The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in New York.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in Washington. After the News Summary, Paul Solman previews the economic summit with Treasury Sec. Robert Rubin, Kwame Holman reports on today's House vote to boost defense spending, we update the story of the Oklahoma bombing and examine some of the fallout, and we end with a Tom Bearden report on treating spinal injuries. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton went to Halifax, Nova Scotia today for the annual G-7 summit meeting. His official meetings with the leaders of the world's six other leading industrial nations begin tomorrow. But he had a pre-summit meeting with Japan's prime minister this afternoon. The United States and Japan are in a trade dispute over automobiles. The U.S. has threatened to impose sanctions on Japanese luxury cars unless Japan agrees to buy more U.S. cars and parts. After the meeting, Mr. Clinton spoke at a news conference.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I made it clear that I am determined to carry through on my effort to open Japan's auto markets. Billions of dollars in American exports and thousands of American jobs are at stake. They depend upon our success. Opening these markets, as I have said repeatedly, will benefit not only the United States but Japanese consumers as well. I have instructed our negotiators to pursue every possible avenue of resolution before the June 28th deadline, and I remain hopeful that an acceptable, meaningful agreement can be reached. But if a solution cannot be found by the deadline, I will impose sanctions, and the United States will also pursue a case before the World Trade Organization.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on the summit right after this News Summary. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: The Bosnian army launched an attack on the rebel Serbs outside Sarajevo today. It was an attempt to break the Serbs three-year-long blockade of the capital. We have more in this report from Terry Lloyd of Independent Television News.

TERRY LLOYD, ITN: From early morning, the sirens warned of worse to come. Beyond the hills in Visoko, the heavy fighting had begun, believed to be the start of a Bosnian army push to fight a way through to Sarajevo. This was a response from the Bosnian Serbs who overlook the city. A mortar exploded in the road close to the television station hitting a passing bus, one of its passengers, a 63-year-old man, was badly hurt; several more were injured. As casualties were tended, the Serbs attacked again. The second mortar detonated on the TV center, one of the Bosnian Serb's prime targets. They were followed by several close misses. The overall tension prompted the Bosnian government to declare it's no longer time for talking, fighting instead.

HARIS SILAJDZIC, Prime Minister, Bosnia: Diplomacy without force produced zero results in Bosnia, produced only dead Bosnians, besieged cities, suffering, and genocide.

MR. LLOYD: Tonight, as the shooting goes on and a new curfew comes into force, the streets of the capital are virtually deserted.

MS. WARNER: The Serbs today reneged on their promise to allow free movement of 91 UN peacekeepers who had been held hostage. They also presented more conditions for the release of 26 other UN soldiers. Meanwhile, UN officials said peacekeepers would now be allowed to use mortars and cannons to defend themselves. In Washington, Sen. Dole and House Speaker Gingrich endorsed the French plan for a rapid reaction force in Bosnia but only if it does not include U.S. troops or U.S. financing.

MR. LEHRER: Attorney Gen. Reno confirmed today the FBI found and released the man known as John Doe No. 2. He was wanted in connection with the April bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. His sketch was widely distributed in a nationwide search. The attorney general spoke at a Washington news conference.

JANET RENO, Attorney General: As the FBI indicated yesterday, it has interviewed an individual who was in Elliot's Body Shop in Junction City, Kansas, on a day other than the day which was April 17th, that the truck that contained the explosive that was at Murrah Building was rented. That individual resembles the sketch previously circulated as the second of two men who rented the truck on April 17th, and who has been called John Doe 2. The Bureau has determined that the individual who has been interviewed was not connected with the bombing. The FBI is continuing to investigate whether there was a second man who participated in the rental of the Ryder truck on April 17th.

MR. LEHRER: Several civilian militia leaders testified before a Senate subcommittee today. They said their organizations would not participate in bombings like the one in Oklahoma City. They said their purpose was defensive. A former leader of the Michigan Militia said the government was too involved in citizens' lives and needs a good spanking to make it behave. Law enforcement officials also testified. They said the militias were disturbing and dangerous. We'll have more on the hearings later in the program.

MS. WARNER: On Capitol Hill today, the House passed a bill to increase defense spending nine billion dollars more than President Clinton proposed. The vote was 300 to 126. The bill includes funds to develop missile defense technology while cutting aid to the former Soviet Union. It also reduces the number of U.S. troops in Europe. The Senate passed a telecommunications reform package today. It deregulates the telephone industry, giving local companies and long distance carriers access to each other's markets. In economic news, the Federal Reserve reported today that industrial production fell .2 of a percent last month. It was the third straight decline and was due mostly to a drop in auto production.

MR. LEHRER: Russian security forces were drawn into a fire fight today in a southern Russian city. On the other side were pro- Chechen rebels. They attacked the town yesterday, killing at least 42 people, taking more than 300 hostages in the local hospital. Dozens of people were injured in the street fighting. Russia has deployed thousands of troops to the region. The gunmen are demanding immediate Russian troop withdrawal from Chechnya, cease- fire talks, and a meeting with the media. A powerful earthquake hit southwestern Greece today. At least 15 people were killed, 59 seriously injured. The quake hit the port city of Egion, about 90 miles east of Athens.

MS. WARNER: That concludes our summary of today's news. Just ahead, a Newsmaker interview with Treasury Sec. Robert Rubin, Congress votes on defense spending, an update on the Oklahoma bombing story, and treating spinal injuries. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: The economic summit is first tonight. The 20th annual meeting of the world leaders began today in Halifax, Canada, and runs through Saturday. Paul Solman talked to a key U.S. official about the issues that will be discussed.

