The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Here is the top of the news. A special prosecutor has been named to investigate Edwin Meese. The Supreme Court has overturned one state's school prayer law, but agreed to consider another. Three Democrats are battling down to the wire in tomorrow's New York primary. Arab terrorists wounded 48 in a Jerusalem street attack. The construction industry reported a boom month, but Wall Street closed sharply down. President Reagan told Congress he will press ahead with an anti-satellite weapon without negotiating with Moscow. Jim Lehrer is off tonight; Judy Woodruff's in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: On an issue that's been dominating the New York primary, we'll have a debate over whether the U.S. should move its embassy in Israel or not. On that emergency loan for Argentina, two experts on international finance will give their sharply different views on what it means to the U.S. and Argentina. On the victim of cerebral palsy who was refused her request to stop treatment, we'll look at the resulting impact on the people who care for her. And, on the late Marvin Gaye, we'll talk with a music critic about his legacy. [film of Marvin Gaye singing "Sexual Healing"]

A Washington attorney named Jacob Stein has been named as special prosecutor to investigate Edwin Meese, President Reagan's choice to be the next attorney general. Stein is a former president of the District of Columbia bar association. He was named by a special federal judicial panel which was asked by the current attorney general, William French Smith, last week to appoint a special prosecutor. The Justice Department has asked that the prosecutor look into loans that Meese received from people who later got federal jobs and his financial transactions with those people. The prosecutor is also charged with investigating claims of special treatment for businesses in which Meese had an interest, Meese's promotion in the military reserve and what he knew about former President Carter's campaign documents that ended up in the hands of the Reagan campaign in 1980.

Robin?

MacNEIL: The Supreme Court gave new hope today to advocates of school prayer, but also handed them a defeat. Ruling on two appeals from Alabama the high court agreed to decide whether the Constitution allows a moment of silence for quiet prayer or meditation in the classroom. That was one of the aims of the backers of several proposed school prayer amendents to the Constitution, all defeated in the Senate last month. The Reagan administration backed the Alabama bid saying, "Permitting children to maintain a moment of silence presents no threat to the Constitution." President Reagan has made school prayer a central issue in his campaign for re-election, but the Court is unlikely to decide this question before November. Twenty-four states, including Alabama, have laws permitting the moment of silence. The Court today overturned another Alabama law allowing public school teachers to lead students in spoken prayer.

The focus of attention in the presidential campaign this week ison the Democratic primary in New York State tomorrow. The latest poll gives former Vice President Mondale an 11% lead over Senator Gary Hart, with the Reverend Jesse Jackson a close third. Mondale predicted that it will be very, very close while Hart said, "I'll run at least a close second." And Jackson said, "We'll win." With 252 delegates at stake, the largest prize until the California primary in June, all three candidates threw themselves into a final campaign effort today.

[voice-over] Mondale made a last-minute tour across the state, starting in Buffalo, where he shook hands with workers in an automobile parts factory. He said the decline in the American automobile industry is one of the reasons why the should be elected to deal with the rpoblems of basic industry. From Buffalo Mondale went to three other upstate cities, and ended the day in New York City.

In another part of Buffalo, Hart spoke to a college audience. He too said he would work to solve the problems of the smokestack industries. In a city that's been his hard by unemployment, Hart said his program for reshaping the nation's economy would put the unemployed back to work. Hart then moved on to the state capital at Albany, and he too went on to New York City.

Another issue, crime in the streets, was on Jackson's mind. He spent the last day of the campaign in New York City, where he promised an audience of senior citizens that he would take handguns off the streets. Specifically, he criticized Hart for failing to endorse legislation for the control of handguns. He made nine appearances from Harlem to Brooklyn and ended the day with a fundraising rally in Central Park. Move the Embassy?

MacNEIL: One of the curious aspects of the New York primary has been the extraordinary attention given to an apparently small issue -- whether the United States Embassy in Israel should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since 1949, but the status of East Jerusalem, captured from Jordan in the 1967 war, is in dispute. The Reagan administration says moving the embassy would be a red flag to Arab nations and terrorists. But Senator Hart and Vice President Mondale have each been trying to sound more eager to move the embassy if he became president. Jesse Jackson says it isn't so simple. The issue has come up because New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is sponsoring a bill in the Senate to move the embassy, and because more than a third of the state's Democratic primary vote is Jewish. Last night the candidates were again asked their positions on the embassy issue in a debate on station WNBC moderated by Gabe Pressman.

GABE PRESSMAN, WNBC: Do you gentlemen now agree that you both want to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: On this issue I think Gary's getting better as we move closer to the primary. For a year he took the ridiculous proposition that whether we transfer our embassy to the capital of Israel should be decided by negotiations with her neighbors.

Sen. GARY HART, Democratic Presidential candidate: No, no. I never took that position.

Mr. MONDALE: That's ridiculous. Well, let me finish this because --

Sen. HART: I never took that position.

Mr. MONDALE: -- that's exactly the position you took --

Sen. HART: No, it's not.

Mr. MONDALE: -- not once, but many times. Then, when he dismissed his own letter he said he did it because of staff error, and then they caught him on a TV clip saying the same thing. For 20 years I've been for the transfer of that embassy. He transferred that embassy to Jerusalem the same time he transferred his headequarters from Chicago to New York.

Mr. PRESSMAN: The other day I heard you, Senator Hart, tell some Jewish leaders here in New York that you were for it. Then I read somewhere that you had said, only after negotiation.

