TV Channel 5 Wed Dec 18 14:08:16 2002
Ca sng sng spoornslehrer produioctns eh lehre gr:D ooeneving. M I'm lem lehr.Er onon t nheewshr outonit:Gh ammsuarofy nhe new ts;esatesatt
ton tonhe u.S. And british response to iraq's weapons report; and on the fate of senate republican leader trent lott; plus a report on the ongoing mistrust between native americans and the federal government; and a look at some new research on treating hypertension. Major funding for the newshour with jim lehr has been provided by:
Imagine a world where no child begs for food. While some will look on that as a dream, others will look long and hard and get to work. A.D.M., The nature of what's to come. And by s.B.C. Communications. S.B.C.'S nearly 190,0p0 people e proud of what they've built, and how they've but it. A big company, a big responsibility, infinite service. S.B.C. This program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. And by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you.
>> Lehrer: Theraqi weapons report is full of serious omissions and probms. That was the judgment today on both sides of the atlantic. In washington, secrery of state powell said: In london, the british foreign secretary, jack straw, said the iraqi document was "an obvious falsehood." Tomorrow, the chief U.N. Weapons inspector, hans blix, gives the u.N. Security council his preliminary view. An official U.S. Response will also be offered tomorrow. We'll have more on this story in a moment. Russia expressed regret today, over the u.S. Decision to begin deploying a missile defense system by 2004. President bush ordered the move yesterday. The russian foreign ministry warned it could weaken global stability, and touch off a new arms race. Senator republican leader trent lott vowed to fight for his post today, and he said he would not quit the senate regardless. He's under growing pressure to resign as leader for praising strom thurmond's presidential bid as a segregationist in 1948. The president has ndemned hi remarks, but in biloxi, mississippi, lott said he has support in the senate and the white house.
>> I've talked to the president and we had a very good conversation. There seems to be some things that are kind of seeping out that may be have not been helpful, and i understand how that happened because you got a lot of peoe that work there, have different points of view, but i believe that they do support what I'm trying to do here, and the president will continue to do so.
>> Lehrer: Later, a white house spokesman said lott had not spoken with the president, but may have talked to his aides. Meanwhile, other republicans criticized lott. In providence, rhode island, senator lincoln chafee said he'd like to see lott replaced when senate republicans meet january 6. In florida, governor jeb bush, the president's brother, said lott's remarks were damaging to the party. And in washington, secretary of state colin powell said this:
>> I deplored the sentiments behind the statement. There was nothing about t 1948 election or the dixie crat agenda that should have been acceptable any way to any american at that time or any american now.
>> Lehrer: Powell went on to say he accepts lott's apologies as sincere, but he said, "we'll see how this plays out." We'll have more on this story later in the proam. A dutch court cleared four men today of plotting to attack U.S. Targets in europen the men had been arrested after the 9/11 attacks. They allegedly took part in plans to bomb the U.S. Embassy in paris, and a military depot in belgium. The court ruled the evidence against them was obtained illegally. A court in india sentenced three kashmiri muslims to death today, in last year's attk on the indian parliament. Five gunmen stormed the legislature in december. They killed nine people before being shot dead themselves. Those sentenced today were convicted of aiding the attackers. Seven people were indicted in dallas today on charges of financing terrorists. One was described as a leader the islamic militant group hamas. He and the oths we accused of laundering money and shipping computers to libya and syria. The U.S. Has listed th countries as state sponsors terror. In washington, attorney general ashcroft said the arrests send a message to money men.
>> We are hunting down the murders you support and we will hunt you down. Just as we will prosecutor the terrorist who plants a bomb, we will prosecutor the terrorist supporter who wtes a check. We will follow the money of terror and we will pursue the financers of terror as aggressively as we pursue the thugs who do their dirty work.
>> Lehrer: Five of the suspects are now in custody. The accused hamas leader and his wife are believed to be somewhere in the middleast. Insurance and finance company conseco filed r feral bankruptcy protection late tuesday. It was the third largest such filing in U.S. History. Conseco faces deep debt and a federal investigation into its accounting practices, but the company's insurance operations remain sound and are not part of the bankruptcy case. That news sent stocks down on wall street today. The dow jones industrial average lost 88 points to close at 8,447. The nasdaq fell more than 30 points, 2% of its value, to close at 1361. Halliburton company announced today plannto settle lawsuits against it due to asbestos exposure. The oilfield services company they face some 300,000 personal injury claims. Most are against a subsidiary that the company brought four years ago. Dick cney was running the company then before leaving to become vice president. The nation's largest for-profit hospital chain will settle with the justice department, over allegations of fraud. H.C.A. Announced today it will pay $630 million. That's on top of $850 million it agreed to pay last year. In return, the government will ena long-running investigation. H.C.A. Was accused of filing false claims for medicare and bribing doctors. The interim leader of the catholic church in boston called today for settling all claims of sexual abuse by priests. Some 400 lawsuits are pending against the archdiocese of boston. Bishop richard lenn appealed for everyone to work for a fair and equitable solution.
