The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Lebanon demands major attention again tonight because U.S. naval guns fired into the hills outside Beirut in direct help of the Lebanese army for the first time, and because Congress and President Reagan still haven't resolved their stalemate over whether it's really combat or not. We also have an update on the Korean airliner story which involves a new Soviet charge about spying and satellites. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: And we have reports on news developments in the medical and cultural fields. In medicine, as scientists edge closer to understanding genetic disorders, a look at the progress in educating children with Down's syndrome. And, from Prague, Czechoslovakia, the haunting background to a unique exhibition of Jewish treasures headed for the United States.

LEHRER: The United States gave the military screw another turn in Lebanon today as U.S. naval guns pounded Druze militia positions near the mountain town of Suk al Gharb. Some 40 rounds were reportedly fired from the two U.S. ships, the USS Virginia and the USS John Rogers. The new turn or wrinkle was the official explanation from U.S. Marine and naval officers on the scene, and seconded in Washington by White House spokesman Larry Speakes that the firing was not a result of a direct threat to the 1,200 U.S. Marines at the Beirut airport or other American personnel, but was done in support of the Lebanese army in its fight to hold Suk al Gharb from Druze attack. The naval gunfire barrage was described as a defensive action, however, because if Suk al Gharb should fall to the Druze, it would provide them better firing positions on the Marines. There were conflicting claims of victory at Suk al Gharb, which overlooks the city of Beirut as well as the airport. The Lebanese army said it had successfully repulsed the Druze attack while the Druze said they were cleaning out the last pockets of Lebanese army resistance from the town. Robin? U.S. Shelling Backs Lebanese Army

MacNEIL: The U.S. shelling was not applauded by the French, one of America's allies in the international peacekeeping force. French Foreign Minister Claude Cheysson said in a French television interview that the United States shelling was not the best way to solve the crisis. "If the Americans want to take the place of the Israelis, that is their responsibility, not ours," Cheysson said, adding that France was trying to prevent a partition of Lebanon between forces backed by the Soviet Union and Syria and those backed by the United States and Israel. Now we examine how far the U.S. may have togo to back the Gemayel government. First, a look at the military problems facing the Lebanese army. We talk with Michael Dunn, assistant managing editor of Defense and Foreign Affairs magazine. A professor at Georgetown University, Dr. Dunn has closely followed efforts to make the Lebanese army an effective fighting force. Dr. Dunn, is the Lebanese army a match for the Druze militia and allies that it's fighting now?

MICHAEL DUNN: It's probably a match for the Druze militia; it's probably more than a match for the militia by itself. The question, I think, is whether it's a match for those allies. We still don't know just how far and how many allies are going to be committed. Certainly there has been some Syrian support, some Syrian artillery support. There was a report on the wire today that some of the Palestinian mutineers, the Musa Saleh and the Fatah mutineers against Yasir Arafat, have announced their support of the Progressive Socialist Party militia.

MacNEIL: And the Lebanese in fact today displayed in hospital a captured, wounded fighter who said that he was a member of that Lebanese -- of that Palestinian group fighting with the Druze.

Dr. DUNN: But I think, again, the major issue is how widespread the opposition to the Lebanese army will be. If it's purely the Lebanese army against the Druze, the Lebanese army stands, I think, a fighting chance. Neither side has anything like effective airpower. Certainly the appearance of the Lebanese air force in the last few days was something wonderful for people who like to look at old airplanes, but it's not something that is going to be a major turning point in that battle unless they are provided cover from some other source.

MacNEIL: Let me ask you -- we've been following what the United States has been doing -- as Jim says, giving the screw another turn of the notch today. How much more U.S. help is the Lebanese army likely to need, and of what kind?

Dr. DUNN: Well, I think at this point the military issue gets very, very deeply entangled with the political issue. The attempts at a political compromise at this stage have almost entirely been centered around pullbacks of the Lebanese army and of the Druze militias in the Shuf or some sort of ceasefire in place. The problem is that the Lebanese army has become in the last few weeks what it had not been or had tried not to be earlier in the war, and that is more or less openly allied with the so-called Lebanese forces, the militia of the Phalangist party. And therefore, the Lebanese army's political support is becoming more and more a Maronite thing, even though the Lebanese army is itself multi-confessional --

MacNEIL: Phalange and Maronite both meaning Christian.

Dr. DUNN: Well, the vast majority of the Phalangist party are Christians, but they are only one of a large number of Maronite Christian groups. They are, however, the one which is the main constituency of President Gemayel at this stage.

MacNEIL: And so, in other words, they weakened themselves politically by appearing to be an arm of the Phalange as they appear stronger militarily. Is that it?

Dr. DUNN: Precisely. Their opponents have always said that the fact that the officer corps is dominated by Maronites, even though the number-two man in the army is a Druze, in fact. The fact that the officer corps is dominated by Maronites has always been seen by the left and by the Muslim and Druze forces in Lebanon as a sign that really the Lebanese army was little more than a stalking horse for the Phalange. The army had made, I think, considerable progress in refuting that kind of a stereotype, but in the last couple of weeks' fighting, in particular where we've seen the Lebanese army standing by while Phalangist forces go into action against the Druze and so forth, I can see that this is starting to suggest that the Lebanese army faces a real test of credibility, not merely of military credibility, but of the credibility of its political independence and multiconfessionalism in Lebanon.

