The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Here are the main stories in the news today. The Discovery astronauts solved their ice problem and prepared for their return to earth tomorrow. Washington expressed concern as the death toll in South African riots rose to 26. President Reagan defended his statements about religion and politics. Walter Mondale said a second Reagan term would make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: On the Hour tonight the Presidential campaign again draws special attention as Judy Woodruff talks to Mondale campaign chairman James Johnson. Also, we look at the on-again, off-again prospects for a thawing between the Germanies, East and West, and at the argument over whether heroin should be legalized as a medicine for pain.

The astronauts aboard space shuttle Discovery successfully performed an icy mission today. Using a robot's arm as an ice pick, they chipped off a block of ice from their space ship. Officials thought the 15" X 9" block might present a problem on re-entry. The bulk of it was dislodged by the careful use of the robot's arm. Here's how the maneuver went.

ASTRONAUT: The end effector barely visible in the bottom of the screen, pointing directly toward the ice crystal. The camera is mounted about two feet above the end effector so there won't be any visible evidence of the contact of the end deflector with the crystal. . . . And the mission commander, Hank Hartsfield, controlling the end deflector and now beginning very slow progress toward the crystal. . . . We have contact and there are minor particles visible sliding off the screen.

JUDITH RESNICK, astronaut: We're having a discussion to make sure that we think that we've gotten it.

MISSION COMMAND, Houston: Discovery, Houston.If you haven't already done so, we'd like you to zoom in as closely as possible for us. We're right now contemplating, if we can tell what the size of the piece of ice is and what further actions we're going to take. . . . Discovery, Houston. We've been discussing the crystal there, and we believe that it meets all our criteria. It was a super job.We'd like you to cradle the arm for us, please.

LEHRER: The sun melted the remaining chunk later in the day, and with the ice removed Discovery is ready for the end of its six-day mission tomorrow. Landing is scheduled for 9:38 a.m. Eastern time at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Robin?

MacNEIL: The United States government has told South Africa it is deeply disturbed and concerned over recent violence which has taken at least 26 lives. In addition, some 300 people have been injured in riots by crowds of blacks enraged by recent rent increases in their segregated townships. State Department spokesman John Hughes said today, "There isn't any question that the South African government is aware of how concerned we are about these demonstrations and about the violence and the deaths." The worst violence has been in Sharpeville, a township 50 miles south of Johannesburg. Here's a report from Michael Burke of the BBC.

MICHAEL BURKE, BBC [voice-over]: Sharpeville, after what seems now to have been the worst day of violence here in eight years, a place where barricades still burn, where hundreds of buildings smoke after overnight riots. The police in their heavily armored Caspar [?] vehicles went back into the township this morning, trying to restore at least some order. The death toll has been rising almost every hour. Local people say police were responsible for most of the killings. The authorities here say their countermeasures have to be firm, but the deaths can't be laid at their door. Today they've continued firing tear gas and rubber bullets at rioters. The people here are maintaining their work and school strikes prompted by an increase in their rent. The trouble continued today. Barricades are constantly being re-erected on the shattered streets. The government moved in the army to the township outskirts, but so far they've been kept in reserve. It was the police who took on the rioters again today, firing tear gas from their cars to disperse stone-throwing mobs. All day they've ranged through the township damping down but not quelling the violence.

MacNEIL: The prime minister of the black African state of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, accused the Reagan administration today of encouraging the South African government to carry out acts of aggression against neighboring countries. Mugabe told a meeting in Tanzania that South Africa had become, as he called it, "even more arrogant" after a recent visit by Chester Crocker, President Reagan's special African envoy. Jim?

LEHRER: It was day number two in the official campaign for the U.S. presidency, and major subjects again included religin and patriotism. President Reagan's major speech of the day to the American Legion convention in Salt Lake City mentioned them both. He said critics of his statements about the connection between religion and politics have it all wrong. "What some would do," he said, "is twist the concept of freedom of religion to mean freedom against religion." And he talked of the new patriotism alive in the land.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Our hope is to keep alive America as a beacon of hope, a shining city in a world grown weary of war and oppression. You know, I wanted to speak to all of you today about the future, because I believe the things so many of you struggle for so valiantly have not just endured. They have grown and prospered and turned brighter with the years. What a change from only a few years ago when patriotism seemed so out of style. I'm not sure anyone really knows how the new patriotism came on so quickly, or when and how it actually began. Was its seed first planted that day our POWs, who had braved a horrendous capitivity in North Vietnam, came home, said "God bless America", and then actually thanked us for what they said we had done? Or was it at the 1980 winter Olympics and the miracle of Lake Placid? You remember the chance of USA and the hockey team that didn't know it couldn't do the impossible. Or maybe it was that unforgettable moment when, after 444 days of capitivity our Iranian hostages came home to parades and freedom. Well, wherever the new patriotism came from, there can be no gainsaying its arrival.

LEHRER: Treasury Secretary Donald Regan did his number for the Republican cause today.In a Washington speech he came down hard on Walter Mondale's promise to bring in $116 billion in new federal revenues.

DONALD REGAN, Treasury Secretary: Mr. Mondale's new realism is nothing more than new taxes - massive taxes, tax hikes that will force working Americans to empty their pocketbooks to pay these expensive campaign promises. The hefty price tag -- $176 billion by 1989 -- means that cumulatively through the years Americans will have to kick in an additional $500 billion to $600 billion in taxes. This means that many families are going to have to shelve their plans for a new home, a new car, a vacation, perhaps even their children's college, when the bill for Mr. Mondale's promises comes due.

