The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. The anti-Marcos rioting and heavy death toll in the Philippines have posed a tough policy dilemma for the Reagan administration. We examine that tonight.

And in another major story we look further at the growing shortage of human organs for transplant and the double agony for people who need them -- finding a donor and finding the money. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, in Lebanon the French did the escalating today, retaliating with an air raid after six of its soldiers were wounded. Also on Lebanon here, House Democrats sought their own compromise on the War Powers Act compromise. Otherwise, there's a report from Judy Woodruff.

JUDY WOODRUFF: This innocuous black substance known as peat has created a nasty controversy here in eastern North Carolina. We'll focus on that story a little later tonight.

LEHRER: And another story coming later tonight is the stormy follow-up to James Watt's words of yesterday.

MacNEIL: The government reported today that new claims for unemployment benefits have hit the lowest level in two years. The figures were for the week ending September 10th, and may have been influenced by the Labor Day holiday when unemployment insurance offices were closed. There were 372,000 applications, down 36,000 from the previous week. But the downward trend in unemployment and other recent favorable statistics let President Reagan paint a rosy picture today when he spoke to the White House conference on productivity.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: How are we doing? Well, the one statistic that interests us most -- productivity -- is headed in the right direction again. Productivity has gone up the last four consecutive quarters. This week has been a messenger for very good economic news. The recovery is strong, broad-based and maintaining its momentum without unleashing a deadly new wave of record inflation and interest rates. Housing starts in August were at their highest level since December of 1978. The demand for automobiles is outstripping supply. The stock market has set a new closing high. Unemployment is going down. And yesterday we learned the gross national product rose 9.7% in the second quarter and is rising by 7% in the first estimate in the third quarter. I'll be the first to say we have a long way to go. We face unacceptably large deficits, but let's make one thing very plain. We didn't get those deficits because Americans are undertaxed.We got those deficits because government has overspent. Rather than moan and weep about my stubborn refusal to raise taxes, I urge all those of good will to work with me.

MacNEIL: Mr. Reagan's chief economist, Martin Feldstein, today warned that unless Congress acted within the next few weeks to ease the deficits there could be long-term damage to the economy. Wall Street gave an optimistic interpretation to all the recent economic news: the Dow Jones industrial average closed at a new all-time high of 1257.42 after a rise of 14 points for the day.

And General Motors had good news for United Auto Workers union members laid off when their plant in Fremont, California closed last year. Of the 6,000 laid off, 2,500 will be rehired when GM and Toyota reopen the plant to build cars together in 1985. Jim?

LEHRER: The House Foreign Affairs Committee gave overwhelming approval today to the War Powers compromise on Lebanon. The vote was 34-6 against on the resolution that would allow the U.S. Marines to stay in Lebanon for 18 months. It is expected to go to the House floor next week. It's still uncertain whether a second version will also be up for a vote. That's the one passed late yesterday by the House Appropriations Committee and caused such an uproar with the House leadership, which didn't know it was coming and doesn't like it. It would cut money off for the U.S. Marine presence on December 1st unless President Reagan accepts the full authority of the War Powers Act, meaning congressional approval of the U.S. forces in a hostile situation within 90 days or the forces come out. The dissident resolution was the work of House Democrats, mostly liberals, who disapprove of the 18month compromise House Speaker Thomas O'Neill struck with the White House. The compromise is expected to easily pass the House, though, and the Senate, although there was some new talk today among senators about trying to amend the time down to 12 or even nine months. Robin?

MacNEIL: On the ground in Lebanon it was France's day to take casualties and to react accordingly. First, six French soldiers were wounded in two separate grenade and artillery attacks. Then, in Paris, the French minister gave permission for the French to shoot back, and within an hour four French fighter bombers were in the air bombing Druse militia artillery positions in the hills overlooking Beirut. It was the first time an air counterattack had been launched by any member of the international peacekeeping force, and follows by only three days the criticism by French Foreign Minister Claude Cheysson of the U.S permitting its ships to fire on the Druse. He said Monday he didn't believe that was the best method of reaching the goal.

The Italian peacekeeping force also took a heavy blow from the shower of rockets and shells falling upon several parts of Beirut and the suburbs. Eight or nine Druse rockets fell on the Italian army ammunition dump and set off a series of huge explosions. A mushroom cloud of smoke rose high into the air. But the Italian soldiers were lucky; the damage was heavy, but there were no casualties. Jim?

LEHRER: The other major international story remains the trouble in the Philippines which was hit yesterday by demonstrations and rioting against the government of President Ferdinand Marcos. At least 10 people died and 200 were injured in the violence. There was no recurrence of that today and the streets of Manila were quiet, but the events of yesterday have re-triggered the debate here over how the Reagan administration should deal with the Marcos government, and specifically over whether Mr. Reagan should go ahead with the November visit to the Philippines.We're going to explore both sides of that debate later in the program. Robin? Organ Donor Controversy

MacNEIL: Our first major story tonight is medical. Two weeks ago we reported on the shortage of donor organs for liver, heart and kidney transplants. Recent medical advances have dramatically increased the success rate of these operations, but as a result the organ shortage problem has grown worse, as one hospital explained in our report.

HOSPLTAL SPOKESMAN: In the two-year period from February, 1981 to February of this year, 1983, 44 adults and 27 children on our waiting list, waiting for liver transplants, died because we did not secure a liver in time for them.

