The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Tuesday, we update the Oklahoma bombing investigation, Senators Mikulski and Coats debate the fitness of Henry Foster to be surgeon general, we have excerpts from today's Medicare hearings, and essayist Richard Rodriguez speaks of Vietnam. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: Federal agents arrested two men this morning outside a Missouri hotel. They were wanted in connection with the Oklahoma City bombing. Gary Land and Robert Jacks are being held as material witnesses. It is not known if either is considered a suspect. Their arrest came in the small Missouri town of Carthage, about 200 miles northeast of Oklahoma City. An all points bulletin had been issued for them yesterday. They're said to have had some association with Timothy McVeigh, the only man charged so far in the bombing case. Attorney General Reno spoke at a White House briefing.

JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General: At approximately 6:45 this morning the FBI arrested Robert Jacks and Gary Land in Carthage, Missouri, based on material witness warrants issued by a magistrate judge in Oklahoma, based on probable cause to believe that they possessed information concerning the April 19, 1995, bombing in Oklahoma City. The arrest occurred without incident. Jacks and Land are cooperating with the FBI in the investigation and have agreed to be interviewed and provided consent to search their property. The investigation is continuing.

MR. MAC NEIL: A friend of Timothy McVeigh's, James Nichols, was ordered held without bond today in Milan, Michigan. He is charged with making explosives with McVeigh. The bodies of 140 people have now been recovered from the wreckage of the Oklahoma City federal building. Officials believe at least 40 people are still missing. Assistant Fire Chief Jon Hansen said, "There are probably some people we won't find." Recovery workers have begun using mechanized equipment to assist in moving the debris. We'll have more on the investigation right after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Attorney General Reno announced a reversal of Cuban refugee policy today. She said many of the 20,000 refugees at Guantanamo Bay will be eligible to enter the United States. They were stopped last year while trying to reach the United States by boat. She said then they would not be allowed into this country. Today's decision comes from a deal made last year with Cuban President Castro to stop the exodus. Reno said future refugees will have to come to the US through normal channels.

JANET RENO: Migrants intercepted at sea or in Guantanamo will be advised that they will be taken back to Cuba, where US consular officials will meet them at the dock and assist those who wish to apply for refugee admission to the United States at the intersection in Havana. They will be told that the government of Cuba has provided a commitment to the United States government that they will suffer no adverse consequences or reprisals of any sort and that US consular officers will monitor their treatment. These new procedures represent another step towards regularizing migration procedures with Cuba, finding a humanitarian solution to the situation at Guantanamo, and preventing another uncontrolled and dangerous outflow from Cuba.

MR. LEHRER: Cuba's chief negotiator on the refugee issue praised the agreement. He said it was in the interests of both the United States and Cuba. He said both sides are winners. But Republicans in Congress criticized it. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms said, "How sad it is that the United States is now viewed as an accomplice in Castro's repression of the Cuban people."

MR. MAC NEIL: Confirmation hearings for surgeon general nominee, Dr. Henry Foster, began today in the Senate. The number of abortions he performed as an obstetrician-gynecologist continued to be a point of controversy. Foster told the committee he'd made an honest mistake when he tried to estimate the number. He said he regretted any confusion that might have been caused. He said that while he had performed abortions, his life's work was devoted to bringing healthy lives into this world. We'll have extended excerpts and a debate later in the program. Partisan wrangling over the future of Medicare boiled over today on Capitol Hill. Republicans charged Democrats with ignoring the danger of insolvency in the program. Democrats accused Republicans of trying to scare people into making Medicare cuts to pay for the Republican tax reduction plan. We'll have more on the story later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: In economic news today, the Commerce Department reported sales of new homes rose 3 percent in March. They were down 12 percent the month before. More than 50 people were hurt when an Amtrak train derailed this morning. The train struck a tractor trailer that was stuck on a crossing near Sycamore, South Carolina. None of the injuries were serious. The train was on its way from New York City to Florida.

MR. MAC NEIL: A two-day battle in Croatia ended today after government forces said they'd stop their offensive against rebel Serbs. The Serbs responded to that offensive with rocket attacks in the capital, Zagreb. We have more in this report from Paul Davies of Independent Television News.

PAUL DAVIES, ITN: The Croatian leadership had described its offensive against rebel Serbs as a limited operation. Today on the streets of their own capital they discovered there's no such thing as a limited operation in former Yugoslavia. One act of violence inevitably brings revenge. This morning, the Serbs extracted retribution, firing rockets and cluster bombs into the center of Zagreb. The victims, as usual, were civilians. At least four people were killed, and the emergency wards of the city's hospitals have been struggling to cope with more than one hundred injured. Seventy-five miles from Zagreb, the reason for today's rocket attack: the rebel Serbs are retreating ahead of a Croatian army offensive. The Serbs have been pushed out of land they historically see as their own. Their response is to rocket and shell Croatian cities, including the capital. Fearing a new cycle of violence, the UN Security Council met in emergency session and through its president demanded that Croatia call an immediate halt to its offensive. The Croats have said their military operation has been a success and will end today, but more than 5,000 Serbian civilians have been made homeless. Many have fled into Bosnia, across a bridge Croatian jets have hit but failed to destroy. Despite their sorry state, the rebel Serbs say Croat celebrations are premature. They'll be back with their allies to take more revenge.

