The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MS. WOODRUFF: And I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington. After the News Summary, we turn first to a Newsmaker interview with the Prime Minister of Canada who discussed trade issues today with President Bush. Then we examine the growing debate over whether women's health problems are getting short shrift from the federal government. We debate dollars and priorities with the head of the National Institutes of Health, a Congresswoman, and two doctors.NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WOODRUFF: Barring a last minute move by the U.S. Supreme Court, Virginia inmate Roger Keith Coleman is expected to die in the electric chair tonight. Early today, a federal appeals court refused to block the execution. And lawyers then made an emergency appeal to the high court. Coleman, who was convicted of a 1981 rape and murder of his sister-in-law insists he is innocent and has taken his case to the public in numerous TV and newspaper interviews. This morning, Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder said Coleman had failed a lie detector test given to him earlier in the day. If the execution goes ahead as scheduled, Coleman will be the 175th person put to death since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Another execution was carried out early this morning in Texas. Twenty-seven year old Jesus Romero was put to death by lethal injection for the 1984 rape and killing of a fifteen year old girl. Another 2600 inmates await execution across the country. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Thailand's popular and powerful king today tried to bring an end to his nation's bloody uprising. At least 40 people have been killed and 600 wounded in four days of anti-government violence. It began when the government cracked down on protesters demanding the resignation of the new unelected prime minister. Tonight the king summoned the protest leader who had been jailed and the prime minister. Their meeting was broadcast on national television. Caroline Kerr of Independent Television News reports from the Thai capital.

MS. KERR: The king told the two men he would like face-to-face negotiations between them and reminded them that they were both Thais. Afterwards, it was announced that the pro-democracy leader would be freed from prison and he appealed for calm among his supporters. It followed a day of tension on the streets of Bangkok, when troops loyal to the government tried to stump their authority on the city. They began by moving into occupy an area in the center where students have been demonstrating, but all the while rumors abounded that rebel forces were heading for the capital to back the students. Buoyed up by the belief that help was on its way, protesters mocked the troops for their cowardice and almost dared lines of armed soldiers to attack them. As night fell, the demonstrators attacked any government property in sight, challenging the troops for possession of the streets. When the soldiers eventually responded, even the youngest were left to fend for themselves. Within moments, the area had been cleared and was back in military hands. Tonight thousands of university students are defying a government curfew and demonstrating for a second night running.

MR. MacNeil: Those protests continued, despite a promise tonight from the prime minister to back democratic constitutional reforms.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Senate passed a so-called "motor voter" bill today. It requires states to register voters when they apply for driver's licenses or welfare, unemployment and disability benefits. The bill was opposed by Republican leaders who said it could result in election fraud. But six Republicans joined fifty-five Democrats to pass it by a sixty-one to thirty-eight margin. Supporters said it will help sign up an estimated 70 million eligible voters.

SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL, Majority Leader: This is an important day for American democracy at a time where increasing dissatisfaction with the political process at a time in which the number of Americans participating in the electoral process continues to decline at an alarming rate. The Senate today has opened the process, made it more possible, indeed in my judgment much more likely that larger number of Americans will participate in the election of public officials, and I hope help to restore public trust in the political process.

MS. WOODRUFF: President Bush and Bill Clinton easily won primaries in Oregon and Washington State yesterday. But the surprise was a write-in vote for unannounced independent candidate Ross Perot. The write-in votes have not yet been calculated, but according to a CNN Exit Poll, Perol received about 11 percent in both the Democratic and Republican primaries in Oregon. Vice President Quayle set off a storm yesterday when he criticized TV character Murphy Brown for having a baby out of wedlock. Today White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater first endorsed the Vice President's comments, and then praised Murphy Brown for what he called "pro life" values in choosing not to have an abortion. This afternoon, reporters asked President Bush for his opinion.

PRES. BUSH: I believe that children should have the benefit of being born into families with a mother and a father, who will give them love and care and attention all their lives; not always possible, but that's the best environment, and I think it results in a kid the best shot at the American dream, incidentally. It's a certain discipline, a certain affection, and one of the things that concerns me deeply is the fact that there are an awful lot of broken families. And so that's really the kind of guidance I would place on that. I'm not going to get into the details of a very popular television show.

MS. WOODRUFF: Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton also weighed in on the Murphy Brown controversy today. He said he agreed that unwed motherhood was not a good example for our children, but he added that television showed more violence than out of wedlock births and violence was also contrary to traditional family values.

MR. MacNeil: The U.S. trade deficit widened sharply last month, according to the Commerce Department. The gap stood at more than $5.8 billion in March, a rise of 77 percent from the previous month. The surge in foreign imports was largely to blame. The leader of America's largest trading partner was in Washington today. Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney met with President Bush this afternoon. He called for an end to new U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods which he said amounted to trade harassment. The two men pledged to resolve the issue. We'll have a Newsmaker interview with the prime minister right after the News Summary.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Wall Street investment firm of Salomon Brothers has agreed to pay $290 million to settle federal fraud charges. The company admitted to improper bidding practices in Treasury bond auctions last year. Those practices allowed it to monopolize auctions, squeezing out rival dealers. While no criminal charges were filed, the agreement calls for paying $190 million in fines and establishing a $100 fund to compensate victims.

