The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Gwen Ifill looks at causes and cures for the rising price of gasoline; Susan Dentzer updates the fight against colon cancer, the quiet disease; and Margaret Warner talks to Northern Ireland Protestant leader David Trimble. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Vice President Gore and Governor George W. Bush turned their sights toward November today. They numerically clinched their parties' presidential nominations last night, with victories in primaries across the South. The two addressed supporters later. Gore spoke to Democrats in Tallahassee, Florida; Bush to Republicans in Austin, Texas.

AL GORE: You ain't seen nothing yet. With your help, we're going to keep the prosperity going and make sure nobody's left behind. We have... We have a wonderful opportunity at this extraordinary moment in America's history to use this unprecedented prosperity to make America the country that we dream we can become.

GEORGE W. BUSH: We're halfway to our goal -- but only halfway -- halfway to ending the Clinton-Gore era in Washington, DC. Applause The gore campaign will say anything to win and try to win at any cost. We will confront their tactics one more time, and this time we will prevail and they will fail.

JIM LEHRER: Gore also sent Bush an email. It challenged him not to run TV ads funded by unregulated "soft money" contributions. Bush dismissed the offer. He told CNN, "if I believed him, I might be willing to accept it." A House committee looked today for ways to bring down gasoline prices. Energy Secretary Richardson said the situation should improve once foreign oil producers increase output. Republicans accused the administration of being too soft on the producing countries. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. On Wall Street today, investors moved more money from high-tech stocks to blue chips. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 320 points, to 10,131. That was a gain of more than 3%. The NASDAQ Index fell 123, to 4582. It's down more than 9% since a record close last Friday. Leaders in the Northern Ireland peace process began to gather in Washington today. They'll meet with President Clinton on Saint Patrick's Day, hoping to break a stalemate. Britain suspended Northern Ireland's home rule last month because the Irish Republican Army would not commit to disarming. At the White House, Spokesman Joe Lockhart warned against expecting too much from the talks.

JOE LOCKHART: The best thing for us to do now is, rather than speak in public about where we think the parties are and what we think they should do, is to deal directly with them to try to impress on them the importance of not losing this historic opportunity. But these are difficult problems. And I don't want to raise unrealistic expectations about what we can accomplish, you know, in one day here in Washington.

JIM LEHRER: Before leaving Ireland, Sinn Fein Leader Gerry Adams said he does not expect a breakthrough in Washington. We'll talk to Northern Ireland Protestant Leader David Trimble later in the program tonight. Overseas today, the premier of China warned Taiwan not to elect a pro-independence candidate for president. Premier Zhou Rangji spoke in Beijing. He again threatened to invade the island before letting it become independent. In Taiwan, the leader of a pro- independence party said voters would not be intimidated. The election is Saturday. There was new trouble today in Kosovo, as peacekeepers clashed with Serbs in Mitrovica. We have a report from Vera Frankl of Associated Press Television News.

VERA FRANKL: The operation began when 250 French peacekeepers set up a security cordon on the Serb- dominated side of a bridge in Mitrovica. A crowd of up to 300 Serbs gathered around the cordon near the northern end of the bridge. The situation turned violent when the Serbs tried to return to their homes on the ethnically mixed south side of the bridge, and peacekeepers refused to let them to pass. Troops then fired tear gas and stun grenades to disperse the crowd. A number of Serbs and soldiers were injured in the clashes. A Serb doctor said nine Serbs were taken to hospital. Two of them had to have legs amputated. A 350-strong Italian marine brigade on its way to Kosovo has been assigned to Mitrovica to try to help French KFOR troops quell the violence. The Serb leader in Mitrovica, who was injured in the clashes, said Serbs wouldn't let KFOR take control of the city.

SPOKESMAN: I think that if they insist on this decision, we will not respect no more any decision from KFOR. We will be against it. It will be peaceful resistance.

VERA FRANKL: The tense standoff eventually eased as both sides agreed to pull back. Despite the clashes, KFOR said the operation to take control of the bridge had been successful.

JIM LEHRER: In Saudi Arabia today, Islam's annual pilgrimage, the Hajj, reached its climax. More than two million Muslims made a six-mile trek from the Holy City of Mecca to Mount Arafat. They prayed for forgiveness and worshipped in heat that reached 99 degrees. All able-bodied Muslims are required to take part in the pilgrimage at least once. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to rising gasoline prices; a colon cancer update; and an interview with Northern Ireland leader David Trimble.

