though it was in a book that was in their ready room that they could read, nobody apparently read it, and they used outdated papers to file their flight plans that allowed 1,000 feet of altitude. Consequently, the superior's report says, did not do a proper job in ensuring that the pilots knew how high they could go, or how low they could go.

JIM LEHRER: What does the report recommend be done with them?

MARK THOMPSON: They're recommended for administrative action. They may get a letter of reprimand or something. There's not a suggestion of a court martial or anything really punitive, and as the report notes repeatedly, if these fellows had been flying their jet at 1,000 feet, this accident never would have occurred.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the Italians wanted these Marines--these four Marines--the four crew members, going back to the crew members now, they wanted them tried in Italy under Italian law. Now, has a decision been made on that yet?

MARK THOMPSON: No, but the Pentagon is tilting very strongly to rejecting that. I mean, it is a dangerous precedence, because there's a sense here of vengeance. I think the pilots, all pilots would feel somewhat nervous if they were essentially to be tossed to a foreign government for prosecution. I think that the Marines are taking this seriously and will deal with it fairly, and I don't think the pilots or the crew members have anything to gain by being tried in a U.S. military court, but I think that's what the military will prefer to do, as opposed to turning them over to the Italians.

JIM LEHRER: Now, there is precedent for this. The Marines did this in Okinawa, to the Japanese authorities in Okinawa, when how many-- I forgot now--how many were involved?

MARK THOMPSON: There were three.

JIM LEHRER: Three American service people.

MARK THOMPSON: Right.

JIM LEHRER: Were accused of raping a young girl.

MARK THOMPSON: Right.

JIM LEHRER: Right?

MARK THOMPSON: That's right. And they were convicted. The status of forces agreements between Italy and Japan are somewhat different. In Japan, they felt a greater need to turn 'em over than they do here. There's still, I'm told, a slight window that they could be turned over, but it's not looking that way. We should know within several days.

JIM LEHRER: Now, you said just now that the Marines are taking this very seriously. What did you mean by that?

MARK THOMPSON: Well, the report was done very quickly. This is a pretty terse report. It's only 70 pages long. When the Air Force investigated the shoot downover Iraq, they came out with 24 volumes several months later. The Marines I think want to get to the bottom of this; there are some things in the report that are pretty hard hitting, that raise questions. The pilot in command had never flown low over Italy on this deployment until this flight. He'd been there for six months. He had never flown a low flight for seven months. He was not proficient flying low. That's really not the pilot's fault; that's his superior's fault. Some people are going to be angry with that. And if you look through the entire report, you get a sense that there was some sloppiness there. And this is not pleasant at Marine headquarters.

JIM LEHRER: Now, you said there was an empty videotape camera.

MARK THOMPSON: Right.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Now, is there a smell at least in the report of a possible cover-up here?

MARK THOMPSON: Well, that's a very good question. The report is a Marine report. It doesn't address all the obvious questions a newsman might have. It doesn't say whether or not there was ever anything filmed on that videotape. They say the videotape was blank. But, as you well know, you can turn a videotape on and put the lens cap on and all you get is black. They don't say they analyzed the tape and revealed that something might have been videotaped and then recorded over to make it go away. So we just don't know yet.

JIM LEHRER: Is there anything in the report about the actions of the crew after they realized what had happened?

MARK THOMPSON: The report states that they knew--the pilot knew as soon as they hit the cable what had happened and from that point on the flight was flown by the book. If you go back and review the accident report, every step of the way it's labeled by the investigators "proper," "successful," "did it right."

JIM LEHRER: Did they go up to 2,000 feet?

MARK THOMPSON: Well, they went up higher, sure, just because they had to figure out where they were and what the problem was, and they declared an in-flight emergency. But at every step with this wounded airplane--and it was quite wounded--they did everything by the book. Prior to the impact, it looked like they did not do much by the book.

JIM LEHRER: So the early reports that the pilot did not know that he had hit a cable just turned out to not to be true, right?

