The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Bars and tone Bars and tone silence silence Tone Tone Opening music I'm Jim Lehrer, President Bush's new position on taxes, Nelson Mandela before the Congress of the United States, and our Tuesday night essay, all tonight on the McNeil Lehrer News Hour. Tone Silence

Silence Silence Silence Silence, dull tone Silence Opening music Robert MacNeil: Good evening, leading the news this Tuesday, President Bush said higher tax revenues are needed to reduce the deficit. The White House blocked new offshore oil drilling, and Nelson Mandela asked Congress to maintain sanctions against South Africa. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Jim? Jim Lehrer: After the news summary, the presidential change of heart on taxes is seen by two of Congress's top budget makers, Nelson Mandela speech before Congress, plus administration and congressional reaction, and our Tuesday night essay, Roger Rosenblatt, on life after the Cold War. Funder Info: Funding for the NewsHour has been provided by AT&T. AT&T connects the world, from equipment to networking, from computers to communications, AT&T, the right choice.

And by the John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, a catalyst for change. And by Pepisco, and made possible by financial support by viewers like you and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Jim Lehrer: President Bush issued new words on taxes today. He said in a written statement, Tax revenue increases will have to be a part of a budget reduction plan. He did not say what kind of taxes. At an afternoon event in the Rose Garden, he was asked if he was breaking his no-new taxes pledge. President Bush "I want to see this economy grow, I want jobs, I want to see the deficit down, and this bipartisan statement speaks for itself. And now we're going on to some serious negotiations. That's very important. We have to get these by now.

It's essential that these talks get moving. Jim Lehrer: The president's announcement followed a two-hour breakfast meeting with congressional leaders. House Speaker Tom Foley said afterward, Democrats supported the president's move. Tom Foley: House commentators, business and other economists have been saying for many months that an effective approach to deficit reduction requires dealing with all of the issues of tax increases, entitlements, spending reductions, budget reforms, and so that really reflecting our consensus that already exists in many economic quarters regardless of parties. But the president's statement is important in my view. And he has stated explicitly that he believes that all these elements, including tax increases, are necessary because of the size of the deficit and the necessity of enacting budget remedies. Some Republicans were not so supportive. Congressman Robert Walker of Pennsylvania said new taxes would undermine the economy and substantially weaken it.

We'll have more on this story right after the news summary. Robin? Robert MacNeil: President Bush today barred almost all new oil leases off the coasts of California, Florida, and New England until after the year 2000. In a written statement, he said that would give the government time to study the environmental concerns that have been raised. Mr. Bush said he would permanently ban drilling in a marine sanctuary off the coast of San Francisco. He's also directing the Interior Department to look into cancellation of existing leases. Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan made the announcement at a Washington News conference. Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan: So the president's announcement is the all important first step. Now we in the administration look forward to working closely with the Congress so that we can shape the future of the OCS program. My hope is that now we can move beyond the temporary stopgap measures like moratorium and that we can develop a more positive and productive and cooperative approach really on this very difficult issue. Robert MacNeil: And the Bush administration announced another plan today aimed at balancing environment and economy. Secretary Lujan and Agriculture Secretary Clayton Eiter revealed a partial program for saving the northern spotted owl, which was declared a threatened species last week.

They said a government committee would be set up to develop a more long-range proposal. The partial plan would result in the elimination of a thousand logging jobs on U.S. lands in Oregon and northern California, far fewer than a plan recommended by a group of government scientists. Jim Lehrer: Nelson Mandela addressed a joint session of Congress today. He urged support for the continuing effort to end apartheid in South Africa. He said sanctions should remain until that has been achieved. Nelson Mandela: We have yet to arrive at the point when we can say that South Africa is set on an irreversible cause leading to its transformation into a united, democratic, and non-racial country. (Applause)We plead that you seeded the prerogative to the people of South Africa to determine the moment when it will be set that profound changes have occurred and an irreversible process achieved.

And it can enable you and the rest of the international community to lift sanctions. Robert MacNeil: The European community today promised to support continued sanctions against South Africa, but it left open the possibility of easing the sanctions if there is further clear evidence of the dismantling of apartheid. The European heads of state issued the statement at the end of their summit in Ireland, hosted by that country's Prime Minister Charles Haway. We have a report narrated by Roderick Pratt of Worldwide Television News. Roderick Pratt of Worldwide Television News: By this morning they had managed to forge agreement on almost everything. Only a falling out on the issue of sanctions against South Africa could now mar Charles Haway's summit, less as it was by diplomatic harmony and a World Cup win for Ireland. Mrs. Thatcher wants the community to begin winding down its South African sanctions to reward President de Klerk for his reforms.