>> We have asked counsel or the arch diocese of boston to requesr that all parties set aside except for activity mandated by the court the day to day litigation activities for a period o Time so as to permit all parties to actively pursue the potential for a comprehensive settlement of all cases.
>> Lehrer: Lennon also confirmed the archdiocese is still considering filing for bankruptcy. He replaced cardinal bernard law last week as leader of the boston church. Law resigned under fire for his handling of abuse cases. The federal trade commission announced new rules today to control telemarketing calls. They create a national registry of consumers who don't want to receive sales calls. Violators may be fined up to $11,000 for each call to someone on the list. Congress still has to approve a way of financing the plan. When it comes to treating high blood pressure, old-fashioned diuretics are as good newer, more expensive drugs. The "journal of the american medical association" published that finding today from a government study. About 50 million americans have high blood pressure. Diuretics, or water pills, control it by ridding the body of excess water ansodium. We'll have more on this at the end of the program tonight. Also coming, questions about the iraq weapons report, a trent lott update, and t u.S. Government's ongoing native american problem.
>> Lehrer: Iraq's weapons report. The british responded today, the americans will do so tomorrow. Gwen ifill has the story.
>> Ifill: Two weeks ago, iraqi officials submitted a 12,000- page weapons declaration they described as full and complete. But today, britain, america's chief ally in any potential war against iraq, said officials in baghdad are not telling the truth. Ime minister tony blair spoke in britain's house of commons.
>> I think most people who have looked at this obviously very long document are very skeptical about the claims that it makes, but it's important that we study it in detail and make a formal and considerate response.
>> Reporter: British foreign secretary jack straw used even stronger words in a statement issued today, saying the declaration had "obvious omissions." His will fool nobody," he said.
In washington, u.S. Officials awting reports from two international inspections agencies were also skeptical about the contents of the iraqi rbdocuments. Secretary of state colin powell.
>> Our analysis of the iraqi declaration to this point, almost two weeks into the process this weekend, shows problems with e declaration, gaps, omissions, and all this is troublesome. In my conversations with other permanent members of the security council, I sense they also see deficiencies in the resolution... In the declaration.
>> Ifill: Another white house official described the declaration as saddam hussein's last chance. The U.S. Is expected to release its official response the iraqi declaration tomorrow. Meanwhile, u.N. Weapons inspecrs are in their fourth week on the job. They are expted to report their initial findings to the security council january 27. For more on the latest developments on iraq, we turn to terence taylor, a lead weapons inspector during the 1990s. He is now executive director of the washington office of the international institute for strategic studies. Eliot cohen, director of the strategic studies program at john's hopkins university's school of advanced international studies. And john mearsheimer, co- direor of the ogram on international security policy at the university of chicago. Eliot cohen, we've seen some of this before what we saw happening today which is to say britain speaks very strongly then the u.S. Follows the next day or within a week. What was the significance of what jack straw, the foreign secretary and topey blair, the prime mnister had to say today?
>> Well, i'm not sure that there is really an enormous amount of significance to T. I guess it seed to me if there was one thing that was predictable and to be expected it was that the iraqis are going to cheat once again. We've had a tremendously long and unambiguous record of the aqis being deceitful in terms of fessing up to what their weapons of mass destruction of programs are. We know previously they put ar4 tremendous emphasis on maintaining them. They have elaborate systems to deserve us about them, to deserve the inspectors, to stay on top of the inspectors, so i don't think there is any surprise. It does seem to me we are headed to a confrontation. I think this is just really another sp on the way that was chartered by the president this past summer.
>> Ifill: Jean mearsheimer, another step also when secretary powell says we are not encoursed they have goten the message or will cooperate. Parse the words the secretary said today for us.
>> Well, i think fit of all, it's quite clear that the administration believes that the declaration, that the iraqis have subttedis filled o -- filled with omissions and it's false but that does not mean that the iraqis are not cooperating with us. It, when the resolution was written, resolution 1441, it had two pts to it. It saidhat they could make false dlafertions, but even if they made false declarations, that by itself was not sufficient to provide for material breach which?ould be a causes welly -- belly.
>> Ifill: Or cause to go to war.
>> They also had not cooperate with the inspectors. Up to now they have been cooperating with t inspectors, they have had pretty much free rein inside iraq. So i think until there is a breakdown in cooperation with the inspections it's going to be very hard to get a material breach.
>> Ifill: Mr. Jean mearsheimer says it's possible not to tell the truth in these documents with you still -- but still be considered to be cooperating, do you see it that way?
>> No, i don't: I find that an extraordinary interpretation. I think here with this so-called full, fin and complete declaration that was illegally -- this was a legally binding obligation that ruck had to meet in $ing its past and present programs. And i think they have failed in a most fundamental way with failing to make a proper declaration. That is if we are to believe obviously what has been said in london and washington today. We don't know full what he is in there, but it seems as though it's ju recycled information.
