The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Here is the news.Defense Secretary Weinberger strongly denied proposing a military pay freeze or cut. Retail sales showed a strong rebound in November. The two American hijack hostages returned to the U.S. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: On the NewsHour tonight, we'll give you our summarized version of the news of the day, then four focus sections: on budget cutting and other matters economic with two wise men of differing economics, Charles Schultze and Herbert Stein; on an Oklahoma town's fight to keep T. Boone Pickens away from their oil company; on the debate over Christmas nativity scenes on the White House ellipse and other public properties; and over cholesterol and stress and their connection to heart disease. News Summary

LEHRER: Somebody suggested freezing military pay for a year, but it wasn't Secretary Weinberger. The defense secretary paid an unusual and unscheduled call at a Pentagon press briefing this morning to set the record straight. It came following conflicting news reports about conflicting views on how much defense should contribute to next year's budget cuts. Budget director David Stockman has in mind $8 billion; Weinberger reportedly has $6 billion in his mind. The twain have yet to meet, and President Reagan has yet to resolve it. Weinberger's morning appearance on the subject today was a brief one.

CASPAR WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense: The suggestion in one of the stories that I had proposed a freeze in 1986 but that that had been tried before, proposed by me earlier and had been rejected, is of course totally false. And the troops should know that and the people should know that. We are in the course of discussions about the defense budget with the President, and the President has quite understandably, in view of his concern about the size of the deficit, asked us to hunt for a number of different ways in which reductions could be made. But the idea of being unfair to the troops who are performing such fine services for all of us is certainly no proposal of mine and no proposal of the President's. And the stories that have been appearing to that effect, I think do a great disservice to them and to their morale. So I thought that it was important enough to come down and share that with you.

LEHRER: White House spokesmen said later, no matter what is trimmed from the defense budget, the MX missile stays. They said Mr. Reagan remains committed to it despite some opposition from many in Congress. Robin?

MacNEIL: There was a positive sign for the economy today in news that retail sales rose 1.8% in November, the largest gain since last spring. Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige said the Christmas selling season is off to a cheerful start and that pace should continue. He added, "This pickup in consumer spending launches the economy into a third year of expansion." Private economists were more cautious.

Another government report today may portend lower interest rates in the future. The Federal Reserve said that the nation's money supply, known as M-1, dropped by $7.1 billion, more than had been expected. Wall Street analyst David Jones told us today that this could result in lower bank interest rates. For our first focus section after the news summary, two distinguished former government economists, Charles Schultze and Herbert Stein, discuss tax proposals, budget cuts and the state of the economy.

LEHRER: The two Americans who survived six days of terror and torture at the Teheran airport arrived back home today. Businessman John Costa got off a Pan Am flight from Frankfurt, West Germany, at New York City. AID employee Charles Kapar flew on to Washington. Neither man talked to reportes, and remained mostly out of public view. A State Department spokesman said both had requested their departures from West Germany and arrivals here be done quietly. Kapar is due to have a full news conference Monday.

MacNEIL: Scientists said today that a form of hepatitis that is a major cause of liver cancer is on the increase,even though there's a vaccine to prevent it. A panel of leading scientists said cases of hepatitis B have increased 68% since 1978 and presented a serious health problem. They said fear of getting AIDS, acquired immune deficiency disease, prevented many people at risk from being immunized.Dr. James Mason, head of the Centers for Disease Control, said that fear was not justified.

Dr. JAMES MASON, Centers for Disease Control: It's clear to us, absolutely clear, that hepatitis B vaccine is safe. It does not contain AIDS virus, and even if it did, the data demonstrate that the virus would be killed by the inactivation steps used in the manufacturing process. Although we have a highly successful system for delivering childhood immunizations, it has been more difficult to convince adults to receive immunizations for diseases they may not perceive as representing clear and present and immediate dangers. It is therefore the task of the Centers for Disease Control, along with other federal, state and local health agencies, to make sure, through appropriate health education, that populations at high risk of hepatitis B are made aware of the serious consequences of infection.

MacNEIL: They said those populations, those at risk of getting hepatitis B and who should take the vaccine, included health care workers, sexually active homosexual men, hemophiliacs, kidney dialysis patients, injectable drug abusers, and certain ethnic groups such as Alaskan Eskimos and Vietnamese refugees.

LEHRER: The U.S. decision to pull out of UNESCO, the Paris-based United Nations organization, came under fire today. A national advisory commission on UNESCO voted 30-13 to "regret" the administration decision to leave UNESCO by the end of the month. The State Department has been critical of UNESCO's politics. Today a State Department official said the U.S. would continue to spend the money it would have given UNESCO, but outside the UNESCO framework.

And there was news from Lebanon today. In occupied southern Lebanon, Israeli troops surrounded several villages looking for terrorists believed to be allied to Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. There were clashes between villagers and the soldiers, and two people died. But an Israeli spokesman said their troops had nothing to do with it.

MacNEIL: In India, more than 100,000 people have fled from the city of Bhopal while preparations are under way to dispose of a supply of the poison gas that killed 2,500 people last week. The Indian army was reported to be on the alert and ready to stand by at the Union Carbide plant when the operation begins on Sunday.Here's a report from Alistair Clarke of Visnews.

ALISTAIR CLARKE, Visnews [voice-over]: They were lucky enough to have survived one disaster and they were not going to take a chance on a repeat. With two days to go before the gas neutralization was to begin, the crowds were swarming onto anything that could move out of the city. There was roof-space-only on the buses, but the exodus was calm. Many local bus staff were ill from the gas fumes, but drivers have been drafted in to deal with the rush. Anyone who couldn't afford a bus ticket pushed a cart, and the trains were overflowing too. This one would carry people to the next town. But eight kilometers away from Bhopal the authorities were hurriedly building camps. They would be ready for an estimated 125,000 people, and free transport was planned for them.