They insisted on waiting for more evidence of change in South Africa, but she did persuade them to accept the principle pointing out that many of the communities own conditions like the release of Nelson Mandela had been met since the last summit. Margaret Thatcher: So when you look at these have already taken place and in the direction indicated at Strasbourg, it was clear to me that we ought in practice to have lifted made a start on lifting sanctions. Pratt: But the Prime Minister chose not to force a confrontation. Robert MacNeil: Extremist groups met with FW de Klerk and secused him today of selling out the Afrikaner people. They said he never received a public mandate to release Nelson Mandela and revoke apartheid restrictions. They called for early elections to test white support for de Klerk's anti-apartheid reforms. National elections are not scheduled for another four years. Jim Lehrer: Lithuanian parliament today debated freezing its declaration of independence, but no decision was made. Soviet President Gorbachev is conditioned to further independence talks with the Baltic Republic on such a freeze. Gorbachev met this morning in Moscow with Lithuania's President Landsbergus, who then flew back to Lithuania to preside over the debate.

Hungary's parliament today voted to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact. The vote, which was expected, was unanimous, that instructed the government to negotiate the details with the other Warsaw Pact members. The Soviet Union has already agreed to remove its 50,000 troops from Hungary. Robert MacNeil: Back in this country there was an armed robbery in upstate New York today. Two gunmen held up an armored truck on route from Rochester to Buffalo. Police said they got away with more than $10 million dollars. And that's our new summary. Now we move on to President Bush and taxes, Mandela, and sanctions, and a Rosenblad essay. (Opening music) Jim Lehrer: What President Bush said today about taxes is our lead story tonight. He said in a written statement, the budget deficit problem required a solution that includes, quote, "tax revenue increases". He also called for entitlement and program reforms, growth incentives, cuts and discretionary and defense spending, and reform of the budget process.

But it was the three words about taxes that drew the attention. The statement was issued without elaboration, and came as administration and congressional leaders were negotiating a budget package. Most Democrats welcomed Mr. Bush's position, but it did not go down well with conservative Republican supporters of his former no-new taxes position. Mr. Speaker, the other shoe raised in the 1988 presidential campaign just dropped. George Bush has announced that he's raising taxes. The charade is finally over. But what a price the American people have paid for this masquerade. In the two years that it took George Bush to find the means of eating his own words, a hemorrhaging deficit consumed billions of dollars of interest payments. The SNL crisis went unanswered. Weaken our economy and stealing from our savings. (new speaker) Speaker, this morning the White House issued a statement indicating that they would be willing to accept tax revenue increases as part of a budget summit package. There are many of us who believe that that would be the wrong kind of economic signal to send to the country right now. That tax increases, at the present time, would undermine the economy and substantially weaken it.

And so therefore we regard a tax increase as unacceptable. And we would say to the president that we would vote against a budget package that increases tax rates for the American people. I have a letter to that effect that I am circulating on the floor this afternoon. Members interested in signing on to such a letter telling the president we would be unwilling to accept tax increases as a part of the budget process are invited to sign on. Jim Lehrer: This afternoon, Minority Leader Bob Dole told the Senate the president's statement was getting too much attention. Bob Dole: And I don't understand some of the frenzy, I understand in the media, that President Bush has broken his pledge about tax revenues. He hasn't said any more today than he said initially. No preconditions. Everything's on the table. What we've done this morning is refine that a bit and further define it. But specifics are yet to come and the hard work's yet to come. And I urge my colleagues on both sides to deal with the deficit. As a distinguished presiding officer has said many times before, this is the most serious problem we face in America.

And it's up to us in Congress to deal with it. Jim Lehrer: Now two additional reactions and interpretations of the President's words. Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico is the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. Congressman Leon Panetta, Democrat of California is chairman of the House Budget Committee. They join us from Capitol Hill. Senator Domenici, do you share the concern of some of your Republican colleagues over what the president did today? Senator Domenici: I sure don't. But incidentally, the president didn't say anything about tax, income tax rates. So let's just make sure that we all understand that. Frankly, what the president did today, from my vantage point, is make explicit what was implicit when he called us together and said let's have an economic summit. He said let's put everything on the table. No preconditions. And frankly, not to lay blame, but this historic economic summit, one with great potential because of its makeup and its agenda, was stalled. And the president sensed that, as I view it, and said if this statement, which as I just said, really makes specific what everybody understood, this is not a tax summit.

This is a budget reform, put together a balanced package of tax, of entitlement reform, defense restraint, domestic expenditure restraint, and revenues. Do it for a number of years so we can rely upon it and fix the deficit permanently. That's what it's about. And if this little note on his part gets us off center, out of the end zone, onto the playing field, then more power to it. Jim Lehrer: But it was a stalled on this very issue. Senator Domenici: You know, you can't ask me what it was stalled on. And I'm not sure that representative Panetta knows or wants to tell you, but there was some disagreement on the other side. It was not the Republicans or the president's people. We thought we were finished with the seminar and we were out of the end zone. We were ready to start negotiating specifics, but somehow we couldn't move. Maybe there was a dispute among the other side.

