The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, Congress voted to override the veto of the Grove City Civil Rights Law. President Reagan went to Capitol Hill to appeal for new aid for the contras, while the contras exchanged cease fire proposals with the Sandinistas during a second day of peace talks. And the U. S. Postal Service said the cost of a first class stamp will go to a quarter April 3. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Robin? ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary, excerpts from the Grove City debate, and Cokie Roberts on the politics behind the veto override. Then, are foreigners buying too much of America? We have a Paul Solman report and a debate between author Susan Tolchin and investment banker Bob Pirie. Next, a conversation with journalist I. F. Stone, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay on family ties.News Summary MacNEIL: Congress today overrode President Reagan's veto of the Grove City Civil Rights Bill. The senate vote was 73 to 24, more than the 2/3 needed. Then late today the House followed suit by a margin ot 292 to 131. The votes end a four year effort to undo a Supreme Court decision limiting the application of anti discrimination laws in institutions receiving federal aid to the specific program where discrimination was alleged. The new legislation would mean the entire institution would lose federal funding if any part of it practiced discrimination. In a speech before today's votes, President Reagan said the legislation was an ''assault on religion'' and would expand federal power.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Discrimination is evil, pure and simple, and cannot ever be tolerated. And there are already laws, many laws, on the books to protect our civil rights. We can insure equality of opportunity without increasing federal intrusion into state and local governments in the private sector. The truth is this legislation isn't a civil rights bill. It's a power grab by Washington, designed to take control away from states, localities, communities, parents and the private sector, and give it to federal bureaucrats and judges. MacNEIL: The president's position was supported by a massive lobbying campaign led by the Moral Majority. Supporters of the legislation like Republic Senator Dan Evans of Washington, said the opposition was based on misinformation.

Sen. DAN EVANS, (R) Washington: I've heard everything from ''this bill will require churches to hire homosexuals infected with the AIDS virus,'' to ''this bill will unduly burden private sector firms of paperwork. '' With regard to the former assertion, nothing in the bill requires directly or indirectly a firm to hire someone afflicted with the AIDS virus. The Civil Rights Restoration Act has one simple purpose: to make federally supported discrimination illegal once again. MacNEIL: Vice President George Bush backed the President's veto, saying the thrust of the bill was correct, but it was marred by imperfections. His Republican rival Senator Robert Dole backed the legislation, as do all the Democrats seeking the presidential nomination. Jim? LEHRER: President Reagan went to Capitol Hill today in search of new support for the contras in Nicaragua. He met with House Republican leaders in an effort to find a way to renew aid to the rebels that ended February 29. He blamed House Democrats for that. Meanwhile, in Nicaragua, the peace process continued. The cease fire talks between the contras and the Sandinistas went into their second day. Each side put a proposal on the table, and while there were differences, both include amnesty for the contras and for political prisoner, and steps aimed at including everyone in the country's political process. Spokesmen for both sides continued to express optimism about the negotiations, the first high level ones ever between the two warring parties. MacNEIL: The Reagan Administration denounced Panama's General Noriega for offering to resign before next year's presidential elections. The State Department said he was trying to buy time, and the White House called it a ''transparent ploy to legitimize the regime now in power. '' Presidential spokesman Marlin Fitzwater expressed strong U. S. support for the general strike that has shut down much of the Panamanian economy for the second day in a row. The Associated Press reported that senior administration officials believed Noriega would be forced from office shortly, because opposition within the military was accelerating. LEHRER: The Senate Intelligence Committee said today the intermediate range nuclear missile treaty is verifiable. The committee said in a report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Soviet compliance can be monitored with great certainty. The report said a future treaty on long range missiles could also be monitored, but it would seriously strain U. S. intelligence capabilities to do so. Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze and Secretary of State Shultz met for a second day at the State Department today about that long range missile treaty, among other things. The express hope is that a treaty can be ready for signing at a Moscow summit in late May. Shultz and Shevardnadze also cut the ribbon to a new Soviet/U. S. communications center, aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear war. The center is in a room on the second floor of the State Department. It contains equipment that facilitates emergency communications between the two governments in times of crisis. MacNEIL: New postal rates, including 25 cents for a first class letter, will begin April 3. Announcing this today, the postal service said that represented an increase of 14. 7% over the 22 cent rate enforced for the past three years. But other classes of mail will face steeper rate increases. Newspapers at 18 percent and almost 25% for so called junk mail, or advertising material. An independent commission recommended the increases after the postal service said the volume of mail it handles has doubled, to 160 billion pieces this year. LEHRER: Overseas there has been a terrible fire in Burma. The government radio in Rangoon reported today that 113 people died Sunday in a fire that swept through a section of Lashio, a city of 200,000 in Northern Burma. It started in a home kitchen and in two hours spread quickly to destroy more than 2,000 buildings, including two schools. More than 3,000 families were left homeless. MacNEIL: In South Africa, the leaders of the Anglican Church rallied behind Archbishop Desmond Tutu in his confrontation with the government. It came as the government of President P. W. Botha announced the shutdown of a Catholic newspaper. We have a report from James Robbins of the BBC.