MacNEIL: In New York, a federal judge refused to extradite a member of the Irish Republican Army convicted of murdering a Britishsoldier. The IRA man, John Patrick Douherty, escaped from prison in Belfast after his conviction in 1981 and turned up in the United States. The British asked for his extradition, but U.S. District Judge John Spizzio ruled today that the murder he was charged with was political and therefore protected Douherty from extradition. The British maintain that IRA violence is criminal, not political.

LEHRER: And to close the news summary tonight, an "isn't it wonderful what a difference a call from the President can make" story. Yesterday Mr. Reagan called artificial heart patient William Schroeder to wish him well. Schroeder said "Thanks, Mr. President, and while I have you, I'm getting the runaround at the Social Security Administration about a disability pension." Mr. Reagan promised to look into it. Well, lo and behold, this afternoon the Social Security Administration announced a quick review of the case revealed Schroeder was entitled to a disability pension, and his check was later hand-delivered to him at Humana Hospital in Louisville, Kentucky.

WILLIAM SCHROEDER, artificial heart patient: The President always said that the buck stops here, so we've got the proof right here that the buck stops right here. Budget Cuts: Differences over Dollars

LEHRER: Our first focus segment tonight is on the political and economic spectacle called cutting the federal budget, now being played out among officials of the Reagan administration. Today's episode involves cuts in the defense budget. Will it be the $8 billion budget head David Stockman and others want, or the $6 billion Defense Secretary Weinberger is reportedly counterproposing?Treasury Secretary Regan says the overall plan doesn't have a prayer of passing without a goodly hunk out of defense. Domestically there's talk of freezing and doing away with things like the Council of Economic Advisors. And there's even been a suggestion from Secretary Regan that it may be time to remove some independence from the independent Federal Reserve Board. And so the spectacle goes. Two battle- experienced veterans of similar past spectacles are with us to analyze this one. They are Charles Schultze. He has worked for Democratic presidents, most recently as chairman of President Carter's Council of Economic Advisors. And Herbert Stein, an advisor to Republican presidents, who headed the same council under President Nixon. Mr. Schultze is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Mr. Stein holds the same title at the American Enterprise Institute.

Gentlemen, let's take defense spending first. What is your feeling? Is $8 billion that Mr. Stockman has in mind, or $6 billion that Mr. Weinberger has in mind, more realistic? Do you want to go first, Mr. Stein?

HERBERT STEIN: Yes, I'd like to.I don't think we ought to have any cut in the defense budget. I am disappointed if Secretary Weinberger is accepting a $6 billion cut. I think the facts are that we are falling farther behind the Russians than we were when Mr. Reagan came in. And the first responsibility of the government is to defend the country. I think that's our highest priority, and I think it's ridiculous to be cutting the defense budget at this time.

LEHRER: What about Secretary Regan's point, that the whole plan doesn't stand a prayer of passing unless there are cuts in defense?

Mr. STEIN: Well, I'd say in the first place there are things more important than this plan, and I think defending the country is more important than even reducing the budget deficit, although I think that's very serious. But I think that a program could be adopted. I think if the President was willing to give something more on the tax side, we could develop a package which did not require such a big cut in the defense program. Anyway, I think that this administration ought to be out there fighting for its programs. It's already been cut substantially since Mr. Reagan came in.

LEHRER: Mr. Schultze?

CHARLES SCHULTZE: Well, we did need some increase in defense buildup, but this administration did it too far, too fast. It essentially came in and said to the Pentagon, "Open sesame. You have your wish list." It was unplanned, uncoordinated, trying to get a very large increase in a very short period of time. The result has been some, you know, incredible duplication and overlap. The way the Army's handling its air defense stuff, for example -- there's a lot of duplication with itself and the Air Force. We're doing some things that I think could be potentially disastrous.

LEHRER: Disastrous?

Mr. SCHULTZE: Well, we're building up the capabilities of the Navy with the idea that battle carrier task force with amphibious troops in all-out war could go into Soviet ports and attack them, right in range of Soviet land forces, which could be bad. In other words, we needed an increase; we're doing it too fast. It's costing us too much money. We ought to slow it down. Not turn it around, but slow it down. The amount Mr. Stockman has proposed cutting is really not all that serious. At the end of the next three years, if Mr. Stockman gets his way, the Reagan administration would have had six or seven years in which we would have had a 50% increase in the inflation-adjusted value of defense spending -- after Mr. Stockman has his way. And it seems to me that is plenty.

Mr. STEIN: Well, I think what you have to measure the adequacy of the defense program against is the expenditures, the posture of our potential adversary. And I think the fact that we have -- will have increased defense spending by 50% is not relevant if the Soviets are still gaining on us. And I believe they are. At least -- basically what I think is that there's no point to taking this serious risk. The Treasury just presented a tax reform program in which the income tax rates would be 15%, 25% and 35%. What's so great about that? If it were 16%, 26%, 36%, one percentage point more, we get $40 billion more in 1986 and more than that every subsequent year. That will more than pay for all these cuts. I don't see that it's worthwhile taking this risk with our defense posture.

Mr. SCHULTZE: Could I make short, two quick points? In the first place, the latest CIA estimates of the size of the Soviet buildup have been substantially scaled down. The Soviets are increasing their defense spending about 2%. I agree we ought to take into account what the Soviets are doing. But they are not catching up on us; we're moving ahead of them, at least in spending. Secondly --

LEHRER: You mean just in terms of dollars.

Mr. SCHULTZE: Dollars, yeah, adjusted for inflation.

LEHRER: They have inflation in the Soviet Union too?

Mr. SCHULTZE: Well, Lord knows. It's hard to measure anything. I agree with Herb Stein --

LEHRER: They don't have dollars there.

Mr. SCHULTZE: Ruble inflation.

LEHRER: Ruble inflation.

Mr. SCHULTZE: But I agree with Herb that if it were true we really needed this spending for our national security, economics ought not to stand in the way. This country can afford what we need for defense. Our quarrel is whether the big, huge buildup of the Reagan administration is needed.

