The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour this 4th of July two remembrances of the American past, poet laureate Robert Pinsky commemorates the Battle of Concord, Charles Krause leads a debate on a World War II memorial in Washington. Then come a Betty Ann Bowser report on health insurance reform in Kentucky, our weekly political analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot, a David Gergen dialogue about the Declaration of Independence, and some words about and by Charles Kuralt, who died today. It all follows our summary of the news this holiday Friday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The Pathfinder landed safely on Mars this afternoon. The unmanned spacecraft descended by parachute through the Martian atmosphere on schedule at 1:08 PM Eastern Time. It then signaled its successful landing to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Initial data received from the Pathfinder indicated everything was working perfectly so far. Tonight a six- feet rover named Sojourner is scheduled to emerge from the Pathfinder and begin creeping across the planet's surface. Brian Muirhead, flight system manager for the project, spoke with reporters in California.

BRIAN MUIRHEAD: I don't think any of us expected today to go like it has. Every time that we looked for the spacecraft, it was there. It gave us clear indications it was on the surface; that it was healthy within three minutes after landing. And now--just now we received our first telemetry from the spacecraft. We're getting down the health of the spacecraft, and it sounds like everything is absolutely perfect.

JIM LEHRER: This is NASA's second mission to Mars. The first was the Viking 21 years ago. The current Pathfinder took seven months to reach the planet. This is, indeed, the 4th of July. There were official and other observances throughout the country marking the 221st anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. At the National Archives in Washington the document was read aloud while colonial military maneuvers were carried out with canon and musket fire. Afterward, the national 4th of July parade, complete with marching bands and floats, made its way up Constitutional Avenue. In Southern Illinois last night a barge loaded with fireworks exploded during a celebration along the Mississippi River. One man was killed; two others are missing. The explosion occurred when one of the fireworks misfired and landed on the barge. No spectators were injured. On the weather front storms spawned at least eight tornadoes overnight from upstate New York to several New England states. In Albany today, cleanup crews removed downed trees, power lines, and other debris scattered by the storm. In Western Massachusetts, hundreds of people remain without power and at least four were injured. In Southern California, firefighters battled a blaze in the San Gabriel Mountains that has burned 2300 acres. Nearby residents evacuated their homes. Area parks were closed. Fire officials said they expect to have the fire fully contained by tomorrow. Charles Kuralt died today in New York of an inflammatory disease known as Lupus. He was 62 years old. He was best known for his "On the Road" features and as host of "CBS Sunday Morning." We'll have more about Charles Kuralt at the end of the program tonight. Between now and then some poetry, the World War II Memorial, health insurance in Kentucky, Shields & Gigot, and a David Gergen dialogue. FOCUS - FREEDOM'S RING

JIM LEHRER: On this July 4th two remembrances of the American past. The first comes through poetry. We asked Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky to read something appropriate. He did so at a bridge in Concord, Massachusetts.

ROBERT PINSKY, Poet Laureate: Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote "The Concord Hymn" to be sung at this spot on July 4, 1837, at the dedication of the Stone Obelisk. The poem acknowledges a tremendous of time that had already passed then between when Emerson wrote it and when farmers died painful, messy deaths here for the idea of the United States of America. I think it's a good poem, partly because it does acknowledge that long space of time, which is even longer now, between them and us. "Concord Hymn" sung at the completion of the battle monument, July 4, 1837: By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April's breeze unfurled, Here the embattled farmers stood, And fired the shot heard round the world. The foe long since in silence slept; Alike the conqueror silent sleeps; And Time the ruined bridge has swept Down the dark stream which seaward creeps. On this green bank, by this soft stream, We set to-day a votive stone; That memory may their deeds redeem, When, like our sires, our sons are gone. Spirit, that made those heroes dare To die, and leave their children free, Bid Time and Nature gently spare The shaft we raise to them and thee.

JIM LEHRER: We plan to have Mr. Pinsky read appropriate poetry for other appropriate events on a regular basis here on the NewsHour. FOCUS - MONUMENTAL DEBATE

JIM LEHRER: Now on to marking another key moment in American history--World War II. Elizabeth Farnsworth begins our report.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Washington is a city of monuments, from the towering obelisk of the Washington Monument to the classical columns of the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials. There are statutes, plaques, and buildings all over town commemorating war heroes and victorious battles. On the mall, the great public space that almost defines the city, are two war memorials--the Vietnam Wall with its haunting list of the American dead and the platoon of American GI's just across the way, commemorating Korea. Close by but on the other side of the Potomac lies the only other major memorial to World War II, the famous flag raising at Iwo Jima. But these are Marines in a specific battle, and there is no general monument to the Second World War, the largest war Americans have fought in in the 20th century. Now, that is about to change. In 1993, Congress authorized a World War II memorial on the mall. Then a seven-acre site was selected between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument at the base of the reflecting pool. President Clinton dedicated the site on Veteran's Day 1995 as the nation celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. The contest for the design drew 400 entries. Judges whittled that down to six finalists. At a ceremony in January announcing the winner President Clinton spoke about the symbolic importance of the memorial.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The World War II Memorial will commemorate one of the great defining passages in our nation's history. Fittingly, it will be flanked by the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, for if the Revolutionary War marks the birth of our republic and the Civil War, its greatest trial, then surely America's triumph in World War II will forever signal our coming of age.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The winning entry came from Friedrich St. Florian, an architect and former dean of the Rhode Island School of Design. St. Florian envisioned a center plaza 14 feet blow ground level. His design called for 50 Doric columns 40 feet high, one for each of the states, flanking the rainbow pool. Behind the columns would be stone walls topped with the grassy area covered with white roses. An exhibition area would be housed mostly underground. Early on, St. Florian described his vision.

