The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the news today, the federal government partially shut down because of a lack of funds. The former FBI agent charged with spying for the Russians was arraigned in San Diego. And a new political report claimed blacks have suffered economically under the Reagan administration while whites prospered. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: The government financial crisis and partial shutdown is one of the stories we examine in detail tonight. Congress watcher Norm Ornstein discusses how Congress got itself into this mess. Elizabeth Brackett has a special election report on voters' attitudes in economically depressed Flint, Michigan. A Democrat and a Republican debate the claim that blacks are worse off under Reagan. A top reporter gives us a closer look at the FBI man charged with being a Soviet spy. A. C. Greene reviews two new novels about marriages where children die. And Canadian writer W. P. Kinsella has some thoughts on a dying part of baseball, the nicknames.Government Shutdown: A Fine Mess

MacNEIL: An estimated half a million federal government workers were sent home today on White House orders because Congress hadn't coughed up the money to pay them. That state of affairs lasted about three hours. Those told to leave were nonessential personnel. Air traffic controllers, border guards, hospital staffs, prison and law enforcement personnel stayed on the job. The orders came from the Office of Management and budget and included the shutdown of the White House press office. A new fiscal year began on Monday, but only four of the 13 regular appropriations bills to pay for government had been signed into law. The remaining nine were lumped into one big measure, a so-called omnibus bill calling for expenditures of nearly $500 billion. Passage of that bill has been held up by Senate debate over certain provisions. The deadline was extended by a stopgap measure, but that expired at midnight, technically making the government go broke. The Senate debated for 22 hours but returned after a recess this afternoon and finally approved the omnibus bill. Both houses are expected to work out a compromise in time to send it to President Reagan tomorrow. This is how some of the government workers felt about their brief furlough.

GWEN STROY, federal employee: Well, they say they're working on a list of essential employees. And as soon as they decide who is essential, those people will be told when and where to report, and the others will just wait around and look at television and find out what we're going to do on the news. The last time they kept us here all day and at the last minute, we were okay. This time we're really being sent home, and a lot of people were surprised. This morning most of management said, "Oh, they'll pass it. We won't go home." And here we are on our way home at one o'clock.

CHUCK SAVASTA, federal employee: I think it's kind of silly, but there's nothing you can do; it's part of our system, so you learn to live with it. That's about all you can do. And it's about the third or fourth time this has happened now, and you just learn to live with it.

MacNEIL: As he said, threatened shutdowns of the government are almost an annual rite in Washington, like a Perils of Pauline serial. But it's rare for Pauline not to get rescued. The last time there was a partial shutdown was in November 1981. Jim?

LEHRER: And that order to send the federal workers home did come from the White House, and the man who really issued it was President Reagan. Afterward he used the occasion to make a little political hay out of it. It was the Democrats' fault, he told reporters when the question was thrown at him during a White House photo opportunity.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Normally I wouldn't take question, but that is a challenge, not a question. This has been typical of what has happened ever since we've been here, and you can lay this right on the majority party in the House of Representatives. Just once, just once it would be great to have a budget on time.

LEHRER: House Democrats angrily rejected President Reagan's contention they caused the government shutdown. House Majority Leader Jim Wright said it was a lie. Speaker Thomas O'Neill said Reagan's closing down the government was a Hollywood publicity stunt. And the battle may not be over; a White House spokesman said there is no guarantee Mr. Reagan will sign the spending bill once it is finally passed and sent to the White House. They said there were too many extras on it, so there could be a veto. It is hard to understand what is going on in all of this, but now we can relax. Norman Ornstein is here to explain it all. He is a political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute who specializes in Congress and in coming on this program, among other things.

All right, Norm. How did this stupid set of events come about, please, sir?

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Oh, well, let's not be too hard on them right off the start.

LEHRER: Okay. Silly, the man said.

Dr. ORNSTEIN: It's silly, that's right.

LEHRER: Okay.

Dr. ORNSTEIN: It's silly and stupid and it has become almost an annual rite. And part of the problem is simply that we don't really have a sense of what our priorities are going to be. They're different in the President's camp than they are in Congress', and we come down to the final minutes because we have this wrangling. This year really, first, it's a short year. It's a presidential election year -- Congress hasn't been around as much. And secondly, it took them until two weeks ago to come to some resolution on what to do about defense. The biggest item that can be changed in the budget -- and you really can't come to a resolution on most of the other budget elements until you can come to a resolution on defense. It's still ridiculous that we're getting down to the final minutes of the session and that we have to play these games, but it's probably something we are going to live with as long as you've got some differences between president and Congress, and as long as we're in a situation where we aren't quite sure what our priorities ought to be and the economy's not growing as fast.

LEHRER: But in the specifics of this time around, Norm, here you have the Democratic-controlled House, which actually passed an omnibus spending bill --

Dr. ORNSTEIN: It passed a budget and --

LEHRER: And the holdup has been in the Republican-controlled Senate. Now, why?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Well, of course, there the first difficulty was what to do about the defense numbers. And while the House was churning out most of their appropriations bills and sending them on to the Senate, the Senate Republicans were still having their difficulty getting their signals straight with the Republican White House over what numbers they were going to accept in defense. Traditionally, too, in most of these matters, although it's not that way technically under the budget act, the House acts on the appropriations bills first and sends them to the Senate. And so we've had that difficulty and then the Senate has been dealing with so many other issues, from the civil rights question on through controversial measures involving defense, the contra aid to Nicaragua and so forth, that they just haven't devoted the time and attention they'd like to to the budget process.

LEHRER: As I just reported, the word from the White House this afternoon was, "Hey, wait a minute, don't everybody open the champagne because the President might veto this thing because of the extras." What are they talking about? What extras are on this thing?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Well, the House when it passed the budget resolution tried to stay overall within the limits of spending that the President had set in his budget. But within those limits and then a little bit at the margins, they've tried to sneak in a few things. They put in more money for education, $500 to $700 billion [sic] more. They've put in more money in aid for food --

LEHRER: Million, not billion.

