The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And I'm Charlayne Hunter-Gault in New York. After the News Summary, we first take up the ongoing debate about gays in the military. We'll look at the political and the military side. Next, an update on the continuing crisis in Russia, and finally we'll see how the President's health care plan is being judged by interest groups and the public. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The Russian parliament voted today to hold a national referendum on Boris Yeltsin. The referendum was scheduled for April 25th. The parliament's action ended its four-day emergency session and followed yesterday's unsuccessful attempt to impeach Yeltsin. The referendum will ask voters if they have confidence in Yeltsin, if they approve of his economic reform policies, and should early elections be held for President and parliament. We'll have a further report on today's developments later in the program. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The new cease-fire in Bosnia held for a second straight day today but U.S. Sec. of State Warren Christopher said he was skeptical about it. He said the U.S. will push this week for the United Nations to enforce a no-fly zone over Bosnia, including the right to shoot down violators. More than 2,000 Muslims were evacuated from a besieged Eastern Bosnian town today. The head of Bosnian Serb forces has promised that evacuations from Srebrenica will be allowed to continue. We have a report from Robin White of Independent Television News.

ROBIN WHITE, ITN: After one last search on the Serbian front line, the convoy roared into view. On board 19 United Nations trucks were more than 2,4000 refugees, women, children and the old packed in so tight many were struggling to breathe. There were numerous stops. Refugees were so hungry and thirsty they were begging us for snow. Suddenly a tail gate broken open and women and children spilled onto the road, bringing yet more misery. Finally, all 19 trucks made it into Tuzla. Those who'd fallen on the road were taken straight to hospital. Babies and small children were passed hand to hand. Everyone who could help was doing so. Bringing down the sides of the lorries revealed the full extent of the suffering these people had gone through to escape the horrors of Srebrenica. One elderly man died on the way. Some will never remember what they went through to reach safety. Others are unlikely ever to forget. Even with all the preparations that had been made, the sheer scale of this operation is overwhelming. These people have absolutely nothing and will need everything doing for them. And the first priority was medical attention. The injured had been patched up as best as possible inside Srebrenica. Now they needed urgent help. It took only minutes for this collecting center to fill up, but nearly everybody had left someone behind. In Shavitz Sanara's case, it was her husband. Relief workers we spoke to were shocked by the desperate state these people have reached, but they warned that far worse is to come. The Serbs are refusing to release the young men trapped behind the lines. Many of them are said to be terribly injured.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Germany has joined the U.S.-led airdrops of food and medicine into Bosnia. Serbs have threatened to shoot down any German aircraft participating in the operation, but the first German drop went ahead without incident last night. Another German flight is scheduled for tonight.

MR. LEHRER: Socialist French President Mitterrand named a conservative prime minister today. He is former finance minister Eduard Baladur. His selection followed a landslide conservative victory in yesterday's elections. The vote gave a right wing coalition an overwhelming majority in the French legislature. The Clinton administration delayed new trade sanctions against the European Community today. The decision followed a Brussels, Belgium meeting between U.S. Trade Rep. Mickey Kantor and his EC counterpart. The dispute is over difficulties U.S. companies have selling telecommunications and power generating equipment in Europe. U.S. troop strength in Europe will be cut by almost half to one hundred thousand a Defense Department official said at a NATO meeting in Brussels today. The Bush administration had also planned to cut the current strength of 187,000 but only to 150,000 by 1996. Russia's defense minister told the same meeting his country was suspending troop withdrawals from the Baltic states because of housing shortages at home. About 50,000 Russian troops are still in the Baltics.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Senate began hearings today on ending the military's homosexual ban. Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn opposes lifting the ban. He said he didn't think the hearings would change his view but he suggested a possible compromise might be to leave in place President Clinton's temporary policy not to ask any recruits if they are homosexuals. We'll have more on the issue right after the News Summary. The President's health care task force held its first public meeting today. A wide array of witnesses testified, including doctors, businessmen, and the general public. Vice President Gore chaired the meeting in place of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton who was in Little Rock, Arkansas, with her ailing father. The Vice President spoke in Washington.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Health care reform first and foremost means giving the American people the freedom from fear. If our task is complex, our goals are simple. We must guarantee health security for every American, bring down the rising costs of health care that threaten each of us, maintain the quality of care and people's right to choose their doctors, and simplify the system and cut through the paper work.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We'll have more from today's hearing later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: The Commerce Department reported today personal income of Americans rose .2 percent last month. Consumer spending increased .6 percent during the same period. A separate report showed new home sales were up 4.6 percent in February. Sales were up in the Northeast and the West, but they fell in the Midwest and South. Late today, Democratic Senators David Boren of Oklahoma and John Breaux of Louisiana agreed to withdraw their amendment to President Clinton's economic stimulus package. The amendment would have required cuts before the spending package took effect. They agreed to withdraw it after receiving a letter from President Clinton promising to go slow on new spending.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Still ahead on the NewsHour, political and military views on gays in the military, an update on the Russian crisis, and opening up the President's health care reform plans. FOCUS - CONDUCT UNBECOMING?

MR. LEHRER: The Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on gays in the military opened today in Washington, and with it opened the road through Washington toward an official resolution of the tumultuous debate. At specific issue is President Clinton's announced intention to lift the current ban on homosexuals in the armed services. Negative reaction to that intention in Congress led to a six-month delay and to the hearings that began today. We'll get four perspectives on some of the compromises being offered following this report on the hearings by Kwame Holman.

