The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The leading headlines today are these: President Reagan and congressional leaders made a deal on the budget. The number of fires in the West went above 1,000. One of the Air India flight recorders was recovered, and Israeli planes bombed three Palestinian guerrilla bases in Lebanon. Robert MacNeil is away; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: After a rundown of the day's news, we have two focus segments, a pair of newsmaker interviews and an update. First, the budget compromise. Our newsmakers are the two men in the thick of the negotiations, Senate Budget Chairman Pete Domenici and his counterpart in the House, William Gray. Then, chewing tobacco and snuff, a debate over the health risks. Next we'll look at a heated debate that took place on Capitol Hill today over a controversial California nuclear plant. And finally, an update from the West Coast on that scare over watermelon.News Summary

LEHRER: Peace may be at hand in the battle of the budget. House and Senate leaders announced today they have agreed to a framework for resolving their stalemate, one that involves compromises in hard and opposite positions on Social Security and defense spending. The agreement came following an hour and a half negotiating session with President Reagan at the White House. House Majority Leader Jim Wright said a fundamental framework had been agreed upon, but others said there was still much work to be done before a final deal is struck. The two key negotiators, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and his House counterpart, William Gray, had this to say.

Rep. WILLIAM GRAY, House Budget Committee Chairman: Today for the first time the President has officially put his stamp of approval on a framework wherein three out of four items of that framework represent a major change in the President's position. The one consistent item is no revenues and no taxes. But the other three items represent a significant change. So I'm hopeful. Whether or not that can be worked out in the House and also can be worked out in terms of the conference and the Senate is still to be seen.

Sen. PETE DOMENICI, Senate Budget Committee Chairman: The task is very difficult, and I wouldn't like to put a -- I wouldn't like to speculate as to the chances, but I would say we'll work at it as diligently as we can within that framework. I wouldn't think at this point that the chances are overwhelming that we can come up with one, but surely I won't give up and I don't think the various members of the conference will give up. Some are more skeptical than I and some are far more skeptical than Chairman Gray about being able to get it done. But we'll give it a try.

LEHRER: Senator Domenici and Congressman Gray will be with us in our lead focus segment right after this news summary. Judy?

WOODRUFF: The White House announced today that President Reagan will undergo minor surgery this Friday to have a benign growth removed from his colon. The 74-year-old President will go to Bethesda Naval Hospital and be given a pain killer and a sedative before the procedure, but no general anesthetic. The growth, also known as a polyp, was discovered last March during a physical examination. A similar small growth had been found a year earlier and partially removed. White House spokesman Larry Speakes added that Mr. Reagan will be thoroughly examined while in the hospital Friday, and if more polyps are found they probably will also be removed.

LEHRER: Bishop Desmond Tutu saved a man's life today in South Africa. The man was being kicked and whipped by an angry crowd that accused him of being a police informer. Tutu, the 1985 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, waded into the crowd and rescued the man. The incident occurred at a funeral for victims of anti-government rioting. Our report is from Michael Burke of the BBC.

MICHAEL BURKE, BBC [voice-over]: It was yet another day of funerals. Four more blacks blown apart by hand grenades they'd apparently been preparing to throw at the homes of black policemen. Some came to mourn young men killed in this senseless wave of violence. Most came as an act of protest. This township had been swamped by police; funerals are the only opportunity to demonstrate. Bishop Tutu tried to comfort the grieving and encourage the others that apartheid's days were numbered without the need for violence.

Bishop DESMOND TUTU: The violence has escalated to the point where I think quite a lot of the young people, black young people, have become almost reckless in their disregard for their own lives.

BURKE [voice-over]: These funerals fall into a pattern of escalating violence. As the coffins leave for the grave the emotions of the crowd boil over. It happened again today. And the police moved in with rubber bullets and live ammunition. The violence is getting steadily worse here. Three more dead overnight, shot by police. The crowd thought this man was a police informer. He would have died here, kicked to death. But Bishop Tutu saved his life, rushing from his car and pleading with the crowd to leave him alone. They would have listened to no one else. The man was pushed into a car and driven away, injured but alive. His car was turned over by a mob and set on fire as a warning to others who give information to the police.

LEHRER: That report by Michael Burke of the BBC.

One of the flight recorders from the crashed Air India jumbo jet was found today. Investigators said the so-called black box was recovered by a robot submarine in Atlantic waters off the coast of Ireland. The Air India plane, on its way from Montreal to Bombay, went down there June 23rd, killing all 329 people aboard. The recovered box is the cockpit voice recorder; the second, which takes continuous readings of a plane's various mechanical functionings, is still to be found. Investigators in India and elsewhere are seeking to determine if the plane was downed by a bomb, as Sikh extremists and others have claimed. Rod Steven of Visnews reports on how the voice recorder was retrieved.