MacNEIL: Today, at the urging of the U.S. surgeon general, a commission was established to deal with the problem. It'll be a private group called the American Council on Transplantation and will work with the backing of the administration. It's job is to organize a nationwide organ procurement program. Jim?

LEHRER: The president of the new council was also named this afternoon. He is Dr. Gary Friedlaender, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Yale University. Dr. Friedlaender, why a private procurement system rather than one that is actually run by the government?

Dr. GARY FRIEDLAENDER: Organ procurement has been going on for several years, and it's not new that we need a system for acquiring these organs and distributing them. The private sector has already provided a system for doing so and they've done a good job. i think they can do a better job, and the group that got together today at the surgeon general's request also believes that with some appropriate attention we can greatly improve and enhance the efficiency of the system that's now in place.

LEHRER: How would you enhance it? What kind of new system do you hope to put in place?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: Firstly, the current approach involves perhaps two dozen independent organ procurement agencies that are working across the country in a network. We'd like to help organize, promote as necessary, stimulate education through this system to coordinate it on a national level, to help provide funds for education of the public for the need for these organs and tissues, to help educate the medical profession in the need for these organs and tissues, and in that fashion we hope to stimulate the supply.

LEHRER: Well, that's the critical problem, isn't it, the supply?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: Correct.

LEHRER: What really is involved here is convincing people to donate organs for transplantation, right?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: Absolutely.

LEHRER: How are you going to do that?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: I think when the public as well as other members of the critical care facilities and their personnel understand the potential applications, the increasing success rate, the advances in technology, the usefulness of these organs, that they will indeed provide them for the community's good, in a nonvoluntary sense -- in a voluntary, non-profit sense.

LEHRER: I see. Who is going to finance this?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: Well, you and I eventually finance everything that's accomplished.

LEHRER: I've heard that.

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: Yes, it's quite correct. We are expecting though that the funds for this particular task force, or organization -- confederation of other agencies that are concerned with the problem, will come from the private sector.

LEHRER: And the idea would be to have a -- to have a national clearinghouse so if there is a need for a kidney or a liver, say, in Maine and there's one available in Texas that there's one central place you can go to find out, or maybe there may be one in Colorado or whatever without having to shop around, as people have to do now?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: Well, that's absolutely correct. One of the major issues we like to pay attention to is the equitable distribution of this precious resource and to be certain that every person in need has an equitable chance to acquire the tissue or organ they need.

LEHRER: And that would be done through a national clearinghouse?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: That's the way I would envision it.

LEHRER: What do you think of -- well, there's been a recent case of a private physician in Virginia announcing that he was going to open up his own private organ facility where he would buy and sell organs. Is that -- do you like that idea?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: I can only speak personally and my feeling is that he also recognizes the need that tissues and organs are in short supply.On the contrary, though, I feel that use of the voluntary system is healthier for both the patient and recipient, the donor, the system in general. It's a healthier system.

LEHRER: Finally, when are you going to have your system in place? How long is it going to take?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: Parts of the system are already in place. What we are doing is forming a federation of those groups that have in the past expressed interest and provided the services in the transplantation field, and these organizations already exist and have been quite active. We're trying to organize them a little more efficiently and effectively. So indeed the system has begun; it is being pulled together. We expect that today's meeting will serve as a turning point in the organization and it's addressing these issues that we've raised.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: The shortage of donated organs prompted a Michigan man today to offer one of his own kidneys for $25,000. Steven Pollack of Battle Creek said he was deeply moved by President Reagan's recent appeal for organ donors but he also needed the money. Money is the other major problem in the transplant story, and it's the focus of our second documentary look at the subject. For many patients, paying for a transplant is almost as much of an ordeal as the operation itself.

SURGEON: Those are beautiful kidneys. They're really nice.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Since 1973 kidney transplants have been funded by the federal government under Medicare. To date Medicare has refused to pay for any liver or heart transplants, terming these operations "experimental." Private insurers and state Medicaid plans have generally followed Medicare's lead. However, on occasion, private insurers and state medicaids have made individual exceptions and paid for a transplant operation. This random policy forces transplant patients to play a stressful game of financial roulette to find the funding for their life-saving operations. In July Congress learned the tragic reality of this ad hoc payment policy when Debbie Montgomery testified before a House subcommittee.

DEBBIE MONTGOMERY: The only operation that could have saved my husband's life was a heart transplant. This he was denied because we did not have $60,000 in advance. I went to the insurance company in January and they, knowing the importance of the operation, did not give us an answer until the end of March. Blue Cross told us that since heart transplants are still on the experimental list they would not be able to pay for such an operation. What bothers me most is how can a procedure that's been done in this country alone for 15 years still be considered experimental?

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Joseph Montgomery's death is the exception. Most transplant candidates are able to find money somehow, somewhere. But the financial trauma that the Montgomerys faced is often the rule when it comes to paying for these operations. There are a few other rules that a candidate for a transplant quickly learns. First and foremost, they're not cheap. Irma Ramage is senior vice president for fiscal services at Pittsburgh's Presbyterian University Hospital.

IRMA RAMAGE: The cost of a liver transplant runs in the range probably of a low down around $50,000 up to -- from our experience -- a high in excess of $200,000.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: And rule number two: hospitals want their money up front.

