The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: The news of this day; then, a Jan Crawford Greenburg report on today's Ten Commandments argument before the U.S. Supreme Court; a Newsmaker interview with the Syrian ambassador to the United States; a health unit report on the Tennessee approach to Medicaid; a bankruptcy debate between Senators Durbin and Sessions; and a look at Congress' tribute to Jackie Robinson, the first black to play major league baseball.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The Ten Commandments went before the U.S. Supreme Court today. Cases from Kentucky and Texas focused on displays of the commandments on government property. Supporters argued it's a way to acknowledge their role in American law. The Bush administration warned: "The idea of having a fence around the Ten Commandments is bending too far." But the American Civil Liberties Union said the displays amount to: " simply wrapping the Ten Commandments in the flag, and that's endorsement" of religion. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Chicago police searched for leads today in the killings of a federal judge's husband and mother. The judge herself had been threatened before by white supremacists. Elizabeth Brackett of WTTW has our report.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Federal marshals had protected Judge Joan Lefkow and her family in 2003 when white supremacist Matthew Hale was convicted of plotting her murder. But the protection only lasted a few weeks. The family home on this usually quiet Chicago street was not being protected when the judge arrived home Monday to find the bodies of her husband and her mother. 64-year-old Michael Lefkow, also an attorney, and her mother, 89- year-old Donna Humphrey, were both shot execution style with multiple wounds to the head and body. Chicago police warned yesterday that it was too early to link the crime to a specific person or group.

CHIEF JAMES MOLLOY, Chicago Police Department: There is much speculation aboutpossible links between this crime and the possible involvement of hate groups. This is but one facet of our investigation. We are looking in many, many directions.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: However, police confirmed that a special task force of both federal agents and Chicago police are looking at any possible connection between Matthew Hale or his sympathizers and the murders. Hale made his racist views clear in this 1999 interview.

MATTHEW HALE: The basic belief of the church is that what is good for the white race is the highest virtue, and what is bad for the white race the ultimate sin.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Hale's conviction for soliciting the judge's murder came after she ruled against him in a 2002 case. Hale is now awaiting sentencing in this Chicago federal jail and is only allowed to communicate with his parents. They say he had nothing to do with the murders. Judges in the federal building in Chicago were still trying to come to grips with the murders today. Federal Judge Wayne Anderson said it may be time to call for federal protection of judges even if no connection is found between Judge Lefkow's cases and the murders.

JUDGE WAYNE ANDERSEN: I have lots of cases that could trigger an angry response. Every judge in America does, particularly trial judges, where we're confronting people who don't like our decisions face- to-face. And once I realized that our business makes us vulnerable then I felt it's worth trying to start a national discussion on what we should do about that.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Federal marshals have now placed Judge Lefkow and her four daughters in an undisclosed location under round-the-clock security.

JIM LEHRER: In Iraq today, two car bombings in Baghdad killed at least 14 Iraqi soldiers and wounded nearly 40. The first bomb exploded outside an Army base. The second was aimed at an Iraqi military convoy in southern Baghdad. The al-Qaida group in Iraq claimed responsibility for both attacks. On Tuesday, gunmen killed a judge and his son at their home in Baghdad. Both worked for the Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal. The motive for the killings was unclear. The United States accused Iran today of deceiving U.N. inspectors and pursuing nuclear weapons. On Tuesday, the U.N. Nuclear Agency said Iran had refused access to a military complex at Parchin. The agency also said Iran continued work on a reactor project. Also today, Secretary of State Rice told NBC the United States is working with Europe on offering economic incentives to Iran. That's if it scraps its nuclear efforts. President Bush said today the pressure is growing on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. In Arnold, Maryland, he applauded France for joining in that demand. He said it sends a clear message to Damascus.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You get your troops and your secret services out of Lebanon so that good democracy has a chance to flourish. (Cheers and applause) The world is speaking with one voice when it comes to making sure that democracy has a chance to flourish in Lebanon.

JIM LEHRER: The murder of a former Lebanese leader last month triggered new demands for Syria to leave. We'll talk with the Syrian ambassador to the United States later in the program. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan warned today against putting off action on Social Security. He said the only immediate solution is cutting benefits for the baby boom generation. At a House hearing, he told lawmakers the longer they wait, the harder it will get.

ALAN GREENSPAN: If existing promises need to be changed, those changes should be made sooner rather than later. We owefuture retirees as much time as possible to adjust their plans for work, saving and retirement spending.

JIM LEHRER: Greenspan again endorsed the president's idea of individual accounts, but only if they're introduced gradually. Yesterday, Republican leaders said action on Social Security might have to wait until next year because of strong opposition. Today, a White House spokesman said the president is still optimistic about getting a vote this year. A federal judge in Montana blocked the U.S. today from lifting a ban on Canadian beef. The ban was imposed in 2003 after Mad Cow Disease infected some Canadian cattle. It was supposed to end next Monday, but a U.S. rancher's group sued to block the move. Canada said today it might appeal the ruling. Crude oil prices topped $53 a barrel today for the first time since October. The price in New York trading gained $1.37. The market reacted to refinery problems that could hamper efforts to meet demand. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 18 points to close under 10,812. The NASDAQ fell more than three points to close at 2,067. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now, it's on to: The Ten Commandments; the Syrian ambassador; the Medicaid problem; bankruptcy reform; and a tribute to Jackie Robinson.

