The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the news today, a House subcomittee closed its investigation of the Carter briefing papers caper by pointing a finger at William Casey. The president of Iraq said he's about ready to order the destruction of Iran's major oil facility. And El Salvador's new president left Washington after winning over his critics and promising to end violence from both the right and left. Robert MacNeil is away tonight; Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: On our NewsHour tonight we'll take a closer look at four major stories in the news. We find out why there is a flap brewing over the congressional report on the Carter briefing papers. We also look at what happened when one Idaho town decided that it wasn't going to let the floods wash over them. The author of a report questioning the validity of high school vocational education tells us why, and we get a first-hand report on the wondrous contents of that ancient Mayan tomb.Campaign Probe: Charges Revived

LEHRER: It was Baker versus Casey in the contest of truth and recollection, and a House subcommittee today declared Baker the winner. The words of victory were these: "The subcommittee finds that the better evidence indicates that Carter debate briefing materials entered the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign through its director, William J. Casey, and that Casey provided Carter debate briefing materials to James A. Baker, III, as stated by Baker, whose testimony is corroborated by a credible witness." Casey, now head of the CIA, had denied he ever saw the Carter materials during the 1980 campaign. Baker, now the White House chief of staff, said he received them from Casey. The Baker-over-Casey conclusion was one of several in the 2,400-page House subcommittee report, the result of a one-year investigation. The report did not pinpoint the person or persons responsible for leaking or filching the Carter materials, but said the papers were government property, and thus their theft constituted a crime. At a news conference here in Washington today, the chairman of that subcommittee, Michigan Democrat Donald Albosta officially released the report and recommended a special prosecutor be appointed.

Rep. DONALD ALBOSTA, (D) Michigan: We found that over a dozen officials and aides in the Reagan-Bush campaign saw Carter briefing papers or actually used them, yet no one seems to know just how they got there. We do not find that believable. False statements to a congressional investigation are potential violations of federal law. The briefing books were federal property. Those who received the briefing books of the President may well have violated federal criminal law prohibiting the knowing receipt of stolen or converted federal property. An independent counsel should be appointed to conduct any further investigation necessary to weigh the evidence and make decisions about prosecution.

LEHRER: The Justice Department concluded in February there was not enough evidence to justify a special prosecutor. Last week a U.S. district judge disagreed, ordered such an appointment, but that's on hold now pending the outcome of a Justice Department appeal. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Reaction to the report among Republicans ranged from silent to very angry. Neither William Casey nor President Reagan had anything to say on the report. Casey spokesmen said he would wait until after he read the report. The President's spokesman reiterated his full confidence in Casey. The Republican members of the Democratic-controlled panel were harsh in their criticism, with House Republican leader Robert Michel calling it a sloppy investigation at best and a political fishing expedition. About half a dozen Republicans showed up at a news conference today wearing buttons asking, "Where's the mole?" and charging that the Albosta panel had wasted half a million dollars on the investigation. However, the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" "O'Neill, said he felt the matter should be pressed further.

Rep. THOMAS O'NEILL, (D) Massachusetts, Speaker of the House: I don't want to see another Watergate. I was pleased the report came out and said the President had nothing to do with it. America can't stand another Watergate. But I think the President should call on the Justice Department to go forth and ask for a prosecutor instead of appealing it they way they did. I think the Justice Department made a mistake. We ought to get this behind us before this campaign comes up. Wherever the chips fall, let them fall. The President isn't involved, and I'm delighted at that. But if there is anything concerning Mr. Casey or whoever else, let the special prosecutor get to it.

HUNTER-GAULT: The Speaker went on to say that he believes that members of the administration were involved in a coverup. He also expressed unhappiness over Casey's performance, both in the briefing book matter and in his direction of the CIA's covert action in Nicaragua. However, the Speaker stopped short of calling for Casey's resignation. Jim?

LEHRER: The subcommittee everyone's talking about has a very long name, the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee. The subcommittee hired James Hamilton, a Washington attorney, as special counsel. He was the assistant chief majority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee. Your conclusion is that William Casey lied. Is that correct?

JAMES HAMILTON: The specific conclusion in the report, Jim, is that the better evidence shows that the briefing materials came into the Reagan-Bush campaign through Casey, and that Casey gave that material to Jim Baker. Baker is corroborated by an independent witness.

LEHRER: But Casey says that's not so.You're saying the committee is saying -- the subcommittee is saying -- then that he lied, right?

Mr. HAMILTON: Well, the subcommittee has not used the term "lie" for, I think, plain reasons. The subcommittee's report is understated. We have tried not to use unduly pejorative words. We've tried to write an objective and fair report. I think it's clear that the subcommittee finds that Baker's account is more credible than Casey's.

LEHRER: What about the question the Republicans were asking, "Where is the mole?" after a year and a half a million dollars? Why were you not able to determine who actually -- how the material actually got to Casey or to the Reagan campaign?

Mr. HAMILTON: I think to some degree the Republicans are asking the wrong person if they are directing that question to Albosta and the members of his subcommittee. That's the question that we asked the members of the Reagan-Bush campaign. We also asked that question to a great many people who worked in the Carter campaign and the Carter White House. We think that people were not candid with us in their responses to that question when we asked it. The subcommittee concluded that they were very certain that they asked people in the Reagan-Bush campaign that question or a similar question and did not receive candid answers.

LEHRER: Is it the subcommittee's feeling or your own feeling, whatever, that this material got from the Carter campaign to the Reagan campaign as a result of a Carter mole or somebody who was actually in favor of the Reagan candidacy and just gave it to the Reagan people, or that the Reagan folks actually mounted a campaign to actually steal the material, or both, or what?

