The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday the hijacked Kuwaiti Airliner landed in Cyprus, after being refused permission to land at Beirut. Lyn Nofziger, Ronald Reagan's former political director, was sentenced to 90 days in prison for illegal lobbying. The U. S. announced new economic sanctions against Panama. An agreement to end the Afghan war and remove Soviet troops was officially announced. We'll have details in our news summary, in a moment, Jim. JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, Common Cause President Fred Wertheimer and National Review Publisher William Rusher debate crime and punishment for Lyn Nofziger, Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Lawrence Gibbs is here for a newsmaker interview, Lee Hochberg has a story from Oregon, about who pays for organ transplants and we close with a conversation with Russian poet Andrei Voznesensky.News Summary MacNEIL: A Kuwaiti Airways pilot, with a gun at his head and running out of fuel, landed his hijacked jumbo jet at Cyprus today, after being turned away by Beirut and Damascus. At one point, one of the 50 hostages still on board, identified as a woman member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Anware Khaled al Sabah, got on the radio. She told the Beirut tower, in a choking voice, ''I beg you, allow us to land. We have no fuel left. '' Beirut refused, the control tower telling the desperate pilot, ''Do whatever you want. Crash on the tarmac or in the sea. We shall not let you land here. '' After circling for three and a half hours over the Mediterranean, the plane was allowed to land at Larnaca, Cyprus. And the pilot said, ''I'll never forget this. Thank you. '' On the ground, the Moslem hijackers demanded that the plane be again refueled. They seized the plane four days ago and held it until today in Iran, demanding that Kuwait release 17 jailed terrorists. In London, one of 22 British passengers freed earlier in the week, described the ordeal.

FORMER HOSTAGE: They always had a hand grenade in one hand, a gun in another and they were wearing hoods. I mean, there was always menace. They actually -- and the way -- they didn't actually physically maltreat anybody. In fact on the contrary, they were very attentive to you. About once every two or three hours, they'd put lights out and they'd say no talking, no sleeping, no drinking and then they'd stand at the front and scan you with torches. And that was -- that was very frightening because you -- you kept thinking that every time the torch fell on you, that it was something significant. MacNEIL: Earlier today the Kuwaiti Government told Iran it planned to hold Iran responsible for allowing the Kuwaiti airliner to take off from that country. Jim. LEHRER: Former White House Aide Lyn Nofziger was sentenced to 90 days in prison and fined $30,000 today. U. S. District Judge Thomas Flannery did the sentencing this morning in Washington. Nofziger, a longtime political associate of President Reagan, was found guilty, eight weeks ago, of illegally lobbying administration officials, after he left the White House. Nofziger, who will remain free pending his appeal, and Special Prosecutor James McKay each spoke to reporters after the sentencing.

LYN NOFZIGER, Former White House Aide: I think the independent counsel set out to get me. I think he set out because I would not knuckle under to him, because I would not cop a plea, because I would not say that I was remorseful because I thought I was innocent. And I think he set out to get me. I don't think he succeeded. In my heart of heart, I -- heart of hearts, I can't believe that I'm going to serve time because I don't believe that a prison sentence is justified here, even if I were guilty. And I will repeat, I am not guilty. JAMES McKAY, Special Prosecutor: We did our job as best we could and there'll be some bitterness, I'm sure, from certain quarters. But we did what we thought was correct and we're satisfied with the judge's sentence, today. LEHRER: President Reagan increased U. S. economic pressure on Panama today. He invoked an economic sanctions law that freezes all payments by U. S. organizations to Panama. The Reagan order also blocks the Government of Panama's assets in the United States. The Administration's action was announced in a statement issued by the Western White House in Santa Barbara, where President Reagan is on vacation. The sanctions are aimed at Panama's Gen. Manuel Noriega. The White House statement said Noriega poses an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States. MacNEIL: The Honduran Government declared a state of emergency, after the worst anti U. S. riots, ever, in that country. At least five people were shot to death during the night, after 1,500 university students went on a rampage outside the U. S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa. It was unclear who was responsible for the shooting deaths. Some witnesses claimed the first shots appeared to come from the embassy but U. S. officials denied this. Honduran riot police didn't arrive until the riots were well underway. Today, the U. S. Government demanded an explanation for the delay. The anti U. S. protest began over the arrest Tuesday of an alleged Honduran drug dealer, Juan Ramon Matta. Matta was described by U. S. officials as a kingpin of international drug trafficking. He was picked up outside his home in the Honduran capital, spirited to the U. S. and flown to a federal prison in Illinois, to await trial on drug charges. LEHRER: The deal to remove 115,000 Soviet troops from Afghanistan is finished, said the United Nations mediator. Diego Cordovez told reporters in Geneva today, ''We have discussed, we have negotiated, that's over. '' He said the final papers are now ready for signature next week, with the troop pullout to begin May 15. The official U. S. reaction to the news came from White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker. He said he was delighted but said the administration would withhold final judgment, until the full details are known. A spokesman for the anti Soviet, anti government, Mujahadeen guerrillas was not so charitable. He said the deal was made to be violated and that his forces will continue the war against the Russians and their puppets. MacNEIL: Nine more Palestinians were wounded in clashes with Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories today. Five of the shootings were at a Gaza refugee camp, where soldiers used tear gas and gunfire to disburse rock throwers. Despite some protest marchers after noon prayers at Jerusalem's Temple Mount, Israeli authorities said it was one of the quieter Moslem sabbaths, since disturbances started, four months ago. Israel was blamed by Jordan today, for the lack of movement in the stalled U. S. peace drive. After Secretary of State Shultz visited King Hussein, a senior Jordanian official said the lack of progress came from the Israelis. Another Jordanian added, ''The Americans seem to understand our position properly, for the first time. '' Before heading back to Washington, Shultz stopped in Cyprus to meet with Lebanon's President, Amin Gemayel. Shultz conceded he had accomplished only inches of progress on his current peace mission. LEHRER: U. S. Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter today threatened retaliation against the Japanese. He said the cause was Japan's blocking of a U. S. request for an international panel to look at Japanese restrictions on U. S. beef and citrus imports. Yeutter said unless Japan relents, somebody in Japan will have to pay a price of U. S. retaliation. And President and Mrs. Reagan's 1987 tax returns were released today. They show the Reagans earned $345,359 last year, with a tax liability of $86,638. The income breakdown includes his $200,000 presidential salary, $54,000 in interest income, $46,000 in capital gains and $29,700 from his California governor's pension. MacNEIL: Television Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart was defrocked as the Minister of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God. Church leaders had ordered Swaggart to stop preaching for one year because of moral failure. Earlier today, Swaggart refused to accept a church ordered two year rehabilitation program. That's our news summary. Ahead on the News Hour, the Nofziger jail sentence, the IRS commissioner, paying for organ transplants and Soviet poet, Andrei Voznesensky. Crime & Punishment LEHRER: A crime and punishment debate about Lyn Nofziger is first tonight. Nofziger is a former top aide to President Reagan. His crime, as determined by a jury in February, was violating the Ethics in Government Act, by lobbying former administration officials too soon after he left the White House. His punishment, as handed down today by a federal judge in Washington, was 90 days in prison and a $30,000 fine. Nofziger says he does not deserve to go to prison. He claims the crime he was convicted of was no worse than running a stop sign and he's not even guilty of that. William Rusher, publisher of National Review magazine, agrees with Nofziger. Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, the Washington public affairs lobby, strongly disagrees. Mr. Wertheimer, more serious than running a stop sign? FRED WERTHEIMER, Common Cause: Yes, much more serious than running a stop sign. These are very important laws. They're designed to protect the government, government decisions and taxpayers. Mr. Nofziger was found guilty by a -- by his peers, of violating these laws. And it's particularly important, given this administration's attitudes about these kinds of questions and Mr. Nofziger's denigration of the law, that what has happened today is the judge has said these are serious matters; they will be treated seriously; everyone should understand that if they violate these laws, they will be held accountable. Mr. Nofziger was held accountable today. LEHRER: Mr. Rusher, not serious enough to send Lyn Nofziger to prison? WILLIAM RUSHER, National Review: Well, if the judge said everyone should be judged by these laws, that certainly wasn't what happened in this case. If any Congress -- ex Congressman had done what Lyn Nofziger did, just exactly what he did, he would get a big fat fee. Lyn Nofziger goes to jail because this doesn't apply to Congressmen. It doesn't apply to Congressional staff. It doesn't apply to the judiciary. It didn't even apply to Mike Deaver, at the White House, because he left the White House since the law's interpretation was completely changed. This is, for all practical purposes, a bill of attainder against Lyn Nofziger. And I think it's a grotesque result. LEHRER: Why is it a bill of attainder? Mr. RUSHER: Because he's the only one to whom it applies. It wouldn't apply to the judge himself, who said it should apply to everybody. Indeed it should. I'm glad to see that Common Cause is bestirring itself, rather belatedly, on the subject and getting busy, trying to see to it that the law does apply to everybody. Let's have it this way. But I'll predict this, it won't. The Congress will stall it right through here, with no Congressman raising his head to actually be counted against it. When the Congress adjourns, you will find that this law has not been changed because it isn't intended to apply to Congressmen at all, or their staffs. LEHRER: Mr. Wertheimer. Mr. WERTHEIMER: Well first of all, this law presently applies to thousands of individuals. It is not a bill of attainder. It applies to many executive branch officials. It is a law on the books and you can not justify violating it by saying well, there are other people that it doesn't apply to. It applies to the top officials of the executive branch. So I don't think that's a real justification. The second point I would make is Congress is not covered, they should be covered. Here Congress faces a very important, crucial test. Democrats in Congress have been raising the issue of the sleaze factor. There are very legitimate questions to raise about this administration on the ethics issue -- they have an abominable record. But Congress now is faced with whether they're prepared to cover themselves. And here they have a crucial test. They have to go forward now and broaden this law and cover themselves. Otherwise, they are going to lose a great deal of credibility in raising the other issue. More importantly, the country is going to suffer because of the problems that exist with Congress. LEHRER: So you agree with Mr. Rusher on that. Mr. WERTHEIMER: I agree that the Congress needs to be covered. There is legislation, unanimously reported out by the Senate Judiciary Committee, that would do that, that's pending. There are internal pressures, in the Senate, to prevent it from being brought up. Some of them are coming from Congressional staff members, who don't want to be covered. This is a key test. LEHRER: But -- so, in the meantime, Mr. Rusher, you're saying that Lyn Nofziger should have just ignored the law, even though he might have decided it was unfair? Mr. RUSHER: No, I don't think Lyn Nofziger has, in fact, ignored the law. I agree with him that he was not, in fact, guilty. But we have, in the Constitution of the United States, I thought, a guarantee of equal protection of the laws. And we don't have, in this case, equal protection. We don't have equal application. Why? I don't think that it is fair to single out one man and make the law apply simply to him, and carefully carve out all of the Congress, and all of the staffs of the Congress, and all of the members of the judiciary, and all, indeed, of the lower ranking people in the executive branch, and make it only apply to a few people in the executive branch and then only prosecute one of them. Let's -- let's have an equal prosecution here and let's do it, let's enlarge it -- as Mr. Wertheimer and Common Cause are now saying -- let's enlarge it to apply to everybody. That's what's fair here. LEHRER: But in the meantime, what should happen to Lyn Nofziger? Mr. RUSHER: Well I think that Lyn Nofziger certainly should not suffer any substantial penalty. I -- if he was guilty -- all alone in the world -- of a technical violation of a law that, for all practical purposes, applied only to him, then I think the least that could be done is see to it that he didn't suffer greatly as a result. And I might add that I'm rather interested in the 90 day aspect of the provisions of the sentence here because it suggests that the judge himself had some concern along those lines. LEHRER: Do you agree that -- Mr. WERTHEIMER: I just don't understand where he gets this point and argues that this only applies to Lyn Nofziger. That's simply not true. Mr. RUSHER: Well how many people have -- how many people have been prosecuted? Surely he isn't the only man who's ever done these things. Mr. WERTHEIMER: I can't answer how many people -- Mr. RUSHER: I can. None have. Mr. WERTHEIMER: Excuse me. I can't answer how many people have violated this law. I can tell you that when Mr. Rusher argues that it only applies to one person, that is absolutely not true. Mr. RUSHER: I said only one person has been prosecuted. Mr. WERTHEIMER: Let me just add one other point. LEHRER: Sure. Mr. WERTHEIMER: The arguments of all of these new interests in extending the -- this law to cover Congress, we have never heard from these people before. These are the same people who were fighting this kind of legislation when it applied to the executive branch. I dare say I don't know that Mr. Rusher supports applying these provisions to the executive branch. This is an academic argument. The executive branch has these laws to protect the public because government decisions, involving billions of dollars, are involved. And you're trying to protect against people corrupting those decisions. Mr. RUSHER: I couldn't agree more but -- Mr. WERTHEIMER: Very important provisions. Mr. RUSHER: But Mr. Wertheimer, the Congress, and the members of the Congress, and retired members of the Congress, and retired members of the staff, senior staff people, have at least as much to do, as people in the executive department, with the manipulation of these billions of dollars. You don't know, you say you don't know, what -- I gather, what my position was. I certainly was, frankly, not too deeply aware of this entire law, until it was applied solely to Lyn Nofziger. But I am very much in favor of it being applied to the executive branch, and also to the legislative branch and the judicial branch. Mr. WERTHEIMER: The question of, again, applying solely to Lyn Nofziger is just a non sequitur. Remember, we have an administration who has an attitude about ethics in government that it doesn't matter. Mr. RUSHER: That is not true. That is a gross -- Mr. WERTHEIMER: Excuse me. LEHRER: Let him finish, Mr. Rusher. Mr. RUSHER: A total falsehood and a political one, if I may say so. LEHRER: Go ahead and finish. Mr. WERTHEIMER: No, I think there is -- the track record of this administration on ethics issues is a terrible one. You have an Attorney General who the General Accounting Office says fails to comply with the Ethics in Government Act, regarding disclosures -- Mr. RUSHER: The special prosecutor has just said there is no evidence to indict. Mr. WERTHEIMER: Excuse me. Mr. RUSHER: You have a speaker of the House of Representatives who is standing up there doing things ten times as questionable and Common Cause not -- LEHRER: Mr. -- Mr. Rusher, excuse me one minute. Let him finish his point and then we'll come back right back to you. Okay, finish your point about why this administration -- Mr. WERTHEIMER: You have an administration that has an abominable record on the issue of ethics. They don't seem to care about these issues. They don't talk about them. You never hear them talking about the importance of integrity and honesty in government service. You won't find that discussion. Now, the notion that this administration is going to aggressively pursue ethics violations is just a non sequitur. And, in fact, this has been an independent counsel that has had to bring this case. LEHRER: All right Mr. Rusher, you're on. Mr. RUSHER: All I -- all I was saying was that the charge that there is something especially indifferent in this administration, on the subject of ethics, is simply a political charge. Mr. Wertheimer is the head of one of the biggest liberal lobbies in Washington. And I don't expect him to approve of the Reagan Administration. But I do expect him to refrain from gross libels on the whole administration, which is a very large thing. You can criticize, if you want to, Ed Meese. Although a special prosecutor has just refused to do so and a previous special prosecutor also refused. But you can not, it seems to me, take your great, broad brush and simply announce that an entire administration, consisting of tens of thousands of people, is indifferent to matters of ethics. It untrue and it's unfair. And, I might add, it has very little evidence. One of the very few that was indicted and prosecuted was acquitted. Ray Donovan, Secretary of Labor. You haven't told him, as he very rightly asked, where he's to go to get his reputation back. You're certainly not doing it any good. Mr. WERTHEIMER: Ethics is not simply a matter of whether you're a crook or not. It's a matter of whether you're sensitive to questions of conflict of interest, to the appearance of conflict of interest. Mr. Rusher's charges are not true, in trying to imply that we are raising this for political reasons -- Mr. RUSHER: What have you done about Speaker Wright? Mr. WERTHEIMER: We have raised any number of questions before the House Ethics Committee. We have sent letter after letter, complaining about Democratic Congressmen. And I just said, earlier, that the Democratic Congress faces a very key test in terms of its own credibility. There are serious problems in Congress and Congress must deal with this issue. But you can not use that to excuse the attitude of this administration. Mr. RUSHER: Nobody is using it to excuse anything. What we're trying to do is get equal treatment. What precisely, Mr. Wertheimer, has Common Cause done in the matter of Speaker Wright and his appearances of impropriety? LEHRER: We're going to have to leave that question unanswered, gentlemen, unless you've got a quick answer for it. Mr. WERTHEIMER: No, I don't have a quick answer. We are looking at that matter. We -- as I've said before, we will keep looking. We have pursued this vigorously. LEHRER: They're pursuing me to say goodbye to both of you, which I am now going to do. Mr. Rusher in New York, Mr. Wertheimer here, thank you both. MacNEIL: Still to come on the News Hour, the view from the IRS, who pays for organ transplants and the poet of glasnost. NewsMaker: Lawrence Gibbs MacNEIL: Next tonight, we have a Newsmaker interview with IRS Commissioner Lawrence Gibbs. The IRS estimates that 65 million people have filed their returns so far, leaving another 40 million only a week to file. Despite complicated new tax laws, the number of last minute filers this tax season is no worse than in previous years, in part because of an IRS campaign encouraging people to get an early start.

