The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. These are the major news headlines today. President Reagan said Moscow is trying to establish a beachhead in Nicaragua. General Motors said it will buy Hughes Aircraft for $5 billion. NATO allies urged the U.S. not to abandon the SALT II treaty. New efforts to end the three-week-old United Airlines strike collapsed. Jim Lehrer is away tonight; Judy Woodruff's in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary we have three focus segment debates on the NewsHour tonight, beginning with the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and a congressional critic: who is responsible for keeping the air clean? Then two Senate committee witnesses debate the controversial civil rights record of the man nominated to be the number-three in the Justice Department. And, finally, the SALT II arms treaty: should the U.S. continue to abide by its limitations? News Summary

MacNEIL: President Reagan stepped up his campaign today to get Congress to approve aid to the anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua. The President spoke at a Republican fundraiser in Oklahoma City.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Congress can no longer ignore the obvious. The Soviet bloc nations and their terrorist allies are pouring in weapons and ammunition to establish a beachhead on our own doorstep. It was a dark day for freedom when, after the Soviet Union spent $500 million to impose Communism in Nicaragua, the United States Congress could not support a meager $14 million for the freedom fighters in Nicaragua who are opposed to that totalitarian government. Those who put their lives on the line for democracy look to us as their last best hope. We failed them once. We dare not fail them again.

MacNEIL: Mr. Reagan added, "History will not wait upon a passive America. The time is now to understand that Communism has already made its choice. It is an aggressive, implacable foe of freedom." In Nicaragua, the Sandinista government claimed today its forces had shot down two helicopters after they attacked an observation post in northern Nicaragua. The helicopters were among three that allegedly crossed the Nicaraguan border from Honduras on Monday. Meanwhile, Nicaraguan warplanes bombed rebels attacking across the Costa Rica border. President Daniel Ortega said yesterday that the rebels were acting with the complicity of some members of Costa Rica's security forces. The Revolutionary Democratic Alliance confirmed that guerrillas had crossed the border into Nicaragua and that they were being bombed. Yesterday the White House issued a strong warning to Nicaragua to stop any further military operations against its neighbors, Honduras and Costa Rica. Judy?

WOODRUFF: On Capitol Hill, supporters and opponents of aid to the Nicaraguan rebels staked out their positions in preparation for the next round of show-down votes over the money. House Speaker Tip O'Neill said the President's policies are moving the nation closer to U.S. military intervention in Central America. Even so, the authors of a Democratic plan to aid refugees instead of the contras said after a meeting of the House Democratic Caucus that party leaders are not wavering in their support for the plan.

Rep. LEE HAMILTON, (D) Indiana: This is no longer a question of just aiding a few contras, four or five hundred, as it was when the program originally began. It is now a question of whether or not the Congress chooses to finance an army in the field. And it really is, in our judgment, a critical point in Central American policy.

Rep. RICHARD GEPHARDT, (D) Missouri: We don't want to have Nicaragua follow the Cuban model. I would hope that we can achieve an outcome in Nicaragua that's different than the outcome in Cuba, and I think that what we're trying to enunciate here is a long-range plan for achieving that goal, so that we don't have the kind of alignment and the kind of dependence on the part of Nicaragua with the Soviet Union that Cuba today has.

WOODRUFF: At the same, Speaker O'Neill and other Democrats acknowledged that support for their position against any aid to the contras has been eroded by the visit of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega to Moscow last month. The trip took place on the heels of an earlier House vote denying aid.

And this afternoon the House voted to impose economic sanctions on South Africa. By a 293 to 127 vote protesting South Africa's system of racial segregation known as apartheid, the House decided to ban the importation of Kruggerands or any other South African coins into the United States. The House also voted to prohibit the shipment of U.S. computers or computer software to South Africa. The House bill now goes to the Senate.

MacNEIL: The Reagan administration was urged today not to abandon the SALT II treaty for fear it would endanger the Geneva arms talks. President Reagan is due to decide by next Monday whether the U.S. will continue its present voluntary compliance with the treaty, signed in 1979 but never ratified. White House spokesman Larry Speakes said today Mr. Reagan has not made up his mind.

Secretary of State George Shultz held private talks with other NATO foreign ministers today in Estoral, Portugal. Before his meeting British officials said, "We don't want SALT II abrogated." The former British Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, now secretary-general of NATO, said the allies were worried about the effect on the Geneva arms talks if SALT II is scrapped. Whether President Reagan should dump the treaty or not is the subject of a focus debate later in this program between Paul Warnke, who negotiated SALT II, and former Assistant Secretary of State Seymour Weiss.

WOODRUFF: The Senate finally reached agreement today on funding for President Reagan's Star Wars program. After several votes late last night and again this morning, members approved just under $3 billion for Star Wars research, the proposed high-technology missile defense system. But in a compromise they decided to have the Senate hire outside consultants to provide technical expertise on Star Wars. Meanwhile, a group of House Republicans heard from Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger today, who said he hopes the House will approve a figure closer to the $3.7 billion that President Reagan has asked for. Weinberger also expressed concern about Star Wars technology falling into the wrong hands once any secrets are shared with our allies.

CASPAR WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense: In the development of this program we do want European and allied friendly participation because we think they can help us a very great deal. We also need, I think, to be very much more concerned than we have been in the past about the transfers or the losses of these technologies. If we are able to put in proper security measures here, that will certainly protect both the United States and our allies, and that's essentially what we're trying to do. It's a real problem, though.

MacNEIL: General Motors said today it will buy the Hughes Aircraft Company for $5 billion in cash and stock, one of the biggest mergers ever outside the oil business. Hughes is the nation's leading producer of defense electronic and computer systems, and GM Chairman Roger Smith said that would be very useful in the future development of automobiles. He spoke at a news conference in New York.