Sen. HART: No. I have never said that I --

Mr. PRESSMAN: Where do you stand now?

Sen. HART: I have never said that I would negotiate with anyone where we place our embassy in Jerusalem or anywhere else. And I think Vice President Mondale knows that. You know, this goes right back to the first question that you asked us, and Fritz knows this full well. I have to believe that -- I know that the voters of New York state are fed up with this. I know they are. They're fed up with this penny ante picky business when they know that Walter Mondale and I are equally committed to the survival of Israel and the fundamental policy of this nation. They know that. And they don't want to hear -- they don't want to hear this anymore.

Mr. PRESSMAN: Reverend Jackson, we only have four minutes left. I want to let them respond to this.

Rev. JESSE JACKSON, Democratic presidential candidate: I disagree with both of their positions. I'm sitting here too. Jerusalem --

Mr. PRESSMAN: I know. I wanted to ask you a question about --

Rev. JACKSON: It's a city of three great religions -- Christianity, Judaism as well as Islam. A lot of tension around that, its role as an international city, and one cannot say so simplisticly just remove the capital there. No president has because of the tension involved. While we posture about it, people there can get hurt about it. I would think that when you look at the Jerusalem situation, the West Bank occupation and the settlements, we would do well in the Middle East to move toward a peace policy, negotiations are important. We need to spend more time getting Israel's enemies to stop waging holy war against Israel and try to neutralize them than engaging in what amounts to real political pandering.

Mr. MONDALE: What counts in this campaign is to stay on the issues that illuminate our differences. One of the issues in the Middle East is who's steady, who sees it, who's consistent, who's worked in that area. I was involved in Camp David, I was involved in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. For 20 years I've been for the transfer of the embassy. The reason I brought that up was is that you changed your position on that fundamental question about five days ago. That is clear.

Sen. HART: No, it isn't.

Mr. MONDALE: Now, that's not petty. That goes to the question of who's ready, who's consistent, who knows what he's doing. Oh, yes. And the record is as clear as it can be --

Sen. HART: Could I ask Vice President Mondale a question? Why, during four years you were in the White House, didn't the Carter-Mondale administration move the embassy?

Mr. MONDALE: For the reason that you know. President Carter was never for it. When he ran for President in 1976 he said he was opposed to it.That was clear. I've always been for it.

WOODRUFF: The debate over whether the U.S. Embassy in Israel should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem did not start when the Democratic primary rivals reached New York City. The idea of moving the embassy was included in both party platforms in 1980. It came to the forefront of public attention this year after, as Robin said, a bill was introduced in Congress that would force the administration to make the move. Well, to further unravel this debate we turn to a co-sponsor of the move-the-embassy bill in the House, California Democrat Tom Lantos, who joins us tonight from the studios of public station KQED in San Francisco. And former Undersecretary of State Joseph Sisco, a career State Department officer who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Mr. Sisco is now an international affairs consultant here in Washington. Mr. Lantos, let me begin with you. Why should we have the embassy shifted from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

Rep TOM LANTOS: Well, Judy, I think we first have to take this debate out of the realm of presidential politics and put it in the only realm where it belongs, namely, the realm of principle. The United States maintains embassies in the capitals of 135 nations. Every nation on the face of this planet with which we have diplomatic relations designates a capital and our embassy is in that capital. As a matter of fact, when a nation chooses to change its capital, we move our embassy. When Brazil changed its capital from Rio to Brasilia, we moved our embassy from Rio to Brasilia.

WOODRUFF: But what's the practical gain?

Rep. LANTOS: Well, let me first deal with the principle. There is one nation, Judy, the nation of Israel, which has designated its capital to be Jerusalem, but we pursue a double standard, a discriminatory policy: one standard for 135 nations, and a separate, discriminatory standard for the state of Israel. Even in the case of communist East Germany, where we do not recognize East Germany's territorial jurisdiction over East Berlin, we nevertheless have our embassy in East Berlin. My feeling is that it is unfortunate that this issue has gotten involved with the presidential campaign, and I realize there is a primary in New York tomorrow. But we have gone out of our way to take this issue out of partisan politics. As a matter of fact, my legislation, which, by the way, as of this afternoon has a majority of the members of the House of Representatives co-sponsoring it, 218, has among the co-sponsors some of the leading members of the Republican Party -- Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican Whip --

WOODRUFF: I just wondered if I could interrupt and ask you once again, what is the practical gain from moving the embassy?

Rep. LANTOS: Well, the practical gain is that we abandon a discriminatory principle. There was no practical gain when we integrated institutions of higher learning in the South. The practical gain was that we stood tall and rejected discriminatory practices. Sometimes a great nation has to live by principle.

WOODRUFF: All right --

Rep. LANTOS: The principle here is to abandon discriminatory treatment.

WOODRUFF: All right, let's ask Mr. Sisco, what about that? You don't think it's such a good idea. Why not?