MacNEIL: How vital -- both the White House and State Department said today that Suk al Gharb, this town in the mountains, was absolutely vital. How vital does it seem to you as a detached observer?

Dr. DUNN: Well, I think anyone who's ever been to Beirut knows that the mountains rise rather quickly from the coastal plain, and once you get up in the Shuf you're on the high ground, and you certainly do command a considerable area. But I think, again, it's politically as well as militarily important because if the army cannot hold Suk al Gharb or if the army could not hold onto at least a rim of the Shuf, then President Gemayel's credibility politically is also going to be at stake, and, quite frankly, if he compromises and tries to find a way in which the army would step back a step or two in the Shuf, he may come under serious threats or, at any rate, pressure from the Phalangist party, which is headed by his father, but the militia of which is more or less an autonomous military body in its own right by now.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: An analysis of the American dilemma in Lebanon now by Harold Saunders. Mr. Saunders was the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs during the Carter administration. He is currently a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute here in Washington. First, do you see the use of naval gunfire today as a new and dramatic escalation of the U.S. role in Lebanon?

HAROLD SAUNDERS: Well, every time those guns are used they get closer and closer to indicating that the United States considers itself at war with Syria, and it seems to me that, every time we have pronouncements such as those today, that the war is escalated in character by one small notch.

LEHRER: But not in any way that is irretrievable at this point, is that correct?

Mr. SAUNDERS: It's not irretrievable at this point, no.

LEHRER: All right. Now, the politics of this. Does the United States at this point have any choice but to support -- continue its support of President Gemayel and the Lebanese government and thus the Lebanese army?

Mr. SAUNDERS: I think it has no choice but to do just that. I think a year ago we had a choice about being there at all. Now that we're there and have been there and the fighting is going on as it is, and the contest has sharpened as it is, I don't see how we could pull out without pulling the props out from under the man who is, after all, the duly elected president of Lebanon.

LEHRER: Do you agree with Mr. Dunn that the situation in Suk al Gharb was as much a political thing now as it was a military?

Mr. SAUNDERS: I think the whole fighting in the Shuf between the Lebanese army and the Druze forces has been essentially a political thing. As Mr. Dunn pointed out, the Druze feel that the Lebanese army is an extension of the right-wing Christians and is out to steamroller them. The perception may or may not be correct, but that is their perception, and the Lebanese army, as the army of the central government, is out to demonstrate that the central government has the authority to take control of the areas vacated by Israel. So it's a -- in some ways, it's a symbolic contest over much more than just one town or one set of towns. It's a contest over what kind of compromise the Lebanese are going to live with politically.

LEHRER: And that is where the United States either gets out of this or doesn't get out, right? I mean, that's where it's all going to have to happen is through negotiation?

Mr. SAUNDERS: Well, we're all tied up in the question of the multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon, but it seems to me it may be that the real peacekeeping force in Lebanon are the negotiators who are trying to bring about a ceasefire, and bring about some sort of political equation under which the two factions who are shooting at each other right now can live. In other words, a new national consensus in Lebanon over the long term. They're the real peacekeepers, it may be.

LEHRER: What is the realistic chance, in your opinion, that they're going to come up with a realistic peace?

Mr. SAUNDERS: Well, it's going to take time, but I think there are reasonable chances that they could come up with a process and, as Ghassan Tueni said here in Washington a few days ago, the Lebanese --

LEHRER: He's representative of the president of Lebanon --

Mr. SAUNDERS: Advisor to the president of Lebanon. He said starting on a solution is a good part of the solution. In other words, starting a process in which people are talking with each other and not shooting with each other is the first important step to diminishing the potential for involvement of the U.S. Marine Corps.

LEHRER: The administration has been saying the last few days that the fighting is actually -- should be seen as a prelude to negotiations, that everybody is trying to stake out as much territory as they can so when they do finally sit down at the table their position is strengthened. Is that a correct reading of it?

Mr. SAUNDFRS: I think that's a fair point. If you just take an extreme, what if the Lebanese army had collapsed? What kind of negotiating position would President Gemayel have been in or, conversely, what if the Lebanese army had just romped through these Druze towns? What kind of negotiating position would the Druze forces have been in? So, yes, they're trying to create a situation where they can negotiate from strength, each side.

LEHRER: So, for the United States right now, if I'm reading what you're saying correctly, the United States has got to whatever -- turn the screw a little bit as the situation warrants militarily to keep the Lebanese government strong enough until there can be a ceasefire, until this process can get started, and hope the whole thing doesn't collapse before? Is that correct?

Mr. SAUNDERE: Well, logically it may be correct, but I'm not sure that the strategy of the administration is all that thoroughly thought through or articulated. It seems to me that the Navy fires when the Navy feels that there's a military situation which warrants firing. I'm not sure there's all that much coordination between the negotiating peacekeeping team and the military peacekeeping team. I think it's just sort of happening, and that's what's frightening about it.

LEHRER: In other words, you don't think that today's firing or the gunfire -- that decision was made in Washington; it was made by a field commander with no consideration of what the negotiations may be leading to?

