The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Jesse Jackson was in the center of much news today. He disavowed anti-Israel remarks by Louis Farrakhan and he's on his way back tonight with nearly 50 freed prisoners from Cuban jails, with a request to meet President Reagan tomorrow. Also, El Salvador's right-wing leader, Robert d'Aubuisson, said in Washington he is not a killer. And the 21-year-old drinking limit bill was passed by the House and is on the way to the President, Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: All of those stories we explore in depth on the NewsHour tonight. On Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and American Jews, we discuss the threatened revolt by Jewish Democrats and how blacks respond. We interview Roberto d'Aubuisson; then former Ambassador Robert White and Senator John East debate whether he should have been permitted into the United States. As Congress makes 21 the national drinking age, two regional critics discuss the bill with its Senate sponsor. And we have an essay on the wave of emotion that is following the Olympic torch across America.

The Reverend Jesse Jackson is returning home tonight from his self-styled peace mission to Central America and Cuba with 48 prisoners freed by Fidel Castro. Jackson is due to arrive in Washington late this evening with 22 Americans, mostly jailed on drug charges, whom Castro released after an eight-hour talk Tuesday night. But the party will also include another 26 Cuban political prisoners whom Castro also agreed to release last evening. Jackson, a Democratic presidential candidate, has asked for a meeting tomorrow with President Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz to discuss his talks with Castro. The White House said they saw no urgency for such a meeting and were directing Jackson to the appropriate State Department official.

The Reverend Jackson has covered a lot of ground in the last four days. He started in Panama talking to Salvadoran guerrillas, then flew to El Salvador to try to set up ceasefire talks with the Duarte government. From there he flew to Havana, left there last night for Nicaragua, then back to Havana today to collect the prisoners and return to Washington. In Washington, the on-the-record response of the Reagan administration to Jackson's private-enterprise diplomacy was measured and careful. State Department spokesman Alan Romberg said that on humanitarian grounds Jackson had been successful.

ALAN ROMBERG, State Department spokesman: We don't think that it reflects any basic change in Cubanpolicy. Our concerns about Cuba as we indicated yesterday relate to their behavior in support of revolution in this hemisphere and their role as a military surrogate of the Soviet Union in various places around the world. We see the release of these prisoners as essentially a humanitarian accomplishment by Reverend Jackson rather than as a politically significant event.

MacNEIL: Privately, Reagan administration officials reacted even more coldly to Castro's release of prisoners. One official told Reuters news agency, "This is an effort to embarrass the President." Ironically, as Jackson was arranging to jet back from Cuba with the freed prisoners, the Supreme Court was upholding the right of the U.S. government to stop U.S. tourists from traveling to Cuba. In a five-to-four decision the court said the president had the authority to restrict travel to the island. Meanwhile, in Cuba, Jackson was preparing to return to Washington and he continued to be hounded by criticism for his refusal to disavow recent anti-Semitic remarks reported by Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, a Jackson supporter. But late today Jackson finally did just that and said that the Muslim leader had no role in his campaign. We'll have more on the Jackson-Farrakhan story later in the program.

Jim? D'Aubuisson: Friend or Foe?

LEHRER: There was a well-known Central American visitor in Washington today. His name was Roberto d'Aubuisson. To some, a legitimate leader of El Salvador's political right who won 46% of the vote in last month's presidential election. To others, a thug, a killer, a leader of right-wing death squads and planner of assassinations of U.S. ambassadors. He met yesterday with officials at the State Department and a group of U.S. senators. But the highest-ranking officials and the leaders of the Senate stayed away, and there were others who said d'Aubuisson should not have been seen by anyone in the U.S. government. Last night in this studio I interviewed this man about whom emotions run so high. It was done through an interpreter, and here's an edited version of it, beginning with his answer to the question, "Why have you come?"

Major ROBERTO d'AUBUISSON, Salvadoran political leader [through interpreter]: I'm here in the United States making use of a human right, a natural right that I have to be able to make a rebuttal, to answer all the attacks and accusations that have been made against me.

LEHRER: What did you tell the senators you met with today?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: I was with 14 senators this afternoon and we had just a general talk on what has happened in El Salvador and the attitude that I will take, not only now but in the future, both my attitude and the attitude of my political party.

LEHRER: What will be your attitude toward the government of President Duarte?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: We already decided that several days after the election. Our country, El Salvador, is above any political or party position. We are going to cooperate with the government, with the administration of President Duarte.

LEHRER: Cooperate, and to end violence and death?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: We have been doing that for the past two years when we started to draft a constitution, which we have sought to implement so that it would normalize things.

LEHRER: Have you told your supporters on the right politically in El Salvador to stop the death and violence?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: None of the supporters of the ARENAParty have been involved in acts of violence.

LEHRER: Absolutely none?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: Absolutely none.

LEHRER: Why does everybody say the contrary here?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: That's what I want to clear up now and that is one of the main objectives of my visit to Washington.

LEHRER: All right. Well, the major charge against you, Major, comes from several people but primarily former U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador Robert White, who says you are a thug, a pathological killer. Is that what you are?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: It is a complete lie, and that is not just an accusation; it is a defamation.

LEHRER: What would be his motivation to lie about you?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: It would take too long in an interview such as we are having to try to answer your question, but basically it's because I was one of the patriots who was opposed to our being given a government similar to the one in Nicaragua.

