The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, as the Bork hearings wound down,President Reagan castigated critics and former President Carter strongly opposed Bork. In the Persian Gulf an Iranian gun boat attacked a Greek tanker. Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis said his campaign was behind a disclosure that helped destroy the Biden candidacy. Ten children and two adults died in a fire in Milwaukee. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, the Bork hearings are our lead focus tonight. We have an extended look at today's testimony and interviews with two undecided members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then the new Florida law that makes it easier to carry a gun. We'll have a debate over the implications. And we close with a newsmaker interview with Israel's foreign minister Shimon Peres. News Summary WOODRUFF: The Senate Judiciary Committee today wrapped up its marathon confirmation hearings on Judge Robert Bork. The end came with deep divisions remaining on the committee, which is expected to vote on a recommendation on Bork next Tuesday. The White House reacted to reports that the nomination is in trouble with a strong statement today from President Reagan. Mr. Reagan told a White House audience that Bork is not a radical who would upset the balance of the Supreme Court.

PRESIDENT REAGAN: Just like my other nominees to the Court, he's not going to promote my political views. He's going to apply a superb legal mind to the task of interpreting the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The support for him reveals the fact that he is superbly qualified, an individual of unsurpassed integrity and a principled advocate of judicial restraint. We will not be satisfied with allowing special interests to determine the qualifications to serve on our country's highest court. Let us insist that the Senate not give in to noisy strident pressures and that elected officials not be swayed by a deliberate campaign of disinformation and distortion. WOODRUFF: Despite or rather the President said despite Democratic predictions to the contrary, he was still very optimistic about Bork's prospects. At the hearings meanwhile, a letter was read today from former President Jimmy Carter who expressed strong opposition to the nomination. Carter called some of Bork's judicial rulings authoritarian and obnoxious, particularly as they related to civil rights cases. Elsewhere today, President Reagan was asked about recent revelations about his former C. I. A. Director, the late William Casey, who died after a long bout with brain cancer. Reporters wanted to know about journalist Bob Woodward's assertion in his new book that Casey had helped plan a failed car bomb assassination attempt on a Shiite Moslem leader in Lebanon.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I think that there's an awful lot of fiction about a man who was unable to communicate at all who is now being quoted as if he were doing nothing but talk his head off. REPORTER: Well did you sign a directive that led to a massacre in Beirut? Pres. REAGAN: No, and I have a copy of the measure that I signed. REPORTER: Can we see it? Pres. REAGAN: It was -- it was nothing but -- but we were all approving a plan requested of us by the government of Beirut -- of Lebanon to help them encounter terrorisms. Never would I sign anything that would authorize an assassination. I never have and I never will and I didn't. REPORTER: Did he carry out any actions without you knowledge, Mr. President? Pres. REAGAN: Not thatI know of. REPORTER: Well don't you think you should have known? It seems to me that he did a lot of things you didn't know about. Pres. REAGAN: No, I think I did know and there are a lot of things he's being charged with right now. I was going to say credited with but you couldn't describe as charged with and I don't think any of it has a basis in fact. MacNEIL: Pentagon officials said that the U. S. forces in the Persian Gulf have begun using a large commercial barge as a sea base because the Americans have no land base facilities. It will provide the basing, fuel and maintenance for patrol boats and helicopters and could be anchored anywhere on the route of the tanker convoys the U. S. is protecting. An Iranian gun boat attacked a Greek tanker which reported it was under missile attack but had suffered no casualties. The attack occurred about fifty miles north of Abu Dhabi. Shipping sources in Bahrain said the tanker Koriana was raked with machine gun fire and rocket propelled grenades. WOODRUFF: Back in this country, this was more bloodletting today among the ranks of the Democratic candidates for President, but this time it involved not the candidate himself but two of the top people in his campaign. Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis disclosed that his campaign manager was behind a secret release of a videotape that helped lead to Senator Joseph Biden's pullout from the race last week. Dukakis called a news conference this morning to say that his senior aide, John Sasso, had admitted giving reporters copies of the tape of British Labor leader Neil Kinnock making remarks that Biden later copied. This revelation came two days after Dukakis had flatly denied that his campaign was involved in putting out the tape. Gov. MICHAEL DUKAKIS: I spoke to Joe Biden a few minutes ago on the telephone and I want to publicly apologize to him and his family and his friends for what ahappened and for the involvement of my campaign in this whole situation. I know something about the pain of defeat, the pain of loss, what it means not only personally but to one's family and friends and I regret very very much that my campaign or anyone in it contributed to that pain and that loss. WOODRUFF: Dukakis said at first today that he would not accept his campaign manager John Sasso's resignation but he announced later that he had done so as well as the resignation of his campaign issues director Paul Tulley. Senator Biden said that he would have no comment on the Dukakis revelations. Ironically, the Washington Post today ran a story about a speech Mr. Kinnock made yesterday, a story which prompted a light comment from Senator Biden at the opening of today's Bork confirmation hearings.