LEHRER: The objects of that attention, the Democrats, did not remain silent today. Judy Woodruff has more on them. Judy? Mondale's STragegy: James Johnson

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jim, Vice President Mondale rolled up his shirtsleeves literally today and told an audience that he was "damn mad" about President Reagan's tax policies. The Democratic nominee said if Mr. Reagan wins re-election this fall the rich will get richer and the average American will get poorer. Mondale made his remarks before a group of supermarket warehouse workers in Compton, California. He used a series of charts in an effort to show that the three-year tax-cut program that Congress approved at Mr. Reagan's request in 1981 has principally helped the wealthy and left 90,000 profitable corporations paying no taxes. As Mondale put it, "One of the big issues in this campaign is whether we are going to have a president who stands for fairness." The midday appearance in Compton came after Mondale had spent the morning in his suite on the Queen Mary, a cruise ship docked off the California coast, going over speech material for later in the week. While he was on the West Coast, Jim Johnson, who is the chairman of his campaign, was here in Washington and he is our guest this evening. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Johnson.

JIM JOHNSON: Happy to be here, Judy.

WOODRUFF: First of all, The Los Angeles Times, as you know, has put out a poll today saying that your candidate is 27 points behind President Reagan. How in the world do you make up a gap like that? No Candidate ever has.

Mr. JOHNSON: First of all, there are all kinds of polls around. Some show we're 10 behind, some 12, some 15. The bottom line of thepolls is we're somewhat behind right now. That means we've got a big job to do. The first thing we're ging to do, the first thing Fritz Mondale is going to do is to campaign very aggressively to draw the contrast between himself and Ronald Reagan, which is very substantial. This is a critical election, just as President Reagan says it is. They've got big differences on arms control, on Central America, on the deficits, on trade, on women's rights, on the environment, on education. There's a lot to talk about in this campaign, and as we go through the next 60 days we'll engage in that debate, and I think when it's over we'll win it.

WOODRUFF: But how do you avoid the image that Mr. Mondale is already a loser? You have the Republicans, of course, labeling him that at their convention. And when you're running that far behind in virtually every poll that's done, how do you escape -- you know, how do you avoid the people getting just the built-in preconception that he's going to lose this race?

Mr. JOHNSON: Well, I think what you do is go out and work for it. Walter Mondale has come from behind before. After the New Hampshire primary, some people said he was all done, said the race was over. Before the New Hampshire primary, in one national poll, he was almost 40 points ahead. So these polls go up and down; I don't think they mean a thing. What we're going to do is go out and engage on the issues. We're going to show that there are some big differences between Walter Mondale and President Reagan, and in the end I think we'll show that the American people agree with us. The American people want arms control. The American people want to do something about the deficit. They don't agree with Reagan on these positions. And when the debate is joined I believe Walter Mondale will come out on top.

WOODRUFF: All right, well, let me ask you about something specific, what Treasury Secretary Regan was just saying, that if you add up all of Mr. Mondale's promises and you calculate his promises -- his additional promise to bring down the deficit, that every American household is going to have to pay up to $3,000 additional a year in more taxes.

Mr. JOHNSON: Oh, that's all political baloney, as I'm sure you saw as the piece was on the news. He's made up a lot of figures that have nothing to do with reality.The fact of the matter is that Secretary Regan goes out every morning and on behalf of the U.S. government borrows $500 million to get through the day. Every day of the week, every day of the year. These deficits are way out of hand. They're $200 billion a year. They're fundamentally undermining our future. And there's no way that the Reagan administration can make the deficit our problem. The deficit is the Reagan administration's problem.

WOODRUFF: But do you know at this point how much your proposals will cost the American people in terms of new taxes, if you're going to bring down the deficit as much as Mr. Mondale has said you're going to?

Mr. JOHNSON: Walter Mondale is going to bring down the deficit by two-thirds by 1989. That's a pledge he's made. We've already put out all the specifics of a program showing that we'll bring it down by over half so far, and within a few days he'll put out the rest of the program. What people will see is that that program's going to fair to the average American family. The taxes are going to go up on rich people.That's what ought to happen. Corporations are going to start paying taxes again. That's what ought to happen. We're going to have some investment in the future. We're going to spend more on education, going to spend more on science and technology. We're going to do things that people need. This is a combination of some revenue increases, some budget cutting and a lot more fairness. I think that's what scares the Republicans because they realize that our program will be a lot fairer than theirs.

WOODRUFF: All right. When you talk about the economy, though, you're talking about the future. You're asking people to believe this is what's going to happen if Mondale's in office. What Mr. Reagan can do, on the other hand, is say, "I'm in office now. Things are better off than they were under the Carter administration," and don't you think that most voters are going to respond to what's happening right now rather than to something that may or may not happen in the future?

Mr. JOHNSON: No, I don't.I think Americans are forward looking, I think they care about their children and their grandchildren and their parents, and I think as they look at $200-billion deficits, as they look at a disastrous trade position now in the international economy --

WOODRUFF: Excuse me, but the inflation rate is down. The unemployment -- the misery index that President Carter brought up, that Mr. Reagan has mentioned again, is now less than half what it was when Mr. Reagan took office.

