The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. A condemned man is back in his Texas prison cell, still alive after a dramatic stay of execution -- a reprieve that today opened up a whole new area of legal debate over capital punishment. And we're going to explore that debate tonight with two key participants. And we'll also spend some time with a key participant in the Reagan administration's making of economic policy, Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan, the number-one optimist in the administration's economic crowd. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Also tonight a documentary report on the growing pasta war between the United States and Italy; a look at today's winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, British novelist William Golding; more on Lech Walesa's Nobel Peace Prize; and details of the government's proposed measures to make highways and airliners safer.Autry's Death Row Reprive

LEHRER: The case of James David Autry, the 29-year-old Texas man sentenced to death for the 1980 murder of a grocery store clerk. Yesterday came the bizarre story of his last-minute reprieve, his execution stayed by a Supreme Court justice less than 30 minutes before Autry was to die, the news coming to the Texas State Prison death chamber as Autry lay strapped to a stretcher with a needle in his arm, the process of executing him by chemical means already begun. Today the story is the legal aftermath of Autry's rescue, and the issue on which Justice Byron White based his decision to delay the execution. There are 1,100 persons on death rows in the country, 160 in Texas alone, whose fates may suddenly also be touched by it. We're going to look at it now with two of the most interested of the interested legal parties, Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox, and Americal Civil Liberties Union lawyer Alvin Bronstein. Robin?

MacNEIL: A curious sequence of legal steps led to Autry's last-minute reprieve. On Monday night, the full U.S. Supreme Court was asked to block the planned execution, and by a five-to-four vote it refused. Then, on Tuesday afternoon, with only hours remaining before the midnight execution time, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer raised a different issue with Justice White alone. That issue is whether the Constitution requires what is called proportionality, that state courts review each sentence to make sure it is equivalent or proportional to others imposed for similar crimes. That issue is already before the Supreme Court from a case in California. It is due to be argued on November 7th. Justice White said he felt compelled to postpone the execution, pending a decision on that issue. The person who appeared outside the prison in Huntsville late Tuesday night to announce the postponement of the execution was Attorney General of Texas, Jim Mattox.

JIM MATTOX, Texas Attorney General: At approximately 11:30 tonight, Justice White granted a stay of execution.

MacNEIL: Tonight the Attorney General is with us at public station KLRU in the state capital, Austin, Texas, Mr. Attorney General, where does the stay by Justice White leave you on the Autry case now? Are you going to appeal that stay?

Att. Gen. MATTOX: I think we probably will. We made a decision today that we would attempt to overturn that stay and we intend in the latter part of next week to file a motion to vacate that stay, seeking a full hearing before the whole court. As you've already pointed out, it seemed to be a somewhat unusual procedure that on Monday the Court, on a 5-4 decision, ruled that the stay should not be granted, and, of course, on Tuesday night at 11:30, Justice White made a determination that that should happen.

MacNEIL: Who do you appeal to in this case, the full court, or just Justice White himself?

Att. Gen. MATTOX: We would appeal to the full court, and we will be filing a motion to vacate that stay with the full court. I think that's particularly important because Justice White did not have the benefit of the arguments that we made in both the district court and at the Fifth Circuit when he granted the stay. Had he had those, we think that he perhaps would not have granted it, particularly since he happened to have been in the majority when the stay had not been granted the day before.

MacNEIL: Yeah, he was on the other side the day before.

Att. Gen. MATTOX: That's right.

MacNEIL: Now, does that mean that the state of Texas felt it could have satisfied him on the proportionality issue?

Att. Gen. MATTOX: Our arguments clearly indicated that we could. As a matter of fact, we made the arguments to the Fifth Circuit and they understood those, and we think that the -- we think that prior Supreme Court holdings, particularly in the Jurek case, the Supreme Court cited the Texas statute in such a way that it would lead us to believe that, in effect, they said that there is a mandatory review of each death sentence by a court that is elected from a statewide jurisdiction, thereby providing that kind of proportionality-type review. As a matter of fact, the Ninth Circuit, from which the case that was cited to the Justice White comes, that court also cited the Texas procedure as being a procedure that is constitutional.

MacNEIL: Now, if the court turns you down on this appeal against the stay, then you presumably have to wait on Autry's execution until that California case is decided by the court, which might be months. Is that correct?

Att. Gen. MATTOX: That's right. We think it'll probably be about eight months, but one of the reasons that we're asking or filing this motion to vacate the state is not only to determine what action we should be taking in the Autry case, but also we are filing it so that we'll get some direction as relates to all the other death row cases that we have pending, that we want the full court to give us that kind of direction, and of course we would hope that they would overrule the stay. We have another case, for instance, the Barefoot case -- that is, the individual is imply waiting to have a new execution date set, which it has not been, and we need to have some direction from the full court whether or not Justice White's stay is one that the full court would prefer or whether it's one that they should overrule.

MacNEIL: Now, if -- excuse me interrupting. If the Supreme Court should refuse your appeal against the stay and the stay on Autry would hold until the California case is argued in November and decided many months later, would the other 160 people on death row in Texas also have to wait?

Att. Gen. MATTOX: I would think that they would have to wait, and it would probably have an impact on most of the other death-row cases across the country where those states do not have "the proportionality-type review." We believe we have a similar type review in Texas.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: James David Autry is still alive because an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union filed a late-night, handwritten appeal with Justice White here in Washington. That attorney was Alvin Bronstein, director of the ACLU's national prison project. First, Mr. Bronstein, how did that come about? Why was it at the very, very last moment that you were there at the Supreme Court and you wrote this thing out by hand and then gave it to the Justice?