FRIEDRICH ST. FLORIAN, Architect: The biggest challenge really was to reconcile the--to find a synthesis between the classical language of the surrounding monuments, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, and the White House, and at the same time make a monument that is of our time, that is contemporary.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The proposed memorial was immediately criticized for its large scale and for breaking up the open space that had been the chief characteristic of the mall. The governing commission agreed to make some modifications in the design. They claimed the current vista shown in this photograph will hardly be affected by the new monument as seen in this drawing from the same angle. The new design calls for lowering the height of the columns and the earth walls by several feet each. But this has not satisfied some critics, and debate over the monument continues.

JIM LEHRER: And Charles Krause taped such a debate earlier this week.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Joining us now is Sen. Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who opposes the current plan for the World War II Memorial; and Bill Lacy, an architect who served as an adviser to the American Battle Monuments Commission. He's currently executive director of the Pritzker Architecture Prize and president of Purchase College State University of New York. Gentlemen, welcome. Senator, why do you object to the site on the mall that's been selected.

SEN. BOB KERREY, [D] Nebraska: Because there's something already there. I mean, this open space is very critical both to the Washington Monument and to the Lincoln Memorial. And it's a quiet place. It's a reflective place. And now we're going to build what will be one of--if not the largest monuments in the city, converting this Washington-Lincoln space into a World War II monument. I voted for the construction of this monument in the mall area and still for building a memorial to the Second World War, but I do not believe it should be built on this site, and I object strongly to the process that is being used to construct this memorial. The National Capitol Planning Commission made a decision not to do an environmental assessment. The original decision by the Battle Monuments Commission was made with, I believe, inadequate representations of the impact upon this area. There is an effort, I think, to accelerate this process which end of the day I think is going to result in a very unsatisfactory conclusion.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Lacy, first of all, you looked at a number of different sites. Why was this site selected?

BILL LACY, Battle Monuments Commission Adviser: This site was one of seven selected before I became the professional adviser, but I agree wholeheartedly with the selection of it, because the Senator and I agree on the fact that there is a need for a World War II national memorial. Where we disagree is the site. I believe this is the correct site. I believe it's a perfect site, and I believe it's a brilliant solution for this site.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What about the point that the environmental impact work has not been done and that there seems to be, according to the Senator, a rush to get this thing underway?

BILL LACY: I'm not aware of any rush. The environmental assessment procedure that the Senator referred to has been delayed only because we're waiting for a design. You can't do an environmental assessment until you have a design approved or a design concept. We don't have that yet. It's going before the National Capitol Planning Commission and the Fine Arts Commission this month.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Senator--

SEN. BOB KERREY: We decided to move ahead without an environmental assessment, and though the design isn't done, certainly there is preliminary evaluation that can be done to determine what's the impact upon traffic, what's the impact on the hydrological conditions of the site, what's the impact as a consequence of some of the restrictions that are going to be imposed because of need to move the President in and out of the area, and other things that traditionally have been done in this particular location. I say again for Americans that are familiar with this mall there's something already there. The fact that I've got an empty space doesn't mean that the space is empty. You know, that would be like saying I'm going to build something on somebody's front yard because it's empty. This space is a critical empty space between the Lincoln and Washington. It is not an ideal site for this rather large and very, very important memorial.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Mr. Lacy, why did the Monument Commission and a number of other commissions decide that site was appropriate?

BILL LACY: Because they felt that World War II and what it represents in national history and in world history deserved a prominent site. That site is empty. It's rather nondescript and no- man's-land at the present time. It's a long walk--

SEN. BOB KERREY: That's not true.

BILL LACY: It's a long walk between the Washington and the Lincoln Monuments Memorial, and there is something there. There's a rainbow pool there. And it figures prominently in this design by Friedrich St. Florian.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Senator.

SEN. BOB KERREY: To describe the empty space between Lincoln and Washington as no-man's-land is inaccurate. It is a quiet, reflective space used now for that purpose. And though the reflecting pool will still be there, it is going to be lowered, and it is going to be situated in-between two very large structures. No evaluation of traffic has been made. No environmental impact analysis has been made. Indeed, the Battle Monuments Commission made their decision based upon renderings that showed a view looking from the top of the monument towards the West and from an off-angle shot back to the East. And no winter time, no spring, no evaluation of what this thing is going to look like in various seasons, no analysis done of what's there now and what we're going to lose as a consequence of building this structure there.

BILL LACY: Senator, I believe that an environmental assessment procedure was begun last fall, and it was stopped while they waited for a design to be selected. That design has now been selected. And once it goes before the review committees this month, they will continue with that impact assessment.

