The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze told the United Nations his country supports the U.S. chemical weapons proposal, former HUD Sec. Samuel Pierce refused to answer questions before a House subcommittee and Communist rebels were believed responsible for the murder of two Americans in the Philippines. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in New York tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, [Focus - HUD Scandal] former HUD Sec. Sam Pierce's appearance before a House subcommittee is our lead focus. The chairman of the committee, Congressman Tom Lantos, and one of its members, Republican Christopher Shays, join us. Next [Focus - Cholesterol Controversy] new questions about cholesterol and whether it's really as dangerous to our health as we've been told. Dr. Robert Olson says the danger's been exaggerated. Dr. Dewitt Goodman says it hasn't. And finally [Focus - Watermelons - Seeds of Success] Business Correspondent Paul Solman with a report on a group of small farmers and how they've banded together to survive.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The Soviet Union today officially embraced the U.S. plan to eliminate chemical weapons. Pres. Bush laid out the proposal in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly yesterday. He said the U.S. would destroy 80 percent of its chemical weapons stockpile if the Soviet Union reduced its supply to the same level. Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze gave the Soviet answer from the same UN podium this morning.

EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE, Foreign Minister, USSR: [Speaking through Interpreter] We welcome the proposal concerning chemical weapons put forward yesterday by Pres. Bush. The Soviet Union is ready together with the United States to go further and assume mutual obligations prior to the conclusion of a multilateral convention, on a bilateral basis radically reduce or completely destroy Soviet and U.S. chemical weapons, doing it as a step towards the global destruction of chemical weapons.

MR. LEHRER: Pres. Bush said he was pleased with the Soviet reaction. He said the two superpowers had achieved some good common ground. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Former HUD Sec. Sam Pierce showed up a hearing on Capitol Hill today but he refused to answer questions about scandals at the Department during his tenure there. Forced to appear by a subpoena, Pierce told members of House subcommittee that their criticism of him had led him "to the painful conclusion that I have been prejudged by this body". TV cameras and photography equipment were barred from the hearing room at Pierce's insistence. After the appearance, Pierce's attorney, Paul Perito, told reporters that he objected to the subcommittee's treatment of his client.

PAUL PERITO, Pierce Attorney: What they wanted to do was rush into judgment. They have wanted to try, convict and sentence him, and we will not let that occur. If they want to charge my client with some violation, there is not a shred of evidence that we have heard thus far that connects him to any wrongdoing. If they want to charge him with some violation, ladies and gentlemen, they're going to have to do it the hard way, they're going to have to prove it with credible evidence.

MS. WOODRUFF: In a few moments we will talk with Congressman Tom Lantos, the chairman of the House Subcommittee questioning Pierce, and its ranking Republican member, Christopher Shays.

MR. LEHRER: Two American civilians were murdered today in the Philippines. The killings occurred 50 miles North of Manila shortly before Vice Pres. Quayle arrived to discuss the future of U.S. military bases in the Philippines. Authorities said the killers were probably Communist rebels. The victims were both employees of Ford Aerospace which is doing defense contracting work at a military facility. They were identified as William Thompson and Donald Buckner. Both men had retired from the Air Force and worked for Ford since 1987. There was also a bombing across the street from the U.S. embassy in Santiago, Chile today. A Chilean security guard was injured. The bomb was in a trash can across from the embassy's front entrance. No group has claimed responsibility.

MS. WOODRUFF: There were also more bombings in Colombia today. Two doctors at a medical convention were killed last night when a bomb exploded at a luxury hotel in the Caribbean Resort City of Cartahena. No one took responsibility for the incident, but authorities blamed drug traffickers who they said are trying to harm the tourism industry. Another bomb exploded at a Cartahena bank injuring one person. Catahena has been Colombia's premiere tourist attraction.

MR. LEHRER: The price of the American dollar was driven down again today. The central banks of Japan and West Germany did the driving by selling dollars on international currency markets in Tokyo and Europe. It was a follow to similar action yesterday by all seven of the Group of 7 industrialized nations, including the United States. The purpose is to keep the U.S. trade deficit from rising. In another U.S. economic development, the Commerce Department reported today that orders of big ticket durable goods like automobiles were up 3.8 percent in August. That was the largest increase this year.

MS. WOODRUFF: Vietnam's military occupation of Cambodia came to an end today. We have a report narrated by David Simmons of Worldwide Television News.

MR. SIMMONS: Tuesday was the deadline for Vietnam's 26,000 troops and it's armory of military hardware to leave Cambodia. Their return to Vietnam was hailed as a victory and celebrated as such in a government organized festival. Lion dancers, firecrackers and cheering crowds greeted the last column of troops at the border. Their departure ends a costly military incursion that began 11 years ago. Dozens of people lined Highway 1, the road that was one of the main routes used by Vietnamese forces when they invaded Cambodia. More than 1000 trucks, busses and armored personnel carriers stretched 19 kilometers, crossing under two triumphal arches completed just before the pullout. The decision to go leaves Cambodia facing a difficult period of political uncertainty, the Vietnamese installed government is left alone to fight the three armed resistance factions, including the brutal Khmers Rouge. Those resistance groups are now claiming thousands of Vietnamese troops have stayed behind disguised as Cambodian troops or as armed civilians, and that the pullout is in fact a ploy, a claim denied by the Vietnamese.