MR. HOLMAN: Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn is the Congress's most prominent opponent of lifting the ban on gays in the military. In opening today's hearing, Nunn promised to keep an open mind but said protecting the integrity of the military would be his major concern.

SEN. SAM NUNN, Chairman, Armed Services Committee: When interests of some individuals bear upon the cohesion and effectiveness of an institution upon which our national security depends, we must, in my view, move very cautiously. This caution, in my view is not prejudice, it is prudence.

MR. HOLMAN: These hearings are part of a cooling off period agreed to by Sen. Nunn and President Clinton during which the Pentagon will study the implications of lifting the ban and report back to the President by July 15th. In the meantime, the current ban against gays in the military remains in effect, with one major exception.

SEN. SAM NUNN: Reflecting a recommendation made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, new recruits are no longer asked questions about their sexual orientation during the enlistment process.

MR. HOLMAN: Elimination of the pre-enlistment question might be as far as Sen. Nunn is willing to go. Interviewed on television this morning before the hearing, Nunn said, "That's an interim compromise and it may be a pretty good place to end up. We don't ask any questions on the enlistment form and if people keep their private behavior private, if they don't declare and advertise their private behavior, then they are able to stay in the military service as long as they perform their duties." But while questioning this group of experts on the history of gays in the military, Michigan's Carl Levin suggested that simply not asking recruits about their sexual orientation is a limited solution.

SEN. CARL LEVIN, [D] Michigan: Is there any reason now that a commander could not just simply ask somebody, "Are you a homosexual?"

DAVID SCHLUETER, Law Professor: No, he can ask the question.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Then what is the usefulness of making the current distinction?

DAVID SCHLUETER: I'm assuming that a commander would not ask everyone, but there's nothing to prevent him from doing that. That's a problem that would have to be solved. Maybe I can answer it that way briefly, and that is, under the current situation, it gives the homosexual the opportunity to decide whether to come out of the closet or not, and I understand there will be a number of them who would welcome the opportunity to serve, and as comments have been made earlier, to do so patriotically, highly motivated, and yet remaining celibate or being very discreet so that no one would find out. If a service member is in any way flaunting his or her homosexual status, then obviously they run the risk of losing the usefulness of the utility of the policy as it stands now.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Something in-between flaunting and celibacy would be simply your First Amendment rights, is that not correct?

DAVID SCHLUETER: I assume it probably would be, but then that puts a limit on the service members to say, well, why shouldn't I be able to say what I believe.

MR. HOLMAN: Republican Dan Coats, a strong opponent of lifting the ban, had doubts about a much talked about compromise policy. It would require soldiers, including avowed gays, to adhere to a new military code of sexual conduct.

SEN. DAN COATS, [R] Indiana: For example, establishing a policy that sexual activity, discussions, et cetera, shall not be tolerated among the public areas of military bases or in the working arena and shall be confined to private quarters, can we rationally conclude that any code of conduct would meet the test of, of not causing tensions, problems, consequences of sexual activity, not undermine effectiveness, morale, discipline, good order?

STEPHEN SALTZBURG, Law Professor: I do think that one can articulate a neutral standard of conduct that would have as certainly some of its parts that no one shall, that men and women who serve together should not seek to have sexual relations, shall not proposition, shall not use higher authority to, in a way to harass or take unfair advantage of anyone else, and that would, and would punish all of those acts.

SEN. DAN COATS: But Professor, if that is true, if we could do that and we allow that for those who have declared homosexuality, is there any rational basis to deny women and men living together under the same circumstances?

MR. HOLMAN: Those kinds of questions are causing the Senators difficulty, and thus far, few on the Armed Services Committee publicly support the President's effort to lift the ban.

MR. LEHRER: Now the conflicting views of two retired generals and two non-retired activists. The generals are U.S. Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor, he's now director of the National Security Program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and U.S. Army Reserve Major General Vance Coleman. The activists are Gary Bauer, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group, and Thomas Stoddard, campaign director for the Campaign for Military Service. His organization was created by gay and lesbian interest groups to spearhead the effort to lift the gay ban. First, Gen. Trainor, the Nunn suggestion that the interim solution might work as a permanent one, you heard what it is, you're familiar with it, you would continue to ask, not ask recruits about their sexual orientation, and that would be it, the ban would continue. What do you think of that as an idea?

GEN. TRAINOR: I think it's a bad idea. I think it's disingenuous. I don't think it's worthy of a mighty nation. What that suggests is that we're dodging the issue. This issue has been joined, and I think it should be discussed and debated, and the American people should deal with it openly right to the very end.

MR. LEHRER: Gen. Coleman, how do you feel about it?

GEN. COLEMAN: I don't think it's, I think the question, itself, on the enlistment record is a good idea to ban that, but that doesn't go far enough. I think the President was elected because, one of the reasons was because he promised to ban, to eliminate the ban on gays in the military. Now, the American people voted, include the military and those who are opposed to it. He won. So I think obviously that's the position he needs to take and that we need to take as Americans.

MR. LEHRER: And no, no half measures, as Sen. Nunn was suggesting?

GEN. COLEMAN: Pardon me.

