The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Gwen Ifill looks at proposed new federal rules for the workplace; Ray Suarez examines post- Communist Bulgaria, where President Clinton visited today; Terence Smith has a conversation with an Albanian journalist about Kosovo, where the President goes tomorrow; and then Elizabeth Farnsworth talks with the National Book Award winner for children's literature. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The Labor Department proposed new workplace rules today. They would require conditions that prevent repetitive-stress and heavy-lifting injuries. The regulations were drawn by OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. They would affect more than 27 million workers at one of every three job sites in the nation. OSHA administrator Charles Jeffress said the proposed rules were intended to protect workers from muscle and skeleton disorders, also known as MSD's. He spoke at a news conference in Washington.

CHARLES JEFFRESS: When more than 600,000 American workers have to take time off to recover from MSD's and over a million more experience less serious MSD Problems at work, we know that we have a national problem. The good news is we know how to fix these problems and we know that fixing them will actually save money.

JIM LEHRER: The rules cannot become final until next year after a comment period and public hearings. Charles Jeffress and others join us for more on the story right after this News Summary. There's been a change of attitude among American teenagers about illegal drugs, according to a study released today. 40 percent of more than 6,500 teens interviewed said they felt really cool kids avoided drugs. That was up 5 percent from '98. The Partnership for a Drug Free America conducted the survey. It's a nonprofit coalition. In another survey released Sunday, the FBI said serious crimes were down 10 percent in the first lf of this year. Rape, robbery, and auto thefts all declined. The murder rate in big cities was up 1 percent from the same period last year, but it still remained very low. President Clinton visited Bulgaria today, the first American President ever to do so. He spoke to thousands of Bulgarians gathered before the Nevski Cathedral in the capital, Sofia. It was the site of protests during Communist rule. Mr. Clinton saluted Bulgaria for rejecting the police state and choosing democracy, and he praised it for standing with NATO during the campaign for Kosovo. He said this:

PRESIDENT CLINTON: During the recent war, you could actually hear some of the bombs falling in Serbia from this square. Tonight I hope the people of Serbia can hear our voices when we say, if you choose as Bulgaria has chosen, you will regain the rightful in Europe Mr. Milosevic has stolen from you and America will support you too.

JIM LEHRER: Tomorrow, Mr. Clinton will be in Kosovo for a pre-Thanksgiving meeting with U.S. troops there. We'll have more on both Bulgaria and Kosovo later in the program tonight. United Nations and Indonesian officials signed an accord today. It's aimed at stopping clashes on the border with East Timor. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Richard Holbrooke brokered the deal. It sets up a joint border commission to stop the violence by pro-Indonesia militias. Holbrooke also toured East Timorese refugee camps where some 150,000 people remain. They fled attacks by militiamen following the province's vote for independence from Indonesia. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to ergonomics on the job, a look at Bulgaria, a conversation about Kosovo, and another Book Awards winner.

FOCUS - HANDS-ON ADVICE

JIM LEHRER: New standards for the workplace, and to Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: Each year, nearly two million U.S. workers experience work- related musculo-skeletal disorders. Known in shorthand as MSD's, these injuries usually result from overexertion and repetitive motion. Almost one-third, or about 600,000, of the repetitive stress injuries are serious enough to require time off the job. That's according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, better known as OSHA. Today, in an effort to remedy what the government says is a growing problem, Labor Secretary Alexis Herman unveiled OSHA's new ergonomic standards.

ALEXIS HERMAN, Secretary of Labor: When employees are hurt on the job, employers have a responsibility to act. And this is why today's ergonomics standard isn't just about another rule or another regulation, it is about helping real people suffering real problems, problems like back injuries and carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis-- not minor aches or pains, but serious, life-altering injuries. More than one-third of the most critical on-the-job injuries are the result of overexertion or repetitive motion.

GWEN IFILL: Ergonomics is defined as the applied science of equipment design, intended to reduce operator fatigue and discomfort, or as OSHA puts it, the science of fitting the job to the worker. OSHA says a bad fit between workers and the equipment they use causes about one-third of all workplace injuries. Under OSHA's new proposal, about 1.6 million employers would be required to implement a basic ergonomics program that includes assigning someone to be responsible for ergonomics; providing information to employees on the risk of injuries, as well as signs and symptoms to watch for; and setting up a system for employees to report those signs and symptoms. In turn, the proposal would require that employees who experience MSD's receive a prompt response and evaluation of their injury, and follow-up health care. Plus, workers who need time off could get 90 percent of their pay and 100 percent of their benefits. The guidelines would target jobs where workers perform repetitive tasks. Workers on an assembly line at a poultry processing plant, for example, reach repeatedly to grab the birds. Others work at a fast pace to cut the chickens into pieces. Delivery people as well as package handlers lift and sort heavy packages all day. And office workers who sit at computer workstations may experience musculo-skeletal disorders such as carpal tunnel syndrome. 27 million U.S. workers would be covered under the proposed rules, but the agriculture, maritime, and construction industries would not be affected.

GWEN IFILL: For more on safety in the workplace, we're joined by Charles Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor, and chief administrator at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA; Pat Cleary, Vice President for Human Resource Policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, which represents 14,000 employers; and Peg Seminario, Director of Safety and Health at the AFL-CIO.