JOSEPH SISCO: Two reasons, Judy. One, we're the indispensable third-party element in the Middle East. If we were to become the second country -- Costa Rica is the only other country that has its embassy in Jerusalem, it would undermine that central role. Every president, Republican and Democrat, has held to this view that the question of Jerusalem is very special. It has to be decided in a broader framework. And therefore I believe for this resolution to be adopted and to be forced upon the executive branch would undermine that central role of the United States. Secondly, I'm sure my friend Tom Lantos favors anything that would improve and strengthen the security of Israel, as I would. And, to the degree to which any resolution reflects the closeness ofrelationships between the United States and Israel, I favor. But this would not help Israel's security. For one thing, the Arabs are very divided. The division of the Arabs has always worked to the advantage of Israel. If the Arabs are agreed on anything, Judy, they are certainly agreed with respect to Jerusalem and that it cannot be decided by a unilateral step. I regret that this move has been taken in this election year. I take at face value what Tom Lantos has said, that he would like to divorce it from presidential politics. It's unrealistic. It's part of the whole scene. And the very fact that he and Pat Moynihan have gone ahead in this election year, have made it part of the political process in this election year.

WOODRUFF: Was that your intention, Mr. Lantos?

Rep. LANTOS: Well, Judy, let me first say that I have the highest regard for my friend Joe Sisco who has represented our nation with great distinction. The fact of the matter is that there must be an answer why suddenly this issue has erupted, and I tell you why it has erupted, why we have, as of today, 218 members of the House of Representatives cosponsoring my bill. This is the time. The time has come to rectify this long-standing inequity. I agree with Joe Sisco, it will not contribute to the security of Israel. It will merely allow the United States to hold up its head high and not to have two sets of approaches in locating our embassies around the world.

WOODRUFF: But what about his point that it would unify the Arab countries?

Rep. LANTOS: I don't think far more drastic steps have unified the Arab countries. If Joe Sisco believes, which I don't think he does, that this will bring about an end to the Iran-Iraq war or this will bring about a reconciliation between Syria and Egypt, I would respectfully have to disagree. My feeling is that we simply cannot allow the conduct of U.S. foreign policy to be held hostage to terrorist threats. This administration came to power because the previous administration did not handle itself so well in the face of a mob attack on an American embassy in Teheran. The United States must conduct is foreign policy on a principled basis.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Sisco, what about his point that we need to abandon a policy -- essentially a policy of discrimination?

Mr. SISCO: Well, I don't believe this is the case. He cited, for example, East and West Germany. Look, Jerusalem is totally under the security of Israel. You don't have a division. I am for a united Jerusalem. You don't have a united East and West Germany or a united Berlin. The analogy is inapplicable. Moreover, my feeling is that, that the administration has said this has got to be looked at and worked on within the broader framework. My understanding is that Israel did not want this issue to come up at this time. In fact, the issue is embarrassing a number of segments of our public opinion, Jewish and non-Jewish as well.

WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. Lantos, has the Israeli government asked for this to come up now or not?

Rep. LANTOS: Certainly not. I think both Pat Moynihan and I felt that a long-standing inequity needed to be rectified. You know, every time you move to make a change in the status quo, in the way things are, some people get upset. When we tried to integrate universities in the South it was argued that there would be negative repercussions.

WOODRUFF: So you're --

Rep. LANTOS: Well, there were negative repercussions, but the principle had to be the dominant guiding force of our policy. That is the analogous situation here.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you, and Mr. Sisco, what's your betting on whether this has a chance of passage this year?

Mr. SISCO: Oh, I think the President will veto it. As a matter of principle I am against legislatively mandated foreign policy in this area.

WOODRUFF: All right, I'm sorry. I wish we had more time. Thank you very much, Congressman Lantos, Joseph Sisco, for being with us. Robin?

Rep. LANTOS: Pleasure being with you.

MacNEIL: Jerusalem became a battleground again today. Three Arab gunmen wounded 50 people in a 10-minute rampage with automatic weapons and grenades down a busy shopping street. One was shot dead by bystanders; two others were captured. The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a hard-line member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, issued communiques in Damascus claiming responsibility for the attack. It was the first random shooting in the Jewish sector of Jerusalem. Prime Minister Shamir said that the assailants and those who sent them will be punished to the full extent of the law. Here's a report from Don Lang of Visnews.

DON LANG, Visnews [voice-over]: Jerusalem's King George Street was packed with shoppers and tourists when the bombers struck. Within moments there was chaos and panic as machine-gun bullets were sprayed into the crowd. Some people were cut down by grenade fragments while shopowners themselves opened fire on the guerrillas. At least 50 people were injured in the attack, the most audacious in the holy city for years. Three other grenades exploded while another was successfully defused by Israeli security forces. As ambulances rushed the injured to Jerusalem's three main hospitals, Israeli troops threw a cordon around the area in case of further unexploded grenades. There were none, but almost immediately there were calls for vengeance. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir vowed that Israel would hit back at those responsible and those behind them, heralding possible revenge strikes into Lebanon. Police said that all three Arab guerrillas had come from Lebanon, and the attack is sure to mean tighter controls on border crossings.

MacNEIL: In Lebanon two Muslim leaders appluaded the attack. Former Prime Minister Saeb Salam, the Sunni Muslim leader, said it was, "an action of self-defense against the continuous aggression, expansion and repression of the Israelis in southern Lebanon." A Shiite militia leader called the attack heroic. In Lebanon, sporadic fighting continued at the Lebanese army's mountain position at Suk al-Gharb and along the Green Line dividing Beirut.

In the Persian Gulf war, a senior Iraqi general said that Iran had massed three-quarters of its army for a new offensive east of the city of Basra. A new Iranian attack has been expected for several weeks, and diplomats and Western intelligence reports have said that Iran has massed up to a million men.

Judy?