MR. MacNeil: The U.S. today revoked the right of Yugoslavia's national airline to fly to and from this country. State Department Spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said the action was taken to protest aggression by Serbia against the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnian authorities said today that more than 2200 people have been killed in two months of ethnic fighting, a figure more than double their previous estimate. That's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to a Newsmaker interview with Canada's prime minister and a debate about funding women's health research. NEWSMAKER

MR. MacNeil: First tonight, an interview with the prime minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney. He was in Washington today to complain to President Bush about what Canada regards as unfair practices by U.S. Customs and Commerce Department officials. They have imposed new tariffs on imports of Canadian lumber and Honda cars at a time when the two countries are eliminating tariffs under a free trade agreement. After the meeting, I talked with the prime minister. And we'll have the interview after this backgrounder.

CROWD SINGING: We love you, Brian, oh, yes, we do. We love you, Brian, and we'll be true.

MR. MacNeil: Fall 1988, Canada's prime minister, Brian Mulroney, was riding high. The country was prosperous and his progressive Conservative Party was the odds on favorite to win reelection, which he did. But that was four years ago. Today Brian Mulroney is the politician Canadians love to hate.

DEMONSTRATORS: Brian Mulroney, it's time to go, hey, hey, ho, ho. Brian Mulroney, it's time to go.

MR. MacNeil: In February, his approval rating sank to an abysmal 11 percent, the lowest of any prime minister since polling began in Canada, almost 50 years ago. The slide from favor began just after Mulroney's 1988 election, when he signed a free trade agreement with the United States. The agreement which would abolish all remaining tariffs between the two countries had been hotly contested during the campaign and bitterly opposed by Canadian workers and some intellectuals.

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: It is the policy of this government to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit and to help Canadian business of all kinds achieve new opportunities at home and abroad. The trade agreement is just such an opportunity.

MR. MacNeil: But hopes of new opportunities faded as Canada's economy fell into the deepest recession since the Great Depression. An estimated one hundred and fifty thousand to three hundred thousand jobs have been lost. The Mulroney government blames the recession. Labor unions and a growing number of other groups blame Mulroney and free trade. Linda Diebel is Washington bureau chief for the Toronto Star.

LINDA DIEBEL, The Toronto Star: The polls now are showing that over 50 percent of the Canadian public wants to see the agreement rewritten in some way. Now, that's a very tall order, because I don't think there's much provision to actually rewrite the agreement. A quarter wants the agreement just totally gone.

MR. MacNeil: Mulroney's popularity continued to plunge when his government passed a new goods and services tax. The 7 percent tax replaced tax on manufacturers which Mulroney argued made Canadian goods less competitive internationally.

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: We're the only country in the world that was penalizing its manufacturing base.

MR. MacNeil: Again people protested. Those who lived within driving distance of the U.S. border crossed over in droves to buy cheaper American goods. In spite of the protests and deepening recession, Mulroney refused to deviate from his path of fiscal conservatism. Critics accused him of focusing too much on cutting the deficit and driving down interest rates, and not enough on stimulating the economy.

LINDA DIEBEL: Unemployment insurance money has been cut across the country, making it more difficult for people to get unemployment insurance, making it more difficult for them to be able to stay on unemployment insurance. Taxes have gone up, sales tax has been imposed and of course, free trade, all of those policies aimed at reducing the deficit, and the deficit has come down since Brian Mulroney was elected in 1984, have made him very unpopular.

WOMAN: I dislike that man so much; he's ruined our country.

MR. MacNeil: Outside the economic area, Mulroney also took heat for his handling of Canada's constitutional crisis. The crisis began in 1982 with a symbolic act that misfired. Parliament under Prime Minister Trudeau adopted a new constitution to replace the British law which had governed Canada since 1867. Quebec, which had long felt discriminated against by English-speaking Canada, refused to sign. And Mulroney, a bilingual Quebecer, vowed to bring Quebec back into the fold. But after months of emotional debate, a constitutional amendment recognizing Quebec as a distinct society went down to defeat when two out of ten provinces refused to ratify it.

SPOKESMAN: We all agree that a consensus freely developed among the partners of this federation is the best way to proceed.

MR. MacNeil: Now Mulroney's government is trying again, opening up the constitutional reform process to public debate, but this time it's not just Quebec making demands. Canada's aboriginal people want more self-government.

BERT BROWN, Alta Triple "E" Senate Committee: What we're saying is we want a check and balance on an autocratic dictatorship elected every five years in this country.

MR. MacNeil: And the Western provinces which have traditionally been underrepresented in parliament want to reform the Senate by electing Senators, instead of appointing them, and giving provinces with small populations more representation. Mulroney is under the gun to resolve all these issues before October, when Quebecers are scheduled to vote on a referendum to separate partially or completely from the rest of Canada. In recent weeks, a trade dispute with the United States has caused Mulroney's approval ratings to go up slightly to 18 percent; the reason, he's talked tough in response to new U.S. tariffs and duties on Canadian softwood lumber and Honda Civics.

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: If this kind of conduct came from some tin pot dictator that we could -- we would say, well, what else is new -- but coming from the United States of America this is most unworthy.

