The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in New York. After the News Summary, we look at health care politics on Capitol Hill, the continuing standoff between Palestinians and Jews on the West Bank, and piracy on the information highway. And then we remember author and soldier Lewis Puller, Jr. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WARNER: President Clinton said today he was nearing a decision on a Supreme Court nominee. The unofficial speculation list has narrowed to three names: Interior Sec. Bruce Babbitt and Federal Appeals Court Judges Steven Breyer of Massachusetts and Richard Arnold of Arkansas. The President would not confirm this speculation when he spoke with reporters at the White House this afternoon.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You won't have to wait much longer. When I have a decision, I'll announce it. I know that this has now become the most frustrating story in the capital, but this is really a story that will have implications for years, indeed, perhaps for decades to come. And one of the -- I think one of the benefits and perhaps one of the burdens the American people got when I was elected President is that I believe I know a lot about this issue, and I care a lot about it. I used to teach constitutional law. This is not a decision I can defer to aides, even though I have been well assisted in this, and I appreciate it. So I am -- I am going to attempt to do what I did last time, even against all the pressure of a time deadline, and that's to make the really good decision that I feel good about.

MS. WARNER: The House today voted unanimously to change the so- called "nanny law" that scuttled confirmation chances for several early Clinton appointees. Under the bill, employers who pay a household worker less than $1250 a year won't have to pay Social Security taxes for that worker. The current threshold is $50 a year. The Senate has not yet considered the bill. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: In economic news today, the Labor Department reported wholesale prices fell .1 percent last month. Both food and energy prices were down. In another report, the Commerce Department said retail sales were off .8 percent in April. The Senate today passed President Clinton's $1.5 trillion budget plan for the next fiscal year. It would reduce the federal deficit to its lowest level since 1989. The measure has already been approved by the House. A key player in the congressional health care debate made a plea today for cost containment. Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, Democrat of Illinois, is chairman of the tax writing Ways & Means Committee. He has said tax increases may be necessary to make up for the short-term deficit created under the Clinton health care plan. He spoke on Capitol Hill.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, [D] Illinois: Our country is both compassionate enough and rich enough to guarantee coverage for all. And it's time to deliver on that promise, but we must be equally mindful of exploding costs. If we don't contain them, we won't be able to afford today's coverage and won't be able to think about expanding coverage. So credible cost containment must be invested in this legislation as well. As one who's been candid about the need for revenue increases, I am very aware that stronger cost control initiatives reduce the size of the revenue holes that we'll have to fill.

MR. LEHRER: A House subcommittee today gave early approval to a controversial part of President Clinton's health plan. After a heated debate, they voted to retain coverage for abortions as a basic benefit. The vote came as the panel considered a modified version of the President's plan. The Senate passed the Abortion Clinic Access Bill today. It prohibits the use of force or threats to keep people from entering the facilities. The vote was 69 to 30. The House passed the bill last week. It now goes to President Clinton. He has already said he would sign it.

MS. WARNER: The Senate passed two contradictory directives on Bosnia today. The first, an amendment sponsored by Majority Leader George Mitchell, requires President Clinton to try again to get allied support to lift the arms embargo on the Bosnian Muslims. It passed 50 to 49. But later the Senate approved a resolution sponsored by Minority Leader Bob Dole. It requires the President to lift the embargo unilaterally. It too passed 50 to 49. Mr. Clinton wants to see the UN embargo lifted, but he is opposed to doing so without the consent of the UN Security Council. Here's a sample of today's Senate debate.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: And all we're saying is let's send a statement. We're not France. We're not Great Britain. We're the United States of America. And we've had moral authority in this world for a long time and moral leadership in this world for a long time, and the people of the world look to us for leadership. We don't send any armed forces. We don't send any ground forces. We don't have air strikes. All we do is lift the embargo so they can defend themselves. Now if anybody can quarrel with that -- this vote ought to be unanimous.

SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL, Majority Leader: We cannot now simply unilaterally discontinue this embargo without regard to the views of our allies or the safety of the citizens and troops of our allies. It's all well and good for a United States Senator, not one of whom would now vote to send a single American soldier to Bosnia, to talk about morality and authority when there are several thousand British and French troops there on the scene, in danger, under fire, and have been for years.

MS. WARNER: In Bosnia today, one UN military observer was killed, and another seriously wounded, when their vehicle came under fire north of Sarajevo. The source of the attack, which also killed a Bosnian Muslim soldier, was unknown. In Sarajevo, sniper fire broke out, breaching the cease-fire brokered by the UN in February. There were reports the firing came from a Serb-held area. The UN also reported having mortar attacks around the northern town of Brcko, which is controlled by Serb forces.

MR. LEHRER: New Palestinian police crossed the Jordan River into the West Bank town of Jericho today. A 20-man advance team was followed later in the day by another 300 Palestinian police officers. They were held up by a minor dispute with Israeli authorities. Another 450 Palestinian policemen are to enter the West Bank tomorrow. The transfer of police powers is part of the plan for Palestinian self-rule for Jericho and the Gaza Strip.

