The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight two strong opinions about school vouchers; a Betty Ann Bowser report on Megan's law; the House debate over needle exchanges; an interview with the new surgeon general of the United States, David Satcher; and a David Gergen dialogue about the growing Latino population. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance plans in 35 states sued the tobacco industry today. They allege conspiracy and fraud can seek an unspecified amount of damages from smoking caused health costs. The suits were announced at a Washington news conference.

MICHAEL McGARVEY, Blue Cross & Blue Shield: We must hold the tobacco industry accountable for its actions. Over the years the industry has wilfully and deliberately lied to the American people about a product. The industry has conspired to commit fraud and to manipulate its products with greater and more profitable, predictive power. These addictions have added billions of dollars to the cost of health care in this country and damage to numerable lives.

JIM LEHRER: There was no immediate comment from the tobacco industry. The House of Representatives today voted to ban federal funding for needle exchange programs. They're designed to stop the spread of AIDS among drug users by trading clean needles for used ones. The vote was 287 to 140. We'll have excerpts from today's debate and an interview with the surgeon general later in the program. Two hundred and eighty thousand pounds of ground beef was recalled today after a sample tested positive for e. coli bacteria. The meat came from the IBP plant in Illinois. Agriculture Department officials said they've notified health departments in all 50 states. No illnesses have been reported. They also delivered the reminder that cooking beef at 160 degree temperature kills most bacteria. A Senate committee heard more horror stories about the Internal Revenue Service today. Several witnesses described how armed IRS agents searched their homes and businesses and seized records. None resulted in criminal cases. One witness was a Virginia restaurant owner.

JOHN COLAPRETE, Restaurant Owner: When the raid occurred at my home, the front door was torn from the hinges, my dogs were impounded, along with my safe, and 12 years of my personal income tax returns and supporting documents. When that safe was finally returned, an heirloom watch that I had received as a gift from my late father was missing. In the aftermath of the raid, I returned to find my home in shambles. It was as if I had been burglarized, both in appearance and in the sense of having been grossly violated.

JIM LEHRER: IRS Director Charles Rossotti today called the charges "serious" and said he would not tolerate such activity. He's due to testify before the committee on Friday. The U.S. Supreme Court criticized a federal appeals court today for postponing an execution. The five to four ruling chastised the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco for a grave abuse of discretion. The lower court blocked a California execution last August two days before it was scheduled. Today's action allows authorities to set another execution date for the man convicted of a 1981 rape and murder. A federal grand jury in Little Rock heard testimony today from First Lady Hillary Clinton on videotape. Mrs. Clinton was questioned for nearly five hours last Saturday by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Her lawyer said today she exercised marital privilege and declined to answer two questions dealing with discussions she may have had with her husband. The taped testimony related to Mrs. Clinton's legal work on behalf of a failed savings & loan and a failed land development project. The United States and five European nations agreed on fresh sanctions against Yugoslavia today. They include an immediate freeze on the country's assets abroad. The six-nation contact group met in Rome. The ethnic Albanian majority in the southern Serbian province of Kosovo wants independence. Serb police have put down their demonstrations. The prime minister of Albania today urged NATO to send troops to avoid more violence. Secretary of State Albright agreed today to a new hotline between the United States and China. She said it would help leaders from both countries talk rapidly, directly, and candidly. Albright was in Beijing for a two- day visit. President Clinton is scheduled to attend a summit there in late June. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to school vouchers for D.C., a Megan's Law update, a needles exchange debate, the new surgeon general of the United States, and a David Gergen dialogue. FOCUS - SCHOOL VOUCHERS

JIM LEHRER: Elizabeth Farnsworth has the school voucher story.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: At least six states and cities like Milwaukee and Houston now provide some financial aid for some students wanting to attend private schools. Depending on the program, tax credits or vouchers in the form of scholarships are provided to help pay tuition, usually in non-religious private schools, but in a few places in religious ones too. Tomorrow the House of Representatives is expected to vote on legislation to pay for the use of vouchers in private and parochial schools in the District of Columbia. A similar bill has already passed the Senate. The House bill provides scholarships for 2,000 children whose families earn less than about $30,000. Each child could receive up to $3200 for tuition at schools in or near Washington, D.C.. And students could get up to $500 for tutoring assistance.

COMMERCIAL SPOKESPERSON: We all agree we need to improve our schools.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The proposal has sparked an advertising campaign on local television and radio stations and in newspapers. Opponents of the vouchers, led by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, say the program will further weaken public schools and that it violates separation of church and state by allowing federal money to be used for religious schooling.

COMMERCIAL SPOKESPERSON: Our children's future depends on it.

SPOKESPERSON: Every day, thousands of D.C. children report to schools that aren't safe.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Proponents of the program counter that vouchers will provide help for low-income students who don't want to attend the district's trouble-plagued public schools.

SPOKESPERSON: I want to put them in a school that is safe and disciplined, where they can learn.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congress has the power to mandate a school choice program for Washington because it controls purse strings for the city's government, including funding for its schools. Elsewhere, local communities or states enact or reject such programs. The Clinton administration opposes the Washington, D.C., legislation, and the president has said he will veto it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We pick up the debate now with two key players: House Majority Leader Richard Armey from Texas is the chief sponsor of the District of Columbia voucher legislation and Eleanor Holmes Norton is the Democratic delegate to the House from Washington, D.C.. Thank you both for being with us.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congressman Armey, why is this legislation necessary, in your view?

