The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, Union Airline pilots launched a nationwide job action because of the Eastern Airlines strike, and at a news conference President Bush warned labor against disrupting the entire transportation system and said Defense Department employees would enforce John Tower's "no drink" pledge. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: After the News Summary, we start with more of the rancorous Senate debate on the Tower nomination, then extended excerpts from President Bush's news conference. Finally, we update the Eastern Airlines strike with a company executive, Joseph Leonard, and a debate between Congressman James Oberstar and Newt Gingrich about the need for federal intervention.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Eastern Airlines said today it would file for bankruptcy if its pilots are not forced by court order to go back to work, but late today a federal judge declined to do that. Eastern Lawyer David Ross said during the court hearing in Miami that the airline could not survive if its pilots continued to honor the four day old strike against Machinists. The company conceded that with virtually all Eastern pilots supporting the strike, it was forced to cancel nearly all operations and laid off nearly all remaining workers. Pilots on other airlines began working by the book, but it did not disrupt flight schedules as some had feared. President Bush said he still opposed federal intervention, but called on pilots not to victimize the public.

PRESIDENT BUSH: The Department of Transportation and the FAA have taken every precaution to ensure airline safety during this period and I understand that the pilots are talking about a work slowdown beginning today. Certainly, I must recognize their special concerns for safety during this period, but I also would urge them not to make the traveling public, the innocent traveling public, a pawn in this dispute.

MR. MacNeil: A federal judge extended his restraining order barring sympathy strikes on rail and commuter lines from Wednesday to Friday. Lawyers for the Machinists asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn that order. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush again vowed to see the John Tower nomination through to the end. He said at his news conference, Tower's pledge not to drink would be enforced by the 25,000 employees of the Defense Department. He said they provided a fail safe guarantee Tower would not return to alcohol while he was Defense Secretary. Meanwhile, the Senate debate on the Tower nomination grew even more bitter and partisan. The major source of today's friction was the decision by the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Democrat Sam Nunn to pursue new allegations against Tower. Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole among other Republicans objected to the use of Senate investigators for the job. Dennis DeConcini, Democrat of Arizona, also became the first Senator to say he had seen Sen. Tower drunk.

SEN. DENNIS DeCONCINI, [D] Arizona: I've seen Sen. Tower under the influence of alcohol and under control, as I have seen other members on this body. So now if you want to know have I seen him under the influence of alcohol, the answer is yes. I can't give you the date, but I've seen him right here, as I've seen other members. Now was he inebriated to the point that he couldn't operate? The answer is no.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, [R] Pennsylvania: Is the Senator from Arizona representing that he has seen Sen. Tower either inebriated or under the influence of alcohol on the floor of the Senate so that he was impaired from performing his duties as a United States Senator?

SEN. DENNIS DeCONCINI: I just made it very clear and I'll make it very clear again. This Senator has seen Sen. Tower under the influence of alcohol as he has seen other members. I have not seen him inebriated to the extent that he could not perform his duties.

MR. LEHRER: A reminder that we will have excerpts from the day's exchanges right after the News Summary.

MR. MacNeil: In Vienna, Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze agreed to meet in Moscow in May to discuss prospects for a Bush/Gorbachev summit. After their first face to face meeting, Baker said that the U.S. could resume negotiations with the Soviets after the Bush administration had completed its review of the strategic arms limitation talks. Baker said the United States was not yet ready to set a date for the meeting. Shevardnadze said in Moscow, "We'll discuss the format for our further contacts and the question of the prospects for a summit."

MR. LEHRER: Martial law was declared in the capital City of Tibet today. The declaration by the Chinese Government followed several days of anti-Chinese rioting in which at least 12 people died. Independent Television News obtained amateur video of the rioting. Jeremy Thompson of ITN filed this report from Hong Kong.

JEREMY THOMPSON: Tension had been mounting in Lhasa for some weeks. Truckloads of Chinese police had been arriving in the Tibetan capital amid fears of growing violence following several minor disturbances. A demonstration by a dozen young monks calling for Tibetan independence was to trigger Sunday's bloodshed. From a roof of the police station, Chinese security men videoed the protest. One spotted ITN's free lance cameraman filming from a window across the street. He ducked for cover. Moments later, police moved into the square outside Lhasa's Japhang Temple, pelting the protesters with bottles and stones. The police attacked again, this time firing tear gas, driving the Tibetan separatists back into Lhasa's side streets. There was a crackle of gunfire. Later, Chinese police claimed they had returned fire after being shot at by the demonstrators. Our cameraman said there was no sign of the Tibetans being armed. As news of the shootings spread through the city, hundreds more Tibetans hurried to join the protest. Young people in masks chanted independence for Tibet, at their head the Tibetan National Flag banned by Communist China. In the temple square, some 1500 protesters confronted police. There was another burst of gunfire. White coated doctors were seen carrying away more bodies. Officially, 12 died in the clashes. Local doctors said the death toll was far higher.