ALVIN BRONSTEIN: Well, I was called earlier in the day and for the first time about this case and told that our Texas Civil Liberties Union chapter was preparing to file these papers in the lower courts and that there was a possibility of going to the Supreme Court, and could I be ready to go there after the lower courts had acted, if they didn't deny the stay.And they air-mailed or air-cargoed the lower court papers to me. We got them at about 5 o'clock. We delivered them to the court and I proceded to write out the Supreme Court portion of the papers. So that we knew that this might happen, and that, I think, goes to something that General Mattox said, that Texas could have done the same thing. They could have sent someone or had someone in Washington with papers as well.

LEHRER: Arguing the other side?

Mr. BRONSTEIN: That's right.

LEHRER: I see. But why was the proportionality issue only raised at this late date?

Mr. BRONSTEIN: Well, we, that is the Texas Civil Liberties Union, just got into the case about two weeks ago. Mr. Autry had court-appointed counsel all during the earlier proceedings. Mr. Autry contacted our Texas people a couple of weeks ago and, based upon what he said, they felt that he had not received effective assistance of counsel. However, there was a pending petition in the Supreme Court at that time. It was filed on September 20th. We had to wait until that was disposed of on Monday night before we could act, and we raised the issues that this other lawyer did not raise.

LEHRER: All right, I assume that if Attorney General Mattox does what he says he's going to do, which is to file to vacate Justice White's stay and take the issue to the full court, all nine members. I assume that you oppose that, correct?

Mr. BRONSTEIN: Well, the ordinary procedure is that you don't file a response to an application to vacate unless the court asks you to do it, and I would say that although no one can ever predict with certainty what that court will do, if Mr. Mattox would count, he would see that he has five votes against him. Four people who voted for a stay on Monday night --

LEHRER: And a switch.

Mr. BRONSTEIN: And then a switch by Justice White.

LEHRER: What is your basic argument on the proportionality issue?

Mr. BRONSTEIN: Well, we believe that the Supreme Court has indicated, although not said with finality, that in every death-penalty case a state appellate court must conduct a proportionality review.That is, compare that sentence in that case with similar cases. We claimed it was not done in this case. It should have been done. It is not done routinely in Texas, although they could do it, and therefore that the Texas system is unconstitutional.

LEHRER: You're not suggesting that if there was a review that Autry might not have still gone ahead and been ruled that the punishment of death was justified in his case. You're saying the process wasn't gone through.

Mr. BRONSTEIN: Well, I mean, that's one point. We, as you know, the ACLU takes a position that in every case the death sentence is unconstitutional, and we believe there are other viable issues in the Autry case dealing with the whole sentencing phase and his -- the lack of effective counsel. So we think there are other issues as well.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Bronstein says if you do ask to vacate the stay you'll have five votes against you in the full court.

Att. Gen. MATTOX: Well, I think that he may be right. We -- there's most certainly a possibility, although some of the way the five-four vote was originally structured in the decision on Monday would not clearly indicate that they're going to be structured the same way on this particular matter. They've already ruled on a number of the issues in this particular case, for instance, the effective assistance of counsel.So we're not sure. If we were certain we wouldn't have filed it. Also we want to make sure, of course, that the court has the opportunity to give us more direction about what should be done in all the other death penalty cases and, particularly, of what should be done with all the cases that are nationwide.

MacNEIL: Mr. Bronstein, what would you predict the court will do in this case? In the request to vacate the stay?

Mr. BRONSTEIN: Well, I think they will leave the stay intact, and we'll have to wait until next spring until they decide the California case, the Pulley case, and hopefully get the kind of direction that General Mattox is talking about.

MacNEIL: And if that happened, would you agree with the Attorney General of Texas that not only the 160 condemned people in Texas but many others in California and perhaps elsewhere would be affected? Their possible executions would be delayed?

Mr. BRONSTEIN: I think that's absolutely true. Certainly in those two states and in a number of other states there should be no executions.

MacNEIL: Mr. Mattox, what do you say about Mr. Bronstein's point that the state appellate court in Texas did not hold a proportionality hearing on this case and you don't do it routinely in Texas?

Att. Gen. MATTOX: Well, there's a real difference in our procedure. In California, in the case out of the Ninth Circuit, which is the appellate case, the state law itself specifically requires a proportionality-type review. Our procedure is different in Texas. The way the jury answers a special issue charge in effect provides that, and then, of course, when the overall court -- our court of criminal appeals looks at it, they in effect provide that kind of review. And we think that we are in effect providing that.

MacNEIL: Why do you think they aren't, Mr. Bronstein?

Mr. BRONSTEIN: Well, for one thing, the Attorney General of California, in their brief in the Pulley case says, and I quote, "The Texas death sentencing system contains no such proportionality review." So the attorney general of California seems to agree. I think General Mattox is talking about the structure by which the jury makes the decision, not how the appellate court reviews that. The whole purpose of proportionality is to protect against arbitrary jury action.

MacNEIL: You don't agree with that, Mr. Mattox?

Att. Gen. MATTOX: Well, I think that that is the purpose of the proportionality review, but when we have a court that's elected statewide in Texas, they look at all those issues, of course, and in the Autry case, it's a situation where anybody could look at the case and make a determination that he was not treated unfairly, from the perspective of sentencing, by this jury.

