The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, OPEC took action that could lead to an oil price war. President Reagan told Congress it was now or maybe never for tax reform. A former president of Argentina was sentenced to life in prison in the torture and murder of 9,000 people. And the U.N. General Assembly, for the first time ever, condemned terrorism. We'll have the details in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, we have these focus segments on the NewsHour tonight. First, an analyst tells us what this latest OPEC move will mean for oil prices. Then an extended look at the current uproar over smoking and tobacco. A doctor with the AMA, which wants all advertising banned, debates an ad industry executive, followed by two congressmen who disagree over whether the tobacco industry should get government subsidies. And, finally, an interview with Yelena Bonner's daughter. News Summary

LEHRER: The OPEC oil cartel decided today to hang on to its share of the world oil market at all costs. It is a decision that could lead to lower prices and to an international price war. Oil ministers from the 13 OPEC countries met in Geneva. Our report is from Daniel Dodd of Visnews.

DANIEL DODD, Visnews [voice-over]: Ministers from 13 OPEC countries concluded their meeting with strong words on the need to defend their markets. The increase in production in non-OPEC countries like Britain, Norway and Mexico has squeezed OPEC. They stand accused of flooding a market that was already shrinking. At the close of the OPEC meeting a communique stressed the priorities ahead.

OPEC SPOKESMAN: The conference decided to secure and defend for OPEC a fair share of the world's market.

DODD [voice-over]: In the last three years OPEC has struggled in vain to stop oil prices falling, and since 1979 it has seen its share of oil sales in the West decline by a third. In an attempt to resolve the problem the conference set up a six-member commission. So far there is no agreement on how to defend OPEC's market share.

WOODRUFF: President Reagan is stepping up his efforts on behalf of the tax reform plan moving closer to a vote in the House of Representatives. Despite earlier, only lukewarm expressions of support, Mr. Reagan today had his press spokesman Larry Speakes read reporters the text of a letter the President sent to all House members.

LARRY SPEAKES, White House spokesman: A vote against final passage in the House would doom our efforts to achieve real tax reform for the American people. We must not allow that to happen. To fail to advance a bill now will mean maintaining the status quo, a tax system with all its inequities, complexities and tendencies to discourage efficient economic growth. That is not what I want. It is not what the American people want, and I trust it is not what the House wants.

WOODRUFF: Speakes refused to say whether the President would support the bill that came out of the House Ways and Means Committee if it came to his desk as is. Instead, Speakes said the President wants some form of the bill to pass the House to keep the issue alive. In other congressional news, House and Senate conferees went into session tonight in an effort to wrap up work on a bill aimed at forcing a balanced budget by 1991.

LEHRER: A dispute erupted today over a film of Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov. The film was released by a West German newspaper and reportedly shows Sakharov in good health. Sakharov's wife, Yelena Bonner, arrived in Boston over the weekend for medical treatment. She agreed not to talk to the press while in the West, but her son-in-law said the release of the film had made her angry, because it was apparently an attempt by Soviet authorities to counter her expressed concern for the health of Sakharov. Sakharov was also peripherally involved in a most unusual heart attack story in Oslo, Norway. It happened at a news conference for Nobel Peace Prize winners, American Bernard Lown and Russian Yevgeny Chazov. They are the cardiologists who were honored for founding an anti-nuclear war group. As Peter Vickers of the BBC reports, Dr. Lown was telling newsmen about aims of the anti-nuclear group when there was a dramatic interruption.

BERNARD LOWN, Nobel Peace Prize laureate: We are committed to all human issues -- human rights, political rights, civil rights. Every possible right. But we say the prior condition for all rights is to have human beings. If we don't have human beings, what is the meaning of other rights?

PETER VICKERS, BBC [voice-over]: As he spoke, a Soviet television journalists, Lev Novikov, suffered a massive heart attack, and it took the combined skills of the two doctors, both world-known heart specialists, to save his life. For 20 frantic minutes the doctors called for emergency equipment as they took turns at trying to massage Novikov's heart back to life. At first it seemed they had failed, but later hospital reports have said that thanks to their quick action Novikov's condition has been stabilized. The drama provided an ironic relief for Chazov. As a deputy Soviet health minister, he had been facing a barrage of questions about his fellow countryman and Nobel laureate, Andrei Sakharov, questions that Chazov met each time with a polite but firm refusal to comment.

LEHRER: In 1973 Chazov was among 40 Soviet scientists who signed a letter criticizing Andrei Sakharov.

WOODRUFF: Jorge Videla, a former president of Argentina, was sentenced to life in prison today for his part in the abduction, torture and killing of up to 9,000 people who disappeared there in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Videla and three other members of the military juntas that ruled Argentina until 1982 were sentenced by a court following an eight-month trial into the junta's campaign, or so-called "dirty war", against leftist guerrillas. Roberto Viola, who succeeded Videla as president, received a 17-year sentence. The trials were instituted by the civilian government that took power after Argentina lost the Falklands War to Great Britain. The verdict was read by the president of the Argentine federal appeals court, who said not one rule of law had been found to justify or excuse Videla and four other military leaders who were convicted with him. Another four were cleared of charges. That group included the army general who was president during the Falklands War in 1982 and the navy and air force commanders in that war.

Also in Argentina, the government today lifted a nationwide state of siege declared in October. It had been imposed by President Raul Alfonsin to fend off what he had called right-wing attempts to undermine his government. In announcing its lifting, the interior minister said the government felt that a state of siege was no longer needed because of the dropoff in the number of bombings, phone threats and other anti-government acts.