LEHRER: Well, look, the spectacle part of this. Based on both you-all's experience, first you, Mr. Stein, do you fint it -- is this unusual for a budget director publicly comes out that he thinks $8 billion, and then the secretary of defense comes in and then it's leaked, no, he will handle for six, and then the whole thing just kind of, well left there today. For instance, the White House said today the President doesn't have anything to say; they're having more meetings. Is this the normal way of doing things?

Mr. STEIN: Well, I think there's more of this public quarreling and leaking than in the administration that I had to do with, and I think maybe in the administration that Charlie had to do with. There were always struggles about these things, and the participants used the press to advance their positions. But I think this is extreme.

LEHRER: Do you agree?

Mr. SCHULTZE: I think this public fighting for the President's heart and mind is unusual, to say the least.

LEHRER: You mean doing it publicly?

Mr. SCHULTZE: Doing it publicly with the press.

LEHRER: Yeah. The politics of this. You said that you didn't -- I mean, just looking at it pragmatically, you disagree with Secretary Regan that there must be defense cuts in order to get the whole thing through, is that correct?

Mr. STEIN: Yes, I do. I think, you see, as everybody says, the President has a certain amount of political capital. The President evidently has a lot of political capital. The question is what is he going to use it for. And I think if he used it to support the defense program, if he would get out there and fight for it, I think there's a great support in the country for the defense program, and I think he could make it stick.

LEHRER: Let's move to the domestic -- do you want to -- okay. Let's move to the idea of a freeze. What do you think of that, Mr. Schultze?

Mr. SCHULTZE: Well, let me make it -- try to make it clear that only a small part of what we're talking about in the budget cuts that the newspapers have been reporting is a freeze. A freeze means that you take spending and simply say, item by item, it's a formula, nothing goes up. Or with this part of the budget, nothing goes up. That is only -- doing that to programs where legally you can do it is only a small part of what budget director Stockman is suggesting. Of the $60 billion worth of spending cuts he wants by 1987, something like $10 billion of it is the freeze and $50 billion of it are selective cuts, item by item, which are very deep and very severe. So the first proposition is the freeze doesn't get you much money, particularly if you leave Social Security out. Because most of the other areas you can't freeze in.

LEHRER: Which has been left out.

Mr. SCHULTZE: That which has been left out.

LEHRER: Has been, right.

Mr. SCHULTZE: Secondly, some of the cuts that Mr. Stockman is proposing I think are warranted, and budget directors have been unsuccessfully trying to get many of them for 20 years. Some of them are questionable, in the sense that reasonable men could argue about it. And some are outrageous. For example, the proposal to disallow one year's cost-of-living increases for all the programs for the poor is unwarranted, and in the context of not doing it for Social Security beneficiaries is literally outrageous. So my guess out of all of this, given the political difficulty, he'll get some of them but he won't get a lot of them.

LEHRER: Do you agree with the Charles Schultze "outrageous" measurement?

Mr. STEIN: Well, I think "outrageous" is a little strong, but I basically agree with him. But I think at some point we have to say, well, the best is the enemy of the good, and that we will have to take something that is not as good as either of us would prefer. I do think that the administration, if it goes forward with this, deserves credit for courage in attacking the farmers, the veterans, the Small Business Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the Economic Development Administration, and a lot of other wasteful sacred cows that have been around in the budget and that we've all known about for years and years. I agree, I'm very reluctant to see cuts in the programs for the very poor, and I don't like to see Social Security excluded from this thing. So that we've really made the thing much more difficult than it needed to be.

LEHRER: What about Senator Dole's approach? Senator Dole said, I think day before yesterday, that he will -- on Social Security, let's not exempt those in the upper income groups or moderate upper income groups, Social Security benefits. Do you think that -- does that make sense?

Mr. SCHULTZE: It won't save you much money, number one. Let me voice a slight suspicion, though, about what's been going on. I'm not sure of this, I warn you. Some of these cuts I think will happen, and some of the people in the administration were trying to convince the President that he really had to have a tax increase. And they got up a list of these tremendously politically difficult cuts that he'd have to take if he didn't have a tax increase, and I think he surprised them -- he's going to propose them. Now, I'm not sure of that, nobody's told me that. But I hear that's possible.

LEHRER: Is he hallucinating, or does that make sense?

Mr. STEIN: Well, I think that's possible, but I think that was a good surprise for the President to pull on his advisors who are performing this Machiavellian trick.

Mr. SCHULTZE: If it's true.

Mr. STEIN: But of course the bottom line is that he won't get those cuts, the farmers and the veterans and all that.

LEHRER: You don't think it'll happen?

Mr. STEIN: Well, he'll get some of it, but he won't get very much of it.But I think that in the end we may get some revenue increases of one kind of another under the guise of tax reform, and we'll come out with a little package. It will be inadequate, but it will be a step.

Mr. SCHULTZE: I agree with that. I'd like to add one other point. I think there's a paradox in this. I think if the President of the United States, given his popularity, would finally 'fess up and agree to support some kind of a significant increase in taxes, paradoxically the Congress will give him more spending cuts. If he comes up with a rounded package -- some defense, some civilian, some tax increases -- he's got a much better chance of getting it, paradoxically, than if he just sits and says, "I don't want to have a tax increase."

LEHRER: But after what he said in the campaign, Mr. Stein, can he do that?

Mr. STEIN: Well, he can say "Whoops, I made a mistake." You know, that's a possibility, I think. I think that -- I believe that the public has a great yearning for candor in these matters. I may be exaggerating that, but I think that's true. And I think that if the President said, "Well, we have examined all these things," and especially if he puts the programs up there to be cut and he says at the last resort -- well, he can now say, "Well, I'm at the last resort."

LEHRER: Look, before we go, I've got to ask you, speaking of what you all used to do. He also apparently, reportedly, may want to do away with the Council of Economic Advisors. Is that a good idea?

