The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, Syrian President Assad promised to help gain freedom for the U. S. hostages in Lebanon. Alexander Haig announced for President. And the Pentagon accused the Soviets of continuing a massive military buildup. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary, we have a newsmaker interview with the latest Presidential contender. Then Cokie Roberts reports on how the next phase of the Iran contra probe is shaping up on Capitol Hill. Then the latest assault on TV violence is debated. And Roger Rosenblatt reflects on the life and death of children. News Summary HUNTER-GAULT: Former President Jimmy Carter said today that Syrian President Hafez al Assad is very keen to have Syrian troops locate and work for the release of American and other foreign hostages held in Lebanon. Carter held three rounds of talks with Assad before flying off to Jordan on the fourth leg of his Middle East tour. Carter also condemned an offer by an Islamic group to exchange ailing American hostage Alan Steen for 100 Arab prisoners jailed in Israel.

JIMMY CARTER: I think that's one of the most disgusting events that I've ever heard of in my public life. These despicable criminals who have taken an innocent man who deliberately stayed in Lebanon at his own danger to assist the young Lebanese people, and then to use his illness as a political ploy when he himself is completely innocent is absolutely disgusting. And I think I can assure you that this is an opinion shared by leaders here in Syria. HUNTER-GAULT: U. S. officials today called on the kidnappers of Steen, who is said to be seriously ill, to free him for medical treatment. Jim? LEHRER: Alexander Haig is now a candidate for President of the United States. The former army general and Secretary of State announced his candidacy for the 1988 Republican nomination at a New York news conference, and he was asked for his assessment of the damage done by the Iran arms affair.

ALEXANDER HAIG, presidential candidate: I think the Iranian affair has been damaging -- damaging here at home to our President. He's made that very clear that he understands that as well. Damaging abroad to the credibility of America's anti terrorist policy and to its insistent declared policy that nations that are being victimized by terrorism not succumb to paying blackmail to terrorist governments. HUNTER-GAULT: The United States said today that Moscow has deployed a new nuclear missile submarine and is going ahead with a massive buildup of modern nuclear missiles, among them a ten warhead intercontinental missile on railroad cars. Releasing the Pentagon's annual assessment of Soviet power, Defense Secretary Weinberger said, ''The Soviets show no signs of slowing that buildup, no matter who is general secretary, no matter what proposals are made, no matter what public reactions activities are undertaken. '' Following the release of the report, Secretary Weinberger went to Capitol Hill to push for the administration's request for a 3% increase in next year's defense budget. In West Germany, the Irish Republican Army and a group calling itself the National Democratic Front for the Liberation of West Germany both claimed responsibility for a car bombing at a British army base. Peter Gould of the BBC reports.

PETER GOULD [voice over]: The car bomb was left close to an officer's mess. It contained about 200 pounds of explosive. The force of the blast ripped up the road and caused extensive damage to parked cars and surrounding buildings. More than 30 people had to be treated for shock or minor injuries, mainly caused by flying glass. Most of the injured were German officers and their wives. They'd borrowed the officer's mess for a farewell party. The blast caused parts of the ceiling to collapse. Doors were ripped from their frames. Glass was strewn everywhere. HUNTER-GAULT: A West German news agency said it received a warning in English shortly before the explosion, but couldn't fully understand it because of the language difficulty. The caller quickly hung up. LEHRER: Back in this country, a new highway bill arrived at the White House today, and President Reagan served immediate notice it would be vetoed and sent back to Congress. The bill contains the 65 mile an hour speed limit for rural interstate highways, but it's the $88 billion price tag that Mr. Reagan objects to. Here's how he put it to a business group visiting the White House.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Last week, Congress passed a budget busting highway bill, and it is really a lemon, with a sticker price of $88 billion, loaded with every option in the book. And it has just sputtered down Pennsylvania Avenue while you were sitting in here and is parked over at the White House. I think I will have it towed back and dropped at Congress' door with a note on that says, ''Stop the spending spree. Get to work. '' LEHRER: Mr. Reagan's challenge drew a quick response from Democrats on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Jim Wright said the President should rise above the temptation to pick petty fights with Congress. And a group of Senate Democrats said the veto would hurt the economy.

Sen. GEORGE MITCHELL (D) Maine: If he vetoes the bill and it is sustained, the country is the loser and faces the risk of recession. And whatever short term political benefit the President may think he's getting from winning a victory in a specific vote in Congress, the long range consequences will be far more adverse and far more severe. Sen. DANIEL P. MOYNIHAN (D) New York: The Presidential veto will throw the economy into recession, because there is no way the Congress could rewrite a new bill acceptable to the President in time for this construction season to go forward. LEHRER: They can explore for oil again off the shores of Alaska. The Supreme Court made it possible today in a nine to zero decision that lifted a lower court injunction against such exploration. The ban had been in effect since October, 1985, following a suit over whether it interfered with fishing and hunting rights of native Alaskans. The high court ruled it did not. Various oil companies have paid $4. 2 billion to the federal government for oil exploration rights in the Bering Sea. HUNTER-GAULT: In Nanticoke Pennsylvania, today, some 16,000 residents were evacuated when a chemical fire spread a cloud of toxic fumes over the area. The fire, which raged out of control for six hours, started in a sheet metal plant just outside the town shortly after midnight. It produced a cloud of deadly sulfuric acid and other chemicals. Although there appeared to be no serious injuries, Governor Robert Casey declared the town a disaster area. Many of those fleeing the area thought there had been a disaster at the nearby nuclear power electric station. The town has been practicing emergency evacuation procedures for six years because of that plan. That's our news summary. Still ahead on the News Hour, Alexander Haig explains why he wants to be President. Congress gears up for its Iran contra probe. A debate on what to do about TV violence. And essayist Roger Rosenblatt reflects on life, death and children. Alexander Haig LEHRER: We lead tonight with Alexander Haig. The veteran soldier statesman said today he wanted to by President of the United States, announcing as a candidate for the 1988 Republican nomination. Robert MacNeil prepared a brief background report on the candidate and then interviewed him yesterday afternoon in New York City.

