The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

[Fanfare] Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the news hour tonight, two reports on President Mobutu's surrender of power in Zaire. A report and a discussion about today's presidential apology for the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, political analysis by ?Paul G. Go? and ?Tom Olephant? substituting for Mark Shields, and a conversation with Czech President Václav Havel. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday. [Orchestral music] "Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer has been provided by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM, supermarket to the world." And by New York Life, yet another example of New York Life's wise investment philosophy. "And by the corporation for public broadcasting, and by the annual financial support from viewers like you." President Mobutu of Zaire surrendered his power today. He handed over control of Africa's third largest country to his prime minister. Mobutu fled to his palace 700 miles north of the capital Kanchasa.

Zaire's information minister said Mobutu retained the title of President, and would reign, but not govern. In Washington, President Clinton welcomed the move, Secretary of State Albright said it opened the way to a resolution of the Civil War. Rebel forces now control most of Zaire and are closing in on the capital. We'll have more on this story right after the news summary. In Washington today, the House Budget Committee approved the 1998 budget resolution. It was the, it has the balance budget provisions agreed to by President Clinton and Republican leaders last night. The vote was 31 to 7. The votes against it were cast by Democrats. The full House is expected to consider the plan Tuesday. Chairman John Kasich, Republican of Ohio, convened the markup session where members debated and voted on various amendments to the bill. "Let me just suggest that produce, that to produce a budget agreement, that over the course of the next 10 years will result in saving somewhere in the vicinity of a trillion dollars, is a remarkable accomplishment for a Congress and administration that has had very severe

differences, but had been able to put those differences behind us today to do something good for the American people and to advance the United States of America." The Republican Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, predicted approval by his committee on Monday. Earlier, at a White House Rose Garden ceremony, President Clinton praised the budget amendment agreement; he would eliminate the deficit. It would eliminate the deficit by the year 2002, and it called for substantial entitlement savings, including $115 billion of cuts in Medicare. It would also produce $250 billion in tax cuts over five years. The President also said today he would veto a Republican-backed measure banning late-term abortions, unless he could be convinced no woman would be grievously harmed by such a law. The President said he was disappointed, the Democratic alternative, proposed by Minority Leader Tom Daschle was defeated in the Senate last night by a vote of 64 to 36.

White House spokesman Mike McCurry said the President would also veto the Disaster Relief Bill. It includes a provision that would prevent government shutdowns during a budget dispute. "It's very clear what the purpose of this bill is to help the victims of the recent flooding and other disasters. They need the assistance that should not be delayed any further by an extraneous provision that everyone understands the President finds objectionable. It's an attempt to really force a Republican Congress's priorities on the President. We've been down that road in the past. That doesn't work, and they shouldn't try it again." President and Mrs. Clinton owe between $1 million and $5 million in legal bills. That's according to their annual financial report released late yesterday. Most of it is owed to a Washington law firm representing the Clintons' and the White Water investigation. The Clintons reported they have up to $1.7 million in assets. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said today a new schedule for paying his $300,000 ethics penalty should silence his critics.

Gingrich said he would pay $150,000 from his own funds and borrow the rest from former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. Gingrich made a $50,000 payment yesterday from his personal money; he had originally planned to borrow the whole amount from Dole. President Clinton publicly apologized today to the survivors of the Tuskegee syphilis study. He did so at a White House ceremony this afternoon. Five of the eight living members of the U.S. Public Health Service Project were there [background chatter] beginning in 1932; their disease went untreated for 40 years. That was so medical researchers could see how their bodies responded to the degenerative disease. The survivors shared a $10 million compensation award in 1974, [applause] but there had never been an official apology until today. 94 year old Herman Shaw spoke for the victims. "It has been over 65 years since we entered the program. We are delighted today to close this very tragic and painful chapter in our lives. We were treated unfairly, to some extent, like any [inaudible]

This ceremony is important, it has become, the damage done by the Tuskegee study is much deeper than the wounds any of us may have suffered. It speaks to our faith in government and the ability of medical science to serve as a face- force for good. Mr. President, words cannot express my gratitude to you for bringing us here today. For doing so, doing your best to right this wrong, tragedy. And to resolve the American should never again allow such an event to occur again." We'll have more on this story later in the program.

Representatives of the 16 NATO countries ratified the Russia Agreement today in Brussels, Belgium. It sets out the framework for future relations between Russia and NATO as it expands eastward into the former Soviet bloc. President Clinton, Russian President Yeltsin, and the leaders of the other NATO nations are expected to formally sign the agreement at a summit in Paris later this month. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to the Zaire story, the Tuskegee apology, political analysis by ?Gigo? and ?Olephant,? and a conversation with Czech President Havel. [Fanfare] The Zaire story is first tonight. We start with a report from Cyrus Shaw of Independent Television News. [Chanting] "In a town that's been fueled by rumors for weeks, the news that President Mobutu had left Kinshasa for his hometown of ?Bada Lita? this morning, prompted outbursts of joy for the cameras at least.