REP. RICHARD ARMEY, House Majority Leader: Well, we have a great many distressed households and students in Washington, D.C.. Washington, D.C. is a federal city. We feel a special responsibility for the city and for the people of Washington, D.C. in the House of Representatives. And, quite frankly, we've already seen a proven population of some 8,000 people that are looking for this opportunity for their children, and we can do this for these children. My point of view is that you help the children wherever you find them, and I'm finding them here in D.C..

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Delegate Norton, a distressed population of students that would be helped by this?

DEL. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, [D] District of Columbia: The population of students that look like students in schools in every big city in the United States, and yes, they certainly do need help, and I wish that the House would give them some help. For example, the District of Columbia will become perhaps the first big city jurisdiction to abolish social promotion in the United States. It begins with a summer program this year, so that instead of simply promoting kids, you remediate them and then you take kids who have witnesses, so that you don't even have to remediate them. We needed $10 million for that. We went begging, found $5 million thanks to President Clinton. The House didn't come forward with that money, but it wants to give $7 million to 2,000 students. This would help 20,000 students. That is our beef with the House bill. It doesn't go where the kids are. Our kids are in the public schools. They are under total renovation. They need the help of the House not to have money put outside the schools into religious schools.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congressman Armey, how would the program work, briefly?

REP. RICHARD ARMEY: Well, first of all, we've been advocating this program for D.C. schools for some years now, and certainly it predates this current effort to abolish social promotion, which I applaud, and I want to help the public schools in every way possible, but the way it works is very simple. For 2,000 families they have a scholarship of $3200 where the mom and dad can take their child to the school of their choice. The children that would receive these scholarships come from the lowest income families in Washington, D.C., and they are chosen by a process of random selection. There's an additional allocation of funds that give us an opportunity for an additional 2,000 children to have funds available for tutoring or other forms of assistance. We want to make this as broadly helpful, and we certainly would like to see this as something that is done in conjunction with other efforts to remediate the schools so that they can perform on behalf of the children, and we don't have to take the children's summer away from them to remediate the failure of the schools in the previous nine months.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Delegate Norton, yes, go ahead.

DEL. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON: The problem is, of course, that everybody knows that we are engaged in a charade. The president has promised that he will veto the bill, has long had a position against the vouchers because the whole point here is to begin a drain of the federal treasury. You give religious schools in D.C. some money, you know that religious schools across the country will say me too. The second reason that this cannot happen and why I would like to see the Majority Leader work with me for something that can happen is that in the two states which in fact now are using vouchers at precisely the time in this bill the court in Ohio and Wisconsin have already found them to be found unconstitutional, they're unconstitutional because in point of fact there is entanglement with religion, and in our country for over 200 years, there can be no entanglement of church and state if, in fact, churches were to accept this money, if religious schools were to accept this money, they must come with strings attached. In our country, our democracy, we do not give out taxpayers' money with no strings attached.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congressman Armey, what about the constitutionality of the federal moneys being provided for parents that could use them for parochial schools, what was your thinking about that?

REP. RICHARD ARMEY: Well, first of all, let me just say this: For us to say we shouldn't try for the children because the president says no, he'll veto the bill is not an acceptable thing. When the Democrat governor of Arkansas stood in the school door and said the kids can't come here, we didn't stop trying for the kids. When the Democrat governor of Alabama stood in the university doors and said the young people can't come here, we didn't stop trying for the kids. And when this Democrat president stands in the face of these children and says, now, not you, we're not going to stop for them. Now the fact of the matter is we give a scholarship to the family. The family takes their scholarship and their child to the school of their choice. There is not entanglement. It has been clearly scrubbed by constitutional scholars, and there will not be a problem in that regard. That argument is, in fact, what the sham is in this whole discussion.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Delegate Norton, why is this different from say pell grants, which are federal grants given to college students and they use them at Notre Dame and other religious schools?

DEL. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON: The difference is between colleges and secondary and elementary schools. The courts have found the difference is that secondary and elementary schools are all full of their religious trappings, which is why they exist. We are glad that they exist. The fact that there are Catholic schools, for example, in the district is why we've been able to keep some middle income parents in the district. But when you get to college, those trappings, of course, fall away, and that's why pell grants, in fact, can be given. Look, the final word on this does not lie with the Majority Leader. It lies with the courts because a basic constitutional issue is raised here, and the courts have already spoken. These things will be appealed, but it's been handed down already, so that if he really is serious about helping D.C. kids this year, we've got to propose the fact that the president is going to veto, we've got to face the fact that the constitutional challenges have been successful, and we've got to work together if the point is to help the kids.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congressman Armey, on that point Sec. Riley said that politics really drive this issue, not education. What's your response to that?

