The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Thursday, Senators Daschle and Lott say good-bye to the Foster surgeon general nomination, Kwame Holman has a budget hit list report on mass transit, we have a debate about banning sex from cyberspace, and Charlayne Hunter-Gault conducts her fourth and final conversation about reforming welfare. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. FARNSWORTH: Republicans in the House and Senate today reached an agreement to balance the budget in seven years. It was announced late tonight by House Speaker Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Dole. The plan would slow spending for Medicare and Medicaid. It would also cut taxes by nearly $250 billion. President Clinton has proposed a different plan which would balance the budget in 10 years.

MR. LEHRER: Dr. Henry Foster's nomination for surgeon general died today in the United States Senate. Republicans successfully prevented a straight up or down vote on the nomination. A second attempt to end debate received fifty-seven votes, three short of the sixty needed to thwart a threatened Republican filibuster. The same thing happened yesterday. After today's vote, the nomination was removed from consideration under a prearranged plan by Majority Leader Bob Dole. Both sides held news conferences about the end result.

DR. HENRY FOSTER, Surgeon General Nominee: I am disappointed by today's outcome certainly. Would I have liked a different outcome? Absolutely. But I remain strong and honored by being the President's choice for surgeon general. I intend to keep fighting for the things I believe in with all of my heart.

SEN. PHIL GRAMM, [R] Texas: I believe that he was the wrong person in the wrong job at the wrong time, and I think the public interest was served. I also believe that it was vitally important four months ago for a few people to stand up and say no and make it clear that they were willing to use their full rights, including filibustering this nomination.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton said Senate Republicans had done a disservice to a good man and abused the use of the filibuster for political gain. We'll have more on the story right after this News Summary. Elizabeth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: British Prime Minister Major resigned as head of the Conservative Party today. He will remain prime minister while the party holds an election for a new leader. He said he would run in that election and would step down as prime minister if he lost. He spoke outside his official residence in London.

JOHN MAJOR, Prime Minister, Britain: I've now been prime minister for nearly five years. In that time, we've achieved a great deal, but for the last three years I've been opposed by a small minority in our party. During those three years there have been repeated threats of a leadership election. And each year they turned out to be phony threats. Now the same thing again is happening in 1995. I believe it's in no one's interest that this continues right through until November. It undermines the government, and it damages the Conservative Party. I am not prepared to see the party I care for laid out on the rack like this for any longer.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The leadership vote is scheduled for July 4th. Nationwide parliamentary elections willbe held in November. Russian President Yeltsin also took on a challenge to his leadership today. One day after the Russian parliament voted no confidence in his government, he threatened to force a second no confidence vote. If it passed, Yeltsin could dissolve the parliament. He also promised some officials would be fired over the Chechen hostage crisis.

MR. LEHRER: Chechen and Russian negotiators said today there was a breakthrough in peace talks. They signed a military protocol last night in the Chechen capital of Grozny. It calls for rebel disarmament and partial Russian troop withdrawal, among other things. The Chechens also said they would help find the rebel leader, whose troops killed dozens and took 2,000 hostages in Southern Russia -- in a Southern Russia hospital last week. Two people were killed, three wounded, in Sarajevo today when a Serb shell hit a crowd waiting for water. Twenty-one people have died there since Sunday as Serbs keep up their assault on the besieged city. They also blocked two aid convoys from reaching Sarajevo and another heading for the Muslim enclave of Gorazde.

MS. FARNSWORTH: U.S. and Japanese negotiators met twice today in Geneva but failed to make any progress in resolving their trade dispute. The U.S. is threatening to impose 100 percent tariffs on Japanese luxury cars if no agreement is reached by next Wednesday. The U.S. wants more access to Japanese markets for U.S. cars and auto parts. They plan to meet again tomorrow.

MR. LEHRER: A government commission began voting today on more military bases to close or cut back. The eight-member commission has to have its final list to President Clinton by July 1st. Among the votes today were those to close large Air Force maintenance depots at Kelly Air Force Base in Texas and McClellan in California.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The former head of United Way, William Aramony, was sentenced to seven years in prison today for stealing more than $600,000 from the charity. He was found guilty on 25 counts, including conspiracy, fraud, and income tax evasion. Aramony resigned as head of United Way in 1992, after 22 years in office. That's our summary of the news this Thursday. Now it's on to the defeat of the Foster nomination, proposed cuts in mass transit, cybersex, and a conversation about welfare. FOCUS - OUT FOR THE COUNT

MR. LEHRER: The killing of the Foster nomination is our lead story tonight. It happened in the Senate this afternoon when Republicans for a second day prevented the surgeon general nomination of Dr. Henry Foster from coming to a vote. Senate Majority Leader Dole then removed the nomination from consideration. Joining us now from Capitol Hill are two key leaders in this struggle, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, and the Senate Majority Whip, Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi. Sen. Lott, why did you all not allow a vote on this nomination?

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Whip: [Capitol Hill] Well, first of all, there was a vote on the nomination, and the way it was voted on is not unprecedented at all. In fact, we had two votes on the nomination. Bob Dole, I think, was very generous. Knowing that the votes were not there for it to move to a final passage, he still brought it up, after discussions with Tom Daschle, and we had two votes, but it was based on, on cloture or cutting off the debate. We've had votes like that all the way back to 1968. That was the vote that occurred on the nomination of Justice Rehnquist, so that was the vote.

