The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, 22 people were still missing from the plastics plant explosion in Texas that killed 2 and injured more than 100, the House approved a $2.8 billion disaster relief package aimed at the California earthquake, and TV evangelist Jim Bakker was sentenced to 45 years in prison and fined $500,000. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: After the News Summary [Focus - Turmoil], we focus first on the almost daily surprises from the Communist world. Helping us make fresh sense of Gorbachev's disintegrating empire are Soviet watchers Richard Perle, Stephen Sestanovich, Madeleine Albright, and John Mroz. Next the abortion battle moves to Pennsylvania. Tom Bearden reports on the effort to make state law more restrictive. We close with a report from India on a miracle working eye hospital.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Two people were confirmed dead in yesterday's explosion in a plastics plant in Pasadena, Texas. 22 people are still missing, feared dead, and 120 were injured. More than half the facility was destroyed according to a spokesman for the owner, Phillips Petroleum. A small group of firefighters ventured into the plant outside Houston this morning and found the second body. A larger group was going in late today to search for those still missing. Survivors said they had 1/2 minute's warning to get out after a reactor began leaking flammable gas that ignited in a huge fire ball. The plant manager said the cause of the explosion was still in doubt.

ROBERT BENZ, Plant Manager: We're not sure exactly what triggered that incident. I don't know whether that story you just talked is the case or not because frankly there have been multiple stories about what caused it, so there's no definite cause. As far as the area, itself, the plant was running normally, there was some maintenance work going on in that area. And the nature of that maintenance work, I'm not exactly sure of. But to my knowledge there was nothing unusual going on.

MR. MacNeil: The explosions flung debris for five miles and shook the ground 25 miles away. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The House of Representatives today signed off on help for the victims of the Northern California earthquake. By a vote of 321 to 99 the House approved a $2.8 billion package. The action followed word Pres. Bush would sign the legislation. The Senate is expected to quickly pass the bill as well. Today's pre-vote debate centered mostly on where the money would come from. Some said quake relief should be exempted from Gramm-Rudman budget limits so other programs would not have to be cut. But the majority voted to make the money count against Gramm-Rudman.

REP. LEON PANETTA, [D] California: We do not come to this House asking for any kind of handout. Nor do we seek to be treated differently than any other disaster assistance. We are willing to pay if that is necessary. We are willing to have this reflected on the deficit. We do not intend to have these costs hidden from the American people.

REP. BOB TRAXLER, [D] Michigan: You're postponing the payment. You are increasing the deficit. But what you are saying is we're going to take the money, we're going to spend it on the disasters, and you guys on appropriations go figure out where it's coming from. It is not new money. Every new nickel you're spending here is coming out of some program.

MR. LEHRER: Officials in California had more news today about the death toll in last week's quake. 12 of the 280 persons reported missing remained unaccounted for. But the remains of another victim were found in the rubble of the 880 freeway in Oakland. That brought the total deaths from the quake to 63. Today workers began taking down sections of the freeway, fearing that it might crumble on its own. The search for victims will resume after the dangerous sections are demolished. Authorities said there is little hope of finding anyone alive.

MR. MacNeil: The abortion spotlight moved to Pennsylvania today with the battle in the legislature to make state law more restrictive. Both pro-choice and anti-abortion factions said they expected some restricted legislation to pass. But the pro-choice forces said they would try to pass weakening amendments. The proposed restrictions would prohibit abortions after 24 weeks unless 2 doctors said the mother's bodily health was at risk. They would prohibit abortion based on a baby's sex, require a 24 hour waiting period and make women tell their husbands if they plan to get an abortion.

MR. LEHRER: Exxon has sued the state of Alaska. The oil company charged the state refused to allow the use of oil dispersing chemicals in the cleanup from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The suit asks for reimbursement from the state for extra costs and claims made worse by the state's position. Exxon filed the action yesterday in Anchorage as a counter claim to a suit filed against it by the state. A spokesman for the State of Alaska today accused Exxon of trying to rewrite history.

MR. MacNeil: East Germany's Communist-dominated parliament formally elected the country's new leader, Egon Krentz, but for the first time voices were raised in opposition. We have a report narrated by Roderick Pratt of Worldwide Television News.

MR. PRATT: The vote was a radical department from the unanimous backing usually given to an East German leader. Yet despite obvious dissent, the 52 year old Krentz was given the top job and the unenviable task of reigning in the country's burgeoning pro democracy movement. Not long after the nomination and Krentz's announcement that the nation would continue on its orthodox socialist course, thousands of people took to the streets of East Berlin to protest. Chanting, "We are the opposition", they swarmed through the capital with candles but meeting no resistance from the security forces. This is just the latest in a series of anti- government protests. On Monday, 300,000 people swarmed through the streets of Leipzig, the largest demonstration in East Germany's 40 year history. Demonstrations were reported in other cities like Speren as East Germans demand democratic reforms and the right to form an opposition. Krentz has ordered an end to the protest, and while expressing a desire to negotiate, he and his Communist colleagues have made it clear they want an end to the surging unrest that swept the country.

MR. MacNeil: In Moscow, the Supreme Soviet, the inner parliament, today voted to eliminate seats reserved for the Communist Party and other groups. The vote would open all 2250 seats in the Congress of people's deputies, the parent body of the Supreme Soviet, to contested elections. The vote will have to be ratified by the whole Congress. Deputies for the change argued that special seats are undemocratic.