REP. RICHARD ARMEY: Personally, I think that is a terribly unfair thing to say. I tell you, I've worked with these children. I have nine children that I've raised money for to put them on scholarship. I've worked for the Washington Scholarship Fund. I'vemet the parents. I've met the children. And it is, in fact, not politics. This is about these children. And we need to understand that. And the fact of the matter is that D.C. school kids today, they have to pass all kinds of trappings of security. There's all kinds of--they see now water buckets, the leaking roofs, the inadequate texts and so forth. And for somebody to suggest that if their parents take a scholarship and voluntarily put them in a school where they may see a crucifix on the wall it'll hurt their little minds, I just don't think that's appropriate understanding. Furthermore, what good does it do to give a pell grant to a child who hasn't been properly prepared to go to school while you pass up the opportunity to do exactly the same thing to give that child is chance to really learn when he's in the third grade? I don't follow the logic of that either. This is exactly the same as a pell grant, except we're catching the third grader at a time when he's really got a chance to prepare themselves to be able to succeed in college.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Delegate Norton, the polls are showing, a Gallup Poll last year showed a majority of people in America favor this kind of school choice or some kind of school choice. Where do you think this issue is going in the years ahead? Is it gaining momentum?

DEL. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON: Your words are very important because people do favor school choice, even though some in my own district, for example, oppose charter schools. I worked with the speaker and the majority to pass a D.C. charter school bill last year in 1996, and what has happened? We have charter schools blossoming all over the District of Columbia to give publicly accountable charter schools where there are no entanglements with religion, and where you do have a choice other than the public school system. I am no apologist for D.C. public schools or for any of the rest of these public schools that are not educating our children. And I say to the Majority Leader it's not all politics. It's a lot of sincerity here because the Majority Leader has raised private money for kids in my district, and so has the Speaker of the House. Now I say to them that there is a way to get the money to these kids right away, and the way to do it is to join hands with me and go into my district and let's raise the money for these 7500 kids, so that they will not be disappointed either by the courts or by a veto. Let's do private schools with private money.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Congressman Armey, how do you answer that question about where this issue is going in the short time we have left?

REP. RICHARD ARMEY: Well, let me just say again, we are introducing 7 million dollars' worth of new money to the process. That's 4,000 new opportunities for the children of D.C.. As far as I'm concerned, these kids come first, and I'll save 'em or help 'em where I can find them. And I can tell you one thing, it doesn't matter. The kids and their parents are on my side of this issue, and the president's got a choice when he gets this bill. You can either sign the bill for the children, or veto the bill for the unions, Mr. President. It's your choice.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Thank you both very much for being with us. UPDATE - MEGAN'S LAW

JIM LEHRER: Betty Ann Bowser has a Megan's Law update.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Anyone who wants to can turn on a computer, get on the Internet, and look up the name, address, and picture of every convicted sex offender in Alaska and Florida. In California, residents can go into any police station and watch a CD-rom that identifies more than 64,000 convicted sex offenders.

SPOKESPERSON: Okay. Next step now, we've got the map and now we have to figure out what the boundaries are going to be.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And in New Jersey, state prosecutors like Maureen O'Brien, are required to decide who to notify when a sex offender is living in the community.

MAUREEN O'BRIEN, New Jersey State Prosecutor: This is more of a residential neighborhood. It's very close to a shopping center. There are a lot of--there's a movie theater not too far. There's grocery stores; there's corner candy stores. You really don't have to go too much further outside of this neighborhood to basically conduct your daily life.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: O'Brien must decide how far to draw the notification boundaries from the offender's home, and then she submits a plan to the superior court for approval. All this is happening because New Jersey like 46 other states now has a Megan's Law. The laws are named in memory of seven year old Megan Kanka, who was abducted from her home outside Trenton, New Jersey in 1994, then raped and murdered by Jesse Timmendequeas , a twice-convicted sex offender who lived right across the street. Although he had a lengthy rap sheet, no one, including the police, knew Timmendequeas was a child molester.

MAUREEN O'BRIEN: Before Megan's Law, any sex offender that moved into Westfield, Westfield PD didn't know about it. They didn't know sex offenders lived here. There was no requirement for them to know.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Assistant Prosecutor O'Brien spends her days and nights explaining Megan's Law to people in Westfield and throughout Union County, where she heads the notification program.

MAUREEN O'BRIEN: Failure to register is a fourth degree crime. An individual can go to prison for up to 18 months. And registration is an ongoing responsibility.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: New Jersey requires all convicted sex offenders to register with local police departments, no matter where they live, every time they move, even if it's within the same apartment building, for life. New Jersey is also the only state that requires sex offenders who were convicted prior to passage of the law to register. And although that provision has been tested in court, it has withstood all legal challenges. O'Brien says there are many ways she can draw notification boundaries, but the law does give her some general guidelines. Tier one offenders, considered least likely to re-offend, are to be made known only to law enforcement. Tier two offenders, considered more likely to commit another crime, are to be made known to schools, daycare centers, and most civic organizations in their neighborhood. But with Tier three offenders, those with the highest probability of re-offending, an entire neighborhood or city or county can be notified. O'Brien told these parents she follows one guiding principle.