If this got them off the dime onto the playing field, more power to the president, but let's hope we have the courage to get it done. Jim Lehrer: Congressman Panetta, are you now off the dime and onto the playing field as a result of what the president just said today? Congressman Panetta: We've always been there and we've always been prepared to try to confront this issue of deficit reduction. The problem we had going into this summit was the fact that we had three very real problems. One was that there's some very tough choices that face us if we're going to do a significant deficit reduction package. Secondly, we're in a political year and there's an awful lot of political paranoia as to what party was going to get blamed for selecting these various choices. And thirdly, very frankly, there's still a lack of sense of crisis in the country about how deep this problem is and what needs to be done. And the president today, to his credit, began to exert some leadership on this issue in terms of saying to this country, we've got a serious deficit problem on our hands. And to solve it, it's going to take a series of ingredients that everyone has recognized as important to a deficit reduction package.

That's why I think it's an important statement. Jim Lehrer: So it's a big deal to you, Congressman Panetta. What he did today. Congressman Panetta: Well, from my point of view, what he did was instead of just saying generally, there are no preconditions and these people in the summit can talk about anything they want to talk about. What he said in the statement today, very frankly, is that a package. We need a package to be enacted that requires all of the following. And then he listed entitlement reforms, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, defense reductions, and budget process reforms. He has acknowledged the vital ingredients of what has to go into a package. Senator Domenici: Let me say, however, while my good friend insists that we talk about a crisis, the truth of the matter is there is not an economic crisis. What's historic about this is that the president has asked us to do this while the economy is still moving ahead, moving upward. We're not in a recession. We don't have a crisis. We cannot expect the American people to believe there's a crisis when there isn't one.

But let me assure you, the American people expect Congress to put together a real budget, and if it's fair and has shared sacrifice in it, they're going to back it. Jim Lehrer: Senator, did the president in effect today take the Democrats off the hook on raising taxes? Senator Domenici: I don't think that he took anyone off the hook. The proof is going to be in the pudding. If the package really gets put together, bipartisan with the president supporting it, with all of those nominated leaders with no real power, but all the power we need because the right people are there. If we put a package together that does what has to be done, including major reforms so that it's credible, there will be nobody on the hook, nobody off the hook, everybody will be winners. Congressman Panetta: Jim, if I could just disagree with my friend on the degree of crisis that we face. If we aren't facing a crisis in the deficit that I don't know what the hell we're doing in that room in the summit, my feeling is that we are facing a crisis. You're looking at a deficit that is suddenly erupted from 100 to almost 200 billion this year.

Next year, it's going to 232 billion instead of 64 billion, which is what we expected. I mean, the problem is we do have a crisis on our hands. People need to understand that. It's eroding our savings. We're borrowing to the hilt, and we don't have the resources to confront the major problems facing our society. If that's not a crisis, I don't know what is. Senator Domenici: Chairman Panetta, I said we don't have a current economic crisis. The American people do not feel the economic crisis. But indeed, there is a fiscal crisis. And to our credit, we are together in a room because the President asked us to, and if this helped us move ahead, trying to fix the fiscal crisis of this country, so we don't have an economic crisis. But indeed, we must, if we want to grow in prosper, the one thing we know we have to do. We don't know all the answers, but we know we've got to fix the deficit. And that's why this is the right thing to do. And let me add one other thing. For those who are skeptics, and I think my friend will agree, we have never had a mission that is as broad as this one with the right congressional leadership and the President in the same room saying let's do it. We always had one year budgets. We never had budget reform to a major extent on the table. We never had a commitment that everything was on the table. We were always leaving things off.

So we have a very, very rare opportunity to do something bold and right. Congressman Panetta: There's just no question about that, but let's understand that a fiscal crisis relates to an economic crisis. What we're seeing happening in the thrift area, what we're seeing happening on interest rates and on growth in this country are signs that we have some serious economic problems that have to be confronted. So let's make use of this opportunity. I think the President gave us a door that was open today to hopefully put the right package together. Jim Lehrer: Congressman Panetta, let me ask you the same question I just asked the senator. Do you, as the chairman of the House Budget Committee and a Democrat, feel that you are now free to put on the table tax revenue increased proposals politically free? Congressman Panetta: I think what has happened as a result of this statement today is that both Republicans and Democrats are going to feel a little more comfortable about dealing with broad packages here that address this issue and that those broad packages are going to include some revenues. Now, we've all acknowledged that. We all know that was the case. Economists have told us that's the case. I think everybody knew that. The President's statement today to his credit has basically given us the opportunity now to move forward without worrying about the politics of having to blame one side or the other for doing.

Jim Lehrer: He's given you a cover then. Congressman Panetta: Sure. Senator Domenici: But let me tell you, the thing that requires more courage, is will we put on the table the kind of entitlement reform, budget reform that is tough. The tax part can come along, but it isn't going to make the difference if we don't do some restraint and reform on the entitlements and spending side of this. Jim Lehrer: That's what I wanted to ask you, Senator Domenici. Is there a quid pro quo here implied or otherwise on the Democrats? Okay, Democrats. Taxes now are on the table. We will cover you on that. But in exchange for that, you have got to agree to some severe cuts in domestic and social programs. Is there anything like that in the works as well? Senator Domenici: Well, frankly, you choose your way of describing it, but let me choose my way of answering it. You know, revenues, the increased revenues that the President speaks of.