SEN. BOB KERREY: But one of the--I appreciate that--

CHARLES KRAUSE: I just want to ask you, if we could, Mr. Lacy made another point, and it's an important one I think, that those who support putting the memorial there say that they want it there because it is a central and defining moment in American history and it belongs there between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. Why is that? Why do you think that is not the case?

SEN. BOB KERREY: Well, you know, if they're going to try to find "the" most prominent place, then let's tear down the Washington Monument. That's a good high piece of ground. Let's move it. I mean, the requirement isn't to find "the" most prominent place and build this monument there. The requirement is to find a place that is both prominent and suitable, and when you come in and tear something that's already there down, which I believe we are. We're going to change this place from what it is today to a place that will hold a very large and very important memorial. I mean, almost any place in Washington is going to be prominent. Now, the other locations that were looked at were also prominent locations. What will determine whether or not this is a fitting memorial is the design, as well as the location. St. Florian has designed a wonderful monument. I think it's a terrific-looking memorial, but to put it in this location I just believe strongly is a very big mistake and that we'll regret it.

CHARLES KRAUSE: A final question, Senator. Do you think that this kind of controversy--there was controversy about the Vietnam Memorial--is it inevitable that these kinds of public monuments will generate this kind of controversy?

SEN. BOB KERREY: I believe it absolutely is inevitable. You know, I find both the Battle Monuments Commission people and everybody I've dealt with thus far to be very courteous and respectful. And, again, I want to underscore, I mean, I favor building a monument and a memorial to the Second World War, which I think it's inevitable that you're going to have some controversy. There's no controversy or disagreement about the need and the importance of building a memorial on the monument to the Second World War.

CHARLES KRAUSE: And, Mr. Lacy, do you think that the Senator's objections notwithstanding that this memorial will be built by the year 2000, when it is scheduled to be completed?

BILL LACY: I can't possibly answer that because, as I say, it's a work in progress. It'll go through many, many changes, and I think this debate is very helpful. And I think that, in fact, competitions, as I say, don't produce finished designs. What they've done without a client and now, in effect, this Senator has become part of that clientele that's going to be served and has a voice, and so I'm looking forward to the debate. I hope it's finished by the year 2000, and I hope it does what it's supposed to do in terms of commemorating an important event for a lot of 18 year olds that saved the world.

SEN. BOB KERREY: The problem with that date is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and it makes it much more difficult to select an alternative site.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Gentlemen, I think you both very much for joining us.

JIM LEHRER: Yesterday, the head of the American Legion said giving up the mall site would give our World War II veterans a second-class memorial in a third rate location. Still to come on the NewsHour tonight health insurance in Kentucky, Shields & Gigot, a David Gergen dialogue, and remembering Charles Kuralt. FOCUS - NO RISK INSURANCE

JIM LEHRER: Betty Ann Bowser has the Kentucky story.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Every morning Cindy Tipton rushes around her kitchen putting breakfast on the table, packing a lunch for her daughter, and getting herself ready for work. Tipton's 10-year-old daughter, Kylie, was born with spina bifida. That hasn't slowed her down much as she tears out of the house to get on the school bus, but her medical condition did cause the family's health insurance to skyrocket from $200 to month to $900. Cindy Tipton was also having insurance problems at Sam's Cafe, the restaurant she owns with her husband, Kevin, near Georgetown, Kentucky. She was unable to find an insurance company that would cover all of her full-time employees.

CINDY TIPTON, Restaurant Owner: It was almost impossible. What I would do is I would call insurance companies and then when they would ask a few pertinent questions like: Do you have any employees with preexisting conditions, well, yes, I always had a few. I never--when I hired people, I didn't ask them if they had preexisting conditions, so when I would find an insurance company to come out and talk to us, then the process of cherry-picking would start, and out of my, let's say, twenty employees at one time, twenty-seven employees, whatever, I could get maybe seven covered.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Jo Ann McKinney is a waitress at Sam's. Four years ago when doctors discovered she had high blood pressure, the insurance company dropped her from the company plan.

JO ANN McKINNEY, Waitress: I had nothing but trouble from there on keeping insurance, getting insurance, never had--wasn't on medication--never had no trouble, no spells with it, but they dropped me, and I had to go out on my own, with Cindy and Kevin's help, to get another insurance company to cover me. I couldn't go with our company here.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Her insurance premiums tripled to $330 a month. It was cases like McKinney's that prompted people in Kentucky to start talking about reforming the system. In 1994, medical insurance reform was not only an issue in Kentucky; it was on the national agenda as well. President and Mrs. Clinton were pressing the Congress for legislation that would make medical insurance more readily available to consumers and less expensive as well. And here in Frankfurt, a group of legislators wanted to write their own laws, laws they hoped would make this state a model for the nation.

THOMAS BURCH, State Representative: A lot of people were being denied insurance and because of preexisting conditions, and seemed like they were just minor things, that people would begin to complain that they could not buy insurance; they couldn't get it at any price.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Rep. Thomas Burch was one of the sponsors of the bill, which ultimately passed. The law contains four main provisions. It guaranteed that no one could be denied insurance. It required insurance companies to only offer individuals one of five standardized plans. It put strict limits on rate increases. And the most controversial reform, it mandated that individual and small group policy rates had to be set using a modified group rating system. That's an insurance terms which means a person's state of health cannot be used in setting rates or to deny coverage, no matter how sick or how well they are.