MAUREEN O'BRIEN: Regardless of which tier it is, when notification is done, it's limited to those likely to encounter the individual, so despite what you've seen in the newspaper, it is not supposed to be released to the press, not supposed to be on television or in the newspaper or posted on bulletin boards anywhere, because that goes beyond--that goes beyond the statute. The statute requires that the notification be limited to those likely to encounter.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But it doesn't always work out that way. In 1993, a convicted child molester named Ronald Terpak moved into this house in Rahway, New Jersey, a single family residential community. Terpak, who returned home to care for his invalid mother, is a Tier three offender who was convicted before Megan's Law existed. Because police officials believe he is very likely to commit another crime, the immediate neighborhood was quickly notified. However, it didn't stop there. Someone in the neighborhood gave a flier like this to the East Brunswick Home News Tribune, and Editor Dick Hughes decided that was a story. For days, Terpak's picture, criminal and sexual histories, were all over the front page. Under Megan's Law whoever gave the flier to the newspaper was in violation of the law and could, in theory, be prosecuted. That was a prospect Hughes found absurd.

DICK HUGHES, Editor, Home News Tribune: I think it's an abuse of public power to kind of--you know, you're sitting--you finish dinner, you're sitting, watching television, and some cop or some prosecutor knocks on your door, hands you a flier, suddenly you are subject to a court order not to reveal this to someone across the street or to your mother-in-law or to the ladies at the church social? I don't think you can do that.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Attorney General Peter Verniero says the law can do that. He wrote Hughes a letter criticizing the coverage.

PETER VERNIERO, New Jersey Attorney General: I was not pleased at all that the newspaper took it upon itself to publish that information. I think that that was counter to the spirit of the law, and it happens on a repetitive basis it could undermine the law itself. But I can't deny the newspaper the right to do that.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Ed Martone is executive director of the New Jersey American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU fought and lost a constitutional challenge to the law in court.

ED MARTONE, American Civil Liberties Union: He's quite right in suggesting that it undercuts the whole purpose of the law, but that's the way the law was written, unfortunately. And we argued unsuccessfully in court that they couldn't do this kind of narrowly tailored notification. They couldn't tell some people and not others without expecting people to talk to one another about it, without expecting the news media to do stories about it. They assured the court to do it, and now they're seeing it crumbling in front of them.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Attorney Louis Kady has never represented Terpak on any criminal matter but agreed to take him on now because he thinks Terpak has been made a victim.

LOUIS KADY, Attorney: He's right to violate it to the extent that there is--according to the law there is supposed to be no disclosure made, other than the people that it was intended to be dispersed to. This privacy is more than anything. I mean, Mr. Terpak is not a public person. Mr. Terpak is an individual who lives with his mother in a quiet section of--under the local communities in the area here--his mother is bedridden. She's, I believe, in her 70's or so.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Andy Grygo lives near Terpak. He never received notice and thinks the boundaries weren't drawn broadly enough. His young nephew visits frequently, so Grygo is glad somebody gave the flier to the newspaper.

ANDY GRYGO, Neighbor: I looked at this as a local, a real local phenomena. I mean, this man had moved into this neighborhood, and someone felt that one or two blocks was okay to notify, and what I learned in the papers was that whoever the soul was that gave that notification over to the newspaper could be prosecuted. And that probably would have angered me even more.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Arthur Goldsworthy also thinks there are problems with Megan's Law. Someone recently distributed a flier to his neighborsstating the 63-year-old high school guidance counselor was a convicted sex offender. It was a hoax.

ARTHUR GOLDSWORTHY, High School Guidance Counselor: It's an example of how the law can be, you know, violated from its original intentions. And it's an example of some of the things that have to be modified in terms of the law and maybe a little more education done with it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Attorney General Verniero is investigating the incident.

PETER VERNIERO: I was appalled that someone would use Megan's Law as a vehicle or weapon to get back at somebody else. That's appalling. And that undermines the integrity of the law enforcement community. And it won't be tolerated in this state.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: ACLU Executive Director Martone says what happened to Goldsworthy is an example of how abuses can take place. He cited another.

ED MARTONE: We've had an incident where a man was assaulted by two other men because they thought he was a sex offender because he was in the same house as the prosecutor told him another sex offender was living.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And Martone says in states where Megan's Laws have been in effect for a few years, they haven't worked.

ED MARTONE: What you've seen in other states, for example, that have this is that half or more of the sex offenders don't register, and many who do register at park benches and vacant lots and abandoned buildings because they're not crazy. They know what happens to them when their neighbors know about them.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Again, Attorney General Verniero.

PETER VERNIERO: We think we have a good statute. We think the way we wrote it enabled us to win at every court level. Megan's Law is information. It's about providing families and parents with an additional tool so they can take reasonable steps to protect their children. So from that perspective, I think it's a very good law, and I applaud it.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Megan's Law is still being tested. Two other states have constitutional challenges pending.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight the House debates needles, the new surgeon general of the United States, and a David Gergen dialogue. FOCUS - POINTED EXCHANGE

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman reports on today's needle exchange debate.