Mr. HAIG: It is very hard for a fellow like Al Haig, who hasn't been a politician, although I've had more political experience than probably any other guy in the field. I have more scar tissue than anyother candidate that I've known in American history. ROBERT MacNEIL [voice over]: A 62 year old, retired four star general, Alexander Haig brings and unconventional quality to the Presidential campaign. He is a soldier who spent much of his career practicing the art of politics, although he's never before run for anything. Haig graduated from West Point in 1947. Assigned to postwar Japan, he met and married Patricia Fox, the daughter of his commanding officer. In 1969, then Colonel Haig was assigned to President Nixon's National Security Council staff. The National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger soon made Haig his deputy. As Haig's political fortunes advanced, so did his military career. In one controversial move, he was promoted to four star general, over 240 more senior officers. NEWSCASTER: Criminal indictments were returned today in connection with the Watergate scandals.

MacNEIL [voice over]: As top aides began leaving the White House in the wake of the scandal, President Nixon turned to Alexander Haig to be his Chief of Staff. Mr. HAIG: I consider myself to be the right hand of the President. MacNEIL [voice over]: As President Nixon's energy and interest became consumed by his Watergate legal problems, Haig took on the job of running the day to day business of the White House. RICHARD NIXON: I shall resign the Presidency, effective at noon tomorrow.

MacNEIL [voice over]: Journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein credit Haig with helping President Nixon decide to resign. Detractors say he suggested that Nixon should receive a Presidential pardon. Soon after becoming President, Gerald Ford dispatched Haig to Europe, where he took over as commander of NATO forces. Mr. HAIG: Those bad guys come across, why, we'll get them.

MacNEIL [voice over]: As NATO commander, Haig gained a reputation as a political general who worked to improve the alliance's multinational coordination and weapons purchasing. He retired from the army in 1979 and returned briefly to private industry, becoming president of United Technologies Corporation. But Haig's political career wasn't over. The general's conservative political views struck a responsive chord with Ronald Reagan, who named him Secretary of State in 1981. Haig's behavior in the White House press room following the assassination attempt on President Reagan generated much criticism, both outside and inside the administration. Mr. HAIG: As of now, I am in control here in the White House, pending return of the Vice President.

MacNEIL [voice over]: That was the low point of Haig's reign as Secretary of State, which was marked by a number of highly publicized turf battles with other members of the Reagan administration. He resigned from the State Department abruptly in 1982. Since then, General Haig has been trying to build support for his Presidential bid -- a bid some have been expecting him to make since 1979, when he left his NATO post. I interviewed him at that time and put the question to him this way. [on camera] Knowing as much as you do about the Presidency, could you do the job? Mr. HAIG: I think it would be a terrific, presumptuous statement for any American candidate or citizen to make. I think I've seen enough of it to know the grave burdens it places on any individual -- the uncertainties, the challenges of it. I don't suppose anyone could claim a monopoly of attributions to conduct it with the skill and efficiency that we would hope and deserve. No, I think it's a most challenging task for any leader of America today. MacNEIL: General Haig, eight years later, that was a very modest and cautious response at that time. What convinces you now that you can do the job? Mr. HAIG: Well, it is eight years later, Robin, and I've seen a great deal over those eight years. I've watched a Presidency fail, and I've watched a very successful President enter into difficulties of his own. I think as a Secretary of State, I've seen a bit more of the world, bit more of the White House -- as though I didn't need a little more. And I think I have the experience, the background and the knowledge of that office to at least aspire to seek to occupy it in '88. MacNEIL: A professional soldier, we are always told, never enters a battle if he has a choice about it unless he's pretty well convinced he has a good chance of winning and he can arrange to have the odds very much on his side. Now, have you thrown away a soldier's caution in this race? Mr. HAIG: No, I think precisely the opposite. I think, if anything, as I've watched this '88 race approach, it's very, very clear that on both the Republican and the Democratic side, it's just plain wide open. And I do think that the prospects for someone who starts out with the handicaps that I do, nevertheless, is armed with a competence and experience that's something that can be measured by the American electorate over 40 years of public service, which should stead me pretty well. MacNEIL: What do you see as the handicaps you have going in? Mr. HAIG: Well, I think, first, I'm not a politician. I've never run for public office. I have no chits out. I have to work and earn to get the respect of the so called apparatchik in the Republican Party. I think I'm better able to deal with the popular support that is necessary to win an election, once nominated. My challenge is how to get nominated in this party. MacNEIL: You -- a soldier is also a tactician, and you must have some kind of tactical plot going into this. You're up against some pretty heavyweight Republican politicians: George Bush, Senator Dole, Kemp, Laxalt maybe. What is the tactical calculation there -- that they all destroy each other and you are left, or what is the tactical calculation that you think makes it wide open? Mr. HAIG: Well, in the first place, I've been around the country. I have -- over the six months approaching the midterms, I've visited over 35 states. I have a very good feel for the mood of the electorate in that context, and I think it is wide open. Most people who support a candidate apologize in the same breath for doing so. And that level of support is very shallow today for all these candidates. That's not a criticism of the candidates. And