MR. MacNeil: Iran said today it was completely severing relations with Britain over publication of the book "The Satanic Verses" by British author Salman Rushdie. Both countries had already recalled their diplomats. The Iranian Foreign Minister said Britain had failed to denounce Rushdie, who has been in hiding since the Ayatollah Khomeini called on Muslims to murder him. A British spokesman said today the crisis was entirely Iran's doing since incitement to murder violated basic principles of relations between states.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Tower debate, the Bush news conference, and the Eastern Airlines strike. UPDATE - SENATE DEBATE

MR. LEHRER: First, another day of fight and rancor on the floor of the United States Senate. The tone of the debate over the nomination of John Tower to be Defense Secretary continued its now daily rise in nastiness. We have excerpts from some of the key moments beginning with the Republican complaints Committee Chairman Sam Nunn had launched his own investigation into new allegations against Tower.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: I don't think the minority was ever told anything about allegations, what the allegations were. As far as I know, we have no knowledge yet of what the allegations were so it's sort of a unilateral investigation. I'm not certain any of the minority staff members were present during the investigation, what the investigation was about, what the allegations were, and it seems to me highly unusual, highly unprecedented. I thought we've all taken so much pride in this FBI file, we've been talking about the FBI file and how we're going to release that and now we have another group investigating Sen. Tower on the very eve of, or during the debate. I know of no precedent for that.

SEN. SAM NUNN, [D] Georgia: I would just say to the minority leader that I did orally inform Sen. Warner of the nature of the allegations. I did that on Sunday morning and I will be perfectly delighted to share anything with the minority, as we have all along in this whole process. I'll be glad to do that today, I'll be glad to do it the next hour. It was my opinion that the minority did not want to participate in any further investigations of this at this time, but that may be erroneous and if that's the case, we will stand corrected and be glad to share on a fully timely basis all the information, but I did believe that I had made our views known to the Senator of Virginia and acquainted him orally of the nature of the allegations.

SEN. JOHN WARNER, [R] Virginia: I did inquire just as a matter of courtesy is this material which looks to be troublesome or something to that effect, and the chairman said it's more, pretty much more the same, it's an allegation about an airline and people making observations on an airline, and that's the extent I believe --

SEN. SAM NUNN: I related on other allegation to you on the telephone of a different nature, but the Senator is generally correct. It was an oral description of the allegation.

SPOKESMAN: If there's no objection, the chair recognizes the Senate Republican Leader.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: I think there's a little difference between the FBI investigating and somebody who's hired by the chairman, members of his staff, under his control. The FBI is paid by all the taxpayers, not hired by anybody in this body, so I would suggest again in fairness we send a staff investigator who's hired by Bob Doles or someone else, they work for me, they're down their investigating for me, I think that's a far cry from the FBI out there working hopefully for the American people and that's why I think this is so unusual and without precedent that we've got some committee staff and another nominee being addressed by another committee when the matter is already on the Senate floor. When it reaches the floor, it seems the leaders ought to have some notice of what's going on.

SEN. SAM NUNN: I would say to my friend from Kansas, I would be glad to follow the dictates of the Senate here. If the Senate wants us to cut off all further investigations, the leadership decides that collectively, or the Senate, I'd be glad to do that. If the White House says that the FBI's still in business and can check the allegations, and the minority leader prefers that route, I'd be glad to go that way. So I think we're really now in a situation where it's up to the Senate, itself. I would say that the minority staff, and I think they were perfectly within their rights to do this, they conducted their own sort of rebuttal examination on the Sgt. Jackson matter the other day -- well, what's the difference?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, [R] Pennsylvania: This Senator has a real question about the propriety of having another subcommittee going into a matter which is really outside the jurisdiction of that subcommittee. I think that the American people have a right to know as well as Sen. Tower why another subcommittee is being called upon to investigate him, and it is obviously a matter of some concern when the Senator from Georgia has initiated that investigation on the subcommittee, when he's the chairman of the committee which has conducted an exhaustive investigation, hearings, filed a committee report, and there has been a question as to motivation here as to really what is going on. The question is, Mr. Majority Leader, and perhaps the Senator from Georgia wants to respond, but why does another subcommittee conduct an investigation in the context of this matter when you have the issue within the jurisdiction of the Senate as a whole, with the matter having been turned over by the Armed Services Committee?

SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL, Majority Leader: Is that a question?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: That's a question.

SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: He's already answered the question. He just answered it here in a statement on the Senate floor, and I'm certain that he'll be pleased to do so again, but he responded to the inquiry which the distinguished Republican leader has already made in terms similar to those that you've just asked and he's already responded.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: It may have been answered but perhaps not satisfactorily answered. May I ask -- occasionally we engage in some repetition on this floor. Might I ask for a repeat of the answer?

SEN. SAM NUNN: I'd be glad to.

SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL: I just want to say this. I'm prepared to accede to this, but we're not going to get in the position here where one, two, three, four, five, six, seven people come over here and ask the same question and the Senator has to give the same answer over and again. We talk about doing this in a rational manner. Whether the answer is unsatisfactory is a wholly subjective matter. One may listen to an answer once, twice, a hundred times and still not be satisfied. So I'll yield to the Senator from Georgia, if he wishes to respond again to the question, but I'd hope that following this response we could get on with the suggestion which all involved have now made and that is we discuss this matter and see if there is some fair and appropriate method for resolving how we proceed from here. With that, I'll yield to the Senator from Georgia.

SEN. SAM NUNN: I would say in response to my friend from Pennsylvania, No. 1, I've been told the FBI is no longer involved in this, so sending matters down to the White House and asking the FBI to investigate them that are new would be an exercise in futility to a stage. Again, if I'm wrong on that, the White House can let us know. If the FBI's still in business, then obviously that's the preferred way to deal. I'm a little bit perplexed this morning though to find that those on that side of the aisle who have been so critical of relying on the FBI report now would like for us to get back into the FBI checking all the allegations, because that wasn't my understanding of what we've been hearing here for two or three days.

MR. LEHRER: Later in the day, Sen. Ernest Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, objected to comments made by Minority Leader Dole.

SEN. ERNEST HOLLINGS, [D] South Carolina: Sen. Dole, and I'm quoting what he said on national TV, "What we don't need are these vicious personal attacks like we had from Sen. Hollings from South Carolina.". I'm trying to do the President the best favors ever done him. I'd love to have two things, No. 1, cleanse, sanitize the FBI record. We've done that, you and I Senators, and bring it on out, he wouldn't be an hour in this town. They'd be all over, we'd find out, we'd call Hollings' bluff. I sort of dare the President on the one hand to do that, or, on the other hand, let's vote and vote him in. I'm trying to help the country and I'm interested in the national defense. This fellow is totally useless with the majority of the Armed Services Committee against him. We're going to be trying his case from now on. But no, you folks insist, insist and insist, and I'll go down this list, but if you'd like to respond, I'll yield wherein anywhere at any time that I have been vicious or attacking the gentlemen when in truth I have come down as best I can in a deliberate fashion on the other side. I can see they're looking at the record. I'll move on if the distinguished Senator -- yes, sir.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: I want to quote the exact thing, Mr. Alcoholic Abuser --

SEN. ERNEST HOLLINGS: Yes, sir, I think he is.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: That's not a vicious personal attack on --

SEN. ERNEST HOLLINGS: No, that's the record. Why don't you reveal the record?

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: That's not the record. You know that's not the record.

SEN. ERNEST HOLLINGS: That's no personal attack. I've concluded that from the record. You say there's not one iota of evidence.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: And you, sir, have known the Senator from Texas for a long time. You observed him, but you were in an exchange the other day with the Senator from Wyoming and you got into whether drunk or criminal -- you said, drunk is enough for me -- I've been on this floor when the Senator from South Carolina has attacked other Senators by name --

SEN. ERNEST HOLLINGS: Oh, now we have attacked other Senators. Let's stick on Tower.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Let's take one at a time.

SEN. ERNEST HOLLINGS: One at a time, namely Tower --

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: I remember a comment made about the Senator from Ohio, Sen. Metzenbaum -- I remember the comment about the Senator from Texas --

SEN. ERNEST HOLLINGS: That's right.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Senator from Texaco, as I recall the Senator from South Carolina saying. When you stand on this floor and you talk about Mr. Alcoholic Abuser, you're talking about John Tower, and there's no evidence in that record that he's an alcoholic abuser and you know there's no evidence of that --

SEN. ERNEST HOLLINGS: There absolutely is, Mr. President, and he knows it.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE: You wouldn't speak to anybody else in that way --

SPOKESMAN: Mr. President, I ask for the regular order, that Senators not address other Senators in the second person.

MR. LEHRER: Early this evening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut became the second Democrat to support the Tower nomination. The Senate debate will continue tomorrow. FOCUS - TAKING QUESTIONS

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight President Bush on the state of his administration. We have extended excerpts from this morning's press conference. The President was questioned repeatedly about comments that his administration was adrift and beset by malaise. He was asked for his response to this criticism and what he was going to do about it.

PRESIDENT BUSH: My response is that it's not adrift and there isn't malaise. And I talked to a fellow from Lubbock, Texas, the other day, which is the best phone call I've made, and he says all the people in Lubbock think things are going just great, and he was a very objective spokesman --

HELEN THOMAS, UPI: You really think you're doing fine --

PRESIDENT BUSH: I think we're on track.