Mr. SAUNDERS: I don't know where it was made. I'd like to think that our strategy was as tightly coordinated as your logic suggests, but I'm afraid it just isn't.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Dr. Dunn, do you have a view on that?

Dr. DUNN: Well, I think I agree with Mr. Saunders for the most part there. I think we've been making up our policy in Lebanon as we went along, and unfortunately sometimes we allowed ourselves the over-optimism that one hears or heard from the Lebanese themselves for awhile there. And at the moment we are in a situation which is extremely delicate, and I'm not sure it's properly understood here in Washington.

MacNEIL: Mr. Saunders, does the action of the military on the one hand -- for instance, the fleet firing today -- by appearing to put the U.S. more in the side of defending Gemayel, weaken the U.S. credibility as a negotiator for a ceasefire, looking at the political divisions Mr. Dunn referred to earlier?

Mr. SAUNDERS: Well, I think we're still within the realm of credible limits. I think we can overcome the potential disadvantage that you described. I could see a situation, however, where we could be seen all over the Arab world as being at war with those Arab factions, or indeed with Syria itself. That, of course, could damage us.

MacNEIL: Or with Muslims.

Mr. SAUNDERS: Or with Muslims, that's right. And that, of course, would damage us considerably. I don't think we're there yet. I think we still are in the realm of a few serious but isolated units that don't make up a major pattern of that kind of involvement yet.

MacNEIL: Turning to the worries in Washington about the Marines and the other U.S. forces there, Dr. Dunn, playing a game of "what if," what could happen if this sort of notch-by-notch continues? Where do you see it leading?

Dr. DUNN: Well --

MacNEIL: Suppose the Lebanese army isn't able to wipe the Druze out of the Shuf mountains or the Druze are able to come over the mountains further and beat the army back?

Dr. DUNN: Well, I think at this point we're in a situation where neither side is able to do either, and the question is to what extent the supporters of either side are prepared to go. If we are prepared to back the Lebanese army to a considerably greater degree than has been the case under the multinational force, then I think, one, we risk a greater confrontation with Syria --

MacNEIL: Is it clear to you that we are or aren't prepared to do that?

Mr. DUNN: Well, I think we've made very clear from the beginning our commitment to the Lebanese government. The problem is, as the Lebanese government unravels -- and it is in a very serious danger, I think, of unraveling at this point -- then we have to decide, is the Lebanese government the whole cabinet with its sectarian balance, such as it is, or is the Lebanese government Amin Gemayel? Is the Lebanese government simply the army? Who are we supporting if the Lebanese government comes apart? Are we then taking sides? I think this is what Cheysson was talking about today is that the French are not quite as prepared as the United States seems to be to take sides if the government as a whole itself no longer seems to be representing -- speaking with a single voice.

MacNEIL: Is it clear to you, Mr. Saunders, how far Mr. Reagan is prepared to go to back the Gemayel government militarily?

Mr. SAUNDERS: It's not clear to me at all. I don't know that the administration has really been able to think its way through this situation to know the answer to that question.

MacNEIL: What are the risks that you see of going notch by notch? How far could it go, and what would the consequences be?

Mr. SAUNDERS: Well, my greatest concern, I guess, is that the U.S. would end up in a direct confrontation with Syria. And I think that that's probably fairly far down the line because I think the Syrians are smart enough to avoid that if they possibly can, to avoid retaliating on American forces. But the worst thing that could happen, of course, is as Mr. Dunn says: if the Lebanese government unravels, and then the U.S. Marines are expected to do what the Lebanese army is now trying to do, namely, take control of certain territory on behalf of a divided Lebanese government, then I think we're really in the middle of a civil war not just with two sides, but with eight or 10 sides, and that's precisely the reason why administrations for the last 10 years have avoided committing American forces to this situation.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: The other major piece of the Lebanon story is the one here over the War Powers Act. Should it or should it not be invoked as a way of getting congressional support for the continued U.S. Marine presence in Lebanon? President Reagan and those of like mind say no; most Democrats in the House and Senate, as well as some Republicans of like mind, say yes.That struggle also got a turn today with the publication of an interview with Mr. Reagan in Newsweek magazine. Asked if this debate was giving aid and comfort to the Syrians, Mr. Reagan said yes, as long as it is seen as an indication the U.S. might withdraw its forces. Here to debate that statement, as well as the overall issue, are two members of Congress who are not of like mind on either: Senator Paul Tsongas, Democrat of Massachusetts, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and Congressman Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. First, Senator, I just was given a late report that some kind of compromise may have been struck with the House Democrats and the White House involving an 18-month term.Have you heard about that?

Sen. PAUL TSONGAS: They have been negotiating for some time now. As you know, the original Democratic position was to declare the War Powers Act operative and give the President the 18 months. Many of the Senate Democrats had problems with that. So you've had a three-pronged negotiation between Howard Baker, the White House and the House Democrats. As of an hour ago they had not arrived at a conclusion to that.

LEHRER: Have you heard anything about that, Congressman Hunter?

Rep. DUNCAN HUNTER: No, I'm not familiar with the latest developments, particularly with the Democrat leadership.

LEHRER: I see. Particularly with the Democratic leadership, yes, sir. But, Senator, do you agree with the President when he says that this debate -- no matter which side you're on, this debate is giving aid and comfort to the Syrians?