And I don't believe they're going to be income tax increases, but that he speaks of, are really not relevant, unless we want to make the spending reforms and cuts required to make a balanced package. Let me put it another way, for those who will give us a big defense cut and say that'll that'll be the cuts, and taxes, and that'll solve the problem. There will be no cover for them, because that is not going to be acceptable and clearly not what the American people expect. They know we are spending too much in the entitlements, but they, they all want what they're getting and they're wondering whether we have the courage to fix it. Jim Lehrer: Does that make sense to you, Congressman Panetta? Congressman Panetta: Jim, what we've had is 10 years where, frankly, both parties have avoided the tough choices when it comes to the deficit. And now those chickens are coming home, to roost, very frankly. And we're going to have to put all of those pieces together in this package. It's going to have to be a balanced package. That's acknowledged. We're going to have to deal with entitlements. We're going to have to deal with defense.

Defense is going to have to make a major contribution to this package, particularly considering the world situation we're now in. In addition to that, we're going to have to look at the discretionary areas as well as revenues. All of those pieces have to be made part of a balanced package. And that's what makes sense, not only for us, but it makes sense for the country. Jim Lehrer: But do you understand that Congressman Panetta from your perspective that those things have to be put in place before there will be any discussion about making up the difference with any kind of revenue increase? Congressman Panetta: This discussion has to take place all at the same time. It's got to take place. What we have to look at beginning tomorrow, very frankly, are broad packages that begin to define what are the various pieces you need in order to get to the numbers. We're looking at what has to be the first year, a deficit reduction package of somewhere between 50 to 60 billion dollars. That is not going to be easy to do. I think the important point to make here for yourselves and for the American people is that we are just on the 10 yard line with this proposal. We've got a long way to go. Senator Domenici: Let me make one other point, we did not need an economic summit conference to deal with defense reductions.

It is obvious that there's going to be an argument over how much, but over the next five years, defense will be down and not up. So we didn't need an economic summit conference for that. For those who think it is going to bear the whole brunt of the cuts, it isn't going to work. You understand what I'm saying? Jim Lehrer: Yes sir I do Senator Domenici: It's going to happen anyway. Jim Lehrer: Alright. The president, I think it was the president, or maybe it was Marlin Fitzwater at the White House said they were still aiming for a deal by August. By the August recess. Is that possible? Congressman Panetta: I think if we begin to make progress tomorrow, actually, I think the most important consequence of the president's statement is that we're going to get down to serious negotiations. I'm confident that that will be the case. And if we begin that process tomorrow, I think we're going to be able to begin to make headway here and hopefully begin to put a package together by mid-July recognizing that we may have to get this enacted before we get out before the August recess. Jim Lehrer: Senator Domenici, you said there's not going to be any increases in income taxes. So what kind of taxes are we talking about where there might be increases?

Senator Domenici: I'm going to leave it at what I've just said because I don't think it's fair to put any specific ones on the table. You can look at what the president put on the table because they've been out there and in public eye. There are a number of user fees in his. There are a number of taxes that are expiring, such as the telephone excise tax. There are a number of user fees. Beyond that, everyone knows that there are a myriad of different kinds of revenue measures other than income taxes that have been considered. Let me make one last point because I think we have covered almost everything. I don't think the American people are going to back any plan that does not contain fiscal policy reform. That is the way we handle our budgets, the way we handle our appropriations. They expect credibility and reliability and commitment that we will achieve the ends, Leon, that we commit to.

Congressman Panetta: For your purposes, that means budget process reforms and the president's statement basically makes that point. If we're going to agree to the size numbers we're talking about, they're going to have to be enforced. And I think that Pete is right. We're going to have to ensure that the numbers we put into this agreement are in fact enforced by this Congress and future Congress. Jim Lehrer: Are you as reluctant as the senator is Congressman to talk specifics on the kinds of tax increases that might be in the works? Congressman Panetta: Absolutely. I think that that's one area where very frankly the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the Chairman of the Finance Committee along with the administration are going to have to sit in a room and decide what pieces make up that final package. Senator Domenici: But I do think another major difference between this economic summit and others. I hope it's the case. We should come out with specifics. We should come out of it with a list of cuts, a list of reforms, a list of exactly how defense will come down year by year. And the revenues that we agree upon with specificity. So we don't run around wasting two or three months trying to get them. We're going to have to be leaders and sell it. And if Congress wants to go with us, we'll have a real package.

Jim Lehrer: Gentlemen, am I, am I misreading you? Both of you are veterans of a lot of budget wars, a lot of budget exercises. Am I misreading you? Are you both saying that this may be an opportunity to do it very differently and something terribly dramatic for a change? Congressman Panetta: I think having been through those wars with Pete over the years and a lot of summits, this is truly an opportunity to put together the right kind of package for deficit reduction. With the cooperation of the President, with the cooperation of leadership in the Congress and our colleagues, I think it's a chance we ought not to pass up. Senator Domenici: And that means that everybody that's in that room has a chance to be in the very best American sense, a leader. And we ought not be looking around at history, see who did leadership things. This is a real chance. So those who would not want to have that kind of package that the President alluded to, that we know has to be done. You know, they have a big burden, they take a big risk, and some of us are very willing to try it and do it. Jim Lehrer: In the past, words like this have been spoken, and then it all falls apart for various partisan reasons. Are the elements there to keep it from falling apart?

