The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. As U.S. forces were drawn into direct battle today with Moslem guerrillas near Beirut, we examine the rising uneasiness at home over the American presence in Lebanon. In another foreign story tonight, a gsecret study reportedly implicates El Salvador's defense minister in covering up the murder of four American churchwomen. Jim Lehrer is off; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Also tonight, Robin, we'll be hearing about a new effort by the government to track down toxic waste sites and look at a housing desegregation order in a Texas town that has upset both the white and the black communities. And, from the medical beat, a look at a surprisingly powerful institution, a journal that some say has too much influence over scientists and reporters.

MacNEIL: The battleship New Jersey was in action again today, this time against Druse militias who were firing on U.S. Marines. Yesterday, the New Jersey fired its 16-inch guns at Syrian anti-aircraft positions. Today's fighting escalated by these steps. The Muslim militias opened fire on the Marines' base at Beirut airport with small arms and artillery. M-60 tanks then bombarded the nearby Druse town of Shouiefat. The militias hit back with anti-aircraft guns and rocket fire, and the Marines replied with mortars and artillery. As the battle escalated, the New Jersey opened up with fire from its five-inch guns. During the fighting, the U.S. ambassador's residence in Yarze, a hilly eastern suburb of Beirut, came under rocket fire with seven or eight explosions close to the house. In two other incidents today gunmen shot and killed a French soldier near the home of the French ambassador. He was the third French soldier to die in three days. And earlier, at the Marine base, the Marines shot at a taxi carrying two American television newsmen who were trying to enter the base by the wrong entrance. The Lebanese taxi driver was shot in the head; Joseph Corcoran, an anchorman from WITN-TV in Washington, North Carolina, was treated for cuts from broken glass. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Israeli ground forces moved back into central Lebanon today, not to resume fighting but to help evacuate more than 8,000 Christians from the little town where they have been trapped for the past three months. An Israeli truck convoy crossed the Awali River and drove north to the town of Deir al Qamar, 15 miles from Beirut in the Shuf Mountains. Here is a report from Brian Stewart of the CBC.

BRIAN STEWART, CBC [voice-over]: Today in this one small town in Lebanon, Israeli troops were greeted as liberators, cheered by thousands, showered with rice and roses. In large force they entered Deir al Qamar, where more than 15,000 Christian refugees have been besieged by Druse militia since early September. Israeli tanks, trucks and armored carriers moved up from positions in south Lebanon to evacuate the Christians with full Druse consent. For the refugees it was the end of a long, worrying ordeal. Many had feared massacre during the Shuf Mountain fighting. Israelis began moving the first batch of Christian militia out under heavy protection. They feared last-minute attacks on the refugees from Druse positions which overlook the small mountain town. Some Druse cheered the departing convoy. But for most Druse it was a day to celebrate. Letting the Christians go was a PR victory. It also symbolizes the fact that the Druse now command all the Shuf region, having humiliated the Christian forces. Reagan Policy in Lebanon

WOODRUFF: Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens, who was with the Israeli convoy, said this might be a first step toward a better understanding between Christians and Druse and the central government in Lebanon.

Bad news for the Reagan administration's policy in Lebanon. A new Washington Post-ABC poll shows that 52% of those asked nationwide said the administration has no clear goal for the Marines in Lebanon. Forty-eight percent said the Marines should be withdrawn now, compared with 39% just a month ago. Skepticism about administration policy is also on the rise in Congress, which originally supported the President's decision to keep the Marine peacekeeping force in Lebanon. In the past week, both Howard Baker, the Senate majority leader, and Thomas O'Neill, speaker of the House, have expressed concern about the Marines. Just two days ago, two Democratic congressmen who had supported the Reagan administration in September when it won a 270 to 161 vote in the House said that they were re-evaluating their support. Les Aspin from Wisconsin, a member of the House Arms Services Committee, and his Indiana colleague, Lee Hamilton, accused the administration of overstating the U.S. stake in Lebanon. Congressman Aspin joins us tonight. Congressman, what has caused you to change your mind since September?

LES ASPIN: I think it is not so much changing a mind as clarifying the position that I and a number of other Democrats have, which is that we still do not believe a precipitius withdrawal of troops is the right thing to do, but neither do we believe the kind of commitment that the Reagan rhetoric has been giving to Lebanon is the right thing, either. We're trying to find some position that's different from either of those two.

WOODRUFF: Well, is it just the rhetoric that's bothering you?

Rep. ASPIN: The rhetoric, but also the policy that follows from that rhetoric -- saying that an independent, unified Lebanonis a vital national security interest of the United States is overstating the case. It's a desirable outcome from the United States' standpoint to have an independent and unified country, but -- and it's an interest. But it's not a vital interest. A vital interest means something that you fight for, something that you would keep the Marines in the country for. If we make the stakes that high, we're likely to find those Marines there for 400 years.

WOODRUFF: Well, what exactly are you calling on the administration to do that they're not doing?

Rep. ASPIN: All right, several things. Number one, the safety of the Marines. That's the number-one thing that's got to be done.Number two, move towards a policy of getting the United States out and other peackeeping forces in. Superpowers make lousy peacekeeping forces because they're the target for a lot of terrorists and a lot of other people that have other axes to grind.

WOODRUFF: But what if we can't find the support to do that?