JAMES ROBBINS, BBC: Today the Anglicans bishops of Southern Africa, led by Archbishop Tutu, and the Bishop of Lichfield, representing the Archbishop of Canterbury, met in emergency session. They discussed President Botha's threats of unspecified action against Archbishop Tutu. The two men had a standup row last week. The President demanded to know if the Archbishop stood for Christianity or the ANC and communism. Today, the Bishops accused President Botha of taking to himself the right to define what is spiritual. Rev. KEITH SUTTON, ishop of Lichfield: BThe government, in imposing the restrictions, is driving this beloved country closer to civil war, rendering powerless leaders who are committed to peaceful change.

ROBBINS: The Catholic bishops were the victims of the government's latest ban, closing their newspaper, The New Nations for three months. The weekly sold over 50,000 copies, mostly to blacks. The government never liked its anti apartheid campaigning, and accused the paper of promoting violent revolution. The editor, Swalake Suzulu has been detained without trial for 16 months. The government has given formal warnings, armed with new emergency powers. The bishop in charge of publishing says the churches are now under siege. The churches first took over the dominant role in protest with their march on Parliament three weeks ago. The arrests then of spiritual leaders representing more than a third of South Africa's people, appears now the beginning of a conflict set to dominate future protests and its suppression. MacNEIL: That's our news summary. Ahead, it's a Grove City update, buying America, I. F. Stone, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. Rights Rebuke MacNEIL: First tonight, we focus on the Grove City story. As we reported, both Houses of Congress have voted to override the President's veto of the Grove City Civil Rights Bill. The Senate, voting 73 to 24, and the House quickly following late today by a vote of 292 to 133. Today's override, a significant defeat for the Reagan Administration, came after intense lobbying efforts and debate on Capitol Hill. Our congressional correspondent Cokie Roberts has more on today's vote.

COKIE ROBERTS: The Senate considered the President's veto first, and those supporting the Civil Rights legislation launched an immediate attack against what they called ''messages of misinformation'' spread by opponents. Sen. GEORGE MITCHELL, (D) Maine: This memo says under this bill churches and religious leaders could be forced to hire a practicing homosexual drug addict with AIDS, to be a teacher or youth pastor. That is the most blatant untruth of all. No American government has ever had, or could get the power under our Constitution to dictate any choice of a pastor in any church. Sen. TED KENNEDY, (D) Massachusetts: Fortunately, Congress knows more about this civil rights measure than the Moral Majority seems to know. It is easy for Congress to see through the transparent distortions being used in this unseemly attempt to undermine civil rights. The opponents are proving once again that on this issue, as on many other issues, the Moral Majority is neither moral, nor a majority.

ROBERTS: But senators siding with the President came equipped with home grown examples of the harm they claim the bill would do. ORRIN HATCH, (R) Utah: In Utah, the Valley Assembly of God runs the Wee Willie Winkle Day Care Program, which is a state licensed program. Of the 130 children in this program, the tuitions for roughly one third of the children is covered by federal assistance. The program is run in the church gymnasium. And once this bill passes, all of the activities of that church will be subject to regulation -- not just that particular day care center. Now, is this day care program been accused of discrimination? No. Have they discriminated against minorities, the handicapped, women or the aged? No. Do they want to rush out and discriminate? No. They simply want to help the community by providing a desperately needed service, day care for parents who are working or in some other federal training or education program. Sen. PHIL GRAMM, (R) Texas: The point remains -- and it is irrefutable -- that if this veto is overridden, because this seminary in Dallas, Texas -- and it is not unique -- I speak of it simply because it is in my state -- because it is affiliated with an institution that is not directly controlled by the church, thought that institution is church related -- that seminary will come under federal jurisdiction under this law. I submit that that is wrong. That is an absurd result and that should not be tolerated. Sen. STROM THURMOND, (R) South Carolina: Federal authority -- extending federal authority -- there's only so much power. Are we going to leave it where the Constitution put it? With the states and with the people? Or we going to keep shifting it to Washington? And in the last four years, we have kept shifting more and more power to Washington. I say the people are sick and tired of it. The people want to see the federal government stay within its borders and not keeping depriving people of their rights.

ROBERTS: The question wasn't whether Senators had changed their minds about the Civil Rights Bill, but whether loyalty to the President was more important than the bill itself. Sen. ALAN SIMPSON, (R) Wyoming: A difficult situation, obviously for many of us. On January 28 of 1988 I voted in favor of final passage of this bill. The Civil Rights Restoration Act. I think the president has sent us a very appropriate veto message. He has submitted an alternative piece of legislation which he believes achieves the intention of S 557. And I intend to support that proposal. I intend to vote to sustain the President's veto. Sen. JOHN DANFORTH, (R) Missouri: The president has promised that he will work with Congress to pass alternative legislation that does not entangle the government with our churches and synagogues. I think we should take him up on his promise and I will vote to sustain the veto. Sen. ROBERT PACKWOOD, (R) Oregon: I would hope by an overwhelming margin we would vote to simply reinstitute fairness for all Americans. Either disabled or minorities, or women, or the elderly, and give them the opportunity that everyone else in this country assumes as a matter of right. Sen. LOWELL WEICKER, (D) Connecticut: This isn't a piece of creampuff bill writing. It says we're not going to subsidize discrimination. And indeed if you discriminate, the full force of the law comes down on your head. And the law in this instance isn't the federal government. We are the law. All 250 million Americans. But we don't want to see those dark corners any more, we don't want to see that loneliness any more. We don't want to see the doors shut in one's face because of color of skin. Or of gender.