MR. LEHRER: No half measures, nothing in-between, just lift the ban and make it work?

GEN. COLEMAN: Absolutely. I don't see how we can say to people, is that, you're citizens and you can do some things but not all. We're going to limit what you can do. That is not American to me.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Gen. Trainor, you and a colleague wrote in an op ed page piece in the New York Times this morning that to do what the President and what Gen. Coleman are suggesting would, in fact, destroy the American military. Explain your thesis there. How would it do that?

GEN. TRAINOR: Well, I didn't say that it would destroy the American military, but it certainly would have a corrosive effect. The issue is not just sexual orientation, but it's also behavior. I find it very difficult to make a distinction between orientation and behavior. I reflect on my own long service, particularly periods of long service at sea, where you have ships at sea for six months, with troops and sailors living in close proximity to one another, with the raging hormones that go with youth, and these apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals, and there's evidence in the past that this creates enormous sexual tensions, and this is not good for the good order and discipline of the military. It's as simple as that.

MR. LEHRER: Gen. Coleman, is it as simple as that?

GEN. COLEMAN: I don't think so. I think that's a good phrase, the good order and discipline of the military. But we've had gays in the military probably ever since we've had a military. And I read a recent article in the Army Times, "In My Opinion," of an individual who served in World War II and in Korea who said that he served with gays, knowingly at the time in some instances, not instances did not, but when it came time to fight is that the primary mission was to fight, to kill and to win, and nobody was concerned about any sexual preference or any sexual orientation. That's what the military is for, and I would challenge anyone who says that because there's a gay in the fox hole with you it's going to affect the outcome of that individual or the outcome of the battle.

GEN. TRAINOR: May I reflect on that for a moment?

MR. LEHRER: Yes, sir.

GEN. TRAINOR: There was a very interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal on December 2nd, written by a Kevin McCrane, who is a retired businessman living in New Jersey. I won't read the whole thing, but I would like to point out what he says in this letter, that he went into the Navy and at eighteen in 1945 and was assigned to a, a cargo ship, the U.S.S. Warwick, and his first night at sea, he was accosted as a young man by a homosexual on the ship. He was confused. He didn't know who to tell. He was too scared to, to speak to an officer and a petty officer told him he just better watch out. And then he writes, "There were five aggressive homosexuals that we knew on board the ship with almost two hundred and fifty men. They were all petty officers. Their actions were enough to poison the atmosphere on the Warwick. Meals, showers, attendance at the movies, decisions about where you went on the ship alone all became part of a worried calculation of risk." And then he goes on elsewhere to say "All the homosexuals aren't rapists, but in this closed male society, with its enforced communal living, unchecked homosexual appetites wrought havoc."

MR. LEHRER: But --

GEN. TRAINOR: "There is a lesson here for Mr. Clinton," he writes. "The U.S. Navy certainly won't turn into a collection of horror ships like the Warwick if he succeeds in ending the ban on homosexuals in the military, but my experience does suggest that military officials are right to worry that good order and discipline of the services will be impaired if the ban is lifted." Now, there are legions of military people out there that could relate similar stories from their own military history.

MR. LEHRER: But let's get --

GEN. TRAINOR: And I think --

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Gen. Coleman's had experience in the military too. Let's get his perspective on that. You do not see it that way?

GEN. COLEMAN: No, absolutely not. Now I can't say that I knew any homosexual in the military, although I'm reasonably sure that I did, but what the general's describing here in my opinion is one of behavior. That could very well have been heterosexuals against females as it was homosexuals. That problem exists now, and lifting the ban on gays is not going to change that.

GEN. TRAINOR: Of course, that's why we keep females and males separated in the military.

GEN. COLEMAN: The way you correct that, however, is those who are in command, those who are in leadership positions, need to address it and not just let it happen. That's a behavior problem. It's not a sexual orientation problem. It could be male, female or heterosexual.

MR. LEHRER: Let's bring Mr. Stoddard and Mr. Bauer into that. Mr. Stoddard, what about this conduct question, the one that was also raised by Sen. Levin in the hearings and the excerpt, is it possible, in your opinion, to come up with a code of conduct that would eliminate any possibility of the problems or the fears that Gen. Trainor and others have?

MR. STODDARD: Sure. Two points: First of all, we have that code of conduct. It's called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And it applies to heterosexual and homosexual conduct. It has a number of provisions that deal with sexual activity. It has other provisions that deal with more general ideas, like conduct unbecoming an officer. That provision, that code is generally neutral. It ought to be applied to any kind of conduct of the sort that Gen. Trainor mentioned. We already have that. We don't need to change that. We just need to change the discrimination against existing lesbians and gay men in the military. They serve now; they always have served; they always will serve. The question is how they will be treated. The second point is that the incident related here as almost no documentary support in the law or in any other circumstance. I guess we can all come up with some peculiar circumstances involving odd people in odd situations. I might derive some conclusions in the Tailhook Scandal. I might, for example, try to say that all officers in the Air Force are, therefore, capable of and likely to engage in sexual harassment, but it's not true. So we have to get away from individual stories and look at the general statistics. There are almost no reported instances of the kind of incident that Gen. Trainor reported. In fact, the internal Defense Department studies indicate that lesbians and gay men not only serve honorably but are less of a security risk and less a threat to morale and discipline than heterosexual service members, and that's internal to the Defense Department. So we have to look at the statistics. This is a very difficult issue for many people to understand, and the statistics contradict Gen. Trainor entirely.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Bauer.