UPDATE - PUMPED UP

JIM LEHRER: Oil prices are up, and so is Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: Gasoline prices are climbing at a record-setting pace, up 12 cents in just the past two weeks. And consumers around the country who may have been unaffected by heating oil price hikes this winter are now feeling the pinch.

MAN: It just happened so suddenly that it came to me with surprise.

MAN ON STREET: Gasoline prices are one of those hot-button items. When it starts going up, people get worried way out of proportion of how much more they have to spend.

GWEN IFILL: Only last year, gas prices were at record lows: 90 cents a gallon for regular unleaded then, to $1.56 a gallon and higher today. But oil-producing nations, including members of the OPEC Cartel, agreed last year to limit the supply of oil they put on the market, driving prices up to beyond $30 a barrel. After adjusting for inflation, these prices are still nowhere near historic highs set in 1980, which hit $2.66 a gallon. But the sudden price hike has affected the transportation industry, as well as individual commuters, sure ingredients for a political fight. On Capitol Hill, some Republicans briefly called for a repeal of the 4.3-cent gasoline tax passed in 1993. Vice President Gore cast the deciding vote on the economic package that included the tax, and Republican leaders were eager to dub it the "Gore Tax." But that idea was pulled off the table, as Democrats and Republicans said repealing the tax would hurt transportation funding. Others in Congress and in the trucking industry are calling on the administration to release oil from the nation's strategic petroleum reserve. That reserve contains 600 million barrels of oil in Texas and Louisiana. It was set aside by a 1975 law for use in a national emergency. Among other key proposals under consideration on Capitol Hill: The creation of a home heating oil reserve to cushion against a repeat of this winter's price hike; a cut-off of foreign aid to countries involved in what the U.S. contends is price- fixing; and allowing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in . Appearing on Capitol Hill today, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson got some gentle ribbing from House Republicans.

SPOKESMAN: This is Secretary Richardson. He's the one that is responsible for the prices you see when you drive down... (Laughing)... when you drive down the street.

GWEN IFILL: Richardson went on say that gas prices could soon be on the downswing.

BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary of Energy: Now here's my hope, and I can't offer any assurances: that if OPEC meets, and they decide to increase production at a sizable level, late spring, early summer, you will see a gradual decrease in gasoline and diesel prices-- gradual.

GWEN IFILL: Later, at dueling Capitol Hill news conferences, the debate quickly broke down along party lines.

REP. TOM DeLAY, Majority Whip: This administration has done nothing to eliminate the problem. In fact, the Clinton and Gore policies are hurling us all back to the Jimmy Carter days, when this great nation was at the mercy of OPEC and their extortion scheme. Even Bill Richardson, Clinton's own energy secretary, has admitted that the administration was at fault when he said that the administration was asleep at the switch.

GWEN IFILL: A few minutes later, House Democrats held a news conference of their own.

REP. MARTIN FROST, (D) Texas: This is a false political action on the part of this Republican leadership that won't even do very much to affect the price of a gallon of gasoline, but they simply want to play politics with energy policy. This is a sad day. There are some of us who for years and years have been trying to pass energy legislation in this Congress, and all the Republican leadership has done is opposed everything that's constructive.

GWEN IFILL: Oil-producing nations are scheduled to meet March 27 to consider increasing production.

GWEN IFILL: Joining us now to help explain the reasons behind the new high prices at the gas pump Gary Ross, chief executive officer at the PIRA Energy Group, an international energy consulting firm; Walter McCormick, Jr., president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations; Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club; and Howard Metzenbaum, the former Ohio Senator who is now chairman of the Consumer Federation of America.

Mr. McCormick, truckers are coming to Washington tomorrow to protest these high prices. Have we really reached crisis stage?

WALTER McCORMICK, Jr., American Trucking Association: We have a crisis, and we don't use that term lightly. The trucking industry has seen a 50 percent increase in the price of fuel since last year. What that means for the average trucker is that the cost of filling up his truck is increased $150 every time he goes to the pump. Now, as goes trucking, so goes the U.S. economy. 70 percent of the cities in America are reliant exclusively on trucking and 81 cents out of every transportation dollar is spent on truck transportation.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Metzenbaum, what impact are these prices having on consumers?