Mr. Jeffress, what evidence does the government have that makes this such a big deal that this has to happen today? Why?

CHARLES JEFFRESS, Administrator, OSHA: The information that employers report to us, the numbers, two million American workers being hurt are basically what employers report to the Labor Department as to what's happening in their workplaces. And they're spending over $20 billion a year in workers' compensation paymentsfor these people who are being hurt -- again the employers' own data. We know that people are being hurt, real people are being hurt; there are real problems. There are also real solutions. And we over the last two years have talked to employers about what works and we've put forth a proposal today that is flexible so that people can tailor it to fit their workplace and we believe will save employers $9 billion every year from what they've currently spending on these problems.

GWEN IFILL: You say you've been talking to employers about this for some time. Were they not listening? Were they not stepping up to the plate?

CHARLES JEFFRESS: Many employers have put good programs in place. And this proposal that we have today is based on the successful experience of many employers. We need to take what the best of American business is doing and spread it to the rest of American businesses.

GWEN IFILL: Peg Seminario from the AFL-CIO, you think this is generally a good idea?

PEG SEMINARIO, AFL-CIO: Definitely. It's definitely a step in the right direction. We've been pushing for workplace ergonomic standard for a decade. And it was nine years ago that Elizabeth Dole, then Secretary of Labor, promised American workers that they would be protected. And nine years later we're at the point of the proposal. We do have some concerns about it. As you said earlier, the standard does not cover workers in construction, agriculture or maritime who have very serious problems.

GWEN IFILL: That seems like a pretty big loophole hole.

PEG SEMINARIO: It is a big omission. It is a very big omission. And we hope to bring the evidence to the Labor Department that these workers should be covered so when the final rule is issued that all workers will be covered.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Cleary, you represent the business interest in this, the manufacturers. I just asked Mr. Jeffress whether that maybe employers had not been listening. Have employers been listening?

PAT CLEARY, National Association of Manufacturers: Yeah. Let me spend a minute if I can on who we are. We're 14,000 people who make things in America and there e 18 million employees. We're virtually in every state in America. I'm proud to say that our members spend mightily on health and safety every year because they understand one central premise, which is that safety is good business. And they spend a lot on safety, some of the best ergonomics programs, I'm also proud to say, are from our member companies. But there's a central flaw here and that is that there is no scientific -- or no consensus in scientific or medical community about the causes of ergonomics injuries. That was true yesterday and it's true today. There was a study that was funded by Congress and the administration-- the administration agreed to it last year to the tune of $1 million which is still a lot of money to us-- to look at the causes of those injuries. That study won't be done for another year yet by the National Academy of Sciences, very well respected, above reproach. We have bought into that study. We have said let that happen, let it run its course. And once we find out from them what they believe the causes of this are, we ought to be able to move forward. And what's happened is these guys still want to regulate before that study and we think that's a mistake.

GWEN IFILL: Why don't we wait on the study and find out what it tells us?

CHARLES JEFFRESS: You know, on the one hand pat says that his member companies are spending lots of dollars, millions of dollars in ergonomics programs. And, on the other hand, he tells us there's no science to prove it works. In fact, your members won't be spending this money if they weren't getting benefits from it. You know that. These programs work, and the investment are being benefits for the employers that have them. Our studies show that about 18 percent of employers nationwide have these programs. A lot of others have done simple things, a chair here, a work station solution there. We're trying to get all employers that have problems, where someone is hurt to put a program in place to address their employees' problems.

PATRICK CLEARY: But, Gwen, if I may, I mean, the big difference we have here is the difference of philosophy in terms of command and control.

GWEN IFILL: Who gets to decide.

PATRICK CLEARY: What I would say is the graph that you put up with the czar in each workplace and this whole big span of control looks to us like big government. Our members do what's right whether OSHA existed or not. Our members do what's right in the workplace because it's good business and will continue to. They don't need this one size fits all regulation. I know Charles believes that this allows for some flexibility. We don't see it that way. We think they've ought to wait until they have the science before they regulate.

GWEN IFILL: Ms. Seminario, I want to ask you about cost. The Small Business Administration says this will cost $18 billion. OSHA says $4.2 billion. Do you come down in the middle or on either side of that?

PEG SEMINARIO: We actually think that the standard, when implemented, will save employers money. If you look at the experience in the workplace from those employers who are dealing with these problems, what you consistently see is that the workers' compensation cost associated with these injuries are just massive, which is why employers take action or some employers take action. And after they act what you see is the reduction of workers' compensation cost, increases in productivity and increases in employee morale. And so if we're looking at the net effect of this, this rule will save employers money but most importantly it will save hundreds of thousands of workers every year from being injured on the job and that's what this rule is all about.

GWEN IFILL: But it will save... it will regulate the injuries, not the hazards, that is, not the conditions which create the injuries, isn't that true?

PEG SEMINARIO: That is again one of the problems that we have with the rule is that it is triggered after a worker is injured, after there is actually a diagnosed work-related case. And so what that means is that prior to that injury occurring, even if there are clear hazards, the employer is not under an obligation to address them. So, again, we think this is a problem and we intend to bring the evidence to OSHA to have the rule strengthened so that workers can be strengthened.