LEHRER: What has been your involvement in the so-called right-wing death squads?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: In no way. We have not been involved in absolutely anything of that type. I should like to add something more in connection with Mr. Robert White. First item: he is a liar. A notebook that he presented as being mine at the time that we were captured in 1980 -- he said that it was mine, it contained things defamatory to him. He said that it was mine, and it doesn't even have my name; it had the name of another individual. Another thing that should be taken into account -- all of his statements, all of his accusations have been a matter of record in the Senate hearings and in the hearings on the Hill. And if there are liberal Democrats at these hearings, if these accusations are true, why have they not said anything to me?

LEHRER: More recently, it's been suggested that either you or your supporters plotted to assassinate the present ambassador to El Salvador, Thomas Pickering. Is that true?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: That is false. I am going to explain my participation in a few words. Upon instructions from President Reagan, I was advised in San Salvador from Washington that a plot had been uncovered and that we were going to be blamed, that we should take some measures and try to prevent any negative action such as that that was being planned. For this reason I gave a press conference with both the national press and the international press in attendance, and I denounced publicly this plot. Ambassador Pickering had also been warned, and that evening -- if I remember correctly, that was on May the 18th -- I met in the United States Embassy in San Salvador with Ambassador Pickering and with General Vernon Walters, who was conveying a message from President Reagan for me. And if you think about it for a while, in what way do you think this would have benefited, not us, but it would have benefited El Salvador in any way or form? I don't know who the people are involved in this plot, but I can assure you that there are no concerned and aware politicians, conscious politicians in El Salvador, involved in that.

LEHRER: How do you explain the fact that when a plot was uncovered, that the immediate reaction of the United States government was to send somebody to see you?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: Because those who are aware of the plot realize that we were going to be unjustly accused. We being ARENA.

LEHRER: Why would that be?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: A not very wise or very able political maneuver to try to destroy us.

LEHRER: Why are you always identified with violence?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: Because I do not believe in communism and because I have always been fighting against Soviet expansionism in a civic and military position.

LEHRER: Would you favor negotiations with the leftist rebels who are opposed to the government and to your side?

Major d'AUBUISSON [through interpreter]: To negotiate power sharing or a share of the power is something that is not incumbent upon us, since there is a constitution and the laws do not allow it. But the doors are wide open so that they may participate in the coming election for mayors and deputies. And that negotiation through the ballot is popular, is acceptable, we do promote it, and we would accept it.

LEHRER: Thank you very much.

LEHRER: The man d'Aubuisson accused of lying about him, former U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador Robert White, is with us now from public station WGBH in Boston. Here in Washington is Senator John East, Republican of North Carolina, one of the 14 senators who met with d'Aubuisson yesterday and who has accused d'Aubuisson accusers of practicing cheap left-wing McCarthyism.

Mr. White, first things first. Mr. d'Aubuisson says you're a liar.

Amb. ROBERT WHITE: Well, Mr. d'Aubuisson is lying himself. The evidence that we have in the files of the State Department against Roberto d'Aubuisson is simply overwhelming. We have an eyewitness account of Roberto d'Aubuisson presiding over the meeting where the decision was taken to kill Archbishop Romero. I would like to say that my fondest hope would be that the Reagan administration would declassify this information regarding Roberto d'Aubuisson and let the public decide for itself, because there's absolutely no danger to American security by releasing such information.

LEHRER: Senator East, what's your view of that? First of all the charge, and whether information should be put out on the table about this?

Sen. JOHN EAST: Well, I think it's totally unfounded. I think the extremist rhetoric that former Ambassador White uses in which he describes Mr. d'Aubuisson as a "thug" shows that he has a closed mind on it. He himself admitted in February, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he had no evidence to offer. And what you are finding here is that this man, Mr. d'Aubuisson, is simply confronted -- and I think any fairminded American understands this -- you simply keep repeating allegations that you are connected with death squads, with plots, and none of this is so in that there is no evidence been presented in any specific, concrete form anywhere to which Mr. d'Aubuisson can respond. So you simply keep repeating the allegation which I think is contrary to a fundamental tenet of Anglo-American law: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and basic due process -- that is, a fundamental fairness in a procedural sense. You keep -- I don't mean you, but I mean there is this constant repetition of the allegations with "the death squads," with the plots, and yet never any bill of particulars is presented. Now, all the man can do is to say, "Give me the particulars," which no one does, and he simply denies it. And out of basic fairness to the man, what else can he possibly do?

LEHRER: He has a point, does he not, Mr. White?

Amb. WHITE: Well, I don't believe that Senator East has studied the record. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ambassador Kirkpatrick of this administration admitted before a Senate committee that indeed many people in the Reagan administration believe that there was evidence linking d'Aubuisson to death squads. She made one error. She said that the informer was anonymous. That informer is not anonymous; I have given his name to the FBI. And so the problem is that Senator East has ignored the evidence. The evidence is there.They exist in State Department reports, and I again challenge the Reagan administration and Senator East to request those documents and to put them out on the table.

LEHRER: Well, you -- yes, go ahead.

Sen. EAST: Excuse me. I was going to say, but Ambassador White himself, who contends he knows all of these things, he has presented no credible witnesses to establish --

Amb. WHITE: Excuse me, but that's not true.

Sen. EAST: He keeps saying -- just stop a minute. He keeps saying that there are sources, there are informants, there are files, and it's a case of never being able to possibly respond to that, because he himself never comes up with these credible witnesses and with all of these allegations and any sort of, let alone indictable form, any sort of credible form. And I think you're back again to the question of fundamental fairness. If the allegations are there -- and I think to accuse the Reagan administration of hiding them is wholly unwarranted. He has no evidence that that is so. He simply keeps repeating that over and over again, and finally it takes on credibility.