WOODRUFF: President Reagan told Congress today he would not start talks with the Soviets over limiting anti-satellite weapons in outer space. The announcement puts the administration on a collison course with the Congress. Last year the Senate voted 91 to nothing to ban U.S. testing of anit-satellite weapons unless the administration certifies that it would hold talks with the Soviets. The President said today he objected to anti-satellite weapon treaty talks because it would be too difficult to verify Soviet compliance. That view and the need for a U.S. anti-satellite testing program was underscored today by two of Mr. Reagan's Senate supporters.

Sen. JOHN WARNER, (R) Virginia: The report clearly confirms that the Soviets have not one, two and possibly a third system now which have been tested and could well be in operation to knock down our satellites. We had all hoped that perhaps space would be that frontier that we could protect from military systems, but this report now indicates, and will apparently represent the consensus of all the government agencies working in interagency task force to produce it. At this time there doesn't seem to be any hope to determine the basis on which such negotiations could be opened.

WOODRUFF: Senator Larry Pressler, a Republican who is leading opposition to the administration's position on this issue, said last week he thought an anti-satellite treaty with the Soviets could be verified. The Air Force plans to test its anti-satellite system later this year. In other Senate foreign policy news, lawmakers began 50 hours of debate today on the administration's request for emergency military aid for El Salvador. Critics of the administration's Central America policy are trying to cut the aid package down to $21 million. President Reagan's supporters in the Senate are pushing for almost three times that.

Robin? Argentine Bailout

MacNEIL: A number of big American banks breathed a little easier when they opened their doors for business today. A last-minute rescue had saved them and their customers from heavy losses if Argentina had not made long overdue payments on its massive debts. The rescue was arranged by the United States government in conjunction with four other Latin American countries -- Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela. They contributed $300 million. Argentina came through with $100 million from its own reserves, and a consortium of 11 U.S. and foreign banks provided another $100 million for a total package of $500 million. That enabled Argentina to meet a Saturday deadline and make its first payment since last October. Argentina owes U.S. banks $8.6 billion. Some have charged that the rescue operation is really a Reagan administration bailout for those U.S. banks. Treasury Secretary Donald Regan has hotly denied this. But the deal is controversial in other ways. Tonight we have two very different views of it. Robert Hormats, vice president with the New York investment firm of Goldman Sachs, was in Argentina during the negotiatons and has just returned. Michale Moffitt, an investment adviser with Shearson-American Express, is the author of the recent book, The World's Money, and an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. Mr. Hormats, a number of people in your business are calling this agreement a watershed. Do you think so and, if so, why?

ROBERT HORMATS: Well, I think in many ways it was a watershed. First of all, the interest rates in this particular rescue agreement were much lower than those in the past. Second, you had an interesting phenomenon; that is, a number of Latin American countries coming to the assistance of one of their brothers -- Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and Venezuela. And that's very important and very --

MacNEIL: They're all debtor nations themselves.

Mr. HORMATS: They're all debtor nations themselves. And I think they were genuinely concerned that a problem with Argentina between Argentina and the banks would have a contamination effect on the overall international financial system. But I think we all recognize that it's simply a pragmatic way of dealing with a very difficult problem. It's short-term in nature, and there are a number of problems that have to be dealt with in the future of longer, medium-term nature.

MacNEIL: Do you see it as a watershed agreement, Mr. Moffitt?

MICHAEL MOFFITT: Well, I suppose in an election year one takes a certain liberty with calling something a landmark achievement. I think we have not broken out of a pattern that I consider very dangerous, and that is a short-term papering over of a very basic problem in the world economy. The fact is that you have about a dozen countries around the world which have far more debts than they are going to be reasonably able to service in the near future. We have simply been providing short-term packages sponsored by the Treasury Department, some by the private banks, some by the International Monetary Fund. We haven't gotten to the basic question yet as to how you get these economies moving. The fact is that these countries are now paying out more in interest per year to service the debt than they're getting back in. It hinders their capital formation; it makes it very difficult for them to recover economically, which is the only way, I believe, that ultimately they can service the debt.

MacNEIL: He says there's just a papering over of the real problems.

Mr. HORMATS: Well, I think to a degree I wouldn't consider it a papering over. I think it's simply a way of dealing with an urgent situation. There's no question, however, but that the longer-term problem has to be addressed.The crisis that we consider a debt crisis here is, in developing countries, a crisis of growth and development. A number of them had no growth the last three or four years, very high rates of unemployment, large-scale capital outflows. They're having to squeeze their economies very hard to generate exports to help pay these debts. And I think that it's in our long-term interest and theirs that we do find a longer-term answer to help their economies grow. And that is something the world has not really achieved yet.

MacNEIL: Mr. Hormats said earlier that one of the remarkable things that made him call this a watershed was that it was a real cooperation of a group of Latin American countries this time, which differed from the past. Does that not impress you?

Mr. MOFFITT: I would interpret, I think, the Mexican role, as I understand it, in these negotiations as something aimed to a considerable degree at appeasing domestic political reaction to what Mexico has done in response to its own debt crisis. Mexico has temporarily solved its debt crisis by creating a savage domestic recession brought on by cutting imports very severely, and this has provoked a tremendous amount of political dissent about the long-term impacts of this policy.

MacNEIL: And your point is that the Mexican government is saying to its own people, "You see, we're willing to do it to Argentina too?"