The President, it was said, was fled into exile." We have a very, very happy Mobutu is going. And we can say something, American come here, give us jobs. "Mr. Mobutu spend three, two years without doing nothing in this country, no way with Mr. Mobutu. We lack somebody else as Mr. Kabila in this country." [street noise] But as the day wore on, the capital remained largely calm. The first indication that the soft landing aimed at directing Zaire gently through a transfer of power, was being negotiated behind the scenes. This afternoon, a government spokesman confirmed that after 32 years of dictatorship, the President had finally handed over power to the parliament. [Speaking in French] "The President will reign but won't govern, unlike the former presidential republic in which the President was the only one who held executive power.

So that means from today, the government will conduct the nation's business." [chatter] The country's rubber stamp parliament last week elected a new President. He's been left to negotiate the peace terms. The government here hopes for a transitional period culminating in elections. [garbled French] But as the news filtered down to Kinshasa's residents, there were fears that without President Mobutu, the Army's generals might not be able to prevent an outbreak of looting by government troops. Tonight, a reception committee was preparing banners to welcome the rebel forces, whether the new rulers will prefer a quick military march in and a new dictatorship is still an open question. "More now from Jennifer Glass, who's been covering the Zaire's story for monitor radio, Charles Kraus talked with her earlier today from Kinshasa." Jennifer Glass, welcome. It's now about nine o'clock in Kinshasa.

Tell me what's happening, who's in charge? "Well, it would seem that according to the Constitution, the prime minister is in charge. President Mobutu made an announcement today through his spokesman that he will no longer take part in the ruling of Zaire, although he has not given up the title of President. He, of course, left Kinshasa early this morning very quietly for his palace in the north of Zaire's ?Bada Lite.? The official reason given was for illness, but people close to him say that his generals told him that he must leave the city, otherwise he would risk being captured by the rebels." This statement that he reigns but does not rule, what does that really mean in practical terms for the country? "In practical terms, it means that President Mobutu no longer has any power in the government, it really seems a face-saving way for him to step aside without resigning. He has repeatedly said that he would not resign, that he would remain president. And so, he remains president in name but retains none of the powers of a president."

Has there been any reaction from the rebel forces from Mr. Kabila? "Well, the rebel spokesman, the rebel foreign ministers, say they reject this statement categorically: that they don't want anything to do with this statement. It would seem to say that they are not going to accept this kind of statement as the resignation they were looking for. The rebel leader, Laurent Kabila, had repeatedly said he wants Mobutu to hand power directly to him and to his rebel alliance. Otherwise, he would take the capital by force. The rejection of Mobutu's statement seems to indicate that they will not accept this as a resignation." From what you can tell, from what you see in Kinshasa, is the government essentially still in control? We've heard a variety of things. On the one hand, we've seen pictures that looks calm. On the other hand, there are reports of army troops fleeing and other problems. What is it like there?

"Well, the streets of Kinshasa are calm. A curfew is still in effect here. Dusk to dawn, government troops are patrolling the streets, trying to keep order. But it is those government troops that everybody is frightened of. They are the ones in other cities ahead of rebel advances who have started fighting, who have started looting, who have started terrorizing the population. So there is concern, there HAS been concern that those troops would do that again. With President Mobutu out of town, however, his presidential guard has no one to defend. They were the ones loyal to Mobutu; without a president to be loyal to, It would seem that perhaps fighting can be averted here." But you say that, and we've just heard a report talking about the possibility of a soft landing. We've also heard that there are still diplomatic negotiations underway. What can you tell us about all of those efforts to avoid a bloodbath? "Well, the question is, how do the forces here allow the rebel troops to come into the city and what role will Laurent Kabila play?

The government statement today didn't really seem to offer Laurent Kabila any role in the new government. It seemed to say to him that he would have to wait until Democratic elections to be held before he could take any position. That probably will be very unacceptable to Mr. Kabila. The Speaker of Parliament is negotiating or is to negotiate with the rebel forces to try and bring them into Kinshasa or bring them into the government in a peaceful way. Although I spoke to President Mobutu ?Sankangulu,? who is in the military and still in Kinshasa, and he said that if the rebels were to come into the city tonight, that he would have his men fight. It's unclear whether the generals feel the same way. They have advised Mobutu to leave town in order to avoid a fight for the city, so it seems that there are an awful lot of negotiations going on, an awful lot of machinations going on to try and avoid a fight for Kinshasa." From what you know how close are the rebel forces to Kinshasa?