ROGER SMITH, Chairman of General Motors: The automobile in some respects is still in its infancy as composed of systems. In other words, we have to depend upon the driver right now. He has to use his brain to coordinate between the gear trains and the accelerator and the brakes and all the things like this. He has to use his vision -- we believe that a systematic approach to systems on that can really make a great step forward.

MacNEIL: An effort to revive negotiations in the United Airlines strike failed when the company refused to attend a mediation session. United said it didn't want to negotiate with the Airline Pilots Association on whether pilots who cross the picket line should have more desirable assignments.

And another sign of weakness in the international oil market appeared today when Britain cut the price of its North Sea oil by $1.25 a barrel. That could increase pressures on other oil producers to follow suit. The new price will be $26.25 a barrel, down from $30 as recently as last October.

WOODRUFF: Critics of the Reagan administration's civil rights policies continued to lash out today at the man the President wants to promote to number three in the Justice Department. At a confirmation hearing for William Bradford Reynolds, currently the chief civil rights enforcer at Justice, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reynolds defended his record while one witness after another denounced it.

BENJAMIN HOOKS, NAACP: Mr. Reynolds has opposed minority set-asides. He has opposed voluntary affirmative action. He has sought to derail attempts to desegregate public schools. He has sought to minimize or eliminate civil rights by his position that whatever group membership one inherits, it carries with it no entitlement to preferential treatment, which completely misstates the whole purpose of what we are trying to do.

PAUL KAMENAR, Washington Legal Foundation: Any fair-minded person reviewing the enforcement record of the Civil Rights Division would quickly come to the unassailable conclusion that the performance level of the Civil Rights Division in both the civil and criminal enforcement areas equals or exceeds that of any prior administrations. Mr. Reynolds' record clearly demonstrates his strong, principled conviction to enforce our civil rights laws without any distinctions or preferences based on race, sex or religion or any other relevant characteristic, as envisioned by the Constitution, the Congress and the policy of our President.

WOODRUFF: Later in the NewsHour, Senate Judiciary Committee witnesses Kamenar and Hooks join us to continue the debate over the Reynolds nomination.

MacNEIL: Doctors reported today that they have solved the mystery of toxic shock syndrome, the often fatal disease connected to the use of certain highly absorbent tampons. Between 1980 and 1984 more than 2,600 cases of toxic shock were recorded, with 114 deaths. Researchers at Harvard Medical School now say the culprit is two types of fiber used in tampons. These fibers foster the production of bacterial poison by removing magnesium from the surrounding area. Tampons made with other materials are safe. The researchers reported in the June issue of the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Airing the Rules

WOODRUFF: It's a question that's been burning in environmental circles ever since the first days of the Reagan administration. Should there be one air pollution standard for everyone, or should states be free to decide for themselves how much they're willing to put up with? Yesterday the federal Environmental Protection Agency came out with a new policy squarely on the side of local control. Administrator Lee Thomas said the states, not the federal government, should bear most of the burden for setting safe levels of toxic air pollutants. The EPA's announcement was immediately attacked by environmentalists and members of Congress, who say the federal agency is abdicating its responsibility to control air pollution. We join the debate now with two of the principals, EPA chief Lee Thomas and New Jersey Congressman James Florio, an advocate of stiffer air pollution controls.

Mr. Thomas, let me begin with you. Why the decision to shift more of the control to the states?

LEE THOMAS: Actually, Judy, it wasn't a decision to shift. That's really a mischaracterization of what we proposed. We came out with a strategy yesterday that recommended that we expand the federal role and expand the state role. Not an either-or approach, but a both approach. In toxic air pollutants, unlike the rest of the Clean Air Act, the states have really had a very limited role. We think that their role should be expanded, they should take on a part of the responsibility with us, particularly at site-specific locations.

WOODRUFF: But on balance is it an increased role for the states?

Mr. THOMAS: It's an increased role for the states and an increased role for the federal government.

WOODRUFF: Aren't you obligated, though, under the Clean Air Act to set limits for air pollutants?

Mr. THOMAS: Clearly and without question, and we will do it aggressively.

WOODRUFF: But is that consistent with what you have done yesterday?

Mr. THOMAS: It's very consistent. What we proposed yesterday is that we go forward under the Clean Air Act dealing with toxic air pollutants, setting standards, as we have done. As a matter of fact, we proposed broadening the authorities that we have to deal with toxic air pollutants, setting additional standards for area sources that we've never dealt with before -- federal standards. But at the same time we also feel like there are a number of isses that can be dealt with by the states that haven't been dealt with. And we want to try to help the states deal with those problems as well. So it's moving forward on two fronts.

WOODRUFF: Well, Congressman Florio, that sounds very reasonable. What's your problem with it?

Rep. JAMES FLORIO: Well, the difficulty -- and it's part of the administration's philosophic -- environmental philosophic desire to give things back to the states, and we see it in Superfund, where we're doubling the burden on states to get cleanup if we had the administration having its way. In this area the problem is that EPA, not just this EPA but EPA over the last number of years, has not been doing what it's supposed to be doing in regulating toxic air pollutants. Now, when the public is very concerned about this by virtue of Bhopal and other incidents, EPA indicates that it's going to start sharing the record and the responsibilities they have with the states, when in fact the Clean Air Act is clear and unequivocal that when a contaminant is regarded as a life-threatening contaminant, it is to be regulated -- to be so indicated and then regulated by EPA. We had this debate 20 years ago with regard to clean air, that we shouldn't have one state level of exposure and another state level of exposure. It is not desirable. We shouldn't have methyl isocyanate, which killed all those people in India, being allowed to be admitted at one state in one level and another state in another one.

WOODRUFF: You're saying they're not abiding by the Clean Air Act. Is that what you're saying?