>> Ifill: We don't know fully what is in there. You are right. But we also don't know fully why the united states says that they don't believe that they are being truthful, the united states and britain have both suggested that they have evidence that there are other things going on. That saddam hussein is that is not admitting to. Do they have to come clean with what they know, the u.S. And britain,n order to bring our countries on board?
>> Well, i think it's pretty clearhat iraq needs to answer the outstanding issues. All tse outstanding issues were agreed by the u.N. Secuty council back in 1999 after the inspectors were, inspections ceased in 199.
A whole list in each of the areas, nuclear, biolooj cal where iraq was required to deliver the corrt information, veriable information. They failed to do so. If they haven't answered those questions even, then i don't think this is a viable document and a document on which one can proceed with inspections.
>> Ifill: Mr. Eliot cohen, what do you think about that. Will the u.S. Or britain have to reveal what they say they know about iraq really has.
>> We will reveal tngs but it will be primarily for political reasons. There is aactual matter. I look carefully at the U.N. Resolution 1441 fore coming over here. The first paragraph says the iraqis are in material breach as they've been for quite sometime because they we-yre supposed to agree to the uncondition destruction of their wmentdz.
Further says omission constitute further material breach. Soir don't agree with my colleague professor mers hate crimer but point is there are plenty of reasons thus far to know that the iraqis are welling weapons of mass destruction and the causes belly exists. If you look at president clinton's speech which he gave on december 16, 1998 before launching a four-day air operation that we and the british conducted against iraq you'll see he says we already have actionable reasons to use force against iraq. Of course we did. Not terribly effecvely. But we did so. So you don't need anything more than you've already got. For political reasons i suspect we probably will put more things out on the table.
>> Ifill: Let me give mr. Jean mearsheimer a chance to defend his point.
>> I think this is a misinterpretation of what actually happened in the united nations leading up to resolution 1441. First of al there, is no doubt that as eliot cohen point o paragraph one says in the past, they have been in material breach but the question is what have they done since the resolution was passed that might constitute material breach? And secretary of sate powell, his dpurt, rick armitage and the british ambassador to the united nations green stock all said explicitly fse statements by the iraqis by themselves did not constitute material breach. There also had to be a lack of cooperation with the inspections which there has not been up to this point. This i would submit is the principle reason that the bush administration today and tomorrow when it will say that the iraqis have made false statements will not declare its in material breach because to declare that the iraqies are in material breach involves proving number one they provided false information and number two that they are not cooperating with the inspectors.
>> Ifill: Mr. Taylor lets assume that the U.S. That's what it has been saying madly that it's going to do, declare these documents are false and m?isleading and, therefore, constitute some form of of material breach. Let's assume that happens. Then what? We heard the white house officials said today this is saddam hussein's last chance. We've heard the president said zero terance on that. What happens?
>> Well, we are now engaged in a political process where the united states and the u.K. Want the support of t other members of the council. Ai i agree with mr. Eliot cohen they are already in material breach but clearly there wants to be support for what further action follows. But I find it hard to imagine without some new information turning up or being delivered to the inspectors that we will be engaged in a long inspection process. Because i think cooperating with the inspectors is an easy matter for the iraqis to actually do on the ground. They've done it in t past and they'll do it again. So i think there will have to be some subantive action b the first step is to get everything in the security council agree if this is the case, that this declaration just doesn't measure up to what is required.
>> Ifill: Until that happens eliot cohen, until all of the members of the security couil agree, is the prospect of war very backburner?
>> No, it's not backburner at all. I think what is going to happen is we probably will go to war. It will be in somewhat ambiguous circumstances. We may very well not have everybody on the security council on board but if you look closely at the resolution which i would urge people to do, you can access it all that the resolution says is that the u.N. Security council is going to convene to discuss further breaches. But I think it's really more important in a way we step back and say what is the situation that we have? The situation that we have is this is a regime which has devoted enormous effort to develop some of the most terrible weapons known to man kind of the they'veepeatedly lied and deserved and cheated about T. They are bound and determined to develop these things. The inspections regime collapsed four years ago. Everybody who was involved in the previous inspections regime which were tougher than what we have now will tell that you it was a very difficult thing to do. That the iraqis had intelligence all over them. They got to be very good at concealing things so there is only two choices. Do you go to war and try to overthrow the regime and remove the weapons of mass destruction which is a dangerous thing to do, or do you say, well, we know they probably have them. And we're going to rely on deterence that is a fundamental choice, those are both risky choices, i know where i would me down but that is the fundamental choice, I think it's a mass take to get too caught up in the legalistic process, the u.S. Does not need u.N. Thortion authorization to use force.