MR. LEHRER: Israel today accepted an American plan for Palestinian negotiations but with two major reservations. The response was in a letter from Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Arens to Secretary of State Baker. The announcement about the letter came from the Israeli embassy in Washington. Arens told Baker Israel was willing to meet with Palestinians to discuss elections in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. The reservations were that no one from the Palestine Liberation Organization participate and that only the elections be discussed.

MR. MacNeil: In this country, a House committee heard testimony today about a new drug which some experts fear will become the crack cocaine of the '90s. The street name for the drug is ice. It is a smokable and very addictive form of methamphetamine. While it's not a major problem in most American cities, the House Select Committee on Narcotics was told that law officers in Honolulu are already fighting an epidemic.

DOUGLAS GIBB, Police Chief, Honolulu: Our experience with the drug quite obviously has been chilling. There are now at least two ice cases for every cocaine cases. The drug is coming into Honolulu from the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. And its distribution locally has been controlled up until this point by Filipino gangs. Ice related arrests in Honolulu have more than doubled over the last year. Seizures are up 60 percent by weight, weapons confiscations have more than doubled. And in the first six months of 1989, alone, there were eight homicides and seven suicides.

MR. MacNeil: The judge in the Iran-Contra trial of John Poindexter said he will allow the subpoena of Pres. Reagan's personal papers, but not those of Pres. Bush. Poindexter, who was Reagan's national security adviser, is charged with five criminal counts, including conspiracy and lying to cover up the scandal. Poindexter claims that Pres. Reagan approved of his actions and that Vice Pres. Bush knew about them. The trial is scheduled to begin in January.

MR. LEHRER: TV evangelist Jim Bakker was sentenced to 45 years in federal prison today. A judge in Charlotte, North Carolina, also fined the 49 year old Bakker $500,000. A jury had found him guilty October 5th of 24 counts of fraud and other violations growing out of is now defunct PTL television ministry. Bakker was accused of converting to his own use millions of dollars donated by PTL members. He told the judge he was sorry for those he hurt. He said he had sinned but never intended to defraud. Bakker was taken to a federal correctional facility in Alabama pending an appeal.

MR. MacNeil: That's our News Summary. Now it's on to the rapid changes in the Communist world, the abortion battle in Pennsylvania, and an Indian eye hospital. FOCUS - TURMOIL

MR. MacNeil: Our lead story tonight, some perspectives on changes going on in Gorbachev's Soviet Union and in the countries of the Soviet block. We'll get four views of those developments and the U.S. response in a moment. But first some background on just a few weeks of change and upheaval from Moscow to Budapest. Yesterday Hungary declared itself a republic, no longer a peoples socialist republic. It did so on the first ever publicly observed anniversary of the 1956 rebellion against Communist rule. Also yesterday the Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze spoke to his country's recently elected parliament and made these admissions,that the invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake plotted in secret without approval of the Party or people, that a radar station in Krasnowuris was indeed a violation of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty despite years of Soviet claims that it was not. And the Foreign Minister renewed an offer to abolish the Warsaw Pact if the West abandoned NATO. But he coupled that proposal with an offer to get rid of Soviet overseas basis by the year 2000. Last Friday, Poland's new non-Communist Premiere made his first foreign trip not to Moscow as was customary but to Rome and the Vatican where he and the Polish born Pope John Paul the II agreed there could be no turning back from the experiment in pluralism. Last Tuesday, Communist East Germany, a bastian of hard-line rule, responding to street protests, the exodus of thousands of its citizens to West Germany and probably the urging of Moscow dropped it hard line leader Eric Honecker. Last Monday, Sec. of State James Baker said the Bush Administration now had a stake in the successful out come of the Gorbachev program of economic reform, or perestroika. Baker said "we want perestroika to succeed because perestroika promises Soviet actions more advantageous to our interests. But for Gorbachev Baker's words were among the few signs of encouragement he has seen recently. His patience shows signs of wearing thin. On October 13th, there was an indication that glasnost, or openness has limits. Gorbachev angrily denounced the editor of the liberal weekly Argumenti for running a poll that showed Andre Sakaroff the one time dissident and leader of the parliamentary opposition is the most powerful politicians in the country. Then last Thursday, Gorbachev fired the editor of the nation's leading newspaper, Pravda, the voice of the communist party and put in one of his supporters. Signs of Gorbachev's irritation have been matched by growing reports of increasing provocation and tensions with in the Soviet Union. Evidence is overwhelming of shortages of more and more basic items in Moscow stores and the situation may be worse in the provinces, especially Armenia and Azerbaijan, where ethnic fighting has contributed to food and other shortages. We have four people to help us understand these events and the U.S. response. They are Richard Pearl former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration now with the American Enterprise Institute. Madeleine Albright a National Security Council Staff member in the Carter Administration, an Advisor to the Dukakis Campaign, now a professor at Georgetown University and Head of the Center of National Policy, a Washington think tank. Stephen Sestanavich was a National Security Council staff member in the Reagan Administration now a Director of Soviet Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. And John Mroz who is president of the East West Security Institute a New York think tank and author of the forthcoming book "Great Awakening: The First Five Years of Gorbachev". Richard Pearl the White House called the Schevernadze confessions yesterday extraordinary, the State Department called them striking forthright admissions. What do you think they are?