Mr. MOFFITT: Well, I think that Argentina has shown that countries which have significant bank debts have a good deal of leverage over the banks who have loaned them all that money. Argentina has exploited their position and the fact that the U.S. Treasury Department felt compelled at the 11th hour to come in with this kind of a package in cooperation with the other states to prevent the banks having to swallow large amounts of non-performing loans, which hurts their earnings, which hurts their capital base, which hurts their stock price, shows that basically it was a bailout of the banks created by the leverage which Argentina has. But the basic point is we haven't gotten around to stimulating the kind of economic growth in these countries that can solve this problem.

MacNEIL: It is a bailout of the banks, Mr. Moffitt says.

Mr. HORMATS: Oh, sure. I think it helps the banks; there's no question about that, that if this weren't done the banks would have to take some declines in earnings, in some cases perhaps losses, for this quarter.

MacNEIL: So how would that -- how big might that have been if Argentina hadn't made its payments?

Mr. HORMATS: It would have been significant to a number of banks, but those banks were in good enough shape to survive that sort of cut. The real point here, I think, is that the United States and a lot of other Latin countries recognize that Argentina was a country in a very difficult position. This is a country which had gone through 10 years of very difficult times domestically. Juan Peron, Isabel Peron, a number of generals, horrible human rights problems. And this is a government which is genuinely trying to make major improvements. And they have all these pressures on them plus the debt problem. And I genuinely believe that this was an effort to help avoid a major rupture between Argentina and the banks, which would have had all sorts of major political implications.

MacNEIL: So this has a political motive as well as a financial one of underpinning Argentina's newly re-emergent democracy?

Mr. HORMATS: And appropriately so. I mean, it seems to me that we should be helpful to Argentina in this particular circumstance --

MacNEIL: Do you agree with that and applaud that motive?

Mr. MOFFITT: Well, I agree with Bob Hormats' view that this government is different. What I think the problem is is that as soon as Argentina enters into negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, if the Monetary Fund proposes draconian cuts, increasing unemployment, raising interest rates --

MacNEIL: President Alfonsin has already said he won't accept the heavy recessionary program.

Mr. HORMATS: Yeah. I think that's the major issue, and it seems to me this shows that the real battle has yet to be fought. And it seems to me that politically, if we don't find a longer-term solution, the imposition of these kinds of programs in Latin American countries is going to lead to a political explosion of one kind or another. These are already poor countries. And, granted, they have an industrial base and some --

MacNEIL: Well, what alternative -- you say that we are avoiding a long-term or not tackling a long-term solution. What is a long-term solution that, for instance, the American government could create?

Mr. MOFFITT: I think a longer-term solution begins with a dramatic lowering of interest rates in the United States. There is no justification historically for the kind of interest rates we have in this country at this time. Inflation is down to the best levels in about 15 years, and there is no reason why interest rates remain at present levels. Here we already have barely a year into this recovery in the United States, and it's thus far been confined largely to the United States, Japan and a few other areas. We have interest rates moving back up again. Short-term money over 10% for the past two weeks, and talk of more tightening by the Federal Reserve, which could abort the entire recovery before the Third World countries even get off the ground.

MacNEIL: Is there something the United States could do immediately to tackle the long-term problem?

Mr. HORMATS: I think there are a number of things. One, I certainly agree that we ought to be moving in the direction of lower interest rates, certainly, by getting the federal budget deficit down. There are a number of other things that can be done as well. I think supporting the IMF and enabling it to borrow additional money in the American market would be important. Additional export credits to help these countries would also be extremely important. And I think also this one element of this agreement that's particularly good, and that is the interest rates did come down in the rescue agreement. That's very important as well. Also, development assistance. These countries have enormous structural problems, and they need development assistance to help them. And I think one thing's very important about this, and that is that the United States lost probably 300,000 to 350,000 jobs over the last two years as the result of the difficulties that are faced by Latin American governments, having to tighten up, having to face high debts. And it's very much in our interest that we help these countries to stimulate their economic growth and provide the capital, provide the resources that are needed.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Hormats, Mr. Moffitt, thank you for joining us. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Elsewhere in South America, in Chile, three-fourths of the population went without electricity today after nine simultaneous explosions destroyed towers carrying high tension wires in various parts of the country. The dynamite blasts followed a series of mass demonstrations against the miltiary government last week. Today the president, General Agostino Pinochet, replaced the minister of finance and the minister of economy after public criticism of the way he has handled the country's economic problems.

[Video postcard -- Sunset Beach, Hawaii]

WOODRUFF: The American building industry had a boom month in February according to a government report out today. Spending for new construction jumped 6.9%, the largest monthly increase in almost four decades. The Commerce Department said the February gain reflected broad improvement throughout the construction industry, with particularly strong showings in residential and industrial buildings.

On Wall Street stocks took a sudden tumble this afternoon. The Dow Jones average of 30 industrial stocks ended the day down 11.75 at 1153.16. Traders said the drop was caused by rising interest rates, particularly on the cost of overnight loans between banks.

In Washington a study released today shows that cars whose automakers stuck with a tough bumper standard in their 1984 models, despite a government okay to abandon the standard, did far better in certain crash tests than other cars. At a news conference Missouri Republican Senator John Danforth, who is a leading congressional critic of industry and government efforts in the area of auto safety, noted that the Reagan administration's change to the weaker bumper standard was supposed to save money on new-car prices and save weight and fuel.