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Million, I'm sorry. You know, millions, billions -- you get to these numbers, you lose perspective very easily. They put in a couple of hundred million dollars extra in food for children and pregnant mothers. They put in a little bit more money for the National Institute for Health and they've changed the food stamp provision in terms of the minimum diet a little bit. The House also tried to throw in, although the Senate's now rejected it, a huge water projects bill. Now, the Senate is not immune from trying to throw in a little pork here and there, and they did it on their own, but the House tried to sneak in something more. When you get to the end of the session, rationality goes out the window as people try and grab the last train running out of the station and the one that they think is going to make it all the way through to the final destination and add in all kinds of other things. And that of course is going on now, and it's making the President a little unhappy. But let's not forget that if the President vetos this bill, a good part of the reason is going to be that it plays well into a campaign theme, "Don't blame me, blame them."

LEHRER: Will that stick in this case?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: It almost always does, because the public is predisposed to think that Congress is not acting responsibly and they've got ample evidence from the surface right here that that's true. But we really have to get down to the fact that if the President had come to a compromise much earlier on defense -- where we ultimately ended up was a 5% increase over inflation -- we would have probably had this resolved a long time ago.

LEHRER: All right. Now, there are some other end results here as we approach -- one way or another, this session of Congress is almost over. They may not make the Friday deadline, but they're certainly going to go away and not come back 'til January, when there'll be a new Congress fairly soon. Okay. A lot of things bit the dust in these last few days. The immigration bill, the Simpson Mazzoli, that's pretty much dead, correct?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: It looks that way, unless miracles took place. And they have before, but most likely it's dead.

LEHRER: Jim Wright said today he thought it was dead. Now, what happened?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Well, there it was a real surprise in a sense. That bill has died and been resurrected many times in this session, as we've discussed on the show. In the end, even though Simpson, through determined efforts with Mazzoli and Peter Rodino and others --

LEHRER: This is Senator Alan Simpson, Republican of Wyoming.

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Who's been a key sponsor of this from the beginning -- managed to get a conference of House and Senate members together to work out the differences. And the key issues we thought were the sanctions of employers, whether there be criminal sanctions and at what level, and the amnesty provisions -- at what date people would get amnesty and how many and what it would cost. They resolved those issues fairly easily and fairly early. Instead it was an issue that was a minor one taken up in the House, we thought at the time and all the way through, over how you would enforce job discrimination against aliens or against Hispanics that was the downfall of the bill. Something that --

LEHRER: One congressman, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, was insisting that there be a separate office to deal with those kind of complaints, correct?

Dr. ORNSTEIN: Correct. And that basically aliens who felt they were discriminated against because they were aliens, would be able to bring actions. Now, there's nothing in the civil rights laws that says you can't discriminate against somebody because he's an alien for an American.

LEHRER: And Senator Simpson wouldn't agree to that, and it's -- or, not Senator Simpson, but others.

Dr. ORNSTEIN: No. And they have tried, and I suspect they're still trying to work something out. Now, let me say, Jim, it looks like we're at the end of the Congress, and if they resolve this issue and President Reagan signs the bill, almost certainly sometime in the next day or two they'll be gone and they won't be back 'til January. But we've had so-called lame-duck sessions before, and in fact the last couple of Congresses, the last few Congresses it's become a characteristic, where Congress has come back after the election but before the new Congress takes effect. That is not entirely out of the question, and if Ronald Reagan decides to really make this a campaign issue, he might veto the spending bill and then say, "Congress, I want you to come back after the election to finish up some of these items of business that have been crucial that you just haven't dealt with." That's not on the books right now, but there's at least one chance in three that that'll take place. And so some of these issues, like immigration, like the clean air, clean water act, like the civil rights act, might be resurrected before the Congress is over.

LEHRER: All right. Norm Ornstein, now I understand. Thank you very much. Robin?

MacNEIL: Walter Mondale made one campaign appearance today, then retired to his home to prepare for his first debate with President Reagan this Sunday night. Speaking at a Jewish senior citizen center in Rockville, Maryland, Mondale charged the Reagan administration with pursuing a cruel and unfair purge of the disability insurance roles. Referring to half a million people told they were no longer eligible for disability benefits, Mondale said the computers decided who would survive. He also had a warning about President Reagan and Social Security.

Vice Pres. WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: Once elected, they took a big meat axe out and tried to cut 25% of the Social Security program. They tried to cut $200 billion out of Social Security and ruin it for millions of Americans. Fortunately the Congress wouldn't let them get away with it. The first time they told you they'd protect Social Security and Medicare and disability benefits and didn't, it was their fault. The next time they tell you they're going to do it and you believe them, it's your fault. Don't let them get away with it. Don't let them set away with it.

MacNEIL: Mondale also charged today that it was unfair for a wealthy person like George Bush to pay only 13% of his income in federal taxes. Mondale said the tax returns Vice President Bush released yesterday demonstrated how rich Americans benefited most from Reagan tax cuts. The 13% taxes Bush paid in 1983, Mondale said, is less than the maid pays who cleans up the office of the Vice President. Jim? How Goes Flint?

LEHRER: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? It's major theme of this presidential campaign, and it'sa key to the so-called blue-collar vote of the industrial Midwest, the vote in places like Flint, Michigan. Elizabeth Brackett has that story. Elizabeth?

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Jim, if Walter Mondale has a chance this year, he must win in northern industrial states like Michigan. And to win in Michigan, he must do well in blue-collar auto towns like Flint. Jimmy Carter took Flint and Genesee County in both 1976 and 1980, but the Mondale campaign is in trouble in Flint. Reagan supporters say they are making solid inroads into what should be Mondale territory. We went to Flint to try and find out why.