MR. MacNeil: These matters were expected to be high on the Bush- Mulroney agenda this morning. Also on the agenda, a North American free trade agreement now being negotiated between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Mulroney continues to pursue that deal, in spite of current polls showing that an overwhelming majority of Canadians want the existing free trade agreement changed or terminated.

MR. MacNeil: And now Prime Minister Mulroney joins us from the Canadian embassy in Washington. Prime Minister, thank you for joining us.

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Thank you, Robin. Just a small correction. We've skyrocketed all the way up to 20 percent in the polls.

MR. MacNeil: 20 percent.

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: And we're tied for second place. So I thought that would be good news and you should mention it.

MR. MacNeil: Of course. Did President Bush satisfy you today on those two trade issues which have so angered you?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Well, he made some pretty fundamental commitments to upgrade the manner in which the trade package between Canada and the United States will be handled and he indicated that he and Sec. Baker and others would involve themselves personally in finding this kind of solution. And so I think that that will make a major improvement in our situation. We believe that we're going to win these cases, the two outstanding ones that we have now, the Honda one and the softwood lumber. But in regard to the upgrade of the relationship and the manner in which disputes will be handled in the future I think President Bush made a very strong commitment today.

MR. MacNeil: You have called this harassment by -- petty harassment in other words for it -- by his functionaries and bureaucrats in the administration. If it were just harassment, couldn't President Bush simply tell his functionaries and bureaucrats to lay off?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Yes. And in some cases he has. In others, the interest groups have brought into play cases that we think are harassment but over which he has no control once the quasi judicial process kicks in. And these we have to win under a dispute settlement mechanism. By the way, we're starting to win more than our share simply because some of the cases that have been brought ought not to have been initiated in the first place.

MR. MacNeil: Well, what do you -- generally, what do you think of the spirit in which the U.S. is implementing the trade agreement on which you stake so much of your own personal political fortune?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: I think the United States is making a mistake if it fails to take the trade relationship with Canada as seriously as it ought to and give it the degree of prominence that it should and I'll tell you why. Japan is not your best trading partner, nor is Germany or the UK; Canada is. We have a $200 billion a year trading relationship back and forth which is the greatest one in the world, that exists in the world. And so it is very, very important that this relationship, which is a model for many others, be sustained and nurtured and not be destroyed or undermined by, as I say, petty attitudes and those who think small. This -- the President is now going to be looking for ways to enhance that relationship and to get rid of those questions that from the status of irritant grow and multiply into a position where they can vitiate some important benefits of the agreement.

MR. MacNeil: You've been personally disappointed by this, I guess?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Well, I think that -- well, of course, I've been disappointed. I think that it's, as I said in some cases, unworthy of the United States and it's self-defeating. Why the people would do this is beyond me. Here is their, the United States' greatest friend and trading partner and I'm not saying we're always right, obviously, but --

MR. MacNeil: You weren't in the case of the beer where the GATT ruled against Canada.

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Absolutely. And, you know, you win some and you lose some, but some of these cases are so silly and self- serving that all they do, they are clearly designed to satisfy a constituency at home. The United States fell into a recession, as we did. Your piece indicated that because of that, that I've become unpopular. You're right. We've taken some tough measures. We've cut the deficit in half as a percentage of GDP. We've imposed new taxes to clean up our balance sheet and to make Canada a competitive and modern economy. We've done some tough, difficult things. And as a result of these, you lose -- in a recessionary period you lose popularity. But one of the big advantages that we have negotiated over the years is the free trade agreement and the United States should be looking for ways to strengthen it and to improve it and to make it the model for the rest of the trading world that it can be and should be, rather than diminishing it by these cheap shots.

MR. MacNeil: Did you tell the President that with the trade agreement so colossally unpopular as it stands according to the polls in Canada at the moment that the U.S. risked giving ammunition to the other two parties, your two opposition parties, who pledged to get rid of it if they beat you in the next election?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Well, I think the President knows that. There are four opposition parties that I've got up there, Robin. I've got all kinds of people running against me. I'll have to disappoint a large number of them after the next election. I hate to do that, but that's just the way it goes. But there are two parties at least pledged to either tear up, destroy, or revoke, rescind the free trade agreement. And I think it would be now -- I think they're talking a better game than they can deliver at home. They're talking tough, but if they were ever given the opportunity, they'd have to think twice and three times about it. But, clearly, it is in the United States' administration interests, as President Bush said today. President Bush is a free trader and he's a fair trader. And when he takes this thing in hand, I'm satisfied that you're going to notice an improvement in the upgrading and the treatment of the entire relationship.

MR. MacNeil: In the jobs that have been lost in Canada since the trade agreement came into force, how many jobs do you attribute to the free trade agreement, and factories closing in Canada, for example, the Kelloggs factory, and how many to the recession?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: I can't give you an answer to that, Robin, but I can tell you this. In the 1981/82 recession, we lost more jobs in manufacturing than we did in this recession. And in 1981/82, we didn't have a free trade agreement. So you could make the argument probably just as specious that the free trade agreement has saved a lot of jobs, whereas, the absence of one cost us a lot of jobs in '81/'82. And, you see, this is a phony argument that you get from the liberals and the socialists in Canada who don't like the United States, who don't like trading with the United States, and want to put up a Great Wall of China around Canada. And they're suggesting that the -- one of the -- let me put it this way -- one of the leading liberals in the House of Commons said, we are going to blame every sparrow that falls on the free trade agreement. He said that publicly. And that's, indeed, what the liberals and the NDP, the socialists, have sought to do. And I suspect that while they've had some success for the moment, that at the appropriate time in the next election campaign, Canadians will realize that free trade agreement while difficult and while sometimes tough medicine was a necessary instrument and a courageous instrument designed to modernize our trade and to enhance the economy of Canada.