MR. MAC NEIL: A State Department spokesman condemned the Serb attack on Zagreb. He called on both sides to withdraw their forces and allow the United Nations to re-establish control over the disputed area. Those are the top stories. Now it's on to the Oklahoma bombing investigation, the Foster debate, Medicare hearings, and essayist Richard Rodriguez. FOCUS - NEW ARRESTS

MR. MAC NEIL: With two new arrests made in the Oklahoma bombing case, we lead with a look at the success of the investigation so far, and we talk to two reporters who have been covering it since it began almost two weeks ago. Elaine Shannon, correspondent with Time Magazine, has been covering the story from Washington. Gaylord Shaw, a senior reporter for New York Newsday, is in Oklahoma City. Gaylord Shaw, what's the significance of the two men picked up today?

GAYLORD SHAW, New York Newsday: [Oklahoma City] Well, that's what they're still trying to sort out. Very clearly, they were intensely interested in talking to these two fellows, but right now the question seems to be whether they're just hapless victims of circumstances or someone of real interest. One official told us that these fellows have a heap of explaining to do because of some coincidences perhaps. They stayed in Kingman, Arizona, at a motel. They stayed a couple of months, the motel just across the road from where Timothy McVeigh stayed, and then it seems they showed up at another motel in Perry, Oklahoma, about the same time Timothy McVeigh was being arrested there.

MR. MAC NEIL: There --

MR. SHAW: I'm sorry.

MR. MAC NEIL: I'm sorry. There was immediate speculation that one of these guys might be the mysterious John Doe No. 2 whose picture has been circulated for a couple of weeks now, but apparently there's no evidence of that so far.

MR. SHAW: That seems to be fading. He doesn't have a tattoo, which John Doe 2 supposedly has. So someone told us that it may be John Doe No. 3 or John Doe No. 4, but it doesn't seem to be John Doe No. 2.

MR. MAC NEIL: Okay. Elaine Shannon, there's -- the AP is saying out of Washington a few minutes ago it's possible that these two men may be let go. Do you have any -- there may be no reason to hold them -- can you add anything to what Gaylord's been saying?

ELAINE SHANNON, Time Magazine: Not much. I was just talking to a source here in Washington, and he said, well, these guys may be MOPES, which is sort of a law enforcement jargon for not very important people. Their travel records, as Gaylord says, are interesting. There was one report in the LA Times today which said that this white Thunderbird was seen in Oklahoma City in a surveillance camera, in those videotapes they reviewed, but John Doe 2 is the person they're looking for, and at this moment, I'm told, or thirty minutes ago, they had twelve or thirteen leads on who this guy might be. In fact, one of the people involved in the investigation said to me, we're getting all these tips, the American people are going to solve this for us.

MR. MAC NEIL: In other words, this is new hot leads or just part of the routine sorting through all the leads they've been getting?

MS. SHANNON: They're getting thousands and thousands and thousands of calls, and somebody's hot for a day, another person's hot for a day, and they just -- it's a shoe leather investigation. They're just sending agents out, fanning out all over the country, to chase these people down.

MR. MAC NEIL: Just one more question, Elaine. The James who was detained today in, in Michigan, in Milan, Michigan, and ordered held, James Nichols, the, the brother of the other Nichols, tell us what new has come out about that.

MS. SHANNON: Well, the two brothers have been prime suspects from the beginning in terms of their association with McVeigh. One of the interesting things that struck me in today's papers, and I heard this yesterday myself, was that Terry McVeigh [Nichols] had in his house a receipt for a bunch of fertilizer, and it had McVeigh's fingerprint on it, and it was in a phony name.

MR. MAC NEIL: It was a ton, if I remember correctly.

MS. SHANNON: Yes.

MR. MAC NEIL: A ton of this ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

MS. SHANNON: Yes. And the thinking is that there were about four thousand pounds of this stuff in this bomb.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gaylord Shaw, from the evidence that's come out so far, how much of a story can you piece together in this case of who went where and did what, and what can you kind of narrate in the way of a story?

MR. SHAW: More of that is coming out. But in many ways, it's, it's kind of a story of folks physically anyway drifting from, from one location to another, a lot of it along old US Route 6, which stretches on from Oklahoma out to Arizona. I mean, the hotels in Kingman, Arizona, where these folks stayed were on old US 66, and the place in Carthage, Missouri, where they were arrested, the last two, was on old US 66. It's -- I mean, the locales are small towns, $20 a night motels. The question which remains to be answered is, is, you know, were big plots being hatched in this small time hotels? Someone suggested to one of my colleagues in Washington today, to Newt Royce, that at the same time they're chasing down all the leads, looking for John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe No. 4, they also are looking for a mastermind. I think they've concluded that some of these folks were much lower level operatives, and so someone had to be pulling strings somewhere. So I think that's going to be the next turn in the investigation.

MR. MAC NEIL: Can we see the map of the Missouri-Oklahoma area there, and Kansas, where so many of these people have been identified or have stayed. What do you know, Gaylord, of the search of the lake near Junction City, Kansas, where apparently the FBI suspected or hoped it might find evidence of the bomb being assembled? Have they abandoned that now? Do you know about that?