LEHRER: Now, as I understand it, Mr. White, you say there are documents at the State Department that you have seen that identify people who if called in a public forum could accuse d'Aubuisson in an authoritative way? Is that what you're saying?

Amb. WHITE: Absolutely.

LEHRER: But that's not done. So I don't think we're going to resolve this.

Sen. EAST: It isn't done, and Ambassador White keeps saying there are files hid away here and there. There are people available here and there. But he never presents them.

Amb. WHITE: On the contrary.

Sen. EAST: He never offers a bill of specifics or particulars. He just keeps using rhetoric like "thug," yet never presents any solid credible evidence. He keeps saying others have it and they're hiding it. If he knows all of this, why doesn't he present it?

LEHRER: Do you have any evidence yourself?

Amb. WHITE: Yes, sir. And I have presented that evidence. I presented the d'Aubuisson notebooks that were captured at the time that he was plotting against the government to which I was accredited in El Salvador. I have also participated in bringing into the public domain a former colonel in the Salvadoran military who has identified Roberto d'Aubuisson as a leader of death squads, as the person who perpetrated the killing of Monsignor Romero. And I repeat that there are several credible reports not hidden away in the State Department which should be released, which identify Roberto d'Aubuisson as a leader of death squads. There is just -- as Christopher Dodd said last night, there is just -- it's undebatable that Roberto d'Aubuisson has been a leading figure in the death squads. There's a movie where Roberto d'Aubuisson refers to the recently murdered archbishop -- you know, the man who all of El Salvador revered -- as the Ayatollah who has unaccountably left us.

Sen. EAST: Well, I would like to point out to Mr. White that there have been five members of the ARENA Party who have been assassinated. There are five members of the ARENA coalition who are not members of the assembly who have been assassinated by death squads. No members of the Christian Democratic Party have been assassinated.Now I --

LEHRER: That's the party of President Duarte.

Sen. EAST: President Duarte. It would be just as irresponsible to say, well, President Duarte must have engineered the shooting of the assassination of these other people. And I think that's what Ambassador White is doing. I think he's being very unfair, because he himself admitted before the Senate Foreign Relations he had no evidence, but he keeps asserting it is there, that someone else has it. And I think that finally at some point a fairminded person is going to say either put up or be quiet, and they have not put up. And secondly, I would like to stress, as Mr. d'Aubuisson has been doing, that he is willing to work within and is working within the framework of the democratic system in El Salvador. He got 46% of the vote. And President Reagan sent Senator Helms, chairman of the subcommittee on Western hemispheric affairs, to bring these two sides together. They represent the viable center of democracy in this fledgling country in El Salvador. And I think that what Ambassador White is doing by using words like "thug" and suggesting that there are all of these files somewhere, someplace -- yeah, I think he's discrediting this man, wittingly or unwittingly, and I think it's fundamentally unfair, and I think a fairminded American will recogize it as so.

LEHRER: Ambassador White, let me ask you the question. You heard what d'Aubuisson also said in the interview with me, just what Senator East has said, that he plans to work peacefully within the structure, the governmental structure and the political structure of El Salvador.Do you believe he will do it?

Amb. WHITE: Well, if the Reagan administration, which had to remove its ambassador quickly because of death threats -- because of a plot against him; it's the Reagan administration that sent General Vernon Walters down to El Salvador to warn Roberto d'Aubuisson about that plot. It seems to me that the evidence we have is that Roberto d'Aubuisson is involved in this plot. I point out to you that just shortly before that trip by Vernon Walters, the head of the security of the American Embassy, Mr. Zapata, was murdered by a right-wing death squad.

LEHRER: In other words, I take it -- we have to move on -- I take it your answer is no, you do not believe that Roberto d'Aubuisson will work peacefully. You disagree with the senator.

Amb. WHITE: No. And I just want to point out in passing that hundreds of Christian Democrats have been killed by right-wing death squads. Senator East is just wrong about that.

LEHRER: Gentlemen, thank you both very much. Robin?

MacNEIL: In the Persian Gulf, firemen are fighting to keep flames on a 260,000-ton oil tanker from spreading to the cargo and touching off a disastrous explosion. The Liberian ship Tibouran was hit by an Iraqi plane near the Iranian oil terminal at Kharg Island yesterday. Today the owners said eight of the 31 crew members were killed and three more were injured. A spokesman for the owner said the damage to the Tiburon was already the worst maritime disaster of the Persian Gulf war and could become worse still if the oil tanks explode and set off a fire in the sea that could burn for days.

Also in the Middle East, Syria and Israel exchanged prisoners and war dead today for the first time in 10 years. A convoy of buses brought 291 Syrian soldiers and 20 Arab civilians to the abandoned town of Koneitra on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Under Red Cross and United Nations supervision, the Syrians were released, one busload of 50 men at a time, and they walked to the Syrian lines across a 400-yard stretch of no man's land. For each busload of 50 Syrians, one Israeli soldier wearing a blue prisoner's uniform was released from the Syrian side to walk the 400 yards in the opposite direction. The cautious operation took five hours.In that time each of the returning Israelis was welcomed with a burst of applause.