Sen. JOHN DANFORTH, (R) Missouri: No economic justification to the rolling back of the five-mile-an-hour standard. Here is a situation where any kind of cost benefit analysis of the weakening of a bumper standard would show that it increases cost to weaken the standard. And therefore I don't think that there is any rational justification of what NHTSA did when it rolled back the standard from five miles an hour to 2 1/2 miles an hour.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Danforth was joined by Ben Kelley of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, who presented a video tape showing how the new bumpers perform in low-speed-crash tests.

BEN KELLEY, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: You will see two virtually identical General Motors cars in the film, one a Chevrolet Citation, which has five-mile-an-hour bumpers and the other, otherwise identical, the Pontiac Phoenix, which has weaker bumpers. First, the Chevrolet Citation, which has the lowest damage of any car we've looked at this year, and then the otherwise virtually identical Pontiac Phoenix, which has an extremely high level of damage, solely because it bumper allows the damage. General Motors has unfortunately not promised to keep five-mile-an-hour bumpers and, indeed, seems to be pulling them off its new cars at a fairly rapid rate. The Ford Tempo GL does by far the best of the Ford cars that we've tested. It does, of course, pass the five-mile-an-hour standard, as Ford has promised that all of its cars will, and they do, going next to the Isuzu Impulse, another two-door car. We begin with $122 worth of damage in the front-into-barrier tests, and I will give you a foretaste now of what you're about to see by telling you that this damage will mount up over the four tests to some $2,000 -- by far the highest that we saw in this year's series.

WOODRUFF: Kelley said a vast majority of new cars have the weaker bumpers, but he said it's difficult for consumers to tell in the showroom which have them and which have retained more crash-resistant designs.

Las Vegas had a disaster of sorts on its hands today. The resort city was hit with a massive job walkout by hotel, casino and restaurant workers demanding higher pay. More than 18,000 union members went on strike, causing many hotels to close their restaurants andn serve food buffet style in the showrooms where they normally feature top acts. Some performances had to be canceled, including one by Shirley MacLaine, but gambling went on mostly unaffected. Robin? Treating Bouvia

MacNEIL: Last December we covered the story of Elizabeth Bouvia, a 26-year-old quadriplegic suffering from cerebral palsy who wanted to starve herself to death in a California hospital.

ELIZABETH BOUVIA, cerebral palsy patient: I'm not asking for anybody to kill me. I'm asking for the natural processes of death to let be taken over. In other words, I'm saying that I realize that by refusing nutrients and medical care that's what'ts going to happen. The natural processes of death will take over eventually.

MacNEIL: As of today the situation remains the same. Bouvia still wants to starve herself to death. She also wants the hospital to give her sedatives so that her death will be painless. The hospital, with the support of the courts, has refused to help her die and is force-feeing her. All of this has taken its toll on the hospital staff. We asked reporter Jeffrey Kay of Los Angeles public television station KCET to find out how the staff of Riverside General Hospital feels about caring for a patient who is intent on dying.

JEFFREY KAY [voice-over]: Each day, three times a day, a tray of food is prepared for Elizabeth Bouvia, and each day, three times a day, it is taken to the third floor of Riverside General Hospital. Each day, three times a day, a nurse delivers the food to Elizabeth Bouvia, and each day, three times a day, the food is quickly rejected and returned uneaten. Such is the bizarre routine to which the hospital has settled.

SUE McAFFERTY, dietician, Riverside General Hospital: We write her a very well-balanced diet to make sure that the food she receives in one day, that is, the three trays, is complete nutritionally to meet her metabolic needs while she's in the hospital.

PAMELA STONE, dietician: I think it's a waste of money, that, you know, we're preparing meals that are not actually being utilized. However, it's something that we still -- we hope that eventually if we give her three meals maybe she will start eating. My main frustration is just that it's taken away from my time that I could be spending with other patients.

KAY [voice-over]: Frustration. It permeates this hospital from top to bottom.

Dr. HABEEB BACCHUS, associate chief of medicine: Each day you hope that --- I hope that I'd come in and somehow she has relented in her resolve. That has not happened. That's a forlorn hope. Probably it will not happen soon. You wonder each day, is there going to be another problem? Will another tube be pulled out? Will she refuse further treatment or further procedure -- being turned in bed, whatever, getting out of bed -- to avoid some of the complications.

LEE TILLINGHAST, L.V.N.: The stress has built up as time has gone by. In the beginning when it first started out we got together and we all talked about it and talked about our feelings, about how we were going to approach this situation.

JOHN SULLIVAN, R.N.: Just to see somebody so long in an intentional state, it's not -- this is an acute care facility --

NANCY COWPER, head nurse: That's our whole goal when we get a patient in is to get them --

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is to get them out.

Ms. COWPER: I mean, that's our goal. Well, we don't have that. Well, our goal here is to get her out, that's true. That's what he meant. We don't seem to be making any headway with that goal.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Yes, it feels frustrating.

Dr. DOUGLAS HEGSTAD, chief medical resident, Riverside General Hospital: I myself, every day she's here, because she insists on staying here, it bothers me a lot to each day go in and give treatments or recommend treatments to a person who reminds you that they do not want them.

KAY [voice-over]: Dr. Douglas Hegstad, Riverside General's chief medical resident, is Bouvia's primary physician.The department of medicine assumed responsibility for her in mid-December once she started her fast. Before that she was a psychiatric patient in the department headed by Dr. Donald Fisher.