PAUL SOLMAN: In Halifax, summit participants arrived today amid what has been an especially interesting and sometimes tense time in international economic affairs. Just one word, for example, is enough to focus the minds of finance ministers as they begin their talks, the word "Mexico." Last December, after months of rosy economic scenarios, Mexican officials shocked the financial world by dramatically devaluing the peso. Investors pulled out their money and other economies were threatened. The United States attempted to gather international support for a rescue package and in the end kicked in $20 billion to get Mexico through its crisis. The question now: How to prevent other Mexicos. One proposal being floated would create a better early warning system when economies are in trouble and a better mechanism in place to respond with fast and hard cash when a crisis occurs, a kind of international lender of last resort. Recently, we sat down with Treasury Sec. Robert Rubin to talk about the upcoming summit and began by asking him how such a proposal would work.

ROBERT RUBIN, Secretary of Treasury: The particular initiative that you're talking about is a post-Mexico effort to develop some sort of enhanced financing mechanism in the world economy so that if we have another Mexico, the financing will be available on a multilateral basis, rather than depending on the United States.

MR. SOLMAN: Isn't that what the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, was created to do after World War II, and it hasn't particularly recently in the case of Mexico been performing that function?

SEC. RUBIN: The IMF does exactly that. But as Mexico showed us, the markets have gotten large, the countries that run the possibility at least of having difficulty have gotten larger, and the IMF may not always be large enough to do it with the current funding, so the objective here was to create an enhanced, an additional funding mechanism so that if the problem exceeds the regular resources of the IMF, there's a way to get this done without depending on the United States, which simply cannot be the lender of last resort. The enhanced financing mechanisms, of course, are only one of the numbers things that we're going to be talking about, Halifax. Transparency, that means disclosure, in effect, each of the countries of the world letting the markets know what is going on in the financial markets with respect to monetary positions and foreign exchange positions and the like is another very, very important issue. The third is a cautious exploration of some kind of international work-out mechanism so that all the creditors can be brought to the table and a plan could be developed that would not require these sorts of resources, financial resources.

MR. SOLMAN: Give me the dooms day scenario. Now, what do you really worry about when you were, for example, worried about Mexico? I mean, what horrible thing happened?

SEC. RUBIN: When Mexico first became a, a problem that looked like it could be more than a problem but a crisis, Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and I went to the President of the United States, and what we said to the President was, this isn't only a problem about Mexico. If Mexico goes into default -- we felt at that point that was a very realistic possibility --

MR. SOLMAN: Wouldn't pay off its debts.

SEC. RUBIN: Wouldn't pay off its debts, exactly -- that could affect the other developing countries in the world. And you could have a worldwide -- at least the possibility of a worldwide crisis in the developing countries' financial markets. That would have enormous impacts on American jobs and American standards of living. So it was in our economic interest to deal with Mexico.

MR. SOLMAN: Another hot issue in Halifax is a perennial that has come back with a vengeance, the Japanese trading system. The nations sitting down in Halifax have all committed themselves to the new World Trade Organization, which is supposed to iron out trade differences, but those differences remain. In May, the Clinton administration threatened 100 percent tariffs on 13 models of Japanese luxury cars, a levy that could total $6 billion. In recent days, the two sides have talked but gotten nowhere. President Clinton and Japanese Prime Minister Murayama met in Halifax today but were unable to reach any agreement.

MR. SOLMAN: Trade with Japan is another issue that people are going to ask you about. How much time at Halifax are you going to spend talking about that?

SEC. RUBIN: The lack of access to the Japanese market, which is far greater than the lack of access to any of the other major trading partners or trading countries' markets, is a very serious problem in world trade. No. 1, when the second largest economy of the world has so much less access than the other countries, it takes away some of the benefit of free trade. And secondly, I think it makes it far more difficult to sustain free trade politically in countries around the world. I think this is an issue we simply have to deal with.

MR. SOLMAN: And clearly, most of the American public, at least by the latest polls, agrees with you. But it seems to me you can never know beforehand whether you're pushing too hard and thereby possibly triggering retaliation, which is presumably good for nobody. This is a tough question and maybe you don't want to answer it, but what percent chance do you give that you are pushing -- you, the administration, is pushing Japan too hard --

SEC. RUBIN: I don't think that's the right approach, Paul.

MR. SOLMAN: You mean the right question, it's not the right question.

SEC. RUBIN: In some ways I think it's not the right question. I think the question the way you phrased it is a question that administration after administration has asked itself for at least the last 25 years, which is, what are going to be the short-term effects if we face this problem with Japan, and the result is, we never really faced it. What this President said from the very beginning was he was going to face this problem and deal with it. He recognized there might be short-term difficulties, but in the long-term to have the kind of world in which free trade prevailed, Japan was simply going to have to have markets that were roughly comparable to others in terms of access.

MR. SOLMAN: Well, certainly, I mean, there's a phrase in Japanese right, gaiatsu, foreign pressure --

SEC. RUBIN: Foreign pressure.

MR. SOLMAN: -- and it's the standard -- it has been a phrase for 15 years or so of America putting pressure on Japan and Japan knuckled under.

SEC. RUBIN: But, Paul, the fact is we have not had the systematic, consistent pressure over a long period of time. What we've done is we've taken a particular issue, we've focused on it, usually we get it resolved, but it's been an issue here and an issue here. Now what we're trying to do through the framework agreement that we entered into with the Japanese in Tokyo in 1993 is to focus on a much more systematic basis with this question of access.