Off the coast of northern Lebanon, Israeli gunboats shelled a small island they say is a base for Palestinian guerrillas and sank what they called a terrorist boat nearby. Lebanese police said at least 19 Arabs were killed and as many as 70 were wounded when the Israeli air force bombarded the same island yesterday.

There are major segments still to come on tonight's NewsHour. On the Jesse Jackson-Louis Farrakhan flap we discuss the rising tension between blacks and Jews in the Democratic Party. Regional editorial writers discuss their feelings about the mandatory 21-year drinking age with the law's sponsor in the Senate. And we have an essay on the surge of emotion that is following the Olympic torch across America.

[Video Postcard -- Wilhoit, Arizona]

MacNEIL: As we mentioned earlier, Jesse Jackson today submitted to the rising tide of anger among Jewish Democrats and strongly repudiated recent anti-Semitic statements by the Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan. While Jackson was preparing to return to Washington from Cuba, a statement was released for him calling Farrakhan's remarks reprehensible and morally unjustifiable. Recently Farrakhan, a top Jackson supporter, was quoted as saying that Judaism was a "gutter religion" and Israel an "outlaw state." American Jewish leaders have been demanding that the Democrats punish Jackson for not repudiating Farrakhan, which until today he had refused to do. The Jackson repudiation was released by the office of Walter Fauntroy, the District of Columbia's delegate to Congress. Jackson said, "Statements such as Farrakhan's have no place in my own thinking or in this campaign." He said he'd called upon "all of my supporters to join me in speaking out in support of my stand."

Walter Mondale found himself in the middle of the Farrakhan storm today. In Washington he was peppered with questions about the issue.

WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: More than any other possible candidate, I am able to bring not just blacks and Jews together, but a broad cross-section of Americans together based on fundamental principles of justice and decency and nondiscrimination. That I think is exactly what I've been doing on this issue. From the very moment that Reverend Farrakhan made his statements, I have made it clear that I reject it, consider them offensive and unacceptable. In my opinion now, Farrakhan's statements are such that not only must all of us, including the Reverend Jackson, reject what he has said, but repudiate, I think, Reverend Farrakhan himself.

MacNEIL: Mondale made that statement after interviewing Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode as part of his public search for a running mate. Afterwards they both met the press.

Mayor WILSON GOODE, Philadelphia: The fact that I've been included on this is important to our city. Philadelphia is a good city, and the fact that we have been able to help the Vice President in his election plans and will do so again in the fall, the fact that we've been helpful in terms of bringing together this party, the fact that we've developed a good strong party, I believe it helps our city, it enhances our city. And I think the most important thing from a point of view of the city itself is that it improved the image of our city overall.

Vice Pres. MONDALE: What we're trying to do is move this country forward to open up opportunities for all Americans that heretofore have been limited to just certain categories of Americans. For the first time we are seriously considering the possibility of having a woman or a minority as the vice president of the United States. If we do that, if we're serious about that, we also have to realize that there are certain realities that must be realized. Number one is you cannot expect those who have been excluded from certain opportunities in the past to have had the same range of experience as those who have not been excluded. There's only been one black member of the United States Senate since Reconstruction. So you can't expect black Americans to have had all the experience that white Americans tend to have. The same with foreign policy experience. And thus you cannot ask for identical experience levels; you must ask for people that have the drive, the intelligence, the values, the instincts, the record, where a record and an experience is possible, that demonstrate their capacity to handle it. Now, I have absolutely and utterly no doubt that Wilson Goode could quickly master those things that are needed to help a president.

MacNEIL: A Jackson campaign official later called those Mondale remarks about the experience level of potential black candidates "atrocious." Blacks & Jews: Democrats' Dilemma

MacNEIL: As we've said, until today Jackson himself has turned aside any questions about Louis Farrakhan, and especially during his recent our of Central America. Judy Woodruff has more on the turmoil this was creatiing inside the Democratic Party. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: At a news conference late this afternoon, Robin, Jackson campaign manager Arnold Pinkney read a statement from Jackson. Pinkney told reporters that Farrakhan's statements have no place in Jackson's thinking or in his campaign.

ARNOLD PINKNEY, Jackson campaign manager [reading statement]: I find such statements or comments to be reprehensible and morally indefensible. I disavow such comments and thoughts. Such comments are inflammatory in the context of the Middle East and are damaging to the prospects for peace there. Such statements and thoughts have no place in my own thinking or in this campaign, and I call upon all of my supporters to join me in speaking out in support of my stand. I will not permit Minister Farrakhan's words, wittingly or unwittingly, to divide the Democratic Party. Neither anti-Semitism nor antiblack statements have any place in our party. Having expressed my views on this matter as clearly as I can, I would aver that those who continue to attempt to use those statements to make an issue in the Democratic Party are not working for the good of the party. Finally, the problem these issues have raised are more troubling than any immediate political consequences that may ensue. They go to the very fabric of our national civility. I believe that we must begin a process designed to heal the wounds that injudicious words, relentless accusation and widespread publicity have opened within the Christian, Islamic and Jewish communities.

WOODRUFF: Pinkney also pointed out that Farrakhan has not participated in Jackson's campaign in recent months because Jackson had discouraged it. He stressed, "He is not a part of our campaign." Before today's repudiationby Jackson, the situation had become so serious that a top Democratic Party official said yesterday Jackson might be refused permission to address the Democratic convention next month if he did not repudiate Farrakhan's statements. And today, 10 Democratic members of the House of Representatives sent party chairman Charles Manatt a letter urging him to refuse to recognize Jackson at the convention unless he did just that. Well, to further assess black and Jewish reaction to Farrakhan's latest statement and Jackson's response as well, we turn to two leaders from each of those communities. Hyman Bookbinder is the Washington director of the American Jewish Committee, one of the oldest and most influential Jewish organizations in the country. And John Jacob is president of the National Urban League, a community-service organization which works with corporations on issues of concern to black Americans. Mr. Jacob joins us tonight from the public television studios of WGBH in Boston.