Rep. ASPIN: We've got to be able to find somebody. I mean, it's one of the things that we can do is to lean on some of our allies and some other people to send some forces. Not a large number, but if a number of troops -- a number of countries send small numbers of troops, we ought to be able to do something in that area. And then the third thing is recognize, and be sure that the faction leaders in Lebanon recognize, that we have an interest here but not a vital commitment, and that if the country ends up partitioned, roughly, say, three parts, that is unfortunate, but it's not any great loss to the United States. Our national security interests can be protected with a unified or a divided Viet -- Lebanon.

WOODRUFF: You almost said Vietnam.

Rep. ASPIN: Almost said Vietnam.

WOODRUFF: Well, now let me understand you correctly. You're saying that we shouldn't, as the President said yesterday, wait until there is a virtual collapse of the Gemayel government for us to pull the Marines out?

Rep. ASPIN: Absolutely.

WOODRUFF: You're saying --

Rep. ASPIN: The message to the Gemayel government should be, "It's largely in your hands as to whether we can get a unified country. The problems with the minority representation, the problems with the factions have to be worked out. The process that was started in Geneva has to be completed.We're not going to sit around and have us, and our Marines, shot at while you continue to bicker."

WOODRUFF: But, Congressman, that's what the administration has been asking Gemayel and the people in his government to do.

Rep. ASPIN: And I think it would be, in this case, would strengthen the administration's hand if Congress says it, too. Congress says to the President, "We can't continue to have our forces there unless Gemayel and the other factions work out a deal." The President can then go to Gemayel and the other faction leaders and say, "Look, Congress is telling me I can't continue to do this," and he can use the pressure that Congress is putting on him to also put pressure on them.

WOODRUFF: Well, with all due respect, though, it was just in September that Congress gave the President a go-ahead for the next year and a half, and now you're telling us the situation has changed.

Rep. ASPIN: That's right. No, I don't say it's changed, and I don't want to take that vote back, and I don't -- if we were to rerun that vote I would vote exactly the same way, and if we were to have a message -- a vote on the floor right today, "Do we want to withdraw the troops?" the answer is no. But there is differentkinds of commitments, and precipitous withdrawal is one possibility; overcommitment, which is what I'm afraid of that the Reagan administration is leaning towards, is another pitfall. Somewhere in between those two mistakes is, I think, the right policy.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: The President is not without staunch supporters in the House, and one of the leading ones is Republican Gerald Solomon of New York, who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He joins us tonight from public station WMHT in Schenectady, New York. Congressman, are you worried, as Mr. Aspin is, that the Reagan administration is leaing towards overcommitment in Lebanon?

GERALD SOLOMON: Absolutely not, Bob. The President has stated our reason for being there, but I think we can point out one thing here tonight from what we've seen on this program so far. And that is the main reason that the American people are confused about the Lebanon issue is because Congress, reacting to daily events or hourly events, continues to change its mind every five minutes, and that's no way to run foreign policy. And as a matter of fact, I think that's why our forefathers set up our Constitution to vest the authority of foreign policy in the presidency and not in the Congress, although you'd never know it sometimes.

MacNEIL: You're sying Congress should just leave Mr. Reagan alone on this one and let him get with it? Is that --

Rep. SOLOMON: Well, I'm saying, Bob, that for years this country lost all its credibility as an ally, both to our allies and our enemies alike, and under the Reagan administration we have had a firm and consistent foreign policy. And you can't let daily happenings change those feelings, and that's what Congress is doing. Instead of setting out a firm policy, they want to change things. This is like Mr. Aspin said, in September he voted to leave the Marines there for a year and a half. Today he wants to take them out. I think you have to remember this --

MacNEIL: I don't think he said that, quite, but anyway, let him -- I'll let him come back on that in a minute.

Rep. SOLOMON: Fine. The problem is that President Reagan and Secretary Shultz have pressed President Gemayel to put together a government, a broad form government that is acceptable to the people in Lebanon, and he is more than cooperating.But when you have someone like Syria, someone who is furnishing all of the weapons, someone who is advising the Shiites and the other religious factions ont to compromise in any way, and just for an example, Syria is demanding that Lebanon, the official Lebanese government, repudiate its agreement with Israel, which they made back in May 17th of this year, which was the basis for Israel pulling out of Lebanon in the first place.

MacNEIL: Let me put to you, Mr. Aspin -- Congressman Aspin's other point, that U.S. troops and naval forces are involved in military actions, yesterday and again today, in defense of a principle which he says is overstating U.S. national security interests, that the outcome of a unified Lebanon under Gemayel is not vital to the United States.

Rep. SOLOMON: Bob, let me just say this, that as a former Marine myself, and someone who has followed this issue as close as any other member of Congress, we'd all like our Marines out of there, but we do have a lot at stake. If you want to decide what that situation is, who wants us out of there? Syria and Russia and some of the Shiites. Who wants us there? Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, the Gulf states, all of our NATO countries. We would like to replace our forces with other peacekeeping forces there, but we cannot just turn tail and run. There is too much at stake. If we were just dealing with factions internally within Lebanon, there would be no problem. Gemayel would have already have been able to put together a broad-form goverment. But Syria is blocking that.

MacNEIL: Do you think that the statement by the President yesterday that the troops would come out if it all works but would also come out if it all collapses -- that mention of collapse was an indication that he's beginning to think maybe it's not going to work?