Mr. HAMILTON: We don't know the answer to that question. We do conclude that it is likely that the material came from the offices of the National Security Council. Now, we also concluded that there was an effort -- there were organized efforts by the Reagan-Bush campaign to get information from the Cater campaign and the Carter administration.

LEHRER: Now, the crimes. Mr. Albosta says, and he mentioned on that tape, that there is possibility of crimes being committed, that perjury, I guess -- lying to a congressional -- what other crimes are possible here, as you see it?

Mr. HAMILTON: Well, there are several crimes that may be involved. Again, the committee did not find any criminal violations. That's not the role of the congressional subcommittee. But there are several crimes that might be involved.Theft of government property, theft of property entrusted --

LEHRER: Now, the theft of government property would be the papers themselves, right?

Mr. HAMILTON: The briefing books, the briefing books. The receipt --

LEHRER: Now, wait a minute. Why would a campaign document be considered gvernment property?

Mr. HIMILTON: Well, it was prepared in part by government workers with government materials and government time. And, indeed, there was an opinion by White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler that it was perfectly appropriate for White House staffers to work on this and that it would be government property.

LEHRER: Now, the conclusion, as Speaker O'Neil mentioned in the tape, that President Reagan was not implicated in any way. On what was that based?

Mr. HAMILTON: The conclusion was that Reagan was not involved in the transfer of the briefing book to his campaign. This was based on the numerous interviews that we did. The subcommittee did not interview Reagan, but the FBI conducted an extensive interview of Reagan and we have access to the FBI's interview of Reagan.

LEHRER: Was the bulk of the information the committee used to arrive at these various conclusions information that came from the FBI investigation?

Mr. HAMILTON: No, no.

LEHRER: No?

Mr. HAMILTON: The committee conducted around 300 interviews of its own. It took 60 affidavits. It sent out questionnaires to, oh, 150, maybe 200 more people. It reviewed thousands of pages of documents, some provided by the FBI, some that if found from other sources.

LEHRER: Mr. Hamilton, you were involved, as I said in introducing you, in the Senate Watergate hearings. Is this matter that we're talking about now, is this a big deal compared to Watergate?

Mr. HAMILTON: It is not another Watergate. There are some similarities, and Watergate, which started the event, was the attempted theft of sensitive political information from the DNC. Here there apparently was the theft of sensitive political information from the Carter White House.Watergate was much more than that. There was sort of a pervasive venality in the Nixon administration. You had misuse of campaign funds. You had the enemies list. You had dirty tricks. You had something called the Responsiveness Program that was designed to misuse the bureaucracy and government resources to re-elect Nixon. Watergate was much more.And my personal view is that the debate matter does not come up to Watergate.

LEHRER: Thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: As we said earlier, the Republicans on the panel issued a strong dissent to the report. They've been represented in all of their investigations by their general counsel, Stephen Hemphill, who was present throughout most of the interviews in the investigation, and who is here with us now. Mr. Hemphill, why did you and the other Republicans feel it necessary to file a dissenting report?

STEPHEN HEMPHILL: Well, Charlayne, we felt it was very important to make a record as to how this subcommittee has gone astray. This investigation was began almost a year ago with the question of, who is this mole in the Carter White House. The Subcommittee on Human Resources has jurisdiction over the human resources of the federal government -- those employees. Now, then, after approximately a half a million dollars and 11 months later, we're still asking the same question. Where is this mole? Who was this federal government employee in 1980 who allegedly violated the federal laws? That's why the Republican members of this subcommittee are not pleased with the result of this investigation.

HUNTER-GAULT: That you didn't come up with the answer to that question.

Mr. HEMPHILL: That it's been a waste of taxpayers' time, and that it's not been performed in a manner which will help us make better legislation concerning the Ethics in Government Act.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what about Mr. Hamilton's statement early on that there was better evidence -- "better evidence" was his phrase -- that showed Casey's involvement, and that -- he didn't quite say that Mr. Casey had lied, but he said that there are several possible crimes committed there.

Mr. HEMPHILL: The problem with that statement is that the majority report bases their conclusion that federal crimes have occurred on the assumption that these briefing books were federal property. Just because Mr. Hamilton or the majority report says they were federal property does not necessarily make them so. As any good lawyer knows, you have to look at the evidence, and the facts are in the testimony that is contained within the subcommittee's own majority report, the people preparing these in the Carter White House considered them purely political and not governmental.

HUNTER-GAULT: But he said that -- excuse me. He said that the papers were prepared by government workers on government time, on government property.

Mr. HEMPHILL: That's exactly -- on many of the instances that's correct, and that's the tragedy involved here. We did uncover instances of federal government employees, who were in the employ of the Carter White House who were abusing the taxpayers by spending their time and their resources for the personal political gain of Mr. Carter and Mr. Mondale --

HUNTER-GAULT: So you just --

Mr. HEMPHILL: But the subcommittee has ignored that.

HUNTER-GAULT: You just dispute outright the fact that -- the assertion that this was government property? What about the committee's conclusion that the documents were likely stolen from the National Security office? That's not a crime? That wouldn't be a crime?

Mr. HEMPHILL: I have been familiar with all the evidence that has been obtained through this investigation. As an ex-prosecuting attorney, I use the word "theft" and "stolen" very carefully. Those are pretty serious allegations, and I do not see any evidence, nor have I in the course of this investigation, that would allow me in good conscience to draw that conclusion.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you would be prepared to say that a crime was not committed by Mr. Casey or by anyone else in connection with these papers?