MS. WARNER: Louis Puller, Jr. is dead. The Pulitzer Prize winning author died at his Fairfax County, Virginia, home yesterday of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His 1991 autobiography, Fortunate Son, described the emotional and physical pain he suffered after losing both legs and part of both hands in Vietnam. He was there as a Marine infantry officer. He was the son of Gen. Lewis "Chesty" Puller, history's most decorated Marine. Louis Puller, Jr. was 48 years old. We'll have an excerpt from a recent television interview with him at the end of tonight's program.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to health care politics, tension on the West Bank, and computer software piracy. FOCUS - HEALTHY DEBATE

MR. LEHRER: Many things are happening in Congress on health care reform. Physicians and coalitions are shifting and forming as various decision times approach. Taking stock of it all is our lead task tonight. We'll hear from four members of Congress who are involved right after this backgrounder by Kwame Holman.

MR. HOLMAN: This morning, Senate Finance Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan convened the last of thirty hearings his committee has held on the issue of health care reform.

SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN: And we have been at this a consider while, and we'd like to think to some advantage.

MR. HOLMAN: The committee will have a big say in what health care legislation eventually will look like, and more and more people say it will look like the plan offered by Rhode Island Republican John Chafee. His plan, unlike the President's, places responsibility for acquiring health care coverage on the individual rather than on the employer. Sen. Chafee recently got the support of two moderate Democrats, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and David Boren of Oklahoma.

SEN. DAVID BOREN, [D] Oklahoma: With the least amount of government intrusion and the greatest amount of flexibility, I believe the Chafee bill represents the best hope of reaching the goals that the President has presented to the American people, and I hope our actions today will help speed the process, get it off high center, and move us toward that bipartisan consensus we need.

MR. HOLMAN: But Finance Committee member Jay Rockefeller, a staunch supporter of the Clinton plan, says he sees most support moving toward the President.

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER, [D] West Virginia: There's support for Chafee's bill on the Finance Committee, obviously. He's on it. But I think what the story of the last two months has been, particularly in the private "members only" meetings that we have every Tuesday and every Thursday, that there are more questions raised about the Chafee bill and that the President's bill is coming on stronger, not all aspects of it, but the major aspects of it. Also, George Mitchell's become much more active on the Senate Finance Committee, and he's doing a lot of work that has not been done up to this point.

MR. HOLMAN: Even the strongest supporters of the Clinton plan are looking to improve it, and yesterday, Ted Kennedy, chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, unveiled a plan that requires all but the smallest employers to provide health care coverage for employees. It also makes participation in large health care purchasing groups voluntary.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, Chairman, Labor and Human Resources: There is a strong support for the objectives of the President's program in reaching universality in health care, in doing it in a way that families can afford to pay, the emphasis that has been placed on preventative health care, and also to try and do it in a way which will optimize the opportunities for choice for the American citizens.

MR. HOLMAN: Kennedy promises to complete action on health care in his committee later this month. Moynihan says the Finance Committee won't finish until mid June.

MR. LEHRER: Now to four other members of Congress who are key players in the debate and the decisions that lie ahead. Sen. John Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, is sponsor of a moderate Republican health plan. Sen. Harris Wofford, Democrat of Pennsylvania, is a supporter of President Clinton's plan. Congressman Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, who also supports the President as well as a single payer approach, and Congressman Bill Archer, Republican of Texas, supports limited insurance reform. First to you, Sen. Chafee, the decision by two Democrats, Senators Kerrey and Boren, to support your plan, is that an isolated event, or part of a big movement?

SEN. CHAFEE: Well, I like to think, Jim, it's part of a big movement where you've got room for others. There's plenty of room on this, on this train, and I hope we'll get others in the future. I expect we will, but I don't want to reveal the names or anything like that in advance.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Wofford, what's your reading of the Kerrey and Boren move?

SEN. WOFFORD: Well, the big movement is for all of us that are serious about this, and John Chafee is certainly one who is very serious and thoughtful, and he has a plan that moves us to universal coverage. He supports voluntary purchasing cooperatives, which I've been supporting for some years. The key thing -- the train that is moving is the train to find, to move to universal coverage and to find a common ground. John Chafee's plan and the President's plan and the new Labor Committee bill that Sen. Kennedy introduced that I helped work on are first cousins, and I think we're going to find a family reunion in a little while.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Chafee, specifically, the thing -- the main part of your plan that has caused -- brought the most attention to it I guess you would say is the individual mandate, rather than on employers it's on individuals to acquire health insurance of some kind. Why do you think that's the best way to go?

SEN. CHAFEE: Well, first, Jim, I'm not so sure that it's accurate to say that that's the principal difference between our plan and the administration's plan. Our plan doesn't have the intensive regulation, the price controls, the requirements that somebody must belong to a massive alliance. All of those things I think the American public is very nervous with. I think the American public wants first to get covered those who presently aren't covered rather than as the Clinton plan rushes out and gives a whole series of added benefits to those who are already covered. I think the American public believes, as I do, that this thing, we'd better approach it cautiously, it is potentially extremely expensive, as you heard from Mr. Rostenkowski just a few minutes ago. And I think those are the things that they look to in our plan. Now, in our plan in the final analysis, the responsibility is on the individual but every employer who is currently covering his or her employees will continue to do so under our plan, I believe. There will be a great incentive to do so, because if we don't bring down the cost to the insurance, at least we're confident that we can hold those costs steady and they won't go up, which is a big threat to employers now who are trying to cover their employees.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Archer, as a Republican in the House, how do you feel about the Chafee approach, the individual mandate approach, specifically?