Sen. TSONGAS: Well, I think that kind of statement is inappropriate. I mean, we do have a problem; we're going to have to work it out together. But the original resolution to invoke the War Powers Act came from a Republican, Senator Mathias of Maryland. When we had the secret briefing with Shultz -- Secretary Shultz the other week, it was a Republican who got up and talked about the problem of the War Powers Act. So he has real problems in his own party as well as among the Democrats. There is a War Powers Act on the books. It is a situation in Lebanon where there are hostilities. Under the act the hostilities trigger the War Powers Act. So we're really, it seems to me, arguing a moot legal point, and the question is, how do you develop a consensus? And ironically the President, had he moved early, would have a consensus position that most of the senators, Democrats and Republicans, would sign onto. But the more he delays it, the more he engages in the kind of rhetoric that you just referred to, the more I think that consensus breaks down.

LEHRER: Congressman, what's your view of that -- how the President has played this and that he has in fact, according to the Senator, lost the consensus he could have gotten if he'd gone with this right at the beginning?

Rep. HUNTER: I think that we would be naive to believe, number one, that the Syrians and the Soviets don't pay attention to our internal politics. At least that was -- that's my understanding, and I have recently visited the area that's in question. And I think that they look to the American Congress and they see the debate, they see the conflict with the executive, and I think that the very strict construction of the War Powers resolution that is offered by some would do a great deal to undermine the President's leadership.

LEHRER: How would that do that, Congressman?

Rep. HUNTER: One way it would do it is simply this. Our Marines have historically been utilized by the executive, and not as a war-fighting force only but as a peacekeeping force, and they've been in Nicaragua, they've been in Central America, they've been in Lebanon before, and they've been used to prevent wars. And a very strict construction of the War Powers Act, if you construe the hostilities in a very liberal way, you could -- you could keep the Marines from going into Lebanon or probably nine out of 10 of the world's hot spots to begin with because there are dangers in those certain places, and perhaps you could say that at least a force that would be entering those areas would be in danger of "imminent hostilities." So the point is that by dragging -- by dragging a liberal construction into the War Powers Act and by keeping after our President, I think that our Congress has to some degree done him a disservice and taken away some of his leadership in this very vital area.

LEHRER: Senator?

Sen. TSONGAS: Well, I have the act in front of me and it talks about imminent hostilities. Now, if four Marines being killed does not qualify as hostilities, then I don't know what does qualify. To suggest that their deaths would not call into question the War Powers Act I don't think is really argued by the administration. The administration is clearly trying to work out a deal here, so they understand that the War Powers Act should be invoked as well. The question is, how can you work out an arrangement with the consensus that they seek can be achieved?

Rep. HUNTER: I would disagree with the Senator's analysis because I think that he's pointed out a very tough problem that's raised by the War Powers resolution. Does that mean that when we're in a situation such as Lebanon that a guerrilla organization can, by shelling or by sniper fire, can force the American force out of that particular country? And I think that your analysis of the War Powers Act would do just that. If four people are killed -- and that is a devastating thing -- the Marines are in a tough business, and it's a rugged part of the world even if you're not in a war situation -- can our adversaries -- potential adversaries go out, engage in mortar attacks, sniper attacks, and by doing that force the United States to give up its responsibilities?

Sen. TSONGAS: Wait a minute. But the law says that they don't get out. The United States at that point has a president who is required to go to the Congress and explain what the policy is, how long they're going to be there, and what in essence that we are achieving. The Congress then votes on it. If there is a consensus in the American people and there is a consensus in the Congress, then the president has a stronger hand. But invoking the War Powers Act does not kick the Marines out. It simply says we now have an obligation to move and to discuss it and to vote on it.

LEHRER: Regardless of what -- let's say the compromise is worked out and there eventually is a vote in both the House and Senate. Is there any question that the Congress is going to vote other than to support the continued presence of the Marines in Lebanon?

Sen. TSONGAS: I think the Congress will support being in Lebanon. I think it has been described earlier. You really don't have a choice. You're going to create a vacuum if you come out. The danger from the administration's point of view, I believe, is they're going to have to define the policy, which is very difficult.

LEHRER: Is that going to be a problem for them?

Rep. HUNTER: I think it's going to be a problem, and I think if anybody watched the nuclear freeze debate, this scenario of Congress coming together and voting on something as complicated as the situation in Lebanon is something that's going to be very tough to do. I think there's going to -- the problem with our presence in Lebanon is that a great deal of our actions are reactions. The Syrians are driving right now towards Beirut, no matter what anybody says. The Russians are behind them. We want to hold ground, they want to gain ground. How far do we go? For example, the heights that are being -- that are in question today are being fought for hand to hand, and we're trying to keep our Lebanese allies, if you will, from being destroved.

LEHRER: Let me ask each of you --

Rep. HUNTER: Congress can't address those questions on a --

LEHRER: I understand. Let me ask each of you finally, does what happened today, the naval gunfire being used against those positions in the hills, change anything from your perspective?

Rep. HUNTER: No, it doesn't. I think that it's a matter -- I think that it was done because the heights that are in question, in which the hand-to-hand fighting was occurring, are absolutely key, and regardless of the --

LEHRER: Hand-to-hand fighting in Suk al Gharb?