Mr. STEIN: Oh, that's a terrible idea, I And of course it doesn't fit in the budget-cutting thing -- it's $2 1/2 million a year. I think the President needs the Council of Economic Advisors. I think seven presidents before him have found the council very useful, and I think that he can find the council very useful also.

LEHRER: Mr. Schultze?

Mr. SCHULTZE: It isn't that he has to take their advice all the time; he probably shouldn't. But he ought to listen.And some of this is a little bit like shoot the messenger.He was getting some bad news out of this council, that is, growth is not going to cure your budget deficit and you may need a tax increase. And a lot of people didn't like that, so there's a little of shoot the messenger in this.

LEHRER: Okay. Well, they're going to shoot me if I don't say goodbye to you all. Mr. Schultze, Mr. Stein, thank you very much. Robin? Taking on a Takeover

MacNEIL: For our next focus section, we look again at the attempt by T. Boone Pickens and Mesa Petroleum of Amarillo, Texas, to take over Phillips Petroleum of Bartlesville, Oklahoma. The takeover is seen as a major threat to the citizens of Bartlesville. Phillips workers believe Pickens will sell Phillips to make a profit, and thus destroy Bartlesville's economy in the process. Bartlesville has been the home for Phillips since 1917, when the company was founded. Today Phillips employs 7,700 people in Bartlesville, and nearly two thirds of the 30,000 people who live there depend in some way on Phillips for their livelihood. The Phillips name is everywhere. The city's main street. The hospital. The only downtown skyscraper. Last night about 1,800 people jammed the city's community center, and another 1,200 filled church halls nearby to rally support for Phillips, which is vigorously fighting Mesa's bid. The event kicked off with hand clapping to the theme from Oklahoma. Dana Sterling of public station KOED-Tulsa reports.

ARCH ROBBINS, Bartlesville Mayor: Now, therefore, be it resolved by the board of commissioners in the city of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, that the city of Bartlesville expresses support for Phillips Petroleum Company, and uncompromising opposition to any unfriendly takeover of Phillips Petroleum.

DANA STERLING, KOED-Tulsa [voice-over]: With that official proclamation by the city's government, Phillips 66 officials received total and enthusiastic support from the public at last night's meeting in the packed community center that Phillips donations helped build. Phillips employees came from company installations in several states to show support, as did the publisher of a newspaper in nearby Kansas.

RUDY TAYLOR, publisher: You are our brothers and our sisters, and when Phillips Petroleum Company is attacked in any way, we feel that it's a slap in the face directly, because without Phillips we'd just be Mayberry, RFD, mighty fast.

STERLING [voice-over]: Speaker after speaker praised the company for being the chief cause of the area's high standard of living and the biggest contributor to Bartlesville charities and schools.

BARRY HUDSON, Chamber of Commerce: I can't express to you how terribly proud I am to be a part of this community and you out there. And I know a lot of you are concerned, deeply concerned about the future. And this Chamber of Commerce board, dedicated to free enterprise, is here tonight to rally your support for Phillips, for Bartlesville, for your family, and for the future of northeastern Oklahoma. Thank you.

Dr. GARY TOOTHAKER, school superintendent: Elementary and secondary students, not only those students in Bartlesville, simply cannot afford to lose their white knight, just as Oklahoma cannot afford to lose its largest industry.

STERLING [voice-over]: The high point of the evening came with the late appearance by Oklahoma Congressman Mickey Edwards. People in the audience seemed on the edge of their seats as he described his conversation with Mesa owner T. Boone Pickens in Washington yesterday morning.

Rep. MICKEY EDWARDS, (R) Oklahoma: And I made the point to Mr. Pickens that we're talking about human beings, not portfolios.

STERLING [voice-over]: Edwards threatened Pickens with legislative action if Pickens succeeds in buying Phillips and then dismantles its Bartlesville operation.

Rep. EDWARDS: I could guarantee him that if that happens, the Congress of the United States is going to come down on him and people like him so hard that he'il never know what him.

STERLING: Many speakers said that this takeover attempt is unlike past ones involving Conaco or Gulf because of Phillips' unique attachment to Bartlesville. The city depends on Phillips, not just for taxes or for charitable contributions, but for its existence. And community leaders say they hope the stockholders will take into account this human element when they make a decision on whether or not to sell.

[voice-over] Even Edwards, who is very close to his district in his conservative political philosophy, said there's a limit to what capitalism allows. He said free enterprise in its best form should enrich a company's employees, not just the top management.

Rep. EDWARDS: The free enterprise system is not designed to suck all the money up to the top.

STERLING [voice-over]: Community members just don't believe Pickens' statements about keeping Phillips intact, and agreed they would help Phillips try to fight him off with publicity and letter-writing campaigns.

Mr. HUDSON: There will be a Bartlesville, Oklahoma. We will succeed, and we will survive.

MacNEIL: Court action brought by Phillips against Mesa is pending in Oklahoma and federal courts.

Still to come on the Newshour, New York Times health reporter Jane Brody with new advice on lowering cholesterol, and a documentary look at stress and heart disease. Finally, are governments violating the separation of church and state by sponsoring creche displays at Christmas? We have a debate. Cholesterol & Stress: Affairs of the Heart

LEHRER: In an average American week, 10,000 people die of heart attacks or other forms of heart disease, which makes it the number one cause of death in this country. Our next focus section is on a new government report on what is believed to be one of the major causes, a fatty substance in us all called cholesterol.Charlayne Hunter-Gault has more. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, until this week the government had never said that cholesterol directly causes heart disease. But now for the first time a panel convened by the National Institutes of Health says unequivocally that reducing cholesterol is as important to combatting heart disease as controlling high blood pressure and quitting smoking. In the most far-reaching public health recommendation yet made on the matter, the panel called for an all-out national effort the curb blood cholesterol levels, even those considered normal by most physicians. The panel said that a radical change in our eating habitscould save as many as 100,000 lives each year. Here to tell us more about the new cholesterol guidelines is Jane Brody, the health and nutrition columnist for The New York Times and author of Jane Brody's Nutrition Book.