>> Ifill: We're waiting to see what the u.S. Says tomorrow. Waiting to hear what hans blix saysomorrows about the ut documes and waiting to hear further down the road what the inspectors say they have found at the end of january. Do you think that, do you agree these are all legalistic sticks leading us to war?
>> In part they are. But these legalistic steps were all designed toreate a situation where the united states could get allies to fight against saddam hussein. The last thing the uned states wants to do is go to war unaterally against iraq. What it wants is al lies that, is the reason we've gonehe u.N. Route but to get allies on board we had to pursue a legalistic process. The reason we're having this debate over exactly what paragraph four says is because our allies forced us to have that debate. They made it very clear that they were?oing to put a set of strictures on us that made it impossible to goo war with them unless saddam hussein did certain things.
>> Ifill: Has there lrb let me interrupt because i'm curious, has there been any movement on this? We've been hearing from the beginning we needed allies in order to act. Have mind been changed? Is there any sign of other people being qijsed to go along with the U.S. On this?
>> I think -- no, i think there has been very little change in the attitudes of country like france, china and russia. They basically have no interest in going to war. They've gone to great electrics to put strictures on the u.S. That make it impossible to do that. Whether the united states can get around that remains to be seen, a lot depend whether number one they can prove that saddam actually does have weapons of mass destructn and has been deserving us and then they have to get the situation where saddam does not cooperate with us. In the absence of those -- two things, i think it's going to be very difficult to get allies, to get this through the united nations. Therefore, it will be difficult for the united states to go to war because it doesn't want to do this unilaterally.
>> Ifill: As a former inspector yourself what do the inspectors on the ground have to bring to the table in order to start the change of mind to stop this process or to change the mind of the allies?
>> I don't think they can do it themselves, I think the extern matters like the unity of the security council and the threats of force are the key issues. If the inspectors are to have any chance of success. They don't at the moment have sufficient resources to get around the country to all the different sites. To produce the information. It will take them a very long time. They could well be given new information by the u.S. Or the united ngdom or a number of other country that is might help them in their work but i would like to recall the words of foreign minister jack straw of the u.K.. He said in his remarks that the iraqis by faing with this declaration have rejected the pathway to peace. That is a pretty strong statement.
>> Ifill: We'll leave it there. Terence taylor, eliot cohen, and jean mearsheimer, thank you very much for joining us.
>> Lehrer: Still to come on the newshour tonight, a trent lott update, a question of trust, and trTing hypertension.
>> Lehrer: Now the latest on the lott story. The republan's embattled senate leader spoke briefly to reporters in biloxi, mississippi, this morning.
>> I am hanging in there. We are going to work through this in a positive way. I do have support my colleagues in our conference there in the senate, and i'm going to continue to reach out to men and women of all backgrounds and races and ethnic backgrounds to learn how we can turn ts situation into a positive for our state and for all american people. That's what I'm committed to and i'm working on a plan to help carry that out. Life is a series of challenges in my opinion. There are good times, bad times, and times for correction. You learn, you make a mistake, and you look at that and ask why did th happen and how did affect people? Did it hurt people, and what can you do to correct that? There have been other people forever that have had a bad expeence and then have wked to overcome it, and have made, you know, things occur, helped things to occur that actually help people. But it's going to be specifics. We're going to have to do things like making sure that people that need help get it, whether it's our elderly poor or whether it's our inner city people that need community renewal, whether it's faith-based initiat&yes that help people in personal basis, whether it's, you know, voting rights requirements that are enforced with election laws that actually provide funds to make sure we do have an election system that's fair for everybody and th not only can they vote, they'll have their vote counted whether it's in mississippi, or whher it's in oregon, or maine, nationwide. I have been on the phone, obviously, continuously for the last week and have been talking to senators, frankly, of both parties. I've had democrats that have called,?ent e-mails, saying "we've been through difficult times and we understand and we're with you." Offered their support, many of them have said, "what can i say?" I said, "well, if you have something to say..." Like former senator paul simon from illinois, was there at that event that i spoke to and he has spoken up. Bob dole last night, orrin hatch this morning. So yes, a lot of senators have been... I've been talking to them and, you know, answering their questions, asking their advice, and I believe I have their support. You know, there are simple thingsn life that become quite complicated. Quite simply, I was elected by the people of mississippi to a six-year term. I have served two years of that contract. I have a contract and I'm going toulfill it.
>> Lehrer: And to margaret warner.
>> Warner: For the latest twists and turns in this story we're joined by karen tumulty of "time" magazine, and long-time congressional watcher norman ornstein, resident schar at the american enterprise institute. Karen tumulty. Today we had as we head trent vow to keep his senator post but senator chafee became the first to call for him to ten down, what is the state of play.
>> It's becoming clear there are two realities here. There is the immediate reality for senator lott. Sort of the reality inside the bunker. He has got to get 26 republican senators to support him. But outside the bunker, outside the congress there is a larger reality brewing. Every news cycle brings more bad news for senator lott. Today the white house could it seems like could hardly be speang any louder. Today we had the president's brother and the secretary of state speaking out against him.