[voice-over] Fifty-five pickups and hour roll of the G.M. assembly line here in Flint, Michigan. In this blue-collar town, the auto industry makes up over half of the city's payroll. The UAW was born in Flint after the sitdown strikes of 1936. Labor and the Democratic Party have been strong ever since. The Democrats have controlled Flint's Genesee County since the early 1940s. But the last few years have been tough ones for Flint, the auto industry and the Democrats. When the auto industry took a nosedive five years ago, so did the town.

[on camera] Flint has come back since 1981 when its unemployment rate was the nation's highest and every major anchor store left the downtown area. Today Flint's downtown shows the results of $400 million in new investment in both public and private funds. It is a recovery both Republicans and Democrats claim the credit for.

[voice-over] Anne Marie Severson runs Ronald Reagan's campaign in Genesee County and she says it is the Reagan administration that has brought Flint around.

ANNE MARIE SEVERSON, Reagan-Bush campaign: In our area, with the significant private investment and the federal funds that have been invested in the Flint area for the recovery projects that we have completed or under way in the next several years, speak to the administration's continuing emphasis on urban initiatives.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Flint's Democratic mayor sees it differently. Mayor James Sharp says most of the federal money that went into downtown Flint came from urban development grants.

Mayor JAMES SHARP, Flint, Michigan: That was a program that was initiated and approved and adopted, put into place by the Carter administration -- happens to be a Democratic administration. When this [Reagan] administration came into power, they set out to gut that program. I guess what I'm saying is if the administration had its way, you would not have UDAG. They didn't have their way, we do have it, and they are apparently taking credit for what all that it accomplishes.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Democrats are just as angry at Republicans for taking credit for the individual auto workers' recovery. But the Republicans like the answer they get to the question "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Auto worker Ron Carlton.

RON CARLTON, auto worker: Oh yes. I think I'm a lot better off. Because of the inflation issue and because of the work that's picking up right now -- we're building more cars than we have in years and years -- and I think everyone is better off right now.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Republican strategists say that answer more than any other is the reason behind Ronald Reagan's surprisingly strong support among auto workers. Geraldine Ferraro lambasted auto workers for that support for Reagan in Belvidere, Illinois, this week.

Rep. GERALDINE FERRARO, Democratic vice presidential candidate: I can't tell you that when I see polls thatsay UAW workers, one third of them are going to vote for Ronald Reagan, I'm absolutely floored by them. People have to be [unintelligible]. Tell me, do you have any idea why?

Okay, if that's the reason, the comment was, you blame Jimmy Carter for all your problems. The Chrysler bailout, do you give him credit for that? Okay. What other problems do you -- first of all, let me just make sure. Ronald Reagan wants to run Carter-Mondale. This one is not Carter-Mondale. This one is Mondale-Ferraro and we're not going to let him run it again.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: But an earlier trip to Flint to talk to auto workers turned into a disaster for Ferraro when the wheels of her campaign plane locked in Toledo, Ohio, and she never made the main Flint event. Even Mondale volunteers were angered by the way the mixup was handled.

MAN: After that Ferraro deal downtown, we'd better make sure that we have some alternates instead of having an empty stage.

WOMAN: Somebody could have got up and said something to that group to keep them intact so they didn't get all down in the mouth, and everybody, of course, "Naturally it's Ferraro's fault. It not anybody else's fault -- it wasn't the plane broke down. This was really bad. You know, she should have been here."

BRACKETT [voice-over]: In contrast, Flint residents saw Ronald Reagan cheered by blue-collar workers on their local newscasts on a trip to nearby Grand Rapids, Michigan, a trip so carefully managed, the name of the Grand Rapids native killed in the Beirut Embassy bombing early that morning was not released until Reagan left town. The president of UAW Local 326 in Flint, Mike Bennett, told producer Carol Blakeslee that Ronald Reagan and his message are being heard by the blue-collar worker.

MIKE BENNETT, UAW Local 326: He has a grasp of the issues I think the working people have been looking at for the last decade. He has the concerns that they have, and I think that he's appealing to them in a way that they're listening to.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Flint families are also hearing Ronald Reagan through his commercials.

Pres. REAGAN [campaign commercial]: Today inflation is down, interest rates are down. We've created six and a half million new jobs. Americans are working again and so is America.

Now it's all coming together. With our beloved nation at peace we're in the midst of a springtime of hope for America. Greatness lies ahead of us.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Jim Young has worked in Flint's auto plants all of his life. His wife Carolyn is a medical secretary in Flint. She says it's easy to understand Reagan's appeal to the blue-collar family.

CAROLYN YOUNG, medical secretary: When Reagan speaks, people listen, because he does have the charisma. He's made them believe that we can accomplish what we want. Inflation has come down. The recession, you know, is not what it was when he took office. He has done some positive things. He has a good moral stand. He's against abortion, he's against EAR, he's for prayers in school. That's deep-root America. People don't like his cut in social programs, but they like his morality. Far as running the country, I think Mondale has got the right idea. I just feel Mondale is too liberal.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Carolyn likes Reagan now, but says she may not decide who to vote for until she flips a coin on Election Day.

JIM YOUNG, auto worker: I'm just about flip of the coin also. I have to wait and see if Mondale can state something and follow through with it that I seeis going to be supportive for the labor movement.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Young, like many rank-and-file union members, says the UAW support for Mondale doesn't mean much to him. In fact, says Young, that support could even hurt Mondale.

Mr. YOUNG: Four years ago I was making the same amount of money I am today. And people say, "Well, you work for General Motors. How can you say that?" Well, we give a concessions contract. People don't realize what we give up on them concessiond. That's what's going to lose Mondale's vote, because the people just don't trust the UAW.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Debi Kirchner and Lynn Blakey work on the line in the same Chevy plant where Jim Young has worked for years. But for them the UAW support for Mondale is important.