REP. ARCHER: Well, Jim, I've got a little bit of a problem with it, because when the federal government begins to put in mandate, then they begin to tell you what kind of policies that you can have and ultimately, you do have a federal bureaucracy. In addition, there's a question about how do you force individuals to do it. There are many people in this country who may not want to do it. Do you put 'em in jail? Do you put a lien on their house, their car, garnish their wages? What do you do? It all sounds good. I think we should strive at getting at the real problems that people contact me about and contact all of us about, and that is insurance reform so that people will have access whether they've had a preexisting illness or not, where there's affordability, where there is small group insurance reform, where small businesses get affordable insurance for their employees. In addition, we'd better talk about getting costs down. You don't do it by simply saying, oh, we're only going to appropriate a certain amount of money, and we won't lose quality of care. We've got to have tough tort reform at the beginning, and we've got to have antitrust reform. And in addition, we've got to have tax deductibility for health insurance premiums for all Americans that is equal 100 percent, whether you're employed, unemployed, self-employed.

MR. LEHRER: All right. You've raised a lot of issues there. Congressman Rangel, specifically what do you think of the individual mandate compared with the employer mandate that's in the President's plan?

REP. RANGEL: Well, I don't support that, but I don't think that is important as the fact that Sen. Chafee does support universal coverage. I think we've reached the point now that the Clintons, both the President and the First Lady, can say that we won a battle for the hearts and minds of the American people where those that have insurance, those with under-insurance recognize it's the best interest of all Americans, a national interest, if everyone has coverage and adequate coverage. We're losing productivity, we're losing money, when people are sick, and this investment and making certain that people can have preventive care in the long run is good for America, and I think, as Chairman Rostenkowski does, that it's the most important challenge to the Congress since the Social Security Act. Once we accept the fact that we're going to have universal coverage, once we know that we're going to have portability and that no one will be denied access to health care because of a preexisting condition, then the second and third question is: Does it contain cost and how are you going to pay for it? These are the questions that we're wrestling with, and I'm confident that when we all come together with the same objectives, that the President, the nation, and the Congress will be proud.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Archer, do you agree with Congressman Rangel that the consensus is to universal coverage, the only questions now are how to pay for it and what the coverage is going to be, Congressman Archer?

REP. ARCHER: Well, that's not what the public opinion polls are saying. I think we'd better listen to the American people, because 75 to 80 percent of the American people are not unhappy with their health insurance coverage today. They fear the possibility of losing it in the event they lose their job.

MR. LEHRER: Let me -- no, my question was: Do you believe that the consensus in the Congress is for universal coverage?

REP. ARCHER: Well, it depends on what you mean by universal coverage. I think there certainly is a consensus for universal access to affordable insurance. Universal coverage is an illusion, Jim. It doesn't exist anywhere in the world. In Canada, where they've got a total government system, there are 3 percent of the people that aren't covered. In Germany, which the President alludes to all the time, 25 percent of the people can opt out of the government plan. You're not going to reach universal coverage with any plan. You only move toward the goal of getting more people covered and giving them access to coverage.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Chafee -- let me ask Sen. Chafee to respond to that, Congressman Archer's point that all you can hope for at this point is to move toward universal coverage, you're not going to get it.

SEN. CHAFEE: Well, I don't think we want to quibble over have we gotten the final 2 percent, and we'd like to get everybody obviously, but in any kind of a program like this, there are going to be some, regrettably, that are going to fall through the cracks. In the program I envision you'd have 97 percent coverage, and hopefully, you'd get more. But I don't think that's -- I don't think that's the principal point. The principal point is: Should you be striving to cover everybody, and should there be some kind of requirement that people have coverage? Now some people in some way are probably going to avoid the requirement, but that takes a lot of skillful dodging, certainly under our program, to do that.

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

SEN. CHAFEE: So under our program, we require that everybody be covered.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Wofford, is it -- whether it's done individually, whether it's done through employer mandates, is requiring health insurance, even though a few may fall through the cracks, is it crucial that there be some kind of requirement if, in fact, this whole thing is going to move toward universal coverage?

SEN. WOFFORD: Yes, that's what universal coverage has to mean, but the practical way to move forward that way is to build on the system that's working now, the system in which for most people 80 percent of the people that have health insurance today, more than that, are getting it in a shared contribution system. Their employer pays the larger part of it. And I think the way to move the rest of the way to universal coverage is to apply that. Now, here in Congress, we have just that. And I put forth to my colleagues -- I've been doing this for quite a while -- and I think we're picking it up now -- the test is: Will we come out with a bill that enables the American people to have the kind of choices, the kind of comprehensive health care benefits, the employer contributing 72, 75 percent in our cases, that John and I and members of Congress have? I think we can do it. But I think we need to do it that way.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Kennedy's plan specifically has that in that, doesn't it?

SEN. WOFFORD: I've been one of the key people pressing the federal employees plan, which is available to 9 million federal employees and their dependents, as the model of how we can do it to arrange choice of doctors and plans, more choice, not less choice, not government run medicine, but private health insurance, and the employer paying, the way most employers now do, the majority of the premiums.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Wofford, just as a practical political matter in the, in the Senate and in the House as well, does the Kennedy approach diminish President Clinton's proposal, or does it help it? What's your reading of that?