Mr. HEMPHILL: The only way it would be a crime is if those briefing papers were federal government property and they knew it and had the intent to possess them. Those were not federal government property. Those were prepared for a campaign with Candidate Reagan sponsored by the League of Women Voters. There was nothing governmental about those debate briefing papers.

HUNTER-GAULT: How do you account for the discrepancy between Mr. Casey's statement and Mr. Baker's statement? I mean, that in some minds could create suspicion that something was amiss. Do you agree with that?

Mr. HEMPHILL: I have no doubt that in some minds it may create suspicion. Those of us who are in public life have to be a little bit more careful than to wildly charge our public officials with having committed crimes. I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than that. Mr. Baker's testimony was credible; I agree with the chairman along those lines. I do not believe that Mr. Casey was trying to mislead this committee. I sat in on the same interview and heard the very same words that the chairman heard, and I am of the opinion that just because he could not remember some conversations of four years ago that does not necessarily mean that he was lying.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

Mr. HEMPHILL: I have difficulty remembering what happened yesterday sometimes.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Hamilton, what about that?

Mr. HAMILTON: Mr. Casey said in a memo to Mr. Fielding --

LEHRER: That's Fred Fielding, who is now the --

Mr. HAMILTON: The President's counsel.

LEHRER: The President's counsel, right.

Mr. HAMILTON: -- that if he had seen these materials he would remember them. Now, that seems to me to set up an irreconcilable conflict.

LEHRER: Mr. Hemphill, you don't see it that way?

Mr. HEMPHILL: Because Mr. Casey sent that memo to Mr. Fielding does not necessarily set up an irreconcilable conflict. He has said that if he had seen them he's sure he would remember it. Neither of those individuals were government employees at the time, so I'm asking, where's the crime?

LEHRER: Mr. Hamilton, what about Mr. Hemphill's general statement that this whole thing is just a waste of time? Eleven months, half a million dollars, and you really didn't find out very much.

Mr. HAMILTON: Well, as I said before, there is a parallel here with Watergate. Here there apparently was a taking, a theft, a conversion, whatever you want to call it, of sensitive political -- and we say governmental -- information, governmental because it was prepared for the President for statements on policy matters. Sure, in a debate, but when the President speaks, he speaks as the president, notjust as a candidate. Here there as a taking of sensitive information, and this is a matter of public concern.Congress has an investigative role, it has an informing role in terms of telling the people what is going on about affairs that are important to the people.

LEHRER: Why isn't that something to be concerned about, Mr. Hemphill?

Mr. HEMPHILL: I would certainly agree that Congress has an investigative role and that they should use that role as best they can. The disappointing factor here is that the blatant jurisdiction -- jurisdictional question is a violation by then-federal government employees. And throughout the 2,400 pages of this report, not one Carter-era federal employee is named.

LEHRER: What do you say to Mr. Hmilton's point he made a moment ago? If you Republicans are so worried about getting at the truth, why didn't the Republicans just tell the truth? I mean, why didn't they say, somebody in the Republican -- I mean at the Reagan campaign must have known where those documents came from. Why didn't they just say?

Mr. HEMPHILL: As for as I'm concerned, the people whom I interviewed and sat in with Mr. Hamilton and interviewed, I believe they were answering those questions to the best of their ability.

LEHRER: Well, then, what's the answer, then? Somebody knows how that material got there. There's no question -- I'll ask both of you. I mean, the material actually -- there is no contest about the fact that the material went from the Carter campaign to the Reagan campaign. Now, there are people in the Reagan campaign who know how that got there. There are people in the Carter campaign who know how they got there. Now, from the Republican point of view, what is the reason, do you believe, that the Republicans didn't answer the questions?

Mr. HEMPHILL: I have never managed a presidential campaign, but I've been involved in a lot of campaigns.And my guess is these documents, which if you'll look through the appendix are pretty innocuous-looking -- they don't look like they are very sensitive political documents as Mr. Hamilton indicates. They're mostly gleanings from press accounts and simple campaign positions of Cater versus campaign positions against Reagan. I doubt that Mr. Casey, who was managing a nationwide campaign, would remember them if they passed over his desk along with the thousands of other documents. But he has told Mr. Fielding in a memo that he probably would.

LEHRER: Now, from the Democrats' standpoint, Mr. Hamilton, there obviously were some less than candid answers or lying on behalf of the many people that you interviewed also from the Carter campaign.

Mr. HAMILTON: I think that's right, and the report says that.

LEHRER: To protect their own skins, correct?

Mr. HAMILTON: I think that's right. It is not true that we didn't mention names of Democrats.The report has a number of pages where we analyze who prepared the book or where the book was transported to, what offices it was left in overnight. We pursued this as hard as we could. We didn't find the answer; that's too bad. I think people were not candid with us.

Mr. HEMPHILL: The subcommittee investigators on the majority side were very quick to conclude who among the Reagan-Bush campaign employees they disbelieved and who should be investigated by the independent counsel. There is not one single name as to whom they disbelieved who were Carter employees and should be investigated.

LEHRER: That's not fair, is it?

Mr. HAMILTON: Mr. Lehrer, we concluded what the evidence allowed us to conclude. If we had found a specific Carter person whom we could say was not being credible, we would have said so. It would have been irresponsible to say so if we didn't have the evidence.

Mr. HEMPHILL: Tha's the evidence.

Mr. HAMILTON: We thought we had the evidence in terms of the Reagan-Bush campaign. I think the report bears us out on that.

Mr. HEMPHILL: That's the essence of the complaints that the Republican members had this morning. After 11 months and a half a million dollars, surely they had the evidence or they could have found it.

LEHRER: Mr. Hemphill, do you believe that all the things we talked about tonight and the 11 months that's brought us up to this point justifies a special prosecutor to take it even further?