HELEN THOMAS: -- when nobody knows where your administration is going with a plan.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, let me tell you where I think it's going. In the first place, in a very brief period of time, we addressed ourselves to a serious national problem, problem of the S&L bailout. That is still moving forward. It takes a little time. I'm challenging Congress to act. Secondly, we came up in a very short period of time with a great amount of detail, far more than the two previous administrations, regarding the budget, sound proposals. The No. 1 problem facing the country, in my view, is getting this federal budget deficit down. Not only did we address it, but we addressed it in considerable detail and talks are going on right now to try to solve that problem. I've taken a substantive foreign policy trip that took me not only to three countries, but where I met with some 19, representatives of 19 countries, and talked about their objectives and mine for foreign policy. Our Secretary of State has not only touched base with all the NATO leaders, but has had a productive meeting with Mr. Shevardnadze. The defense reviews and the other foreign policy reviews are underway, and I will not be stampeded by some talk that we have not come up with bold new foreign policy proposals in 45 days. I'm not going to be. So I think plenty of substantive things are going on. And then I've made clear, you saw my statement on the CFC's, on the environment. Our environmental man is over there, Bill Reilly, a very able administrator, attending a conference that will then lead in my view to unilateral proposals by the United States, not in terms just of CFC's, but other global environmental matters. We're confident of the confirmation of Bill Bennett, and he is charged with a six months' mandate to do something, map out the drug program, and he will be very serious about going forward on that. I appointed early on an ethics commission which has been meeting and will be coming out with I think sound proposals and so we'll start moving forward legislative there. I spelled out in my speech an education agenda and that will be followed, the speech, very shortly with legislative initiatives. We're moving forward with our volunteer approach, this national, the organization to pursue national service under Greg Petersmeyer here in the White House, our Secretary of HUD has taken some fact finding trips and made some good comments, speeches, about our objectives in terms of the homeless, so I would have to urge, and everyone here is familiar with my position on child care, that's going to take legislation, but I think the Congress clearly knows where we want to go there, so I would simply resist the clamor that nothing seems to be bubbling around, that nothing is happening, a lot is happening, not all of it good, but a lot is happening.

GERALD BOYD, New York Times: There is a school of thought in Washington, Mr. President, that perception is often reality or becomes reality. The perception is that the administration is floundering, that the White House staff is inept. How do you deal with that? How do you turn it around?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I ask for your forbearance and leadership in this regard, pointing out all the things that I spelled out in the beginning, comparing that in terms of appointments. I've spared you the statistics on appointments I have prepared, because one of the hits is you haven't sent up any names, you haven't done anything about names, and so I would refer to my notes, Gerry, if that's all right -- and in terms of the Reagan/Bush administration, at this juncture, 55 names as of March 6th had been announced. On the Bush/Quayle administration, 67 have been announced, so it's not bad. We're a little bit ahead in terms of announced names. Now you've got some different problems here because one is nomination, the other is intent to nominate, and intent to nominate means there is still some more paper work to be done, but in terms of who we want in place, we're moving along all right. I'd like to see it faster, of course, but that's one of the allegations, disarray. First, I have great confidence in my staff, and every chief of staff goes through this drill where he gets saluted for his brilliance and a month later gets attacked for his something else, and I have total confidence in John Sununu. He knows the way this town works. He has a respect level that comes from being a Governor, and so we're all used to this. Hey, this is light compared to what it was like about a year ago in my case, so that's why I still feel relaxed, but the point is, if you would just write down all those wonderful things that I told you that are happening and get it out to that wide readership, it would be very helpful to me, and also I refer you to the phone call in Lubbock, and that is never get too uptight about stuff that hasn't reached Lubbock yet and be sure that there are some accomplishments going on that people can say, wait a minute, there's quite a bit happening here.

GERALD BOYD, New York Times: Is there a danger, sir, is there a potential danger that the perception lingers?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You're in a better position to answer that than I am, however, I think people are fair. They are not making up their minds on perceptions, make them up on facts, and I am one who felt that way coming out of the campaign. That's why I go back to that. It was a very important thing that happened to me, what happened out there about a year ago, and here I stand here. And so I don't think the American people make up their minds on perceptions. I think they make up their minds on facts. Now you can have various waves of approval or disapproval, but I think if we can just get our message out on the facts the way I've spelled them out here, I think we'll do fine.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight the Eastern strike. First, this is pledge week on public television. We are taking a short break now so your public television station can ask for your support. That support helps keep programs like this on the air.

MR. MacNeil: For those stations not taking a pledge break, the Newshour continues now with further excerpts from the President's press conference this morning. One of the main topics was the strike by Eastern Airlines mechanics. Mr. Bush explained why he decided not to stop the strike by invoking a 60-day cooling off period.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I want to take this brief opening statement opportunity to restate my belief that free collective bargaining is the best means of resolving the dispute between Eastern Airlines and its unions. I continue to feel that it would be inappropriate for the government to intervene and impose a solution. This dispute has gone on for more than 17 months and it's time for the parties involved to get down to serious business and reach an agreement. The action forcing event in this case is the strike and that is the tool at the disposal of labor and they're properly going forward with that. Management and labor now have to find a settlement, but let me just say I hope my position on secondary boycotts is well known. Thankfully, these boycotts have not yet materialized and I hope they don't. Temporary restraining orders have been in effect yesterday and today in the New York and Philadelphia areas, but even when those restraining orders lapse, I remind all parties that secondary boycotts are not in the public interest, and I will send legislation to Congress to forbid them if that is necessary. It is not fair to say to a commuter on a train coming in from Long Island that you're going to be caught up and victimized by a strike affecting an airline. It simply isn't fair in my view. Sec. Skinner has been monitoring the situation from the very beginning, my view on top of it. The Department of Transportation and the FAA have taken every precaution to ensure airline safety during this period and I understand that the pilots are talking about a work slowdown beginning today certainly. I must recognize their special concerns for safety during this period, but I also would urge them not to make the traveling public, the innocent traveling public, a pawn in this dispute.