Rep. HUNTER: That's right, and regardless of what the implications politically are, if that high ground falls to the Syrians and to the Druze, a great deal of this question is going to be over. They're going to have scored a tremendous military victory and be in position to take a great deal more ground.

LEHRER: What's your view of today's action?

Sen. TSONGAS: Well, I think the Congressman is right. Anybody who has seen that part of the world recognizes you lose those heights, then the city cannot survive. If we go from peacekeeping to an aggressive seeking-out of combat, the consensus that the President now enjoys in the Congress I think will rapidly dissolve.

LEHRER: My question, is today going down that road?

Sen. TSONGAS: It begins to go down that road, and I think the President is making a mistake delaying Congressional consideration of the War Powers Act.

LEHRER: Gentlemen both, thank you very much.Robin?

MacNEIL: Israel's long, drawn-out process of choosing a successor to Prime Minister Menachem Begin advanced a little today. The procedure is that the president, Chaim Herzog, names the politicians he believes can best get a majority in Parliament to back him. By Wednesday heis to choose between Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir or the Labor Party's Shimon Peres. Today Shamir's chances got a boost when two small parties gave him their backing.

And we'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- New York, New York]

MacNEIL: On the downed Korean airliner, the Soviets made a new charge today. Writing in Pravda, a Soviet air marshal, Pyotr Kirshnov, claimed that the airliner was part of a coordinated U.S. spy mission, involving a spy satellite, RC-135 reconnaissance planes, Navy ships and ground tracking stations.He claimed that the Korean 747's departure from Anchorage, Alaska, delayed 40 minutes to make its arrival over Soviet territory coincide with the orbital pass of an American Ferrit-D satellite. The White House immediately responded. Spokesman Larry Speakes said the plane was not on a spy mission.

Meanwhile, in the Sea of Japan, the search for the airliner's flight recorder has become a bizarre race. The Soviet Union has 19 ships in the area off Sakhalin Island, and an ocean survey ship has been launching mini-submarines to search for the wreckage 600 feet below. Today a diving bell was brought in to join the search. And the Soviets are watching closely to see that South Korean and American ships do not enter their coastal waters, but it's possible that some of the wreckage has drifted into international waters, and the United States Navy has at least four ships in the area. One of them is equipped to listen for telltale beeps that would locate the airliner's black box.

The Western boycott of Soviet aviation continues to make waves. Air France, which did not join other European airliners in banning flights to Moscow, had to cancel its service today. It had been operating with non-union pilots, but didn't have enough technical staff to fly today.

And Moscow continued to react to the ban by the governors of New York and New Jersey on Soviet diplomatic flights to New York area airports. On Saturday, Soviet foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko, canceled his trip to the United Nations General Assembly because of the airport ban. Today Moscow said Washington's anti-Soviet hysteria would prevent Gromyko coming to the U.N. to present what it called "explicit peace proposals." Jim?

LEHRER: Child molesting, wife-beating and abuse of the elderly -- three specific crimes that fall in the overall category of family violence, something that has been swept too long under the rug and needs now to be brought out, examined and dealt with. That was the gist of a Reagan administration announcement today of a special federal task force on family violence. The eight-member group will be headed by Detroit police chief, William Hart, and will have six months to study the problem and come up with recommended solutions. Attorney General William French Smith laid it out this way at a Washington news conference.

WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH, Attorney General: This particular kind of violence has different characteristics from violent crime in general. It's an area that really has not received the attention that it has deserved, probably ever. I think this effort may be unique in this respect. Certainly at the federal level.

LEHRER: And, in a different kind of crime story, the grim case of Henry Lee Lucas got even grimmer today. Lucas is the 47-year-old wanderer who had claimed to have murdered 100 women. He's in a jail in a small north Texas town awaiting trial for killing an 80-year-old woman, and has already been charged with four other murders in Texas and another in California. Well, today the Austin Statesman newspaper said Lucas has now admitted, with accompanying details, the killing of 156 people. He committed his first murder, officers said, when he was 13 years old in Virginia. The victim was a schoolteacher. Since Lucas was arrested in June, authorities from all over the country have been to see him about unsolved murders. They say it may be years before a full construction of his crimes is complete.Robin? Down's Syndrome

MacNEIL: Now a story from our medical beat. Researchers at Harvard University say they have created an artificial chromosome that could shed light on the cause of genetic disorders like Down's syndrome. Chromosomes are thread-like structures found in every living cell. They carry the genetic codes that determine our inherited characteristics. The Harvard researchers say they created an artificial chromosome through genetic engineering techniques. One of the team, Dr. Jack Szostak, said the artificial chromosome could prove helpful in finding out what goes wrong in genetic disorders. In Down's syndrome there are three chromosomes instead of the normal two. One in every 800 children born in this country has Down's, a form of mental retardation. Until recently it was thought to be a hopeless task to try and educate such children, but as we see in this report from Oregon Public Television, that isn't the case anymore.It was produced and written by Tamra Thomasson.

TAMRA THOMASSON [voice-over]: When 14-month-old Sarah Whinney was born with Down's syndrome, her father was in shock, primarily because he remembered the days 15 years ago when doctors usually recommended institutionalizing the child.