GWEN IFILL: Okay. Mr. Jeffress, that's two questions for you. Why are the numbers all over and why not regulate the hazard as well as the injuries?

CHARLES JEFFRESS: First on the numbers, if you look at the claims of people who say this is going to cost a lot more money than what OSHA has estimated, most of those claims are based on fears that their productivity will slow down, they're have to slow down their assembly line or that people won't be as efficient. In fact the opposite is true. We had 90 different examples from 90 different companies today talk about where they put programs in place; by reducing the stress on the worker it has actually made that worker more productive. And these companies are saving money by reduced workers' compensation costs for the injuries and by increased productivity on the part of the workers. I think the estimates that you see of that increased cost and greatly exaggerated increased cost are based on a fear of lack of productivity, and that is not actually what's going to happen. You know, Pat said that his companies and his member companies are doing the right thing, there's no need for government to go forward with the regulation. If market forces alone were enough to make safe workplaces, OSHA would never exist. It's just like we have speed limits. It's important to have regulations. It's important to have rules to bring everybody to the same level playing field. And that's what this program, this proposal will do, is to provide ergonomics programs for all those workplaces where people are being hurt.

PATRICK CLEARY: Gwen, if I may, on the cost estimate, the $18 billion estimate came from his administration. It came from the Clinton administration. That's not our number. We'll happily accept that number. And I think it's a good and an accurate number. I go back to it. At core here is the question of whose plan is this, will you let employers continue to do what's right as he admits we already do; why not let a million flowers bloom and let that happen? Why come in with an OSHA command and control one size fits all regulation at this time, which is going to cost $18 billion? We think it's the wrong way to go. We think you ought to work with employers. They spend three times more in enforcement than on compliance. Let's shift it into compliance and get what we want out of this thing and get the sorts of results that we want rather than spending $18 billion on something where there is no consensus.

PEG SEMINARIO: The facts speak for themselves. If employers were doing the right thing, we wouldn't have 600,000 workers suffering serious injury, workers being disabled. We heard the same argument from the industry on asbestos. We don't have enough science, we shouldn't go forward, it's going to shut the industry down. We heard the same arguments on vinyl chloride, on benzene, on lead. We have 30 years of experience in dealing with workplace safety hazards through government action. And what we have seen in every case is the same kinds of arguments, the same kind of claims in industry not borne out. And what we see is that these regulations are needed. When they're put in place, workers are protected, the injuries are reduced, the diseases are reduced and that the regulations are indeed necessary.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Jeffress, why were the agriculture, maritime and construction industries, which would seem to be a big part of the problem, if there's a problem, why were they exempted in these rules?

CHARLES JEFFRESS: Over the past ten years OSHA has a lot of experience in manufacturing operations and service sectors like nursing homes, hospitals and looking at solutions that people have put in place. We have a lot of information, good science on this now. There have been studies by the National Academy of Sciences, by NIOSH, the Government Accounting Office, all showing that these ergonomics programs make sense. And OSHA has a lot of experience in general industry, if you will. So, we're going forward with the proposal that applies to the areas where we have most experience. We also have a study funded to look at maritime and what are the ergonomic issues and maritime industries.

GWEN IFILL: Will you wait to that study comes out before you come up with the rules?

CHARLES JEFFRESS: The NIOSH is doing that; within two years we'll have our proposal. But, you know, the studies have been done in general industry.

PATRICK CLEARY: But they're all over the board. The studies are all over the board, and I would say this. I would dare say that I've spent as much time on an assembly line on the business end of an assembly line that's just about anyone making cars and glass bottles.

GWEN IFILL: Certainly more than anyone at this table.

PATRICK CLEARY: And what I know is that a very small percentage of the people there develop a problem, call it carpal tunnel, MSD, whatever you want. And a very large percentage do not. I don't know why that is. The NAM doesn't know and OSHA doesn't know. And until they do, they ought not pass a regulation with an $18 billion price tag.

PEG SEMINARIO: That's a specious argument.

PATRICK CLEARY: That's reality. That's what it's like.

PEG SEMINARIO: That's a specious argument. You can say the same thing about asbestos lung disease, tobacco. Not everyone who spokes develops cancer... again, the same arguments we've heard for over 30 years.

PATRICK CLEARY: Nor the science -

PEG SEMINARIO: So what? We shouldn't have regulations on asbestos, because not every worker develops asbestos. We don't know why that.

PATRICK CLEARY: Why not wait till the NIS study is completed. What's the rush to regulation? The studies he mentions are all over the board. That's true. There are studies but there are some on their side and some on his side. Let's wait for one final study that we all agree to, the administration and us. Let it be done for $1 million and see where the chips fall.

CHARLES JEFFRESS: They'll never do one final study. What we do know is that workers are under great stress - when you work in very awkward postures, exert too much force, there's a greater chance of them getting hurt. What this standard does says put a program in place to reduce those pressures so people are less likely to get hurt and tailor it to the workplace. That's what this says.

GWEN IFILL: Is there a possibility that employers faced with these new rules that they consider to be onerous might be less inclined to hire people who they consider to be at risk, whether it's women who they don't think can lift heavy boxes or whether it's older people who they think might suffer more quickly from repetitive stress injuries?