Dr. DONALD FISHER, chief of psychiatry: Following her transfer to medicine I think a lot of us breathed a sign of relief, a lot of our frustration was rapidly dissipated, and then I think there was a period when we felt pretty good and then a subsequent period when again we started to worry about her and wonder, well, what is going to happen? We continued to see her on a weekly basis for relatively short periods of time, more with the hope that we might catch her at a moment of change of mind or a change of heart. At the present time we haven't seen that in her, but we continue to offer that to her, an idea that perhaps one day she may want to talk seriously about what's been happening to her and changes that could happen to her.

KAY: Now, of course, that was your intent from the beginning, to try and talk her out of the notion of suicide. You were not able to do that and have not been able to do that. Do you feel to that extent that you have failed?

Dr. FISHER: Yes, I think I feel that way to an extent, and I think probably some of my colleagues and people who work here do.

KAY [voice-over]: The troublesome patient on the third floor has stirred deep emotions within the staff. Several of those treating her at the hospital have also encountered her in their creams. Dr. Donald Fisher, for one, dreamt that the rooms adjacent to Bouvia's had been converted to space for people who wanted to die.

Dr. FISHER: The dream was that there was a tremendous pressure to get people out of these rooms. These were the dying rooms or the death rooms, and people were waiting to come in so there was a tremendous amount of frustration to get people in and have them die in a hurry and get them out because additional people were coming in a hurry. And, you know, you can imagine what would provoke that kind of dream, an obvious anxiety type of situation.

Mr. TILLINGHAST: I had this dream about I went into her room when she said, "I want something to eat real bad." And I ran down to the coffee shop to get a cheeseburger. I wasn't thinking where to go, and I was going to buy it for her. And I said I need a stat cheeseburger right now. And I brought it all the way up and she refused it.

Ms. COWPER: Obviously it was on Lee's mind, right? I mean, obviously.

Mr. TILLINGHAST: Well, my dream has always been positive for her because even when I think about her I always think that, "Hey, she's going to eat one of these days. I know she is." I just feel that she's going to one of these days say, "Hey, I want to eat."

Ms. COWPER: Because you want it so badly. You really do. You know, you want --

Mr. TILLINGHAST: It's something that you always have to think about because I think that way with every patient that I deal with.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Everybody on this unit's an optimist. You have to be or you can't work.

KAY [voice-over]: But optimism among the nursing staff is not sufficient antidote for the daily stress of treating an unwilling patient. Some nurses have asked not to be assigned to Bouvia. Those who are attend her no more than five days at a time and receive daily pep talks from the associate chief of medicine. Except when she has bitten if off or yanked it out, Elizabeth Bouvia remains attached to a plastic feeding tube that extends through her nose down to her stomach. The liquid food is poured into it.

Mr. SULLIVAN: It is poured into a syringe that's about as big around as a toilet paper tube. It's a large syringe.

KAY: Do you do that?

Mr. SULLIVAN: I did it today.

KAY: How do you feel about doing that, knowing that's the main thing that she doesn't want?

Mr. SULLIVAN: I don't -- it doesn't affect me like that because I do it all day long with other patients, and we've had -- we have patients who aren't rational and don't want therapeutic things done for them all the time, but I always have it in my mind that if it's for the betterment of the patient it's not doing any damage, and I think that it's a healthy and okay thing to do.

KAY [voice-over]: But still there are nagging questions. The ones that plague Dr. Hegstad are the what if kind. It is he who has direct responsibility for carrying out the judge's order to administer needed medical care to Elizabeth Bouvia.

Dr. HEGSTAD: It does scare me to take care of this woman, and the reason it scares me is because I have taken care of enough bed-ridden people who perhaps have lost their will to live that I know that perhaps sooner or later something, some medical catastrophe will happen. And just as a possibility, say a ruptured -- or let's say a bleeding peptic ulcer. If this woman developed an ulcer that bled, then I would have to transfuser her with blood. Now, if she were to refuse that blood transfusion, would I give it? And the answer to that question is, yes, I would. I think that it's not that invasive or heroic or unusual at thing to do. If she went on to bleed and didn't respond to my transfusion, would I ask for her to have an operation, a gastric recession, say? Would the surgeons operate on a woman who is competent and refused to sign a consent? In other words, has she lost rights that our other patients have?

Mr. TILLINGHAST: And you have to pull yourself together and say, what are you? What do you think is more appropriate? Life? Suicide? So you have to also think your own thoughts when you're dealing with this situation. In the nursing profession it's usually life. We're here to save lives, we're here to help people recover.

WOODRUFF: That report was by Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-TV in Los Angeles.

The 70-year-old father of singer Marvin Gaye was held in a Los Angeles jail without bail today on suspicion of murdering his son.Gaye died yesterday after being shot twice in the chest during a family argument. Police said the argument concerned a party that Gaye had planned for his 45th birthday, which is today Charlayne Hunter-Gault has more on the career of the popular singer. Charlayne? The Prince of Motown

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Like so many black singers before him, Marvin Gaye got his start singing and playing in church. In his case, it was his father's church in Washington, D.C., But it was not every soul singer who started in church and got to be known as the prince of Motown, the black music conglomerate. As the prince, Marvin Gaye had more than his share of hit records in the '60s: "Stubborn Kind of Fellow? with Martha and the Vandellas; "How Sweet it is to be Loved by You"; "Ain't no Mountain High Enough," with Tammi Terrell, who died shortly after collapsing in his arms during a performance; and, his biggest hit of the decade, recently revived in the movie, "The Big Chill," "I Heard it Through the Grapevine." But Gaye was more than a performer. In fact, he said entertaining was what he liked least. An accomplished musician, Gaye played drums and keyboard, wrote most of his songs, was a composer, an arranger and producer. The first album he produced, "What's Going On?" was the first collection of protest material by a major black singer, but Gaye, often troubled in life and in love, abandoned protest for sensuality, as in his hit, "Let's Get It On," in 1973, and last year's Grammy Award-winning "Sexual Healing." [video of "Sexual Healing"]

For more on what made Marvin Gaye such an unusual talent, we have a critic who's been writing about him as long as he's been singing. She is Phyl Garland, whose music criticism has appeared in Ebony magazine and Stereo Review. She is the author of the book The Sound of Soul, and is on the faculty of the Columbia University School of Journalism.