ROBERTS: Only ten Republicans who had originally voted for the bill switched to support the president. And the Senate voted 73 to 24 to override the veto. Sen. KENNEDY: And we look forward now to seeing a successful outcome in the House of Representatives.

ROBERTS: The House took its turn considering the veto late this afternoon. By that time, the debate sounded familiar. Rep. GEORGE GEKAS, (R) Pennsylvania: -- House, I intend to vote to sustain the President's veto. Mr. Speaker, and members of the House, from an intended course to try to correct Grove City, this body is headed towards Grave City. Rep. BILL RICHARDSON, (R) New Mexico: Mr. Speaker, override of this bill is a civil rights vote of the year. And what the Moral Majority has done in attempting to defeat this bill through its scare tactics is reprehensible.

ROBERTS: As in the Senate, support for the civil rights bill in the House won out over support for the President. Following the second veto override, the bill immediately became law today. MacNEIL: NewsHour congressional correspondent Cokie Roberts joins us now from Capitol Hill. Cokie, as we heard, Senator Simpson a member of the Republican leadership say, this puts them in a difficult situation. Some Republicans had urged the White House not to veto it. Can you describe how some of them handled that personal dilemma today? ROBERTS: I think it was very difficult for them. And as you say, some Republicans, the Chairman of the Campaign Committee, Rudy Boschwitz of Minnesota, had sent a letter to the President asking him not to veto it. There were a lot of private conversations that went back and forth between the White House and Capitol Hill, asking the President not to veto this legislation. And one of the interesting aspects of it came today on the floor when Senator Simpson came out and he made the statement that we just saw. But then he also said that had the minority leader Robert Dole been here, that he would be switching his vote to support the President as well. And then Simpson had to come back later and say, Well, no what he really meant was that Dole would switch his vote if it were the final vote. If his vote were the vote that was necessary to support the President then he'd go with him. And that's exactly the dilemma people found themselves in. This Civil Rights Bill has been around for 3 l/2 years. People have taken positions on it for a very long time. Senator Dole and many other Republicans supported this bill, and then they found themselves in this dilemma of having to support the President. And in the end the President couldn't win over enough Republicans. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who's a member of the Republican leadership, said that he did vote -- during the vote he voted with the President, then switched to vote against him. I asked him why afterwards, and he said, ''Look, I was convinced that loyalty to the President was important. The President has a hard time governing when he has a veto override that is as significant as this one is. But then when I saw that it was going to be overridden, I switched back to my original position,'' then, says Stevens, ''I was an original cosponsor of this legislation. '' So that's the position they found themselves in. MacNEIL: He changed his vote during the actual voting? ROBERTS: During the voting. MacNEIL: Go back to Senator Dole for a moment. I'm not exactly clear I understand -- his position -- now, George Bush, who appears to have the Republican nomination if not sewn up, very close to it. Dole is his only significant rival still. And we reported in the news summary that Dole supports the legislation. Where -- what is the situation? ROBERTS: Well, he was not here today. So he did not actually cast a vote. Senator Simpson came onto the floor at one point and said that had Senator Dole been here, he would have switched sides to go with the President. And then either Senator Dole or someone on Senator Dole's staff, or someone, saw that and Simpson then came back later and clarified that statement, saying, No that Dole would only switch sides if his vote were the final vote needed to support the president. MacNEIL: Looking at the numbers, Cokie, the huge campaign of lobbying that was waged by the Moral Majority against the legislation by others for it, what difference did that make in the last -- --? ROBERTS: Well, I'm told by White House congressional liaisons that it probably in the end helped to override the President's veto. The phone calls came in by the thousands, the switchboards here at the capitol were flooded. And some of the calls were apparently quite vitriolic, the people were very concerned about the tone of the calls. And the tone of the whole lobbying campaign. And it really got members very upset. And apparently as of last Friday, the White House was able to count sustaining the veto in the Senate. And they think that the lobbying campaign over the weekend really did anger some Republican senators so much that they decided that they were simply not going to fall for that kind of campaign, and they went back to their original position, which was to support the Civil Rights Bill. I think, Robin, also it's very interesting, because what that shows you is that those groups do not have the political clout that we thought that they did have. We saw a tremendous amount of clout in the 1980 election, 1982 election. But I think that they have been losing it since then. And to lose after that kind of campaign on a bill like this, it's very meaningful in terms of the election ahead of us. MacNEIL: Briefly, Cokie, you said that a veto override like