FOCUS - TEN COMMANDMENTS

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has our Supreme Court story.

RAY SUAREZ: A six-foot granite replica of the Ten Commandments bearing the words "I am the lord thy god" has occupied a space on the Texas capitol grounds in Austin for more than 40 years. But today, it was at the center of a legal argument heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. At issue: Whether its presence blurs the line between church and state. Attorney Erwin Chemerinsky, who represents the plaintiff in the case, said the monument's display of the biblical laws violates the U.S. Constitution.

ERWIN CHEMERINSKY: The Ten Commandments is sacred text. It expresses a profound religious message that there is a God and that God has commanded rules of behavior. To put it at the very seat of Texas state government and the Texas state capitol and the Texas Supreme Court is for the government to endorse religion in an impermissible way.

RAY SUAREZ: On the other side, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's argument to keep the monument where it is prevailed in a lower court.

GREG ABBOTT: We made clear to the court that the Ten Commandments is of historical significance as a symbol of law in this country, and that it is perfectly constitutional for a government to recognize a symbol or text that is religious so long as it is equally clear that a government is not officially endorsing religion.

RAY SUAREZ: The Texas case was one of two argued at the high court today. The other came from Kentucky, where framed copies of the commandments are on display at two courthouses, along with other privately donated historical documents. A court of appeals ruled against the displays. The justices' decision to hear the cases came as a surprise, since they have refused to consider the impact of the high court's 1980 decision that banned such displays in public classrooms. Lower courts have since made about two dozen rulings on the subject. Last year, the high court refused to hear the appeal of Alabama Chief justice Roy Moore. In 2003, Moore was removed from office after he defied a court order to remove a sculpture bearing the Ten Commandments from the state Supreme Court building. The two-ton granite marker was ultimately taken away.

RAY SUAREZ: Here to bring us inside the courtroom for today's arguments in the Texas and Kentucky cases is NewsHour regular Jan Crawford Greenburg, Supreme Court reporter for the Chicago Tribune.

Now, Jan, the court's taken up a lot of these questions before, hasn't it?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: It's struggled for decades with the role of religion in public life, religious symbols in the public square. As you mentioned, it's decided that public schools cannot display the Ten Commandments, but it's always looked at those public school cases a little differently because of the age of the students. Maybe they're more susceptible to the message and the government endorsement than it has other context of the legislatures and the courtrooms and the parks, those kind of cases. So these are issues that the court has struggled with for many years, prayered legislature, Ten Commandments on a courtroom or in a park. It gave the Justices tremendous difficulty during these arguments.

RAY SUAREZ: Today the Texas and Kentucky cases, even though they were heard together, they were sticking argued separately?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right, they present very different facts different displays and different issues. They could come out differently. The Justices could decide for the government in one and against the government in the other.

RAY SUAREZ: How did the Texas argument go?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: The Justices in that argument I think seemed more sympathetic to the government's argument that it should be able to allow this monument on the grounds of the state capitol. Now, there are four Justice on the Supreme Court, I believe, that would vote to affirm the Ten Commandments in public life and in the public square, the four more conservative Justices. Today Justice Antonin Scalia was very vocal in suggesting that states should be able to display the Ten Commandments to acknowledge this country's religious heritage. Justice Kennedy also expressed his concern that, as he said, there had been almost this obsessive concern about any mention of religion and that that might express a hostility to religion, indicating that he thought that these displays were permissible. The Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, and Justice Thomas also have indicated they would support these displays. But from there it gets difficult. Justice O'Connor expressed her concern today that perhaps this could be sending a message that the government was endorsing religion in violation of the First Amendment, which, as you know, prohibits the establishment of a religion. Other Justices also expressed concern. Justice Breyer appeared to be looking for middle ground, some way that the court could draw the line in these very difficult cases. I think one thing was clear today in what is a very confusing and complex area of the law. The court is not going to order the wholesale removal of the Ten Commandments from public life. I mean, after all, it appears in Supreme Court and in the U.S. Capitol in displays about the foundation of our nation's lives. But it also is not going to allow the two-and-a-half ton monument that the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court erected in that state Supreme Court's building. But the hard line, and as Justice Breyer said today, he's looking for a key. What goes too far. What does not? Justice O'Connor today, these lines are very hard to draw. The more difficult cases are the ones in the middle and the ones we saw today, the monument in Texas, the framed plaques in Kentucky surrounded by these other historical documents.

RAY SUAREZ: How is that case different? When they got to the Kentucky case, where there were framed copies of the Ten Commandments inside public places, did the tone change?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: I thought it may have changed a little bit for Justice O'Connor. I don't think it would have changed the calculus for the four more conservative Justices. Justice O'Connor seemed a little troubled by the history of this case. The county officials in this case had passed a resolution urging the local officials to erect Ten Commandments in the public buildings, and the lower court had found that the county's reason for having this display, that it was, you know, the foundation of our lives, was really a sham. So that may have tainted the government's rational for erecting the Ten Commandments and caused some of the Justices, such as O'Connor, to be more troubled by those displays in the Kentucky case.