[taped IRS public service message] MacNEIL: There are 48 new forms this year and hundreds of changes on the old ones. And no matter when they do their taxes, many taxpayers have found that if it's not a private horror, the process is, at the least, quite confusing.

UNIDENTIFIED TAXPAYER: Well, I don't understand it at all. I won $5,000 in the Lotto. I'm trying to get that information, if I have to file or not. I don't know if I have to file. UNIDENTIFIED IRS WORKER: All right sir, since you put this equipment in service after 1986, the depreciation you use is called MACRS. MacNEIL: The IRS recognized that taxpayers, in this first year after tax reform, would need extra help. Bracing for an additional five million callers, the IRS quadrupled the number of hot line tax assisters. Even so, some people may still be confused.

UNIDENIFIED TAXPAYER:T I have called up three times, I got three different answers. So I still don't know how I stand. That's why I came down here. MacNEIL: A recent government study estimates that 39 percent of all callers are given the wrong information. The IRS says its own study shows that one in four callers have received wrong answers.

ROBERT KOBEL, IRS: Well, I think a lot of people will find it confusing because the changes affected everything and everyone. And from our standpoint, it was an awful of information to assimilate at once. MacNEIL: The good news is if you make a mistake based on the Internal Revenue's advice, you won't be penalized. That is, if you have sufficient proof that the IRS got it wrong. Judy Woodruff has more now on the good and bad news, this tax season. WOODRUFF: Lawrence Gibbs was named IRS commissioner in 1986. He has overseen some of the most significant changes in the tax code in this century. Mr. Gibbs, thank you for being with us. All right, whether it's the error rate of 39 percent that the General Accounting Office says, or 25 percent, which your IRS is saying, that's still a pretty bad percentage, isn't it? LAWRENCE GIBBS, IRS Commissioner: Judy, we're not satisfied with it. This has been a difficult and a challenging filing season for taxpayers, and practitioners and for the Internal Revenue Service. We've got some plans in place for how to improve it but it needs to be improved. We're not satisfied with it. WOODRUFF: Is it -- are you -- are you pretty much settled though that it's going to have to stay that way for the remainder of this year -- I mean the remainder of this filing period -- Mr. GIBBS: We are doing some things at the present times, in terms of additional training for our employees. We do have a new system in place, to monitor the accuracy of our own questions. And we're making that information public. So it's not something that we're satisfied with but we're also not trying to hide it. WOODRUFF: What happens when someone calls in and does not get accurate information and sends in their tax return, based on that inaccurate information? What happens? Mr. GIBBS: When that happens, the law requires us, if they have additional tax and interest to pay, the law requires us to collect that additional tax and interest. We do have discretion with respect to the penalty that may be imposed, with respect to that. And one of the things where we're trying to show people that we recognize that as we have a learning curve to go up, they should not be penalized for our mistakes. We're waiving those penalties for people, where they're as a result of our mistakes. WOODRUFF: But do they have to be able to prove, somehow, that the information -- that they got bad information from the IRS? How does that work? Mr. GIBBS: What we're suggesting to people, and particularly right now, right at the end of the filing season, we're saying hey, take a look at your forms and instructions. Get the information that you need, and the particular question, and have it ready when you talk to the tax assister, on the telephone, from the Internal Revenue Service. Get their name. They're supposed to give it to you but if they don't, ask them for their name. Keep a record of that, the day that you called, the question that you asked and the answer that you got. And with that, if there's an error, then we'll waive the penalty. WOODRUFF: But you've got to have that information? Mr. GIBBS: Yes, and we've said that previously, too. WOODRUFF: All right. As I read -- I read today that last year, approximately 40 percent of the taxpayers needed professional help, getting their forms filled out. This year it's 60 percent. Mr. GIBBS: Well, you know that's interesting because I have just taken -- we now have almost 60 percent of the returns in, that have been filed. And one of the things I do each week is to take a look to see how many of those returns, at this time this year, were prepared by a preparer, as compared to the returns that were filed this time last year. The interesting thing is this time this year, 60 percent, last year 60 percent. This year it appears that about 42 percent of the people -- excuse me, 40 percent of the folks -- have return preparers preparing their returns. Last year it was 38. So it's about 2 percent, based on the 60 percent. WOODRUFF: So you're saying it hasn't gone up that much? Mr. GIBBS: It hasn't gone up appreciably, at least to this point. We'll have to play it out through the rest of the filing season. But at this point, it's a 2 percent increase. WOODRUFF: But there's no question that people are having problems. There are a lot of -- you're having many, many more calls. You've had to, what'd you say, quadruple, the number of people who are there