this makes it very difficult for a president in future tussles with congress, he's just asked Congress for more contra aid now, new contra aid, today. Is this veto override going to weaken him? He's already had a defeat on that contra aid recently. ROBERTS: Well, I think that's in a category by itself. If members think that it's politically to their advantage, as many of them do, to give some kind of aid to the contras, then they're likely to do that regardless of the President's request. But I think that in terms of other domestic legislation, clearly this does put the President in a weak position. He was already in a weak position. But this would -- to have this many Republicans -- 52 Republicans in the House voted against the President, by the way -- to have that many going against him is very difficult, because they're then able to say on future legislation, Well, he just wasn't in the mainstream, and I had to go the way my constituents wanted me to go. So I think that's quite difficult for him. MacNEIL: Cokie Roberts, thank you again for joining us. Jim? LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour, the buying of America debate, a conversation with I. F. Stone, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. Importing Investors LEHRER: Next we take up the hottest new argument in the American world of business and finance -- the one about what they call the buying of American by foreigners. The rest of the introduction will be done by one of America's best explainers of such things, our special business correspondent Paul Solman.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, people argue over the numbers, but in general, foreign ownership of U. S. property has risen so sharply that it can be depicted what we in the television refer to as a manual videographics device. And here it is. You can see the trend has been upwards modestly over the past few decades, until suddenly in the past few years foreign investment has taken off. In a few minutes we'll hear why this is bad, or not so bad. But first, we thought we'd try to visualize just how much of America foreigners have thus far amassed. We're using an estimate: total market value of America, $16 trillion. Let's see how that number breaks down. First, our business sector. Using the market value of everything businesses in America own, the total comes to around $4. 5 trillion, leaving out some of the real estate. The business sector accounts for about a quarter of America's wealth. Okay. Next, let's consider our real estate sector. We've got about $3. 5 trillion worth of residential buildings, houses and apartments that we live in, and another $2. 5 trillion or so in land under those houses, on our farms. And finally, say, a trillion in commercial property. Add them up, and America's real estate is worth something like $7. 5 trillion. Almost 45% of our national wealth. Moving right along in this survey, we Americans also own a lot of tangible possessions, usually called consumer durables. $1. 5 trillion worth here. So our cars, computers, and the like, represent a modest 9% of the total. Last, American government, federal, state and local, which weighs in with may $3 trillion worth of property, the final 20%. And so you can presumably sell all of America for $16. 5 trillion. And now we get to the question everybody worries about. How much of this has foreigners actually bought? Well, they haven't bought any of our government assets. The government's not for sale. At least not yet anyway. And they haven't been buying our cars and TV's, because after all, they ship us those to begin with. But when you get to real estate it's a different story. We'll let NHK, Japanese Public Television tell part of the story. The Japanese buying of American real estate on the East Coast, and even more as we've reported previously, on the West Coast. Voiceover describing property owned in L.A. by Japanese corporations

SOLMAN: In all, more than half of downtown L. A. is now owned by foreign investors, Houston more than a third, New York 25%. But these are high profile cities, with disproportionate foreign ownership. It's estimated that overall, foreigners own about $100 billion worth of U. S. property, and that's just a guess, but it would mean only 2% of the total. Okay, finally, the corporate sector. Foreign investment takes some unusual forms in corporate America. On the CBS label, American Barbra Streisand sings about Americans to Americans for her new bosses, the Japanese. Since Sony has now bought CBS Records. And in America's somewhat less glamourous iodine industry, foreigners are also acquiring a stake. Again, here is Japanese Public Television chronicling the takeover of Oklahoma's Woodward Iodine Company by the Japanese in 1984. Folks in Woodward, by the way, love the Japanese, who have invested millions, provided job security, and treated the workers better than their previous American owners ever did. In fact, in an economically desperate state like Oklahoma, folks are practically begging foreigners like the Japanese to come and invest. [Japanese television commercial] JACK BREWER: Hello, I'm Jack Brewer and I'm a businessman here in Oklahoma, and here in Chickashay Oklahoma, specifically. And what I would like to talk to the people of Japan and the industries in Japan about, I would like to offer the opportunity for them to move an industry here into Chickashay, Oklahoma, and we would like to present 20 acres of free land that myself and my partner personally own. Brewer partner: And we think that our work force, your technology and industry can be a benefit to both Japan and Chickashay.

