The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the headlines this Memorial Day holiday, President Reagan spoke at Arlington National Cemetery of those who fought thanklessly in Vietnam. The death toll at the -- at Chernobyl was raised to 19. And Angola claimed South Africa attacked targets in Southern Angola. We'll have the details in the news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary, we talk terrorism in a newsmaker interview with Britain's Home Secretary. Then a documentary report about terrorism security in American airports and a debate about plastic guns. Essayist Richard Cohen ponders the new terrorism consciousness in the nation's capital. And we have an update on Hands Across America. News Summary

LEHRER: President Reagan led the national remembering today of those who died in war. He went to Arlington National Cemetery in Washington this Memorial Day morning. He first laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Then he went to the outdoor theatre to speak about America's war dead. There were special words for those who fought in Vietnam.

Pres, RONALD REAGAN: They were quite a group, the bosys of Vietnam. Boys who fought a terrible and vicious war without enough support from home. Boys who were dodging bullets while we debated the efficacy of the battle. It was often our poor who fought in that war. It was the unpampered boys of the working class who picked up the rifles and went on the march. They learned not to rely on us. They learned to rely on each other. And they were special in another way. They chose to be faithful. They chose to reject the fashionable skepticism of their time. They chose to believe and answer the call of duty.

LEHRER: Later in the day, there was a ceremony at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, specifially to note the addition of 110 new names. They are those of 97 servicemen who died outside the war zone and 13 who died later of war wounds. They had not been included in the original 58,022 names engraved on the memorial wall.

In Vietnam itself, a delegation from the Vietnam Veterans of America organization finished a ten day visit. The group visited various places around the country and talked with officials about resuming humanitarian aid to Vietnam. Such U.S. aid was stopped after the Vietnam invasion of Cambodia in 1979. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev today told visiting British politicians that the Kremlin was ready to negotiate separate nuclear arms reductions with London.Dennis Healey, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Labor Party, said the offer was new, because it goes beyond an earlier one limited only to medium-range missiles.

Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union, the death toll from the Chernobyl nuclear accident has risen to 19. This from a senior Soviet scientist who told a news conference that the figure included two people who died in the initial accident and 17 others. The official Russian newspaper, Pravada, said today that the reactor, which caught fire a month ago today and spread radiation across the western parts of Europe, is still potentially dangerous.

LEHRER: Two other stories from overseas today. The Angola government accused South Africa of invading its territory and killing 53 Angolan soldiers. They said another five were wounded. Government spokesmen said the South Africans, who staged similar raids in three other African nations last week, used armored vehicles and heavy artillery in the Thursday attack. There was no confirmation of the actions from the South African government.

And in Bangladesh a river ferryboat was hit by a storm, and authorities fear as many as 500 of its 1,000 passengers may have drowned.

HUNTER-GAULT: In Paris, a 35-year-old French gangster is still at large tonight, after a daring prison escape by helicopter earlier today. Police identified the man as Michel Vaujour, serving an 18 year term for armed robbery, and a veteran of three previous jailbreaks. The pilot of the helicopter, a woman, was not identified. She landed the helicopter on the roof of La Sante Prison in the southern part of Paris, then took off again with the escaping prisoner on board. Soon afterwards, the police found the helicopter, a rented Alouette, in a soccer field nearby. The owner said the pilot paid cash -- about $315 for a one hour rental. The name on the pilot's license turned out to be false.

LEHRER: The initial counts were in today on yesterday's Hands Across America demonstration against hunger. Officials at the effort to form a human chain from California to New York said nearly six million people participated, and $28 million was collected. They said they were sure the goal of $50 million will be reached by the time everything is finally tallied in September.

There was a worldwide competitor to Hands Across America yesterday. It was called Sport Aid, and its purpose was to raise money for African relief. It did not do well in the United States, and one of the organizers, a man named Nick Cater, told a London news conference today that America had demonstrated it was the largest island in the world.

HUNTER-GAULT: Still to come on the News Hour, we talk terrorism in a newsmaker interview with Britain's Home Secretary. We look at terrorism security in America's airports, and follow that with a debate about a new security worry -- plastic guns. Essayist Richard Cohen ponders a terrorism-conscious nation's capital. And finally, an update on Hands Across America. Terrorism View from Europe

LEHRER: On Memorial Day, thoughts turn to summer and to vacations and, this year, also to thoughts of terrorism. We're going to explore the topic from several different approaches tonight, beginning with a policy approach, through a newsmaker interview with Douglas Hurd, the British Home Secretary, the man in charge of combatting terrorism in Great Britain.

Mr. Hurd, there seems to be a growing feeling that most anti-terrorism efforts are mostly talk and very little action -- that in the final analysis there's very little that we can do about it. Is that a correct assumption?

DOUGLAS HURD, Home Secretary, Britain: I don't think so at all. I think the first thing one has to do is to keep steady, because one of the things that terrorists are after is to upset people, get them to change their plans, running about all over the place. I think there are precautions which have to be taken -- can sensibly be taken -- for example, at airports, ports. And that for the rest, I think steadiness is a great virtue, and one that we are trying to practice.

LEHRER: Well, let's go through some specifics. First of all, the causes of terrorism -- the political causes of terrorism. Prime Minister Thatcher was the latest to suggest that at least the Middle East form of terrorism could be reduced drastically if the Palestinian problem was solved. Do you agree with that?