RICHARD PERLE, Former Asst. Sec. of State: Well they are certainly striking and forthright and a welcome end to an unnecessary controversy. Unnecessary because it was clear from the earliest evidence that the radar was a violation of the ABM Treaty. The Soviets developed a false story to explain otherwise and they stuck with it right up until yesterday really.

MR. MacNeil: What about the confession on the invasion of Afghanistan?

MR. PERLE: Well, defeat is a powerful prod in a case like this and it is clear that Afghanistan was a defeat and they are now prepared to recognize it. Both of these are positive developments. I think it represents a willingness to reexamine polices that haven't worked and hopefully in future to avoid both intervention of the Afghanistan type and one would hope violations of the Kransnaosk type. But there's a further point that we shouldn't loose sight of. It is very easy to change policy in the Soviet Union it can happen over night.

MR. MacNeil: John Mroz, what do you think Schevernadze's motives and presumably Gorbachev's motives are in this admission.

JOHN MROZ, Inst. For East-West Security Studies: This has been a cause of a great deal of speculation. I think the way we should look at it is in terms of what happened last Friday. Last Friday there was an unprecedented meeting with the Soviet Leadership together with the top military brass of the Soviet Union. An all day meeting that lasted and has not received much press coverage but it is quite encouraging that on the first day after that event that the Foreign Minister should go before his own Parliament, not before the U.N. or the Central Committee of the Party, before his parliament and make the kinds of declarations and statements that he did. I think that most of us can see that there is some interesting insights here about the relationship of the military together with Gorbachev and the Leadership. So I think that it is a positive event and the timing is important.

MR. MacNeil: Stephen Sestanovich what do you think the motives are?

STEPHEN SESTANOVICH: Well, Shevernadze has a consistent line over the past year and a half or so that you need new institutions to correct the mistakes of past Soviet foreign policy. Make sure that they don't happen again. His real target has been the military. He has consistently said that you need to have new institutions, new participants brought in to foreign policy making in order to get control of theSoviet military doctrine, budgets and the like. His statement of the radar, about Afghanistan was principle targeted at the military. He has already used the Supreme Soviet against the military in other ways, for example in extending draft deferments earlier in the summer over the objections of the Defense Ministry. This is in some way a battle over the institutions for control of the resources and direction of Soviet policy.

MR. MacNeil: How do you read it Madeleine Albright?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Center for National Policy: I agree with what Steve says but I also think it's a way to try to attack the former Polite Bureau. I think the statement is clear that neither Gorbachev nor Shevernadze who are non voting members of the Polite Bureau at the time of the Soviet invasion played a part in it. They want to blame the past for it. I also think that it is primarily a domestic event the Afghanistan decision. The radar event I think, however, does have some foreign policy connotation. And here I would just like to point something out I think that it is an attempt by the Soviets to keep the sanctity of the ABM Treaty in its narrow definition by saying they were in effect cheating something that we have thought all along and I think that it raises the status of the ABM Treaty yet again.

MR. MacNeil: Richard Perle, while reports we coming in of the Shevardnadze speech yesterday Secretary Baker was speaking in San Francisco of a much more favorable climate for arms control and U.S. East West relations. Do you agree with his reading of that? Did you hear me, Richard Perle?

MR. PERLE: Sorry, I didn't, but I hear you now.

MR. MacNeil: I was saying that while the reports were coming in yesterday of Shevardnadze's speech, James Baker was speaking in San Francisco of there being a much more favorable climate now for arms control and for U.S. Soviet relations. Do you agree with that reading?

MR. PERLE: I think there is a much more favorable climate in the sense that there is not a lot of energy left in the Soviet Military building program although they continue to devote an inordinate amount of their national wealth to the military, roughly 20 percent, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of dynamism left.

MR. MacNeil: I see. Madeleine Albright, the Democrats have been charging that the Bush administration has been much too cautious up until now with Gorbachev and perestroika Have the Baker speech's yesterday's and a week before corrected that in your view?

MS. ALBRIGHT: I think they've gone a long way to correcting it and kind of not staking any new ground but making an assessment of what a lot of people have been saying for some time. But I think what is important to note in those speeches is that he still pushed forward for a modernization package of mobile missals, SDI, and the B2. So that in this so called package which is beginning to look at possibilities for greater arms control he is still very much in favor of the current U.S. military posture.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Sestanovich, is the Administration now right it is time to say that America's interest is with perestroika and that it must seize this historic moment.

MR. SESTANOVICH: Well, there obviously are some real benefits for the West in the turmoil that has arisen in the Soviet Union as a consequence of Gorbachev's policies. Whether the West approval makes any difference at all is another matter. I think it's very much at the margin you are talking about 1 percent influence on the course of reform there because the scale of Gorbachev's upheaval is so vast.

MR. MacNeil: How do you react to this apparent conversion in the Bush administration from caution to more positive reading?.

MR. MROZ: I think that there's a an increasing awareness that the alternatives to Gorbachev whether that be Russian nationalism or hard liners or what ever are much worse for the American interest than his success and that is change in the policy that we've had in the past.

MR. MacNeil: What do you feel about that, Richard Perle?