MR. BAUER: Well, one hardly knows where to begin. First of all, I'd like to congratulate the MacNeil-Lehrer Show for finding perhaps one of a half dozen officers, retired or otherwise, in the country that agrees with President Clinton on this issue. In fact, the research shows that overwhelmingly active duty military leadership in this country, beginning with Colin Powell and going on down through the ranks, is almost unanimous against this policy change. These are the folks that are the front lines now. They know what's going to happen to morale, to a spirit de corps and almost to the man they are saying to this President, don't pay off a special interest group at the expense of the United States military.

MR. LEHRER: What about the specific question that's on the table? I asked Mr. Stoddard that. You heard what Mr. Stoddard said.

MR. BAUER: Yeah.

MR. LEHRER: That code of, their code of conduct already exists that would punish anybody, whether it was a homosexual or heterosexual, who made unwanted or improper or disruptive sexual advances toward another person.

MR. BAUER: It goes way beyond that. We would not ask a young woman joining the United States military to shower with men. Telling her that as long as they don't touch her, as long as they don't violate conduct, she shouldn't feel uncomfortable being in that shower with them, and yet we are about ready, if the President has his way, to ask young men to go into showers with other men - -

MR. STODDARD: Gay men are there now.

MR. BAUER: Let me finish, please. Let me please finish. There's a difference between gay men being there and men wearing their homosexuality as a badge of honor and being put, putting other men in the situation of the loss of privacy with those individuals. That's why Colin Powell, the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, the entire military leadership of this country is telling the President don't try to pay off a campaign promise by doing damage to the finest fighting force that's ever taken the field of battle.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Stoddard, this point was also raised in the Senate hearings, that if you concede the sexuality among heterosexuals and homosexuals is equal for the parties involved, then men and women are segregated, why not segregate homosexuals the same way?

MR. STODDARD: Well, segregation --

MR. LEHRER: From heterosexuals.

MR. STODDARD: Right. The segregation, it seems to me, in any form is not acceptable to anyone, people on the right or people on the left, the people who support the ban or people who oppose it. That's really a false argument, and the President may have been entertaining intellectual curiosity --

MR. LEHRER: He raised that at a news conference last year -- last week.

MR. STODDARD: This really is an issue of simple justice. The arguments that Mr. Bauer and others raise are reminiscent of arguments that we heard in the late '40s about integration of African-Americans. Arguments, rather appalling arguments were made that African-Americans were more promiscuous than whites, that whites would not sleep in the same beds that African-Americans had occupied previously, that African-Americans were lazy, that the mere dislike of African-Americans by white Americans would break down unit cohesion. We also heard those arguments made with the integration of Asian-Americans and also with the inclusion of women into the military. We're just hearing them again, and there is no statistical evidence for any of the fears raised by people in the military. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence on the other side. There is the experience --

MR. BAUER: Tell Colin Powell --

MR. STODDARD: Please, please. You asked me not to interrupt, and I honored that. There is the experience of other countries, including Canada. Britain is the only remaining NATO nation that follows a policy similar to ours. There is the experience in similar forces, police forces and fire forces, and there's the experience in the rest of the federal government. Now, the fact that discrimination is made unlawful does not change the world overnight. People in the military are crying chicken little really. They're saying the sky is going to fall. Well, when Wisconsin eliminated discrimination in employment in its state, it didn't mean that every lesbian and gay man, therefore, came out and declared himself or herself, because it's still a very hostile world. It won't happen in the military either.

MR. BAUER: Philadelphia --

MR. STODDARD: I just don't want lesbians and gay men to be treated badly simply because they want to serve their country. That's the only issue.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Now, Mr. Bauer, the question -- go ahead. Make your response.

MR. BAUER: My goodness, where to begin, there are about five points here. First of all Mr. Stoddard misquotes what the policy is by NATO countries. Many of these countries have restrictions on homosexuals, and a number of them do segregate them. Of course, he is right about one thing, that segregation doesn't solve the problem. If you put gay men in a barracks together, you're not lessening the sexual tension, you're increasing it, so at least we agree on that. Segregation won't work but the policy idea that President Clinton has overall will not work.

MR. LEHRER: What about his point, his analogy, drawing the analogy between this effort and the efforts in desegregating racially the military before --

MR. BAUER: I would urge --

MR. LEHRER: -- and also bringing women into the service?

MR. BAUER: Sure. I would urge anybody that's tempting to bind that article -- that argument to read the very eloquent letter by Colin Powell, an African-American at the highest levels of our government, to Congresswoman Pat Schroeder. Colin Powell understands civil rights. He knows the difference between a benign characteristic like race and the most profound behavioral characteristics that we have as human beings, which is sexual conduct. And he rejected that argument out of hand as being a ludicrous comparison.

MR. LEHRER: Gen. Coleman, do you see it as ludicrous?