Mr. HURD: Yes, certainly it could. The Palestinian problem has defied all our efforts for many years now. And I'm afraid there are people in the world who latch onto a cause, but who really are in terrorism for terrorism's sake. There's the itch for violence and for excitement. So, by all means, I think we should go and look at the root causes, whether it be in Palestine or South Africa or elsewhere, but don't let's deceive ourselves. There are people around who are in it for its own sake.

LEHRER: Do you think a resolution of the Palestinian problem would stop Libyan- and Syrian-sponsored terrorism?

Mr. HURD: I think it would make it very difficult for them to continue in the way they do. But I do have the feeling that Colonel Khadafy, and maybe other governments to a lesser extent, are devoted to that kind of espousal of violence, really as an aim in itself.

LEHRER: You -- I take it from what you said, you are saying that is not the case as much with Syria as it is with Libya?

Mr. HURD: I think Libya is unique in the sense that the Libyan government is the only one in the world which openly, definitely espouses terrorism in many forms, including the kind that we have in Northern Ireland. So I think they go considerably further than any other governments who dabble in terrorism from time to time.

LEHRER: Many in the Arab world have suggested that if the United States wanted to reduce itself and its citizens as a target of Middle East-based terrorism, that all they would have to do is stop its pro-Israeli foreign policy. Do you agree with that?

Mr. HURD: Well, it's an inconceivable thing, isn't it? The United States has been trying for many years now to work out a Middle East policy with her allies which believes -- underwrites the security of Israel while trying to find some way of dealing with the Palestinian problem, and that will continue. So to -- it's quite unreal to talk of the United States abandoning its present policy.

LEHRER: Well, do you think it would have any effect? Do you think there's any cause and effect between the United States policy toward Israel and the acts of terrorism against its citizens?

Mr. HURD: I think that a good many Arabs are caught up into violence because of the way the Palestinian problem has dragged on. And I think that, quite apart from terrorism, there's everything to be said -- it's a major interest of the Western World -- that we should all, in our different ways, try and find an answer to that problem of Israel's relations with her Arab neighbors. But I don't deceive myself that that is going to happen at all easily. And so we have to deal with Middle East-based terrorism as it is.And not just Middle East-based terrorism, because there's terrorism of other kinds.

LEHRER: Some Americans have trouble understanding why Americans are targets of terrorism. Can you -- can you help them.?

Mr. HURD: Well, the United States is a superpower, and its citizens, therefore, come in for at least their fair share of acting as targets. But the United States, I wouldn't say, was particularly singled out. And certainly we in Britain have had our experiences, and so have many people in many other European countries. So that I don't think the Americans need feel or should feel that they're alone in this business.

LEHRER: All right, let's go to the question of intelligence -- of trying to prevent terrorism before it actually happens. Is that -- is it really possible to infiltrate these severely fanatical groups bent on committing terrorist acts?

Mr. HURD: I think the flow of intelligence is absolutely crucial. And we do find that by cooperating between the different agencies concerned across Europe, we're beginning now to get a more accurate pattern. And moving the information in a timely way is also crucial. And I had talks in the Hague not long ago with Attorney General Ed Meese, and with others, about how we could share more effectively the information and intelligence which we get in Europe with the agencies of the United States. And I think that will come along.

LEHRER: You used the word beginning. I was struck also when it was said after the U.S. bombing of Libya that the intelligence forces of the United States and Western Europe, including your country, were now going to start cooperating in the sharing of information. My surprise was that that wasn't already going on. Why wasn't it?

Mr. HURD: It is happening bilaterally -- agency to agency. What is happening now, I think, is that there's more sharing beyond just one agency talking to another. There's more pooling of information. Certainly there is in Europe. And there is, I think with -- across the Atlantic as well. Dealing with Irish terrorism, which has been, of course, a major concern of ours, and which we regard as just as serious and just as terroristic, for a long time now we've had very good cooperation between the British government, the government of the Irish Republic, and the government of the United States.

LEHRER: Supporters in this country of President Reagan's decision to bomb Libya suggest now that look -- they say, "Look, it worked. By doing that, we got the attention -- the United States got the attention of Europe, and %europe is now getting on the anti-terrorism bandwagon." Is that a correct characterization of what happened?

Mr. HURD: The European governments had begun to move before the air strike, but I think, realistically, it is certainly true that since then, there's been a greater impetus in Europe to putting together non-military pressures on the Libyan government. And we welcome that. We -- indeed, I think the British government has taken the lead in that.

LEHRER: Finally, at the sites where potential terrorist acts might occur, like airports, on airplanes, etc., is it possible, Mr. Hurd, to make Heathrow and other -- in London, and other international airports really safe from terrorists bent on committing something -- willing to give their lives in order to commit a terrorist act?

Mr. HURD: I think we've learned and are learning a great deal. And I think that the safety record of Heathrow and the British airports in this respect is very good. All the time, of course, we are reviewing this. We are strengthening our intelligence and our precautions without getting into overheat, without getting into a state of panic which would bring the ordinary comings and goings of life to a halt. I think that, on the whole now in Europe and certainly in Britain, we've got that balance about right. And people, of course, are travelling around about their ordinary occasions with a very strong feeling of security.

LEHRER: What is the balance between overheat and coolness on this? How would you -- is it possible to define in words?