HOWARD METZENBAUM, Consumer Federation of America: They're absolutely deadly, as far as consumers are concerned. They're raising prices as much as $400 a year for the American consumer. You're talking about people who need their cars to go back and forth to work. You're talking about people who are - who are driving trucks and costs have been passed on to the consumer. In my opinion, there's only one solution, and the administration should be doing it now. Bill Richardson, the Secretary of Energy, should be doing it, and that is we've got almost 600 million barrels of oil in the strategic petroleum reserve. I have called upon the President publicly, a man whom I support, but with whom I disagree at this point, for not having released some of the oil that's in the strategic petroleum reserve. If he were to release - if the government were to release two to three million barrels of oil a day, you'd bring down prices, you'd break the hold that the Arab oil nations and the OPEC nations have on the American economy, and it would be exactly the right thing to do. And I strongly urge the administration to act not a month from now, not waiting for the OPEC nations to act but to act now to start releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Pope, is that part of the solution?

CARL POPE, Sierra Club: I don't really think it is. I think we have here a long-term problem. We had this in 1974. We had it in 1979. The old saying is fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you. The OPEC nations know they can do this to us because for 25 years we have refused to do anything to reduce our dependence on oil. If we were driving cars - which we easily could be -- that got 40, 50 and 60 miles to the gallon, (a), the price wouldn't go up and (b), if it did go up, it wouldn't put us at economic risk the way it does. We need to deal with this as a long-term problem. We need to get on with the business of reducing our dependence of oil, and in the short term we should stop exporting Alaskan oil to Japan, which the Federal Trade Commission says the oil industry is doing consciously to drive up prices on the West Coast. And we should certainly stop future mergers of big oil companies like ARCO, and BP. We have the ability here to unhook ourselves from this game that we get played. These are manipulated oil-price spikes and they'll be manipulated as long as we're dependent on the oil industry.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Ross, is this a crisis? If it is, is this a question of OPEC's control over supply or consumer demand?

GARY ROSS, PIRA Energy Group: It's not a crisis. We were spoiled by very low prices last year. And now OPEC has responded a year ago and they cut production and now prices have moved up. Over $30 per barrel crude oil is not in OPEC's interest. And the market will lead to lower prices all the time. We expect that OPEC will raise their production. It's in their interest to do so because longer term at this kind of price it's going to bring forth too much in the way of new supplies. It's going to slow down demand growth and inevitably lead to lower prices anyway. They know that and they're definitely going to raise production at the upcoming meeting in order to bring prices back down to a level that they're far more comfortable with they think in terms of long-term supply and demand.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Metzenbaum, in your letter to the White House you cited Energy Department rules about releasing reserves from the strategic oil reserves. And you said that they should be reserved -- you quoted it as saying they should be reserved in the case of a severe oil supply disruption. Do you think we are at that point now where what we have is a severe oil supply disruption?

HOWARD METZENBAUM: Absolutely. And it was in 1992 when the Congress changed the law so that it would cover just exactly this kind of a situation. And I'm not at all clear as to why Secretary Richardson is not willing to recommend to the administration that we go forward and start releasing oil now. I don't want to wait to see what the OPEC nations are doing. I think it should be done today, tonight, tomorrow, but there ought not to be any delays. This may not affect people who are making large amounts of money, but for the average working person-- man or woman-- this is a crisis. And I believe that we ought to react, we ought not to be waiting for the benevolence of the OPEC nations to tell us when they're going to help us. We help them. We saved Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. They were there when they needed us and in return what are they doing? They're slapping us in the face by continuing to increase oil prices. I think it's time for our government to act. And we've got the means to do so. And that is by using the strategic petroleum reserve.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. McCormick in view of the trucking industry, do you see another better short-term solution?

WALTER McCORMICK, JR.: The quickest way to provide relief is to increase supply. We have supply at our fingertips. All the President needs to do is to turn on the spigot. 600 million barrels of oil purchased at taxpayer expense is now available to lower the costs to those who are driving cars, driving trucks and depending on fuel for the movement of this economy.

GWEN IFILL: Okay. So let's talk, Mr. Pope, will supply. The Alaska oil refuge. I mean, in Alaska, there are oil reserves which could be drilled. There are off-shore areas which could be drilled to increase the domestic supply of oil. Is that something that we should be preserving?

CARL POPE: We really should. Those reserves will only come on supply when oil goes above $30 a barrel and we shouldn't let oil get above $30 a barrel. We should take common sense conservation measures, keep the price of oil down to a reasonable level. Those resources will never be economically viable. We don't have to choose between having wilderness and wild life in Alaska and having affordable gas in our tanks. All we have to do is say to the auto industry, you've got the technology, use it. All we've got to do is say to the oil industry is stop shipping American oil to Japan. The Alaskan oil we're producing....

GWEN IFILL: Is that realistic?