GEN. COLEMAN: No, absolutely not, absolutely not. Let me say first I respect Gen. Powell. I think he's one hell of man and he's one hell of a general. There's no question about that. But I can tell you, general officers can be wrong too, and I think he's wrong on this one. I happen to have been in the military in 1950 when President Truman published that executive order, and I can tell you what went through there initially and if that hadn't happened, Gen. Colin Powell would not be where he is now. The same arguments are being forwarded today as that were put forth with African- Americans. In listening to the Congressmen, the Senators talk about this issue, I really don't understand. They talk about equality and that is not equality. Gays and lesbians can perform. There's no reason why they shouldn't be given the opportunity to perform, and this ban on gays and lesbians is a denial of that opportunity to perform. It's the same arguments put forth with African-Americans.

MR. LEHRER: Gen. Trainor, do you see it as the same argument revisited?

GEN. TRAINOR: Let me just say that both sides on this issue up to this point have really been talking past one another. That's why I think the importance of the Nunn hearings is enormous. To the advocates of lifting the ban, the gay right group, this is a matter of civil rights. To the military it is not a matter of civil rights. When people go in the military, they give up a lot of their rights. To the military, it's a question, is this going to enhance or is it going to degrade the efficiency of the military, which after all has the constitutional responsibility to deter war or win 'em if deterrence fails, and I think the military overwhelmingly has come to the conclusion that by lifting the ban that this is not going to enhance the combat capability and the readiness of armed forces, it's going to degrade it because it is going to create unnecessary sexual tensions within those ranks which are going to be inimical to the good order and discipline of the military forces. And as for the argument that this is similar to the racial injustice that existed before, as Colin Powell has pointed out, color is benign, whereas sexual proclivities is a matter of behavior.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Stoddard, some people have suggested, in summary here, that, that this is an issue about which there is no way to compromise, this is not a political issue in the classic sense, there are so many emotional things at work here, and that it's going to come down to a very, very difficult resolution when it finally comes to that. Do you see it that way? You're involved in trying to push your side through politically.

MR. STODDARD: I don't see the possibility of compromising between because it is an issue of discrimination or non-discrimination, and any distinction based on sexual orientation, regardless of its nature, whether it's segregation or the asking of questions or different kinds of codes of conduct, simply not acceptable.

MR. LEHRER: So from your point of view, Mr. Bauer, you see it the same way, that for the position you hold, there is no way to give on any of the points?

MR. BAUER: This may be again one of the furies of agreement. We are a great nation. We ought to settle the issue. The issue is not whether the military is a great sociological playground where people can experiment with things. The issue is how do we conduct a defense in this country, and the military is telling us this would be a gigantic mistake. I don't think there's any room for compromise on that.

MR. LEHRER: No compromise in any way to allow the homosexuals into the military?

MR. BAUER: I think the current policy works, and I think if it's not broke, it shouldn't be fixed.

MR. LEHRER: Gen. Coleman, do you see a room, any room to work out an agreement here that would please everybody involved?

GEN. COLEMAN: I don't see that there should be any compromise on lifting the ban. I don't expect the military at any level to take that position, however. Mr. Bauer mentioned earlier that what all the officers in the military are saying and obviously, the one on active duty that would step forward right now and say, I disagree, this is wrong, he just kissed his career good-bye.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Gen. Trainor, as far as the military, the active duty military, now the commandant, the current commandant of the Marine Corps, as you know, put out a memo to all hands recently that said that, reminding everybody that the President of the United States is, in fact, commander in chief and if, in fact, this ban is lifted, the Marine Corps will make it work. Is that your view of it too, that if you all lose the argument, your sides lose, your side loses the argument, that this can be made to work, the military will make it work?

GEN. TRAINOR: In over 200 years of the history of this country, the military has always accepted civilian leadership so if the commander in chief gives an order, it will be carried out. But I'd like to address the business of a compromise. A compromise, Jim, can be achieved. There's no doubt about that. But I think that would be dodging the issue. We're at a threshold here in the cultural development of this country, and I think the issue is out on the table now. Both sides should be heard from and then the American people, as reflected by their representatives in Congress, should make a decision as to whether that ban should be lifted or whether discrimination against gays, legitimate discrimination against gays, should be maintained.

MR. LEHRER: And do it one way or another and nothing in-between?

GEN. TRAINOR: No. I think it's time to settle this thing once and for all.

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

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Still ahead, the Russian crisis and judging health care reform plans. UPDATE - THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Russian parliament has gone home after a four-day emergency meeting. But that's about the only sure thing today in Russian politics. We have an update on a chaotic weekend from Ian Williams of Independent Television News.

MR. WILLIAMS: It was a quieter Red Square that greed deputies making their way to Congress this morning, but Boris Yeltsin's opponents were in an angry and resentful mood. At yesterday's pro Yeltsin demonstration, the biggest since the failed coup of August 1991, some deputies had been jostled as they left Congress. This and Yeltsin's scathing words to the crowd left them determined the president would pay. Inside one deputy took to the rostrum with a bandaged head, the result, he claimed, of an attack with a metal object. The interior minister later said his inquiries had revealed the object to be a hand bag. The chairman of parliament, Ruslan Khasbulatov, held Yeltsin personally responsible and hinted there might be another attempt to sack the president, Congress having failed yesterday.

RUSLAN KHASBULATOV, Congress Speaker: [speaking through interpreter] When we're through with scheduled business, we might return to that other issue and pass a very firm resolution that will make it clear to everyone that one can't violate the laws and Constitution and incite the people to riot.