MR. SHAW: Well, I haven't heard this afternoon. Newsday spokesman Sylvia Adcock spent the day there yesterday and watched them diving into the lake. By the way, the diving equipment was carried up the lake in a yellow Ryder truck which certainly caught their attention, but we haven't heard anything more today. They're into the forensic checking of some what they call spills, chemical spills which they traced up there, but I haven't heard this afternoon whether that's still, still promising. They're looking urgently for what they call the bomb factory because they think that will help close in on who's involved here.

MR. MAC NEIL: I see. I gather that they're also actively in Oklahoma City, in the rubble, looking for the odometer from that Ryder truck which contained the bomb because it may tell them what?

MR. SHAW: Well, it could tell them -- they know how far it is from Junction City, Kansas, to Oklahoma City, obviously, and so they're looking for the odometer, because that would tell them, you know, how far off that route the, the truck went, so maybe that would help them pinpoint where the bomb factory might have been.

MR. MAC NEIL: Elaine Shannon, what do you see as the main holes in the story? What don't they know? What questions are really the big questions that are unanswered so far?

MS. SHANNON: Oh, a whole lot of things, but certainly they're really looking hard to find out where Tim McVeigh -- I'm told 10,000 dollars that he had either in his possession or in bank accounts -- this is a guy who drifted around -- they are looking - - of course, they've been looking at bank robbery tapes in the Midwest to see if anything is there. They're now also looking at gun shows, because one theory is that he was involved maybe in stealing guns, maybe conspiring with people in little insurance frauds, ripping off guns, and then letting the owner claim the insurance, and then he'd resell these guns in gun shows because people at gun shows don't run the checks that would happen in a store.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now --

MS. SHANNON: Or, there could be a mastermind who has money.

MR. MAC NEIL: This is -- but this is all speculation so far, that that's the way he may have acquired the money that he needed to move around, is it, or is there any evidence of it?

MS. SHANNON: Well, that's the $64 question. So far, there haven't been any hot leads into a large ideological group, one of these militias, of which he would be, and the other people that are involved with him would be the alleged actors, and then these masterminds would sit behind the scenes and be the deep pockets. That's certainly one theory, but they don't have anything on it yet to support it.

MR. MAC NEIL: And the -- the mastermind, I think -- is there a profile of the mastermind that they, that they have in their minds? I don't mean a physical profile necessarily, but some idea of what they're looking for there.

MS. SHANNON: Well, not anybody in particular. The main problem is all of these people have made so many stupid mistakes. I mean, can you imagine getting involved in a bombing, renting the truck, and then going out and getting in a hassle with the Highway Patrol, as McVeigh did, can you imagine if you were Terry Nichols, leaving a receipt like this -- I don't know whether it's for the fertilizer that went into the truck, but it had McVeigh's hands on it -- why wouldn't you destroy all of that stuff? Why were these people so easy to find? Why did these use their own names in many places? I mean, is there somebody smarter here that figured out what they're going to do and put 'em altogether into the last minute, and maybe they didn't know exactly how it was going to end up until they came together for the final ride?

MR. MAC NEIL: Of course, one reason could be that they were innocent, if they left it -- like Terry Nichols leaving all that stuff around, if he, if he had no connection with a crime like the bombing.

MS. SHANNON: It's absolutely right, and some of the investigators have said that there may be a lot of people who may have acquired components or fertilizer or this or that or guns and not know what it was for; they were manipulated, or they just facilitated to help a friend.

MR. MAC NEIL: Gaylord Shaw, what special angles are they investigating now? What -- it's -- in the last two days, obviously, one of the things was the lake and possibly trying to find where the bomb was mixed. What directions are they headed in now that you know of?

MR. SHAW: Well, they cast a very broad net, you know, and I think there will be more APB's, they're just reconstructing -- McVeigh is sort of a thread on which they're reconstructing his movements, and they've, they've -- you know, they've gotten something like 13,000 leads from people telephoning into to 800 number. These are being entered into their computer and sort of cross-checked as they interview folks. There's something like 30 million bytes of information have gone into the FBI's computers here and elsewhere. And that's all being cross-checked, and that's -- the -- they'd come across Gary Land and Robert Jacks I think a bit earlier, but it was those tips on the -- showing up at the motel in Perry which really got, got them to zero in on them. You know, there will be more of these type things. I mean, there are -- there have been a score, at least a score of people who were seriously questioned who are "look-a-likes" for John Doe No. 2. There will be a lot of that, but I think the -- the investigation may be shifting a bit now as they -- looking or thinking about who could be masterminding here.

MR. MAC NEIL: And finally, Elaine Shannon, is McVeigh, himself, maintaining his silence, is that just staying the same?

MS. SHANNON: As far as I know, he is. I was told last week that it was name, rank, and serial number, except to complain about the pain in his back from the chip that he thinks the government inserted in his back to track him all over the place when he was in the army.