CHARLES JEFFRESS: Actually, the experience has been that employers, when they identify problems that are potentially hurting one worker put those solutions in place, they make everybody more productive. So, we don't expect to see any reduction in hiring. Certainly in this labor market that this administration has helped create, in this booming economy, we have to use every worker that's out there.

GWEN IFILL: The same question to you, Mr. Cleary, is there a chance of this backfiring in that way?

PATRICK CLEARY: Absolutely. I will agree with Charles to that extent. The number one problem our members face right now is finding and keeping workers at all at least skilled workers. That is hard for our folks out there. To the extent that there are judgment calls I think it will be very hard for our folks with this regulation looming out there. More than that, I want to say, you know, 10,000 of our members are small to medium employers. This is going to kill small employers and going to put them out of business. Let's not do that. Let's not pass an $18 billion cost on to them until we're absolutely sure we have the science.

GWEN IFILL: Is this National Academy of Sciences study were to be released next year and it proves Mr. Jeffress right, would you embrace it with open arms?

PATRICK CLEARY: Then we will work with him on the regulation to make sure it comes out in a way that is going to be constructive for workers everywhere. If he will agree to work on the regulation, I think we can work together on that. Absolutely. Why not do it?

PEG SEMINARIO: We've already had one NAS study. There was an NAS study that looked at the exact same questions. It was a curve study. It was not a survey. It was a study that they brought in experts, they looked at all the evidence in this area and they reached the conclusion that workplace factors cause these injuries and that they can be prevented. The industry didn't like the results of that study so they went to their public-- Republican friends in the Congress and got another study asking the exact same seven questions. But this year they said it had to be 24 months, which brings us beyond the Clinton administration. The study is basically just being used as a way to delay a regulation, to delay protection for workers. We'll get the same answers from the NAS-2 that we got from NAS-1.

PATRICK CLEARY: That was a one-day meeting. We think this is a more in-depth study.

GWEN IFILL: We're going to have to leave this fight there. Charles Jeffress, Pat Cleary, and Peg Seminario, thank you all very much.

PATRICK CLEARY: Thanks.

CHARLES JEFFRESS: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, two stops on President Clinton's itinerary, Bulgaria and Kosovo, plus the National Book Awards winner for children's literature.

FOCUS - INSIDE BULGARIA

JIM LEHRER: The Bulgaria story, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: President Clinton's visit to Bulgaria was a celebration of that country's ten-year experiment in democracy. It had both somber and festive moments. The president placed a wreath at a World War I memorial to symbolize nearly a century of diplomatic relations between the United States and Bulgaria. During a press conference with Bulgarian President Peter Stoyanov in the capital, Sofia, Mr. Clinton praised Bulgaria's cooperation with NATO during the Kosovo conflict last spring.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, I am very grateful for the support the allies received during the conflict with Kosovo, and for the direction taken by Bulgaria under this president and this government. And we are committed to supporting Bulgaria over the long run, economically, politically, and militarily. And I think we will be doing it for many years, and I am looking forward to that.

RAY SUAREZ: Bulgaria is a nation of about eight million people. It borders Yugoslavia, and was one of several Balkan states that allowed NATO jets to use its airspace. Its economy has suffered with the implosion of the former Yugoslavia, as well as its own difficult transition from Communism to market economics. Public opposition in Bulgaria to the NATO air war grew when an errant NATO missile hit a residential area outside Sofia, but Bulgarian officials continued to support the western alliance. Bulgaria's pro-western government hopes that support could eventually lead to NATO membership, a goal it has sought since it began moving from dictatorship to democracy a decade ago. This evening, President Clinton told a flag-waving crowd in Sofia's Nevski Square to stay the democratic course. A fireworks display capped the President's speech.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on Bulgaria, we get two views, from Sol Polansky, former U.S. Ambassador to Bulgaria. He served from 1987 until 1990. And from Norbert Yasharoff, U.S. Correspondent for Maritza Newspapers in Bulgaria and retired from the U.S. Information Agency, he was born in Bulgaria and is now a U.S. citizen. Ambassador, we've heard Bulgaria called a model citizen in the Balkans. It's done a lot of things right as far as international business interests and monetary agencies are concerned. Yet it still is suffering economically. Why?

SOL POLANSKY, Former U.S. Ambassador, Bulgaria: Well, I think there are probably a number of important reasons. I think they haven't gone ahead with the economic reforms at the speed they wanted to. I think in part if you look back over the last ten years, it really hasn't been ten years of economic reform. They've had weak governments. They had a socialist government in the mid '90s by Jan Vidanof that basically ran the economy into the ground. Inflation amounted to about 2,000 percent in the first quarter of 1997; as a result of negotiations with the IMF and the World Bank and other institutions, Bulgarians began to toward a currency board to provide some sense of stability and some sense of feeling that they could put the economy on a sound footing. And so really it's been, I think, only in the past two years that they've really had a process in place that could begin a real sense of reform, begin the whole process of privatization in a serious way. Part of that was interrupted by the war in Kosovo and all the efforts that went into that, the kind of sacrifices that the Bulgarians made, lost markets, bridges were down in the Danube so the whole question of transportation, all of the revenue from that kind of activity was lost to the Bulgarians. And they are faced with a very difficult problem: They have high unemployment. They're trying to get rid of all the state enterprises which they hope to do by the middle of May of next year. So they've got a real problem in front of them, but I think that they're on the right track.

