The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, Speaker Foley said the new Congressional session would focus on domestic issues, and the KGB said Azerbaijan was on the brink of chaos. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in New York tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we focus first on Congress and the upcoming move to undo the President's veto of a bill letting Chinese students remain in the U.S. [FOCUS - EXCHANGE STUDENTS?]. Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi is for the bill. Republican Lamar Smith is against. Then Correspondent Spencer Michels [FOCUS - CHILDREN WITH AIDS] reports on the special problems faced by families when a child comes down with AIDS. Next a new report [FOCUS - LOSING THE EDGE] indicting corporate America for too little future research. Erich Bloch of the National Science Foundation, Sanford Kane of the recently disbanded U.S. Memories Computer Consortium, and trade specialist Claude Barfield of the American Enterprise Institute join us. Finally [ESSAY - STANDING VIGIL] Essayist Clarence Page has some thoughts about fear and safety. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Congress went back to work today. House Speaker Thomas Foley said the 2nd session of the 101st Congress will focus on domestic matters. He spoke to reporters as he arrived on Capitol Hill this morning.

REP. TOM FOLEY, Speaker of the House: Americans have borne a great burden and borne it with great effectiveness in the recent decades in confronting the threat of Communist expansion and dealing with protecting the values of our society internationally. We're having remarkable, we're seeing the fruition of the success of that policy, again a bipartisan policy of the last 40 years, but now we've got some things to deal with here at home, and I think in terms of our strengthening our family, strengthening our economy, protecting our environment, providing for addressing the social deficit that exists in this country.

MR. LEHRER: The Senate went straight to work on a clean air bill this afternoon. It deals with pollution from both vehicles and industrial sources. It expands on recommendations made by Pres. Bush last year. Debate is expected to continue for several weeks. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Democratic and Republican Leaders were in agreement on one issue today. Both sides predicted that Congress will undue Pres. Bush's veto of a bill to protect Chinese students in the United States. An overwhelming House override vote is expected tomorrow. Therefore, the White House has concentrated its efforts on the Senate. But today Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming who supports the veto predicted that he would get fewer than five Senate votes. A group of override supporters, including Sen. Edward Kennedy, explained their position this morning.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, [D] Massachusetts: This administration has been too fast in bending and cow towing to the Chinese leaders and too slow in standing for the Democratic forces in China. The best way for the American people to express their alliance, their commendation for the students and the Democratic forces in China is to override the veto.

MR. LEHRER: Pres. Bush asked Congress today to finish his work on his anti-crime package. He made the comments on a trip to Kansas City, Missouri. He was there to tour an inner-city neighborhood where residents had banded together to put a crack house out of business. Later during his speech to law enforcement officers, Mr. Bush said an alternative anti-crime bill proposed by Democratic Sen. Biden was a Trojan horse.

PRES. BUSH: In actuality, it will be tougher on law enforcement than criminals and its so called reforms of the exclusionary rule, habeas corpus, the death penalty and the Justice Department itself will only entrench and extend the legal loopholes and the red tape that disrupt honest law enforcement and have angered the American people for far too long. It must be defeated. America needs a crime bill with teeth, yes, but this is a sheep in wolf's clothing.

MR. LEHRER: The President also talked about his anti-drug strategy. He said he would propose new funds for education and treatment when he announces the second phase of the program later this week.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Soviet secret police today warned that Azerbaijan is on the brink of chaos. The KGB, in an unusual public appeal, called for an end to the ethnic bloodshed which it said has brought the republic to the edge of the abyss, but the violence continued today. In one incident, Azerbaijanis ambushed a Soviet military convoy carrying women and children. The Soviets said two of their soldiers and one woman were killed. Meanwhile, Moscow continued its military build-up in the area. We have a report from the Armenian side of the border by Bill Neely of Independent Television News.

MR. NEELY: The Soviet army is sending convoys of troops to the Western half of Azerbaijan. They crossed the border this morning to take control of an area that has declared its independence from Moscow. A few miles in tanks were on maneuver. Thousands of troops are here. Azerbaijani guerrillas watch and await a crackdown. Tanks are rumbling through Armenia too. For hours, they patrol the roads where last week guerrillas roamed freely, their aim to be seen. To help achieve it, they allowed us to film them on top of the vehicles and inside. They're making their presence felt.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Soviet Union issued a strong warning today to Iran about stirring up trouble in Azerbaijan. The Soviet republic is predominantly Shiite Moslem and lies on Iran's border. Radio Moscow warned that if Iran made nationalistic or religious appeals to the Azerbaijanis, there could be irrevocable consequences.

MR. LEHRER: The premier of Hungary today called for the withdrawal of all Soviet troops from his country. Miklosh Nemitz said Hungarian officials would meet shortly with the Soviets to work out a withdrawal timetable. More than 50,000 Soviet troops have been stationed in Hungary since they were sent to put down the 1956 uprising. In Washington, CIA director William Webster spoke out today about the effect of the rapid changes in Eastern Europe. He did so in an unusual public appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

WILLIAM WEBSTER, Director, CIA: Overall, the conventional threat to the United States and our alliance partners in Europe has decreased as a result of changes in Eastern Europe and Soviet force reductions. Soviet strategic forces continue to be modernized and their military research and development programs continue to receive generous fundings. Notwithstanding the crisis affecting the country as a whole, Soviet strategic forces remain unimpaired. For these reasons it is essential that we maintain a strong intelligence capability.

