The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. In the news today, President Reagan has reportedly vetoed a Senate attempt to stop arms sales to the Saudis. The Soviets agreed to full technical disclosure on the Chernobyl accident. The government reported the biggest drop in consumer prices in 37 years. Details of these stories coming up in our news summary. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, Senators Cranston and Evans disagree about the Saudi arms sale. There are newsmaker interviews with international nuclear official Morris Rosen and the U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Arthur Hartman. And finally, Senator Pryor and industry spokesman Paul Willgain debate a new Senate report on nursing homes.News Summary

LEHRER: President Reagan is still trying to save the Saudi arms sale. Late this afternoon, he reportedly vetoed the legislation that would have stopped the $354 million sale. Senate leaders are now trying to decide when to vote on overriding the veto. A two-thirds vote is needed, and White House vote counters said they believe they may have enough to prevent it. If so, the sale would go ahead as Mr. Reagan wanted, although modified. Yesterday he and the Saudis agreed to withdraw Stinger anti-aircraft missiles from the package. Both sides agreed that compromise was what Mr. Reagan -- what gave Mr. Reagan a chance for victory.In the original votes two weeks ago, the Senate voted 73 to 22 against the sale, the House 356 to 62 against it. Robin?

MacNEIL: Secretary of State George Shultz said today the U.S. will be very interested in the results of European investigations that now indicate a Syrian connection with recent terrorist acts. The New York Times and the Associated Press reported today that one of the Rome airport terrorists was trained in Syria. The U.S. has blamed the Palestinian radical Abu Midal for the Roman attack on December 27 in which 20 people were killed. The U.S. air raid on Libya was based on the Libyan connection in that and the simultaneous attack at Vienna airport. Asked about the reports implicating Syria, Secretary Shultz said the U.S. didn't want to prejudge the Italian, British and other investigations. The Associated Press quoted a U.S. official as saying Washington had good evidence that the terrorists were trained in Syria, but they haven't made the link yet with Libya.

LEHRER: The 92,000 people evacuated from an 18 mile radius around the Chernobyl nuclear plant will stay away for at least a year. The Soviet newspaper Pravda said 10,000 winter homes and barns will be built for the evacuees and their livestock. In addition, a Soviet nuclear safety official said the Chernobyl death toll had increased to 15. He also said experiments were being conducted at the Chernobyl plant when the explosion occurred. He would not identify the experiments or say if they caused the accident. But Morris Rosen, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the News Hour the Soviets made a commitment to provide full information.

MORRIS ROSEN, International Atomic Energy Agency: There was a discussion about a post-accident analysis, and the Soviets have agreed that before the end of the summer they would come to Vienna and present on a technical basis the cause, the sequence of events, and the consequences of the accident.Again, to a large, technical audience.

LEHRER: We will have the rest of that interview later in the program.

The United States carried out another underground nuclear test in the Nevada desert this morning. It had an explosive force of less than 20,000 tons of TNT and was the fourth this year at the Nevada location.

MacNEIL: In economic news, slumping gasoline prices drove the consumer price index down three tenths of a percent in April. That followed back-to-back drops of four tenths of a percent in February and March, for the biggest three-month decline in 37 years. However, analysts caution that the dramatic fall in oil prices masked the fact that prices in most other categories have been rising. In a separate report, the government announced personal income rose 1.2% last month.

President Reagan said today the only reason people were hungry in America was because they didn't know where to ask for help. The President was addressing a group of high school students the day after a report criticized the government's food stamp program for failing to reach all the hungry.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Where there is hunger, you have to, in our country, you have to determine that that is probably because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the people as to what things are available. Not only is the government doing much in that line, but there has been about a three times increase in private charity and aid in our country. I don't believe that there is anyone that is going hungry in America simply by reason of denial or lack of ability to feed them. It is by people not knowing where or how to get this help.

MacNEIL: In Las Vegas Jackie Presser was re-elected to a full five year term as president of the Teamsters Union, regardless of his indictment last week on charges of racketeering and embezzlement.

LEHRER: Committee on Aging today released a new, highly critical report on the nation's nursing homes. The staff summary said there are widespread violations of federal and state health, safety and sanitary regulations. The senators, at a hearing to air the report's contents, urged the Reagan administration to move quickly to correct the situation.The Senate report said more than a third of the country's skilled nursing homes had been found in violation of at least one health or safety regulation considered critical.

Sen. JOHN HEINZ (R) Pennsylvania: Three out of the last four inspections, homes have been -- some 600 homes -- nursing homes -- have violated three or more of those critical standards. And I have called those grossly substandard, chronicly substandard nursing homes. Why do we seem to be falling down on the job? is it Congress' fault? Is it your fault?Is it the state's fault? Where's the fault?

WILLIAM ROPER, Health Care Financing Administration: You've asked the central question, sir. I think that my answer had to be I want to look at your report, study the data, come up with any recommendations that we feel like are warranted out of there, because, as I said in my statement, we want quality care.

LEHRER: Dr. Roper told the committee a new monitoring system will soon go into effedt. He said substandard nursing homes will be dropped from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

MacNEIL: In other medical news, a Boston urologist announced a new method of samshing kidney stones with laser beams, which would eliminate the need for most operations to remove them. We have a report from Maryanne Kane.