And in Washington the State Department today congratulated the people of Guatemala for their vote yesterday in electing the country's first civilian president since 1970. Christian Democrat Vinicio Cerezo won a landslide victory, and a State Department spokesman called it a strong reaffirmation of support for democracy.

LEHRER: The United Nations General Assembly finally decided terrorism was a bad thing. The Assembly today adopted a resolution which condemns as criminal all acts, methods and practices of terrorism wherever and by whomever committed. Agreement on the resolution ended more than 10 years of wrangling about defining terrorism.

In South Africa today the government dropped high treason charges against 12 leading anti-apartheid leaders. The defendants, all members of the United Democratic Front, were freed from custody. They had faced the death penalty under the charges. We have a report from Michael Buerke of the BBC.

MICHAEL BUERKE [voice-over]: UDF supporters took over a section of Jan Smuts Airport tonight to welcome their leaders home. They'd been on bail, not in prison, but the charges they faced could have carried the death penalty. It was the most important treason trial here for a quarter of a century, and had been expected to last two years.

CASSIN SALOJEE, United Democratic Front: If we would have lost it would have meant that that way of struggling in this country would have been out. So we see this as a vindication of what we have been doing for the last two years. And we see it as a political victory for us.

ESSOP JASSAT, United Democratic Front: Tremendous victory for freedom and democracy in this country. I think we have won a victory, and it's just unbelievable that this can happen in a country which is so very near fascism.

BUERKE [voice-over]: At a celebration dinner the 12 pledged to continue their campaign against the government and to work for the acquittal of the remaining four, who still face treason charges.

LEHRER: The political opposition to President Marcos continued its disunity in the Philippines today. Senator Salvador Laurel officially filed as a candidate for president in the February election. An effort to form a joint ticket with the widow of assassinated dissident leader Benigno Aquino failed over the weekend. Also today President Marcos said in a television interview armed forces chief of staff Fabian Ver may retire before election day. Ver was acquitted of charges of complicity in the Aquino assassination and reinstated by Marcos. Critics there and in the United States Congress have said Ver must go if the election is to be free, fair and honest.

WOODRUFF: A federal judge today dismissed charges against three of Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards' co-defendants in a federal racketeering trial. The judge accepted arguments made by the defendants that the evidence against them was insufficient. Edwards' lawyers also asked that the charges be dropped against him but only after the jury in the case returned a verdict.

LEHRER: And that completes our version of the news of this day. We move now to an analysis of OPEC's decision to fight, a major debate over cigarette advertising and government tobacco supports, and a newsmaker interview with the daughter of Yelena Bonner. OPEC: Price Free-for-All?

LEHRER: The OPEC oil ministers set the stage today for a price war on oil like there's never been before. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has more. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, the ministers never mentioned a price war. Instead they agreed in principle to maintain high production levels and to protect OPEC's fair share of the world oil market. But with the worldwide demand for oil declining, this declaration sounded to many analysts like a call to war. Previously the cartel cut production when demand fell off, but non-OPEC producers began taking up the slack, causing OPEC's share of the market to plunge from over 50 10 years ago to around 30 today. The decline has been particularly sharp in the last four years as OPEC's official price dropped from $34 to $28 a barrel. What this will all mean for consumers and others is what we now talk about with Charles Maxwell, senior energy strategist with Cyrus J. Lawrence, a New York-based brokerage firm.

Mr. Maxwell, what was it about today's announcement that caused you analysts to jump to the conclusion that a price war was in the offing?

LAWRENCE MAXWELL: Well, there just is too much oil in the world today, and in the wintertime we use a lot more because of the needs of the cold. But when summer comes oil demand goes down, and OPEC is showing no signs of cutting its production. In fact, there is a huge rise in OPEC production since the autumn and it's coming towards us on the water. Some of it will be absorbed in the winter's needs, but as we move towards spring it looks likely that there will be large amounts of unsold oil, and prices could come plunging down.

HUNTER-GAULT: And what will cause the war?

Mr. MAXWELL: Well, they wouldn't call it a war themselves. They are like two elephants backing up on each other, and they happened to hit, and there'll be quite a conflict because you have the non-OPEC producers, such as in the North Sea, American producers, Canadian, Australian producers, and they want to see every barrel of theirs get into the world market. And they've done so over the years by cutting price below OPEC. OPEC has thus lost market share, consistently, down and down and down. But they have made it up by a strong dollar. Suddenly the dollar has collapsed, their pricing is collapsing, their volumes are collapsing, and they're in deep financial trouble. And they're saying to the rest of the world, "No more."

HUNTER-GAULT: So they're going to have to cut production, no matter what?

Mr. MAXWELL: Or price. They have that choice. At the moment they're choosing to allow the price to come down, but very shortly there may be another attempt to control production.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. So in light of what you anticipate, what is this going to do to oil prices?

Mr. MAXWELL: Well, nobody really knows, but we all make guesses. Sometimes we're right and sometimes not. It looks at the very least as if the price of oil will come down from $28 or so, where it is today, to something in the range of 22 to 26. If I had to pick a number I would pick 23 or 24, and then it will make an attempt to hold.

HUNTER-GAULT: At about 23, 24.

Mr. MAXWELL: At about 23, 24. And, for the average motorist this would mean that gasoline will be down under a dollar; this will be very attractive for heating oil, which will come down, again, to probably a little bit under a dollar. And it will be a huge, non-inflationary stimulation for the world economies. It will bring interest rates down, it will reduce energy costs in industry, it will give us a real opportunity to build our economies back after the terrible oil crises that we've endured in '74 and '80.