MR. MAC NEIL: All right. Well, thank you both very much.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Foster nomination, hearings on Medicare, and a Richard Rodriguez essay. FOCUS - CONTROVERSIAL NOMINEE

MR. LEHRER: Now, the Senate confirmation hearings of Dr. Henry Foster, President Clinton's nominee for surgeon general of the United States. It's been a stormy three months for the Tennessee obstetrician since his nomination was announced. The storm over abortion and other subjects continued today before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.

SEN. NANCY KASSEBAUM, Chairwoman, Labor & Human Resources Committee: Abortion is among the most emotional and sensitive issues we face in the public life today. Millions of Americans on both sides of this issue have strongly held beliefs and deep-seated convictions on this matter. I'm aware that for many Americans who believe that abortion should be illegal the fact that Dr. Foster has performed even one abortion is automatic disqualification for the office of surgeon general. Not surprisingly, many Americans who support legal abortions take the exact opposite view. I understand and respect those views, but I believe this argument has done little more than reduce Dr. Foster at times to a cardboard caricature. He has been made a pawn in our abortion debates. I believe he deserves to be judged on his whole record, his professional credentials, and his background, his life experience, and his current views. It's a pleasure to welcome you, Dr. Foster.

DR. HENRY FOSTER, Surgeon General Nominee: Thank you very much, Sen. Kassebaum. Since the President nominated me on February 2nd, there has been some confusion created about who I am and what I stand for. Today I will set the record straight. Let me begin by telling you how I grew up and how my upbringing influenced my development of values. I was fortunate to have had two very strong and loving parents who shared an unshakable faith in the American dream that America would, indeed, live up to its promise of opportunity, equity, and justice for all. As far back as I can remember, we had a copy of the American Constitution in our home. My father often told my sister and me that your justice and freedom is locked in this document. Then he would tap his temple and say, "The key to unlocking it is an educated mind." He was correct. My paternal grandmother, Grandma Hattie, also had a great influence on me. She was born just 16 years after slavery ended in America. I doubt if she ever had any formal education. As a young boy, I wondered why her handwriting was poor, but as I grew older and wiser -- excuse me -- I came to appreciate her great intelligence and character. Grandma Hattie was not formally educated, but without doubt, she knew the value and power of education. She worked as a domestic to assure that her two children, my father and my Aunt Mary, received college educations. She succeeded. By the dignity and power of their lives, my mother and father, and Grandma Hattie taught me the values of education, hard work, and integrity. There are two issues which have clouded my nomination that I must deal with right now and up front. The first is the attempt by some to say that this nomination is about abortion. It is not. And second is the issue of my credibility, which has never ever been questioned before. When I was asked in the middle of a casual conversation whether I had ever performed abortions, I said I had and the one that I remember most was a young woman with a masters degree that had AIDS, and i went on. Then later, maybe two days, I was asked if I had performed more than one abortion, and I thought it was in jest, I said, "Well, of course, most obstetricians who have been out have." And they asked me how many. And I answered, based on my memory, without reviewing the record. That was a mistake. I should not have guessed. But it was an honest mistake. I am a doctor. I had never experienced anything like the media scrutiny that I attracted following my nomination. In my desire to provide instant answers to a barrage of questions coming at me, I spoke without having all of the facts at my disposal. And since that time, I have made every human effort possible to review my records, so I could be as accurate as possible. Now, let me be clear, in 22 years at Mahari Medical College, I am listed as the physician of record on 39 abortion cases. I do regret the initial confusion that this caused, but there was never any intent to deceive. I had no reason to do so.

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD, [D] Connecticut: I want to come back, if I can, to the "I Have a Future" program. I have some brochures I'm going to ask to be distributed to my colleagues, if they haven't, or copies of them, and I'm going to hold them up here: "When No Means No;" "Talking Abstinence;" "Ten Great Ways to Show Love and Affection;" "How to Say No and Keep Your Boyfriend." This may not be all of them, but I would ask you, first of all, Dr. Foster, are these, are these brochures that you're familiar with?

DR. HENRY FOSTER: Yes, sir. They are a part of one of thirteen modules that we used in teaching our youngsters about family responsibility and social responsibility. They are distributed as a part of our module on family life education. I know, without studies, as I said earlier, that abstinence is good for young people. It prevents AIDS; it prevents sexually transmitted disease; it prevents pregnancy. And recent data have shown that youngsters who delay the onset of sexual activity have a far less likelihood to use alcohol and drugs. The point I'm making: That's common sense.

SEN. JUDD GREGG, [R] New Hampshire: The Secretary of Health has said you'll play a role in policy, a policy role, which I think is reasonable. Where would you think that you might be working in policy issues?

DR. HENRY FOSTER: Teenage pregnancy, smoking cessation, particularly among children, and women's health issues. But I would also be working with policy issues, I think, in geriatrics, cardiac disease, transplant, organ transplantation. I think these are all kinds of messages. One of the most important policy issues, Senator, that I'm interested in is health promotion, disease prevention, particularly among American males, earlier diagnosis. We have some indirect evidence that males don't do quite as well as females in some conditions because of delay in diagnosis. That's one of the educational roles that I see.

MR. LEHRER: Now, two different views of the Foster nomination from two members of the Senate Committee: Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland; Dan Coats, Republican of Indiana. Sen. Coats, you went into today opposed to the Foster nomination. Do you remain opposed?