MARYANNE KANE [voice-over]: Through a tiny fiber, this unique high-powered laser at Massachusetts General Hospital is disintegrating a kidney stone. As shown through a doctor's ureterscope on an actual patient, the pulsating beam of light bears down on the stone -- in this case, an extremely painful ureter stone, breaking it up. More that 100,000 Americans a year develop ureter stones. They're calcium deposits wedged in the narrow passageway between the bladder and the kidney that before could be treated only by expensive and delicate surgery. But now Dr. Stephen Dretler of Massachusetts General has developed an alternative.

Dr. STEVEN DRETLER, urologist: It's those stones that don't pass by themselves those stones that aren't caught up in the kidney -- it's those stones caught between the kidney and the bladder we think that we've provided a breakthrough in the technology for taking care of these 100,000 patients.

KANE [voice-over]: The $200,000 laser, made to the specifications of Dr. Dretler, has been successfully utilized in some 33 patients, including Scottie Whitelaw.

SCOTTIE WHITELAW, patient: I'm just one of those fortunate people that will -- had real success, and I no longer have a kidney stone and underwent very successful treatment.

KANE [voice-over]: The experimental procedure, approved by the FDA, requires anesthesia, takes up to two hours, and appears to cause no serious complications.

[on camera] The Food and Drug Administration has given doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital the go ahead to use this technology at ten other medical centers around the United States.

MacNEIL: And the manufacturer of Contac, a popular cold medicine that was removed from the market because of tampering, said it will be back on the shelves next fall. SmithKline Beckman Corporation said the medicine will be available in both caplets and capsules, which it said will have safeguards against tampering. The company will also bring back its allergy medicine, called Teldrin, in tablets and capsules, but it will stop producing Dietac, a weight-loss capsule, because sales were declining.

LEHRER: South Africa president P.W. Botha served notice today there could be more raids into neighboring countries. He said in Capetown, Monday's attacks in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana were just yhe first installment in the effort against the African National Congress guerrilla forces. He says the South African government has the will and capacity to break the ANC.

MacNEIL: That's our news summary. Coming up, the debate over Saudi arms, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and U.S. ambassador to Moscow on Chernobyl, and the debate over conditions in nursing homes. Saudi Arms Showdown

LEHRER: It happened in rapid order late this afternoon: President Reagan vetoed legislation that would kill the $354 million arms sale to Saudi Arabia. He reportedly sent the veto message to Capitol Hill, where Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole said he would quickly schedule it for an override vote. But it didn't happen. A two-thirds result is needed when it does happen in order to do the override. If it's not there, the veto sticks, and there will be an arms sale to Saudi Arabia, despite original majority votes in both houses of Congress against it. Two of the key Senate debators on the issue are with us tonight. Senator Alan Cranston, Democrat of California, on the anti-sale side, and Senator Daniel Evans, Republican of the state of Washington on the pro side. They are with us tonight from Capitol Hill.

Senator Cranston, what happened? Why was there no vote suddenly this afternoon?

Sen. ALAN CRANSTON (D) California: Well, there's been a business of trying to time the vote to the mement when one side or the other would do best. The administration and the Republican leadership was trying to delay it for a while, then they though they had the votes today, and mainly because supporters of the resolution to disapproval were absent. Six senators were absent late this afternoon. Five of them voted against the sale. One would have voted against the sale, had that senator been present. So we didn't want to vote at this time. We've now reached an agreement that we will vote early in June.

LEHRER: So there's nothing -- in other words, you all are the ones that finally kept it from happening late today, is that right?

Sen. CRANSTON: Late today, after desiring to have the vote much sooner, because we were confident we had the votes, when the Stingers were removed from the package the situation changed. But I'm by no meanis certain that we will not be able to win when we vote in June. I know we would have lost today, so there was no reason to vote today, and we didn't vote today.

LEHRER: Senator Evans, you agree that if your side had been able to -- if you had had the vote today, your side would have won and the vote would not -- the veto would not have been overridden?

Sen. DANIEL EVANS (R) Washington: I believe so.It's always difficult to predict precisely what's going to happen until you have a vote, but I think the votes were there. Senator Dole wanted to move head, and the fact that he didn't move ahead was because the other side thought they didn't have the votes to override the President. And, frankly, I think by waiting until June, the momentum is much more likely to shift toward the President than away from the President, and I think by the time we get the vote, we will sustain the President's veto.

LEHRER: Why do you think the momentum will now shift toward the President?

Sen. EVANS: Well, I think that the removal of the Stingers from the sale does present a different picture. I also think there is --

LEHRER: Let me -- let's stop there for a second -- make sure that everybody's with us on that. These were the anti-aircraft missiles that were in the original sale. Yesterday President Reagan agreed with the Saudis to remove them. So make sure everybody understands what we're talking about there.

Sen. EVANS: Yes, that's correct. Those are the ground to air missiles that are quite portable. The other missiles in the sale are generally air to air missiles from used bi -- fighter planes for air defense. And although the Saudis already have Stingers in their inventory, this would have added more. And I think the change makes the sale much more palatable to a number of senators, and I think will help sustain the President.

LEHRER: What do you think about that, Senator Cranston -- what the -- what effect the Stinger really had on the long -- in the long term, come June.