HUNTER-GAULT: So that's the good-news side of it, but there's a flip side to it, isn't there?

Mr. MAXWELL: Alas, you always pay the price for good news. If the oil price comes down about $5 a barrel, we'll all be happy. The consumer will be happy, the investment world will be happy, interest rates will come down, the cost of money will come down. But if the price continues to blow on past $22, $20, $18, we could be in a situation where vast amounts of energy loans are defaulted by energy companies against banks, and by energy countries against the lending of governments and banks. In that situation there is real potential for some series of financial panics that would have to be controlled in an environment that we really haven't seen since the late '20s in this country or in the world as a whole.

HUNTER-GAULT: You mean banks going broke?

Mr. MAXWELL: Well, one can't forecast that it will happen. One can only say that their energy loans will come into default and there will be tearly '30s. We have a lot of defenses erected against it, but we haven't tested them. It could be a very exciting period.

HUNTER-GAULT: Exciting in a bad way. How likely is that, though, that it will come -- you said you think it will stablilize at about 23, 24, but there were predictions that it would fall below 20. How likely is that?

Mr. MAXWELL: Fools like me are asked to put odds on these things, and I try my best. I would put a 60 chance that the price of oil is going to hold in this good area, 22 to 26.

HUNTER-GAULT: What's going to determine it?

Mr. MAXWELL: Well, how fast the world economic recovery continues, how much the Norwegians and the British listen to the OPEC states and begin to cut back a little bit on their production, how much influence the banks and the oil companies have with governments to attempt to bring them to some understanding of what the problem is, perhaps bringing some conference forward that would attempt to stabilize the world price of oil before it gets out of hand on the downside.

HUNTER-GAULT: Is there any negative fallout at this point for those non-OPEC oil-producing countries like Mexico, Britain, Norway?

Mr. MAXWELL: Well, again, the American and the European banking system has lent huge amounts of money to them, and they will just have to see their collection of that put off many, many years, probably into the '90s when the price of oil perhaps can come back. For the moment they'll just have to eat cold crow and accept some very large write-offs against their assets. There will be real problems for the oil-producing countries. And for their citizens, in many of the poorer cases we're looking at lack of imports, lack of gains in industrial production, really lack of food, lack of medical care, real problems.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, well, we'll come back to you and see which way it goes in a few weeks. Thank you.

Mr. MAXWELL: Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: Judy?

WOODRUFF: Still to come on the NewsHour, an extended look at the current debate over smoking and tobacco with an official of the American Medical Association, who wants cigarette ads banned, and an advertising executive, followed by two congressmen who disagree over whether the government should subsidize tobacco farmers. Finally, we have a newsmaker interview with Andrei Sakharov's stepdaughter. Fuming Over Ads

LEHRER: Next that major issue-and-debate segment on tobacco, on advertising its sale and on supporting its production. Cigarette advertising has been gone from television for 14 years, but $2.6 billion a year is still spent on tobacco advertising. The American Medical Association, meeting in Washington this week, is expected to be the latest to join an effort to ban it altogether. Judy?

WOODRUFF: With us now to explain the call for the ban on advertising is Dr. Alan Nelson, vice chairman of the AMA's board of trustees and a physician in private practice in Salt Lake City. Dr. Nelson, why the call for a ban now?

ALAN NELSON: Ms. Woodruff, we have 350,000 premature deaths in this country each year that are attributable to tobacco use. That's a very important reason to call for a ban on advertising because advertising is designed to do one thing, increase use of a product. And we don't need increased use of that product. It's a poison.

WOODRUFF: All right, why now? What's the impetus for it right now? I mean, you've been aware of some connection there, or some alleged connection there, for some time.

Dr. NELSON: Yes, in 1971, of course, advertising was banned in the electronic media, but the advertisers, the tobacco companies, have succeeded in transferring that advertising to the print media. And we think it's still a very important factor in increasing the use of tobacco products above what ordinarily would be without that.

WOODRUFF: All right, so what would you do away with? Is it just print advertising you would try to do away with?

Dr. NELSON: No, we would seek to initiate legislation that would prohibit advertising of tobacco products, all tobacco products in all the media. It would be print as well as electronic, and perhaps --

WOODRUFF: Well, electronic is already banned. Is that correct?

Dr. NELSON: Yes, and spread that then also perhaps to outdoor advertising and so forth.

WOODRUFF: Well, what about, I don't know, skywriting and handbills? I mean, there are all sorts of ways that commercial interests can advertise a product.

Dr. NELSON: Yes, and the degree to which our legislation would extend into those other promotional endeavors we'd have to see. The first step, obviously, is for our house of delegates to agree with the board of trustees that a ban on advertising is necessary.

WOODRUFF: What makes you think that this would work?

Dr. NELSON: Why would the tobacco industry invest $2.6 billion a year in advertising if there was not some assumption that that increases the use of that product? I think all of the evidence has to be that advertising is designed to sell, and oftentimes it's done in a way that, with an enhancement or a subliminal appeal, making that product attractive. Tobacco is a poison. We don't need advertising to make it appear attractive. It isn't attractive.

WOODRUFF: But I mean, are there surveys? Have there been studies done to prove the connection between advertising -- or is it just an assumption that you make?

Dr. NELSON: There are so many multiple factors that play a role in the use of a product like that, including the economy, including a whole host of factors, that I think it would be difficult to settle on one particular factor as being contributory to a certain measurable degree. But there is no question in anybody's mind that advertising must increase sales or they wouldn't advertise.