Mr. HURD: I think there are reasonable precautions which should be taken and which we are taking. And I think it is possible, place by place, step by step, to strike that balance between the reasonable precautions which create a feeling of greater security and which have the effect of heading off or deterring the would-be terrorist, and, on the other hand, getting into such a state of nerves that the terrorists achieve their other objective, which is to create fear going well beyond the actual reality. So in -- in the real world, it is a balance, and each country will strike it in a slightly different way. I think anyone coming to Britain, in particular, at the moment, would feel that we were striking that reasonably.

LEHRER: Finally, Mr. Hurd, are you one of those Britains who are a little annoyed at Americans who have cancelled their summer plans to go to Europe as a result of terrorism?

Mr. HURD: I get a little puzzled. I think we feel in Britain, although we worry about the crime rates, we feel that we do run, and live in, a considerably less violent society than in most United States cities. So we are, I think, a little bit puzzled at what we hear and experience of people refusing to come to this rather peacful land just when we're starting a rather pleasant summer.

LEHRER: Okay. Mr. Hurd, thank you very much for being with us.

Mr. HURD: Thank you. Guarding the Airports

HUNTER-GAULT: Concerns about terrorism are not, of course, limited to Europe and the Middle East. A few weeks ago Abul Abbas, the man accused of masterminding the Achille Lauro hijacking, said that the next target would be the United States. How have airport security officials here responded to that threat? Correspondent Tom Bearden has been looking into that, and here is his report.

TOM BEARDEN [voice-over]: If terrorists do strike in this country, most experts believe they will hit a big airport like this one -- New York's John F. Kennedy.

[on camera] Like most American airports, JFK is very difficult to protect. It is, in many ways, a small city in itself, covering five square miles of runways, roads and terminals. Up to 50,000 people work here, and 30 million pass through its corridors every year.

Airline employee: The first group of passengers to be boarded will be those passengers holding seat assignments in rows 1 through 12, followed by --

BEARDEN [voice-over]: To the casual observer, JFK security appears unchanged. But officials say the threat of terrorism has led them to increase protection. They say they've hired more police, particularly undercover plainclothes officers. All employees are now being offered cash rewards for spotting security breaches. Police officials now get daily intelligence briefings from federal and city agencies on terrorist activities. And JEK is now using the only mobile x-ray van in the country -- a device that can be wheeled into any airline's cargo area to x-ray suspicious baggage bound for the cargo hold. But what they haven't done is to adopt the European approach of stationing heavily armed police and armored vehicles outside terminals. Henry De Geneste oversees the JFK police force. He's not convinced that approach should be imitated here.

HENRY DE GENESTE, airport police: My concern is if you have your police people visible with heavy armament, the would-be -- would-be terrorist, if you will, when he surveils an airport and looks to see where your police people are deployed, he knows then.I would prefer it, and that's what we do, we keep our people in patrol cars patrolling the airport.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Jerry Aprile heads the union that represents JFK's police sergeants. He says claims that security has been approved are merely for public relations purposes -- that his men are less prepared today than they were ten years ago.

JERRY APRILE, police union: We are not well armed, we are not well equipped, and we are not well trained to handle any terrorist situation. In fact, we do not have any automatic weapons at all. Right now, if there was a terrorist attack, I think there would be a lot of confusion, because we don't have any plan, and we wouldn't have a response with any automatic weapons.

Mr. DE GENESTE: We in the United States have not yet been victims, if you will, of the type of incidences that have happened in Europe and in the Middle East. And so we are preparing for those type of things, but I believe, and even as a law enforcement official, I think we do not want to totally change the way we do business. This is a free society, we cherish our freedoms. And if we have to end up at our airports and our other facilities with armed camps and totally restricting the travel of the Americans that go in and out our facilities, then I think the terrorist has won without ever firing a shot.

BEARDEN: While the debate continues as to how best to deal with terrorism here at Kennedy, the Federal Aviation Administration and a number of private companies are looking toward high techology.They're trying to develop devices that can cope with the latest threat to today's security systems -- plastic guns and plastic explosives.

[voice-over] A plastic bomb was nearly smuggled aboard an El Al 747 in London earlier this year -- a bomb that went through an x-ray machine undetected. The FAA has become increasingly worried about the vulnerability of today's x-ray systems to plastic devices. Tony Broderick is an associate administrator with the FAA.

TONY BRODERICK, Federal Aviation Administration: We have been working on ways to defeat them. The problem is that it is not a simple task. It is a very difficult technological problem. We have a considerable R&D program underway devoted to that, and over a three year period from 1985, 1986 and 1987 in the fiscal years, we plan to spend upwards of $30 million in the FAA alone.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Part of that budget will be directed toward detecting weapons like this one -- an Austrian-made automatic pistol called the Glock 17. It's partially plastic. In tests, the weapon has been successfully smuggled through airport security checkpoints. American Science and Engineering in Boston makes airport x-ray machines. They showed us how the Glock can be made undetectable by current equipment. First, the pistol is disassembled, and the small metal pieces spread throughout a crowded suitcase. The barrel is taped to an umbrella. The plastic handle is placed in last. In a standard x-ray image, the Glock is virtually invisible, even to a trained, alert operator. AS&E has developed a new machine to combat the threat -- a machine called the Model Z, that sees plastic, as well as metal. In the Model Z image, the plastic handle is clearly visible. The company says the device can also detect plastic explosives where standard machines can not. Dr. Martin Annis is the president of American Science and Engineering.

[on camera] Would the Model Z have detected the plastic explosive that almost got on the El Al 747 a couple weeks ago?