Sen. CRANSTON: Well first, let me stress we would have lost today because of absent senators. I'm by no means certain we can't win in June. The Stingers were the most objectionable part of the package. They are called the Terrorist Delight. A terrorist can hold one and walk around in the desert or in a jungle, fire at a plane, it homes in on the plane from five miles away and brings it down. That's obviously a grave danger when it's in the hands of irresponsible people. We have not had a good record by the Saudis of hanging on to weapons that we have sold them in the past. Some ammunition we sold them wound up in Lebanon and were discovered there some time ago. So we have to be prudent about such weapons. But the package is still undersirable. The basic principle remains that it is not sound American policy to provide our most sophisticted weapons to a nation that undermines our policies at every turn in the Middle East, that is at war with our principal ally in that area -- Israel -- that broke relations with Egypt when Egypt made peace with Israel and still maintains no relations with that country, and Saudi Arabia is a country that aids and abets and finances those who engage in terrorism. It has given millions of dollars to the PLO. It gave $400 million to Syria, a fountainhead of terrorism, and it sides with Khadafy whenever Khadafy has a showdown with the United States, calling the United States, in the most recent collision, the imperialist and the aggressor.

LEHRER: All right, Senator Evans, let's go through those -- those reasons. Starting at the back and working forward, you heard what the senator said -- that the Saudi -- the Saudis support Khadafy, they aid and abet terrorism, etc., etc., etc.

Sen. EVANS: Well, these are old charges. And, in the first place, you've got to recognize that we're dealing with independent nations. Each has its independent foreign policy. We didn't get a whole lot of help from some of our European allies after the Libyan attack. But what -- what is really important is that foreign policy, I think, is a particular province of the President. It's one thing to vote against the President in the case of the arms sale coming to the Congress for the first time. I think it's quite another to vote to override a voto -- to deny the President the opportunity to conduct American foreign policy in a very complex part of the world where there are no easy answers, no black and white answers, and where there is a significant difference between various nations in the Arab world. The Saudis in many respects have been useful and helpful. Not always out in front and always publicly, because there is a strong push for Arab unity. But behind the scenes and in many ways which are well known to both the administration and the Congress, I might add, the Saudis have been a moderating influence and a moderate Arab influence in Middle East. If they -- if the current Saudi leadership were to turn away from the United States and become more closely allied with the more radical movements in the Middle East, I think we would be the strong losers. And I think Israel would be a loser as well.

ELHRER: Senator Cranston, what would be the harm in selling these arms to Saudi Arabia?

Sen. CRANSTON: I think the harm lies in arming a nation that is at war with Israel -- and Saudi Arabia is at war with Israel -- and seemingly accepting the right of any nation to have access to our most sophisticated arms, even when that country really does not help our policies and sides with terorists and sides with our foes time after time after time. I'd like to --

LEHRER: You mean sym -- in other words, it's a symbolic harm, not a -- not a specific harm.

Sen. CRANSTON: Well, there is some harm in giving arms to nations that are at war with our allies. And Saudi Arabia is at war with Israel. I'd like to touch on one other point briefly. I think it was insensitive and irresponsible of the White House to seem to turn this into a Jewish issue at home. It is not that. But when the White House brought in Jewish-American leaders and urged them to urge people in Congress to change their votes and to vote for the package, that suggested it was a Jewish community issue. It is not that. The Jewish community was not out in front on this issue, nor was Israel. Those of us who oppose the sale oppose it in what we believe to be America's security interest. That is the basis upon which we are voting. That is the basis upon which we are acting. And I don't think it's appropriate to suggest that the Jewish-American community is responsible for the fact that a majority in Congress opposes this sale.

LEHRER: Senator Evans, what do you say to that, sir?

Sen. EVANS: Well, I would agree that there has not been a significant push from the American-Jewish lobbies or American-Jewish interests on this sale. But I don't think there's any question that this is perceived in Congress and by members of Congress as a -- as an Israel/Arab question and a question of whether you are supporting Israel or supporting their adversaries. I don't think it's that at all. I would agree with Senator Cranston. I think it is much more importantly an issue of complex foreign policy in the Middle East which the President in his best judgement is trying to carry out. There is absolutely, clearly a policy of this administration in support of Israel, probably to a greater degree than any administration in recent history. This clearly does not endanger Israel's security at all. And I think what is at stake here and what's important here is to give the President an opportunity -- not to -- not to reject his initiative in foreign policy and, in doing so, to virtually remove any American influence, any American moderating influence on Arab nations of the Middle East.

LEHRER: Senator Evans, what about -- there have been suggestions that this vote is overwhelming -- the original votes both in the House and Senate, which were so overwhelming against this sale was a reflection of an anti-Arab feeling in the -- in the Congress of the United States. Not so much pro-Israel, but anti-Arab. Do you -- do you buy that?

Sen. EVANS: Well, I think it's probably something of each. It's unfortunate that it came shortly after the -- all the dust up in Libya and the problems we have had there. That certainly didn't help. But I think we've got to keep this whole thing in perspective -- to not make it either a political issue, an Israeli-Arab issue, but keep it in the right perspective, which is to attempt to support as well as we can, I believe, the President when he insists through veto that this is terribly important for him to be able to retain influence in the Middle East, to be a moderating influence, and, in doing so, to protect American influenct in the Middle East.