MR. SOLMAN: But I got to tell you the economists I know, they think that you have the World Trade Organization for this, that the United States is giving the wrong signal to the entire world, hey, wait a second, we're going to unilaterally impose these extra high tariffs on Japanese --

SEC. RUBIN: I think the United States is providing -- and I think this is not the only instance in which this is the case -- the United States is providing leadership on a tough issue, and the rest of the world is taking a look at it and saying, yes, we agree, that's a tough issue, the access problem in Japan is a real problem in terms of world trade, but we're going to let you do it, it's difficult, you do it, and we'll sit on the sidelines and we'll criticize you.

MR. SOLMAN: Well, not the economists, the economists I know aren't from other countries. They think that the United States -- that there's a mechanism, the World Trade Organization, which you're simply circumventing here.

SEC. RUBIN: The World Trade Organization has a jurisdiction that's defined, and it is not able to deal with all of the problems that exist with respect to Japanese access.

MR. SOLMAN: So when the finance ministers say things like I'm saying to you now, this is the kind of answer you'll give them too?

SEC. RUBIN: What I would say and I have said to a finance minister from another country when they raised the same kinds of questions you do is that all of our countries should be enormously concerned about the access issue in Japan, because it is going to be very difficult to sustain free trade going forward in countries around the world when the second largest economy of the world plays by significantly different rules. And all of us should face this together, and you shouldn't leave it to the United States to try to deal with this problem by itself.

MR. SOLMAN: And implicitly, you shouldn't give us a hard time, we're taking the lead on a tough issue?

SEC. RUBIN: Most of the Europeans that I've spoken to agree with us with respect to the access problem in Japan and its importance. Where they do tend to disagree is in facing it, which is what we're doing.

MR. SOLMAN: Another agenda item at the G-7 summit in recent years has been the new Russia and how to bolster a market system and democracy in that country by shoring up its economy. Topics of particular interest are Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who will join the G-7 leaders tomorrow for dinner. With Russia's economic problems giving rise to reactionary leaders like Vladimir Zhirinovsky, I asked Sec. Rubin just how worried we should be.

SEC. RUBIN: I think you should be enormously worried, and that is what the President has been saying since the day he first stepped into office, that this country, the United States, has an enormous self-interest in seeing a stable and prosperous Russia, and that is why we have been such a leader in the world in providing aid, ourselves, and to getting the Multilateral Development Bank and the IMF to provide assistance to Russia. We have an enormous stake in a successful Russia, and I think one of the things that as Treasury Secretary I should do and I certainly am trying to do is to help broaden the understanding amongst the American people of the tremendous stake economically and in terms of national security that we have in dealing with these global issues.

MR. SOLMAN: Do you worry about, for example, Russians selling nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, you know, that you use on a battle field and things like that, to other people, if, if - - or using them, I suppose, themselves, should a demagogue take power?

SEC. RUBIN: I think these are the kinds of issues you need to - - you do need to worry about, and I think the best answer to that concern is to promote reform, economic and political, and promote economic growth in Russia, in Ukraine, in the other countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union.

MR. SOLMAN: Closer to home, there are other economic issues the G-7 will probably be looking at. One is the possibility of a U.S. recession in the wake of surprisingly weak economic indicators. Another is the precipitous decline of the dollar against the German mark and Japanese yen.

MR. SOLMAN: How much time at Halifax are you going to spend talking about the dollar?

SEC. RUBIN: Paul, I don't think it's possible to have leaders get together or finance ministers get together and not discuss the dollar. Having said that -- or other currencies for that matter - - having said that, it is my expectation that that will be a very small part of any passing part of the conversation. I think what Halifax needs to focus on -- and I can tell you more importantly I know what the President thinks -- what the President thinks that Halifax has to focus on are these challenges that are so critical to the future of our country, the post Mexico challenges, the challenges of the developing world and Russia, challenge of continuing free trade, and then the strategic responses to those challenges.

MR. SOLMAN: Recession in the United States -- will other finance ministers ask you about that? If so, what will you say to them?

SEC. RUBIN: I'm sure at the finance ministers meetings that we will also be having in Halifax there will be discussion of current economic conditions. My response would be what I think, which is that I have thought for quite some time that the most likely outcome, the most likely scenario going forward is continued solid growth and moderate inflation, but that somewheres in here we would have a bumpy period and a much softer, much softer stand, whether it would be a month or two or three, I don't know.

MR. SOLMAN: Softer means the economy doesn't grow very much, but you're not expecting an actual receding of the economy, are you, which is what, a recession?

SEC. RUBIN: Paul, I don't think -- I don't think that we're going to actually get into a negative growth, which is what you're talking about, but I do think we'll have a period of far greater slowness. But I think if you look at what's really happening with inventories and with interest rates coming down, the various other factors that affect the economy, I think that the prognostication that we've had all along as to the most likely scenario, which is, as I say, the continuation of solid growth and moderate inflation is the most likely to occur.

MR. SOLMAN: Any issues at Halifax we've missed here? I mean, anything you're expecting that we haven't discussed?

SEC. RUBIN: I think that Halifax has another purpose, and I've seen it in our finance ministers meetings, plus the, the -- to summits I've been at so far, and that is it gives the leaders an opportunity to meet together and discuss issues of common interest, and it does provide a framework of mutual understanding which is very helpful when decisions have to be made later on.

MR. SOLMAN: So when I look at it and might cynically sometimes think or others look at it and say, gee, this is just a lavish photo opportunity, it's pre-cooked, the communique was leaked a week before, a week and a half before, which I assume didn't make anybody too happy, you think that that's an overly cynical view?

SEC. RUBIN: Oh, I think that is totally wrong. Summits are action force events, and because you have a Senate that is focused on these large global economic challenges, you have effort in all these countries to think about all these issues, work on them, work together, and the result is that specific things will get done at Halifax, and other things will be pushed forward and continue to receive attention that would not otherwise have happened. I think they're enormously important.