SEN. WOFFORD: It moves the way I've been urging for months, that we streamline, trim it, make it clear that it's not more government-run medicine, that it's less regulatory, that the cooperatives for large purchasing pools are voluntary. We've gone in the mark up from our committee that we're going to start next Wednesday shaping, we've gone a long way in the direction of our colleagues in the Chafee bill, and that's what I mean by a family reunion. We've got to go the rest of the way in the next month in a non-partisan fashion that deals with all the serious plans. There are some like the Medi-save plan that are not serious, that don't take us anywhere toward universal coverage. But John Chafee's plan does take us to universal coverage a couple of years after the President's proposal and a little longer than I would want to take, but I think we can come together with a plan that makes sense if we use the test of seeing Americans have the kind of health care plan that members of Congress have arranged for themselves.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Rangel, do you and your colleagues, your fellow liberal Democrats, who originally were, were pushing single payer, you moved off single payer a little bit, is that correct?

REP. RANGEL: Actually, whether people admit it or not, all of the plans that we have been discussing we have moved off. We are working now on the Clinton principles as outlined in the State of the Union Message, and that is that we have to work together to come up with a plan that everyone has coverage. And we have to make certain that it's paid for, that it has cost containment. And there's a large element in the Congress that historically would oppose anything that involves the United States government mandate. They fought against Medicaid, they fought against Medicare, and they fought against the Social Security Act. So what we are doing now is working off of the best that we can come up with. We haven't run away from single payer, but that's not even on the table. What is on the table in the Ways & Means Committee is a proposal that came from the Health Subcommittee headed by Pete Stark and presented to the full committee as something that we're working on. It covers the 40 million people by expanding Medicare, which has worked, Part C, and it says the small business people are going to have to contribute to the costs of having their employees insurance -- insured and that you don't get a free ride. We have a good package. The question is: Is it so big that we can't raise the money for it? Will we have to cut down the amount of the benefits? And how long would it take for it to become fully implemented? And just how much of it is the Congress willing to ask for taxes? I think we all are working toward the same common goal, except those who fudge on the question as to what does it mean when you say universal coverage. To me, it's a basic question that is every American, black, white, poor, or wealthy, will have access to sound health care. Now for those who want to quibble about what it means, it means everybody.

MR. LEHRER: Is he talking about you, Congressman Archer?

REP. ARCHER: Well, Jim, Americans today have access to health care regardless of their status in our society. The question is more whether they've got a piece of paper in insurance or a government program. Let me respond to Sen. Wofford. Medi-Save is perhaps one of the truly innovative proposals that's out there that can be part of most any plan because it permits the employer to set aside tax deductibly to each employee a certain amount of money, and then that becomes part of a deduction, deductible policy, which is an umbrella over that. The employee then goes out and buys their own medical care with that amount of money. And if it's in excess of that, then a major medical policy covers it -- is the only plan that puts in place the impact of the consumer, rather than a third party payer. And what Germany has found is that where you have a third party payer, you have tremendous additional utilization, and your bills go through the roof. Medi-Save is one of the truly creative proposals for reform.

MR. LEHRER: But us a practical matter --

REP. ARCHER: As an option, as an option to be part of whatever plan.

REP. RANGEL: I would just like to say that Bill Archer knows that we have tens of millions of working people that many of them are working below the poverty line. They don't belong to unions. They don't have any insurance at all. They can't afford to pay for any insurance because they're living below the poverty line. The employee has not given them anything, and so how they have access to health care I don't know what world Bill Archer's living in.

REP. ARCHER: Well, this has nothing do with Medi-Save, Jim. This -- Charlie is talking about something else here.

REP. RANGEL: I'm talking about access to health care.

REP. ARCHER: Medi-Save would be available to any employer that wanted to use it as an option for their employees.

MR. LEHRER: But let me ask you this, Congressman Archer, as a practical matter, Medi-Save, the Senator is right, Sen. Wofford is right, that Medi-Save is not in the forefront of the debate right now though, right?

REP. ARCHER: It is in the minds of many of us, and it is an integral part of the leadership package called the Michel-Lawton Bill that was drafted over a two and a half year period, and has been before the Congress now since 1992.

MR. LEHRER: But I was referring specifically to a letter that you wrote to Congressman Rostenkowski that I got a copy of -- that everybody had a copy of -- where you conceded yourself that the Michel plan was not -- was not as viable as you would wish it were, and you were ready to talk to the leadership of the -- the Democratic leadership to work for a compromise, is that --

REP. ARCHER: I would not say it is not viable. I think it is viable, but what we wanted to do was express our desire --

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

REP. ARCHER: -- a desire for a bipartisan plan where we would cooperate without fixed definements that might be highly controversial.

REP. RANGEL: The only thing that Democrats are asking is that you accept the fact that everyone has health coverage, and then we can bargain and negotiate how we get there and how we raise the money to pay for it. But once you fudge on the question of everyone having coverage by saying that everyone now has access, and I give you the example of working poor who have nothing except emergency rooms, those rural people who are working people that don't even have any facilities, I don't know what you're talking about when you say everyone has access. Everyone does not have access.

MR. LEHRER: Let me go to Sen. Chafee on that question, just on the question of what happens on here on out. You've heard Congressman Archer speaks for your fellow Republicans more conservative than you are, supporting a different, a different approach than you are. Where's all this thing headed, and is there going to be a Republican approach and a Democratic approach, or are we beyond that now?