LEHRER: Senator Cranston, you do see it as an Israeli/Arab issue, correct?

Sen, CRANSTON: I see it as an American security issue, basically -- that our security is best advanced by sharing our weapons with nations which share our values. There is nothing anti-Arab in this action in the Senate. I have not heard any senator express any anti-Arab sentiments. There are very strong feelings on the subject of terrorism. The whole country is aroused over that. The President is very concerned over it. And it seems totally inconsistent to provide our arms to a nation that backs with money terrorists in the PLO in Syria, and in Khadafy in Libya.

LEHRER: Senator Evans, what about that basic charge. Senator Cranston's made it two or three times now, that to give money to Saudi Arabia is giving money to a nation that supports terrorism.

Sen. EVANS: I don't -- I don't really think that's an appropriate charge. I think that certainly the -- Saudi Arabia has supported Arab neighbors over the years. They have supported the PLO, but have specifically rejected some of that -- some of the opportunity for that money to be transferred to the more radical elements of the PLO. They have acted as a moderating influence with other Arab nations, attempting in every case to bring in, first to the Iraq-Irani war, to be helpful in many respects in bringing the cease-fires which did occur several years ago in Lebanon. Sure, the -- it's not a one-sided affair, but they have been helpful, just as sometimes they have acted in what we perceive not in our best interest.

LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, thank you both for being with us. We'll see what happens in June. Robin?

MacNEIL: Still to come on the News Hour, the head of nuclear safety at the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the U.S. ambassador to Moscow on Chernobyl, and a debate over conditions in nursing homes. Plan for Action

MacNEIL: For the first time since the Chernobyl accident, nuclear power experts from around the world gathered in Vienna today for an emergency meeting on nuclear safety, and they got important agreements from the Soviets. The meeting was held by the International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN agency, and it was requested by West Germany in the wake of the international uproar that followed the Soviet Union's delay in notifying other nations until two days after the accident last month. One of the officials at the meeting today was Morris Rosen, an American scientist who heads the Division of Nuclear Safety at the UN agency. This afternoon I asked him what the Soviets had agreed to.

MORRIS ROSEN, International Atomic Energy Agency: Well, we had a special meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA, and a number of items were discussed at this meeting. One was the need for some system for early warning reporting of an accident and information exchange, particularly on the type of release and the prognosis for the future, and the Soviets have indicated that they would desire some type of international agreement -- a binding agreement -- to cover early warning.

MacNEIL: Is that an important consequence of Chernobyl, the accident?

Mr. ROSEN: It's certainly an important consequence and bodes well for the future.

MacNEIL: Is this --

Mr. ROSEN: There are some --

MacNEIL: Yeah?

Mr. ROSEN: There are some other items that came out of the board that you probably are interested in. One is also the need for mutual emergency assistance in case of an accident. There is a large amount of resources in terms of manpower and equipment that is necessary, and the Soviets and the entire board have also agreed that the agency should work on developing mutual emergency assistance agreements -- some multilateral agreement that will assure cooperation in the event of another large accident. Also at the board, there was a discussion about a post-accident analysis, and the Soviets have agreed that before the end of the summer, they would come to Vienna and present on a technical basis the cause, the sequence of events, and the consequences of the accident. Again, to a large, technical audience.

MacNEIL: The -- the binding agreement that you say the Soviets indicated they were willing to accept -- would be a good idea -- that hasn't -- that hasn't been agreed yet by the meeting. Am I right? That is going to be agreed tomorrow?

Mr. ROSEN: No, they have asked the director general to set up some means of producing an agreement. This will be done probably by convening some type of expert group that would develop the agreement. It will certainly take a number of months to develop -- I would anticipate certainly no earlier than the fall.

MacNEIL: But the important thing --

Mr. ROSEN: In the mean --

MacNEIL: The important thing is the principle of agreement. Is that --

Mr. ROSEN: Yes. And in the meantime, also many of the countries at this meeting, many of the member states, have indicated that they would voluntarily now report incidents of a transboundary nature where releases could cross national borders.

MacNEIL: Since the meeting was called, as I gather, because some European countries, particularly West Germany, were disturbed by the Soviet failure to report this incident in a timely manner, is this a concession by the Soviets that in fact they were wrong not to notify sooner?

Mr. ROSEN: No, I wouldn't look at it as a concession. I think it's a recognition that it is important to notify neighboring countries in this type of event. And I think this will assure that the next time, if this were to happen again, you would have a very quick response.

MacNEIL: Going to the accident at Chernobyl itself, a Soveit nuclear energy official said today in Moscow that when the accident happened, experiments were being conducted at the plant. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. ROSEN: Well, the Soviets have told us that there was a planned shutdown of this reactor -- they were going to bring it down to a low power. The accident occurred at 7% power, and there was a large energy addition. They have not told us how the accident happended, and it's really -- there is no need to speculate; they will come in with the details at this post-accident analysis during the summer.

MacNEIL: But what is apparent from that, is it not, is that the accident occurred when the plant was not in normal operation.

Mr. ROSEN: The accident occurred at a low power -- at 7% power.

MacNEIL: You were one of the scientists allowed into the Soviet Union after the accident. What is your assessment today of the state of the reactor and the situation at Chernobyl?