Mr. WHINNEY: You go through a period of numbness and, oh, I don't know. Then after that, you know, you have a lot of ups and downs after that. But I guess we were kind of numb, didn't really know what to do. We pretty much felt there were two choices: either institutionalize Sarah or, you know, keep her with the family, and you know, see what we could do from there. But we really didn't know what we could do or what was available if we did keep her at home.

THOMASSON [voice-over]: The Whinneys did want to keep Sarah at home, and they were relieved to hear about a number of training programs that would show them exactly what to do with their handicapped baby. There are around 25 infant stimulation programs or early intervention programs in Oregon, but the Whinneys chose the Pride program in Vancouver. The fee is nominal, and Vivian Whinney brings Sarah to class at least once a week.

NANCY WARREN, instructor: Our early program, which would be our infant program, we start with the babies at five weeks. And we are a parent-training class so the parent attends with their child, and we do some real basic things in the beginning -- just tracking, focusing on objects. If a child -- maybe the goal for that child is to put wooden rings on a stick -- and the wooden rings are about this size and have small little holes in the center -- that's a real difficult task. So we try to break that down and we offer them bracelets to put on a stick, which is much easier to get over, and to learn the task first before they get to the harder tasks.We find that the children who can do the early discrimination skills like the lotto cards are beginning to read very early, and we think that they have a special skill with discrimination. And we have some of our three-, four- and five-year-olds who are beginning to sight read, and we've been real excited about that. The objective is, basically, to maintain normal development as closely as possible and to work with the parents so that they can be their child's advocate through their schooling.

THOMASSON [voice-over]: Vivian is taught how to encourage Sarah to experiment with objects and how to gauge her progress, with goals set every few months. These programs are very cost effective because parents and siblings can do much of the teaching at home. Christian and Jackie Whinney work with Sarah on fine and gross motor concepts, strengthening weak muscles and improving overall coordination.

VIVIAN WHINNEY: Sure, there are days when Sarah will work beautifully for us, and then there are other days when we hand her something to do, a concept, and she'll just throw it. And it is frustrating. And with our children, you have to show them over and over.

THOMASSON [voice-over]: The Whinneys believe all their hard work will have substantial payoffs in terms of Sarah's future. They realize Sarah will never be normal, but because of the early intervention program, they say Sarah has a much greater chance of reaching her maximum potential in life.

Ms. WHINNEY: I don't feel that Sarah will be able to be a lab technician or something in a technical field, but I feel like if we stimulate her, give her the proper education and all the benefits that we possibly can, that she can grow up to lead a very productive life.

THOMASSON [voice-over]: The basis for this optimism stems from the progress made by older graduates of the infant stimulation program, like Eric Brown. Eric also went through pre-school at the Pride program in Vancouver where handicapped youngsters learn, among other things, appropriate social skills.

Thirty years ago, children like Eric were thought to be unable to learn even the most basic tasks, but now at age six, Eric can read.

ERIC BROWN: See a horse.

TEACHER: All right. Give me five. Then I give you five for good working [slapping high fives]. Okay.

THOMASSON [voice-over]: Eric attends a regular kindergarten one day a week and spends the rest of the week in a developmental classroom. According to Eric's mother, Edie, Eric is right on target in some subjects.

EDIE BROWN: On his reading level, he's probably a high kindergarten level. On some of the things he's a good year behind, on expressive speech hehs probably more. It's -- which is part of the reason for using the tongue exercises. And the tongue is a muscle and like the rest it has to be exercised and worked.

[to Eric] My mouth is my house, my tongue is my broom. We sweep and we sweep and we sweep every room. Which room do you want to clean first?

ERIC: Upstairs.

Ms. BROWN: Upstairs. Okay, here we go. Way in the back. Is the upstairs all clean now?

ERIC: Yeah.

Ms. BROWN: Through exercises that you're doing with the children from birth and where we are with Eric now are so terribly important because to get the body in shape and those muscles developed means that they will be able to swim, they will be able to ski, they will be able to roller skate or ice skate and partake in the normal functions that anyone else can enjoy.

THOMASSON [voice-over]: Eric had a rough start in life. He was born prematurely and, like a lot of Down's children, he is very prone to infection. And three days after his birth he had an operation to remove an enlarged kidney. Eric's father, Dr. Brown, remembers.

Dr. BROWN: Well, I guess the surgeon, oh, probably somewhat subtly, not too subtly, suggested that if we didn't want to have this operation for Eric, why, he could be left to die and we could be done with the problem.

THOMASSON [voice-over]: Dr. Brown says other physicians have limited and pessimistic views about Down's children.

Dr. BROWN: I think most of them carry old misconceptions about Down's syndrome, about them being hopeless, mindless blobs.

THOMASsON [voice-over]: Edie says these misconceptions come not just from doctors but from all of society.

Ms. BROWN: My greatest concern for Eric right now is to get -- is to have people realize that yes, he can achieve and, yes, he can make it, and to accept him and to have trust in him.

MacNEIL: This kind of early intervention program is now available throughout the country. To find out if there is one in your area, contact the Down's Syndrome Congress, 1640 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, Illinois, 60608. Jim?