As you said, Congressman Panetta, we're in an election year. There are an awful lot of political statements that have even come out today. Just since the President, how's this thing going to stay nonpartisan. Congressman Panetta: Let me tell you, there are a lot of risks here. And obviously, when you hear the statements, you know that our colleagues are very concerned about the kind of package that this summit puts together. If we're able to put a package together. But I think what you have here is at least a situation where the President recognizes the need to do it. You've got the leadership of the Congress recognizing the need to do it. And for the first time, you've got the vital ingredients of leadership to be able to come together and get it done. Now, if they can do it, if they can stick together, I think we can convince our colleagues to move forward with this package. If politics gets into it, if everybody starts becoming paranoid about who's trying to do what to who, it could fall apart and unravel very quickly. Senator Domenici: The other thing is the risk of not doing it. It will become more and more ominous as we get to August and September that in lieu of this, we're going to get a huge across the board sequester. And we're going to face crisis. And we'll go home and either say that we did a bold package or we explain why that event has occurred.

Jim Lehrer: Gentlemen, thank you both very much. (Opening music) Robert MacNeil: Next tonight, Nelson Mandela's mission and message to Washington keep the sanctions on South Africa. We'll take up the sanctions story with the State Department's top Africa officer and two members of Congress who played a decisive role on that issue. We start with Mr. Mandela's appearance before the joint session of Congress this morning. Here's an excerpt. Nelson Mandela: It is a fact of the human condition that each child, like a medium, a mere brief passing moment in time and space, flit across the human stage and pass out of existence. Even the golden wins and losses as much as the chimney sweepers come and tomorrow are no more. After them all, they leave the people enduring, multiplying, permanent, accepted to the extent that the same humanity might abuse its own genius to emulate life itself.

And so we have come to Washington in the District of Columbia and into these hallowed chambers of the United States Congress, not as pretenders to greatness, but as a part of a people whom we know to be noble and heroic and enduring, multiplying, permanent, rejoicing in the expectation and knowledge that their humanity will be reaffirmed and enlarged by open and unfettered communion with the nations of the world. Our people demand democracy, our country which continues to bleed and suffer pain needs democracy.

It cries out for the situation where the law will decree that freedom to speak or freedom constitutes the very essence of legality and the very thing that makes for the legitimacy of the constitutional order. It tests for the situation where those who are entitled by law to carry arms as the forces of national security and law and order will not tend their weapons against the citizens simply because the citizens are set that equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental human rights which are not only in a leaner? but must, if necessary, be defended with the weapons of war.

Mr. Speaker, distinguished representatives of the American people, you know this more than we do. That peace is its own reward. On the initiative of the ANC, the process towards the conclusion of a peaceful settlement has started. Despite the admitted commitment of President de Klerk to walk this road with us and despite our acceptance of his integrity and honesty of his purposes, we would be fools to believe that the road ahead of us is without major headers. Too many among our white compatriots are steeped in the ideology of racism to admit easily that change must come.

Tragedy may yet sully the future we pray and work for. If these slaves of the past take up arms in a desperate effort to resist the process which must lead to the democratic transformation of our country. (Applause) For those who care to worry about violence in our country as we do, it is at these forces that they should focus their attention a process in which we are engaged. We must contend still with the reality that South Africa is a country in the grip of the apartheid crime against humanity.

The consequences of this continue to be felt not only within our borders but throughout South Africa which continues to harvest the bitter fruits of conflict and war, especially in Mozambique and Angola. Peace will not come to our country and region until the apartheid system is ended. (Applause) Therefore, we say we still have a struggle on our hands. Our common and noble efforts to abolish the system of white minority domination must continue. We are encouraged and strengthened by the fact of the agreement between ourselves, this Congress, as well as President Bush and his administration, that sanctions remain in place. (Applause)

Because the purpose for which they were imposed has not yet been achieved. (Applause) We have yet to arrive at the point when we can say that South Africa is set on an irreversible cause leading to its transformation into a united democratic and non-racial country. We plead that you seek the prerogative to the people of South Africa to determine the moment when it will be said that profound changes have occurred and an irreversible process achieved.