KWAME HOLMAN: There are more than a hundred programs in this country through which users of illegal intravenous drugs can exchange used needles for clean ones. The aim of the programs is to prevent needle sharing, a practice that can spread disease, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Federal government studies estimate 40 percent of the 650,000 AIDS cases in this country are linked to IV drug use. Since they began 10 years ago, needle exchange programs have operated with the help of local, state, and private funding, but no federal funds. Last October, the House of Representatives voted to ban local communities from ever using federal funds for needle exchange programs. But a compromise with the Senate said the president could lift that ban if he could certify with scientific evidence, that such programs reduced the rate of HIV infection, without encouraging drug use. Within the White House, top officials lobbied the president on both sides of the issue. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala said evidence showed needle exchange programs did work and urged the ban be lifted. But Drug Policy Chief Barry McCaffrey said such programs promoted drug use and urged the ban be left in place. President Clinton's decision came down somewhere in the middle and early last week he sent out Secretary Shalala to announce it. Scientific studies, she said, did indeed show needle exchange programs are effective in slowing the spread of HIV. However, the ban on the use of federal funds for such programs would not be lifted.

SEC. DONNA SHALALA: Federal money doesn't pay for everything that's important in this country. And in this case the administration made the decision not to make this an eligible activity under prevention funds. But we didn't reduce prevention funds. Prevention funds are still there. The most important message today is that the science is now there so that local communities ought to look at their strategies, and they can then consider using a needle exchange program as part of that overall strategy.

KWAME HOLMAN: Nonetheless, House Republicans immediately accused the president of waffling on the issue.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH: This headline is devastating. This headline says to every young person who is not sure, well as long as your needle is clean, what's a little heroin or cocaine among friends? This is a terrible mistake. I hope the president would withdraw it. If he doesn't, I can assure you we will schedule a repudiation of this position. We will move a bill to strongly send the signal to every young American, do not use drugs.

GOETZ: HR 3717 a bill to prohibit the expenditures of federal funds for the distribution of needles and syringes for the hypodermic injection of illegal drugs.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today, House Republicans brought to the floor a bill to ban permanently the use of federal funds for needle exchange programs. Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon led the effort.

REP. GERALD SOLOMON: Mr. Speaker, needle exchange programs do not save lives; they destroy lives. They destroy hope. They destroy opportunity. They ruin families, and they ruin communities, and in some cases they are actually destroying a nation like the Netherlands and like Switzerland. We cannot let that happen in this country.

KWAME HOLMAN: Speaking up for needle exchange programs and against the legislation was a small but equally passionate group of Democrats, led by California's Nancy Pelosi.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, [D] California: The leading scientists in this country have examined the evidence and determined that needle exchange programs again help stop the spread of HIV infection and do not--I repeat-- do not encourage drug use. You think we're having a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. How can we turn our back to the science?

KWAME HOLMAN: But throughout today's debate members disagreed about the science behind needle exchange programs, so the issue became what would be the best federal public policy.

REP. MARK SOUDER, [R] Indiana: Do we really want this to happen? A woman gets raped in the street by a heroin addict. What are we going to tell her when she finds out that the needle that enabled that addict to get the heroin and then get him on the street to rape her came from her tax dollars, and the tax dollars of America?

REP. TOM DAVIS, [R] Virginia: You send the wrong signal when you tell people it's illegal but we're going to give you a clean needle to pursue this illegal habit. And I think it looks terrible from a public policy objective to have the government really funding these programs and encouraging the use of illegal drugs.

REP. JOHN MICA, [R] Florida: This message needs to be heard by our Health & Human Services Secretary Shalala. This message needs to be heard by President Clinton's new surgeon general, Satcher. How inconceivable it is that our new surgeon general as his first and premier action in that position has recommended and promoted this free drug needle exchange.

REP.

JIM McDERMOTT, [D] Washington: Now, how do these programs work? In Tacoma and Seattle, they have a table where somebody sits and somebody has to bring a needle and they get a clean needle. Now, I don't know how that's going to encourage the use of drugs. Are you suggesting that high school kids are going to come and say, well, I got a needle, give me a clean one so I can go find some drugs to use?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, [D] Texas: The needle exchange program has nothing to do with supporting the illegal use of drugs. It's plain common sense, folks. People who use drugs are addicted; they're sick; they need intervention; they need prevention; they need treatment. The use of clean needles saves lives. It prevents the spread of HIV. It keeps from killing your children, your wives, your husbands, your family members, Americans.

REP. PATRICK KENNEDY, [D] Rhode Island: I know it's easy for you to go back to your districts and say, hey, I don't want to support these needles, you know. Hey, that's an easy copout. That's a copout--when we have the science that says we're preventing AIDS from being spread, we ought to follow our evidence. I thought that's the reason we came to the Congress is because we know the evidence. We've been up here. We've been studying the facts. The Congress has been advised by the National Institutes of Health, which advised the Congress, what to do in the public's health interest, to say needle exchange programs reduce the incidences of AIDS. I don't think there's any debate about this whatsoever. Let's do what the scientists tell us to do. Let's reduce AIDS. Let's support needle exchange programs. Let's oppose this bill.

KWAME HOLMAN: When the vote was taken, 140 members, including 11 Republicans, did oppose the ban on federal funding of needle exchange programs. But support for the ban was overwhelming, more than enough votes to override a presidential veto. The bill now goes to the Senate. NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Needle exchange is one of many public health issues now facing the new surgeon general of the United States. Phil Ponce has more.