Mr. HEMPHILL: Like I mentioned a moment ago, my background is in criminal law. Personally I don't see the evidence of a crime. So personally I don't see the justification for an independent counsel, but I would have no problem if the courts -- where that issue now lies -- decide to appoint one because, like I said, there's nothing to hide. It's the Carter-era employees who may or may not have converted federal government property that should be concerned about an independent counsel.

LEHRER: He's right about that, isn't he, Mr. Hamilton?

Mr. HAMILTON: Well, there could be several crimes here. I think it's very likely that there was somebody in the Carter White House that committed a federal crime. I think that it is likely that somebody in the Reagan campaign, receiving what was stolen property, also perhaps committed a federal crime.

Mr. HEMPHILL: What we don't understand is the hesitancy to name that Carter-era person.

Mr. HAMILTON: The hesitancy, Mr. Lehrer, comes from the fact that we don't have all the evidence, that people have not been candid with us. I will assure you that if we knew the name of that Carter person it would be in that report.

LEHRER: Do you know the name, Mr. Hemphill?

Mr. HEMPHILL: No, I don't.

LEHRER: I mean, does the Republican side, who was involved in the investigation, know?

Mr. HEMPHILL: Well, there were a number of individuals who were interviewed who I also helped interview who worked for the Carter White House, and I do not believe all of them as well.But I'm not about to put that in print based on just my assumptions or conclusions, as the majority has done.

LEHRER: Well, gentlemen, thank you both very much.

Mr. HEMPHILL: Thank you.

Mr. HAMILTON: Thank you very much.

LEHRER: Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: There were wars of words elsewhere in the world today. In the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq, said his country would tighten its blockade on Kharg Island, the principal oil shipping point in Iran. Hussein also told a military audience that Iraq would soon obtain new weapons that could destroy the oil terminal.Diplomats and oil executives said today Iraq's attacks on Kharg Island have reduced Iran's oil imports by half, from 1,800,000 barrels a day to less than a million barrels a day.Iran's principal customer, Japan, was said to have reduced its purchases by more than half. And in Washington the State Department said the United States has shelved a plan to equip units of the Jordan army to serve as a strike force in the Persian Gulf until the cost of the program can be reviewed. Jim?

LEHRER: There may be disagreement in Washington about Central America policy, but there is clear bipartisan agreement today about the trip of Jose Napoleon Duarte to Washington. It was a smashing success. Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas called the President-elect of El Salvador's visit a personal triumph and predicted congressional approval of $62 million in emergency money for El Salvador, a view shared by Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and most everyone else. Duarte ended his four-day Washington visit with a press conference today. He hinted he would fire the head of Salvador's treasury police, who has been linked to right-wing death squads, and said he knew he would have a tough job when he takes office June 1st.

JOSE NAPOLEON DUARTE, President-elect of El Salvador: I have to be tolerant with all the factors and all the sectors. I have to demonstrate that democracy is a way out. I'm not talking of a weak democracy. I'm talking of a strong democracy. I'm not talking of a paradise. I'm talking of the mechanics and the instrument of democracy to fulfill its own and its own capacity and own possibilities to make it go. And I'm also not talking about miracles. We won't make miracles. The miracle will be make by the people of my country. So thank you, thank you, American people. Thank you all for what you have been doing up to now. But I want to ask you one more little thing. I want you to give me your faith also, to give me the opportunity, to help me with your prayers, with your understanding so that we can achieve this goal.

LEHRER: In Central America, U.S., Honduran and El Salvadoran troops started large-scale maneuvers. More than 4,000 soldiers will be involved in the exercises in a corner of Honduras near the Nicaraguan and El Salvadoran borders.

And, in Bogota, Colombia, nine bombs exploded last night killing two and wounding 11. Responsibility for the bombing was claimed today by a dissident rebel group opposed to a planned May 28th ceasefire between government and rebel forces.

Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: In other parts of the world today, these developments. Twenty-two Jewish settlers from the occupied West Bank were charged today in Israel with crimes arranging from murder to terrorism in a campaign against Arabs. Six were accused of murder, and 16 were accused of attempted murder. Other charges included terrorism, stealing weapons from the army and plotting to blow up Moslem shrines. Four more settlers, including the rabbi who is the spiritual leader of the nationalist Gush Emunim movement, have been detained but were not indicted today.

In India, Hindus and Moslems rioted again today, throwing rocks and bottles at policemen who were trying to stop them from fighting with each other. Within the last week religious conflicts in Bombay have taken 157 lives, and more than 620 people have been injured. The trouble began in a town called Bhiwandi, about 35 miles from Bombay, where a group of Moslems pulled down a saffron-colored Hindu flag and tried to hoist a green Islamic flag outside the headquarters of a Hindu militant group. Gillian Guthrie of Visnews has a report on the price that was paid in Bhiwandi.

GILLIAN GUTHRIE, Visnews [voice-over]: In this industrial town where the trouble was said to have started, the damage was extensive. As it spread to neighboring towns and the state capital, Bombay, an estimated 15,000 people fled their homes to the sanctuary of relief camps. The Press Trust of India reported that 3,000 Hindus and Moslems were arrested over the period. With the death toll already high, eight more bodies were found beneath rubble in one part of Bhiwandi, bringing the total to 140.The situation has provoked accusations from Indian newspapers against what they see as the government's failure to act decisively to stamp out communal disturbances.

HUNTER-GAULT: Today six people were killed when the police fired on a crowd of 2,000 rioters on the outskirs of Bombay.