ROD STEPHEN, Visnews [voice-over]: It was this type of in-flight recording device that was dredged from the bottom of the Atlantic. Called a cockpit voice recorder, investigators hopes to find out from it whether Air India Flight 182 was blown out of the sky. Cased in armor and fitted in the tail section of all Boeing 747s, the machines pick up not only radio messages but chatter between the pilots, alarm signals and other sounds. The information is recorded on a continuous loop which should never stop functioning. If there was an explosion, it will be heard on a machine like this. It has taken search ships more than two weeks to uncover the all-important device. The operation had been coordinated by the Canadians. It involved British, Irish, French and American ships. But the French ship, the Leon Theverin, made the find with the use of a robot-controlled submarine. Called the SCARAB, it was lowered on the end of a three-kilometer-long umbilical cord. As engineers operated the controls, it moved through water under pressure of several tons to the square centimeter. At such a depth the SCARAB's search lights were virtually useless. It could only penetrate the water to a depth of five meters. Yet despite all that, the salvage team managed to home in on the jumbo's tail section. The SCARAB's automatic claws were operated and it brought the cockpit voice recorder to the surface. It was a triumph for the salvage team. There it now appears that the device may have been stopped by an electrical fault. In that event, it would not have picked up the last moments of Flight 182. Just in case, the search ships are continuing to take as many pictures as possible before the sea destroys the wreckage.

WOODRUFF: In Lebanon, Israeli warplanes staged a retaliation attack against Palestinian bases inside refugee camps in the northern port city of Tripoli. A guerrilla headquarters was demolished and at least 15 people were killed, including six children aged from eight to 12 and an 18-year-old woman. The attack was said to be in retaliation for two suicide car bombings in Israel's southern Lebanon security zone on Tuesday. Seventeen people were killed in those attacks. Meanwhile, in Jerusalem 15 Israelis were convicted today for their role in the biggest anti-Arab terror ring in Israel's history. Three were convicted of murder, and the rest on lesser charges stemming from attacks on Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Leaders of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank where the convicted men live say they will try to get presidential pardons.

LEHRER: President Reagan today nominated an admiral with a doctorate degree to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral William Crowe is 60 years old. He will replace Army General John Vessey, who will retire October 1st. Crowe is now commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. He is a graduate of the Naval Academy and holds a Master's in administration from Stanford University and a doctorate in political science from Princeton.

WOODRUFF: There was both good and bad news today about the epidemic of fires in the West. Fire fighters were finally able to contain a 75,000-acre fire near San Luis Obispo in California, and weather forecasters called for possible thunder showers. But some experts say that accompanying lightning might simply cause more fires, and northern California was hit with a series of new blazes. One of the most severe was in Los Gatos, just south of San Francisco. We have a report from Robert Braunstein of KICU-TV in San Jose.

ROBERT BRAUNSTEIN, KICU [voice-over]: Hot temperatures and heavy brush helped fuel this four-day-old fire. Homeowners rushed to escape the blaze as flames skipped over dirt roads leading to their houses. As many as 20 homes were burned, 4,500 people evacuated. Twenty-five hundred firefighters from throughout California are working long hours on the fire line. Don Sanchez was on his 37th straight hour when we talked to him.

DON SANCHEZ, Fire fighter: As soon as we get a couple of hours' sleep we'll be able to go back and work another 36 hours. And then we'll take off for about 16 hours and be ready to go again. Looks like we're going to be out here for a week at least.

BRAUNSTEIN [voice-over]: Hundreds of homes were saved by bulldozer-driving jockeys working fearlessly in the face of impending flames. The fire is expected to burn for at least one week.

WOODRUFF: At last count, more than 1,000 fires were burning in the western United States and three provinces in Canada. According to one statistic, more than 1,600 square miles of brush, range and timberland have burned since late June, an area 33 larger than the state of Rhode Island.

And this update. Last night we had a focus section debate on legislation to loosen restrictions on interstate gun sales. A few hours later, by a 79-to-15 margin, the Senate passed the measure that would make it harder for the federal government to enforce regulations affecting gun control, or rather gun dealers and collectors. The bill now goes to the House, where gun control advocates are hoping to bottle it up in committee.

LEHRER: And, finally in the news of this day, there are updates on two other stories we have devoted major time to recently. First, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the rule which bars high school students from sports and other extracurricular activities if they fail a course. A group of students and parents had challenged the rule on constitutional grounds.

And Coca-Cola announced it is bringing back its old Coke from the dead. It will be sold under the name Coca-Cola Classic. The new formula will continue to be marketed under the straight Coca-Cola name. The new one has had some public response problems since it was introduced with much fanfare in May. Breaking the Deadlock?

LEHRER: We go first tonight to the lead story of the day, the budget story, the agreement on a framework to resolve the no-budge jam between the House and Senate over how to trim $56-or-so billion from next year's budget. The agreement news came this morning following an hour-and-a-half meeting between President Reagan and congressional leaders. It is now up to two men in particular to turn the framework into something that will really work. The two are Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Congressman William Gray, Democrat of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Budget Committee, both of whom are with us now from the studio at the Capitol.

Senator Domenici, define the framework as you understand it, please, sir.

Sen. DOMENICI: Well, we agreed this morning to attempt to put together a budget starting with a framework that would take the House outlays on defense, Senate's budget authority, take all of the cost-of-living indexes and give everybody a full COLA. In other words, don't restrain any of them. Those are the two items that we agreed to set there as part of the framework. And then to have no new taxes is the third part. You start with that framework and you attempt, with that as your basis, to see if you can get a $56 -- $50- to $55-billion package in the first year, a major one, somewhere around $270-, $275 billion over three years. Obviously, in that package we have saved additional money because we have taken the House defense numbers; we've lost about $28 to $30 billion because we put all the cost-of-living back in. So, as I indicated today, I'm willing to give it a try, but I'm skeptical. It's pretty tough to do it.