I think the Republican Party is indeed blessed with a number of very qualified aspirants. But I think I bring to the mix what is necessary for America in the latter part of the decade of the '80s and leading into the '90s. And that is, above all, experience abroad, experience in the private sector here in America, a multinational corporation. I built my own business over the last five years -- a very successful one. As well as extensive experience in the military and government and in diplomacy. And why we will turn to a fellow who has never exercised executive responsibility and expect him to learn in the highest office in our land -- Chief Executive -- is sometimes rather mind boggling. MacNEIL: And you're saying that your rivals have not exercised executive responsibility? Mr. HAIG: Not all. Some have, some rather extensively. Others have not. MacNEIL: Why would you, with your experience, why would you make a better President than, say, George Bush, who's -- Mr. HAIG: Well, I'm never going to tout my own candidacy at the expense of another Republican. I wish George Bush all the luck in the world. I've known George. I've worked with him for over 20 years. But I wouldn't be entering this race, Robin, if I didn't think there was room for Al Haig and a very good prospect for Al Haig's turning what now look like rather substantial odds around. And that's been the experience of recent campaigns here in America. MacNEIL: Reading the positions you've enunciated on the standard range of issues recently -- and I may have missed something -- it seems to me that you are not taking positions which are radically different from other Republicans on those issues. If I'm right about that, are you saying, ''It's not big differences on policy; it's the man Haig that I'm offering''? Is that what you're saying? Mr. HAIG: That sounds rather self serving. And you're right. Almost all of the Republican candidates have generally espoused the same basically conservative approach to statecraft. Almost all have wrapped themselves around the very worthy mantle of Ronald Reagan, and I'm no exception. But I haven't been a blind advocate either. And I think that's been pointed out. Nor would I ever be. I don't think loyalty is telling a leader what you think he wants to hear, but rather what your conscience tells you he should. In that context, I think is right. The quality of the man is going to be very much the overriding criteria -- competence, leadership and demonstrated performance over a measurable period of time. MacNEIL: Do you think the American public is going to be taking a more intimate measure of the man in this election this time than they have in other elections before. Is the man more than the policies? Mr. HAIG: I think so, given the panorama of Republican candidates, who most of all are generally supportive of President Reagan's policies and certainly the renaissance of the American spirit that's been achieved in this decade of the '80s. And I'm no exception in that regard. On the other hand, I do think -- and I'm betting -- that by 1988 the American people are going to want to go to bed at night with a sense of confidence that the fellah in that Oval Office is an experienced, demonstratively competent leader, above all. MacNEIL: What other qualities do you think you have as a man that qualify you particularly that you hope the American public will respond to? Mr. HAIG: Well, I know, for one thing, I probably carry more scar tissue on my derriere than any other candidate -- that's political scar tissue. I've been in the political mix, even though I haven't run for office. I know what it requires to keep the office of the Presidency an effective office in its cooperation with the Congress, in its dealings with the press, and above all in its communication to the American people day to day. MacNEIL: I read that when you were considering making this step, one of your political calculations was you were going to have to deal with and lay to rest -- if possible, get rid of -- any negatives that attached to the moment of the attempted assassination of the President when you came to the White House and said, ''I'm in charge. '' That is a negative, in your view? I mean, it is something that -- Mr. HAIG: Well, it's a mixed bag. In those areas covered by the Eastern media and the West Coast media -- the major networks -- it's a liability, because people saw snapshots taken out of context of what I said on that very sad day and were led into conclusions that suggested that what we were talking about was the line of succession to the Presidency. That was never under consideration. You know, I'm the only American alive or dead who presided unhappily over the removal of a Vice President and a President. Believe me, I knew the pecking order. The issue was that we had, in the absence of a Vice President, two hours away from Washington, a seriously wounded President, a functioning government. And I would do precisely the same tomorrow under comparable circumstances. MacNEIL: What do you say to people who interpret that,''Oh, you know, remember when the President was shot, Al Haig went to the White House and seemed to be grabbing for power. '' What do you say to that? To that interpretation? Mr. HAIG: Well, what I tell them is that what I did that day was cleared with the acting Chief of Staff, Jim Baker, who was not in the White House when I arrived but in the hospital with the rest of all the senior White House staff, that the Vice President had not even been called and notified of this, that the leaders of the House and the Senate, the leaders of foreign governments and the former presidents of the United States were very jealous at such times that they do be brought into the situation. All of those things were done under a group which I convened in the White House to be sure that it didn't give the appearance that the Secretary of State was assuming that power, and all in cooperation and coordination with the White House Chief of Staff. MacNEIL: When you had a heart bypass some years ago, there was a lot of comment to the effect that -- doctors saying, ''He's the classic A type personality. '' I don't know if you agree with that, but if you do, is the classic A type personality a good kind of personality to have in the Oval Office, since, if the country's paying more attention to character -- Mr. HAIG: Not necessarily. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a handicap either. We have seen the dialectic of micro management over control in the Carter years to the charge today that Ronald Reagan is not running things. I hope that an effective Presidency will be both -- can delegate, can recognize that it takes one kind of guy to get you elected and another kind of guy to help you govern once you're elected, so that you bring the very best our country has to offer into government. And that you do delegate, but always with very fine feel and a sensitive feel for everything of significance that's going on. MacNEIL: You were President Reagan's Secretary of State at the beginning of his presidency. Do you think he was not in charge of the presidency? Mr. HAIG: Well, Robin, I wrote a book four years ago called Caveat. And I went into excruciating detail about my concerns on certain aspects of the White House operation in general. In hindsight, I'd ask you to reread that book, and you'll get the answer to that question in spades. MacNEIL: This subject seems to be suggested, but how badly has the Contra/Contra affair damaged U. S. credibility in the eyes of the world, in the making and conduct of US foreign policy? Mr. HAIG: Well, probably the jury is still out on that. You know, it's rather ludicrous that some of our friends in Europe are being critical of what we did when they had been involved in arms traffic, petroleum traffic and other business affairs with the government of Iran, even those that have been the most vocal in their criticism. We have to avoid the double standard. I think the true lesson of this Iranian brouhaha is going to be whether or not the President turns to the business of this country and begins to solve some of the remaining problems, from our deficit to drugs, declining quality of education, the very special problems of American agriculture, rust bucket industries, our energy sector. These are all critically important items on the agenda that only a President who's leading, who's engaged -- and this President has proved in the past that he can do that. I'm confident that he will in the months ahead. MacNEIL: General Haig, thank you. Mr. HAIG: Thank you. HUNTER-GAULT: Next on the news hour, Congress gearing up for the Iran contra probe, debating a new assault on TV violence, and reflecting on the life and death of children. Prepping for a Probe HUNTER-GAULT: Next, an update from the congressional front, where White House and Senate special committees are getting ready to hold joint public hearings on the Iran contra affair. The committee chairmen recently announced those hearings would begin May 5. Correspondent Cokie Roberts reports on why it's taking so long to get the congressional probe off the ground.

COKIE ROBERTS [voice over]: Behind this door in the Hart Office Building across from the Capitol, the work of the Senate committee is well underway. Staff members spend long days going through boxes of documents, hours of testimony and pages of records in an effort to unravel the set of policies that threaten to severely undermine the Reagan presidency. Almost any scrap of paper can serve as a clue in this real life mystery. Computer records, bank accounts, telephone bills -- all possible pieces of evidence to help solve the Iran contra puzzle. Other detectives pursue this case on the fourth floor of the Capitol, where the House Select Committee follows the trail. These separate investigations started in December. As of this week, they will begin to function together. Rep. LEE HAMILTON (D) Indiana: In effect we will meld the two staffs. We will conduct fully coordinated investigations and fully coordinated hearings. ROBERTS [voice over]: For the last two and a half months, the committees have met behind closed doors debating procedures, issuing subpoenas, locating witnesses and from time to time stopping to feed morsels of information to the hungry Sen. DANIEL INOUYEmedia. (D) Hawaii: The Committee has acted to provide immunity to three persons: Miss Fawn Hall, Mr. Edward Degaree and Mr. Robert Sutton. ROBERTS [voice over]: No fictional spy story includes the kind of security the Iran committees have installed: office walls, lined to protect against any electronic surveillance, telephones programmed to reject all bugging devices and scramble incoming calls, making them impossible to trace. All staff members, from chief counsel to receptionist, were cleared for the highest security level the US government issues, called Code Word. Rep. DICK CHENEY (R) Wyoming: Many of the people that I've hired for the House committee already had clearance or had recently worked in the Justice Department and had been through a full field investigation in recent years -- a relatively simple matter to update that and grant them the clearance they need. But it does take time. It takes several weeks for one individual. Sen. INOUYE: For example, we have a United States attorney who left his office in Virginia and the next day joined our force. As a United States attorney, he was fully cleared to handle top secret. When he came to our committee, he had to be cleared again. Sen. WARREN RUDMAN R) New Hampshire: Evidently, the trip from Virginia to the District of Columbia somehow affects one's security clearance. ROBERTS: Well, I can understand that. [voice over] But much of the time is taken up with the work itself. Rep. HAMILTON: You pick up a document. You read it in January with your understanding of the facts in January, and the document says one thing to you. You pick up the document in March with your increased understanding, and it says something else to you. That's the nature of this rather complex pattern we're dealing with. Sen. RUDMAN: Governments generally keep records. Now, in this case, some people may not have. But many did. And there have been thousands of documents from many agencies and from within the White House, within the NSC, much of which the Tower Commission has uncovered. And, of course, one of the things that our staff has had to do is literally read through and reference and try to bring together thousands -- and probably by the time we're over, I would say maybe tens of thousands -- of documents. That has been time consuming but vital to putting together the track of this investigation. ROBERTS: You talk about the records, but the President said in his speech that their records weren't very good. And one of the things we've heard is maybe the lesson