RAY SUAREZ: Norbert Yasharoff, let's talk about the Bulgarians on the street. Though international agencies talk to governments and they're reporting good news, would we get as good a report from somebody in the shops in Sofia or out in the provinces trying to do their marketing for the day?

NORBERT YASHAROFF, Maritza Newspapers: It depends on whom you talk to, but let me take you back to December of 1996 when an almost unpopular uprising took place in the streets of Sofia. The people wanted the Socialists, former Communists, out completely out. There were clashes are the police in the national assembly. In April of '97, free elections were held. People were enthusiastic. I think that currently at least two-thirds of the population are still behind that first really democratic government that was put in place in April of 1997. Of course, you will find the traditional gloom sayers or-- I forget the English word-but there is doom sayers and they are mostly in that third of the population which is made up of retirees. The retirees today are those who complain every other Wednesday in front of the Sofia National Theater. They complain against the government. They claim that they don't want to topple the government but in every speech they ask for its disbandment and eventually giving over the rule to the former socialists.

RAY SUAREZ: But isn't that a generation split that we see in other countries too? Older people still looking back to the older ways and younger people....

NORBERT YASHAROFF: Yes. I would fully agree with that. That's why I don't think that this should make us worry too much in the West as to the future of Bulgaria. This government is so set on becoming part of Western Europe, it pushes so hard for membership in NATO which in its eyes will give it a legitimacy and also protection against future totalitarian or other governments or people who would like to force Bulgaria into the kind of 45-year slavery that the Communists pushed her into.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let's talk a little bit about getting into the European Union and to NATO. Many countries have made similar requests, similar applications. And there's a little bit of a backlash, a kind of disappointment, when it doesn't happen. Unless Bulgaria is put on a fast track, is there a risk that it could be... it could go the way of the Ukraine?

SOL POLANSKY: There is the risk, I don't think it's very great, quite frankly. I think in some ways the European community understands that. It's my understanding that in December of this year, there will be a meeting of the European Commission with Bulgaria and several other countries that want to join the European Union and that they'll try to put Bulgaria's request for membership in the European Union on the fast track, the fast succession track. There are a number of things that Bulgaria will have to do to make that possible. One of them is to have what amounts to a full democratic system. The second is a market economy. Third is respect for human rights. And for Bulgaria there is another issue that has to be resolved, and that's the whole question of the nuclear power plants that Bulgaria has -- old Soviet power plants that are dangerous and that the European Commission, I think, will insist that somehow they be decommissioned as part of the process.

RAY SUAREZ: Norbert Yasharoff, I think it's easy to see why getting into the European Union would interest Bulgaria for many reasons, the foreign policy and aid that it would get with its industries.

NORBERT YASHAROFF: Right.

RAY SUAREZ: But why NATO? Why is it so important to get into NATO when Bulgaria, there's nobody knocking at its borders, nobody about to declare war on Bulgaria?

NORBERT YASHAROFF: As I mentioned before, Bulgaria wants a shield, a shield against any future aggressor. The lesson of the Soviet Union having subjugated the countries of Eastern Europe is still very much alive in their minds. They want to belong to the West and to be protected collectively by the West. So that is very important. In some respects it's even more important than joining the EU, the European Union, but just to add a few things to what the ambassador so well described, the commissioner for the expansion of the European Union, Gunter Hoygan, recently granted... well, several months ago granted an interview to Bulgarian Television in which he said as far as he's concerned Bulgaria is almost a member. It's only a matter of months. And the Bulgarians insist on their part that they have taken care of those more dangerous units of the nuclear reactor at Kosovo in order to satisfy the requirements of the European Atomic Energy Commission.

RAY SUAREZ: With a country so resolutely looking toward the West, I guess Bulgaria is hampered a little bit by the unchangeable reality of geography. Many of the places that it would like to trade with are not close. The Danube is still blocked and the United States says until Serbia changes its government, it's unlikely to get the money it needs to fix that river and main avenue of commerce.

SOL POLANSKY: I think it's a real problem. I think the European Union apparently is looking at a program that might loosen up funds that would help Bulgaria and other countries, but I think until there is a greater sense of investment in places like Bulgaria, it is going to be a hard job for Bulgaria to pull out of its economic situation.

RAY SUAREZ: And it isn't it important for the people to see that kind of inward investment too, to know that their suffering has been worth it?

NORBERT YASHAROFF: Of course. Some of the people and certainly the opponents of the government are pointing out that, yes, the government has speeded up tremendously the pace of privatization but then haven't been very selective in to whom do they sell those government factories and firms and so on and so forth. Because a lot of the buyers turn out later not to have had the money that they originally pledged themselves to invest into those firms. So of course it is very important. But on the other hand, the Bulgarian media reports that they claim a very well known international firm of investment consultants, PKGP, has rated Bulgaria as one of the best investment risks in the world today.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, gentlemen, thank you very much. Norbert Yasharoff, Sol Polansky.

SOL POLANSKY: Thank you very much.

NORBERT YASHAROFF: Thank you.