DEBI KIRCHNER, auto worker: People tend to go with what the UAW endorses. They figure they did the research, they're knowledgeable, they know, so almost any UAW-endorsed candidate has a real hard time losing.

LYNN BLAKEY, auto worker: I think it's honesty too, the fact that he says we're going to have to raise taxes. And you know, we all know that that's going to have to happen to get that deficit down. And I think the younger generation is more environmental conscious and Mondale goes towards that way. Reagan hasn't shown any way towards caring about the environment, and the younger people that are going to be here -- you know, he's going to be gone. He's 70 years old, he's not going to be here that much longer.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Debi and Lynn say they are better off than they were four years ago, but they are worried about the future. This assembly line in their plant is due to shut down in the next two years, idling at least half the workers here.

Ms. BLAKEY: The younger employees, the ones that are struggling, who have worked and are still concerned about losing their jobs and going to lose their houses. And I think that they're more for Mondale than Reagan.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Mark Walker is nervous about his job at the Chevy truck and bus plant. Walker has had a tough time supporting his family. He has not worked more than five months in a row at the plant in the last five years. Walker and his girlfriend. Nora Gibson, say they get most of their information about Mondale from television.

ANNOUNCER [Mondale campaign commerical]: You gave tax breaks to the rich and to profitable corporations, then signed one of the biggest tax increases in history. Who gets the tax breaks this time, Mr. Reagan? Mondale-Ferraro. They're fighting for your future.

MARK WALKER, auto worker: I believe I would get a fairer shake with him, because like I say, one day somebody is going to have solve the deficit problem.

NORA GIBSON: I care about people, you know. And I think Mondale cares about people.

BRACKETT: Why do you think Reagan's so far ahead?

Ms. GIBSON: I don't know. It's probably because there's more rich people in the world than there is poor people.

Mr. WALKER: One reason I would say he's so far ahead is that America is going to vote for whoever they see on TV the most.

Ms. GIBSON: Yeah.

Mr. WALKER: And that's the truth.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: They too think Ronald Reagan comes across better than Mondale on TV and say that may be the reason there is so little enthusiasm for Mondale in Flint's large black community.

Mr. WALKER: Reagan, you know, he has, like they say, the charm and the personality and whatever. And you know, he deals with -- he got the whole show, he got the whole show. If there's a question on this that you're all supposed to ask him and he don't want to answer, he's not going to answer, you know. He controls the whole shot.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: In the image contest, Reagan does win hands down here in Flint. Mondale has not been able to come across as a leader to the blue-collar worker.

Mr. CARLTON: Mondale is kind of a pantywaist in my opinion. I mean, he tries to be strong but he just -- it isn't there. He has to force it. He's pushing. And he just doesn't have the gear ratio to get there. If the situations were reversed, where Ferraro were in the running, if she were in front of Mondale, I would definitely vote Democrat. But under these circumstances, I can't. When Carter and Mondale were in officer, we didn't even have enough energy in this country to light the Christmas tree at the White House.

BRACKETT: But Mondale is a little ahead in Flint and Genesee County, but he is not ahead enough to overcome support for Reagan in the rest of Michigan. So far Mondale has not been able to expand his base of support beyond blacks and loyal Democrats. Ferraro has helped, but not enough, and Mondale's image is still a problem.It is a problem Mondale strategists are hoping Sunday's debate will help solve. It's one of the few solutions they have left. Jim? Blacks: Worse Off?

LEHRER: Thank you, Elizabeth. A new political indictment concerning black Americans was delivered today against President Reagan. It came from a Washington-based, Democratic-leaning think tank called the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The charge: in every key economic area, the gap between being white and being black in this country has widened under the Reagan administration -- that blacks are poorer, they pay more taxes and they are more likely to be out of work now than when Mr. Reagan came to office. Using Census Bureau and other data, the Center says, for instance, black income fell 5.3%, a typical black family losing $800, while white income increased. Black unemployment increased two percentage points while the rate among whites went down. Robin?

MacNEIL: To discuss whether these statistics really reflect what is happening to black Americans and why, we have Robert Greenstein, who was head of the food stamp program in the Carter administration. He's now director of the center which released today's report. Dr. Gloria Toote is vice chairperson of the President's Advisory Council on Private Sector Initiatives and a member of the Reagan-Bush advisory committee.

Mr. Greenstein, your report blames Reagan policies for this apparent decline in black prosperity. How are those policies to blame?

ROBERT GREENSTEIN: Well, I think we need to be clear, Robin. The report says that the Reagan policies are the single most important factor. Obviously there are some economic factors as well. But up until the last few years, those economic factors that tended to divide blacks and whites and take them farther apart, we had federal policies to deal with that.Instead, during the current administration the federal policies have further divided rich and poor and black and white. A few specifics. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan budget office of the Congress, found in a report issued in April that those households who have incomes below $20,000 a year lose $20 billion in income and benefits over the '83-'85 period solely because of the budget and tax policies, while those over $80,000 gain $35 billion. Now, when we look at the black population, we find that nearly two thirds of all black families are in that under-$20,000 category that has the big losses. Only one half of 1% of the blacks are in the over-$80,000 category.

There's an Urban Institute study that focused right on the budget cuts themselves. Its finding: the '81 budget cuts, the average black family lost three times as much as the average white family. We've gone to the CBO figures and looked at those programs that had the deepest percentage cuts. Without exception, Robin, we found that those programs with the deepest cuts were those where blacks constituted the largest proportion of the recipients. And a final point in the tax area: the Urban Institute data and many others, the IRS data, clearly shows that the working poor and low-wage working families pay far higher federal taxes today than they did in 1980. There's generally been a tax shift. The Urban Institute says that the bottom 40% pays more of its income in taxes than '80, and the top 40% pays less. Once again we've got nearly two thirds of the blacks in that bottom 40%, and I think that's why every key indicator -- the census data, khat does it show? Highest black poverty rate last year since 1966. What else does it show? It shows that the gap between the bottom and the top of U.S. society in income is now wider than at any point since 1947, and that bottom group, the bottom 40%, has three times as many black families as the top 40%.