LEHRER: You in effect then lost. The Senate lost, did it not, in this deal?

Sen. DOMENICI: If this budget is put together and it's meaningful, I'm sure that there'll be plenty of Senate aspects to it because the fight is not just between the cost-of-living index, that is, Social Security, and defense. Those two combined amount to $40 billion. But there is $40 billion in differences in domestic, non-poverty programs between the House and Senate. So we're about equal.

LEHRER: But isn't that a terrific give for you in the Senate to give up on the Social Security COLA cap, which was something I know that you felt very strongly about, as you expressed on this program many times.

Sen. DOMENICI: It was a very important part of a major, credible deficit-reduction package. And we're not sure we can put a budget together that the Senate would accept with that framework. We're willing to try. But I repeat, you know, there is $40-billion worth of differences in non-poverty domestic programs. Those are things like Amtrak, EDA, postal subsidies. Not poverty programs. And if we can resolve those, moving dramatically towards the Senate side, we'll have it in a very realistic budget. If we can't, then obviously there's going to be a budget chaos.

LEHRER: Congressman Gray, do you see this framework as a victory for the House position?

Rep. GRAY: I don't think it's a question of who has victory and who has a loss. I think it's a question of whether we're going to have a budget and whether America is going to be victorious and we're going to have a strong economy. And so thus I like the framework because many of its elements we've already achieved in the House proposal. For instance, the defense outlay number. And, as I said several weeks ago, we were willing to move toward the Senate on the budget authority, which doesn't affect your deficit reduction in '86, but it affects it in the out-years, '87 and '88. On Social Security, we already havethe position that the President now is espousing, which is providing a full cost-of-living adjustment for our elderly and our veterans. And so thus we've already achieved those savings. Our last offer to the Senate was $57.75 billion with that framework. Now, clearly, as Senator Domenici has pointed out, there are some significant differences on other domestic programs.

LEHRER: Isn't that where it's all going to have come from now, Congressman?

Rep. GRAY: I think what we've got to do is go back to the table and see if we can make some additional reductions in the non-defense discretionary accounts that are meaningful and yet maintain the correct policy programmatically for the nation and that can reach an agreement within this framework. Because I think what we've heard today from the President is a doorway of opportunity where he says, "Look, if you can come together with a budget package that has these four elements -- one of them is an old element, no taxes, no revenues -- then I'm prepared to get out and give you a lot of strong support in passing it in the Senate and in the House." I'm hopeful that we can do that.

LEHRER: Now, you heard what Senator Domenici just said, that $40 billion is going to have to come out of domestic program spending. Are you willing to do that?

Rep. GRAY: I didn't hear the Senator say there is going to be $40-billion worth of additional cuts. I don't think he meant that. I think what he said is that if you look over a three-year period where they are, where we are on some of the domestic discretionary accounts, there is a substantial difference. I'm not prepared to agree with his figure of $40 billion, but I would agree with him. However, I would also point out that we have demonstrated our willingness to make additional cuts in those areas because, whereas when we left the House with a $56.2-billion package we had only one termination, we now have proposed six additional terminations. So I think that we in the House are willing to work within that framework, to try to reach an agreement, and if the President is on board I think that's going to help Senator Domenici on the Senate side, and then all of us will be winners. There will be no losers.

LEHRER: Senator?

Sen. DOMENICI: Let me make this point now. I said that -- and I think the number is right. There is an equal amount of difference between the House and Senate as there was on Social Security and defense, $40 billion. I didn't say we had to get all of that, but what we took off the table in the pensions and Social Security is $28 billion. So it seems to me that we ought to be moving toward about $28 billion of that 40. I think the House tends to agree with that. I don't want the chairman to have to analyze that right now, but I think today in the House there was a little bit of a debate instructing you all to take the COLAs off, and at the same time, Mr. Chairman, I think they said to substitute an equal amount of savings.

LEHRER: Both of those passed by a voice vote late this afternoon in the House. Is that correct?

Rep. GRAY: That is absolutely correct. The House reiterated its position on the cost-of-living adjustment for our elderly and our veterans, and at the same time the House said we want to make sure that we have a strong deficit-reduction package. I would just point out to the senator's comment that if you listen to that framework that you just described, we've already just about gotten there, at $57.75. Now, we have some disagreements. He doesn't like certain aspects of our budget and some of our reductions. We've got to workthose out. I think we've got a framework where we can at least begin to break the logjam. I'm hopeful we can do it.

LEHRER: Senator Domenici, where is the hard part coming?

Sen. DOMENICI: Well, the hard part is coming exactly on what the chairman just said. If that's their interpretation, we won't get a budget. If their interpretation is you take $28 billion in COLAs off the table and then look at the House budget and see if they got $28 billion in domestic savings, we won't get a budget.

LEHRER: Now, why not?

Sen. DOMENICI: Because the interpretation that would be credible would be to take the 28 that you took off and find 28 in new savings to take its place. I mean, that's what I have thought they were talking about, and that's why I say there's a chance, because that difference is 40. The Chiles-Gorton proposal picked up about 26 or 27 of that 40 in their proposal on savings. And it could be a benchmark. They could look at it and see if they really want to do those things. Clearly the House has to look at that. None of us have had a chance today. But that's the second framework that you're going to have to be looking at in order to get a budget. You aren't going to get much of a budget without that, and it'd be tough to pass it in the Senate without that.