MS. WOODRUFF: A Khmers Rouge commander predicted that his troops would force a settlement with the Cambodian Government. The commander said the Khmers would take over the capital city of Nom Pen if the government does not come to a power sharing agreement. In other foreign news, Hungary's parliament today adopted new laws that guarantee free travel abroad and free emigration. It was the first of a sweeping set of changes intended to transform the Communist country into a multiparty democracy. The Communist dominated parliament also approved the seating for the first time of four opposition members chosen in recent elections. That's it for our News Summary. Just ahead on the Newshour, Sam Pierce on Capitol Hill, new questions about cholesterol, and small farmers take a stand. FOCUS - HUD SCANDAL

MR. LEHRER: Samuel Pierce took the 5th Amendment today and that is our lead story tonight. The Former Housing Secretary said he had been pre judged by the House Sub Committee investigating abuse during his eight year tenure under President Reagan. The Leaders of the Sub Committee are with us and we will hear from them after Kwame Holman reports on what Pierce said and did today.

MR. HOLMAN: This mornings was the sixteenth Hearing on the HUD Scandals held by this House Sub Committee and as usual it opened under the glare of television lights in a hearing room packed with reporters and spectators. The Committee and other invited members of Congress over flowed the deus and across from them sat two attorneys for former Housing Secretary Samuel Pierce who had asked for a two month delay of his return testimony while he found adequate legal counsel. In fact the only person missing was Pierce himself. That was because a subpoenaed witness Pierce could invoke a rule barring any television, radio or photographic coverage of his appearance and to the chagrin of Committee Chairman Tom Lantos Pierce had exercised that right.

REP. LANTOS: The House Rule giving witnesses the right not to be photographed or to refuse to present testimony during television and the radio broadcasting of this hearing was adopted by the House of Representatives during the notorious Mc Carthy Hearings and it is my strong view that the rule Mr. Pierce chose to invoke no longer serves the American people and their right to know. Nor is it required as a protection to any witness.

MR. HOLMAN: A suit by news organizations had failed to over turn to no coverage rule. In their opening remarks the assembled members of Congress criticized Pierces decision.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, [D] New York: I would say to the Secretary if there had been a few cameras at HUD while he was presiding he wouldn't have to worry about keeping cameras out here today because none of the abuses would have happened.

MR. HOLMAN: The fact that Representative Schumer and other members of Congress not on the Committee also wanted to question the former Secretary prompted a sharp exchange with one of Pierces lawyers.

MR. PERIOT: Do I understand the Chair to rule.

REP. SHAYS: Point of order Mr. Chairman.

REP. LANTOS: Please state your point of order Mr. Shays.

REP. SHAYS: Mr. Chairman we are making statements. There are two people sitting at a desk who haven't even yet been invited to sit at that desk and they are not yet part of this process.

REP. LANTOS: Congressman Shays you are absolutely correct and in view of your interruption Mr. Perito I would like to read a statement and I would like to ask you to take cognisance of this statement.

MR. PERITO: Mr. Chairman respectfully.

REP. LANTOS: You are not yet called upon to make any comment Mr. Perito. If the Chair recognizes you, you will make a statement not until then.

MR. Perito: I will accede to the Chair.

REP. LANTOS: It is not a request Mr. Perito. In essence gentlemen at this hearing in fact you are a potted plant.

MR. HOLMAN: Once the members had had their say it was time for the former HUD Secretary to have his. At that point Lantos ordered all cameras caped and all microphones shut off,

REP. LANTOS: We will give the media a couple of minutes to take care of this. Members of the Media, of course, are welcomed to stay here and listen to the proceedings.

MR. HOLMAN: Flanked by his legal team Pierce walked past the dozens of cameras in the Hall.

REPORTER: Mr. Secretary why are you refusing to appear before cameras and why are you ducking this.

SECRETARY PIERCE: There is a lot of cameras out here.

MR. HOLMAN: And into the hearing room before the waiting Committee where Pierce was sworn in and read from a prepared statement. Saying he expected to be asked about specifics about his eight year tenure at HUD Pierce told the Committee "I failed to understand the Sub Committees insistence on my rapid appearance. Other witnesses have obtained delays long than I sought through my counsel. My counsel has had insufficient time to review the 48 boxes of material at HUD." Pierce also attacked Committee Members saying I thought the Committee's proceedings would be non adversarial and non accusatory. Various statements made by members both in session and in press briefing lead me to the painful conclusion that I have been pre judged by the body. In concluding the Former HUD Secretary said what many Committee Members expected. Under these circumstances my counsel has advised me and I have agreed to assert my Constitutional Rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments by refusing to answer question before this sub Committee. I trust that the Sub Committee will remember that these rights are intended as Shields for the innocent and that they do not create any inference or presumption of wrong doing especially in these circumstances. So the Committees questions of Samuel Pierce this morning received no answers but that question did open a new line of inquiry that may reach in to the Reagan White House. Pierce was to be asked about HUDs 1985 funding of a senior citizens project in Durham, North Carolina. Sworn Testimony has contradicted Pierces statement in May that he never ordered Funding for this project that was developed by prominent Republicans in a city whose Major was a former Pierce law associate. And today in the unanswered questions to Pierce Chairman Lantos claimed the Durham project was to be funded years before but that those funds had been diverted in 1982 to another housing project in Ewing, New Jersey. According to Lantos the funding was a political act to bolster the Senate campaign of former New Jersey Representative Millicent Fenwick. The project was announced by then President Reagan who said in spite of our cutting back HUD has agreed to supply public funds for 125 units of elderly housing at Park Place in Ewing, New Jersey. And if you don't elect Fenwick as Senator we'll take it away. Outside the Hearing room former Secretary Pierces Lawyers said they knew nothing about the New Jersey Project or the surprise line of questioning. Instead they defended their clients record and his decision not to testify.