SOLMAN: Well, three years later, the Japanese still haven't taken Chickashay up on this offer. But as it happens, Australians have made a significant investment in the community. And nationwide, foreigners have invested some $500 billion -- that's half a trillion dollars -- in America's business sector. That is right around 10% of business America is foreign controlled, by our record. Okay, but when you add it all up with their holdings in business and real estate, foreigners still own less than 4% of America. Now, a casual glance at these numbers would suggest that there's not much of an immediate threat. So what should we be worried about? Well, not the situation today so much as the situation tomorrow. You see, the one thing foreigners own of ours, far more than our stocks or our real estate, is our government debt, our treasury bills, our treasury bonds. In short, our I. O. U. 's. To finance the huge government deficits of the 1980's we have been borrowing big from foreigners. Right now we owe about $400 billion more to foreigners than they owe to us. At our current rate of deficit, however, by 1990, that number could swell to a trillion. That would be a cause of real concern. Because down the road, the foreigners holding this American paper may want something tangible in exchange for it. They may trade those debts in for dollars and start buying more land, more real estate, more factories, more companies -- a trillion dollars more. If they convert it all, a few years from now, foreigners would suddenly own 10% or more of America, nearly triple their current state. The pace of foreign purchases has quickened. With the dollar cheap, for many foreigners, the price is right. They don't own us yet. Why should we worry about the prospect? That's a question worth asking now, before it becomes a reality. LEHRER: And we pose that question now to two people with two very different views toward foreign investment in the United States. Dr. Susan Tolchin is professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University. She is the coauthor with her husband Martin of a new and much debated book entitled Buying into America: How Foreign Money is Changing the Face of the Nation. Bob Pirie is the President of Rothschild, Inc. , a New York investment bank that specializes in mergers and acquisitions and has many foreign clients. Dr. Tolchin, you believe there is reason to worry, right? Dr. SUSAN TOLCHIN, Georgetown University: Yes, there is. Foreign investment is coming in faster than we can absorb it. The number is $1. 5 trillion, and we believe the number, the true number is at least 50% higher than that, because so much of it is unreported. We think there is a reason to worry now, because a certain measure of America's political and economic independence is being eroded by this influx of foreign money. LEHRER: How's it being eroded? How could it potentially hurt this country? Dr. TOLCHIN: I think it has already hurt in the fact that foreign investors have started to get very active in our political process. Senators have told us they can no longer take an independent position on trade legislation, for example, because they feel the heat from the foreign investors back in their home states. Foreign investors banded together with the help of their governments, 16 governments -- LEHRER: Meaning a -- if there's a Japanese company in the state of Oklahoma, say, then they then use the Oklahomans to support particular legislation, or whatever, in congress, right? Dr. TOLCHIN: That's right. And in California they've even penetrated the state level in California. Sixteen governments supported the multinationals in that state, and they managed to convince the, to persuade the California legislature to defeat the unitari -- to repeal the unitary tax, which cut their tax bill and raised the bill for the taxpayers in the state of California. But it was foreign pressure penetrating to the state level. And we can see it on all levels of political life. LEHRER: But again, why is that wrong? Why is that harmful? Dr. TOLCHIN: Well, it's not harmful for the foreign investor. I would come in and do everything I could to protect my investment. I think it's harmful to Americans, because sometimes foreign investors come in with agendas of their own, to acquire technology, to corner market share, to beat out our domestic companies, and if we are in fact subsidizing that by offering them all kinds of incentives to invest, then we're eroding our own political and ultimately our economic independence as well. LEHRER: Mr. Pirie, do you think we are eroding our own economic and political independence? BOB PIRIE, Rothschild, Inc. : Well, I don't, no, at this time. I think that it's clear we have a situation where there's increasing foreign investment in the United States. Just as we had a situation in the immediate postwar period where there was increasing U. S. investment overseas. And I think these things do move in cycles. I think it's a great tribute to this country that because of the political stability here and the strength of our economic system and the liquidity of our markets, that out of all places the foreigners choose to invest this is the preferred place. I don't really agree that there's been a lot of political influence. I think the unitary tax that Dr. Tolchin was referring to is something that domestic corporations found at least as offensive as foreign corporations did. I think in Florida it was IBM more than any other company probably that caused the repeal of the Florida unitary tax by threatening to pull a very large plant out of there. I think I know personally myself, with running a corporation that is a U. S. corporation -- we refused to open an office in California, albeit it a small one that I don't think would have had a significant impact on California taxes -- because of the impact of the unitary tax on us here domestically in the United States. We just last week decided to go ahead and open one in part because there's no longer unitary tax there. So I think the unitary tax issue, to me, is as much or more a domestic one than a foreign one. LEHRER: What about her overall point, that the more powerful are the larger, the foreign investors who come, the more obvi -- it's just automatic that they will become more influential in terms of American politics, American economics. Mr. PIRIE: I suppose that's so. It's not clear to me that that's necessarily all bad. And I think you have to divide the foreign investment in the United States into a variety of categories. Ownership of T bills and government bonds, I don't think necessarily leads too much of that, although to me, perhaps, that is the area that we should most concern ourselves about in terms of foreign investment. Passive investments in the stock market which make up a major portion of the foreign investment in this country, I don't think that is anything that one should be particularly concerned about. And I think to the extent foreigners