MacNEIL: Well, let's give Dr. Toote a chance to comment on this. Dr. Toote, first of all, do you accept these findings published today that show, to put it very simply, blacks worse off than they were when Reagan took office?

GLORIA TOOTE: No, I don't.I've just seen the study this afternoon, so of course it's a peripheral view that I've given it. However, I notice that its documentation was by the poor. First of all, there are no footnotes for me to verify the accuracy of the figures given, and secondly, no consideration whatsoever is given to the fact that indeed the poverty level within this nation -- on one page they cite it, I think it's page 17 -- clearly showed the statement made by the President that the number of blacks who were gaining employment under the recovery, percentage-wise is indeed better than the number of whites. They cite the report, they give the figures on the table, but they don't refer to it. I think as long as inflation is reduced, as long as interest rates are reduced and kept lower, as long as there's a strong economy, minority America, as all Americans, must improve. We must bear in mind that Lyndon Johnson meant great things with his Great Society, spent a considerable amount of money and was a failure. The failure is because we have what is called the structurally unemployed. And until we have the kind of economy where a person who has to work every day and take care of their children will know that the dollar this earn is going to be a dollar sufficient to buy the food for their family, then the poor will continue to suffer. But right now, a mother who secures that dollar can be confident that by the end of the week, or certainly by Christmas, in projecting what that Christmas Club will bring in, which a lot of people still have, they'll be able to buy the gifts and toys that are needed.

The second thing I'd like to refer to is the fact that a number of people stated that with the changes in our tax structure, the poor would be hurt more than others and that massive numbers of minorities in particular would be on the welfare rolls.If you look at your welfare rolls throughout the United States, there has not been that drastic increase. Surely no one is going to say that poor black heads of households are mean to their children, and rather than apply for welfare, which is something that they or certainly their family that pay taxes for, would rather have their children starve. The hypothesis of the report I think is based upon erroneous figures, erroneous assumptions, and unfortunately I'm sorry to see it released in a climate of politics. I think that the problems of the poor, the structural unemployment of minorities in particular, deserve a better study.

MacNEIL: Well, you make quite a list of points there, so let's go back to Mr. Greenstein in Washington. How about this? Let's take, for instance, the inflation having come down. Does that not benefit blacks, as Dr. Toote says?

Mr. GREENSTEIN: Robin, I'm just struck listening to Dr. Toote. I can't imagine she's read the report in much of a sense at all to the degree that she even missed the source notes that cite the fact that virtually every piece of data in this report is from the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Budget Office. It's all there. Let's take the inflation. Yes, the rate of inflation is lower than it was a few years ago, but that's factored into all of these figures. The Urban Institute report clearly shows and the Census Bureau data on median income shows as well that even after you factor in lower inflation and the economic recovery, middle-income blacks and poor blacks are worse off, they have less disposable income after adjusting for inflation, and a lower standard of living in 1980. As for not more blacks going into welfare, of course not. The welfare program's been severely cut. But most of all, I'd like to get back to these unemployment figures. The one thing Dr. Toote and I might agree on is the importance of long-term structural unemployment, and that's where I think the concern is the greatest. The Labor Bureau statistics are very clear. Unemployment was 14.4% for blacks when the President took office; it's 16% today. White unemployment has declined during the recovery 50% faster than black unemployment. And finally, the most staggering figure of all. The people hurt the worst are the long-term unemployed -- those who've been out of work more than half a year -- they are still looking for work and want to find a job. Official Labor Department --

MacNEIL: Dr. Toote?

Dr. TOOTE: But let me --

Mr. GREENSTEIN: Well, let me just give the figures: The official Labor Department figures, long-term white unemployment 1 1/2% above January '81. Black long-term unemployment is now 72% above January '81 levels. These are the official figures.

Dr. TOOTE: Let me respond to the unemployment figures for the nation as a whole. Now I'm going specifically to the report. Nowhere does the report refer to the fact that we have more Americans employed than ever in the history of this nation. The more Americans you have employed, the larger the number of those who are seeking jobs. We have increased employment in America, and indeed even minority employment has increased. The report at one point refers to the fact that the poor are being more heavily -- are paying heavier taxes than at any time in the history of the country. But it does not cite that much of the tax increase is Social Security, which all Americans must pay. It is the way that the report is slanted that disturbs me, because indeed the problems of black America and the poor are ones that need to be addressed and need to be discussed, but discussed within the full perimeters of all the documentation.

MacNEIL: We have just a minute left here for this segment. I'd like to ask you very briefly, Mr. Greenstein, is it your contention that if Mr. Reagan is reelected, blacks are going to continue to be worse off?

Mr. GREENSTEIN: The purpose of the report is not really to participate in the campaign. And in fact, our center gets requests from leading Republicans on the Hill as well as Democrats, and I think that sort of question --

MacNEIL: So you're not trying to make that point.

Mr. GREENSTEIN: If I were to say what our main point is in this report, Robin, it is to get more public attention to the situation black Americans do face, to how the budget and tax policies that both the administration and the Congress have adopted have affected them, so that next year in '85, when major federal policy decisions are made by the Congress, that this is taken into greater account. But let me quickly say too --

MacNEIL: No, I'm afraid I must get a final comment from Dr. Toote here. And your position would be what on Mr. Reagan's reelection and the prosperity of blacks?