SEN. CHAFEE: I believe in the Senate the action is going to take place in the Finance Committee. The chairman, Sen. Pat Moynihan, is dedicated to having a bipartisan bill emerge. All the principal -- not all but most of the principal players are on the Finance Committee, Sen. Dole, Sen. Mitchell, Sen. Durenberger, Sen. Rockefeller, myself, a series of others, who've been very active in health care reform, and I believe that we're going to be able to come out of that committee with a very good bipartisan bill that is going to have universal coverage, that is going to do something about cost containment, and those are the principal objectives. Cover those who aren't yet covered and, and don't concentrate on enlarging the benefits for those who are already covered until we can get those who aren't covered covered. And, Jim, so many of those who aren't covered are children. That's my objective, and I believe that's the objective of, of the -- we're going to come out with a good committee -- a good bill, and it's going to pass on the floor.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Wofford, let me ask you this. There have been a lot of -- a lot of reporting in the last couple of days that the problem of the Senate Finance Committee is that Sen. Moynihan wants -- he's more interested in a bipartisan bill, one that has much more -- many more votes -- than he is in particular principles that the liberal Democrats and in some ways the President want in a final plan. What's your -- where do you come down on that?

SEN. WOFFORD: Well, I think in both committees we're going to come out with serious, good bills, two committees with jurisdiction, including the Labor Committee that Sen. Kennedy chairs that I'm on. I think George Mitchell hit it right on target when he said the most important thing probably he will do -- and he said he was not going before the Supreme Court in order to do it -- is to bring these together in a bipartisan fashion in a bill that will meet the needs of the American people. When we have made clear to the American people that they're going to get the kind of health care choices that we in Congress get for ourselves, when we've made that clear, then the votes are going to follow, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Congressman Archer, bipartisanship to one person means another thing to another. Do you see anything in what, what the Democrats on this program have said? I mean, just Sen. Wofford and Congressman Rangel, do you see a possibility that you and your fellow conservative Republicans could support anything that they have?

REP. ARCHER: Sure, Jim. We've been working on health care reform for years, as I mentioned, before Clinton was even elected, and long before his plan ever came out, because we know there are problems with the system. The question is: Do you end up with a bureaucratic nightmare where the federal government is beginning to destroy choices even though they tell you you're still going to have the choices, where they're going to drive up over-utilization and the costs, and thereby put a tremendous burden of tax liability on the American people, or whether they're going to keep the kind of system we have and build on it, so we can improve it, and extend it to more people without destroying the best question health care in the world?

MR. LEHRER: Just quickly, Congressman Rangel, you see it working, right? You see something going to happen here in this Congress.

REP. RANGEL: Something's going to happen. It should be bipartisan. If someone is sick, they're not going to ask at the hospital or the doctor whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. They're going to ask: Are you covered? And that's the key question.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

REP. RANGEL: Now, we want to work with the Republicans, but as long as they fudge on the objectives, it means they don't want to be players. They want to becritics. And that won't work, and if we have to do it the Democratic way, we're going to do it that way too.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

REP. RANGEL: But we're not going to let down the country and the President.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.

MS. WARNER: Ahead on the NewsHour, Arabs and Jews on the West Bank, computers and copyright laws, and author Lewis Puller, Jr. UPDATE - HEBRON AFTERMATH

MS. WARNER: Next tonight, a return visit to the West Bank town of Hebron, a place heavy with ancient and recent history for both Arabs and Jews. Arabs and Jews live side by side in Hebron today, but they have little to say to each other, particularly after February's slaying of more than 20 Arabs by a Jewish settler in a building holy to both their religions. Liz Donnelly of Independent Television News prepared this report on Hebron after the massacre.

LIZ DONNELLY: Hebron is the most fiercely Islamic city on the occupied West Bank. Like most of the rest of the territory, the city is not included in this stage of the peace process and continues to come under Israeli occupation. Seven weeks after the massacre here, the Cave of Nastalah, or the Tomb of the Patriarchs, is still closed. This is the most holy site in Hebron, where both Muslims and Jews come to worship, and it's now come to symbolize the deepening conflict between the two communities. The atmosphere is extremely volatile and leading Palestinians and Israelis believe that another major explosion here could easily derail moves towards Palestinian autonomy. The Hebron massacre forced the Israeli prime minister to take measures against the settlers, four hundred of whom live right in the center of the town. They outlawed two of their most extreme organizations and arrested leading members. Barricaded in behind bars and dependent on the army for protection, the families in Beit Adesor were angered by the arrests. This is one of three small Jewish communities here. Ironically, in the wake of the massacre, they've begun to feel safer. Palestinians are frequently confined to their homes by the army.

RUTH HIZMY, Hebron Settler: The market is closed. There are less people walking around. So it's much more safer for us. We can -- when I get out, I don't have to walk in a big crowd of people, so I feel a lot safer.

MS. DONNELLY: Do you feel normally intimidated if you have to walk through a crowd in Hebron?

RUTH HIZMY: Yes. It isn't a safe place at all.

MS. DONNELLY: This week an international monitoring force came to Hebron. Massively outnumbered by journalists, they were immediately dubbed "the ice cream soldiers." Their presence was a concession by Israel's prime minister. Government ministers readily admit the monitors will have no power, saying their presence is a palliative to help build the confidence of Palestinians. Sheikh Adel Edrees was leading the prayers in the Cave of Makhthalar when the massacre happened. One of his brothers was killed, another wounded. The family, obviously deeply affected by the event, want the settlers to be removed from the center of town and are dismissive of the measures Israel has taken.