Rep. SOLOMON: I don't think so at all. I've talked to the President just in recent days, and we have both stated our concerns to each other. We both are concerned about those Marines there and we do not want the situation to escalate. But the fact is, if you were in a bunker, if I were or any member of Congress, we would want every kind of protection given us as long as we are there under today's conditions -- not tomorrow's or next month's or next year's. And, as a matter of fact, for those people that say that we are escalating the situation there, the fact that we did not send our planes in to bomb the Syrian outposts, that we used the New Jersey, that is a de-escalation, and certainly we have to do everything that we can. That's why we passed the resolution that we passed, giving the Marines an additional 18 months. But we are going to protect those Marines, no matter what happens, and if that means using the Jersey to shell those emplacements, we're going to do it. We're going to protect those Marines in any way that we possibly can.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Mr. Aspin, do you have any problems with the kind of retaliatory measures the administration's been authorizing over there?

Rep. ASPIN: No. I think that perhaps we should not have used the planes as early as we did. We should have used the shelling of the -- from the New Jersey first.

WOODRUFF: Even though it's less accurate?

Rep. ASPIN: Even though it's less accurate, yes.

WOODRUFF: Now, why is that?

Rep. ASPIN: Because I think the use of the planes is an escalation, and the use of the planes runs certain risks that the shelling from the New Jersey does not, in particular, the possibility of prisoners of war, planes getting shot down. And once prisoners of war are in the calculation, all of a sudden that becomes a whole new issue, and then you have to negotiate about getting prisoners of war back, and it's a very, very much more sticky problem. So with that one exception I have no problem.

WOODRUFF: All right, one other thing Congressman Solomon said was that one of the reasons the American people are so confused on this issue is that Congress keeps changing its mind every five minutes, and he's talking about you, I gather.

Rep. ASPIN: I think that that's absolutely incorrect, the idea that there's only two choices. You either withdraw or you support the President is not the only two choices out there.I am not in favor of withdrawing. I was not in favor of withdrawing in September; I am not in favor of withdrawing now. And that -- so that, I think Representative Solomon is right. That is not the right policy. But then I do not also want to say that I am completely in support of the Reagan administration policy on this. I don't think they're doing enough about the security of the Marines; I don't think they're doing enough about getting other forces in there to replace us as peacekeepers, and I think they're overstating the goals. I think they're overstating our national interest. And this letter is to try and say on a permanent basis, without -- so that we don't waver back and forth, what it is that we as a few Democrats believe ought to be our policy.

WOODRUFF: Congressman Solomon, that sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Rep. SOLOMON: It sounds reasonable except that my good friend Les Aspin is contradicting himself. He said that we shouldn't have sent the planes in. He wants to protect the Marines. We did that to protect the Marines. You have to remember that we aren't dealing with Lebanese terrorists and Shiites. We're dealing with the Syrian government. We have told them that our reconnaissance flights over their emplacements are for the protection of our Marines. We're not firing any shots at all. But we have told them that if we are fired upon we will fire back, and that's exactly what we're doing. Congressman Aspin said we should leave it largely up to the Lebanese. If we did that, we would never have a settlement in the East. We need to involve everyone -- our allies that I mentioned earlier in the program. We need to involve Syria. If Russia were to come in tommorrow and tell Syria to sit down and start negotiating, that would solve all the problems. But they aren't doing it, and that is the whole source of the problem, which means it isn't just terrorists; it's an East-West confrontation.

WOODRUFF: Congressman Aspin, one last question. Politically, how much time do you think the President has to come to some resolution on this?

Rep. ASPIN: It's very largely driven by events. I think that the more the situation deteriorates and the more Marine lives are lost, the more the political pressures grow on the President. So I think it really depends upon events.

WOODRUFF: All right. Thank you, Congressman Aepin, Congressman Solomon. Robin?

MacNEIL: The State Department said today that the American Embassy in Kuwait wanted to improve its security last September, three months before the terror bombing attack that killed six people this week, but the Department did not approve it at once because it didn't have the money. John Hughes, the chief spokesman for the State Department, said the approval was finally sent too late.

JOHN HUGHES, State Department spokesman: It's in the appropriate position, moved as expeditiously as was possible and in fact developed a package for the protection of the embassy with one of the embassy officers who was here in Washington. The cable authorizing such steps was overtaken by the incident itself, and the tragedy is that the steps that the Department finally was able to take were not implemented in time.

MacNEIL: Iraq is blaming Iran for the bombing of the American Embassy and other locations in Kuwait, and for the second day today the Iraqi air force retaliated by attacking two cities in Iran. In Iran the speaker of the Parliament, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, denied that Iran was responsible. But he warned that Iran's patience with Kuwait and other Arab states on the Persian Gulf is wearing thin. Judy? PLO Status?

WOODRUFF: The government of Greece announced today that it's sending five ships this Saturday to pick up Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and his men from their last stronghold at Tripoli, Lebanon. Arafat was quoted on Beirut radio stations as saying, "All is set for our departure." Two of the ships will go to Tunisia; the other three, to North Yemen. As plans were made for the Greek ships to pick up some 4,000 Arafat loyalists, fighting broke out between them and Arafat opponents. It left at least 20 people dead or wounded. These are tense times for the PLO fighters waiting to be evacuated, as CBC reporter Ann Medina saw first hand.