WOODRUFF: Dr. Nelson, we'll come back to you. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, among those on the other side of this issue is the advertising industry, represented here tonight by Leonard Matthews, president of the American Association of Advertising Agencies. He is former president of the Leo Burnett Agency in Chicago, creator of the Marlboro man, one of cigarettes' most famous advertising symbols.

Mr. Matthews, what's wrong with Dr. Nelson's idea?

LEONARD MATTHEWS: It's a very simplistic solution to a complex problem. He identified this as a complex problem, and it certainly is. The biggest thing that's wrong with it, in simple terms, is it won't work.

LEHRER: If you did away with advertising, it would not cause people to stop smoking?

Mr. MATTHEWS: No, that's right. The advertising industry and the tobacco industry as well have studied this problem around the world, and there are 14 countries where advertising for cigarettes has been banned, some as long as 25 years. As a matter of fact, if you want to count Russia, it's been 60 years. And in every case, every single country where advertising has been banned for cigarettes, the per capita consumptionof cigarettes has gone up. And the evidence seems to indicate that the advertising, in this country, certainly, keeps the issue before the public, perhaps the health warnings in the ads, as a matter of fact, keeps the health issue before the public.

LEHRER: You're not suggesting, are you, that the tobacco companies advertise their products in order to keep the health issue before the public?

Mr. MATTHEWS: No, I'm not. The health warning is there because the government asked that it be there. It has succeeded, I think, in terms of making a real substantial dent on the American public. For example, we have a substantial decline in smokers going on in this country. We all know it from our personal experiences. But I think that we know it from the figures. For example, perhaps the best improvement has been among white males, wheMr. MATTHEWS: I don't think it has, no, because if you study the case there are several cases where just broadcast advertising has been banned, not all advertising. The bans take all kinds of different forms. For example, in France you can show the package and that's all you can show. So you've got to study each case individually. But in the countries where broadcasting advertising has been banned, the consumption has gone up as well.

LEHRER: What about Dr. Nelson's major point, though, that if it didn't encourage people to smoke or to buy the tobacco product, the tobacco industry wouldn't spend $2.6 billion with you folks advertising.

Mr. MATTHEWS: They do it for brand purposes, for brand-switching purposes because, you see, Marlboro, when it first came on the market, had something like less than 0.1% of the market, and now today it's the largest selling cigarette in the world based upon a creative idea created by an advertising agency, and promulgated all over the world by the Philip Morris Company; that is the Marlboro man concept.

LEHRER: So your point is that advertising does not get new smokers, doesn't create new smokers or entice people to smoke. You're just trying to get everybody to smoke your product, those who are hooked?

Mr. MATTHEWS: That's right.

LEHRER: What do you say to those who say, hey, look, smoking has been condemned by the Surgeon General of the United States as the number-one health problem in this country. Why should anybody be allowed to advertise it?

Mr. MATTHEWS: Well, our point of view is that basically any product that's legal to sell should be legal to advertise. We know that prohibition doesn't work. We know that people are going to continue to smoke whether it's advertised or not. We tried prohibition in another category, in the alcoholic beverage category, once before; I think the same situation would prevail in tobacco.

LEHRER: As a simple matter of constitutional right, you mean?

Mr. MATTHEWS: Well, that's right. As a matter of fact, I think the proposed ban is unconstitutional, but I really don't think that is terribly important. I don't think we're going to get to that stage, because I think that rational, logical, scientific people looking at the evidence will say, why should we prescribe something here that's not going to work?

LEHRER: Dr. Nelson, how about that?

Dr. NELSON: Well, I'm a rational, logical physician. I'm concerned about the health of my patients. And too many of my patients are dying because of tobacco use. The American Medical Association is coupling our call for a ban on advertising with a broad range of other initiatives to cut down on tobacco use, and that's the important thing.

LEHRER: But what about his point that in the countries where there are different kinds of bans it has not decreased smoking, if anything, it's gone up in those countries?

Dr. NELSON: Well, I haven't seen any of those studies and so I can't comment on them. But I am certain that the economies in those countries changed, I'm certain that the availability of tobacco might have been altered. I don't think we can just point to advertising bans and say that it didn't work because we don't know what the incidence of tobacco use would have been if there had not been the ban on advertising. Perhaps it would have been twice what it is now. That argument is fatuous in my mind.

Mr. MATTHEWS: Well, not at all because, you know, when you have 14 separate countries with different economic situations, different systems of government, different varieties of bans, and in every case the per capita consumption, the total consumption and the number of smokers goes up, I'd say that's pretty definitive research. Now, sure, you could poke holes in any one particular piece of it, but take Italy, for example. It's been banned there for 23 years, advertising, and per capita consumption --

Dr. NELSON: But Italy isn't the United States, and we have a totally different situation here, and with the broad range of efforts that we can direct towards smoking, the ban on advertising may give us a totally different experience.

Mr. MATTHEWS: Well, you say "may." The burden of proof, I would think, would be on somebody who says "may" as opposed to somebody who says, I have the evidence in 14 countries that it doesn't work. People are pretty much the same all over the world in terms of their motivations for using products and things of that kind, and we're talking about a product category that's been in consumer demand for centuries. It's not something that was invented just recently.

Dr. NELSON: Well, the burden of proof is on those who wish to promote and sell a product that accounts for 350,000 premature deaths a year.