MR. LEHRER: All right then, let me rephrase the question. Why did you not allow a simple majority vote on this nomination?

SEN. LOTT: Because the members felt like that it was important that we not approve this nomination, and we knew that there were not the votes there to cut off the, the filibuster, and that, that was the vote that was really going to count. We knew that was the case, and we were determined that he not be confirmed. We, frankly, we think that the surgeon general position has outlived its usefulness, and, and we didn't think this was the right nominee for this position, and so we used the proper rules of the Senate to block his confirmation.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Daschle, how do you read what happened today?

SEN. THOMAS DASCHLE, Minority Leader: [Capitol Hill] Well, Trent Lott is very eloquent and persuasive, but let me make sure everybody understands the facts here. A majority of the Senate have voted for Dr. Foster. A minority of the Senate would not allow Dr. Foster's nomination to go forth. This was not a vote on confirmation, because a majority of votes already exist for confirmation. What this was is a filibuster, a means parliamentarily to keep the Senate from voting on the key issue. There are a lot of Senators who said they would have voted for Dr. Foster's nomination had they been given that chance. They were denied that chance today, and unfortunately, it's a very, very rare thing to have had happen. We've had 27 nominations over the last twenty -- 26 nominations over the last 27 years. Only two have been prevented from getting confirmation, and those were both Democrats. Not one Republican nominee has ever been kept from being confirmed as a result of a filibuster. So this is a rare occurrence today, and unfortunately, the American people are the real losers.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lott --

SEN. LOTT: Let me tell you how rare it is. As a matter of fact, in the two previous administrations, 166 nominees were not even given the courtesy of a hearing at the committee level, let alone a vote in the committee or on the floor, so it's not unprecedented at all.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lott --

SEN. DASCHLE: We're talking here about judicial appointments, and that's an entirely different thing. These are major nominees for major appointments in any administration.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lott, yesterday on the floor of the Senate, a Republican, Sen. Specter, made the same point that, that Sen. Daschle made, he pointed out that the Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas, allowed a vote on John Tower, they didn't use the filibuster. What do you say to Sen. Specter?

SEN. LOTT: Well, as a matter of fact, this was a bipartisan vote. There were Republicans that did vote to move it on to a final passage, you know, that this is not unprecedented. I don't agree with Sen. Specter. He was one of the Republicans that did vote that way though, but I mean, there were some Democrats that voted to vote cloture, as a matter of fact, that probably would not have voted for him on final passage.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with Sen. Daschle that if it had, if you all had allowed a, a majority vote, that, that Dr. Foster would have been confirmed?

SEN. LOTT: We don't know that. As a matter of fact, it would have been very close as a matter of fact. You know, one thing I can do is count votes, and I think that there would have been at least forty-seven or forty-eight votes against him. And anytime you get within two or three votes in this city, anything can happen.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Daschle, what do you -- what is your position on -- everything has been flying on both sides of this about presidential politics. Sen. Dole said that this nomination was based on presidential politics when, when President Clinton made it. Of course, you all have said that what, what really was at work today and yesterday was presidential politics from a Republican side. What do you think about that?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, Jim, first of all, let me make sure. I think Trent Lott just acknowledged that a majority of the Senate would have voted for confirmation of, of the nominee. And going back to the presidential politics question throughout, let me just say Phil Gramm didn't take a day to give any consideration to Dr. Foster's nomination. Within a week, he said he was going to oppose it. He never took an opportunity to meet with Dr. Foster. He led the charge in the filibuster from the very beginning. He challenged Sen. Dole not to even bring it up. He made it very clear from the beginning that this was an issue that he was going to take out to the Republican caucuses and primaries to ensure that everyone understand where Sen. Dole is on this. He put Sen. Dole in a very difficult position. It came down to a fight, and we had a lot of Republicans who told us this, a fight between Sen. Gramm and Sen. Dole within the caucus. A lot of people said if we have to have that fight, we're going to side with Sen. Dole, we're going to protect him as the Majority Leader. They did that, and I think I can understand why, but it's unfortunate that a man of this caliber, a man with these qualifications, would be subjected to that kind of internal partisan fight. It was wrong, and it shouldn't happen.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lott.

SEN. LOTT: If I may respond to that, first of all, Sen. Gramm and Sen. Dole weren't fighting on this. They were together; they agreed. Now we can go back and look at when Dr. Foster was nominated and when Sen. Gramm really got involved in saying that he was going to oppose him, but I'd be willing to bet that wasn't until misinformation and incorrect information started coming out from the White House. And as far as the presidential politics, President Clinton made a bad choice. We need a surgeon general, if we're going to have one, that brings us together, that's not controversial. Three out of the last four surgeon generals, including Republican and Democrat, have -- the nominees have been highly controversial. You would think we would need a health advocate that would bring us together. This was a bad choice by President Clinton from the beginning. It was mishandled by the White House, and when you look at the record of Dr. Foster, the things that he was involved in over a period of years, he clearly was not the right choice for this position.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lott, what about Sen. Daschle's point though? Would you dispute the fact that -- the fact that Sen. Dole and Sen. Gramm are competing for the Republican presidential nomination affected the way this thing turned out?