RAY SUAREZ: So when they write their opinions on these cases, are we going to get some ground rules on how to display a text like the Ten Commandments in a public place, or might it end up having very narrow bearing?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: This court has always looked at these issues under the establishment clause on a case-by-case basis. They've drawn these lines very finely. They've not issued these sweeping decisions, giving very clear guidance to the lower courts. And, in fact, today the Justices seemed divided even on how to tackle this issue, the kind of rules and tests that they should use in deciding whether or not the Ten Commandments violates the First Amendment. So the lower courts I am certain and the state legislatures I am sure hope that the Supreme Court gives them very clear guidance in these opinions. But as the Justices showed today, that's going to be very difficult to do to draw these fine lines on when you can allow Ten Commandments and when you can't. And it's come up with this court time and time again in this area. For example, the issue of prayer in the public life and in the public sphere, the court has said, of course, you can't have school prayers in school settings, you know, even a moment of silence is unconstitutional, but it's said that legislatures could have a chaplain come in and give a prayer. It's said that you can't have a cr che in a courthouse during the holiday season, but it's allowed a Nativity scene around a public building when there are Santas and reindeer. So these are very complex issues. It's a very murky area of law, and perhaps we will get some guidance.

RAY SUAREZ: Jan, thanks for coming over today.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Thank you. My pleasure.

UPDATE - SPOTLIGHT ON SYRIA

JIM LEHRER: Next tonight: The new spotlight on Syria, and to Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: By adding his voice today to the growing international pressure directed at Syria, President Bush raised the stakes in a decades-old standoff. Yesterday, Syrian President Bashar Assad repeated his intention to withdraw Syrian troops from Lebanon, telling Time Magazine it should be very soon and may be in the next few months, not after that. Syria is suspected in Lebanon and in other Arab countries of playing a role in the assassination two weeks ago of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and of harboring the terrorists behind last week's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Lebanon's pro-Syrian prime minister resigned Monday in the face of widespread anti-Syrian street protests.

For the latest official reaction to these and other developments, we're joined now by Syria's ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha.

Welcome, Mr. Ambassador.

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: Good evening.

GWEN IFILL: What is Syria's reaction to the president's tough talk today about Syria's continuing presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon and of Secretary of State Rice's tough words yesterday?

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: I would say, of course, we are disappointed. Syria has repeatedly said that we will not stay in Lebanon one single day more than we are needed there. We have repeatedly said in the past two years that once the Lebanese government will ask us to leave, we will leave. Now, these are not just words. If you look at what has happened in the past two years, let me remind you that ten years ago at our peak presence in Lebanon, we had 42,000 Syrian troops. We had them there. We entered Lebanon to end the civil war in Lebanon. People were killing each other. Syria entered Lebanon to end the civil war. Now, if you look in the past two years, we have had a series of withdrawals and redeployments, and today we only have 13,000 troops in Lebanon, and all of them are outside major Lebanese cities. However, having said this, we will continue to do this. We will continue the redeploying and withdrawing our troops in a way that is orderly and phased and will not create neither chaos nor vacuum. And we will do this. As you have just said, our president has said this repeatedly, not only yesterday but in the past two years.

GWEN IFILL: We have heard of numbers anywhere from thirteen to fifteen thousand, just to be clear about the number of troops there.

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: That's all right.

GWEN IFILL: But with resignation this week of Prime Minister Karami and of the continuing protests and calls, actually, for President Lahud to resign, as well, you don't take that as a sign, a request for Syrian troops the leave?

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: Let me be clear about this. Why do you think we need a request when I am saying as clearly as possible that we are leaving Lebanon? We will not do this in a way that will create instability. But we are committed to leaving Lebanon. We do not have hegemonous plans on Lebanon. We did not go there as an occupation. We did not impose our political system on Lebanon, nor our economic system, nor our social or cultural system. We went there to stop civil war there, and we are withdrawing. Now, what has happened is the following: The moment we heard about the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Hariri, we immediately realized that the sinister plan behind killing this national leader goes far beyond merely killing him. We felt immediately targeted. This hysteria against Syria, this agitation against Syria is damaging us a lot.

GWEN IFILL: You say Syria had nothing to do with that assassination?

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: Not only nothing to do with that assassination, what I'm saying, as clearly as possible, that Syria is the party that has been most damaged by this assassination, and the destructors and enemies of Syria are the parties that are benefiting and capitalizing from this heinous murder.

GWEN IFILL: Because Islamic Jihad is headquartered in Damascus, part of it anyway, people have said and the secretary of state has suggested that perhaps there was hand of the Syrian government, as well, in the Tel Aviv bombing last week.

