The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, the Bush administration suspended the import of semi-automatic rifles like the AK-47, the FDA warned against eating fruit from Chile, and a mechanical problem threatened to end the flight of space shuttle Discovery one day early. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After the News Summary, we go first to the story of the poisoned fruit from Chile. We'll have a News Maker Interview with the head of the Food & Drug Administration, Dr. Frank Young. We'll debate whether the President's ethics panel goes far enough in its new report, and we'll have extended excerpts from the confirmation hearings of Defense Secretary- Designate Dick Cheney. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Bush administration today temporarily suspended imports of semi-automatic assault rifles. The move apparently overcomes an earlier reluctance on the part of the President to curb such weapons. The ban will be effective immediately pending a full review. It will halt the importation of more than 110,000 weapons, including Soviet made AK-47s and Uzie submachine guns. A White House spokesman said the import ban was decided after it was learned that applications for the weapons had tripled this year over the total for the past three years. Today's action comes a day after the California State Assembly voted to ban assault weapons. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The federal government issued a major warning today about poisoned fruit. The Food & Drug Administration advised Americans not to eat any fruit imported from Chile. Grocers immediately cleaned their shelves of such products. The action followed the discovery of cyanide poison in seedless grapes being shipped from the South American country to Philadelphia. The head of the FDA told reporters only two contaminated grapes had been found, but there was still reason for concern.

DR. FRANK YOUNG, Food & Drug Administrator: We looked at about 2,200 bunches of grapes. One of those had two grapes that were positive. Now that's a significant incidence, one in a couple of thousand that had a problem. Based on that, we had to say we've got to call this to the American people. I couldn't let it be on my conscience at least.

MR. LEHRER: FDA Commissioner Young will be with us after the News Summary. The Commerce Department reported some news on the U.S. trade deficit today. The figure known as the current account deficit was $135.33 billion last year, down from 153.96 billion in 1987. It was the first improvement in that number since 1981.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: A fuel problem aboard the space shuttle threatened to cut short by one day Discovery's planned five day mission, but Mission Control said that the problem posed no threat to the five man crew. While engineers on the ground dealt with the faulty hydrogen tank, the crew was ordered to turn off unnecessary lights and observe other energy conservation measures. Meanwhile, the astronauts continued their regular schedule. They conducted scientific experiments and shot movies of selected locations on earth.

MR. LEHRER: Dick Cheney's confirmation hearings opened today before the Senate Armed Services Committee. President Bush chose the Republican Congressman from Wyoming Friday to be Secretary of Defense. His selection followed the Senate's rejection of John Tower, Mr. Bush's first nominee. Cheney told the Committee he favored a two year budget outlay for the Department to replace the current one year funding.

REP. DICK CHENEY, Secretary of Defense-Designate: I think one of the great difficulties we've encountered over the years with respect to the way we deal with defense policy has been our tendency to make annual changes in spending and not have steady, reliable, predictable funding levels, and anything we can do to discourage that kind of on again/off again budgeting strikes me as a positive benefit from the perspective of the Defense Department.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush took delivery today of his ethics commission's final report. The commission was chaired by former Federal Judge Malcolm Wilkey and former Attorney General Griffin Bell. Their report makes 27 specific recommendations, including a ban on all honoraria for federal employees in all branches of government. We'll have more on the story after the News Summary.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane testified today that a letter he wrote to Congress about Contra support probably would have come out differently had it not been written the day before he tried to commit suicide. The letter said a foreign national had offered to contribute some $5 million of his own money to the Contras in 1984. In reality, it was the Saudi Arabian Government and the amount was $32 million. McFarlane responded angrily to the prosecutor's charge that his letter was just complete nonsense. It was McFarlane's third day on the witness stand in Oliver North's Iran-Contra trial.

MR. LEHRER: Secretary of State Baker today told a House Committee $100 million in extra money was needed to deal with the world refugee problem. He said the U.S. provides more refugee assistance than any other country, but more is needed.

JAMES BAKER, Secretary of State: In administering our refugee admissions program, we've recently encountered pressures never anticipated by the drafters of the Refugee Reform Act a decade ago. In particular, over the past year we've been attempting to deal with the totally unanticipated exodus of tens of thousands of people from the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Southeast Asia. In response to liberalized immigration and a relaxation of prohibitions against departure from Communist countries, the Department has initiated a reassessment of our refugee admissions policy. We intend to work closely with the Congress to achieve a new consensus, one that will be both humane as well as responsible.