Mr. JOHNSON: We're not going to re-run the 1980 election, and we're not going to run on the question of whether or not right now today some people are better off. The fact of the matter is that many people are not better off. Some people are a lot better off, particularly if you're very rich. But the real question in this election is where will you be four years from now, eight years from now? Where will our country be? Will we restrain the growth of the chances of nuclear war? There are big questions that affect the future. I don't think Americans are so unsophisticated they simply say, "Let's total it up today." I think what they say is, "Let's think about what's best for our country. Let's think about what's best for our family." And I think those questions cut our way.

WOODRUFF: How wuld you capsulize the Mondale message? What is it that Walter Mondale is saying to the American people when he says, "Vote for me and put Ronald Reagan out of office?"

Mr. JOHNSON: He's saying, "I will be an effective leader for the future. I will get the job done on what counts most for you" -- a very simple message. And what counts most for the American people is having a fair society where the rich don't run off with everything. It's having a roductive economy that has a strong position in the world and having a safe world that isn't blown up by nuclear weapons. Those are three very simple areas. It's a very simple message. He'll be an effective leader for the future on what counts the most.

WOODRUFF: But he's been saying that for some time now, and still the perception is that that's not getting across. Why do you think that is?

Mr. JOHNSON: Well, we're going up and down. We'll be up and down again two or three times between now and the election. For what we've been through in the last year and a half, nobody's going to scare us with talk about the polls. We had it won at one point, we had it lost at one point. We've been up and down and sideways. The fact of the matter is that Walter Mondale would be an effective leader. We think he's going to put on a good campaign. We're looking for a lot of direct debate with the President. When that debate is over we think people will vote for Mondale.

WOODRUFF: Speaking of those debates, how much are you counting on Mr. Reagan to stumble, to make a gaffe or a blunder of some sort?

Mr. JOHNSON: Well, I think that President Reagan's policies are a blunder. If you look at what he's done in major areas, I think that's a blunder. We're not looking for a slip of the tongue.We're not looking for something that happens through forgetting a fact.

WOODRUFF: But, as you know, there are a lot of Democrats who are going around now saying that's Mondale's -- virtually his only hope is for -- is that Reagan is so far ahead that it's going to take some colossal mistake on his part in order for Mondale to have a chance.

Mr. JOHNSON: Well, all I can say to them is that they're much too pessimistic. There's a lot to go in this race. Mondale's a very effective candidate. We've got the issues on our side, and in the end the Democrats will win.

WOODRUFF: And we've got exactly nine weeks to go.

Mr. JOHNSON: That's right.

WOODRUFF: Jim Johnson, thank you for being with us.

Mr. JOHNSON: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: Robin?

MacNEIL: In economic and business news today there were these items. The Commerce Department said spending on new construction went up 0.7 of a point in July, reversing a decline in June. Construction of single-family homes was down, but spending on apartment buildings rose 7.8%.

Nestle, the giant Swiss food conglomerate, said today it had agreed to buy the U.S. Carnation Dairy Products Company for $3 billion. Carnation said its board had unanimously approved the offer.

Wall Street had a depressed day with a Dow Jones average of 30 industrial stocks closing down 12.03 points at 1212.35.

Jim?

LEHRER: Still ahead on the NewsHour tonight, a look at the ups and downs of relaxing the tensions between East and West Germany, and at the debate over making heroin a legal medicine to take for pain.

[Video postcard -- Smuggler's Notch, Vermont]

MacNEIL: Millions of Canadians voted today in a general election that could produce one of the sharpest changes of government in Canada in decades. If the latest opinion polls are borne out by the voters, the Liberal Party, which has ruled Canada for most of the postwar period, will be buried in a landslide by the Progressive Conservative opposition.The most recent poll showed the Conservatives, under Brian Mulroney, leading the ruling Liberal Party by more than 20%. The polls showed the smaller, left-wing New Democratic Party running a strong third. A popular vote close to the poll figures would give the Conservatives a huge majority in Canada's Parliament. That would be a stunning upset for the current prime minister, John Turner, who took over the Liberal leadership when Pierre Elliott Trudeau retired. When he called the election in July, Turner's Liberals had a lead of 10 points in the polls. Jim?

LEHRER: The not-goings and maybe comings of two Communist leaders made news today.First, Soviet President Konstantin Chernenko may be seen in public tomorrow. A report from Moscow said he will give a medal to the first woman to walk in space. If it happens, it will be his first public outing in seven weeks. There have been reports that the 73-year-old Soviet leader is seriously ill with a heart ailment.

The other Communist leader story is about Eric Honecker, president of East Germany. Honecker was to have -- was to make his first visit to West Germany this month, but today it was announced he will not be coming after all. The visit was considered a big deal for East-West relations, particularly since the Soviets didn't want him to go.

Robin? Talks Cancelled: East and West Germany

MacNEIL: In the last year, while cold war tensions have increased between Washington and Moscow, they have paradoxically seemed to relax between East and West Germany. We're going to examine what today's news means in that process, but first we're going to show you, again, a special report we aired in June on the evolving situation on the border that has symbolized the cold war for almost four decades. Our correspondent was Edward Girardet.

EDWARD GIRARDET [voice-over]: -- on board, a rather special passenger. This is Herman Kruger. It's not his real name. Five minutes ago he left his country and his city, and in five minutes' time he will arrive in a new country, but in the same city. Berlin: a divided city. One half controlled by the Allies, the other half by the Soviets, the Western sectors forming a remote enclave in Communist territory.