MR. WILLIAMS: They went on to launch a blunt attack on what remains of presidential power. They said Yeltsin bears personal responsibility for the crisis and passed a resolution which would reduce him to a figurehead. It ordered that all presidential decrees be suspended, that institutions of executive presidential power throughout Russia be disbanded, that a coalition government of national accord be formed which would take control of all presidential bodies, and that all those responsible for preparing the president's decree on urgent measures be sacked. They rejected proposals for a new two-chamber parliament that would have put Congress out of business. They also rejected an attempt to clarify the division of power between parliament and President. Soon afterwards, a statement from the president's office was circulated. It called Congress an infernal machine to destroy civic peace and political stability in Russia. Congress then demanded the head of Yeltsin's press secretary too. But he was unrepentant.

VYACHESLAV KOSTIKOV, Presidential Spokesman: [speaking through interpreter] By its unceasing anti-constitutional actions, endless violations of the procedural rules, the Congress has placed itself above and outside the law, and it has overstepped the bounds of democratic and Russian civilization. It has become a revengeful communist inquisition, prepared to burn everything around it, everything pertaining to democracy, to glasnost, human rights, and the dignity of all the peoples of Russia purely in order to restore its totalitarian domination.

MR. WILLIAMS: This afternoon, Congress decided the Russian people will be able to vote in a referendum next month. They'll be asked about their confidence in the president, to approve his social and economic policy and if early elections for president and parliament are necessary. Yeltsin might not like those terms and has warned he might hold his own plebiscite anyway, giving Russia two separate votes on the 25th of April. As Congress ended this afternoon to the strains of a national anthem, that prospect seems likely as deputies have stipulated that in their referendum Yeltsin needs the support of more than half eligible voters, not just a majority of those who vote, a tall order, given the widespread political apathy in the country. The chairman of parliament declared this Congress a victory, though the man over whom he claims victory, Boris Yeltsin, seems certain to ignore its resolutions. The rift is wider and more dangerous than ever.

MR. LEHRER: U.S. and Russian officials said plans are still on for the Clinton-Yeltsin summit this weekend in Vancouver, Canada. FOCUS - HEALTHY CHANGES?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Finally tonight, health care reform. With five weeks left before President Clinton unveils his plan for overhauling the health care system, the temperature is rising. Doctors, nurses, patients and just about every other group with an interest in reform got their long awaited chance to talk directly with the President's task force today. Until now, the panel, headed by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, has worked in tight secrecy, offering only hints of how it's package is shaping up. That package is expected to be released publicly on May 3rd. Today's opening meeting -- open meeting resulted from a lawsuit filed by groups that said they were being shut out of the deliberations, but the attempt to draw attention to their concerns began long before today. We have a report from Medical Correspondent Fred De Sam Lazaro of public station KTCA, St. Paul-Minneapolis.

MR. LAZARO: One way of getting heard in Washington is to get a platform in Lafayette Park, across from the White House. That's what a group called Citizen Action did last Tuesday. The coalition of community activists and unions held a rally to push their cause, a radical departurefrom the current health care system.

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE, [D] Minnesota: Be bold! This is the time. It's the best chance we've had for over half a century. The American Health Security Act, single payer, that's the yardstick for reform.

MR. LAZARO: The reform advocates then marched across Pennsylvania Avenue to the Old Executive Office Building where they managed to get a coveted audience with Vice President Gore. In a closed-door meeting, they presented Gore with a million post cards in favor of the single payer plan. Later, at a news conference, they presented several of their number who've had wrenching experiences with the current system of paying for health care. The group's spokesman, Robert Brandon, says real life stories from outside Washington are effective lobbying tools.

ROBERT BRANDON, Citizen Action: The idea here is to bring the voice of concern of average Americans around the country, middle class people that the administration understands politically are very important in the political equation, who are worried that health insurance is not going to be there when they need it, and increasingly are seeing that it's not covering their very important essential health care for their family. Those people's voices have to be heard here in Washington.

MR. LAZARO: Brandon's organization urged its guests to take their stories to Capitol Hill before returning home. Milwaukee native Georgia Fitzsimmons fought a long battle with her insurance company over a liver transplant for her granddaughter. She managed a brief encounter with her Democratic Senator, Russell Feingold.

RUSSELL FEINGOLD: I supported and prefer the idea of a single payer system but as I go around the Senate, I can't find many people that agree, and that's a frustration.

MR. LAZARO: Community activists like Fitzwilliams have also been frustrated by vague answers from the administration and limited access to policy makers, however, the fact that they met at all with the Vice President was a signal event for many at the Citizen Action news conference.

JULIE REISKIN, Connecticut Citizen Action: This is the first time that I feel like we've been listened to at all. We haven't been listened to through the Reagan years or the Bush years. We're finally being listened to.

RAYMOND SCALETTER, American Medical Association: And we hope the administrations listen to the other voices out there too, the voices of doctors, the voices in this room today telling them that it's not working on their end either.

MR. LAZARO: The day after the single payer group's lobbying offensive the American Medical Association marshalled its forces. It brought a thousand doctors to the capitol. Dr. James Todd is the AMA spokesman.

DR. JAMES TODD, American Medical Association: We don't want to impede the process toward, toward health system reform. But by the same token, who better knows about health care than physicians? Therefore, we want to be sure that whenever decisions are made, physicians' opinions and experience are taken into account.