And, in Rome, the stepdaughter of Andrei Sakharov, the Russian human rights activist, was received by Pope John Paul II in what was to be taken as a gesture of support for the ailing scientist. The stepdaughter, Tatyana Yankelevich, said after the right-minute interview that the conversation had been very moving, but the Vatican gave no datails of the talks.

Jim?

LEHRER: Back in this country the first criminal prosecution for overcharging on a defense contract was resolved today. A federal judge said he would accept a guilty plea agreement between the Sperry Corporation and the government, but said he was really not satisfied by the deal.Sperry acknowledges it overbilled some $325,000 on an MX missile contract. The judge says the real figure is close to $3.5 million. In the settlement with the Justice Department reached yesterday, Sperry agreed to pay $857,000 in reimbursement, interest and fines.

Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Still ahead in the NewsHour, the story of the town's determination to hold back a flood, one expert's negative assessment of high school vocational training, and a first-hand report on what's inside a newly discovered 1,500-year-old Mayan tomb.

[Video postcard -- Vacherie, Louisiana]

HUNTER-GAULT: In the legal battle over the so-called Baby Jane Doe case, a federal judge in New York ruled today that the government's regulations covering the treatment of handicapped infants are illegal. Judge Charles Bryant said the regulations must be set aside.That would be effective nationwide, and it would be a victory for a number of medical groups, including the American Medical Association. They want to stop the Department of Health and Human Services from deciding whether malformed infants are denied complete medical treatment because of their handicaps. The judge's action followed a decision last week by an appeals court, which barred the government from examining the medical records of an infant known in court documents as Baby Jane Doe. The department said it would not comment on today's ruling until its lawyers have read the judge's opinion.

Jim? An Ounce of Prevention

LEHRER: Snow, that thing of beauty for the Rocky Mountains in winter, can be a weapon of destruction in spring as it melts and turns into torrents of water and mud. This spring has been a particularly tough one for many communities in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, and Kwame Holman has the story of one of them -- Burley, a small town in southern Idaho preparing for its first flood in 63 years.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: Last winter's record snowpack is melting, and filling this reservoir 20 miles outside the small town of Burley, Idaho. Usually the people of this area rejoice at having water. This is an agricultural community and the farmers here depend on water for irrigation. But this year there is too much water and it's threatening to overflow the town's 140-foot dam. That hasn't happened since 1921. If it goes over, the water would go right down the middle of the valley, over acres of fertile farm land, through the newly built subdivisions, and touch the heart of downtown Burley. Terry Bingham is the local civil defense coordinator.

TERRY BINGHAM, civil defense coordinator: It'd only be a few feet deep.It wouldn't be a raging torrent, just enough to kill every crop that it ran across. The local economy and tax base would be shattered.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Instead of waiting for that to happen, Terry Bingham and the people of Burley got moving. They decided to build a canal to divert the excess water from the reservoir to the Snake River, a canal that would be 24 miles long, 75 feet wide and three feet deep.

Mr. BINGHAM: It's a massive undertaking, and I saw a couple of those big, big bulldozers -- the biggest ones I've ever seen -- roll off these 13 -- I think one of them had 10 axles -- a 10-axle truck and just -- I had to stop for a second and just think about what we're doing here.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: They started on Thursday, when the water was five feet short of overflowing. If the canal isn't finished on time, Leland Baker's home and farm will be directly in the water's path, so he is working 20 hours a day as a volunteer.

LELAND BAKER, farmer: I hope we can get it done in time, but the water's still rising. It keeps giving us a little bit of a reprieve, but with this warm weather and stuff, I'm hoping along with everybody else that we can get it done. It's going to cause some awful damage if we can't.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The Army Corps of Engineers, the Mormon church, government agencies and hundreds of local workers and volunteers got busy. They worked day and night. No one had ever seen anything like it.

Mr. BINGHAM: I've had two other large undertakings in my life, and one of them was getting out of college, and the other one was getting my instrument rating for a pilot's license. And both of those pale in comparison with the amount of -- the intensity that this is taking to try to organize and keep track of.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The project in Burley is not just a matter of coordinating volunteers and machines. It's the story of a few people having to make a sacrifice to help the rest of the town. The canal will have to cut through dozens of farms. Marvin Blacker and his wife Lovell have worked their farm for 30 years.

MARVIN BLACKER, farmer: That's going to come right through this pond. This is a natural pond where we've used for irrigation purposes. You can see the stakes out through -- the flags out through the field there.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Normally Marvin's farm would be unaffected by the dam's flooding, but the canal will eat up some of his best topsoil. His irrigation system will be disrupted, and he will have to travel six miles to get to his wheat crop because he won't be allowed to build a bridge over the canal. Marvin and other farmers have no assurance of being repaid for all the damage.

LOVELL BLACKER: Well, it's going to cut the heart out of this farm, and it's just the way -- right now this is the feeling I have, that it's just cutting the heart out of my husband because this has been, you know, from boyhood, this is his dream was to have a farm of his own and a family on a farm, and --

Mr. BLACKER: I guess this whole world's the world of give and take, and sometimes it seems like we're always taking -- or always giving and somebody else is taking, and you keep thinking, well, it's the same people that have to take and the same people that give all the time, and maybe this is right, but I guess in the end it'll all come out, we hope. That's the only -- it's the only promise. I hope I'm big enough to make it through.

Mr. BINGHAM: It's a gut-wrenching thing. I know. I can see the expressions on their faces and in their eyes when I talk to them. This community has a moral obligation to these people that are being hurt to save the rest of us.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Ifthe banks of the new canal don't hold, the Blackers will have even more problems. Last week the banks of another city-built canal eroded and finally caved in.

Mr. BLACKER: There's a lot of --

Ms. BLACKER: We could lose our home.