PAUL PERITO, Pierce's Lawyer: This man is an innocent man and he has nothing to hide and the assertion of that priveldge was in fact our decision based uponour inability to properly prepare and in effect the jeopardy that attaches in proceeding forward.

MR. LEHRER: Lawyers for Secretary Pierce also said they are not sure that he will be ready for his next scheduled appearance before the Committee October 27. Congressman Tom Lantos, Democrat of California the Sub Committee Chairman is with us now as is one of the leading Republicans on the Sub Committee Congressman Christopher Shays Republican of Connecticut. Mr. Lantos what is your reaction to what Secretary Pierce and his lawyers did today.

REP. TOM LANTOS, [D] California: Well Jim, this was a very sad day. It is only the third time in American History that a Cabinet Member took the 5th Amendment before a Congressional Committee. The other two occasions were in the 1920s in connection with the notorious Tea Pot Dome Scandal in the Harding Administration. I deeply regret that Secretary Pierce chose to take this action. The Sub Committee is not attempting to ask him unrelated, mysterious, tiny facts. We are interested in having him testify on the eight years of his stewardship as Secretary of HUD. A subject that a distinguished lawyer with a long career as a Judge, as a prosecutor, as an attorney should have no difficulty answering. I should also ad that the Sub Committee first approach Mr. Pierce on the 9th of May. It is now the end of September. He has had more than adequate time to prepare himself for this hearing. To accommodate him I have agreed to restrict the questioning to just three topics out of the hundreds that are before the Sub Committee. I suggest that if there is any question that he can not answer because of lack of documents he will be excused from answering that question. I think that he made a mistake. When a man serves for 8 years in the Cabinet, when he leaves that Cabinet he still owes the American people, at least a moral obligation, to help answer questions which relate to his stewardship. After all the HUD Scandal is now universally accepted as a fact. Jack Kemp the new Secretary is probably more critical of Pierce than I am. We are not after Sam Pierce. This is not a punitive, vindictive mission. We have a job to do. Our job is to find out what went wrong at HUD and Sam Pierce, the Secretary is pivotal to getting the answers.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Shays but Mr. Pierce told you all today that your Sub Committee had prejudged him and his lawyers have added that you have already convicted him and you are ready to sentence him.

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, [R] Connecticut: Well he is not on trial. This isn't a criminal court case. We are a Committee trying to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse. We know that Mr. Pierce came in to HUD when he was in disarray and he just left it worst than he found it. That is a fact. The real question is were do we go from here.

MR. LEHRER: And what is the answer?

REP. SHAYS: Well we just continue. We have new people coming in to testify and we proceed to encourage Mr. Pierce to come as well.

MR. LEHRER: But when he says that you all have pre judged him. The two of you and other members of the Sub Committee have used harsh language in talking about him in the past have you not?

REP. SHAYS: Well remember he came and testified and he testified that he never tried to influence any projects and then we have other people come in since then where they have claimed that Mr. Pierce directly spoke to them and said that he wanted certain projects funded. So we have that on the record and what we wanted is for Mr. Pierce to clarify that record. We also have documents that show that he advocated certain projects. So it is really in his best interest to clarify the discrepancy in testimony.

MR. LEHRER: Does the record thus far portray a picture of wrong doing by Secretary Pierce in your opinion?

REP. SHAYS: The record shows clearly that HUD was an agency where not one program worked well and where there was so many people who simply didn't abide by the law or the regulations and he was in charge.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Chairman you have accused the Secretary of deceit. You did that publically when he did not show up 2 or 3 weeks ago?

REP. LANTOS: A week ago.

MR. LEHRER: A week ago and have you pre judged him?

REP. LANTOS: Well let me deal with the general question of pre judgement and then let me deal with his no appearance. There are two kinds of judgements, Jim, that one can make with respect to this whole case. The first relates to the quality of management and leadership that Sam Pierce gave the Department of Housing and Urban Development during an uninterrupted 8 year period. Now the evidence on that score is clearly and from Jack Kemp to Chris Shays to myself we have all concluded that he was a miserable Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That relates to his job performance. There are 700 criminal cases now pending, there have been billions of dollars of tax payers money lost, the Department has been mismanaged in a callosal fashion. There is no question about that. Then there is the other question on which I certainly haven't made up my mind and that is criminal culpability. Is there any specific wrong doing on the part of Sam Pierce. I do not know and I think that it is very important in his defense to indicate that his taking the 5th Amendment should give no one any cause to assume that there is any wrong doing on his part. I think the 5th Amendment is a shield to the innocent. We should jump to no conclusions and certainly this Sub Committee will not.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with what the Chairman just outlined that you and Jack Kemp and others believe that there was gross mismanagement on the part of Mr. Pierce?

REP. SHAYS: Well we have had 15 hearings and we've documented that this Department was in total disarray and we know that he was ultimately in charge. The real question is what did he know and what did he try to do and it is in his best interest to come and testify. The point I just think is so important. He is not on trial.

MR. LEHRER: Why is it in his best interest?

REP. SHAYS: Because if he has nothing to hide it is important for him to be able to explain to the Committee exactly what he did and why he did it and also to help us with some of the other personalities who have accused him of not managing well.

MR. LEHRER: On the criminal side do you believe Congressman Shays that a special prosecutor an independent counsel should be appointed to investigate this matter now?

REP. SHAYS: Well I hope that a special prosecutor isn't needed and that will depend on how vigorous the Justice Department pursues this. I am not comforted when they say they have 700 cases they are looking at or a 1000 individuals. The key questions are they going after the central people here. Are they looking at the people in charge, are they looking at Mr. Pierce, are they looking at Deborah Gore Dean and Lance Wilson.