Sen JOSEPH BIDEN: I'd like the press to note that I apparently have breathed new life into Mr. Kinnock's campaign. He is more in the news now than he ever has been and I've sent him all my speeches. WOODRUFF: In other news, a Congressional committee released an affidavit today in the Wedtech case. Wedtech is the Bronx defense contractor accused of using improper influence with the government. In the affidavit, a former Wedtech executive said he believed that then White House aide and now Attorney General Edwin Meese had interceded with Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in 1983 to help Wedtech win a lucrative Navy contract. Meese's attorney told the NewsHour today that the charges are wrong, that they are what he called double hearsay and politically motivated. Pentagon spokesman Fred Hoffmann said today that SecretaryWeinberger does not remember Meese contacting him on behalf of Wedtech. MacNEIL: It now appears that as many as 500 persons may have died in the mudslide that leveled a slum section of Medellin, Colombia earlier this week. A mass funeral was held today for many of the 200 known dead, half of whom were children. The mayor of Colombia's second largest city estimated that up to 300 more persons may have died when the slide wiped out about 60 homes at the foot of Sugar Loaf Mountain. WOODRUFF: There was grim news from NASA today about the upper atmosphere's ozone layer which helps block ultraviolet rays from the sun from reaching the earth. NASA reported that its annual test of the ozone layer conducted over Antarctica showed a record high amount of depletion. A NASA official said the ozone had been reduced to half its normal level in mid September. Scientists say ozone depletion could lead to increased cases of skin cancer and other human illnesses. Researchers say the cause of this phenomenon is manmade chlorofluorocarbon compounds released by such things as aerosol spray cans and weather patterns in the Antarctic. MacNEIL: An early morning fire in Milwaukee claimed 12 lives today, 10 of them children. Fire officials said the blaze apparently started in a first floor kitchen of the two story wood and brick building. The dead children ranged in age from 11 months to 8 years. Three adults managed to escape the burning building. The mother of one of the adult victims said her daughter was scheduled to appear in court this morning to fight an eviction notice. WOODRUFF: That ends our summary of today's top stories. Ahead on the news hour, extended excerpts from the Bork confirmation hearing and an interview with two undecided members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. A look at the new Florida gun law that makes it easier to carry weapons and a newsmaker interview with Israel's Foreign Minister. Battling over Bork WOODRUFF: We go first tonight to the final day of confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and to the reactions of two uncommitted members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. These hearings have generated visceral and heated charges of both pro and anti Bork forces. Today began with a letter from former President Jimmy Carter who, as we reported earlier, opposed the Bork nomination in unusually strong terms. For its part, the Committee took testimony today from several more witnesses, starting with a panel of legal antitrust experts. Two state attorneys general charged that Bork's position on antitrust laws discouraged competition in the marketplace.

ROBERT ABRAMS, Y. Attorney General:N. At the heart of the matter is his peculiar and artificial definition of the term ''consumer''. In his view, corporations, even monopolists and price fixers are consumers, just as are the individual citizens who buy products in the marketplace. Consumer welfare thus becomes, in his words, the levels of society's total wealth and the only goal of antitrust enforcement and Judge Bork's view is to therefore prevent restriction of the total output of goods and services. Cartels or even monopolies are perfectly acceptable in Judge Bork's view as long as they do not cause restrictions in industrial output. The theory guts the principle goal of the framers of the Sherman Act of 1890 which was to protect ordinary citizens from the power of monopolists or price fixers to extract exorbitant prices from them. For Judge Bork, such a transfer of wealth from the purchases of productsto monopolists or price fixers is merely a shift in income between two classes of consumers, as he puts it, which does not lessen total wealth and a decision about it could only rest, in his words, on tenuous moral ground. If you believe as many in our nation do that the antitrust laws serve as the Magna Carta of the free enterprise system, then you must view the realization of Judge Bork's agenda as a preventable tragedy. But I think we all must agree that if such a monumental change in the law is to occur, it should only occur in our system of government as the result of a clear act of legislative will. Because Judge Bork would devote himself to advancing this agenda in clear disregard of the will of Congress, I urge you to reject his nomination to the Supreme Court. Sen. BIDEN: Thank you, General. General Brown. CHARLES BROWN, N. Y. orney General: AttThank you, Mr. Chairman. For the individual buyer and the bold businessperson, there will be nothing free about the market created by Judge Bork. Price fixing and exclusive dealing will rule the marketplace. Innovative industrialists will be absorbed into the gray corporate giants. Judge Bork's effect on antitrust law is simply not as conducive to a 10 second spot on the evening news as are the other issues so hotly debated in the past few weeks. However, I submit to this committee that in no other area will the effect of a Bork appointment be so completely felt. The short run effect would be the squeezing of American pocketbooks and the draining of America's entrepreneurial spirit. The long run impact would be to impede those principles of business freedom which Americans so deeply cherish. WOODRUFF: The ranking Republican on the committee, Senator Strom Thurmond, used his allotted time to read off a list of law school deans who support Judge Bork's views on antitrust.