MR. MacNeil: Given the huge number, 84 percent, of Canadians in the last Gallup Poll, who want to either get rid of the trade deal or change it, is your government prepared to accept any changes or any renegotiation of the deal?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Oh, Robin, you have to be careful about public opinion polls. If you want to govern by public opinion polls, you should get out of this business. You know, one of -- a Canadian who's now down here, a columnist, Charles Krauthamer, once wrote that the problems in a modern society, in a pluralistic society, in our economies, are so complex and so intractable that if a political leader leaves office on a wave of popularity, it means that he or she has failed to live up to his responsibilities. And so you shouldn't wonder and you shouldn't be concerned if you're unpopular. All it means is that you're doing tough and perhaps appropriate things in the national interest and you take your judgments when they come.

MR. MacNeil: So your answer is no, you will not consider any changes in the free trade agreement?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Well, we're negotiating now, for example, with Mexico and the United States. And it may very well be that improvements that we bring to continental free trade there will change mutatis mutandis, our own document, we'll have to see.

MR. MacNeil: All right. Let's turn to Canada's constitutional crisis so called. Were you able to tell the President with confidence that after this year he will still be dealing with one Canada and not two?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Well, I've indicated to him what is widely known in Canada, that if the choice is between a renewed Canada and an independent Quebec, Quebecers will choose a renewed Canada 10 times out of 10. The problem is going to be to provide Mr. Borasa, the premier of Quebec, and others with changes to confederation that constitute that renewed Canada, thereby giving Canadians the alternatives from which to choose, because the status quo is deemed to be unacceptable by everybody from our first peoples, the natives, to Western Canadians, to Quebecers and so on. So we're in the process of changing the status quo, trying to do it in such a way that retains the integrity and the strength of the central government but recognizes the need for justice to our native peoples, on the one hand, for example, the special relationships that have developed in Western Canada with regard to institutions, the need for reform of the Senate, and Quebec, of course, which is the only French-speaking territory in North America controlled by a single French-speaking government. And that's quite special and it's quite unique and it's quite precious to our citizenship. And I think most Canadians want to preserve it.

MR. MacNeil: Something that puzzles me in the latest Gallup poll, 3/5 of the people across Canada reject, oppose the idea of putting the phrase "Quebec as a distinct society" in a new constitution. At the same time, a sizeable majority of Canadians believe the country won't break up. Now how do you reconcile those two things since the "distinct society" clause, as I understand it, is almost essential to a new deal with Quebec?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: That's the point I've been trying to make, Robin. You shouldn't listen to polls. You should, in fact, go ahead and do what you need to.

MR. MacNeil: No, but how are you going to get a deal which guarantees Quebec that it can call itself a distinct society in the Canadian constitution if it stays in when a great majority of Canadians say they won't accept --

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: No, I think that's wrong. I think an arrangement like the ones we're talking about is -- would broadly supported by Canadians across the country. I think one of the reasons why the Meach Lake Agreement was not successful, was that while it began --

MR. MacNeil: Just to remind American viewers, that was the attempt two years ago to bring Quebec into a new constitutional arrangement.

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Yes. Quebec has been left out of the constitutional or failed to endorse the constitutional renewal process in 1981/'82. And so the 10 Canadian premieres asked the federal government to initiate the process whereby Quebec was brought back in. We got unanimous agreement twice. I as prime minister secured unanimous agreement twice whereby the premieres undertook to take this back, this agreement back and have it ratified. In two cases, they failed to have that accomplished, therefore, we had to start all over again. This process is more broadly based. It doesn't deal only with Quebec. It deals with some of the problems we've talked about, the aboriginals in the North and Senate reform with a particular concern to Western Canadians and so on. That kind of broadly based package, according to what I've seen in Canada, finds a substantial amount of favor not only in Quebec, but across Canada.

MR. MacNeil: You've talked about holding a national referendum perhaps. What will -- before Quebec holds its referendum in October -- what would persuade you to hold a national referendum?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Well, if the first ministers and the constitutional group that is presently meeting under Mr. Clark's guidance, who is the federal constitutional affairs minister, if they can't come forward with a package and Mr. Borasa, the premiere of Quebec, is already locked into holding a referendum on the 26th of October next, we're going to have to have something to put in the window. And if the provincial premieres of that group cannot agree, the federal parliament will no doubt initiate action and agree on the general parameters of a package, which would then be submitted to all Canadians via a referendum for their final decision. And that could then be negotiated and incorporated into an amended Canadian constitution.