Jane, the panel said there's no longer any doubt about cholesterol and heart disease. How could they be so unequivocal in their statement?

JANE BRODY: Well, finally, the last nail has been knocked into the cholesterol coffin, because the most recent important study showed that when you reduce cholesterol in a person's blood, you actually can prevent heart attacks and death from heart disease. And in fact, just a 1% reduction in cholesterol produces as much as a 2% reduction in your risk of developing future heart disease. That's very dramatic.

HUNTER-GAULT: So they were emboldened to make this --

Ms. BRODY: That's right. When you add that fact to all the other evidence -- the laboratory studies which show that if you feed animals the diet that most Americans live on, they get heart disease, they get hardening of the arteries, and when you reverse that diet, when you take away some of the fatty substances and some of the cholesterol, they can actually reverse the clogging of the blood vessels which precipitates a heart attack.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, now. They said that the cholesterol level even that doctors consider normal in the average American is probably too high. How high is too high? How do they know that?

Ms. BRODY: Well, you see, what has always been considered normal for many years in this country was average, and average in this country results in half of the population dying of heart disease.

HUNTER-GAULT: That's just your average, everyday eat breakfast, lunch and dinner, and --

Ms. BRODY: On the American diet. Now, if you look at other countries and you see that their cholesterol levels are far below what is typically found in Americans, and they don't get the heart disease that we get, then you have to realize that what is average in this country is sick, is too high, is dangerous.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Then how high is too high and dangerous?

Ms. BRODY: What the committee said, and what most health experts who have considered this issue say, is that any level in any person over 200 milligrams of cholesterol in your blood is too high. Now, if you go for an examination to an average physician in this country and you come out with, at your age, a cholesterol level of 230 or 240, that doctor is in all probability going to tell you you're normal, you're okay, you don't have to worry about cholesterol. And you most certainly do. You most certainly do have to worry about it. And your risk of developing heart disease at that level is about three times higher than it would be if you had a cholesterol level of 180.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. But how do you know? I mean, how does the average person know, other than going in to your doctor and saying "Let's take my cholesterol level"?

Ms. BRODY. That's the only way you can know. I mean, how did you know what your blood pressure is? Somebody has to take your blood pressure. Now, there is not a home device for studying cholesterol. But it's a very, very sample blood test -- just the doctor takes a simple of your blood as he would do for any blood test and sends it off to a laboratory, and the laboratory can tell you what your cholesterol level is.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, given these studies and everything, would you recommend that people just go in for a routine cholesterol check?

Ms. BRODY: Absolutely.The most important thing that a person can do now is find out whether he or she is at risk, do you have an elevated cholesterol. And if you do, then what do you do about it?

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. The panel had recommendations on that. What were the main ones?

Ms. BRODY: The main ones were to change your diet. The average American now eats about 40% of his or her calories from fats. Most of those fats are saturated fats, the kind that are hard at room temperature, like butter and beef fat and pork fat. And if you reduce that by just 25%, you will greatly reduce your cholesterol level in your blood. Also to eat less cholesterol, and the most common cholesterol-laden food in this country is an egg yolk. A single egg yolk contains the amount of cholesterol that an adult should have in a day. So that if you eat an egg yolk and you eat any other source of cholesterol in the course of that day, you will probably exceed the recommended amount of cholesterol.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. What do you think is the best and simplest -- and I emphasize simplest, because I don't think that most people would be sitting around calculating -- what is the best way to keep up with how much caloric intake, fat intake, cholesterol you're getting so that you don't exceed normal levels, without having to go to the doctor every month?

Ms. BRODY: That's right. And most people don't eat by number. Let's face it. I don't eat by number. But you can, by adjusting the kinds of foods you eat, achieve these levels without having to make fancy calculations and carrying arovnd a little calculator. For example, if you reduce the amount of red meats that you eat and you choose, when you choose red meat --

HUNTER-GAULT: Even lean red meat?

Ms. BRODY: Lean cuts, lean cuts. Not the well-marbled steaks. Not the trimmed -- the things that are lined with fat. Cut away all the fat that you can see and start out with those that aren't so well-marbled. And use less of it. We don't have to have a half of pound of meat at a meal. That's much too much. In my family of four people, which includes --

HUNTER-GAULT: Thirteen-year-old twins.

Ms. BRODY: -- two adolescent boys, we have a half a pound of meat for four people. And instead of gorging on meat, round out your meals and fill up your bellies with pasta, potatoes, rice, beans, bread, all excellent, noncholesterol-raising food.

HUNTER-GAULT: How about chicken and fish?

Ms. BRODY: Now, chicken and fish are good substitutes for red meat as protein sources, as are beans. A very, very inexpensive way to go is to include more of the dried peas and beans in your diet, like lentils and kidney beans and pinto beans and such.

HUNTER-GAULT: The American Heart Association has recommended that children as young as two years old start a low-cholesterol diet. Why is that so important, to start so young?

Ms. BRODY: Heart disease is a disease that starts the day that you're born, and it gradually builds up, gradually in your blood vessels. From eating a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet, your blood vessels accumulate fatty deposits. And this disease does not show up in most people until middle age or later. And very often the very first symptom of heart disease, of this fatty blood vessel problem, is a heart attack, and in 60% of people that heart attack is fatal. So your first sign of this problem can be a sudden death. Therefore you've got to start in childhood to prevent the disease, to prevent the buildup of fatty deposits in your blood vessels.

HUNTER-GAULT: But it's not too late for me to start now?

Ms. BRODY: It is never too late for anyone to start, and it's never too late to reverse some of the damage that you've done.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Jane Brody, thank you for being with us.

Ms. BRODY: Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: Robin?

MacNEIL: Cholesterol is only one of the major factors contributing to heart disease. Another, according to many doctors, is stress. In Phoenix, Arizona, researchers at the National Center for Preventive and Stress Medicine are trying to measure the effect of stress on heart disease. Here's a report on the program by producer Rick D'Alli of public station KAET, Phoenix, Arizona.