Sen. Strom Thurmond: So what you're saying today is absolutely contrary to what those people said yesterday and 'course should have a right to say it. There were seven law school deans who testified. There were 4 experts on antitrust testified and testimony just as odds. And so that'd just be up to the committee of course as to who's testimony they'd accept. Mr. ABRAMS: Senator Thurmond, there are many who are deans of law schools -- Senator Biden opened today's hearing indicating letters that came from 40% of all the law professors in the accredited law schools in the country who are opposed to Judge Bork's nomination -- I think what we are saying is that we think, and there is a strong body out there who believe this, who are experienced in antitrust enforcement, that Judge Bork is not in the mainstream of tradition -- Sen. Thurmond: These people say he was in the mainstream. That's where you differ so I say the committee will just have to settle that. Attorney General: And I think the reason why people say he's not in the mainstream -- I think they give him credit, appropriate credit for raising the issue of efficiency as one of the considerations to take into account in analyzing antitrust cases and appropriately so but he makes the fundamental mistake by saying that efficiency is the only basis -- Sen. Thurmond: That's your opinion. These other deans and experts on antitrust don't agree with you so I say the committee will have to settle. That's all I've got to say. WOODRUFF: The antitrust panel was followed by two women concerned with the issue of equal protection but with opposing views of how Judge Bork might rule when the issue came before him on the Supreme Court.

BEVERLY LaHAYE, Concerned Women of America: Judge Bork's record and testimony before this committee demonstrates his belief that women are capable first class citizens deserving of equal protection under the law. As an educated and judicial scholar, he adheres to the already established support structure necessary for women to determine their own destiny in the pursuit of any career they choose, excelling to the limits of their capabilities. He does not view women as a special interest group to whom he must cater. He views women and men as equal citizens under the law. Isn't this what women have been striving for, to be treated as equals and not as frail creatures in need of a judge to grant them special privileges? Sen. THURMOND: Now we have heard the statement at these hearings that the women opposed to Judge Bork and they're afraid of Judge Bork. Is that a fringe group that takes that position or is that the thinking of the women generally in the United States? Ms. LaHAYE: Absolutely not. I think I represent the mainstream of American women and we do support Judge Bork. I think probably some of that's stemmed right from this committee when a member of your judiciary committee said that he heard that Americans women were afraid of the judge and we would -- are here to speak on the opposition of that. Our women are not afraid of him. By his own testimony and his own background, we feel that his record would give women all that we're looking for in the Supreme Court decisions and we were here to support Justice Scalia. We were here speaking for him and noted that this committee supported him 100%. Then our question is, if Justice Scalia and Judge Bork voted together 98% of the time, why are we in such controversy over these two appoint -- or this appointment? VILMA MARTINEZ, ey: AttornJudge Bork in his public statements and his writings show us a man who has a keen intellect and a knowledge of legal precedent and who attacks complex legal problems as the grand master attacks a chess board. He does not show us a man much less a lawyer or a judge who understands that equal protection and due process are not arcane legal principles which occasionally affect a few individuals. They are the soul of our nation. Through his writing, speeches and testimony before this committee, Judge Bork has demonstrated his disagreement with some of the most crucial equal protection decisions of our lifetime, announced his adoption of a reasonable basis test which would provide less equal protection to racial minorities and women than they currently enjoy and announced his opposition to Constitutional protection for racial minorities and women from discrimination from the Federal government. Because of this, Judge Bork does not deserve to be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Sen. ALAN SIMPSON, (R) Wyoming: Let me ask you, because you do follow these cases and you are a superb lawyer, were you aware that as a Judge on the Court of Appeals for this District of Columbia Circuit and what a -- what a court it is -- there are some very extraordinary people on it. During his tenure on this court, on the court he sits, he's ruled for minority or women raising a substantive civil rights claim. He's voted -- ruled for them 7 out of 8 times. Now those are facts and do those have any bearing on you as a thoughtful, conscientious lawyer who is trying to examine a case from both sides and deal with it honestly and upfront and without emotion, fear, guilt or [unintelligible]? Ms. MARTINEZ: As a thinking lawyer or someone who might even appear before Judge Bork some day, I've had to think about all of this and why do I still conclude that I want to ask you not to confirm him. I've thought about it and I think ultimately it comes down to questions of judgment, of temperament and of trust and in looking at Judge Bork's temperament as best I can see it -- I don't know him personally but from his writings, from his analysis -- I find it wanting. He doesn't just disagree with Oregon v. Mitchell. It's pernicious Constitutional law. The judgment he reaches about literacy tests is a strong one and he still says that I really have not had occasion to look at how literacy tests operate. He says the poll tax was only a dollar fifty poll tax. He doesn't look at precisely how Virginia imposed that dollar fifty and what the impact might be on someone less fortunate than he is, and it is that quality of his that troubles me. I suppose it comes down to the fact that in my view, he has too cramped a view of equal protection and he is too quick to form an uninformed view of what equal protection might mean for the day to day reality that so many Americans live, and will in the future live, so that for those reasons and certainly taking into account this man's distinguished public service, I have reluctantly concluded that I want to ask you not to confirm him. WOODRUFF: We turn now to two of the judiciary committee members who say they have not yet made up their minds on Judge Bork, Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini of Arizona. Gentlemen, is that true, are you still undecided, Senator Specter? Sen. ARLEN SPECTER (R) Pennsylvania: Well I'm coming closer to a decision. I thought that it was appropriate to wait until the hearings were concluded. They were this afternoon. Now I'm going to sit down and put my thoughts on paper and as soon as I have finished that I will be making a statement as to my position. WOODRUFF: You say you're coming closer to a decision. Which way does that mean you're thinking? Sen. SPECTER: Well, I'm not going to make an announcement tonight. The question that immediate follows is what are the reasons and I really haven't had a chance to sit down and put them on paper because as you know the hearings just concluded but as soon as I get that done, I will make my position known. WOODRUFF: Senator DeConcini, what about you? Are you still undecided? Sen. DENNIS DECONCINI (R) Arizona: Yes I am and I'm pleased the hearings are over and I felt that as much as the struggle and turmoil and problems that may have arisen from the hearings, that they were very helpful, they were very helpful to me. They clarified some problems I had with Judge Bork going into the hearings. Unfortunately I still have some problems. I agree with Senator Specter, I'm going to put down some -- some categories and weigh the issue and I'm going to make my decision this weekend and probably announce it Monday. WOODRUFF: So you are closer to a decision, too. Can you tell us which way you're leaning?