from Watergate was not to keep good records. Have you found good records? Sen. INOUYE: Well, apparently, from some of the reports I've read, there is ample indication that notes were not taken, or they claim that notes were not taken, of certain meetings. It seems inconceivable to me. Whenever we have a staff meeting here, all my staff would have note pads and they're all jotting down the wise words that emanate from me. Sen. RUDMAN: They're even doing it now, Mr. Chairman. Sen. INOUYE: But at these meetings no one seems to have taken notes. Sen. RUDMAN: What I find incredible and almost ironic about this is that here during Senator Inouye's investigation with the Watergate Committee, the great public outcry was that the White House was taping everything, that there was a perfect record of everything that went on. In this investigation, there's an outcry that nobody kept any records. I think what they're really talking about are not so much the records of the bureaucracy, but I found it totally incomprehensible that there would be a meeting with the President, whether it would be in a hospital room or in the Oval Office in which matters of this gravity were concerned, where somebody wasn't saying who was there, what everybody said, date it, stamp it and put it in the file. I mean, that's normal procedure. ROBERTS; When you were in the White House, could you imagine a meeting with the President where you weren't taking notes? Sen. CHENEY: Yes. The fact of the matter is, when I was in the White House, in the Ford years right after Watergate, I was extremely sensitive about putting things down on paper, not because I was doing anything illegal or immoral or illicit, but because an awful lot of the things you deal with are extremely sensitive. And you just began to operate on the assumption that there was no confidentiality and your communications in the White House, it was clear from the Watergate experience, that anything in the White House was ultimately subject to subpoena, could be made available in court or before a congressional committee, so you didn't put much down on paper. ROBERTS [voice over]: It's also hard to conduct two similar investigations at the same time -- one by the Special Prosecutor, the other by Congress -- each with a different end in sight. Sen. HAMILTON: I think the independent counsel, the prosecutor, has a natural tendency to want to delay the question of immunity just as long as possible while he builds his case for prosecution. And very few prosecutors are ever satisfied that they've got all the evidence they want for prosecution. We, on the other hand, do feel the pressures to get this public, to get it behind us, so the ship of state can sail on and we can move on to other items. And that's a strong public interest. So there's a natural tension, as you put it, between our role and theirs. And our task, I think, is to try to accommodate those two tensions, if you would, so that both are reasonably satisfied. ROBERTS [voice over]: In an arrangement designed to give Lawrence Walsh time to prepare his criminal case, the Committees agreed to wait to start joint public hearings on Tuesday, May 5. The principal witnesses will come later. The committees will not vote before April 21 to allow former National Security Advisor John Poindexter to talk without his testimony being used against him. Some committee members could start hearing privately from Poindexter by May 2. His public testimony will not come before the middle of June. And a vote to grant immunity to former National Security Aide Oliver North will be delayed until June 4 at the earliest. North could talk privately to some committee members by June 15. The public will have to wait at least until June 23 to hear from the man who may have masterminded much of the aid to the Nicaraguan rebels. That testimony is likely to draw the American public in much the same way key Watergate witnesses did fourteen years ago. One veteran of the Watergate investigation, Assistant Chief Counsel Terry Lenzner, points to a stark difference between this case and Watergate: the effects of the information that could come out in public hearings. TERRY LENZNER, Watergate Counsel: Unlike Watergate, you're dealing with very sensitive matters in foreign countries, where the agency -- the CIA or the Defense Department -- may have ongoing activities, ongoing agents in place, allies, friends, people on the payroll. And you've got to be very careful about going public with information that may disclose those kinds of sensitive covert operations. We didn't have that. ROBERTS: People could get killed. Mr. LENZNER: People could get killed. ROBERTS [voice over]: That problem is never far from the thoughts of the Select Committee members. Rep. CHENEY: Well, we are being very careful, and legitimately so, to safeguard national security. In the case of Watergate, we heard a lot of claims about national security. And of course, they turned out not to be valid. In this case, we are dealing with covert action, with intelligence activities, with secret bank accounts, with the lives of foreigners who did deal in good faith with the United States. And we do have to legitimately be concerned about that. I think we have -- so far, we have a pretty good track record established. ROBERTS: Whatever the differences, as the Iran committees prepare for public hearings, the specter of Watergate hangs over the scene. No one can forget the national drama that unfolded here as a select committee called the key actors -- the President's men -- on stage. While these select committees are hearing from the bit players in the Iran affair, they see similarities with the Watergate script, but warn against drawing too many parallels. Sen. INOUYE: In a capsule, Watergate was a bungled up burglary followed up by an attempt to cover this up and sprinkled with political nonsense and dirty tricks. This one here not only involves the highest officials of the land; it involves the foreign policy of this country, its formulation, its implementation, the relationship of the executive to the legislative body, the relationship of this government with other governments. The implications are great, and the potential is still unknown. ROBERTS: So you're saying this is more serious. Sen. INOUYE: Oh, absolutely. Much more serious. Sen. CHENEY: I would disagree with that. I mean, I don't want to underestimate the importance of this