MR. LAZARO: The American Medical Association is one of the best funded lobbying groups in Washington. They also heard from Vice President Gore. Only he came to them. Gore promised the task force will address doctors' concerns, like high malpractice rates and interference by insurance companies and medical practice. But, he warned, health care reform would require sacrifice by all.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: This administration knows that we cannot and do not want to build a better health care system without the cooperation and leadership ofthe AMA. But the days when one association, no matter how prestigious, can dominate the health reform debate are over, and they should be. We must all join in and pull in the same direction.

MR. LAZARO: Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole got a far warmer reception from these doctors. He poked fun at what until today was the White House's closed-door approach to liberating health care reform.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: I brought one chart with me just in case you never get in the White House. I wanted you to see a picture of it. [laughter in audience and applause at picture of White House]

MR. LAZARO: The administration was not the only target of the American Medical Association's lobbying effort, members are urged to visit their congressional representatives. Dr. Barbara Yawn of the Minnesota Medical Association brought three medical students to the office of Sen. David Duremberger.

DR. BARBARA YAWN, Minnesota Medical Association: It frightens me that they have a deadline to produce a package on May 3rd or whatever it is and that it's such a complex issue no one's been able to think it through in detail. Yes, that does alarm me.

MR. LAZARO: Just before leaving for home, Dr. Yawn said she continues to worry the Clinton administration might gather enough momentum to pass a reform package without adequate debate. She cited her experience back in Minnesota, where lawmakers passed a health reform bill a year ago with surprisingly little public debate.

DR. BARBARA YAWN: I am very, very concerned about the way things are being done. In Minnesota, we know what it's like to have a bill put together in secret and passed very quickly, and we know all the many, many bad things that happen, like people not having any idea what's in there and having it drafted in ways that are very detrimental to people's health and now this year in Minnesota we're trying to redo it again and we're still having the same problem. So we know what happens if you put something together in secret and you rush it through. It's a disaster.

MR. LAZARO: And you fear for that here?

DR. BARBARA YAWN: I do. I really fear for that here.

MR. LAZARO: Most analysts expect extensive debate once the President's reform package reaches Congress, however, some Washington lobby groups wanted their views heard as the administration developed its proposal. They got a court to agree with them that task force meetings should be open to the public.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Good morning to everyone. Welcome to the first official meeting of the President's task force on health care reform.

MR. LAZARO: Today they got their chance to talk directly to the President's advisers. With First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton absent due to her father's illness, Vice President Gore chaired the task force. He took pains to dispel the notion the administration has operated behind closed doors until now.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Mrs. Clinton and other members of the task force and its more than 30 working groups have met with more than 400 groups in the last two months alone. We have received literally tens of thousands of pages of policy recommendations, and many of them have become the basis for discussion and policy development. Today's hearing is yet another step in the exhaustive and inclusive process of gathering information and suggestions about health care reform.

MR. LAZARO: None of the groups testifying today argued they'd been left out. While administration officials emphasized they haven't yet finalized their package, some pure philosophical differences were evident fromthe testimony.

STEPHEN ELMONT, National Restaurant Association: We all sitting here are successful because we make decisions every single day on what's going to improve the customer experience, what's going to improve the employee experience, and so we oppose mandates for that reason.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: You have, you have inspection of your food preparation facilities and your sanitation and health standards and so forth?

STEPHEN ELMONT: Of course.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: In your restaurant?

STEPHEN ELMONT: By me or by the state or by the city?

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: You open up and go through that process, correct?

STEPHEN ELMONT: Correct.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Is that voluntary?

STEPHEN ELMONT: No.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Is it mandated?

STEPHEN ELMONT: Yes.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Does it make sense?

STEPHEN ELMONT: Does it make sense? I think it makes sense, but there aren't enough resources to do a good job so we employ our own inspection agency.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Would you describe it as un-American because it's mandated?

STEPHEN ELMONT: No. That's protecting the consumer.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, the point I'm making is that some things when applied universally make sense, even if they're mandated.

DONNA SHALALA, Secretary, Health & Human Services: Social Security clearly is a mandate for the public good. Is there something fundamentally different between Social Security and health benefits?

STEPHEN ELMONT: It's because if I give an inch, I am terribly, terribly concerned about the cost of that inch. And that's why I'm so paranoid in talking about mandate versus not mandate.

MR. LAZARO: Experts say the lobbying will likely crescendo until May 3rd before it moves to the halls of Congress. John Iglehart is editor of Health Affairs Magazine.

JOHN IGLEHART, Editor, Health Affairs Magazine: When you try to change a trillion dollar economy, which is what basically the health field is today, in ways that really gore some oxes and dish out some pain to very powerful interests, they are simply not going to stand still and take that lying down. You can be sure that they will fight to the end to try to salvage what they regard is their self-interest. So this will be a very contentious, I think a very protracted struggle, and the President and his political party are going to need all the strength that they can muster to get this job done.

MR. LAZARO: Following this marathon session, the task force will resume deliberations in its 30 working groups, with the possibility of still more public hearings before its May 3rd deadline.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We turn now for a look at what the general public is making of the health care debate. Robert Blendon is a leading expert on public opinion on health care reform. He's a professor at the Harvard University School of Public Health and has also consulted the administration on its health care reform options. He joins us from public station WGBH in Boston. Mr. Blendon, thank you for joining us. How does the public feel about all of these lobbying groups getting a hearing before the task force? Was that important to the public?