MARK THOMPSON: Right. He said when he came to the ground, "I know I hit a cable." And it's stated in the report.

JIM LEHRER: He just didn't know he'd hit that particular ski cable, and a gondola had fallen with people in it?

MARK THOMPSON: Right. They didn't know that. I mean, when they sliced the cable, a 16-ton counter weight fell to the ground and totally destroyed one of the stanchions and--

JIM LEHRER: Counterweights on the plane, yes.

MARK THOMPSON: Right, right. But I mean, they just, you know, really didn't know what was going on until they got down when they talked about it, but it was obvious that all four of the crewmen knew that something had gone wrong when they were in the air.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Mark Thompson, thank you very much.

MARK THOMPSON: Thank you, Jim. UPDATE - WAR ON CANCER

JIM LEHRER: Now, an update on the fight against cancer and to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: There was good news from the cancer front today. A new report shows that after almost 20 years of rising cancer incidence and death rates, both declined between 1990 and 1995. The incidence rate decreased an average .7 of a percent a year in those years, after having increased 1.2 percent per year in 1973 to 1990. And the cancer death rate decreased an average of .5 of a percent a year during 1990 to 1995, after increasing .4 of a percent per year during 1973 to 1990. And here to tell us more is Dr. Richard Klausner, director of the National Cancer Institute, one of the organizations which contributed to the new report.Dr. Klausner, thanks for being with us.

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER, Director, National Cancer Institute: Thank you, Elizabeth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: On the incidence figures, how many fewer cases a year does this translate into?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Well, as you said, incidence rates have been rising for decades, and then they began falling over the last three to five years. For the latest year that we have numbers--1995, which we reported, because of these changes, there's about seventy to a hundred thousand fewer cases of cancer than would have existed if the historical trends continued. Likewise, for mortality, it translates to about twenty-five to thirty thousand fewer deaths in 1995 than we would have expected.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Could it be a temporary fluke?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Well, we hope not. All of the signs that we have about the causes of this suggest that is a trend that will continue. And, indeed, we've taken a preliminary look at the following year's numbers and they show continuing encouraging results.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Speaking generally still, why do you think this is happening? We just heard the discussion about the new tobacco legislation. What does this have to do with decreasing smoking rates, if anything?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Well, decreasing smoking rates, among adults, smoking rates have decreased almost 50 percent over the last twenty to thirty years, since the first surgeon general's report, and that accounts for about 30 percent of the drop. Cancer rates and cancer trends are very complex. They represent the interaction of multiple factors, changing diet, changing medical care, changing early detection. All of these contribute to the changes that we reported today.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Now looking at some specific kind of cancer, beginning with lung cancer, talk to us-- tell us about those figures. The lung cancer rate is down.DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Lung cancer is an epidemic, has been an epidemic that exactly tracks with tobacco use. And its rise and then fall recently in men is due to the results of men stop--decreasing their tobacco use. Women have--took up tobacco later and stopped using it later, and so their cancer mortality rates are falling less rapidly.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What other sorts of cancer show a decrease--a decline in incidence?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Well, breast cancer incidence rates have been rising again for several decades. Now they're flat. Colorectal cancer, which is the second most common cause of cancer death, is falling a significant rate, and prostate cancer rates are falling.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Speaking of breast cancer, is it--I think I read in your report that the breast cancer for African-American women is 30 to 60 percent higher than it is for other women, is that right?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: That's right. The mortality rate from breast cancer, not the incidence rate--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We'll get into mortality in a minute.