And able you and the rest of the international community to lift sanctions. We are glad that you merged with our own people to make it possible for us to emerge from the darkness of the prison cell and join the contemporary process of the renewal of the world. We thank you most sincerely for all you have done and count on you to persist in your noble endeavors to free the rest of our political prisoners and to emancipate our people from the larger prison. That is apartheid South Africa. (Applause)

Robert MacNeil: Before talking to the Congress today, Mr. Mandela spent much of yesterday in discussions with President Bush and administration officials. Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Herman Cohen, took part in many of those sessions and he joins us now. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Mandela, as we just heard, says sanctions should be lifted only when profound changes have occurred and an irreversible process achieved and they should decide when that is. Does the administration agree with that? Herman Cohen: Well, I don't think we can concede to anyone the decision making power of the president. And as the president said yesterday, as soon as the criteria for our legislation are met by the South African government, we will continue, we will consult with the Congress to see how we can enhance the negotiating process. I'm sure however, that Mr. Mandela's views as expressed today will be very important in that deliberation. Robert MacNeil: In other words, you have not modified your positions as a result of talking to Mr. Mandela? Herman Cohen: Well, we're not at the point yet of deciding whether or not we should take action on sanctions because the legislation doesn't allow us to.

But at the time when the criteria are met, we'll certainly consider seriously what Mr. Mandela is saying. But we'll make up our mind on the basis of whether or not negotiations can be enhanced. And of course, on the basis of what Congress is also telling us. Robert MacNeil: After talking to Mr. Mandela, is the president still looking for a way to reward Mr. de Klerk? Herman Cohen: I don't think we're using the term reward. The idea is, how can we help negotiations? We're very concerned about Mr. de Klerk's position. The conservative party gained on the national party in the last bi-election that they had in Natal. It was a shock. And we feel that Mr. de Klerk needs support. And Mr. Mandela himself has told us in the talks that Mr. de Klerk deserves support. Robert MacNeil: But Mr. Mandela also said that for the United States to do something to make, as the President Bush said last week, a gesture of appreciation to Mr. de Klerk for what he's done so far would actually undermine de Klerk at home with his conservative opponents. Herman Cohen: Well, that's not what the analysts, the White analysts in South Africa are telling us.

They say that the main thing that we could do to help Mr. de Klerk would make some gesture in the area of sanctions. Robert MacNeil: So you just disagree with Mr. Mandela on that? Herman Cohen: We're listening to many points of view on that. Robert MacNeil: Did Mr. Mandela persuade you with his reasons for not renouncing the armed struggle before the negotiations get underway? Herman Cohen: I don't think he did. It was certainly understandable what he's saying is in the past, when they had no other outlet for their point of view. They were suppressed. They were in exile. They were in jail. They had a resort to armed struggle. And now he's saying that when the conditions for negotiations are met, they will have a ceasefire and suspend all violence, which I think has essentially happened already. But he says he wants to keep the armed struggle in a bayance in case things go badly in the negotiations. Our feeling is that to enhance the atmosphere for negotiations, all talk of armed struggle should be dropped, because people in South Africa are being asked to make a momentous decision on their future. And talking about armed struggle really doesn't help that at this time.

Robert MacNeil: Did you dent his determination to remain loyal to Qaddafi and Castro and the PLO who helped him, he said, when the U.S. refused two years ago? Herman Cohen: The President spoke very frankly with Mr. Mandela about that subject. Expressed our disagreement. I don't think Mr. Mandela changed his mind, but I think it's very important to note that this issue was not a central point of our talks. It took up just a very few minutes, and they did not dwell on it, and they just went on to the main subject, which is the state of negotiations. Robert MacNeil: Do you think those positions, Mandela, holds undercut his moral authority? Herman Cohen: I don't think they undercut his moral authority at home. I think it might have cost him some votes in the Congress, though, here. Robert MacNeil: Mr. Secretary, if you'll stay there a moment, we'll come back. We get two more views now from the Congress. Congressman William Gray, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, is the House Democratic Whip. Senator Richard Luger is a Republican from Indiana, and the senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee. They join us from a studio on Capitol Hill. Congressman Gray, do you think Mr. Mandela will have lost support in the Congress by those positions we've just been discussing on Castro, Qaddafi and the PLO?

Congressman Gray : No, I do not think so. I think many of us may disagree with his assessment of some world leaders whom we may find objectionable, however, the real issue is apartheid. Does America oppose apartheid? And are we willing to use every instrument at our disposal in the opposition to apartheid as we have done in terms of at least a dozen other countries in the world where we have sanctions? And I think it's a bipartisan attitude here in Congress that we ought to oppose apartheid. And perhaps if America gets on the side of the majority, on the side of freedom and justice, by our example, and by our working with leaders in South Africa, we may help them to see that there's a better way. Robert MacNeil: Before we move on, Senator Luger, what's your position? Does this undermine Mr. Mandela's moral authority in the eyes of the Congress to have these positions on the people who helped him in the past? Senator Luger: Well, I think the positions are probably irritating, but I would tend to agree with Congressman Gray that basically there is understanding of the idea that enemies of one, but not necessarily the other.