RICK D'ALLI [voice-over]: This is an exercise in crisis medicine: treating a disease after it has done its damage. These patients are recovering from various forms of heart disease, which despite advances in surgery, drugs and medical technology, remains the leading cause of death in the industrialized world.Dr. Robert Eliot ought to know.

Dr. ROBERT S. ELIOT, chairman, National Center for Preventive and Stress

Medicine: I was the new chief of cardiology in 1972, and nine months after that, at the age of 44, I was lecturing on cardiac emergencies and developed one myself. Now, that creates a certain credibility gap for a new chief of cardiology.

D'ALLI [voice-over]: Eliot's heart attack fit a pattern his own research had uncovered in a unique group of individuals. During the 1960s at Cape Kennedy, an unusually large number of young engineers and technicians in the space program between the ages of 28 and 35 were suddenly dropping dead from heart attacks, at twice the rate of the normal Florida population.

Dr. ELIOT: The risk factors accounted for less than 50% of all the new coronary events that we found. It was really a surprise for me as a cardiologist, but this has been confirmed many times over in the last two decades.

D'ALLI [voice-over]: The coroners couldn't account for the sudden deaths in these young men, and every environmental poison theory turned up negative. Then Dr. Eliot, consulting with the space agency, stumbled onto a psychological lead.

Dr. ELIOT: Every time they fired a rocket successfully, they would fire 15% of the people that made it happen. Now, how would you like an incentive system like that?

D'ALLI [voice-over]: Eliot reasoned that job stress might be killing these young men. Whether at Cape Kennedy or in any town in modern society, perhaps half of all heart attacks could be linked to stress: stress at home, or stress at least as the individual perceives it, in the workplace. One study of sudden cardiac deaths showed that a disproportionate one-fourth occurred on Monday, when the anticipation of work stress is highest. And another disproportionate one-fourth occurred on Saturday, probably when family pressures are at a peak.

Dr. ELIOT: What we learned was that we're living in the bodies of our ancestors in a world that they never dreamt would exist. And what worked for us 100 years ago, what was appropriate for my parents, really was inappropriate for me.

DAN BAKER, Ph.D., psychologist, National Center for Preventive and Stress

Medicine: If we go back, we look at the species, we spent two million years in the forest, okay; we spent 5,000 years on the farm, and 300 years in industry, and only 30 years in high technology. Now, why is that important? Because we recognized, even in the '50s, with the Holmes + Ray life-change scale, that changes were a significant factor in the way an individual copes, how it affects the immune system, et cetera, not only physiologically, but psychologically.

Dr. ELIOT: So we began to see that stress was important, and our job was to find out the mechanisms by which it worked, to develop an objective system that physicians could use to detect the impact of stress on the body, and then to utilize scientifically-based medical principles and prudent behavioral approaches to try to bring these things under control so that we could live in the bodies of our ancestors in a world they never dreamt would exist.

D'ALLI [voice-over]: The mechanism by which stress can induce heart disease is still somewhat theoretical. But it might go something like this. When the brian perceives that a sudden event could be stressful or dangerous, it signals a small organ on top of each kidney called the adrenal gland to pump a surge of adrenalin into the bloodstream. Throughout the evolution of the species, adrenalin has prepared man's body and blood for combat, shutting down unimportant systems and raising blood pressure. But the bodies of laboratory animals injected with too much adrenalin demonstrate a serious side effect. Adrenalin in excess can rupture heart muscle fibers. Exhibit one: ruptured heart muscle fiber from an elderly woman who suddenly died after she was accosted and robbed. She was never physically harmed. Exhibit two: heart muscle from an Air Force test pilot who couldn't eject from a stricken high-performance aircraft. Telemetry indicated that his heart had stopped before the plane crashed.

Dr. ELIOT: Our research began to demonstrate that stress by itself, that is, hostile messages, bad prescriptions sent by the brain to the body, could literally rupture the muscle fibers in the heart and bring about chaotic electrical storms, causing the heart to beat like a bag of worms. And of course when that happens, we die.

D'ALLI [voice-over]: There is, of course, another form of stress: long-term stress. Some people react to the challenges of life with a constant state of preparedness.The brain, in a state of vigilance, stimulates the adrenal gland this time to produce other, slower-acting, longer-lasting chemicals called cortisols. The effect of cortisols are similar to adrenalin, but more subtle, involving more organ systems.

In order to detect such effects, Eliot and his colleagues have developed a sophisticated computer-based apparatus. Their goal is to identify those people whom they call hot reactors: someone who may appear to take life's stresses in stride, but whose body is silently paying for them. Beyond the standard electrocardiogram, the system indirectly measures the pressure of blood in major arteries and the speed of its flow. With that data, the computer instantly calculates whether the patient's cardiovascular system is putting an undue load on his heart under emotional stress. Stress is provided in several ways. The patient is asked to maintain a continous power grip against a spring-loaded resistance for a specific time. He's asked to subtract mentally the same number repeatedly from an originally large one as quickly as possible, with no mistakes. He must plunge one hand into a bucket of ice water and hold it there for a minute, and finally try to increase his score on successive bouts with Atari's Breakout video game.

DAVID R. LONG, M.D., cardiologist, National Center for Preventive and Stress Medicine: What I'm seeing here is these patients do need a lot of behavioral modification to help them avoid the pitfalls that they get into physically as a result of the mental process, the brain-body relationships. We know that this exists, not only in cardiovascular diseases, but other diseases as well.

Dr. ELIOT: Awareness is therapy. The goal is to learn how to be productive without being self-destructive in a world that we can manage. Because in today's world sometimes you can't fight, sometimes you can't flee, and you have to learn how to flow.