Ms. RAMAGE: When a patient is being considered for a transplantation, if the patient does not have any type of insurance or if we don't have any verification that there is somebody who will pay for it, one of the state plans, then we do require a deposit from the patient. We require a deposit of $20,000 before the patient will be initially worked up. If the patient is coming in for the actual transplant, we would require a deposit now of $90,000.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Such large sums cause great financial hardship for most patients and their families. Take the case of Michael Gold, a 26-year-old PhD candidate. This June he came to Presbyterian University Hospital to be evaluated for a liver transplant. When he got to the hospital he discovered his private insurer would not pay for his evaluation. His fiancee, Meg Leiberman, picks up the story from there.

MEG LEIBERMAN: But when he first arrived here for the work-up and it became apparent that we might not be able to cover the cost of the work-up, he was left sitting in the waiting room in a wheelchair. They did not even wheel him up to the room here.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Turning to family savings, Michael was able to secure the $20,000 for the work-up. He was diagnosed as having Wilson's disease, a hereditary liver diseas that, if untreated, is fatal. The only course of action was a transplant. But to be put on the liver transplant list, Michael needed $65,000.

MICHAEL GOLD: There was an attempt to sort of shield me from the financial problems and let me deal with the problems of my own disease, and so Meg was --

Ms. LEIBERMAN: But we had to do a lot of footwork. Some of it was done here. Some of it was done by his family and friends of the family in New Jersey. But it was mainly by word of mouth through someone that Michael's mother happened to run into in her office who let her know about Michael Batten in the White House.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Michael Batten is a White House aide personally directed by President Reagan to help transplant patients find funding. In the end it was Batten who convinced the state of New Jersey to pay for Michael's transplant through Medicaid. Batten assured them that the federal government would split the bill with the state 50-50.

MICHAEL BATTEN: The financing on this thing is a nightmare. For instance, why do we have to sometimes Indian-wrestle with these various insurers -- Medicaid. Some states are easier to deal with and more willing to respond than others. Basically it's hit or miss. It's, you know, a series of events in search of a policy, and we know it because we have to glue the thing together from so many angles.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Thanks to the arm-twisting of Batten, Gold got his transplant, but he and his fiancee still live with the trauma of what they had to do to find the money to save Michael's life.

Ms. LEIBERMAN: For people like ourselves who, if we didn't know about Michael Batten or if we didn't know who to contact, you know, we wouldn't have had the money.

Mr. GOLD: And there's no -- there doesn't seem to be any -- there's no established procedure by which this gets done. It's just -- it's this mysterious political wheelings and dealings, and who knows what goes on?

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Transplant candidates who aredenied funding or who don't know about Batten have one other option -- turning to the public. [clip from performance of "Annie."] This performance of Annie is the last in a series of fundraising events for Judy Sharkey, a 40-year-old housewife. A victim of cyrrhosis, Judy is waiting for a liver transplant. Like Michael Gold, she is a New Jersey resident, but the state has so far refused to cover her under Medicaid, so her transplant will be paid for by money raised by the townspeople of Vernon, New Jersey. To date the fund has raised some $60,000. Despite this generous support, Frank and Judy Sharkey would prefer not to depend on their friends' kindness.

FRANK SHARKEY: I think it would be terrific if the state of New Jersey would come across and help with the Medicaid. Unfortunately the state of New Jersey doesn't go along with that. I think it's unrealistic to think that most people that work for a living can afford an $80,000 or $90,000 operation.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: One of the principals involved in the fund was Ilene Opfer.

ILENE OPFER: I think the government should step in because there's a lot of people, I'm sure, that -- well, Judy's been very active in town so a lot of people know Judy, but there are, I know, some people that are not married and have no children or have very small families and they would not have the backing that Judy has been able to get. And the only way they're going to get the money is through the government.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: To date the Reagan administration has opted not to introduce legislation to pay for transplant operations beyond the already existing legislation for kidney transplants. Dr. Edward Brandt is the assistant secretary of Health and Human Services.

Dr. EDWARD BRANDT: Our view of the payment for transplantation is similar to the payment for any other medical service. We believe that third-party insurers, other means of payment that are used by people, should be utilized for that purpose.

Rep. ALBERT GORE, Jr. (D) Tennessee: There has been a kind of a mixed approach from the administration. On the one hand they have been personally involved in many of these cases and have done really an excellent job. There's full-time coordinator at the White House just to help these --

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Congressman Al Gore of Tennessee has been a frequent critic of the Reagan administration's lack of initiative on the issue of financing transplant operations.

Rep. GORE: At the same time, however, they have been quite slow to address the institutional and governmental problems that these families confront. Just a quick example, families of active duty military personnel could not get paid by the military, or they couldn't get the transplant procedures funded under the military health plans. Well, that's just wrong.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Now, because of the congressional amendment sponsored by Gore, the military will be picking up the bill for people like Army Sergeant and Mrs. James Polemas, whose son Aaron recently received a liver transplant. Another positive step towards easing the financial strain on transplant patients came in this report, which resulted from a conference of doctors and surgeons. It says that liver transplants should no longer be considered experimental but viable therapy for many fatal liver diseases. Dr. Thomas Starzl is the surgeon who first pioneered liver transplants 20 years ago.He sees the findings as a step in the right direction.