LEHRER: Congressman?

Rep. GRAY: Well, I would just simply say that I don't want to get into a debate here with my distinguished colleague from the Senate other than to say that he has a President who has just said that he wants to change positions on Social Security, and that means taking out $20-some billion; therefore, from his perspective, that hole has to be plugged. We already came to the table with those COLAs in place. So what we've got to do --

LEHRER: Yeah, but Congressman, it's got to be --

Rep. GRAY: What we've got to do -- let me just finish -- is they have some additional cuts that they want in the domestic area based on their policy assumptions. Now, if you take their domestic cuts and include the Social Security, they had about $31, $32 billion in total cuts in '86. You take out the 7.5 for the COLAs, you have about $22, $23 billion that they had in place. Now, what we are basically talking about is that difference in there that somehow we've got to look at the $40-billion top and find a way to achieve it. I'm hopeful. I think we can, and I'm willing to at least try.

LEHRER: Congressman, you lost me there, but let me -- on some of your figures there I don't think I followed you. To simplify it, is it if you take this money away on Social Security, what the senator is saying is that you in the House have got to be willing to cut more in domestic spending. What I'm asking is, are you willing to do that, and is that part of the framework that was agreed to, as you understand it, with the President?

Rep. GRAY: Absolutely. I am willing to try and do that. I told the President that today. And I would point out that we've already done that by moving from $56.2 to $57.7 billion in cuts that --

LEHRER: What are you willing --

Rep. GRAY: -- that I'm preparing to now offer.

LEHRER: What are you willing to cut now that you weren't willing to cut before that caused the problem -- or not that caused the problem, we won't get into that. Anyhow, what are you willing to cut now that you weren't willing to cut before?

Rep. GRAY: Well, I'm going to meet tomorrow with our conferees to discuss just that. I don't have that right here at the tip of my tongue, to make a list and a dollar amount.

LEHRER: What about --

Rep. GRAY: But I will tell you this. By tomorrow wewill hopefully have some additional reductions to make in the domestic side.

LEHRER: Will it include Amtrak, the example that the President and Senator Domenici always use?

Rep. GRAY: Well, I think that there is a possibility that we might make some further reductions there, as well as in some other areas.

LEHRER: Senator Domenici, where are they going to have to get it? Not they, but where are you all going to have to get it, specifically, do you believe?

Sen. DOMENICI: Well, first I want to make the point that the $40 billion that we are lower than the House is domestic, non-poverty. So we are not talking about any further cuts in poverty programs. We're talking about Economic Development Administration, Appalachia Regional Commission, postal subsidies, Amtrak, Ex-Im Bank -- a subsidy for major American corporations -- Small Business Administration -- an agency that's supposed to help small business and costs so much for these very difficult days. Now, those are the items, and about three times as many. Now, here's the issue. Do we want to take those non-poverty programs that do not affect the poor and cut them so that people can stay on jobs, get new jobs, go to work, or do we want to hang a budget on non-poverty domestic programs? And that's where it's going to come down. That first framework that we agreed on this morning is not going to work unless a substantial portion of these non-poverty domestic programs are terminated and dramatically cut.

LEHRER: What do you call dramatically cut?

Sen. DOMENICI: I'd start with a frame of reference out of the 40 over three years, about $26- to $28 billion over the three years, which is six or seven the first year. The symmetry there is we took all the COLAs out, and to get meaningful three years, you've got to substitute something that has three-year effect, and so you've got to get about $28 to $30 billion out of the 40.

LEHRER: Congressman Gray, is the senator talking language that you think will lead to an agreement?

Rep. GRAY: Oh, I think it will, but I think that there's a misleading statement that's being made, which is not misleading from his perspective. And I'm not faulting the senator. He's saying that you remove the COLAs and therefore you've got to make it up. The COLAs are going to be removed from his budget. They're in our budget. The assumption is already there. But I do agree with him that some of the programs that he's named, we're going to have to go back and take a second and, in some cases, a third look. For instance, when we came to the table on Amtrak we had one cut there in Amtrak, but since the conference began we've made an additional cut in our second offer. So I'm willing to take a third look at what we do in Amtrak.

LEHRER: Senator, you said today, in fact we showed you on tape at the beginning saying you were relatively skeptical as to whether or not a deal could be struck. Based on the last few minutes listening to Congressman Gray, are you still skeptical, or is your attitude still the same?

Sen. DOMENICI: I think that's a pretty good word. I am skeptical. I have said the last few days, while I don't like a lot of the things that have happened, I am enthusiastic because there seems to be a fever and an involvement commensurate with the problem. I mean, we were at the White House, the President's involved, the country is concerned. That makes me enthusiastic. But skeptical, because I really believe you've got to take two-thirds of the domestic disparity, non-poverty, in order to get a real budget. And I think Chairman Gray is going to have a hard time with that. And I'm not speaking about him personally. These are special interest groups. There are chairmen in the House that don't want to give. They are all peculiar problems to the American process, but I think they're tough.