Dr. MARTIN ANNIS, Amerian Science and Engineering: Absolutely. That would have been a very simple matter to observe, and it would have shown up as an instant threat, because it was very large.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Several foreign airlines and governments have already purchased the machine, which cost $70,000. but so far no U.S. airlines have done so.

Dr. ANNIS We've been somewhat disappointed in the response from the American airline industry. Our system is somewhat more expensive -- between 50 and -- about 50% to 100% more expensive, and, of course since we give two images to the operator, it has to be a little more -- it might slow down the throughput. And this is very important to the industry.

BEARDEN: You think that's a false economy on their part -- that security --

Dr. ANNIS Well, I do. Obviously, I have a vested interest, but it's clear that if you want security, you have to pay for it in money and in time.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: However, the Air Transport Association, which represents most U.S. airlines, says existing x-ray technology is effective against plastic guns and explosives if properly operated.

DICK LALLY, Air Transport Association: All explosives worry me and worry others, as do all weapons. But I think the system in place today is capable of detecting the weapons that are available today to commit these crimes. Be they plastic bombs or TNT bombs or Saturday Night Specials or Glock 17s. I think the system is adequate.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: The FAA is currently testing the Model Z. They say they could require the airlines to buy it if they find it to be a significant breakthrough. The FAA is also interested in this device, which can sniff out explosives, like the dynamite hidden in this bag. A Massachusetts company called Ion Track is the manufacturer.

JOHN PADERSON, Ion Track Instruments: What it does is it collects air from around a suspect object, and then processes that air to determine whether there's any explosive vapor molecules in it or not. And it can be very selective, in terms of identifying just explosive molecules.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: The Ion Track device can work well for carry-on luggage, but would not be able to handle the overwhelming job of inspecting the masses of luggage that go into a plane's cargo hold. That kind of baggage is only selectively screened today. And then mostly on international flights -- domestic packages rarely examined. That fact worries many security experts, because authorities believe it was a bomb inside a bag in the cargo hold that blew up an Air India 747 over the Atlantic last summer. Westinghouse Electric is working on a solution, using substantial FAA funding. They're developing a machine that can screen large volumes of cargo rapidly, yet still detect bombs or weapons, plastic or otherwise. Steve Kuznetsov is a Westinghouse engineer.

STEVE KUZNETSOV, Westinghouse: It's what I call the atom probe, if you will. Everything in the universe, as you know, is composed of atoms. And this is the first time we've been able to produce a technological system that really looks inside, looks at the atoms, and we identify, atom by atom, molecule by molecule, what we have inside. The computer senses the elements one by one -- instantaneousy, though. And then it makes a decision based on the atomic weight, based on the number of grams of each element that you have inside the luggage or air parcel. The computer decides, "My God, I have this many grams of something that's considered to be explosive material."

BEARDEN [voice-over]: A prototype was successfully tested at four airports two years ago. Westinghouse hopes to have two more advanced models for FAA testing next May. But it will be at least 1988 before the FAA can certify the device for airport use.

Mr. LALLY: If it is that close, then we would really like to see the FAA sort of double its effort and redouble its effort and get those techniques out in 6 months or 18 months instead of one year or two years.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Critics point out the machine has been under development for almost ten years, and accuse the FAA of dragging its feet until the Air India disaster. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, in whose state Westinghouse is based, agrees with those critics.

Sen. ARLEN SPECTER (R) Pennsylvania: These devices for detection of explosives are available, could have been expedited long before this point, ought to be expedited now, and I just hope the FAA, the airlines, and others act before we have some major tragedy in the United States.

Mr. BRODERICK: The FAA isn't dragging its feet in introducing usable technologies. I think that a lot of people have a lot of good ideas that don't pan out in the end.If we can find a technology that is indeed useful, we will use it immediately. Generally speaking, from my viewpoint, you talk about typically 10% technology and 90% human performance. It's human performance, training, motivation -- it's that kind of thing where we really need improvements. It is nice to have better technology, but you can not totally rely on technology when you've got people that are trying to outsmart it. It's very easy to outsmart a machine once you've built that machine.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Most experts agree that America's airports need better protection against terrorism, but are finding it difficult to balance that against the demands and the vulnerability inherent in a free society. Undetectable Guns?

HUNTER-GAULT: Our next focus segment is on guns -- more specifically, on plastic guns. Recently, such weapons have become the focus of a battle in Congress, where there are proposals to regulate or even ban them. We'll join that debate momentarily, but first we talk to David Byron, and American businessman who says he's developed the technology to produce an all-plastic gun -- one that would be even harder to detect than the Glock 17, which is only part plastic.

First of all, Mr. Byron, why did you develop a plastic gun?

DAVID BYRON, inventor: Well, first of all, plastic is lightweight -- excellent for military use. It will never rust, it will never corrode, and it has a great ease of manufacture.

HUNTER-GAULT: What would be the point of having a plastic gun other than --

Mr. BYRON: Well, think of infantry use for small arms. An infantryman could carry it through greater distances with a lot less problems. Think of it for aircraft use.You could give jet aircraft perhaps ten minutes more flying time.

HUNTER-GAULT: How?

Mr. BYRON: Because of lighter weight.

HUNTER-GAULT: You mean -- can you just explain that a little bit in greater -- in more greater -- in greater detail?

Mr. BYRON: Sure. If you take a gun system, let's say on a helicopter gunship, and cut let's say 800 pounds off of the dead weight, that spells the difference between let's say a helicopter getting off the ground and not getting off the ground in a desert situation where the weather is quite hot and you have a full load.