MS. WOODRUFF: In South Africa today there was more talk of releasing Nelson Mandela from prison. The nation's justice minister said it's not a question of whether the 71 year old black leader will be released but when. The minister also said the government is considering asking Mandela to be a mediator in its talks with the African National Congress, which Mandela led when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1962. In Cape Town today a students demonstration against the government's education policies was broken up by police. Police used a water canon to force the protesters to move. Then they fired into the crowd with rubber bullets and tear gas. That's it for our News Summary. Just ahead on the Newshour, the fight over letting Chinese students stay in the U.S., a report on children with AIDS, why American industry is losing its competitive edge and a Clarence Page essay. FOCUS - EXCHANGE STUDENTS?

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight to one of the first orders of business of the new Congressional session that began today. The business is over riding a Presidential veto, the issue is China. The House vote is set tomorrow on President Bush's veto of a bill that allows Chinese students to extend their student visas. The Bill passed unanimously last year. When the Chinese Government cracked down on the student rebellion on Tienanmen Square on June 4th there were reactions of disbelieve and horror from all over the World. Some of the most vocal opposition was among the 40,000 Chinese Students in the United States.

CHINESE STUDENT: I am very surprised and very angry and very sad because a lot of my friends was in Peking and the Army fought them. And I also think this Government is no longer belongs to us and I am really really very angry.

MR. LEHRER: But in addition to their outrage at the Chinese authorities the students here felt threatened saying that they could not safely return to China that they risked possible punishment and jail terms. They appealed to Congress demonstrating in front of the U.S. Capitol. Democrats in Congress led by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi pushed through a Bill extending their student visas by two years. That action was attacked by the Beijing Government as intolerable interference in Chinese affairs and President Bush vetoed the legislation November 30. The President commented on the Pelosi Bill at a Press Conference 11 days later.

PRESIDENT BUSH: There was some discussion about the Pelosi Bill and some political figures accusing me of not caring for human rights because I would not sign that Bill. We have enacted by Executive Order everything that that Bill does or would have done and I want to keep control of managing the foreign policy of this Country as much as I can and I didn't think that legislation was necessary and I hope that the Congress comes back and takes a hard look at that and we can go forward together as we have in the past.

MR. LEHRER: The leaders from each side of tomorrow's House debate are with us. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and Sponsor of the original legislation and Congressman Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas ranking Republican on the House Immigration Sub Committee. Congresswomen Pelosi why should this veto be over ridden? The President says by Administrative Order he has already done what your Bill would have done.

REP. PELOSI: Well the purpose of the Bill was to protect the students. I believe the veto should be over ridden for two reasons. First of all it is still not safe to go back to China. And second of all to remove all doubts that the students are protected it is necessary to have a Bill. It is necessary to pass a law.

MR. LEHRER: The Administrative action that the President has taken is not enough is that what you are saying?

REP. PELOSI: It certainly is not enough. The immigration is law and is very restrictive and specific and it specifically does not call for blanked waivers of the J1 Visa. Not to get to technical but that is why I believe that it is necessary for us to have the veto over ridden and I am pleased to say that my colleagues in the House both Democrats and Republicans alike agree and that we will have a very strong vote over riding the veto tomorrow in the House of Representatives.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Smith you disagree. Why do you disagree?

REP. SMITH: Yes I do and first of all let me clear up the air right here because there is a misconception, I agree. The President is very firmly on record in favor of protecting the students and not sending them back to China. In fact his Administrative directive is in effect right now. They are protected as we stand here. Also I don't know of any member of the House of Representatives that wants the Students to go back. So we need to make sure that we are all going the same direction and understand that we agree with the goal but I have to support the President's veto for three reasons and think that it is a better vehicle to use to protect those students. First of all it is broader than the Bill in question. It applies to all Chinese nationals in the United States.

MR. LEHRER: You mean the Administrative action?

REP. SMITH: The Administrative directive of the President applies to all Chinese nationals in the United States right now not just students as Nancy's Bill concerns with. More than that it allows the President to exercise his foreign policy authority and lastly it allows the exchange programs the cultural exchange programs that we have with China to continue and it is those cultural exchange that I think have been responsible for the pro democracy movement that we see in support in China today.

MR. LEHRER: Congresswoman Pelosi what about the Congressman's point? The President also made it in his veto message which was that he wants to maintain control of foreign policy and in order to do that it is better to not do it by law but do it by administrative action.

REP. PELOSI: Well the President also said that in order to have the Administrative Directive he wanted to do that because he wanted to have flexibility and I believe that the flexibility that he wishes flies in the face of the protection for the students. You can not be flexible and have guarantees. I think that another reasons that it is important for us to make this statement in Congress is that one of the reasons that the President Vetoed the Bill is that the Chinese Government found it intolerable. If in fact the President's directive is the same as the Bill then why not let us over ride the Bill.