ANN MEDINA, CBC [voice-over]: Over the past few days Arafat's fighters haven't been doing much fighting. Instead, they've been doing the waiting game -- waiting for the multinational forces to protect them on the seas, waiting for the Saudis and Syrians to protect them at Tripoli's port, but most of all, just waiting to leave. Last week they were told they'd be on the ships by now, but instead they're still facing the enemt. These men occupy one of the front-line bunkers in Tripoli, a few hundred meters from the Syrian-backed PLO rebels, whereas these men occupy a position at the port. They are the ones who face the fire from the Israeli gunboats. Less than a week ago, Israelis shelled the area, an incident that sparked a series of security negotiations that are now keeping Arafat's men here a little longer.

[on camera] The sea is held by the Israelis, the land by the Syrian-backed rebels, and Arafat's men are stuck in the middle. For the time being, at least, the intense fighting has given way to negotiations on the diplomatic front, but the guns on either side pointed at Arafat may not wait much longer. Fingers on triggers tend to get itchy when they have such an easy target.

[voice-over] The target is a very small one, a few square blocks in downtown Tripoli called El-Zahriyya. The area is the latest of Arafat's headquarters, the third in a matter of months. A few weeks ago the rebel shells hit a few streets away. Now, with the ceasefire, it's safe again, and the coffee man on the corner is once again back in business. But no one knows whether the rebels and their Syrian friends will hold off if the delays go on much longer. Perhaps that's why Arafat is now pushing for more progress on the evacuation. Late last night he talked with PLO officials in Tunis and was happy to hear that everything could be settled within 48 hours. "Iwa,"[?] -- "Yes. That is good," he was saying. Arafat knows he's being squeezed. There are deadlines from either side, but while the delays continue he's taking full advantage of the international media focus.

Every day the PLO keep a daily parade of officials coming and going for reporters. Some days it's Arafat; some days its Abu Jihad, one of the main military commanders, and some days it's PLO spokesman Ahmed Abdel Rahman. Everything now seems quiet and relaxed, but clearly they are worried.

AHMED ABDEL RAHMAN: One day or two, it is not their problem, but if it's 10 days or more it's a problem, really. Means that the situation here will deteriorate more and more.

MEDINA [voice-over]: The PLO know what that could mean. This is what's left of the Beddawi camp that was one of two PLO strongholds in the Tripoli area. Both camps were heavily bombarded and the PLO have now been driven out. The Palestinians that remain find themselves under a different supervision.

[on camera] Slowly the people returning to Beddawi, but they say it's not the same. The strangers are here, and, as one boy told me, they're always watching and they're listening, and no one feels to speak anymore.

BOY at Beddawi: Yes, we want to stay here and continue our daily life.

MEDINA: But do you want Arafat to stay?

BOY: Arafat? I can't answer to this question.

MEDINA: It's touchy?

BOY: Yes.

MEDINA [voice-over]: The strangers that they're nervous about are rebels -- silent men who walk in twos and threes and prefer not to be filmed. They are the victors, the enemy to some but not to everyone.

[interviewing] Does it make a difference here now before Arafat or after Arafat?

LOCAL: It is the same.

MEDINA [voice-over]: But for the people of Tripoli it is not all the same. With Arafat has meant war and destruction and the rearrangement of a city that was one of Lebanon's most beautiful. Many of the people have now left. They have grown sick of the check-points and the sniping that still shuts down various roads and the constant presence of gunman. Like Beirut before it, Tripoli has been left a legacy, a legacy that may be Lebanon's last from Chairman Yasir Arafat.

For The Journal, this is Ann Medina from Tripoli.

WOODRUFF: The attention in Tripoli has mostly focused on that one man, Chairman Arafat, who sits and waits in the midst of threats from virtually every side.He is said to remain optimistic, but in an interview with reporter Ann Medina three days ago, he revealed a new sense of bitterness about the men who oppose him.

MEDINA: Mr. Chairman, last week your officials said that by now you would probably be on the ships, the ships would be sailing. They're not. There are delays, and there are going to be a few more days' delays.

YASIR ARAFAT, Chairman, PLO: Yes.

MEDINA: When do you think that you'll be leaving?

Mr. ARAFAT: Oh, on delays, but still we are waiting for the Greek govermment to give us its final approval for their ship to arrive here.

MEDINA: Do you think that the Israelis will privately -- not openly and publicly, but privately -- assure the Greek government that you will have safe --

Mr. ARAFAT: Do you know, we can't say what I am following, that they are preparing for something.

MEDINA: But if they prepare for something that delays things --

Mr. ARAFAT: No, no, no, no. It will not delay. It will delay nothing, because if Sharon can imagine that he can terrify me, he is completely wrong. He did his best to do the same when I was in Beirut, but he can't. And be sure that he can't terrify the Palestinians.

MEDINA: As soon as you get on that ship you have lost militarily in Beddawi, in the camps, in Tripoli. Where is the PLO under Arafat when you get on those ships

Mr. ARAFAT: You see, you see, this is another fatal mistake. Who told you that I have lost? It is true that I am under siege, but I am sieging all of them from my very small place which I am [unintelligible]. It's very important. You see, one of the most important results of this very important battle, that we increased the unity among our masses and our people -- outside and inside our territories.

MEDINA: Chairman Arafat, how does it feel differently this time than the last siege. How does it feel to you?

Mr. ARAFAT: More bitterness for me because I am in a double siege from brothers and from the enemy -- from the Syrians and from the Israelis.