MR. LEHRER: Those we two of his top assistants?

REP. SHAYS: His two Chiefs of Staff, are they looking at Phillip Abrams, individuals that in the course of 11 months got a 138 million dollars from HUD in tax rebates and tax credits.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about the criminal side of this Congressman Lantos?

REP. LANTOS: I fully agree with my friend Chris Shays and let me say in this connection that this has been one of the most remarkably bi partisan Congressional Investigations in American History. As a matter of fact all three subpoenas we issued to Mr. Pierce were voted unanimously by the Committee. Every Republican every Democrat voted for them and we have some very liberal Democrats, some ultra conservative Republicans on the Committee. We have moved together on that. My hope is that Secretary Pierce will recognize what Chris Shays is suggesting. If in fact he is guilty of no wrong doing it is in his best interest to testify. I wish he had testified a week ago. A week ago by the way I didn't discuss that with your earlier.

MR. LEHRER: That is when you accused him of deceit?

REP. LANTOS: That is correct. We got in touch with him in July trying to set up an appearance. he agreed to appear on August the 3rd which was just before the break in the Congressional Calendar. A few days before that he called and said that he would like an extension. I gave him six weeks until September 15. I agreed to limit the number of topics on which he will be examined. I told him he will be excused from having to answer questions when he didn't have documentation. The night before he was scheduled to appear when we didn't get his prepared testimony I called his attorney and then I was advised he was not coming. Well that is deceitful behavior. Congress and the witness agree on a voluntary appearance. The assumption is that this is a contract. He broke it, he broke it on a unilateral basis. That is why we had to move for the subpoena. I wish we didn't have to subpoena a former Secretary of the Cabinet. We had to because the voluntary appearance was an appearance where he broke his word.

MR. LEHRER: Well what happens, his attorney said this afternoon he may not be prepared to testify even on October 27th. What happens then?

REP. SHAYS: Well I am not going to hold my breath on his willingness to testify.

MR. LEHRER: Ever?

REP. SHAYS: Ever.

MR. LEHRER: You just don't think that he is going to?

REP. SHAYS: I just am not going to hold my breath, I mean, I just can't believe what he is going to say to us. He came in, in may and testified. He had four months to prepare for this hearing today.

MR. LEHRER: he just hired these lawyers right before he said.

REP. LANTOS: But you see, Jim, a duly constituted Sub Committee of Congress can not be at the mercy of a witness who procrastinating hiring attorneys. I have some sympathy for the attorney but very little in this context for Mr. Pierce. He had 8 years at the Head of HUD, he has been working with our staff intensely over the last four months preparing for this appearance and claims he is not ready. But let me ask you this. I don't know how long you have been doing Mc Neal Lehrer. Would you be prepared to testify about Mc Neal Lehrer over the last 8 years. You wouldn't have to remember every detain but you ought to be able to intelligently to tell people how the program is produced, what your role is in it. I mean those are the kinds of questions that we ask.

REP. SHAYS: And any question that he couldn't answer we would finally just say fine we will go to the next question. If he didn't remember we can't make him remember.

MR. LEHRER: But there is no question is there now gentleman in all fairness that Secretary Pierce was really in a bad light, I mean, there is no way on television or whatever this would have a been a very negative thing for him.

REP. SHAYS: I just want to make this point. Any harm that has come to Secretary Pierce has been done by him. What he said in the May hearing clearly was not very helpful to him but he did it to himself. He has had interviews in newspapers that have not made him look good. That is not something the Committee did that is something that he did to himself.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about, we ran the piece on the tape of Congressman Lantos feels about the television and the radio and photographic ban today. How do you feel about it Congressman Shays?

REP. SHAYS: Oh I feel if you are going to have the print media there you should allow the TV media as well and I certainly support his effort to change the rule. It is something the leadership has to decide and if they decide to go forward I certainly would be right there helping them.

REP. LANTOS: I think that it is a bi partisan issue. I think we all want to change the rules.

MR. LEHRER: Gentleman thank you very much for being with us. For the record to the audience we did extend and invitation to Secretary Pierce or one of his attorneys to be with us tonight. They declined.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still ahead on the News Hour is cholesterol so bad after all. Paul Solman gets a business lesson from a small town in Texas. FOCUS - CHOLESTEROL CONTROVERSY