Twenty-three years ago the Soviets built a wall 100 miles long, shutting off the East from the West, an act of political aggression which enraged the free world.

Pres. JOHN F. KENNEDY: All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin. And therefore, as a free man I take pride in the words, "Ich bin ein Berliner."

GIRARDET [voice-over]: But the wall still stands, a concrete tribute to the cold wars of yesterday. But there are other memorials to those 70 people or more who tried to escape. Today, the watching war goes on. Observation towers in the East, jeep patrols in the West. Berlin's security still remains the shared responsibility of all four powers, a unique opportunity for contact or conflict. But Berlin no longer catches a cold when Moscow sneezes. Nowadays things seem much quieter on the Eastern Front.

U.S. ALLIED SOLDIER: The purpose of the patrol is to show the flag and to show our presence to the East Germans and the Soviets.What they do is they contact all the towers along the wall and let the other people know in the towers that there is a U.S. patrol out. [inventory of equipment] What it is, it seems like, is a game you play back and forth. We have binoculars, tape recorders and cameras. They have the same thing. [inventory]

GIRARDET [voice-over]: Exercising their wartime rights, Soviet military observers make regular tours of the Western sectors, just as the Allies can enter the Soviet sector. And so the necessary ritual of mutual surveillance and cat-and-mouse goes on as it has for over two decades. The endless obscenity of the wall is a graphic expression of superpower tensions past and present.

But if today Moscow and Washington are barely talking, amazingly, the two Germanies are. The latest chapter in a book entitled Good Neighbors: A Story of Unfinished Family Business, first started by Willy Brandt 15 years ago. These people are the living proof of a new improved relationship between the two Germanies. No less than 25,000 East German citizens have been permitted to enter the West legally, more than at any other time since construction of the wall. It's said there could be up to another half million people who also wish to leave, but since the exodus ebbs and flows, they could be in for a very long wait. But even enlightened self-interest has to be paid for, and the price is high. West Germany is literally buying freedom for these people at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, money which East Germany is only too happy to accept in order to modernize its industries. So is West Germany simply buying favors?

JURG HENSCHEL, West German government spokesman: That is the cynical but true description of the policy and the relationship that we have. We want humanitarian reliefs from the other part for their people and for our people. We want more human contacts, more free movement between the two countries. And they want our economic and financial support, and so we make kind of a deal.

GIRARDET: Why do you think they suddenly allowed these people to leave legally?

Mr. HENSCHEL: Mainly, I would say, there are three reasons. The first one is they have, despite of their own official remarks, they have an unemployment rate there, and getting people out means that they can diminish their own unemployment rate. But that is probably the smallest reason for it. The two major reasons are, one, they want to make a signal. They want to give a signal to the West German government that they have liberalized their own system, that they are in favor of doing things that we expect them to do, and, thirdly, I would say they want to get rid of an opposition, a very lively, vivid opposition in their own country.

GIRARDET [voice-over]: Hermann is one member of that lively and vivid opposition they decided to get rid of. For the 31-year-old construction engineer, it's the end of a seven-year-long struggle to leave a society which had branded him troublemaker. To some in the East this is called the Golden West, land of liberty and opportunity.The truth is, of course, just a little different; high unemployment and economic recession have seen to that. But to Hermann the guarantee of human rights and freedom of expression is, for the time being, more than enough. Hermann has no illusions that life in the West will be easy. It's now up to him to find a job and an apartment. East Germany, he says, is a society where everyone is taken by the hand. So is it really that bad?

"HERMANN" [through interpreter]: Life's really not that bad, but the moment you go against the system, then things can get tough. So there's always the fear someone may be listening.

GIRARDET [voice-over]: Neues Deutschland, the New Germany. East Berlin is a city that has been rebuilt from rear total ruin to showcase, a showcase for Communism. In 35 years, the Republic has come a long way. The standard of living is the highest in the East bloc, higher than that of the Soviet Union, but people compare themselves with the West, and the consumer expectations are rising. They want more cars, better-quality imports and designer jeans for a youth that is now virtually indistinguishable in dress from their Western counterparts. In the main square stands a world clock, an ironic reminder to the frustrated, travel-hungry postwar generation of just how far they can go. And those who try to go too far come to grief.

The government has cracked down hard on church activitists and political dissidents, and anyone making an unauthorized visit to the West German mission is liable to be detained or arrested. The street is heavily guarded and the building, we were told, bugged. When we visited, we too were stopped.May 1st, Labor Day. In a city the size of Seattle, nearly half the total population turned out in organized groups despite the driving rain to celebrate and parade before party leader Eric Honecker. And if you happen to be a loyal, hardworking party member who doesn't walk on the grass, you do have quite a lot to celebrate: a decent place to live at a rent which has not changed for decades, subsidized food, good education and welfare. The state does provide.

Four days later, in a week that had seen the people celebrating Labor Day, voting in the one-party election, the curtain was raised on the last act. In the cemetery dedicated to the 20 million Soviets who fell in the last war, East Germany pays homage to its comrades. Tag de Befreiung, Liberation Day, the day that Nazi Germany finally surrendered. But despite the goose steps, the official view is that Nazi Germany has nothing to do with East Germany. That's history. Nazi came from the West.And it's from the West, and Washington in particular, that the present threat to world peace comes. So are relations between the two Germanies thawing because of the freeze between the superpowers? A question I put to both sides.