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: Look, let me say this: Syria has never, ever had any hand with any terrorists or violent -- or anything that is happening in the occupied territories. What's happening in the occupied territories, a vicious circle of violence and counter violence, has everything to do with the Israeli policies there. You know, they build their walls deep into the Palestinian territories, they demolish houses there, they expropriate territories, they assassinate Palestinian leaders and people. Syria has nothing to do whatsoever-- nothing-- in what's happening in the occupied territories. By pointing fingers at Syria and trying to blame Syria for the catastrophic events that are happening there and the tragic events, I think they're just trying to shift the blame. Let me tell you what Syria's policy towards the West Bank and Gaza is. We support all the peaceful -- the peace process that President Mahmoud Abbas is undertaking right now. We have said this repeatedly. We are supporting his process. We do not want anyone to undermine his efforts. We believe that there is a window of opportunity for peace in the West Bank and Gaza. And actually, President Abbas said yesterday in London that he knows that Syria has nothing to do with the attack in Tel Aviv. Not only this one, Syria has never ever had anything to do with any attack that took place in the occupied territories or in Israel proper.

GWEN IFILL: Does something have to happen with the Israeli- Palestinian peace process, some movement on that front, before you fully -- this timetable is implemented and you fully withdraw your troops from Lebanon?

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: No, we have said we will withdraw or troops from Lebanon unconditionally, which means leaders of this country should at least be understanding and help us do this in a peaceful way. We -- I don't understand what do they get by this continuous campaign of agitation against Syria. I don't think Lebanon benefits from this. Syria does not benefit from this. I do not even think that the long-term interests of the United States of America benefit from creating this atmosphere of instability.

GWEN IFILL: Did Syria have a role in turning over Saddam's half brother this past weekend, and was that considered -- and if so, was that a sign of goodwill in this process?

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: I don't think we had any role. However, having said, this let me tell you this. This is not very well known to the American public. Syria has done every possible effort to secure the Iraqi- Syrian borders. We have supported the political process in Iraq. We ended up with a thank you letter from the interim prime minister of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, for the support we gave. We allowed the Iraqi community in Syria, a huge community, to participate in the elections. We opened our schools to use them for voting centers. We supported -- we provided security to the Iraqi community in Syria. And now we are expecting the best possible relations with the emerging new government in Iraq. We also think, and we are very disappointed that we are being unfairly targeted by the United States.

GWEN IFILL: What about Saudi Arabia and Egypt? They've also been critical.

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: No, I will disagree with you strongly. We have the best of relations with both Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Actually, President Assad is going to Saudi Arabia tomorrow and the Egyptian foreign minister was in Damascus yesterday.

GWEN IFILL: Do you fear in anyway that the United Nations, the United States, any of these people who you feel are criticizing you unfairly will respond by imposing new sanctions against Syria?

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: Well, let's distinguish between the United Nations and the United States. Why would the United Nations do this? If they want -- if they think we should be out of Lebanon, they are saying this clearly and loudly. We are going out of Lebanon.

GWEN IFILL: No, perhaps...

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: So they will impose sanctions for what? Listen, if they really want to impose sanctions,let me remind you of this: There are standing United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories for at least the past 30 years. If they really are looking for someone to impose sanctions on, they should ask Israel to consider this. We are not an occupation in Lebanon, and we are withdrawing.

GWEN IFILL: Do you fear at all the threat of military action from the United States or any other?

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: Let me say that for realistic and practical reasons we do not fear this. Why? I'll tell you why. First, regardless of how they try to portray us, we will not fall into this trap. We are not enemies of the United States of America. We don't need to create hostilities with this country. Actually, we have repeatedly invited the United States to constructively engage with Syria. We told them, if there are problems and issues between us, let's sit together, let's engage, let's put them on the table and let's see how we can find creative solutions. Let me remind you of this. This is so important. In the past 18 months, Syria has repeatedly invited Israel to reengage in a peace process with Syria - repeatedly -- and on the highest possible level. And Israel repeatedly refused to engage. If you look at the Middle East, it's very clear to any fair observer who is really desiring peace and who is really inviting the other party to have peace negotiations and who is the party that is refusing to do this.

GWEN IFILL: Syria has proclaimed itself to be in a united cause with Iran, which has also attracted the attention of U.S. officials. Is that helpful in these efforts, as you say, to reach this common ground?

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: I don't think this was an accurate portrayal of what has happened. Let me say this to you: What happened ten days ago, the Syrian prime minister went to six Syrian ministers, of economic, of trade, of transport and of culture to Iran. And he signed agreements with Iran that are exact replica, exact replica of agreements Syria has signed with Cyprus, with Greece, with Turkey, and we have just signed the same agreement the day before yesterday with Jordan. I think this is regional cooperation. Nothing should look at this with paranoia or try to make connections or links that are really undesirable. I don't understand why are they trying to put us in a camp in which we are portrayed like we are the enemies of the United States?

GWEN IFILL: The president of the United States and the secretary of state are guilty of paranoia in this case?

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: No, no. I'm talking about those who think that if our prime minister goes to Iran and signs a trade treaty, then it makes Syria as an enemy to the United States. Let me repeat this: We are not your enemies. We really want to engage with you. We want to improve our relations with the United States. I don't think it's useful to Syria to be portrayed as an enemy to the United States, but it's also -- it doesn't serve the long-term interests of the United States to create more and more enemies in the Middle East. We do not understand why is this happening?