Dr. TOOTE: I think that indeed the future for all Americans is very positive, and in particular that of black Americans. I look at the number of black middle-class Americans who lost their jobs because the companies that they worked for could not borrow money or the rate of interest was so high that they did not borrow money, and as a consequence reduced their work force. I think that every step taken by Ronald Reagan as President and indeed our Congress, which enacted the legislation, one house being controlled by the Democrats, are to bring forth a solid economy for all.

MacNEIL: I have to leave it there. Dr. Toote, thank you very much for joining us; Mr. Greenstein in Washington. Jim?

LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a closer look at the FBI agent charged with spying for the Soviets. A. C. Greene reviews two new novels about marriages where children die. And Canadian author W. P. Kinsella has some thoughts about a part of baseball that is dying, the nicknames.

[Video postcard -- New London, Connecticut]

MacNEIL: An unnamed senior official in Washington was quoted today as saying the United States is almost certain it knows who bombed the American Embassy annex in Lebanon. He said it was one of several groups that use the name Islamic Holy War. The official also said the idea of striking at the group for revenge had been discussed but was resisted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others.

In Geneva, the assistant foreign minister of Vietnam said his country would be willing to let the prisoners in its reeducation camps come to the United States, but only if Washington would accept all of them.The United States says Vietnam has about 10,000 political prisoners in the camps.

Jim?

LEHRER: In Belgium today, divers gathered up the last of the radioactive canisters carried by a French ship which sank six weeks ago. The accident sparked an immediate underwater salvage effort because of the ship's cargo -- radioactive uranium byproducts which were headed for a Soviet reprocessing plant. Graham Shenton of Visnews reports.

GRAHAM SHENTON, Visnews [voice-over]: A collision with a passenger ferry in thick channel fog sank the Mont Louis and touched off Europe's environmental scare of the year. Lying on her side 20 kilometers from the Belgian coast, Mont Louis began to leak fuel oil, and initially there were fears the black ooze would foul beaches and disrupt the region's fishing industry. But the real threat was the ship's cargo -- mildly radioactive uranium hexafluoride, French nuclear material en route for the Soviet Union to be enriched for use in making nuclear fuel rods. French officials said the chemical and its special canisters could remain under water for up to a year, while environmentalists pointed out the canisters would release a highly toxic acid and possibly explode if water leaked inside. The emergency worsened when storms broke the Mont Louis in two and exposed the 200-ton nuclear cargo to the elements. At least one of the canisters drifted onto a Belgian beach. Faced with the prospect of further damage to the ship and its cargo, salvage experts moved in to rescue the potentially deadly canisters. Divers cut their way into the forward hold and attached chains to the canisters which were then raised to safety by a floating crane. Today the final canister, number 30, came ashore at Dunkirk in a specially reinforced container. The environmental threat is over, but the political repercussions continue.

LEHRER: Back in this country, at Cape Kennedy there's another launch of the space shuttle Challenger set for tomorrow. It will be the 13th shuttle mission and will carry the largest crew ever, seven astronauts including two women. The primary task of the eight-day mission will be to survey the earth's atmosphere and oceans. Robin?

MacNEIL: Two notes from our business and economics beat. In Washington, the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said today the agency will lose only what he called a comparatively modest amount of money in the $4 1/2 billion operation to rescue the Continental Illinois Bank. Chairman William Isaac said the government might even make a profit, depending on how much the FDIC can collect on more than $5 billion in bad loans it took over from Continental Illinois when the bank was threatened with collapse. And in Detroit, Owen Bieber, the president of the United Auto Workers, was elected to the board of directors of the Chrysler Corporation. He succeeds Douglas Fraser, the previous president of the UAW. Jim? FBI: Arresting One of Its Own

LEHRER: Former FBI agent Richard Miller was arraigned today on espionage charges before a federal magistrate in San Diego. A hearing was scheduled for October 15th in Los Angeles. Miller is 47 years old, the father of eight children, a 20-year veteran of the FBI. He was arrested and charged yesterday with offering to sell and selling U.S. intelligence documents to the Soviets, his contact being a 34-year-old Russian woman identified as a major in the Soviet KGB. FBI Director William Webster said today the bureau was not yet certain what damage Miller had done to U.S. intelligence activities. He is the first FBI agent ever to be charged with espionage. Ron Ostrow is here to help us sift through what is known about why he did it and how he did it. Ron covers the FBI and the Justice Department for the Los Angeles Times and is one of a team of Times reporters here and in Los Angeles on the Miller story.

Ron, first of all, these documents that Miller gave to these agents, to these Soviets in Los Angeles. What do we know about what was in them?

RON OSTROW: Well, the one we know is described in the affidavit that became part of court record, and that was instructions on what kinds of questions agents should ask Soviet emigres, and also instructions on what to listen for in wiretaps when you're listening in on emigres and other Soviets.

LEHRER: Is that important?

Mr. OSTROW: It could do -- according to the affidavit, it would lift the curtain for the KGB on U.S. intelligence methods, something we try to keep to ourselves.

LEHRER: Sure. Now, these FBI agents -- including Miller, I assume -- routinely interview Soviet emigrants, correct? And that's what you're talking about.

Mr. OSTROW: That's right. And that was Miller's job, as a matter of fact. He was on the squad that was assigned to interview the Soviet emigres. He also was an analyst for some of these wiretaps. So when he was detected by the Bureau meeting with her, he had an excuse for one meeting with her for an interview. But the others he did not.

LEHRER: Okay. What was the relationship between him and her, and how did it begin?

Mr. OSTROW: Well, as far as we know it's a May-to-September relationship. Those are the dates, late May '84 to late September '84. And it isn't described in the affidavit how he first came into contact with her. One could assume, I think, that it's through this emigre network. At any rate, he makes her aware early on in their relationship in his discussions with her -- this is by his own admissions -- that he has personal financial problems and other kinds of personal problems, and he tells the FBI in his admission that she was sympathetic to his problems and she listened to him. And then later on in the relationship, a few months later she says in August that she would like him to provide information for the Soviet Union. She tells him she's a major in the KGB and that he could be paid money for this.