SHEIKH ADEL EDREES: [speaking through interpreter] The actions only increase the pressure on the Moslem people and pamper the settlers who live here. If you go to the market or the mosque, you will only see checkpoints, soldiers, and settlers.

MS. DONNELLY: Large concrete walls were erected after the massacre to divide Palestinians from settlers. Concrete bollards throughout the city help the army to close areas off but cause constant traffic jams for Palestinians. Hebron was the most successful business center in the occupied West Bank, but in the weeks since the massacre, its economy has suffered dramatically. The local Chamber of Commerce puts the loss at over 100 million pounds. The deserted area around me was a thriving market right in the heart of the city. Now, it's closed to Palestinians. Only the settlers can pass through. Up above the market, the few Palestinian families remaining complain of constant harassment by the settlers. Samira Al-Sharabi lives on the front line alongside a Jewish settlement. She showed us bullet holes in her window and says the soldiers told her not to respond.

SAMIRA AL-SHARABI: [speaking through interpreter] I don't have anywhere in the house which wasn't stoned by them or any glass not broken by them. Even standing here we could be stoned.

MS. DONNELLY: The settlers say they built their homes on land belonging to Jews massacred here in 1929. They believe they have a sacred right to live here. High above Hebron, overlooking the city, most settlers live in Kyriat Arba, home to Baruch Goldstein, responsible for the massacre and to some of those arrested in its wake. Today many are reluctant to speak their minds, fearing they too will be imprisoned. They do talk of Palestinian attacks.

ELYAKIM HA'ETZNI, Kyriat Arba Settler: Ask me. I was stoned by a dog and did nothing. And most of the Israelis suffer this not because we are afraid of the Arabs but because we have a terror, a Jewish tradition terror, and a Jewish media terror behind our backs.

MS. DONNELLY: Despite their close proximity, there's virtually no discussion between Jew and Arab. Noam Arnum, who lives here with his wife and six children, is a lecturer in history who plays an active role in the settler movement. We invited him to meet Khalid Amayreh, a Palestinian writer and a member of the Islamic movement which has a great deal of support in Hebron, and is far more radical than the PLO.

KHALID AMAYREH, Islamic Movement: The problem here is they want to make our life an enduring hell. They want us to leave. They consider this land a, a Jewish land, and they don't. They consider us children of a lesser God, something like that, you know.

MS. DONNELLY: Is that fair?

NOAM ARNON, Hebron Settler: It's not right. I just wonder how an intelligent man can speak like this. 99 percent of the terror activities that took place in Hebron were of Arabs against Jews until the last event that happened here. So you can take things out of proportion. Of course, we are against any killing, any bloodshed. We won't, as I told you. Now everyone can see that the terror has two sides. Let's close the page of terror. Let's open a new page of life.

KHALID AMAYREH: What he's saying here is really by and large public relations, you know. We have seen Jews who called for the expulsion, the total expulsion of Arabs. Mayor Kahane, for example, wrote a book entitled They Must Go. Who must go? The Palestinians.

MS. DONNELLY: Where can you go from here? You're both meeting here now. You're thrashing it out. Is there any room for any sort of rapprochement?

KHALID AMAYREH: The wrongs which have been committed by Jews against Arabs have to be rectified. And, yes, if they are interested in opening up a new page, they would, you know, we would welcome that.

NOAM ARNON: I would either expect you or somebody else to speak to the -- to the heads of the Islam here in this area, in the world, and to tell them that the building over the Cave of Makhthalar which was a synagogue and a church and a mosque must be opened for every religion, for every man.

MS. DONNELLY: But Muslims now praying in other mosques believe worshipping above the Cave of Makhthalar should be for them alone. The scars of the massacre are still visible and an independent inquiry is soon to report on whether it could have been prevented. Israel's government is relying on the PLO, strengthened by the unfolding peace process, to prevent attacks against Israelis being mounted from Hebron. But it's questionable whether the PLO would have sufficient support here. Removing settlers from the city center could reduce Palestinian attacks. For the time being, the government calculates the settlers have too much support to make this politically feasible. FOCUS - OPEN SESAME

MS. WARNER: Next tonight, a story about computer pirates on the information highway. Time Magazine's technology editor, Philip Elmer DeWitt, reports.

MR. DeWITT: This innocent computer disk drive is the scene of an alleged crime. It's one of 1300 computer work stations scattered across the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The government says that a $1 million worth of computer software was illegally copied from two of these disk drives. This is the alleged criminal, David LaMacchia, a junior at MIT. He's charged with operating the system that made the software available to anyone who wanted it.

DONALD STERN, U.S. Attorney: The indictment alleged that the very purpose of this scheme, the whole reason for doing it, at least a major reason for doing it, was to create a bulletin board which would encourage and ask people to place copyrighted software on the bulletin board and then have people take it off without paying for it.