MR. LEHRER: Why not if it is the same thing?

REP. SMITH: Let me reply to your foreign policy point which is, it is the Presidents prerogative to set foreign policy and that is a good reason to support the President on this Bill. In addition to that it is really not up to us to try to guess what the motives of the Chinese Government might be or to try to figure out why they are doing what they are doing. We need to keep our focus on those students and how we protect them and how we protect them in the best way possible and the Presidential directive allows us to protect the most individuals are here from China and not force them to go back to their homeland at some jeopardy to their lives and their families.

MR. LEHRER: But what about her point that if you really want to protect them you do it by law not by an Administrative action that can be reversed three days later by the same Administrative action? That is true is it not?

REP. SMITH: That is not true the Administrative Directive that the President has issued first of all does have the force of law. There is no precedent for any such or similar directive ever being revoked. In fact just the opposite is true. They usually stay in existence far longer than the President initially mentioned when he issued the Administrative directive. And also as far as law goes, I mean, a law can be repealed at any time as well. So both they have their advantages perhaps their disadvantages but we have checked with the Department of Justice, we've checked with the Immigration Naturalization Service. They all say this has the force of law and as long as it does why not give it a chance it is in effect now.

REP. PELOSI: You know it is very interesting to hear Congressman Smith and I respect him very much for his hard work on the Committee talk about this about this legislation and why we don't need when he and his members of his Committee are so very protective of the immigration law that we have and it is immigration law that we are dealing with. But there is also a larger issue. The fact of the matter is that everything that we do in Congress sends a message and over riding this veto will send a very clear message to the butchers in Beijing that it was entirely wrong for them to kill their people for speaking out for democracy in China. We'll send a very clear message to the students that they are protected. It will remove all doubt. So we can debate the technicalities and legalities that is what lawyers get paid for and we all know that but the fact is that if we want to stand by those and speak put forcefully for the pro Democratic Movement in China we will over ride the President's veto. I have no doubt that the President cares about human rights and democracy. We are only talking about the road that we take to that and I believe that you will see tomorrow bi partisan support for the over ride because it is so clear to us that if we encourage democracy through out the World we can not say to people in China except for you. If you speak out and get killed it is business as usual with the beijing Government and the United States of America.

REP. SMITH: I think that my colleague here is all but admitting that Congress is trying to set foreign policy by passing this bill and of course that is the President's prerogative. he needs the flexibility to adapt to changes that might occur in fast breaking news events. In addition to that I think we are also putting our finger on something else that troubles me a little bit and that is that so many people and it may not be true with Congressman Pelosi seem to using this as a narrow poison attack an opportunity to bash President Bush and that to me is the wrong approach. I have been reading all kinds of comments in the media about they can't wait to have this victory over Bush. No comment about the rights of students or any thing like that and I think that is one indication of the that is that it has been scheduled to be the first vote in this new session of Congress.

MR. LEHRER: Is he right about that?

REP. PELOSI: The reason that it is the first order of business is because a Presidential Veto from the pervious session is the first order of business before the Congress. The fact is that it passed unanimously in both House. In the House it passed 403 to 0. So we are not talking partisanship here. We all begged the President to sign it we wanted to put the matter to rest. This isn't a question of bashing the President this is a question of being pro freedom. this is the question making our strongest possible statement in support of democracy in China and to protect the students and remove all doubts about their protection.

MR. LEHRER: I want to ask you Congressman Smith about the message question. What message would it send to the leaders of China if in fact the Congress does not over ride the veto?

REP. SMITH: If Congress does not over ride the veto?

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

REP. SMITH: If Congress does not over ride the veto?

MR. LEHRER: In other words if you win?

REP. SMITH: If the veto is sustained I think that it will be good for the Chinese Students.

MR. LEHRER: I mean, her point is what this sends to the leaders of China and the rest of the World?

REP. SMITH: The message to the leaders in China is that the United States and the President and this Administration stand solidly behind the interest and the rights of the Chinese Students and Chinese nationals who are in this country today right now. The President is on record he has issued this Administrative Directive. Why not wait and see if this Administrative is going to work. It is working right now. The only reason not to wait is for Partisan purposes.

MR. LEHRER: We reported in the news summary, Congresswoman Pelosi that your side looks like it has the votes not only in the House but the Republican Minority Whip has said that also in the Senate. Is the issue of the Visas being one thing but is also the Scowcroft visits the two visits plus the fact that they were secret and all of that to China has that kind of poisoned the well favorably toward your move as well?

REP. PELOSI: Well I think there is no question that Scowcroft visits helped our side because I believe members of Congress were particularly offended by the toast that General Scowcroft made to the Butchers of Beijing in saying that there are forces in both of our societies that would strive to frustrate or redirect our efforts to cooperation. We must take action to stop these negative forces. I don't know if Congressman Smith stands behind those remarks. I do know that Congressman Smith today testified today at our Hearing on the Senate side that one of the reasons that the President vetoed the Bill is because it was opposed by the Beijing Government and I think that is very dangerous.