GWEN IFILL: Ambassador Imad Moustapha, thank you very much for joining us.

IMAD MOUSTAPHA: You are welcome.

FOCUS - MEDICAID - SQUEEZE

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Medicaid in Tennessee, reforming bankruptcy, and honoring Jackie Robinson.

JIM LEHRER: Many states have been grappling with the costs of Medicaid. Cuts in the program was a major agenda item when governors met in Washington this week. Susan Dentzer of our health unit has a look at Tennessee, a state with some of the most serious problems.

SUSAN DENTZER: The face of Lori Smith is one of the faces of TennCare, Tennessee's Medicaid program. Smith suffers from lupus and multiple sclerosis, which plague her with painful symptoms.

LORI SMITH: Extreme fatigue, running a fever for over six months, easily bruising, had rashes over my entire body, joint pain, joint swelling, blisters in my mouth --

SUSAN DENTZER: Smith's medical expenses are so high that she's deemed "uninsurable" by private health insurers. And the small Nashville advertising agency she works for does not provide health coverage. So for years, TennCare, the state insurance program, has stepped in to pay Smith's medical bills.

LORI SMITH: In one month -- and this is not typical, but it's not uncommon at the same time -- I incurred $12,000 of medical expenses. If not for insurance, I would have had to pay for it out of my own pocket, put it on the credit card.

SUSAN DENTZER: But now Smith is one of 323,000 Tennessee adults who stands to lose her TennCare coverage altogether. Phil Bredesen, Tennessee's Democratic governor is proposing huge cuts in TennCare to deal with a state budget crisis.

GOV. PHIL BREDESEN: I truly do not know of another way to get through this next year without doing some serious disenrollments of people, and it's just a place we've come to in TennCare by trying to give too many benefits to too many people without really a plan for doing it that's sensible about the finances.

SUSAN DENTZER: Gordon Bonnyman is a Nashville public-interest lawyer and TennCare advocate who heads the Tennessee Justice Center.

GORDON BONNYMAN: It's a personal tragedy, I think, for the governor because I think he's disappointed to get to where he's gotten. But, more important, it's going to be a personal tragedy for hundreds of thousands of people in Tennessee who are going to be directly affected by it.

SUSAN DENTZER: To understand how Tennessee got here requires some background about Medicaid. It's the nation's largest public health insurance program and a critically important safety net. It now provides assistance to more than 50 million Americans -- with the federal government and the states sharing the roughly $300 billion annual cost. Medicaid covers a range of people, says Diane Rowland of the Kaiser Family Foundation; the foundation supports the NewsHour's health unit.

DIANE ROWLAND: The federal government requires states to cover low-income children and some pregnant women with the Medicaid program and then gives the states options to provide broader coverage to additional adults and children.

SUSAN DENTZER: Broad as this Medicaid safety net is, it often leaves out millions of other people, like Lori Smith. And depending on the state, Medicaid may or may not cover people like diabetes patient Cora Jones.

CORA JONES: I have a heart condition, I have a heart murmur. I have two medications, like, a hundred dollars, over a hundred dollars each, and the other one, the third one is about $80. So with the others, it mounts up to close to $600 a month.

SUSAN DENTZER: That $600 in monthly drug costs almost exactly matches what Jones earns in her part-time job as a teacher's aide. So she's one of tens of thousands of people across the country considered "medically needy." States have a choice of deciding whether or not to cover them. With thousands of Tennesseans like those falling through the cracks, the state concluded in 1993 that it had to act. At the same time, too Tennessee was facing a budget crisis and needed to get a grip on Medicaid spending.

So the state cut a deal with the federal government that gave it more money -- and approval to use the funds to stretch the state's safety net. Thousands of uninsurables, like Smith, got coverage. So did "medically needy" people like Jones. And so did disabled, mentally ill people like Teresa Godsey. She suffers from glaucoma, diabetes and severe bipolar disorder that once made her delusional.

TERESA GODSEY: Because my last name was Godsey, I felt I had this kinship or certain affiliation with God that nobody else experienced. You have all the energy. You're creative. You're talented, or maybe not, but you think you are. It's -- it's just a state of euphoria, and you have no sense of reality.

SUSAN DENTZER: With TennCare now paying the bill for her costly medications, Godsey says, the bipolar disease is under control.

Another part of Tennessee's deal with the federal government was an agreement to try to get a handle on soaring Medicaid costs. That wasn't going to be easy, since a lot of sick people were being enrolled.

Taking its best shot, the state put everybody on Medicaid into HMOs and other managed care organizations. In 1994, all of this came together in the new state Medicaid program called TennCare --ultimately covering one out of every four people in Tennessee.

GORDON BONNYMAN: It was the most exciting thing in my life when it started in 1994 because I and other people who had been either literally or figuratively sitting at the bedside of people who were dying without health insurance knew immediately that this was not just about saving the budget -- this was about saving lives.

SUSAN DENTZER: But it wasn't long before aspects of TennCare began to fall apart. Health costs rose steeply, in part because of the poor health status of much of Tennessee's population.

Dr. Bruce Steinhauer is president of the state's largest public hospital, the Regional Medical Center at Memphis, known as the Med. It's in the heart of a region known for high rates of strokes.