Mr. BLACKER: We could lose everything. There's a mass of water that's going to be coming. You know that. How we're going to handle it we don't know.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The Blackers are also worried that the bulldozers won't make it past their farm before the waters are released.That would mean all the water meant for the Snake River would end up here. By Friday the bulldozers hadn't come, and the dam was three feet from overflowing.

Mr. BINGHAM: Before, in 1921, the previous high flow was 750 cubic feet per second, and on Wednesday we hit 1,380, and then Thursday, yesterday, it was 1,405 -- something like that.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: On Saturday afternoon the bulldozing crew was still a mile from the Blacker farm, approaching at an agonizing rate of 1/6 of a mile every hour.

Mr. BLACKER: Well, it's roughly 3:00, 3:15, and they keep saying it was -- first our date was yesterday afternoon, and last night they told us they'd be here by noon. We're getting late. Every story we get's a little different.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: At six p.m. the Blackers got one last promise.

VOLUNTEER: Hopefully we will -- we'll have to come over here and so this before it gets dark.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Just before dark the bulldozers came.

Mr. BLACKER: That's a big hole, isn't it -- 130-foot wide. Wow! Mercy, that's a big hole.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The canal had made it to the Blacker's farm before the dam overflowed, but they had lost almost twice as much of their land as promised. The next morning at 8:00 the canal was ready to be tested. The water was within two feet of the top of the dam. It was released into a spillway, and then into the canal. The shoring up of the canal walls continued one step ahead of the onrushing water. There were leaks everywhere, but overall the canal successfully contained the waters. The wait was over.

Mr. BLACKER: It's a learning experience for us, and I guess we'll go by it. We're going to have a few scars and stuff, and it'll take a long time to get over some of the feelings we had, but we'll make it.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The people of Burley had constructed a 24-mile canal in just three days. It was a feat of engineering. But Terry Bingham's worries are not yet over.

Mr. BINGHAM: We have another surge of water coming Wednesday. It'll be two, three days to see how this canal works, and if we get a washing problem like we've had on the other one, we could end up fighting this for two weeks yet. So I don't know if we've made it or not.

LEHRER: The canal did hold up Wednesday -- today. The next big test comes Monday when forecasters say the snow which has melted during this week's warm weather will reach the reservoir. We will keep you posted.

[Video postcard -- Great Smokey Mountains, Tennessee]

HUNTER-GAULT: Ignoring President Reagan's strong opposition, two House committees today endorsed measures that would overturn a recent controversial Supreme Court decision on sex discrimination. Both the House Education and Labor Committee and the House Judiciary Committee agreed on legislation that would make clear that discrimination is banned not only in specific programs that receive federal money, but throughout an entire institution. The Supreme Court ruling arose out of a sex discrimination case at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. That ruling stated that funds could not be denied to an entire institution if the discrimination occurred in only one of its programs. President Reagan had argued on Tuesday that the proposed legislation to overturn that ruling was too broad and invited federal intrusion. The new proposals endorsed today would cover any institution that directly or indirectly benefits from federal money and would include discrimination based on age, race or sex. The bills, which have broad support from both Republicans and Democrats, could come to a vote next month.New York Democrat Hamilton Fish, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, called the measures "the most important civil rights legislation Congress will consider this year."

Also from our education beat today, yet another blue-ribbon panel issued a report on the state of the nation's schools. Judy Woodruff has the details. Judy? Questioning Vocational Ed

JUDY WOODRUFF: Charlayne, it sometimes feels as if this is the year for reports on the status of American education. Almost every time you turn around, it seems, another report is being issued that purports to be the final word on the performance of the public schools. Well, today another was released, but its sponsors say that it is unique because it looked at what the high schools are doing to prepare students who are not going on to college. The study asked business people who are hiring young people right out of high school what they look for and whether today's graduates measure up. The report was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, and it concludes that American schools are not doing enough to teach the basic skills -- reading, writing, speaking and reasoning. The report is titled, High School and the Changing Workplace. The panel that produced it was chaired by Richard Heckert, who is vice chairman and chief operating officer of the DuPont Company's chemical operations.

First of all, Mr. Heckert, why another report?

RICHARD HECKERT: Well, Judy, this is a segment of the school population that doesn't get a lot of attention, and it's a very important one. You know, far more than half our young people who graduate from high school and don't go on to college, they go into the world of work. They're a very important part of the workforce, and their good training is very important to all of us.

WOODRUFF: How did you go about trying to find the answers to the questions you were seeking?

Mr. HECKERT: Well, first let me describe the panel: Panel members came from every important economic segment of the economy. We had people from large business, small business, from automotive, from communications, from government, both the civilian and military components. We had farm representatives, we had labor representation. And to help us stay within reasonable bounds, we had educators and administrators. So we got a cross-section of perspectives from this panel which we think served us very well.

WOODRUFF: And how did you go about gathering the information?

Mr. HECKERT: We've been studying the question for around eight months in a series of meetings and study periods in between. Most of us did not trust our own views on this matter. We went back to our companies and we asked the people who actually employ young folks what they look for. In my case we made a very careful canvas of five or six clients and put together a picture of what my company looks for and reported that to the group.

WOODRUFF: And what are the employers looking for, in a few words?

Mr. HECKERT: Three things. The first thing is a trainable, adaptable individual. The workforce is constantly training, and the training process goes on throughout a working career. We further concluded that to be trainable, young people need to be competent in certain core subjects, and they're the ones that you alluded to earlier, plus some others. And, finally, we concluded that a good attitude, a positive attitude about one's self and about one's contribution to society, to the employer, etcetera, is obviously a big plus.