LEHRER: All right. First of all, is there any confirmation that she is in fact a major in the KGB?

Mr. OSTROW: There is no confirmation as of today that I know of -- no independently established corroboration. But I talked to people who say there's no reason to disbelieve that, even though when she showed up in court and the fact that she's on welfare out in Los Angeles doesn't seem to be the trappings of a KGB officer. But maybe that's the perfect cover.

LEHRER: Sure. All right, now. There have been several reports that their relationship was more than just -- I mean, that it was a sexual relationship. Has that been confirmed?

Mr. OSTROW: It hasn't been confirmed as a part of court record. It's certainly suggested, both within and outside the Bureau. They're trying to hold down comments on the perspective around the defendant.

LEHRER: Sure. What kind of man was Richard Miller?

Mr. OSTROW: Well, he's, as you say, a veteran of more than 20 years with the FBI. He was a Mormon, father of eight. His stepfather-in-law describes him as a religious man, a devoted man. But inside the bureau they talk about some disciplinary actions that had been taken against him for various activities.

LEHRER: Like what?

Mr. OSTROW: Well, one of them is overweight. Apparently he's got a weight problem and he didn't do enough about it in the Bureau's eyes. There's also some -- all the rest of the disciplinary action, as I understand it, relates to his work product. They weren't satisfied with it.

LEHRER: But there was nothing in his record to indicate -- obviously to indicate any kind of vulnerability to this kind of thing, or they would have done something before now, correct?

Mr. OSTROW: One would hope so.

LEHRER: Yeah.

Mr. OSTROW: And that's the picture that both FBI Director Webster and Attorney General William French Smith are presenting, that there was no telltale sign.

LEHRER: How did they detect it, Ron? How did they get on to him?

Mr. OSTROW: As best we can tell,there was a physical surveillance of the woman, Svetlana Ogorodnikov --

LEHRER: I kept waiting for you to pronounce it. I was holding back.

Mr. OSTROW: There's an "a" on the end of it, too. I just blew it. But at any rate there was a physical surveillance of her that stemmed from a meeting that she had at the Soviet consulate in San Francisco with an important official known in intelligence circles by the FBI. That meeting I believe took place last March. The physical surveillance, I don't know whether it was around the clock or spot, then turns up agent Miller.

LEHRER: In other words, they followed her, and when they followed her they found her meeting with him.

Mr. OSTROW: That's right. They also followed her husband.

LEHRER: I heard a report today that Miller made this so difficult for the Bureau -- of course, for obvious reasons, but also that he was a very close friend of the chief of Bureau in Los Angeles.Is that true?

Mr. OSTROW: No, I don't know that. I had not heard that. I know that he moved to the LA bureau in '82 coming from Riverside, where he had been a resident agent, a small agency out there

LEHRER: Now, you've talked and all the papers and everybody have said that in his statement he has confessed this, correct?

Mr. OSTROW: What the affidavit is, is a recounting -- a large part of the affidavit, recounting of an interview of him that took place on September 28 in which he does come clean. Of course they've got him rather cold, and then he consents to a search of his apartment where -- his apartment in Los Angeles, two residences. Not only is he the father of eight, but he maintains a residence in Lynwood, California, right near Los Angeles, suburb, and then one further away.

LEHRER: On a salary of what, what FBI salary?

Mr. OSTROW: Approximately $40,000, I think.

LEHRER: So when he -- take away the other element to it, the possible personal element, when he talked to this agent, this Soviet agent, about having financial problems, on the surface it would appear to be correct, right?

Mr. OSTROW: Oh yes. Because in the affidavit he tells of asking for $50,000 to be paid him in gold, and this would be placed in three safety deposit boxes that he and the Soviet agent both would have keys to. He also asked for other money, comes to a total of $65,000. He wanted a quick payment, too. He didn't want a long-term relationship, he told them.

LEHRER: This was a transaction that was not consummated, right? In other words, this was one they were planning, or did he ever get that money?

Mr. OSTROW: They think there was no what they call "major passing" of money. The $50,000 they don't think went. They don't -- I'm not sure yet how much money he did get. He did get some money, I believe, but nothing near that figure. They were planning a trip to Europe where that was supposed to take place.

LEHRER: And then possibly to go on to Moscow? Was that --

Mr. OSTROW: No, I think Vienna was the destination.

LEHRER: But was there any indication that Miller was going to defect? In other words, was he going to take his money and run, or don't know, huh?

Mr. OSTROW: Don't know.

LEHRER: The question of what documents he gave them. We only know about the one, is that right?

Mr. OSTROW: No, we know of other documents that were turned up in his apartment and documents that were turned up in their apartment, the Ogorodnikovs' apartment in Los Angeles. Both contained FBI documents, some of them original. They're secret documents.

LEHRER: What is the word within the Bureau that you pick up about how serious a breach of intelligence this is going to be, turn out to be?

Mr. OSTROW: Well, again both the FBI director and the Attorney General place stress on how quickly the FBI was able to act and that they feel severely limited what could be a much more damaging situation. But again, the way the affidavit describes the material, it would seem to have done considerable damage already, and that's to say nothing about the psychological damage to the morale.

LEHRER: Has that been heavy?

Mr. OSTROW: Oh, I think so. I mean, that's a very proud agency.

LEHRER: You bet.

Mr. OSTROW: And this has never happened.

LEHRER: Is there any indication that it's anything other than one bad apple?

Mr. OSTROW: No, no. They'll do a postmortem along with a damage assessment, and they'll look for indiscretions or why did he have access to this, was everything as compartmented as it should have been? But no, there's no indication that he was doing anything but working alone.