PHIL PONCE: Dr. David Satcher has been in office now for just over two months. Dr. Satcher was one of ten children in his family in the rural town of Anniston, Alabama. In 1970, he became the first African-American to earn a medical degree and a doctorate at the same time from the Case Western School of Medicine. Early in his career he worked on sickle cell anemia and opened a free clinic in the Watts section of Los Angeles. From 1982 to 1992, Dr. Satcher served as president of Meharry Medical College in Nashville. In 1993, he became the director of the Federal Centers for Disease Control. Now, 57 years old, he is the nation's 16th surgeon general and Dr. Satcher joins us now.Welcome, sir.

DR. DAVID SATCHER, Surgeon General: Thank you very much.

PHIL PONCE: First of all, quickly, your reaction to the House vote today to ban the use of federal money in needle exchange programs.

DR. DAVID SATCHER: Well, I'm disappointed because I'm concerned that it's a repudiation of science. And yet I understand the complexity of this issue. And let me just briefly say that the science which comes not only from the federal government's scientists at NIH and a consensus conference but the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association all agree that when you examine needle exchange programs scientifically, you find the following things: Number 1, needle exchange programs, if conducted properly, can prevent the spread of the HIV of the HIV virus. Number 2, they do it without encouraging drug use. And, more than that, many needle exchange programs have been very successful at getting people who are addicted to drugs into treatment programs. So that's what the science says. However, I want to say two other things. Number 1, I agree with people who say that we cannot afford to send any messages to our young people that encourages them to use illicit drugs, and throughout my life and career, I have worked to make sure that young people understood the dangers of drugs and will continue to work; however, I do have a responsibility as a scientist, as a public health scientist, to really state what the science shows. I realize the complexity of these issues, but I'm going to continue to say what the science shows. I believe this country has a tremendous record for supporting science. It has not always been easy but probably more than any other country this country has listened to the science. I believe ultimately we will listen to the science, but I realize that we have some difficult communications to do about this issue.

PHIL PONCE: Earlier, you were quoted as also expressing disappointment in the Clinton administration's decision not to use federal funds to support these programs. Should federal funds be used to support these programs?

DR. DAVID SATCHER: Well, let me say what I said that I'm disappointed about. I'm a scientist and I'm a public health scientist. And I think whenever we do work in the area of science, we want it to be supported. But I also understand that if anybody is uncomfortable with the messages that we're sending, they would want to wait for more science or more discussion, and I think that's basically the message from the administration. We're not ready to use federal funds yet. What bothers me about the House action today is the permanent ban. In other words, we don't care what the science says. We're not listening to the science. I think we have to move beyond that, and I think we will.

PHIL PONCE: So you're saying that if science were later to more persuasively establish that these programs work, then you would at least like the option of federal funds?

DR. DAVID SATCHER: Exactly. I just think that we have to continue to listen to science. I think we have to continue to be open to science. At the same time we have to continue to be very clear with our young people that it's wrong to use illicit drugs; it's dangerous; and we strongly discourage it. But it's also wrong not to respond when people are dying from the virus. 40 percent of new cases of HIV are related to injection drug use. 70 percent of women are--understand me--most of these women are not using drugs. They are infected because of their relationship with somebody who is using drugs, and many times they don't even know it. 75 percent of the babies today who are born with the HIV virus get it directly--indirectly from drug use. What we're trying to do is to fight an epidemic. And I think we're trying to do it using the best science that we have available to us, and yet, at the same time, let's face it, it's not as easy as it was when we were fighting micro- organisms, and the enemy was a micro-organism, and we could just target that. We're also dealing with human behavior, and that's going to become increasingly true in public health. We're dealing with human behavior and not just micro-organisms.

PHIL PONCE: Moving away from the needle exchange question, what do you see as your mission? You've been in office now for two months. What are your goals?

DR. DAVID SATCHER: Well, I think very clearly we have talked about No. 1, working to see that every child in this country has an opportunity for a healthy start in life. And all that that means in terms of making sure that parents are ready to be parents, that they're responsible as parents before becoming parents, but also making sure that mothers have access to quality prenatal care, and that the environment in which babies develop is a healthy environment. The second thing that we've been talking about, of course, is promoting healthy lifestyles. And that includes nutrition, regular physical activity, and avoiding toxins like tobacco, like excessive use of alcohol and other drugs, so those are some of the critical things. We've also been talking increasingly about mental health and the need for this nation to take a different kind of attitude and approach to mental health so that people don't feel isolated, families don't feel isolated if they have a problem with mental illness. We talked about suicide as an example of that and the need to really be more supportive of families who have to struggle with mental health problems. But I must say that addiction to drugs is another one of those issues, and several physicians, including Dr. Louis Sullivan, Dr. Lonnie Bristow and others, have recently come out to say we really need to deal with drug addiction as a medical problem, just as we deal with diabetes. And I agree with that. It's not going to be easy to get there. As you've seen today, we have some more discussion to do. But I'm not discouraged. We just have to keep moving forward, and we have to keep communicating.

PHIL PONCE: Dr. Satcher, you've been quoted as saying that you want to eventually be known as the surgeon general who listened better than any other surgeon general in history. What are you hearing so far from people?

DR. DAVID SATCHER: Well, as I said, some of the things that you've heard me say recently I'm saying because of what I've heard, especially on the suicide issue. Every year in this country over 31,000 people die from suicide, only 22,500 from homicide. So more people die from suicide. Teenagers are increasingly committing suicide. And I think what we're hearing is that people want us to deal with that problem in terms of prevention. They want more attention given to preventing suicide. I think we have to bring more attention to bear. We're going to have a major conference on suicide. Hopefully, out of that will come a surgeon general's report that will be helpful.