>> Absolutely, right. We have now 20-day period presumably before we have this meeting of the senate republicans, the 51 to vote on or at least decide what theyr6 want to do with the leadership. But there is enoous pressure not to let this go 20 days, th white house wants topend the ne three weeks laying out their program to build momentum for the next congress. Senator lott wants to let this keep going because the longer it goes the more the likelihood some other story will crowd it out and maybe he can build more support. That is why we're beginning to see the pressure recollected up and clearly coming even as are ai fleischer says their hands are off this from different sources around the wte house as well as from the senate.
>> Warner: Is there an organized opposition -- opposition, karen, is someone spearheading this bend the scenes? Do we have a game plan for% weighed federal government th r aim is to end this short of january 6th do they have any kind of game plan for getting him to change his mind?
>> Again, the problem is that he is speaking directly to his fellow senators. That is his constituey. Right now, his fellow members in the senate leadership do seem to be putting a pretty honest and direct effort into saving his job. So in terms of putting outside pressure there are all sorts of groups primarily conservative groups pushing for this to come to an end but in terms of organization i don't see it.
>> Warner: But as you both are pointing out the senators e the only one who have the votes. How much people can -- how many senators can he count on now? You heard m say my conversation does support me.
>> It's remember this is a secret ballot vote too.
>> With the history of lying.
>> The words of support are worst the paper they are printed on ishe way they usually frame T. It's difficult for senator lott because everybody is scattered of the he can't look at them face to face. Tlrt reports they had 16 or 17 firm commitments. For somebody in his position needing 26 that is not very good right now. It's also important to remember that whatever the white house does here, it's a high stakes and difficult game for them. This is not a matter where people, snares listen to the president because among other things, we've got snares i know who have told me they have commitments from senator lott for chairmanships down the road for help with committee assignments. He can expand the size much committees to let jr. Members on. Some don't want to let him go because they have no idea whether the next person will fulfill those commitments. Some of the pretenders for challenge of leadership are making commitments of their own. In this kind ter setting for the white house to be saying he has to go and we want bill frist that is the message coming clearly. Is a little tricky business, nobody really knows where the votes are except lott does not have at this point 26 solid supporters.
>> Warner: What is the white house role here? What are they really doing? You hear are ai fleischer say we are not going to get in a leadershippified but lott chain mplained there are a lot of leaks from the white house, what are this doing.
>> They understand they can't be seen doing this too overtly -- there is also institutional resistance, the senators believe they are part of a co-equal branch of government. The white house should not be telling them what to do but fact is if the white house doesn't seem, see any action any time soon are likely to see the pressure become much more direct and directly ute of the president's mouth.
>> Warner: When we talk about the white house are we talking about karl rove, the political director?
>> Everyone assumes that he is a busy man these days, and this is very much at the top of his agenda because this is putting a crimp in the president's agenda.
>> Warner: As you both were pointing out. There was something strange today. We ran the clip in the newssummary. Trent lott said i talked to the president. We hada good conversion, blah blah blah, are ai fleischer said today he hasn't talked to the president. The president hasn't talked to him. What is that about?
>> This that had to make senator lott feel good it is ate white house saying we've got your back. Either senator lott misspoke or xaning rated a little bit. He talked to somebody else at the white house or he hadn't talked to the esident today or as maybe he talked to clinton.
>> Or president thurmond.
>> But when you get something like that happening, it's a further embarrassment and it is another signal of some distance here. Normally if the senate major leader said he spoke to the president even if he hasn't the white house would have said of course he did or would have handled it in a different way. The senator lott right now is trying in every public venue as he can as we've seen with all the television appearances and as he talks to his own colleagues to shore up his support but the public setting has all kinds of forces working against him so it's clearly becomeing a more steeply uphill batt as each day passes.
>> Warner: If we step back from this and say in the last week we've had the president of the united states be harshly credit ca the majority leader, the president's brother, the governor of florida and the seetary of state, and yet he is still fighting. I mean, you both cover trebt tt for a long tichlt explain lott's thinking here.
>> Well, trent lott is really a creature of the institution. His entire rise in politics has been understanding the institution whether it was the house or the senate. Developing personal relationships with his colleagues. Making his moves at exactly the right moment and mos`t importantly, unting votes. And th is what he is going to have to do probably by the end of this week. He is going to have to make a very realistic assessment of how likely he is to get those 26 votes and if he gets them, how tenable his majority leadership would be after that.
>> Warner: Norm, today, he appeared to take off the table the one lever or threat that his aides have been circulating that if he lost his leadership post he might take his mabls and go home. Quit the senate open it up for the mississippi democratic governor to appoint a democrat. Why do you think he did that and how do you think that will play?