MacNEIL: Finally, gentlemen, looking at the human beings involved, Mr. Autry, in particular, is this any way to sort these things out, to take it to a point where a man is actually on a table, strapped down with a needle in his arm, prepared to die, to have this situation change? Mr. Bronstein, what do you feel about that?

Mr. BRONSTEIN: Well, I think this creates a whole other issue. As you may recall, back in the early '40s there was a case in the Supreme Court involving a Willie Francis in Louisiana who was brought to the electric chair.It failed, then he was brought back again. We believe that to subject Mr. Autry or any other person to this kind of process twice is itself cruel and unusual punishment.

MacNEIL: Mr. Mattox, what's your feeling on getting it up to the last moment like this and then having it changed?

Att. Gen. MATTOX: Well, I think if the procedure is not correct, it ought to be put right into the lap of the Supreme Court itself. It's obvious that they made a decision on one day to continue the execution, then one justice the next day in effect stopped it. I don't like the kind of procedure they followed, and it's an unfortunate one, but it is a procedure that has been followed, I guess throughout history, as far as these cases. There's always been last-minute maneuvering. And the practicing bar, the prosecution, the courts, the lower courts, have been criticized repeatedly by the court -- Supreme Court -- about the way we do business. And then here they have engaged in a kind of practice that I most certainly do not approve of, and I would hope that they would structure it some way to change that. As a matter of fact, Justice White recommended that these particular issues should be changed by statute, that is, should require that all the issues be presented on the first time the case is presented to the court rather than at some later time and keep dribbling them out, each time thinking up some new grounds for preserving the sentence from being carried out.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Mattox, thank you for joining us in Austin, Mr. Bronstein in Washington. Jim?

LEHRER: Another convicted murderer was sentenced to die today. Willie Mack, a 22-year-old immigrant from Hong Kong, was given the death sentence by a jury in Seattle, Washington. The same jury had earlier found Mack guilty of killing 13 persons during a robbery at a Chinatown gambling club in Seattle.

And on another crime matter, a judge in Goshen, New York, today sentenced three political radicals to 75 years to life in prison for murder. The three were convicted of killing three people in a $1.6 million armored car nobbery in 1981. The trio, who refused to participate in their trial, were former members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Party. They claimed they wanted the money to establish a separate black nation in the South. Today the judge said their killing of two police officers and a guard was cold, calculated and deliberate.

And, here in Washington, Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole talked of a different kind of crime, that committed by careless and drunken drivers on the roads and highways of the country. In a speech before the American Automobile Association she said the Reagan administration was committed to improving highway safety and that legislation to do it was already before Congress.

ELIZABETH DOLE, Secretary of Transportation: I plan to establish a separate national traffic safety administration. Now, this will not be a totally new agency, but it will incorporate some safety functions now under our Federal Highway Administration with those of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This is not just a shuffling of the boxes on the reorganization chart. We are in fact elevating safety to a level consistent with its importance while simplifying the organizational structure. The goal is to improve the effectiveness of the safety mission by integrating closely related safety activities. I have long shared your concerns, and I join you in your total commitment, for I consider safety my highest mandate.

LEHRER: Secretary of the Interior James Watt vacationed today at the home of a friend in the hills outside Santa Barbar, California. That's news only because his vacation trip coincides with the eruption of another round of "will he or won't he" speculation on his future. It was widely believed the storm was over about his having described members of a commission as being "a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple," but yesterday a group of Republican senators went to the White House to say an anti-Watt resolution would pass the Senate if an when it comes up. Today, White House spokesman Larry Speakes said such input from the Senate is always welcome, but Mr. Reagan would not feel bound by it. Asked if Watt is still an effective Cabinet member, Speakes said, "He's on vacation now."

And, in another piece of administration political news, Vice President Bush said in an interview today he thought it was a little degrading for Democratic presidential candidates to promise they would consider a woman as their 1984 running mate. Judy Goldsmith, president of the National Organization for Women, said Bush's comment was further evidence the Reagan administration doesn't take women seriously. Robin?

MacNEIL: The spiritual leader of Roman Catholics in New York and the U.S. armed services, Cardinal Terence Cook, died early today. He'd been ill with leukemia. President Reagan, who visited the ailing Cardinal recently, issued a statement describing him as a saintly man and a great spiritual leader. At the Vatican, where bishops from all over the world are gathered, Archbishop John Roach of St. Paul, Minneapolis, said Cook was "a warm pastor, a man of quiet and deep holiness."

In Poland, Solidarity leader Lech Walesa said today he is afraid to leave the country to collect the Nobel Prize which he was awarded yesterday -- the Nobel Peace Prize. Walesa told a news conference in Gdansk, "It is too big a risk for me. I may not be allowed to return, and I act as the cement to keep our people together." The Polish government reluctantly allowed news of Walesa's Nobel Prize to be published in the state-run media. An article issued by the official news agency said the decision to give the award to Walesa was part of a Western propaganda strategy against Poland.

In the Philippines there were demonstrations demanding the ouster of President Marcos for the second day in a row. Workers in Manila's business district threw confetti, honked car horns and beat pots and pans. President Marcos, in a national TV broadcast, warned Filipinos of "difficult times ahead" following the 21% currency devaluation yesterday to meet conditions set by the International Monetary Fund.