MR. PERLE: I hate to guess about what alternatives are. There was a period when Stalin was in power and the same sort of argument was heard that we should be weary of the alternatives to Stalin. Clearly this is a Soviet Administration under Gorbachev that has recognized the immense failure of the Soviet Union economically in particular and is trying to change that, is trying to develop a basis for economic growth and performance. The notion that we have a stake in Gorbachev personally, I think, that is a much more difficult proposition test. Clearly, we have an interest in achieving a stable relationship. But the wrong way to do that is, in my view, is now reverse the policies that have brought us to this promising moment. The policies of strength that require that we maintain a reasonable position in the World. And I would not, as Madeleine seemed to be implying, turn away from the policies that have brought these promising developments.

MR. MacNeil: Madeleine Albright.

MS. ALBRIGHT: I think that I'm not saying that we should retreat totally. I think that what we need to do is the engage is the Soviets and realize as Secretary Baker has that the times has come to really challenge them on a series of issues and to realize that this is a period of time where there is more chance for arms control negotiations and improving our relationship than ever before. I do think that we make a mistake in tying it all totally to Gorbachev. I think it is very important for us to see kind of overall changes in the Soviet Union and try to challenge the Soviets across the board. Because if we personalize it so much we get ourselves in to problems later on.

MR. MacNeil: Stepehn Sestanovich, comment on this for me. It seems that the Bush administration conversion, if that is the word, has come just when Gorbachev's troubles seem to mounting. Do you think that is paradoxical and do you think that it is a wise timing and his position is secure?

MR. SESTANOVICH: It shows some of the perils of deciding to identify to much with an individual leader or an individual set of policies. But the problems for Gorbachev have not appeared just this week or just this month. They've been building for a year or more as a consequence of the reforms that he has launched. It's been clear that this is coming. Clear that the demands placed on him by groups that have been activated as a part of democratization are greater and they are going to continue to increase. Gorbachev's difficulties will probably increase as well.

MR. MacNeil: Should that make the U.S. and the West more cautious as Gorbachev's difficulties increase?

MR. MROZ: We've been cautious all along and , I think, the issue that we are looking at here is that we have an opportunity, a tremendous opportunity. In fact, a historical one. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The question is what are we willing to do. I mean, he is allowing the reforms to go forward in Hungry and Poland. I think most of the people sitting around these respective tables would have said that was impossible six months ago not let alone six years ago. We are in a historical moment a great deal is happening. I'm not so sure I think one of the questions for us is what is our future role. As Pres. Bush has said, containment is no longer the objective. We are now beyond containment. I am not sure what that means and I think one of the things that we are trying to do in the United States is come up with a practical and yet a visionary sense of a proposal of what our relationship to the Soviet Union, in fact, our role in the World should be.

MR. MacNeil: Can the West, Richard Perle, make coherent policy with the reality changing almost daily? Which really means that the reality is changing for us too.

MR. PERLE: It seems to me that our policy ought to be to welcome those developments that lead to greater stability. That diminish the threat that we face. At the same time recognizing and I think Steve Sestanovich is exactly right on this, there is very little that we can do to effect the fundamental problem that Gorbachev faces or that anyone presiding over that crumbling empire would face. This isn't an opportunity for us. This is an opportunity for the Soviets to reduce military spending, to breath life in to a moribund economy with a combination of restructuring and democratization. I think that we should hope that they take it and they succeed but we shouldn't kid ourselves in to thinking that what we do is going to have a significant impact and that includes what agreements we are prepared to sign. If we make the mistake of thinking that the future of Gorbachev's effort turns on the kind of Treaties that we are prepared to enter in to we will have missed the significance of what is taking place in the Soviet Union.

MR. MacNeil: John Mroz.

MR. MROZ: I have to disagree that it's not an opportunity for us.I think that it is a tremendous opportunity for us. Take for example the third World issues. The Shevardnadze speech we didn't talk about here and there hasn't been much discussed in the press but he made some positive statements about Nicaragua, he made some illusions to Cuba and the fact that the United States should not talk about a blockade of Cuba. Many of think that means is that the Soviets are going to begin curtailing more of their economic and other support to Cuba. It is an opportunity for us and I think what is going on in Eastern Europe is another example and think that sit back and cross our arms and say its an opportunity for them is nonsense. It's an opportunity for us as well.

MR. MacNeil: Should the West, Stephen Sestanovich, because of the insecurity of all the changes that are happening so rapidly, the uncertainty, should it sit back and wait until the dust settles or move in with bold iniatives?

MR. SESTANOVICH, Ctr. Fro Strategic & International Studies: Well the dust never settles in a process like this. This is an event on the scale of the French Revolution. You don't find a moment where everything falls in place and then you can negotiate about the new world that you want. This is, as you said, a time of rapidly moving events, in which it is extremely difficult for the United States to negotiate over the Heads of many of the other countries that are trying to arrange their own independence from the Soviet Union.If one had proposed a couple of years ago an understanding with the Soviets about their relationship with Poland and Hungry by this time it would probably been over taken by events.

MR. MacNeil: Madeleine Albright, let's go back to some of the things that are happening to Gorbachev and what Gorbachev is doing. How do you read after everybody praising glasnot, openness for the last couple of years. How do you read his lashing out at the newspapers that are not doing what he likes.