MacNEIL: That report was by Rick D'Alli of public station KAET, Phoenix, Arizona. Nativity Debate

LEHRER: Earlier this evening, President Reagan presided over a ceremony to light the national Christmas tree.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I was in the White House a few moments ago looking out at all of you down there surrounding the tree, and I thought of how God gives us moments that life us and that bring us together. For many of us, Christmas is a deeply holy day, the birthday of the promised Messiah, the son of God, who came to redeem our sins and teach us that most needed of all lessons, peace on earth, good will among men. For others of us, Christmas marks the birth of a good great man, a prophet whose teachings provide a pattern of living pertinent to all times and to all people. Either way, his message remains the guiding star of our endeavors. So now I light the nation's Christmas tree. May its thousand lights illuminate our best resolves and cast a great glow on our affection for each other and our thanks for each other and our love.

And you know what, I've talked myself into the Christmas spirit -- I'm going to give a gift right now. I'm not going to light the tree. I'm going to let Nancy do it. Where is the button?

LEHRER: That event is by way of introducing our next focus segment. Because for the first time since 1973 there is a nativity scene right there with the national Christmas tree. The Supreme Court earlier this year approved such things on public property, but the Supreme Court wasn't speaking for everybody, because some Jewish, liberal Christian and civil liberties groups say it is wrong. And that is only part of the argument. Robin?

MacNEIL: The Supreme Court decision that allowed the reintroduction of the national creche stemmed from a case involving Pawtucket, Rhode Island. The town's creche, paid for by local merchants, was the subject of a court case. It's back up again this year, with no questions about its legality. But in other cities that have traditionally had nativity displays, either alone or in conjunction with other seasonal symbols, the controversy continues.

In Denver the holiday display at one of the local government office buildings, the subject of a lawsuit that will be heard soon by the Colorado Supreme Court. And in Scarsdale, New York, the shopping district is missing its nativity display for the fourth year in a row. Instead it's in storage, the subject of a court case to be heard soon by the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue in Scarsdale is whether a local government can be forced to provide public land to a private group that wants to display a creche. Here to debate the issues are two people who see it very differently. Kathleen McCreary is a Scarsdale, New York, resident and a member of a group that has sued the city to force it to provide public land for a nativity display. She's also an attorney in New York City. And Burt Neuborne is legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has fought in court against creches on public property.

Mr. Neuborne, what's wrong with publicly displaying a nativity scene?

BURT NEUBORNE: Well, the problem with publicly displaying it is the imprimatur of government support that inevitably comes into it.There's nothing at all wrong, and indeed it's protected by the free exercise clause of the Constitution, to display religious symbols on private land and for individuals to display their religious desires and messages privately. The problem is when they try to bring the government into the message, to give the impression that the government is supporting a particular religious credo.

MacNEIL: Ms. McCreary, why is your group insisting on public land? Why not display it at a church or on some private land?

KATHLEEN McCREARY: Well, because we believe the Constitution guarantees us equal access to a public forum for the purpose of engaging in speech, including symbolic religious speech. The position of the village is that it has the power to regulate speech and moreover to censor and ban it based upon its content.

MacNEIL: What about Mr. Neuborne's point that by putting it on public land, you give the imprimatur of government to that particular religious display?

Ms. McCREARY: Well, for the past 10 years when the creche was displayed in Scarsdale there was a sign which specifically said that the scrche was owned, maintained and erected by a private group, the Scarsdale Creche Committee, and that the government in no way endorsed or sponsored this display.With respect to the display that I have proposed to erect, I will make any reasonable accommodation that the Scarsdale government wishes to impose with respect to signs, additional --

MacNEIL: Disclaimers.

Ms. McCREARY: Disclaimers, additional secularizing symbols. I do not seek government endorsement.

MacNEIL: Stop there. Additional secularizing symbols. Like what?

Ms. McCREARY: Well, one of the -- Mr. Neuborne would argue that the key element in the Pawtucket case was the two plastic reindeer and wishing wells and other secular symbols. I don't think that's a correct reading of the Pawtucket case, but in any event, if either the village of Scarsdale or he would feel better about the issue, I would be willing to erect those symblos to further attenuate --

MacNEIL: You don't mind reindeer attending your nativity scene.

Ms. McCREARY: Not at all, not at all. It's all part of the season. If that attenuates the impression of government sponsorship that he finds, I'd be happy to do it. I take exception, though, because I feel that a public forum which is traditionally open to everyone, as in Scarsdale, people of all stripes have used Boniface Circle and the public parks. There has never been a denial of any group, for any purpose ever, except to this creche, to use the public park.

MacNEIL: Let's take two points here, as I see it. One is, Ms. McCreary is saying the government of Scarsdale, the town of Scarsdale aways disclaimed any connection or putting any imprimatur. That does not satisfy you.

Mr. NEUBORNE: Well, that wouldn't be -- obviously the disclaimer is helpful, and a disclaimer is important in any of these displays, because the key issue in any of these displays is the degree to which an outsider, the degree to which someone who is not a member of the dominant religious faith in a particular community, feels that because of a particular display there's been a merger of the government and the religion. I mean, after all, the whole purpose of the establishment clause is to keep government and religion apart, because history tells us whenever you let the two of them mix, you get into trouble, because people will try to use the government to advance their faith. And the purpose of the establishment clause is to say to a reasonable person looking at a display, do you see that display as government imprimatur of religion? The Washington display that we saw a moment ago has a creche in it. It is a government-sponsored creche. It seems to me there is no way for an outsider to look at that and not think that the government is endorsing Christianity.

MacNEIL: Let's cover the Washington one in a moment. Just back to the Scarsdales of this world for a moment and the Pawtuckets and so on. Does it mitigate things if there are, as she called, secularizing symbols -- reindeer at the nativity scene?

Mr. NEUBORNE: Well, the Pawtucket decision, the Pawtucket creche --

MacNEIL: A Santa Claus.