Rep. FLORIO: Oh, it's fairly clear, and I think Mr. Thomas would probably acknowledge the fact that there's only six of 50- or 60,000 contaminants that have been evaluated and described as toxic air pollutants opening the regulatory --

WOODRUFF: Let's ask Mr. Thomas about it.

Mr. THOMAS: Well, the Clean Air Act historically is an act that's implemented jointly by the federal government and the states, and the states have a very large part of the role, dealing largely with the criteria of pollutants historically, the carbon monoxide and others that we've dealt with over the years. Toxic air pollutants we've looked at and we've found that they're a far different problem. They're a problem that lend themselves to federal standards but they also are a problem that in some occasions are very geographically specific and very much lend themselves to local regulation. So our approach is, let's try and do both; let's don't make an either-or approach.

WOODRUFF: What's wrong with that?

Rep. FLORIO: Well, the answer is that you really can't do both. If PCBs or dioxin or methyl isocyanate are life-threatening, and that determination is to be made by the agency, we shouldn't allow State One to say you can be exposed to so much of it, and State Two to say that there should be exposed to something else.

WOODRUFF: Why not?

Rep. FLORIO: Because you're talking about, by definition, life-threatening, hazardous air pollutants, and the citizens of New York should not be exposed to one does with the citizens of New Jersey exposed to another does, depending upon local considerations, because local considerations also roll in economics. We don't want to have states competing for industry by promising people they're allowed to dirty the air to a much greater extent than if you go to another state to locate your site.

WOODRUFF: What about his point that it's not fair to have one state saying it's okay to be this dirty and another state saying not that dirty?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, clearly the kind of approach we're taking, I don't think is going to present that kind of dramatic option. As a matter of fact, we think on those things that are a national problem we'll move forward and set national standards. We announced some yesterday that we were going to set. On those things that we think are very specific, we think the states can move forward with our help to set a standard at a local level quicker, as a matter of fact, in a more timely fashion than we could by doing a national standard. If that approach doesn't work, we're right behind them to move forward and back it up. But it's not shifting that burden to the locals. We're not planning on doing that, and we're not planning on allowing pollutant havens, as people have criticized us for.

Rep. FLORIO: My only response is that perhaps if Mr. Thomas and the administration wants to change the law, to take away from them the responsibility they clearly have to set national uniform standards for hazardous air pollutants, they should submit legislation, not to be doing it in either a regulatory fashion or -- and we don't even have a regulatory fashion being advocated, as I understand it. This is going to be a strategy, and that is not as clear as it could be as to what the strategy is.

WOODRUFF: Let me ask Mr. Thomas about something you said at a press conference yesterday. You said if some communities want to allow an excess cancer rate, the federal government has no right to step in. Do you really think that that's what some people want?

Mr. THOMAS: I think in some communities, on those substances that we have not regulated, have not gotten to, won't regulate, that we would like to see local communities go ahead in some cases and deal with it. We'd like to give them the opportunity to do that. We'd like to provide the information to them and let them go ahead and regulate, and I think those communities want to do that. They want the information, they'd like to move forward, and they can in many cases, faster than we can move with a national standard.

WOODRUFF: But why would one community be willing to put up with a higher level of pollution?

Mr. THOMAS: I don't think they will. I don't think they will. I don't think the communities will let that happen, particularly when you make that information available to the citizens.

WOODRUFF: But you're willing to let them make that decision?

Mr. THOMAS: I think they have to participate in those decisions and should.

Rep. FLORIO: The answer is that the states and the communities don't want that, and the fact of the matter is many of them already feel woefully inadequate in trying to deal with what it is that's coming out of smokestacks of chemical facilities right now. In Union Carbide at West Virginia we saw and learned, and no one else had known about it, that methyl isocyanate is being daily emitted out of the facility, of course, this is by definition life-threatening since it killed so many people.

WOODRUFF: All right, but aside from methyl isocyanate, if one community wants to attract industry, wants to attract business and they decide, okay, we'll put up with a slightly higher level of pollution in order to do that, why shouldn't they be able to?

Rep. FLORIO: Well, the answer is that you almost make it into a conscious decision, and that is almost too ideal. You're not going to have that conscious decision-making process. What you're going to have is people saying, well, there are jobs, or you'll have people competing for industry, and no one will ever get around to fully evaluating the life-threatening characteristics of different groups --

Mr. THOMAS: I think it's our responsibility to ensure that they do. I don't think EPA under the law, as Congressman Florio says, can back away from the problem. But at the same time I don't think we should avoid the problem or let the communities avoid the problem.

Rep. FLORIO: A most fundamental point is EPA desires to do this, but the fact of the matter is the law doesn't allow them to do it. If there's going to be a national policy change whereby we're going to say, towns, you take increased cancer risks or you have jobs, the law should be changed, and the law ought to be debated, and that apparently is not the intention of EPA in terms of submitting legislation to us.

WOODRUFF: Is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS: It is our intention to have the issue fully debated. That's why we've had the issue made public, why we have a public strategy where we've gotten clear review on that strategy, why I'm going to testify before Congressman Florio's committee next week to discuss the entire issue. I don't think what we are proposing requires any change in legislation. I think it's consistent with how the legislation is drafted, and I don't think we're backing away from our legal responsibilities at all. As a matter of fact, I think we're trying to move forward with them more aggressively than they've been implemented previously.

WOODRUFF: Just quickly, Mr. Florio, what do you think will happen, assuming this goes forward?

Rep. FLORIO: First of all, there have already bes about people filing lawsuits because the perception is this is beyond the scope of EPA's responsibility. But, over and above that, the legislation that's been introduced by myself and Congressman Waxman, Congressman Wirth, addresses many of these questions. I'm hopeful that we'll have legislative clarification and then legislative authority for EPA to do what hopefully will be in the public interest.