MEDINA: How do you feel when you see these car bombs and the terrorism which is again building in the Mideast?

Mr. ARAFAT: You see, it's very terrible, but I have mentioned it from the beginning that without solving all the problems here in this area this [unintelligible] will carry on, I am sorry to say it. You know why? Because you are putting the Palestinians in the corners, hopeless, homeless, stateless. Even result without an [unintelligible]. What do you expect?

MacNEIL: Turning now to Central America, the Associated Press reports that a secret report prepared for the State Department suggests that El Salvador's current defense minister, General Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, took part in the coverup of the murders of four American churchwomen in 1980. The report was written by retired federal judge Harold E. Tyler, and has been classified as secret. The AP says two sources who have seen it say the report found strong evidence that the five National Guardsmen accused in the killings were guilty and their involvement was covered up by high-level Salvadoran officials. At the time, Vides Casanova was head of the National Guard. The AP says Judge Tyler found Casanova's involvement in the coverup quite probable. Earlier this week we broadcast an interview with Casanova by special correspondent Charles Krause in which the defense minister spoke strongly of the need to crack down on human rights violations.

Gen. VIDES CASANOVA, EI Salvador Defense Minister [through interpreter]: We are doing it because of our convictions and because I believe that if the armed forces do not really turn over to help its people to respect human rights and everything, they are going to have a great problem in the future. We might even say that the armed forces could cease to exist. Thus, we are doing it because of our convictions, because it's to the advantage of our armed forces, and because it's to the advantage of our country and because it's also our duty to do so.

MacNEIL: In Caracas, Venezuela, Henry Kissinger denied a report that his special commission on Central America is divided over whether U.S. aid to El Salvador should be continued in view of right-wing death squad activities there. Mr. Kissinger said, "I'm going to nominate the newspaper which ran the story for the Pulitzer Prize in fiction." The report was published in The New York Times.

Argentina today asked its creditors to give it six months to renegotiate payments due up to the end of 1984 on its $40-billion foreign debt. Argentina's economy minister, Bernardo Grinspun, denied earlier reports that he has requested a six-month deferment of payments. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Canada's prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, paid a visit to the White House today looking for support for his plan to promote arms control and diffuse tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Trudeau wants a five-nation summit conference to meet and negotiate global limits on nuclear weapons. After the meeting with President Reagan in the Oval Office, U.S. officials said that Trudeau had failed to get the endorsement he was looking for. In his public remarks, the President sounded supportive, but only in a general way.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: We fully share the concerns for peace which the Prime Minister has expressed. We appreciate his strong statements supporting the joint efforts of the Western allies to negotiate meaningful arms reductions and to promote dialogue with other nations, and I thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for coming here, sharing your ideas with us, and we wish you godspeed in your efforts to help build a durable peace.

WOODRUFF: In his remarks Trudeau put the best face on the response he got from Mr. Reagan.

PIERRE TRUDEAU, Prime Minister of Canada: Well, as you have just heard, the President supported what's being known as my peace initiative, but I think he did more than support it. I think he has been showing through his administration in the past months at least that as far as we are concerned on the NATO side, we want to change the trendline. We want to make it clear that not only the alliance is strong, that it will defend itself, that it will not be intimidated, but that it is also pursuing peace.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Trudeau's language was more polite than what he used two days ago in an address to the Canadian Parliament. There he attacked his Canadian critics, who, he said, "cowered when some pipsqueak in the Pentagon criticizes our peace initiative." Robin?

MacNEIL: The Environmental Protection Agency today announced a new plan to seek out sites that have been contaminated by dioxin, the most toxic chemical made by man. So far dioxin has been discovered at hundreds of sites in at least six states: Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Arkansas, Illinois and Missouri. Missouri alone has 33 identified sites, including Times Beach, where the federal government was forced to buy out the entire town last spring at a cost of $33 million. The government believes the dioxin pollution may be even more extensive. Today the EPA said it would start testing at 50 plants where dioxin was once made or used in the production of herbicides such as Agent Orange. The government will also inspect disposal sites for hundreds of waste signs of dioxin. It's been estimated that finding and cleaning up dioxin will cost $250 million over the next four years. Several environmental groups told us today that the EPA's plan is admirable, but has major flaws.In particular, they said, it does nothing to stop the current manufacture of dioxin, and they said that EPA has still not determined what levels of contamination are hazardous to human health, something they need to know in deciding what needs to be done and what needs to be cleaned up and where.

Now some economic news. In the third quarter of 1983 the United States paid out a record $12 billion more to foreign countries than it took in from them. Reporting that today the Commerce Department said the balance of payments deficit for all of 1983 is likely to come close to $40 billion, which would be more than double the record. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Another execution took place today, the fifth this year in the United States, and the 11th since the Supreme Court restored the death penalty in 1976. John Eldon Smith, a 53-year-old insurance salesman, was electrocuted in Georgia this morning for killing two newlyweds in 1974 -- his wife's former husband and that man's new wife. Smith asked that a final statement be read for him by a priest, who quoted from the New Testament saying, "Indeed we know that when the earthly tent in which we dwell is destroyed, we have a dwelling prepared by God." A federal judge, a federal appeals court in Atlanta and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell all refused to block the execution. The governor of Georgia, Joe Frank Harris, said in a statement that he was saddened that there are those in society that force such a law to be carried out, but he added, "At some point there must be a finality to the appeals process."