MR. MacNeil: What do you say to Mr. Borasa's point recently that there were risks for you in that because a vote on -- people may vote on the person who's posing the question rather on the question itself -- in other words, they might be voting on you, whose political popularity has been quite low recently -- become a referendum on you?

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Robin, in the 1984 election, when it began, I was 14 points behind, and I won the largest number of seats in the history of Canada. In the 1988 election, four years later, I was running 23 points behind. And when the election was called, we won another consecutive majority government, the first time that's been done in Canada in 35 years. I've been prime minister of Canada for eight years. I've bitten a lot of bullets. I've taken some tough and unpopular decisions. But Canadians know where I stand and at an appropriate time when they're asked to do so, so far, they've voted for me. So I'm not concerned about polls. Canadians vote their national interest. If they think we're putting together a package that makes sense for them, Canadians want to keep Canada together. The United Nations just voted Canada the best country in the world in which to live. Canadians know that. Why would they break up a country that's No. 1, to then perhaps become No. 14 or No. 26? They're already No. 1. They know that and if they see that we're putting together a fair deal and a reasonable deal that meets their aspirations and their ambitions, I think they're going to vote for it, irrespective of Mr. Krauthamer, McLaughlin, myself, or anybody else.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Prime Minister Mulroney, thank you very much for joining us.

PRIME MINISTER MULRONEY: Thank you, Robin. FOCUS - WOMEN'S HEALTH

MS. WOODRUFF: Should women's health research be given a higher priority by the government? That question is one that Congress and President Bush are wrestling with this week. And is often the case in Washington, the issue comes down to money. The National Institutes of Health, the government's biomedical research arm, is up for budget reauthorization. That means spending targets for the world's largest medical institute must be determined. But this year, there is a new wrinkle to a familiar debate. A bipartisan group of Congresswomen have earmarked specific funds for diseases and condition that afflict women. Women make up a slight majority of the U.S. population, almost 52 percent, but according to some, a woefully small minority of federal research dollars has been devoted to women's health, a case in point, AIDS. Women are now the fastest growing risk group, contracting the disease mainly through sex with infected men. But little is known about the heterosexual transmission of AIDS, exactly how the disease affects women, or even whether available treatment will work. That's because the vast majority of all AIDS studies have been almost exclusively on men. The same is true of cardiovascular disease, the No. 1 female killer. Each year, just as many women die of heart attacks as men. But women have been virtually ignored in the major study. One, the so-called "Physician's Health Study," proved that aspirin can prevent coronary disease, in men that is. Twenty-two thousand men were enrolled in that aspirin trial; the number of women, none. Nor were there any women in the federally funded multiple risk factors intervention trials which looked for heart disease risk factors in 15,000 men. Even the acronym of that study, MR FIT, said no women need apply.

REP. OLYMPIA SNOWE, [R] Maine: The bottom line goals of our effort has been to ensure the fact that women are not a medical after thought, that, in fact, they have been given and will continue to be given primary consideration in the medical research community.

MS. WOODRUFF: The bipartisan Congressional Caucus for Women's issues testified on Capitol Hill today, with the female representatives pitching their pet causes to an all male House Appropriations Subcommittee. Congresswoman Olympia Snowe urged more funding for studies of osteoporosis, the bone thinning disease that afflicts women after menopause. She released a study by the Office of Technology Assessment which said that current hormone therapies carry unknown risks. Little is known about menopause, a fact much in the news these days. In the next two decades, nearly 40 million American women will pass through the so-called "change of life." Many say it's time to beef up the research into what happens next. Currently, the NIH spends about 150 million of its nearly $9 billion on post menopause studies. But nearly half of that goes to breast cancer research and many say even that figure is far too small, considering that one out of every nine American women will develop breast cancer at some time in her life. That risk has soared from only one in twenty in 1960 and no one knows why.

REP. MARY ROSE OAKAR, [D] Illinois: We spend $35 billion in military research and only $9 billion for all the diseases. I mean, it is out of proportion to what our values ought to be. So when I ask for $300 million more for breast cancer research, believe me, I think it's peanuts, comparatively speaking. But I think that is a comprehensive amount whereby we would see real progress in finding a cure in other methods of treatment for this disease.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Bush administration through Health Sec. Louis Sullivan has informed Congress that the President will veto the NIH budget bill if it includes language interfering with the administration's right to set spending priorities. That is apparently what the Congresswomen's initiative would do by mandating higher spending on research into specific diseases. We're now joined by four guests with different views on women's health policy. Dr. Bernadine Healy is the head of the National Institutes of Health, the world's largest medical research organization, Congresswoman Pat Schroeder of Colorado is a member of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, Dr. Myron Schoenfeld, a practicing cardiologist in New York, is the editor of the Journal of Cardiovascular Technology, and Dr. Frances Conley is a professor of neurosurgery at the Stanford University School of Medicine. She is also the chief of neurosurgery at the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Medical Center. Congresswoman Schroeder, let me begin with you. What exactly were you and the others who testified yesterday specifically asking these House members to do, commit the appropriations subcommittee to do?