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight the debate over cholesterol and heart disease. Are Americans overly concerned with cholesterol? Is medical science placing too much emphasis on the link between cholesterol levels and diet? These were some of the questions raised in a report released today in New York. Cholesterol is considered one of the main causes of heart disease. It has become a way of life for many people to cut back on foods that increase their cholesterol levels. We look at the cholesterol debate after some background. Cholesterol is found only in foods of animal origin. Three and a half ounces of lean fish, for example, contain 65 mg. of cholesterol, light meat turkey or chicken without the skin 80 mg., lean beef 90 mg., 3 1/2 ounces of shrimp contains 150 mg. of cholesterol, and one egg yolk 270 mg. Cholesterol's partner in the crime of heart disease is fat. It accounts for about 40 percent of the calories in the average American's diet. But there are good and bad types of fat. The bad ones are the saturated fats, those that are usually hard at room temperature, like the fat in butter, beef or cheese. They have been shown to raise blood cholesterol levels. In the bloodstream, cholesterol and fat combine in complex molecular packages called lipoproteins. Here again there are good guys and bad guys. The good are called high density lipoproteins. They contain a lot of protein and a small amount of fat. Researchers believe that HDLs take cholesterol away from cells and back to the liver for removal. The bad guys are the low density lipoproteins. These contain small amounts of protein and large amounts of fat. Experts believe that LDLs deposit their loads of fat and cholesterol on the artery walls, beginning in childhood. Signs of arterial sclerosis, clogging of the arteries, usually appear after the age of 30. The arterial wall begins to develop lesions and to thicken with accumulation of cholesterol and other blood fats. In time, these accumulations can shut off completely the flow of blood to the art muscle, causing the muscle to die. In other words, the victim has a heart attack. Over the years, a series of medical studies both here and abroad seem to establish the linkage between high cholesterol and heart disease. By 1985, the federal government launched a major cholesterol education program. In particular, the program encouraged people with cholesterol levels between 200 and 240 labeled "borderline high" to consider reducing their cholesterol intake through diet. For those over 240, the program recommended seeing a doctor and possibly using drugs to reduce cholesterol levels. As a result, millions of Americans have had their cholesterol checked and changed their diets, reducing fats. Food companies also responded with a variety of new products designed to cater to America's cholesterol mania. But now a growing number of physicians and scientists say that cholesterol's bad reputation may be exaggerated. In September, Atlantic Monthly Magazine went so far as to question whether cholesterol is so bad after all, and if it is, if changing one's diet can reduce it. The articles author, Tom Moore, said no. Today in New York City another salvo was fired when a group of eminent physicians and researchers issued a report that sought, in their words, to restore balance and perspective to the cholesterol debate. The report's author is Agnes Heinz of the American Council on Science & Health.

AGNES HEINZ, American Council On Science & Health: One would believe that cholesterol and saturated fats are environmental toxins. Many people do not know that we make most of the cholesterol that we need and that if we eat more dietary cholesterol, we make less of our own. In other words, in healthy people the serum cholesterol levels are fairly stabile, in spite of different dietary intakes. It is a good idea for everyone to watch their diet to make sure that it is balanced and that it's not too high in calories, but by exaggerating the role of diet in influencing serum cholesterol, we are causing needless anxiety and an unbalanced attitude towards food.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now to Dr. Robert Olson, Professor of Medicine at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Dr. Olson participated in today's press conference on cholesterol. He is also co-author of the new book "Balanced Nutrition: Beyond the Cholesterol Scare", and to Dr. Dewitt Goodman. He wrote the adult treatment guidelines for the National Cholesterol Education Program. Dr. Goodman is Director of the Institute of Human Nutrition and Professor of Medicine at Columbia University. Dr. Olson, you think the dangers of cholesterol have been exaggerated. Why do you think so?

DR. ROBERT OLSON, State University of N.Y., Stony Brook: First of all, it's clear to me and to the American Council on Science & Health that the risks of serum cholesterol levels have been exaggerated under the National Cholesterol Education Program, and the benefits from reduction of these levels have been magnified. I think one of the misleading features of this program is the division of people in this country basically into two groups, those with cholesterol levels below 200 mg. per deciliter and those with cholesterol levels above 200 mg. per deciliter. Even though Dr. Goodman's report talks about borderline high, the word high suggests that anything over 200 mg. per deciliter is, in fact, dangerous. Now we all agree that at 240 one should take action and at my practice at Stony Brook, I recommend diets for people who come to me with cholesterol levels above 240. What I think the problem is is the exaggeration of minor risks in individuals who have borderline cholesterols for whom there is no evidence in any medical report that they will benefit from cholesterol reductions.

MS. WOODRUFF: So it's the people in the middle groupthat you're most concerned about.

DR. OLSON: Exactly.

MS. WOODRUFF: You know, we've been getting information about cholesterol for years now. Why suddenly have you and others come forward saying, whoa, wait a minute, we've gone too far?

DR. OLSON: Well, I'll tell you, I've been writing papers on this subject for over 10 years and have been skeptical.

MS. WOODRUFF: We haven't listened to you.

DR. OLSON: I mean I think the point is that there has been a momentum behind the lipid theory of atherosclerosis that puts a great deal of emphasis on serum lipids and serum lipoproteins. And the argument is very facile, even seductive, that in animals you can produce lesions that tend to resemble that seen in man by feeding high fat, high cholesterol diets, so why shouldn't everyone reduce their fat intake, their cholesterol intake, and hopefully their blood cholesterol and lipoprotein levels? Well, the answer to that question is that the prediction has not been validated by studies over the last 10 years. It's only now when there's a sufficient amount of negative evidence to bring this back to the attention of the public, and that's what this book we issued tries to do.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you're questioning the link between high levels of cholesterol and heart disease, am I hearing you correctly?

DR. OLSON: You have to define high. It is medium, it is the creation of a high level by a committee for which there is no particular risk. The level is not high. High is a relative term.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Let's go to Dr. Goodman. You've heard what Dr. Olson and the others are saying. They're saying that you've exaggerated, that there is a middle group in there who shouldn't be as worried about cholesterol as you've said they should be.

DR. DeWITT GOODMAN, Columbia University: Judy, we don't want people to be excessively worried about their cholesterol, but the scientific evidence that links cholesterol and diet to heart disease is enormous and overwhelming. The evidence is beyond question. There have been studies in populations, there have been studies in individuals, there have been animal studies. The amount of information is enormous. What we know is that increasing your cholesterol level increases your risk of heart disease and that you can reduce your risk of heart disease by lowering your cholesterol level. On this basis, the National Cholesterol Education Program has launched a two pronged effort to find people who are at high risk and should be in medical treatment to lower their cholesterol level and a strategy for the whole public, because we can reduce everyone's risk of heart disease by having people shift their diet and lower their cholesterol level.