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Incidence rates for breast cancer among African-American women are actually lower than for white women. But their mortality rates are higher. And this is something we're very concerned about. For black American women mortality rates are not dropping for breast cancer, where they are dropping quite significantly for white American women.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And let's stay on the subject of minority cancer rates. As you know, there's been some criticism of this study already from people who say that your figures are not representative of minority groups or of the rural poor. Is that true? Are you missing large groups of people here in this study?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: These numbers are based upon a system that the National Cancer Institute runs that samples about 10 percent of the population. It samples about 10 percent of the white population, about 10 percent of the black population, about 50 percent of the Asian-American population, and about 30 percent of the Hispanic-American population. So, in fact, several of the minorities are what we call over sample to make sure that our numbers are reliable for minorities. We think these numbers are reliable.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Still on the incidence, which cancers are really going up in incidence?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Cancers that are going up include melanoma, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, and brain cancer. Most other cancers are either flat or beginning to go down.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you know why those are going up?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: No, we do not know why they are going up. And we are studying that, but that's part of the mystery behind these numbers.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, on the mortality rate, in general, you have reported a couple of years ago--and we talked to you about it--that the mortality rates were down. What's the most important finding on mortality this year?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: That the mortality rates--the most important finding is that mortality rates continue to go down, and for some groups, especially younger Americans, that is, Americans below the age of 65, it's really quite significant. And so we're seeing mortality rate drops for lung cancer, for colorectal cancer, for prostate cancer, and for breast cancer, as well as bladder cancer, and several other important cancer sites.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And why is that? Why are the mortality rates staying down?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Well, cancer is many different diseases, and so there's no one answer. Some of it is due to decreased incidence, say for lung cancer, but for some it's due to improved therapy, we believe, such as for breast cancer, for colorectal cancer. For some, it's due to a combination of improved therapy and earlier detection when our current therapies are more effective. There is no one answer. This is not one disease. And it reflects the fact that it's important that we pay attention to both prevention, to early detection, to better diagnose, and to better treatment and to making sure that what we know is applied and applied to all Americans.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What about environmental factors, do they come into play here?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Environmental factors, of course, are complex. Tobacco is an environmental factor--alcohol use--diet--obesity--exercise. There are many factors. We're not--we don't know of any particular environmental factors in terms of environmental chemicals, per se, that we can attach these numbers to.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Dr. Klausner, about 1/2 million people still die of cancer every year. What do you say to people that are listening right now who--I suppose everybody has a family member or a friend who has cancer or who has had cancer--what do you say to them? What should they take from this report?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: I think what they should take is a sense of hope. It means that the investment this country has made in understanding cancer and trying to reduce the burden is beginning to pay off. We expect these numbers will continue to go down. In order to continue to go down, we need to make sure we apply what we know, as I said, and we need to continue to do research. We have a long way to go, as you say. But for the first time in history cancer rates are beginning to move in the direction we'd like to see them go.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And what do you say to an individual about what they should do in their own lives to prevent cancer?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Well, of course, there's many things. The most important is not to start smoking, if you're not smoking, and to attempt to quit smoking if you are smoking. That's the most important thing. It's important to pay attention to diet, to decrease the amount of meats that you eat and increase the amount of fruits and vegetables. It's very important to pay attention to guidelines for early screening to make sure that people have access to regular medical care and pay attention to any potential signs or symptoms of cancer.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And finally, Dr. Klausner, are you really excited about these new results? It looks like, looking at the figures, that one could say that the cancer rate, the incidence peaked in the early--very early 1990's, and that it's on its way down. Do you think that graph just may continue going down?

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: We certainly hope so. And, as I said, all of our information about improved treatment and improved outcomes and even detection, we actually expect that the major effects of those changes are actually going to kick in over the next several years. So we're actually very excited and optimistic that these rates will--these trends will continue. But we're very concerned about disparities among older Americans and especially among African-Americans.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Thank you very much.

DR. RICHARD KLAUSNER: Thank you. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the other major stories of this Thursday, President Clinton endorsed tobacco legislation that would raise cigarette prices by $1.50 a pack over two years, and a U.S. Marine commander in Italy recommended a flight crew be punished for fatal cable car accident there last month. An editor's note before we go: We made a mistake last night. In a Roger Rosenblatt essay we mislabeled a photograph of Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia as being that of Pol Pot. We regret that error. And we'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening with Shields & Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.