"There are conflicting reports, but most reports put them about 20 miles outside the international airport: within striking distance, analysts say, they could take that airport at any time. South African Airways did not land its flights in Kinshasa because of security concerns. They declined to have their flight - international flights - most international flights have not been landing at the airport in Kinshasa for about a week because of security concerns at the airport. That is considered to be the first place that the rebels would take, but they have, in other cities, they have come close and then waited, trying to raise the tension level, and then usually, the Zairian troops have looted and then the rebels come in victorious. That will be very difficult to do here in Kinshasa because the troops have nowhere to run. That is why a negotiated solution is so important." And a one last question briefly.

What is- what are people saying? Are people afraid? Are they hoarding food? Is there any sign of panic, or are things still relatively calm? "Things are still relatively calm. The people are looking forward to change here. They say after 30 years of President Mobutu, ?St. Staco?, they need a better life. They say he has plundered the country and left them poor. So they're hoping that Laurent Kabila will give them a better life, and the people here are certainly hoping that when he comes, he will come peacefully." Jennifer Glass, thank you very much for joining us. [Fanfare] "Now, to the Tuskegee Apology Story and to ?Charlene Hunter Gauld.?" At a White House ceremony today, President Clinton addressed survivors of an infamous study that has raised questions about race and medical ethics for decades. "The United States government did something that was wrong: deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens.

We can end the silence. We can stop turning our heads away. We can look at you in the eye and finally say, on behalf of the American people, what the United States government did was shameful and I am sorry." [applause] This apology was 65 years in coming. Now, the US government has officially said sorry for its role in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. It started out with good intentions: medical doctors trying to find a way to curb the raging syphilis epidemic that was taking its highest toll on blacks in the South. [Sweeping orchestral music] "Now that the curtain of secrecy has at last been removed, everyone should know the truth about syphilis and gonorrhea." In 1930, the United States Health Service launched a study of the disease and the effects of

treatment in six southern counties with large black populations. But two years later, at the height of the depression, funding ran out. Back in Washington, the health service decided if it couldn't afford to treat syphilis, maybe in a scaled back version of the experiment, they could at least study its effects. This decision produced the dramatic turn that led to today's apology. Abandoning those who participated in the larger treatment program, the health service chose to focus on poor and rural Macon County, Alabama as the only site for the scaled down experiment. In a report, ?Talifid Clark? of the Health Service explained why. Macon County, he wrote, is a natural laboratory, a ready-made situation, the rather low intelligence of the Negro population, depressed economic conditions, and the common promiscuous sex relations not only contribute to the spread of syphilis, but the prevailing indifference

with regard to treatment. The famous Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington to educate freed slaves and their descendants, relied heavily on federal funding and quickly volunteered office space and its hospital for exams and autopsies. In the fall of 1932, handbills were posted and circulated at several church gatherings in the poor county, where even the one black doctor served only those who could afford to pay. The ads promised special treatment for men with quote, bad blood, which to local folks could mean anything from ?V.D.? to anemia to indigestion. Eager to take advantage of any kind of medical care that was free, men signed up in droves. "The way I heard about it was through a rumor that the people, it came out of Macon County and people said that you could get free medicine for yourself and things of that kind.

And it would have a meeting at ?Semon? Chapel at a certain date and those of us were eligible, was of a certain age, but then it had to be a certain age to be eligible to participate in this meeting. Therefore, I went." After blood tests of the volunteers, 399 men with syphilis and a control group of 201 men without the disease were chosen. But the 399 were not told that they had syphilis, or that they were now part of a medical experiment. "And I said, you're going to treat us. And then you said, bad blood." You know, and use a little vial of liquid medicine. Everybody that same thing. "The vial of medicine turned out to be nothing more than treatment for the symptoms of a common cold. For years, the doctors were relentless in their pursuit of the study.