LEHRER: There's a development in the story about the crazy bad weather of summer. Today it turned into the crazy bad weather of fall. Along the Texas Gulf Coast there were torrential rains last night and this morning. Streets and underpasses in Houston were flooded during morning rush hour with water as high as five feet. The measurement went up to seven feet in and near San Antonio, where a woman drowned last night after her car got stuck in high water. And out West there was a wave of early heavy snow, in Montana and Wyoming among other places, some of it accompanied by winds of over 40 miles an hour. And for good measure the government also dropped a reminder today about the summer. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced new estimates of the damage to agriculture from this summer's drought, particularly in the Midwest and Southeast. The loss figure was $10 billion.

And we'll be back in a moment after a pause for another one of our moving picture postcards.

[Video postcard -- Cascade Head, Oregon]

LEHRER: President Reagan made another attempt to bridge the so-called gender gap today. Over the weekend White House pollster Richard Wirthlin conceded Mr. Reagan had failed to close a wide political riff with women.But speaking to several hundred members of executive women in government in the Rose Garden, the President outlined his administration's success appointing women to office.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Women are in top policy and decision-making positions throughout the executive branch, yet they are, by and large, ignored by those who are claiming our record is not up to par. Well, we've appointed more women to significant positions than any other administration. I just wish that those who are doing all the talking would focus more on the many top-notch women in the administration instead of talking in generalities.

LEHRER: And, in other domestic news, there are few industries more sensitive to the ups and downs of the economy than housing. Thus, the monthly housing starts reports from the Commerce Department are watched and interpreted carefully, and that's what happened today with the report for August showing an 8.4% jump in starts -- starts on the construction of new homes by builders. The Commerce Department cautioned against drawing too many conclusions from today's statistics, however, noting that the numbers have been fluctuating wildly in the last few months. The August figures do reflect the fact that more new houses were started in August than at any time since December, 1978.

And, in another kind of economic news, the biggest tax-evasion case in American history was filed in New York City today. A federal grand jury charged Mark Rich, an international commodities trader, and two associates with avoiding $48 million in taxes in 1980 and '81. If he is convicted, Rich would face a possible 325 years in jail. Robin?

MacNEIL: Finally today there was news of an unusual cultural event. The Smithsonian Institution announced that after 15 years of negotiations the Czech government has agreed to lend part of the State Jewish Museum collection in Prague. The collection was assembled during the Nazis' destruction of the centuries-old Czechoslovak Jewish community. One of those making the announcement at a Washington press conference was Ana Cohen, project director of the exhibition called "Precious Legacy."

ANA COHEN, project director: The Precious Legacy tells the story of a museum turned upside down in a world gone mad. The Precious Legacy, first, is a major international loan exhibition which makes available to American audiences for the first time one of the largest and most important collections of ethnic art in the world.

MacNEIL: The Prague collection is unique. It is the largest and most significant collection of Jewish religious art anywhere. But what is haunting about it is the story of how it came to exist and what the Nazis' purpose was -- to actually create a museum to an extinct race. It is one of the strangest stories to come out of World War II and the Holocaust. It begins centuries ago in one of the most beautiful cities of Europe.

[voice-over] Prague: for nearly 900 years a center of Jewish culture. In the Middle Ages it was called the Jerusalem of Europe. In the solemn streets of modern Prague, only the architectural landmarks recall the cultural diversity and richness of the city's past. Prague was the Paris of the East, the golden city. From the 10th century through the Renaissance until 1939, it was one of the artistic and economic centers of the world. The Jewish community was fully integrated into the life of the city.

They lived grouped around the synagogues, centers of learning and religious life. The Autnoy Synagogue, built 700 years ago, is still in use. The high synagogue illuminates the craftsmanship and wealth of the community in the 18th century. The Spanish synagogue from the late 19th century: ornate and elegant. The Pinkus, where archeologists have found the remains of an 11th-century ritual bath. A statue of Rabbi Lowe, mystic and spiritual Jewish leader, stands outside the old Czech town hall. The well-preserved gravestones in the ancient Jewish cemetery carry the epitaphs of scholars, doctors, vintners, shoemakers, lawyers -- a testimony to the diversity of Jewish life. It wasn't always simple; there were many persecutions of the Jews.

But from the turn of the century the Jews in Prague enjoyed a period of extraordinary peace and development. Fully integrated into Czech and German culture, Jews enrolled in Czech schools and universities, traded freely, and practiced all the professions. Bourgeois and secure, the intellectual community flourished. Jewish minds sparked ideas that changed the way we see the world. Freud, born in Bohemia, was a student in Prague. Einstein made his discoveries at the university in Prague. Gustav Mahler began to write music in Prague. Kafka wrote in Prague. In 1939, it all ended.

JIRI LAUCHER, survivor of the Holocaust: And when the Germans came to occupy this country, we knew sooner or later something will happen.

Dr. BEDRICH NOSECK, curator, Czechoslovakian State Jewish Museum: In Czech lands we know that the peaceful cooperation between Jews and non-Jews was very useful, but for the first time that idea was false idea.

IRMA LAUCHER, survivor of the Holocaust: We had to give up at first [unintelligible], sinks, skis, shoes.