MR. LEHRER: Baker also backed off a report the administration wants $40 million in new humanitarian aid for the Nicaraguan Contras. He said Contra aid was still under discussion, but denied a Contra leader's statement that $40 million was the amount.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: A Lebanese man on trial for hijacking a plane was found guilty by a federal court in Washington today. Fouez Younis was convicted of taking over a Jordanian jetliner in Beirut in 1985. Two Americans were aboard, so the U.S. claimed jurisdiction. U.S. agents captured Younis by luring him on to a yacht in the Mediterranean. He faces a possible life sentence. In Beirut today, there was more fighting between Christians and Moslems, the worst there in more than two years. The shells began falling during morning rush hour. At least 33 people were killed, most of them civilians. That's it for the News Summary. Still ahead, FDA Chief Frank Young on the poison fruit scare, a debate over ethics in government, and the Cheney confirmation hearings for Defense Secretary. NEWS MAKER - FORBIDDEN FRUIT

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: First tonight the warning on fruit from Chile. As we reported earlier, the Food & Drug Administration urged the nation's grocers to pull fruit imported from Chile off their shelves, this after two Chilean red grapes in Philadelphia were found to contain cyanide. The FDA tested the produce after receiving two anonymous threats that produce from Chile had been poisoned. Products in the FDA warning include almost all grapes and some peaches, blueberries, blackberries, seedless watermelons, cantaloupes, and certain honey dew melons, raspberries, nectarines, Quince, Granny Smith Apples, cactus pears, pears and plums. Across the country the response to the warning was swift. At the Hunts Point Produce Market in the Bronx, the major distribution point for the New York area, produce sellers had this reaction.

BRUCE PEEL, Produce Market Manager: Well, right now we're isolating it. We've stopped selling. We refuse to sell any Chilean produce until we get some clarification from the FDA, exactly what the problem is. The terrorist act that was reported to us stimulated us to pull all Chilean products off our docks. We will not sell it to anyone in the metropolitan area right now and we're isolating it, and we're going to put it in isolation until we get further word from the FDA.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Major supermarket chains across the country and smaller food stores like Balducci's in New York City quickly removed the fruit from its shelves. Charlie Balducci is Produce Supervisor.

CHARLIE BALDUCCI, Produce Supervisor: Well, we were taken very much by surprise. We had a lot of Chilean, beautiful quality summer Chilean fruit on display this morning, and as soon as I got the news report, I called them and told them to take these items off display.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The financial impact on the country's green grocers is not yet known. Balducci's currently has a $10,000 inventory of Chilean fruit.

CHARLIE BALDUCCI: I estimate in the metropolitan area there must be close to a million packages of produce and your average cost is between 10 and 12 dollars. some products are as high as 30 dollars and some grapes are around 10 or 12. Grapes account for I would say for about 80 percent of the tonnage of Chilean produce right here now.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: For their parts, consumers were playing it safe.

MARGARET MOSLEY: Well, I eat fresh fruits constantly, and my family does, so I am concerned.

CORRESPONDENT: So how are you going to make your way through the grocery store today?

MARGARET MOSLEY: Very carefully, and I'll not pick up any fruits from Chile or anything like that.

JON CASSOTTA: There's great concern. I mean, I don't even know if I know all of the things that are sort of banned or under suspicion or whatever the term is.

TONYA WARNER: As a matter of fact, I might, maybe be brave enough to buy the other food, because it can't be possible that they have contaminated every piece of fruit, however -- maybe one batch or two -- however, one cannot take any chances.

MARCY ALTMAN: It's frightening. I find it really scary and I've just become more aware as a consumer as far as grocery shopping is concerned and what I'm going to purchase and where I'm going to get it as well.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Here now to clarify questions raised by the Chilean fruit warnings is Dr. Frank Young, Commissioner of the Food & Drug Administration. Dr. Young, you said earlier in the news clip we used that you were convinced that this was a significant incident, significant enough to issue the kind of warning you did. Why?

DR. FRANK YOUNG, Food And Drug Administration: This is a very very difficult case, and it's not not a decision just made by FDA. It was made at the highest levels of government. Here's the problem. We had two threats, one that came in and we looked at it very carefully, and it sounded as if from the Department of State and other people looking into it that it was most likely a hoax. We put out on March 6th a notice that we had it and that it was judged to be a hoax and two days later, a person called in and said it's not a hoax, the fruit is poisoned.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: This was a call in Chile, or in the U.S.?

DR. YOUNG: A call to the U.S. Embassy in Chile. We cannot say where exactly the call came. We have no idea. It's just information from the embassy there. At that point, we increased our follow-up surveillance. We felt that even though we were being advised that it might be still a crank call, we, nevertheless, since we've been dealing with a number of these tampering incidents, as you've seen me worry about and deal with within the last four years, we felt that we had to increase surveillance. We looked at about 2,400 bunches of grapes. And to our surprise, we found one of these out of two thousand, four hundred that had grapes that were actually contaminated with cyanide.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How were you doing that?