Dr. JOHANNES ZELLIG, East German government spokesman [through interpreter]: I don't think the good relations between the two Germanies have come about because of the poor relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. That's far too simple. You have to consider German history. All Germans on both sides have an incredible responsibility to see that after two world wars on German soil there's not a third. Therefore, we feel we should do all in our power to diminish world tensions, and that means, on the one hand, increasing our defenses in order to regain the balance against American missiles, while, on the other hand, to fight back against the cold war by having good relations with West Germany.

Mr. HENSCHEL: Despite of the frozen and cold relationship between the two superpowers, the relationship between East and West Germany is a comparatively good one. I think the idea and the reason for that is that both of the Germanies have found out that they can play a more important role within their own bloc, and they try to give an example for a good relationship also for their partners in Washington and in Moscow.

GIRARDET [voice-over]: Politicians' views can change, but the view from the tower overlooking the East does not. Daily a silent procession of seemingly casual passersby come here to give a furtive half-smile to a loved one in the West and then a final goodbye. Even such innocent acts, if witnessed by the police, immediately lead to questions, interrogations, reports. Today Herman has come to keep his appointment with his mother, father and aunt. As it turned out, the risks were too great and they kept on walking. They did not dare stop. But right at the end of the street, well away from prying eyes, a quick wave, and contact was finally made.

MacNEIL: Since that report was first aired in June, there's been some further thawing of relations between the two Germanies, a process that was expected to be advanced by the planned Honecker visit. To discuss what East and West Germany hoped to accomplish by the visit and why Moscow frowned on it, we have Stephen Szabo, professor of national security affairs at the National War College in Washington. Professor Szabo also teaches a course on modern Germany at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Professor Szabo, first of all, is it your view that Moscow simply stopped this visit?

STEPHEN SZABO: Yes, I think it's quite clear that the Soviets were the main factor behind this decision. The East Germans were very reluctant to cancel the visit. They held out as long as they possibly could, and only under great pressure from the Soviets did they finally decide not to go, at least until after the American election.

MacNEIL: Now, there was a lot of public pressure, the Soviets editorializing through all their state press organs against the visit. Do you think that the way things work between Moscow and East Berlin that some high Soviet official simply told Honecker, "Don't go"?

Prof. SZABO: Well, we don't really know. That's a good question. We don't know how the Politburo works, and we don't know who's in charge right now in Moscow. And that's, I think, one of the important factors in the equation. Since Chernenko's status is uncertain, we have to assume that people like Ustinov, the defense minister, and Gromyko, the foreign minister, have a great deal of influence, and that the so-called hardliners appear to be even more in charge than normal. And they probably worked through their channels with the East German security police and with the East German defense ministry to put pressure on Honecker. But we don't know for sure.

MacNEIL: Now, why would Moscow fear a visit by the East German leader to West Germany?

Prof. SZABO: Well, we have to remember that East Germany is the keystone of Soviet security and the Soviet position in Europe. They get very nervous when almost anything happens in East Germany, much more so than Poland or even Czechoslovakia. And I think what they have seen in the last six to eight months is, following the successful deployment of NATO missiles in West Germany, the East Germans have nevertheless, continued a dialogue with the West Germans, in spite of the fact that both the Soviets and Honecker had threatened a "new ice age" in German-German relations if the West Germans had deployed the missiles. So the Soviets were very disconcerted by the fact that the East Germans seemed to be ignoring these threats and seemed to be pursuing their own detente with their German -- West German cousins while, at the same time, the Soviets are taking a very hard line vis-a-vis both the West Germans and specially the United States.

MacNEIL: How important was this projected visit by -- incidentally, may it still happen in thefuture, do you think?

Prof. SZABO: Oh, yes. I think the wording today from what I've seen so far is very ambiguous. The signals coming out of both East Berlin and Bonn seem to indicate that the visit may take place, but not before the American election. And I would go on to say, probably not until the Soviet leadership gets its act together.

MacNEIL: Now, if this had happened, how important an event would it have been in the history of postwar Germany?

Prof. SZABO: Ironically, I think it's probably more important now that it didn't happen than if it had happened. I think that the expectations were probably much too high both in East Germany and in West Germany, and certainly in the Soviet Union. And I think that there would have been some disappointment after the trip, because it's highly unlikely that very important specific agreements would have come out of a trip. Sure, it was an important symbolic gesture, but beyond that I don't think it would have had a tremendous impact. But now that it's been postponed, I think it's given added significance to a future trip, perhaps next year or the year after.

MacNEIL: Now, what is the most that Honecker could have hoped to achieve, do you think, by going?

Prof. SZABO: Well, not a great deal. I think what he was trying to do was to enhance his image at home to make himself appear to be somewhat independent of the Soviets, more of a German leader, if you will. And also to gain some credit with the West Germans. As you have mentioned, the East Germans have gotten two substantial loans financed by the West Germans over the past year, and there are rumors that they want a third substantial loan. So a nice visit by Honecker shaking hands, appearing human and so on, and decent and warm, would have made it easier for Kohl to float yet a third loan in the next six months to a year.

MacNEIL: And what does Chancellor Kohl of West Germany achieve from this thawing of relations?

Prof. SZABO: Well, I think Kohl is probably the most clever player in this game. What he has done is to divert attention away from the missile issue. There were great concerns last fall when the missiles were deployed that the demonstrations would get worse and that -- and partly because of the fact that German-German detente would weaken and deteriorate. What Kohl has done is shown that the West Germans can have the missiles, can show that they're still true to the Western alliance and to the U.S., but at the same time also continue along and progress in German-German relations. So it's taken off a lot of domestic pressure from Kohl, and it probably has dimnished the possibilities of substantial demonstrations in West Germany.