DR. BLENDON: Obviously everyone having a hearing is important but what's on the minds of Americans is what is in the First Lady's plan the first week in May. Americans are scared that their health insurance is disintegrating because of health care costs, and they want to hear from her a plan that will make their family lives better. And they're very skeptical about interest groups. They basically think that the interest groups are incredibly interested in making money out of health care and very little concern over people who have problems with their health insurance. So what they want to hear is her answer.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the criticism that you heard, you may have heard from the doctor in Fred De Sam Lazaro's tape piece, that she's frightened about the speed with which the task force seems to be moving? Is the public as frightened, or what's their reaction?

DR. BLENDON: This is the problem. Since 1989, 2/3 of Americans have said that they wanted government to have some sort of a national health plan that would cover everybody and nothing happened. So to the average American that's been waiting for years, it couldn't come any faster. And I think what'll happen is once their plan is out every television and radio station will have plenty of time for debate. But I think they are just tired of waiting with no action. If you recall, President Bush had a four- year task force on this issue which at the last minute had a plan that most Americans felt never went far enough.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So they're not concerned, as she was, about something getting done in secret and getting passed and then being a disaster?

DR. BLENDON: Well, I think the plan will be a disaster if it doesn't address the fears and concerns of not only doctors but average Americans. But if there's enough hearing and if the First Lady pays attention to really the various groups she's been listening to, and I think you'll find she's been talking to a much wider range of audiences than just her task force, if she pays attention, I think the plan will be right in the middle of where Americans want to be.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You mentioned a couple of minutes or seconds ago actually that the public wanted some kind of universal health care but some polls I've seen say the public doesn't really know what it wants, and we just heard the gentleman in the tape piece talk about how, you know, the different philosophical groupings, there are different philosophical approaches and attitudes about this. Does the public know what it wants?

DR. BLENDON: The public knows what is completely unacceptable to them and they have a general idea. For instance, six out of ten Americans want the insurance industry to continue to play a role in health care but they want that insurance industry to be policed by government ferociously. They don't trust it, but they don't trust the government as Sen. Wellstone was talking about to run the plan alone. The idea of an all government plan is not where most Americans are, but they want government policing of this health insurance industry. Secondly, they want to make sure that they don't lose their choice of doctor. This is a very big issue to people, and an issue that many experts have been just throwing around cavalierly, as if people would give their doctor up because of some new idea, and they don't like the idea of rationing. And so there are some things that are very unacceptable to people. But if you avoid those, people are willing to have a mainstream plan where government polices insurance industry and everybody gradually gets coverage.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you heard the Vice President say to the group today that they must be willing to compromise and accept some sacrifice. In recent weeks there have been a number of stories indicating that the task force is planning some kind of increase in taxes. In general, does the -- you said that the public supports guaranteeing access to everyone to the health care system, but does the public also support sacrifice and specifically in the form of raising taxes?

DR. BLENDON: Absolutely. It is the most incredible thing in almost polling history is that Americans are willing to pay a modest tax, and by modest, I mean something like twenty or twenty- five dollars a month for a plan that really gives them peace of mind and security. But if it's a mammoth tax, if we're talking about $500 or $1000, people aren't going to stand for it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what about the sin tax, the tax on cigarettes and liquor?

DR. BLENDON: Absolutely. I mean, Americans think it's time for us to tax those issues which affect our health so that we're talking about 75 percent of people who support a raised tax on cigarettes, on alcohol, and Americans are willing to go further. That's where they are willing to sacrifice.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Where else?

DR. BLENDON: They're willing to go to a family doctor before they go to a specialist. They're willing to see a nurse for some routine care, and they're willing to support the doctors in malpractice reform. That's very important. They see the doctors' view on this, but they want to see the doctors and the hospitals and the insurers also sacrifice.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And the public attitudes about price controls, because that's been a big area.

DR. BLENDON: Well, Americans really feel that they are being overcharged, unfairly taken advantage of, and at least in the interim we're talking about seven out of ten Americans who support some sort of price control, at least on a temporary basis, until the health care problems can be better settled, so they really feel they're being exploited here.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You heard in the tape piece also the man say that this is going to be a contentious and protracted struggle. What does the President have to do to keep the public with him on this and is that, do your predictions indicate that it's going to be a contentious, protracted struggle?

DR. BLENDON: It is going to be the biggest argument we've ever had probably in the last 20 years principally because Americans think that what has to be done is to ask the health industry to sacrifice. The health industry thinks that the public has to sacrifice. And for the President to win and Mrs. Clinton, they must let Americans know that when the smoke is over, the average family will be better off, no rationing, they still have their doctor, they have choice, hospitals aren't closing in their communities, and they haven't been hit with a big tax. If they can convince them that that's what the plan will look like, Americans will stick by this President like never before because the level of interest in change is at an historical high.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Blendon, thank you for joining us.

DR. BLENDON: Thank you. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, the Russian parliament set April 25th as the date for a national referendum on President Yeltsin and his economic policies, and the Bosnian cease- fire held for a second day. But U.S. Sec. of State Christopher said it remained precarious. Good night, Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow. I'm Charlayne Hunter-Gault. Good night.