MR. SOLMAN: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

MS. WARNER: Still to come, Congress and defense spending, updating the Oklahoma bombing story, and treating spinal injuries. FOCUS - NECESSARY EXPENSE?

MR. LEHRER: Now, the House vote on the defense budget. Amid all the talk about spending cuts and budget balancing, House Republicans have been insisting on an increase in defense spending. Kwame Holman sums up the week-long debate that ended today.

REP. J. D. HAYWORTH, [R] Arizona: On this vote, the yeas are 300, the nays 126. The bill is passed.

KWAME HOLMAN: For the first time in 40 years, House Republicans this week played a major role in shaping the future of American military and defense policy.

REP. GERALD SOLOMON, Chairman, Rules Committee: Mr. Speaker, our country is by destiny, rather than choice, the one remaining superpower in this world, and this year, we will pass a defense budget that is equal to that obligation.

MR. HOLMAN: The House Defense Authorization Bill calls for spending more than $267 billion next year, almost $10 billion more than both the Senate and the President want to spend and more than most House Democrats want to spend.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER, [D] Colorado: What we are doing is force feeding the Pentagon money they haven't asked for. It seems to me that at a time when we are trying to balance the budget, we ought to be looking at need-based concerns.

MR. HOLMAN: But the determination of House Republicans to spend more on defense was illustrated Tuesday night during debate over one of the most costly pieces of military hardware, the B-2 Stealth bomber.

REP. BOB LIVINGSTON, Chairman, Appropriations Committee: We have no other weapon that combines the precision of the Stealth and the fire power of the B-2.

MR. HOLMAN: The B-2's attractiveness is its unique Stealth design, giving it the ability to avoid radar detection. It also has long range capability. It's major drawback is the price tag. Twenty Stealth bombers are now on order at a cost of $44 billion.

REP. RON DELLUMS, [D] California: So why do we have it?

MR. HOLMAN: Tuesday night, Congressman Ron Dellums pushed an amendment to strip $553 million from next year's defense budget, money that would keep the B-2 production line open to build 20 additional Stealth bombers.

REP. RON DELLUMS: It's not a plane that we'd need for national security. It doesn't speak to the health and safety of our troops. It's a $31.5 billion walk down a road when we're reaping havoc on the American people. It's a weapon system that we can reject.

MR. HOLMAN: Joining Dellums in the effort to build fewer B-2's was House Budget Chairman John Kasich, who has waged a five-year war against production of the Stealth bomber.

REP.

JOHN KASICH, Chairman, Budget Committee: So I said, why do we need to have the B-2, and we started this fight, and they went from about 165 of 'em down to about 130. I was down at about 13, with a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats. Three years ago, Dick Cheney calls me up and he says, "John, I can't use 13, I'd like to have 20. Frankly, I don't even want the plane." That's what he told me on the telephone. He said, "But I want to go to 20 because that'll give me a force that I can use and a force that I need, and we can wrap up the program." We ended up reaching a deal on 20 B-2 bombers. Now, last Congress, we come back. In the Armed Services Committee, they say we need to build more B-2's. I said in the Conference Committee, wait a minute, a deal is a deal, Cheney said he wanted 20, why would we build anymore?

MR. HOLMAN: And once again, Tuesday night, Kasich and Dellums found themselves pitted against some strong-minded defense hawks, including a few with actual military flying experience.

REP. ROBERT DORNAN, [R] California: Having flown the B-2 May 1st, of course, I rise in support of the great Spirit aircraft that I, myself, named.

REP. SAM

JOHNSON, [R] Texas: As a matter of fact, I was shot down in Vietnam because our government, this body, refused to supply us with the right airplanes or munitions.

RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, [R] California: Not one single member that has fought in combat in the air has supported this amendment, because they know the value and the expense of human life.

MR. HOLMAN: Also backing the B-2 were members from districts where the bomber is built. Jane Harman is from southern California, where the main B-2 contractors, Northrop-Grummond is located.

REP. JANE HARMAN, [D] California: The talented and highly skilled work force for this aircraft talks in great praise of what it has done, and that praise is well deserved. It would be tragic to lose those individuals and the skills they represent.

MR. HOLMAN: And Norm Dicks is from Washington State, home of Boeing, which builds the Stealth plane.

REP. NORM DICKS, [D] Washington: And now is the time to buy it. The line is open. If we shut the line down and come back to it, it's going to cost $10 billion just to reopen the line. That doesn't make any sense.

MR. HOLMAN: But every argument for the B-2 was met head on.

REP. RON DELLUMS: The people that built the B-2 didn't build the B-1. The people that built the B-1 didn't build the B-52. The people that built the B-52 didn't build the B-29 and didn't build the B-17. There has been no contractor that built the successive bomber. This is about preserving the industrial base of the B-2 bomber, not the bomber.

MR. HOLMAN: And John Kasich argued from his position as the House Republicans' chief deficit hawk.

REP.

JOHN KASICH: When I am faced at looking at the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the commanders in the field, the Secretary of Defense, the independent bomber study, all of which says, don't spend the money, how the heck can I come out here on the floor and vote to spend the money when I got to balance the budget by 2002 and guarantee that we have a defense that is ready, a defense that is efficient?

MR. HOLMAN: Kasich's position against the B-2 was sure to attract the support of the deficit conscious Republican freshmen, but his split with the leadership was handled gently by Majority Leader Dick Armey.

REP. DICK ARMEY, Majority Leader: John Kasich is a ball of energy with a commitment that is always heartfelt and a sincerity that is always obvious, but ladies and gentlemen, this is not about the budget. This is about the defense of our nation and the safety and the security of our children for years to come.