During World War II, they kept the still oblivious participants out of the draft, since military service would require a blood test and treatment if syphilis was discovered. In 1947, a miracle drug, penicillin, was found effective in curing syphilis, but the doctors also withheld it from the men in their study. Though the study was organized and run from Washington, the participants dealt with a black nurse named Eunice Rivers. Rivers helped with transportation to the clinic, free meals, even burials, and when one man went to Birmingham to get a penicillin shot, she followed him there, making sure he didn't get it. "And they gave me breakfast and put me on the bus, and sent me back to ?Towsend.? You didn't supposed to be here, so you in the Macon County clinic." The study originally intended to run for six months, lasted 40 years. It was well known in the medical community; 13 articles were published in medical journals throughout the course of the study. But the larger public and the participants didn't learn about it until 1972, when Peter

?Bucston,? a former health service employee, leaked the story to an Associated Press reporter. The AP story said the experiment involved quote, human beings induced to serve as guinea pigs, and said that health officials involved had quote, serious doubts about the morality of the study. Attorney Fred Gray has represented the participants since 1972, and in 1974, he won an out-of-court settlement totaling $10 million. Also in that year, the government was ordered to provide lifetime health care for participants as well as some of their family members. Still, the survivors and their families wanted one more thing: an official apology. Four of the eight survivors attended a press conference last month in Tuskegee. "We suffered through it and we want to be recognized.

And I think that we have people to be recognized." [chatter] Today, the men from Tuskegee got that recognition. "The people who ran the study at Tuskegee diminished the stature of man by abandoning the most basic ethical presets. [cough] They forgot their pledge to heal and repair. They had the power to heal the survivors and all the others, and they did not. Mr. Shaw, the others who are here, the family members who are with us in Tuskegee: only you have the power to forgive. Your presence here shows us that you have chosen a better path than your government did so long ago." For more on the Tuskegee study and its legacy, we're joined by Dr. Stephen Thomas, director of the Institute for Minority Health Research at Emory University, and Fred Gray, attorney

for the Tuskegee participants and their heirs. Thank you gentlemen for joining us. Mr. Gray, why was this apology today so important? "It was so important because the tragedy which occurred extended for over 40 years. 40 years. The men had no knowledge whatsoever of what was being involved. They thought they were being treated for what their ailments were, and when we settled the lawsuit in 1974, the government denied liability, that was never in admission, even though we did reach a settlement, and even though they were given treatment now. So after some 65 years, we felt that it is very important for our government, as powerful as it is, and as influential as it is, and with all of the resources behind it, there had come a time when it simply needed to do what the president did today, is make an outright confession and ask for forgiveness, and that's what occurred."

Dr. Thomas, can you briefly explain to us in not detailed clinical terms, but what happens? What is syphilis? And how does it progress, especially how is it detrimental to the body as it progresses? "Very briefly, it is a sexually transmitted disease that, once the person is infected, can result in damage to the liver, the heart, the lungs, the brain, can result in lacerations on the skin, can result in dementia, "which is disorientation" mental disorientation, it can be transmitted from the person- a woman if she's pregnant, can be transmitted to her unborn child. It is a disease you don't want to get. "And Mr. Gray, there were five of the men who survived the experiment who were too ill to travel, and others who have died, are all of these effects due to the untreated syphilis?"

Actually, there are eight living participants. Five of them were with us today. One of them was in the audience in Tuskegee. But what happens is the end- the way syphilis operates, as I understand it, if you really have it in an active stage, it gives you all of those results that you've indicated plus death, and those who were really affected that early. The human body has a tremendous capacity that if you can get over certain stages, if you can just make it, then you will be able to survive." Which is why you have a hundred-year-old participant there today, and Mr. Shaw who looked very good for his age. "That's why you have these persons who range. The youngest one is 87, and the oldest one is 110, and the 110-year-old walked to the airport like anybody else without the aid of a chair."

Mr. Thomas, did these men have syphilis before they volunteered for the experiment, or did that- were they injected with syphilis by the government, as many people believe? "I think you have hit the nail in the head: that is a critical question that was really not answered today, nor is it answered in the HBO movie Miss Evers' Boys. The common view in the black community is that the men were injected by the government doctors, and that is why you see the kind of anger, and that has been repeated by the ministry of Louis Farrakhan and others that really are voicing a common folk wisdom in the black community. But in my work and in working with the literature, I have found absolutely no evidence that the men were intentionally injected by the government doctors, and maybe we can clear that up right now on this show." Well, we made a thorough investigation of it, and we found no evidence, they- the men had syphilis

and there is no question about it. We found no evidence whatsoever that the government inflicted them with syphilis. "Mhmm" The tragedy is bad enough, and we don't need to make it any worse, but there is absolutely no credence to the fact that they were injected with syphilis. "Mr. Shaw said today, we just heard a little while ago that the damage done to society perhaps is deeper than the wounds that were inflicted on them. You've had some experience with that, haven't you?" Over the past seven years, Dr. Sandra Quinn at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and I had traced the roots of the Tuskegee legacy to the AIDS epidemic. Many African-Americans believe that AIDS is a form of genocide, and their fear and suspicion of the healthcare delivery system is directly related to the history of the Tuskegee legacy.