THOMAS BURCH: Insurance companies don't like that. They want to be able to cherry pick, pick the healthy people, and let the sick ones fend on their own; let the state pick up the bill for it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In fact, the insurance companies dislike the reform so much that 45 companies left the state. Blue Cross-Blue Shield anda state-run program are now the only two companies that will sell individual policies. Those policies, which are issued to people who do not get insurance through their jobs, make up about 5 percent of the insurance market in Kentucky. Leslie Bryant is the Kentucky field director for the Health Insurance Association of America. She bristles at the term "cherry-picking," but she says that in order for an insurance system to work, whether it's automobile, life, or health insurance, risks must be factored into the equation.

LESLIE BRYANT, Health Insurance Association of America: I think there were a lot of very well-intentioned people in Frankfurt who really didn't understand this industry; they really didn't understand that it is all about numbers. It's a mathematical situation. And you can't just throw a social solution at a mathematical problem.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Ronny Prior works for the Kentucky Farm Bureau, which helps its members get insurance policies. He says the 1994 reforms have been nothing but a disaster.

RONNY PRIOR, Kentucky Farm Bureau: I'm paying more for my insurance. I have higher deductibles in order to make it affordable. I have no choice in providers or plans because I've got to choose one of the standardized plans, and it's been government action that is forced on the private sector of insurance.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: How did this happen?

RONNY PRIOR: I think this happened by government trying to, again, help a handful of people at the expense of everyone, and the only way you can give to the have-nots is take from the haves.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Prior points to people like Sue Kiser. She and her husband own a small company that manufactures printing cylinders. Kiser says she is now paying twice what she paid for her employee insurance before health care reform.

SUE KISER, Small Business Owner: When you have no free enterprise, which is exactly what they've created, we do not have a choice to choose whom we want, then all these companies have pulled out. When you don't have competition, you've got a clear line to charge whatever you want, and that's what's going to happen. These companies that are willing to stay are the ones that are going to profit and the process is going to keep going right on up until you're going to have the people in the state of Kentucky, they won't be able to afford the insurance, period.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Kiser says health insurance has gotten so expensive that she is considering packing up the company and moving 30 miles away across the state line into Indiana. She says her employees will gladly make the move. They haven't been happy with the insurance changes either. Randy Powell is a machinist at the company.

RANDY POWELL, Machinist: You know, it doesn't seem like you get near as much as what you used to, and you have a harder time getting the things approved, you know. It's to the point where, you know, you're afraid to go to the doctor about things because you don't know if your insurance company is going to cover it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But Cindy Tipton says she's very pleased with the changes reform has brought to the small group policy she offers her employees.

CINDY TIPTON: It has been wonderful. Because of health care reform we are rated under what they call a modified community rating, meaning they cannot ask you any questions about your health. That caused my insurance premium to go from $900 a month to $385 a month. My employees could not be turned down. That meant everyone who worked here for at least 60 days and worked 30 hours a week could have health insurance if they wanted it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The job of figuring out how to fix the reforms, while keeping people like Tipton happy, rests with this man, insurance commissioner George Nichols.

GEORGE NICHOLS, Kentucky Insurance Commissioner: When you look at what we did in 1994, if insurance companies were taking advantage of consumers, we needed to fix that. And that's what Kentucky attempted to do. But in the process of doing that, we may have taken the pendulum and swung it too far on the side of the consumers that you've missed the balance.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Nichols has appointed two groups, one with industry representatives and the other with consumers, to recommend a plan for the state legislature to consider.

GEORGE NICHOLS: I've got 45 companies that exited the individual market. I've got to figure out a way to get those companies back. Those companies have leverage over us now because they've given up their business; they define Kentucky as a hostile regulatory environment; and they're saying, okay, I can do a lot better in some other state, so why do I want to come back to that. So I've got to give them reasons. That's a very, very difficult balance to create, is giving a company the ability to make a reasonable rate of return and give consumers the protections they believe that they need.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Consumer advocate Jane Chiles is nervous about tinkering with the reforms. She thinks people haven't given the reforms enough time to work, and she says that because Kentucky is at the forefront of insurance reform, the industry has decided to abandon Kentucky in order to send a warning to other states.

JANE CHILES, Kentuckians for Health Reform: We're a small state, and so market share of any one company is small. So at a certain point--and I think this is really what we have experienced here-- at a certain point--there are companies, national companies, who are willing to make a stand, give up market share here to try to protect themselves in other states that have not gone into this-- this kind of reform.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: A special session of the legislature is expected to take up reforming the reforms sometime after Labor Day. Most lawmakers predict the modified community ratings system will likely be abolished so that health status can once again be considered in deciding rates But they insist whatever happens, no one will be denied insurance. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Now, our regular political analysis by Shields & Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. I talked with them yesterday.

JIM LEHRER: Paul, tax cut proposals, now the President has one too. Where is all this heading?