are buying real assets in the United States they have an economic commitment to make those assets function profitably for them. And that's got to be beneficial to us here. And -- LEHRER: What about that, Dr. Tolchin, I mean, if they're going to -- whether it's a foreign investor or a domestic investor, they want things to work. So why -- why would they be -- in other words, why would a good, smart investor from a foreign country be any different than a good, smart investor from here? Dr. TOLCHIN: Well, there probably isn't a difference in terms of making a profit. Foreign investors come in to make money. America's still one of the best places in the world to make money. And it's also a safe haven. The objection that I have -- the reservation that I would have to all of this is the idea that should we have a ceiling on foreign investment, in terms of saving an American component and certain vital industries. We're seeing foreign investors buy into huge chunks of vital American industries, natural resources, machine tools, banks -- foreign investors now own 21% of the nation's banks. Up from 17% last year. Is there any industry in which Americans should reserve a vital component in terms of their own national interest, and in terms of their own national security? I think we have to start asking ourselves this question, and we can't really answer that question because we're flying blind on foreign investment. We don't have the data. We don't have adequate data. An amendment now in the trade bill, called the Brian Amendment, which would improve our data collection -- we now have 16 different agencies collecting data on foreign investment, and it's all very confused and inadequate. But an amendment on the trade bill right now, the Brian Amendment, is being lobbied to death by foreign investors, who for some reason do not want disclosure. Most of our major trading partners have much stricter disclosure requirements for foreign investors in their countries than we have here. So I really can't understand the objection to simple disclosure. This is not restriction of foreign investment. We're just trying to ask ourselves the question, How much is there, what industries are vital to the national security, and should we start thinking about reserving the vital components for our own country? LEHRER: Are those legitimate questions, Mr. Pirie? Mr. PIRIE: Well, I don't know the specifics of the Brian Act, but I'm certainly supportive of anything that improves the economic data available to the government and available to the public. As far as protecting vital industries, we already have significant protections. The Broadcasting Industry, there are limitations on foreign ownership of broadcasting companies, there are limitations on foreign ownership of airlines, on foreign ownership of U. S. documented vessels, on foreign ownership of nuclear capacity, on foreign ownership of defense contracts. There are limitations on foreign drilling for oil on federal leases. There are whole series of areas where we have limitations that were designed to protect our specific national interests. And I think that those are good and valid protections, and perhaps there should be some advancement of them, but a broad overall restriction on -- ceilings on total foreign investment in the United States, I don't think makes any sense at all. Dr. Tolchin talked about the 21% of the American banks are owned by foreigners. I really find that very hard to believe that figure. And certainly 21% of the banking capacity of the United States is not owned by foreigners. But she makes a point in her own book where she quotes some member of the mayor's office in San Francisco as saying that the foreign banks were easier to deal with than the United States banks. The United States banks only want to deal with big corporations, the foreign owned banks were willing to take a long term view and deal with small businesses. Well, if we become that uncompetitive, and I think we have, then I think the challenge of anybody, foreign or American, to make this more competitive is a very good thing to have happen. LEHRER: Dr. Tolchin? Dr. TOLCHIN: Yes, it's 21% of the nation's banking assets. In California now, five of the state's largest banks are foreign owned. And I think banks are a vital part of the nation's life. Banks determine what industries live and die. And banks make many decisions that are vital to the nation. LEHRER: But what about his point? If foreign owned banks are more competitive or doing better, what's the harm? What's the problem? Dr. TOLCHIN: Well, the problem is that to some extent, our own laws have disadvantaged American banks. And that's -- when we talk about getting ourselves more competitive, we have to sit down and look at the situation and see where we've gone wrong and helping our industries become competitive. On the one hand, we are circling the globe, offering hundreds of millions of dollars and incentives for foreign investors to come here. At the same time, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. For example, our banks can't engage in interstate banking, while foreign banks during a certain period before this loophole was closed, could. And during that period, they cornered a large part of market share. Now, this is a very good example of where we should become more competitive, and we've shot ourselves in the foot on this issue. LEHRER: Mr. Pirie, is it your position that there would never be a time when foreign ownership of U. S. banks should be restricted? Mr. PIRIE: Well, I think that's -- I suppose one could always see how far out on the branch to go before it breaks. I could conceivably imagine such a situation. But I think -- first I should point out to Dr. Tolchin that interstate banking is not illegal for U. S. banks. There are various regional areas that permit it. The New England regional one being perhaps the most obvious where interstate banking is flourishing. There's been a lot of talk about a nationwide interstate banking rule. I personally would think it would be a very good idea. But I don't think that -- on the other hand you have to look at it that banking is a global business. It's not -- especially on the very large banking level -- it's not a domestic business. When you look at Chase or Citicorp, or any of those. Those are worldwide banks. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Pirie, Dr. Tolchin, I'm sorry, but we have to leaveit there. Thank you both very much. I.F. Stone MacNEIL: Next tonight, we have a conversation with self described radical journalist and scholar, I. F. Stone. For more than 60 years, Stone has been practicing his own distinctive brand of journalism. A unique combination of muckraking and scholarship. As editor of his own weekly political letter, from the 1950's to the 1970's, he attacked McCarthyism, the war in Vietnam, racism, and hypocrisy wherever he found it. Very often by simply poring over pages and pages of documents and records, looking for facts or inconsistencies that others missed. Since then, Stone has turned his attentions to a lifelong fascination, the study of the classics. And in his new book, he has focused on one of the most famous historical events of ancient Greece, the trial in 399 BC of the philosopher Socrates. Accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and not believing in the Greek Gods, Socrates was condemned and forced to drink the poison hemlock. Today we know of Socrates in his trial mostly through the writings of Plato, his famous student. But the investigative reporter in I. F. Stone wanted to find out more. I talked to him recently in New York. Mr. Stone, I'm very grateful to you, because looking at ancient Athens through the eyes -- your eyes as a political journalist and a civil libertarian, you've certainly made it come alive in a very different way for me than anything I have learned in college. I wonder what you think you brought to it as a political journalist that centuries of scholarship did not. What quality of mind do you think -- I.F. STONE, author: (unintelligible) once said, the 18th premier that history was a form of politics. And he didn't mean the distortion of history fell on style. He meant that one's political spectacles determined how one saw things. I mean, if you read the puritan revolution through the eyes of a Whig like McCauley, it's one thing. Look at it through a radical Tory's eyes like Humes, it's another. It's not a matter of who's right or wrong, but you see different things. I brought to it a passionate pro democratic bias. Whereas classical scholarship through the ages, generally -- there were many honorable exceptions -- has been very anti democratic. It was Cicero and Plutarch who were the great transmitters to the West of classical antiquity. And both of them were very contemptuous of the mob. MacNEIL: You called Socrates -- the subject of your book -- you called him the secular saint of our civilization. But you as a democrat have some doubts about his qualifications for sainthood. Mr. STONE: Well, yes. You see, I feel the kind of condemnation was wrong and I have no defense of it. But it gave a black eye to democracy throughout the ages. The picture we got was of an ignorant bigoted mob sentencing to death a wonderful old philosopher. But the truth is if the Athenians had been a bigoted, ignorant mob, they would have tried Socrates 25 years earlier. At least three comic writers, when he was 45 made fun of his eccentric political and religious views. He would never have lived to 70 if it had been a bigoted society. And I must notice that an eccentric and maverick philosopher like Socrates would never survive to 70 in any one of the four platonic utopias. MacNEIL: Why is the Socrates story important and instructive for us today? Mr. STONE: Well, I think of it from several points of view. Number one, I set out in anguish to try to understand how it could have happened. To tell the prosecution's story and then knock it down. I don't think it was adequate. And I had such a joyful time exploring classical antiquity and I hoped that I could transmit some of that joy to the readers and reawaken interest in young people in restudying the classics. Because Athens is our yesterday. Now, when I was a boy in a country high school headed for college, you had to have four years of Latin. I didn't get any Greek, I had one semester of Greek in college. But with the erosion of fundamental education the teaching and the study of the classics has become in too many cases, has shrunk to coteries obsessed with minute and myopic details, only understandable by a very few people. It has become a kind of collective soliloquy in lonely ivory towers. And yet the Greek experience is very vibrant, very wonderful, and very relevant to modern democracy. MacNEIL: Let me put one of your sentences to you concerning -- apropos of its relevance. You say, ''Athens was free of the paranoia that has begun to affect our own society in the era of the national security state. '' Elaborate on that a little bit. Why ''begun to affect,'' when some people would say that the McCarthy era which preoccupied you so much in the earlier days of your journalism is long past. And if that was a time of paranoia, things are very different now. Why ''begun to affect''? Mr. STONE: Well, because I don't think it -- I think the paranoia receded and it's not a new factor in American history. In the wake of the French Revolution, as you know, under John Adams, at the end of the 18th century, we had the alien sedition laws, fear of dangerous ideas coming in from France. And then we had a good deal of hysteria about the abolitionists before the civil war. And a good deals of hysteria in the latter part of the 19th century about the anarchists. Especially when several presidents were assassinated. And then right after the First World War, there was a lot of excitement about the Russian Revolution. So there have been these paranoid periods. Whereas in Athens, the great -- the Franklin D. Roosevelt of Athens, Solon, about two centuries before Socrates, in establishing the democracy by which I mean by opening the right to vote to the poor as well as the well to do and the middle class, provided not only freedom of speech and assembly, but also the right of association. So that the aristocratic opposition, some of it oligarchic and loyal, but some of it very disloyal, very small fringe, pro Spartan, organized these clubs and secret conspiracies that Socrates refers to. These were never prosecuted, because there was a right of association. And their views were regarded as very good jokes. You know, some years before the first dictatorship, that of the 400, Aristophanes wrote a play called The Birds, and he invented a word for this disloyal youth -- he called them Socratified. That's a good English translation, perfect translation, of the Greek word Esacrotun. It means exactly that, socratified. And pictured them as longhaired, dirty, unwashed. They -- the Athenians were very fastidious. MacNEIL: The sort of things people were saying about -- the establishment was saying about kids in the 60's in this country. Mr. STONE: Yes. MacNEIL: Is this a paranoid society now, do you think? This American society? Mr. STONE: No, I don't think it's a paranoid society. I think it's very impressive how we got rid of McCarthyism. We got rid of McCarthyism in a fascinating way. First of all, leadership was taken by conservatives, and in fact a couple of reactionaries. He was a cryptofascist really. It was done by the Senate, and the Senate is a club -- in the good sense. People's word is a matter of honor. A lot of the work is done in the club room. And McCarthy had begun to play the same dirty tricks on fellow members of the Senate that he did on members of the -- on the bureaucracy, collecting political scandal and sexual scandal about homosexuals. So they censored him. They censored him. They marked him as a bounder, as the English