DR. YOUNG: It really was a lot of credit to the investigators. What they did is to take out of each of the cases two bunches of grapes and analyze them. When they did this, they were looking for needle punctures or punctures and then surrounded by a white halo, because as we looked at this in the laboratory, we found that after injection, there was a white halo around that. And we gave them those specific instructions. And within the first two days, some investigators brought in some fruit, they said, this looks suspicious, they analyzed it and found that it contained cyanide. So here's the problem. Threats were made and threats were made again and when we looked for the smoking gun, we found grapes that were positive.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So there's a possibility that even more grapes contain this cyanide. You spot checked and found two but you feel that there probably are more?

DR. YOUNG: That's the only thing that we could conclude at that time, because we were very very surprised that we found it as early in the spot check that we found something.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: This was in Philadelphia?

DR. YOUNG: This was in Philadelphia.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now what led you to expand it to all of the fruits?

DR. YOUNG: We were already looking at all of the fruits. It was not just grapes. We had since essentially Thursday increased our surveillance, and then as we looked at it, we have been progressively increasing it. In fact, we've looked at large numbers of apples, melons, pears, et cetera.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you haven't found any more poison?

DR. YOUNG: We have not found any to this time. That's correct.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How dangerous is the threat now? I mean, the warning to the grocers is voluntary. They could voluntarily, you're not requiring them to pull the fruit off the stands. I mean, how serious can it be?

DR. YOUNG: We look at it as substantially a very serious threat or we would not go for a market withdrawal. In the language, we could have used something like the word "recall", but we felt that this was the best way to go at this time. And as I looked at it, I felt that as we analyzed it, and this was concurred across the line, that really the American people needed to have the warning. It would be unfair to get a warning and to find fruit with cyanide in it and not tell the American people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What should consumers be on the lookout for specifically?

DR. YOUNG: Specifically, the best advice right now in my opinion is to not consume any fresh fruit from Chile. The reason that we've said that is that we cannot know at this moment. Now we are increasingly markedly our inspections and we hope to be able to meet, as we have today, and will continue to meet with officials from the Chilean Government and officials from the variety of the individuals that are working with the fruit producers and develop a scheme in which we can look at the reintroduction of the fruit.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Have you had any reports of illness or anything like that?

DR. YOUNG: No, we have not. We have had a couple of little things but really nothing that could be traced back to fruit.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What symptoms should people who have eaten the Chilean fruit, who know that they have eaten Chilean fruit, are there any symptoms specifically that they should be looking for?

DR. YOUNG: First of all, if you've eaten Chilean fruit and have not had any signs and symptoms at this point, please don't worry. Cyanide is a very rapidly acting poison. One usually seems dizziness, then some changes in heart rate after that drowsiness, and we can, as you know, there was a case a while ago go into coma and then from there death, but it's a serious poison and we just can't tell how much of the fruit is involved, and as we analyzed it, we found that there was a great hardship on the nation and on the nation of Chile, and particularly Dr. Sullivan anguished over the impact on Chile, but we couldn't find any point that was easy to stop at other than a market withdrawal.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What should people do if symptoms do appear? Should they go to the hospital? Should they drink lots of fluids, what?

DR. YOUNG: First of all, you've got to be sure that it's not a symptom of hypochondria. That's one of the worst things, you've imagined it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That might be hard to know.

DR. YOUNG: That's hard to know, but if you really have these symptoms, then go to a hospital emergency room is the best way to manage it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: This is a manageable problem, you think, even if you've ingested the cyanide. In other words, there's no reason even if you've ingested it, there's no reason for the public to be panicked about it?

DR. YOUNG: Oh, no, that's not true. If you've injected a lethal dose --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Ingested.

DR. YOUNG: -- you're dealing with something about twenty to thirty minutes in duration.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is that right?

DR. YOUNG: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How much longer do you think people should be cautious, and should we be concerned about fruit that remains on the shelf at this time?

DR. YOUNG: I think the best advice now is until we have a way to reintroduce the fruit into the market place from Chile is to abstain from consuming it at this moment. Now that's the best advice we can give. We can't mandate this. We feel that it's a risk, that people have the right to know. We're going to right now work and essentially all of the fruit coming in is detained at the port for inspection and we want to get on with this and solve the problem as rapidly as we can because those in Chile are suffering tremendously from it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Chilean interior minister has blamed the banned Communist Party in that country for contaminating the fruit. Do you have any information about the source of this contamination or, in fact, who might be responsible for those calls that you can reveal to us at this time?

DR. YOUNG: We really don't have any that we can reveal to you. In honesty, we have a little bit of information, but it's better not to talk about that at this time. We will be working closely with FBI. Remember, tampering is a federal crime and a number of individuals have called and made a threat which is a hoax only to find themselves facing five years' imprisonment and major major fines.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What kind of response have you had so far from grocers and others in this voluntary effort to bring, get the fruit off the shelves?