SEN. LOTT: I don't think it affected the way it turned out. I mean, again, Sen. Gramm was against his nomination, but so was Sen. Dole. And Sen. Dole wasn't opposed to it because Sen. Gramm was opposed to it. Sen. Dole felt very strongly that while he is, I'm sure, a good man, and I'm sorry that Dr. Foster had to go through this process, he just thought that it was mishandled and that we had misleading, incorrect information from the nominee, himself, but also because in his background, when you look at the experiences he had with such programs as the syphilis program down in Tuskegee, that this was not the right image to project.

MR. LEHRER: So --

SEN. DASCHLE: Jim, let me just respond to that --

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

SEN. DASCHLE: -- if I can for just a minute. Ask the person who knows Dr. Foster best. You know who that was? It was the junior Senator from Tennessee, a physician, someone who knew Dr. Foster for over a decade, someone who watched his work, someone who had the opportunity to talk to a lot of others.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Frist, the Republican.

SEN. DASCHLE: Sen. Frist. Sen. Frist was one of those outspoken advocates of Dr. Foster, so I don't think there's any doubt if you really set politics aside, this individual, Dr. Foster, would have been confirmed overwhelmingly. Dr. Frist supported him, Dr. Frist knew him, and Dr. Frist knocked down every one of these fallacious, erroneous arguments time after time in the committee and elsewhere. I think that was really the key. Dr. Frist is the person I think who can best judge whether or not Dr. Foster was, was qualified, and he said unequivocally yes.

SEN. LOTT: Well, let me say that I know that Dr. Frist, frankly, was very torn by this nomination. He likes Dr. Foster very much as an individual, thinks he's done a lot of good things, but he really had a lot about too -- about his nomination for this particular position, but look, it wasn't just a philosophical or presidential issue. We have voted for other people in this administration with sane views on a lot of subjects, including the head of HHS and a number of other people that had the same type of philosophy of Dr. Foster, and the problem was putting a doctor in this position with the very controversial and misleading background in a number of areas that this particular nominee had.

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, it was controversial and misleading because there was so much misinformation generated by his opponents, misinformation time and again perpetrated by those who didn't want to see Dr. Foster confirmed.

SEN. LOTT: The first misinformation came from the White House, as a matter of fact, and I don't think they will deny that.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Daschle, what should the President do? There are two things, two theories going around after this happened today, one that the President should just leave this nomination there, and, and let it -- and not submit somebody else, or the others say, no, no, no, he should quickly offer another nominee. What do you think he ought to do?

SEN. DASCHLE: I think it's too early to make that decision. For now, the nomination is back on the calendar. I hope at least for a while he'll leave him just where he is. I think there could still be the opportunity at some point in the future to convince three independent Republican souls to join the rest of us. It's a matter of fairness. It's an issue that won't go away, and I think ultimately, there's still some prospect that we could be successful.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think about it?

SEN. LOTT: Well, he'd better make his mind up fast, because the position probably won't exist after this year. We really don't need it. That's a place where we could save some money. We can let the Health & Human Services Department do the work it does. We can let the private sector, AMA, the American Medical Association, do what this position has been doing in the past.

SEN. DASCHLE: That's not going to happen.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Daschle, what do you think on the political thing beyond the November politics? The pundits are already saying this may have helped the Republicans in their own fight for the Republican nomination, but it gives you all, the Democrats, a terrific issue to use in November against the Republican nominee, whether he be Sen. Dole, Sen. Gramm, or somebody else, the rejection of a black American doctor who is pro-choice.

SEN. DASCHLE: I don't think there's any doubt about it. The long- term politics of this plays in our favor. We aren't looking at politics today. Obviously, we would have liked to had the leadership Dr. Foster could have given the country, but the real losers here are the American people. And as this story gets out, as they understand what damage was down to his reputation and the opportunity for him to serve, I think there is no doubt that this administration and this Congress, at least the Democrats and those Republicans who supported him, will look all the better. So we're very optimistic about the long-term political ramifications of this, as well as what we consider to be the real history of this case. We hope it won't be repeated. But clearly, it's a lesson in unfairness that I hope we never repeat.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lott, are you worried about the long-term political problems this could present?

SEN. LOTT: Absolutely not. This is clearly a litmus test selection and a bad choice for this particular position, but we weren't looking at the politics of it. We were looking at this question: Was this the best man for this position at this time after what we went through with Dr. Joycelyn Elders, and the answer was clearly, no, we'll let the politics take care of itself.

MR. LEHRER: Well, Senators both, thank you both very much.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Still to come, mass transit on the hit list, sex in cyberspace, and rethinking welfare. FOCUS - THE HIT LIST

MS. FARNSWORTH: Next tonight, another item on the budget hit list being created by Republicans in Congress. In an effort to balance the budget by the year 2002, they are targeting hundreds of federal programs for spending cuts. This week, House Republicans have had federal funding for mass transit in their sites. Kwame Holman has our report.