In Washington, Vice President George Bush also told editors of the Associated Press that President Marcos had been unfairly convicted before the jury went out in the assassination of opposition leader Benigno Aquino. Bush said Marcos was "less than perfect in human rights," but the United States had to bear its interest in mind, and it didn't want to have another Khomeini, referring to the Ayatollah who came to power in Iran when the Shah was forced to abandon his throne.

We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Mr. Hood, Oregon]

MacNEIL: In Hollywood, Florida, 800 delegates to the AFL-CIO annual convention today shouted organized labor's approval of Walter Mondale for president. Sign-waving supporters sang "Solidarity Forever," and chanted, "We want Fritz." This followed yesterday's vote, which ratified action by the Federation's general board last weekend. Accepting the endorsement today, Mondale said he was ready to be president and to put the country back to work.

WALTER MONDALE, Democratic candidate for president: If I were president, I'd close these loopholes and make the wealthy pay their fair share of the taxes. I'd slap a lid on health costs and make sure health providers get what they deserve and nothing more. I'd clamp down on utility bills and see that no American has to choose between heating and eating. I'd enforce workers rights and fight for the adoption of the Labor Law Reform Act.

MacNEIL: From our economics beat tonight, several items. For the third month, retail sales were up in September, led by Sears Roebuck, which reported a gain of 27 1/2% over sales a year ago. On a negative note, new claims for unemployment insurance went up for the second straight week. In the week ending September 24th, some 407,000 people put in applications, 20,000 more than the previous week. On Wall Street, the stockmarket carried its rally into a third day. The Down Jones average of 30 industrial stocks closed at a new high of 1268.80, more than 18 points higher than yesterday. Jim? PastaWars

LEHRER: There has been trade war combat over cars and television sets, over shoes and women's dresses, over steel and electronic parts. Now it's over pasta -- macaroni, spaghetti, rigatoni and other similar things. It pits two great powers, the United States and Italy, against one another, and it's being fought in the trenches and the supermarkets and in the gourmet stores of America. Judy Woodruff has our report from the front. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: American spaghetti manufacturers are up in arms, Jim, because they say their Italian competitors have an unfair advantage over them in the form of subsidies from the European Common Market, which permit the imports to sell at a substantially lower price than American pasta. The domestic manufacturers took their complaint last spring to the U.S. trade representative, who in turn won a favorable ruling against the subsidies from an international body called GATT, or General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. But that ruling was only temporary. A permanent resolution is weeks, perhaps months away, and meanwhile the price war between domestic and imported brands of increasingly popular pasta continues.

[voice-over] Pasta, the fad food of the '80s. It comes in all shapes, sizes, colors. And it's consumed in ever greater amounts by Americans. Our average yearly intake is almost 10 pounds a person, up from six pounds just a few years ago. It's chic novelty has spawned specialty stores and specialty restaurants like this one in Washington, where the pasta chef makes her product right in the window. With a growing interest in pasta products generally, there is a growing interest in imported Italian pasta, once found primarily in those specialty stores or in Mom-and-Pop Italian groceries. But now the Italian products are hitting the supermarkets in a big way, especially in the Northeast. Domestic brands once monopolized the supermarket shelf space, but imports, offering a mystique as well as lower prices, are elbowing the American macaroni right off the shelves.

BOB WUNDERLE, vice president, Pathmark Stores: With the introduction of the imported products, what we have seen is the growth of the imported product at the expense of the sales of the domestically-produced products.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Bob Wunderle is the spokesman for Pathmark stores. He says imports now account for 10% of total pasta sales in that chain, up from less than 1% just 15 months ago. With some help from the Common Market, one Italian spaghetti was selling for 59" a pound. Another import sold for 50", both substantially less than the major American brands: Muellers at 75" a pound, San Giorgio at 67". To get their prices below the imports, American producers have been forced into aggressive promotion campaigns.

JOSEPH VIVIANO, president, National Pasta Association: I think there's room for any competitor if he wants to come in and compete on a fair basis. Our problem is simply one of we have a major competitor in the Italian imports who is not playing by the rules.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: As president of the National Pasta Association, Joseph Viviano is chief spokesman for the U.S. macaroni industry. He is also president of the nation's second-largest manufacturer of macaroni products, San Giorgio-Skinner, a division of the Hershey Food conglomerate. A tour of the San Giorgio plant in Lebanon, Pennsylvania shows why spaghetti is both a cheap staple and a big business. The product is simple, the production highly automated. Mammoth machines mold, dry and cut 3,000 poundsof pasta per hour just to meet our growing appetites. Ironically, the best manufacturing equipment is made in Italy and imported by the Americans. Last year it helped to manufacture two billion pounds of pasta. Sales topped a billion dollars. By comparison, Italian pasta imports last year rose to 54 million pounds, a hefty increase over the 20 million imported just five years ago. While the Italian imports hold about a 5% share of the U.S. market, they have grabbed up to 10% in the New York metropolitan area. That sudden rate of increase alarms the Americans.

Mr. VIVIANO: We've got about 25,000 potential jobs in our industry, and I would say that if the Italian imports pick up the 10 to possible 15 percent share of the U.S., as they now have in New York, you're looking at a potential reduction in jobs.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Job reduction is a touchy subject in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, a quiet industrial town settled in the Appalachian Mountains in the Southeastern part of the state. [workers singing "God Bless America"] Viviano was a recent guest speaker at the Lebanon Lions Club's weekly luncheon. He shared his concerns about foreign competition with a sympathetic audience. The town has been facing a threatened shutdown of a Bethlehem steel plant, which could cost the area 1,500 jobs.