Mr. MATTHEWS: I think in a free enterprise country and in a free democracy we have a job, of course, of informing the public about the dangers of any product that is being sold, and once that information is promulgated so that everybody knows about it -- I have a lot of trouble with the idea of banning the free flow of information on any product. There's hardly a product that you could name that is not harmful if it's abused.

LEHRER: Do you have any problem with that, Dr. Nelson, just the constitutional question?

Dr. NELSON: No. No. We're confident that the constitutionality of prohibiting advertising would be upheld because this is the number-one public health problem that the country faces. And we are confident that those who are responsible for hearing those issues of constitutionality will agree with us on that.

LEHRER: Dr. Nelson, what do you make of Mr. Matthews' additional point that the purpose of cigarette advertising or tobacco advertising is not to get new people to smoke, but just to get people to change to their brand?

Dr. NELSON: Well, I can't comment on what the motives of those who advertise that product are because I don't know.

Mr. MATTHEWS: Can you recall a single ad that ever encouraged anyone to smoke? Essentially every ad that you read is directed at "use my brand, buy my brand, I have a product improvement here to talk about." See, one of the big reasons why we're getting a shift, I think, and a decline in smoking in this country is the fact that we've been able to bring a lot of news about filtration systems and things of that kind. That's one big thing about this ability to advertise product improvements. If you go abroad, most of these other countries, you'll find that the great majority of people are smoking unfiltered cigarettes. They get a lot more tar and nicotine in their systems from those cigarettes.

LEHRER: And you think they wouldn't be if there was an advertising system?

Mr. MATTHEWS: That's right, and they wouldn't be --

LEHRER: What do you think of that, Dr. Nelson?

Dr. NELSON: I think that the whole issue that we have to get back to is in this country we have a big public health problem and tobacco use is contributing to it, and there isn't any question that advertising is designed to enhance the attractiveness of that product and encourage people to purchase it. The business about whether it leads to switching brands and doesn't entice those who wouldn't ordinarily smoke to begin smoking, I just can't agree with that. Too much of it presents smoking and tobacco use in a way that is attractive and is intended to enhance the image of that product. And I think that's wrong.

LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, thank you and don't go away. Judy? Fuming Over Subsidies

WOODRUFF: The battle over tobacco isn't being waged on the health front alone. There are economic and political arguments as well. One study estimates that in 1984 tobacco either directly or indirectly accounted for 2.4 of the gross national product, or $88 billion. That translates into roughly two million jobs. The tobacco growers who once had profits and political power fear that those statistics may soon be history. Correspondent Kwame Holman recently filed this report on just how tough times are for tobacco farmers.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: These wooden kegs full of tobacco are an indication of just how big a problem these tobacco growers have. Ten years ago these warehouses were empty. Now they hold over one billion pounds of tobacco that cannot be sold at a profit. Why is American-grown tobacco in such economic trouble? The most obvious reason is the vigorous campaign being waged against cigarettes.

ODELL ADAMS, tobacco farmer: We're definitely under attack because now it seems to be popular to jump on the back, and a lot of it's politics.

TIM ADAMS, tobacco farmer: They haven't made any strides towards doing away with smoking or, you know, making smoking illegal. They're just -- the pressure's been put on us.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The pressure from anti-smoking forces caused a major change in one of the mainstays of tobacco production, the tobacco support program. Under the old rules, tobacco growers could expect the federal government to buy and store any tobacco that couldn't be sold above a certain price. But in 1982, anti-smoking activists got legislation passed requiring the tobacco support program to operate at no net cost to the U.S. taxpayer. Instead, farmers would be assessed a fee to cover the costs of the program. Back in 1982 those assessments were affordable, but as the amount of unsold tobacco increased, so did the assessments. This year alone the fees increased fourfold. Fred Bond, who heads the Farmers' Tobacco Cooperative, says the rising assessments have cut deeply into growers' profits.

FRED BOND, tobacco cooperative: Growers cannot afford to carry such an unreasonable financial responsibility. He is willing to carry a reasonable financial responsibility, but when the obligations eat up his profit, certainly he becomes disgruntled, discouraged and frustrated. And I don't blame him.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: While the movement against smoking did lead to a slimmer profit margin for growers, that movement can't be held responsible for these warehouses full of unsold tobacco.

Mr. ADAMS: If it wasn't for the people against smoking we would be -- we would still be in some trouble because of the foreign market. Our foreign market is hurting us more than the market in the United States.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: A few years ago, 60 of the tobacco grown in the southeastern United States was sold abroad. Today, the strong U.S. dollar has made American tobacco too expensive for foreign buyers. Even more damaging is the other half of the international picture, tobacco imports. American cigarette companies now import 20 of their tobacco from countries like Zimbabwe and Brazil. That means they are buying less from the American tobacco grower.

Mr. BOND: Imports have been increasing since the mid-70s up to -- the recent figures show between 90 and 100 million pounds of tobacco coming in from other parts of the world to be used in this country.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: If the nation's 200,000 tobacco farmers did end up in financial trouble, the effects would be far-reaching. The local economies of the Southeast are heavily dependent on the jobs and taxes generated by tobacco. In 1983 alone, farm cash receipts from tobacco totaled nearly $3 billion. Of course, the tobacco growers do have friends in high places. At this annual meeting of growers, tobacco-belt politicians came to show their support. The governor of North Carolina was there.

GOV. JAMES B. HUNT, Jr., (D) North Carolina: And you have my continuing commitment as governor of North Carolina that I will work -- do all that I can to sustain and strengthen the programs --

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Republican Senator Jesse Helms sent a representative, and Democratic Congressman Charles Rose came to tell the growers that they are not powerless.