MR. HOLMAN: In the end, the bipartisan coalition against the B- 2 bomber simply was outnumbered by bipartisan supporters. But the matter is far from settled. There is no money in the Senate budget to build more B-2 bombers, and the President has yet to say what action he will take if Congress tries to send the Pentagon more Stealth bombers than it wants. UPDATE - OKLAHOMA FALLOUT

MS. WARNER: It has been eight weeks since the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City shocked the nation. Since then, increasing scrutiny has been applied to a small minority of Americans who fear their government and are openly preparing for warfare against it. It isn't clear whether any direct link exists between the so-called militia movement and the Oklahoma bombing. But in Washington, Sen. Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, held a long postponed hearing into the citizens' militia movement in this country.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, [R] Pennsylvania: There has been substantial evidence of growing power with the militia, and we have seen the substantial numbers of men and women in uniform, under arms, organizing, all of which is within their constitutional rights, but with the growth of the militia in many states, there is at least some reason to raise an inquiry as to whether there is a threat to public safety.

MS. WARNER: Before hearing from militia members, themselves, the subcommittee took testimony from federal and state law enforcement officials who have dealt with the militia movement.

JIM BROWN, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms: Since the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City on April 19th, much of the American public has learned for the first time through the media about the militia movement. Because of ATF's federal enforcement responsibility, which encompasses violations related to firearms, explosives, and arson, we have been involved with individuals associated with similar violent, anti-government groups since the 1970's. Militias include members with a wide spectrum of views, ranging from active opposition to the firearms laws to ideas that are extreme, violent, and paranoid.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON, [R] Tennessee: Do you have any feel about what's going on in society out there that they're responding to? Does it have to do with what's going in the nation, or does it have to do with what's going on within themselves as individuals? I'm not asking you to be psychiatrists or anything, but you deal with this out in the real world. What's your read on that?

COL. FRED MILLS, Missouri Highway Patrol: I think it's probably a combination of things. I see a lot of concern out there, a lot of misinformation. We see a lot of individuals that are really and truly I think just simply misguided. And, again, they see this as an opportunity to come to the forefront and expound those hate philosophies and carry out their acts. They found the vehicle to do what they haven't been able to do in the past, and it's kind of a fad now.

MS. WARNER: Next, the Senators heard from a panel of militia leaders. From the outset, the militia members insisted they'd been mischaracterized by a hostile media.

KEN ADAMS, Michigan Militia: The militias many times have been reported in the media that they hate their government, this is not so. We think that our government, that this body is the finest form of government in the world, and it could not be better. Are there problems in government? Certainly, there's problems. You can hardly find an American that doesn't have something to complain about. Your body, itself, whether you're Republican or Democrat, is complaining about the other side. That's America. That's good and that's healthy, and we believe in the freedom of speech. We do not believe in hatred. We do not believe in racism. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't fringe elements out there, but it is wrong. If they use hate, if they use violence, if they do not abide the law, we will be the first to expose them.

NORMAN OLSON, Michigan Militia: You're trying to make us out to be something that we are not, much like the press has tried to do over this last year. We are not what you think we are. We are not what the press wants to feed to the American people. The thing that we stand against is corruption. We stand against oppression and tyranny in government. And we, many of us, are coming to the conclusion that you best represent that corruption and tyranny.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I don't take lightly your comment to me that I represent corruption. I don't take that lightly at all. And I want --

NORMAN OLSON: Well, let me say it again, if you didn't understand what I said.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: And I want you to prove it, if you're going to say that.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: You mentioned the problems, as you say, with our government. You talk about the tax rates being too high, you talk about government being too big, too intrusive, and all those things, many of which many of us are also concerned about and are trying to do something about. What's your problem with, with working through the process to solve these problems?

JAMES JOHNSON, Ohio Militia: We advocate that more than everything, voting, but we seem to have a problem here during these campaigns when all of these wonderful politicians, God love 'em, say whatever they're going to say, and they get inside the beltway, and everything is, how do we say, politics as usual. What this militia is now, it's a mind set. It's the civil rights movement of the 90's. It's people sitting here with "Don't tread on me" stamped across their forehead. There's people drawing the line in the land. That's what it is. Nobody's going to go out there and shoot things. Nobody is going to go out there and blow up things. We're not baby killers; we're baby boomers. We're not terrorists; we're taxpayers. We're not extremists; we're just extremely ticked off at the way the government is deviating away from what's going on around here.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, [D] California: Do you believe there are circumstances in which you can take the law into your own hands?

NORMAN OLSON: There is no other reason to take law into one's own hands unless it's for the preservation of himself.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Do the people in your organization stockpile weapons?

NORMAN OLSON: I wouldn't say stockpiling. No one should have more than they should need.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: How many weapons does an individual need?

NORMAN OLSON: It depends upon the threat that they perceive.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: So is it fair to say that there could be unlimited numbers of weapons?

NORMAN OLSON: Possibly. The old adage in the military is accuracy is everything.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: And what do you do with these weapons?

NORMAN OLSON: Prepare ourselves to defend ourselves, ma'am. We are not offensive. We are defensive, purely defensive.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Do you believe there are any circumstances in which an individual has a right to blow up a building? And let's start with you, Mr. Trochmann.

JOHN TROCHMANN, Montana Militia: Absolutely not, Mrs. Feinstein, absolutely not. We are plain and simple a neighborhood watch, watching out for problems. When we encounter what we perceive as threats to a peaceful society, we do something about it. We --

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, let me ask you this.