Dr. THOMAS STARZL, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine: I think that was a tremendous victory for sufferers of liver disease because it removes the title of experimental from that operation and adjudicated it to be a service. And this is going to have a major effect on the ability of patients to get their insurance carriers to pay for their care.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: But the report's findings are not binding on any private or governmental insurers, and to date only in Massachusetts and Rhode Island has Blue Cross elected to set up a policy to cover heart, liver and heart-lung transplants.

Mr. BATTEN: Medical technology has just simply gotten out in front of us and the insurers and the rest of us are kind of limping along behind.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: In the interim, people like Judy Sharkey wait -- wait for a liver and for a system of payment that makes transplant operations affordable for all.

[on camera] Since that report was completed, Michael Gold's body rejected the first transplanted liver and he had to have a second transplant. He's still in the hospital, and doctors said today that he was doing fine. As for Judy Sharkey, New Jersey Blue Cross told us today they will consider covering her operation after she's had it.

Dr. Friedlaender, you're still with us. You've been listening to this report. What do you think should be done to solve the problem of paying for transplants?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: I think you've correctly identified the dilemma in which the hospital as well, and especially the patient, are caught in the middle. I'm really not in a position to offer a comprehensive solution, but I suspect that efforts such as our group chooses to take -- that is, promoting a voluntary system of organ donation will have an impact on cost containment, and --

MacNEIL: Is it part of the commission's charge to help figure out a way to pay for these, or is that just not your business at all?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: Our charge is really being identified at the present time, and hopefully could be expanded to cover issues similar to the ones you've raised. But at the present time we're most concerned about methods to increase the supply.

MacNEIL: What do you think of hospitals asking people up front for sums like we heard -- many thousands of dollars before an operation?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: I think I can understand both sides of the problem, and as a physician I've acted as an advocate for the patient when I thought bills were difficult for individual families to assume. The argument is that if the hospital or some other agency provides the funds, they must take it away from another cost center, and basically what they're doing is really just shifting the cost to other members of the users.

MacNEIL: Do you think -- the woman in the film in New Jersey who helped raise money for her friend said she thought the government should pay for this as it now does for liver transplants. Do you agree with that?

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: I would agree that now that liver transplants are no longer considered investigational approaches that there is a different treatment at the federal level in the way they pay for end-stage renal disease --

MacNIEL: I meant the way they pay for kidneys, right.

Dr. FRIEDLAENDER: Right.Well, yes, there's a dicotomy of viewpoints. Obviously it's inconsistent.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you for joining us.

Later this fall Congress is expected to take up the matter of funding organ transplants, and we will follow that story when they do.

And we'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Bell Haven, North Carolina, crab-shucking plant] Philippines Policy

LEHRER: It was quiet in the Philippines today after yesterday's demonstrations and bloody clashes between anti-government protestors and police -- clashes which left at least 10 dead and 200 wounded. But the voice of President Ferdinand Marcos was heard on national television there to the Philippine people and here in the United States in satellite news interviews. His message was a tough one: if the violence continued, he might be forced to reimpose martial law and order police and other security forces to respond more forcefully to attacks from demonstrators. Here in Washington the focus was on the U.S. interest in what's happening in the Philippines, and the specific subject for a House subcommittee was the human rights record of the Marcos government. In testimony, State Department official Elliott Abrams said canceling President Reagan's upcoming trip to the Philippines would be a serious intervention in their domestic politics, and went on to assess Marcos' human rights record.

ELLIOTT ABRAMS, Asst. Secretary of State: On the positive side, we can note that political opposition is tolerated within a limited scope in the Philippines and that public criticism of the government is frequently expressed. Limited criticism of the Philippine government may even be found in the Philippine press. I should pause for a moment to note that since the assassination of Senator Aquino, a great deal of criticism of the government can be found in the Philippine press. Opposition parties exist and vocal opposition has existed within the National Assembly. On the negative side we have noted continuing reports of torture and summary executions by the military. Some persons arrested on suspicion of subversion have reported that they were tortured during interrogation, although the government denies this and attributes the use of physical violence against detainees to individual policemen who are misbehaving.

Rep. GUS YATRON, (D) Pennsylvania: Yesterday's Washington Post said that a cancellation of President Reagan's visit would raise political problems about the operation of two key military bases, and would make it difficult for him to implement a new base agreement with the United States. Do you view his statements as an attempt to threaten or blackmail the administration into going to the Philippines?

Asst. Sec. ABRAMS: I don't interpret his remarks as any kind of attempt to blackmail. It's hard to interpret his remarks, in part because he has a number of audiences, one of them domestic and one of them American. But I would not interpret that as any effort to pressure us with regard to the trip.