Another saga today in the story of White House Counsellor Ed Meese and his comments on hunger.Meese was criticized last week after he said some people go to soup kitchens because the food is free, and that's easier than paying for it. Well, today Meese told reporters in a speech that the Reagan administration really is compassionate while at the same time dedicated to helping people become economically independent.

EDWIN MEESE, counsellor to the President: Dependence is unhealthy while at the same time genuine need must be met. Thus, contrary to what many people in this capital believe, we have not spent the last three years simply hacking away at social programs. On the contrary, our objective andour accomplishment has been to fashion the tools to permit many of today's welfare families to attain financial independence and at the same time actually increase the assistance which is earmarked for the truly needy.

WOODRUFF: Meese's recent comments about hunger have caused some people to liken him to Scrooge, the penny-pinching character in Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol. At the end of his speech Meese came to Scrooge's defense.

Mr. MEESE: Matter of fact, I have found that actually Scrooge had a bad press in his time. If you really look at the facts, he didn't exploit Bob Cratchet. As a matter of fact, Bob Cratchet was paid 10 shillings a week, which was a very good wage in that time. Furthermore, the free market wouldn't allow Scrooge to exploit poor old Bob. England didn't get free public schools until after Dickens was dead, and so the fact that Bob Cratchet could read and write made him a very valuable clerk and as a result of that undoubtedly led to his 10 shillings a week. Bob, in fact, had great cause to be happy with his situation. He lived in a house, not a tenement. His wife didn't have to work, and only one of his children, who had not had much of an education, but still had a job. He was able to afford the traditional Christmas dinner of roast goose and plum pudding. So after all, folks, I think we've got to change our views, and let's be fair to Scrooge. He had his faults -- he had his faults, but he wasn't -- he wasn't unfair to anyone.

WOODRUFF: Even though President Reagan defended Meese's comments yesterday, the reactions continue to pour in. Urban League President Carl Holman said there are millions of hungry Americans, and he offered to take Meese on a cross-country tour to see them. And at the end of his speech today someone asked Meese if he'd go to visit an Oakland, California, soup kitchen on Christmas Day where turkey neck soup is being served. Meese replied, "I don't think I'm going to be in Oakland on that particular day." Robin? Desegregation in Texas

MacNEIL: Now we have an unusual story that grows out of another federal program. The town of Clarksville, Texas, has two federally-subsidized public housing complexes. A few weeks ago, Federal Judge William Wayne Justice ordered city housing officials to desegregate both of the complexes within 20 days. Today city officials said they'd met the deadline for achieving a 50-50 racial balance. But that's created a whole new set of problems, as Charlayne Hunter-Gault reports. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: There is a very good chance that the Clarksville case could set a precedent for 10,000 other public housing units an 36 Texas counties. That's why the eyes of Texas particularly are focused on this semi-rural town of 4,500 people, some 2 1/2 hours away from Dallas.

[voice-over] There are 104 publicy subsidized apartments in Clarksville scattered throughout the same neighborhood. One complex of 52 apartments is totally white. Another, a few blocks away, also 52 units and very similar in design, is totally black. To comply with the judge's order, the Clarksville housing authority decided that 25 black tenants should swap apartments with 25 white tenants. Names were placed in a hat and Lally Porter[?] was one of those chosen. Though unhappy about moving, Ms. Porter gathered her possessions and became the first of 23 blacks to take up residence in the previously all-white complex. Among the whites who were selected, only five families have decided to relocate. The 20 others have chosen to look for more expensive private housing, have moved in with relatives, gone to nursing homes, or else moved to public housing in other towns. Many of the residents forced to resettle were elderly, and almost all of them were angry at the judge for uprooting them. In some cases the judge's order means that black families who used to live in two- and three-bedroom apartments are now forced to live in efficiencies, or one-bedroom. William Caton[?] says the move to the white complex, a further distance from town, will be a hardship for him.

WILLIAM CATON, public housing transferee: I don't see no reason of me having to move. I don't see no reason me having to move.

REPORTER: Would you rather be here in this apartment than across town?

Mr. CATON: Well, it's better for me as I'm old and have to go to town and one thing and another. And I don't have no way of going, but [unintelligible] call a taxi if I happen to be, you know, just bad or something or other. But I can walk from here to town. Yeah.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: The first units of the two housing projects were built in the mid- 1960s and have always been segregated. The Clarksville housing authority says that the segregation resulted not from legal restrictions but from personal preference.

ROSEMARY CAVINESS, Clarksville Housing Authority: The people have more or less stayed in an area where their race predominated.

REPORTER: There is a black section and a white section?

Ms. CAVINESS: Yes, sir.That's right. And the black section is located in the black area of town, and the white section is located in the white area of town. It was that way when they were first built.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: The suit that led to the controversial desegregation plan was brought in 1980 by two black women with children who were seeking access to family-sized units in the white complex. Their lawyer says for them there was no freedom to choose.

MICHAEL DANIEL, lawyer: Freedom of choice is very limited; the freedom of choice is, to you want to be the only black in the project, or do you want to be the only white in the black project. There's no choice of an integrated housing situation there.