JOHN TROCHMANN: -- alert the proper officials.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: If you're plain and simple, why do I read constantly --

JOHN TROCHMANN: That's the problem.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: -- these violent quotes, this hatred for other people, this anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti -- I mean, driving people to have this intense fear and antagonism, if you're --

JOHN TROCHMANN: Would you like my black friend to answer that for you?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: No, no, no, no.

JOHN TROCHMANN: I'm sick -- wait a minute - I'm sick and tired of these questions --

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I asked you.

JOHN TROCHMANN: -- constantly.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I asked you why --

JOHN TROCHMANN: We have gone over it and over it and over it, and if you want to blame somebody about it, take a look at the press. We're telling them one thing. They're telling you something else. I already addressed it.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: So you're saying you don't say these things?

JOHN TROCHMANN: No, ma'am, I do not say that.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Okay.

JOHN TROCHMANN: We're all in this together.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: That's all I wanted to know. So all those comments are wrong?

JOHN TROCHMANN: I'm sorry. Mrs. Feinstein, what we're saying is we are all in this together. America better put away its differences, or we'll cease to have a country. We shouldn't be your side and my side; we should all be for the same, the betterment of our country and for our fellow countrymen.

MS. WARNER: While the Senate looked into attitudes of militia leaders, the FBI continued to look for further suspects and evidence in the Oklahoma bombing. Two men are being held in connection with the blast, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Lynn Nichols. Ron Ostrow of the Los Angeles Times has been covering the investigation. He joins us now for an update on where things stand. Ron, welcome. The attorney general today confirmed reports that have been in your newspaper and others saying that John Doe 2, the widely sought second suspect who was supposed to have come to help rent this truck has been found and turns out has nothing to do with the bombing. Who is this guy, and how did this confusion happen?

RON OSTROW, Los Angeles Times: Well, the guy is Todd Bunting, a 23-year-old Ft. Riley, Kansas, infantryman. He went to the -- the investigators have learned he went to the Ryder outlet, Elliot's Body Shop in Junction City, on April 16th, one day before Timothy McVeigh goes there allegedly to rent the truck used in the bombing. When the witness who provided such great details of McVeigh -- you saw the drawing and it was so close to the likeness -- was asked whether there was anyone else there, he said there was at the rear of the shop. He said nothing -- this -- the second individual -- and he provided details for a sketch of him. In fact, there were three sketches done trying to get more precise. Finally, after some embarrassing chases and apprehensions that turned out not to be apprehensions, the FBI now says that the John Doe 2 in that drawing is this Todd Bunting, and there was a mistake. He apparently confused the time, the witness.

MS. WARNER: Did they -- do investigators think, though, still that there was a second man with McVeigh or not?

MR. OSTROW: Well, the FBI in the announcement said they, indeed, are still investigating whether there was a second man, because the witness, I believe, still says he believes there was a second man.

MS. WARNER: Just not that man. Now how much does this undercut the credibility of that witness, when this kind of thing gets to trial?

MR. OSTROW: You know, he was going to be in a movie -- a major eyewitness. McVeigh came there under -- allegedly came there under an alias to rent the truck -- he'll still be, I assume a major witness if a trial is ever held. It hurts -- it concerns prosecutors when an eyewitness's credibility is questioned, and it gives defense attorneys something to really hammer at, you know, and Jones -- Steven Jones -- the attorney for McVeigh -- has already done that with this John Doe 2 incident, but they still have amassed a great deal of physical evidence that I believe links McVeigh to the crime. And that you're not going to need any eyewitness for.

MS. WARNER: The other development that sort of burst on the public scene this week is about a safe deposit key that was apparently stolen from a robbery in Arkansas and found in Terry Nichols' home. Explain that to us and what's the significance of it.

MR. OSTROW: Well, that emerged in the unsealing of some documents that were submitted in connection with the arrest of Terry Nichols' brother, who is now charged with other crimes, not the bombing.

MS. WARNER: James Nichols.

MR. OSTROW: James Nichols. That affidavit -- the FBI affidavit - - said that there had been -- which was just released earlier this week -- said there had been a safety deposit box key found in Terry Nichols' home, this safe deposit box key had been stolen from the home of a Royal Arkansas gun collector, along with a number of weapons, jewels, cash, other items. The significance is it may show how they helped finance themselves during -- they being both Terry Nichols and McVeigh. McVeigh is linked because the victim of the crime, whose name has not been revealed, has been withheld by the authorities so far, says, according to the affidavit, that McVeigh had visited his gun collection, knew of it, several times, and he thinks he was responsible now.

MS. WARNER: And also I suppose if they could tie them to this robbery back in November, it would show, wouldn't it, that they'd been engaged in a criminal conspiracy together?

MR. OSTROW: That's right.

MS. WARNER: Some six months before.

MR. OSTROW: That's right, of some duration, that's correct, and it may show that there were others, it may lead to others.

MS. WARNER: So -- and, again, I'm sort of asking you to let us know what the investigators are thinking -- if they're now thinking that these two guys might have been able to finance this operation, themselves, through robberies like this one, what has that done to their original theory that this had to be a large conspiracy? Are they now thinking it could be much smaller?

MR. OSTROW: That, that came out this week too, that, indeed, their theory now is that it was a smaller group. Nothing's for certain. They're still running down all kinds of leads, but you're no longer hearing the high numbers of, you know, up to six, up to ten, those kind of figures. You're hearing, well, it could be these two and a couple of peripheral figures. You know, it just may be that there was no direction, other than the two that you see.

MS. WARNER: Now, we just heard this testimony from the militia hearings. What is the status of the investigators' thoughts about links between these two alleged perpetrators, the bombing itself, and the militia movement?