Mr. VIVIANO: You may ask why all the excitement over spaghetti? God knows, we got trouble in this community with steel. God knows, we've got trouble with automobiles. What is it about spaghetti? I'm not sure. It could be that your wife could care less about steel, I'm not sure. But you just can't get emotionally attached to a plate of steel.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Viviano is a third-generation pasta maker. He inherited a macaroni business his immigrant grandfather started.When Hershey Foods bought it, Viviano was put in charge of its new pasta products division. Viviano is sentimental about his Italian background, but he also realizes there are commercial stakes involved.

Mr. VIVIANO: It's a business. Our only concern, again, is that the Italian government is illegally subsidizing the manufacture. I hope this would answer the question of my Italian heritage because I'm still very proud of my Italian heritage, and I don't want the Italians being faced as the bad guys. I just want them to play the game fair, that's all.

MICHAEL RIENZI, pasta importer: Well, our concern -- the domestic companies, they're really fighting very dirty.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Michael Rienzi is typical of the competition the American manufacturers face. He imports that Puglisi-Rienzi brand we saw in the Weehawken supermarket, selling for 50" a pound, 10 to 20 cents cheaper than the popular American brands.Rienzi defends the importers and criticizes American manufacturers for trying to undercut them.

Mr. RIENZI: A lot of manufacturers of domestic, they sell them four for a dollar. We sold Italian macaroni three for a dollar, but for instance this week a major supermarket is going four for a dollar. Now, who's dumping who? That's why I'd like to ask the question. Who is doing the dumping?

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Rienzi runs this small warehouse in Long Island City, New York. He imports pasta, olive oil, vinegar and tomato products. He is two generations behind Viviano and working hard to catch up.

Mr. RIENZI: We came to this country in 1960. My father, my mother, the whole family, and I started with Italian macaroni 14 years ago in the small mama-and-papa store -- specialty stores. I saw future in supermarket, and today I'm the leader in Italian macaronis in the supermarket in this area, New York area. That's New York and New Jersey. You know, it's the American dream. If you know how and if you really want to work, you can do something yourself, and I did it. Fight so nobody give me anything.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Michale Rienzi is too busy realizing his American dream to fret about international trade negotiations, but his interests and those of other importers are represented by the Italy-America Chamber of Commerce in New York. Roy Rossetti is the Chamber's executive director. He insists there's plenty of room in the market for everybody.

ROY ROSSETTI, Italy-America Chamber of Commerce: There was an independent study made a year ago, I believe, a year and a half or so ago, which indicates roughly that in 1990 the American consumption of pasta will be least twice what it is today, and there is no way that the Italian production can anywhere touch type of need.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Trade lawyer James Lundquist filed briefs on behalf of the importers with the United States trade representative. He warms of serious consequences.

JAMES LUNDQUIST, lawyer for importers: It is indeed the opening shot for a trade war because if the United States, either way on the decision process, takes steps to inhibit the free importation of pasta, then there will inevitably be retaliation in one form or another.

PAUL CULLEN, lawer for American Pasta Manufacturers: I don't think the world today is going to go into a full-scale trade war of any kind. I think we're much too practical and pragmatic, and trade is too important to everyone.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Paul Cullen, a lawyer for the domestic producers, says it's time for the United States to reassert itself after years of post-war deference to the allies.

Mr. CULLEN: So, yes, we have to help our allies, yes, we have to be friendly and cooperative, but I don't think we're at a point now, whether we're talking about agriculture or high tech products or smokestack industries where we have to be as deferential.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Lundquist, the lawyer for the importers, prefers a more magnanimous approach.

Mr. LUNDQUIST: There's every reason for us to have a benign trade policy where we have a staunch supporter, an ally in other areas. Trade has, since the says of Secretary Cordell Hull, served national policy. So it's ridiculous, in my opinion, to have some little subject like this come up and stand as an impedimento between us and a staunch ally such as Italy.

WOODRUFF: Such disagreement is not just with Italy, but with the entire European Common Market, which believes it's entirely proper to subsidize its agricultural exports. At this point, neither side is giving an inch, but there are hints that the Europeans may be prepared to make some accommodations. If they don't the Americans say they will ask the President to take unilateral action and impose duties on the Italian imports. Robin?

MacNEIL: President Reagan today declared two more counties in southeastern Arizona to be disaster areas, making a total of seven in the flooded area. Overnight about 300 people were evacuated from their homes in a section of Winkelton, Arizona as a prevention -- as a precaution when releases of water from the Coolidge Dam caused the Gila River to rise four feet. We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania]

MacNEIL: The federal government today proposed new regulations requiring airliners to have fire-retardantseat covers and floor lights or floor markers. The regulations would not take effect for a year, and they would give the airlines three years to install the seat covers. Altogether, the proposed measures would give passengers an additional 40 minutes to escape a fire on an airplane. The measures proposed by the government arose from a fire aboard an Air Canada plane last June, when 23 people died in a fire on board. Jim? Regan Interview

LEHRER: With the possible exception of Mr. Reagan himself, no one in the administration is as consistently upbeat in his economic pronouncements and projections as Donald Regan, the Secretary of the Treasury. He did it again yesterday with a forecast of a surprisingly low $100-billion federal deficit for fiscal year 1985. That's the one that starts a year from this month. Most others, including some in the administration, had been using a $200-billion figure. Secretary Regan is with us now to sell us why he's always so optimistic, among other things. Mr. Secretary, welcome.