MR. LEHRER: So you think there is a connection? Do you agree Congressman Smith there is a connection between the visits and the apparent votes tomorrow?

REP. SMITH: I don't think there is that much connection and I think that we are trying to second guess what the Administration is doing in China.

MR. LEHRER: Please answer my question. Do you think there is a connection between the fact that apparently the President is going to loose tomorrow and the Scowcroft visits to China?

REP. SMITH: No I don't and the fact that the President might well face an uphill fight and perhaps it is close to vertical in the House tomorrow he might be sustained in the Senate in which case- -

MR. LEHRER: So you don't think there is no slop over on this?

REP. SMITH: I think that it is a marginal connection to tell you the truth in that score. But I want to go back to what the Congressman mentioned about Admiral Scrowcroft visits. According to what he said when he came back one of the messages that he delivered was that the United States did not look favorably on the actions of the Chinese Government, that they were opposed to the rights that we being taken away from the Chinese students and so on and to criticize the details about a toast that may have occurred. You talk about micro managing foreign policy that is a good example. I think that we need to be supportive of the Administration. We don't know everything that the Administration is doing nor do I believe the Administrations foreign policy be conducted totally right out in the open in every single instance. They are negotiating they are trying to go forward with the Presidents goal of getting rights for the students, protecting the students here protecting the students in China as well. Let's assume that they are going in the direction that they say there are and that the President says he is going as well.

REP. PELOSI: Well I have been on the phone everyday since the veto speaking to members of Congress with the focus on the House Republicans and I believe that you can not over ride with just Democratic votes, you must have the Republicans in order to over ride and I have been in touch with the House Republicans and I know that they were concerned about the Scowcroft visit because the American people were concerned about that as well and I do think that it is not being picky to talk about a toast that representatives of the President of the United States made to Dong Chou Ping who had murdered people because they spoke out for pro democratic reform in their country.

MR. LEHRER: We must go. Thank you all very much.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still ahead on the Newshour Children with AIDS, a lag in corporate research and development and a Clarence Page essay. FOCUS - CHILDREN WITH AIDS

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight we have a report on children infected with AIDS. Some experts predict that by 1991 between ten and twenty thousand children under the age of 13 will carry the AIDS virus. Spencer Michels of public station KQED in San Francisco reports on several families who have had to cope with the dilemmas posed by AIDS in children.

MR. MICHELS: Seven year old Brendan O'Rourke is all too familiar with the hallways and treatment rooms at the University of California's San Francisco Medical Center. His mother has been bringing him here for three years for treatment of AIDS which he got from a blood transfusion just after his premature birth.

MS. O'ROURKE: He's holding his own. His blood counts aren't so great but he's still doing relatively well.

MR. MICHELS: Brendan is one of about 2,000 children nationwide who have been diagnosed with AIDS. Thousands more are infected with the AIDS virus and those numbers are expected to rise dramatically in the next few years. In hospitals across the country, children are now beginning to get drug treatment similar to that for adults. Traditionally drugs haven't even been tested in children until proven safe and effective in adults. Now with AIDS that practice is changing. But according to Brendan's physician, Dr. Diane Wara, treatment for children with AIDS still lags behind.

DR. WARA: We don't have the information in children that are available in adults. We are a year toeighteen months behind in terms of what we know about the effect of treatment on children with AIDS.

MR. MICHELS: In children, as in adults, the drug AZT has proven effective in prolonging life, but it is not a cure. Brendan took part in the first AZT trial for children about three years ago, but the drug is not working as well for him now as it once did.

DR. DIANE WARA, Pediatrician: We're discussing now changing Brendan's treatment to another drug, Dideoxeinocine, which is a drug which remains experimental for adults and for children.

MR. MICHELS: For the parents of infected children, medical treatment is just one of their concerns. They must also deal with fear of discrimination. For most of the AIDS children, their condition is a closely guarded secret, but not for Brendan. When Brendan was five years old, Pope John Paul II singled him out at a special Mass in San Francisco, thrusting the O'Rourkes into the limelight.

ELAINE O'ROURKE: I didn't have to really wrestle with that decision who to tell and when to tell them. People found out in a very positive way.

MR. MICHELS: Among his friends, and he has a lot of them, Brendan has become a kind of folk hero.

BRENDAN O'ROURKE: Well, if you have AIDS, some people die and people don't and people do. I hit a home run today.

MR. MICHELS: Really?

BRENDAN: In softball.

FRIEND: You know where the kindergarten place is at? He hit it all the way down there.

MR. MICHELS: Brendan's acceptance by his community is not typical of most children with AIDS. In rural Tennessee in 1987, angry parents fought to keep a hemophiliac boy with AIDS out of the public school and in Northern Florida in the same year, three other hemophiliac boys infected with the AIDS virus were banned from school for a year and when they were readmitted, their home was burned down.

FATHER OF CHILDREN WITH AIDS: I've lost the family home that me and my wife were married in, my father died in, and a lot of memories have gone up in smoke. The department pretty well figured that someone threw a gas bomb in there and the thing about it was it was right in the children's room.