DR. BRUCE STEINHAUER: There's no question that the Mississippi River Basin is the stroke belt, and that's been observed for years, and nobody really quite knows why that is. We do think we have more uncontrolled hypertension than in other parts of the country and we have a considerable amount of obesity.

SUSAN DENTZER: For other reasons that aren't fully understood, Tennesseans are also the nation's heaviest users of prescription drugs. That's a phenomenon especially evident in the TennCare population.

Dr. Melissa Appleton directs the HIV/AIDS clinic at the Med in Memphis, where about two-thirds of the patients are on TennCare. Almost all are on multiple drugs.

DR. MELISSA APPLETON: If we are going to start someone on antiretrovirals, generally it will be four drugs, because one is used as a booster. And that doesn't include the medications that we need to treat actual opportunistic infections like histoplasmosis, which we see a lot of, or mycobacterium avium or toxoplasmosis or peptococcus. I don't know what we're going to do.

SUSAN DENTZER: Tennessee Representative David Shepherd is a Democrat who sits on the legislature's TennCare oversight committee. He also says that state government made missteps -- including specific settlements it agreed to in TennCare lawsuits brought by advocates like Bonnyman.

DAVID SHEPHARD: The program has probably been poorly managed in the last two or three years, some of which is because of agreeing to the consent decrees and not realizing the financial impact that it would have on the state.

SUSAN DENTZER: In particular, says Shephard, those settlements effectively loosened constraints on what drugs could be prescribed TennCare beneficiaries. With controls out the window, he says, costs soared.

Bredesen, a former HMO executive, campaigned on a platform of fixing TennCare. But by the time he came into office in 2003, the situation was clearly out of hand.

GOV. PHIL BREDESEN: The program today in Tennessee is about an $8.5 billion program, it's growing at around 15 percent a year, which is way in excess of even the national Medicaid growth rates. Our pharmacy benefit grew by 24 percent last a year. I mean, there's no way to tax or revenue your way out of that, you have to tackle a growth rate at that level in some underlying, underlying fashion.

SUSAN DENTZER: An effort to negotiate a way out with advocates like Bonnyman broke down -- with both sides disagreeing over why. So in January, Bredesen announced cuts slated to take effect later this year. Off the program would go people like Smith and Jones -- in fact, nearly half the adults on TennCare. And many of the remaining 1 million people on the program would see substantial cuts in benefits.

Those cuts include a limit of 20 days a year for an inpatient stay at a hospital, and four prescriptions a month for people covered by TennCare. At the Med, Dr. Appleton is worried about the effect of that drug limit on her HIV/AIDS patients.

DR. MELISSA APPLETON: It's ludicrous, you know. And our patients have everything that everyone else has. They have hypertension, diabetes, dislipodemias, you name it. I don't want to be melodramatic, but I think, yes, the short answer is HIV patients will die.

SUSAN DENTZER: Bredesen is now waiting to see if the federal government and the courts will approve his TennCare plan. Meanwhile, he and other governors meeting in Washington this week called for broader Medicaid reform. And most governors strongly resisted a Bush administration plan to make federal cuts in Medicaid. They warned that such cuts would increase the odds that other states would end up sharing Tennessee's fate.

JIM LEHRER: For the record, our health unit which produced that report has been funded for the past seven years by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. That partnership is now ending, and we want to express our thanks to them for its support.

We welcome a new partnership tonight with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which will now fund our health unit.

FOCUS - BANKRUPTCY CHANGES

JIM LEHRER: Now, changing the laws on personal bankruptcy. Jeffrey Brown has our story.

JEFFREY BROWN: Are too many Americans filing for bankruptcy under laws that make it too easy for them to do so? That's been the issue once again for the Senate this week, as it debated Republican-sponsored legislation to change eligibility requirements for those who want to escape their financial debts.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: I am pleased that we are able now to move forward with this bankruptcy bill.

JEFFREY BROWN: Among other things, the bill would create a "means test" to determine whether individuals are allowed to have their debts cancelled or must enter a repayment plan. Congress has actually debated such a bill for nearly eight years. Each time, it's fallen short. On the Senate floor this week, supporters and opponents have debated who would be helped and who hurt.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Who do we represent in this party, the credit card companies who have had record profits? They are the principle beneficiary of this legislation. $30 billion in profits last year, and they want $35 billion. The best estimate is the credit card companies are going to get $5 billion more out of this bill.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: I think it's a nice, populist appeal here to blame all the credit card companies for the problems that everybody has in our society today. Look, we have an intelligent society, a highly educated society, and I think everybody knows when they take those credit cards and they accrue debt, they are supposed to pay that debt.

JEFFREY BROWN: Attempts by Democrats to modify the bill have so far been defeated, including an effort by Illinois' Dick Durbin to exempt all members of the military, including reservists, from being forced into repayment regardless of their financial condition.

SPOKESPERSON: The amendment is not agreed to.

JEFFREY BROWN: Instead, the Senate passed a proposal by Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions that would allow that exemption for only active-duty service members, low-income veterans and those with serious medical conditions. The number of Americans filing for Chapter Seven bankruptcy had risen steadily in recent years, until falling off a bit in 2004, when some 1.5 million Americans sought protection.