>> First oall it didn't look very good to basically be, having issuing a tacit threat then the white house responded well if that happens we'll live with that consequence which was another signal there.
>> Warner: Because they would have cheney as a tie breaker vote.
>> Partly what senator lott is doing is not just trying to keep his power position, he is fighting for his power position and his legacy. He has been in public life starting as a staff members working for democrat bill cull mer in the house, in the senate how here he is figing a reputation that he could go out and a racist segregationist of the partly somewhat happening is he is trying to maintain his represent tachlths i suspect what we will be seeing is an attempt to fint find another place for senator lott from the whus and from some of he is colleagues, maybe a new committee on national or homeland security A. Place where he can continue to serve and maybe rebuildhat reputation and they will use that as an outlet now that he has taken the other threat off the table.
>> Warner: Norm, karen, thank you both.
>> Lehrer: The latest chapter in a bitter battle between native americans and the U.S. Government. Lee hochberg of oregon public broadcasting reports.
>> Reporter: For 200 years, indians say getting the short end ofhe stick has been as much a part of their heritage as drums and headdresses. But many people at this recent heritage pade on the blackfeet reservation in montana think the work of one of their tribe, 56- year-old elouise cobel, may change that.
>> Go indians!
>> Reporter: In 1996, cobell became lead plaintiff in a class-tion lawsuit on behalf of more than 300,000 american indians. It sought repayment of at least $10 billion they say the u.S. Government has cheated them out of for more than a century.
>> We've never been able to make the government accountable, you know, for starving our people, for massacring our people. But now we finally have them, and I think that ts is the turning point.
>> Reporter: Two federal courts already have ruled in their favor, but the battle is far from over. The case really started in 1877, when the u.S. Government broke up 30 million acres of indian reservations in the west. Most of the land passed into white ownership,ut the government allotted about a thd of it, in parcels of around 100 acres each, to individual indians. It said it would hold those parcels for the indians in trust, lease them out for oil and mineral development, and issue the indians royalty checks for the earnings off their lands. For years, the indians complained they got far less than they served.
>> Why do people own thousands of acres of land, they have every type of resource, they have oil wells, they have timber, and... But look, they live in poverty.
>>Eporter:% In testimony before congress, the government has conceded that its payments to the indians have been inconsistent, despite taking $500 million a year into the trust. The issue's been confused by multiple heirs, duplicate accounts, and years ofost government records. It seemed headed toward resolution in 1994, when congress ordered the interior department-- which manages the trusts-- to make good on its obligations. But little changed othe aceet reservation. Cobell flew to washington to talk to the clinton administration's interior department.
>> I tried to talk to congress and... And really tell them how severe it was.R6 and I think that...
>> Reporter: You went to bruce babbitt.
>> I tried to go to bruce babbitt. Bruce babbitt would never meet with me. Ani tried to go to janet reno, and I begged her for a meeting. Finally, i just got so tired of it, I decided to file the lawsuit.
>> There's my eagle.
>> Reporter: One of the indians she's fightingor is james kennerly.
>> I've got a whole bunch of the... Of feathers, see?
>> Reporter: On the day we visited the blackfeet reservation, kennerly showed us a dead eagle the government had sent him as part of a cultural program. But he said he's never been able to get the $100,000 he says the government owes him for oil taken from his land.
>> Because this oil and gas royalty, look at, three nts. Three cents, eight cents. That's ridiculous. It's just totally a j%p-off. I don't see how they get away with it.
>> Reporter: Kennerly inherited this land from his grandparents, aunts and uncles, all of whom received allotments a century ago.
>> There was five big wells producing over 5,000 barrels a week. And on a good week, you know, they'd be up to 10,000 barrels. Since the '40s, these wells have been producing, even the '30s, these wells were producing. Where's the money? See? We didn't get it.
>> Reporter: During the trial, the situation turned out to be even worse than the indians expected. Court investigators found some of the money the indians are owed t government never collected in the first place. Some that it did collect, it spent elsewhere, never offering it to the indis. And many of the records, more than a century worth of records about who is owed what, the government destroyed.
>> There's been massive document destruction. Not only document destruction historically, but document destruction sine this litigation was filed in june of 1996.
>> Reporter: Dennis gingold is the indians' attorney.
>> If you aggregate enron and worldcom and global crossing and tyco and the other corporate scandals that ead about in aggregate, they would not amount to probably a percentage, a significant percentage of what we are dealing with here.
>> Reporter: The court held then-interior secretary babbitt and treasury secretary robert rubin in contempt for their failures to stop the document destruction. District judge royce lamberth said: Ruling in favor of the indians in 1999, he orred the interior department to account for what should have been paid in the past, and reform the system so funds are managed properly in the future.
>> I was driving down the?oad, and to tell you honestly, i pulled over and cried.