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: Well, I think it's probably headed to a deal ultimately, Jim, both sides, the President and the Republicans in Congress want a deal. But I don't think it's going to be all that smooth between now and then. I think that there may very well be a veto because while the Republicans have given the impression, particularly Newt Gingrich, the Speaker, and the Majority Leader, Trent Lott, that they'd do anything short of resign their office to get a deal, I think the President is in a very strong negotiating position, and his statement this week, while it rhetorically moved in the direction of the Republicans, in substance, it didn't move that much, and he puts on some very tough markers for them, so I think that--I think the President is well positioned to veto a bill that comes out of Congress, or draw the Republicans out more.

JIM LEHRER: Remind us again why this is so important to the Republicans.

PAUL GIGOT: Because this fulfills the things that they promised with a Contract with America. They promised a tax cut. They promised it to their social conservatives, a family tax credit, and they promised it to their economic conservatives through cuts in capital gains taxes and estate tax relief, that sort of thing. So this is a big part of the payoff to the people who elected him.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Mark, this used to be the big dividing point between Republicans and Democrats, tax policy. They seem to be getting closer and closer and closer. What's happening?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: The middle has gotten not only larger but mushier, and differences between the two parties are hard to define right now, or at least--

JIM LEHRER: Don't you agree with me, that this used to be where you could really draw the line fairly simply?

MARK SHIELDS: Absolutely. I think we can see it now, the place where the Democratic faith, or the traditional Democratic beliefs are being most clearly heard are in the House of Representatives. And the President--I think Paul is absolutely right--I think the President's position is enormously strong here. What the House Democrat is concerned about is this is a mark in the sand that he has drawn, Jim, and from which he's not going to move, or this is just a negotiating ploy. That is the concern, but there's no question that the Republicans need this tax cut a lot more than Bill Clinton does. Bill Clinton--

JIM LEHRER: Didn't he say I'm going to give a tax cut to the middle class? Hasn't he been saying that for a long time?

MARK SHIELDS: But his basic pitch, the basic appeal of the Clinton strategy has been to take issues off the table, take issues that divided and hurt Democrats, crime, all right--you come out against assault weapons with the police--welfare--you come out for welfare reform, balanced budget. You're no longer the tax and spend Democrats, and this is--this is the one--this is the Holy Grail. This is the crown jewel for Republicans, and that's why Bill Clinton this week did something incredibly Clintonesque and adroit politically. He came out yes for cutting the capital gains tax, but he's going to cut it for the richest Americans from 28 to 27.7. That--I can tell you--the real champions of capital gains tax cuts are fuming because what he has done is agree with them in principle, yes, we need a tax cut, but let's do it on the basis of ability to pay; let's give it all those people at $15,000 and large stock portfolios, of whom there are only a few, let's give them the cut, so I think Clinton holds the far stronger hand here.

JIM LEHRER: Well, you certainly agree with that, right, Paul?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I don't necessarily agree if the Republicans are willing to fight and to define the issues, but the fact is that when Bill Clinton made that proposal this week, the only Republicans who opposed it or raised any questions about it were not in Congress. I mean, you had Steve Forbes and you had Jack Kemp say, wait a minute, this is a phony capital gains tax cut because if you're going to put taxes on capital, you have to do it for people who have capital. That means some of the higher earning people in the country; that's just by definition what happens. The problem is that the Republicans in Congress are so eager to get the President's signature that they're not willing to draw the markers like this. And to say that the President isn't really--they're giving him credit for moving in their direction even when heisn't.

JIM LEHRER: You know, Mark, a lot of people have said in a very uncynical way that all of these plans really don't cut taxes very much; they don't really change, they're certainly not reforming the tax system in any way. It's all kind of a political exercise. Would you agree?

MARK SHIELDS: I think it is. I think that--Tom Campbell, a Congressman from California, had a piece in the "Times"this week on the Republican House to vote against it saying why, why have this tax cut, and of course it is Paul's right. It's part of a proposal and part of a pledge that Republicans made when they had their revolution and their Contract with America. But, Jim, the Republicans' position is weakened. As long as the argument--as we heard it on this show--reflected in the debate--is about the distribution, about who gets the tax cuts, and whether it's high income people or middle income people. That's all it's been about this past week. As long as it's about who gets it and the Republicans are then caught in that terrible bind of being the party of the rich--

JIM LEHRER: Because the President keeps saying I want to protect the middle--

MARK SHIELDS: I want to protect the middle class. I want middle class Americans, working families, and by a six to one margin this week the Gallup Poll said they felt the voters thought the Republican plan favored the rich over the middle class, and the Democratic plan was a split between the rich and the- -

JIM LEHRER: And that, of course, is the traditional political argument on taxes between the Republicans and Democrats, right, Paul?