HUNTER-GAULT: Clarksville's mayor, L. D. Williamson, warned today that the refusal of whites to move to the black housing could cause the town's housing authority to go broke. Should that happen, he said, the projects would be turned over to the federal government -- federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, which would then sell them to private investors. There are approximately 1.2 million public housing units in the country similar to those in Clarksville. For a view of just how similar their problems are, we have the executive secretary of the Low-Income Housing Information Service, an agency that provides information on public housing. She is Cushing Dolbeare, also national director of the Low Income Housing Coalition. Ms. Dolbeare, how widespread nationally is the pattern of segregation that we saw in Clarksville?

CUSHING DOLBEARE: Well, nobody has any really accurate features on it, because HUD stopped requiring housing authorities to submit information several years ago, but anyone familiar with the public housing program knows that by and large the pattern in public housing is of segregation. Largely because of the location of the projects. Most public housing projects were built either in black areas or in white areas or in areas which have now become segregated so that it takes positive affirmative action to break down the patterns of segregationin public housing, just as it takes positive affirmative action to break down the patterns of segregation in private housing.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, you don't agree with the official -- maybe you don't know the specifics of the Clarksville case, but she said that generally this is a matter of preference. The blacks want to live where they live, in the black communities, and the whites want to live -- it's not a matter of enforced segregation. You don't think that's the case?

Ms. DOLBEARE: Well, the fact is that public housing was started in 1937, and that from the beginning of the program in 1937 until President Kennedy's executive order in 1962, there were no requirements placed on public housing agencies for desegregation or anti-discrimination or affirmative action. The fact is also that in 1967, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the federal money is not to be used in ways which are segregated and discriminatory. And HUD has had regulations since the late 1960s requiring tenant selection practices and policies to affirmatively promote equal opportunity. See, the difficulty is, and you could see from the pictures, the housing units were quite comparable. The streets were unpaved in the black project. Furthermore, the waiting lists for the black project have been longer, so that the issue really isn't to try to mix people up and move people where they dont want to go. The issue is to try to give people an equal opportunity to get decent housing when they need housing assistance without being discriminated against because of the color of their skin.

HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me. Why do you think this has been allowed to go on so long without anybody doing anything about it? I mean, is this the federal government's role to ensure that these patterns and practices don't continue?

Ms. DOLBEARE: Well, the federal government and the Department of Housing and Urban Development has two responsibilities. It does have the responsibility for enforcing equal rights requirements. It also has as its primary mission, at least in my view, provision of decent housing for low-income people. The problem is, or part of the problem is that public housing is a mixed program. The federal government -- the federal law sets the framework, HUD is responsible for administering the law, but public housing is a local program. The Clarksville housing authority is a local authority. The Clarksville public housing and other public housing around the country is built and operated under cooperation agreements which are signed between housing authorities and local governments.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you're saying that the federal government cannot do anything to enforce its own regulations?

Ms. DOLBEARE: What the federal government can do is extremely limited, and that's part of the reason that most of the enforcement of these requirements has really stemmed from the sort of legal action that has been brought in Clarksville because, effectively, HUD's only power is to say, "We're not going to give you any more subsidies." If HUD doesn't provide any more subsidies at all that means that the housing authorities have to shut down the projects so that the only remedy that's available to HUD is such a drastic remedy that it's very difficult for HUD to use it. Now, there was --

HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me. What do you think is going to be the impact of cases like the one just brought in Clarksville? I mean, do you think that this will indeed set a precedent that will be felt not only in the rest of Texas, but perhaps in the rest of the country?

Ms.DOLBEARE: What it should do is be a warning to housing authorities and others who are concerned with housing that there is a responsibility to end discrimination, to end segregation and that this responsibility will be enforced by the courts. That order of the judge was appealed immediately to the circuit court, and the circuit court said it would not hear the appeal.

HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me, we're running out of time. I just want to ask you, do you think that we're going to see more lawsuits of this kind?

Ms. DOLBEARE: There have been a slew of lawsuits. They're already in the courts. I'm not sure we'll see more lawsuits. I hope that what we'll see is more compliance with the law. That's the purpose of these lawsuits. The remedy here looks very drastic because the disease is deep-seated.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, we have to end it there. Thank you, Ms. Dolbeare.

We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Page, Arizona] Medical Journal Questioned

MacNEIL: The New England Journal of Medicine today reported that a new drug treatment may improve the chances of surviving a heart attack. Researchers reported that an enzyme, when injected directly into the heart, can quickly dissolve blood clots. The report was based on a study of heart attack patients at the University of Washington Medical School. Almost every week the same New England Journal of Medicine makes news. In recent weeks it gave un this news and this and this, among many other stories. In fact, the magazine has become one of the most influential sources of new in the medical field, but the magazine is not without controversy, as we see in this report by Callie Crossley of public station WGBH in Boston.

CALLIE CROSSLEY [voice-over]: Nationally and locally the New England Journal of Medicine makes news each week. Considered by some to be the premiere English-language medical journal, the publication has been in the public eye almost since its inception 171 years ago. How and why has this journal gained such popularity and respect? Editor Dr. Arnold Relman.

ARNOLD RELMAN, editor, New England Journal of Medicine: Most medical journals are specialized. They deal with one aspect of medicine, and they deal mainly or almost exclusively with the technical aspects of medicine. We're a general journal. We started out that way in 1912 and we've remained that way ever since. We write about anything that we think physicians ought to be interested in and that the public ought to be interested in if they want to understand about health care and medicine in general.