"They believe that the syphilis was injected into the men, and now they believe that AIDS is something that has been put into the black community." Another example of efforts to eliminate black people, and it extends even beyond AIDS. African-Americans are underrepresented as organ donors, underrepresented as individuals who donate blood. And this legacy in the black community is now a metaphor for all of the abuses of biomedical research that violate human rights; that's why what happened today was so important. "But just to stay on the impact for a moment, does this retard your efforts to deal with AIDS and black people, to treat them or to do research, or?" If we stop talking after today, it very well could retard, but what I heard today from the president and from the men was this is a new beginning, and if we find a way to talk about the role of race, and medicine, and science, and continue this dialogue, we can

have a new beginning and start rebuilding that trust. "But up to now, the mistrust is there." It is there and well documented. "Mr. Shaw, the damage to the families, is that a significant part of this legacy?" I think that it is a part of it, and one of the first things that health service did, once the study ended, was to health. Those families who, the participants were syphilitic to be examined, and those who tested positively were placed in the health care program. Let me hasten them, say I think it would be a disservice to these men if we end up saying that AIDS is a direct result of the Tuskegee syphilis study. I don't think that's true, I don't think there's any basis for those facts, I think AIDS is bad, and I think there's room for people to have the distrust. But I don't think we really should connect the two, and I think a part of our responsibility

is to keep the record straight and let our people who know it's bad, but we need to do something about it. "Dr. Thomas, could this happen again in this day?" Some people believe that it already has, and the connection has less to do with the biology of the two diseases and more to do with people's response to it. And that response is that today. We know how to stop the spread of AIDS. Today we have new drugs that extend life, and African-Americans are not benefiting, and the legacy of Tuskegee may be one of those factors. "What looks like the chapter is not quite closed." It is not closed. "All right, we have to leave it there. Thank you." Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, ?Shego Inoliphant? and Václav Havel. Now our regular Friday night political analysis, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul ?Gigo?

is here, Mark Shields is off, columnist ?Tom Ollipin? of the Boston Globe is his substitute. All the new budget agreement: can all sides really claim victory the way they are doing so and get away with it? "That's when you really have to look at the fine print, Jim. I think that the president, frankly, can claim the biggest portion of victory here. In fact, when I look at this deal, it's hard for me to find anything he really didn't get. What he had to give up was bigger tax cuts than he would have liked to. But that was the price that Republicans wanted. Let me just give you one number, a couple of numbers. He proposed spending, total spending, of $1.687 billion in a budget: trillion at the beginning of this year. The Republicans gave him a compromise that gives him $5 billion in more spending. Now if you had told me in January that the Republicans would hail a victory that gave the president more spending, I just said he's spending too much time with ?Tom Ollipin.? "But ?Tom Ollipin? the Democrats today on the House Budget Committee that voted against

this. They were the only ones who did." Exactly. Before getting to Paul's fine print, it might help to get to the roll call in the House Budget Committee, which says everything, every single Republican votes for this thing, which is supposed to help President Clinton more than them. And the Democratic vote was just as significant, 11 to seven in favor, which is comfortably ahead of the over 50% goal that the president had. This would appear to suggest that somewhere in Washington, D.C., there is a thing called the center. And it is boring. It believes somewhat ploddingly in progress, kind of exults at things like balanced budgets and words like reform, but 31 to seven is a very powerful vote, particularly in the House where I think opposition to this has tended to be more vocal "mhmm" before this test vote. And I think in the Senate, whose Budget Committee will take this up next week, this is a slam dunk.

"But the liberal Democrats and the Senate are being very quiet about this too." Very much so. I think there's something going on that's very interesting. I think in the Democratic world, there seems to be less attention right now to the budget cuts that are in this agreement, believe it or not. And more attention toward perhaps trying to make some alteration in the tax cut part of this deal. Which interestingly, is where I think a lot of the Republicans have concentrated their efforts. "Why did the Republicans buy this poll?" I think I would call it a form of protection money. I mean, the Republicans came out of 1996 saying, we got ripped on Medicare. We want some protection now in Medicare. So we're going to, we want the President- "You're going to explain what you mean when they got ripped on-" They passed a budget that had Medicare cuts in it, reductions in growth, excuse me, [chuckles] spending their Medicare, and reforms, and the President just beat them up and beat them up bad. And they think that they lost the election, [inaudible], I happen to disagree with them. But you talk to the members and that's, they believe that. That is now wrote Bible history for them.