WOODRUFF: And what effect will that have?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, I think we're going to fully debate that in hearings on the Hill. I feel like our approach and the approach we've laid out is a well-reasoned one. I think it's one that deals with a pervasive, difficult issue, which is toxic air pollutants. I think it's going to take more than just the federal government. It's going to take state and local government to really deal with the problem.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Thomas, Congressman Florio, thank you both for being with us.

Rep. FLORIO: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: Robin?

MacNEIL: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, should Bradford Reynolds' civil rights record block his confirmation as associate attorney general? And should President Reagan abandon the SALT II treaty? Record on Rights: William Bradford Reynolds

MacNEIL: As we reported, this was the second day of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee into a nomination that's generated a big head of political steam, the nomination of William Bradford Reynolds to be associate attorney general. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has our next focus section. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Robin, appointments to sub-Cabinet posts usually don't cause much of a stir, but the Reynolds confirmation hearing was even postponed a month in order to give opponents more time to gear up for a big fight. For the past four years, Reynolds has served as assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Justice Department, pursuing some of the most controversial policies in the entire administration. Conservatives constantly applauded his performance; liberals continually attacked it. That pattern continued today as Reynolds appeared for the second day of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he was questioned about his views on such issues as busing and affirmative action.

Sen. CHARLES MATHIAS, (R) Maryland, Judiciary Committee: You are not enthusiastic, as I understand it, about class-based relief. Is that correct?

WILLIAM BRADFORD REYNOLDS, Associate Attorney General-Designate: Well, Senator, I think that if by class-based relief we were to be referring to affirmative action remedies in the nature of outreach and recruitment and efforts of that sort to ensure that increased numbers of minorities are brought into, or women are brought into the applicant pool and considered for opportunities on a non-discriminatory basis, I certainly favor that and fully endorse it. My difficulty --

Sen. MATHIAS: What I'm talking about in class-based relief is relief that seeks to remedy discrimination by requiring race-conscious or gender-conscious treatment of individuals who are members of a class that has historically suffered some discrimination.

Mr. REYNOLDS: Then I would agree with your statement, Senator.

Sen. MATHIAS: You're not enthusiastic?

Mr. REYNOLDS: That's correct.

Sen. MATHIAS: And you prefer to provide relief to individuals who are proven to be personal victims?

Mr. REYNOLDS: I believe in non-discrimination, and by non-discrimination I think that that requires that we can neither favor nor disfavor any individual by reason of his or her race or sex. And if you are a victim of discrimination, then you are entitled to be made whole and entitled to the full measure of relief in order to be sure that you are made whole. But I think that if we are talking about relief that it reaches those who have not been victimized by the discrimination that is in question, then a remedy that will favor or disfavor or advantage or disadvantage any individual because of that person's skin color or gender is, I think, unlawful under our Constitution and our laws that are on the books.

JUDY GOLDSMITH, National Organization for Women: Mr. Reynolds has become the Scrooge of the Justice Department. He has been stingy and mean-spirited in dispensing justice to the citizens of this nation. Shortly a-ter arriving at the Department of Justice during the first Reagan term, Mr. Reynolds announced that affirmative action remedies would be rejected by the Reagan administration. He made clear his contention that remedies should be color blind and gender neutral. The words have a noble sound, but they ring hollow in the context of today's realities. We haven't ended sex and race discrimination in the past 20 years. We have only begun to repair their ravages.

MARK DE BERNARDO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce: We find it regrettable that some opponents would use the confirmation process and these hearings as a forum to attack the administration and its policies or to protest in frustration recent legal interpretations by the courts of our civil rights and responsibilities. Qualified individuals such as Mr. Reynolds should not be denied presidential appointments simply because of opponents' disagreement with administration policies. The last four years under Mr. Reynolds' leadership, the Civil Rights Division's programs and policies have had a positive and widespread impact in the private sector, and it's significant not only in restoring equity and balance to our civil rights laws, but also increasing in the revitalization of the business community.

JOHN JACOB, National Urban League: Under his direction the Civil Rights Division has become an obstacle to the elimination of racial barriers in our society. Instead of fulfilling his duty to be an effective instrument to tear down those racial barriers, the burden of the record of Mr. Reynolds stewardship of the Civil Rights Division indicates that he has presided over the weakening of federal civil rights enforcement efforts, has actively impeded efforts to remedy civil rights violations, and has undermined civil rights principles established by the Congress and the judiciary.

PHIL NEAL, attorney: The policies and positions for which Mr. Reynolds has been criticized lie in areas of the law where there is fair room for a difference of opinion among reasonable lawyers and decent people, including people on both sides who are genuinely devoted to the cause of civil rights. I do not see anything in those positions that gives fair ground for regarding Mr. Reynolds as a bigot or a fanatic.

HUNTER-GAULT: Here to continue that debate are two of the witnesses we saw earlier who testified today on opposite sides. Paul Kamenar is the legal director of the Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm. Benjamin Hooks is president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP.

First, Mr. Hooks, we heard you delineate a list of things earlier that you considered negative in Mr. Reynolds' record. Is it basically his policies that you oppose or his competence as a lawyer as well, or just what?

Mr. HOOKS: I do not say that he is not a competent lawyer. He is obviously a brilliant man. Anybody who could go into the law books and come up with the interpretations he has come up with has to be brilliant. I do say that his whole administration of the Civil Rights Division has been more designed to thwart and to undo and to circumvent the civil rights laws than they have been to enforce them. And it is for that reason that the NAACP opposes his promotion to a higher job.

HUNTER-GAULT: Is it that you also disagree not just over his attitudes in terms of policy but disagreements over philosophy as well?