LEHRER: Skeptical too, Congressman Gray?

Rep. GRAY: No, I mean, you know I'm a Baptist preacher, I'm always forever optimistic and when I see the President, who on Saturday attacked the House on defense now saying today he's willing to come down on outlay figures, who accused us of phony bookkeeping and gimmickry, now admitting that the OCS, that he pointed out, which David Stockman supported and the Senate acceded to, I see some opportunity there. And I think that Senator Domenici is right when he says that the President is involved. That's going to be particularly helpful on the Senate side. We have a strong bipartisan coalition, and so I remain optimistic. I think, though, we've only got about a week and a half to put it together, or then that doorway of opportunity is going to begin to close and all America loses. So there are no winners and losers. I think we need a budget. I think we need strong deficit reduction with no revenues.

LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, thank you both very much for being with us this evening.

Sen. DOMENICI: Thank you.

Rep. GRAY: Thank you.

LEHRER: Judy?

WOODRUFF: Still to come on the NewsHour, a debate over the kind of tobacco that doesn't create smoke, a look at some heated exchanges on Capitol Hill today over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and an update on that California watermelon scare. Smokeless Danger

WOODRUFF: It may sound like something something from the Old West, but about 20 million Americans now use chewing tobacco and snuff on a regular basis. Smokeless tobacco, as it's called, is growing in popularity, particularly among teenagers who, like many people, think that it's safer than smoking. But in Massachusetts, state health officials today announced that warning labels will be required on all snuff products sold in that state as of December 1st. And in Washington today a bill was introduced in Congress that would require warning labels on all smokeless tobacco, specifically warning of the risk of oral cancer. The warnings would have to appear on television commercials as well, which the industry has been using to convince cigarette smokers to go smokeless. Here is one of them.

ACTOR [TV commercial]: If you're a smoker, inside this little can is a legitimate alternative. This is Skoal Bandits. An individual portion of wintergreen-flavored tobacco in a neat, pre-moistened pouch. What you do is put one between your lip and gum. What you get is great tobacco taste without lighting up. And you can enjoy it wherever you are. If you're a smoker, try Skoal Bandits, 20 pouches to a can. Take a pouch instead of a puff.

WOODRUFF: The industry has been fighting the idea of warning labels, but in states like Massachusetts the momentum for warnings has been building for some time. Here is a report by Callie Crossley of public station WBGH in Boston.

DIPPER: I just put it like this. Umm, tastes so good.

CALLIE CROSSLEY, WGBH [voice-over]: An estimated 12 of college students nationwide now use so-called smokeless tobacco, a practice known as dipping. And, studies show, 15 of Massachusetts high school students have also tried it at least once.

PAUL HUGHES, high school senior: I started chewing leaf in about the eighth grade, and truthfully it was because -- you can say it's peer pressure. All the kids were doing it, and I gured I'd try it. And I got hooked on it. I chewed leaf until about the end of my sophomore year in high school, and then I started dipping. And the more I'd dip the more I liked it.

CROSSLEY [voice-over]: High school senior Paul Hughes uses two tins a day and says he's hooked.

Mr. HUGHES: When I tried to stop dipping I couldn't do it. There was no way I could.

CROSSLEY [voice-over]: The upswing in the use of smokeless tobacco products among high school and college students is what prompted state health officials to hold a series of public hearings. Health experts came armed with facts to support their testimony that use of smokeless tobacco multiplies the risk of oral cancer. Some studies have suggested that heavy use of these products increases cancer risk 50-fold. Scientists say the cancer begins with lesions which form inside the mouth. Soon after, tooth loss occurs, and then tumors at the site where the tobacco is placed. Powerful testimony came from Oklahoma resident Mrs. Betty Marsee. Her son Sean, who began the smokeless tobacco habit at age 12, died last year of cancer spread through his head and neck. Mrs. Marsee said smokeless tobacco killed Sean, and she is suing the U.S. Tobacco Company for $37 million. She says Sean believed dipping was not harmful. That's why she supports warning labels.

Mrs. BETTY ANN MARSEE: I want to see what you're doing continued as a federal thing. I would hope that the tobacco companies, once they hear these things, will decide to do it on their own, because it's a moral issue as far as I'm concerned. Not even one person should die.

WOODRUFF: With us tonight is the man who led the Massachusetts campaign for warning labels. He is Dr. Gregory Connolly of the Massachusetts Department of Health. He joins us from WGBH in Boston. And on the other side we have the man who has led the fight against the labels. He is Michael Kerrigan, president of the Smokeless Tobacco Council, which represents the industry.

Dr. Connolly, I'm going to begin with you. Why is it, or rather what is it that is going to be in the warning labels that Massachusetts is instituting?

GREGORY CONNOLLY: Judy, effective December 1 of this year, we'll require all snuff sold in Massachusetts to have the health warning label. The label will read, "Warning: use of snuff can be addictive, can cause mouth cancer and other mouth disorders."

WOODRUFF: What evidence do you have that that's the case?

Dr. CONNOLLY: Well, if you look at the cancer evidence, the World Health Organization's International Committee for Cancer Research concluded in Novembr, after an exhaustive review of the scientific literature, that snuff of the type sold in the United States is a human carcinogen. In February, the National Cancer Institute's advisory board arrived at a conclusion that smokeless tobacco is causally related to cancer among humans. We reviewed over 80 scientific studies, including 43 among human users, 20 studies on experimental animals, and arrived at a similar conclusion, that yes, in fact smokeless tobacco does increase risk to cancer and is causally related to oral cancer.