MacNEIL: Is the -- Honecker's even entertaining this visit, even if he's postponed it now. Does that indicate that there's some loosening of the Soviet hold over its most important client in Eastern Europe?

Prof. SZABO: I think yes, in the sense that the cause, I think, of a lot of this is the economic situation in Eastern Europe. The Soviets are no longer able to subsidize the East Germans and the East Europeans in general to the extent that they were before the oil crisis. And, as a result, they have, in effect, placed the East Germans' future more in the hands of the Western economies. The East Germans need to earn hard currencies. They need to expand their markets in Western Europe. They need to get access to West German credits. And, in that respect, since the Soviets are no longer able to provide that sort of support, they are in effect pushing, to some extent, the East Germans and the rest of the East Europeans into a closer relationship with Western Europe.

MacNEIL: It's a paradox, isn't it?

Prof. SZABO: It is. It is, very much so, and I think we have to look at Honecker's decision here as not one of a disloyal ally, but one of an ally who's trying to maintain a regime that's not very popular in very difficult economic times and getting less support from his major ally, the Soviet Union, in the process.

MacNEIL: I see. Well, thank you very much, Professor Szabo, for joinng us.

Prof. SZABO: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Jim?

LEHRER: Two Americans who were killed in Nicaragua over the weekend were identified today as volunteers who went to train rebels to fight the government. An Alabama private group called Civilian Military Assistance said the two Americans were not mercenaries, as the government of Nicaragua had charged. The Americans were killed when a helicopter was shot down after an attack on a Nicaraguan military school. Their group said they went to Central America because they were concerned abut communism and wanted to help stop it.

Back here in California, a brand new B-1 bomber rolled off the assembly line today. It was the first of the 100 B-1B models the Air Force is expected to build at a total cost now estimated at $28 billion. The B-1B will replace the aging B-52 bomber as the centerpiece of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. The new bomber's first test flight comes next month, despite the crash last week of an earlier prototype. The Air Force also announced today it would ground the only other B-1 prototype still being tested until the crash investigation was complete.

Robin?

MacNEIL: In Northern Ireland, a car loaded with explosives blew up near the railroad station at Newby, and 71 people were injured. The town is four miles from the border of the Irish Republic, and its downtown area was crowded with shoppers. But the police received a telephone warning and began clearing the area before the bomb went off. Most of the victims suffered only superficial cuts or shck, and no one was seriously hurt.

In Britain a new attempt to dettle the six-month-old coal strike collapsed.Both the government and the miners, unon blamed each other, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher rejected an opposition demand to recall Parliament from recess to deal with the deadlock.

[Video postcard -- Kingston, Rhode Island] Heroin: Painkiller Debate

LEHRER: Our next segment tonight is a debate over heroin, the narcotic that has become synonymous with drug addiction, crime, and all manner of things bad. But there are those who say all is not bad, that it is an effective reliever of pain for terminally ill cancer patients, and they want heroin legalized for that limited use. But the Reagan administration, the American Medical Association and others are strongly opposed. It all goes before the House of Representatives for a vote soon, maybe as early as next week. Tonight it goes before us for an airing of the argument with Dr. Allen Mondzac, director of the cancer clinic at George Washington University Hospital here in Washington, who is active in the National Committee for the Treatment of Intractable Pain; and Dr. Edward Brandt, assistant secretary for Health and Human Services. Doctor, what is your case for legalizing heroin in this way?

Dr. ALLEN MONDZAC: I'm a practicing oncologist. I've been treating patients with cancer for nearly 20 years. I know that present narcotics do not relieve pain completely. I know that there are patients who are not helped right now with what we have available. For those patients we need another drug. One of the drugs that we do need is heroin. My studies of the British experience indicate that in Britain heroin is used successfully, and it's used widely and it's used in increasing amounts. Heroin is a unique drug, it has unique biochemical, unique chemical and metabolic properties that make its use for treating severe, chronic pain indispensable. I think that at this moment there are thousands of patients suffering who could benefit from heroin. The Waxman bill, which was proposed in February of 1984, would --

LEHRER: Is that the bill that's going to a vote may be possibly fairly soon, correct?

Dr. MONDZAC: Yes, we hope. This bill was introduced in February and its main purpose was to allow heroin to be used in a hospital setting or a hospice settng for patients who had intractable pain and who could not be helped by other narcotics. I feel that this bill, which is titled the Compassionate Pain Relief Act, is exactly that. I think it's compassionate and it would provide pain relief for a very important group of patients, those that are not helped now. I think the limits of the bill would also limit any of the problems dealing with heroin diversion or heroin distribution. I think it would be a step forward for American medicine. I also think it's important for people to remember that heroin has actually been in use for over 100 years. There are at least 40 countries right now that use heroin for pain relief.The Canadian Medical Association has in the last week endorsed the reintroduction of heroin into Canadian medicine. It was only abolished there in the '50s. Many physicians personally, and I personally feel that we are ready to reintroduce heroin into America.

LEHRER: Dr. Brandt, you don't think so, correct?