CARL POPE: It's very realistic. Europe is already doing it. We can dramatically increase fuel efficiency. Toyota is about to put a car on the road that will seat six - five passengers and get 60 miles to the gallon. There's no reason that General Motors, ford and Chrysler can't do the same thing; they just don't want to make the investment and haven't wanted to for 25 years.

HOWARD METZENBAUM: I've normally been in agreement with Sierra Club. When I was a Senator, I was quite often in agreement most of the time but to wait until something happens in Alaska, to wait until cars get better fuel efficiency, that is not helping the average people, working people in this country. We've got to do something now. I don't mean a week from now, a month from now, two months from now. I'm talking about now. It's possible to do. What's bothering me is that when it's possible to do, instead of doing something here, Secretary Richardson goes over to the Arab nations and goes to them and urges them to try to act in order to help us and they turned him down flatly.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Ross, you wanted to get into this.

CARL ROSS: Well, you know, I think first of all, this idea that exports from Alaska lead to a reduced supply to the US is ridiculous because we're getting other supply which would have gone to Japan coming to the United States. The SPR was intended to be used in case of emergency. There's no national supply emergency today. I mean, no one was out there complaining when prices were $10. The market works. It's supply and demand. And essentially now we're talking about $30 oil. If you look at the American consumer, they don't want fuel-efficient cars. They haven't been going out there to buy them. The average fuel efficiency of the American car is 20/21 miles per hour, 50% less than what it is in Europe, for example. Over 50% of new motor vehicle sales are light trucks, sport utility vans. The American consumer does not want, has rejected these fuel-inefficient (efficient) cars.

GWEN IFILL: Are you saying nothing needs to be done and we should leave it alone and it will work itself out?

CARL ROSS: Well, there's no question it will work itself out because the market indeed works. And that's what -- supply and demand works. It's not in OPEC's long-term interest to have over $30 oil. It will undermine their position over time. So there's no question, yeah, we could do certain things - we can open up certain areas to exploration and production activity. Why not? The industry has an excellent record in the Gulf of Mexico drilling off shore. Why shouldn't we open the Anwar domestic development? We have an Alaskan pipeline which is operating at 50% of capacity - it's ridiculous. We should open up the Anwar. We should open up other areas because the industry actually has an absolutely good record in off-shore oil exploration production.

GWEN IFILL: So, Mr. McCormick, wait and see, or wait and see and also expand domestic supply?

WALTER McCORMICK, JR.: This is not a situation where the market is working. What we have is forced scarcity. What OPEC is doing would be illegal in the United States. And do we have an emergency? Well, it's an emergency for a trucker whose costs have increased 50%. It is an emergency for potato farmers in Maine who cannot ship their potatoes because no truck drivers will drive up there and pay the cost of fuel.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Pope?

CARL POPE: Well, the argument that we have a great record from the oil industry, I mean, I'll remind everyone about the Exxon-Valdez. They haven't had such a great record. And the fact is that we have... people aren't refusing to buy fuel-efficient sport utility vehicles; they're not being offered fuel-efficient sport utility vehicles. Yes, people want an SUV. If you go to the average person and say would you rather have one that gets 30 miles to the gallon instead of one that gets 10 miles to the gallon, you'll get a lot of customers. Detroit won't make them because Detroit doesn't want to invest in the technology they have to make them. We need to say to Detroit just as we did in the '70s, make these cars efficient, make these light trucks efficient, make these SUV's efficient and we can bring the price of gasoline down incredibly fast on a permanent basis. We can lick our dependency on oil. And that's what we need for the long term.

GWEN IFILL: So, Senator, what should consumers be doing? As is conceivable, the White House does not move to release the oil reserves and as is conceivable, Detroit doesn't move quickly enough, what can consumers be doing?

HOWARD METZENBAUM: Consumers ought to be raising hell with their congress persons and their senators and demanding that they insist that the White House move-- particularly Secretary Richardson. I believe that Secretary Richardson is exactly the point man on this. I'm certain that the President would be listening to his advice. But I think he's the point man. Now, when the Sierra Club talks about lower fuel-efficient cars, sure, that's fine but that's manana, that's way down the road some time. When the gentleman from New York talks about producing more oil in Mexico and other places, that's also down the line. That's fine. But what I'm talking about is today. The American consumer is getting shafted. He's getting the short end of the stick or she's getting the short end of the stick, and something has to be done not a week from now or a month from now but now.

GWEN IFILL: Are we spoiled by low gas prices, Mr. McCormick, last word?

WALTER McCORMICK, JR.: No, our economy moves on fuel and the Vice President said earlier he's going to keep the prosperity going. The prosperity will not keep going without low fuel prices.