whole series of events. But I think it's important to maintain some historical perspective. The Kennedy administration had a major foreign policy gaff in the Bay of Pigs incident. Every administration, sooner or later, runs into some difficulties. This President's had a pretty good six years, and then he ran into a problem. It's a beaut. I mean, it is, you know, a really major, serious foul up. But on the other hand, I think he's capable of recovering from it. I think the republic still stands. I don't think there's any reason for anybody to talk about impeachment and resignation and those kinds of considerations. ROBERTS: Do you have any fears going into this investigation? Sen. HAMILTON: Well, I have fears. But I also have confidence. In other words, I think there is no likelihood of radical solutions being necessary here. My own sense is that what we really want to do is to return to the traditional and the constitutional ways of making American foreign policy. Sen. INOUYE: I have very deep concern, because I'm a participant. I'm aware that whenever our adversary perceives our President and our government to be ''paralyzed'' or mortally wounded, as it was in the Kennedy administration when President Kennedy got involved in the Bay of Pigs, it was followed by the missiles. When Mr. Nixon was perceived to be paralyzed because of Watergate, Mr. Brezhnev moved into the Middle East. When Mr. Carter was perceived to be weakened by his Iran rescue attempt, they moved into Afghanistan. It's like waiting for the next shoe to fall. Sen. RUDMAN: I have an additional concern which I know the chairman shares. None of us know what Admiral Poindexter and Colonel North are going to say. With all due respect to all that's been written, no one knows what they're going to say. There are all kinds of possibilities of what they might say. Some of those could lead to very serious constitutional problems in the country. Others might not. We don't know. My suspicion is they will not, but I don't know. ROBERTS: Are you half scared of hearing what they have to say? Sen. RUDMAN: I think there is, for anyone who is involved as we are in this, an apprehension about what these hearings might develop, not in a political sense, but in a sense of being an American. TV Violence LEHRER: Television violence is next -- not a display of it, but a discussion of it. Tomorrow, a bill will be introduced in the U. S. Senate to help broadcasters do something together about curbing violence on their television stations and networks, if they in fact want to do something. The law would waive some of the stringent antitrust laws that prohibit broadcasters from talking to each other and agreeing on such joint business or programming decisions. The broadcasting industry wants no part of the law or the discussion and is strongly opposing both. Robert Mulholland is with us to tell us why. He is a former president of NBC and is now the director of the industry supported Television Information Office. The author of the legislation is also with us. He is Senator Paul Simon, Democrat of Illinois. Senator, how would you term the point of your legislation? What's it all about? Sen. PAUL SIMON (D) Illinois: The legislation simply recognizes what every study but one has shown -- and that is that television violence causes violence in our society. We don't want censorship. But there ought to be a way for the television industry to get together and say, ''Here are some standards that we will follow. '' And that's what my bill does. LEHRER: But does the legislation require them to get together? Sen. SIMON: It does not. It simply permits them. And despite the fact that it is totally permissive, involves no censorship, the television industry opposes it. LEHRER: But if they say that they don't want to sit down and talk about it, why are you passing a law making it possible to do something they don't want to do? Sen. SIMON: Well, because passing the law really is a signal to them that we think something ought to be done. When the Surgeon General, the Institute of Mental Health, the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association -- a whole raft of groups -- all say, ''We have a major problem in our society,'' there has to be a way to address it, and yet, address it without having censorship. And I think this is a way of doing it. LEHRER: What is the major problem? Sen. SIMON: The major problem is we have way too much violence on television, and it is causing violence in our society. And interestingly, a University of Pennsylvania study shows that the most violent hour on television is between 8:00 and 9:00, when the most children are watching. LEHRER: 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening. How did you get -- why are you so involved in this? What caused you to get -- Sen. SIMON: I got into it very accidentally -- checked into a motel one night. Those of us in politics spend a lot of evenings in motels. Turned on the television, and I saw someone being sawed in half in living color. And it bothered me that night. And I thought, what happens to a ten year old or a twelve year old? And so I started digging, and I found all this research. And we were doing nothing about it. And clearly, we have to do something. We have the most violent television of any nation, with the possible exception of Japan. LEHRER: Why is it so violent, Senator? Sen. SIMON: Because it pays off. LEHRER: As simple as that? Sen. SIMON: Simple as that. It is a cheap way of attracting viewers. But it is a very expensive way from the viewpoint of society. LEHRER: When you say we need to do something about it, what is it exactly that you want done? Sen. SIMON: I'd like them to get together and say, ''Here are some standards that we're going to follow -- that there can be a limited number of acts of violence. '' I don't have the complete answer, but that's why I think they ought to get together and come up with answers. LEHRER: Some violence would be all right? Sen. SIMON: Well, I think some violence -- well, for example, violence on news, I think, should be permitted. But there, it's not glamorized. Very different from glamorized violence. LEHRER: If you had your way, you would eliminate it altogether in dramatic shows, weekly series and the whole business? Sen. SIMON: I wouldn't eliminate it altogether, but I would dramatically reduce it. And other countries -- one that's very interesting you