MOTHER OF CHILDREN WITH AIDS: I don't understand how people can be that cruel.

MR. MICHELS: Because of such incidents, Maria, we've changed her name and her voice, is afraid to let people know that she and her daughter are infected with the AIDS virus.

"MARIA": I cannot subject my daughter to the possible ridicule and discrimination.

MR. MICHELS: Three years ago "Maria" discovered that her husband had AIDS. He was bisexual and had been living a secret double life throughout their marriage. When he died, his family lied about the cause of his death. Today Maria and her daughter are both symptom free and very few people know they are infected.

"MARIA": I don't want her growing up with the stigma of this disease. People are still thinking that it's chronic drug users, that it's just the homosexual community.

RITA FAHRNER, Pediatric Nurse: There really is no duty to inform schools, churches, day cares, friends.

MR. MICHELS: Rita Fahrner is a nurse in the pediatric AIDS unit at Oakland Childrens Hospital. She says that children infected with the AIDS virus do not pose a threat to other children.

MS. FAHRNER: Even in situation where people live in very close quarters, there have been no instances of transmission. People often say well, there always could be a first time, and that's true, there could be a first time, but in all the years that we've known about this disease, there haven't been any documented cases.

MR. MICHELS: But for many people, including the Reclus family in San Francisco, the tiniest chance of contracting the disease poses too much of a risk, especially when it comes to the children. When Susan Reclus's brother was dying of AIDS, she refused to let her children visit him. If one of her children's playmates has AIDS, she thinks she has a right to know.

SUSAN RECLUS: I think it's got to be a very hard decision for the parent, but I think they should tell the truth and let other people make the decision whether they want to have their child exposed. Transmittable or not, they don't know, even though they say it can't be, I haven't heard any guarantee.

MR. MICHELS: The majority of HIV-infected children and the fastest growing group are those who got the disease before they were born from their mothers. Twenty-one month old Felicia was abandoned in the hospital by her mother. When she was nine days old, she was placed in this foster home by the San Francisco Department of Social Services.

GERRY DITO-PEAVEY, Social Worker: Many HIV children end up in foster care given the mother's history. There's a history of substance abuse, there's a history of prostitution, homelessness, no prenatal care.

MR. MICHELS: Felicia's mother got AIDS from using IV drugs. The great majority of HIV-infected mothers are either drug users or have had sex with a drug user, and many don't know they are infected. Pediatric AIDS specialist Dr. Diane Wara would like to change that.

DR. WARA: My personal belief is that all pregnant women who live in areas where there is a high prevalence of HIV should be tested. I think they deserve to know whether their babies or fetuses are at risk for infection. Will that happen during the next year? I doubt it.

MR. MICHELS: Many women refuse to be tested because they don't want to know if they are carriers. That robs the children of the chance to get early treatment if their mothers are infected. Although there is still no cure for AIDS, doctors are beginning to treat newborns and even fetuses with AZT. They think there may be a chance to stop the transfer of the disease from mother to child.

DR. WARA: I can't think of another infection where we tiptoe around and try to avoid finding out whether someone's infected. We want to know, especially because have potential treatment, we want to know if a patient's infected so that we can take care of them.

MR. MICHELS: Felicia has had state of the art medical care and foster parents well attuned to her needs, but very few people are willing to care for a child with AIDS. The prognosis is too unsettling.

MS. DITO-PEAVEY: When you see a child all of a sudden have a weight loss, when you see a child whose lymph nodes were not noticeable to you on your last visit but they turn their head to reach for something and you can see them now, you're kind of like slapped in the face again with the reality this child is sick and this child will die.

MR. MICHELS: The certainty of death from AIDS has posed another dilemma. Should HIV-infected women have children?

MS. DITO-PEAVEY: Seeing the suffering that these children go through, seeing the suffering that either relatives or the foster families go through or will go through, my immediate response is no, they should not have any more children.

MS. FAHRNER: Many of us have these feelings of boy, I wish we could do something and stop this woman from continuing to have babies that are infected because it's not fair to the kids. So sure, I do have those feelings sometimes. But in a general kind of sense, I don't think that we have the right to control people's behavior or their right to reproduce.

MR. MICHELS: Laurie is HIV positive and pregnant for the second time. She doesn't want her face on camera because she's afraid of discrimination. She contracted the AIDS virus five years ago when she was an IV drug user but never suspected it until she was six months pregnant with her first child. They told me my baby was going to be born with AIDS, he would die within a year, and that I might live another year, and my baby is negative. He was not born with AIDS, and this has been two years, and I'm still healthy.

MR. MICHELS: Because babies share their mother's blood, all babies born to HIV positive women have AIDS antibodies in their blood at birth. Doctors now believe only 30 percent of these children inherit the actual AIDS virus. They don't understand exactly why but the other 70 percent lose all trace of the disease within 15 months after birth. Laurie and her husband, Paul, were told that because of the 30 percent risk and because of her infection, they shouldn't have children.

PAUL: Every social worker and every doctor that we talked to tried to get her to have her tubes tied. We didn't feel that, I don't know, we didn't feel like that was the correct way to handle the situation.