DR. YOUNG: We've seen, as you had in your introductory clip, a lot of concern, is this really necessary, is this just two grapes, and as I told you, this isn't an issue of two grapes. We've had someone who made a threat and now we have evidence that the threat was carried out, and I think people are understanding that. We've also, most of the people that I've spoken to have said this is a bad thing, it's going to be tough, but you know, I'm glad that someone said that there is a problem, because I feel as a consumer I've got a right to know.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Dr. Young, thank you very much for being with us and good luck on your investigation.

DR. YOUNG: Thank you. This is going to be a tough one but we'll keep you fully informed.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you. FOCUS - A MATTER OF ETHICS

MR. LEHRER: Ethics in the federal government is where we go next. President Bush met today with his Ethics Advisory Commission. They gave him their recommendations for revamping ethics rules and guidelines for all three branches of government. The Commission Chairman and a Commission critic are here to discuss those recommendations right after this set-up report by Judy Woodruff.

MS. WOODRUFF: Allegations of ethical misconduct and questionable financial dealings tarnished the image of the Reagan administration. Some of the more glaring examples, Michael Deaver, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, convicted of perjury, Lynn Nofsiger, White House Political Director, convicted on conflict of interest charges, and Edwin Meese, Attorney General after being Counselor to the President, investigated twice by two separate independent counsels on charges of financial misconduct. During last year's Presidential campaign, George Bush attempted to separate himself from the so-called "sleaze factor" that stained the Reagan years. As a candidate, Bush stressed ethics and campaigned on a promise of higher standards.

GEORGE BUSH: [July 26, 1988] You know those who take on the public trust must hold themselves to an exacting code of conduct. We can expect and indeed tolerate nothing less from the people who work for the government. That message will be unmistakable in my administration.

MS. WOODRUFF: Concern over ethical misconduct during Reagan's two terms led to ethics legislation which passed overwhelmingly in Congress last year, but the reform measure died when it was pocket vetoed in November by President Reagan. He said the bill was tilted unfairly against the executive branch. The newly inaugurated President Bush tried in his first weeks in office to make ethics a top priority. He appointed an eight member advisory commission to review existing rules and guidelines for federal employees. The Commission was headed by Amb. Malcolm Wilkey, a former federal judge, and Griffin Bell, Attorney General during the Carter administration. Last week, they and their colleagues reported out 27 wide ranging recommendations affecting all three branches of government. Chairman Wilkey called for a spirit of ethics and morality in government.

AMB. MALCOLM WILKEY, Ethics Commission Chairman: There must be a will, a will to form, maintain, and operate an ethical government, and that leadership must come from the top in each branch and it must come from the top and down the chain of command, down in the different echelons. The President, the cabinet officers, the head of independent agencies must emphasize ethics and lead by example.

MS. WOODRUFF: Among the recommendations urged by the Commission were a government-wide ban on payments for speeches and personal appearances, a cap on outside income earned by senior government employees, a one year ban on lobbying by ex-members of Congress and the federal judiciary of their former colleagues, the creation of a Congressional Ethics Office, and tax relief for officials who are required to sell off assets in order to avoid conflict of interest.

MR. LEHRER: Now to the Commission Chairman, Malcolm Wilkey, a former federal judge, now the U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay, and to Fred Wertheimer, President of Common Cause, the Washington-based public affairs lobbying group. Mr. Chairman, what did the President tell you about your recommendations today?

AMB. MALCOLM WILKEY, Chairman, Ethics Commission: Well, the President had a well thumbed copy in front of him in the cabinet room. He said he had read it over the weekend and he had a lot of questions to ask about all of the issues, all of the recommendations. The entire eight member commission was there and I presented the thing in an outline form, the President asked questions and some of his staff were there, and they asked questions too, and the commission members answered them. We had a good discussion for about 50 minutes.

MR. LEHRER: Did you get the feeling that you gave him what he wanted?

AMB. WILKEY: I had the feeling that we gave him what he wanted, although we would emphasize that this report is from an independent commission and not everything in it is precisely what the President has said in his campaign speeches earlier. You know, advice is not worth anything unless it's independent advice, so we gave him our best considered judgment after our meetings held in public and our debates and analysis. From that, we hope and he indicated he would form a legislative package to send up to the Hill and also do as much as he could with an executive order, as we've recommended in the report.

MR. LEHRER: Most of what you recommend, most of your 27 recommendations, however, would take some kind of legislation, would they not?

AMB. WILKEY: That's true. It would take -- for one reason, they're across the board. They cover all three branches. The President can only deal by executive order with the executive branch. For example, honoraria that was mentioned there, in the executive branch, there is always a statutory ban on honoraria, but not so in the legislative and judicial branch.

MR. LEHRER: So that the law would have to be passed and signed in order to make that happen?

AMB. WILKEY: Right.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Wertheimer, what do you think of the commission's work?