PHIL PONCE: Two of your predecessors, C. Everett Koop and Dr. Joycelyn Elders, both found themselves mired in controversy at certain points in their tenure, Dr. Koop with condoms and AIDS, Dr. Elders with issues involving teen sexuality. Is controversy just part of the turf for being surgeon general?

DR. DAVID SATCHER: If you look back at the history of surgeon general--surgeons general, you would have to say, yes. Thomas Perrin in 1936 was on a radio program and used the word "syphilis." That was not acceptable at the time to use the word syphilis. They tried to ban him from the networks and to get him fired. Luckily, he survived that, but he--what he did wrong was to say the word syphilis at a time in history when it was not acceptable. So yes, I think it is, but I think the responsibility of the surgeon general is to bring the best science to bear on every problem. And that is going to be controversial because people are not always ready to deal with the best science.

PHIL PONCE: So what lessons have you taken from Dr. Elders' experience, for example?

DR. DAVID SATCHER: Well, I mean, I bring to this position the benefit of my own experience as director of the CDC, as president of a medical college that dealt with young people for over 12 years, so I bring that experience to this position, and certainly I'm aware of the fact that Dr. Elders tried to deal with some very difficult issues. So did Dr. Koop, so did Dr. Perrin, and so did many others. And I'm going to deal with some difficult issues. I'm going to do a lot of listening to people who disagree with me, however.

PHIL PONCE: What do you say to those people who observe that your position was empty for three years and who take the position that maybe the position is not all that relevant?

DR. DAVID SATCHER: Well, I point out the relevance of it when you look at the surgeon general's report on smoking in 1964, that we estimate now has saved at least 3 million lives; I look at the relevance of it in terms of responding to an epidemic like AIDS in the early days. So I think there's a lot of tremendous evidence of the relevance of the office of the surgeon general in this country and even the way people have responded to me, a thousand invitations to speak in the first two weeks being in this office. People definitely feel the need to hear from a voice in medicine that's based on science. And so I think that's the evidence that the position is relevant.

PHIL PONCE: Have you been surprised or gratified by people, the way people respond to you? For example, I read that the uniform is an issue for people; they like to see it.

DR. DAVID SATCHER: People like the uniform and the response has been very positive. This is not an easy job, but what's gratifying is the fact that--the very positive response that so many people have to the surgeon general.

PHIL PONCE: Dr. Satcher, I thank you for being with us.

DR. DAVID SATCHER: Thank you very much. Delighted to be here. DIALOGUE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a Gergen Dialogue. David Gergen, editor-at-large of "U.S. News & World Report," engages Roberto Suro, a reporter for the Washington Post, author of "Strangers Among Us: How Latino Immigration is Transforming America."

DAVID GERGEN: Roberto, a word of background about this book. You were an overseas correspondent in the 1980's for the New York Times, came back and found America transformed.

ROBERTO SURO, Author, "Strangers Among Us": Yes. I was struck by how--the enormous growth of the Latino population--how it seemed to change the face of American cities. And basically, the size of the Latino population had more than doubled over the 1980's. And it was clear that this demographic force had gained momentum and was continuing to grow.

DAVID GERGEN: Latinos by the year 2003 or so are going to be the largest minority in the country.

ROBERTO SURO: That's right. That size population will be--it will be a larger population than that of African-Americans.

DAVID GERGEN: What was very gripping, I thought, among many aspects of the book was what was happening to the children of Latino immigrants.

ROBERTO SURO: Well, indeed, it was that which really got me started. Let me tell you the story that sort of set me off on this. When I moved back to Houston in 1989, shortly afterwards, I was doing interviews in a predominantly Mexican neighborhood and interviewed a young girl just then turned 15. She came from a family of very hard working parents. Both of them worked janitorial jobs at night. They had worked on factory jobs during the day. Both of them were Mexicans. He had come over illegal initially and had gotten papers in the amnesty in the 1980's, a very solid family, four children, as I recall, and with very strong sort of Mexican family values, and sort of the typical manner that they organized a 15th birthday party for her, the quincenera, where girls sort of--it's their of coming out party. And for a Mexican immigrant this is a big deal. They spent a lot of money, invited all their friends. They wanted to show off everything they had gained by working in the United States.

DAVID GERGEN: One of the great family traditions.

ROBERTO SURO: Yes. It's a great family tradition, and for immigrants it's a big deal to sort of show that you've accomplished something here, when you throw one of these parties. They ordered a dress for her from Mexico. And the next day she sat down at breakfast and announced to her father that [a] she was pregnant, [b] she was dropping out of school, and [c] she was going to move in with her boyfriend, who was a Mexican-American, who didn't speak Spanish, and whose family lived on welfare. The father and mother had no idea, had absolutely no idea that she had been living an entirely different and very American life. And what--

DAVID GERGEN: Was that representative of what you found?

ROBERTO SURO: Well, it represents something. It represents one of the problems that can develop when the children of immigrants get way out ahead of their parents. And that happens a lot, where they are--they grow up American; they grow up in American inner-city high schools; they assimilate and absorb not the best parts of our culture. And their parents tend to be very removed from that and very focused on the very narrow goals of working and saving money, and as a result, she get dropout rates among Hispanics that are higher than for any other group, particularly among the children of immigrants.