on your hot line. What does that say to you about -- about the complexity of this tax code? Mr. GIBBS: It says to me, honestly, that I'm not sure the rules are any more complex. But I think this, I think that as we -- as Congress has changed the law 19 times in 23 years, and as we have this act, with many, many major changes, it's getting to the point, I think, where taxpayers, practitioners and tax administrators, need a breather from the constant change. And dealing with constant change is a very, very difficult thing. WOODRUFF: What do you think ought to be done? Mr. GIBBS: Just what I've said: Leave the law alone. Don't change it. Let us get used to the law that we have under the '86 act. Technical corrections, the mistakes that were made, yes, change that. That should've been changed last year. Give us that. But don't keep giving us more tax law changes that we have to get used to and that taxpayers and practitioners do too, as well. WOODRUFF: What about these horror stories that have been reported? So called horror stories, that when a 9 year old girl, who had her $70 bank account confiscated by the IRS because they were after her grandfather; and some man who was fined $400 for underpaying his taxes by two cents -- Mr. GIBBS: Let's talk about this, can we? WOODRUFF: Yeah, sure -- Mr. GIBBS: Let's talk about the last one first. WOODRUFF: All right. Mr. GIBBS: There are two types of penalties. One is a penalty where you underpay your tax but that's not what is applicable here. A lot of people think it is. They say, gee, it was a three cent error, how could you have a penalty. That's not what the penalty is. What the penalty is is when you pay the amount, if you don't pay it on time, then there's a penalty imposed because you didn't pay it on time. So the penalty that is imposed in that situation doesn't have to do with the three cents, it has to do with the fact that it was paid late. And that's by law. WOODRUFF: So the gentleman was late? Mr. GIBBS: That's correct. WOODRUFF: All right. Mr. GIBBS: Now, when you go to the first one, the little girl with the bank account. What we found in each one of those cases, when we got into it, was this, and this is something where I sympathize with taxpayers because they -- the -- oftentimes the parents and grandparents don't realize that if you have a child's account, you need to have the name and security number of the child on the account. When we gave the bank a levy, it had the name of the parent or grandparent and that person's social security number. If that person's name and social security number shows up on the account, and the little girl's doesn't, we have no way of knowing and the bank has no way of knowing, whose account it really belongs to. WOODRUFF: But that means the IRS means business. I mean, when you go after somebody's money, you go after their money. Mr. GIBBS: In every single instance, the parents and grandparents that were the taxpayers involved, owed us money. And we were simply collecting what we thought was their money. WOODRUFF: What about this notion that there are the so called collection goals for the agents, that they are -- that they are more likely to be promoted, for example, if they can go out and raise more money from the taxpayers, and so forth? Mr. GIBBS: I have been asked about whether I thought that was appropriate and I said no, I personally do not. The organization has a policy against any sort of use of statistics for pay and promotion. The idea of setting quotas is something that is absolutely prohibited. Not only that, but we have management reviews in place to determine whether -- if that is happening, why it's happening and to put an end to it. WOODRUFF: Is it happening now? Mr. GIBBS: Based on the information that I have, and have had for the last several years and also in talking to other people that are vitally interested in this in terms of our own employees and also are union officials, it is not happening, as far as I know, at the present time. WOODRUFF: All right, and if it was happening, then -- Mr. GIBBS: I think I'd hear about it. We've heard a great deal about it already. And I think if it'd been happening over the last year, I think I would've heard about it. WOODRUFF: Are people cheating on their taxes, underpaying their taxes, about the same amount as they used to? Is that something that's fairly consistent? Mr. GIBBS: We put out a report, you may have seen, a couple of weeks ago, about the tax gap, the difference between taxes owed and paid. We updated a report that we put out in 1983. In 1983, we said for 1987, last year, that the tax gap was about $115 billion, the difference between taxes owed and paid. This most recent report said it had dropped to $85 billion. So the good news is the $30 billion drop. The bad news is it's still $85 billion. Part of that is people who are cheating. But in a large part, part of it is also people who are simply making mistakes, or going back to our original question, having difficulty with the law changes. WOODRUFF: Well, Commissioner Gibbs, we thank you for being with us. Mr. GIBBS: Judy, thank you for having me. Life Support LEHRER: The toughest new debate in health care is over rationing, reducing the skyrocketing cost of the nation's medical system by reducing the treatments and services available. We have a for instance, the decision last year by the State of Oregon to stop paying for some lifesaving organ transplants. It is, for some, to mount public appeals for fund, among other things, as we see in this report by Lee Hochberg, of public station KCTS in Seattle.