Dr. EDWARD BRANDT: No, I don't think so. I believe that there is no question that heroin is an effective drug and it does relieve pain. We have no arguments with that. However, there is absolutely no data that suggests that it's any better than the existing drugs. And, indeed, not only does the American Medical Association support that, but a whole long host of other organizations, including the National Hospice Organization, including the American Association of Hospital Pharmacists, all of whom believe that there is no reason to add this drug in there. I might say there are two other points, however, about this legislation that's critical. One is that it would bypass completely the FDA in terms of either approval of the drug or even guaranteeing its purity and quality. Hence, it is quite possible that this drug could be put out on the market with absolutely no standards imposed upon it by the government because the bill mandates that those be bypassed. And second is that it also requires the government to provide heroin, so that if, in fact, no manufacturer chose to make this drug, and at the present time certainly none have come forth to volunteer because of the security problems, it would mandate that the federal government would have to make the drug and market it and so forth, which would be an unprecedented intrusion, as we see it, into both government activities and into medical activities by the federal government.

LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, let's take these points one at a time. First of all, the question about that there are no other pain relievers available that would do the job that heroin would. You heard what Dr. Brandt said. He said he just disagrees. That's not so.

Dr. MONDZAC: I just disagree with him. I don't believe it's so.

LEHRER: Well, what's the data, gentlemen?

Dr. MONDZAC: The data -- I can quote the data very effectively. First of all, probably the widest use is in Britain. I can quote Robert Tree Tycross, who probably has the greatest experience with heroin, and he states that when an injectable narcotic is needed, heroin is the drug of choice.This is a direct quote from probably the person who has published most extensively on heroin.

Dr. BRANDT: I have a direct quote from Dr. Tycross right in front of me which says relief of cancer pain is not dependent on the availability of heroin.I just read that. And, indeed, Dr. Tycross argues, in effect, that because of the increased solubility of heroin that it is in some patients the treatment of choice because you can get higher doses in smaller volumes, therefore making injection's easier. We now have on the market a drug that is more soluble than heroin so that you can --

LEHRER: What's the good deal about it being soluble?

Dr. BRANDT: Well, basically, if you have a patient that has to get repeated injections, the smaller the volume of material that you're diluting the drug with, that has to be injected, the less discomfort the patient will have from the injection only. So that now we have a drug that is more soluble and more potent.

LEHRER: What's the name of that?

Dr. BRANDT: Dilauded high potency, or dilauded-HP.

LEHRER: What's wrong with that, Doctor?

Dr. MONDZAC: There are no studies comparing dilauded h.p. to heroin. The one -- there are two that I could find in the literature, one recentone in the late '60s, where a group of patients were given both dilauded and heroin. The patients were in pain. They preferred heroin, and they didn't like the dilauded side effects. Dilauded was produced in the United States as supposedly a substitute for heroin.There is no evidence that dilauded is as effective as heroin in chronic cancer pain, and I consider it to be a questionable drug at best as a substitute for heroin.

Dr. BRANDT: I might say, to respond to that, we have, in fact, the National Cancer Institute has just recently funded a prospective study to be done at the Memorial Sloane-Kettering Pain Clinic, which is perhaps the most respected pain clinic in the world.

LEHRER: It's in New York City.

Dr. BRANDT: It's New York City. Correct.

Dr. BRANDT: And I might say the director of that pain clinic has in fact testified against this legislation. But they are going to do a long-term study on the -- not long term in terms of the length of time required, comparing dilauded h.p. directly with heroin. From a scientific point of view, one can argue that the data is clear enough as it now stands, but in order to settle the issue once and for all. And we believe that there is no point in legalizing the drug and then testing it. It's better to first test it and then legalize it.

Dr. MONDZAC: Unfortunately, that's exactly what's been with dilauded h.p. The study is being done after the drug has been released as a heroin substitute, and I sort of consider that a fraud being perpetrated on the American public. I have no question that dilauded is an effective drug. In my own practice, I know there are patients who do not respond to dilauded, who need something else. These are patients who would need heroin. There is no reason to even believe that these patients or think these patients would respond to dilauded h.p. The study's being done after the drug has been released, and I might also respond to the point about a manufacturer. I have been in correspondence with the largest generic manufacturer of heroin in Britain. They have offices in New Jersey, Evanston Pharmaceuticals. They are ready, willing and able to produce heroin in the United States, and I might even say anxious to produce heroin in the United States legally.

LEHRER: Dr. Brandt, is your concern, above and beyond the other ones that you've already mentioned, that this would facilitate the entry of more heroin into the illegal market as well?

Dr. BRANDT: Well, we have two concerns. One is that -- about the bill above and beyond the heroin. One has to do with the fact that it bypasses the FDA and bypasses government regulatory authorities, therefore not allowing the government to have any voice at all in whether or not the heroin that actually reaches the marketplace is indeed pure, is in the dose, etc. Second, is the issue of, yes, the diversion into the illegal market. We are concerned, recognizing that this is not going to be a huge amount. As a matter of fact, I think Dr. Mondzac has pointed out that it's a relatively small percentage --

LEHRER: How many people are we talking about, excuse me, Dr. Mondzac?

Dr. MONDZAC: I would say 5,000 to 10,000 a year, and I would like a chance to respond to the FDA.

LEHRER: Excuse me, one sec. Yeah, go ahead.

Dr. BRANDT: And we are concerned that this will now expose hospital pharmacies and hospice pharmacies to crime that they do not have. I might say this is a view that is shared very strongly by the hospice organization.

LEHRER: All right, let's take them one at a time. The first one, just the security thing, and what this would do in that regard.