Mr. HOOKS: Well, certainly there is a disagreement over philosophy. For instance, he says that, in answer to Senator Mack Mathias' question, that he did not believe in class-based relief. And so what he is saying is that 30 million blacks or 20 million hispanics, perhaps 100 million women can only receive any help if they can prove that they individually, personally were discriminated against. The fact that a long legacy and history has to be overturned, and as was so well-stated by a witness today, it would have been ludicrous for a woman to apply for the police department in Memphis in 1940. It would have been stupid for a black to apply to the police department in 1940 or '45 in Memphis. It would have been something that just was not done because you know you didn't do it. And that effect of that widespread discrimination against women and against minorities is still being felt in America, and now to talk about a color-blind Constitution is out of place when we start off with the fact that in the first article of the Constitution, the second section, the third clause, it delineates blacks as three-fifths of a person, it talks about Indians not taxed; the 19th amendment had to be put into the Constitution to give women the right to vote, to remedy -- in other words, I'm saying that it takes sex-conscious and color-conscious remedies to undo the color-conscious and sex-conscious problems that this nation still has.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Kamenar, how do you react to those charges as they add up to Mr. Reynolds' fitness for this office?

Mr. KAMENAR: I think that the policy of the Reagan administration as implemented by William Bradford Reynolds has been an excellent one in terms of going against race-conscious remedies and quotas. Under our Constitution it is color blind. We -- the civil rights are for the rights of everyone, regardless of the color of your skin or of your sex. Under our laws, classes or groups of people don't have rights; individual do. And I think that this is compelled by the law, the civil rights rights law passed by Congress. It's compelled by the Constitution, and it's something that's supported by the Reagan administration. It's supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people in opinion polls and at the voting booth in 1980 and 1984. So I think that the pro-quota lobby, if they're against these kind of policies, ought to get the laws changed. We should not combat racism by imposing racism. That's the worst thing you could do. It's racially divisive as well as pits one group against another, and even minorities against other minorities. I think it's totally unwarranted.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Hooks?

Mr. HOOKS: Well, in the first place I deny vehemently and emphatically that the Constitution is color blind. If you read the Constitution and you discover that they talked about slaves as three-fifths of a person, that had its basis in color. The 13th and 14th and 15th amendments were not, were not put into the Constitution to protect the rights of white men. White men did not need the 15th amendment saying you have the right to vote. White men did not need the 13th amendment to abolish slavery. It was done for black people who had been slaves. The 19th amendment was not needed by white men. The genius of our Constitution has been, in spite of these glib assumptions about color blind and neutral as it relates to sex, the fact of the matter is that this country has a long, sorry history of racial and sexual discrimination. And it has -- nobody in his right mind would tell me the 1957 Civil Rights Act establishing the U.S. Civil Rights Commission was done for white males in this country or the fair housing laws or equal accommodation laws. Those were not passed -- they were passed in order to help the victims of discrimination. Now, let me --

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Hooks --

Mr. HOOKS: -- that white men ought to be protected as well as black men or white women. I'm not suggesting that there ought to be inequity. I am simply saying that if one wants to talk about color blindness and neutral gender as it relates to sex [discrimination], then we ought to look at the reason for the laws and the long history of sorry discrimination that preceded the passage of those laws.

HUNTER-GAULT: And you think that the fact that Mr. Reynolds is not doing that disqualifies him from this post?

Mr. HOOKS: Absolutely disqualifies him because he talks about race neutrality. I testified today, can one be neutral about the long history of slavery? Can one be neutral about Hitler? Can one be neutral about the rape of Ethiopia by Mussolini or the terror we have had in Afghanistan? Or Uganda? Can we be neutral about all the problems in the world? It is not a time for neutrality. It is a time for positive action to eradicate past discrimination.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Kamenar, let me ask you about Judy Goldsmith's claim in the tape we just heard, calling Mr. Reynolds mean-spirited in dispensing justice in this country. What's your reaction to that?

Mr. KAMENAR: I think that she and others like her are mean-spirited in engaging in these McCarthy-like rhetoric and inflammatory rhetoric, attacking his character like that. I think he is for an advocate of civil rights for everyone -- black, white, male, female -- and if you'll look at the enforcement record of the Brad Reynolds 7sic] Civil Rights Division and the Constittuion administration, it exceeds that of the Carter administration in terms of filing lawsuits on behalf of blacks, on behalf of women, in the areas of housing, in the areas of employment, in the voting rights area. Their record exceeds the other administration. So I take strong issue with the assertion by Mr. Hooks here that there has not been a strong enforcement of the civil rights law. He simply is against a quota. I mean, he's in favor of quotas and forced busing, and this administration the laws are against it, and so was Senator Hubert Humphrey.

Mr. HOOKS: I don't know what "forced busing" means. They always bring that red herring up. Schooling is forced. We believe busing, when the courts order it, and that's the only time we go for it. But let me just ask the question --

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, answer his point -- Mr. Hooks --

Mr. HOOKS: The fact of the matter --

HUNTER-GAULT: -- excuse me. But his point that Mr. Reynolds and his Justice Department have exceeded, in fact, previous administrations in things that they've done in civil rights.

Mr. HOOKS: Well, that's simply not true. We have printed handbook after handbook. What Mr. Reynolds is done, and he's very adroit at this, this is why I say he's a brilliant lawyer. In fact, I think Mr. Reynolds is sincere. He's sincerely wrong, but he's still sincere. What he has done is to convert the mechanism of enforcement into a person-by-person type of thing. In a letter exchanged between Representative Gus Hawkins of California, who heads the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Reynolds made it clear that he will file a suit on behalf of Ben Hooks, or a suit on behalf of any other black or woman who has personally proved that they have a case. And therefore he may file a million lawsuits and never deal with the reality of the fact that class-based and class-conscious remedies have moved -- Mayor Hudnut of Indianapolis has pointed out how well affirmative action has worked in his town in moving us to some positive result.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Kamenar --

Mr. HOOKS: -- and affirmative action has worked because of that.