DONALD REGAN: Nice to be here.

LEHRER: Where did you get the $100-billion figure?

Sec. REGAN: Well, I put an awful lot of caveats on that, and I -- that's the bottom of the range that I was suggesting could happen. That obviously is the figure that struck magic and got reported. What I was saying was this, frankly, that if our recovery is a little stronger than we're now forecasting, and if unemployment comes down a little faster than it is coming down, and that means that more of us are at work and that the growth of the economy is a little stronger, we will receive more in revenues. Now, at the same time -- and this is a big if -- if we can keep a lid on spending, the two together, that combination, could bring us down into the $125-, $100-billion deficit area. Now, mind you, that's a horrible figure.

LEHRER: Sure, sure, sure. But it's still half of what everybody else has been projecting. But that's an awful lot of ifs. Do you realistically believe that all those things are going to happen -- the growth is going to be stronger, the Congress is going to do what you want and all these other things?

Sec. REGAN: The future is in our own hands We can do with it what we want. We have to have a sensible fiscal policy, which means the Congress has got to come up with a lid on spending, and in fact they should start cutting some of that spending, particularly as our recovery matures. There is no need for so much spending. When we are in a recession, yeah. I can see where there was a need for a lot of federal spending, but certainly not 26% our gross national product, as it was last year.

LEHRER: All right, another one of your ifs was a strong economic recovery. Now, most economists, at least that I have read, have projected kind of -- they say that the recovery is kind of slowing down right now, as a matter of fact, and they project a three- or a four-percent growth next year. Does that fit your if?

Sec. REGAN: That's exactly what my if is. I think it'll be stronger than three to four percent next year.

LEHRER: Why? Why?

Sec. REGAN: Why? Because, first of all, the same economists that are now still on the low side didn't see 9.7 for the second quarter, even when they were in the second quarter. They didn't see 7% for the third quarter, even when we're in the third quarter. They've consistenly underestimated the strength of this recovery. Why? Because we have really snapped back in the United States.

LEHRER: Now, your other if was unemployment. Now, that's been hanging right at 9.5 for the last couple of months. Do you think that's going to come down dramatically from there?

Sec. REGAN: Yes, I do.

LEHRER: Why?

Sec. REGAN: Because I think that business is recovering. I think that as they recover they will put more people back to work, and I think jobs will be found for the new additions that are coming into the labor force. So putting it all together you can see a million or more jobs being created over the next year to year and a half.

LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, do you feel lonely sometimes because you do tend to look at these things and come out more optimistically than, say, Martin Feldstein, the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, David Stockman, OMB.

Sec. REGAN: Well, I'm not quite the words that, who was it? Nellie Forbush sang in South Pacific, a "cockeyed optimist." I don't think I'm cockeyed. I am optimistic, but I think I've been consistently right in what I've been projecting about this economy. Maybe a little premature, but that's --

LEHRER: You missed a few by a few months, I remember.

Sec. REGAN: Well, you've got to remember my Wall Street training. It's better to be early and in the market than late and not in the market when it goes up.

LEHRER: What do you say to those in the administration who look at these things, though, and say different things? I mean, Feldstein and Stockman both are still saying that those deficits, the $100 billion that you say, they still sat at least $170, maybe $200.

Sec. REGAN: Well, the answer to that is reasonable men can differ, and I believe this President likes to hear different points of view and accept that point of view that he thinks is best suited for his way of thinking also. We present --

LEHRER: Is he partial to your view?

Sec. REGAN: Well, I haven't talked to him about this most recent wild guess of mine, but nevertheless, up to this point I think he has been more on the optimistic side than some of his other advisers.

LEHRER: I see. Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Does it do the right things in creating confidence, Mr. Secretary, in financial markets and oversea -- are you hearing me?

Sec. REGAN: No.

MacNEIL: I am -- are you hearing me now?

Sec. REGAN: We hear now.

MacNEIL: Oh, good. I'll start again. Does it create confidence in financial markets both here and overseas to have two of the most senior members of the Reagan administration disagreeing so frequently in public -- you and Mr. Feldstein?

Sec. REGAN: Ours is an open society. I don't think that we have to debate solely behind closed doors. I think again no one is absolutely sure of what's going to happen two weeks from now, let alone two months or two years from now. So I think the range or what we're suggesting might happen is something that I think is a healthy sign of an open society such as ours.

MacNEIL: I wasn't only think of predictions of the range of deficits but the difference between you and Mr. Feldstein on what the high deficits -- the effect of the high deficits -- he continues to say that they are responsible for keeping interest rates up.

Sec. REGAN: Well, he and I differ in degree on that. What I'm saying is that interest rates -- high interest rates are caused by several things, and it's too simplistic to say just deficits cause high rates of interest because there's no known literature that indicates that one month when the deficit goes up, interest rates will go up that month or even one year when deficits go up, interest rates will go up. Notice what happened in 1981 and '82. Our deficits went up but our interest rates came down. That's the point I'm making. There are other factors that make for high rates of interest, including monetary policy, fears of future inflation. All of that goes into what makes up a rate of interest.