WOODRUFF: And there were no conflicting studies? In other words, the reports were unanimous, or the research was unanimous. Is that what you're suggesting?

Dr. CONNOLLY: Some studies do not make a finding because of methodological flaws, but the majority of the studies, the vast majority of the studies, met sound scientific criteria for causation. That is, they consistently showed among users from different parts of the country, different age groups, different sexes, that if you use smokeless tobacco you find an increase in cancer. They had specificity. That is, in 10 studies the cancer occurred in the mouth where the tobacco was held, and one very interesting study was of a tobacco -- I'm sorry, of a farmer in Minnesota that put tobacco, smokeless tobacco, in his ear for 42 years and developed cancer of the ear. They satisfied the necessary criteria of epidemiological.

WOODRUFF: How does all this evidence compare with the evidence about cigarette smoking?

Dr. CONNOLLY: Oh, I think the evidence with cigarette smoking is voluminous now. It's overwhelming. But that does not mean, though, that we have a significant body of [TEXT OMITTED FROM SOURCE] evidence to show causation in this case.

WOODRUFF: In which? You mean that cigarette smoking causes --

Dr. CONNOLLY: The evidence for cigarette smoking is voluminous. It's overwhelming. But there is a sufficient body of evidence today in the area of smokeless tobacco to make a similar conclusion. What we don't want to do, Judy, is to make the mistake we made with cigarettes, and that is not act. If we acted on cigarette smoking back in the '50s, we'd see far fewer deaths today. The important fact today is we must act on the evidence we have so we don't see an epidemic of oral cancer in this country at the turn of the next century.

WOODRUFF: Michael Kerrigan, why does your group oppose warning labels?

MICHAEL KERRIGAN: Well, Judy, the industry firmly believes that the scientific evidence concerning any relationship between smokeless tobacco and health is inconclusive. My good friend Greg Connolly has done a selective review of the literature. We look at the literature, we study it, and we care very much about any allegations about our products. And we've concluded that there is a scientific controversy. The jury is very much out, and I think if Dr. Connolly would cite some of the scientists who were uninvited from attending the Massachusetts hearing, like Dr. John Richardson of Boston University who has stated recently in the ADA News, and I can quote, that he says that, "You have adopted a socio-political position and have attempted to lend credibility by selective reference to a few reports." And many of the reports that Greg quotes are studies out of India that have betelnut and lime. They're not at all relevant to American smokeless tobacco.

WOODRUFF: But still he said it was a majority of the studies, the research, that they looked at.

Mr. KERRIGAN: Well, I can cite, and I'd be happy to cite an equal number of studies that indicate that there is a controversy. I will grant that. And we are concerned about the controversy. But the way you evidence to conclude that snuff is a human carcinogen." They also stated that chewing tobacco, there was limited scientific evidence to conclude that it was a human carcinogen. In addition, the nitrosamines which I referenced, those are cancer-causing agents that have been shown to produce cancers in three different species of animals, in tumors including the mouth. The nitrosamine content is lower. So it is our position as a regulatory agency acting under law, dealing with a scientific base, that we include snuff at this time. My recommendation to a legislative agency such as the United States Congress would be to include all forms of smokeless tobacco.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Kerrigan, let me ask you about this. The smokeless tobacco industry has until recently aimed its advertising, television commercials, I guess others, apparently at young people.

Mr. KERRIGAN: That's absolutely wrong, Judy. I'm happy I'm here to clearthat up.

WOODRUFF: You have used -- okay.

Mr. KERRIGAN: We have not -- in fact, the smokeless tobacco --

WOODRUFF: You have used sports figures and others, is that correct?

Mr. KERRIGAN: Some of our member companies in some of their advertising have used sports figures. The Smokeless Tobacco Council has a code of ethics. Currently in our code of ethics, as an example, no current athletes are used in any advertising. Our advertising is geared to the 18-to-35-year-old group. Our models are at least 25 years of age, and we are concerned. We are concerned about the youth issue. We do not want children to use smokeless tobacco products.

WOODRUFF: How do you account for the fact, though, that there's been such an increase in the use of snuff and the rest of it by teenagers?

Mr. KERRIGAN: I guess that's -- I'm not a sociologist. I think from, oh, back behind the woodshed days, that children have experimented with all forms of tobacco, including smokeless tobacco. I've noticed that there is one group -- there is a great increase in the drug culture in high school, serious problems, and we're concerned about that. And we've noticed that many of the leaders in the high schools use -- we don't care whether they're leaders or anyone. We do not want children to use our product. It's an adult custom and we want to keep it that way.

WOODRUFF: Dr. Connolly, do you have a comment on that?

Dr. CONNOLLY: Well, I'm glad to hear Mike, my good friend, state today that the industry is no longer using sports figures in the advertising. I think we discussed this, Mike, back in February, and I'm glad to see that happen. Perhaps they don't intend to advertise towards youth, but unfortunately if you look at the data, if you look at the facts, in Portland, Oregon, 22 of ninth graders are reported to be users. In Colorado, 10 of the high school boys; in Louisiana, 21 of high school boys. In Massachusetts last year, 28 of our boys tried it once. I think in Massachusetts it's only beginning, but we have an excellent opportunity now, by providing factual information that's clear, to head this problem off before it becomes a major public health problem.