MR. MICHELS: Although they are practicing Catholics, Laurie and Paul decided to use contraceptives after the birth of their first child, but she became pregnant anyway.

LAURIE: The new baby has a 70 percent chance of being healthy, and if I have an abortion, he doesn't have any chance, so that's why we decided to keep this one.

PAUL: I'm really positive that this baby is going to be fine. If it's not, well, then I guess I'll have to deal with that later. I guess some time's better than no time.

MR. MICHELS: Their baby is due early in the year and should it be born with AIDS, painful new decisions will confront them. Meanwhile, research continues nationwide with the hope that children born with the AIDS virus today will live long enough to benefit from future medical breakthroughs. FOCUS - LOSING THE EDGE

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight the results of a new study that may spell trouble for American business. The problem is money. Not enough of it is being set aside for future research and development according to the National Science Foundation. Over the years, American companies have invested billions in R&D, as it's known, and they've invented everything from transistors and lasers to new jet aircraft and the VCR. But the National Science Foundation says that lately the R&D budgets of American companies have not even kept up with inflation and have fallen way behind the Japanese. Here to discuss what this means for American business is Eric Bloch, the director of the National Science Foundation, and Claude Barfield, a trade and technology expert and a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute. With me in New York is Sanford Kane, the founder and CEO of the recently disbanded U.S. Memories Consortium. It was intended to be an alliance of computer makers and users able to better compete with foreign countries in the production of memory chips for semiconductors which are the building blocks of modern electronics. Mr. Kane abandoned his venture last week. Let me begin with you, Mr. Bloch, of the National Science Foundation. What exactly are the expenditures that you're concerned about. What has this money been being spent on?

ERICH BLOCH, National Science Foundation: Well, the expenditures we are concerned about is the research and development expenditures of the industrial sector of this country. And while in the first half of the 1980s the increases have been in the order of about 8 percent annually, in the second half of the '80s, it has been barely 1 percent. Now a lower spending in research and development means that the companies that use the output of research and development will not be capable of keeping up with their competitors in terms of new products.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now let me ask you, what do you mean when you say research and development? What kinds of things are you talking about?

MR. BLOCH: Well, I'm talking about research and development that lead to new products. It's the understanding of materials, it's the understanding of new devices, it's the understanding of new computers, for instance, new machinery in general, that later on the outcome of that one is later on used to produce a product that has to compete in the world marketplace.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are you making a distinction though between I think what's called basic research or pure scientific research versus research and development of specific new products that that company might develop?

MR. BLOCH: Well, yes, we can make that distinction, but the numbers that I cited before pertain to both of them, both research as well as development. You can desegregate that obviously. And I must say as you desegregate it, you find that basic research also does not have the goals that it has in the past.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, are you concerned about both of them together falling off, or one more than the other, I guess is what I'm trying to --

MR. BLOCH: I'm concerned about the totality, because basic research has to be followed up by product development, otherwise, it will not find its value in the marketplace.

MS. WOODRUFF: And yet the numbers that I read today that American companies are still spending, the number I saw was $68 billion a year in research and development, that still sounds like an awful lot of money.

MR. BLOCH: Well, that's an awful lot of money, no doubt about it. We are concerned that the growth of it, however, is slowing down. Don't forget that we are spending about 2.7 percent of our GNP on research and development. Our competitors, like Japan is spending about the same amount.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Let me turn now to Claude Barfield. Do you agree that there's been this drop off that the National Science Foundation says that it's found or sees?

CLAUDE BARFIELD, American Enterprise Institute: Oh, certainly. I don't think there's any doubt, I mean no one would challenge the numbers. I think the discussion today or this evening is going to be on what the numbers mean. And there I'd like to make two preliminary points. Mr. Bloch, you raised the question of basic research with him and he talked a little bit about that, but most of the reports today have talked not just about the aggregate numbers but also about the composition. And the New York Times front page piece today really ended up as a lamentation that U.S. companies were not spending enough in basic research or scientific research. And before I get to the aggregate question, let me look at that for a minute. There is an irony here because we have transfixed by the Japanese. Japanese have rarely in either the public sector or the private sector spent very much on basic research. And in this instance I think what very well may be happening is that U.S. corporations responding to their own self analysis as well as outside criticism that their problem is not basic research or science, but getting a scientific idea to the market may very well beshifting resources there. That is what I would say on the private side.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let me just interrupt there. Are you saying that that's what accounts for the slowdown?