LEHRER: Don't the perceptions also matter, though? I mean, for instance, won't the Federal Reserve Board, as long as deficits remain high, continue to maintain a tight money policy, and won't that tight money policy in turn keep interest rates up?

Sec. REGAN: No, the Fed is not maintaining a tight monetary policy. They have growth in the money supply. They are right now having growth at around a 7% rate on the basic money supply. Now, if they maintain that rate of growth over the next 18 months, that will assure our recovery. Too much money might hurt it, too little money would hurt it. But that rate that they've been exhibiting over the past, what? about five or six weeks -- we're very happy with that.

MacNEIL: So what are your projections for interest rates?

Sec. REGAN: I'll characterize them rather than give you a numerical answer to that. I'd say that interest rates will trend down between now and the end of the year, and will continue with, you know, an uptick here and there, down in the first part of 1984.

MacNEIL: Mr. Feldstein keeps urging the Congress to pass the request by the President for a $49-billion contingency tax, a contingency to take effect, as I understand it, in 1985 if the deficit were still more than 2 1/2% of the gross national product. Do you join him in urging the Congress to pass that tax?

Sec. REGAN: No, I'm off that right now. I was on the contingency tax earlier, but as it stands now, the Congress is not coming through with the remainder of the deal. Remember, when the President announced this in his State of the Union message and followed it in his budget message, what he said was, "I will go for a tax, a standby or contingency tax, if I get spending cuts and a freeze on entitlements." We have not gotten spending cuts. We have now gotten a freeze. So therefore the deal is off.

MacNEIL: Well, what's a congressman to do, particularly a Republican congressman, who hears Mr. Feldstein saying you've got to pass these -- raise these contingency taxes or we're in dead trouble, and then he listens to you and they say no, don't -- you say, "No, don't."

Sec. REGAN: Well, I say let's -- the Republican congressman listen to his President and the leader of his party, and the leader of his party is saying he doesn't want tax increases in 1984.

MacNEIL: Which might lead a congressman to think, ask why he doesn't want them in 1984.

Sec. REGAN: Well, the obvious reason is, is that there's no sense in raising taxes just so Congress can spend more money. Congress should get the deficit down by cutting spending, not by raising taxes. Deficits are not caused by too little taxation. Deficits are caused by too much spending.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, on interest rates, the bankers didn't like what you said a few weeks ago when you said, in effect, that the banks are to blame -- somewhat to blame for high interest rates. What's your case against the banks and high interest rates?

Sec. REGAN: Well, it wasn't just the banks, I said all of those --

LEHRER: That's all they heard, though.

Sec. REGAN: -- in financial services. What I'm saying is, again, look at the construction of what goes into nominal rates of interest. There are two things. The rental value of money and also several other things, such as fear of future inflation. What do you think inflation will be three months from now, three years from now or 30 years from now? Also, you've got to think it terms of what do you think our money supply will be? Those three items make up interest rates today. The cost of money to the bank is one of the main ingredients. Now, when you think in terms of inflation, what are you thinking about? The bankers have never -- and not only bankers, but everyone in the financial markets, have never given us credit for the fact we have brought our inflation rate down to where it's only 3% right now, and looks to be in the four, not over five percent range over the next 18 months. When are they going to factor that into the nominal rate of interest to get that real rate of interest down?That's what I'm saying.

LEHRER: Yeah, but what are you really saying? Are you saying the banks are being unpatriotic? They're being greedy? They're being stupid? Or what?

Sec. REGAN: No, what I'm saying is is that traders who are trading back and forth and trying to figure out where rates of interest should go haven't really -- still have it in the back of their mind that we're going bank into an inflationary period. Now, we haven't been in an inflationary period for over a year. Most economists will tell you they don't see inflation coming back for another year, so I think it's high time that we realize we're in a disinflationary period in the United States.

LEHRER: As you know, the bankers reacted negatively to what to what you said and disagreed with your points and haven't -- obviously don't agree with you.

Sec. REGAN: That's not a novel position for me to be in.

LEHRER: Sure.

Sec. REGAN: Nor for bankers.

LEHRER: They also suggested that one of -- it's also been, not necessarily by them, but it's been suggested by others that the other problem the banks have right now is the high interest rates, they're trying to make up what they're losing in these foreign loans that are in trouble all over the world, particularly in Latin America. Is that true?

Sec. REGAN: No, I don't think that bankers are literally doing that because the loans that they're renegotiating with these other nations, although there's a stretch-out there, they're still being paid interest on those loans. I think banks have as much problem with domestic loans as they have had with international loans. So you can't blame it just on the international scene.

LEHRER: Let's talk about the international scene briefly. The situation in Argentina, they fired the head of the central bank just because he was trying to repay the loan, apparently. The Brazilian bankers are meeting here in Washington here today to figure out what they were going to do about their big debt. What are the prospects in this situation, Mr. Secretary?

Sec. REGAN: Well, they're all fraught with danger, that something could go wrong with the process, but I think that the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, and its people, together with people from the Federal Reserve and Treasury here in the United States and commercial bankers have pretty well stitched together sensible plans for these nations whereby they can get by and get through this illiquidity problem that they now are suffering from. There are an awful lot of things that could go wrong, but on balance I think it's manageable.

LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Robin?

MacNEIL: William Golding, the British author of the popular Lord of the Flies and many other novels, was awarded the 1983 Nobel Prize for Literature today. The Swedish academy cited Golding for illuminating the human condition through his realistic narrative and his use of universal myth. Here's a report from Sue Lawley of the BBC.