SEN. DAN COATS, [R] Indiana: [Capitol Hill] Well, there are still a great number of inconsistencies that exist between the statements and words of Dr. Foster and/or the White House and the record. That has not been examined in full detail. We'll have an opportunity tomorrow to do so. I have a hard time determining here whether those inconsistencies are the result of Dr. Foster's record and his involvement, or whether it's a bungled initial nomination effort by the White House. They have a history of not handling nominations very well. But the lack of material that was provided to the committee and the change in statements and clarification of statements and new statements that came and so forth have raised a considerable number of questions, and I don't think all of those have been answered yet.

MR. LEHRER: What troubles you the most, Senator?

SEN. COATS: Well --

MR. LEHRER: What inconsistency troubles you the most?

SEN. COATS: Probably the inconsistency relative to the number of abortions that were performed. It went from one to twelve to thirty-nine. We haven't even discussed yet the 59 he oversaw as part of a study at Mahari College, then the 700 question relative to some discussion at Health -- well, then Health, Education and Welfare. Those have not been clarified to my satisfaction, and I do think that we need another day of discussion on that.

MR. LEHRER: Is the problem you have that he performed any abortions, or the number of abortions, or that there was some inconsistency about the numbers, which bothers you? What are you the most concerned about?

SEN. COATS: Well, I am a pro-life advocate, and obviously, I would prefer a surgeon general who took a pro-life position, but I'm not the President. And this President has a different viewpoint on that, and he -- it's his choice. It wouldn't be my choice, but beyond that, the point I have been trying to stress is that we have a potential credibility problem. And I think we need to have a surgeon general who we can trust and have confidence in because he's the nation's doctor. And those inconsistences I think raise real questions about his candor and about his credibility and, again, as I say, I'm not sure whether all this comes from the White House, or whether this comes from Dr. Foster or both.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Sen. Mikulski, you went into today's hearing as a supporter of the Foster nomination. Anything happen today to shake your support?

SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI, [D] Maryland: [Capitol Hill] Absolutely not. I think Dr. Foster in outlining his background showed that he met the criteria to be the surgeon general of the United States. He served his country before as a captain in the United States military. He brings extensive clinical background with 38 years of medical practice. He has the support of his peers. He's been part of the Institute of Medicine, one of the youngest people ever. He's received a point of light from George Bush and the support of former Gov. Lamar Alexander. He showed leadership skills in the way -- his leadership ability in what he's done in his "I Have a Future" program. And I do believe that he dealt with those apparent inconsistencies that Sen. Coats has raised. I too was troubled by all of these different numbers that seemed to be coming out at different times, because I do believe that the surgeon general of the United States must have credibility. And I believe Dr. Foster answered that today. He said, first of all, he's a doctor. He wasn't prepared for the media attention. He spoke only from memory. That's where the one and twelve came from. In terms of the 39, that's exactly what the records revealed when they went back and reviewed the records when Dr. Foster was in charge of those programs at Mahari Medical School. The 700 issue that he raised over amniocentesis and therapeutic abortions he denies ever took place at the HEW ethics hearing. But I think the fact that he was appointed to an ethics committee, both in Nashville and to the federal government, shows that people have confidence in his ability.

MR. LEHRER: Well, Sen. Mikulski, how do you respond to Sen. Coats's point about credibility and that this was -- is this, in fact, a bungled nomination, or is this a nominee who had trouble keeping his facts straight?

SEN. MIKULSKI: I think Dr. Foster knows how to keep his facts straight. He is -- not only has he got a strong clinical background, but he's now a science in residence -- a scholar in residence. He was chosen by the Robert Woods Johnson program to run programs for adolescents. The Carnegie Foundation gave him a research grant, so they have confidence in his ability, both as an administrator and to keep his numbers straight. I do believe that probably the White House did not prepare him for the media scrutiny, and Dr. Foster in his enthusiasm to be available and to answer questions had not gotten his precise facts lined up, was willing to review the record. And on the other issue of credibility, the facts now speak for themselves. I know one of the things that troubled people at the hearing was: When did Dr. Foster know about the terrible and repugnant study on syphilis that was done from 1932 to 1972? The record shows that Dr. Foster knew nothing about it. On the very day that the Center for Disease Control said they informed physicians in the Tuskegee area, Dr. Foster was doing a caesarian delivery. So I think he's been able to by factual explanation deal with the questions raised on his credibility.

MR. LEHRER: But you just don't see it that way, Sen. Coats? You think that he has not thus far at least spoken to these credibility issues?

SEN. COATS: There has been an initial attempt to speak to these credibility issues, but I don't think it's been developed fully enough. For instance, it is -- we have depositions and statements from individuals, including the president of the medical society, who said Dr. Foster was there, including the head of the state public health service in Alabama, who said, I informed Dr. Foster of this well before he said he knew about it. It's clearly easy for any doctor to perform a birth, even by caesarian section and still attend a meeting. Dr. Foster, himself, testified that he probably -- he's prodigious in terms of the amount of work that he performed and the number of births that he delivered. And so there are a lot of areas that I think need to be followed up on, and I think those credibility questions need to be satisfied. They need to be thoroughly examined. For Dr. Foster's sake, for the sake of the nation, in terms of selecting a surgeon general, I think it would be beneficial to him to make sure that we tie down every loose end on this.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Mikulski, do you -- when you hear Sen. Coats and others say that the issue here for Dr. Foster is credibility, do you believe him or do you think it's really abortion?

SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, first of all, let's just deal with the credibility issue. And it's not about numbers, and it's not about statistics, but it is about a human being, a physician nominated for surgeon general of the United States. If Dr. Foster really had a credibility problem, that is, credibility means the intent to deceive, then this would have shown up in other patterns of his life. You just don't do it if you're not a credible person on the day you're nominated for surgeon general of the United States of America. When one looks at Dr. Foster's entire record and life history, we can see that with each aspect of his life, his peers respect him, he has been given awards, he has been recognized as an outstanding clinician, as a leader, and as a scholar, and been acknowledged by even the high political leadership of, of the other party. Now, if Dr. Foster had a credibility problem, he would not be the dean of Mahari Medical School, been on the board of ethics, gotten a point of light, gotten a grant from the Carnegie Foundation.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Coats, what about that?

SEN. COATS: Well, I just think that it's important that the issues that have been raised -- and they go back throughout Dr. Foster's career -- all the way back to 1972 -- they do involve a lifetime. They do raise questions.

MR. LEHRER: About his credibility? In other words, you look at the same record that Sen. Mikulski looks at, and you see problems - - credibility problems, is that right?

SEN. COATS: Well, I do, and reputable people, including the president of the Medical Society, directly contradict what Dr. Foster is saying. When the head of the Public Health Service in Alabama says that that's not true, what he says, I told him, and I distinctly remember telling him, when an individual who was serving on the ethics board at the HEW hearing in Seattle, says, I was there, and I heard Dr. Foster say that, when the Secretary of Health & Human Services comes out and contradicts the White House the day after they said that's a distorted record, that transcript is not true, and says, well, we need to inform you it is true, I think those are legitimate credibility questions.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Mikulski, aren't those legitimate credibility questions?

SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, let's go back. Thirty-eight years of medical practice, Dr. Foster has never been sued for malpractice. That says something about the soundness of his ability to perform clinical activity. The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, which gives a great deal of money for research in the area of medical practice delivery, asked Dr. Foster to head up a study involving 20 different hospitals to deal with at-risk youth. I think that was a vote of confidence, just like getting a point of light on the "I Have a Future" program that Dr. Foster ran, which by the way preaches abstinence, employability, work force readiness, drug free environment, and service to others, and delayed sexual ratification. I believe that all those are a vote of confidence on what people think about Dr. Henry Foster.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Coats, is your attitude toward this nomination such that is there any way you could conceive of voting for it? In other words, are your concerns about his credibility in addition to your difference of views on, on abortion, such that there's no way you could vote for him?

SEN. COATS: Well, I would find it difficult, given his position on abortion, however, I have made the test for Dr. Foster the credibility issue. Obviously, if he can satisfy all those questions, it would not be very consistent of me to say this is the issue, and then if he satisfies it, I still can't vote for him, and so since I have made that the test, I think it's incumbent on me to be fair and objective in terms of analyzing this evidence. In just response to another question that's been raised --

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

SEN. COATS: -- that Dr. Foster came into my office and said I'm very proud of the fact that I've never been sued, I've never been the subject of a malpractice suit, I was just informed today by my staff that that's not true. I have not reviewed the material. I need to do that before I make a categorical assertion of that. But this is the pattern that has developed throughout this entire nomination. We're told one thing, and then the public record shows another.

MR. LEHRER: And what do you think the cause of that is, Sen. Coats? What do you think the problem is?

SEN. COATS: Well, I have suggested that it might be a lack of candor or it might be an attempt to simply gloss over someone's record and, and sort of fuzz over some of the controversial areas so that a nominee by a Democrat President can be approved by a Republican Senate. We are charged, however, with looking at all the information, of making a final determination. I do think when you're talking about a nation's doctor who are asking people to put trust and confidence in his word, we need to make sure that that person is a credible person, someone we can trust, someone we can have confidence in.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Mikulski, when this day began, it was generally conceded by everybody, including I'm sure even by you and most of his supporters that this nomination was in trouble. Does it remain in trouble, just realistically looking at the situation tonight?

SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, first of all, I think we should congratulate Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, who ran an excellent hearing, and maintained an atmosphere of civility and dignity. I think we were all appreciative of that. I believe that Dr. Foster really put forth his record, and also in questions, for example, that I asked him in the area of women's health and how would he deal with the issues around the killers affecting women, not only breast cancer and cervical cancer, but lung cancer is the No. 1 killer for women as long as cardiovascular disease. He talked about his desire and the approach he would use for prevention, for public health promotion, and that's what we need to be able to remember. What is the job of the surgeon general? It is to bring attention to the United States of America those issues that put America's at risk and how to involve the community of the United States of America in dealing with preventive techniques. He's got those skills.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Coats, where do you come down on this question, the political question, that Sen. Dole has suggested, that no matter how you view -- how the two of you and your colleagues vote on a committee on this nomination, that he might keep it from coming to the floor?