FRED WERTHEIMER, Common Cause: Well, let me put it in this context. We believe what President Bush has been doing since the first week on ethics has been extremely important and extremely positive in the sense that he has been setting a new tone, creating a new attitude, setting a stage for moving from no expectation ethics to high expectation ethics. We have followed the commission's work very carefully. There are a number of important contributions, valuable contributions that the recommendations make. Perhaps the most important area has to do with Congress where they have correctly laid down the gauntlet to Congress in a series of areas and, in effect, said, you need to get your house in order. I think they are correct. I think it will be very helpful.

MR. LEHRER: Do you mean this specifically on honoraria, a Congressional ethics --

MR. WERTHEIMER: A ban on honoraria fees, a ban on outside, serving on outside boards, which would also apply to the other branches.

MR. LEHRER: Now an outside board means all -- does that mean just business boards?

MR. WERTHEIMER: Well, their recommendation is no serving on boards, on private sector boards. With respect to non-profit boards, they leave open the ability to possibly serve based on a case by case basis.

MR. LEHRER: Your feeling being, Judge, that if they are paid for service on a board, then they should not serve on the board?

AMB. WILKEY: No, it's not a matter of paid. It's a matter of being a commercial enterprise as well as receiving pay. Our proposed limitation would be on serving on commercial enterprise boards. We did not recommend a ban on people in the government serving on charitable, non-profit institutions, but you have to do it with the knowledge and fit into the picture of the agency or department for which you're working.

MR. WERTHEIMER: And our position there would be you shouldn't be paid by any private board. But the point is, in a series of areas, fees, private income, a cap on outside income, conflict of interest, and enforcement, where they have pressed Congress on the fact that there are very serious problems, they have laid out a series of recommendations which has set the stage for Congress I believe to have to act if they're going to be genuine in being willing to face these problems. The areas where we have problems with what the commission has done is in the area of revolving door legislation, that is, the business of people leaving government and coming back to lobby where the commission's recommendations are weaker than what President Bush has endorsed in the past, they're weaker than what Congress passed last year, frankly, we don't understand that. We think that in this area, the commission has fallen short.

AMB. WILKEY: Well, on that I'd certainly take issue with Mr. Wertheimer, but first I want to thank you for the general endorsement and we look forward to your help in getting these things through.

MR. WERTHEIMER: You'll get it where we agree with you.

AMB. WILKEY: Fine, but on this revolving door, our Recommendation 11 calls for a limitation of the use of carefully defined information by the ex-employee in connection with representation. That's designed to get at the use of certain confidential information that may be required by the employee --

MR. LEHRER: It's an issue that came up in the Tower proceedings, for instance.

AMB. WILKEY: Yes, it may be an example.

MR. WERTHEIMER: Let me tell you what it doesn't do.

MR. LEHRER: I'm not sure we understand what we're talking about here.

AMB. WILKEY: I'm talking about Recommendation 11 there, then I'd like to add to that Recommendation 14, which says that they should de-compartmentalize the White House. This was the problem that was mentioned in the introductory of Deaver and Nofsiger. They cut up the White House into nine separate compartments. We recommended that that be reversed and the President can do it by executive order. I think he will.

MR. LEHRER: And the reason that's important, so if you say I work in the office of D /AX&Ueral Counsel, then I would beh*m UN PZVL( m 9t out and lobbied somebody who was working, who was doing business say with the National Security Council, under your recommendation they couldn't do that any more?

AMB. WILKEY: That's right, can't do it any more. And furthermore, there's one other thing on the revolving door, just for Mr. Wertheimer's information, and that is that Recommendation 25 on injunctive relief. Frequently, we have a situation where the ex- employee is persistent and wants to go ahead because he thinks he's right. Giving the Attorney General injunctive relief would enable the Attorney General to go to court and get the issue settled, and if legally the government was right, the employee, ex-employee should not lobby, then there should be an injunction, but if the employee were right, he could then go ahead and feel right in what he was doing.

MR. WERTHEIMER: Let me explain what they haven't done and then I'd like to make a larger point. In this area, the Congress last year passed legislation that said the officials in the White House and the top officials in government, the cabinet secretary, should not come back to the entire top level of the cabinet for a year and lobby. I don't think that's very much to ask frankly, a Secretary of State should stay away from the top officials for one year.

MR. LEHRER: All top officials.

MR. WERTHEIMER: All the top officials. That was in legislation passed by Congress. Congress said that a member of Congress should not come back to lobby the entire Congress for one year. I don't think that's too much to ask. Now the commission did not go forward with the recommendation for these top executive branch officials. That was in a bill that Sen. Thurmond introduced that President Bush endorsed last year. They even had a weaker recommendation than Congress did itself, and Congress is not in the business of --

MR. LEHRER: Go ahead.

MR. WERTHEIMER: Congress doesn't usually exact tougher recommendations than people expect of it.

MR. LEHRER: You said you wanted to make a larger point.