And so they want cover. They've made a strategic decision that they're better off with a deal, that they're better off with the President's approval and laying on of hands to going into the '98 election. Because they don't think they can beat the President and they had to head battle as long as he has the bully pulpit and they want to survive in '98. I think it's, they've traded some of their principles and some of their, and much of their agenda, "mhmm" in return for that protection. "So you don't agree with Tom that this is a victory for the, for the center, for the great middle?" There are budget cuts. They're all in the future. You know, some future Congress is going to have to make the tough decisions. The budget in 1998 grows spending by 4.3% over 1997. That's more than the Democratic Congress's raised spending in '93, '94 and '95. "And of course, the way they get away with that, of course, is because the economy is doing better than expected, right?" The big help. Well, yes, maybe perhaps another way of saying that is that the Democrats and the Republicans have been consistently ignoring the strength of the American economy. Now in this agreement, they have taken advantage of these now recognized strengths to spread

a little largesse out of, in the country and perhaps there is not a conservative revolution occurring. But I do believe that the Republicans have bought into one notion of President Clinton's that is not ideological. It's a dance step. I call it the two step. The first step is let's balance this budget for now. It'll marginally help the economy. It'll probably help us politically. It's not a bad thing. And then we will discover that there is still plenty of room preserved for all kinds of political fights about tax reform, about additional initiatives in areas like health care, "Fine, but fight them one at a time." No, Francis Fukuyama is not going to [Lehrer interjecting] come around and end up right at the end of history. [chuckles] "You better explain who he is." He wrote an essay after the Berlin Wall came down suggesting that now history was ended and that wouldn't be the end of everything. Well, that's not going, it didn't happen in foreign policy and it ain't going to happen in domestic policy either. The two step is a way to have a short-term goal that everybody can sign on to that might

be marginally helpful for the country that still preserves all of these grand issues for debate and lighting later. "But I think that actually helps what President Clinton is trying to do to redefine the democratic party because Bob Kerry, the senator from Nebraska, said something interesting to me about a month ago, which was that we can't be Democrats again until we balance the budget. What he means by that is we can't really begin to promote activist [Lehrer interjects] government again and have the credibility to do it with voters until we passed that hurdle." Let's move to the Gingrich decision to pay half of his $300,000 ethics penalty on borrow only half from Bob Dole: what happened? "I think-" Changed his mind! [chuckles] "Well, he changed his mind a bit. I mean, he rejiggered the loan "mhmm" agreement a little bit, reduced it. He figured he- little more cash in the till to pay out himself, three $50,000 installments, and I think he cut a deal with the two members who are now still on the ethics committee, a Democrat and a Republican, Chairman and Vice Chairman, and nobody else wants to serve on it, smart people

over there. But the two people who are on it must have dragooned them to get him in. They signed off on the loan "yup" with just a little bit of tinkering for what is, looks to me now, to be a fairly straightforward, commercially viable loan. "Tom?" About all you need to know about the acceptability of this is that the Captain Ahab of this whale hunt, David ?Binyar,? says it's okay, it's okay. What I- "So we're not going to hear about this anymore." As such, no, I think that's the, now, there are still some issues involving taxes and ethics that are somewhat unresolved. But no, that is about it. And I think this just shows the extent to which the Speaker was willing to go to end this, and I think in some ways, he took this beyond where he really needed to go. We knew four weeks ago there was going to be some collateral for this loan, "sure" he put some in. "That's right." We knew that there would be some payments almost immediately. He may be front loaded a little bit more than we thought. But actually, I don't think it's all that big a deal.

"He just wanted it done." Yeah! "Absolutely. Absolutely. And I- smart. I mean, I think, though, it really does show that the Democrats at the time this was announced, who said this was somehow a sweetheart deal for Bob Dole and his lobbyist, David ?Binyar,? George Miller, these critics, and said it was, nobody else could get this. Or really, they owe the Speaker an apology." Of all the charges about excessive rhetoric that fit, Paul is exactly right. Those statements that were made at the time this was announced were really unfair. "The late-term abortion debate, the national amendment was defeated. Now what happens on that issue? Paul?" I think the real, this was a significant week in abortion politics in this country, because I think the important thing about the national amendment was not that it failed, but that it was offered. Because for the first time, what you had, leaders, democratic pro-choice politicians, who favor abortion rights, saying, we don't think it's politically possible anymore to defend late-term abortions. So Tom Daschle came out and actually proposed a ban on abortions to the point of viability.