GWEN IFILL: Gentlemen, thank you all very much.

UPDATE - QUIET DISEASE

JIM LEHRER: New attention on a cancer that often goes unspoken, reported by Susan Dentzer of our health unit, a partnership with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

DR. DAVID FLEISCHER, Georgetown University Medical Center: Good morning. Nice to see you.

SUSAN DENTZER: Several years ago, Renate Heymann had a growth removed from her lower intestine. Ever since, Heymann, who is 69, has been on the alert for signs of cancer.

DR. DAVID FLEISCHER: I know you know we're doing this because you had had polyps in the past.

SUSAN DENTZER: That concern is what brought Heymann to Georgetown University hospital in Washington recently for a routine test known as a colonoscopy. It's an up-close and very personal look inside her large intestine, or colon, with the aid of a high-tech instrument called a colonoscope.

RENATE HEYMANN: I feel good tocome and have it checked. If it's benign, fine, and if it's cancerous, not so fine. But then they can take care of it early rather than have it, well, go bad. That's why I'm here.

DR. DAVID FLEISCHER: Everything's going fine.

SUSAN DENTZER: Heymann's physician, gastroenterologist, David Fleischer, inserted the colonoscope into Heymann's rectum, at the very end of her colon. He then pushed it along the roughly five-foot length of the rest of her colon. All the while, the tiny lighting system and computer chip in the tip transmitted the images from inside her colon to a television monitor. Fortunately, this time Dr. Fleischer found no growths, known as polyps, in Heymann's colon.

DR. DAVID FLEISCHER: You doing okay? We're all done.

SUSAN DENTZER: Since Heymann was sedated with medication before the procedure began, she felt little discomfort during the 15-minute procedure. She says the gritty details of getting a colonoscopy shouldn't dissuade people from being screened.

RENATE HEYMANN: Why risk dying of colon cancer if it can be detected? I wish most cancers could be detected this way. I would do all the tests if it could be done.

SUSAN DENTZER: Heymann is one of a growing number of Americans for whom an urgent message has already sunk in. Colon cancer is the second most deadly form of cancer after lung cancer, killing some 56,000 Americans each year. That's more than die of either breast or prostate cancer. But the good news is that colon cancer is also one of the most preventable cancers, and if found early, it's also highly curable.

DR. DAVID FLEISCHER: It's really remarkable that the earlier the diagnosis is made, the better the survival is. Colon cancer is divided up into stages, "a" through "d," and "a" is an earlier stage. But if you can find it at an early stage, more than 95% of people are cured.

SUSAN DENTZER: That's a prime reason why earlier this month, a Senate aging committee hearing kicked off observance of the first annual colorectal cancer awareness month. On hand was NBC newswoman Katie Couric, who made a compelling personal pitch about the importance of colon cancer screening.

KATIE COURIC, NBC News: As many of you know, my husband, Jay Monahan, was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1997. He had no family history of the disease. After an unbelievably courageous battle, he died nine months later, just two weeks after his 42nd birthday. During this terrible nine-month struggle, motivated by fear and desperation, I got a quick and painful education about this devastating disease.

SUSAN DENTZER: Couric said that among the things she learned was how few effective treatments were available for advanced cancer, besides surgery to remove the cancerous portion of the colon, and chemotherapy. She also told lawmakers that discussion of colon cancer and the need for preventive screening is too often shrouded by public queasiness and shame.

KATIE COURIC: A lot of people simply don't want to talk about it. Colons, rectums, bowels-- it's not exactly the stuff of cocktail party conversation.

SUSAN DENTZER: As a result, only about six out of ten Americans who should get even the most basic screening for cancer do get it. Worse, just one out of seven Medicare beneficiaries are screened, even though the Medicare program will pay the cost of colonoscopies and other screening procedures. But Couric added that over time, the embarrassment could be whittled away, so that screening for colon cancer could become as commonplace as procedures like mammography for detecting breast cancer.

KATIE COURIC: Women didn't like to say "breast" and men didn't like to say "breast" in the context of breast cancer for a long, long time, and it has become part of the lexicon, as it should be. The more we discuss it openly and candidly, and the more we say the words "colon" and "rectum" and "colonoscopy"-- I know it's not easy; it took me a while to be able to say it as well-- the better off we'll be. I think that really is the first step.

SUSAN DENTZER: Dr. Bernard Levin, a gastroenterologist, agreed.

DR. BERNARD LEVIN, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: We have a saying, "don't let your patients die of embarrassment," and I think that's terribly important. Even if we use the tests that are available right now, we could save perhaps 28,000 lives every year.