Mr. LAUCHER: They took us wireless [unintelligible] and sewing machines, and next week all the optical instruments, the next week all the animals, one week all the surgeons' instruments, and every week something else. And we were informed what we had to do.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: From the beginning, all the way to the showers at Auschwitz, the Nazis' process involved systematic method and elaborate illusions of normalcy. It began with the elimination of legal rights and proceeded to the confiscation of Jewish property -- objects of use to the Nazis, objects of value. The Jews, fearing the dispersal and loss of their religious objects, proposed to the Nazis that they be gathered into a small existing Jewish museum. For the Nazis it was a means of further confiscation, a way to use the Jews. And they saw another use for the museum after the war.

Mr. LAUCHER: People say that they wanted after the war to make a museum of the destroyed nation.

Dr. NOSECK: It was a little perversity of Nazis because Prague was known as one of the well-known Jewish centers in Europe, and that's why the Nazis wanted to create here anti-Semitic center.

Ms. LAUCHER: Here was a center and here was already the first embryo of a museum because the Jews wanted to save the culture of their ancestors.

Dr. NOSECK: And aim of Jewish specialists was contradictory to the aim of Nazis. They wanted to save Judaic items against the Nazis for future generations.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Housed in the unused synagogues all over Prague, the collection grew like a cancer.Did the Nazis merely appreciate the value of the objects? did they need to understand the culture they despised, or were they exorcising ghosts by cataloguing, organizing, controlling the artifacts of the lives they were destroying?

In 1943, systematic exhibition work began at the Gestapo's central Jewish museum in Prague. The Jewish curators set up regular exhibitions about Jewish life for the Nazis. They worked hard. They hoped to touch them with the exhibitions. In 1944, the museum staff was deported.

The Jews of Prague were sent to Terezine, a walled town 60 miles from the city.It was described by the Nazis as a model city for the Jews in the Third Reich, another step in the awful deception. It was, in fact, a way station to Auschwitz and Dachau. Built for 18,000 people, it housed over 60,000 Jews. They were humiliated and starved and tortured and finally deported. As they had forced the Jews to organize the confiscation of their property, the Nazis forced the Jewish Committee of Elders to make up the lists of transports to Auschwitz.

Mr. LAUCHER: We got the small postal card with sign, "Best regards from your mother." It means "best regards from your death" in Hebrew. We didn't want to believe it. It's impossible there are killing people by gas. We didn't know what happened in Auschwitz. We knew only that transports who go to the east go to a bad place.

Dr. DESIDR GALKSY, head of Prague Jewish Community: We had about 350,000 Jews in the year 1939 in the whole country. Only 5% of Czech Jews survived the Second World War.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: After the war the evidence of what had happened to the Jews of Czechoslovakia was revealed. The thousands deported, the few who survived. Of the 15,000 children sent to Terezine, 94 survived. There were reminders of the horror. And in the enormous collection of Jewish artifacts in Prague, reminders of the glory of the life that was destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of priceless historical objects -- fabric, glass, silver. There were 2,500 exquisitely made Torah curtains, 400 Torah mantles, 600 Torah plates, 100,000 rare books, nearly 1,000 Torah finials in silver -- thousands of objects representing the details of Jewish life for hundreds of years. The decimated Jewish community could not afford to care for the collection. They offered it to the Czech government which created the Czechoslovakia State Jewish Museum. Including the cemetery and housed in six synagogues, the museum is a center of attraction in Prague. Given the limited resources available, the conservation and preservation of the collection by the Czech authorities has been excellent. And, as few people get to Prague, it has been a lost or hidden treasure. After years of negotiations, in an unusual opening up, 350 of the objects are coming to the United States under the auspices of SITES of the Smithsonian. The preparation of the exhibition created important relationships between Czech and American curators and scholars.

The objects reveal the quality and values of the culture and the close relationship between daily life and spiritual life. Certain of the objects are moving for their lack of value -- half-burned Havdulah candies used to symbolize the end of the Jewish sabbath. Others are of splendid sophistication. This Eastern-influenced 19th-century spice box; a very simple thing, a matzoh rolling pin; ancient burial society tools from the 1600s; elaborate textiles from the 17th and 18th centuries; extraordinary silver work on an 18th-century burial society cup; a simple pewter Passover plate inscribed by the child Zahm in the 1800s; a very personal Torah mantle, made for the birth of a boy.

Mr. LAUCHER: In Hebrew Me hatikvah visroel -- "from the hope the man keeps alive," and we tried to believe and we tried all to do to survive.

Dr. GALSKY: This is, you know, for us, for our generation, we are coming from the time before the Second World War. The history, the heritage is very important, and this is the power for us and also a stimulation, you know, for the activities here now. What about the future? The average age of this community is very high. [temple ceremony]

MacNEIL: That exhibition will open in Washington in November and will later be seen in Miami Beach, New York, San Diego, Detroit and Hartford. Jim?

LEHRER: Again, from the top, the top stories of the day. Mainly it's still Lebanon, with U.S. naval gunfire coming to the direct assistance of the Lebanese army for the first time, an act some say is an escalation of the U.S. role. Others say no, it's still a defensive action.

The United States and the Soviet Union continued their separate and competitive searches for the black box in the downed Korean airliner. The box should contain the pilot's last words and thus may answer some of the questions that still remain about that tragedy.

Also, the federal government is going to try to do something about family violence.

And it looks like it will be Shamir in for Begin as Israel's prime minister after all.

Good night, Robin.

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