PAUL GIGOT: Yes. That has been the argument, and ever since I'd say 1979, when the--Proposition 13, the tax resolution passed in California, and with President Reagan coming in, you had Republicans gain the ascendancy on taxes because they argued in terms of growth. They made the economic argument, and they made the argument that government was too big, and you had to give some relief. That argument--they've lost a little bit of their confidence in that argument now. They're not making it as clearly with somebody like President Clinton's, who's awfully adroit at coopting them, they seem to really have lost their confidence. So it's becoming a less important difference between the parties, as Mark suggested before. But one of the ironies here of this debate on taxes is that if there ever was a Republican tax cut that didn't favor the rich, it is this one. I mean, a lot of Republicans complained privately that it's already been written as if the chief economist for the Republican Party was Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition. Most of the tax cuts in it go to the family tax credit, which a lot of the economic conservatives, like Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes, never liked in the first place.

JIM LEHRER: Let's move to next week. The Senate's campaign financing hearings are finally going to get underway. Mark, should the nation come to a halt and watch these? Is it going to be that dramatic an event?

MARK SHIELDS: You know, Jim, as we sit here tonight, we're not sure. I think the hearings are going to be important. There's no question right now that all attention has to focus on the Senate, rather than the House. The House Committee this week suffered a very serious setback when their chief counsel resigned in protest, the Republican counsel, the Republican chairman. But I think this is it. I mean, this is the only hope that reformers have of getting the story out about political money, its influence, its reaches, what people will do to get it, and the illegalities. And Iam--I remain an optimist. I remain admittedly--I'm confessing--a cheerleader that the hearings will work. I think there's a lot riding on them.

JIM LEHRER: Well, what would have to constitute a working hearing, Paul? I mean, what has to happen. Sen. Thompson, Sen. Glenn, and other Senators, what do they have to do for these things to be successful, in your opinion?

PAUL GIGOT: I think they have to conduct a fact-finding inquiry. They have to try to in a bipartisan fashion, in a fair fashion, go after the facts. What happened in 1996? Both parties, Republican and Democrat, who broke the law? How was it broken? What was the role of foreign money? Forget the backbiting and the partisanship which has gone on behind the scenes in a way that--to a much greater degree than even usual in Washington. But once the TV cameras come on, can--can John Glenn, who's going to be leading the fight for the Democrats on this--the ranking member on the committee--and Fred Thompson, the Republican chairman--can they put all that side and actually try to find out what happened and perform the role of Congress, the important role of Congress, which is an educational role?

JIM LEHRER: And your answer to that question is what, sir?

PAUL GIGOT: I think that--

JIM LEHRER: Your own question.

PAUL GIGOT: I would like to think that Congress could still do that, is still up to the task, but I'll tell you the way it's led up to it so far I'm not sure.

JIM LEHRER: Scoring points, do you think, Mark, more than doing what Paul said?

MARK SHIELDS: No. I think you've got two serious people here. I mean, Fred Thompson has established credentials as a reformer, the only Republican co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill in the last Congress, great tradition, and his own life, having run a hearing with Senator Howard Baker at the Watergate Committee, I mean, he's- -he's a serious player. John Glenn in the twilight of a distinguished public career, not a partisan pit bull by any means, somebody who cares deeply and passionately about cleaning up money and politics, so I think you've got two serious people. I'm not saying that's all the way through in both sides of the aisle in the community, but I think it's true of the two principals here.

JIM LEHRER: But is this hearing about reforming the system, or is it about finding individual allegations or confirming individual allegations of wrongdoing against the President, or against Republicans, or whatever?

MARK SHIELDS: I think if the story gets out, if that rock is turned over, Jim, that the public's attention will be engaged; that they say, my God, I didn't realize it was that bad.

JIM LEHRER: The system was that bad.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes. That would be my hope and that perhaps just as in 1996, we saw the emergence of minimum wage legislation as sort of something the Senate had to vote on, each time a bill came up the Senate was forced to vote on it until finally they passed it because it became such an embarrassment to vote against it, the same thing might very well happen or could happen if, in fact, the McCain-Feingold bill is attached each time the piece of legislation comes before the Senate.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree that's a possibility here, Paul, that no matter what anybody likes, that could be the end result of these hearings, just a fact of these hearings?

PAUL GIGOT: It could be, although I think there are going to be votes on the different bills, no matter what happens, because certainly the President is pushing everybody to have some votes, in part to change the subject from what happened in 1996, but before you know how to reform the system, you have to find out what happened. So Fred Thompson envisions this taking place in two different time periods, first to find out what happened in 1996, and then later on they'll have hearings which say, all right, what do we do about them?

JIM LEHRER: Okay, thank you both very much, and have a nice holiday. DIALOGUE

JIM LEHRER: Now, a Gergen dialogue. David Gergen, editor-at-large at "U.S. News & World Report," engages Pauline Maier, a Professor of History at MIT, author of "American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence."

DAVID GERGEN: Professor Maier, the central point in your book seems to be that the Declaration of Independence we celebrate today has become something very different in our minds from what it was originally. Let's go back to 1776, and tell us what it was originally.

PAULINE MAIER, Author, "American Scripture": The Declaration of Independence originally was an explanation for a decision that Congress had made two days earlier in favor of independence. On July 2nd, Congress actually adopted resolutions that proclaimed or made the united colonies free and independent states. Congress then went through two days editing this document. What it was, was in some measure a press release. I mean, it was an announcement to the American people of this terribly important decision that Congress had made. And when Congress sat down to lay down instructions for its distribution, they were confined largely to the American people and to the American army. So that was its purpose. And the parts that we remember with such reverence got very little attention in the 18th century. The second paragraph: "We hold these truths to be self-evident"--et cetera, I think these were very familiar ideas to 18th century Americans, ideas they encountered in any number of places.