>> Reporter: But the battle in indian country wasn't over. The judge stayed on the case to monitor the interior department's progress towards trust reform. Last year, he discovered its trust records were vulnerable to computer hackers-- conceivably oil and mineral producers themselves-- and he ordered the department's internet connection shut down until security was improved. Interior cut off trust payments for the next three months to tens of thousands of indians. Assistant secretary of the interior neil mccaleb says without being online, his department couldn't get the data it needed from oil producers to calculate royalties.
>> If you were getting a thousand faxes from a thousand different sours in a thousand different formats, and then you had to put that together manually, I doubt that you'd be able to do that very quickly.
>> Reporter: And without the internet...
>> Without the internet, we were basically out of business.
>> Reporter: The bureau of indian affairs web site blamed cobell's lawsuit. She says the government was seing her up as a target for angry indians.
>> And several individual indians said they had called the b.I.A. Agency office and asked, you know, "why... How come i didn't get my check? I didn't get my check. Why didn't i get my check?" And the answer was, "go ask elouise cbell. It's her fault."
>> Reporter: The government denies it was targeting cobell. This fall, the case was again in court. The judge found current interior secretary gale norton and he assistant, mccaleb, in contempt on five counts for failing to repair the computer problem, and submitting to the court falsely positive progress reports. Calling both unfit administrators, judge lamberth wrote ( drumming ) the administration says judge lamberth vastly exceeded his powers. At an october meeting with western tribal leaders, mccaleb said his department had inherited the problem. The administration this month appealed t contempt charges.
>> I have never deceived anyone. I have never perpetrated fraud upon anyone, and neither has gale norton.
>> Reporter: Nothing that was ever submitted to the court was incorrect...
>> No, i didn't say that.
>> Reporter: ...Was misleading?
>> I didn't say there wasn't ever anything inrrect. I think that there was a desire to meet the timeline that the court had established, and that the department was working diligently to try to accomplish that, and they focused n their accomplishments rather than the deficiencies.
>> Reporter: Interior, which already has spent $614 million on trust refm, proposes a $2.5 billion plan to try to reconstruct its records. It says it will take ten years.
>> Some of those source documents are held by oil companies that have kept those records, or individuals that have kept those records that can be reconstructed. And that's what makes it such a burgeoning task.
>> Rorter: Lawyers for the indians say the proposal is just a tactic to delay.
>> It's impossible to reconstruct transaction records where you have decades of destruction. The reality is it can't be done.
>> Reporter: The indians want the accounting put in the hands of an independent receiver who they say could use computer models to reach a resolution in a year. Gingold says the indians are owed $10 billion. The government says there's no proof of that.
>> There's no basis for any of this. I mean, if i were an account holder, I'd say, "well, golly, I've got $1,000. Maybe I should have gotten $2,000." And until the accounting is done, u can't make that determination on how much money is owed. Maybe it's $10 billion. Maybe we've overpaid it $2 billion. I don't think so, but, you know, there's no evidence to the contrary.
>> Reporter: Comments like that leave some blackfeet wondering if they'll ever see their money. Gathering recently on the reservation to hear the latest on the lawsuit, several held out a healthy dose of cynicism.
>> It looks to me liket's going to take a lot of... A long time to make them own up to wh they've done, because they... They haven't owned up to it in the 500 years that ty've been here.
>> Reporte the government is expected to file its plan for historical accounting in januy. The plan goes to trial in may.
>> Lehrer: Finally tonight, new research on treating hypertension, and to ray suarez.
>> Suarez: Hyperrnsion, or high blood pressure, affects about 50 million americans-- one in four of the population-- and can cause stroke, heart failure, and other serious health problems. For many years, water pills or diuretics,ere the most common treatment. But cently, several highly marketed new drugs have increased in popularity. A study in today's "journal of the american medical associatn" compared the benefits of different drugs, with some surprising results. Dr. Paul whelton was one of the leaders of the study. He's professor of epidemiology and medicine at tulane university. Doctor.
>> Whelton what is hypertension?
>> Hypertension is high blood pressure. And as you said, as it goes up it increase the risk of complications, stroke, heart failure, kidney failure, and a number of others.
>> Suarez: So there is just excess fluid, pressure on your circulatory system?
>> There is excess pressure on the blood vessels and eventually ta leads to damage of the vessels with clotting or some times with destruction of the vessels and bleeding as you will see with hemorrhagic stroke.
>> Suarez: Well if last week or last month a person's and in consultation with their doctor decided to start using drugs as part of their management course for hypertension, what were would they have commonly done?
>> Very likely in the very recent past they would have received advise on life style change probably. Getting a good weight, being physically accident. Being careful what diet and so on but they were to be start on a med case, many would have been, they probably would have been advised to start on one of the newer agents. Calcium channel blocker agent or ace inhibitors two of the drugs we tested.
>> Suarez: What do you find out when looking across the range of commonly offered medications?