HUNTER-GAULT: I see. All right, so are you talking about large guns or small guns --

Mr. BYRON: Well, that's what we're primarily aiming at in our developmental efforts.

HUNTER-GAULT: Would those guns, whatever the size, be detectable by x-ray?

Mr. BYRON: Yes. I don't think there's a gunmaker in the free world that would dare make an undetectable gun.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why?

Mr. BYRON: Well, think of it. I would not want an undetectable gun floating around. I don't think anybody else would. And it's our company's policy -- we will make all of our guns detectable. This is why before we finished the developmental work on our gun we invented a detector chip as an implant to go into that gun to make sure that it is detectable -- more detectable than present guns are.

HUNTER-GAULT: You mean a little piece or something that goes in --

Mr. BYRON: Right.A passive electronic implant device which can not be removed.

HUNTER-GAULT: And you said this would make it more detectable than guns now in --

Mr. BYRON: Well, in order to find a gun now, you have to run it through an x-ray machine or you have to run it through a close-pass metal detector. And that will pick it up. In our technology, if you get within ten feet of a detection device, which is very cheap, it will sound off bells and whistles. I guess you could say the system is analogous to anti-shoplifting devices in large department stores.

HUNTER-GAULT: I've heard those go off.

Mr. BYRON: Yes.

HUNTER-GAULT: What stage of development is your plastic gun in now?

Mr. BYRON: Well, I hesitate to say exactly. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment is fairly accurate when they say we're probably a year to two years away.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. What can you tell me about this kind of development in other parts of the world? I mean, is there --

Mr. BYRON: Well, this is what frightens us. There's a great deal of development, because, as you know, technology does not occur in a vacuum. We're going to find that now that the technology is here -- the materials are present and people know how to use those materials -- we're going to find lasting, durable weapons made out of plastic. As a matter of fact, there are disposable weapons now in use by some, let's say, iron curtain countries that are made specifically to pass through airports and to pass through embassy gates.

HUNTER-GAULT: For what purposes?

Mr. BYRON: For clandestine purposes of that particular country.

HUNTER-GAULT: Does it --

Mr. BYRON: As a matter of fact, testimony to that effect was brought out at the Congressional hearings two weeks ago before Congressman Hughes' committee.

HUNTER-GAULT: So that a plastic gun, or use of plastic guns, is already in operation.

Mr. BYRON: Yes. And what we are afraid of is that because the current legislation that's been proposed is directed primarily at the United States and for imports into the United States, foreign manufacturers will not have to abide by them. What we would want instead is that some regulation be passed whereby all guns are required to be detectable, and perhaps other countries will follow our lead. As a second step, we really need to fund the FAA and make sure that they have the ability --

HUNTER-GAULT: That's the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. BYRON: That's correct. Make sure they have the ability to finish off the research and development on what is now current technology and get those detectors out in the airports.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. We'll come back. Jim?

LEHRER: Now to the argument over the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act -- the title given the anti-plastic gun legislation by its sponsor, Congressman Robert Mrazek, Democrat of New York. He is opposed both on his bill and here tonight by the National Rifle Association in the person of its acting director of government relations, James Baker.

Congressman, your legislation would ban all undetectable plastic weapons, is that correct?

Rep. ROBERT MRAZEK (D) New York: Basically, our legislation leaves it up to the Secretary of the Treasury to determine what is an undetectable weapon. It's fair to say that as technology develops, some weapons that would be considered undetectable now would be detectable in the future -- perhaps Mr. Byron's implantation of a chip in his weapon would make it tamper-proof. But we're not seeking to ban any particular weapon. It's an antiterrorist kind of an act, designed to try to buy some time, because plastic guns are going to be with us at a certain point in the near future. It would appear that there is a tremendous opportunity to sell, re-sell hunters and sportsmen with lightweight weapons in the future, but we're trying to buy enough time so that the technology to detect these weapons -- particularly when they are walked onto an aircraft -- we're primarily concerned about the persn who can take a plastic weapon through a metal detector, onto an aircraft, and use that lethal weapon in commandeering an aircraft to Libya in the name of international terrorism.

LEHRER: Mr. Baker, why in the world would the National Rifle Association be opposed to that?

JAMES BAKER, National Rifle Association: Well, we're opposed to the legislation specifically for the same reasons that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FAA are. We both testified against the legislation in the recent Congressional hearings. The standards Mr. Mrazek's bill establishes, according to the FAA and the ATF, are too subjective to effectively regulate and enforce. There are currently no plastic guns in existence, and, according to the FAA as well, they can detect plastic explosives and plastic firearms with current technology. It's our -- it's our position that a terrorist doesn't need an undetectable weapon system to breach civil aviation security in this country. In fact, it's been widely reported that all they would need to do is apply for a job. We just don't think that you can stop technology and affect terrorist activity.

LEHRER: Congressman?

Rep. MRAZEK: Well, I'd like to point out that BATF -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms -- as well as the FAA commended the foresight of this legislation.They do have concerns about the specific language, and that language is certain -- you know, when it's refined through the legislative process -- the bottom line is, "readily detectable" is the terminology we use. Now, I don't suggest that you have to have Sam Spade or Miss Marple on every single one of these airport detection systems. But fundamentally, that 10% that Mr. Broderick of the FAA talked about where technology does come in can not pick up right now a person carrying a plastic weapon through a metal detector. And someone as civic-minded as Mr. Byron may put a chip in his plastic weapon, but other manufacturers might not. And the FAA says it will take between two and ten years, according to them, to come up with the technology to detect plastic weapons. Now, for a lot of people who fly regularly, I don't want to ride the conveyor belt through the x-ray machine every time I get onto an aircraft. And short of intimate personal inspections of passengers, we have to either come up with that technology fast, or we're simply looking to buy some time through the ban on manufacture of --

LEHRER: Ban: is that what it is? Ban and importation -- ban on manufacture and importation of these kinds of weapons into the United States until technology is discovered. You don't think that would do any good, and you oppose that.