SUSAN DENTZER: Dr. Fleischer says that the best precautionary measure to take is to be screened with a colonoscopy.

DR. DAVID FLEISCHER: The gold standard in the year 2000 is a colonoscopy. The test allows you to see the entire colon, and more than 95% of individuals, because patients are sedated for the procedure, it's usually something that's not unpleasant in any way. It also has the advantage that you can take out a polyp if you see it, so it's like one-stop shopping.

SUSAN DENTZER: That's important because over a five- to ten-year period, even a polyp that starts out benign can develop into colon cancer. Yet there are other, more easily performed screening tests that, while not as conclusive as colonoscopies, are still useful. The current consensus among experts is that any or all of these tests should begin at age 50, although there is growing discussion about starting them even earlier, at age 40.

DR. DAVID FLEISCHER: In the average risk patient, screening generally begins over the age of 50. Everybody would think that you should have a hemacult test. That's a... just a card where your stool is sampled to see if it has blood that you don't see with your eyes. So a hemacult test should be on an annual basis.

DOCTOR: You're going to feel a little pressure, if you bear down with me.

SUSAN DENTZER: This test should then be followed up every two to three years with a more thorough investigation of the colon, such as a sigmoidoscopy, or every five years with a colonoscopy. Unlike a colonoscopy, a sigmoidoscopy can be performed without a sedative in a primary care physician's office, after the patient cleans out his or her colon with the aid of enemas.

DR. DAVID FLEISCHER: A sigmoidoscopy is a tube that's generally about 60 centimeters that's inserted through the rectum, and it enables you to look at about a third of the colon, 25% to a third of the colon. The plusses are it's simple and less expensive; the downsides are you only examine part of the colon.

SUSAN DENTZER: Meanwhile, people can also take preventive measures that could reduce their risk of cancer, such as increasing fiber in the diet by eating more fruits and vegetables, or taking supplements containing folic acid.

DR. DAVID FLEISCHER: There's not clear evidence about dietary factors, but we believe it's something in the diet that's a cofactor for colon cancer.

SUSAN DENTZER: So until more is known about effective prevention strategies and until better colon cancer treatments are available, far and away the best approach is routine screening. That's the point driven home by a new television commercial featuring the actor Dennis Franz from the television show "NYPD Blue."

DENNIS FRANZ: A simple test could save your life. How do I know so much? My father didn't catch it early, and he died. So while this message is for you, it's also for him.

SUSAN DENTZER: Government officials have told lawmakers they'll study the possible reasons why more people are not getting screened, and they'll look to devise still more ways of raising colon cancer awareness among the public.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a Newsmaker interview with Northern Ireland Protestant leader David Trimble.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Now a Newsmaker interview with a key leader in Northern Ireland. We start with some background by Spencer Michels.

SPENCER MICHELS: For five years, David Trimble has served as leader of Northern Ireland's Ulster Unionist Party. It's the strongest of the Protestant parties that want continued ties to Great Britain. Trimble, a longtime law professor and member of the British parliament, was long regarded as a Unionist hard- liner. But two years ago he was cast as a key figure in the accord aimed at bringing peace between Protestants and Catholics after three decades of strife and violence. At the heart of the so-called Good Friday Accords was an agreement for the majority Protestants and minority Catholics to share power in a new assembly that would govern Northern Ireland. Even as many Unionists accused him of a sellout, Trimble urged the public to support the accords.

DAVID TRIMBLE: I believe the people of Northern Ireland will make their choice, take this opportunity, and leave behind those still mired in violence and hate.

SPENCER MICHELS: Trimble's gamble paid off. In a referendum, 71% of Northern Ireland's residents, including 55% of the Protestants, voted "yes" on the accords.

PEOPLE CHEERING: Hip, hip, hooray!

SPENCER MICHELS: As the new assembly convened, Trimble was elected first minister, or leader, with a Catholic as his number two. As the result of his efforts, Trimble was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 1998, along with Catholic leader John Hume. But the prize didn't end the problems. From the beginning, Trimble insisted that the Irish Republican Army, which wants unification with the mostly Catholic South, would have to start handing over its weapons to an independent disarmament commission. Only then would members of Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA, be allowed to take part in the new assembly. Gerry Adams and other Sinn Fein leaders responded that the Good Friday Accords did not call for an early disarmament deadline, and that Sinn Fein could not force the IRA to hand over its weapons. It took nearly a year and the second intervention of former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell to come up with a formula to allow the Northern Ireland assembly to start functioning. But the disarmament issue has never been resolved. Last month, Britain's secretary for Northern Ireland resumed direct rule over the province.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes it from there.