WOODRUFF: A quick comment, Mr. Kerrigan?

Mr. KERRIGAN: Well, the comment that I'd like to make is we've stated our position and made that clear with regard to youth. What was the emergency that Dr. Connolly and Dr. Walker hid behind, 94b, to promulgate this regulation, an emergency? Why didn't they go through the legislature, an open process, like everyone else?

WOODRUFF: I'm afraid that's a question that we're going to have to leave for another time, gentlemen.

Dr. CONNOLLY: Mike, I'll talk to you after the show.

WOODRUFF: Okay, good.

Mr. KERRIGAN: I'm sure we will, Greg.

WOODRUFF: Dr. Greg Connolly and Michael Kerrigan, thank you both for being with us.

Mr. KERRIGAN: Thank you.

Mr. KERRIGAN: Thank you very much, Judy. NRC Under Fire

LEHRER: We focus next on an argument that erupted today over how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission operates. The specific issue was the NRC's decision last August to grant a license to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, California, 195 miles north of Los Angeles. At a House hearing today in Washington, NRC Chairman Nunzio Palladino had to field charges of using off-the-record information and ignoring possible earthquake dangers in the Diablo Canyon case. One of the major attackers was Congressman Dennis Eckhart, Democrat of Ohio. Here is part of what happened.

Rep. DENNIS ECKHART, (D) Ohio: You folks are walking all over the line that separates the ability of the public to have confidence in your decision-making process. You know, either something is material or it's not. I don't know what the standard is. Something is either so material or you're so pregnant or you're so right or you're so wrong. It doesn't make any sense to me.

NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Mr. Eckhart, do you know how we work?

Rep. ECKHART: No, and I don't think anybody else does.

Chairman PALLADINO: Well, then let me explain it to you. We have an issue. If it's an adjudicatory issue, we have the privilege of discussing it among ourselves. It is my practice, when I discuss an issue, to look at all stones, all aspects of the issue. Our decision is a public document. It's not a hidden document. It's not kept from the public. It sets all our -- it sets forth all the basis for our decision. Now, why do you find that so appalling?

Rep. ECKHART: How did you get to the decision, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman PALLADINO: Mr. Eckhart, when deliberative bodies come up with their deliberations they look at a lot of things, as I just said. The result is what counts. I consider a lot of things in my lifetime, and I don't necessarily do all the things I consider.

Rep. ECKHART: The end, does not, from my very, very old Jesuit philosophy, not ever justify the means. And to simply say the decision is on the record without properly building the record to reach that conclusion is not fulfilling with the spirit of the law, nor, do I think, with the mechanics of the law.

EDWARD MARKEY, (D) Massachusetts: In the commission's June 27th, 1985, letter to the subcommittee and in your final decision on this case, you wrote that the commission's failure to look generically at the earthquake emergency planning issue for almost three years after you promised to in 1981 was because of "the press of other important commission business." However, in the closed meetings transcripts, you state that the commission "sat on" this issue, and that your final decision should admit that you "goofed" in not looking at it for three years. So which is it? Did you fail to look at this issue because three years, you had more important business to do than to look at earthquake safety? Or because you sat on the issue and you goofed? Which was it?

Chairman PALLADINO: Well, I think it was a combination of both of those. I think that failure to pick up on a requirement on which we made a promise is a goof. And in truth we were diverted by a number of issues. But we had settled the Diablo Canyon matter, and it had been settled, on the record, with full justification that the decision deserved.

Rep. MARKEY: We were just in a discussion here basically as to whether or not in fact you people applied all of the procedural safeguards that should in fact be implemented to guarantee that the public health and safety is protected. We're of the opinion that you ignored those processes, that you ran roughshod over those processes, that there is absolutely no way that anyone can say with any certainty, based upon the record which has been given to us by the commission that in fact this plant is safe or unsafe. That's the question.

Chairman PALLADINO: The process we followed was not one we created, one that Congress created. It said that in the adjudicatory process, after we had gotten the information needed, we go and deliberate and we're permitted and encouraged to deliberate. We're encouraged even by the courts to walk the halls and get input, and that's precisely what we did. Now you take a transcript for part of the deliberative process and say, "Oh, that doesn't tell us what you did." The final decision tells what we did, what we considered and what the decision is based on. And I don't know what you think we kept from the public.

LEHRER: The Diablo Canyon plant has been operating since January, but opponents have challenged its operating license in the courts. A decision is expected soon in the case from a federal appeals court. Pesticide Scare

WOODRUFF: Our final segment is an update on that watermelon scare out West. Some melon growers in California began harvesting and marketing their crops again today after officials declared them free of a pesticide called Aldicarb, long banned for use on watermelons. No one died, but about 300 people were made sick from the melons, and the detective work continues on the cause of the contamination. We have more from Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET in Los Angeles.

JEFFREY KAYE, KCET [voice-over]: Even as California watermelons began slowly making their way back to supermarket shelves, grocers continued the destruction of the stockpiled fruit on a massive scale. Investigators stepped up the testing of watermelons, unharvested fruit rotted in the fields, and the debate over pesticide use and regulations escalated.