Let me begin with you, Mr. Bookbinder. Does Jesse Jackson's statement satisfy you?

HYMAN BOOKBINDER: Well, it is very welcome. You know, as you know, Judy, I learned about the statement only minutes before we came to the studio. I have not had a chance to read the full text, but the words I've heard, the words I just heard on the monitor are the right words. This is what all of us have been asking for. Mr. Mondale has asked for that. Church leaders in the last 24 hours asked for that. As to whether they will continue, whether Mr. Jackson will continue in the same vein and live up to those words, we have yet to see. But this is a very, very happy development, and it goes way beyond this impact on the Democratic Party or on the election. It goes to the very heart of our society, a pluralist society in which a kind of intolerance reflected in the Farrakhan statements are just intolerable.

WOODRUFF: Would you say, at this point at least, the statement closes the matter as far as you're concerned?

Mr. BOOKBINDER: No, I can't say that. For one thing, it would be very presumptuous for me to make a judgment for anybody other than myself. But I do hope, I express the hope that it can close it out, because we do not need this kind of confrontation that at least appears to people and is perceived by many people to be a black-Jewish confrontation. It never has been a black-Jewish confrontation.We have had some problems with Mr. Jackson, and even after tonight's statement we will continue to have problems because he has a record of statements and actions that do not please us. But on this issue, reflecting on the Farrakhan statements, I welcome them.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Jacob, what do you make of the Jackson statement? Was this what you expected, and do you think he should have said what he did?

JOHN JACOB: Well, I must confess that I only heard parts of it, because I did not have the privilege of reviewing it prior to arriving here tonight. But I am delighted to hear that Jesse has taken a position of denouncement of the statements made by Minister Farrakhan. And more importantly, I think that what Jesse hopefully has done is to put into perspective the issue. Clearly the statements made by the minister ought to be denounced. But I have a graver concern, and that is how the media has played up and reacted to every statement made by Minister Farrakhan's as if it represented the black community's views and opinions. And I think that by playing into that, what we have essentially done is to create a sensationalism about a one-man statement and played it off as it if is representative of a group of people.

WOODRUFF: So you lay the fault at the doorstep of the news media?

Mr. JACOB: Well, clearly, I think the news media has to bear some of the fault. And it is clearly not totally their fault, because had he not made the statement they would have not had anything to report. But I would submit to you that Minister Farrakhan's statements this year are probably not significantly different from the statements he made last year. And last year it was not getting the kind of visibility that it is getting this year. So clearly something has happened over the past year that has accelerated and exacerbated the reasoning for the media to give such high visibility to statements made by Minister Farrakhan.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Bookbinder, do you think it's all been exacerbated?

Mr. BOOKBINDER: No, I think, to use a cliche, the issue is more the message than the messenger. Mr. Farrakhan has indeed said dastardly things over the years, but this year his saying it became more important because he was a prominent supporter, a prominent ally of a presidential aspirant. It could not be ignored what he was saying. At least until tonight, Mr. Farrakhan had to be considered a major figure in the political situation. I hope that as of tonight, among the words I understand that Mr. Jackson used today was that "He has no role in my campaign." I hope it means that Mr. Jackson says he should have no further role and will have none. That's pretty close to a repudiation of Mr. Farrakhan, as the situation warranted. And my good friend John Jacob, I understand the point he makes because every now and then I too feel that the press is overdoing something. But this was a very serious matter.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Jacob?

Mr. JACOB: I do not suggest that it was not a serious matter. What I am suggesting is that there are other people who have been associated with Jesse Jackson's campaign who have made statements that have not gotten great visibility. What I am saying is that the press did indeed seize upon the opportunity to highlight the inflammatory positions that were being stated by Minister Farrakhan, and what it did in fact by carrying forth that action was to create the image of a schism that exists between black people and Jewish people.

WOODRUFF: Do you think there was an overreaction on the part of the Jewish community?

Mr. JACOB: Oh, well, I think the Jewish community had every right to be concerned. So I would never suggest that inflammatory statements against a group should not be reacted to by a group. What I would submit to you, however, is that the continuation on the part of the media of playing into that, of allowing themselves to be manipulated by Minister Farrakhan and the statements that he made, further exacerbated the issues.

WOODRUFF: How much damage has this whole episode that has now stretched over several months -- how much damage do you think it's done to the relations between blacks and Jews in this country?

Mr. BOOKBINDER: It's done some damage, but it had the threat, the possibility of major damage. That's why tonight I'm quite delighted, that perhaps tonight's development will stop that potential erosion, because there was too much attributing to the black-Jewish situation, the -- really the criminal offenses of one man. So I hope that this will help us all remember, especially now when we're celebrating 20 years of the Civil Rights Act, when we celebrated recently the Supreme Court decision -- blacks and Jews have some differences, but the basic story of blacks and Jews in this country is that we've had common goals and we work together very, very well.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Jacob, would you agree with that, that it was threatening to do damage but that this has probably stopped it?