study, you have reports in Great Britain, for example, that say, ''We don't want to go down the path of American television violence. '' I think we ought to take a good look at what we're doing to ourselves. LEHRER: All right. Let's go to Mr. Mulholland in New York. First of all, your industry is opposing what the senator is proposing. Why? ROBERT MULHOLLAND, TV industry spokesman: The industry doesn't feel, Jim, that the senator's bill is necessary. Now, you have to understand that there are two parts to the broadcasting industry. There's the over the air part, and now there's the part that comes into the home in the television set through cable. What the senator saw, as near as we can tell -- and there certainly was a lot of confusion when the senator first saw something in a motel room -- as near as we can tell, I believe, Senator, that it was on cable. Came into the television set, but it didn't come in over the air television. If I'm not mistaken, the particular movie you talked about had never been shown over the air at that time. Broadcasters -- the people who deal with over the air television, particularly the networks -- have standards departments. And they are as concerned as you are, Senator, about excessive violence. You get into the area, though, of what is excessive and who should decide. Broadcasters are very concerned, Jim, that this is bad law. There is debate in the United States about the effect of television on people. The senator says that it is clear that television has an effect. And sir, that argument is continuing. That argument has continued from day one. And I suspect it will continue long after you and I are not on this program. LEHRER: But what's wrong with you and your fellow broadcasters sitting down and talking about it? Mr. MULHOLLAND: Jim, that's an implied threat from government getting into content. Whenever someone says to me, ''We don't want to censor, and we're aware of the First Amendment,'' I always get very, very wary. Because the next thing that's going to happen is that the First Amendment's going to be thrown out the window. There's an implied threat here. This bill would say, ''Hey, all you folks get together in a room. '' Now, the people who would ''be getting together'' in that room are the same people who are making the decisions now about what is or is not permitted. And the senator -- if I'm not mistaken, Senator, you saw some of that in action when you visited one of the networks on the coast. Those are the people who are saying, ''That's all right, that isn't. '' What if the decisions they make don't meet Senator Simon's concern or the concerns of someone else who may follow him? LEHRER: In other words -- Mr. MULHOLLAND: The next thing is, you're called down to Washington, and the government is now into the content of programming. And I don't think any of us want that. LEHRER: In other words, it's just ipso facto that if the people who were programming television stations and networks thought there was too much violence on there now, it would be on there. Is that what you're saying? Mr. MULHOLLAND: As a matter of fact, if you look at what's popular on television right now, the senator's assertion that violence is big money and ratings is wrong. The top programs on television now are comedies. Also, the Annenburg accusation about the family hour is just wrong. LEHRER: That's the 8:00 to 9:00 -- Mr. MULHOLLAND: The 8:00 to 9:00 hour. LEHRER: But back to my question. Should we assume that those who are making the programming decisions at the three major networks and at the local stations around the country believe there is not too much violence on the air now, or they would take it off. Is that correct? Mr. MULHOLLAND: I think the people who are involved in making those decisions are responsible. And they say, ''Yeah, we're concerned. We're concerned, because no one knows for sure if there is an effect. '' And you operate under the assumption that there might be an effect. The level of ''action adventure violence,'' whatever you want call it, is at an all time low on over the air broadcasting right now. But one of the problems the broadcaster faces is that now other program services come into the living room on the television set. And people go home at night, and they say, ''I'm just going to watch television,'' as opposed to, ''over the air. '' It's a real problem, Jim. LEHRER: Senator, do you think you may have been watching a movie on cable, rather than over the air? Sen. SIMON: I think it was cable. But the problem applies to networks too. There are a whole series of things that my friend has said that, frankly, are not valid. Number one, he says there's an ongoing discussion about whether there is any harm. There is one NBC launched study that says there is no harm. All the other studies -- over 45 of them -- say there is harm. And it reminds me of my -- I told the industry executives when they came into my office and they cited this NBC study, I said, ''You remind me of the Tobacco Institute people who come into my office and say, 'We have researched this. Cigarettes don't do any harm. ' '' LEHRER: Mr. Mulholland, that's a serious charge. Mr. MULHOLLAND: Has a doctor ever said to you, ''Do not watch television before you go to bed at night''? I suspect doctors have told you not to smoke cigarettes. I think the comparison between cigarettes and television is really ridiculous. Look at what's on the air right now in New York City, Senator. And which one of these programs would you say shouldn't be on the air? Right now on channel 2 in New York, there's a program called Spies. It's a comedy spoof on spies. On channel 4, there's a program called Matlock. Andy Griffith -- about a country lawyer. On channel 5, there's a movie, On Golden Pond. On channel 7 is a comedy, Who's the Boss, which will be followed by another comedy, Growing Pains. On channel 9 is a news program that's going to be followed by basketball. On channel 11 is baseball. And on channel 13 is this program that you and I are on right now. Now, which one of those programs do you object to, sir? Sen. SIMON: I am not objecting to any of those programs. But the point is -- my point earlier was valid -- that there really is an impact. And there is an impact from a lot of shows that I could cite from that same schedule that are very different from those shows that you cite. And -- LEHRER: Yes, go ahead. The one -- his major