MS. ALBRIGHT: I think that we are going to find more and more of that everything that he does is not to our liking. He is the leader of a huge country which he is watching a tremendous amount of turmoil so what he has to do is he is lashing out against some of the people that have been criticizing him.On the other hand, he also lashes out to the right and gets rid of the Pravda editor. He is a person that is a tough leader. He is not a democrat. I think this is something that we have to get straight in our own heads and realize what he is doing is trying to get through a very difficult process. And, therefore, he's a very smart tactician, I think, he's able to lash to the left and the right. I think he has shown in the last month that he has tremendous power with in the ruling circles. I mean, he was able to get rid of people out of the politburo. He still does a lot of managing and I think that here one of the things that is going to be hard for us is to watch and see how much of it appeals to us. Not all of it is. That's why this whole business of how popular Gorbachev is in the United States and how we tie our policies to him is something we have to be very very careful of. What I find troublesome about all of this, if I could return to a point, is that the United States is so reactive. I kind of like to think of the United States as being a leader in policy and that there are opportunities and what so many of the things that we have wanted for the last 45 years are now coming to pass. And we are kind of observers of the scene instead of setters of the agenda. And I would hope that Sec. Baker's statement really is the beginning of what beyond containment is, that we are going to see more than a slogan. That we are going to see some policies now and that the United States will once again be the leader in this process rather than just waiting to see what is going to happen.

MR. MacNeil: Would you hope that Richard Perle?

MR. PERLE: I'm not sure I understand what that means, containment of arose out of the sense that there was a Soviet threat it was poised to expand with the military power with which to do. If Mr. Gorbachev is going to succeed, he's going to have to cut into that immense military budget and if he does that the threat will recede and we will not need a containment policy.

MR. MacNeil: Let me just ask a follow up question.

MR. PERLE: Is not a policy and this pressure on the administration which is letting the Soviets work out their own problems. To get in there and do something seems to me quiet silly at times.

MR. MacNeil: Stephen Sestanovich, how should the U.S. take the Shevardnadze statement about withdrawing from Soviet basis by 2000 and dismantling the Warsaw Pact. Are these further positive statements from them. the positive public relations value going to undermine NATO politically.

MR. SESTANOVICH: Well, these are not new Soviet proposals. Kruschev talked often about withdrawing Soviet forces and indeed all armed forces in the World to national boundaries.

MR. MacNeil: But that was in a very different time.

MR. SESTANOVICH: It was in a very different time. It may be now that the Soviets are feeling the resources constraints in such a way that they want seriously to contemplate that kind of pull back.If so, we can consider what kinds of changes in our international base structure would be appropriate but the Soviets themselves recognize that just because they pull their bases doesn't necessarily mean that the United States will have no interest of this sort. It is an interesting development in Soviet discussions that they don't pretend that all Soviet actions have to be matched American. That is the kind of wishful thinking that they used to have but they don't any more

MR. MacNeil: Well, what about Madelein Albrights point that instead of watching that, for instance, that latest remark by Shevardnadze just leaves the United States in a role of being reactive instead of moving out and taking initiatives?

MR. SESTANOVICH: Well, not every Soviet proposal needs to be answered. We need to shift through the ones that seem to be most serious and address those. My sense is this not one of the most serious ones.

MR. MacNeil: How seriously should we take that?

MR. MROZ: Well, I think that the significance, I tend to agree. I think though the significance of it is the fact that it represents a debate now going on the on the Soviet including the Soviet military. You can see it reflected in Soviet military journals which we are now having access to in an unprecedented way. There is a debate about what the role of military power should be in the Soviet Union in the future. About the fact they can not match the West and China and all the people that surround them with different points of view one on one as they used to think. That parity with all combinations and forces against them. And I think that's important and that kind of debate should be encouraged. And I think it's at this point still an idea but it still something that is not totally out.

MR. MacNeil: Coming back to Mr. Gorbachev and how the West should look at this, is he still running reform and promoting reform, or is it out his control for instance, in Eastern Europe and in his country? And should that make us nervous?

MR. PERLE: Yes I think there is a great deal of reason to be nervous about potential instability particularly with in the Soviet Union. Not just in Eastern Europe. For example the miners strike and most recently, in fact yesterday, there was a sympathy strike, a warning strike of two hours the miners and very interesting the railroad workers also went out. Now if those two groups strike you are going to have massive problems this winter in the Soviet Union in terms fuel and energy and heating which could lead to massive uprisings and problems. In fact, I think he's going to have a cold hopefully not to cold, a cold winter to get through in terms of food and energy. But there are problems there are a number of forces that are now beyond that type of control.

MR. MacNeil: What is the implication to us, Richard Perle, of this whole thing being out of control reform inside the Soviet Union and changes outside to the extent that it is true?

MR. PERLE: Some of the changes outside are clearly beyond his control and I think things in Poland and Hungary have gone far further than any time envisioned by Gorbachev.

MR. MacNeil: And is Shevardnadze's remark yesterday that they look with favor on the closer ties of these countries with the West. Is that a recognition of something that they can't do something about or is it actually welcome?

MR. PERLE: I believe it is in part a recognition that there's not much they can do about it. In part they may actually welcome being freed from some of the burdens of having to stabilize ineffective regimes. Within the Soviet Union the question has to be a very large question mark. When you create expectations on the scale that Gorbachev has and you can't fulfill those expectations things are getting worse than better in the material sense. It's impossible to tell what that is going to lead to but clearly national sentiments have been unleashed. People feel free to criticize now. There's no precedent one can only guess as to whether it can remain under central control and I am rather doubtful over the long run that it can.

MR. MacNeil: What are the implications for us, Madeleine Albright? For instance today the Supreme Soviet voted against the Leadership to eliminate the 1/3 of the seats in the parliament that are reserved for communists and other special groups, now sort of saying the hell with you. I mean, is it reaching a point for us where you should be very worried that it is all going to run away and be chaotic?

MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, I think the thing that we have to get used to is a lot of back and forth and not a lot of neat solutions or answers. That this is an unfolding process that the Soviet Leadership for the time being is going to allow to unfold And, therefore, we will have to role with the punches ourselves and not think that everything is the beginning of the end. I think they are in some ways being more flexible than we would have expected, and therefore I think to some extent rather than reading tea leaves we ought to learn to read and see what is exactly going on these areas and study it with out coming to these conclusions. On Eastern Europe though I think that they are not in control. I think it was very interesting with Shevardnadze's comments where he said events are taking place that we should not try to dramatize them. In other words they are just letting them unfold and hoping they will not erupt in anything greater. And they are just wondering just as we are what the Threshold is that they have to cross before it becomes unbearable.

MR. MacNeil: Thank you all for all your wisdom, Richard Perle, Madeleine Albright, Steve Sestanovich, John Mroz. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the New Hour tonight the abortion fight in Pennsylvania and a special eye hospital in India. FOCUS - ABORTION POLITICS

MR. LEHRER: Another legislative war over abortion was fought today in Pennsylvania. It ended with a 143 to 58 vote in the Pennsylvania House for stricter controls on abortion. Two weeks ago, the Florida legislature rejected new restrictions. Correspondent Tom Bearden has an extended report from Harrisburg.

MR. BEARDEN: September 26th, more than 5000 people clogged the state capital to demonstrate their opposition to new restrictions on abortion. One week later 8500 people crowd the same grounds to urge the legislature to pass anti-abortion laws, pro-choice, pro- life, demonstration and counter-demonstration, a constant battle of press conferences. Both sides say they represent the true will of the people of Pennsylvania, and point to their own polls to back it up. All this took on a great deal of added significance because of what happened 2 weeks ago in Florida. This latest confrontation would be fought in the State House of Representatives. The conventional wisdom was that restrictive new regulations would eventually pass the whole legislature, but not without amendments. Neither side was conceding anything. The lobbying went into the 11th hour. Pat Jardine is the vice president of the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Organization for Women. She said regardless of today's outcome, the battle was really just beginning.

PATRICIA JARDINE, Pro-Choice Activist: It's the beginning of a campaign that will unseat many of the current faces that are sitting in our state House and in the Senate. In Florida in 1982 at the end of the ERA campaign, we lost but we made a vow that we would change those faces. The National Organization made that vow. And we made good on it. Look at just what happened in Florida. In 1982, there were two women in the Senate. In the current vote, there were 10 women in that Senate and two of them were Senate chairs, very important and instrumental committees in having that vote turned away in Florida. We're anticipating that this could be a 5 to 8 year campaign. It's not over. It's the beginning.

MR. BEARDEN: Garnett Biviano is the president of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation. She agreed the Pennsylvania vote will have longlasting consequences.

GARNETT BIVIANO, Pro-Life Federation: I think it will be a profound impact. We have a vote up before them that will separate the men from the boys, the women from the girls, and there will be no doubt in anyone's mind where these people stand on this issue. And indeed both sides are going to watch very closely. There is no middle ground on this issue any longer. You're either for us or against us and the opposition feels the same. If you try to stay in the middle, you'll be dead in the water.

MR. BEARDEN: The man who wrote the bill at the center of this battle is Republican Rep. Stephen Freind. He is a tireless anti- abortion advocate.

STEPHEN FREIND, State Representative: I always try to look for logic and consistency in this world and I've never understood the logic or consistency in society that protects seals and snails and snailed otters, and whales, and even unborn American bald eagles and yet permits the killing of a million and a half innocent unborn children every year, which I might add breaks down to one every twenty seconds, three a minute.

MR. BEARDEN: There are three key provisions in Freind's bill. The first is called informed consent. The woman must be informed about the risks of abortion and the alternatives to it like adoption. And then she must wait 24 hours before the procedure.

STEPHEN FREIND: When you stop and think about it virtually everything important in our life has waiting periods, for example, marriage certificate, Social Security number, driver's license. We don't this places an undue burden on a woman, particularly when you're dealing with the gravity of the situation, when you're talking about a decision for her to kill her unborn child which may, as I indicated, remain with her for the rest of her life. [TALK SHOW]

MR. BEARDEN: Freind has debated that point and others with State Rep. Karen Ritter, who has emerged as the lead spokesman for the pro-choice side.

KAREN RITTER, State Representative: What he's assuming is that women show up at the clinic without having given any thought to this decision, and I think that it's clear that this is a decision that is made only after a lot of thought and a lot of consideration of the consequences, and again he starts from the assumption that women are foolish and will make foolish decisions unless we put these restrictions on them.

MR. BEARDEN: Another requires the woman's spouse to be notified if she is planning to have an abortion, with a number of exceptions allowed. And there is a ban on all abortions after 24 weeks unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. That could put the bill in conflict with the basic Supreme Court decision on abortion, Roe Vs. Wade. It provides for abortion when the woman's health as well as her life are threatened.

MR. BEARDEN: Someone suggested that 24 week period is specifically designed to force the Supreme Court to review Roe Vs. Wade. Is that your intention?