JEFFREY BROWN: And joining us from the Senate now are Senators Sessions and Durbin-- Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Democratic Dick Durbin of Illinois. Welcome to both of you.

Senator Sessions, perhaps you could start by defining for us the problem that needs fixing.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Well, we think that... we had two goals with this bill, first to preserve the historic privilege that Americans have to wipe out their debts and have a fresh start, but we also realized there were a lot of abuses in bankruptcy, so we developed the bright line rule. If you make above median income and a judge finds that you can pay back some of those debts, then you can be ordered to do so over a period of up to five years. I think this will deal with those high-income debtors who just wipe out their debts and they can pay a lot of the people they owe money to. We think that's a good step. It has a lot of other provisions in it, too, but the means test is the big new change. I think it preserves for poor people, low-income people, people below median income, all the privileges they've had historically, but those who make above that shouldn't get off scot-free.

JEFFREY BROWN: Sen. Durbin, do you think this means test will preserve the balance that Sen. Sessions referred to?

SEN. DICK DURBIN: I don't. I think people who can pay back their debts should pay them back and people trying to cheat the system should be stopped. Let's take a look at who is going to bankruptcy court today. Overwhelmingly the reason people go into bankruptcy court is because of medical bills, and most of those people were insured, had health insurance when their diagnosis came down. These are not people who are lacking any kind of moral fiber. These are people who are struggling to try to keep their families together. What we want to make certain is that bankruptcy court is still there for those who truly need it, establishing a means test sounds easy: It involves thousands of dollars in legal fees and a stack of documents that a person has to file to prove they're above or below the median income.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Sen. Sessions, this is the issue that comes up over and over again, the rise in health care costs and how much that plays into people filing bankruptcy. Do you accept that that's a big factor now and how would this deal with it?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: It's certainly a factor for some, but the numbers just don't justify that. The U.S. Trustees who are involved in 48 of our bankruptcy states, state courts and federal court bankruptcies in our 48 states, they have done a survey of the files, and they found that 54 percent of the filers did not list any medical debts, that only 5 percent of the debts that were listed were medical debts. Most of the debts were other form of debt. But look, they still can wipe 'em out. If you make below median income and 80 percent of the filers make below medium income, you can still wipe out all those debts, not pay your doctor, not pay your hospital, not pay any medical bills at all. If you make above that, this bill says, why not pay. So we think you should. You should be responsible if the court finds you're able to pay.

JEFFREY BROWN: Sen. Sessions, though, what I think some have wondered is would it not be possible to distinguish between those who have legitimate health care costs that lead to their bankruptcy and those that go into bankruptcy, for example, for other things, for overspending on consumer items?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: No, I think these are all debts that you owe, and if you receive several thousand dollars of hospital benefit and you make $80,000 or $100,000 a year and you didn't have insurance, maybe you should, after reducing all those debts and under Chapter 13, why not pay some of it back? Why should a person like that get off scot-free? But, remember, if you make below median income, you still could wipe out all those medical debts. So I really think this is an issue that has tried to bring in the health care debate in a way that's not relevant to this bill, which simply says this is how you handle the process of eliminating debts or reducing debts in bankruptcy court.

JEFFREY BROWN: Sen. Durbin, what's wrong with that? Where would you draw the line, particularly when you're talking about the health care costs component of bankruptcy filing?

SEN. DICK DURBIN: I would disagree with Jeff on that point. We've had a Harvard Law and Medical School study which shows that some 46 percent of the cases being filed in bankruptcy court involve substantial medical bills. It stands to reason fewer people have health insurance. The health insurance they have isn't as good anymore. People can be swamped with medical debt even when they think they have health insurance and they're protected. My concern is this: I'm worried about the cheaters and the grafters and those that go into this court to try to take advantage of it, but overwhelmingly, even by the estimate of the commission itself that took a look at those who cheat the system, 97 percent of the people go in there and deal with it honestly. And yet we're creating new hurdles and new obstacles. The difficulty I have is this: If a person is overwhelmed with medical bills, for goodness sakes, we ought to give them some slack and give them some help. Just minutes ago on the floor of the Senate, two amendments by Sen. Kennedy to help people facing medical crises in their family were overwhelmingly defeated on largely partisan roll cools. Sen. Kennedy tried to protect a person's right the save their home if they have medical bills that really wiped them out and yet that too was defeated. There is just no sympathy on the floor of the United States Senate for consumers and families who have no place to turn when they're swamped with medical bills.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Could I just respond?