FRED ANDREWS, melon grower: We probably have to really examine the scope of this problem. I mean, if 200 or 300 people got a stomach ache in the middle of summer eating too much watermelon, out of the millions and millions of slices consumed every day, I'm not too sure really what the scope of this problem is.

KAYE [voice-over]: Watermelon growers like Fred Andrews in California's San Joaqin Valley believe officials exaggerated the extent of the pesticide problem, costing them millions of dollars worth of business.

Mr. ANDREWS: The worst thing that happened is they partially tested merchandise and gave press releases that we had a mass problem in watermelons based on bits of information that even today aren't complete.

KAYE [voice-over]: Andrews' farm was one of several originally identified by officials as sources of the tainted watermelons. Andrews insists his farm never used Aldicarb and maintains that subsequent testing of his fruit shows no trace of the pesticide. Officials believe a few farmers may have deliberately used the unauthorized pesticide. Some growers think the chemicals were in the soil years before they planted their watermelons. Farmers such as harvesting superintendent Ed Rodriguez have expressed frustration at the slow pace of the testing program, which could take up to 10 days to complete.

ED RODRIGUEZ, melon grower: None of it's been expedited speedy enough for us because we know we're losing watermelons every day, and watermelons that are in transit have been tied up and we don't know what the losses may be on that yet.

KAYE [voice-over]: Yesterday farmers held a heated meeting with the state's top agriculture official, Clare Berryhill, who later did his best to reassure the watermelon-buying public.

CLARE BERRYHILL, State Agriculture & Food Department: We are putting a stamp on those melons to assure that they are the new melons that are coming back on the market, and that's the thing that I think the public has to understand, that those melons that are coming back on the market are going to be wholesome and they should not be fearful of eating those melon.

KAYE [voice-over]: California's response to the food poisoning epidemic has thrown the state's $25-million-a-year watermelon industry into turmoil. On Monday, retailers were ordered to destroy their inventory of watermelons and farmers were told they couldn't sell their melon crops unless the time-consuming tests showed the fruit free of the pesticide Aldicarb. All wholesalers were barred from transporting their watermelon produce, regardless of where it originated.

LEWIS ROBLES, melon distributor: We haven't been able to do any business on watermelons at all.

KAYE [voice-over]: Los Angeles distributor Lewis Robles has a warehouse full of 110 tons of watermelons, all from Mexico, where, he says, they don't use pesticides.

Mr. ROBLES: I felt that they shouldn't have stopped us from selling watermelons. All those stores that we cater to, no one's complained about a bad watermelon yet, because there is no problem in our watermelons. But yet they just put a ban on everybody's watermelons.

KAYE [voice-over]: Robles estimates he is losing about $25,000 a day as a result of the ban. California agriculture official Berryhill, himself a farmer, is sympathetic to the growers' plight, and after his meeting with the watermelon growers eagerly defended the industry as a whole.

Mr. BERRYHILL: You have one incidence and people begin to get thinking that the whole industry is tainted.

KAYE [voice-over]: But to some the agriculture industry is tainted by the use and misuse of pesticides. Later this year Congress will review regulations governing agricultural chemicals, and critics of current pesticide policies say they were not surprised by the watermelon scare.

RALPH LIGHTSTONE, farmworkers' attorney: The lesson of this scandal is that the pesticide regulatory system is riddled with defects from beginning to end. It has -- the government has approved the use of pesticides that are extremely toxic and difficult to control, pesticides like Aldicarb. And it's put them out there into use under the theory that there's an enforcement program that can make sure they're used properly, and there is not a credible enforcement program in the field.

KAYE: Why did it take someone getting sick before it was discovered there was too much of this chemical in these watermelons?

Mr. BERRYHILL: Well, you have to understand, the capacity that we have to test 250 commercial products in California, we make approximately 8,000 tests a year. We're limited to that capacity that we have in our labs.

KAYE [voice-over]: Berryhill says he will nail to the cross any grower found to have used Aldicarb illegally, although he concedes he does not have the authority to press criminal charges. That's part of the problem, says attorney Lightstone.

Mr. LIGHTSTONE: The likelihood of someone violating a pesticide law being detected is extremely slim, and when they're detected the likelihood of a penalty that matters is almost nil.

Mr. BERRYHILL: You know, you can go back to the laws and whether they're sufficient or not in agriculture or any other thing, and if there are people -- cheaters out there, no matter how much you inspect or how much you do anything, it's going to be impossible to insure 100 .

KAYE [voice-over]: But while the debate over the larger issue continues, watermelon growers have a more pressing problem. Who will pay for their losses? In the San Joaquin Valley the air is thick with talk of lawsuits, and everybody is looking for someone to blame.

WOODRUFF: That report by Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET in Los Angeles. Jim?

LEHRER: Again the major stories of this day. President Reagan met for an hour and a half with House and Senate leaders and the result was an agreement on a framework to resolve differences on the 1986 federal budget. One of the two flight recorders from the crashed Air India jumbo jet has been found, and Israel bombed three Palestinian guerrilla camps in Lebanon in retaliation for two suicide bomb attacks that killed 15 people in the Israeli zone of southern Lebanon yesterday. Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.