BRIT HUME, ABC News: Mr. President, on the air strike, your opposition on Capitol Hill, many of the Democrats up there wanted you to intervene in this strike. Should you have to go to Congress for emergency legislation to deal with secondary boycotts, it is likely that they are going to say, no, no, we want you to intervene first. If the Eastern pilots succeed and the Machinists succeed in imposing secondary boycotts, you seem to be on a collision course there. Will your policy hold firm?

PRESIDENT BUSH: It will hold firm. The Secretary is testifying I think at this very moment about the kind of legislation you're talking about and some wanting to compel the President to convene this board, so there are two schools of thought. I still feel that the best answer is a head on head, man to man negotiation between the union and the airline and I think that is better and more lasting incidentally, the agreement that would stem from that, more lasting, than an imposed government settlement which could cause the airline to totally shut down. So I think there could be some, you know, confrontation, but I will stick with my view and if, indeed, innocent parties are threatened through the secondary boycott mechanism, I will move promptly with the Congress and what would happen, and I don't want to buy into a lot of hypothesis here, but you would have an outcry from the American people on the basis that I mentioned about that commuter. It is not fair to have innocent people victimized by a struggle between Eastern Airlines and the Machinists Union, so there may be a closely fought contest and I know there are some widely differing views on this.

BRIT HUME, ABC News: You must recognize that there would be great pressure on you to at least stop it for 60 days. Are you intent on not doing that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm intent on staying with what I've outlined is our administration's policy and it is the correct policy.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Bush's session with reporters this morning was unscheduled. His appearance in the White House press room came after a trip to Pennsylvania and Delaware was postponed by a winter storm. FOCUS - CLIPPED WINGS

MR. MacNeil: Now an update on the Eastern mechanics strike. The Airline Pilots Union called on its members to fly by the book today, imposing time consuming flight rules that could cause nationwide delays. Although the Pilots Union said 2/3 of its members followed the directive, air traffic on airlines other than Eastern moved fairly easily throughout the day. But at Eastern, only 4 percent of its normal flights were in service today. The company threatened to file for bankruptcy if its pilots were not ordered by the courts to return to work, and late this afternoon a federal judge refused to issue such an order. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, a House Subcommittee looked at whether President Bush should convene an emergency mediation board and impose a 60-day cooling off period. Transportation Secretary Samuel Skinner was among those who testified.

SAMUEL SKINNER, Secretary of Transportation: I suggest that this dispute should run its normal course, it is in the process of running its normal course. So far, thanks to the restrain of labor unions throughout this country with the assistance and advice of courts throughout this country, secondary boycotting and picketing has not occurred. I applaud labor for the steps they have taken in that regard. The President and I encourage them to refrain from using this right and allow the process to go forward, so this country can find out and the people at Eastern, the stockholders of Eastern, the employees of Eastern, their labor unions can reach agreement as soon as possible and return this airline to a viable player in our economy. The National Mediation Board has been trying to get these parties together for 17 months unsuccessfully. There is no indication that a 60-day cooling off period will do anything but continue that and, in fact, as I indicated to you earlier, I think the relationship is getting worse during this period of no decision. I usually try to start from the positive and hope that the union and the company will come forward and together both move a little bit and reach agreement. I'm still optimistic, not overly optimistic. I think the problem is compounded here because of Mr. Lorenzo's actions and his conduct and the fact that he has no rapport with his workers. The fact that he comes in and tells me that his pilots will cross the line as part of a courtesy visit and they don't tells me he does not know what his employees are thinking. You cannot run a business, it's been my experience, unless your employees want to work for you and respect you, so I think he has to take significant steps to retain or maintain or restore his credibility with his employees. That has to take place as soon as possible, and if he doesn't do it, it doesn't bode well for him or his ownership of the company.

MR. MacNeil: Joe Leonard is the Executive Vice President of Eastern Airlines and he joins us now from Miami. Mr. Leonard, thank you for joining us. First of all can you confirm the threat that your lawyer, David Ross, made in court today that if the court didn't order the pilots back to work that Eastern would file for bankruptcy. Is that now the next step?