JEFFREY BROWN: Yes, please.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Remember now, these medical bills don't have to be paid. 80 percent of the people who file bankruptcy fall below median income. They won't have to pay any of these bills. If they make above that, they'll only have to pay a small -- what proportion the judge finds that they can pay. And frankly, this study that he's cited is not nearly as accurate as a much more extensive U.S. trustee analysis of what is really happening in bankruptcy courts.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. Sen. Sessions, let's me turn to another issue that's been raised, the criticism of the credit card companies and the banks, that they play a role in giving out too many cards and extending too much -- too many loans to people and that nothing is done in this bill that would curtail that or limit that side of the equation. Why not?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Well, first of all, credit card debt is a problem for a lot of people. I don't believe it's necessarily the credit card company's fault that somebody takes that card and runs up a lot of bills on it. They lose because they don't get repaid. So I don't really -- I think the credit card issue is a red herring. This bill primarily deals with what happens when you have debts and you want to wipe them out, start fresh, end lawsuits, not have to have harassing phone calls and go through court and handle that. The problem with credit card companies, and we need to continue to look at it, is to make sure that they have good notice, that debtors do, that they fully understand the conditions that they're operating under, and that's a different problem that I think is probably not well suited to be handled in bankruptcy, although we do have some provisions in this bill that tighten up regulations on credit cards.

JEFFREY BROWN: Sen. Durbin, I take it you'd like the see tougher provisions.

SEN. DICK DURBIN: If your viewers are watching this program at home while they're opening their mail, it's likely they're opening another credit card offer as they listen to this broadcast. We're swamped with credit card solicitations. These solicitations reach children and people who shouldn't be offered credit cards, and no business with an additional credit card and more debt. Now come the credit card companies, after sinking people deep into debt and say, in bankruptcy court, we want to make sure at the final analysis, the last chapter, you'll walk out of court still in debt to the credit card companies. That is the driving force behind this bill. They've been very quiet, low profile, but the credit card industry and major financial institutions are behind this move to reform the bankruptcy bill. So this morning, and I agree with Sen. Sessions, we ought to hold the credit card companies accountable, Sen. Akaka said, shouldn't the credit card statement each month at least tell you if you make a minimum payment how long it will take, how much it will cost? Defeated again on a partisan roll call, with the overwhelming majority of Republicans voting against holding the credit card companies to that minimum standard; it's clear now the credit card companies are ruling this debate.

JEFFREY BROWN: Sen. Durbin, a brief response, if you could. As we said, this has been around for a number of years. Where do you think it goes this time? Might it pass this time?

SEN. DICK DURBIN: Well, the Republican party has a lock on the White House and Congress, and it's likely they'll pass this and have it signed by the president. I'm afraid it's not going to contain any consumer protection. The amendment I offered to protect Guard and reserve families that face bankruptcy because of activations and deployments was defeated on party line vote. Efforts to protect those with overwhelming medical bills, defeated on a party line vote. It looks like the credit card industry is in for a big win.

JEFFREY BROWN: Sen. Sessions, you see it the same way?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: I think the bill is in good shape. It passed in the Senate 83-15. Yes, I think we have broad bipartisan support. A lot of the amendments that he mentioned, such as the Guard and reserve amendment, that I offered an amendment I think that dealt with what Sen. Durbin was most concerned about, had at least six Democratic votes for it. So I think we've got a good bipartisan bill. I do believe it will become law this time. It's the fourth time the Senate will have voted on it. It's time to make it law. I believe we will.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right. Senator Sessions and Durbin, thank you both very much.

SEN. DICK DURBIN: Thank you.

FOCUS - GOLD STANDARD

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, honoring the late great Jackie Robinson. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: It was standing room only inside the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol this afternoon to award posthumously the Congressional Gold Medal to Jackie Robinson, the first to break baseball's color barrier. President Bush was among the dozens of elected officials, civil rights leaders and sports personalities who joined in honoring Robinson.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I found what Martin Luther King's quote about him interesting. He said he was a freedom rider before freedom rides. That's a pretty high compliment when you think about it. To me, it just says courage and decency and honor.

KWAME HOLMAN: The accompanying resolution approved by the Congress recognized Robinson's remarkable athletic achievements, both in college and as a member of baseball's Brooklyn Dodgers. Robinson won the National League's Rookie of the Year award in 1947 and its Most Valuable Player award two years later. But it was Robinson's exceptional fortitude and integrity, the resolution cited, that had a profound influence on civil and human rights in America. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry co-sponsored the Robinson tribute.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: He risked his life. He risked his family. Branch Ricky wondered how he endured the racial epithets and flying cleats, hate letters and death threats, pitchers throwing at his head and legs, catchers spitting on his shoes.

KWAME HOLMAN: North Carolina's Mel Watt is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

REP. MEL WATT: He knew he was a symbol and a barrier-breaker and that staying the course would have consequences for millions of people to come.

KWAME HOLMAN: Rachel Robinson, who stood with her husband through those torturous years of his early career, accepted the Congressional Gold Medal on his behalf.

RACHEL ROBINSON: This medal confirms what we know-- Jackie Robinson stands as a heroic role model for all Americans who believe in justice and equality. Once again my thanks to all for this generous expression of appreciation for a life well lived. Thank you. (Applause) (Applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: Shortly after her husband's death in 1972, Rachel Robinson created the Jackie Robinson Foundation, which continues to provide college scholarships and other educational opportunities to minority students.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on displaying the Ten Commandments on government property. Two car bombings in Baghdad killed at least 14 Iraqi soldiers. And Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan warned against delaying action on Social Security. He urged Congress to consider benefit cuts for baby boomers. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.