KWAME HOLMAN: Public transit operators around the country are bracing for a sharp reduction in federal operating assistance, money that for two decades has helped keep the buses on the road and the subways on track. Transit systems use the money to help pay salaries, buy fuel, maintain equipment, and consequently, keep fares down. This year, that assistance totaled $710 million, but next year it could drop to only $400 million. That's the figure the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation approved yesterday when it marked up its spending priorities for 1996. Adamantly opposed to the entire subsidy program is Tom DeLay, Congressman from Houston and the third ranking Republican in the House.

REP. TOM DeLAY, [R] Texas: When you have huge cities like Houston, Texas, the No. 3 largest city in the United States, that is able to afford its own operating expenses, it is very hard for us to understand why other major cities in this country can't afford to pay for their own operating expenses for their transit system.

MR. HOLMAN: Democrat Tom Foglietta from Philadelphia tried to provide some answers.

REP. TOM FOGLIETTA, [D] Pennsylvania: My district, for instance, which is in the heart of the city of Philadelphia, is probably the third or the fourth poorest in the United States of America. Some of our mass transportation infrastructure is a hundred and twenty-five, a hundred and fifty years old. So we have to understand it's going to need more help than we have to give some other parts of the countries.

MR. HOLMAN: But it's unlikely to get any better for those who support transit operating assistance. House and Senate Republican plans to balance the budget by the year 2002 recommend phasing out the federal subsidies. The entire program could be gone within three years. JAMES FLORIO, Former New Jersey Governor: I guess what I would do is just take a couple of minutes to share with you, I guess, my perspective from being a congressman.

MR. HOLMAN: The big cuts and possible elimination of transit subsidies brought dozens of transit officials to Washington recently to lobby Senators and Representatives. Former New Jersey Governor James Florio, who served seven terms in Congress, provided the talking point.

JAMES FLORIO: I would counsel that when you talk to the people on the Hill, what you try to do is present your message in a way that will resonate with their pre-dispositions, and I think you can do that. For example, if we're talking about a productive economy, we have to talk about having a good transportation system that will allow us to have that productive economy, and a component of that system has to be mass transit.

MR. HOLMAN: While the bulk of federal transit money goes to large urban systems, such subsidies make up a bigger part of the overall operating budget in smaller cities and rural areas. Here in State College, Pennsylvania, federal dollars help the transit system remain a vital part of the community, but just barely.

HUGH MOSE, CATA General Manager: We have combined routes. We have eliminated trips. We have taken a number of steps operationally to make sure the service that we do operate is as productive as possible.

MR. HOLMAN: Hugh Mose is general manager of the Centre Area Transit Authority, which has an operating budget of $2.9 million. 12 percent of that money comes from the federal operating assistance program. That's not a high percentage, considering that some small transit systems depend on the federal government to provide half of their operating expenses. Nevertheless, Mose is exploring his options in case his 12 percent disappears.

HUGH MOSE: If the budget cutters would have their way over the next several years that number would be reduced to zero, and that's a pretty severe situation for us, because we would have to look at how to make up for that loss of funding, either through fare increases or service cuts or trying to come up with some other local source of funding. None of those are a particularly attractive option.

MR. HOLMAN: CATA is a system of 39 buses serving 70,000 residents in State College and four small Central Pennsylvania communities. Many of its riders live in senior citizen communities.

ELSIE GRAVES: Oh, I use it every day as a rule. I go downtown. Sometimes I go out to the mall. Sometimes I go out to K-Mart. Where, where else can I go? Not very much else left.

MIKE SWALES, Bus Driver: Some we have, it's almost like a therapy to, you know, get out and get around a little bit, because I would say probably a good 75 percent of them don't have any transportation as far as cars or anything like that goes, so they fully depend on the bus service.

MR. HOLMAN: But CATA's biggest customers by far come from the 30,000-strong student body of Penn State University. Only freshmen live on campus. All the other students find their own housing in and around town, and many rely on the bus to get back and forth to class. For some, the bus service already is stretched to the limit.

TINGSUN LIN, Student: I live far from here, so I have to use the bus, but I don't think the bus is a good service. I mean, one hour or one and a half hour, one bus is not frequent, it's not convenient.

MR. HOLMAN: But a poll published Monday in the "Centre Daily Times" showed 2/3 of area residents are either satisfied or very satisfied with their bus system, and students we talked with said they'd rather pay more than the current 85 cent fare than see bus service reduced.

CHERYL HOWARD, Student: It would be worth it in order to get where I would need to go. I don't see why not, but to cut back on the services altogether, they're going to find that a lot of people, I think, would turn away and not even want to use it at all.

MR. HOLMAN: And that also would affect store owners in State College, who depend on buses to bring shoppers to and from the downtown district.

BOB PRICE, State College Downtown Assoc.: Obviously, you just have to look at the bus stops on any given day and see the line of people there and the, and the packages that they are holding.

MR. HOLMAN: Bob Price, executive director of the Downtown Association, says one idea being considered is to increase parking fees to help bail out the transit system, because he says any new tax on business would be hard to sell.