STEPHEN FREIND: Let me say this. I'd phrase it a different way. We are accepting the invitation of the justices in Webster. And if you read those decisions, there is an invitation there, an implicit invitation to pass legislation which would permit the court to look at the very fabric of Roe Vs. Wade and permit it to either overturn Roe vs. Wade in its entirety or to continue the erosion process begun under Webster. And so we're happy to accept that invitation.

MR. BEARDEN: Freind believes another provision his bill also challenges Roe Vs. Wade. That's a total ban on abortion used to prevent the birth of a child because of its sex.

MR. FREIND: We flat out prohibit sex selection abortions, and that's an abortion where an unborn baby is killed merely because of his or her sex. It goes without saying of course that this is the ultimate in sexual discrimination. I find it very difficult to believe that any rational person can oppose such a provision.

MS. RITTER: The provision on prohibition of abortions for sex selection is designed to be a challenge to Roe Vs. Wade. It's clearly unenforceable. Rep. Freind claims that that means we are saying that women are going to lie about it. What we're saying is that women shouldn't have to give a reason. We're talking about thought police. We're talking not about regulating a person's action. We're talking about regulating a person's thought.

MR. BEARDEN: But Gov. Robert Casey says he's ready to sign this bill precisely because he doesn't think it challenges Roe Vs. Wade. In 1987, the governor, who personally is strongly pro-life, vetoed a pro-life bill because he believed it to be unconstitutional, and his duty as governor was to uphold the Constitution. The governor declined to discuss the bill on camera. But his legal advisers told us Casey worked with Freind to make sure this bill would be one he could sign. This afternoon Freind finally introduced his bill to the House before a live television audience.

MR. FREIND: We think it is a moderate common sense approach to this issue. We carefully studied Webster. We know the dangers of attempting to go too far too fast and we've tried to avoid those pitfalls. I firmly believe whether or not one is for or against the right to an abortion, a rational person will be hard pressed to oppose any of these common sense provisions.

MS. RITTER: I rise to state my opposition to Sen. Freind's amendment to urge this House to reject this proposal which trivializes some of the most important and difficult decisions that a woman can make. I find it ironic that I'm in my third year in the House of Representatives and I am here debating my third abortion control act. I urge my colleagues to look down the road ahead and imagine a state without safe and legal abortion, imagine the pain and suffering that that would cause thousands of women and their families in the years ahead. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to remember one thing, trust the women to make these important decisions for themselves. I urge a no vote on the Freind amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [VOTE ON AMENDMENT]

MR. BEARDEN: The Freind bill now moves to the Senate. If all goes as expected, it will be the law of Pennsylvania by Thanksgiving.

MR. LEHRER: For the record, the abortion restrictions approved this afternoon were amendments to a crime bill and separate legislation. FOCUS - INSIGHTFUL CARE

MR. MacNeil: Next, the story about a miracle working eye hospital in India. About 45 million people suffer from some form of visual impairment. 10 million are blind. Of these, 2 million are children. Doctors say sight could be restored to many and that almost all the blindness is easily prevented. Fred De Sam Lazaro of public station KCTEA-Minneapolis-St. Paul, visited the Avarind Eye Hospital in Madurai, India, and prepared this report.

MR. LAZARO: The city of Madurai, deep in South India, is best known for its spectacular Hindu temples. Built several hundred years ago, they still attract thousands of worshipers. But in recent years, Madurai has been attracting thousands of new visitors. These are not sightseers, rather, they are people seeking to have their sight restored. It seems unlikely that an old city which still has manual stoplights would draw pilgrims of modern medicine. But Madurai has what many experts consider one of the finest eye hospitals in the world. This is one of several operating rooms at the Avarind Eye Hospital in Madurai. Almost 150,000 surgical procedures have been performed here since the hospital opened in 1976, performed by some of the most qualified ophthalmologists in India. They were with the most modern laser and microscopic technology in the world. Dr. G. Natchiar is Avarind's chief surgeon. She says India's blindness problem spares It begins in early childhood, a direct result, she says, of malnutrition. Ironically, India has enjoyed agricultural surpluses for the past several years. Natchiar says there haven't been similar improvements in food distribution and education.

DR. G. NATCHIAR, Chief Surgeon: I really feel strongly that malnutrition blindness is not due to poverty, is not due to starvation, is not due to lack of food, but is due to lack of knowledge in giving a balanced food.

MR. LAZARO: Because their mothers must return to the labor force soon after giving after birth, Natchiar says many Indian infants are left in the care of older siblings. Breast feeding is irregular and babies are often fed the same diet as adult family members.

DR. NATCHIAR: They don't realize that the child age about 8 months or 1 year needs different calories or a different type of food than an adult of 20. We just tell them how greens or carrots or cabbage or cucumber or papayas can improve a child's health without any medicines.

MR. LAZARO: Among adults Natchiar says the most common cause of blindness is cataract formation. Unlike the developed world where the onset is on the 6th or 7th decade, cataract strikes people in India in their 50s, even mid 40s. Here it also blinds most of its victims because it is rarely treated.

DR. NATCHIAR: The causes are still not very clear but one they say it's tropical. Two they say still Indians have got a genetic tendency for early cataract. But naturally, the population is more, the instance of cataract is more.

DR. GOVINDAPPA VENKATSWAMY, Hospital Founder: There is nothing which disables a man like cataract and poor eyesight. There is nothing more easier than to mend it. We just do a small operation and give him glasses and make a man a whole man.