MS. WOODRUFF: But what about Dr. Olson's point, that there's been this artificial demarcation, that at 200, below 200 you're okay, above 200 you're not, and he's saying that the facts don't bear that out, that the studies don't bear that out.

DR. GOODMAN: Dr. Olson is completely wrong on that and it's unfortunate that we're presenting this as a debate amongst individuals like a political debate in this political season, because, in fact, the evidence has been reviewed by a vast array of qualified scientists all over the world. The National Academy of Sciences in March issued a report which was put out by a committee called Diet and Health Report in which all of the evidence is reviewed in very great detail, and the conclusion was that for almost everybody in the U.S. it is better to lower your cholesterol, to change your diet, to eat less saturated fat, less cholesterol, less total fat.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Olson, if the evidence is as overwhelming as Dr. Goodman says, how can there be such a difference between the two sides?

DR. OLSON: Dr. Goodman is clearly wrong about studies that pertain to the middle group. Let me explain.

MS. WOODRUFF: Again, the middle group you're saying are people with a level between 200 and 240.

DR. OLSON: I'm talking about people being frightened about cholesterol in food to the point where marketers are advertising cholesterol free foods as a gimmick for the purchase of these foods with the idea that cholesterol in the diet at the first level, the dietary level, is dangerous and will cause heart disease. There's no evidence for that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let me stop you there. Dr. Goodman.

DR. GOODMAN: We certainly don't want to exaggerate danger. We don't want people to be overly fearful about cholesterol. We want people to be sensible about health, so we'd like people to give up cigarette smoking, to know their blood pressure and to get it reduced if it's high, to shift their diets, to lower their cholesterol, to use seatbelts, to do healthy simple things that are not risky to reduce their risk of disease.

MS. WOODRUFF: You're saying cholesterol is just one of a number of things.

DR. GOODMAN: What Dr. Olson is referring to is the fact that there have been very expensive large studies through clinical trials to prove beyond a shadow of doubt to demonstrate that lowering cholesterol lowers heart disease. Those studies have been conducted in individuals with high cholesterol levels. The reason that was done is that you could not have done studies because they would have been too expensive and difficult in studies with lower cholesterol levels. The evidence in studying populations is that throughout the entire range of cholesterol, your risk rises as cholesterol level rises so that it's always better to have a lower cholesterol level as far as heart disease.

MS. WOODRUFF: You're saying there is a direct correlation between how much cholesterol you have and your risk of heart disease.

DR. GOODMAN: Right.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Olson.

DR. OLSON: Dr. Goodman has just admitted a salient fact, that the studies that have led to the hypothesis that lowering serum cholesterol will improve risk have been done in high risk males, in six major studies in which a diet or diet and drug has been administered to the experimental group and small changes in cardiac end points like non-fatal coronary heart attacks have been observed.

MS. WOODRUFF: So what is your point?

DR. OLSON: The point is that the population which has been the object of study is only a part of the total American population.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you're saying the studies were not complete.

DR. GOODMAN: Let me respond to that.

DR. OLSON: Can I continue?

MS. WOODRUFF: Just let me quickly finish.

DR. OLSON: Because these studies show a small change in non-fatal heart attacks but no change in all cause mortality, no change in longevity. Now these --

MS. WOODRUFF: Overall mortality rates did not change.

DR. OLSON: The overall mortality rates have not changed. Yet, with studies of hypertension and smoking, cessation has resulted in an extension of life. Now you take that information and you extrapolate it to people with lower risk and you extend it and say because it happens in high risk individuals, everybody should be on diets. That to me is a logical fallacy and bad public health.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let's then go to Dr. Goodman.

DR. GOODMAN: I'm sorry that I feel that Dr. Olson misunderstands and misinterprets the evidence. The clinical trials are only one piece of evidence in a large array of evidence, the most important body of which are population, what we call epidemiologic studies, that have shown the degree of risk associated with cholesterol. Clinical trials are only one piece of evidence and they were intentionally done in people with high cholesterol levels. Now the issue of total mortality is a very interesting one because it's an issue that Dr. Olson's group has brought up. The fact is that the clinical trials were designed to show a reduction heart attacks but not overall death rate.

DR. OLSON: That's simply not true.

DR. GOODMAN: That is true.

DR. OLSON: Mr. Fit was designed as a mortality study and even in that case when reduction of blood pressure, cessation of smoking, and reduction of serum lipids was accomplished, there was no change in either cardiovascular --

DR. GOODMAN: Let me make a simple point.

DR. OLSON: -- or total mortality. I don't think Dr. Goodman should distort the facts to continue this argument of extrapolation to people at low risk when the data for people with high risk are so weak.

MS. WOODRUFF: I think we're getting the point. You're saying that the tests were done among people with a higher risk level and therefore you're saying that it shouldn't have been extended to the general public.

DR. OLSON: I mean, there could be some statement saying we don't know for sure.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let me just ask Dr. Goodman a question. Isn't it correct that the government has announced in the last few days that it is going to begin to conduct a study of the effects of cholesterol on women and among the elderly of both sexes?

DR. GOODMAN: Oh, yes. I am, in fact, one of the people who helped design those studies. We think those studies are important, but the evidence that women, elderly, will reduce their risk by reducing cholesterol is still very strong, and this evidence is very carefully spelled out in the diet health report.

DR. OLSON: I disagree with that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Olson, let me just --

DR. OLSON: I disagree with that. I mean, the people who are most immune, children, women before the menopause --

DR. GOODMAN: We are not talking about children. Nobody has ever made recommendations on children. There is a panel of the National Educational Cholesterol Program that is currently examining the issues of children. There have been no guidelines issued.