REP. SCHROEDER: Well, there's two pieces, Judy. I think you framed it very well. No. 1, there's the diseases that both men and women get and unfortunately for a long time there were tests only done on men. Even the aging study only had men in the aging study. Then there are diseases that are more gender specific for women and I think people tend to fund what they fear first and a majority of the House and Senate and other people never feared breast cancer, ovarian cancer, osteoporosis, so we feel they've been underfunded. And then there's the whole area of younger women in the reproductive years, in infertility and sexually transmitted diseases. Those have all been ignored too because of the political sensitivity. So what we were doing was saying there has been over a decade of neglect. We're so pleased to have Dr. Healy here who's starting to focus all of this, but we once had an agreement from NIH in the mid '80s that they were going to correct this. They didn't and this time we want it written in the law. No more trusting, we want it in the law. We feel we've lost too much ground in this whole area.

MS. WOODRUFF: And what exactly are you saying that NIH promised to do?

REP. SCHROEDER: Well, in the '80s, when we discovered women weren't being included in any of these tests -- but let me tell you they included when it comes to paying the taxes for the test -- we went down and we said to them, wait a minute, women get heart disease, women are aging, women are in all these different categories, why aren't you putting women in, and they said, oh, you're right, isn't that amazing, we will change our rules. Well, a couple of years later, we didn't see any change coming out of the National Institutes of Health so we had the Government Accounting Office do a survey and the survey showed, indeed, they had changed the rules but not told anyone and so nothing really changed. You know, you can trust the first time, but the second time you look real stupid. And that's why every single woman but one is backing this that's been elected to office and they have been pushing this very, very hard. And hopefully, if we keep it on track and Dr. Healy there leading us, by the end of the decade, we're going to know as much about women as we now know about men. It's a long time to wait, but at least we've got to close the gap.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, wait a minute. Just to help me understand, you're asking for specific amounts, specific dollar amounts of funding on research into a number of diseases, women's health problems.

REP. SCHROEDER: Well, Judy, yes, we're asking for two things. One thing we want the Office of Women's Health right under the director, which now has a very good woman, Dr. Penn in it, to look at all the research to make sure women are included in diseases that they get, that aren't gender specific and other things. But we also want to specifically set aside certain amounts for things that are more gender related, such as breast cancer, osteoporosis, and DES, sexually transmitted diseases, other things that are more specifically related to women. So it's a two-part strategy. And we think both have been neglected in the past.

MS. WOODRUFF: And just again, to be clear, this is different from the way other appropriations decisions are made, is that right? Or, let me ask you, how different is it to be asking to earmark money for specific diseases?

REP. SCHROEDER: Well, generally, as you know, the money goes to the different institutes. And we really wanted to comply with that. As I said, when we tried to comply with that and when we had a promise from a prior NIH director -- they didn't comply with it. And we decided that the only way it's going to work with so few women in policy making decisions and everything else is to just make sure it's written in the law and that you do have the director of Women and Research Office there to monitor this so we never get caught short again.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right, Dr. Healy, as we said earlier, Health & Human Services Sec. Louis Sullivan has written a letter to a member of Congress saying the President will veto the bill if it includes this kind of language that these Congresswomen are asking for. First of all, is that accurate? Is that the administration's position?

DR. HEALY: Well, I think the administration -- the President and Sec. Sullivan have a number of concerns about the bill that do not have to do specifically with the issues on women's health. I mean, we have enormously strong support for women's health issues, for the spending on women's health research, including women including in clinical trials. It is a much more complicated issue as to why the President is opposing that particular bill. I think that --

MS. WOODRUFF: So he does or he doesn't have a problem with what they are asking?

DR. HEALY: Not on women's health issues specifically. Where the President has a problem is the notion of earmarks in general, across the board, because when you put a lot of earmarks on, it makes it harder for the administration to set priorities and to be flexible with the bill. I think the ends are the same. I mean, women's health research is a priority of this administration and it is my priority at NIH. It is one of my most important priorities. The means of getting there, i.e, with lots of earmarking or with a little more flexibility I think is the philosophical difference with regard to this bill.

MS. WOODRUFF: But what about Congresswoman Schroeder's point that they tried, this group of Congresswomen and others, tried back in the 1980s to get the Institutes of Health to direct more funds into research on particular women's diseases, and according to her, it hasn't happened?

DR. HEALY: Well, I'll tell you, I was trying back in the '80s when Congresswoman Schroeder was, and she is right. There was a lot of resistance then and I will tell you that the Women's Caucus, the bipartisan effort -- and Mrs. Schroeder has been a major leader there -- have been phenomenally successful in focusing on this issue, in putting pressure where it needs to occur, and I think that already the NIH has gotten ahead of this bill in terms of putting that office into effect long before the bill --

MS. WOODRUFF: Which caucus? Do you mean the women's --

DR. HEALY: The Women's Health Research Office.

MS. WOODRUFF: Under you?

DR. HEALY: Yes. And it's been in effect now for a year in kicking off a major $1/2 billion women's health initiative study, in having several conferences which focus on unique diseases of women, on changing the culture of NIH so that every institute, independent of what is written in a law, but every institute is committed and is being held accountable to seeing that it focused on women's health issues and the development of women's careers in research. So I think that the Women's Caucus has been extraordinarily effective in what they have been doing over the past several years, relentlessly putting pressure on executive agencies to be responsive. And the President is very supportive of it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, Congresswoman Schroeder, if Dr. Healy and others at NIH are making the moves that she's described, why isn't that enough?