SEN. COATS: Well, I think Sen. Dole suggested that as a possibility. I don't know that that's an absolute certainty at this point. I think, obviously, Sen. Dole, like the rest of us, wanted to see what information developed in the process of a hearing, wanted to carefully evaluate Dr. Foster's answers to many of these outstanding questions, and I think that's probably a determination he'll make after he reviews everything that happens.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about that particular technique? I mean, you think, in other words, do you think the Senate should be allowed to vote on this if the committee votes it out?

SEN. COATS: Well, ultimately, that obviously is a decision Sen. Dole has to make in the context of whether or not there will be a filibuster, whether or not it will -- where it fits in the schedule and when he can bring it up. I can't speak for Sen. Dole. Clearly, the committee has to act first, conclude its hearing, and then vote, and then on the basis of that, I assume a decision will be made fairly shortly by Sen. Dole and the leadership.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Coats, Sen. Mikulski, thank you both very much. FOCUS - MEDICARE HEALTH

MR. MAC NEIL: Medicare is next tonight. In recent days, President Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have been sparring on the issue, and today some of that fight surfaced in congressional hearings. The immediate problem is that the Medicare Trust Fund which pays for health care for the elderly is expected to go bankrupt within seven years. That's the same year the Republicans have said is their goal for a balanced budget, and by all accounts, a balanced budget would require major cuts in the growth of Medicare. The political battle lines were drawn today as Health Sec. Donna Shalala testified before the House Ways & Means Committee. Here are some excerpts. The use of the initials "H.I." refers to hospital insurance.

REP. BILL ARCHER, Chairman, Ways & Means Committee: Madam Secretary, I'm growing increasingly concerned about the administration's lack of approach to saving Medicare. The administration's public pronouncements appear to say that since the American people rejected a big government solution to health care reform last year, the administration will refuse to talk about the unique problems of Medicare this year. I hope I'm wrong.

DONNA SHALALA, Secretary, Health and Human Services: It's ironic that those who are suddenly interested in the plight of the Medicare Trust Fund have advocated policies that, that exacerbated the insolvency of the fund. The fact is any significant changes in Medicare, whether in the financing eligibility, in the benefit provisions, or in payment rates, will affect the entire health care system. Therefore, this administration believes that strong action to avoid depletion of the HI Trust Fund should not be undertaken by looking at Medicare alone. Instead, we must consider the issue of the larger context of health reform as the trustees recommend. We need an approach to protecting Medicare that is both bold and balanced. The President has repeatedly called for meaningful bipartisan action on health reform, but so far, the reply from the Republicans has been only silence. Let there be no mistake, solutions focused solely on Medicare could cause great harm.

REP. PHIL CRANE, [R] Illinois: We have been waiting patiently for the specifics of the proposals to address that pending bankruptcy of the program. And we would hope and pray that you might give us some guidelines since you have a specialized form of expertise sitting in that capacity and it hasn't been forthcoming to date, and I think --

DONNA SHALALA: Congressman Crane, we have waited patiently, expecting on April 15th for the budget resolution to be passed. The President has committed himself to a bipartisan approach to health care reform in this country to taking the first incremental step. We expect the HI Trust Fund issue to be part of that discussion.

REP. PHIL CRANE: So you, in effect, are telling this committee that you will have no proposal to solve the Medicare Trust Fund shortage which will bankrupt the system by the year 2002 or earlier, according to your own actuary and your trustees' report, short of the federal government taking over the entire health care system of this country, which you know is not going to happen?

DONNA SHALALA: Not --

REP. PHIL CRANE: And you are holding Medicare and the payment of Medicare bills hostage to a federal takeover comprehensively of the entire health care system in this country.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL, [D] New York: Madame Secretary, I don't know whether you understand what my Republicans friends are saying, is that they're here waiting for direction from the President of the United States to tell them what to do about repairing the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund, and then all of a sudden, after a hundred days, when they cannot perform the contract because it's impossible to do with all the promises they make, now on the 101st day, they come to the President of the United States and say, please get us out of this, give us direction, because, after all, you're the President. Well, I think this is a good beginning for the next hundred days. And I hope that they come back to the President of the United States and ask exactly how they're going to pay for the tax cut, how they're going to pay for the nutrition programs, how they're going to cut all of these things that they're doing, and at the same time be able to say that it's a better America.

REP. CLAY SHAW, [R] Florida: This hearing is rapidly becoming a total waste of time. If we did not ask the administration in to give us their direction, then we would have been severely and justifiably criticized because the President is the leader of this country, and the President should definitely be a -- be a player. But what -- you have told us Madam Secretary that unless we take some significant steps forward towards a comprehensive health care plan, you have nothing to tell us. Am I misinterpreting something here, or is that exactly what you have told us?

DONNA SHALALA: After the budget resolution is passed, we're committed to dealing with the HI Trust Fund issue in a bipartisan manner within the context of --

REP. CLAY SHAW: Yes, ma'am, I well remember that, but you keep telling this committee that we have to put a budget forward before you will do anything.

DONNA SHALALA: Chairman --

REP. CLAY SHAW: But you are unwilling --

DONNA SHALALA: -- the law requires that you put a budget forward.

REP. CLAY SHAW: -- to put a budget forward, yourself, that has something to do with saving the HI Trust Fund. Your budget has zero attention to that.