Mr. ROSEN: Well, the Soviets have given us some additional information. They have clearly stated that the radioactivity, the releases, have been stopped. They have said that the temporature of the reactor now is about 200 centigrade -- about 400 degrees Fahrenheit -- and decreasing. They have taken some precautionary measures by building an additional concrete structure beneath the foundation now. That is just in case they get into trouble in the future. They do not in any way anticipate it. And they have started decontamination work. And I would personally say the crisis is over, and the situation is clearly improving.

MacNEIL: Would you say that the result of this accident and the international anxiety and attention it focused has -- is going to have a beneficial effect in greater cooperation, greater agreement on safety, inspection, notification?

Mr. ROSEN: I have no doubts, and I think that was clearly the opinion of the member states at today's board meeting. There were talk about safety standards -- to refine the present set of safety standards. And I think you will see in the future a coordinated effort to improve international cooperation.

MacNEIL: Well, Dr. Rosen, thank you for joining us from Vienna.

Mr. ROSEN: Thank you.

MacNEIL: We get another perspective on the Chernobyl accident and other Soviet matters now from Arthur Hartman, the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union. He's been in Moscow since 1981, and is in Washington now for consultations.

Mr. Ambassador, you've been listening to my chat with Dr. Rosen. From where you sit, how significant are these Soviet agreements today in Vienna?

ARTHUR HARTMAN, ambassador to Moscow: Well, I think they're very important, because it's important, I think, for public confidence that international scientists are permitted to study the data that's coming from the Soviet Union. Hopefully, they will be able actually to get in there and visit around the site, talk directly to Soviet scientists who have been working on stopping the effects of this accident. I think it's very important to restore confidence.I think what started all the rumors, all the stories about the effects was that the Soviet Union itself did not come out with the data immediately. I think there are a lot of reasons for that. It was, after all, announced by an announcement by the Swedish government. I think some of the reasons are just communication within the Soviet system.

MacNEIL: I was going to ask you that. There's been speculation about that here. Was it willful withholding of information by the Kremlin, because it just wants to be secretive and not admit shortcomings, or the inability of the Soviet bureaucracy to communicate in a crisis?

Amb, HARTMAN: Well, the fine answer to that is we don't know. But I certainly can conceive, first of all, of the people close to the site not wanting to report bad news up the channels. I certainly can also conceive that the -- some of the decisions that should have been taken earlier on were not taken, because it had to go right to the center, and perhaps right to the top, to get authorization. For example, just to declare a disaster -- we know, for example, that the town of Chernobyl was not evacuated until -- the beginning of evacuation didn't take place until May 4, quite a few days after the accident. And that did not occur until the prime minister visited the area. So it's my view that part of the problem is communication within the Soviet system. Also, I think that there have been some unfortunate statements made -- for example, in the general secretary's speech, he talked about how we had handled Three Mile Island. Well, that's just totally untrue. We reported Three Mile Island within 24 hour -- 24 hours. Of course, it was immediately known in the area. We notified 22 countries immediately -- countries that had similar reactors, so that they could begin to take steps to learn about the accident and know whether or not they had to do something in their own reactors.

MacNEIL: Do you think today's agreements in Vienna by the Soviet -- Soviets show the Kremlin's sensitivity to the heat of world anxiety and anger about this?

Amb. HARTMAN: Well, I think that's partially it. I think also that as they analyze the situation -- as they see what in fact happened -- and don't forget that the bulk of the people who've been affected by this are people within the Soviet Union. This is a very serious, tragic situation in the area immediately around that reactor. And I think also that the Soviet government has realized that it wants the best advice it can get now, and I think that's important. They are coming to us, for example, for data. They've come to other nations. It's not just through the IAEA. They're trying, I think, to get the best information they can to handle this situation.

MacNEIL: What does this whole affair reveal about Mr. Gorbachev's leadership? Does it tell you anything?

Amb. HARTMAN: I think it's too early to say, and also I don't think we have really enough information. It tells you something, I think, about the leadership situation in the Soviet Union regardless of leader. That is, it is a very authoritarian, centrally controlled state. Decisions really can not be made until they go all the way up to the center. That's why they established a commission right directly under the prime minister. And it does make, I think, for a very difficult situation when you have to take quick decisions in order to deal with situations like this that are emergencies.

MacNEIL: There was a lot of comment in the West about how ironic it was that Gorbachev had been calling for a more open society. Now the Soviet disclosure has seemed to us very constipated. But did it in fact, the way it unfolded, show a more open society under Gorbachev?

Amb. HARTMAN: Well, I think again it's too early to tell. You don't change the history of a people -- a people who have been used to secrecy going back before Communist times to Russian times -- overnight. And I think the fact that he is calling for more openness is something that the outside world ought to encourage. We ought to take him up on it.It's going to be very important for us if we get him to agreements on verification and arms control. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that we have been unable to make agreements with the Soviet Union -- that there is a suspicion about a closed society. I don't think that's going to change overnight. But if they're moving in that direction, it isn't up to the outside world to criticize them more. It seems to me it's up to us now to encourage them to move in that direction.

MacNEIL: We were told by one expert that Gorbachev's own speech on Chernobyl ten days after the accident, whenever exactly it was, was unprecedented.