SUE LAWLEY, BBC: Mr. Golding was given the news at his home in Wiltshire. He was asked if the Nobel Prize was the award all authors dreamed of.

WILLIAM GOLDING, Nobel Prize in Literature: Yes, I think so, without question. It's really out of the ordinary literary run altogether. The Booker, for example, is a good prize, but compared with this, which is international, I'll be fair, I think this is -- this really -- in fact, I have enough old fashioned patriotism to be glad not just for myself but because the prize has been won, after 30 years, by an Englishman. And coming after some did getting the speed record the day before, we're on the up and up.

Ms. LAWLEY: Do you think any one particular work contributed to this prize?

Mr. GOLDING: I should like to think they all did, but I think a book of essays I published a couple of years -- no, a year ago, I think, A Moving Target, I think that may be have tipped the balance.

MacNEIL: For the first time anyone can remember, one of the 18 members of the Nobel academy publicly disagreed with the choice. Seventy-eight-year-old Artur Lundkvist told a Swedish news agency that in his view Golding was a little English phenomenon of no special interest.

Charlayne Hunter-Gault has been looking into how Golding is seen in the literary world here. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: A little background first. William Golding has been writing since the age of seven, but his professional writing career did not begin until he was 43 years old. That was the year he wrote Lord of the Flies, his best-known work, about how an innocent group of English school boys stranded on a desert island are transformed into a band of savages. That book sold millions of copies in Britain. Later it became standard fare in many introductory English classes here in the United States. That success enabled Golding to retire from teaching and devote full time to writing. Golding now lives in relative seclusion with his wife in a cottage in Wiltshire, southern England. For more on Mr. Golding and his work we have with us the novelist and critic John Leonard. For five years Mr. Leonard was editor of The New York Times book review.

John, were you surprised by this choice?

JOHN LEONARD: Flabbergasted.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why?

Mr. LEONARD: I suppose I shouldn't have been flabbergasted if Kissinger and Begin get it for peace. I think Golding has done far less damage to literature.

HUNTER-GAULT: But many of the critics that we called around to today, those particularly who specialize in modern English writing, they were surprised and, further, they just didn't know anything about Golding. Why is that?

Mr. LEONARD: Well, he's a very expert novelist. He went through a decline after the first several novels that were so popular. He recovered some energy in the last several years. He speaks to an anger and confusion that we all have about this century. It doesn't surprise me but the Nobel Prize -- the Nobel Prize doesn't speak to literature so much as it speaks to, how do we feel a little better about ourselves in celebrating a particular kind of writer.

HUNTER-GAULT: How would you describe Golding as a writer?

Mr. LEONARD: He's a Christian. This is essential. Every book of his is about the Fall.Every book of his is about the loss of innocence. Every book of his is about our attempt to, and usually our failure to create something out of our sense of loss and discrepancy after the Fall. This master building usually ends up as a cross. I see no -- I see no reason why this is a bad -- is a bad thing. I guess I would prefer if we have a Christian novelist who is elaborating the 20th century, an Updike would be a more appealing choice to me personally, but here is Golding, who really feels that original sin is the dominating metaphor for life, and we have lived through a century, not like the 19th, when we have come to feel that there must be some explanation, perhaps something like original sin, that explains how we could have rationalized evil and have hurt so many and killed so many.

HUNTER-GAULT: The Nobel panel specifically referred to the pattern of myth that occurs throughout his writing. Can you tell us a little about that?

Mr. LEONARD: Well, this is the notion of original sin. Whether he -- you know, he moves, whether it's an island with a bunch of little boys or whether it's a church or prehistory, as in another of his novels in which he bemoans the loss of innocence that came from the triumph of the human race over the Neanderthals, it's always this sense of loss of innocence. It's always, there was an Eden, the Eden has been squandered. Who is to blame?

HUNTER-GAULT: I read today that he said that World War II, as I mentioned, was a real turning point in his life and this dark undercurrent that has been coursing through his novels since Lord of the Flies seems to substantiate that. Do you have any insight into that beyond what he said?

Mr. LEONARD: Well, he's written brilliantly about the Blitz. He's written brilliantly about this notion that -- but, again, we have an island. This time it happened to be his island, not of his imagination, but the island he was living on. The bombs came down. People died.In front of him. The island had to connect to the rest of the world. There was no salvation.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, some critics have also said that he's difficult to understand. I guess it's the use of allegory, that he is also alien to contemporary thought. What are your insights into that?

Mr. LEONARD: I don't think there's anything alien -- anything that he's written is alien to contemporary thought. What he speaks to in contemporary thought is simply our confusion and anger and the impossibility that we feel of making sense of the discrepancies from what we want and what's happened.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you.

MacNEIL: Before we go, a quick recap of the main points in the news today. The state of Texas will appeal against the last-minute reprieve of killer James David Autry. The outcome could affect many others on death row. The stock market hits a new high and Treasury Secretary Regan says the federal deficits will fall with economic recovery. Lech Walesa says he's afraid the Polish government won't let him back if he goes to Oslo to collect his Nobel Peace Prize. British novelist William Golding wins the Nobel Prize for Literature. The federal government proposes new safety measures which would give airline passengers an additional 40 seconds -- I said 40 minutes a minute ago -- to escape a burning airliner.

Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. And we'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night.