DR. OLSON: Not yet, but in draft is strongly leaning toward that doctrine.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Olson, we just have a couple of minutes left. Are you saying that people should not in general, should not worry about the amount of cholesterol they're taking in?

DR. OLSON: If they have no other risk factors and cholesterol below 240 mg. per deciliter in the middle aged group, I say don't worry. I think that is the crucial difference between DeWitt Goodman and myself, that they are putting an emphasis on the whole population and I say go for the high risk strategy, find the people at risk and treat them.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Let me ask you both this question. People watching this discussion are going to come away confused, I assume, because you've got two experts here who seem to be at total odds with one another. What is the most important thing people who are watching could take away in terms of knowing about their own cholesterol and how much attention they should pay to it? Dr. Goodman.

DR. GOODMAN: Well, we clearly disagree, but I feel that everyone who's watching should know about their blood pressure, their cholesterol, and give up cigarette smoking if they smoke. Those are the three major risk factors to heart disease, and that all Americans would benefit from shifting their diet to lower in saturated fat and cholesterol, reducing their blood cholesterol level, reducing risk of heart disease.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Olson.

DR. OLSON: I agree with the first part but not necessarily the second part that all Americans should go on diets to reduce their cholesterol if they are, in fact, in a low risk zone and they need a physician or a health practitioner to interpret these values. Do it yourself medicine is too dangerous.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dr. Goodman, you want a quick response to that?

DR. GOODMAN: Well, that's not medicine. Dr. Olson, by limiting his attack to the high risk group is really dooming most Americans who are going to get heart attacks to heart attacks by not offering them the kind of hope that a population survey will --

DR. OLSON: That's a ridiculous conclusion. That's a ridiculous conclusion, because there are a lot of people in the middle cholesterol range.

DR. GOODMAN: The Surgeon General's report, the National Academy of Science report, every major group of scientists have made the recommendations that I am announcing.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, we thank you both. We're going to have to leave it at that. Thank you. Dr. Olson, Dr. Goodman, thank you both for being with us. FOCUS - WATERMELONS - SEEDS OF SUCCESS

MR. LEHRER: Finally Paul Solman tells the story of an unusual business success in a small Texas town.

MR. SOLMAN: Hempsted, Texas. This is the annual celebration of slaveries end. It is also the celebration of a beginning the birth of a free black community that survived here for than a century. The Federal Government gave land to the former slaves and their families have been here ever since. Today as back in the days of Slavery one main cash crop is the watermelon and it is not much easier to farm watermelons today than it was in the 1800s

PAUL KIRBY, Hempstead Farmer: Watermelon have always been mostly labor. Now there still has been nothing that has replace the hoe for chopping watermelon and there is not many people who will go through a field and chop watermelons but you know when economic conditions required people to do that they did what they had to do.

MR. SOLMAN: Before long watermelons had become a stereo type a racists stereo type of southern blacks.

MR. KIRBY: They were field people and they were the ones that busted the melon and ate them in the field. That is the connection. They were farming the melons and their habits were the ones that were being observed.

MR. SOLMAN: Whites meanwhile could eat their melons somewhat more discreetly.

MR. KIRBY: Those other people were at the house when they busted theirs and ate them.

MR. SOLMAN: Meanwhile time passed and agricultural began to shift from local farms to national distribution. The huge and distant food companies wanted huge farms to supply them. Small farmers could produce cheaply enough but not in large enough volume. The black farmers didn't have and couldn't borrow the money for large scale capital investment. Their community under siege many blacks were forced to sell their land.

GUS TOMS, Texas Department of Agriculture: He migrated to Southeast, Missouri where he was sharecropper for the rest of his life.

MR. SOLMAN: Was it a terrible thing for him?

MR. TOMS: Yes it was. As a matter of fact I think I saw him die just a little bit more every day. He is still living but it is nothing like the future that he wanted and that he dreamed so much about.

MR. SOLMAN: Thus freedom for many black farmers meant the freedom to fail and ride the rails North in search of work. In Hempsted, however, may farmers stayed put. And three years ago at the Country Court House in this very room they sat down to discuss the revival of their small family farms. The proposal came from State Officials to form a watermelon cooperative. Some farmers were afraid says Edwin Walker.

EDWIN WALKER, Co-op Member: When they said co-op immediately I was ready to vote for it because I was tired of leaving my crop in the field when I was farming. That was money just laying going to waste.

REV. FLETCHER WILLIAMS, Co-op Member: The main thing is having a market being able to sell your watermelon because in the past we had to go sit up on the market and wait sometime it would be two or three days trying to get rid of a load of melons but I felt that in the co-op who ever the buyers were we could sell through the co- op and if I raised my melons I knew that I had a way of getting rid of them.

MR. SOLMAN: The key difference between this and many others farmers co-ops was that it was a government project. It was conceived by the populist Commissioner of Agriculture in Texas, Jim Hightower.

JIM HIGHTOWER, Texas Commissioner of Agriculture: What we did as Government was to go to Houston to in this case the Kroger Company which had run a big ad saying we are selling Florida watermelon, come and get your mellon, knocked on their door and knocked on their heads a little bit as said you are not buying Texas melons why is this. You are taking our consumers money through your super market and out of State but you are not putting any in here and they said well we are a major corporation we don't go up and down the road buying watermelons and we said we understand that, And we are working with a country agent here in Waller County, one Country away from you. You'll deal with one buyer just as you are used to doing now and they said well we have a 107 stores in Houston and we have to have a lot of mellon. And we said we have boceau rotting in the field and we said come out here and count them yourself.