CONVERSATION - VOICE OF FREEDOM

JIM LEHRER: Tomorrow, President Clinton makes a brief stop to visit U.S. Peacekeeping troops in Kosovo. Last Friday our media correspondent, Terence Smith, recorded a conversation about Kosovo.

TERENCE SMITH: For more than a week after the start of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia last March, ethnic Albanian newspaper editor Baton Haxhiu was officially a dead man. On the night before the NATO campaign began, the Pristina offices of Haxhiu's paper, "Koha Ditore," or "Daily Times," were ransacked by Serb police. An elderly night watchman was murdered, and the building was torched. Days later, a NATO spokesman, Air Commodore David Wilby, seemed to confirm the suspected fate of Baton Haxhiu.

AIR COMMODORE DAVID WILBY: Four other prominent ethnic Albanians were reportedly executed on Sunday, including editor-in-chief of "Koha Ditore," Baton Haxhiu.

TERENCE SMITH: But in early April, Haxhiu surfaced in Macedonia. He had gone underground, hiding in basements and in friends' apartments, and disguising himself to elude his Serb pursuers.

BATON HAXIHU: (Translated): I was hiding for 12 days like most of the Albanians left there. There were definitely no witnesses to what has been happening in Pristina. We were the only ones, but we were in a basement. People did not make mistakes in saying that we were executed. We were as close to death as the skin to the bone.

TERENCE SMITH: Haxhiu and his paper had long been targets of Serb harassment. "Koha Ditore," the largest and most influential Albanian- language daily in Kosovo, and its editor, were fined heavily and repeatedly by Serb authorities for allegedly "inciting hatred between nationalities." Within days of his reappearance, Haxhiu and a small staff, using borrowed computers and one cell phone, set up shop in Macedonia. Once again they were publishing "Koha Ditore," distributing it free in the Macedonian refugee camps. After the bombing campaign, Haxhiu returned to Pristina where "Koha Ditore," renowned as a moderate, pro-human rights voice, is again on the streets every day.

TERENCE SMITH: Joining us is Baton Haxhiu, the editor of "Koha Ditore." He is one of the 1999 winners of the press freedom awards, given by the committee to protect journalists. Welcome to you. Welcome to this country and to "The NewsHour."

BATON HAXHIU: Very nice to be here.

TERENCE SMITH: My understanding is that the last edition of your paper, before the NATO bombing, had a headline that said, "NATO, Just Do It," over the NIKE swoosh.

BATON HAXHIU: Yeah.

TERENCE SMITH: You must have known that you were a bit of a target, then.

BATON HAXHIU: Between 23 and 24...

TERENCE SMITH: Of March...

BATON HAXHIU: ...Of March, I put it in the front page, not to air just to wait, because we were waiting for many, many months, Serbian territory in Kosovo. And so finally, we are waiting for NATO bombs in Kosovo, and to see international committee how they help Albanians. So really, between 23 and 24 was very dangerous for me because our lawyer was killed...

TERENCE SMITH: Yes.

BATON HAXHIU: Between 23 and 24.

TERENCE SMITH: Of March, right.

BATON HAXHIU: Of March. And our office is destroyed. Our bodyguards were also killed, and our print house was destroyed. So from this day, from 24, I was in hiding for many days, until seventh of April.

TERENCE SMITH: What was it like to hear-- I gather you heard it on the radio or over the air-- that you were dead?

BATON HAXHIU: I heard from CNN news. The press conference in Brussels, and Jimmy Shea, the -- said... And I think, on 26 or 27 of March, that yesterday, in Pristina, were executed four intellectuals, and including chief editor of "Koha Ditore," Baton Haxhiu.

TERENCE SMITH: Right.

BATON HAXHIU: I was surprised, and really was... I was in deep desperation because I was separated from my family, from my wife and son, and from my parents, and they didn't know what happened with me. For many days, they think that I'm dead, so...

TERENCE SMITH: And you were not able to call your wife...

BATON HAXHIU: No, no, absolutely.

TERENCE SMITH: ...or communicate with her in any way?

BATON HAXHIU: No. I was in hiding in the basement for many days, with some apples, and with just water.

TERENCE SMITH: Apples and water?

BATON HAXHIU: Yeah.

TERENCE SMITH: And then you slowly made your way to Macedonia?

BATON HAXHIU: What's happened after 12 days in hiding, paramilitary forces were coming in this area in Pristina.

TERENCE SMITH: Where you were?

BATON HAXHIU: Yeah. And after that, they just give one or two minutes to... two minutes to citizens to go out of the flats, and from my basement I saw... from small window, I saw people how in deport...

TERENCE SMITH: And they were just fleeing?

BATON HAXHIU: And just fleeing. And so I also saw one woman with child, and I said, "Baton, it is good time to go out." I was in mask, of course, and I pleaded to this woman.

TERENCE SMITH: When you say a mask, sort of a disguise of some sort?

BATON HAXHIU: Yeah. So, nobody believed I am alive, because for many days people thought Baton is killed. And so, this woman said, "You are a big liar. How you can say Baton is alive?" And so after a few minutes discuss, he said, "You are really Baton Haxhiu?" I said, "yes." And so we left Pristina on second of April, with this child and this woman.

TERENCE SMITH: And when you got to Macedonia, were you able to call your wife from there?