Mr. NEUBORNE: Yes. The Pawtucket creche decision did make a good deal of the existence of secular symbols. In fact, somewhat facetiously I've suggested that if there are two plastic animals of sufficiently bad taste flanking any creche, then all of a sudden the Supreme Court thinks it becomes legal.My own sense is that that really shouldn't be the guiding line. The creche is to many people the symbol of the great mystery. It ought to be treated with the reverence that that mystery deserves, and it ought to be recognized for what it is: the symbol of a great religious faith. And the problem is, when that religious symbol begins to take on the imprimatur of government endorsement, you have a danger under the establishment clause.

Ms. McCREARY: But our position is that we are -- this is speech. And the courts, both the district court and the circuit court, agreed with us. I'm surprised that the ACLU, which has been a champion of free speech all these years, would necessarily -- and particularly offensive --

MacNEIL: How is a nativity scene a speech? How does it raise the free speech issue?

Ms. McCREARY: In the sense that it is -- well, speech has been broadly defined by the Supreme Court. It can be conduct, it can be symbols. For instance, in the Community for Creative Nonviolence, the people wanted to erect tents on the Mall. [Washington, D.C.] That was recognized as speech. They didn't succeed for other purposes, because there was an ordinance against camping. But symbols of speech --

MacNEIL: What about her argument, this is really a free speech issue?

Mr. NEUBORNE: Oh, I think she's right, it is speech. There's no question about it, and it should be treated as speech. But the First Amendment contains two clauses. It contains a free speech clause, but right next to the free speech clause is the establishment clause. And the difficulty in a case like this is to give meaning to both clauses, not to let either clause overrun the other. And that seems to me to say that, yes, religious speech and religious symbols are protected until they begin to give the impression of government endorsement.

MacNEIL: Coming back to the national thing now. How do you feel about the creche on the national scene?

Ms. McCREARY: Well, I take issue with the fact there that Burt stated. My understanding, which I think was fairly carefully researched, was that the nativity scene there is completely privately owned, erected and maintained by the Pageant of Peace Committee, which again is a private organization. And that they have sought, again, access to a public forum, just as I have, to display this nativity scene. And I cannot say that there is any government endorsement or sponsorship in this instance. It's clear to everyone that the creche is a private symbol. It could even -- and under the Pawtucket rules, it could even be publicly sponsored.

Mr. NEUBORNE: Well, I think it would be easier if the Christmas Pageant for Peace really was a private organization. Then we would have the Scarsdale case. But it's not. The cosponsor of that display -- and I think Ms. McCreary will recognize that -- the cosponsor of the display is the United States government. This is the United States government displaying a creche as an official symbol. And that simply sends a message to people who are not Christians that this is a Christian land, that they are tolerated, perhaps even welcome, but that it is still a Christian land.

Ms. McCREARY: The government doesn't sponsor it; it simply accommodates the Pageant of Peace, which is sponsored primarily by this private group. It performs ministerial functions only, in that it provides police and security and picks up the litter of the 10,000 people.

MacNEIL: Let me raise another issue, Ms. McCreary. Whether it is legal or not to do this, is it good citizenship to insist on it, in the sense that it dismays so many other citizens who are Jewish or of other religions and makes them feel -- to refer to the issue that's very current politically -- that there's an effort by some to Christianize the country? Is it divisive to insist on that?

Ms. McCREARY: I don't believe so. I think that's in people's heads -- I mean, there's nothing inherently offensive about a creche -- it's simply a man, woman and a child, donkey and camels. What is perhaps offensive about the creche is its objective interpretation thereof, because people don't agree with its message. And that gets right back to the free speech issue. I am sorry that I have offended anybody by my attempt to display the creche. That is clearly not the intent. But I am adamant about the fact that I think I have the right to make a private religious statement in a public forum.

MacNEIL: What's your comment on that?

Mr. NEUBORNE: Well, my comment is that I think there is an element of unnecessary divisiveness. Because obviously the display of religious symbols really touches a kind -- it's the top of an emotional iceberg. People see it as such an important symbolic statement about whether or not this is really a secular nation in which all religions are treated equally, or whether it is a Christian nation in which other religions or nonreligions are simply tolerated. And the question of whether or not we really have an equal polity, an equal partnership, is something that to many non-Christians is symbolically displayed in these situations.

Ms. McCREARY: But that has been suggested. In all of these instances, I suggested a menorah be displayed alongside with out creche.

MacNEIL: Menorah. The Jewish Hanukkah candles.

Ms. McCREARY: Yes, right. And in fact, a menorah is displayed in Washington. And when I asked the National Parks Service, they simply said no one had asked. My philosophy is, honor thy neighbor's holiday, put up everything of everybody's and let the public choose in the free maketplace which symbol they affirm and which symbol they reject.

MacNEIL: I hate to do this, but I'm afraid we have to end it there this evening. It's been a busy evening. Thank you both for joining us. Jim?

LEHRER: Again, to summarize the major news stories of this day. John Costa and Charles Kapar returned to the United States.They are the two Americans who survived the six days of terror and torture aboard the hijacked Kuwaiti airliner in Iran. Tonight, after he arrived, Kapar talked to reporters.

CHARLES KAPAR, freed hostage: It's just -- Inever thought I'd see this again.

1st REPORTER: Have a good rest.

Mr. KAPAR: I will, I'll try.

2nd REPORTER: How do you feel?

Mr. KAPAR: I feel A-one. I'm okay.

3rd REPORTER: Mr. Kapar, what's your comment on the Iranian handling of the incident?

Mr. KAPAR: All I could say is what I experienced. They were good to me, they helped me, they saved my life. One man was shot because of me, and I hope he's all right now. He saved my life, and the doctors were extremely wonderful to me, the Iranian doctors. Ald I don't know anything else, I don't care about the politics or the diplomacy or anything like that. All I'm concerned with is that they saved me, and they saved other people too.

LEHRER: Also today, Defense Secretary Weinberger said it was an unenlightened person, not him, who yesterday at a White House meeting said military pay should be frozen.

Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Thank you. Good night.