BOB PRICE: We have a business privilege tax in this downtown right now that generates about $650,000 a year out of the merchant base. It's based on the gross revenues. On top of that, they pay property taxes, and they pay taxes on their employees and a number of other things. You know, there's a point too where we could say, okay, where's the next dime coming from, and it's -- that's why I'm saying it's a balancing act.

MR. HOLMAN: One argument made by critics of continued federal subsidies is that transit systems traditionally operate too many unprofitable routes. Too many buses travel too far, carrying too few passengers. Indeed, this mid-day bus we road onto the outskirts of State College never had more than six paying customers on board at one time and was empty much of the time.

MIKE SWALES: Some days you only pick up like three to four people, some days only one. It's a little, you know, you never know for sure how many you're going to really pick up out here.

MR. HOLMAN: But Hugh Mose says those routes are not designed to make a profit.

HUGH MOSE: The routes that have the fewest number of riders, for instance, on a Saturday evening, the temptation would be to cut that service, but those few people are the ones that would be absolutely devastated if the service wasn't there.

MR. HOLMAN: Which is one of the reasons CATA's general manager thought it important to join his transit colleagues, lobbying members on Capitol Hill.

SPOKESMAN: Stay in touch. We'll help you and support you in every way we can.

MR. HOLMAN: Foremost on Mose's lobbying schedule was an appointment with Republican Bill Clinger, who represents Central Pennsylvania's 5th congressional district. Clinger is a longtime advocate of public transportation, but he also voted for the Republican plan to balance the budget by 2002.

REP. WILLIAM CLINGER, [R] Pennsylvania: What would it mean to you if the operating, the operating subsidies were eliminated?

HUGH MOSE: First of all, we'd have to cut service. I don't think there's any way that we could afford that. Under the most optimistic of projections, I think we'd have to cut 5 percent, maybe as high as 10 percent.

MR. HOLMAN: Clinger told Mose he'd be in favor of allowing local transit authorities to use the federal money earmarked for new purchases to pay for day-to-day operations, like repairs, instead.

REP. WILLIAM CLINGER: The Authority ought to have the opportunity to make those kinds of decisions locally.

MR. HOLMAN: And for public transit systems, that probably was the only good news to come out of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation this week. It appears local operators soon will get greater control over a dwindling pot of money. FOCUS - SEX IN CYBERSPACE?

MS. FARNSWORTH: The debate over sex on the Internet is next tonight. The Senate has passed a bill that would ban pornography in cyberspace. But yesterday, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, said the ban is a bad idea.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: [last night] Clearly a violation of free speech and it's a violation of the right of adults to communicate with each other, but was I think seen as a good press release back home so people voted for it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Speaker was referring to a provision in the sweeping Telecommunications Reform Act passed by the Senate last week. Its sponsor, Senator James Exon, said it would protect children from one of the pot holes on the information highway.

SEN. JAMES EXON, [D] Nebraska: I had a remarkable demonstration of what is readily available to any child with the basic Internet access. It is not an exaggeration to say that the worst, most vile, most perverse pornography is only a few "click, click, clicks" away from any child on the Internet.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Internet is a global network of smaller computer networks. An estimated 25 million people are plugged into the Internet, and the number has been doubling every year. Until recently, access was only available through powerful computers at universities and government research facilities. But now, dozens of companies offer access to anyone with a home computer and a modem connected to a phone line. With that access, users can send E-Mail messages to other users or search the Internet for whatever interests them, the latest satellite photos from NASA, digitized collections of fine art, information on a favorite rock band, or the latest medical information on any given disease or treatment. And along with all the art and science has come pornography and chat rooms, where people can send messages on any number of subjects, including sexually explicit ones, to other Internet users. Since the Internet is a network of users, nobody owns it, nobody runs it, and up until recently, nobody tried to police it.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: I don't agree with it, and I don't think it's a serious way to discuss a serious issue, which is: How do you maintain right of free speech for adults while also protecting children in a medium which is available to both?

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Senate's answer is a bill that would make it a crime to send obscene or harassing messages on the Internet. It would also impose a $100,000 fine and a two-year prison term on anyone who made indecent sexual material available to under-age Internet users. Should there be restrictions on the Internet? We have two views: Sen. James Exon, Democrat from Nebraska, and Jerry Berman, the executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a non-profit civil liberties organization based in Washington. Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. Sen. Exon, let's start with you. I know you can't be terribly specific on a show like this, but what did you see on the Internet that made you want to enact this bill?

SEN. JAMES EXON, [D] Nebraska: [Capitol Hill] Elizabeth, I saw the opening of your show. If we could show on your program tonight what's readily available most unfortunately to children on the Internet, I had a book that was downloaded with pictures that I showed to many of my colleagues in the United States Senate, they did not know this was available. It's pornography at its worst. It's obscenity at its worst. And to say it's indecent is an understatement. I wish I could show the pictures, but you couldn't, and I wouldn't. I simply say the Exon-Coats Bill that passed the United States Senate 86 to 14 is a step in the right direction. It's not a cure-all, but it will provide a deterrent to stop the profiteering that's going on today that are polluting the minds of our youth. We can't just sit idly by and say, oh, this is so complicated we can't do anything about it. I believe maybe -- although not very many people can tell Newt Gingrich anything these days -- even I might be able to convince Newt, as I did many others, that sitting idly by and letting this happen on the Internet today is going to have a serious deterrent to other people getting on the Internet to take advantage of that vast new system to spread knowledge that I'm excited about. We've got to do something to protect the kids.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Senator, the Speaker says it's a violation of free speech. Isn't it?