REP. SCHROEDER: Well, let me say first of all, then they should have absolutely no problem with the earmarks, because if that's what they're doing, they shouldn't care if the earmarks are there, because they're already doing it. Look, I don't want to get into a debate with Dr. Healy. I think she's a terrific leader and she's got to kind of defend the administration. But let me just put it this way. I wish she were a Supreme Court Justice and we would then know she would be head of the NIH forever and ever and we could trust. But if something were to happen and she would not be there after November, things could go right back to the way they were, if we don't have this written in the law. As I said, we learned not to do that. And she's not a Supreme Court Justice, unfortunately, so she could be away. And when you look at the head of the other institutes, there's only one woman who's head of any of those, very few researchers that are women and we know there are very few women policy makers. So it's very easy in budget crunch time for all this to be swept aside if it's not in the law.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Healy, are you arguing within the administration? I know these things aren't always shared with the public, but are you arguing within the administration to make an exception in this case?

DR. HEALY: Well, I'll tell you that broadly speaking, this administration is very receptive to debates within the family, so to speak. And I am very outspoken through the proper channels on our views on women's health issues, as well as a range of other things, and I will say both the Secretary and the President are very receptive and listening. I think the issue in this bill is the wrong issue to focus on. The issue is not whether -- how you construct the budget and whether you earmark or don't earmark. The bigger issue is, are we delivering on our commitment to the American women of all sizes, all shapes, all colors, to address the gaps in knowledge about their health, whether it be menopause, sexually transmitted diseases, whether it be contraception, we have neglected those areas for too long. I'm coming at this as a physician. We've got to make the situation better.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Frances Conley, let me bring you into this from your perspective as a professor of neurosurgery out at Stanford. How much does it matter whether money gets earmarked at the federal level for research into women's health?

DR. CONLEY: Yeah. You've got to realize we've got a fair amount of catching up to do. And I think that if you do have money that has been earmarked, then there is going to be a much more likely possibility that some of that catching up will, indeed, take place.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, when you say catching up, what do you mean? Are you referring to what we've already discussed here, or --

DR. CONLEY: Sure, in terms of disease process we know very little about. I mean, we really do not know at the time of menopause what the hormonal rebalancing that a woman goes through does in terms of her long-term effects for getting heart disease, for example. We don't know why you have an increased incidence of osteoporosis following menopause. We don't understand the interaction of drugs with hormones that are either present or absent. We have a lot of catching up to do.

MS. WOODRUFF: But why isn't it sufficient just to let NIH -- in other words, to take the word of Dr. Healy, who's sitting here, saying, we care about this, we're trying to do better?

DR. CONLEY: I think it's wonderful having Dr. Healy at the head of NIH and I really applaud that. But I worry, like Congresswoman Schroeder does, that the promises that are made are not going to be kept.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Schoenfeld --

DR. CONLEY: And I think history would say that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Schoenfeld, what about your perspective on this, what is wrong with earmarking federal research dollars for research into specific women's diseases?

DR. SCHOENFELD: First of all, I think it represents a certain degree of paranoia that most Congressmen and Senators are men and, therefore, that they do not fund research on breast cancer is absurd. After all, we don't fund research on prostate cancer, on impotence and baldness either. And as a matter of fact, if women pursue this, I could see somebody trying to fund a national institute on prostate cancer, impotence, and baldness. It is simply not true that the reason that funding is not made for breast cancer has anything to do with the sexuality of the men in Congress.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, what are you saying it is due to then?

DR. SCHOENFELD: There are a lot of diseases. I mean, I say it is due to the same thing that prostate cancer isn't focused on. You can't do everything. And I think that one should not involve a direct targeting by Congress for certain diseases. That should be left entirely up to investigators. To put politicians into medical research is inviting the fox into the chicken coop.

MS. WOODRUFF: Congresswoman Schroeder.

REP. SCHROEDER: This fox wants in that chicken coop, but this fox has said that we've been waiting an awful long time and we know almost nothing about women. When you look at the studies and it's not just things like breast cancer, it's like why weren't we in any of the heart research, why weren't we in any aging research, why weren't we in any of the research that affects both, and just to say, well, you know, not because it was just men, it's just because there wasn't enough money. Look, the bottom line of this, you know and I know, is women are more complex. You drop a net over a random group of women and you can find them in all sorts of different metabolical states. You drop a net over a random group of men and they're in the nice same metabolical state. It fits a nicer clean cut research project. On the other hand, if you're a woman and the norm is defined as a 180 pound male, that means you're abnormal. That means that the research you're paying for doesn't really help you as a woman at all. And since we're paying half the cost of this research through our tax dollars, I don't think we're being at all pushy to say we've been waiting till 1992 and we've been left out. I think it's now time we do a little focusing on women. May I remind you too, this is only $1/2 billion out of a $9 billion budget and so it's not like we're marching in and taking the whole thing and pigging out.

MS. WOODRUFF: She has a point, doesn't she, Dr. Schoenfeld?

DR. SCHOENFELD: Well, she has a point, but I don't think it's valid.

MS. WOODRUFF: You want to expand on that?