It's sometimes tortured reasoning, but at the same time, it's one that Mr. Mandela, I think, has carried off fairly well. I suppose there is much more difficulty in the Mandela view that the people who shot members of the House on the floor a while back were patriots of separatism in Puerto Rico. And I'm hopeful, as a matter of fact, that as we proceed down the trail, it will be possible for Mr. Mandela and the ANC to begin to disassociate themselves very substantially from world leaders that obviously have been leaders for terrorism as opposed to democracy. Robert MacNeil: Congressman Gray, let's come back to the sanctions. What's your position? Should they be held until, in effect, the ANC says enough is enough, or should you look at easing them the minute the specific provisions of the U.S. law are satisfied as Secretary Cohen just indicated? Congressman Gray: I think we ought to do exactly what we've done in the past with regard to sanctions. Sanctions are not new. We've had sanctions as a part of our arsenal of diplomacy for many years in America.

And what we've always done is we've applied them for a specific reason. What was the reason in South Africa to help bring about the end of apartheid? Not to free Nelson Mandela, not just simply to lift the emergency restrictions, not simply to unband the ANC, UDF, and other groups, but to help end apartheid. That was our goal. Now, what is the best way to make a judgment as to when to lift those sanctions? Let's use the same criteria we used in Poland. We didn't ask General Jarosławski and the Communist Party to tell us when to lift sanctions. We asked Lekwalenza and the leaders of the struggle for freedom and justice to tell us. So, I think what we ought to be doing is watching events very carefully, listening to all sides, but at the same time, use that same standard. Let's look at everybody in South Africa, particularly the majority, the labor leaders, the religious leaders, as well as Mr. Mandela, and make the judgment as to when to lift based on what they think is the best time to help end apartheid. Robert MacNeil: Do you quarrel with Senator Luger? Senator Luger: Well, I do, in part, it seems to me, as Secretary Cohen pointed out, we have to be the best judge of our own foreign policy.

And our foreign policy is, of course, the end of apartheid, but also the negotiation of a democratic non-racial South Africa. We're going to hear appeals by Mr. de Klerk when he comes, the President of the country, and both Mr. Mandela and Mr. de Klerk are going to try to prevail upon Congressmen, the President, american public opinion, in favor of their point of view. It seems to me that the 1986 anti-apartheid act turns out to have been crafted remarkably well. First of all, I think it brought about the portion of what we saw today, the freedom of Nelson Mandela himself, and ability to move ahead. But secondly. it offers President Bush members of Congress some criteria to use. And it seems to me at the time that they are satisfied, then the President of the United States does have, at least, the ability to lift one or more sanctions and to play a role in behalf of those negotiations. Robert MacNeil: Some people are saying that by going to the Vager provisions of that act, some Democrats are, in effect, moving the goal posts. Is that what Congressman Gray is doing, insisting on waiting for a further and more indefinite proof of what will satisfy the act?

Senator Luger: I didn't have the impression that Congressman was moving the goal posts. I think that he picked up at least the thought that Mr. Mandela had today. And that is that Mr. Mandela, members of the ANC, that coalition, ought to be the indicators for us, of one to move. And clearly, their point of view will be a very important one. Mr. Mandela was well received, and his point of view is going to be important. I'm just saying that that is not necessarily determinative. As far as I'm concerned, I think our own interest in the United States, which flow toward ideals in the South Africa, have to be determinative. Robert MacNeil: Congressman Gray, suppose that in the next few weeks, as Mr. Mandela himself confidently expects, they do reach agreement on releasing political prisoners and allowing exiles to return, which would fulfill the specific remaining demands of the act. And the administration came to you and said, let's consider now lifting some sanctions. What would be your response?

Congressman Gray: My response would be to ask what is the opinion of the majority, those who are oppressed. I find it very interesting and fascinating that we are so interested in trying to reward Mr. de Klerk. When I was in South Africa in 1986, before the Comprehensive Anti-Sanction Bill passed, Anti-Aparthied Bill passed in 1986, which I helped to draft, I remember the Foreign Minister Mr. Boatah telling me, go right ahead with your sanctions. It's not going to bother us at all. This year, when I went back to assess the situation in February, the first thing that they said was, would you please lift sanctions? It seems to me that we have to decide where American foreign policy is going to be. I don't want to give away the decision-making process to Mr. Mandela or anybody else. We're going to make that decision based on what's best for America. And it seems to me that what we ought to be doing is looking at those who are oppressed. I would simply say, Mr. President, if you want to lift sanctions, I will ask you one fundamental question. Is there anything fundamentally changed about the Apartheid State? That is found in the Constitution. It's found in the Group Areas Act. And if you lift sanctions, all you will be doing is going back to an earlier state of Apartheid, pre-1984.

You will have the ANC, you will have the UDF, and all of these groups there, but they can't organize to participate politically in their own society. Is that what American foreign policy wants to achieve? I don't think so. So I would just simply caution the administration that in their attempts to send a signal to Mr. de Klerk that one, we don't abandon the struggle for freedom and justice. Robert MacNeil: How would the administration respond if the Congressman asked you that question, Secretary Cohen? Secretary Cohen: A couple of things I'd like to remind Congressman Gray that the legislation also talks about a major objective to bring about negotiations. So there is a midpoint between no action and the final end of Apartheid. And I think we're at the point now where the government, under our pressure, has agreed to negotiate with the ANC. It seems to me it would be natural to demonstrate to that government that we recognize the progress made.