CROSSLEY [voice-over]: The Journal is hot off the press every week going out to both American and foreign subscribers. Its timeliness, say readers, is what heightens interest in the publication. The Journal's prestige and its reputation for editorial independence attracts contributors as well. Its headquarters is deluged with manuscripts -- 4,000 articles pour in each year, though only about 480 of them get published. Likewise, 5,000 letters arrive, but only half of those make it into print. Dr. Michael Rosenblatt is one of the lucky authors whose article survived the tough competition.He and his colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital published an article two years ago. Dr. Rosenblatt's work detailed what happens to certain naturally occuring substances called endorphins in the bodies of young women who undergo sustained physical training. The work gained much attention from the press and his colleagues, attention the doctor feels wouldn't have occurred if he had been published elsewhere.

Dr. MICHAEL ROSENBLATT, Massachusetts General Hospital: You hear from old classmates, from old friends, from scientists in fields who are not working closely to your field and wouldn't have picked up the article and looked at it if it appeared in a different publication. So it's true that the New England Journal has that ability to cut across the medical sciences and is very widely read.

CROSSLEY [voice-over]: Media attention has helped to enhance the Journal's reputation, but it has also posed some problems for editor Relman, not the least of which is the public perception that what's printed in the Journal is the last word.

Dr. RELMAN: Editors of journals like ours that are widely reported in the popular press have the problem then of deciding whether they're going to publish preliminary reports, tentative conclusions, taking the risk that the press may misinterpret, that the public may misunderstand, and we have to recognize that some of the things we're publishing may not turn out to be true.

CROSSLEY [voice-over]: To minimize public confusion about new scientific developments, Relman follows a policy established by his predecessor Franz Ingelfinger. The so-called Ingelfinger Rule is based on the premise that a breakthrough isn't a breakthrough until it's published. In other words, scientists should not discuss work with the press until after it has undergone the rigorous peer review necessary for publication in a scientific journal. If a scientist breaks that rule, he eliminates his chance of being published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. RELMAN: If medical scientists try to short-circuit that process and when they think they've got a great idea or they've got some new developments that are red hot, call in the press and say, "Look, we think we've done something very important. Of course, we haven't submitted it for peer review yet. We haven't even presented it at a scientific meeting, but we think this is red hot." If they do that and if the press then plays up those stories and puts it out before the public, there is a real risk that premature, inaccurate information is going to be disseminated, and I think that the public interest is best served if the public is informed about new advances in medicine at the same time that the medical profession is.

CROSSLEY: There are those who criticize the Journal saying that the so-called Ingelfinger Rule is really not about ethics but more about a power play.

Dr. RELMAN: Yes, we have been criticized in that way. Most medical scientists that I know support that principle fully. If we didn't declare the Ingelfinger Rule, somebody else would have to make it up.

CROSSLEY [voice-over]: Other medical journals do have such a rule, but some say the New England Journal's is merely a gag order. The Ingelfinger Rule is controversial.The Journal of the American Medical Association has attacked it, and last year The New York Times' Dr. Lawrence Altman criticized the rule after a physican refused to discuss the results of a publicly-funded study, fearing rejection by the Journal. The Journal's influence reaches beyond the medical community into the business arena. Wall Street financiers keep a keen eye on the articles in the publication because it can and has affected the stock market. Such was the case a few years ago when the Journal published an article concerning Tagamet, an ulcer medication. The most widely sold pharmaceutical in the country,Tagamet is manufactured by the Smith Klein French Drug Company.

Dr. RELMAN: A few days before publication of that article, Smith Klein and French stock started to go down very rapidly on the stock market, and we found out subsequently that that was due to the fact that people had gotten hold of copies of the Journal a few days before publication, were aware of the fact that the Journal was reporting some undesirable side effects in a few patients, and started to sell the stock short. A clear illustration of the fact that what we publish greatly influences Wall Street very often.

CROSSLEY [voice-over]: The power of the New England Journal may be even greater in the upcoming years as its focus expands to include the social, political, economic, ethical issues of medical practice.

WOODRUFF: And now a last look at today's top stories:

Lebanon continues to lead the news. U.S. ships off the coast of Beirut again fired at Syrian-controlled targets, again responding to attacks on American reconnaissance planes.

In his fifth day on the job. Argentina's new president fired the commanders of the army, navy and air force and forced dozens of other top-level officers to retire.

In Georgia, convicted murdered John Eldon Smith was electrocuted this morning, the second death penalty victim in the U.S. this week.

And the Commerce Department says the U.S. may have a record foreign trade deficit for 1983, possibly ending the year $40 billion in the red. Robin?

MacNEIL: Finally tonight, a news story that is very close to us. The director of this program, Michael, or Mick, Colgan, died today from injuries received in a car accident yesterday. Mick was 42. He'd been our studio director in New York for the past four years. His association with us went back to 1973 and the Watergate hearings, which he helped direct. He also worked on such award-winning programs as "51st State" and "Bill Moyer's Journal." Mick was born in Youngstown, Ohio, on March 31st, 1941. After graduating from the University of Dayton, he began his career at WTOP in Washington, D.C., and became news director there. Everyone who worked with Mick Colgan knew him not only as a highly skilled professional but a man of a sweet, even temperament and a dry humor that were blessings in this over-frantic business. We share the sorrow of his wife, Anne, and their two children.

Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. And that's our NewsHour for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.