would say. And it broke his heart. He wasn't sent to jail, he wasn't deprived of his seat. They just marked him down as a no good SOB, and that was it. And that was beautiful. It was not brutal, it was not dictatorial. They just decided he was no good. MacNEIL: What do you think about the tolerance -- I mean, you've been writing about 2400 years ago, and the issue was freedom of speech, free speech. What do you think about the tolerance for free speech in America today? Mr. STONE: Well, free speech has always had to battle in every society and every age. And in fact in every group. Even little coteries of radicals have their party line, and if you go against it, why you find your freedom of speech looked at askance. But if you look at it objectively, in large terms, we have a tradition that is more powerful than that of any other Western society when it comes to freedom of speech. Our whigs were, unlike the British whigs in the 17th century, were the children of the French enlightenment, and not afraid to utter large and potentially explosive generalities about the equality of man, about freedom. So the Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights embody the enlightenment and the best fruits of the English, American and French revolution. Whereas in Europe generally, constitutions are full of ifs and buts. The Weimar Constitution had emergency clause that did not good against Hitler. The Austrian Constitution has a multitude of ifs and buts. The French after affirming freedom of speech and press and assembly in the French Revolution, then backed away a bit, and -- it's not quite as sacred. So I consider ancient Athens 200 years of freedom, one of the bright spots of human history. And I think the 200 years of the American republic is comparable, it's won the price. But in between, there's such a wilderness of bigotry, persecution, murder, and talk about the follies of the common man, look at the follies of the uncommon man. How many stupid and silly ideas people were burned at the state for advancing. So it's precarious, it's always precarious, it's always going to have to be fought for. It's the sacred American ideology, so that those of us who are dissenters and mavericks can feel part of the American tradition. This is the Jeffersonian -- we're the representatives of the Jeffersonian idea. And the other side's a little bit ashamed of it, and a little bit on the defensive. MacNEIL: Well, Izzy Stone, thank you very much for joining us this evening. Family Ties LEHRER: Finally tonight, Anne Taylor Fleming, our essayist in Los Angeles, has some thoughts about some ties that bind.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: When I was growing up in the 50's, my mother worked. She always worked. Most of my friends' mothers didn't work, and they weren't divorced either. Mine were. So I was an anomaly. And I was very envious of the intact families I saw around me and on TV. That was the heyday of Ozzie and Harriet and the Donna Reed Show, and Father Knows Best. And I would have done practically anything to be part of one of those bunglingly affectionate families in which go towork dad looked after everyone financially, and stay at home mom looked after everyone emotionally. Little did I know then that the perfect 50's family was itself an anomaly. Unlike any other in this century before or since. In the hundred years before the 50's, couples married during their mid to late 20's, the birthrate was declining, and the divorce rate was steadily climbing. But during the world weary 50's, young Americans hunkered down in the suburbs, marriage ages dropped, the birthrate soared, and the divorce rate stabilized. In the decades since the 50's, marriage ages have returned to their historic norms. The birthrate has plummeted, and the nuclear family has exploded through soaring divorce rates. Today, only 15% of American families are like the idealized 50's TV families, opposed to 70% at the end of that decade. With half of all American marriages ending in divorce, over a third of all children live outside the traditional family unit. And over half of all mothers with school age children work outside the home. The family clearly isn't what it used to be. What's the meaning of this? Are we all just a bunch of selfish drifters, unwilling to stay committed, intent less on raising our own children than raising our own consciousness, to borrow the 60's phrase? In part, yes, say family historians Stephen Mintz and Susan Kellogg in a new book Domestic Revolutions. The 60's accent on individual fulfillment helped break the bonds of the 50's family, as did divorce and a wavering economy, which both forced and/or encouraged women into the marketplace. Family came to be seen not as a haven, but as a hardship, stifler of souls and dreams, male and female. And yet that 50's family remains a nostalgic American icon. It was to that nostalgia that Ronald Reagan so effectively appealed. Even though he himself had been divorced and was obviously estranged from some of his own children. No matter the reality, it was the myth we wanted. It's the myth that keeps us from looking at today's reality of so many single parent households who need financial help and good day care in order to keep what's left of their families together. That finally is the point. They are families, however truncated or lopsided, or whatever you want to call it. Just as my mother, my sister and I were a family. There are no hard and fast rules anymore about what is or is not a family. Not hard and fast roles either. Three Men and a Baby are a kind of family, as are the harried executive and the infant she inherits in Baby Boom. There is in fact a kind of novelle domesticity in the air, asthe boomers are now nesting and breeding and celebrating their own versions of hearth and home and family. [scene from Baby Boom. ] Will these baby boom families last? Odds are not good. Of children born in the 1970's, 40% will see their parents divorce before they themselves are 16. Children born in 1983 have a 40% chance of living through a parent's second divorce. Can a child survive all this disillusion? It's not easy. But neither is living with warring parents. That's all you can say about it. As I get older, I feel strangely blessed for my parents' divorce. Because it left me with a lifetime respect for the working abilities of women, and for the vagaries of the human heart. And a sense that family is not some sitcom or storybook ideal, but what you make of it, whatever or whoever it's components. Recap MacNEIL: Once again the main points in the news. Both Houses of Congress voted to override President Reagan's veto of the Grove City Civil Rights Restoration Bill. The President appealed to Congress for new aid to the Nicaraguan contras. Contra and Sandinista negotiators discussed proposals for a cease fire. Postal rates will go up on April 3. A first class letter will cost 25 cents. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night.