MR. BARFIELD: On the basic side, that's certainly one factor, and I think that may very well be applauded. That's on the private side, but on the public side, that is in terms of public support, I think there is a lesson here also, and that is that while we have invested increasing amounts in the 1980s, I think one could argue, I would argue that we have not done enough on the public side in terms of basic research. Pres. Reagan committed to double the budget of the National Science Foundation between 1987 and 1992. Both the Reagan and the Bush administration and the Congress, because this is a troika that's working here, can be faulted for not following through on that. The same thing is true with the other major, one of the other major actors here and that's the Defense Department. There was a large build up in the 1980s. The Defense Department had an absolute decline over the last 15 years of about half in basic research and DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is taken as the symbol of high-tech in defense, declined by 2/3. So there on the public side is where I think we are having the failing.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Barfield, let me if you don't mind get back to the question I was asking you and that is, or the question I was trying to get at, are you as concerned as Mr. Bloch is about this drop off? Does it concern you in --

MR. BARFIELD: I am but the aggregate is a very difficult thing to parse, that is why this is happening. For my own, in my own view, this means that we ought to get back to some basics, that is, the general business climate that we get the fundamentals in macro economic policy right, in terms of budget policy, continuing stable non-inflationary growth that gets you away from things like direct support of R&D or what we are or are not doing, because businesses invest in the basis of I think some of the people that the National Science Foundation interviewed talked about what they could see in profits in the business cycle. That's part of it. The other thing is what they can see about what the government will be doing about the budget or about tax policy, about regulatory policy, a variety of large scale policies that have an impact on R&D. We know very little I think ultimately about why firms decide a particular level of R&D spending.

MS. WOODRUFF: I think, let me turn now to Mr. Kane because I think that what we're hearing the discussion about has to do with whether companies are focused on the future or too much on the present. You have just now stopped, I guess, serving as the head of this consortium that was involved, and I want to make this clear, you were more involved in the production of computer chips and less in research and development, but given your experience, what did you see in terms of corporate America and how interested it is or isn't in the future, you know, its long-term future?

SANFORD KANE, Former IBM Executive: Unfortunately I see a corollary between the report that's coming out of the National Science Foundation and what happened to U.S. Memories last week. I think they are both an indication of a trend, an unfortunate trend, that says that the U.S. industry is becoming more and more short sighted, more concerned about what the next quarterly or the next six month report looks like and not what their five year future looks like. If we start to cut back on R&D from the growth levels we've had in the past while our competitors around the world are continuing to grow at significant rates, we will eventually become a second class technology country in that sense, and that doesn't bode well for the future.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is that the scenario that concerns you, Mr. Bloch?

MR. BLOCH: Yes, that's pretty much the scenario that concerns me. You have some diverse views here and you're also looking at some diverse signals, but they all fit into one mosaic and the mosaic doesn't spell great great successes in the future. If one cuts basic research, if one cuts R&D in total and our numbers show that, and if some of these newer devices like companies getting together to manufacture or to do R&D for that matter do not work out then, or are not being pursued in total, then I think we have a problem.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Kane, who would you say is to blame for this? I mean, is it just pure and simply the management of each one of these corporations, or does it go deeper than that?

MR. KANE: I think it's much broader than that. Clearly, individual companies are making decisions for their own companies, but it's also the atmosphere in which we work. I think the government needs to play a very large role in this. There's an awful lot of things that need to be done by the United States Government to help to encourage investment in the future of corporations in the United States, both R&D as well as new capacity. And whether that means, you know, permanent investment tax credits or R&D tax credits where companies today are very uncertain as to what future decisions they can make because they don't know what effect the tax codes will have on those decisions. Also, significant efforts on the part of the United States Government to do something about the deficit which would help to significantly lower the cost of capital in the United States so that companies can make investments on a comparable basis with their competitors around the world.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is that what is needed, Mr. Barfield?

MR. BARFIELD: Well, I'd like to make a distinction between what happened with U.S. Memories and with implications of the National Science Foundation report today. And let me preface this by saying that I admire Mr. Kane and I personally wish that he had succeeded, but that was a set of decisions based on, a set of individual corporate decisions whether to support U.S. Memories based on whether or not the computer companies thought they needed an independent source of supply. They decided -- that is the source of supply coming from U.S. Memories -- they decided that other sources either in the United States or abroad made more sense for them. That is not a decision that has major implications I think for research and development overall or U.S. competitiveness. While I might have wished it to succeed, this is mixing apples and oranges.

MS. WOODRUFF: The question --

MR. BARFIELD: As I said before, as Mr. Kane said, there are large scale macro economic issues that he and I would agree on though I'm not sure that permanent R&D tax credits mean that much in the long haul.

MS. WOODRUFF: But the question I put to Mr. Kane had to do with the concern, the priorities of U.S. corporations, and whether they're more concerned with the present than they are with the future, and he's just talked about the role the federal government plays, and I was asking you to respond to that particular point.

MR. BARFIELD: Well, the role of the federal government in relation to U.S. Memories, as far as I'm concerned, it should not have gotten involved, because this was purely an agreement for joint ventures and production. To go back to something I said earlier, however, I think there is a strong role for the federal government when you get back to the basic research area. This did not, or generic research, this did not encompass anything of that regard and we're confusing two different phenomenon here.

MS. WOODRUFF: I'm trying to keep them separated so I hope it's not totally confusing to those who are watching. Mr. Bloch, let me come back to you. What should be done? I mean, do we just wring our hands and say, you know, gee, we wish things were different, or specifically does the National Science Foundation have some remedies it's going to propose?