Now we don't know when that is exactly, but they can work that out 22 weeks, 24 weeks. That's the first time since Roe v. Wade that a government has proposed to actually ban abortions. It's a big victory, in my view, at a strategic level, for the pro-life movement. "You read it the same way?" Yes, as a matter of fact, in fact, I go further. I think what remains to be seen, though, is whether the pro-life forces can recognize a victory in front of them, and take advantage of it, even though it gives them less than they want, just doing political analysis here. Because even more than the way Paul put it, I would say that this is the first time a leader in the Senate, but most importantly, President Clinton, who signed on [Lehrer interjects] to the Daschle, has supported something that I think most people would agree takes a nick out of the essence of Roe v. Wade. It- by using the concept of viability, Senator Daschle was suggesting that an abortion would be okay if a woman's health were seriously in jeopardy, but it created a wall between

physical health and mental health, "right" and Roe v. Wade has always been interpreted as meaning both. So it was a very sick, but there's one key point that wasn't mentioned. Nothing is going to happen the way this board is set up. Unless President "Because..." Clinton signs something. "that leaves the [inaudible]" There were 36 [inaudible] "mhmm" Exactly. "Not enough numbers to get this actually enacted." 36 votes "Well," for Daschle. "The ban, I mean." And against Daschle were at least three or four Democrats who are pro-choice and disagreed with them. So it looks like a veto can still be sustained. "And the debate goes on about abortion." The veto can still be sustained, but I would be a bit surprised if after that veto was sustained, some of the pro-lifers don't sit down with Tom Daschle and others and try to work something out that can really "yeah" make some progress on this. "All right, we have to go. Thank you both very much. Tom, thank you for being with us. We close tonight with a conversation with Václav Havel and to Margaret Warner. [Marching band music]

"In the spring of 1993, Václav Havel, president of the newly independent Czech Republic, joined other world leaders for the dedication of the new Holocaust Museum in Washington." The Holocaust, to be sure, transformed the entire 20th century. Sweeping aside this... "Against this reminder of Europe's bloody history, Havel and Polish president, Lech Wałęsa, had a second agenda. They wanted to persuade President Clinton to create a new security order in Europe. In private meetings, Havel and Wałęsa both pressed to have their formerly communist countries admitted into the North American alliance, NATO. Clinton aids say those conversations were crucial in convincing the president to consider the idea. [Marching band music] Nine months later, President Clinton came to Prague with an offer. The east European countries could become partners, but not yet full members of NATO.

Mr. Clinton told a disappointed Havel that this go-slow approach would help avoid a violent reaction from Russia. This week, as Havel arrived in the U.S. for a private visit, President Clinton announced that NATO and Russia had finally struck a deal to address Russia's concerns over NATO expansion. NATO is expected to invite several new members, including the Czech Republic, this July. Havel is a renowned playwright who has been fighting for a free and independent Czech land for decades. At the age of 30, he risked his career to oppose the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. In short order, his plays were banned and his passport confiscated, and in the years that followed, he was jailed repeatedly for his dissident beliefs. But he remained an activist, particularly in the cause of human rights. [Chants echoing] Those efforts came to fruition with the so-called Velvet Revolution of December 1989.

Czechs and Slovaks took to the streets to demand an end to Communist rule. The government capitulated. And on December 29, 1989, Václav Havel was elected president. [Cheering echoing] All has not been smooth in the seven years since then. In 1993, after Czechs and Slovaks quarreled bitterly, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist. Two new countries emerged, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The Czech Republic, with Havel as president, began to embrace free market economic reform, and compared to many other countries in central and eastern Europe, it has flourished. But the country hasn't completed its economic transformation; wages and deficits are outpacing growth. Stated-owned banks still control much of the industry. Havel has had his share of personal sorrows, too. In January of last year, his wife of 32 years, Olga, died of cancer.

In December, Havel, a lifelong smoker, underwent cancer surgery himself and had half of one lung removed. But in January of this year, Havel was married again to a leading Czech actress, Dagmar Veškrnová. [Applause] In New York last night, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, an old friend and fellow Czech, presented him with the East-West Institute's European Statesman Award." Thank you for being with us, Mr. President. Tell us, what do you think of the deal announced this week between NATO and Russia concerning NATO expansion? [Havel speaking in Czech] "I think that the agreement is very important and useful, I think it's a [inaudible] agreement for both sides. And it's in keeping with what I have always sought. I have always believed that NATO enlargement should be pursued against the background of some sort of an understanding with the Russian Federation,

and this is what has happened just now." You made it clear during these earlier discussions that you didn't want NATO to accept any limitations on its activities in the new member countries, nothing that would make the new member countries feel like second-class members. Are you satisfied on that score? [Havel speaking in Czech] "Yes, I believe that nobody can perceive this kind of agreement between the alliance as Russia, as some sort of negotiations about us, without us, like some great powers dividing spheres of influence between themselves or deciding the fates of smaller nations. There is no reason whatsoever why this agreement should be interpreted in this way." Explain if you could to Americans who are just now really beginning to think about NATO expansion.