BATON HAXHIU: No. She watched me on TV. I was on... I was 7 of April, in Bonn, and live conference, press conference from Bonn, and she saw me on TV.

TERENCE SMITH: So, she both heard that you were dead...

BATON HAXHIU: Yeah.

TERENCE SMITH: ...on the air, and also learned that you were alive?

BATON HAXHIU: Yeah. Learned from TV. And people had gone to her to say "sorry for Baton." And she, for 12 days, she know that I am dead.

TERENCE SMITH: Extraordinary. And then you were able to set up your newspaper in temporary quarters in Macedonia, and print and distribute to the refugees?

BATON HAXHIU: Yeah. My idea was to keep alive ideas with information, with newspaper, for people who stay in the border, and to be back in Kosovo; and the second, to keep stability in Macedonia, because it was very important for us to have stability in Macedonia.

TERENCE SMITH: Stability there?

BATON HAXHIU: Yeah, of course. Because if in Macedonia, start to be trouble, all international focusing will be on Macedonia. Everybody will forget Kosovo, and Milosevic will have a free hand to cleansing Kosovo.

TERENCE SMITH: So finally, you were able to return to Pristina. What was that like to go home?

BATON HAXHIU: Oh. I thought... it's good to be back in Pristina, and in Kosovo. But Kosovo, it's too much destroyed. Kosovo is the land whose dead speaks...

TERENCE SMITH: Where the dead speak?

BATON HAXHIU: Yeah, where dead speak. And I think it's... now we have many mass graves. We have people who are frustrated, we have blood to revenge of course, individual crimes, now. And it's a different post-war period in Kosovo. It's a big political vacuum, it's also...we not have many institutions. It also has destroyed life in Kosovo.

TERENCE SMITH: The NATO troops that are there, how long do you think they will have to stay there?

BATON HAXHIU: Oh, they will stay a long time.

TERENCE SMITH: Years?

BATON HAXHIU: Years and years, because Balkan needs the troops for stability. If not to go on from Kosovo, we never, never can have peace in the Balkans.

TERENCE SMITH: And you are now able to publish your paper again?

BATON HAXHIU: We are able to publish, but also we have a problem, because people is frustrated, and people need... especially political parties need to say who is the winner of this war. And if we starting to criticize somebody, this is a very big problem.

TERENCE SMITH: I understand that you have been criticizing some of the Kosovo Liberation Army units and people.

BATON HAXHIU: Well, this agency of KLA, and they wrote something about me, like a Churchill before the war. I remember the letter of Milosevic to "Koha Ditore" and to me on 21 of March. And it's the same letter...now it's the same letter and same language, but this time in Albanian.

TERENCE SMITH: Right. So it's still a dangerous business being a journalist in Kosovo?

BATON HAXHIU: Yeah, especially to be independent is very dangerous, because we have many problems. We have different interests. We don't have security...court system is destroyed. We have a political vacuum. We didn't have a police system. We don't have many things. And the international community works so slowly in Kosovo. This is a turtle walk in Kosovo, especially OSC. They want to establish media system and broadcast system, but they work very slowly still.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Thank you very much for joining us.

BATON HAXHIU: Very nice to be here.

SERIES

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, another in our series of conversations with winners of this year's National Book Awards, announced last week. Once again to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The winner in the young people's literature category this year was Kimberly Willis Holt, for "When Zachary Beaver Came to Town." Set in the Texas Panhandle, it tells a 13-year-old boy's story of friendship and loss, and manages to be very sad and funny at the same time. Holt began writing fiction just five years ago. Her first book was "My Louisiana Sky," also a young adult book. She lives in Amarillo, Texas.

Thank you for being with us and congratulations.

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT, National Book Award, Young People's Literature: Thank you, Elizabeth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The first line of your book reads: "Nothing ever happens in Antler, Texas but in fact a lot happened in the summer of 1971 to young Toby Wilson." Just briefly tell us the story.

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: It's about the summer of 1971, set during the Vietnam War. It's a home front story. But it's about when Zachary Beaver, the fattest boy in the world, who is a side show, comes to a Texas Panhandle town and everybody is affected by it because he's abandoned there. Some of the same people who pay $2 to gawk at him are some of the same people who end up befriending him. One of those people is Toby Wilson, and he's the main character.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Toby has a lot happening in his life this summer too. Tell us about that.

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: Well, one of the things that happens is that his mother goes off for a contest in Nashville and she wants to be a country-western singer. He thinks she's just going because of the contest but she's really decided to leave his dad. And, of course, that means leaving Toby also. He has to adjust to that. At first he's in denial about it. And by the end of the book, he's able to accept it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Tell us where this image of the trailer-- it's a very stark image in your book. A trailer pulls into town and a boy who is called the fattest boy in the world is in this trailer and he sits there day after day after day after he is deserted. Where did this idea come from?

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: Well, the first seeds of the inspiration come from my own life. When I was 13 years old, I paid $2 at the Louisiana State Fair to see the fattest boy in the world. And I didn't know that I was going to grow up and write a book about this, but that image was very strong in my mind. A few years after I saw that young man, a friend of mine befriended him. He was parked in their shopping center near their work where she worked. She would pay $2 every day and eat her lunch and visit with him. She made friends with him. I was really impressed by that. I thought that was... it was interesting because I was kind of like one of the characters in the book. And I was very nosey and asked all sorts of questions. I remember thinking when she told me about her friendship with him that I had not reacted the same way.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ms. Holt, read something for us, please.