>> Well, we found it very interesting result. All of the drugs that we tested and as you said, we tested the diuretic or the fluid pill against the calcium channel blocker and we also tested it against the ace inhibitor. What we found out is that the diuretic seemed to be the best. All three of these drugs are known to lower blood pressure, all three are known to reduce the risk of complications. But none, no study had really compared all three head to head before. And we found that the diuretic certainly was as good with respect to important outcomes like heart attacks and better with respect to preventing stroke and heart failure, very impressive results.
>> Suarez: The other drugs did work though? I mean they weren't found to be infect sniff.
>> Rirkts the other drugs are very effective. In fact, augh we are recommending dire -- diuretics as theirst step for drug treatment. That is a very appropriate recommendation based on our rurblths many people will require a second drug. These two other drugs that we tested are very apopriate as second drugs.
>> Suarez: As you look at this as a specialist this field, you look back over your shoulder how do you think it happened that a drug that is now found to be very effective and very cheap compared to the others ended up being a treatment in a minority of cases over the years?
>> Well, a diuretic has been known to be very effect what i have we've done lots of trials but naturally you are looking for new agents and thank goodness we have many other agents. As those new ones came out, for many doctors, and for many searchers, there was the opinion and the feeling that they would be better than diuretics. In fact that is why we did the study. We wanted to know were these newer drugs which cost a lot more seriously betterhan the diuretic? I would say, you know, in the 30 years that i've been a doctor and a researcher, this question comes up every time a doctorreats a patient and probably every time a patient ask as doctor for advise. So it's, it has been a question that has been around for a long time. Now we've resolved the question.
>> Suarez: We not talking about a close call in this case, are we? I mean, these drugs cost ten to 20 times as much as a diuretic.
>> Yes, the newer drugs clearly are a lot more expensive and it seems that for the average person, they can do as well and better with the cheaper old friend than with the newer agent. Now it's not to say there isn't a place f these newer drugs and sometimes you are treating not only high blood pressure and worrying about its complications but you are treating something else as well. For instance a patient might have ang in a pectoris or heart pain n. This instance another drug, such as a calcium channel blocker would be very appropriate because it not only lowers blood pressure and the complications of blood pressure, but also is an effective treatment of ang in a. So these new -- ang nah. These new drugs do have a place but i think what we are saying is for most patients the starting drug ought to be a diuretic. If they need a second drug that is what when you add one of those other agents on top.
>> Suarez: Might this be particularly good news to certain high-risk populations for hypertension like, frention, african americans who also have an access and cost problem when gaining medical care at the same time?
>> Yeah, i think this is good news for everyone. It's great news for african americans. It's great news for anyone Really to get the answer to the question which is the best drug to start with. It's particularly good news for the person who has to pay for their own medications. It can be the difference between getting treatment for what is a serious risk factor for cardiovascular complications or having untreated hypertension with all of the adverse consequences.
>> Suarez: Now if you are one of the millions of americans currently on a drug regular men to help manage your hypertension, should you be on the phone in the morning running down to your doctor or clinic and saying get me on diuretics or stop taking what you been taking? How do you proceed?
>> I think you proceed to see your doctor. And hypertension is a life-long problem. It isn't that the consequences occur overnight, and there maybe reasons that the doctor put the patient on that particular dicine other than to lower their blood pressure. So i think it's very important that people have the conversation with their healthcare provider and i think in many instaes, the healthcare provider will likely switch that person to a diuretic or if they are starting treatment start them on a diuretic. But 's not a good idea to change one's only medications.
>> Suarez: And can this help control healthcare cost inflation, news like this?
>> Well, i tnk thiss important news and this is an important model for how we can test these questions. It is unlikely in my opinion that the pharmaceutical industry is going to do these kinds of studies of head to head comparisons on their own. He is an instance where the national heart, lung and blood instute with a lot of help from the veterans administration from over 600 practitioners around the country and indeed help from the pharmaceutical industry as well step under to the plate, did an important stud that he needed to be done, got an answer and got it at relatively low price given themportance of the marketplace both in terms of health and indeed the fact that we spend probably about $20 billion a year on anti-hypertensive drugs. I think there is a message for her common treatments.
>> Suarez:R. Whelton, thanks a lot.
>> My pleasure.
>> Lehrer: Again the other major developments of the day. The U.S. And britain warned the iri weapons report is full of serious omissions and problems. Senate republican leader trent tt vowed to fight for his post, and he said he would not quit the senate regardless. And insurance and finance company conseco filed for federal bankruptcy protection. It's thehird largest such case in u.S. History. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm jim lehrer. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the newshour with jim lehrer has been provided by: Imagine a wod where we're not diminishing resources; we're growing them. Ethanol, a cleaner burning fuel made from corn. A.D.M., The nature of what's to come. And by s.B.C. Mmunications. Committed to providing americans more choices in high-speed internet aess and working to widen opportunities in broadband technology. As providers, as people, we're s.B.C. Communications. This program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. And by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you.