Mr. JACOB: Well, I think -- I agree absolutely with Hy on that. It was certainly threatening to do damage. And indeed, it was critical for Jesse to state where he was coming from, because the ultimate goal of all of this was simply, it seems to me, to create a power position for black Americans in the political process. Until Jesse made his statement, I think that was in serious damage. And further I think that until Jesse made his statement, it was perceived by the broader community that there was a coalescence around a statement by Minister Farrakhan of the black community simply because Reverend Jackson had not spoken.

WOODRUFF: Let's try to bring this back around to the Democratic Party and to the likelihood that Jews, that blacks together will come together to support the Democratic candidate in November. What effect do you think this is going to have on Mondale?

Mr. BOOKBINDER: Well, first, Jews are not monolithic and it never was true that every Jew was going to vote for the Democrats in any case. There'll be a split vote, but surely some voters who had intended to or usually voted Democratic were inclined to change their votes; some may still do it because of the record of the last month. But I think that we now go back to a more rational and a more proper evaluation of the candidates, and Jews like non-Jews will now look at the entire candidacies of both Mondale and Reagan and hopefully make a wise choice. But they will not -- again I repeat the word "I hope," because we do not yet know exactly what tonight's statement will do -- but they will now not be distracted by this unfortunate situation.

WOODRUFF: One last question, Mr. Jacob. Why do you think Reverend Jackson waited until now to make the statement that he did?

Mr. JACOB: Well, I really don't know. I would have hoped that he would have made it some time before, principally because if you follow the logic of the media, the reason that Minister Farrakhan was of such notoriety was because he had an association with Reverend Jackson. And clearly, had Jesse done it earlier, it would have dealt with the concerns that Hy has articulated. I suspect that what Jesse was grappling with was trying to at least paint the picture that he was not abandoning a person that for the first time in his life had entered into the political arena and attempted to participate by granting support at a time that Jesse needed support. And so I think that he was trying to be reciprocal in his relationship. But I do think timing was a problem, and it certainly did not help the situation at all.

WOODRUFF: Thank you both for being with us, John Jacob, Hyman Bookbinder. Jim?

LEHRER: Three more Mediterranean fruit flies have been found in the Little Havana section of downtown Miami. That's nine that have been trapped there since June 19th when an 81 -square-mile area of the city was quarantined for the shipments of fruits and plants and pesticide spraying was begun. Health authorities said they were encouraged at least that the new Med Fly finds were in the same area, meaning there's been no spreading.

And in another Florida story today, the commander of the space shuttle Discovery said his first reaction to Tuesday's last-second aborted flight was an expletive deleted. And there was some initial concern that they might be lifted only off the launching pad but out into the sea. But other than that, he and his five fellow astronauts were relaxed about it. Commander Henry Hartsfield spoke at a news conference at the Kennedy Space Center.

HENRY HARTSFIELD, shuttle commander: When we saw the engine lights, my first reaction was "Rats," because I knew we weren't going anywhere. And we -- I said we trained for 16 months and we've seen this scenario before in the simulator, where you get down to the ignition system and an engine fails to start or something happens to it in the start sequence, and when that happens you aren't going anywhere; the system shuts it down. And our biggest [unintelligible] -- well, probably the emotion was disappointment. And I don't think that because it does an orderly shutdown, that there was no cause for apprehension. Drinking Age -- Reginonal Reaction

LEHRER: Within the next few days, the 21-year-old drinking bill will be the law of the land. Early this morning the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed it. The Senate has already done the same. So it goes now to President Reagan, who has said he will sign it. The law is an or-else order to the 28 states which permit some drinking of alcoholic beverages by those under 21. Raise your drinking limit to 21 by October 8, 1986, or lose federal highway funds, 5% of them in 1987, 10% the following year. It also contains a kind of positive bribe: enact mandatory sentences for drunk driving and highway funds will be increased 5%.

Robin?

MacNEIL: Since this legislation has created a lot of disagreement, we decided to sample some editorial opinion around the country, and in a moment we'll talk to two editors from different regions and a sponsor of the proposed law. First some editorial from states which would be affected by the legislation. There was a wide range of opinions.

The Idahonian wrote, "It's easy for a 73-year-old President and a middle-aged Congress to say the national drinking age ought to be 21, but it shouldn't come through the coercion of the states and discrimination against an age group that's not in a position of influence." The Burlington Free Press concurred "that all 18-year-olds are to be punished for the sins of a few is an insult to those who do not drink and drive."

But many editorials supported the legislation. The Honolulu Advertiser wrote, "The states need to see the writing on the wall or the blood stains on the highways. There should be a national minimum drinking age within two years." The Bangor Daily News added, "Much as we dislike federal bullying, the bill will serve as a prod for states such as Maine, where lawmakers have proved unable to act on this issue despite the wishes of a majority of citizens."

There were a number of newspapers which supported raising the drinking age but felt the federal approach was wrong. The Houston Post wrote, "Raising the drinking age to 21 is absolutely the right thing to do, and a federal threat is absolutely the wrong way to do it." The Miami Herald agreed. "As laudable as the proponents intentions are, the bill would signify a further erosion of the system of federalism under which states retain some discretion in matters of social policy."

To explore the issue further, we talk with a key Senate sponsor of the drunk driving bill, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, and two newspaper editors who oppose the legislation. They are Al Pinder, editor of the Grinnell Herald Register on Grinnell, Iowa -- he joins us from PBS station WTTW-Chicago; and Henry Tatum, editorial staff writer for the Dallas Morning News, who joins us from PBS station KERA in Dallas.