JOSEPH LEONARD, Eastern Airlines: No, Robert, it is not. As we've stated all along, bankruptcy is an option that we have, it is one that we have studied, but we have other options and we've stated for a long period of time that bankruptcy will be absolutely the last option and we're holding that in reserve. We do not intend to exercise that option at this point.

MR. MacNeil: Well, why did your lawyer make that threat in federal court today? He said the airline would not be able to survive if the pilots were not ordered back to work?

MR. LEONARD: Well, if the pilots don't file, we cannot go forever in the situation that we're in but there are other options that we're exercising or reviewing, and bankruptcy is still on the cupboard and it will not be used until it's a last resort.

MR. MacNeil: So no imminent filing for bankruptcy, is that correct?

MR. LEONARD: Not at the current time. We continue to study that. We continue to study the other options that we have as well, and we will do everything that we can, as we did today, try to get disenjoined. We intend to appeal this decision, to get our pilots back across and flying our airplanes so that we can provide the service to the public that we want to, and that's our preferred course and we'll be back in court tomorrow to see if we can't get this decision changed.

MR. MacNeil: How long would the strike have lasted if the pilots had not honored the picket lines?

MR. LEONARD: If the pilots had come to work on Friday night, this strike would be over for all intents and purposes, we'd be running 100 percent of our airline and we would be moving on to build Eastern Airline into a better company and a bigger company than it is today.

MR. MacNeil: You just heard Secretary Skinner say that Mr. Lorenzo, the owner of Eastern Airlines, told him that the pilots would not cross the picket line, so you were counting, Eastern Airlines was counting on a strike of how many days with the Machinists?

MR. LEONARD: I don't know. We didn't specify the amount of time. We assumed that if the pilots came to work and we believed that they would, then we would operate the airline with no problem whatsoever without the Machinists. In this case, the Machinists are really a non-event. The problem that we right now is that our pilots are not flying. We believe that there are grave consequences for our pilots and, in fact, our whole company if they do not return to work and we believe that it's certainly in their best interest to come on back and fly our airplanes so that we can get on with this business. The Machinists do not have us shut down and under no circumstances would the Machinists shut us down.

MR. MacNeil: You heard Sec. Skinner say that you have a problem of credibility between management and the employees. Many of your employees, Machinists, pilots, and flight attendants, we had people talking last night, believed that the airline's entire purpose anyway was to drive Eastern Airlines out of business, to strip away its assets and get rid of it, one way and another. How do you argue with that? How do you convince them that is not your purpose?

MR. LEONARD: Well, Robin, we have stated from the very beginning, I was at Eastern before Texas Air purchased Eastern, our options at that point were very limited at that point. We were looking at a possible filing of bankruptcy and we were looking for buyers. Texas Air was the only buyer that came along. In the first press conference that Frank Lorenzo and Frank Borman held, there was an affirmation that Texas Air wanted to take Eastern and grow it into a better airline and a bigger airline and one with a future, and I believe and I know that for myself and the other managers at Eastern, we worked very hard along with the employees of Eastern to try to build this company, but we have had a cost structure that has been a significant burden on Eastern and we have tried to adjust that with the IM and the IM has been very very intransigent. Going back to 1983, the IM would not yield, demanded very very expensive raises that it knew the company couldn't afford. In 1986, when the company was near the brink of disaster, the IM once again was totally intransigent, would not do a deal, resulted in the sale of the company. And over the last several years, all of the rest of the employees at Eastern Airlines have taken 20 percent pay cuts and the IM has not taken any at all, in fact, has gotten 8 percent pay increases.

MR. MacNeil: But now the pilots and many flight attendants are saying that it's not just the IAM, that they regret that gave you and Mr. Lorenzo the pay concessions that they did, your own pilots are saying that. How do you get around the widespread belief among many of your employees that you wanted this strike, you thought you could win it and you wanted it?

MR. LEONARD: I don't know how. We certainly didn't want a strike. What we did want was a conclusion to the pay disparity that existed in the company and a fixing of the cost structure. That was absolutely essential. The mediation process that we went through that drug on for months and months and months increased the acrimony unnecessarily and what we we really wanted to do was to bring closure to this issue and to restructure the cost structure so that Eastern would have a fighting chance in the future, so that we would be in a position that we could afford to buy airplanes and invest in Eastern and start the process of building Eastern into an airline of the 1990s. That was our objective and it remains our objective.

MR. MacNeil: If you did not want the strike and you were so close to bankruptcy or to having to consider bankruptcy, why did you not want the federal intervention and a cooling off period?

MR. LEONARD: Because, Robert, we were losing in excess of a million dollars a day. In the course we were on, the outcome was 100 percent predictable. We were going to go out of business. A company cannot lose $1 million a day. The federal intervention, Presidential emergency board, adds 60 days to the process. That's another $60 million in losses. It adds another 60 days of uncertainty to Eastern's situation. This is a situation where we have been negotiating for over 17 months. A Presidential emergency board coming in and reviewing Eastern's situation when the situation is changing very dramatically would be very ill equipped to even determine the facts, much less make a recommendation, and we believe that the additional 60 days would increase the acrimony, would not change the situation at all, and at the end of the 60 days we would be in the same situation that we're in today.