MR. DeWITT: According to the indictment, David LaMacchia built his pirate bulletin board on a pair of MIT computers and made them accessible to the Internet. The computer bulletin board is a place someone designates on a computer disk drive where, like a real bulletin board, people can post information for others to read or copy. Sending information by computer to a bulletin board is called uploading. Taking information from a bulletin board to your own computer is called downloading. Thousands of bulletin boards can be found on the Internet, an international computer network that links some 20 million people around the world. Through the Internet, people with computers can exchange mail, join discussion groups, and gather information on every subject imaginable. They can also download any one of thousands of computer programs. Some of these programs are free to anyone who wants them. Some of them are copyrighted and may not be shared without payment. According to the indictment, David LaMacchia was trafficking in copyrighted programs. Copying software, any software, couldn't be easier. Anyone with a personal computer can do it simply by typing a few commands or like this, by dragging an icon, a picture representing a program, on to an empty disk. There are tens of millions of people in the U.S. who have all the equipment they need to make a working copy of a copyrighted program, and tens of millions more around the world are connected to the Internet. LaMacchia's board was available to all of them. It was like opening the door to a software store. In particular, the indictment names three popular computer programs that LaMacchia's alleged to have requested: Sim City 2000, an educational game; Word Perfect, a word processing program; and an electronic accounting spreadsheet called Excel. The U.S. Attorney says that what LaMacchia did was a crime. The logical charge would be copyright infringement, but the prosecution preferred to charge him with wire fraud.

DONALD STERN: Wire fraud is essentially a flexible law which permits prosecution wherever wires are used, in this case the telephone wires, are used as part of a criminal conspiracy to break the law, much like mail fraud. In this case, in fact, we believe that the fit is even tighter, because it was the very wire that was part of the conspiracy.

MR. DeWITT: Regardless of the charge, the case is about software piracy, and the software industry is terrified by the scale of it. Ken Wasch is president of the Software Publishers Association.

KENNETH WASCH, President, Software Publishers Association: It's a very significant problem. In the United States, we estimate the level of software piracy or the amount of revenue lost to our industry through piracy in businesses is about $1.5 billion.

MR. DeWITT: A year?

KENNETH WASCH: A year. That's $7 billion internationally.

MR. DeWITT: In the early 1980s, software publishers put codes on their programs that would prevent other users from copying them. Copy protection was wildly unpopular because it made it difficult for legitimate users to load the programs onto their hard drives, and by the late 1980s, consumer pressure had forced software publishers to drop it. So the publishers decided to try putting pressure on the people doing the copying. One of the things they did was to start a hotline where anybody can report the use of illegal software.

SPOKESPERSON: [on phone] Good morning, SPA.

MR. DeWITT: The hotline gets twenty to thirty calls a day.

SPOKESPERSON: [on phone] Okay. Do you have any idea how long the piracy has been taking place?

MR. DeWITT: Many from former or disgruntled employees.

SPOKESPERSON: [on phone] We keep our sources 100 percent completely confidential.

MR. DeWITT: The Association collected $3.6 million last year in fines and penalties, most of it from large corporations. Software piracy among individual computer users is much harder to control.

MIKE GODWIN, Electronic Frontier Foundation: Every one in the television audience knows somebody who is using an unlicensed copy of software. In the broadest sense, you could call every one of those people a software pirate.

KENNETH WASCH: You can copy audio tapes and you can copy videotapes but the copies aren't nearly as good as the original. You could also copy a book on a photocopy machine which left with a mess of paper that's not as good as the original. But with software, the copies are identical copies, every bit as good as the original.

MR. DeWITT: Computers like the Internet compound the problem.

KENNETH WASCH: The Internet is like a digital candy store without a cashier, or without a door. Anybody can walk into the candy store and take whatever they'd like, really, virtually without any controls.

MR. DeWITT: Legal experts question whether laws written to protect the printed word will protect computer programs that can be so quickly and easily duplicated.

MIKE GODWIN: In the broader view, I think that you have to look at what is going to happen to the regime of intellectual property to copyright, you know, a world where anybody can infringe and almost everybody who infringes can get away with it.

SCOTT CHARNEY, Department of Justice: The fact that it's easy to copy software doesn't mean it's okay to copy software.

MR. DeWITT: Scott Charney is the Justice Department's chief computer crime expert in an administration that has staked its future on the information superhighway, whereas, they now prefer to call it the National Information Infrastructure.

SCOTT CHARNEY: This administration is committed to the notion of a National Information Infrastructure, and we want everyone to use the networks and enjoy the benefits, and when you have that kind of situation, you also have to look at the so-called "dark side," and how are you going to encourage people to use the network to its fullest but not use it to do bad things like make copies of copyrighted software.

MR. DeWITT: Throwing the book at David LaMacchia might send the powerful signal that software piracy will not be tolerated by this administration. But according to Harvey Silvergate, LaMacchia's defense attorney, trying to make a test case out of what David LaMacchia is alleged to have done may backfire on the government.

HARVEY SILVERGATE, LaMacchia's Lawyer: There is no allegation that David LaMacchia did any uploading or any downloading or used any of the software himself. His role was limited to what we call in cyberspace the system, the system's operator, its so-called "sys op."

MR. DeWITT: That's where the First Amendment comes in. According to Silvergate, a computer system operator who makes a bulletin board available is in the same legal position as a librarian who puts a copier near a stack of copyright books knowing that they are likely to be copied, or a newspaper publisher who runs ads for massage parlors, knowing that they may be fronts for prostitution. The librarian and the publisher are protected by the First Amendment. According to Silvergate, so is David LaMacchia.

HARRY SILVERGATE: I just don't think under the First Amendment you can hold the person who controls the medium responsible for how other people use the medium even if the person knows how it's being used and makes it available for such use.