MR. OSTROW: Well, these two perpetrators seem to share some of the same rhetoric, some of the same deep-seated dislike for the federal government, but there's no evidence that I know of that has been uncovered that shows there's any militia direction. In fact, they were disowned by some of the militia.

MS. WARNER: So how strong would you say the case is now against McVeigh and against Nichols, Terry Nichols?

MR. OSTROW: From all I can learn, it's very strong with regard to McVeigh. In fact, one source said, we're going to bury him, with regard to the physical evidence. As far as Terry Nichols, I don't think it's quite that strong, but I think they're building it as time goes on, and there are still some other figures to come, I believe.

MS. WARNER: What's missing for the Terry Nichols, the case against Terry Nichols? What makes the investigators concerned that maybe they don't have an air tight case?

MR. OSTROW: I don't think they have the same amount of physical evidence that they've uncovered against McVeigh.

MS. WARNER: I see. The other thing that puzzled me, Ron, is that neither of these guys has been indicted yet. Now, why is that? And how long can this go on? I mean, they're being held but they're not indicted.

MR. OSTROW: Well, the government's already got the judge's permission to -- for a date extended to August 11th, with regard to McVeigh. I believe they have not yet got it on -- an extension on Terry Nichols. That probably will be given to August 11th. I don't think that there's any doubt that the judge will grant that as well. It's a -- it's a complicated case. You don't have anybody -- at least in view -- cooperating here, and they're testing all -- conducting all kinds of physical tests that take time. But the defense says otherwise.

MS. WARNER: What is the advantage to prosecutors in not indicting them just on the basis of what they've got?

MR. OSTROW: Well, for one thing, you don't get -- the defense doesn't get the rights to discovery that they get once an indictment -- i.e., discovering what the government's evidence is - - once an indictment is returned, they do have that right, so that's one major feature. And they're going on with the investigation in this period.

MS. WARNER: So you mean right now the defense -- there's really very little they can do.

MR. OSTROW: Oh, they have their own investigators, and they're out -- in fact, they're trying to talk to the witness at Elliot's Body Shop, the chief witness, who seems to have been confused. And they're -- so far, I think they've been unsuccessful.

MS. WARNER: Now, there have been two other figures that at a certain point a lot was made of that they're a possibility, that they can be involved, and one is James Nichols, Terry Nichols' brother. Where do things stand? He was held for a while but then released. Where do things stand with him?

MR. OSTROW: Well, James Nichols will face his charges in a non- directly-related explosives conspiracy charge. McVeigh and Terry Nichols are also named in that but not as -- they haven't been indicted. Only James Nichols has been indicted. Meanwhile, they're going on with an investigation regarding the bombing. And they don't have the kind of direct evidence that they have with regard to the other two, but they're still continuing.

MS. WARNER: What was that report that we heard this week that James Nichols had a conversation years ago about this building with someone? What was that?

MR. OSTROW: There was a confidential informant that the FBI had that again surfaced when these documents were made public who said that James Nichols on December 22 or 23, 1988, talked to him about the feasibility of blowing up a building and then specified the federal building in Oklahoma City, and then looked for a news clipping to show him a picture of it, couldn't find it, and drew a diagram, and they say that the diagram matched the Murrah Building, which, of course, destroyed.

MS. WARNER: So he knew the building well?

MR. OSTROW: That's what the confidential informant's information would indicate.

MS. WARNER: And then there was another figure, the name of Michael Fortier.

MR. OSTROW: That's right.

MS. WARNER: Who is he?

MR. OSTROW: He's back in Kingman, Arizona. He was an associate of -- he is an associate of McVeigh from the days in Kingman, Arizona, which is the last residence McVeigh had. He was for a while in Oklahoma City before the grand jury, talking to investigators. It looked like there might be -- the beginnings of a deal might be struck, but then he went back to Kingman. There was no deal struck, but I'm told that he's still under heavy FBI surveillance in Kingman.

MS. WARNER: But I mean what information did they think he had?

MR. OSTROW: Well, he has said that he and McVeigh actually went to Oklahoma City and looked over the building prior to the bombing.

MS. WARNER: And then finally, is Timothy McVeigh still maintaining absolute silence? What's known about how he's handling himself?

MR. OSTROW: Except with his attorneys, as far as I know, he hasn't said a word to the government. He or Nichols aren't talking to the government.

MS. WARNER: Terry Nichols isn't either?

MR. OSTROW: That's right.

MS. WARNER: Well, thank you, Ron, very much. Thanks for being with us. FOCUS - CORRECTIVE TREATMENT

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a look at advances in treating devastating spinal injuries like the one suffered recently by actor Christopher Reeve. His fall from a horse left him paralyzed from the neck down. Tom Bearden reports.

MR. BEARDEN: Michelle and Matt Young are putting on their safety equipment, getting ready to go roller-blading with their dad. Dad will be on a different set of wheels. Tom Young is a quadriplegic, but he can still play with his kids.

TOM YOUNG: My level of injury is extremely high, so the only ability that I have is to be able to move my neck and shrug my shoulders.

MR. BEARDEN: Young can tow his children in a roller-blade slalom because he can control his wheelchair by breathing, sipping, and puffing through a plastic tube.

TOM YOUNG: This "sip and puff" wheelchair is, is operated through this straw. As I tell children, it's my steering wheel, and as I sip or puff into this tube, the chair either goes forward, backwards, or I can also recline to take a rest.

MR. BEARDEN: Young wound up in the wheelchair because he saved someone's life five years ago. One afternoon, firefighter Young was called out to rescue a hang-glider pilot stranded on the side of a mountain. He repelled down from a helicopter and cut the man free of the harness. Then a gust of wind caught the glider. It pushed him off the cliff.