MacNEIL: The unrest in the Philippines does pose difficult problems for U.S. policymakers. The island nation is strategically located near Southeast Asia and has served as an anchor for American interests in the region. It's the home of two of the largest U.S. military bases outside the United States, Subic Bay, base of the Seventh Fleet, and Clark Air Force Base. After long negotiations the U.S. and the Philippines recently renegotiated a lease for the bases with the U.S. paying some $900 million a year to the Marcos government. The military significance of the Philippines is highly regarded by U.S. planners who view the islands as a key strategic asset for U.S. Pacific forces. American businessmen also find the Philippines an important asset. Trade between the two nations is strong, and 130 of the Fortune 500 companies have divisions in the Philippines. Since Marcos came to power in 1965, U.S.Filipino relations have become enmeshed in his policies. Now, with opposition to the Marcos government spilling over onto the streets, the question of how Washington should handle its dealings with the Philippines has moved to center stage, and the immediate problem for Washington, as Jim said, is what to do about President Reagan's planned visit to Manila in November.Mr. Reagan says he hasn't changed his plans, but here and in the Philippines some think he should. William Sullivan is the former U.S. ambassador to the Philippines, and was also the top American diplomat in Iran when the Shah was toppled by the Khomeini revolution. Ambassador Sullivan is now president of the American Assembly, a public policy institution affiliated with Columbia University. Ambassador, should the President go to Manila?

WILLIAM SULLIVAN: Well, obviously there are a couple of considerations here. First of all, if it is concluded by those who are responsible, particularly the Secret Service, that the President's security could not be protected, obviously he should cancel the trip on those grounds. If there is, as a result of these various investigations, some clear connection between the assassination of Ninoy Aquino and the Marcos government, that would be another reason for canceling. Otherwise it seems to me that the administration has to decide what policy it wishes to pursue by the actions that are inherent in this scheduled visit. If the administration merely walks away from the visit entirely, then I think that would give the signal that the administration is washing its hands of the Marcos regime, and one could assume that the political actions that take place in the Philippines would be of a relatively severe degree of radicalism.

MacNEIL: The opposition would feel emboldened and particularly the radical wing of the --

Amb. SULLIVAN: Particularly the radical wing. If, on the other hand, the President were to go out and embrace Marcos in the way Carter did the Shah, then the United States would be in the position of being the leader of the orchestra on the Titanic because it seems to me quite clear that Marcos' control is slipping. Now, what I think is an opportunity here is for the President to undertake the visit, but undertake it with a specific purpose, and that purpose being quite clearly an intervention in Philippine affairs, but an intervention to try to see some orderly transition toward a democratic process of government. We have had a very deep involvement in the Philippines over the years, and there are a great many moderate political figures, and there are other leaders such as Cardinal Sin, and of course Ninoy Aquino himself, who was involved in attempting to work out some sort of compromise arrangement with President Marcos. That's the sort of thing that the administration could attempt to do and give the sort of positive and right signal that would get us, I believe, into a constructive posture there.

MacNEIL: What parallels do you see -- with your unique experience of both places, what parallels do you see with the situation in Iran before the Shah fell?

Amb. SULLIVAN: Well, of course there are some vast differences, but there are also some striking parallels. On the point of differences, we had a rather superficial relationship with Iran. It had been merely in the period after World War II. It was almost exclusively with the Shah personally and with his armed forces. In the Philippines, by contrast, the Philippines was our only colony, and we went in there in 1899 and the Philippines was under the colonial control of the United States until the end of World War II. We undertook by that action an almost open-ended obligation toward the Philippines with respect to establishing its independence and establishing a democratic form of government there. So that's the significant contrast in terms of the relationship. The other one is the strategic one that you mentioned. In Iran what we were looking toward with respect to the Iranians, under the so-called Nixon Doctrine, was the prevalence of Iranian armed forces as surrogates for the British after the British left the area east of Suez to pursue policies of stabilization in the Persian Gulf and in that region.In the Philippines, by contrast, the Iranian armed forces don't have much pretension strategically --

MacNEIL: The Philippines armed forces.

Amb. SULLIVAN: The Philippines, excuse me, quite right. By contrast, they don't have much pretension toward strategic strength. They have a political valence inside the Philippines, but it is the presence of United States forces at those two big bases that makes the difference. And it's not just for American purposes. That is a contribution to an equilibrium in Asia that has been very carefully constructed -- affects Japan, China and the Asian countries as well. So all those differences take place.

On the side of similarities, we have a relationship with a regime in which it seems quite clear from the pictures we have seen and other events that Marcos is losing the mantle of heaven. He does not have the mandate that he was able to assert, particularly with the middle class, in 1972 when he asserted martial law. The other thing is that we have a man who is ill. How serious his illness is we don't know, but he's taking medication and what what medication may do to affect his will or his judgment is also a parallel.

MacNEIL: Let's pursue these a bit more in a moment. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, a different view of it now from Congressman Stephen Solarz, Democrat of New York, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs. He was in the Philippines last month just before the assassination of dissident leader, Senator Aquino. Congressman, should the President go on the trip?

Rep. STEPHEN SOLARZ: I think it would be a serious mistake, Jim, for the President to proceed with his visit to Manila at this time for three reasons. First, because I think the security of the President would in fact be in jeopardy if he went there. Secondly, even if it turns out that we're able to protect the President from any efforts to do him harm, I think it's fairly clear that there would probably be widespread demonstrations protesting the President's visit in the Philippines, and based on what happened in Manila yesterday, there's a real possibility that a number of Filipinos could be killed, and I don't think that would redound to the credit of our country. And, thirdly, I think we have to recognize as a political reality that the overwhelming majority of the people in the Philippines today believe that the government itself was responsible in one fashion or another for the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. And to the extent that we do have a significant interest in maintaining our military facilities in the Philippines as a way of preserving the peace and maintaining a balance of power in Asia, I think we have to recognize that our capacity to remain there ultimately depends on the willingness of the Filipino people to let us stay. If the President goes to Manila at this time, it will inevitably appear to the majority of the Filipino people that we have condoned the assassination of Ninoy Aquino.