Amb. HARTMAN: I think that's true. I think that's true. There was an accident, a very serious accident, that took place in the late fifties which was totally suppressed. In fact, today, perhaps, at least I hope, some of the Soviets regret the suppression of the information about that accident. Because if they'd studied it more, if their people knew more about that accident, if might be that they would have been able to take measures faster to control this situation.

MacNEIL: Have you been able in your position to form any kind of assessment beyond the injury to the individuals through radiation and so on of what problems this creates for Gorbachev?

Amb. HARTMAN: No, I think that that's not possible to do today. Obviously, he's just getting started. He has been consolidating his power. He's just been through a big congress in which many people were changed on the central committee. He's consolidating his power. He hasn't really begun to move on the policy issues which are going to be very important, and I think they're mainly domestic issues. They're issues of the economy. They're issues of the organization of the economy. And when you look at the foreign policy side of things, it seems to me that what we've seen is a series of statements of objective, and, quite frankly, statements that have mainly been dealing with a propaganda line of policy, and not the details that he wants to negotiate.

MacNEIL: Does Chernobyl in any way affect the probability or the immanence of a second summit with Mr. Reagan?

Amb. HARTMAN: I don't believe so at this point. I think the Soviets want to have a summit this year. They committed themselves to have one. We have postponed one of the important meetings in preparation for that summit. We are still prepared to have it. We are still prepared to go forward with the preparations. I think a little time has to go by now, and I think we will be getting down to further preparations later in the year.

MacNEIL: Just finally, Mr. Ambassador, today is the 65th anniversary -- uh, birthday of the Soviet dissident Andre Sakharov. What is the United States doing to try and get him released from his internal exile at the city of Gorky?

Amb. HARTMAN: Well, I think we are continuing to say to the Soviet Union that if you wish to have a more normal relationship with us and, indeed, with other countries around the world, there has to be a perception on the outside that you are dealing with human beings in ways that we think you have undertaken to deal with them in things like the Helsinki Agreement. And the Sacharov case is one that touches all Americans, and it touches all Europeans. And I think it is something that our government will continue to talk to the Soviet government about, as we do about emmigration, as we do about divided families, as we do about divided spouses. We now have a meeting, for example, going on in Bern where these very subjects are being discussed with the Soviet Union.And I think the government should continue to do those -- to have those discussions, and the Soviets can tell us they don't like the public statements that are made or the public pressure, but the fact is that this is a free society, and people are going to express themselves as they feel.

MacNEIL: Ambassador Hartman, thank you. Uncaring Care?

LEHRER: Finally tonight, the nursing home story. A new Senate report about health, safety and sanitary conditions. Judy Woodruff has more. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Several senators today called on the Reagan administration to crack down on abuses in the nation's nursing homes. They did so in reaction to a Senate staff report that charged that thousands of nursing homes are below minimum government standards. Details of the situation came out of a hearing for the Senate Aging Committee, where members heard about nursing home conditions from two women whose relatives were subjected to substandard nursing home care.

PEGGY DOWLING, relative of deceased patient: We'd come in and find her not strapped into a wheelchair. Her left side was paralyzed. Her button for calling the nurse would be tied under the bed or underneath her right -- her left side, where she could not reach it. The feeding of her by the aides -- they would have one aide to about nine feeders. And they would shovel it in so fast that after two bites, she would quit eating. So we took it over ourselves. We were afraid to complain about her care during the time, because we were told that if we did, she'd be -- excuse me. She'd be moved to the back room or the back section of the hospital, which was the worst.

DOROTHY DOYLE, relative of deceased patient: She was not bathed. Her hair smelled. Her clothing and linen were dirty.Her room was never clean, and her furniture was covered with dried food. The shrinking staff became indifferent and offensive. Occasionally on evening visits I found no staff at all. Seldom able to find linens, I began carrying Handi-Wipes to bathe Mom. I dried her most times with paper towels. And then the fly infestation began. They were on her face, in her sores, on her food. Visiting my mother became a horror that left me either nauseated or in tears or both. With no place to move Mom, I would not chance complaining to the state. I began praying God would let my mother die.

WOODRUFF: With us now is one of the members of that Senate Aging Committee, Senator David Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas.He joins us from Capitol Hill. Also a representative of the nursing home industry, Paul Willging. He is executive director of the American Health Care Association, whose members include many of the nation's private nursing homes. He joins us tonight from public station KQED in San Francisco.

Senator Prayor, let me begin with you. What is it about this report and what you heard from the people who testified today that you were not already aware of? Did this all come as a complete surprise to you?

Sen. DAVID PRYOR (D) Arkansas: Well, Judy, I've been working on the issue of nursing home reform for I guess now about 18 years. In fact, when I was a Congressman many years ago, I went out and worked in -- on weekends, in 11 nursing homes in Washington, Virginia and Maryland, so I could find out really what was going on in some of our nursing homes across our country. I -- I'll be very honest with you. I thought for the last several years that our nursing home conditions had improved dramatically. The report that the Senate Aging Committee disclosed and revealed today indicates to me that we have a long way to go -- that we have slipped backwards. We've seen violations occurring in major areas of health care, of lack of physicians there, indifference in staff, poor nutrition -- many areas there that really go to the quality of life, or to the lack of quality for some 1,400,000 nursing home patients in 15,000 nursing homes. I'm depressed about it. I thought we'd made a lot of progress. But now I see in the last three years we've, as you say, we've gone backwards. And we've got a lot to do, and we don't have much time to do it in.