SEN. EXON: It's not a violation of free speech, and I called on a lot of well-known lawyers to make sure that this bill could test -- to be properly tested on the constitutional rights provision. We never know what the courts are going to do. We based this on the law that has been in effect and been approved constitutional with regard to pornography on the telephones and pornography in the U.S. mail. We're not out in no-man's land. We're running on the record of courts' decisions that have said you can use community standards to protect especially kids on telephones and in the mails. We're trying to expand that as best we can to the Internet.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Berman, I surfed the Internet a little bit today to see what I could find on it, and I also can't say exactly what I found on this show, but one of the things I found was a solicitation for pictures of eight to eleven year old girls having sex with adult men. What, if anything, should be done about this?

JERRY BERMAN, Center for Democracy and Technology: First of all, they ought to be rounded up and prosecuted. The Justice Department is out there. It has a, a whole division that works on computer crime prosecution. It should be pointed out that the Justice Department did not ask for new legislation in this area. They are prosecuting under current law. Child pornography, bestiality, the most perverse things that Sen. Exon talks about, are violations of the criminal law. What he fails to point out is that his statute went much broader than that and would ban the knowing, making available any materials which may be indecent to anyone under the age of 18. That not only covers pornography and obscenity, which we all abhor, but it also would cover the communications between adults where they might be talking about "Ulysses" or talking about rap music or having a discussion about, about their sexual preferences. The problem with the Internet, unlike the U.S. mails and the telephone system, is that it's not a closed system. It's not just two people communicating with each other through a closed envelope or a closed telephone line. Here, when you communicate on the Internet, you make information available, you put it up, and you put it up and anyone can come and get it. And it's important in this technology to understand that you have to come and get it. I understand it may be a few clicks away but you have to come and get it. And that makesit very different because you know, just simply know that there are children on the Internet, and, therefore, any information that maybe we would try to communicate between adults could get in the hands of a child and, therefore, it's a crime. So the only way to clean up the Internet is to make it safe only for children.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about that problem, Sen. Exon? Let's say there's a discussion among adults about James Joyce's "Ulysses," which might be considered indecent, and a sixteen-year-old logs on. Won't that be against the law under your bill?

SEN. EXON: I think Jerry tries to make a case, it's a false case. Certainly, it would have to be prosecuted by a prosecutor, and the judge would have to so decide that watching that type of a program that I do not think under the definition that anyone considers would be pornographic. That's one of the problems we have with people like Jerry. They may be well intentioned, but they just don't seem to realize that we can't sit back and see what you saw on the Internet today and what kids are seeing all over. The facts of the matter are that there is not enough prosecution taking place today.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But the --

SEN. EXON: The Coats-Exon Bill will assist in stopping this, but it won't be a cure-all.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about what Mr. Berman said, though, the worry that only that which is good for kids or which kids can look at will be on the Internet if, if this bill passes?

SEN. EXON: Well, that's obviously not true. The -- we have -- hardly have a day goes by that what we don't have some case of a kid being lured away from home, taken advantage of. What you saw today is replete on the Internet. There will be a study coming out very soon that's going to be widely distributed next week that proves the case once and again that we've got a disease going on on the Internet today. I think that Jerry and his people should work with us to try and solve this problem, rather than hiding behind the old constitutional protection once again that simply says anything can go and you dare not do anything about it because you're going to run afoul of the Constitution. I think that's not reasonable. I think that is not realistic.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Berman, how would you solve the problem?

MR. BERMAN: Two things. First of all, we tried to work with Sen. Exon, and we're still prepared to work with him and others in the House to draft narrow statute which if there's -- the Justice Department can show that there's a gap in current law and going after materials that he's described, but we do not want to leave it to the discretion of prosecutors all over the United States to decide what may be indecent. And there are many times and there are places where "Ulysses" would be considered indecent material, and, therefore, adults will have to have the chilling effect of not knowing what they can put up on the Net. But let's go to the real issue. I think that Sen. Exon has raised a very important issue for the American public. The information highway I stipulate has a lot of material on it which is very troublesome and which our children should not get ahold of. The problem is that we should not try to put forward solutions that are really fig leafs that will not solve the problem. For example, the worldwide Internet is a worldwide network. I don't know where Sen. Exon downloaded the materials that he found abhorrent, but if they're downloaded from Sweden or they're downloaded from Denmark, which looks exactly like any U.S. site, any law that he passes will not reach it. If you want to-- what the Speaker is talking about is an approach which says let us really look at the user end of the Internet, what kinds of technologies can we bring on line to make it possible for parents to screen out and control what they see or what they interact with on the Net and what their children interact with? I have here, for example, a software [holding up "Surf- Watch"] which is available on the market which screens out adult sexual material. You just put it in with your computer, and it keeps your kid out. America On-Line and other information services are trying to put screening technology -- in fact, they have screening technology and lock-out technology bundled into the America On-Line, and they are trying to update that. The industry really will respond. The problem, by bringing these technologies on board, what Rep. Cox and Widen in the House, along with the Speaker, realize that while Sen. Exon's bill is well-intentioned, it was drafted in a way which creates disincentives for industry to do this kind of policing. Under his legislation, if an Internet provider like America On-Line tried to control information, they are -- they cannot rely on the defenses in the legislation for prosecuting of someone other than them who puts up content.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay, let me ask the Senator about this. First of all, Sen. Exon, on the question of user, policing this by policing the user, by using a technology which can block it for the user, a parent could put something in their computer and make it impossible to get Penthouse Magazine, which I read is the No. 1 site on the Internet now, what's wrong with that?