HUNTER-GAULT: -- how do you respond to that, especially in light of the fact that many of the states where Mr. Reynolds wants to undo consent decrees agreeing to affirmative action have refused to do that?

Mr. KAMENAR: Well, I think what Mr. Reynolds is doing is basically enforcing the Supreme Court's decision in the Stotts case, where the Supreme Court ruled that you cannot have -- discriminate against non-minorities in terms of promoting minorities in terms of police force and in other public-sector type jobs. I think all he's doing is going back and saying look at these consent decrees that have been entered with the approval of the court, and see whether there's any conflict with the Supreme Court decision in this area. I think that's a reasonable approach to take.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you have any predictions as to whether you think this nomination can be stopped?

Mr. HOOKS: I think that the nomination can be stopped; whether it will or not is not as important as it is making our witness. And let me say Mr. Reynolds has interpreted the Stotts case, in my judgment, wrong, but in more than my judgment. He has said himself in his testimony today, in spite of the statement just made, that in four United States circuit courts that have ruled on the Stotts case, they have come down with a different conclusion than has Mr. Reynolds, and he has said obviously he will not try to proceed in those four circuits. I predict that Mr. Reynolds' position will be found entirely wrong, and it's incorrect for any lawyer to say that the Supreme Court has held that there cannot be affirmative action because the underlying decree in the Stotts case was not disturbed. It was only disturbed on a separate, ancillary type of situation involving seniority versus affirmative action. But the underlying decree in that case is still valid and in full force and effect in Memphis, Tennessee.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, well, we'll follow this with interest. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Hooks, and Mr. Kamenar.

Mr. KAMENAR: Thank you.

Mr. HOOKS: Thank you. SALT II in Jeopardy?

MacNEIL: Sometime this weekend President Reagan has to make a crucial decision. It's a difficult one, and it reportedly has split his administration, pitting civilian advisors against uniformed chiefs of staff, and Mr. Reagan's own campaign rhetoric from 1980 against the pragmatism of holding office. The question is whether or not the United States should continue adhering to the never-ratified SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, the treaty Mr. Reagan once called fatally flawed. The decision, due Monday, will end one of the longest-running arms control debates within the administration. Two former senior officials join the debate for us after a background report by correspondent June Cross.

JUNE CROSS [voice-over]: The USS Alaska, the seventh Trident submarine, set to start sea trials in September. Each of its 14 ballistic missiles launches eight nuclear warheads, and those missiles have launched anew a debate over whether the United States should continue its voluntary compliance with one of the few arms agreements reached with the Soviet Union. The agreement is known as SALT II, SALT standing for "strategic arms limitation talks." Three American presidents took office during the seven years of negotiations, and President Jimmy Carter finally signed it with Leonid Brezhnev in June of 1979. But the Senate considered it a bad deal for the U.S., and that, combined with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year, torpedoed the treaty. Candidate Ronald Reagan called the treaty fatally flawed in 1980, yet as President, Ronald Reagan has chosen to abide by the SALT II treaty.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: We have up until now been abiding by it, and as we've replaced older weapons with new, we have destroyed the older ones.

CROSS [voice-over]: Whether to continue that policy is at the heart of the current debate among arms control and defense specialists. Those who favor letting the treaty lapse say it hasn't done much to halt the arms race because neither side is in a position to build nuclear weapons any faster than they already have. That's a point of view championed particularly in the Pentagon. But treaty advocates at the State Department and elsewhere say SALT II has slowed the speed of the Soviet buildup in areas key for the United States. The first is in the total numbers of bombers, land-based missiles and submarines each side has built since 1979. The treaty limits these so-called missilelaunchers to a total of 2,400. The Soviets had about 2,500 launchers when the treaty was signed, and they've held to that level. That's permitted the U.S. to catch up, from 1,800 nuclear missile launchers in 1979 to 2,200 now.

Far more important from the U.S. point of view are the limits on missiles with multiple warheads. These weapons, called MIRVs, are considered particularly dangerous because one missile can reach as many as 10 different targets 1,190. This is where that seventh Trident submarine comes in. If that sub is deployed, the U.S. will be over the SALT limit by 14 missiles. If that happens, some analysts fear that it would renew the arms race. SALT II advocates argue that the Soviets could win that race because their missiles can launch more warheads. But the Soviets too are facing a decision on whether to abide by SALT. The Pentagon's annual report on Soviet military power documents testing on a new single-warhead missile, the SS-25. It's the second land-based missile tested since 1979. The Soviets consider it a modernization of an older weapon, but U.S. officials say it's brand new. And if it is, testing it breaks the SALT II accords. The problem is U.S. officials can't tell for sure whether the SS-25 is a new missile or not because the Soviets have camouflaged their tests so American specialists can't analyze them. That's added to charges of Soviet cheating on the treaty.

Pres. REAGAN [February 21, 1985]: Both countries had been, as long as it was mutual, obeying the restraints or staying within the restraints mainly because of our efforts toward what we're now approaching, arms reduction talks. And I have to say that we know that the Soviet Union, we're sure, has violated some of the restraints now.

CROSS [voice-over]: President Reagan is to notify Congress June 10th whether he thinks the treaty both sides have followed for six years is worth continuing. His decision affects not only the Trident submarines coming down the line but the pace of current arms talks in Geneva. And many experts believe that what the President decides will impact the entire tenor of U.S.-Soviet relations as well.

MacNEIL: One of the leading critics of continued U.S. acceptance of the SALT II treaty limitations is Seymour Weiss, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs during the Nixon administration. A specialist on arms control issues, Mr. Weiss is now a Washington-based consultant on national security matters. He also serves on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Ambassador Weiss, why do you advise dropping the treaty?