MR. WERTHEIMER: I wanted to make a larger point though. We have lived through a period of lowest common denominator ethics. We now have a chance for highest common denominator ethics. If we can take the best of what this commission has recommended, if we can take the areas of where President Bush has been very strong in his public statements, if we can take what Congress did last year, and if we can get action, we can break out of this terrible period we've been in. The stage is now set. It's going to come down to whether President Bush does push hard for legislation, and I'm glad to hear what George Wilkey says, and if the Congressional leaders announce and schedule a series of bills on honoraria, on ethics matters, on conflict of interest and on campaign financing, which is not in his purview but which must be dealt with, we are now to the stage where I think the preliminary work is over and Congress must act. That is going to be the ultimate test for Congress. For the President, the ultimate test is going to be his willingness to continue speaking out, to press for this legislation and to hold to account his own people when problems arise.

MR. LEHRER: First, Judge, do you agree with Mr. Wertheimer that the time is right?

AMB. WILKEY: I certainly do. Welcome to the team. We're glad to hear that.

MR. WERTHEIMER: I appreciate your welcome but we've been working on this for many year, Judge Wilkey. Welcome to you.

MR. LEHRER: What about his specific complaints, about why did you not go as far as the President and the Congress had gone on this revolving door thing? Was there any particular reason?

AMB. WILKEY: Well, he mentioned the ban on coming back and contacting other cabinet members. We debated that extensively and it's discussed in our alternatives here, and we decided that just wasn't very practical because you know cabinets change, one man goes out, another one goes out a month later.

MR. LEHRER: You don't have any problem with that if Congress or somebody wants to do it?

AMB. WILKEY: Don't have any problem with it; it's just not very important and it doesn't accomplish a great deal so why waste energy on it was our approach. Now the other thing about the one House, Thurmond's bill did include a ban on a former Congressman or staffer going back to both houses. But we looked at that and said, well that isn't very realistic either, because nine out of ten of the former employees who come back and lobby are staffers and not ex-members of Congress. We've been told this on the Hill and they say the problem is with the staff, former staff. Now then a staffer usually doesn't have any clout, any personal influence with people on the other side of the Hill. He may have some and usually does with his own house, but not across the Hill, so we felt that it would be more logical and useful to have the ban only on the house in which the employee worked, and incidentally, the President has always said he wanted a level playing field and this aspect was paralleled then to the executive branch where in the executive branch someone who works for the Agriculture Department is then not banned from coming back and lobbying another department.

MR. WERTHEIMER: I think they made a mistake. Congress overwhelmingly passed this. They rejected it without any good reason. The larger question now that Congress has to watch is where Congress goes. That's where the focus now shifts.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you both very much for being with us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Still ahead the confirmation hearing on Secretary of Defense-Designate Cheney, but first this is pledge week on public television. We're taking a short break now so your public television station can ask for your support. That support helps keep programs like this on the air.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: For those stations not taking a pledge break, the News Hour continues now with excerpts from today's confirmation hearing of Secretary of Defense-Designate Dick Cheney before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

SEN. MALCOLM WALLOP, [R] Wyoming: As you know, on the 7th of December, Mr. Gorbachev while at the United Nations announced a unilateral reduction of Soviet forces in Europe. Last week, Mr. Shevardnadze announced that as part of this unilateral reduction, the Soviets would also reduce associated theater nuclear system. Can you, have you had time to speculate as to what impact you think these announcements will have?

REP. DICK CHENEY, Secretary of Defense-Designate: Obviously, Mr. Gorbachev has become very adept at making pronouncements about Soviet willingness to either unilaterally as in the case of his December announcements or more recently negotiate significant reduction in forces in Europe. We cannot afford to ignore those propositions. We've got to consider them very seriously. I think we also have to keep in mind though that those pronouncements may well be offered based upon a calculation of their impact upon the alliance and the ability of the United States to maintain alliance, cohesion and unity in the years immediately ahead, and I think more than anything else we have to be guided by what we see by way of changing Soviet capabilities. It's not enough for us to respond when he signals an intention to adopt a less hostile and less threatening posture. But obviously, if the Soviets continue to pursue the notion of further reductions or withdrawals of theater nuclear weapons, that is going to make it more difficult for the United States and for allies to maintain the kind of political support required to do what's needed with respect to our own short range systems in Europe where I think modernization is, in fact, required.

SEN. JOHN WARNER, [R] Virginia: Let's turn to drugs which is another extensive debate in our nation. We had an extensive debate here in the Congress last year on the question of the participation by the U.S. military forces in drug interdiction. Having now witnessed the debate of last year, and you are about subject to confirmation to take over the responsibility of the 2 million men and women of the armed forces, what would be your approach and guidance to them under the current law and how we might look for additional ways in the future, and most specifically, I think the chairman and I are on record, as we are reluctant to see the power of arrest given to or uniformed personnel, and do you share that view?