SEN. EXON: There's nothing wrong with that. We didn't hear much about that until the Exon Decency Bill was widely considered and debated. Yes, we have gotten the intention, and it may well be that eventually -- although I am convinced that there's no way to filter out all of this material. Let's take the case that Jerry just used. Let's say that Mom and Dad could lock out on their computer, which you can't do now, and Jerry knows you can't do it now, and there's nothing available on the market today that would begin to take out everything that is pornographic and obscene, but I'm certainly not saying that they shouldn't try that. I don't believe that's going to work or be effective. One of the problems that we have today is we tried to work with Jerry, but we found out that basically Jerry goes back to the old idea that I think is kind of foreign that Thomas Jefferson and all of the good people who wrote the Constitution worked overnight and planned and plotted to make sure that the Constitution protected the most gross pornographers, pedophiles, those who are trying to lure children today. Children can get this information outside the home. They can get it in the schools. They can get it in the libraries. They can get it at the neighbors. I wish that we could wake up, and maybe if I could get to Newt Gingrich, maybe if he would at least look at the material that I have and take a look at our bill that is not nearly as restrictive as Jerry would like to believe it is, maybe we could solve the problem.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Berman, we have just a few seconds for a response.

MR. BERMAN: Yes. But I'm sorry if I'm -- if I am associated with the gang that goes back to Thomas Jefferson, I'm quite proud of that association. We need to draft careful legislation here which is not thrown out by the Supreme Court. We need to look at these technology solutions. We should not pass bandaids. We should not go for press releases, and I think the Senator has raised important issues. I think he would -- it would behoove him to work with industry on the user controls. That is the only effective way to deal with pornography on the Internet.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Senator, Mr. Berman, thank you for being with us. SERIES - RETHINKING WELFARE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, the last in our conversation series on rethinking welfare. Tonight, Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks with Ralph Smith, founder of the Philadelphia Children's Network and founding director of the National Center on Fathers and Families at the University of Pennsylvania. He's also a law professor there and is the director of planning and development at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private charity based in Baltimore.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Ralph Smith, thank you for joining us.

RALPH SMITH, National Center on Fathers & Families: Thank you for having me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Welfare, one of the great innovations of the New Deal, what happened, what went wrong? Why did it fail?

RALPH SMITH: Well, I'm not sure it failed. But I'll tell you that there's a public perception out there that's real, that the welfare system, as we know it, is inefficient, ineffective, and counterproductive. We do too much in some cases and not enough in others. We talk about jobs, but we haven't done very much about jobs, and we've built a system around sanctions and supports from others and completely excluded fathers.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So, basically, do you think the system can be reformed, or --

RALPH SMITH: What it needs is a radical overhaul, and if we're going to have that overhaul, we really need to stop the national street fight around welfare and begin a national conversation. When we start that conversation, we will see that there really is a national consensus on the fact that the current system has failed and failed miserably, too, that any new system must meet a crucial test, and that is it must be good for children, and thirdly, that a new system must address the issue of jobs and it must address the issue of fathers. If we do that, I think we can produce a system that actually does what we all hope it will do, and that is create a situation where children are taken care of first and foremost by their families.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: There are those who say that one of the reasons, one of the major reasons that welfare failed was that it was, it made it profitable for people on welfare to stay on welfare, that it really destroyed people's sense of values and sense of what was important and what was right.

RALPH SMITH: I think if we ground our discussion in the reality of the lives of the people who are welfare, we find ourselves confronted with some real options. One, there are a lot of people on welfare who are the working poor. Those people work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, and do not earn enough money to support their families.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So they have to go on welfare.

RALPH SMITH: So they have to go on welfare. We need to do something about that, and we could do something about that through the earned income tax credit. There are a number of people on welfare, and it could be 20, 30 percent of the people on welfare, who are employable but unemployed, and what we really need to do is to focus on a national work preparation strategy that would move those people from welfare into living wage jobs. And then there's a third group on welfare who even with a relatively deep investment won't be prepared for work. And what we've got to do is to provide them a decent living and ensure that we impose upon them an obligation to take care of their children in such a way that we can break the cycle of dependency into the next generation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Who do you think should be responsible for changing the system and then administering the system, federal government, state government, private agencies?