LEHRER: Then you disagree with Ambassador Sullivan's analysis that if the President decided now not to go it would trigger all kinds of things on behalf of the radicals, etc.

Rep. SOLARZ: Well, I think that it would have far more adverse consequences for our long-term relationship with the Philippines if the President did go than if he didn't go.

LEHRER: So in other words, you really do believe we should wash our hands of Ferdinand Marcos?

Rep. SOLARZ: No, I don't think that we ought to abandon President Marcos. I don't think we were ever supporting him in the first place. We have a relationship with the Philippines and with the Filipino people. I think we have an interest in maintaining that relationship. But I also think we have an interest in avoiding the impression that we have been indifferent to the assassination of a Filipino leader who enjoyed the confidence and support of millions of his countrymen, and I think that's what would happen if the President went. Let me point out, Jim, that in 1960, after widespread riots and demonstrations in Japan, President Eisenhower cancelled a scheduled trip to Tokyo, and I don't think that jeopardized our relationship with Japan in any way. Nobody suggested we were abandoning the Japanese. I don't think we would be abandoning the Philippines if the President, under existing circumstances, on grounds of security and for political reasons, decided this was not the right time to go.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: If he goes, the Congressman says, it'll look as though the United States is condoning the Aquino assassination.

Amb. SULLIVAN: If, and Steve seems to assume that the President's trip, if it were take place would be one in which there would be an embracing of Ferdinand Marcos and of the regime, and that alone, then, of course I would disagree with him, but I'm not sure that he heard exactly what I was saying.I suggested that between now and the time the trip is scheduled, there should be an effort to put together in the Philippines a very carefully choreographed reception in which there would be not only the Marcos regime but leaders of the opposition and people such as Cardinal Sin brought together with our President as the catalyst. It's an opportunity for a constructive action by our President. It just so happens -- just let me comment. It just so happens that I was the coordinator on the Eisenhower trip when that cancellation was made. I happened to be in Malacanan Palace in the Philippines because that's where the decision finally was made. It wasn't made by our President; it was made by the Japanese government who told us they could not protect and assure the security of the President.

MacNEIL: I see. Well, what do you think of the further refinement of the Ambassador's idea, that as long as the President touched base and was seen to with various members of the opposition forces, it would not be condoning the assassination?

Rep. SOLARZ: Well, I think, Robin, that if it were possible to make those arrangements, it's conceivable that the trip would not be nearly as counterproductive as I fear it would be. But I return to the Philippines right after Ninoy Aquino was killed in order to pay my respects to his family and to some of his associates, and because I wanted them to know that there was someone in an official position in the American government who shared their sense of anguish over what had happened. And, based on my conversations with the leaders of the opposition at that time, Ifrankly doubt that they would be willing to participate in such events if the President came because they don't want in any way to lend any additional legitimacy to the present government, particularly in the absence of any meaningful effort on the part of the government to establish a genuinely independent and impartial and thorough investigation of what happened.

MacNEIL: Let me ask you both this very briefly. We have less than a minute. Going back to the parallel with Iran, at what point does the United States withdraw its support, subtly or obviously, from a person who is losing power like Marcos in a situation like this?

Amb. SULLIVAN: Well, as Steve said, the United States support for the Philippines has never been personalized in support of Marcos himself, and that should not have been our position in Iran, although we got in that position. It seeems to me that when it is quite clear that the individual who is leading the state is not going to survive, the United States interests transcend that of the individual. They have to go to the state as a whole and to our relationship with the people.

MacNEIL: I guess you don't disagree with that, Congressman?

Rep. SOLARZ: No, but I think the problem is not when we abandon Marcos, but avoiding the impression that we're attempting to prop him up, and that's what I think would happen if the President went to Manila at this time.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you both very much. Jim?

LEHRER: There was another plane hijacked to Cuba today. It was an American Airlines flight from New York to the Virgin Islands with 112 passengers aboard. A man who said he had a bomb ordered the plane to Cuba, and it landed safely there 2 1/2 hours later. It was the 11th hijacking of a U.S. plane to Cuba in five months, but the first since August 19th following the imposition of tighter security measures this summer.

And we'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Plymouth, North Carolina, log train]

LEHRER: As you may have noticed, both of our moving picture postcards tonight were from eastern North Carolina, and that was for a reason. Because in Raleigh, North Carolina today a group of fishermen and environmentalists went to court against the federal government in an effort to keep some 100,000 acres along the east North Carolina coast just as it is, a wetland. There are millions of acres of swamps and marshes throughout the country. They're called wetlands because they absorb and hold large amounts of water. But the term has a technical and legal meaning, too. These lands were once considered useless, but conservationists and others say they provide a vital link to flooding in the South, droughts in the Midwest and water pollution along the East Coast. Federal law now requires the environmental impact be studied by the Corps of Engineers before any wetland can be cleared and used for anything. Today's lawsuit is seeking to have that done along the Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. A company called Peat Methanol Associates, known as PMA, wants to build a plant just inland on a deserted chunk of swampland there. It's rich in peat and they want to turn that peat into liquid fuel. It's an idea that was warmly endorsed by the government in its desire to develop new sources of energy. The enthusiasm was so high that Congress specifically waived the usual environmental impact requirement, and that's what brought the people to the courthouse in Raleigh today. Judy Woodruff has the full story.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For the past 300 years, North Carolinians have been doing down to thesea in ships, and coming back with their nets full of fish, oysters, shrimp and crabs. But in the last several years fishermen have found their yields dropping, especially here in the waters of the Pamlico Sound. Oysters have all but disappeared in some places. Shrimp and crabs are growing scarce, and the striped bass are now a rarity.