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: I'm going to read from a part where it's early on in the book and this is before Toby realizes that his mom has really left for good. "All that food reminds me of the night she packed for her trip. I sat on the edge of her bed watching her. Every pair of cowboy boots she owned lined the wall, including the turquoise ones with red stars. She formed all her western shirts and skirts on the bed and dropped lipstick tubes from under her sick into a small suitcase. I swear she packed like she was going for the whole summer instead of a week. About the only thing she didn't pack was the pearl necklace that once belonged to her mom. She told me that some day she would give the pearl necklace to the woman I married so it would stay in the family. Mom sang, 'Hey, Good Looking' as she packed. And the entire time I couldn't help wondering if moms were supposed to be that happy to get away."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You know what I thought about in this passage and others, you have passages when Toby is trying to talk to his father or his father is trying to talk to him, I should say and there's a silence between them that you describe so well. How do you get into a 13-year-old boy's head?

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: I really don't know. One of the reasons I write is to be in other people's skin. And I don't start to write until I hear the voice. Sometimes I'll get a premise, you know, for a book. In fact I get those quite often. And I don't commit to it until I really know the voice of that character. It's almost as if the character is speaking to me. And that's really what happened. The first words of the book came to me and they were in Toby Wilson's voice. And I just tried to be true to what a 13-year-old boy would do. I tried to be honest through the whole book and think through Toby's eyes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why do you think these are young people's voices that you're speaking through, because I know you've also written short stories for adults and other works for adults too?

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: I think it's because I never got over being 12 years old. I really -- most of my ideas are coming of age stories. Those were hard years for me. I think that I felt like an outsider. I always tend to write about outsiders. And what's been fun for me is as I travel around and visit schools is that other kids that feel the same way relate to some of my characters and so I hope in some way that's helping them when they want to read about somebody that they can relate to.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And I assume from this that you wanted them to think about what it would be like to be the fattest boy in the world and to have compassion for him?

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: Well, I hope now that the story is finished that they do. But when I'm writing it, I really don't write with that in mind. I really just write to be true to the story and true to the characters. It's sort of a selfish act, if you will -- as I write. I really try to keep all... everybody out of it, even the kids that I've met. And, so after it's done, you know, in fact, I remember one time I was visiting a school and that was asked of me: What are my books about? What is the theme? And one little girl said I think your books are about acceptance, accepting others. And that was really the first time anybody pointed that out. Maybe they really are.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I thought a lot about why this book is considered a young people's story. One could say this is a book for an adult. I mean I enjoyed reading it very much. It has a very spare style. It's very dark in many ways. What makes it a young person's book do you think?

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: Probably just the fact that it is a true coming of age story. There's so many things that happened to Toby that summer. He gets his heart broken. He, you know, his mom leaves, his friendship with his best friend is tested. And those are things we all can relate to from our own childhood. Of course, 12 and 13-year-olds are going through that now. So that's what I think makes it a young person's book.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You just started writing about five years ago, is that right, or at least writing books of this....

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: Yeah, five-and-a-half years ago.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How do you explain your rapid progress. Not everybody wins a National Book Award in five years.

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: I don't think I've quite realized it myself yet. But I really started looking... writing was of course something that I wanted to do since I was 12 years old, writing fiction. So I didn't commit to it so much later after that and so I really was committed to it. I looked at it as a job from day one. Sometimes I didn't want to do it but I did it because it was my job.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Tell us how you do work. What's your method of working?

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: When I'm not on the road -- because the last six weeks I've been on the road a lot -- I will write early in the morning. I try to start writing around 7:30. I wear my pajamas. That's the thing I love most about writing. I don't get changed until I actually have to go out of the house. I'll write and take a late lunch or go to a coffee shop when I get where I can't stand the four walls anymore. That's pretty much my day. I'm pretty much finished by 2:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What difference will this award make to you?

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: Well, it makes a tremendous difference to me just because it means somebody has recognized a body of work that, as a writer, we can't always tell if it's good or bad. So it's nice to be accepted by others especially people that, you know, the judges are people that look at children's literature all the time. They have wonderful reputations. So it means acceptance to me.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And what next? Are you working on something right now?

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: I'm working on another book that is set in East Texas called "Dancing in Cadillac Light."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I thought the depiction of the town in Texas by the way was one of the great parts of this book. You really, really got the feeling of this town.

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: Well, thank you.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congratu-go ahead - I'm sorry.

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: It was one of those little towns. I always pick towns that they say if you blink you might miss it. Claude and Memphis - and I kind of combine towns. Those are small towns like that. And I try to peel back the layers and show the specialness of them, so I appreciate that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You achieve that. Many thanks for being with us and congratulations.

KIMBERLY WILLIS HOLT: Thank you.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday. The Labor Department proposed new workplace rules to prevent injuries caused by repeated motions and heavy lifting. An anti-drug group said a new study showed 40 percent of 6,500 teens interviewed said it was "cool" to avoid drugs. That was up 5 percent from 1998. And the FBI said serious crimes were down 10 percent in the first half of this year. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.