RALPH SMITH: I think all of the above. There is a federal responsibility, I believe, to maintain a safety net, a national work preparation program which would ensure that people who wish to work have an opportunity to be prepared for work in the economy that we have and not the one that we might wish we have and certainly not yesterday's economy. We should have a way of imposing a social obligation on people who are able to work, even if they do not wish to. I think the states have an important role to play in terms of innovation, in terms of trying to figure out how you develop community-based solutions for the very tough problems that we're confronting. That's an important role for state government and for local government and for communities to play. I think there is really a role for the private sector, and the not-for-profit sector in helping to create communities which are able to support families, so it's not a question of whose responsibility is it. It is all our responsibility, and it is also the responsibility of the people who are on welfare. We ought to put into a national conversation that there is an obligation of reciprocity, that we ought to expect that people who are on welfare help themselves. We ought to expect that people who are able look for jobs and participate in a job training program.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But there are those who say that for the average welfare worker -- welfare recipient, the jobs that are out there today just aren't jobs that they're going to be able to, to take, that these are basically people with limited education and low skills.

RALPH SMITH: Welfare is but one link on a chain of institutional failure. Many of the recipients of public assistance, welfare as we call it, failed and really were failed by our educational system. Many of them are currently being failed by a public housing system which is, in fact, a public warehousing system. Many of them were failed and are being failed by a juvenile justice system. Many of them have been failed time and time again by a child welfare system. We've got to figure out how to break the cycle of failure, and we can do that not simply by demonizing people who are welfare. We can do that by looking at all these systems and asking ourselves what will it take to reform them, applying the most important litmus test, what will it take so that these systems help children rather than hurting them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you're talking about things that require a commitment of resources that don't appear anywhere near the horizon these days.

RALPH SMITH: There is a reality of limited resources. In fact, public will has turned into public won't, mainly because so many public systems have failed so badly for so long that there is a disinclination on the part of the public to spend many more tax dollars without some reason to believe that our systems can work. I believe there really is a reservoir of support if we can tell the truth, that, in fact, that we have a set of policies today that are counterproductive in terms of family formation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Like give me an example. If you were trying to convince somebody --

RALPH SMITH: We could point out that in many states today, if a father decides to get re-engaged in the life of his child or his children, that there is no voluntary paternity establishment procedure. That father has to go to court, file a petition. Upon filing that petition, that father is exposed to a claim for all the accumulated AFDC and Medicaid. That claim is most likely going to be substantially in excess of any assets that father has.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You mean, they're going to ask him to pay back all of the moneys that his wife and children or child have gotten from welfare?

RALPH SMITH: That's right. And after --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: No matter how long they've been on welfare?

RALPH SMITH: No matter how long they've been on it. We can understand why we now have fathers driven away from their children into becoming what we now call underground fathers, fathers who could be connected and involved in the lives of their children have to become outlaws. That's the kind of policy which I think the American people would reject if we were able to tell them the truth.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We don't have a welfare reform bill as yet, but we have the outlines of one, and a lot of people talk about one, and we have certain basic assumptions behind the ones that are formed now in the Congress. What do you think the consequences of that kind of program, welfare program, would be if, if it was enacted?

RALPH SMITH: The litmus of any welfare reform must be: Does it help children, or does it hurt children? The Personal Responsibility Act, while it says a lot about jobs, passes on to the states an obligation, a major unfunded mandate, without any leadership or the kind of assistance that states will need if they're really going to create the jobs for the welfare recipients who will move off the rolls.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Welfare seems to be -- seems to stimulate some of the most vehement rhetoric and sharp ideological divisions of any -- any topic in the public arena. Why do you think that's so?

RALPH SMITH: I do not believe that the conversation betrays mean- spiritedness on the part of the American people. I believe there's a sense in the American public that they're -- sort of the unarticulated social compact has been breached. There's really a sense that a large number of people on welfare aren't doing what we expect them to do, and that is to look for work, use welfare as a transition back to the work force. We need to find a way to talk candidly with the American people about what it will take, and thus far, the political leadership in this country has not been able to break through and to do that. As a consequence, we've got policy by sound bite, and we've got a very set of simplistic answers for very complex problems and a set of blunt instruments where what we need is delicate craftsmanship.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do we get there, and are you at all optimistic that we can or will?

RALPH SMITH: I think I'm an optimist by nature, and I believe that as we go down this road, and as the President and the Congress engage in a real debate, as the states begin to look more realistically at the possibilities and promise and the problems of block grants, that we will see some cautions being expressed. I think we may see some compromises being made that will be good for children. What I'm less optimistic about is whether those compromises will be made in time for us to put the resources on the table which will allow us to invest in work preparation and to create jobs. I'm really not terribly confident that at this stage that there is sufficient public understanding and, therefore, public will to support the level of investment it will take.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Ralph Smith, thank you.

RALPH SMITH: Thank you for having me. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, the Senate killed the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to be surgeon general. For a second day, it failed by three votes to prevent a threatened Republican filibuster of the nomination. And this evening, House and Senate Republicans announced agreement on a plan to balance the budget in seven years. House Speaker Gingrich said the compromise would cut taxes by nearly $250 billion and slow the growth of spending for Medicare and Medicaid. Good night, Elizabeth.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with political analysts Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Good night.