Rep. CHARLES ROSE, (D) North Carolina: I say to you that the tobacco growers of this country have muscles they've never used.

WOODRUFF: We are joined in the studio now by Congressman Rose of North Carolina, a long-time spokesman for the tobacco growers. He's also chairman of the tobacco subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee. For another view from Congress we have Tom Petri, Republican from Wisconsin. Congressman Petri this year sponsored an amendment to discontinue any government subsidy to tobacco growers.

Let me begin with you, Congressman Rose. What did you mean by that comment we heard you just make, that the farmers have more political muscle than we've seen yet? What are you talking about?

Rep. ROSE: Well, we are basically the only friends the companies have in Washington, and I have pretty well --

WOODRUFF: The tobacco companies?

Rep. ROSE: Yes. And I have pretty well stayed out in recent days of all this discussion about advertising bans and things such as that. I don't smoke and I don't encourage anybody to smoke. My main concern is that as long as it's legal to make cigarettes, which is an angle you haven't considered, Doctor, I want the people who make those cigarettes to buy tobacco that's grown in America.

WOODRUFF: All right, let me ask you about the subsidy question. In general, in a nutshell, why are subsidies still necessary?

Rep. ROSE: They aren't necessary, and I submit that we don't have subsidies for tobacco like we have for other commodities. I'm against subsidizing tobacco. Tom and I would agree that the farmer is attempting to pay back principal and interest on what he's borrowing for these surpluses; he's not paying interest back quite like the way some people would like him to. But that's really the only subsidy today.

WOODRUFF: And how much does that cost the government every year?

Rep. ROSE: I don't think it costs the government very much each year. It costs about $15 million a year to administer the program, which even Tom would say is just a cost of the program. The real crunch is whether or not we're going to be able to dispose of all the tobacco that we bought, that the stabilization cooperative has bought. It's not really a subsidy until the government or somebody else has to pick up the tab for it.

WOODRUFF: Congressman Petri, he says it's not really a subsidy. We're only talking about some administrative costs -- $15 million worth.

Rep. TOM PETRI: Well, we've gotten ourselves into a situation that's very costly to the taxpayers, whether it's defined as a subsidy or not, and with no ill intention on anyone's part, but originally the tobacco program was set up back in the '30s to try to stabilize the industry and to help the American farmer. Over the years it's grown in a mindless way so you have an allotment system that is forcing the American the American tobacco farmer out of business, forcing tobacco out of world markets, and it's something that really should be abolished. It's costing the taxpayer a great deal of money.

WOODRUFF: How much do you contend it's costing us?

Rep. PETRI: I contend that there are probably $300- to $500 million worth of tobacco losses in the warehouses right now. Our government's paid the money for that tobacco, will not recover it when the tobacco is disposed of. That the other subsidies, administrative costs, are about $15 million, and in addition to that there are between $50 million and $150 million of interest costs borne by the taxpayer when they should be by the industry.

WOODRUFF: All right, without belaboring this, how come the big discrepancy here in how much this is costing us?

Rep. ROSE: I don't think there is a discrepancy. I basically agree with the figures that he's quoted. The difference is that he said the money has not yet been lost on the tobacco that's in the warehouses. Now, I have -- I have a plan to use one cent of the 16-a-pack cigarette tax to help pay off some of that. Now, you can say that's a subsidy, but it's smokers paying the subsidy. And we may see taxes on cigarettes go up in the future, and if we can get this help to pay off these losses, some of us from the tobacco states may let that happen.

WOODRUFF: But that's not in the law right now. What would your amendment do, Congressman?

Rep. PETRI: My amendment would abolish the federal tobacco allotment program --

WOODRUFF: Completely?

Rep. PETRI: -- completely.

WOODRUFF: So there'd be zero costs?

Rep. PETRI: So that people who wanted to could go out, if they're American, and grow tobacco or not grow tobacco, just as they can most other crops. Right now the people have the government-granted franchise to grow tobacco. It's called an allotment. And they can lease that to someone else. So you have the strange situation of some Americans collecting about $800 million a year in allotment rents from other Americans who are out trying to earn a living, and doing it out of a tobacco program.

WOODRUFF: But how do you justify the money, the help that the government gives, say, the dairy farmers in your home state, Wisconsin, and not helping the tobacco farmers?

Rep. PETRI: Well, I draw a lot of distinctions between the two. First of all, we don't put on a carton of milk that it could be dangerous to your health. We do on tobacco. Secondly, no dairy farmer has to pay someone living in Florida or New York or someone else for the right to get up every morning and again every afternoon and go out and milk his cows. I'm talking about abolishing the tobacco allotment program. We don't have that sort of program in other commodities.

WOODRUFF: Do you see a distinction between the two?

Rep. ROSE: We could talk all evening about that. I enjoy helping Mr. Petri's dairy farmers. I wish that he felt a little more gentle toward my tobacco farmers. I'll just say it that way.

WOODRUFF: What would his amendment do to the tobacco growing industry?

Rep. ROSE: It would end the economy in North Carolina and in many of the southern states as we know it today. In other words, it would end this very big, important segment of our economy. No less than Joe Califano wrote in one of the books he wrote that the tobacco program has absolutely nothing to do with whether people smoke or not. It's not the issue. I rmly believe that tobacco farmers should run their program at no cost to the taxpayers, directly or indirectly. The problem we have with all those stabilization stocks right now is imports brought in by the high dollar. They're coming in from Brazil, with DDT sprayed on it, which may or may not upset you if you're a smoker. We want imports down. We will cut our prices, we will clean up this program, but we think as long as the companies are making zillions of dollars selling cigarettes, they ought to have to buy American tobacco.