WOODRUFF: And what, then, did you find about how our nation's high schools are falling short, if that's what you found?

Mr. HECKERT: Well, I think we knew the answer before we started, and let me say this is not an indictment of this system broadly. There are some excellent schools in this country. There are some good schools and there are some not very good schools. We think it's a real contribution to define for all of the educational system what employers are really looking for, what they really need. And at the same time we talk to young people and we say, "If you have these characteristics, these core competencies and these attitudes, you'll do well."

WOODRUFF: Well, are the schools -- let's get down to the basic question. Did the schools measure up, and if they didn't, how didn't they?

Mr. HECKERT: Some do and some don't. There is no point in putting together national statistics on that question. Each community needs to look at its schools and its employment situation and ask the question, are the schools serving us well? We've given some very good guidelines, I think, for making that assessment, but it has to be done on a school-by-school, area-by-area basis.

WOODRUFF: But in general what did you find that the schools ought to be teaching that they're not teaching?

Mr. HECKERT: Well, let me talk about the core competencies. As you indicated, we think young people should have a good command of the English language. They certainly should be able to read and comprehend, to write clearly and to speak clearly. They need to be able to reason. They need to be able to identify problems and to solve problems. They need to be able to get along with their associates. That's a fairly important skill in today's world, no matter where you are. They need to know the basic elements of physics and chemistry and biosciences, the life sciences -- not in a great detailed way, but enough to understand the world they're about to enter. They need to know a little bit about our economic and our social system so they're not going into a world that's totally unfamiliar. These are some of the things.

WOODRUFF: Is it fair, then, to say that you found that most students are not learning these things that you just mentioned?

Mr. HECKERT: I think that's mixed. In some areas the students have a fairly good command. In many areas there is a gross deficiency. When one of my neighbors found out I was doing this study with the academy, he was elated. He said, "I'm a small businessman. I hire high school graduates, and some of them can't make change at the cash register." You know, that's a tragedy.

WOODRUFF: All right. What about the vast amounts of money and energy that goes into vocational education programs that are supposed to be designed to get these young people jobs as soon as they finish high school?

Mr. HECKERT: The panel had nothing against vocational education. Let me make that very clear. As an add-on to the core competencies and to the other things we describe as essential to upwardmobility, vocational education can be quite useful. The question is, does the particular vocational education that is practiced in a given district prepare people for the jobs that are available in that district? In other words, is it pertinent? And, further, is it achieved without some serious tradeoff in another area that may be even more important?

WOODRUFF: But in general your findings were that the basics need to be stressed more than --

Mr. HECKERT: Indeed they were our findings.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you very much, Mr. Heckert, for being with us this evening.

Mr. HECKERT: My pleasure, Judy. Thank you.

WOODRUFF: Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: In Chicago the political power struggle between the black mayor, Harold Washington, and the white members of the city council boiled up again today. The councilmen claimed that Mayor Washington had violated a state law by failing to file his financial disclosure statement before the deadline. On that basis, they have asked a court to declare the mayor has forfeited his office. This morning the quarrel erupted in a raucous meeting of the city council where the councilmen tried to install the vice mayor, a white named Richard Mell, in place of Mayor Washington. The mayor then went on the radio to declare that he was still the mayor and safely ensconced in his office at City Hall. He said he filed the disclosure statement late because of an administrative slip-up and promised that the city's lawyers would respond to the councilmen's lawsuit.

In Washington the surgeon general of the United States today continued the government's campaign against smoking. Dr. Everett Koop said in his annual report smoking is the most important health risk in the country, and is responsible for more premature death and disability than any other known agent and costs the nation $40 billion a year in health expenses and lost productivity. Dr. Koop's strongest new warning was on the effect adult smoking can have on children.

Dr. C. EVERETT KOOP, U.S. Surgeon General: The study that was done on infants is particularly impressive, because here we were actually able to measure a metabolite of nicotine in the urine of children who were exposed to smoke.This material is called cotinine, and the absorption of smoke is consistent in that report with the increased incidence of respiratory symptoms in children with their increased number of days in hospitals, with their pneumonia and other respiratory symptoms. And it seems to me that a parent interested in the best welfare of his child would stop. Link to the Past

LEHRER: Finally, tonight, news from Central America that has nothing to do with wars or revolutions. Archeologists announced today a remarkable discovery -- an ancient Maya tomb in near-perfect condition in the jungles of northern Guatemala. The tomb is thought to be over 1,500 years old, and was found last week by a team of scientists from the University of Texas and the government of Guatemala. The finding was considered spectacular because the tomb was completely intact. Most of the other Maya sites found in recent years were ransacked and looted before the scientists got there. The expedition was largely financed by the National Geographic Society. George Stuart is the staff archeologist and resident Maya expert with the Society, and he was there in Guatemala when the tomb was opened.

Mr. Stuart, you brought some videotape with you --

GEORGE STUART: That's right.

LEHRER: -- and let's put that up now, and you tell us what we're seeing. There we go.

Mr. STUART [voice-over]: All right, this is the big hole leading down to tomb shaft, and that dark hole in the middle is the actual tomb. They're pulling a rock out that fell in -- didn't damage anything, luckily. Okay, that's a little remote television camera going in for a first look at what was in the tomb, a little space technology here for ancient works.

LEHRER [voice- over]: That's just going down through a hole.

Mr. STUART [voice-over]: Right. Going down through a little hole. And there's the skull over there to the left, and the camera is sort of playing along there. And on the wall you can see some paintings of some heads of gods or whatever. We haven't interpreted all this yet. There is Grant Hall, the archeologist. There are some guards. There is Dr. Richard Adams of Texas going down into the tomb with a light for the first time, and there's the pan over the skeleton.