DAVID GERGEN: It was stunning to me how many other Declarations of Independence had been adopted by states and local communities- -

PAULINE MAIER: Yes.

DAVID GERGEN: --before July 1776.

PAULINE MAIER: Absolutely. This was one of the really surprising discoveries that I came across in the course of doing this book, how many towns, counties, militia units had actually expressed publicly and on paper their adherence, their advocacy of independence and often explained why. They did this as part of a political process, to try to get their state legislatures to allow their delegates to the Congress to vote for independence. And that was really where the struggle was carried on, on these local levels, trying to get those instructions changed.

DAVID GERGEN: So there was a grassroots movement--

PAULINE MAIER: Absolutely. They needed it.

DAVID GERGEN: --that took place--and it helped to stir up.

PAULINE MAIER: Absolutely, because the radicals in Congress thought the people were in advance of their representatives. So what you had to do was do what my Congressman--one time Congressman Tip O'Neill said--all politics is local. You had to get down there on the local level and roll your sleeves up, and they were doing that.

DAVID GERGEN: And you've identified some 90 of these--

PAULINE MAIER: I found 90, and then I--they were pretty much alike. I assume there are more out there to be found. I'm hoping I will inspire people to get out there and look for some.

DAVID GERGEN: One of the points you make here is that we think it was very much--the Declaration was very much the product of one mind--Thomas Jefferson--

PAULINE MAIER: Yes.

DAVID GERGEN: --noble mind that it was, and that, in fact, this was very much an expression, in your judgment, of the American mind.

PAULINE MAIER: We like to think of it as an emanation of Jefferson's originality. I think it was, but it was an originality in 18th century terms, not in the 19th century's idea, that we believe so much--they came to believe so much in individual creativity.

DAVID GERGEN: In the 19th century, and during the romantic period--

PAULINE MAIER: Right. It was a very romantic idea that we should be an original creation of one mind.

DAVID GERGEN: But that was not the idea at the time of the drafting.

PAULINE MAIER: It wasn't the ideal at the time, and, in fact, very--I don't mean to denigrate in any way Thomas Jefferson's contribution. I think his drafting was inspired, however, the story we recall is the story he recalled largely when he was in very-- the last decade of is life--no Americans thought to ask very many probing questions about the draft. In fact, they didn't care very much until after the War of 1812, and, of course, the survivors told the story. And the survivor that had the edge on the story was, in fact, Thomas Jefferson. John Adams also survived, but people knew by that time that Jefferson had drafted it. And he said memory is fallible. Other people have things confused, but what I tell you is the truth. How do I--how can you believe me--because I have two documents of the time. One is notes of proceedings I took sitting in my seat while independence was debated, and the other is a document we remember as the original rough draft. As Jefferson remembered it later, it was a very simple story. The committee met. It appointed him draftsman. He showed it to Adams and to Benjamin Franklin, and then the Congress--the committee said terrific, Thomas terrific, we'll just send it on to Congress with no further changes. And I think he was misled by the document. I don't think--you know, this is not the character issue. So many people are concerned with the character--this is a human issue. This is an old man, who is depressed, who had lots of reasons--

DAVID GERGEN: You're talking about Thomas Jefferson later on.

PAULINE MAIER: I'm talking about Thomas Jefferson. I mean, mythical Thomas Jefferson is eternally optimistic. But Thomas Jefferson the last decade of his life was filled with doubt. He worried about the future of the country. The slavery debate was coming. The University of Virginia was not going very well. He was deep in debt, worried that his family would lose Monticello, as, in fact, it did, and of course, that precluded his freeing his slaves, which were the one tangible asset--one of the tangible assets he had. This man had a lot of reason for doubt, and he asked, what have I done of value in my life? See, he didn't know he might well become the most overrated figure in American history. He had no idea what was coming. So, you know, he asked this in the Declaration--it was something he held on to. Here was something hard, and he did in his accounts exaggerate, I think, how exclusively he was responsible for it. I don't mean to say he did not do the primary drafting. He did. But there were things he forgot, like how much the other members of the committee fit in. See, on the rough draft--

DAVID GERGEN: And how much the Congress did.

PAULINE MAIER: --some changes are, indeed, in Adams's and Franklin's handwriting, but most of the changes are in Jefferson's handwriting. I think he assumed he had made all of those, but I've discovered there's a letter that actually is printed, I mean, not all new documents are found in attics or archives. I found some in the library that were published, quite a few of them. And this particular one, it was a note he sent to Benjamin Franklin with a draft of the Declaration. Benjamin Franklin had gout. He was sick. So he wasn't attending the meeting. So they had to send it to him, and it said, "Dear Dr. Franklin, this committee has just looked at this document. They asked me to change a thing or two, and I'm hoping you can look at it and get back to me in the morning so I can show it to the committee again." I mean, this committee was active. John Adams said they outlined the whole document before it was written, though that input he forgot.