REP. DICK CHENEY: Sen. Warner, I like I think all of the members of this committee am deeply disturbed by what I see in our society that's been brought about by the spreading habit of the consumption of illicit narcotics. I think the Defense Department does have assets and capabilities that are useful in terms of trying to interdict the illicit flow of drugs. I think our first priority has to be to reduce or eliminate the consumption of drugs within our own ranks and I think the track record there has been very good. I am concerned that we have to remember the purpose of the Defense Department and the purpose of the Defense Department basically is to provide for national security, to be prepared to fight a war if necessary, and we should not get its role and responsibility confused with that of a local law enforcement agency which has all the powers of arrest, as you mentioned.

SEN. JAMES EXON, [D] Nebraska: How adequate are the warnings that we would have from a possible attack from the Soviet Union that over the years has been best described as a bolt out of the blue?

REP. DICK CHENEY: Senator, obviously some of our capabilities in this area fall into the classified area that we ought to pursue under a less public setting. As a general proposition, I believe that we do, in fact, have adequate early warning capabilities with respect to the possibility of an attack upon the United States, a strategic attack involving the strategic assets of the Soviet Union. It's something we have to watch on a continuous basis.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We'll have more on the Cheney testimony coming up. SERIES - CONSIDERING THE CABINET

MR. LEHRER: We close tonight with another extended excerpt from a Bush cabinet confirmation hearing. It is from the one that began today for Dick Cheney, the Wyoming Republican Congressman chosen to be Secretary of Defense. Mr. Bush selected him Friday following the Senate's rejection of his first choice, John Tower.

REP. DICK CHENEY, Secretary of Defense-Designate: I think the issues that are before us in 1989 and the 101st Congress and the years immediately ahead in the national security field, as we're faced with a rapidly changing world, and dealing here at home with the continuing difficulties that the budget pressures have presented us means that the job of serving as Secretary of Defense in the years ahead is an extremely challenging one.

SEN. SAM NUNN, [D] Georgia: Let me start by asking you, you've been on the Intelligence Committee, you've been a member of the military reform group, you have been following national security affairs for a long long time, you know the budget situation we're in. What do you believe to be the top priorities in the Department of Defense now as far as your own role in what you'll be addressing?

REP. DICK CHENEY: Well, my first priority, Mr. Chairman, is obviously personnel. We're at a point because of the delay in getting someone on board over there that we have a number of vacancies, a number of holdover people but clearly there are going to be some fairly fundamental changes in personnel and the decisions that the Department would make in the years ahead will be directly affected by the quality of the people that we're able to bring on board at the beginning of this administration. In addition to that, of course, we have specific mandates from the President that we're currently working on. There is a broad, general review of strategy in trying to match our national security strategy to our military assets and capabilities. That review is underway and due to the White House in a little over a month. There is obviously the management review that's also underway. We have the mandate from the President to implement the recommendations of the Packard Commission and finally, of course, and of most immediate concern is the ongoing effort within the Pentagon to respond to the decision by the administration to reduce the requested amount of funding for the coming fiscal year by some $6 billion from the request earlier submitted in January.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, [R] Mississippi: Generally speaking, Democrats, Republicans, people in Congress, outside of Congress, have been extremely laudatory about your selection. I mean, you obviously have a lot of ability, intelligence, and great experience. The one area where they've said, yes, I know he's been on Intelligence Committee, he's been involved in foreign policy, he was chief of staff, he met with the NSC, he's been in various forums and institutes, but what is his experience in defense and weapons systems, themselves?

REP. DICK CHENEY: I don't suppose anybody arrives at this position with absolutely perfect credentials. The department is so big, the issues are so complex, the challenge so great, that to do an effective job of running the department obviously will require a team approach, and I'm, if I'm confirmed, I'm not a one man band, I'm the quarterback, if you will, and I've got to go find tackles and half backs and linebackers to help me do the job. If I were to look at my resume and background and identify areas where I need to do a lot of work quickly, it's specifically I suppose in terms of conventional forces, dealing with those kinds of issues of manpower and conventional force modernization that are extremely important that I have not spent a lot of time on the past, so that's an area that I plan to emphasize up front. I need to do more work on SDI. I've been a supporter of it in the House obviously, but there have been some new developments there. One of the early briefings I've scheduled for myself is a complete update on where we are with respect to the Strategic Defense Initiative. An area that I'm concerned about but can't claim any special expertise in and that I also want to pursue has to do with maintaining our defense industrial base. I think that it's very important that in the rush to reform our procurement systems we not do damage to that industry basically that supports our military capability.

SEN. JOHN WARNER, [R] Virginia: How do you view the changes taking place in the Soviet Union and whether those changes have reached the point where we should begin to make some budgetary decisions in the Department of Defense of a major nature?