MR. BLOCH: No, I don't think we should wring our hands. I don't think the ball game is over just because of this one survey. It just gives us an indication that we'd better focus on this particular area and Dr. Barfield before made the right point. Basic research is certainly one function that the government has to step into and promote, and we have been unable to get Congress to go along with the administration on the doubling of the foundation's budget which focuses on basic research in exactly those product areas that are very important for our economic competitiveness in the future.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you think the remedies, Mr. Kane?

MR. KANE: I tend to agree with that. I think that we need to find ways for the government to get both directly involved in much more R&D activities where it makes sense to do so, to encourage collective action on the part of companies, things like we did with Semitech in the semiconductor industry and other types of joint ventures where companies can then take advantage of the sharing of the wealth of information and the technology resources and the capital required to do some of the very very expensive things that are out there in the future of our technology.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do, let me just ask you this last question quickly, Mr. Barfield. Do you think that the heads of these corporations that we're referring to here this evening understand the importance of what we're talking about here?

MR. BARFIELD: I think ultimately they do but they are responsible first to their stockholders and I think you have to make a gain, a distinction between a decision they made on a production agreement for basic chips in the 1990s versus a longer scale vision for what they may or may not need for the next generation of technology and here to go back again to the government role, there's only so much money. The government must decide whether it puts more money in basic research or whether it goes for bloated ideas such as $1 1/2 billion for high definition television. And money that goes one place cannot go to another. We have limited resources at all times and particularly now with the budget deficit.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right, well, gentlemen, we appreciate your being with us. Erich Bloch and Claude Barfield in Washington, Sanford Kane here in New York, thank you all. ESSAY - STANDING VIGIL

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight our Tuesday night essay. The essayist is Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, the subject security.

MR. PAGE: Do you feel safe sitting in your home, apartment, bungalow, hut? We find security in the oddest ways these days. Some people find security in the Guardian Angels. Safety comes with numbers. On a dark lonely street or subway, they are not an unwelcome sight. Some find it in block associations. They are not just for rich neighborhoods anymore. Some find it in security guards and private investigators. If the public police can't help you, hire your own private police. Some find it in guns. Gun control? Not when outlaws are running out of control. Pass the ammunition. Security is one of life's most basic needs. A child asks, am I safe, and turns to adults for an answer. But where do adults turn? As fear becomes a growth industry, so does protection. But how far should it go? How far can we go in privatizing protection before we begin to privatize justice and take the law into our own hands? Our culture has a tough time with that question. If eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, as Jefferson said, what's the price of our insecurity? Remember the Lone Ranger? We made a hero out of the Robin Hood of the West, an oddly American hero. He was a lawman who turned outlaw, the lone survivor of a shoot out who went off on his own with silver bullets, his faithful Indian companion and a vendetta. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lone Ranger. The idea was a distinctly moral man who brought justice to a wild often unjust place. Fast forward to today's urban frontier. As violent crime begins to capture our streets, our traditional clean cut hero in a white hat makes way for a new hero named Dirty Harry. Like the Lone Ranger, he practices a simple justice, too simple to be constrained by such niceties as the due process of law. More odd heroes come along. Charles Bronson romanticizes a law abiding crime victim who takes the law into his own hands with a death wish vendetta. [SCENE FROM DEATH WISH]

MR. PAGE: Then life imitates art with Bernhard Goetz, the subway vigilante convicted for acting on his convictions. What next? Is the impulse that drives us to seek security the same impulse that drives the posse, the vigilante, the lynch mob? We're supposed to turn to the government to protect us. That's why we have police. That's part of the contract, the covenant, the fundamental agreement we have between the rulers and the ruled. Government exists to protect the governed. But what happens when that covenant is broken? What happens in today's urban frontier where the lawman is not always there where you need him? In his absence, we sometimes seek imperfect remedies for our pain and frustration. We sometimes take measures into our own hands. Not quite as vigilante, but sometimes with a vengeance. And what of government, what of the broken contract, where are the politicians to reinforce the covenant? Law and order played a key role in the political rhetoric of the past 30 years. Richard Nixon railed against crime in the streets.

RICHARD NIXON: The wave of crime is not going to be the wave of the future in the United States of America.

MR. PAGE: The Bush campaign used Willie Horton.

ANNOUNCER: [PAID CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL] Despite a life sentence, Horton received 10 weekend passes from prison. Horton fled, kidnapped a young couple, stabbing the man and repeatedly raping his girlfriend. Weekend prison passes, Dukakis on crime.

MR. PAGE: Every mayoral candidate promises to get tough on crime.

DAVID DINKINS: I am committed to doubling the number of community patrol officers in my first term.

MR. PAGE: But not much happened. Somewhere the political process let us down. Flash back. It's high noon. The embattled towns people shake loose their passivity and rise up to help their local lawman route the bad guys and make the streets safe. No one is safe, they realize, until all are safe. Do you feel safe? RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Once again, the major stories of this Tuesday, Congress returned to work today and House Speaker Tom Foley said its main focus would be domestic issues. Members of both parties predicted Congress would override a presidential veto of a bill protecting Chinese students in the U.S. and the Soviet KGB said ethnic violence in Azerbaijan has brought that republic to the brink of chaos. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Judy. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.