MARGARET WARNER: David Trimble and other Irish and British leaders involved in the Northern Ireland process are gathering in Washington this week for meetings with President Clinton, timed to coincide with Friday's celebration of St. Patrick's Day. Mr. Trimble joins us now.

Welcome, Mr. Trimble.

DAVID TRIMBLE, Ulster Unionist Party: Hello.

MARGARET WARNER: Just a few weeks ago, Northern Ireland was enjoying self-rule, you were the first minister of this new government, the cease-fire was holding-- why jeopardize all of that over this issue of disarmament?

DAVID TRIMBLE: It's a very important issue because what lies at this, in this issue, is the question of whether we're going to have a future decided by entirely peaceful and democratic means, or whether in the future we're going to be held to ransom by private armies. That's the real issue that's at stake here. There are a number of private armies, of which the Irish Republican Army is the largest.

MARGARET WARNER: And there are Protestant ones as well?

DAVID TRIMBLE: There are indeed, that is true. The agreement, the whole essence of the agreement was that we were giving people who had been involved in terrorism the opportunity to leave that behind and to come into the political process. But they were only given a chance to leave it behind. Nobody intended that they should bring their private armies into the political process and there have them available as a resource to threaten or indeed to resort to violence. So the whole essence of the agreement was one of leaving terrorism behind permanently, renouncing the use of force, and coming into the process. Now unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Now, during... up until last November, up until the end of the year, we'd been talking about could we get the paramilitaries to start to disarm, or to take some other effective measure before the administration was formed, or at the same time as the administration was formed. Many people were saying it was a chicken and egg problem. Well, we decided to put it to the test, and we decided we'd go ahead first and form the administration in the expectation that Irish Republicans would reciprocate, but they didn't.

MARGARET WARNER: Why was it important to have them reciprocate not only so quickly, but by a deadline set essentially by the Unionists?

DAVID TRIMBLE: No, no, that's not the case. We didn't set any deadline. It certainly was the case that in our situation that there was only a limited period of time that we could have sustained the administration without a reciprocation from them. But what was understood was that General Deshasten, who heads the independent international commission of decommissioning, that he would make a report in January. And that January target came not from me, but from the understandings arrived in the parties.

MARGARET WARNER: But what I'm driving at is the British say they had no choice but to suspend the government, because you threatened to withdraw, to resign altogether and totally blow it up, if something didn't happen by that date. So that's what I'm really driving at-- why not just let confidence building continue? Why not let...

DAVID TRIMBLE: Well, we've had opportunities. Actually, I was following the advice that President Clinton himself gave -- which he said, why not go ahead, set it up, and if it doesn't work, you can walk away from it. Now, I didn't want to walk away from it, and that's why I think it was better that the government suspended the administration rather than have it collapse, because that was the alternative. If it hadn't been suspended then, it would have collapsed. And it shouldn't have been in that situation. And that situation wouldn't have happened, but for the failure of Irish Republicans to respond to the initiatives that we've taken, the risks that we've taken. And we eventually saw the report that everybody knew that Deshasten was going to make in January, we discovered that Republicans up to the 31st of January had done nothing at all.

MARGARET WARNER: Now how do you read Gerry Adams and the Sinn Fein, and the IRA? You've negotiated with him a lot now. Do you think he's serious about disarming?

DAVID TRIMBLE: Well, I'd prefer not to make judgments about individuals. I mean, it could be said, some of my people think that he was just stringing us along. Other people think that he's genuinely tried to bring it about and failed. And I say to them, it doesn't really matter which - I mean, whether they were being insincere or whether they tried and failed, it's produced the same situation. The organization, the Irish Republican movement, has not, in fact, delivered what we expected, what is part and parcel of the agreement. It's part and parcel, they haven't done that. Now I've been very disappointed in the approach that they've taken since February. At one point a few weeks ago, Adams was talking about consolidating his position in electoral terms and coming back to this in 12 and 18 months time. And the last day or two, he's talked in terms that the 22 May date, which is in the agreement, 22 May, 2000, as the date as which the process should be completed-- not started, completed-- that that doesn't exist anymore. It looks to me as though, whether for tactical or other reasons, that they're trying to walk away from the process. I don't think that's good. I think they have to, the Republican movement have to come back to the table and engage seriously with us.