DAVID GERGEN: Your point though then is that Jefferson is seen as the author--was really the draftsman--many other hands were involved.

PAULINE MAIER: Right, right.

DAVID GERGEN: As brilliant as Jefferson was, as noble as his sentiments were, that many deserved credit as well.

PAULINE MAIER: Absolutely. It's the work of many hands, but probably the most important hands were those of his editors in the Congress. I mean, this is--I love the sentiment of a New Hampshire delegate named Josiah Bartlett who wrote and said, well, we're going to work on the Declaration; we got a pretty good draft. I mean, hyperbole is not there. Pretty good draft; hey, that was good. It was workable. It was close.

DAVID GERGEN: Let me ask you one last question. Our time's running out and I have to ask you one last question. Then how--so the document's passed; Jefferson helps to revive interest in it; but how does it become a sacred document in the American mind? Was it really Lincoln in the time that followed?

PAULINE MAIER: Lincoln, but Lincoln is building on the sentiments of I think three decades of American reverence, reviving reverence for the revolution. He held the revolution in high esteem. He was defending the Declaration against the defenders of slavery, who were saying, all men aren't created equal. And in reinterpreting the document to answer the defenders of slavery, he gave us a document which is rather more like a Bill of Rights. The document Lincoln left us is the document which is, in fact, now on the Jefferson Memorial. The part that was important to Jefferson was the assertion to the right of revolution. This ends by saying governments are instituted among men to protect their rights. That was a document that was in Lincoln's hands and in ours, you know, for the guidance of the society, the development of an established society, and that one that was in the midst of revolution. It served a function rather like a Bill of Rights. That wasn't it was meant to be originally, but I think the American people and their leaders made it into that because they felt the need of such a document. It's a testament to the creativity of the American people, what it's becomes.

DAVID GERGEN: Thank you, Pauline Maier.

PAULINE MAIER: Thank you. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this holiday Friday, the Pathfinder spacecraft landed on Mars after a seven-month voyage; the United States observed the 4th of July with parades and fireworks; and Charles Kuralt, and old friend to so many of us, died. IN MEMORIAM

CHARLES KURAULT: You can't drive very far on the back roads before you make a splendid discovery: America is not homogenized, not yet. Her accents are as different as her landscapes. That is the authentic sound of December in the Chesapeake Bay country, but take a gander at that old gander. She's Erline Snow, who learned goose talk 60 years ago down home at Powells Point, North Carolina, and has been conversing with the Canada geese every autumn since. Hiroshi Naguchi doesn't fool around. When he goes to work, his chain saw roars, his chisel flies, and the chips fall where they may. He brings fire to ice, creating masterpieces at room temperature on the homely loading dock of the elegant Hamilton Hotel. He has to work fast because while he's sculpting his sculpture is already beginning to melt. With much cheering and much hugging the nine children of Alex and Mary Chandler were coming home for their parents' 50th wedding anniversary. All nine children have memories of a sharecropper's cabin and nothing to wear and nothing to eat. All nine are college graduates. How did they do it, starting on one of the poorest farms in the poorest part of the poorest state in America?

WOMAN: We worked.

CHARLES KURAULT: You picked cotton?

WOMAN: Yes. Picked cotton and pulled corn, stripped millet, dug potatoes.

CHARLES KURAULT: "I'll Fly Away" is the name of the old hymn. It is Mr. Chandler's favorite. His nine children flew away and made places for themselves in this country and this weekend came home again. There probably are no lessons in any of this, but I know that in the future, whenever I hear that the family is a dying institution, I'll think of them. Whenever I hear anything in America is impossible, I'll think of them.

JIM LEHRER: A personal word about Charles Kuralt, if I may. Much is said, correctly, that those who deliver the news on television are truly and deservedly here today, gone tomorrow. Charles Kuralt will be an exception to that. He brought a uniqueness to his work that became a trademark that really will live forever. A Charles Kuralt will always be a reporter who cares about the people who reports on and reports to, who knows how to smile with them and frown and cry with them, who writes with care and skill about them because he believes words matter as much, maybe more, than pictures, who believes not all the powerful people of America wear white shirts or long dresses and drive long cars down streets in New York or Los Angeles. Some wear overalls and drive pickups on black top roads to places only they and Charles Kuralt had ever heard of or care about. Charles Kuralt did die today, but in the world of television news, he will always be here today. We say good night on this Fourth of July with his words, spoken when he left the CBS Sunday Morning Program three years ago.

CHARLES KURALT: Time for us to part, you and I. Saying goodbye to the viewers of Sunday Morning is like saying goodbye to old friends. That's the way I feel. Thank you for making me feel that way. I aim to do some traveling and reading and writing, and to watch this program the civilized way for a change: in my bathrobe, while having breakfast. Charles Osgood appreciates poems and often commits poetry, himself. There is a rhyme by Clarence Day which says what I want to say. "Farewell my friends, farewell and hail, I'm off to seek the Holy Grail. I cannot tell you why. Remember, please, when I am gone, 'twas aspiration led me on. Tiddly widdly, tootle-lou, all I want is to stay with you. But here I go." Goodbye.