MR. MacNeil: We only have a second or two left. And your experience of the last few days has not changed your view on this. You don't think now it would be very relieving to slip into a 60 day waiting period?

MR. LEONARD: No. We were losing a million dollars a day before. Those losses have actually increased since the strike started, and adding 60 days to go through this process and try to determine what's going on at Eastern I think would be a waste of time and certainly would be something that would hurt our situation rather than help it.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. Mr. Leonard, thank you very much for joining us.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Robert.

MR. MacNeil: Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Now to a Congressional view of this strike and to two key members of the House Aviation Subcommittee who see the Presidential intervention issue very differently, the Chairman, Congressman James Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota, and Congressman Newt Gingrich, Republican of Georgia. They join us from the studio on Capitol Hill. Congressman Oberstar, you believe the President should impose the 60-day cooling off period, is that correct?

REP. JAMES OBERSTAR, [D] Minnesota: That's right. My purpose in initiating this legislative process is to try to preserve competition in the aviation industry on the East Coast where Eastern is a dominant carrier. I feel that while the cooling off period if you want to call it of the Presidential emergency board may not guarantee a resolution, certainly a strike in its continued form does bring us to a point where you may well lose Eastern, and if their losses are such as they've been claiming, I think that we may very well see this carrier go under, so I don't want to see us lose an important character with all the consequences that will have for airline fares and for consumers in the East Coast market.

MR. LEHRER: What about the point that Mr. Leonard just made, that he felt that the 60-day cooling off period with the Presidential board would increase the acrimony and not change the situation?

REP. OBERSTAR: I think first of all the hearing today indicated some areas for maneuvering. I think we can shorten that time frame. It doesn't have to be 60 days. It can be some substantially shorter time frame and I shall propose an amendment to shorten that time frame considerably when the full committee meets to conclude its action on the legislation.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Congressman Gingrich, you agree with Mr. Leonard, or you agree with the idea that Mr. Oberstar's approach is wrong, there should not be a Presidential intervention, correct?

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, [R] Georgia: Well, let me say first of all I represent the second largest base of Eastern employees in the United States. We have almost 7,000 workers and their families in the Atlanta area. My worry is the survival of Eastern as a company. I think that Frank Lorenzo and his management frankly is a major factor in his weakness. I think Charlie Bryan and the Machinists are a major factor. We heard testimony today. We had white collar employees who are not unionized but aren't part of the Lorenzo team who said, please, don't go to a Presidential board, don't extend this thing, please let them fight it out now and get it over with. We had testimony today and I think in a sense you had a repeat of it tonight that if we insist on a Presidential board and we try to go back to the situation that existed before Saturday that, frankly, the company will simply bankrupt, that they are not going to continue to pay out that kind of money, they are not going to be locked into a struggle with the Machinists, where in the company's judgment, the Machinists were in danger of violating all sorts of safety requirements, causing a lot of problems, and that's why they went and dismissed, sent them home a day early, because they were worried about the kind of safety related things. My worry is this. This is currently not a national emergency. We have one company in a strike. It's a tragic strike for the families in the Atlanta area, for the families in Eastern, for the people who work for Eastern, but it's a strike. It's something that America has had many times before. If there are no secondary boycotts, if there is no effort to, in effect, hold hostage the commuter travelers or the rail travelers or other airline travelers, it's going to remain the strike of one company. I think Frank Lorenzo got a big shock on Saturday when the airline pilots didn't show up. I think sometime this week you're going to see Lorenzo forced by economic pressure to make a dramatically better offer to the pilots, and then I don't know what's going to happen on the Machinists side. But I would like to see real bargaining. We've had 17 months of the National Mediation Board holding these people off. The level of bitterness between some of the Machinists Union members and some of the management is so bad, the situation is so difficult, that I am not certain that frankly a Presidential board would in any way solve the problem. I think it might, in fact, kill Eastern Airlines.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Oberstar, first of all, what about Congressman Gingrich's point that this is not a national emergency, it's a strike?

REP. OBERSTAR: It is a strike, but it is one of national consequence when you consider the reduction of the number of carriers in the era of deregulation, that we're now down to six or seven major carriers, that if Eastern goes under, then we will have lost another major competitor in the aviation market, and what does that do to deregulation and competition and fares, and service in the Eastern corridor? That's I think a very major concern. It's one of national significance.

MR. LEHRER: What about his scenario, Congressman Oberstar, that if by holding firm the way it is now that maybe Eastern Airlines management may say, okay, look, we've got to come in with a better deal and the possibility exists at least that there might be a deal after all to settle the strike?