LEHRER [voice-over]: And these were taken --

Mr. STUART [voice-over]: These were taken inside the tomb.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Inside.

Mr. STUART [voice-over]: Nothing's been touched yet at all. The paintings on the walls are sort of a dark maroon. The pottery that was lying there, this rich offering for this member of the ancient Maya elite.

LEHRER [voice-over]: It's remarkable how well-preserved --

Mr. STUART [voice-over]: Oh, it's incredible. Usually, yeah. Tombs usually have, you know, dirt in the bottom and you have to dig to find what's in there. This time every thing is just as it was set.

LEHRER: Is there any way you can tell us what it was like for you, a professional, to go in there that day?

Mr. STUART: It was the thrill of a lifetime. A little guilty, because I realized that this person had been lying there for 1,500 years, and I really felt a little bad about disturbing him. He'd sat there through most of the great disturbances we know of in history, in this quiet, dark place. And here we were crashing in to record what was there. But it was quite a thrill. It was incredible.

LEHRER: Is it significant as a curiosity, or is it really significant in any other way?

Mr. STUART: Oh, it gives us a lot of information. We usually see artifacts from tombs on the illegal art market or somewhere out of context. This gave us a chance for once to really see what was with what in the tomb. And, since we had a pretty good idea of the date, it's going to be really important. It's just one little mosaic piece in our great knowledge about the ancient Maya.

LEHRER: Fifteen hundred years? Is that the year you're using, right?

Mr. STUART: Yes, there was a nearby tomb that had been sacked by looters a couple of years ago, and it had a date in it. The Maya calendar is very accurate, so we could read the date. It's a day in A.D. 417 that gave the birth day of the man in the looted tomb. And this was evidently a relative or perhaps his son or something.

LEHRER: We don't know who this fellow is, though?

Mr. STUART: We don't know yet. We will work on the hieroglyphs that were on one of the vases and see if a name is mentioned there, and slowly put the political history of this place together.

LEHRER: Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief? Do we know anything like that?

Mr. STUART: Well, we are getting a really good picture of Maya society now. The person in this tomb was one of the 4% or so that were members of the ruling class.

LEHRER: How do you know that?

Mr. STUART: Well, because of the elaborateness of the tomb. You found other tombs in just households where people lived in pole-and-thatch houses and put them in a crypt in the floor, but this is royalty we're talking about here, or at least an important political official.

LEHRER: Why do things stay so well-preserved?

Mr. STUART: They ofttimes don't. This one was well-preserved because they had dug down through bedrock and made sort of an artificial cave so that it was well sealed. And then they had built more and more buildings on top so that the moisture and that sort of thing never got down there. It's very unusual.

LEHRER: That would also, I would guess, help lead to the conclusion that this was a big shot, right?

Mr. STUART: Right, exactly. All the trouble that went through -- must have taken a lot of man-hours to do that.

LEHRER: How big a place is that tomb? I couldn't tell that much from the pictures.

Mr. STUART: The tomb itself, I would guess it's about 13 feet in diameter, a roughly circular cave, and you can almost stand up in it. It's about five and a half feet high, a low ceiling.

LEHRER: That's not terribly large, is it?

Mr. STUART: Not terribly large.

LEHRER: Okay, so you had the -- we saw the skeleton of Mr. Big Shot. Now, what else was in there besides these vases and plates and things?

Mr. STUART: Vases. The skeleton itself was apparently wrapped in clo th or jaguar skins or something, and there was just some brown material there where it had all decayed. But within that we feel we saw some jade sticking out, some parts of a necklace, and doubtless there'll be more implements or ornaments and things like that underneath all the brown stuff.

LEHRER: Yeah, but they're not -- not a lot of jewels or that sort of thing in there, right?

Mr. STUART: Well, some. The jade necklace has little beads shaped like skulls and we'll doubtless find some more things under there.

LEHRER: What happens now?

Mr. STUART: Well, the material will go to the National Institute of Anthropology and History in Guatemala City, where it will be analyzed. Meanwhile, the members of the expedition under Dr. Richard Adams will study the pottery and, with help, try to decipher the hieroglyphs that are on the pottery.

LEHRER: So the material is actually going to be removed from there?

Mr. STUART: It will be removed from the tomb, because the site is in a very inaccessible place, and if it's left there, of course, the looters who roam the area will get to it.

LEHRER: They're still doing that, right?

Mr. STUART: Oh, yeah. There's literally thousands of dollars of material every month come out of there illegally.

LEHRER: Where does it go?

Mr. STUART: It goes onto the art market all over the world -- to dealers and --

LEHRER: I see.But this is going to remain in Guatemala, and --

Mr. STUART: This will remain in Guatemala,

LEHRER: And the tomb will stay open and people will be allowed to go in and look at it if they want to?

Mr. STUART: Eventually. Well, work will continue at the site by archeologists, but that has to take place in the dry season, so we'll keep guards on the site probably all year.

LEHRER: You talk like a very excited man. We share your excitement tonight.

Mr. STUART: Oh, it was really nice.

LEHRER: Well, thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Once again the main stories of the day. A House subcommittee concluded that William J. Casey, now the director of the CIA and then the director of the Reagan-Bush campaign, obtained former President Carter's briefing book for a debate during the 1980 presidential race.

Jose Napoleon Duarte, the president-elect of El Salvador, indicated hewill fire the official most commonly linked to the right-wing death squads.

Twenty-two Jewish settlers on the occupied West Bank were charged with crimes ranging from murder to terrorism in a campaign against Arabs.

And a federal judge ruled that the government's regulations for the treatment of handicapped infants are illegal.

Good night, Jim.

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