MR. SOLMAN: The Kroger Company bought the argument and the mellon. Kroger Vice President Bob Everingham at a widely covered press conference explained why.

MR. EVERINGHAM: We can not go to 17 or 20 individual growers to do that. We need a central marketing place to do it and that is what the marketing co-op has provided that we didn't have before.

MR. SOLMAN: It was great PR for Kroger and there were more tangible economic benefits as well. Consumers preferred the local products and the farmers with low overhead and Government support could produce them cheaply. The farmers, meanwhile, were suddenly able to demand a whole lot more for their crop even from local farm stand buyers like Bill Diiorio.

BILL DIIORIO, Farm Stand Owner: Oh I have seen them sell for 2 bits apiece, 25 cents.

MR. SOLMAN: For the whole mellon.

MR. DIIORIO: The whole mellon.

MR. SOLMAN: That is less than a penny a pound?

MR. DIIORIO: That is less than a penny, yes.

MR. SOLMAN: And what do you buy them for now. What are you buying this crop for?

MR. DIIORIO: What has been harvested has been 8 cents a pound.

MR. SOLMAN: Diiori used to pay farmers a pittance. Now days dealing with the co-op his large farm stand has to match Kroger's price but in side the melons pay for themselves.

CONSUMER: Every time I come through Hempsted and it is mellon season I stop and buy mellon because the Hempstead melons are some of the best you can buy anywhere.

MR. SOLMAN: The customer is happy, the seller is too and as tax payers we should be smiling as well because instead of receiving federal subsidies these farmers pay taxes on their profits. Mainly, of course, the co-op makes money for the watermelon farmers and they think that it shows that small family farmers can compete with their bigger capital intensive rivals. Farming they insist takes human beings working as a team. This team work builds on other advantages. The farmers already own their land debt free, water melons are labor intensive so there is little need for fancy equipment. The farmers are in a sense their own machinery and like so many farmers these men have second jobs to keep them going in the hard times. Finally as smaller farmers they can afford to wait for their crop to ripen to full sweetness on the vine instead of a refrigerated truck or warehouse. These advantages don't really apply to Americas food staples, grains and livestock which are efficiently produced in large volume but American is now dependent on foreign imports for much of its fruit and vegetables. Small American farmers can compete for this business so long as they can organize the needs of big buyers like Kroger.

CARMEN PATE, Kroger Company: We are seeing a real trend with working with coop farmers in the State of Texas. The Department of Agriculture works with us in helping us to meet with other types of farmers citrus in the Valley additional mellon farmers in Tyler, Texas. Blueberry farmers from different parts of the State.

MR. SOLMAN: The best opportunity of all incidentally may be flowers most of which Kroger which claims to be the World's largest florist imports from abroad. Small Texas farmers could bring much of that business back home just as the mellon farmers have in Hempsted with Governments help.

MR. HIGHTOWER: The role of Government wasn't to own anything, wasn't to manage it, wasn't to come out with a bushel basket of money it was just to plug them into the system to deal with a structure that had shut them out. Open that structure and then their own enterprise makes it work.

MR. SOLMAN: Government through research as assistance to farmers has played perhaps the major role in Americas remarkable farm productivity but with farmers now less than 2 percent of the work force there would seem to be room for people down on the farm.

MR. HIGHTOWER: If you really believe in capitalism as I do then you want small scale operators out there doing it. You want as many competitors as you can possibly have.

MR. SOLMAN: At nearby Prairie View A&M University the Agriculture Department is trying to make the small farm viable even experimenting with such exotica as cashmere goats. The larger purpose of such programs is not to make an economic killing, however, or turn around our trade deficit but to preserve a rural community and here the Afro American land owner.

OLLIE WILLIA

MS. Land that has become a part of the heritage, the slaves black had no where to settle down because they were not part of anything the seemed like they were running all the time.

MR. SOLMAN: Perhaps the only way to own land ownership and communities such as this one is to make the co-op work and persuade the next generation to take it over.

MR. WILLIAM: We speak to our children and we talk to some others.

MR. SOLMAN: Any success among your own children?

MR. WILLIAMS: It is coming close.

MR. SOLMAN: Will the next generation take over. On Owens Rd. at the home of Watermelon Co-op member Maurice Owens a barbecue is inprogress. With Rythem and Blues great Bobby Blue Bland in the background the coop families take a break. One young guest from Prairie View says he and his friends are intent on going into agriculture but the head of Prairie View's Ag Department Dr. Fred Richards is skeptical.

DR. RICHARDS: Kids you can't keep them down on the farm because everything has to be within the range of the powerful radio station that plays rock music and what you try to do is develop those kids and at the time that they complete their development you try to show them that their appreciation for agriculture is there and once they get their development process going they can go back to the farm and we can't give up our farm base. We have to keep that capacity out there because it would be very sad if had a population where only one percent could produce.

MR. SOLMAN: Historically the deck is stacked against the small family farm. There are fewer black farmers than ever in Texas, around 3000. And until Commissioner Hightower took office there were fewer farm co-ops every years. To Dr. Richards such data add to the urgency of keeping the next generation down on the farm. RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Once again Tuesday's major stories the Soviet Union said it supports a U.S. proposal to sharply reduce chemical weapons. Former Housing Secretary Samuel Pierce refused to testify about alleged mismanagement and corruption at his Department and Communist rebels were believed responsible for the murder of two Americans in the Philippians. Good night Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night Judy. We will see you tomorrow night. I am Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.