Phyl Garland, how would you assess Marvin Gaye as a musical talent?

PHYL GARLAND: I would say that Marvin had a unique ability to fuse the spirit and fervor of gospel music, which was part of his background, with rhythm and blues, but also to layer it over with a fine and very slick professionalism that enabled him to appeal to the popular mainstream, which is something that not all soul artists or black artists have been able to do.

HUNTER-GAULT: Is that what he was, a soul artist, basically?

Ms. GARLAND: He was -- I would classify him as a soul artist because of the distinctness of his roots as they could be found in his music.He never abandoned them. It was merely a matter of good production and sleek presentation that gave him a certain type of appeal. But you could still hear the influence of the church and the street corner music of the '50s in everything that he said and did. And as for the depth of feeling and integrity, if that is a prerequisite for soul, I am certain that he would qualify on that mark, because everything he's saying, whether it was about social issues or about sensuality, came from his gut.

HUNTER-GAULT: Now, speaking of social issues, what's going on with an album about, oh, protest about the war, about pollution, about family violence, about a whole lot of things, and everyone thought that Marvin Gaye was now about to become a protest singer and that stopped, and the next thing we got was "Sexual Healing,?" which was pure sensuality. What happened??

Ms. GARLAND: Well, one thing is that "What's Going On?" which I personally believe is one of the great albums of this century if you're talking about American music or popular music -- it certainly was a special contribution that he left us -- it was excellent, and he said perhaps what he wanted to say in that album, and no encore was necessary. Also, the album, like most music, comes out of a particular time. This was a period when the war in Vietnam, the black revolution, pollution, environmental issues were very much on everyone's mind. Everyone was exploding with fervor and social consciousness and Marvin Gaye addressed this in his album. The times changed after that, and so did his life change. And, being one who remained true to himself, he would write songs that reflected what was on his mind.

HUNTER-GAULT: He had a couple of bad marriages and divorces.

Ms. GARLAND: He had bad marriages and all sorts of problems, and so naturally he was going to concentrate on what was on his mind. So we got "Let's Get it On," which was very sensual, but I do not discredit the sensual Marvin Gaye because the same quality of excellence was there and though his albums were more sexually explicit, including the latest one, which had "Sexual Healing" as its highlight.They weren't nasty or repulsive; it was sensuality in a finer sense, and the artistry was what counted. They were musically excellent. They were albums that really can be heard again and again, and there's something there to gratify.

HUNTER-GAULT: When you look at the kind of influence he's had on any kind of music, you tell me what it was, what was the influence, and what do you think his legacy will be?

Ms. GARLAND: Oh, he had a great influence on a number of the people at Motown, which was where he got his start in working with them and then, going beyond Motown, when he came out with his "What's Going On?" album, I believe that the explicit nature in which he addressed issues also stimulated other artists to bring a little meat into their songs.

HUNTER-GAULT: Just black artists?

Ms. GARLAND: Not just black artists. Everyone had a social conscience at that time. Do you remember, that was -- it seems like ages ago, but it was 1971. And, in terms of performance, he has had a mark on many popular artists, even, say, someone like a Mick Jagger, the sensual approach, the letting it all hang out, which was his hallmark --

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, well, thank you, Phyl Garland, for sharing those insights with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: Here is a late-breaking story. In a federal court in Washington, D.C., Congressman George Hansen, Republican of Idaho, was found guilty on all four counts of filing false financial statements.

Once again, the main stories of the day. Jacob Stein, a Washington lawyer, was named as a special prosecutor to investigate Edwin Meese, President Reagan's nominee for attorney general.

The three Democratic presidential candidates ended their campaigns in the New York primary election tomorrow with all-day efforts to win votes. At least 50 people were injured when Arab terrorists rampaged down a shopping street in Jerusalem with guns and grenades.

President Reagan told Congress he would not open talks with the Soviet Union on limiting anti-satellite weapons in outer space.

The Commerce Department reported that the American building industry saw its biggest increase in almost 40 years during the month of February.

Judy?

WOODRUFF: There are 365 days in a year, but only one with the special title, opening day, and that was today as major league baseball kicked off the 1984 season. President Reagan followed tradition and went to Baltimore's memorial stadium to throw out the first ball of the new season. The President stayed for one inning while more than 51,000 others watched the Chicago White Sox make up for last year's American League playoff loss to the Orioles. They beat the defending World Series champs five to two. In the National League opener, the Cincinnati Reds handed the New York Mets an eight to one defeat. Out in California the season kicks off tonight when the Angels meet the visiting Boston Red Sox. As for opening day omens, the New York Yankees started the season, as many expected, under a storm cloud. The Yankee-Kansas City game was postponed because of rain.

Good night, Robin.

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