And it's also quite possible for an incremental change in the sanctions. It's not a question of all or nothing. You can modify or suspend a couple of sanctions and still maintain pressure on the government to lead them to the end of Apartheid. This is not a black or white issue. There is a gray area of Congressman Gray. Congressman Gray: Well, I think that's a fundamental disagreement between you and myself, Mr. Cohen, is that it is a black and white issue. That's what Apartheid is all about. It's about black versus white, white versus black. And I really can't understand why the administration is still stuck on the horns of that dilemma of the early and mid-1980s. You and I both know, and even Senator Luger has admitted earlier in conversations, that had not Nelson Mandela been freed, and some steps taken this year, that Congress was set to consider imposing stiffer economic sanctions on South Africa. So in a way, we have already given Mr. de Klerk a signal. My delegation, bipartisan in February, said as a result of the progress being made, we would not push for any further sanctions this year. And I think that's a very good carrot, a very good piece of encouragement for de Klerk.

But I think the real problem that we have here is that you're not going to be able to prop up Mr. de Klerk from the challenge to his right from the conservative party. The only way that will happen is if the conservative party, as well as the national party, knows that this great land of democracy and freedom will not stand by and support any form of apartheid, even a petty form, or a slightly modified form, that what we want is the abolition. Robert MacNeil: Senator Luger, where do you fit in this little discussion? Senator Luger: Well, I would hope that the United States would not try to micro-manage the sanctions issue. It appears to me so important that both Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk have credibility, have followers. I think it's going to be very difficult for both of them to pull together coalitions that can lead to negotiations at all. And I would just simply say that what we're going to have to say about this is probably very little. The dynamics, at least as I see it in South Africa, are such that violence is likely, unless people are very, very adept, unless they're very lucky, as a matter of fact. So I would hope that we would simply stay the course with our sanctions act as we have it, encouraging people to move to the end of apartheid, noting what they do. But the thought of offering or dangling a sanction off here, or there it seems to me, would be very, very misguided.

And we really ought to be rather stable. Congressman Gray has said the Congress is going to be stable this year, and there are conflicting opinions here. Many people want many more sanctions. Some want all of them, the fact is that we have been able to sort of stay the course and give our administration, I think, a pretty steady playing field. Robert MacNeil: Yeah. Mr. Cohen, does that suggest to you that if you did go to the Congress after the specific provisions of the act are fulfilled, you'd get a no at the moment? Mr. Cohen: I'm not sure, but these two gentlemen have indicated that there is a certain trend in that direction. Robert MacNeil: Let me just conclude on one other point. Mr. Secretary, I understand Mandela asked the president for help for the ANC financial support, and that was refused by the administration. I think you've said so yourself. Is that correct? Mr. Cohen: No, that is not correct. Mr. Mandela asked for specific financial help to the African National Congress over and above the assistance we're giving to South Africa this year, which is $42 million.

He's asking for extra money, which would go directly to the African National Congress. We have told him that the $42 million is not destined to go to any one political organization. It will be going to the National Endowment for Democracy to make grants. The additional money that he's asking for is something we're going to be thinking about, and the Congress will be thinking about. Robert MacNeil: Congressman Gray what's your reaction to Mandela's request for that? Congressman Gray: Well, I was the author of the amendment that would provide $10 million in the emergency supplemental for the National Endowment for Democracy to help the peace process. I think we ought to provide financial assistance for the peace process. There are going to be many groups involved in that process, not only the ANC, the labor groups, the church groups coming from the majority community, various grassroots. I think we ought to show willingness to support a negotiation process with some real financial help. Robert MacNeil: Could I just ask? Congressman Gray: They're going to be up against a government that has computers, have all kinds of technicians, and they don't. So I think that's a real good way of showing a commitment, but it doesn't have to be to any one group.

Robert MacNeil: Do you support that Senator Luger briefly? Senator Luger: Yes, I do, and I think it's just very difficult right now to move any money through the Congress, even for great objectives, but clearly the peace process is how the African is a worthy one. Robert MacNeil: Well, Senator Luger, Congressman Gray, and Secretary Cohen, thank you all for joining us. (opening music) Jim Lehrer: As you may have noticed, we ran out of time tonight before getting to our Rosa Blight essay. We will get it on as soon as we can. Once again, the major stories of this Tuesday, President Bush said tax revenue increases are needed to reduce the budget deficit. The President also decided to block new offshore oil drilling in California, Washington, Oregon, Florida, and New England, and Nelson Mandela, as we just heard, asked Congress to maintain sanctions against South Africa. Good night, Robin. Robert MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the news hour tonight, and we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.

(funders) The right choice, and by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, a catalyst for change, and by PepsiCo, and made possible by the financial support of viewers like you, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (music) (music) School's public libraries, other organizations, and home viewers may purchase NewsHour video cassettes by calling toll free 800-424-7963.

(music) This is PBS. Thank you.