Mr. BAKER: Well, it's not limited to until technology is discovered. Once the bill is enacted, all firearms that are not readily detectable, whatever that means -- there is no current standard for what readily detectable is supposed to mean, so conceivably any firearm is not readily detectable if the personnel at the airport are not doing their job.

LEHRER: Now, you said a while ago that plastic weapons can now be detected, and of course the most publicized case was the El Al case in London, which has tremendous security. It did not detect a plastic bomb in the bottom of this suitcase. A person -- one of the security people got suspicious, and that's how they found that.

Mr. BAKER: Well, that's exactly right. Your detection is only as good as your security guidelines and your personnel. Right now a terrorist doesn't need a plastic gun. He can put plastic explosives in a checked bag in this country and sit in the airport and wait for the plane to take off.

LEHRER: Yeah, but my specific point at which you all must disagree, you say that there is no way for these machines to pick up plastic weapons and bombs right now.

Rep. MRAZEK: What's more important, both the Office of Technology Assessment, which is our scientific arm in Congress, as well as the FAA say that the technology to detect plastic weapons on passengers does not exist and will not exist for between two to ten years.

LEHRER: Now why do you say, then, that it will?

Mr. BAKER: Well, it's my understanding that there are -- that there are detection devices that will detect both plastic explosives and plastics of all kinds.

LEHRER: But are they in use now?

Mr. BAKER: They are not currently in use, but they are currently available.

LEHRER: Yeah, that's like the story that Tom Bearden did said they were workingon a machine, but it's not being used by American airlines, etc. Are you willing, Congressman, to set some kind of expiration date on this to protect those down the line if the technology comes along? I don't understand what the problem is here.

Rep. MRAZEK: See, I'd like to -- I don't understand what it is either, as far as the NRA's position is concerned. Because what I would like to reiterate is that our legislation doesn't ban any specific weapon. It simply gives the Secretary of the Treasury the flexibility to determine whether a weapon is detectable with responsible and effective people monitoring equipment.And as it stands now, we can't tell the difference between a water pistol and an all-plastic weapon if you're carrying it through a metal detector.

LEHRER: What would be the harm, Mr. Baker, in doing what the congressman wants to do?

Mr. BAKER: We just don't -- we don't think that you can ban technology.

LEHRER: No, no. What would be the harm in doing it?

Mr. BAKER: What would be the harm?

LEHRER: Mm-hmm.

Mr. BAKER: What you're doing is attempting to -- is putting the American small arms industry in an unadvantageous position, based on the premise that you're somehow going to affect terrorism. I just -- we don't think that the Congressman's legislation -- and neither does the Treasury Department or the FAA -- is going to have an effect on terrorism. So we don't think there's any reason to pass the legislation.

LEHRER: Okay. What about Mr. Byron's point earlier that all wepons should have some kind of detector device in them, whether it's plastic or metal? Would you support that?

Mr. BAKER: I would depend. When you walk into an airport, you give up a lot of your Fourth Amendment rights. By buying a ticket you subject yourself to security screening, what have you. However --

LEHRER: Fourth Amendment of the Constitution: search and seizure.

Mr. BAKER: Correct. If, however, the detection device is required by law in all firearms and somebody can drive by your house and tell whether you have five firearms in your house, we would be opposed to it on Fourth Amendment grounds. However, if there's some way to restrict those detectors simply to airports, I think that's something we could talk about.

LEHRER: Congressman, how do you feel about that?

Rep. MRAZEK: I'd like to see legislation that makes all firearms detectable. I think we're moving into, conceivably, a terrible now era of a time when people will, in a sense, commit suicide in the name of fanatical beliefs, religious beliefs, or for a homeland or a future homeland. And when one is confronting that kind of international terrorism, one has to occasionally take steps that are extraordinary.

LEHRER: Yes, Mr. Baker?

Mr. BAKER: I would just like to make the point that a dedicated terrorist or a lot of state-sponsored terrorists are certainly not going to be affected by a law passed in the United States Congress. It's already been reported on this broadcast that there are countries that make weapons and explosives specifically to pass through airport detection systems. And no law in this country is going to stop that.

Rep. MRAZEK: However, there used to be a lot of nuts in this country that would commandeer planes to Cuba. And if plastic weapons, simply because the small arms industry in the Unied States of America is going to be put in a disadvantageous position to make plastic weapons as opposed to foreign manufacturers of plastic weapons, and the price for that is going to be keeping nuts off of airplanes where they can commandeer those airplanes for their own purposes, I think we're taking a progressive step forward.

Mr. BAKER: I think the answer -- the immediate answer is to increase airport security. It simply is not what it ought to be in this country.

LEHRER: Mr. Byron, what would be the effect of the congressman's bill, do you think? What on your industry and the development of plastic weapons?