DONNA SHALALA: What we said was that we're prepared to sit down in a bipartisan manner after we see the Republican budget that was due after all on April 15th, and we're prepared to deal with the HI issue and to sit down in a bipartisan manner and to work through these issues after the budget resolution has been passed.

REP. CLAY SHAW: Yes, ma'am, so you are suggesting then that nothing in our budget resolution should have anything to do with the dire straits of the HI Trust Fund, as yours did. Mr. Herger may inquire.

DONNA SHALALA: Mr. Chairman, I'm not giving you any advice on your own budget resolution. I'm simply saying that once it's -- once the budget resolution has passed and we see it, we're prepared to sit down in a bipartisan manner and to discuss the Medicare Trust Fund within the context of incremental health care reform.

REP. RICHARD ZIMMER, [R] New Jersey: Whether we like it or not, for the next -- for the better part of the next two years, this country is going to be governed by a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. And we really have to try to figure out how we can work together. This relationship is beginning to remind me of a bad marriage and as with a lot of bad marriages, the problem is one of communication.

DONNA SHALALA: I don't know -- where do I get a divorce? Go ahead, Congressman Zimmer, I apologize.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Senate Budget Committee takes up the Medicare solvency issue tomorrow and Thursday. ESSAY - WINNERS AND LOSERS

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, some thoughts about the Vietnam War by essayist Richard Rodriguez of the Pacific News Service.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, Pacific News Service: It occurs to me when I visit Little Saigon here in Southern California, where so many Vietnamese refugees have settled, it occurs to me that maybe America won the war in Vietnam. Twenty years ago, Saigon fell to Vietnamese Communist forces. In this age of videotape, memory dies hard. Who can forget the sight of the last U.S. helicopter lifting up from the embassy compound, our ignoble retreat? We Americans speak confidently of having won the Cold War against the Soviet Union. We acknowledge the ideological defeat of international Communism and yet, Vietnam remains our shame. In part, we persist in speaking of our loss because the civil war in Indochina occasioned a civil war here in the United States, a conflict within our own borders pitting counterculture against the establishment, the World War II generation against their own children, hard hats against college kids in the canyons of Wall Street. Our national civil war is not over, which is why young Bill Clinton's early opposition to the Vietnam War, remains for many Americans unforgivable. So busy have we been debating the war within our own borders, we seem to have missed the larger point. Twenty years afterour withdrawal, nothing in Vietnam seems to have failed so much as the North's attempts to re-educate the South. In 1965, we were supposed to believe in something called the domino theory. If Vietnam fell, Communism would conquer Southeast Asia. In 1995, Vietnam is crowded with Japanese and French businessmen. Hanoi apparatchiks are anxious for U.S. dollars. A few days ago, an American company in suburban Maryland announced plans to develop Vietnam's biggest seaside resort on China Beach, where U.S. servicemen used to go on R&R. Three American hotel chains -- Sheraton, Weston, and the Ritz Carlton -- have reportedly expressed interest in operating hotels at the site. Twenty years ago, clearly, the US military strategy ended in chaos. The Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon war policy failed, and it failed at a cost of nearly 60,000 American lives, men and women, American heroes whose names are forever embossed in marble on the Washington mall. Here at the upscaled mini-malls in California's Little Saigon, there are old people, grandmothers and grandfathers now, who would probably tell you in accented English that there can be no doubt, the U.S. lost the war. The Vietnamese diaspora to Paris or Toronto or to Sydney, Australia, the diaspora here to California, has separated these old people from their ancestral land forever. Consider too the young faces in the Asian Garden Mall, these American kids with their Vietnamese smiles. They are so different from the refugees languishing in Hong Kong detention camps, terrified at the prospect of being returned to their native soil. These American teenagers intend to apply for admission to the University of California. They listen to black rap, eat burritos, drive Toyotas. They fly back to Vietnam as tourists, with American Express travelers checks in their pockets. They do not resemble losers in history at all. Chou En-Lai, the Chinese prime minister under Mao-Tse-Tung, was once asked by a reporter what he thought of the French Revolution. Chou En-Lai considered for a moment, then replied, "It's too early to tell." [explosion in background] During the war, the Vietcong unsettled Americans because we recognized that they were people of long vision, whereas we, we Americans, are famous for our pragmatism and our impatience. We are a people who wanted to get in and then get out. To this day, some of us think we should have bombed Hanoi. Others insist that we should have withdrawn immediately. We do not brood like the Chinese prime minister on the yet unfolding implications of the French Revolution. Twenty years ago, we simply decided that we had lost the war in Vietnam, period. But how does one ever decide which side wins or loses a war, and when is a war ever finally over? Perhaps in 1995, it is safe only to say that the United States might have lost the war in Vietnam, but America, the dream, the economic idea, the ideology, the California mini-mall, that America may have won. I'm Richard Rodriguez. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, two more men were arrested as material witnesses in connection with the Oklahoma City bombing. Late today, President Clinton asked Congress to provide $142 million in emergency funding for Oklahoma City. The death toll in the bombing rose to 140. Forty are still missing. And the State Department announced this evening that the two Americans being held in Iraq were taken to the hospital after complaining of chest pains. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.