REP. OBERSTAR: I think the testimony today showed that the two parties are so far apart as one of the witnesses today said, they're farther apart now than when they started, and it's a situation in which only an outside entity, it seems to me, can come in and bring about a resolution and a Presidential emergency board would be a forum to do that, one appointed by President Bush that would find the facts, make recommendations, and the two parties would have a very limited time in which to accept or reject that offer, and if they reject it, then I think Congress would come back and pass legislation as we've done in other cases and impose the resolution by law on all three parties to the strike on the labor side and on management, on their side.

MR. LEHRER: What kind of solution would that be, Congressman Gingrich?

REP. GINGRICH: Well, my fear is severalfold. First of all, from the Eastern standpoint and the standpoint of those 31,000 families, my fear is that that process kills the airline, that Frank Lorenzo is the kind of guy who will simply go bankrupt rather than get trapped into the U.S. Congress, forcing him into a shotgun marriage. My second fear is a little different.

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me, just for a matter of record here, could he do that? In other words, let's say that Congressman Oberstar's course is followed and the President is ordered by legislation or whatever, there's a Presidential board appointed, could, does everything stay where it is or, no, he'll file bankruptcy right?

REP. GINGRICH: No. Chairman Oberstar can correct me if I'm wrong, but the situation as it would work is that the President would impanel a board. At that point, the airline would go back to paying the pre-strike contracts, the same salaries, the same situation. Eastern was estimating they were losing at least $1 million a day, and that's before the strike dried up all of their revenue, and that's a very important point. People are currently not booking Eastern Airlines and the point that was made today is in a 60-day cooling off period, people are not going to go back voluntarily and suddenly flood back onto the airline. They're going to stay on what they regard as a more stable airline, so there's a very real danger and legally Lorenzo could go bankrupt any time he wants to and simply turn it in.

MR. LEHRER: How do you prevent that from happening, Congressman Oberstar?

REP. OBERSTAR: First of all, I think a Presidential emergency board would look into all the facts and make some judicious recommendations that would, I mean, the purpose would be to keep this carrier in operation. The purpose would not be to bankrupt the company. I suspect that a Presidential emergency board would recommend lower wages than those that unions are now receiving, mode of operation, and it would be I think a very attractive package for both sides, one that they can't accept right now.

MR. LEHRER: But you heard what Mr. Leonard told Robin and Congressman Gingrich's point is that it would never get to that, because the day afterward Eastern Airlines will say we can't afford this and they'll go into bankruptcy and that's the end of it.

REP. OBERSTAR: Well, I guess they can't afford the situation that's now in operation. I asked them for figures on how much they're losing today. They said, well, we can't give you that information. But they did say they were losing a million dollars a day up to this point, maybe they're losing more. If this strike continues, for sure I think Eastern goes under as a company. The PEB gives us a channel for resolution and keeping the company in operation.

MR. LEHRER: Quickly, on the secondary boycott issue, President Bush said at this news conference today that if that really, if that takes over, then he's going to send some legislation up there to you all to prevent it by law. Would you support it, Congressman Oberstar?

REP. OBERSTAR: No. I don't think that at this stage it could support just ending the secondary boycott authority across-the- board. We'd have to see just what the President would want to offer. Maybe there is some compromise proposition but we're not into a secondary boycott right now, and at this stage when the Railway Labor Act has so many different facets then the operation of the --

MR. LEHRER: Which permits that.

REP. OBERSTAR: -- NLRB process --

MR. LEHRER: Well, the Railway Act permits secondary boycotts.

REP. OBERSTAR: Yes, it does.

MR. LEHRER: So there'd have to be a law passed to eliminate that.

REP. OBERSTAR: You'd have to change the way, entire way in which collective bargaining is done in the transportation sector, and maybe you could focus it just on aviation but we'd have to see what the President would want to propose at that stage.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Gingrich, what did you all smell up there as a result of your hearing? Do you think there's going to be a secondary boycott, or do you think this is an issue that looked big but now is going to go away?

REP. GINGRICH: I think the unions have been frankly very mature in avoiding a secondary boycott at this stage. I think they recognize the public reaction to not being able to get somewhere because of a strike involving a different city, a different airline would not react well and I think the unions have been very mature in frankly not taking on that fight and not giving President Bush that kind of an opening to arouse public opinion and I think President Bush will be very firm in doing that. But let me go back to one other point because it's so important to the families of Eastern Airlines. I hope, and I said this very flatly in the committee, and Chairman Oberstar was strongly supportive, that Lorenzo will recognize he must negotiate this week. If he's telling the truth about his financial situation, he has to move and not wait on the government.

MR. LEHRER: We have to move ourselves. Congressmen, both of you, thank you very much for being with us.

REP. OBERSTAR: Thank you.

REP. GINGRICH: Thank you. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Once again, Tuesday's other top story, President Bush said the Pentagon would enforce John Tower's sobriety pledge if he's confirmed as Defense Secretary. This came as the Senate began investigating new charges concerning Tower's drinking. And early this evening, Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd became the second Democrat who said he would vote for Tower. Three other Democrats today announced they would vote against him. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.