Sen. DECONCINI: No I really can't because I don't know. I -- I -- I have purposely not let one witness tip me in one direction or another, whether they're for or against him and we've had some marvelous witnesses that have been very candid. We had a personal friend of his and former partner, Mr. Crane, the day before yesterday, yesterday rather. It was most impressive regarding who the real Robert Bork is and I've got to think about those things. I've got some problems with him or I would have made up my mind to support him and I have to weigh those and determine whether or not I want risk, whether or not, not only being fair to Judge Bork to hold off my decision, is it fair to take the risk without liberties and our freedoms and to confirm him. I'll make that decision. WOODRUFF: Senator Specter, what are the questions, the problems that linger in your mind about Judge Bork? Sen. SPECTER: Well, there are two areas of concern which I have. One involves the First Amendment freedom of speech. Judge Bork has said that he will apply the settled law but he says at the same time that he disagrees with it philosophically and there's a concern that I have as to whether that can be realistically done. The Judge insists he will do it and he says categorically that he's under oath to do it and doesn't want to be disgraced by history. The second concern I have involves the equal protection of the law issues. Judge Bork had written that he would apply equal protection only in a racial context, broadened that recently to include ethnics and there was a change in his position when he testified that he would apply equal protection more broadly and that's a concern that I had. There's no doubt about Judge Bork's integrity. I think he comes forward and has stated his positions and stated them effusively and now the question is one of evaluation as to whether those important principles of law can be applied effectively or appropriately by someone who has expressed these philosophical reservations over so many years. WOODRUFF: Senator DeConcini, what are your concerns at this point? Sen. DECONCINI: Well, I share those concerns that my colleague Senator Specter pointed out and Senator Specter did an excellent job in pursuing the First Amendment rights and I think he pretty well nailed down Judge Bork and then it's a question of the predictability. The area of 14th Amendment concerns me a great deal, the area of privacy. I happen to be a pro life senator and opposed to [unintelligible] and would like to see it overturned but the problem here with Judge Bork is that he has said in the committee that he finds no right of privacy either in the 9th Amendment or the in the 14th Amendment, the due process clause. Well, even Judge O'Connor and Rehnquist and Scalia have come to conclusions and signed an opinion just last term that Sandra O'Connor wrote that indicates there is a right of privacy in the Constitution. That's important. Where you draw the line of course is important, too and the Court also drew the line that the right of privacy does not apply to sodomy, and rightfully so, but the Court threw out legislation that would restrict the use of contraceptives by married couples because of the right of privacy and Judge Bork he didn't agree with that, even today. WOODRUFF: Senator Specter, the President said today that there had been a campaign of disinformation and distortion and he hoped the Senate would not be swayed by that. How can you not be affected by this massive display of pro and anti that we've seen over the last few weeks? Sen. SPECTER: Oh I think it appropriate, Judy, to consider what your constituents have to say and that's a factor to be weighed, but Senator DeConcini and I and our colleagues have sat through these hearings and we have listened to witnesses and for me the weightier factors turn on these constitutional issues. WOODRUFF: What -- what are you hearing from your constituents? What are they -- I mean -- what -- which way -- Sen. SPECTER: I'm hearing -- I'm hearing a lot. My mail and call tabulations as of the end of yesterday were in excess of 130,000. WOODRUFF: Which -- which way are they leaning? Sen. SPECTER: Well, they're pro Judge Bork by about -- by about two to one. WOODRUFF: What about you, Senator DiConcini. Which way is your mail and your phone call -- Sen. DiCONCINI: My mail is about 55 45 in favor of Judge Bork. That's shrinking. I just looked today at the phone calls, telegrams and I don't need any more, so anybody listening, I've heard from -- from you, I welcome them but we don't need any more today. They happen to favor or well opposed to Judge Bork. Two days they were coming in 2 to 1 in favor of Judge Bork. So it goes back and forth. I pay attention to those things but these -- these decisions of who is going to sit on the Supreme Court to me truly is the maximum responsibility that we have as Senators. This and, God forbid, having to vote to declare war are two things that you can't dodge and you can't just put your finger up and test the wind and come down on the political side. We're sent here to do the best we can and to analyze it and that's what I'm going to do and that analyzation is going to come to a conclusion this weekend when I make my decision. WOODRUFF: Senator Specter, are you being lobbied by the White House? Sen. SPECTER: Yes. WOODRUFF: In what way, I mean, are they sending people -- has Judge Bork been back to see you again? Sen. SPECTER: Judge Bork and I had a lengthy conversation this afternoon. We spent some time talking and I have talked to other people at the White House and I am available to listen. WOODRUFF: Does that -- does that clarify anything for you? Sen. SPECTER: Well, it's all helpful. Judy, I think what has to be understood and I would follow up on what Senator DiConcini has just said, of the importance of the nomination and the uniqueness of it. Here you have the 3 branches of government. The President makes the nomination, the Senate has the responsibility for confirmation or not for the Supreme Court and the strength of our constitutional system really resides in the separation of powers and it is a very weighty decision and there are a great many factors to be considered and when you have a man who has written and spoken as much as Judge Bork has, who's been on the bench for 5 years. He's made more than 80 speeches that he's provided us copies of. Then we had to read them and lots of opinions and he had very profound, deep constitutional issues which involve a great many