REP. DICK CHENEY: I do not believe we've reached the point in terms of developments in the Soviet Union that would allow us to begin to save money if you will because of reform or changes inside the nation of or No. 1 adversary. I must admit that originally I was a great skeptic. Where Mr. Gorbachev was concerned, I had major reservations about whether or not he was sincere in his stated desire to reform the Soviet Union. I have over the years, as I've watched him operate, met and discussed these issues with him on a couple of occasions, reached the point where I personally am persuaded that he is indeed convinced that the status quo in the Soviet Union is unacceptable and where he is committed to a policy of reform. But having said that, I think it would be a grave mistake for us to assume at this point that it is appropriate for us to in any way reduce our own military capabilities or lessen our own defense posture. I think we have to be very cautious. I think there's a real danger that in the West the perception of change in the Soviet Union will exceed the reality of change in the Soviet Union, that our allied in Europe and elsewhere around the world will find it very difficult to maintain the level of commitment in terms of resources because of domestic political pressures as they respond to this perception of a lessened threat from the Soviets and the final point of course is there is always the possibility that Mr. Gorbachev will be replaced by someone who does not share his views or his commitment to reform or does not adopt his relatively non- threatening posture towards the West.

SEN. CARL LEVIN, [D] Michigan: Do you now believe that the Soviet Union is sincere in seeking arms control agreements?

REP. DICK CHENEY: Yes. I am basically inclined to believe that they are sincere in seeking arms control agreements. They are tough bargainers, they always have been, but I think the successful completion of the INF accord last year which I supported is an indication that we can, we clearly have made and continue to make progress. Given the talks that are underway, the recent proposals coming from Soviet leadership with respect to conventional forces, I believe that the opportunity exists, the possibility exists, that we may well be able to reach further accords.

SEN. CARL LEVIN, [D] Michigan: One of the issues that we've been struggling with is the issue of burden sharing between ourselves and or allies. The United States bears a disproportionate share of the cost of the common defense right now. We, our taxpayers pay roughly seven times what a Japanese taxpayer pays, roughly twice what a European, Western European taxpayer pays for the common defense. Our country is deeply in debt. We are growing more deeply in debt. If we spent as much on defense as they do in Japan, we would have no defense. We actually spend more money defending Western Europe than Western Europe spends defending Western Europe.

REP. DICK CHENEY: I would argue that we're most likely to be successful in terms of encouraging our allies to contribute more to the common defense if we approach it not on the basis of this is so that the United States can save money, but rather on the basis that this is required for our common defense and in light of your overall economic capability and performance, your share should be X amount. Now obviously, we've had debates over the years about what constitutes burden sharing and different elements of contributing to the defense, the Germans clearly contribute in ways that no one else does by virtue of being on the front line, having so many troops based on their soil and dealing with the difficulties that stem from that, but I would think that it is appropriate especially at a time when other nations are growing relative to ours in terms of their overall national wealth, that we should continue to seek as we have in the past greater contribution from our allies towards the common defense.

SEN. SAM NUNN, [D] Georgia: Congressman Cheney, I know you've discussed publicly your medical situation and we've got a letter here addressed to me from your doctor, Dr. Alan M. Ross, Professor of Medicine, Director of the Division of Cardiology at George Washington University Medical Center. Let me get you if you would, I understand this letter can be made public - -

REP. DICK CHENEY: That's correct.

SEN. SAM NUNN: Would you mind reading the letter into the record and then any explanation you want to give beyond that would be welcomed.

REP. DICK CHENEY: All right. Senator, as you all know, I have in the past been a heart patient. I had coronary arteries disease dating back to 1978 and underwent coronary bypass surgery last August. Let me read the letter from my physician. "Dear Sen. Nunn, Congressman Richard Cheney, who has been under my care since September of 1985, underwent coronary bypass surgery in the summer of 1988, not for the most common indicator of modifying a poor longevity prognosis, since that prognosis based upon angiographic coronary anatomy is not alarming, but more so in order for him to more safely engage in his rather vigorous lifestyle, including high altitude downhill skiing, backpacking, et cetera. His recovery has been excellent and he has been advised to pursue unrestricted professional and recreational activities. Furthermore, his formerly significant high cholesterol levels have been completely reversed on medical therapy, his pharmacological regimen is free of any side effects that would affect his judgment or behavior. The Congressman is presently fit to accept any position requiring the highest intellectual behavior and physical performance. Sincerely, Alan M. Ross, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Director, Division of Cardiology, George Washington University Medical Center."

MR. LEHRER: The committee may vote on the Cheney nomination before the Senate goes on Easter recess next week. No opposition to the nomination has surfaced and none is expected. RECAP

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Once again, today's top stories, the Bush administration suspended the import of semiautomatic assault rifles, the FDA warned against eating fruit from Chile after cyanide was found in two grapes imported from that country, and a mechanical problem threatened to cut short the space shuttle Discovery mission one day early. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.