[voice-over] Fishermen blame the declining catches on the destruction of the wetlands which surround the Sound. They feel the PMA project, which involves the mining of 15,000 acres of peat, will only make a bad situation worse. During the last 50 years, more than half of the surrounding wetlands have been drained and cleared for farming. The wetlands protect the Sound by absorbing fresh water, pollutants and heavy metals like mercury, which endanger the salt water where fish spawn.

HILDRED GOLDEN, North Carolina fisherman: I'd say today we have approximately 50 boxes of sailing fish, and I'd say 10 years ago in the same area at the same time of year we'd have had 500.If this peat mining starts up there and they go to pumping the millions of gallons of water out and into our nursery areas -- and all of this Sound right out here where you are is a nursery area for some types of fish, some species.Well, it would wipe it out.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Normally a fiercely independent lot, the fishermen have organized to oppose the plant, staging public meetings, fighting to prevent PMA from receiving the various construction and water permits it needs from the state, and joining in a suit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is charged with overseeing wetlands. To date the Corps has maintained that the PMA property is not a wetlands because it has been partially drained by canals dug years ago. Dr. Richard Barber is a marine biologist from Duke University.

Dr. RICHARD BARBER, marine biologist: We're denying that it's a wetlands that we're going to mine when in fact it clearly is a wetlands. A wetlands is ground where the water table is high enough to permit only water-loving plants to grow there. And this area is a wetlands, no matter how much it's been ditched and drained in the past.

WOODRUFF [VOICE-OVER]: The lawyer who is pressing the suit for the fishermen is Henri Johnson.

[interviewing] If this lawsuit is successful, what will the fishermen and others gain as a result?

HENRI JOHNSON, lawyer: We will gain the protection of the environmental laws that we feel we should have now. And what does that mean? For example, the wetland definition, you cannot simply go in and do with it what you would. You are subject to the environmental rules. For example, you would have to file an environmental impact statement before you could embark on a project that's this big.

SPOKESMAN, at rally: We're here because many of us don't think that a project of this size is a really good idea. And so we want to talk tonight a little bit about the status of the project now, where it is as far as --

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: At frequent strategy sessions like this one, environmentalists who have joined with the fishermen to stop the plant review the status of the legal battle and PMA's permit applications. The meetings also serve as a forum for venting frustration towards PMA and towards the government support of the project. One of the key people in uniting the fishermen and the environmentalists was Todd Miller, who heads up the North Carolina Coastal Federation, a grassroots environmental advocacy group.

TODD MILLER, environmentalist: I think the success was that, you know, we weren't out there telling them what was going to happen. We just gave them some information and then they drew their own conclusions. And, I mean, we didn't have to sell them on the fact that fresh-water drainage was bad; they already knew that. But what we had to tell them was here is a project that's on-going out here that if you don't do something it's just going to sail right through, and so you got to get up and here's one issue, at least, that if you speak out you might influence the outcome.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But government and PMA officials feel that the environment is not an issue. To satisfy concerns about fresh-water runoff into the Sound's salty waters, PMA is planning to build a lake to hold the runoff.

ROBERT FRI, Peat Methanol Associates: I can't predict the future, and the environmentalists can't predict the future, either. But as predicting the future goes, I think this is about as certain a thing as you can come up with because all we're saying -- all it depends on -- eliminating the extra fresh water runoff depends on one thing, and that is the ability to evaporate a certain amount of water from the surface of the lake.

WOODRUFF: If the plant is built, it could bring as many as 350 permanent jobs, a couple of million dollars in taxes and economic revitalization to this town, Plymouth. It is a town that time has forgotten. The last really good times here were in 1918 when the rich cedar forests brought plenty of jobs and incomes for everybody. But the cedar forests are gone now. What lumbering there is was hit hard by last year's recession. As a result of that and of more modern farming techniques, unemployment in this area runs as high as 20%. So when you ask people in Plymouth what this new plant means, you don't get fancy answers about energy independence. They just tell you they want a job.

[voice-over] Ernest Jones has been out of work for more than a year. Today, having exhausted even part-time opportunities, he is on his way to apply for unemployment.

JOB SERVICE WORKER: Ernest Jones? Okay. Marvin Smith and William Riddick. Now, is there anyone's name I did not call? Okay, the first thing I'm going to do is play a tape for you that will go over all your benefit rights and your responsibilities as a claimant.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Jones was one of hundreds of people laid off during the last 18 months by Weyerhauser, the forest products company which is the area's largest employer. During the same period, Georgia Pacific and True Temper Tool closed their plants entirely while Williams Lumber was forced to lay off 100 workers.