MR. LAZARO: 71 year old Govindappa Venkatswamy founded the Avarind Eye Hospital in 1976. Despite severe arthritis which crippled him as a young man, Venkatswamy went on to become one of India's best known ophthalmologists. The sophisticated facilities helped establish Avarind as a leading center for eye care and research. But more important, the revenues from paying patients helped bankroll a 350 bed free clinic. Today 2/3 of all surgery at Avarind is performed here, not surprising since most blind people in India are too poor to afford care.

DR. VENKATSWAMY: Right now they are coming to us maybe 6 months or 1 year later after they have ceased to do their job. That's a bad time for them because you can imagine how a man who is a daily laborer if he is not having his vision for 6 months, it is difficult for him to support himself. So we need to set up a powerful marketing system, a social marketing system, to get more and more patients, if possible, early before they start losing their earnings.

MR. LAZARO: Social marketing is a term herd commonly among healthcare professionals here. The Aravind Hospital's chief means of social marketing or recruiting patients is through eye camps, bringing Avarind to its rural patients instead of the other way around. The location for this recent camp was a school building in a small town about 50 miles outside Madurai. With Aravind's growing reputation for healing and posters announcing the camps weeks in advance, there was no shortage of patients. For them, the camp was a familiar, less intimidating environment than a distant hospital. Camps are usually held on Sunday. That increases turnout since a younger member of the household is free to bring the patient in. On this day between 7 and 11 AM, about 350 people had their eyes examined. Jordan Kassalow is an optometrist from Upstate New York. He's one of dozens of international scientists and ophthalmology students who visit the Avarind Hospital each year to learn, teach or do research.

DR. JORDAN KASSALOW, Optometrist: The eye camp was run beautifully. It was efficient in that doctors saw the patient first and determined what tests needed to be done and was able to channel the person into the right direction for those tests to be done. And as soon as a pathology was picked up by the doctor, he could channel the patient properly so that a minimal amount of tests had to be done, so that they could be sent to the hospital if needed, or get a pair of glasses if needed or just have a routine eye exam if needed.

MR. LAZARO: About 100 patients at this camp were found requiring surgery, most for cataracts. As part of its international program to assist the blind, the Lyons Club through local chapters furnished immediate transportation to the hospital. By 8 o'clock the following morning, more than 20 patients from the previous day's camp had already been through surgery. By 11 all had settled into a couple of days of post op recovery, room, board and transportation back home on the house.

DR. KASSALOW: It's a real giving group of doctors that I've seen. They work six to seven days a week, 10 to 12 hours each day and they seem to do it with joy and they seem to do it with joy and they seem to do it out of the goodness of their heart. And they are not as concerned with the economics of their profession.

MR. LAZARO: Although surgeons at Aravind live comfortably by Indian standards, their earnings are only a fraction of what they could be in private practice, especially if they moved to Europe or the United States. Yet Natchiar, trained in surgery at the University of Illinois and Harvard, says restoring sight to thousands of blind people is plenty of reward.

DR. NATCHIAR: -- that smile when you put the glasses onto them, and that innocent smile, and they think that you are next to God, that feeling makes it sort of very rewarding. And I feel that this is much more than being wealthy individually or personally.

MR. LAZARO: Beyond eyesight, Aravind restores considerable human productivity in communities it serves. People who were burdens can now resume normal activities. In India's extended family system, sociologists say just being able to care for grandchildren can do much for harmony in the household. Without question, the most rewarding patient for doctors here is 1 year old Zolbitar Ali.

MR. LAZARO: He's been blind since birth?

DOCTOR: That's right. One of the eyes was more blind than the other.

MR. LAZARO: I see. What was the reason for that?

DOCTOR: It's a congenital cataract.

MR. LAZARO: Congenital cataract.

DOCTOR: That's right.

MR. LAZARO: How much of his vision will you restore?

DOCTOR: Well, because he's very small, he's only one and a half years, old, maybe almost complete vision will be restored.

MR. LAZARO: He'll return to normal vision.

DOCTOR: That's right. The main problem is -- even if we operate they all get --

MR. LAZARO: Despite a sea of reward, doctors say there's an ocean of frustration. When he heals in a few days, Zubigar Ali will join only a small minority of India's blind who have received kindly eye care. Aravind's prolific numbers and government eye care programs over the years have barely put a dent in India's blind population. Dr. Venkatswamy says he'd like to see Aravind expand to other parts of the country. While there are plenty of available doctors, Venkatswamy says India lacks people with organizational and administrative skills who can combine the various disciplines into an efficient assembly line operation.

DR. VENKATSWAMY: In America you have models, whether it is Sears stores or McDonald's hamburgers, you are able to open a chain of shops or restaurants or hotels and you're able to operate them efficiently. In India we haven't got a model like that one.

MR. LAZARO: To help train good managers, leaders like Dr. Venkatswamy, Aravind next year will institute a hospital administration program. The curriculum will be set up with help from the University of Michigan, appropriately not far from where the assembly line idea was born. Venkatswamy's peers say he has done for ophthalmology what Henry Ford did for the automobile. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again the major stories of this Tuesday, 22 workers were still missing in the Texas plant explosion that killed 2 and injured more than 100, the House of Representatives passed a $2.8 billion aid package for victims of the Northern California earthquake, and a federal judge in North Carolina sentenced TV evangelist Jim Bakker to 45 years in prison and fined him $500,000 for fraud. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the Newshour tonight. And we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.