Why is it important for a country like the Czech Republic to be in NATO? [Havel speaking in Czech] "Why is this important for us? Look, I was the one who, on behalf of the Warsaw Pact, declared several years ago that the Warsaw Pact has decided to dissolve itself. Czechoslovakia was the presiding nation then, and I was president of Czechoslovakia at the time. And the reason why we were abolishing the Warsaw Pact was that we knew it had been an instrument of the Soviet Germany that had rid us of our independence and had been meant to defend a totalitarian system, and we wanted to be a democracy and independent nation that shares the same values that the Western democratic world subscribes to. We have not dissolved the Warsaw Pact in order to find ourselves in some sort of a vacuum

belonging nowhere, and in order to be deprived of the possibility to be united with those with whom we share the same values. And this is why I deem it tremendously important from the model psychological point of view. I believe it's simply impossible for the North Atlantic Alliance to consider itself to be simply, some sort of a Cold War veterans club that would be close and that would believe it has enough democracies for members and does not need more. This would be a misleading way of thinking. For us, it's important in order to build firm anchors within the democratic structures after all we have been through and after we have rid ourselves of the communist totalitarian regime.

But it is no less important for everyone else, for the whole of Europe, for the Euro-Atlantic region and its stability. Europe has always been one political body that necessarily has to be organized and whole. It is simply unthinkable to have a peaceful order in one half of Europe and to leave the other half to itself because disorder or unrest in one half of Europe would immediately spread to the ordered half as well. We can't have a room one half of which would be warm and the other half cold. That's simply impossible. "Tell us a little bit about life in the Czech Republic. It's been seven years since you threw off Communist totalitarianism. What's this new world like, do you think, for the average Czech citizen?" [Havel speaking in Czech] "In my view, the Czech Republic of today is basically improving in the direction which most of our people wanted it to go in those days when we rose against communism.

That means we are building democratic institutions so we have freedom of expression. We are building market economy in our country, et cetera. I don't think we have left that course in any way, but it becomes obvious that the progress along this path is much more complicated than many thought in those initial days and weeks of the post-revolution euphoria and [inaudible], and the difficulties which are profound and difficult are the issues that confront us and we are trying to deal with. It's possible to introduce a dictatorship and nationalize everything overnight, but to reconstruct the former condition, to rebuild a democratic civil society, to return all the property to a private owner is tremendously complicated.

It's possible to smash up a fine piece of furniture in 30 seconds, but it may take months to assemble it again and this is the kind of process that my country is going through right now." Would you say that life is better in every way or that Czechs are better off in every way? Not just economically, but psychologically or spiritually or politically, or is something lost? Has something been lost at all in this embrace of the free market and democracy? [Havel speaking in Czech] "This is a very complicated matter. First of all, people get used very easily to the good things. For example, by now, almost nobody remembers that it was, for example, not possible to travel under the communist regime: that people had no passports or could go to prison for [inaudible] or a sentence

uttered in a pop. That there were times when the newspapers were not free to write what they wanted. People have got used to that very fast and they no longer rejoice at this. They rather take it for granted and anyway, this is the right so, and if they are nostalgically longing for something. Well, of course they also take it for granted that now it's possible to have private enterprise and develop initiative in different ways. If there are nostalgically longings for anything, it may be longing for the paternalist state that solved everything for the people that made no great demands on the people's responsibility for their own lives, that took care of the population from the cradle to the grave and those people who found that convenient may feel, a nostalgia at present. "And finally for yourself, after being, I mean, you're a playwright, artist, writer: have you

found politics satisfying?" [Havel speaking Czech] I am a man who finds pleasure and gratification in every creative activity that bears fruit. This is most important to me and it's of lesser importance whether the activity is one in theater or one in politics. What bothers me is a situation when one is moving in a circle and sees no results of his or her work. If politics brings positive results, it pleases me. If I see no such results, I may feel the same kind of frustration that I may feel when trying to write a play and failing to do so. "All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. President." Thank you. [Fanfare] "Again, the major stories of this Friday, President Mobutu of Zaire surrendered power in the capital of Kinshasa and fled to his palace north of the city as rebel forces closed

in. The House Budget Committee approved the 1998 budget resolution containing the balanced budget agreement reached by President Clinton and Republican leaders last night. And the President publicly apologized to the survivors of the Tuskegee syphilis study who were left untreated for 40 years. We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night." [Orchestral music] Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lara has been provided by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM, supermarket to the world. And by New York Life, yet another example of New York Life's wise investment philosophy. And by the corporation for public broadcasting, and by the annual financial support from viewers like you.