LEE HOCHBERG [voice over]: Television viewers in Oregon have gotten used to pictures like this in recent months, pictures of a dying child, desperately pleading for money to afford some lifesaving medical procedure. These pictures, of 7 year old Coby Howard of Portland, Ore. , were taken in November. Coby had leukemia. He needed $100,000 for a bone marrow transplant. Made for TV fund raising events, like this one, have become regular staples on the evening news. Television cameras followed Coby on a Thanksgiving Day trolley ride. All $1,500 from the day's runs went to his transplant fund. But raising money a nickel and dime at a time, the 7 year old boy was able to raise only $70,000, before his advancing leukemia out raced him. He died shortly after Thanksgiving. Coby Howard was the first victim of a controversial decision Oregon State legislators made last summer, to end government funding for residents in need of heart, liver, pancreas and bone marrow transplants. The decision has spawned a macabre environment, where dying residents, racing the clock, have been forced to beg and compete against each other for donated dollars to help keep them alive. State Rep. TOM MASON, (D) Oregon: It's been just disgusting. These people could be in the last days of their lives and we have made them go out and market themselves. Coby Howard's the best example of that. Coby Howard would be terribly ill, he would be vomiting in the bathroom. His aunt would take him out and say Coby, you've got to smile now. Cameras are coming over. They would be distributing little cans in grocery stores, with Coby's picture on it. And Coby would have to go around, literally market himself, turning themselves into some type of side show thing. HOCHBERG: A transplant operation. like this, can cost between $100,000 and $200,000. Oregon used to help residents who couldn't afford the expensive procedures. But last summer, the state decided it couldn't afford to pay for the expensive procedures any longer. It ended state funding for transplants, instead spending dollars from the transplant fund to construct a cottage at a state reform school. Senate President John Kitzhaber, a physician, explains why. State Sen. JOHN KITZHABER, President, Oregon Senate: There are finite dollars that we can expend on health care. We're not going to close the schools. We're not going to turn the prisoners loose. We're not going to abandon clean water and clean air. We have other priorities this society has to invest in. HOCHBERG: The decision to end the transplant funding largely went unnoticed, until Coby Howard's death. Now, critics across the state say the government could've prevented that tragedy. There was plenty of money available that could've saved the young boy. Mr. MASON: I would maintain that saving a child's life is just about the most important thing a government can do. We spend money in this state for such things as 4 H prizes. We have a $4 million program that buys 4 H prizes at county fairs. We put $2 million into art. We put $1 million into extra legislative salaries. We put $1 million into the governor's office. Million, after million, after million. HOCHBERG: How many transplants would that cover. Mr. Mason: Two million dollars? Two million dollars would cover even more transplants than we -- we need. The projected need, right now, is for about 30 transplants and they say it will cost about $738,000. So the question is not dollars. HOCHBERG: Transplants don't cost the state much because while the state pays for part of the procedure, the federal government pays for the rest. A $100,000 transplant, for example, costs the state only $25,000. Under political pressure, proponents of the state's new policy have admitted that money for the transplant program is available and could've been spent to save Coby Howard. But Senate President Kitzhaber has argued strongly that the state was right not to spend those dollars on Coby. He says, painful or not, it's time for government to draw the line on what types of medical procedures it will fund. Dr. KITZHABER: They wanted $200,000 to keep the transplant program going for a short period of time for about five individuals. And we did have the money, there's no question about it. But you have to ask yourself what is the policy of, you know, that's guiding what you're doing. You've developed a sham policy, that's unsustainable, you're building up people's expectations in a way that does not offer any hope that you can -- that you can fulfill them. HOCHBERG: Kitzhaber says a more sensible health policy would spend more money on prenatal care, which could help thousands of poor Oregonians, rather than on expensive, catastrophic surgeries, that can help only 30, to 35, people per year. Dr. KITZHABER: It makes a great deal more sense to produce healthy, viable babies than to, essentially, practice rescue medicine for a small number of people. HOCHBERG: Could you say that to Coby Howard's aunt? Dr. KITZHABER: I did. I sat and looked across the hearing table with Coby Howard's aunt, at Craig Irwin's mother, at Mrs. Artisan's son. And I told them that I empathized with them. And I also told them that we did not have enough money to do everything for everybody. Everybody dies. I mean, death is a part of life, it's not an adverse outcome. It's a natural part of -- no one gets out of life alive. It's a fatal condition. SHARON PLACE, Hospice Volunteer: Is death part of life for a 2 year old boy? Is that a normal, is that a -- is that something that would normally happen? HOCHBERG: Hospice volunteer Sharon Place has spent the months since the state's decision trying to raise funds for 2 year old David Holladay. David has leukemia. Doctors say he needs a $100,000 bone marrow transplant to survive. In rural Roseburg, Ore. , the family's been able to raise only $3,000. And the state, following its new policy, has been unwilling to help. Ms. PLACE: He sits home day after day, in a semi sitting, laying down position. He's uncomfortable. He's in pain. He's -- I think he's sitting there wondering who is going to help him. You see it in his face, you know. He's wondering who's going to step forward and be the one to help him. SHEILA HOLLADAY, David's Mother: Knowing that the money's there and knowing that he can live, I just don't believe this is God's will. HOCHBERG: In a desperate spectacle, not unlike Coby Howard's 11th hour struggle for survival, David's mother recently drove the sick boy 150 miles to the state capital in Salem, to beg for emergency funds for a transplant. Ms. PLACE: He laid in the stroller. He has a huge abdominal swelling with his liver and spleen. He didn't look like somebody that was enjoying life. He looked like somebody that needed help. And when we were en route to Salem, we were at a restaurant and there were several people there that noticed how sick David was. And I tell you, they wanted to help. They wanted to help so bad that they called the police. They thought that we were abusing David. Andthe fact of the matter was, when we got to the meeting we explained it to them. The people that are abusing David are the State of Oregon, by refusing him medical treatment that he needs. Dr. KITZHABER: Obviously, to an individual, whatever serves their need is of paramount importance. But you have to take -- take a societal view, when you're making these kinds of allocation decisions. So the question is what is a more efficient use of public dollars and how can you benefit the largest number of people. HOCHBERG: The Oregon Legislature rejected David Holladay's plea. The boy has since come down with pneumonia and his