Mr. BYRON: Well, Congressman Mrazek is right.There is a threat, but the threat is here now. And if you take a look at the current level of detection that we have, it's 25-year-old technology built to develop against threats that were 50 years old. It's not kept pace with the develpment of the current threats that we have -- the plastic weapons developed overseas, the plastic explosives and the like. What we need to do, because the technology does exist, is give adequate funding to FAA so that they might put that new technology to use and protect us. There's two ways to do it. First, by implant technology in all firearms that are currently made. Second, by developing the sniffer technology so that you can sniff out explosives. Both those technologies are here today; they just have to be implemented.

LEHRER: In the meantime, don't pass the congressman's bill, is that what you're suggesting?

Mr. BYRON: I'm saying that it needs to be changed to reflect what is happening in the world today.

LEHRER: But specifically, are you opposed to the congressman's legislation?

Mr. BYRON: Yes I am.

LEHRER: Because?

Mr. BYRON: Because it's not far-reaching enough. It doesn't address the main point. You need to do more than just say weapons such as firearms that are made only in the United States are detectable. What that will do is it will create a temporary feeling of euphoria and safe haven among people by saying, "Gee, they're outlawed; we don't have to worry about them." And it will inhibit development efforts that are needed today.

LEHRER: Congressman?

Rep. MRAZEK: Well, my primary concern is for American citizens using airports in this country. The people who fly regularly, the attendants, the pilots, the people who, needless to say, ought to be deserving of a fundamental security. Our bill is flexible. I certainly think that the cosponsors of that legislation -- Congressmen Schumer and Weiss -- would agree with me that we can reflect some language changes that would determine exactly what readily detectable means. But the bottom line, again, is that for passengers who don't want to ride the conveyer belt through an x-ray machine, and I don't know what the new z ray would do, but I don't think I want to walk through one on a regular basis. I don't know what it would do to our toenails or other parts of our body. And in the meantime, let's pass engislation that will buy us time to fill that gap, give the FAA all of the resources they need to come up with the technology necessary to detect plastic weapons in the future. As it stands now, they say they can't do it right away.

LEHRER: Mr. Baker, the NRA is known for its clout in Congress. Is this a clout issue to you all? Are you all going to -- are you determined to defeat this bill?

Mr. BAKER: We are strongly opposed to Congressman Mrazek's bill in its present form. However, I think the congressman's intentions are honest, and we would like to work with him and the rest of Congress in order to make airport security what it ought to be in this country. We just don't think this is the way to do it.

LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, Congressman, thank you all three for being with us tonight. Guarding the Capitol

HUNTER-GAULT: As the worldwide anxiety over terrorism mounts, nowhere is that anxiety greater than in this nation's capital. Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post, explains how the threat of terrorism has changed the city and the way it does business.

RICHARD COHEN: People sometimes ask me, an almost 20 year Washington resident, how the capital has changed.

[voice-over] I tell them about the restaurants, the cafes, the Kennedy Center, the new business district around K Street, and the born-again old business district. I mention the refurbished Pennsylvania Avenue, the new old post office, that sort of thing. It never occurs to me to mention that once there was a time when people did not wear identification cards around their neck. Now Washington is a city of people who wear necklaces made of cheap chains. Almost every building requires an identification card for admittance, and in some buildings -- the White House, for instance -- you even have to wear them once you're inside. Some Washingtonians just let the chains dangle. Others push them into breast pockets. Still others -- people who work for prestigious agencies, like the White House -- dangle them conspicuously, even in their off hours, like off duty cops with their guns.

Crime and terrorism -- the reality of the former and the fear of the latter -- has changed this city. When I first came to work for the Washington Post, anyone could walk right into the building and into the newsroom. Lots of us liked that -- thought it kept us close to our readers. And we complained when the guards made their appearance. Now you need a pass to get into the building, and recently even more guards were added. The other day we all spilled out into the street after a bomb scare in the Post building. That explains the additional guards. No one complains anymore.

From time to time there is a bombing in Washington. Twice since 1971 the Capitol itself has been bombed -- the last time in 1983. That bomb caused an estimated $265,000 in damages. And now there is talk about building a fence around the Capitol. They better build it high. No one has ever been arrested for bombing the Capitol. Unlike the mounties, the FBI doesn't always get its man.

Slowly, Washington has closed in on itself. The Capitol, once so open, is now another building for which you need a pass. The same holds for the Congressional office buildings.All but one designated door is closed to the public, and barriers have been placed in front of certain buildings, like the White House. All government buildings now have guards, require passes, ask you to sign in, sign out. Just a few years ago you could walk right in.

[on camera] So far, all of this is a precaution, and no one knows if it will work or not. Building guards have a limited utility. You'd like to think they could stop terrorists, but then you have to ask yourself how people steal typewriters from the very same buildings.

[voice-over] From time to time there's even a murder in some of them, and no one ever seems to get caught. I wonder how Washington would handle terrorism. How would we react if bombs went off and people were killed? What if, like in Beirut, we had to eye each car and wonder if it were a silent killer? The difference between terrified and terrorized may seem like one of semantics, but it's not. The former is over quickly. The latter gets into your bones like a dampness and leaves you, even on the hottest day, feeling cold. I wonder what would happen if Washington felt, as some European capitals obviously do, that a military strike abroad would trigger a terrorist incident here. Would the residents of this city, the very people who make foreign policy, change their views? What would happen if, as in Jerusalem, tourists were killed, and then from all over the country people stopped coming here? The streets of Washington, specked with the tourist colors of kelly green and pink, would revert to a lobbyist gray. And the government of the people and for the people would be less accessible to those people.