DAVID GERGEN: And they're rising.

ROBERTO SURO: And they're rising. The teen pregnancy rates--

DAVID GERGEN: The black dropout rate has fallen dramatically.

ROBERTO SURO: Yes, indeed.

DAVID GERGEN: But it's such a reversal to the immigrant story. You've said that-- you had such a nice phrase for it--that the old notion was to move up in three generations from peddler to plumber to professional.

ROBERTO SURO: Right.

DAVID GERGEN: And that that dream is now fading for many of these families.

ROBERTO SURO: Well, it, in part, reflects the changes in the structure of our economy. There are fewer of the blue collar jobs that allow that movement from the immigrant's very poor existence, to the suburbs, to the kind of opportunity that allows you to send your children to college. And the one--education is the key to upward mobility in our society. There aren't, to speak, massive industrial jobs that somebody who is good with their hands can work at and make a solid living, at least the same way as there were a hundred years ago, for sure.

DAVID GERGEN: We've known for a long time that the Latino population is not monolithic. The Puerto Ricans in New York are very different from the Cubans in Miami or the Mexicans in Houston and Los Angeles. Do you find there are differences in the way they work through this problem of immigrant children?

ROBERTO SURO: Indeed. I mean, there are--and the important thing about these differences is that I think it makes it very hard to try and treat them as a group, and our fundamental means of dealing with social differences in this country is to define people and put a sort of group label, call them non- white minorities, Hispanics, Asians, blacks. It doesn't work when you've got a population that's in the kind of ferment that the immigration population has, where a lot of people are doing quite well. I mean, make no mistake about it. There are a lot of Latinos that come here and achieve the kind of stability of the working class, but about a third of Latino immigrant families live in poverty, so his theory is it's kind of a zero sum gain, what I try to describe. You either win or lose very quickly here these days

DAVID GERGEN: Are there differences by groups about which ones succeed better than others?

ROBERTO SURO: It's--I think every group is experiencing this kind of division where you've got some people who do well, who move on out of the neighborhoods of entry, the first ports where they land, then move out to the suburbs, and do rather well, and some who get stuck. And that kind of split is happening in virtually every community.

DAVID GERGEN: And a very large portion of the Latino population is young.

ROBERTO SURO: Exceptionally. I mean, it's a much higher proportion than any other segment of the population. About a third of the Latino population is under 18.

DAVID GERGEN: These are the ones who are most susceptible then to becoming the teenage pregnancies, dropouts, gangs, that sort of thing.

ROBERTO SURO: Absolutely, yes. And when you've got, you know, as much as 40 percent of the young adult population without a high school diploma, that forecast, the possibility of a large population of people who have no economic opportunities, who really aren't going to be able to move up, we know what the fate of a high school dropout is in our economy.

DAVID GERGEN: Roberto, you've obviously had to think long and hard about, okay, I see the trap that some of these children are falling into, many of them. How do they avoid the trap? How do they stay out of--how do they move on?

ROBERTO SURO: Well, there are a lot of different things that have to happen. I think, for one thing, we have to look at the whole nature of poverty a little bit differently and look at, for example, the funding of schools, the need to have education programs, particularly language programs--I'm not talking about bilingual education. I'm talking about ensuring that both the parents and the children get plenty of access to English language education.

DAVID GERGEN: Learn English?

ROBERTO SURO: Exactly. And there's a great eagerness for that. There's a tremendous appetite for English language education and Latino communities. And the other thing I argue is that I think that illegal immigration is a bad thing for Latinos, and that they are going to have to come to that conclusion, and that they will, and that it's time for that discussion to begin.

DAVID GERGEN: You suggested in your book that you thought not only stronger border patrols and stronger sanctions against employers, but that there were steps Latinos ought to take within their own communities.

ROBERTO SURO: Well, I think if this conversation gets going and people come to this realization, at a certain point, you know, when your uncle or brother says I want to come, you say, look, wait until you get papers; it's not good for you to come here illegally; it's not good for us; and it's not going to be good for you. You're going to have to take a job that's going to pay you less than what you deserve. It's harmful for all of us. I think that's possible. I don't know.

DAVID GERGEN: In a country--let me ask you this final question--in a country that is very ambivalent now about immigration, what is the positive side of this great flow of Latinos here to the United States?

ROBERTO SURO: Well, I think that, you know, it's tremendous demographic energy. It presents challenges. The United States has reinvented itself as a nation, has reinvented its identity, has reinvented its culture by absorbing new groups of people. That's the way we've grown as a country. It often involves conflict. It's often painful. But on the other side of it, this country's always emerged stronger and with a better sense of itself. And I think the next few decades might have some real challenges and some real rough spots. But on the far side of it, we'll come out the better for it.

DAVID GERGEN: Roberto Suro, thank you very much.

ROBERTO SURO: Thank you very much. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, Blue Cross & Blue Shield health plans in 35 states sued the tobacco industry to recover smoking-caused health costs, and the House of Representatives voted to ban federal funding for needle exchange programs used to stop the spread of AIDS. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.