intricacies. It is not a matter to come to easily or lightly. WOODRUFF: But Senator DiConcini, the consensus seems to be growing that this nomination is in trouble. Could the White House have handled it any differently do you think, any better? Sen. DICONCINI: Certainly they could have. I am critical of the White House but I'm also critical of some of my colleagues who jumped out so early. I respect them for doing that and they have the right to do it but I would have liked to have seen an environment that would have been more fair to Judge Bork or more open to Judge Bork but the President's the one who started it, in my judgment. He's laid it out as kind of his agenda. He was going to follow through with all his policies and some of the liberals here, they have a right to do that, came back says, ''Fine, we're going to draw the line. '' I didn't draw any lines and I don't draw any lines, liberal or conservative. I draw the lines on the constitutional liberties that we have to decide whether or not we want to risk with Judge Bork. WOODRUFF: Senator Specter, Senator Byrd, the Majority Leader said he hopes the committee sends out a no recommendation, that it just sends it to the floor without a yes or no, one way or another. What do you think the committee will do? Sen. SPECTER: Well, first of all I disagree with Senator Byrd. I believe that the regular order -- that's an expression we use a lot in the Senate -- regular order is what our regular procedure is -- calls for us to make a recommendation. Senator DiConcini and I have sat and worked and read and I think that we have a responsibility to state our positions. Our colleagues don't have to listen to us but the tradition is that the committee recommendation is viewed with -- by others -- with some weight and I think the committee ought to take a position. WOODRUFF: Just quickly, Senator DiConcini, it's been said by your colleague Senator Cranston that this thing is licked, that he thinks Bork will be defeated. Do you -- can you buy that at this point? Sen. DICONCINI: No I can't. I know -- I believe there's at least 20 uncommitted Senators just on the basis of what I've talked to and I agree with Senator Specter. In all due respect to our good Majority Leader, I can vote to report him out without recommendation. That doesn't trouble me but I really think we ought to take a position. That's what the committee system is all about. It's going to go to the floor no matter what and it should. This is an important issue that ought not to be filibustered, ought not to be dodged. Everybody should stand up and let them know where you stand. WOODRUFF: Senator Specter, just quickly. Do you think it's been lost already? Sen. SPECTER: Absolutely not. Senator Cranston says one thing. Senator Baker says that it's going to be won. I think that the propaganda doesn't stop at the Senate steps. I don't think anybody knows. WOODRUFF: Well gentlemen, we'll be looking anxiously for both of your decisions. Senator Specter, Senator DiConcini, thank you for being with us. Sen. SPECTER: Thank you, Judy. Sen. DICONCINI: Nice to be with you. WOODRUFF: Robin? Shimon Peres Interview MacNEIL: We got next to a newsmaker interview with the Foreign Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres who met this morning with Secretary of State George Shultz at the United Nations. The Reagan administration has said it will step up its middle east diplomatic efforts. Secretary of State Shultz will travel to the region next month for a round of talks. Earlier today Charlayne Hunter Gault interviewed the Israeli Foreign Minister who said he believed the Shultz trip would be helpful to the stalled Mideast peace process. SHIMON PERES, Israeli Foreign Minister: [unintelligible] glad with the visit of Secretary Shultz a direction. I think it renews the initiative. Secondly, I feel there is a move not on the size or the scope that I would like to on the part of the Russians. Then again I feel that the Egyptians in spite -- the Egyptians and the Jordanians did not retreat from their initial agreement and I'm used to obstacles. I know that they don't negotiate them overnight. It may take a little bit of time. You must be persistent, must have patience and the most important thing, you must be convinced deep in your heart that you do the right thing. HUNTER-GAULT: Are you optimistic enough to give us a date when this conference might happen? Mr. PERES: You're asking me for a guess, not for an optimism. HUNTER-GAULT: An educated guess. Mr. PERES: No I can't because you can't guess the future. You can try to construct it and that what I'm trying to do. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Foreign Minister, you met with Secretary of State Shultz this morning, presumably you discussed his upcoming middle east trip. Were you trying to convince him to come out in support of an international peace conference which you have been lobbying for? Mr. PERES: No. I think we are exactly on the very same opinion, namely, that we have to arrive to direct negotiations and if in order to arrive at the direct negotiations, we have to pass through an international conference, let's have an international conference. HUNTER-GAULT: So your understanding is that Secretary of State Shultz is in favor of an international peace conference. Mr. PERES: The international peace conference is not a goal in its own right. It is a mean to facilitate the participation of the Jordanians. We don't need it. It is a condition put forth by the Jordanians. They feel that they cannot come in without having an international opening and since the Secretary as well as myself is convinced that you can't make peace with the Arabs without having the Arabs participating, we have to enable the Arab party to participate by direct negotiations. HUNTER-GAULT: But as is widely known, you are only one side of this equation within Israel. There are -- Mr. PERES: I understand -- HUNTER-GAULT: But there had been a tremendous rift between you and the Prime Minister who is opposed to this conference and Shultz -- it's been described as a kind of tug of war between you and Mr. Shamir with Shultz as the rope. Do you see the U. S. sanction of this conference as that critical? Mr. PERES: No. Let me explain. In fairness, Mr. Shamir and myself agree on the need to have direct negotiations, on the need to negotiate, on the way of negotiations by facing a Jordanian Palesti delegation. Where we differ is about international conference. Now what does Mr. Shamir say what do I say? Mr. Shamir says that international conference, the participation of the Russians can weigh very heavily upon us and for that reason we shouldn't have the international conference. I agree that if we could have had the Arabs without an international conference, I would give it up. And for that reason I say we have to have an international conference but an international conference that will not become heavy upon us, and if we can structure a conference that on the one hand will be sort of a matchmaker, bring us together and then let us alone, I expect that maybe some members of the other party would possibly be convinced that this is the right way. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what is your strategy and as Secretary of State Shultz bit into that strategy of weakening or of taking the wind out of the opposition in Israel? Mr. PERES: In order, shall I say an assembly line for peace, we need the consent of three different levels: the global, the regional, the local. It so happens that regionally we're in agreement. There are negotiations without prior conditions and so on. We have a difference on the global level where the Russians would like to play a more authoritive role than we so to speak, the local forces, would accept. Now, and then we have as we have said a third division in Israel itself. There is no sense for the Secretary or for me to try and settle that division before we shall straighten out the exact nature of the global participation. So speaking about political priorities right now, I think it is the aim of the Secretary to see if we can have the Russians on board in a way that will be acceptable to the Arabs and to the Israelis. HUNTER-GAULT: Well what would -- I mean the Russians have been very vigorous in their recent diplomatic moves within the region and particularly with Israel. What conditions would have to attain to involve them as a key player as they wish to be? Mr. PERES: Number one, to agree to the nature of the conference. I met with Mr. Shevardnadze. I told him, sir, we would be very happy to see you play a constructive role in bringing the parties together but neither the Jordanians nor ourselves will ever agree that you will decide instead of us or impose your views upon us or you will negotiate instead of us. HUNTER-GAULT: And what was Mr. Shevardnadze's response? Mr. PERES: Mr. Shevardnadze made some progress, may I say. He said that international conference should not have the right to impose a solution or to reach an agreement yet he would like that the international conference will be a sort of a watch dog, see how we the local boys are behaving. And we say thank you very much. You may be a matchmaker, family life (unintelligible). We shall manage and we don't want to be watched and we don't want any interferences. HUNTER-GAULT: What was the Soviet attitude about the PLO being party to this discussion? Mr. PERES: At the beginning the Soviet Union took a very strong position that the PLO must be one of the independent parties that could be invited to the international conference. My impression is that the Soviet Union today would not exclude the possibility of having a joint Jordanian Palestinian delegation and maybe that is not necessarily made of members of the PLO so I believe that the Soviet Union would like to see the Palestinian representatives acceptable to the PLO, to the leaders of the PLO. HUNTER-GAULT: Can you just speak briefly about your perceptions of these vigorous diplomatic efforts that the Soviets have made in general in the middle east, particularly in the Persian Gulf. The United States has long been opposed to the Soviets being a key player there. Mr. PERES: Soviet Union at the beginning were at an advantage. They were first to respond to the Kuwaitian request for reflagging of their ships. But once the United States came in in the Gulf seriously with a very serious military presence, the Soviets, to their own surprise, discovered that they cannot match the United States. They simply don't have the strength or the layout to do so. So they left the sea, and they returned the land, but on the land they found troubles. Once they go to the Iranians, the Iraqis are beginning to be suspicious. They to the Iraqians, the Iranians are beginning to be suspicious. So I don't think that for the moment they are in a very comfortable position. Yet, because it is so difficult for them to decide and so difficult for them to match the United States presence, that I believe the Soviets are sincerely seeking a cease fire. They have very little to gain now. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think it would take to bring these hostilities to an end? Mr. PERES: I do not see Khomeini stopping his trust. I do not see the Iraqis giving up. That's on the ideological side. On the military side, both armies are not too bad on a static war and not good enough for a mobile war. So I do not see a decision on the military front. HUNTER-GAULT: So you see the conflict continuing ad infinitum? Mr. PERES: No because the toll is very heavy. What I believe may happen is that the fullfledged war will become a war of attrition, not that I'm happy about it. I wish it would come to an end, but it goes on already for seven years and a very big combination between a religious trust and the military confrontation is very dangerous. A man like Khomeini really thinks that he speaks not only on behalf of the Arabs but on behalf of the heaven. How can you stop a man like that? HUNTER-GAULT: The United States has made the argument that the increasing tensions in the Persian Gulf make it imperative, if not imperative, important, that this country provide arms to the Saudis and as recently as a few days ago, Prime Minister Shamir has once again reiterated Israel's opposition to such sales. Given the situation with the United States in the Gulf, is this going to become increasingly difficult for Israel to resist? Is that an absolute answer, no arms sales to the Saudis? Mr. PERES: No, I say that we should oppose as long as the Saudis are continuing to maintain an announced state of belligerence against Israel. If the Saudis will change it, I do not see any reason why we shouldn't change our position, as we changed, in the case of Egypt. HUNTER-GAULT: It's been argued that the United States suffered a tremendous credibility loss because of the dealings with the Iranians, that Israel knows a lot about and was involved in, and that it's necessary for the United States in restoring its