Dr. MONDZAC: Quoting the British Home Office, which is the equivalent of our Drug Enforcement Agency, they have found that there are no more hospital or hospice pharmacy break-ins when heroin is in the supply than when other narcotics are in the supply. I have no reason to think the experience will be different here. Right now hospital and hospice pharmacies stock morphine, dilauded, in some cases marijuana, amphetamines. Hospital pharmacies account for less than 3% of break-ins as far as pharmacy break-ins. I don't think that's a problem.

LEHRER: What about the FDA point? That this bypasses the government?

Dr. MONDZAC: Yes. The bill as it is stated by Mr. Waxman says that the Congress will empower HHS to distribute the drug. Mr. Waxman envisions HHS appointing the FDA to be the distributor, quality controller and more or less the guardian of the drug.

LEHRER: HHS is you, Dr. Brandt?

Dr. BRANDT: Yes, it is. I agree. I agree, and as I pointed out earlier in my third point, this would be the first time as far as I know in recent history of the United States government has been a distributor of drugs.

LEHRER: No, but I mean in terms of --

Dr. MONDZAC: But this is not distributing drugs in the sense of buying aspirin at the corner. This is a limited supply to a limited population in a limited setting. It is only to be used in hospitals and in hospices for patients with intractable pain who have a diagnosis of cancer, and only given by physicians who are approved to use narcotics. The FDA will probably be appointed as the arm to oversee this. This I feel to be not unusual, standard and makes a lot of sense, and I don't feel in any way it's bypassing the FDA.

LEHRER: Well, gentlemen, we didn't resolve anything, but at least we've heard the arguments, which was our purpose tonight. Thank you both for being with us.

Dr. BRANDT: Thank you.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again, the main stories of the day. The astronauts aboard the Discovery shuttle succeeded in chipping a block of ice off their spaceship.

The United States expressed deep concern over rioting in black townships in South Africa.

President Reagan denounced Democrats who've criticized his statements about the connection between religion and politics. Walter Mondale declared that if Reagan wins, the rich will get richer and the average American will get poorer.

Quite often, as you know, we have closed our program by introducing an interesting person we've encountered in our travels. Tonight it's a lady in North Carolina who was born legally blind. Late in life she risked an operation and for the first time was given the gift of sight. Her name is Pearl Cass, and she was discovered by reporter Bill Coy of station WSOC-TV in Charlotte. Pearl Cass: New Vision

BILL COY [voice-over]: There is no such thing as a rainy or a gloomy day in the life of the woman who lives in this house. Her name is Pearl Cass. She is 88 years old.

PEARL CASS: Thessalonians, Chapter 2. "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ" --

COY [voice-over]: Pearl Cass was born legally blind. For 78 years she had only one-fourth normal vision. Ten years ago cataracts took her sight completely. But now she can see again, more clearly than ever before in her life. She says she owes the joy of sight to an eye bank in Winston-Salem.

Ms. CASS: Now, that's what I got was a donor. I don't know whether it was a man or a woman or what it was. I didn't care what it was, just so somebody -- that I could see out of. I wasn't a bit -- beggars can't be choosers, you know. I just took what they gave me. I didn't even ask 'em. Somebody said, "What kind of eye did you get?" I said, "I don't know, could be a pig's eye, but I can see all right."

COY [voice-over]: In reality, she has vision only in her left eye, that as a result of a cornea transplant at Baptist Hospital. But doctors were apprehensive about the operation and told her not to expect too much when the bandages came off.

Ms. CASS: Well, when they took the bandage off of my eye I told the lady, "I can see just a very little bit." I could. Just a very little bit. And just about a second after I said that, well, the lights just flared on and the colors and people and, you know, there was lots of people in that place, and I just sit there just a minute. I didn't say a word. I just sit there just a minute. And I could see all those lights and I could see the people and I could see their hands and their face and their eyes and everything about 'em. And I thinks to myself, "Just a minute. "You know, your mind works -- I can't tell you how -- what kind of thoughts I did have. And I thought to myself, "I have stepped into Heaven."

PASTOR: We're still praying for you at the church.

Ms. CASS: Thank you. I appreciate that.

PASTOR: Still looking forward to when you can come be with us again.

COY [voice-over]: Pearl has not been able to go to church since the operation because doctors do not want her to catch a cold or develop an eye infection. So her pastor visits her. You couple that with the thrill of seeing her 21 grandchildren and 18 great-grandchildren for the first time, and you have a new definition of joy.

Ms. CASS: And, you see, I'd never seen like this, and it was so glorious and so grand I just couldn't be still. I said I believe I'd have died if I'd'a been still. I just couldn't be still. I just -- and, you know, every once in a while I'd kind of come to my mind -- I think I was in the Spirit, is what I think, but anyway, I'd hear people say, "This woman's got something to be thankful and rejoice about." And I'd hear 'em say that. Boys, I knew I did, and I'm still rejoicing, too. I'll tell you that right now.

COY [voice-over]: Pearl Cass can't wait to be able to go to church again, to see the mountains for the first time. She can't wait for spring to bring the flowers. But more than anything she wants to be an inspiration for people without hope.

Ms. CASS: I do want to be an inspiration. Now, that's my heart's desire and prayer to God, that I might be a blessing to people that I come in contact while I stay here. Well, that's what God wants us to be. Do you know that? That is so. But I do so little for my Lord, and he's done so much for me.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim.

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