MARGARET WARNER: There is one analysis-- and as you say, everyone has a different view as to motives-- but that in a way, you and Gerry Adams are in similar positions in one respect: That you both actually would like to make a deal, you did make a deal, but you both are being pressed by hard line elements in your respective groups; and that in a way, you're kind of boxed in by them, and that you risk losing your leadership positions if you were to defy them or try to lead them farther and faster than they want to go.

DAVID TRIMBLE: Well, I took mine on. There are... you're quite right to say, there are people within Unionism who are not prepared, who are reluctant to do this. I took them on, I took them on when we made the agreement, and we managed to carry a majority of Unionists supporting it. A very narrow majority, as your introduction says-- 55-44, within my own party, I took them on. And when we came to decide whether or not to form the administration in advance of decommissioning, I got a vote that wasn't as good as I would have liked. It was 58 percent, 42 against. Now, the difficulties I have confronted and dealt with within Unionism, you can see it's there, it's in the open. With regard to the Republican movement, we hear stories to this effect, but nobody knows, because we're dealing with a conspiratorial organization, and that is the problem. We're not yet dealing with a normal, democratic political party, and I wish we were, but we're not at the moment.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, now, what will it take for you from the IRA, from Sinn Fein, to feel that you can go back to your members and say, "okay, let's give this another shot?"

DAVID TRIMBLE: Well, when I went to my members in November, and I said to them that I believed this was the best way to achieve what we all wanted, and we went ahead, trusting that the Republican movement would reciprocate, and they didn't. So if I'm going to go back to members and say, "let's have another go," then the obvious question that I'm going to get, is, well, when we tried last time it didn't work, why do you think it's going to work this time? Now, I can't answer that question at the moment. I'm prepared to try again. But in order to be able to try again, I need to be able to tell people that there's good reason for believing that this time it's going to work.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, as you know, the Irish prime minister's trying to float an idea that would get away from the disarmament issue and try some other tradeoff: More British troops would leave Northern Ireland; in return, the IRA would state publicly that war is no longer an option. Without getting into the details of all of that, is that the kind of thing that the Unionists could accept as enough basis to go back into this government?

DAVID TRIMBLE: Isn't it a great shame that nigh five years after, six years actually, nearly six years after the first cease-fire, we still have not heard from the paramilitaries a clear, unequivocal statement that they do not intend to use violence in the future? That actually...

MARGARET WARNER: So that would be a big deal to get that?

DAVID TRIMBLE: Well, I'm just saying isn't it a shame that nearly six years after the cease-fires, they haven't been able to bring themselves to say that they have no intention of resorting to violence in the future. That shows you the extent of our problem. And that shows you how far the Irish Republicans have failed to build confidence in their intentions. And if they had started a few years ago to use the language that you mention, I doubt if our problems would be the way that they are now. Yes, the things you say would be useful, but I can't negotiate unilaterally. And I can't go into say this is thing to do, that's the thing to do. I've got a goal, which is simply to get the agreement working, to bring about that situation we all want to see of a society that's operating on normal democratic principles, where's there's no more private armies, no more terrorism. How do we approach that? Well, we'll look at various ways, but the important thing is, is it going to work, or are they just stringing us along?

MARGARET WARNER: Gerry Adams, when he left Dublin today, said to reporters, he said, "there's very little likelihood of any breakthrough in Washington," meaning in the meetings with President Clinton this Friday. Do you share that pessimism?

DAVID TRIMBLE: No, I don't. I remember last March 17, when we were here, it was up until then, Mr. Adams was saying that there would be no decommissioning. And then after speaking to President Clinton last March, Mr. Adams talked about jumping together, that he and I would jump together, solve the issue of devolution and decommissioning simultaneously. Well, unfortunately, I jumped alone, he didn't follow me on that. But I mention that just simply to say that my impression was after discussions with the President last March, Mr. Adams started to take the issue seriously. I would like to think that we can make progress this week. And I'm sure the President would like to do that, too.

MARGARET WARNER: You did take a lot of risks to get the process this far. Was it worth it?

DAVID TRIMBLE: The goal is worth it. The goal is worth taking risks. And I know that most people in their hearts, even the 42% of my party that voted against me last November, I know most of them want to achieve the same goal, it's just they're skeptical as to whether other people are going to do what is necessary. But I know that most of them want to do the same result, that's why I think it's worth the effort.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, well, David Trimble, thanks so much for being with us.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have an interview with the prime minister of Ireland, Bertie Ahearn, on Friday. Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, has declined our interview request.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday: Vice President Gore and Governor Bush turned their sights toward November, after numerically clinching their parties' presidential nominations. And the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 320 points, more than 3%, as the NASDAQ Index fell once again. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.