SEYMOUR WEISS: Well, if you will recall, there were some of us who felt at the time the treaty was proposed that it had a number of very major, substantive conditions which we felt were not in the U.S. interest. Mr. Reagan had called it fatally flawed. But even if there is some dispute that can be had among reasonable men on that proposition, on one issue there just can't be any doubt, at least in my own mind. That is that the Soviets have been violating that treaty. You have a rather peculiar circumstance. Here was a treaty that was negotiated by a Democratic administration, submitted to a Senate dominated by the Democrats. That Senate would not agree to the ratification of that treaty. The treaty itself is due to expire in December of this year, and on top of that the Soviets are cheating. It seems to me incredible that one would propose that somehow or other under those circumstances we would continue to adhere to a treaty of that sort.

MacNEIL: But haven't we just heard that the evidence of their cheating is ambiguous?

Amb. WEISS: I don't think that's correct. I think there are some aspects of their cheating that are ambiguous and some that are not. And, as a matter of fact, Ithink it's at least worth mentioning in passing that not only has the administration asserted that the Soviets are cheating on the SALT II treaty, they are cheating on a whole range of arms control agreements that we have negotiated with them in recent years -- SALT I, the ABM treaty and so forth.

MacNEIL: What about the argument that a majority of the Joint Chiefs are reported to put forward that the Soviet Union -- if you ended the limitations now, the Soviet Union would be in a better position to be able to build more missiles immediately while the U.S. would be held back by budget and political restraints?

Amb. WEISS: Well, obviously I would want to let the JCS see for themselves. Let me tell you what I perceive to be the facts. Under the SALT II treaty, which was agreed to in '79, the Soviets have built some 4,000 additional warheads. Analyses which I have seen, which have been made available to me, suggest that they would be in a position to build perhaps several thousand still additional warheads. In my view that is hardly what epitomizes sound arms control. This administration has argued for significant reductions. Admittedly that's a difficult thing to accomplish. But I do not see how we provide an incentive to the Soviet Union to accept significant reduction if we adhere to an agreement which permits such massive increases on their part.

MacNEIL: The NATO allies led by Britain began today in Portugal mounting what looks like being pretty unanimous and strong pressure on the United States not to dump the treaty now. And we just heard Mr. Reagan saying the U.S. had been observing it mainly because of the approach to the arms control talks in Geneva. What about the argument that dropping SALT now would jeopardize those talks?

Amb. WEISS: Well, I don't believe that is correct. I think the first part of the proposition is correct. There's no doubt about the fact that our allies do have some deep concerns and reservations about our abrogating or not continuing an agreement that was never approved. But it seems to me this is a job of diplomacy. It ought not to be beyond the wit of man to demonstrate to our allies that their security interests and ours reside first of all in having a military posture which protects their interests and ours, which helps to deter war, and that the SALT II agreement simply does not meet that standard.

MacNEIL: Apart from your credibility argument with reference to the cheating, can you put in a sentence how the United States would be hurt if it continued to abide by these limitations?

Amb. WEISS: Certainly. It seems to me that in undertaking an arms control agreement which is not a sound agreement, one contributes to an atmosphere in the country which suggests that somehow or other this arms control agreement is going to take care of our security needs. I think that's a false premise. I think this is a case where God helps he who helps himself, and the sooner that we understand that, curiously enough, the sooner are we likely to get arms control agreements that are sound and in our interests.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: One of the chief proponents of the other side, the "let's continue to abide by the terms of the SALT II treaty" argument, is that treaty's negotiator, Paul Warnke. He served as the Carter administration's arms control negotiator with the Soviets and headed the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1977 to '78. He's now a lawyer in Washington and chairman of the Committee on National Security, a private research organization.

Mr. Warnke, Ambassador Weiss says the Soviets are violating SALT II. If so, why should the United States continue to adhere to it?

PAUL WARNKE: I think the key question is whether our security is going to be improved or worsened if we abandon the limitations of SALT II. Now, there are some legitimate questions about Soviet activities. I'm not sure, for example, that they can uphold the fact that the SSX-25, their new single-warhead ICBM, is just a modernization of the SS-13. And I certainly think that the amount of encryption they are doing of telemetry -- that's the data that comes back from testing missiles -- is excessive. But I think what is sometimes ignored is that they have abided by, clearly, the basic provisions of the treaty. They have destroyed, for example, in excess of 1,000 ICBMs, 200 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 12 ballistic missile submarines. And I think the real question is, what does it cost us to abide by the terms of the treaty? And what will it cost us if we let that treaty disappear?

WOODRUFF: What will it cost us if we let it disappear?

Amb. WARNKE: Well, the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, says that without the treaty restrictions the Soviet Union within the next 10 years could go from 9,800 strategic warheads to 28,000 -- almost three times the number. Now, if the Reagan administration is serious about arms control, shouldn't they want to hold down that number? Take, for example, what they could do with their very large ICBMs. They have a maximum of 10 MIRVs, 10 warheads, on the SS-18. That could be loaded up with at least 30 warheads each. They could add more than 6,000 warheads just on the SS-18. They are prevented from doing that by the SALT II treaty. And in addition to that, as they put into the field their new multiple-warhead ICBM, the SSX-24, if we continue with the SALT restrictions, they would have to start dismantling and destroying the SS-18s, -19s and -17s. If we abandon the restrictions, they can put out the SSX-24, put it on mobile launchers, keep every warhead they already have.

WOODRUFF: Well, what about Ambassador Weiss' other point that if we limit our own buildup by continuing to abide by SALT II, that we have done away with or eroded any incentive on the part of the Soviets to go along with reductions?