Mr. Tatum, first of all, in Dallas, what is your objection to this legislation?

HENRY TATUM: Oh, really, Robin, I think that our main objection to it is not unlike some of the others that you've heard. We very strongly are in favor of a move to a 21-year-old minimum drinking age, but we just feel like for the federal government to step in and try and force it through major withdrawal of funds, threat of withdrawal of funds, is inappropriate. Texas would stand to lose the most out of this, as you probably know. It would be I think approximately $33 million during that first year of it, and if it's not enacted the second year, it would go up to $66 million. So obviously there's a lot at stake. But I think beyond that, it's just the very fact that it's so much better for the individual states to make the decision. And I feel like, in the next legislation, the Texas legislators would have made that decision. They considered it the last time, and I think this time they would have gone ahead and adopted it without this threat from Washington.

MacNEIL: The drinking age now in Texas is?

Mr. TATUM: Nineteen. In 1973 it was raised to -- it was lowered to 18 years old. But then three years ago it was increased to 19. So the trend already was upward here in Texas.

MacNEIL: Mr. Pinder, what is your criticism or objection to the new bill?

AL PINDER: Well, I still have a lot of trouble with the fact that the inconsistency of saying you are an adult, you can vote, you can go into the service, you can do all of these adult things, but your adult thinking stops in this area. Either they're wrong one place or the other. They should not permit them to vote or they should say you can drink at age 18. Because to divide these decisions seems a total inconsistency to me.

MacNEIL: What is the drinking age in Iowa?

Mr. PINDER: Nineteen.

MacNEIL: Nineteen.And would the Iowa legislature raise it without this kind of pressure?

Mr. PINDER: I doubt it without the hammer that the federal government's going to use on them.

MacNEIL: And how do you feel about the hammer that Mr. Tatum objected to?

Mr. PINDER: I object grossly to it. I don't mind the carrot that they've got in the new bill, but I object to the hammer.

MacNEIL: Yeah. Senator Lautenberg, taking the issue of the hammer first, how do you respond to these criticisms?

Sen. FRANK LAUTENBERG: Well, I wish it could have been done another way. We've tried it. Since the President's report, the Commission on Drunk Driving, issued its statement, 19 states have failed to pass the legislation, four have. In many cases in response to the first person's comments, state legislatures have just refused to tackle the issue. In the case of Vermont, for instance, twice the legislation there -- the legislature there has passed it only to see it vetoed by a single individual, the governor of the state. So while it would be nice to say let's encourage people, let's incentivize the states, it doesn't work. And this is the one program that does work, as evidenced by the national speed limit of 55; auto emission is another one. We've had incentive programs included in a whole series of programs in the 408 section of the Highway Trust Fund, and one of them is age 21 drinking, and very few states have passed that part of the incentive program.

MacNEIL: Mr. Tatum, how do you answer that?

Mr. TATUM: Well, he talked about some of the programs that have worked through incentives and mandatory requirements for the state. But there's some things, for instance in Dallas. For years this city and Houston, both very rapidly growing cities, have had environmental standards hanging over them that threatened the loss of federal funds. And it just never came to pass. It seemed like it was such a drastic step, that when we finally got right up to the edge, the guidelines were changed. And I really in a way almost think that that's what would happen in this case. Even though it's adopted now, two years from now, what would happen? I think that the public reaction to the loss of that amount of federal funds in Texas and the other states that would be hurt as well, I think would be too negative, and I feel like that what has happened today isn't necessarily going to be here in two years.

MacNEIL: You mean that Congress would back off you think?

Mr. TATUM: I think so. I think either Congress would back off or that revisions would be made along the way?

MacNEIL: How about that, Senator?

Sen. LAUTENBERG: Well, I don't think the Congress is going to back off. We see a movement in this country to abolish drunk driving. We know that this group, the age 16-to-20 group, is the only group in our society who in the last 20 years haven't had an increase in their life expectancy. There's strong public sentiment against permitting this to continue, and this is one group, unfortunately, that is being singled out where we can do some good. And I don't think there's going to be a mood at all. Remember, the President of the United States, who is a prominent states rightist, changed his mind to get this going. And that tells you something about what the mood out there is.

MacNEIL: Moving off the states rights argument for a moment to Mr. Pinder's argument that it's just unfair to 18-year-olds -- you heard what he said. If they can be drafted, and if they can vote, not to let them drink.

Sen. LAUTENBERG: Well, maybe we ought to take a look at what age we draft people. That doesn't necessarily eliminate the fact that we're going to do a lot of good here. We have to remember this, that according to the National Safety Transportation Board, more than 100 youngsters a month will have their life saved. Countless more disabling injuries. Enormous sums of property damage, relatively insignificant compared to the loss of life for the 17- or 18- or 19-year-old. So maybe we ought to look at the whole package. But this doesn't, in my view, mitigate against the fact that we can do some good here for a lot of people who are counting on us. Families, the youngsters, even the youngsters themselves -- 58% of the youngsters polled in the Gallup Poll said they thought that the age limit ought to be increased to 21.

MacNEIL: What's the feeling in Iowa about that, Mr. Pinder?