WOODRUFF: I'm curious about something. I noticed that much of this -- the statistics or the information that you all got today was based on a study that was done in 1984, based on information in 1984. Why is it two years later that this comes out?

Sen. PRYOR: Well, this is an ongoing study by the Senate staff of the Aging Committee. It really takes from about 1982 and brings us up to date really, I guess, into the latter part of 1985, if I'm not mistaken. But what the study indicates is -- what it reveals is that we're seeing percentages of these noncompliance situations on a very, very rapid increase. And this is alarming to me. I think it's alarming to the members of the committee this morning. We heard testimony from the new director of HCFA, and I think it's alarming to him. He's only been on the job two weeks. But this thing is such a massive beurocracy, with state control, with local control, with the federal government's involvement, with Medicare, Medicaid and all this millieu, this jungle of beurocracy that surrounds this whole issue. It has become entangled in this web now, and no one seems to want to take the blame, and we've got to get to the bottom of the story.

WOODRUFF: Are you telling us that this is a massive -- I mean, that this problem occurs throughout the nursing home industry, or that these are somewhat isolated cases? I mean, just how serious a problem are we talking about?

Sen. PRYOR: Well, testimony that we received today indicates that about one out of eight nursing homes in our country are inadequate. So you have a one in eight chance, and that's pretty high, of going into or putting your parents or loved ones into an inadequate home. This, to me, is alarming. It is an unacceptable rate. And we've got to do something about it. The fact that this study just came out today, I think, indicates how meticulous the staff wanted to make certain that the facts were all in place before this revelation was proposed by the committee. It's alarming, and we've gone backwards a very -- to a very large extent.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Willging, let me bring you, then, into this. You heard what the senator said. It's alarming, we've gone backwards, that, you know, many people are suffering, that you've got a one in chance eight of having your relative go into a substandard situation.

PAUL WILLGING, American Health Care Association: I think the senator has pointed to my biggest concern with respect to this study. His original impression was, in fact, absolutely correct; conditions in nursing homes have improved over the years. A study as recently as a few months ago, put out by the Institute of Medicine, costing the federal government some $1.5 million, pointed out that improvements are clear and dramatic in the nursing home industry. What has transpired in the hearings today in releasing a study of this nature is that a fatally flawed piece of analysis, an almost sophomoric manipulation of data, has, I think, done a disservice to the American public, in an effect sending a shiver of fear through millions of Americans either currently in nursing homes or perhaps needing nursing homes, that they in fact do have only a seven out of eight chance of finding a good home.

What do I mean by fatally flawed? The statement in the report says quite clearly that 34% of nursing homes are not in full compliance -- the word full is critical -- are not in full compliance with critical conditions of quality in nursing homes. What does full compliance mean? Well, there are 19 conditions of compliance in the regulations. Those 19 conditions entail 520 separate elements. What that statement means is that 34% of nursing homes were out of compliance with one of those 520 separate elements. What do the elements mean? Well, the senator stated at the hearing today that some 34% were out of compliance with respect to such basic requirements as 24 hour nursing coverage. That's absolutely ludicrous. That's not, in fact, what is true. What is true is that within the requirement for 24 hour nursing coverage, a nursing home may have failed to provide the documentation with respect to time cards, time sheets, the notes that are required, perhaps, were inadequate -- the paperwork. The paperwork was not adequate. Not that there wasn't 24 hour nursing coverage.

The fact that I find somewhat strange is that the senator himself has suggested that the current system for reviewing quality of care in nursing homes is flawed. We in the industry believe that. Consumer groups believe that. The current system does not review quality of care. It reviews paperwork. It reviews process.

WOODRUFF: So you're saying --

Mr. WILLGING: The same -- the same inadequate system is now turned around and utilized -- the data therein is utilized to castigate the entire industry. That's unfair.

WOODRUFF: So you're saying the picture that's been painted is just totally erroneous, or are you willing to admit that there are any serious problems in the industry at all?

Mr. WILLGING: There are serious problems. There are 15,000 nursing homes in this country. There are among those 15,000, unfortunately, bad nursing homes. It is a small minority of the nursing homes. One bad nursing home is too many.We're talking about a very frail, infirm, elderly population. One bad nursing home is one bad nursing home too many. We clearly do not have 34% of all nursing homes substandard, which the report suggests.

WOODRUFF: Senator Pryor, how do you respond to that? He's saying that it's paperwork, and that the picture has just been badly distorted by this hearing today.

Sen. PRYOR: Well, I'm -- I can only assume that the gentleman has not actually read the report. The report does not talk about paperwork. It does not talk about not filling in the required forms and all those little things. The report talks about a violation of health standards, of safety standards -- of those basic standards that are necessary to provide that individual patient with a quality of care. I've heard the Nursing Home Association for the last decade and a half say well, there's one or two bad homes out there in the country. But we're talking about a thousand nursing homes in 1984 who were cited for three or more violations -- serious violations. And this is too many. We're talking about, across the board of 15,000 nursing homes, one out of eight that really have some very serious problems out there. And I think the association -- let me say this.I think we've made progress. But that progress is relative to, let's say, 1970. And we had a very long way to go. We have a very fire -- very much improved fire safety code standard. We have a better nutrition program. We have better programs across the line. But unless those programs are implemented and affected -- effectuated, I should say -- by people who are truly caring about their patient and not the dollar, then we are going to see a lower quality of care exist.

WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. --

Sen. PRYOR: And I just think we've got to face this as a severe problem today.

WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. Willging, it sounds like the two of you are talking about two totally different industries out there.

Mr. WILLGING: Well, I think --

WOODRUFF: I mean, he's saying it's a very severe problem, and you're saying it's much less than that.

Mr. WILLGING: I am suggesting that we have substandard facilities in this industry. It's unfortunate we have them. We don't have anywhere near the number of substandard facilities that have been suggested by this report.

WOODRUFF: Well, how --

Mr. WILLGING: And I have had the report essentially read to me. The committee did not provide us the courtesy of an advance copy of the report. I would have been able to suggest to the committee some of the methodological problems if they had shared it with us. But the data base utilized, and it's clear -- the report makes it clear -- the data base utilized is the deficiency violations recorded through the existing survey and certification system. Those do include, for the most part, paperwork and process. That's why we have all come together --

WOODRUFF: Well now, wait a minute. The senator just said that there were 1,000 nursing homes with more than three serious violations.

Mr. WILLGING; There were 1,000 nursing homes, according to the report, that were out of compliance -- out of full compliance, to use the word in the report -- full compliance with three of the standards.It doesn'tsay conditions. It says standards. Now, there are a number -- just as there are 520 elements that make up the 19 conditions, there are dozens and dozens of standards that make up the total condition. That does not mean -- that does not mean that they are out of substantial compliance with the condition. And the regulations and the law require not full compliance; they require substantial compliance.

WOODRUFF: Senator Pryor, could it be that this report has somehow exaggerated, as Mr. Willging is saying, the seriousness of the situation out there?

Sen. PRYOR: Judy, this is the first question that I asked our staff personnel this morning when I really looked at this report in detail. Is this a true report? One, are the figures accurate? Are we jumping at conclusions? Really how serious should we take this? And unanimously the staff that I talked to said this is a serious report. It is justifiable that we bring it to the American public's attention at this time. And I'm going to take it at face value. I -- my -- our friend from California talks about substantial compliance. Well, you know, when you have an elderly person there, you can't just consider substantial compliance enough. You've got to have full compliance. And this is what we're striving for in our country. I think we can reach it. We're just spending $44 million, by the way, for inspections of nursing homes. That's a drop in the bucket.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Willging, you want to respond to that?

Mr. WILLGING: Well, first of all, I think that I would certainly agree with the senator that we are not spending enough on inspections, and my association has, in fact, opposed the President's budget request to drop the amount of money that goes into the inspection system.I think we do have to talk about the issue of reimbursement, though. And I know it has become to some considerable extent a dirty word in Washington. The issue is not, I think, venal nursing home operators interested only in a profit, which has been the allegation. One does have to ask, however, how much of not simply the minimal elements -- there's no excuse not to provide the minimal standard of care -- but we want to do more than that. We'd like to provide for a quality of life, not just a quality of care. How does one do that in states, such as the senator's own state, Arkansas, where the reimbursement for 24 hours of skilled nursing coverage, room, board, nursing care, activities, support systems is $29, $30 per day.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Willging --

Mr. WILLGING: You can't get a motel room for that.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Willging, let me -- we're going to have to wrap this up. Senator Pryor, what is it that you plan to do next with the information that you've received today?

Sen. PRYOR: Well, I think it's time now that the senators themselves went out into the field, out into our home states. I think that we ourselves need to accumulate data and information. I think that we need to hold hearings. I think that we need to look at our respective geographic territories and report back as soon as we can in the next three to four months back to our colleagues to see how serious and -- how deeply serious, I should say, that this situation that was brought out in the Aging Committee actually is.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Willging, will your member nursing homes cooperate in that if that's what they do -- the senators do?

Sen. PRYOR: We will not only cooperate, but I would suggest that the way I would hope most Americans would develop their own perceptions of nursing homes in this country is to visit them. Visit the nursing home in your community. Satisfy yourselves, without using governmental data, without necessarily believing me or the senators this morning. Satisfy yourselves through personal visitation.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Willging, we thank you for being with us. Senator Pryor, we thank you.

Sen. PRYOR: Thank you, Judy.

Mr. WILLGING: Thank you.

MacNEIL: The Lurie cartoon tonight is about South Africa's military raids on three neighboring states.

[Lurie cartoon: a soldier labelled "South Africa" carries a banner reading, "Raids Against Neighbors." He says, "I'm just following the U.S. footsteps against terror!" A broader view shows that he is standing in one giant footstep and making his tracks only in it, rather than following the trail of large footprints.]

LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this day. President Reagan vetoed a resolution that would prohibit the $354 million arms sale to Saudi Arabia. A Senate vote to override the veto has been deferred until next month.And an official of the International Atomic Energy Agency told the News Hour the Soviet Union has agreed to give the agency full information on the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. That disclosure, he said, will be made this summer in Vienna.Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the News Hour tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.