credibility to the Arab to complete a deal like this, particularly with a moderate Arab country. This doesn't play at all into your politics or deliberations? Mr. PERES: I think the Kuwaitians or the Saudis or the Jordanians don't have really reasons to complain about the credibility of the United States. It is the United States which stood up to the freedom of navigation for not allowing a crazy trust to overshadow the life and the progress of moderate countries. MacNEIL: Next tonight, the battle over guns takes a new twist in Florida. Tomorrow, sweeping new state laws take effect that will make it significantly easier for many people in Florida to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. Probably the most controversial result of the new law is that people who want to carry guns openly displayed will need to permits at all. The new law has generated fierce debate, some of which we hear now with key player on opposite sides. Pistol Packin' MacNEIL: Next tonight, the battle over guns takes a new twist in Florida. Tomorrow, sweeping new state laws take effect that will make it significantly easier for many people in Florida to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. Probably the most controversial result of the new law is that people who want to carry guns openly displayed will need no permits at all. The new law has generated fierce debate, some of which we hear now with key players on opposite sides. Marion Hammer, Executive Director of the United Sportsmen of Florida, the National Rifleman Association's state legislative affiliate. She helped to draft and lobbied heavily for the law. And State Representative Mike Friedman from Miami Beach, one of the law's most ardent critics. They both join us from Public Station WFFQ in Tallahassee. Mr. Friedman, your opposition to this law, going back to when it was debated in the legislature, has been very strong and passionate. Could you explain? MIKE FRIEDMAN, Florida State Representative: I think we're dealing with a potential of a calamity of the proportion that we are, in putting more guns into circulation. It causes the passions to build, and it calls for a compelling argument. My only concern is I didn't prevail. MacNEIL: And what is the calamity you foresee? Mr. FRIEDMAN: Well, I think most of us recognize that more guns are potentially more problems, more accidents, more inappropriate use. In Florida, we're going to be licensing people to carry them in places they've never carried them before, the streets of our community. In Dade County, you run into a lot of people that tend to casually come into conflict with you, and conflicts that escalate with the gun to a tragic calamity. MacNEIL: Ms. Hammer, from your point of view, why was the new law needed? MARION HAMMER, National Rifle Association: The new law was needed basically because people who needed to be able to defend themselves in those areas where there was no protection needed a new mechanism, needed restructuring the system we had. People have a right not to be victims. They had a right to be able to defend themselves. And basically what we did was restructure a system. We don't believe that there are going to be more guns on the streets. We believe that law abiding citizens are going to be very responsible. And we don't see any problem. There have not in fact been any problems in other states that have similar laws. MacNEIL: Mr. Friedman? Mr. FRIEDMAN: Well, I guess that I would argue that what we did change was something that was rather significant. We believe that local law enforcement, recognizing the character of the community, which is different in Florida -- Dade County is certainly different from other parts of the state -- and understanding the nature of the need, where someone comes and says, ''I need to carry a concealed weapon. They measure that individual and the need that that person has and the character of the community before they would issue that person a concealed weapons license. It used to be on the local level, where it was closer to the community that would be ultimately issuing a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In that, it is an extraordinary type of direction to be moving into. Usually law enforcement has a justification for having -- its citizens should generally be more inclined rather than individual action, but collective action -- neighborhood crime watches are better outcomes in terms of dealing with their fear of crime than simply arming themselves and ignoring the needs of the total community. MacNEIL: Ms. Hammer, what was wrong with having it controlled as it has been until now at the county level? Ms. HAMMER: Well, the basic problem with having it controlled at the county level was we were seeing abuse at the county level on the part of some of the counties. When the counties begin to arbitrarily start denying licenses for no good reason, and when they structure a need clause so that they can arbitrarily say whether or not you need one, they're in no position to determine whether or not a law abiding citizen needs one. If you start talking about those individuals who carry money or jewelry, and make the argument that perhaps they need it, but not an individual who doesn't, that offends me. That suggests that it's more important to protect money or jewelry than it is to protect the average individual life. So that the abuse at the hands of some of the county commissions is basically what brought about the restructuring. MacNEIL: How do you reply to that abuse charge? Mr. FRIEDMAN: Yes, well, let me react to it. I mean, abuse, I suppose, is like beauty -- in the eyes of the beholder. In Brower County, for instance, people through a referendum voted -- the people decided to impose upon themselves in their community -- they felt the need was so manifest that they put a very strict waiting period, with background checks prior to the initial purchase. And that what the community wanted. The legislature in a fit of arrogance dismissed the will of the people of Brower County, and said, ''We know better,'' and they replaced it with a rather weak, and I think rather ineffective, law. MacNEIL: Ms. Hammer, what about the point Mr. Friedman made earlier that there's the danger of simple conflicts turning into tragedies, as he put it, if more people have guns with them. Ms. HAMMER: Well, we've not seen that happen in the past. And we have experiences in our own state from which to draw. We passed a law in 1982 restoring the right to carry a firearm in your vehicle. At