kidneys are failing. His mother issued a public appeal for at least enough dollars to move the family to neighboring Washington State, a state that would fund his bone marrow transplant. And in the circus like environment that Oregon has become, a family did step forward with enough money to help them move. It was Coby Howard's family, offering part of the fund that was raised too late to save Coby's life. SUSAN McGEE, Coby Howard's Aunt: I can't go to sleep at night, every night, knowing that David Holladay, and Adam Sullivan, and Renee Kuhns, and on and on, are laying there dying because nobody is doing anything. HOCHBERG: Coby's aunt and mother had already given most of the $70,000 they raised for Coby to another Oregon girl, 21 year old Twila Bozeman, who needed funds for a bone marrow transplant. She's recovering nicely at a Seattle hospital. TWILA BOZEMAN, Transplant Recipient: I just thought it was like a real gift. I mean, it's something that you can't thank, you know, them enough for. TAMI HOWARD, Coby Howard's Mother: I remember giving it to her. I was just -- I started bawling my eyes out. Ms. McGEE: Which in turn made me bawl. Mrs. HOWARD: We spent the end of Coby's life raising that money and we raised it for him to live. And it was very difficult for me to have to say okay, he's gone, here, I want you to have this so you can live. It was -- I don't know if I'm explaining right, but it was -- I wanted to give the money so that it could help somebody. But at the same time, it was like admitting that I had lost. HOCHBERG: And yet another Oregon woman, who'd been begging, went to the last hour, before being rescued in mid March, this time by a hospital. San Francisco's Pacific Presbyterian Hospital has started a new liver transplant program and was looking for a first patient. It chose 55 year old Kay Irwin, of Portland. KAY IRWIN, Transplant Recipient: I just think it was a gift from the Guy up there. You know, why was I chosen. It's a mystery but it is just, to me, a miracle. It is, to me. I've been a lucky person. I really have. HOCHBERG: Can hospitals plug the funding gap left by the legislature? The head of Pacific Presbyterian's transplant program says it's doubtful. BARRY LEVIN, M.D., Pacific Presbyterian Hospital: It's not a rational solution because the numbers are too many. In other words, there'll be a lucky few. HOCHBERG: A lucky few, and the rest? Dr. LEVIN: Will die. People who need heart transplants and liver transplants, who don't get them, by definition, die. Ms. IRWIN: We've got to help ourselves. And there're so many wonderful people out there that you never hear about, that are working together. And the politicians, phooey! Phooey on them. We'll show them. HOCHBERG: Late in March, the state did make a token effort to relieve some of the financial burden on transplant patients. The state says if individuals will raise their own funds and give those funds to the state, the state will use that money to pay for transplants. That state involvement will guarantee federal matching funds and cut a patient's fund raising needs dramatically. But Kay Irwin's son, Craig, who heads a citizen fund raising organization, says even that reduced amount of money will be hard to raise. CRAIG IRWIN, Oregon Transplant Project: What you're doing is you're asking people who are critically ill to go out and be marketing experts, to be creative, and go out and make the money. And that is just a terribly unfair way for people to try to pay for these transplant operations. If you're not pretty. If you're not the adorable baby, then the odds are against you. HOCHBERG: As the sad tales of Coby Howard and David Holladay show, even the adorable baby faces long odds today, in Oregon. But experts say Oregon is merely the first state to signal in a new era of health care rationing. There will be other Cobys and Davids elsewhere in the U. S. Dr. LEVIN: People in America better get used to this. Because there's going to be less and less money for ''medical care. '' And the Ms. Irwins are dramatic because they need a transplant but soon, as in other countries, people are going to wait to get their heart fixed. They're going to wait to get their hips fixed. And there's going to be some rationing of medical care. Conversation: Andrei Voznesensky MacNEIL: Finally tonight, a conversation with the Russian poet Andrei Voznesensky. Voznesensky, now 54, is one of the most popular poets in a country which takes its poets, and poetry, very seriously. In addition to his literary efforts, Voznesensky has been something of a spokesman for glasnost, the movement for greater openness in the Soviet Union. Once the protege of Boris Pasternak, his efforts to have Pasternak's banned novel, Dr. Zhivago, published in Russia have been successful. He was also instrumental in overcoming official objections to an exhibition of Marc Chagall's paintings, which had been banned for many years. A volume of his poetry, An Arrow in the Wall, was published in this country, last year. He is in this country now for a short visit to accept an award and to read his poetry at the Library of Congress next week, and elsewhere. Mr. Voznesensky, welcome. ANDREI VOZNESENSKY, Russian Poet: Thank you. MacNEIL: We are, with each step towards some understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union -- I mean the Afghanistan arrangement was just officially announced today -- the curiosity about the changes in your country increases in American minds. And we wonder what to make of the new openness, glasnost, in your country. What should Americans make of it, do you think? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: What does it mean, glasnost? Glasnost, it's not -- for our poets and writers, it is stop with any censorship. We can speak the truth, without any control. It is good. But it is more important for our people because through glasnost we go to democracy; we go to changing old terrible things of our life. And we open old crimes of last year. like Stalin's terrible terrored crimes, and so on, and of today, all corruption, all things. And first time, I think, revolution -- revolution like this came from intellectuals, from speaking, not from arms. And it is very important and it is through glasnost. MacNEIL: Is it growing? Is it spreading? What -- how would you describe it? I mean, is it a snowball -- Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Yes. MacNEIL: That is running uncontrollably or is it very carefully controlled, reined in? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: No, sorry, and maybe it's good it is uncontrollable, at all. Because nobody expected, even me -- you spoke about Dr. Zhivago, when I wanted to publish it and announced about this, I didn't believe that it is possible. And is more and more, more and more glasnost. And we have fantastic things: publication of Zhivago, we are preparing to publish Orwell 1984 -- MacNEIL: George Orwell's 1984. Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Yeah, it was forbidden. MacNEIL: Which is about a totalitarian state. Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Yes it is, for long time, forbidden. We publishing Nabokov, everything. But, together, glasnost is used by very conservative people and some bad things come out too. Glasnost is freedom. It is democracy. We have some thing terrible, reactionary articles, for Stalinism for example. And -- MacNEIL: Oh, you mean people who are still arguing for the Stalin period are also using glasnost to -- Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Certainly. And at first they were shocked and they did not know what to do. And now they change their mind and glasnost masks for them for all anti semitism, for all they are longing for dictatorship and now they are attacking the new line of liberalism. MacNEIL: We read that there are some areas of Soviet life where people, some bureaucrats, some others, conditioned by all their lives of a regime where they had to be very careful, are not willing to commit, this time, in case it changes and they have to suffer later, for going along with it. Now, do you run into this? Do you personally run into this? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Yes, certainly. You see, it is too many of them. It is -- we have 18 millions of bureaucrats such type. And they are losing their privilege. And it is a terrible resistance from them in all parts of our life. And it is very hard fight. And for you foreigners, from here, you think it's maybe everything is okay. Government said, Gorbavhev said, and everything okay. No, it is terrible fight and ice. And we can see it through literature. MacNEIL: You can see it through literature? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Yeah. MacNEIL: Does that mean that there are writers who are afraid to embrace the new freedom, for fear that if the old repression should return, they would suffer? Are some of them afraid? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Yes, some of them afraid but it is another, more important, reason. Because if such a great masterpieces, like Dr. Zhivago, is -- are published, or Nabokov, or today's masterpiece about Stalin, like (unintelligible) and Orwell, and nobody would read them and they are losing money. But in Russia, writer has a little money, if he is never published and it is competition. It is economical competition. And they speculated for political slogans, to take their money. MacNEIL: You are -- are you comfortable with being called a spokesman for glasnost? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: I don't like it. MacNEIL: You don't like it? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: No, because I -- my ideas, and my speeches, my poems, are the same as before. Only -- now only I can publish what I could not publish before. And I think it is part of my life. Certainly now I take part in this protest. But I think poetry is quite more important than the only glasnost is. MacNEIL: What do you say to people who say look, they did it before, there was the Khrushchev thaw and then it closed down again. There was the Prague spring in Czechoslovakia, it was crushed by Soviet tanks. It could happen again? What do you feel about that yourself? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: You see, by heart nobody knows. It can be but -- MacNEIL: Nobody knows? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Nobody knows but you have to do maybe a little step by yourself and it will be more difficult to change it. Because I hope not but really nobody knows. Because it is -- I fight. I told you, it is terrible fight for death and life, for conservative part of our country and progressive. I hope not because what Khrushchev -- Khrushchev inside he was Stalinist -- inside. And he made great step, open prisons. But inside he was conservative, bureaucracy man. And that is why (unintelligible). And he didn't trust intellectual people. And he hated art. He attacked me, for example. It's not his greatest fault. And anyway, now is intellectual people try to help to find new ideas for country. MacNEIL: Khrushchev attacked you and, for a while, you could not publish. But for the rest of the time you have been able to publish. Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Yeah. MacNEIL: And, as you know, you've been criticized by some emigre Soviet writers, and others, for being a -- a safe, or tolerated, liberal. You've been more harshly criticized than that. For example, people have said that so many other Soviet poets went to jail but you did not, therefore is your writing credible and honest? You talked about heart before, what does that make you feel, when you receive that criticism? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: It's -- how to say you? I think Pasternak, for example, had never been in jail. And (unintelligible) have never been in jail. But in anyway, I try to be inside my country and help with my poetry. And I never lied and I wrote what I want. Sometimes I could not publish what -- and I have it in my table. But I try to give minimum by to help my people. And I'm criticize in Russia quite more. For example, it was written that time they criticize here but now newspapers it was published, for example, I am used by C. I. A. But it is stupid. I don't think about this because poet has to be criticized. They don't -- I don't take care about this. MacNEIL: There was an article, recently, by an emigre Lithuanian writer, who -- Thomas Van Clover, who said there's a Soviet joke that Voznesensky was always the first to step on a minefield already cleared of mines. Mr. VOZNESENSKY: No, if -- I read this article and -- how to say you -- and after Venslova some Americans answered to him. And one I -- for example, Valerin Plisetskaya, she wrote in this same magazine that she likes my poetry and my poetry gave to her something. And he attacked me for holocaust poem, Venslova. And Plisetskaya told that he knows inside Russia it was important against anti semitism. And how it was important for her. And if, for example, Marc Chagall illustrated this poem, I'm happy to write it. Enough I think. MacNEIL: Come back to you as a poet. With all these swirling political currents going on, with this new air of freedom and openness in your own country, it is harder for you to be a poet? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: No, it more easy. Because poetry before was not -- has too much politic in this. And you had to be a poet spokeman for political things. And people are waiting for your -- because our readings poetry was only place not censored. Because, certainly if you are too brave, tomorrow your reading will be stopped forever. But that time you can what you want. And some people came for political reasons for you -- MacNEIL: Came to your readings -- ? Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Yes, for my readings. And now you can make pure poetry. And I'm happy with because other our magazines, (unintelligible) for example, they wrote and I came back to emigres. I was in Munich just now. I was ill and before my reading I had nothing to do. And I ask all emigres magazines to read. And all night long I was reading continent magazines, here newspapers, in Russian, all emigres. And for me it was very boring and not very -- not so brave as today our press with very hot materials against corruption, against tyranny, against crimes. And I think the most important Russian ideals are inside Russia now. MacNEIL: Andrei Voznesensky, thank you for joining us. Mr. VOZNESENSKY: Thank you so much. Recap LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, the hijacked Kuwait Airways jumbo jet landed in Cyprus, after being denied permission to land in Beirut. The hijackers continue to hold 55 persons hostage. Former top Reagan Aide, Lyn Nofziger, was sentenced to 90 days in prison and fined $30,000 for illegal lobbying. President Reagan imposed new economic sanctions against Panama. And the deal to withdraw 115,000 Soviet troops from Afghanistan was officially announced in Geneva. Good night Robin. MacNEIL: Good night Jim. That's the News Hour tonight and we'll be back on Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil, good night.