[interviewing] What will this PMA plant mean?What could it mean for you, do you think?

ERNEST JONES, unemployed worker: Well, it means new hope for me and my family. I would have something to look forward to. Without it, unemployment don't have anything to offer anyone. As a youth coming downtown Plymouth, I can visualize back to stores flourishing with business, people on the street, but now it's like a real ghost town. No industry at all; nothing that, you know, to help Plymouth grow.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: George Ayers is a barber. He's spent most of his life in this town. He feels PMA will give Plymouth and surrounding Washington County a much needed economic boost.

GEORGE AYERS, Plymouth barber: See, what we need is some tax base in this county. This is an opportunity for us in this county to realize some benefits. So it's just good for the county overall. These companies want to come here and they want to help out. They want to spend some money, they want to invest, they want to make a dollar. So let's invest also in our children, where we can make -- let our children have a better way of life in this county.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Jack Dissarno is the Washington County manager.

[interviewing] What would it mean for this county if this plant were not built?

JACK DISSARNO, county manager: I think it would probably mean that this county will continue to wither economically and even socially. And I think there has been so much attention focused on it that that effect will be even more serious than it would have been otherwise. I think it will be a very serious, probably the most serious problem this county has ever faced.

WOODRUFF: What will happen to Ernest Jones if this plant doesn't get built?

Mr. JONES: Well, what would happen to Ernest Jones, I would have to relocate or find work somewhere else in the area because Plymouth does not have anything to offer anyone.

WOODRUFF: What do you say to them? They need the jobs. They need the money.

Mr. MILLER: I don't go there because I know I can't give them an effective argument. You know, you can't go to a person that's unemployed and say, you know, "We don't want you to have this job." And I think it's cruel that their expectations are being raised by this project, which was never meant to be an economic development project in the first place.

Mr. FRI: It's what it is. I mean, it's -- it's $500 million and 350 permanent jobs plus whatever spinoff-induced jobs there are.

Ms. JOHNSON: In fact there is not enough for everyone to come to North Carolina and do everything that they want to do industrially. And that's a big change for us to make. We are having to face up to what many other states have already realized, and that is that we have to protect what we have. It's not endless, and it will be destroyed if we're not careful.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The final decision on whether or not this project will be built rests not with those who want it or with those who oppose it, but with the courts and the North Carolina officials who are reviewing PMA's permits.

LEHRER: Also, Congress is expected to consider changes in the wetlands laws in the next few weeks.One proposal on the table is to make it easier for the federal government to simply purchase wetlands considered crucial to preserve for environmental reasons. Robin?

MacNEIL: In the America's Cup race, Australia II beat Liberty, the American defender, for the second day in a row and tied the series at three-all. The final and deciding race will be sailed Saturday. Jim?

LEHRER: Interior Secretary James Watt apologized to President Reagan today for what he said yesterday and asked for forgiveness as a howl went up in Congress among many Republicans as well as Democrats for Watt's resignation. First, as a reminder, here's what he said yesterday about a new commission he had appointed to study coal leasing.

JAMES WATT, Secretary of Interior: We've appointed a commission -- Congress forced the issue to appoint a commission. I've appointed the Linowes commission -- five members, three Democrats, two Republicans, every kind of mix you can have. I have a black, I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple. [laughter]

LEHRER: Today, from the House and Senate floors and elsewhere, many members of Congress said it was time for the controversial Watt to go.

Rep. THOMAS DOWNEY, (D) New York: Mr. Speaker, it is my personal privilege and high honor to bestow this morning the Earl Butz Racial and Religious Sensitivity Award to Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Watt.

Rep. JOE MOAKLEY, (D) Massachusetts: James Watt has done what Don Rickles in his best skit could never do -- offend nearly our entire population in just one sentence.

Rep. DAN GLICKMAN, (D) Kansas: Mr. Watt assaults human dignity; Mr. Watt has no shame; Mr. Watt should go.

Rep. SANDER LEVIN, (D) Michigan: Mr. Watt is a political liability. Much more significantly, he has become a national embarrassment.

Sen. LOWELL WEICKER, (R) Connecticut: Words can be a very powerful thing, especially when they come from a Cabinet secretary of the United States of America. And I don't think that he represents anything other than trash in his thoughts, and I suggested on the floor that the President do with trash what everybody else does -- throw it out.

Sen. WARREN RUDMAN, (R) New Hampshire: I thought his choice of words was outrageous. He's an embarrassment to me as a Republican. He certainly is an embarrassment to our President who I don't think has an ounce of prejudice or poor taste in his whole being, and I really think he ought to resign. I think the time has come that James Watt ought to go.

Rep. EDWARD BETHUNE, (R) Arkansas: I have a special feeling for this comment that was made yesterday because the greatest man I ever knew in my life had polio at nine months of age and never walked a step in his life without a cane or a crutch or an artificial leg, and that man was my father. He's gone too far. I think the evidence is plain that this secretary is insensitive to the diverse and pluralistic nature of the American society. I urge the President now to call for his resignation.

LEHRER: In his letter to the President today Watt said he could understand how his remarks were interpreted as morally offensive. "I have made a mistake, Mr. President, and I ask the forgiveness of those on the commission as well as you." Good night, Robin.

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