point about your legislation, though, is that it's a form of pressure from the federal government if your law's enacted into law. You want these folks to get together. You want them to do something. And if they don't do it, you want -- you're going to come and say, ''Hey, Mulholland, this isn't enough. Change this, change that. '' Sen. SIMON: You're talking to an old civil libertarian. When he says we're going to toss out the First Amendment, obviously, we're not going to do that. But to suggest that we have this violence on television and there is no way a free society can deal with it I think is ridiculous. And that's why I have said, ''You get together, and you establish some standards. '' LEHRER: But what if they don't? What if they don't? Sen. SIMON: If they don't, we'll see what happens then. I don't know. Mr. MULHOLLAND: But that's not a threat, Senator? Sen. SIMON: But the point is, we have to do something. You say to me -- you say to me, there is no impact on that violence. If I'm running for office, you come to me, and you say, ''Buy a 30 second commercial, and you'll have tremendous impact, but the last 27 minutes on television has no impact at all. '' Well, it's just nonsense. Obviously, that 30 second commercial does have an impact. But so does the 27 minutes. And study after study after study shows the same thing. And you simply can't discount all those studies. Including, I might add, a CBS funded study in London that came to the conclusion that CBS didn't want it to come to. Mr. MULHOLLAND: Senator, the issue is, who shall control the content? And many of us who've been in the media and who have worked in news get a little bit antsy when Congress starts to get its nose under a tent called content. In no way would broadcasters say they're not concerned about excessive violence. The problem is, who defines the word excessive? In general, when you ask the American people who shall decide, they say, ''We'll decide. We don't want special action groups, social action groups. We don't want Congress or the government to decide. '' They say, ''We'll decide. '' And right now an interesting thing is happening in network television. They're deciding that they don't particularly want to watch the programs that I think you and I would say, ''Hey, those are excessive. '' LEHRER: Mr. Mulholland, Senator Simon, we have to leave it there. Gentlemen, thank you both very much. Sen. SIMON: Thank you. Cherishing our Youth? HUNTER-GAULT: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt has some thoughts on the connection between some recent front page stories about children.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: In the same week that the nation watched the winding down of the surrogate mother's trial in New Jersey, six teenagers committed suicide in two different cities. Everyone stared. The events were connected -- children involved. They exemplified how different is the attitude toward the two stages of childhood: keen attentiveness for babyhood, neglect or simple distance from the teenage years. Intently, one watches the Hackensack courtroom to learn where a baby will grow up. Despairingly, one watches the consequences of six other babies grown up into a stage of life where too few people watch, except at the benumbing end. Cars pumped full of poisonous gas, suicide notes, caskets borne up and down church steps. A terrible time, those teenage years. Only seven years in all, yet seemingly an eon. If life has not always given those years sufficient attention, at least art has paid homage -- a sign of their turbulence. One thinks of Salinger's Holden Caulfield or Huckleberry Finn -- teenagers resisting the world and its values. Or the movie's paradigm, James Dean, writhing through Rebel Without a Cause. Perhaps Sal Mineo was more typical in that same picture, playing a boy so misunderstood by others that he found a way to have others do him in, as, in fact, did that most celebrated teenager, Hamlet, at the end letting a sword decide the question of his life: ''To be or not to be. '' Seven years out of a total of, say, 70. Yet so much lonely mystery packed in: sexual, social, intellectual. How could you possibly fit in the world that seems so ruthlessly busy, comic, menacing, apart? One threat prevails: ''You do not belong. Nothing you are is normal. '' A lie, of course, since teenage abnormality is commonplace. Still, they know the monstrous isolations. Different, they hang out. Different, they dress like deliberate insults. Different, their music, their language. ''Like, different, you know?'' While the adult world of insistent obligation tries to jolly them into line, parading a mold of Cosby kids and Ozzie Nelson kids, mocking, needling, pleading, but mostly ignoring. No such neglect for those baby years. Life's all anticipation then. ''Oh, my boy Bill, who's as tall and as strong as a tree. '' Sentimental to a goo, we zero in on Baby. Chuck those chins. Buy those cribs and strollers. Think pink. Think blue. When Babypoo's difficult to produce the conventional way, there are always adoptions, and now artificial fertilizers and Mary Beth Whiteheads to help create those first sweet moments when everything is perfect promise. All eyes on Baby. In Hackensack, in the Vatican, all eyes on Baby. But what happens to this rapt attention later, when Baby goes from coos to talk, then stands and walks and drives and sometimes and drinks, smokes dope, even gets pregnant does Baby with a baby of her own, and is no longer that bundle of simple minded joy we could sit and watch forever. What should Baby do then? Skulk in some frightening, bewildering tower? Is Baby so suffused with loneliness that he wants out of the life he once commanded? Time was when people could not get enough of Baby or do enough for Baby. ''May I hold her?'' But that was a while ago, before Baby looked about, saw no one watching, nothing touching but the dark. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday. Former President Jimmy Carter said Syrian President Assad assured him of his help in trying to gain freedom for the U. S. hostages in Lebanon. And Alexander Haig, former army general and Secretary of State, declared his Republican candidacy for President. Good night, Charlayne. HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim. That's our News Hour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow. I'm Charlayne Hunter Gault. Good night.