Mr. PINDER: Well, I'm still with the 19-year-old thing, and I keep wondering why we haven't made further use of drivers education for education against drinking and driving. I'm fascinated by the fact that most of the young people I see get in a car, the first thing they do is take that seat belt and hook it up. And I never think to do that, and most of the people of my generation just don't touch the thing. But the youngsters have learned this in drivers ed when they're pliable and acceptable to teaching. And it would seem to me that we are missing a bet. Here we're trying to coerce them by saying your age of judgment is 18. I think they ought to teach them when they have them to teach, and I think perhaps you can do a lot more that way than by simply legislating the fact that at 21 you're old enough to ask for a drink. The other side of the coin also that bothers me is that we're going to make a whole group of lawbreakers between 18 and 21. They're going to seek it out and they're going to be breaking the law, and we're going to be going back somewhat into the same problems we had during Prohibition.

MacNEIL: Senator, do you fear that?

Sen. LAUTENBERG: No, I don't. Take my own state of New Jersey. We reduced the age in 1974 in the post-Vietnam mood to give 18-year-olds more of a say. Our fatalities tripled. We raised the age again in 1983.We cut them immediately by a third. But that doesn't prevent our young people from driving across the border, very convenient in the northern part of our state, to New York State, and driving back home, sometimes not making it. Frankly, I don't think that we ought to abolish this opportunity to save lives based on what perhaps are some other arguments for other conditions. I think we have to get on with this and deal with the other things as they are. I know the gentleman comes from the state of Iowa. The next state to his, Idaho, is the only state among a group of five -- four other bordering states that has a lower age than 21. I guess they wouldn't like to have that age raised.

MacNEIL: Yeah. Well, we'd like to thank you all for joining us, Mr. Tatum in Dallas, Mr. Pinder from Iowa in Chicago, Senator Lautenberg in Washington. Thank you, gentlemen. Jim?

LEHRER: Again, the main stories of the day. Jesse Jackson has issued a statement denouncing recent anti-Israel remarks by Louis Farrakhan, calling them reprehensible and morally indefensible. Jackson himself is due back tonight from Cuba with 22 American and 26 Cuban prisoners released from Cuban jails.

Roberto d'Aubuisson, the right-wing leader from El Salvador, denied in Washington he is a killer and a plotter of an assassination against U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering.

And as we heard, a bill is on the way to the President that gives 28 states until next year to raise their drinking age to 21 or lose part of their federal highway funds. Olympics: Passing the Torch

LEHRER: And finally tonight, some words from James J. Fisher, who needs no introduction to people around Kansas City. But the rest of us need to know he writes a column called "The Midlands" for the Kansas City, Missouri, Times. His words are about the Olympic torch, which is making its way slowly across the country to Los Angeles carried by various and varied runners along the way. James Fisher was there last weekend at Berthoud Pass in the central Colorado Rockies when the torch was at 11,000 feet.

JAMES FISHER [voice-over]: Even in this remote spot, high in the Rockies, there was a large crowd, shouting, clapping, waving American flags, marking for one brief moment the highest altitude reached on this meandering journey of celebration, of America by Americans. Now all of a sudden, it seems, the national media has discovered what's been going on in this country for the past two months, that the American people have been having one gigantic hand-clapping, flag-waving parade, a parade across 27 states with six more to go. A sort of transcontinental extended block party.

News people have been calling what they see a phenomenon. But then ordinary folks have known all along what the Olympic torch means. Irwin Kreuger [?] said, "I could have told you. People really care about their country." People care. A simple statement by an old Marine who fought in the South Pacific 40 years ago and who says yes, one of his wife's relatives was Scott Carpenter, the astronaut. But that moon stuff was so far away, so technological. Well, it was just hard. But this, this torch you can understand. And the story is that America has taken the Olympic torch to its heart. Nobody told America to.It's just happened.

People have been the one constant in this relay.They've come out from the first day as the torch moved northeastward from New York and into New England. There have been people everywhere, waiting, ready to clap, shout encouragement, and then as the caravan passes by, waving one more time and going about whatever they do. Waiting people. They had been as constant as the slap-slap of the runner's shoes against the pavement. Some people just start running along with the torch bearer. They just do it, and nobody seems to mind. A lot of the kids have American flags. They are so many, and in so many sizes, you wonder where they come from. Most people can't explain exactly why they come. Sure, there's a festive air about what's happening, like a parade. Often there are vans. But if you asked straight out, they talk about this being something you see once in a lifetime, or this, it's positive about America.

One woman in her eighties, leaning against her cane at Burkid Pass, said flatly that America is going to hell in a bucket, but that this, the torch relay, was just wonderful, wonderful.

Maybe one woman said it best: "We're all hungry for heroes, but not big ones, not anymore. Little heroes." People who maybe are afflicted. People who could make a kilometer in a wheelchair. Like Joe Snow. Joe took the first leg through Idaho Springs, Colorado. Joe is 32. He's had cerebral palsy since birth. His mother says Joe doesn't talk real well. It didn't matter. Joe's face expressed his feelings.

Or Janice Robinson, the school librarian, whose kilometer run coincided with her 33rd birthday. During her run, Janice cried. Her husband joined her, racing up on her left with their child, their video camera, both loaded in a stroller. And Janice talked about how she felt.

JANICE ROBINSON: These are American's beautiful. And they are.

FISHER [voice-over]: So you have Joe and Janice, runners. But what makes the others come out? This torch run has touched something elemental in America. The people come with their cameras and electronic gear. They are going to get it down, make permanent what they are seeing. Forget the newspapers and television: they are doing their own recording of history. They are seeing something special.

LEHRER: The torch is in the town of Tremonton, Utah, tonight. Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour Tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.