that time, Mr. Friedman and those people who opposed lawful firearms ownership said that we were going to have tragic situations and confrontations at every street corner, and every time you blow the horn somebody'd get angry and pull a gun. Well, in fact, that never happened. And that law went into effect in 1982, five years ago, and there has been absolutely no need to make any changes or adjustments to that law, and that parade of horribles simply never happened. It didn't happen then, and it's not going to happen now. Law abiding firearms owners are very responsible people. And all they want to do is be able to protect themselves against the criminal element that is running wild in this state and in this country. And you cannot deny people an effective means to defend themselves. Otherwise, you run the risk of violating two constitutional protections, not only your right of self defense, but your right to keep and bear arms. Mr. FRIEDMAN: I guess I'd like to react to this. In terms of licensing someone to carry a concealed weapon, or no license outside in the open, I guess what concerns me about that is people think that license authorizes them to use it. We now have cars with guns and homes with guns. But the rules out on the street as to what you'd be justified in using deadly force are very, very different from the rules that they apply in the home. So what you're doing is you're putting guns out on the street and people in a situation where they are going to have to make a judgment call as to whether they're justified in using deadly force. We train police officers to make that decision. Now, that's a tough decision, and it takes a good amount of training to decide when appropriate use of deadly force is lawful and when you're not within the parameters of lawful use of deadly force. We're not focusing on that. We're saying we're authorizing people to carry a concealed weapon -- which some people believe that's authorization to use that concealed weapon. And I guess the other calamity -- and we see an instance -- Marion says no example of it -- when we had the Palm Bay episode where we had a sniper. In the first report, they thought there were two snipers. One law abiding citizens thinking that he was helping the police pulled his gun and was pursuing the offender. The police came, thinking that this guy running around with the gun was part of the gang that was shooting people up. So you had police officers uncertain who the good guys were, who the bad guys were. I suppose the next step will be authorize good guys to wear white hats, bad guys to wear dark hats so the police would be able to know who's got the guns and who's good and who's bad. It creates a kind of an almost authorization to being not only allowed to carry that weapon, but to use that weapon. And I think that's a wrong message. MacNEIL: How do you reply, Ms. Hammer -- the idea that if you're allowed to carry it, somehow goes with it the right to use it? Ms. HAMMER: No, sir. I don't think the people believe that to begin with. MacNEIL: Then why carry it? Ms. HAMMER: We have said very clearly time and again that it's a license to carry, but it is not a license to use. And there are other laws on our books that deal with when you may and may not use. I believe the people will be more responsible in carrying with the license. They'll be very careful not to misuse it, because they don't want to forfeit their right to carry by misuse. Occasionally, as a part of the process, a booklet has been prepared that speaks to the justifiable use of force that will be distributed to every license holder. So he'll have an opportunity to read and know what his responsibility is. MacNEIL: But isn't it true that you won't need a license to carry a gun openly in public, a gun that people can see, isn't that true? Ms. HAMMER: Well, that has been the case for many, many years in this state with regard to most situations. There has been a great deal of confusion about what we actually did with this bill. People seem to think that we put language in the bill that says it's okay to strap a gun on your hips and go prissing around town, or marching up and down the streets and creating a disturbance or a scene. That's not true. All we did was remove an archaic section of language from the statutes. We have other laws on the books that deal with improper exhibition. So there's been quite a bit of hysteria involved in this, and quite simply it's misinformation. MacNEIL: How does Mr. Friedman see that? Mr. FRIEDMAN: I guess -- let me share who those people are that are hysterical -- the State Attorney in Dade County, our local sheriff of Dade County is extremely concerned, because his concept of reckless endangerment or bantering the gun about -- I mean, if you have the gun on the outside, your hand on it, and say, ''Hi, good morning,'' is that justified? It seems to me that that gun hanging out there is not only inviting other people to grab it and use it, but it certainly creates an unhealthy and a kind of fearful society that people should be walking around in our streets having a need to straps armaments on their bodies and bullets across their chests. I think it creates an unnecessary siege mentality, and it doesn't get us where we need to be if we're going to address crime, which is: a) we need communities to spend more money to hire more police so the people are secure, and we need people, not individuals, but collectively as a neighborhood to get together on crime watch. MacNEIL: I'm sorry to interrupt you, we have to pull out of this. Thank you, Ms. Hammer and Mr. Friedman for joining us, and we'll watch how your law works. Recap WOODRUFF: Now a final look at the main stories of the day. The Bork confirmation hearings ended with President Reagan attacking his nominee's critics, and former President Jimmy Carter strongly opposing Bork. Earlier on the NewsHour, two undecided members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Democrat Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, said they want the judiciary committee to vote on the Bork nomination before sending it to the full Senate. Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis said that his campaign was responsible for circulating videotapes damaging to the candidacy of Joseph Biden. And an Iranian gunboat attacked a Greek tanker in the Persian Gulf. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Judy. That's the NewsHour tonight. And we will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.