[on camera] For the moment, the oceans protect. Washington and America, the capital and the country, seem so remote from the events that concern it.

[voice-over] It is spring, and this pretty city is in its glory.It is no longer the dowdy city it once was, but a world capital, up there with the best of them. Much has changed in 20 years. There's a new downtown and a new cultural center.And, of course, most everyone wears an ID dangling from the neck. Helping Hands

LEHRER: Finally tonight, an update of yesterday's Hands Across America demonstration. Tom Bearden and Judy Woodruff do the updating. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Organizers of the cross-country fundraising effort for the nation's needy say they hope to raise at least their goal of $50 million, but that it will be months before all the pledges come in. Nearly six million people took part in yesterday's line, stretching from a six-year-old girl in New York City who has spent most of the year living with her family in public shelters, all the way to a homeless family in California. With all these participants, there were still a few gaps, particularly in the desolate areas of the Southwest.But our correspondent, Tom Bearden, found one community in Arizona where there was no shortaage of enthusiasm.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Sunday morning, in the desert just outside of Nogales, Arizona, more than three dozen people board a bus they all pitched in to charter for the trip to Phoenix, where they will join hands with millions of other Americans to fight hunger and homelessness. Most people only drove a few miles to participate in Hands Across America. The Nogales group travelled three and a half hours.Lynne Dussault was one of the organizers of the group. In everyday life, she is a cook in her father's restaurant, which became something of a local headquarters in the months it took to bring everyone together. Her reasons for being willing to spend so much time on the effort were simple.

LYNNE DUSSAULT: The United States, being one of the greatest countries in the world, shouldn't have this kind of problem with the amount of people that we have that are hungry and homeless. It's ridiculous. We've got too much money in the United States, where we should be able to take care of our own. And basically it was because the people in the United States should take care of themselves before they start taking care of other countries. And I wanted to get involved in it because of that sole reason.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: The people in Nogales say they see a lot of poverty. This border city of 20,000 snuggles up to another, much larger Nogales -- Nogales, Mexico. Thousands of people cross over every day, legally and otherwise. And people say the less fortunate circumstances of the Mexicans makes them doubly aware of the impact of poverty. Most of the people who work on the loading dock at the Al Harrison Produce Company are, in local parlance, wet -- in the U.S. illegally. They're employed by Tom and Sharon Harrison -- the couple were among the prime organizers of the Norgales group.

SHARON HARRISON: We send billions of dollars all around the world to third world countries to help them, but I don't think that we as citizens are as aware of the people that are hungry. It will just help to make everybody aware that we need to help -- those that can help -- to help our brothers and sisters that aren't as lucky as we are.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Like the Harrisons, real estate broker Carol Rivas has put a lot of time and money into the project. And also like the others, she really doesn't have a clear idea of how the money they raised should be spent.

CAROL RIVAS: I really don't know.That's just -- to me it's just beyond my comprehension that there are so many people out there that do need help. I don't know how they could do it. Just to be able to distribute it evenly among everybody, so that everybody would benefit by this.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: But Carmel Valianti has some suggestions on how the money ought to be spent. She's a kindergarten teacher in Nogales and sees the effects of poverty in her classroom every day. She mobilized the whole school to make banners that allowed all the children to participate, if only in spirit. One of the major goals of Hands Across America is to make the general public aware of the problem. Valianti thinks that will be valuable, but she hopes there will be more to it than that.

CARMEL VALIANTI: Education is one solution. But education of the broader public to be sympathetic is one, but really, truly from an ex-social worker's point of view, I really think it's educating the poor themselves -- giving them skills. Welfare, food stamps, won't do much.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: As they practice the songs they will sing in a few hours, most of the people in the group said they think Hands Across America is largely symbolic. Many said they just wanted to show their sympathy for the homeless. But there is more than a little pessimism.

Ms. RIVAS: I think that there's just so much poverty, how much is it going to take from all of us to be able to help all of these less fortunate? I hope it will make a dent. With all my heart I hope it does. But when you see all of this poverty, you just wonder. You know, how much can we raise to be able to distribute all of this evenly so that there will be shelter and enough food for all these people?

BEARDEN [voice-over]: But at the same time, they also hope they can make a difference. So they gathered on a dusty hillside along Interstate 10 on the outskirts of Phoenix, the temperature well over 100 degrees, to stretch out the line as far as they could.

Ms. DUSSAULT: Come on guys, move it down this way.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: They knew there would be gaps in the desert, but it didn't seem to matter very much in the bright culmination of this enormous project.

Crowd: Five, four, three, two, one. [cheers]

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Despite the heat, despite the fact that few people knew the words to the songs, Lynne Dussault says it was worth it.

Ms. DUSSAULT: Just looking down that line right before it was formed, making sure everybody was in line, and where we had the gaps, seeing people all the way down as far as you could see was just amazing. It was real thrilling.

WOODRUFF: Organizers of Hands Across America say about $7.50 of every $10 they raised will actually find its way to a charity. Sixty percent of the money given away will go to existing food and shelter programs, the rest for new and developing ones. Decisions about where the money will go and the first real checks won't go out until sometime in the middle of the fall.

HUNTER-GAULT: Once again, the main stories of the day. President Reagan led the Memorial Day observances and praised those who served in Vietnam. A Soviet official said the death toll at Chernobyl now stands at 19. Angola said 53 of its soldiers were killed in a South African raid. Good night, Jim.

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