WOODRUFF OF THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM IT WOULD IN FACT HELP THE ECONOMY OF THE SOUTHEASTERN PART OF THE United States. Studies in North Carolina by economists in that area indicate that if we got rid of the federal tobacco program it would not hurt, it would help the tobacco farmer. It would hurt the allotment holder, but we have to remember there are 500,000 allotment holders, and only 100,000 --

WOODRUFF: Now, who are the allotment holders?

Rep. PETRI: The allotment holders are the descendants or the transferees of the people who grew tobacco back in the 1930s. Most of them no longer do.

WOODRUFF: But you're saying the small growers today wouldn't be hurt. What do you say?

Rep. ROSE: I say that the small growers would be hurt. We have drastically changed the system in recent years. We have said, and have required that if you own an allotment that you must grow it. The allotment system controls the supply of tobacco to meet what we think the demand would be, and my contention, and most of my colleagues in the House agree, if we do away with an allotment program, everybody will grow tobacco. It will just get cheaper, and the companies will laugh all the way to the bank.

WOODRUFF: You want to comment on that?

Rep. PETRI: Well, I think what will happen is that tobacco production in the United States will probably increase, which is not bad for the farmer, if we're talking about the farmer. It's good for the farmer. Consumption in the United States will not increase, though. Instead, we will, by increasing production in the United States, have fewer imports and, in fact, go back to exporting tobacco, which helps our standard of living and should be good for our economy.

WOODRUFF: Congressman Rose, just quickly. Do you see any contradiction between the government helping an industry that most of the doctors say has some link in terms of tobacco to cancer and heart disease, and, on the other hand, providing money for research to do something about those diseases?

Rep. ROSE: Growing tobacco is a legitimate crop. Tobacco is a legitimate crop. Growing it is a legitimate occupation. As long as the companies are allowed to make cigarettes, I see nothing wrong with the government helping to manage the program that provides for that tobacco. It shouldn't subsidize the farmer, but on the other hand it should provide the public with information, warning labels, all kinds of assistance, to let the people know what's going on. My farmers may even encourage me to vote for the doctors' ad ban since consumption's going to go up, according to the ad industry.

WOODRUFF: Dr. Nelson, let me bring you back in. What do you say to a Congressman Rose on this subsidy issue? I mean, coming from your position at the AMA.

Dr. NELSON: We think that with the government holding an artificially inflated price that encourages the growth of tobacco, we're very much for ending subsidies. We're also very much for increasing the tax on tobacco products.

WOODRUFF: All right, let's switch back now to the subject that we first started talking about here, and that is advertising. What do you think about Dr. Nelson's proposed ban on advertising, Congressman Petri?

Rep. PETRI: I think it's interesting, but I wouldn't embrace it at this time, frankly. I think there are serious constitutional questions. I don't know exactly where you're going to draw the line. Would you say you couldn't have display cases in stores? You couldn't put a label? It would have to all be in little brown wrapping and kept under the counter? It seems to me that we're going to make a bigger breakthrough, frankly, in reducing smoking in the United States through the continual pressure against public smoking, and also through the court cases, if they ever prevail, which will saddle the industry with the actual health costs of this addictive substance.

WOODRUFF: Congressman Rose, you've said you would oppose any sort of ban. Is that correct?

Rep. ROSE: Well, I have said that it's going to be a very complicated issue for Congress to look at, if, as the advertising industry gentleman has stated, it's true that consumption will go up with an ad ban. My farmers might like that, you understand. But we are -- I think Congress is going to have to look long and hard at this. If I had to predict today, I would say that Congress probably would be against the ad ban, but this is a hot issue. It's going to take a lot of hard work.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Matthews, does it make you relieved to know that congressmen from both sides of the aisle think that this ban doesn't really have much of a chance?

Mr. MATTHEWS: I'm not really surprised by that. If I were a congressman and concerned only with the short term of the situation, only with profits, I would vote for the ad ban and I would immediately buy as much stock in tobacco companies as I could, because the consumption's going to go up and production is going to go up, and most of the advertising expenditures will flow to the bottom line. So it's going to make tobacco stocks very attractive. But I think we should all be more concerned with the bigger issue, and that's the protection of the basic freedoms that we enjoy in this country to sell and advertise legitimate products. And it's still a legitimate product, and I think once we have informed the consumer of the dangers involved, or the potential dangers involved, the consumer has a right in a free society to make that decision for themselves.

WOODRUFF: Dr. Nelson, you get the last word. Here you've heard two members of Congress, both of whom think it's a bad idea.

Dr. NELSON: Well, I think that -- I'm a physician, and the American Medical Association has to be clearly on record as doing everything that we can to cut down on tobacco use, and that includes a ban on advertising.

WOODRUFF: Well, gentlemen, clearly we didn't resolve this tonight, but we thank all of you for being with us. Mr. Matthews in New York, Dr. Nelson, Congressman Rose, Congressman Petri. Thank you all for being here. Soviet Visitor

LEHRER: Finally tonight, a newsmaker interview with the daughter of Yelena Bonner, wife of Soviet scientist and dissident Andrei Sakharov. Mrs. Bonner arrived on Saturday at the home of her daughter and son-in-law in Newton, Massachusetts. Yesterday she and her grandchildren chatted on the lawn during a picture-taking session. She came by way of Italy, where doctors examined her eyes for possible cataract surgery. The doctors told her she should first seek treatment for her heart condition. Today she began talking to doctors in Boston about the possibility of a bypass operation. She has suffered at least two heart attacks in the last two years. Mrs. Bonner's daughter, Tatyana Yankelevich, is with us now from public station WGBH in Boston.