TOM YOUNG: I fell off the side of a mountain approximately 15 feet, fracturing my cervical vertebrae at cervical vertebrae number four, which left me paralyzed from the neck down.

MR. BEARDEN: Young's fall damaged his spinal cord, which transmits the brain's commands to the rest of the body. Because his injury occurred high in his back, at vertebrae number four, both his legs and arms are paralyzed. An injury lower in the back might only affect the legs. Depending on the severity of the injury, other bodily systems can also be affected -- loss of the ability to breathe, to control body temperature, blood pressure, sexual function, bowel and bladder control. About 10,000 Americans a year suffer spinal cord injuries. The majority get hurt in automobile accidents, the rest in falls and participating in sports. Violent crime is a small but increasing cause of such injuries. Most of the victims are young, active men, and according to Dr. Daniel Lammertse, that makes the injury doubly devastating.

DR. DANIEL LAMMERTSE, Medical Director, Craig Hospital: It's a period of tremendous wrenching change for patients and families to suddenly wind up in the hospital with such a catastrophic injury, especially when you understand that most of these people are young males who were emotionally immortal, if you will, prior to their injury and all of a sudden are wondering, lying in bed, wondering if they're going to survive.

TOM YOUNG: Probably one of the toughest things was having to rely on other people when I was so independent before and having to ask for everything from having an itch on the top of my head to having to have a drink of water, to be able to be able to be fed.

THERAPIST: Twenty-five elbow bends.

MR. BEARDEN: To help victims recover some independence, rehabilitation hospitals like Craig Hospital in Denver put patients through a rigorous program of physical therapy. Treatment can take from several weeks to several months. Tom Young spent three and a half months here. Dennis O'Malley is the hospital administrator.

DENNIS O'MALLEY, Craig Hospital: They're working on strengthening of the available musculature that's left. They have different levels of paralysis at this point in time, but they're trying to work on building muscles that they're going to be able to use and need to use to propel a wheelchair, to perform transfers, to do other activities in daily living, and it's very important that we use the available musculature, strengthen it, so that they can be as independent as possible.

THERAPIST: Hug nine, hold it in there.

MR. BEARDEN: These techniques have been around a long time, but there have been major advancements in treatment in recent years. Dr. Lammertse says when he was in medical school, spinal injuries were considered hopeless, research a waste of time. Lammertse says newly available drugs administered immediately after accidents are a major advancement.

DR. DANIEL LAMMERTSE: There are medications that are now being used to try to limit the amount of damage and, therefore, improve the degree of neurologic recovery, and this has been a real significant change just in the past five years, so the research is starting to pay off with some real treatments.

MR. BEARDEN: Dr. Lammertse says within a few years research into tissue transplants may well yield another major breakthrough by bypassing, even repairing damaged spinal cord tissue.

DR. DANIEL LAMMERTSE: It's no longer a question of if but when a biological treatment for paralysis is going to be available, and I firmly believe and hope that it is within most of our lifetimes. In fact, we've never had the feeling that we've had the ability to change the impairment, itself, and this is certainly an exciting prospect.

MR. BEARDEN: Meanwhile, technology, like "sip and puff" chairs and voice-activated computers help people regain some measure of control over their lives.

TOM YOUNG: I'm able to turn lights on and off, open doors, anything with a remote control I'm able to utilize by use of the voice.

MR. BEARDEN: Technology has even allowed Young to go back to work again doing administrative tasks for the fire department.

TOM YOUNG: After spending two and a half years at home, basically feeling sorry for myself and counting flowers on the wall, I decided it was time to go back to work, or I should say maybe we decided that one of us had to go back to work. Being together 24 hours a day was a little bit too much, and the city, Golden, made it available for me to go back to work. They made my office accessible, put a lift on the stairs, and purchases a voice- activated computer, and I work approximately 30 hours a week.

MR. BEARDEN: Despite his paralysis, Young says some good has come out of his accident.

TOM YOUNG: I think I've missed out on a lot of minor details of my children growing up that I really let slide by before, sitting down and listening to them read or helping them read, helping them with school work.

LINDA YOUNG: He goes to all their school functions and baseball games and I -- I don't think that it would have been quite that way. He was kind of a workaholic.

MR. BEARDEN: You seem at peace with yourself?

TOM YOUNG: You know, I've learned that there is life after a spinal cord injury, and actually there's parts of my life that are much better that I stopped to realize that I really missed out on a lot of things before, being so busy with the hustle and bustle of everyday life.

MR. BEARDEN: Administrator O'Malley says Young's case and others like it are examples that able-bodied people should study.

DENNIS O'MALLEY: And these people, despite the fact that maybe their body doesn't work in quite the same ways, are still intelligent people, they're still people with goals and ambitions. Many go on and have relationships and marriages and families and jobs and go to school and do things that the able-bodied population does as well. So I think there's a -- there's a common perception that in some respects you have to write these people off, and it simply isn't true.

MR. BEARDEN: Tom Young's ability to deal with his paralysis may be exceptional but is not unique. A Craig Hospital study says some 80 percent of spinal injury patients say their quality of life is good, and they're glad to be alive. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, President Clinton joined other world leaders in how Halifax, Canada, for the annual G-7 summit. At a meeting with Japan's prime minister, Mr. Clinton repeated his threat to impose sanctions on Japanese luxury cars. And the Bosnian army launched an attack on Serb forces outside Sarajevo. It was an attempt to break their three-year blockade of the capital. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Margaret. We'll see you tomorrow night with Shields and Gigot, among other persons and things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.