KENNETH WASCH: The LaMacchia case is not about First Amendment freedoms. It's about taking copyrighted works which are protected by federal law and by international treaty and deliberately making it available for free against the wishes of the copyright holder.

MR. DeWITT: But, again, LaMacchia has not been charged with copyright violation, and it is not clear whether the laws written to protect tangible property can be applied to intangible property like the information contained in software. This is a sore point for the Justice Department.

SCOTT CHARNEY: I don't know quite why people who treat copyrights any different than anything else. And we say General Motors makes a car, so they should give them away. Of course, they shouldn't give away the cars. It costs money to make the car, and they need to make a profit and they need to employ people. Why is it different for a software company? No one's been able to explain that to me.

MR. DeWITT: MIT is full of whiz kids like LaMacchia. The world is going to need them to build and run the information superhighway. They are among the country's best and brightest, and at schools like MIT, they are encouraged to experiment and test the limits, but some think the awe with which society holds computer whiz kids is part of the problem.

SCOTT CHARNEY: We are in a unique environment where the children have the technology that their parents and their teachers don't understand, and so while normally what we rely upon is adults to teach ethics to children, here we have children with the technology and no one is teaching the ethics at all.

MR. DeWITT: The Software Publishers Association is trying to tackle that problem by communicating with young computerusers through a medium they're familiar with, music videos, like this one which they distribute free to teachers and schools.

YOUNG MAN IN PROMOTIONAL VIDEO: Look, I brought a disk, and we could copy this, okay, and we could play it on my brother's computer.

YOUNG WOMAN IN PROMOTIONAL VIDEO: No problem.

[PROMOTIONAL VIDEO SEGMENT]

MR. DeWITT: The kids who watch this rap video today will be cruising the information highway tomorrow. That's why government and industry are working so hard to put the fear of copyright law in impressionable young minds. They also know that if they fail, a software piracy problem that is already measured in billions of dollars a year could quickly mushroom out of control. FINALLY - 1945-1994

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight some words from Lewis Puller, Jr. Puller won the Pulitzer Prize for his book about his experiences as the son of "Chesty" Puller, the most decorated U.S. Marine in history and as a young Marine lieutenant, himself, in Vietnam. The son lost both legs and parts of both hands there when he stepped on a land mine. Back home, he was a frequent victim of depression and alcoholism. He died last night from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the age of 48. Here's an excerpt from a recent interview he did with our public television colleague, Charlie Rose.

LEWIS PULLER, JR., 1992 Pulitzer Prize Winner: [January 21, 1993, "Charlie Rose"] None of the lessons that I had learned when I was growing up seemed to fit. I mean, my father had taught me that it was nothing more you could for your country than to don the uniform in wartime and go off and fight. His brother had done that. His brother had been killed in the Second World War, and we have a history that goes all the way back to the Revolutionary War. When my time came, I put on the uniform and I did that. As a young man, I had seen -- Richmond was the nearest big town -- I grew up in the country. And I would go to Richmond with my father and hold his hand and strangers would come across the street and shake his hand. And I wanted some of that. And I only knew one way to get it.

CHARLIE ROSE: In awe?

LEWIS PULLER, JR.: Exactly. And I wanted some of that adulation, if you will. And I only knew one way to get it, and that was to put on the uniform and do what he had done. But when I got back from Vietnam, it wasn't there. If anything, it was scorn and indifference. And I started thinking, and I had a platoon back in Vietnam, and those men were still getting up every day in the mud and getting their guts shot at and getting torn apart, and there didn't seem to be any appreciation. I mean, for what?

CHARLIE ROSE: And you'd left your arms and your hands -- part of your hands and two legs there.

LEWIS PULLER, JR.: The old rules didn't seem to fit. I had had this -- I was brought up to respect authority. I thought that our leaders could do no wrong. And I had to shake my head and wonder what the hell was going on in Washington. I mean, we were being lied to on a daily basis. And it just -- it just -- it ignited a terrible depression for me. I had friends who were killed. I had friends who lost arms and legs and eyes. I didn't know why I'd been there. It didn't seem to make any sense.

CHARLIE ROSE: When did you come to understand?

LEWIS PULLER, JR.: It took a long time. What I did, I held it all inside because society wouldn't let me talk about it. And I drank every night, and I got up the next morning, and I never grew. And the same problems were always there. And finally I got so far into the bottle that I realized it was going to kill me, and I finally had to put that aside, and some growth did start. And I started doing some constructive things with my life, instead of some destructive things. And I realized that I had to write this book.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you harbor still any bitterness to anyone?

LEWIS PULLER, JR.: I, I think I would be lying if I said that I don't have bad days. However, the feelings that I have about Vietnam are not nearly as intense or as invasive as they once were. It used to be that I would get out of bed and roll into my wheelchair thinking about Vietnam, and I would go to bed at night thinking about it. That doesn't happen anymore. I have made, I think, a separate peace, and I think that's what the book is all about.

CHARLIE ROSE: And the separate peace is --

LEWIS PULLER, JR.: The separate peace is that I have found some serenity, and I have been able to put my life in order, and I think that I have been able as best I can to put Vietnam behind me. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, President Clinton said he was close to a decision on his next Supreme Court nominee. And the Senate joined the House in passing a bill assuring safe access to abortion clinics. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Margaret. We'll see you tomorrow night with political analysis by Shields and Gigot, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.