Mrs. Yankelevich, thank you for being with us. What is your reaction to the release of these films today of Andrei Sakharov, your step father?

TATYANA YANKELEVICH: Well, if you don't mind, I'd like first to react to what you just said about my mother's eye problems or eye ailments. It is not a cataract she is suffering from, but rather a severe case of glaucoma, which is in itself a result of a trauma she suffered in the Second World War. She is a disabled veteran of that war, and as a nurse she suffered concussion on the front, and as a result of that she's to a great degree blind in both her eyes.

LEHRER: I see. Well, I'm sorry.

Ms. YANKELEVICH: No, it's all right. It's all right. I just wanted to use this opportunity to clear this up because it seems to be a popular misconception. As to the films --

LEHRER: But while we're on it, let's clear it up completely now. The Italian doctors told her -- there were two reports even then that were kind of confusing, one that the doctors had said she may not need an operation at all on her eyes or that she ought to go and get her heart condition taken care of first and then possibly come back? What is the straight --

Ms. YANKELEVICH: No, the prognosis -- her doctor, she only went to see him for a consultation and his advice is that he does not think that at this time the operation would be advisable or that it would justify the risk. In any case, she will first attend to her heart problems and, as you just mentioned, she began to do so today. She does not yet know whether she will need bypass surgery, and it will depend on the results of the tests that we think she will undergo this week, and early next week --

LEHRER: In other words, she did not leave the Soviet Union with a firm conclusion that she needed a bypass operation, is that right?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: No, absolutely not. Moreover, she had not had sufficient medical care to be able to come to any conclusion or decision. In fact, she was deprived of that medical care, as is Dr. Sakharov, in spite of the tape that was shown today.

LEHRER: What was the nature of -- was I correct when I said -- because there's been some confusion about this as well, that she suffered at least two heart attacks in the last two years? Is that correct?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Yes, it is correct, but she had not been hospitalized or properly treated for them, and she has, as a medical doctor, more or less advised her own treatment, and now we are trying to see what is her condition and from there -- we will proceed from there.

LEHRER: There were no conclusions drawn today based on the initial conversations, correct?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: I beg your pardon?

LEHRER: There were no conclusions drawn today based on the conversations she had just today with doctors, right?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Oh, no, no, of course not, and it's inconceivable to make -- to come to any sort of decision right after the initial visit.

LEHRER: Sure. It's going to take how long, do you think?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Well, as I said, she will undergo some tests this week and possibly next week, and on the result of those tests will depend the decision.

LEHRER: I see. Well, look, let's go back to where we began.

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Of course.

LEHRER: The tapes that were released in West Germany today showing, apparently, I haven't seen them, but the reports say that they show Mr. Sakharov walking and looking very healthy, etc. What's your reaction to that?

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Well, you see, these videotapes have become a sort of major source of information about the Sakharovs, and first of all, you might remember the tapes that were released earlier this summer, the summer of 1985, first June and then July. I'm referring to the June tapes rather than the July tapes, where a doctor who claims that she is the doctor who is in charge of Dr. Sakharov's treatment and who is in fact, as I understand from what my mother said, is a KGB officer, who only seldom appears in the hospital, and apparently only in those cases when Dr. Sakharov was being filmed without even knowing, or without even his consent. And this Dr. Eve Dakymolov claimed at that time, in June, 1984, that she supervises his treatment and that he suffers from severe diseases such as high blood pressure, irregular heart beat or arrhythmia, in other words, and an onset of Parkinson's disease. Now the same -- through a same source videotapes we are being told that he is in very good health and that he couldn't, in fact, be in better. And, first of all, I don't personally feel this way because I can see the way Dr. Sakharov walks and carries suitcases. And he had, as my mother told me, had to stop a few times to catch his breath and the suitcases were not big at all, and you can even take a look at them at some point, I think. But in any case, his heart condition remains rather disturbing and not only it has deteriorated, but it deteriorated as a result of the so-called treatment of these doctors. And he was given the treatment that is completely contradictory to his condition. Even to any textbook a competent doctor will see that this is something that he should not have been given, and he has been given treatments with digitalis, which in his condition is completely out of question. And his heart beat deteriorated as a result of that. So not only I see incompetence, to say the least, but also I see a very alarming thing, and it also surprises me that people in the West who are so used to such things as confidentiality and respect for privacy are not surprised by the mere fact that a patient, any patient, Dr. Sakharov in this particular situation, is being filmed without his consent or knowledge as a human guinea pig.

LEHRER: Sure, I hear you.

Ms. YANKELEVICH: And I think that nobody can really trust doctors who subject their patients to such things.

LEHRER: All right. Well, thank you very much for being with us from Boston.

Ms. YANKELEVICH: Sure.

WOODRUFF: Now for tonight's Lurie cartoon. The subject is OPEC's problems.

[Lurie cartoon -- OPEC ship steward tells captain, "Our oil glut starts to worry me, sir," as the boat sinks.]

LEHRER: Again the major stories of this Monday. The OPEC oil cartel decided to hang on to its share of the world oil market, a decision that is expected to lead to lower prices and possibly a price war. And President Reagan wrote to members of the House about tax reform, saying vote for the Democratic proposal now on the table or the whole thing may be doomed for years. Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.