Amb. WARNKE: Well, I think what that ignores is the fact that the restrictions of the SALT II treaty at this point bind the Soviet Union much, much more severely than they do us. We are able, for example, under SALT II to go ahead with the MX ICBM, the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile, the B-1, the Stealth bomber. There is only one thing we would have to do in order to continue to adhere by the treaty, and that's as the Trident submarines come in, we should phase out the older Poseidons. They're already about 20 years old. They've about reached the end of their usable life. So that it'd cost us very little to abide by SALT. It'll cost us a great deal if we allow these restrictions to disappear. As a consequence, I agree with the Joint Chiefs.

WOODRUFF: If we stop abiding by SALT II, what effect does that have on the arms talks?

Amb. WARNKE: I think it'll torpedo it. It seems to me under those circumstances that there'd be very little reason for the Soviet Union to take us seriously any longer. I think really the key decision at this point is, do we want arms control, or do we want a totally free hand? Do we want to go it alone? Now, that's really the decision, and I'm afraid that we'll know within a few days whether or not the Reagan administration is serious about arms control. If they abandon the SALT II restrictions I think the Soviet Union will conclude it's just a charade.

WOODRUFF: Ambassador Warnke, stay with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: Will the Soviet Union conclude that in your view, Ambassador Weiss, that arms control in Washington is just a charade?

Amb. WEISS: Oh, quite to the contrary. My own experience in dealing with the Soviets over some 25 years of experience in the State Department suggests to me that they are far more likely to respect the United States, respect the President of the United States if he is perceived to mean what he says and stand by it. We've had a lot of experience of that sort. And I might say in that connection, if I might just very briefly comment on two points which Ambassador Warnke mentioned. He mentioned that the Soviets were cheating on encryption. I would remind him that President Carter at the time the SALT II agreement was proposed asserted that if the Soviets were to cheat on encryption, we would consider that as serious as any violation.

MacNEIL: Just so everybody understands, encryption is encoding the signals that these missiles send back when they're tested and encoding them in a way that we can't understand them.

Amb. WEISS: Precisely.

MacNEIL: And that's not -- the treaty says you shouldn't do that.

Amb. WEISS: That's right. Now, a second --

MacNEIL: Let's get Ambassador Warnke's reply to that.

Amb. WARNKE: Well, regrettably the treaty does not bar encryption of telemetry. We never went for a total ban. As a matter of fact, it says expressly that you can encrypt telemetry, provided that it does not impede verification. So that is the issue. Unfortunately it's a somewhat ambiguous provision. We left it that way because we wanted to do some encryption ourselves. So the issue is not whether they are encrypting. The issue is whether they are doing it excessively.

MacNEIL: Mr. Weiss, so that we can make use of the time that's left to us, can we come back to the numerical points that Ambassador Warnke was making? He says that if we let the treaty disappear, the Soviets could go ahead and in a few years increase their warheads from 9,000 to 28,000.

Amb. WEISS: No, I don't think those figures are accurate at all. The assessments that I have seen suggest to me that the pace at which the Soviets are moving -- I mentioned that they've already added some 4,000 warheads since 1979 when that agreement was formulated. They are, in addition, as we have already I think agreed amongst us cheating. It's just not at all clear to me that with or without an agreement they could or would accelerate the pace of their efforts.

MacNEIL: Mr. Warnke?

Amb. WARNKE: Well, again I think it depends on whether you have any faith in arms control or whether you don't. I think there's no question in my mind that the Soviet Union is far, far lower in its total strategic arsenal than it would have been if we had had no arms control agreement whatsoever. The agreement admittedly is imperfect. But the question at this stage is, should we repudiate 16 years of very hard negotiations? Won't that set us back? If we genuinely want, for example, to have lower totals of warheads, shouldn't we preserve the counting rules that have been negotiated in SALT II? Otherwise, how are we going to know how to count?

MacNEIL: But Mr. Weiss says he doesn't believe, and people who think like him don't believe, that the Soviets would rush up their production or could rush up their production of warheads. Do I understand you, Mr. Weiss, to say that?

Amb. WEISS: Yes, I think that's correct. AndI really, with all due respect to Mr. Warnke, the issue is not whether one is for arms control or not. That's like being for motherhood. The question is, is one for a sound arms control agreement? I nd it very difficult to believe that an arms control agreement that permits a massive buildup in Soviet capabilities and permits cheating is sound arms control.

Amb. WARNKE: Well, I'd say in that regard that we also are building up our warheads day by day. We've added a couple of thousand as well. Now, what that shows me is that we have not been serious enough about pursuing the arms control process, but that doesn't mean we should abandon it. We ought to do it better.

MacNEIL: So this comes down to a discussion over credibility, whether the U.S. will be credible in being interested in arms control and whether the Soviet Union is credible in its observance of the treaty so far. Is that the way you see it, Mr. Weiss?

Amb. WEISS: Well, I think that the issue -- I'm glad you raised the issue of credibility because I think it goes beyond arms control. Look, the President of the United States is going to have to deal with the Soviet Union on a range of very sticky foreign policy and national security issues from Nicaragua to Afghanistan. Having accused the Soviet Union of cheating on a serious agreement with the United States, how seriously can he be expected to be taken on other matters when we engage them across the board of foreign policy issues?

Amb. WARNKE: What he should have done, of course, is not make that rash statement until he had definite proof of cheating.

MacNEIL: We will have to leave it there --

Amb. WEISS: What he has is ambiguities.

MacNEIL: We will have to leave it there, gentlemen. Thank you both. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Turning now to a recap of today's top stories. President Reagan said the Soviet Union was working to establish a beachhead in Nicaragua, and Nicaragua says it shot down two helicopters near the border with Honduras. The House approved a package of economic sanctions against South Africa. The House voted to ban bank loans and new U.S. commercial investment in South Africa and prohibited the sale of South African coins in the U.S. The anti-apartheid legislation now goes to the Senate. And General Motors says that it will buy the Hughes Aircraft Company for more than $5 billion. It's one of the largest non-oil industry mergers in U.S. history.

Good night, Robin.

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