LEHRER: Yeah, okay. Ron Ostrow, thank you very much. Robin? Book Review

MacNEIL: Finally, we have a book review. Actually we're going to look at two new books dealing with similar subjects, the effect of a child's death on its parents' marriage. One author is William Humphrey, whose previous books have included Home from the Hill and The Ordways. In his new book, called Hostages to Fortune, a couple's 19-year-old son commits suicide for no apparent reason, putting a further strain on an already crumbling marriage. The other novel is by C. W. Smith, who's probably best known in his native Texas. It's called The Vestal Virgin Room. In this book the death of a couple's six-year-old child is still causing tensions in the marriage 10 years after the incident. Our reviewer is A. C. Greene.

MacNEIL: A.C., what do these two books have in common besides being about the death of children in families?

A. C. GREENE: Well, basically they're books about marriage. One of them, the Hostages to Fortune, is a book about suicide. The Vestal Virgin Room is a book partially about the death of a child and the effect it has on it. But the marriage is sort of the fulcrum that the stories balance on.

MacNEIL: Let's come back to that. But tell us now more about Hostages to Fortune, what kinds of people this couple is.

Mr. GREENE: Well, William Humphrey -- the book is a very deep, a very penetrating book. It's almost a monologue on suicide. It's a very acceptable, socially acceptable couple. The book is set around Boston and up in the Catskills at an exclusive fishing club which the narrator, the man in the marriage, feels like he's very lucky to have been made a member of the club, and he and his wife were married there 20 years before. It's a very, very coded world that they live in, and they of course, both of them, fit the code nicely. But they're very happy in it. But then their 19-year-old son commits suicide. He's a freshman in Princeton. The son was very individualistic. He became a falconer, sort of on his own. And they never could figure out why he committed suicide. But it just disrupted the family, and like I say, the book becomes a monologue by the narrator about his feelings about it, other people's feelings and that sort of thing.

MacNEIL: And The Vestal Virgin Room, what sort of book is that?

Mr. GREENE: Well, The Vestal Virgin Room is a lot more human a book, because it takes people that all of us are familiar with. A couple -- she plays the piano and sings, and he plays the drums to back her up, and they play in places like Holiday Inns and little suburban cocktail rooms, and they've been doing this for 10 years. Then they get their chance to go to Las Vegas -- that's what the Vestal Virgin Room is, it's a big Las Vegas room. It's their big chance. The husband wants to go ahead and push into the big time, if they can, but the woman, the wife is still grieving over the loss of their six-year-old child. And like I say, an avoidable accident that the husband feels guilty in because he thought he could have avoided it. And their marriage breaks up on the question of what kind of success is success. Is it going ahead with your career, or is it -- she's nearly 40, she knows she's got to have a child; if they're going to have a child, she has to do it now. And their marriage then flies apart on that basis.

MacNEIL: So you say what they have in common is that they're really about marriage. And what did it make you think about, these books, about marriage?

Mr. GREENE: Well, I've noticed that a lot of the recent American fiction involves marriage. And it occurs to me that marriage may be the last commitment, real commitment that we have in American life. So many of us have scorned lost God -- we're not afraid of God anymore. So many others of us have scorned the law as such, all the marching and the propaganda and all of the last 20 years. And marriage, even though it's a fragile kind of commitment, it does require a commitment. And I think that that's why these books are so concerned with marriage, is because it's the only thing we still think we know the rules for.

MacNEIL: And the absence of the children -- in one case the accidental death, in the other one the suicide -- what does that say about the marriages?

Mr. GREENE: In both books the loss of the child stuns them and they're not quite sure how they should recover from it. In Hostages to Fortune they never do recover. Their lives become chaotic and eventually just fly apart. I'm not telling the plot when I say that, because it's revealed in the very first chapter. The narrator spends nearly two years just trying to discover himself. The only thing that rescues him, I assume, from a mental breakdown is the fact that his voice keeps telling him, "Come back to life, come back to life."

MacNEIL: How would you sum the two books up? The Hostages of Fortune, how would you sum that up?

Mr. GREENE: I think Hostages of Fortune may be one of William Humphrey's better books. I think when you first start reading it, you think, "Oh, this is too grim" and you think it's too deep, it's too repetitious. But I feel like it's the kind of book that after you've read it, you keep going back to it in your mind. I don't know that you want to read it again, because it's pretty heavy reading, but you keep thinking of things that it triggers in you.

MacNEIL: And The Vestal Virgin Room?

Mr. GREENE: Well, The Vestal Virgin Room is not quite as good a book. It takes, as I said before, a more human couple that probably more of us could relate to than this very chic, I should say, couple in the Humphrey book.But the author, while the plot moves and it's got some excellent comic relief in it -- and the comic relief is done in the best way, right on the edge of disaster, because the whole time you're laughing, you know that things are going to go crashing down -- the book's just not quite of the quality of the Humphrey book.

MacNEIL: Well, A.C., thank you.

MacNEIL: Once again, the books we've been discussing are C. W. Smith's The VestalVirgin Room, published by Athenaeum, and William Humphrey's Hostages to Fortune, published by Delacorte Press. Jim?

LEHRER: And again the major stories of the day. The federal government partially shut down because Congress didn't pass the needed appropriations bill to pay the bills.

And Richard Miller, the former FBI agent accused of spying for the Soviets, was arraigned on espionage charges in San Diego.

And speaking of San Diego, there was no baseball action today. That comes later tonight in San Diego between the Padres and the Chicago Cubs in the National League playoffs. Detroit and Kansas City in the American League don't play again until tomorrow. Sorry to report we have run out of time, so we will not be showing you Bill Kinsella's thoughts about his concerns over a baseball problem, that of where did the nicknames go. But stay tuned.

Good night, Robin.

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