DR. SCHOENFELD: I think it's a matter of principle, because once they have -- once you establish a precedent, then there'll be no end to this kind of thing. One should simply not have government dictating the area of research. That should be entirely up to the medical community, the experts who know what they're doing.

MS. WOODRUFF: Even when it's an area which even Dr. Healy agrees, it's an area that's been underfunded in the past?

DR. SCHOENFELD: So has prostate cancer. I mean, if you want an area that involves 50 percent -- how about impotence in men -- men over the age of 60 like say with poor impotence -- it involves almost everybody to a greater or lesser extent.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Healy, what about his point, of course, that it's setting a precedent that's dangerous and something that we don't want to get into, is that the administration -- is that what OMB or whoever it is in the administration is arguing this?

DR. HEALY: I think it's fair to say that we're moving -- I think we're moving away from the real issue. I think when we argue over earmarks, we're arguing over something that is time honored. It goes back for 50 years. There are members of the Congress, like Mr. Natcher, who you've just saw on tape a minute ago, who is also against earmarking. There's a principle that there should be more flexibility in the budget. Now, the bigger issue is: Is the NIH, is the Congress, is the President responsive to the will of the people? And there has been an incredible awakening in this country I think over the past year or two years about women, about women's health. There are cultural things that women will not tolerate anymore. We must have women in leadership positions. This cannot be something here today, gone tomorrow. We have to work on the broader cultural phenomena that will say, whether it is written in a piece of the budget, women will be incorporated into policy making and women's needs will be addressed by NIH and by every other agency within the federal government.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Conley, I come back to you again. If this is the view of the woman, the person, a woman who happens to be a woman who's running the National Institutes of Health, why isn't that good enough, why this fight for earmarking?

DR. CONLEY: I think that Dr. Healy is correct that we're losing sight of the true issue by trying to worry about earmarking versus not earmarking. The important issue is that there are problems that are unique to women that have never been explored, that I can guarantee if they had happened to men, we would know everything about them. And that is -- those truly are the issues. Women have not been allowed to age in our country very well. By the time we're 50 years old, we have become expendable to our culture. Our worth as an individual is defined when we're young by being beautiful or by being -- or having the capability to reproduce. When we're 50, we lose that self-worth and that value to society. So we're an expendable commodity. If you're a businessman and you have an expendable commodity that for many people even becomes invisible, do you throw money at it? No. And nobody has bothered to worry about the health issues that really do affect 52 percent of our population.

MS. WOODRUFF: Congresswoman Schroeder, but just one more question on this earmarking. Dr. Healy, Dr. Conley are both saying that we're getting away from what's important by even pushing this whole question of earmarking.

REP. SCHROEDER: Judy, the problem with my gray hair and with being dean of the woman, because I've been here 20 years, is you start having this memory. I remember testifying here with Betty Ford, with Mrs. Rockefeller, and with many, many other very prominent women who had breast cancer coming forward and talking about that, also Mrs. Ford talking about drugs and women and all of that. You know, we talked in front of these committees. We were always patted on the head. We were told it was a nice idea, a lovely idea, they were sure something would happen, and let me tell you, here are 20 years later and nothing happened. Now, if I sound a little irrational because I think 1/18 of the federal budget could be set aside to make sure we catch up and hopefully by the end of the century know as much about women as we now know about men, then I guess I'm irrational. But I mean to say we tried it the other way and I don't know what it was, but it never happened. And I remind you when women first got the vote, one of the very first things they pointed out was the federal government spent more money for hog cholera than to take care of women in child birth, and more women died in child birth during World War I than men did in World War I. And they started getting into politics on this medical research area. And I think women would like to close the century closing that gap once and for all.

MS. WOODRUFF: But Dr. Schoenfeld, that doesn't sway you?

DR. SCHOENFELD: No, I'm afraid not. Let me say this. If I understand Rep. Schroeder, she's saying that we men don't care about our women once they're over the age of 50 -- that was Dr. Conley, excuse me.

MS. WOODRUFF: I think that was Dr. Conley.

DR. SCHOENFELD: I can't imagine someone saying that. Maybe that's true in her family. That's certainly not true in mine and those that I know. I adore my wife and my two daughters. I don't think that their chance of getting breast cancer is minor, is trivial. Nor do I think my chance of getting prostate cancer is trivial, I might add. But any event, what is this talk by Dr. Conley that we men just discard our women over the age of 50? What nonsense!

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Conley.

DR. CONLEY: On an individual level, of course, we love our wives and we love our mothers and we love our aunts, but as a society, we have not valued women, particularly as they have aged. And I think this is one reason we have not seen the research dollars funnel into women's health problems.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, on that point, we want to leave it. And we want to thank you, Dr. Conley, Dr. Schoenfeld, Congresswoman Schroeder, and here in Washington, Dr. Healy. Thank you all for being with us. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of this Wednesday, convicted murderer Roger Keith Coleman will die in Virginia's electric chair tonight, barring last minute action by the Supreme Court. Earlier today, Coleman, who's insisted he's innocent, failed a lie detector test. Thailand's prime minister and the main opposition leader promised the nation's king they would seek a peaceful solution to their conflict. More than 40 people have died since the government cracked down on a pro-democracy uprising this week. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.