The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Congress made most of the major news today. The Senate passed a Reagan-blessed plan for reducing the budget deficit. The House went down to the wire on the MX missile; members of both bodies heard the president of Mexico plead for diplomacy, not force in Central America, and one of its members, Senator Gary Hart, took heart over two more primary wins. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Tonight we'll be paying special attention to three stories.The MX missile vote: Ambassador Edward Rowney talks about the impact on the nuclear arms talks with the Soviets. We have an extended interview with Senator Gary Hart, fresh from two more primary victories, on how he plans to stop Walter Mondale from locking up the nomination. A Senate committee has criticized the Reagan administration for politicizing the USIA. Tonight we discuss how far that has gone.

LEHRER: It wasn't easy, but the U.S. Senate early this evening finally passed a budget deficit reduction plan. It was the one announced with much fanfare in the Rose Garden by President Reagan in March, but had laid immobile and barely breathing in the Senate for the last three weeks. The vote to pass was 62 to 37. The plan would cut $144 billion in the deficit over the next three years. That's $38 billion less than the $182-billion plan passed by the House. Moderate Republicans were the stumbling block to passage, and they came on board today after $2 billion in additional domestic spending was added to the budget, that amount to come from something nobody seems to care about much anymore, the synthetic fuels program. Robin?

MacNEIL: The government released more evidence today that the American economy is continuing its brisk recovery. For the 17th consecutive month U.S. factories increased their activity and in April were operating at 81.9% of capacity. The government also announced that housing starts rose 19.3% last month after a sharp decline in March. And, for the first time since the recession, all 50 states reported a decline in their unemployment rates in March. West Virginia, with 16% unemployment, remained the state with the highest rate of people out of work.

Reuters News Agency today quoted several officials at the Federal Reserve Board as saying they fear the economy is growing too fast. They said they were unsure whether interest rates were high enough to curb the current economic expansion. The Fed, which moved to tighten credit at its March meeting, meets again next Tuesday to review monetary policy.

Jim?

LEHRER: Summer jobs for young people also became a big economic deal in Washington today. President Reagan started it with a renewed plea in a speech for lowering the minimum wage for high school students working in the summertime. Under a bill expected to go to the Congress tomorrow, employers would have to pay students 16 to 19 years old only $2.50 an hour -- 85" less than the current $3.35 rate. Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan explained the plan's merits at a news conference.

RAYMOND DONOVAN, Secretary of labor: Some call it the sub-minimum wage. I call it a youth opportunity wage. Our statistics say that if it went into effect this summer, 400,000 new jobs for these kids would be created. I know the concern of labor, I know it well. They're talking about displacement of an adult. We structured it in the summertime to deliberately fend off that concern. We're talking about part-time jobs.

LEHRER: Negative reaction to the proposal came quickly from Congressman Augustus Hawkins, a California Democrat who has introduced his own youth incentive employment act.

Rep. AUGUSTUS HAWKINS, (D) California: We've looked through the proposal. As I say, we object to the fact that it is not targetted. It doesn't mean that those who need the jobs will necessarily be those who will get it. It provides no education or training requirements for the young people so that they are merely exploited but not given any opportunity, those who are in poverty, to get out of poverty.

Sec. DONOVAN: People will focus on the $2.50 [sic]. Some will call it slave wages. If we allow the debate to concentrate on the dollars, then we have missed the point.

Rep. HAWKINS: I don't think that you're going to get much support. I think you'll get the support among those who have always been against even the minimum wage, any increase in the minimum wage. What we should be doing is increasing the minimum wage. We look upon it as the opening wage in the movement to break wages in this country.

LEHRER: If the administration proposal is enacted, the lowered wage will be in effect only from May to September. Robin?

MacNEIL: Authorities in Palm Beach, Florida, announced today that David Kennedy, the son of the late Senator Robert Kennedy, died of multiple ingestion of cocaine and two other drugs. At the same time two men were arrested on cocaine charges stemming from the investigation into Kennedy's death last month in a Palm Beach motel, where both of the accused worked as bellmen. David Dorr, 30 years old, gave himself up in Barnstable, Massachusetts. Today Dorr was taken from a state police barracks to the local court, where he was charged with selling narcotics to Kennedy on April 22nd, two days before Kennedy died. His lawyer told reporters how Dorr decided to surrender himself.

FRANK MONDANAN, defense attorney: When he became aware that a Massachusetts fugitive warrant had issued for him, it was -- it didn't come really as any kind of surprise, and he subsequently did what he should do in response to learning of that. He turned himself in to a court in the appropriate jurisdiction.

MacNEIL: The other man, 24-year-old Peter Marchant, was arrested at his home in Warwick, Rhode Island, but no charge was placed against him there. Authorities in Florida said there may be other arrests. The Palm Beach County state attorney, David Bludworth, announcing the cause of Kennedy's death, said the other drugs he ingested were the painkiller Demerol and a prescription sedative called Mellaril. Jim? MX Vote: Rowney Interview

LEHRER: The House late today continued to debate down to the wire the administration proposal to build more MX missiles. The proposal now on the table would allow the production of 15 more missiles. Earlier this week Democratic opponents seemed to have the votes to block further production, but a White House lobbying campaign by President Reagan and reports of vote-switches put the final result back in doubt. Democratic presidential candidates Gary Hart and Walter Mondale joined forces in a letter to Congress urging a vote to stop production. Today's House debate about it ranged from budget issues to arms control.

Rep. JACK KEMP, (R) New York: To abolish the program or to unilaterally restrain ourselves, in effect, we are giving away here on the floor of the Congress what ought to be part of the negotiation posture of this country, and I defy anybody to tell us how they can get the Soviets to come back to the negotiating table if the Soviets can succeed in stopping a program unilaterally by the United States.

Rep. NICHOLAS MAROULES, (D) Massachusetts: Today you have a choice. Today you can make a difference. Join us in halting an MX program which is wasteful and unnecessary. The message we will send is one of support for security and stability, and no longer will Congress support billion-dollar dinosaurs promoting deficits but not deterrence.

Rep. ROBERT BADHAM, (R) California: If we were to eliminate the MX program, it would be a clear signal to the Europeans that we don't care about them and we don't care that much about ourselves. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the GLCMs and Pershing missiles would, on immediate request, be removed from European soil and the NATO alliance would go down the drain, and that would be the ultimate reward for the Soviets' leaving the bargaining table.

Rep. THOMAS DOWNEY, (D) New York: Seething below the surface of the Reagan administration, turning the cauldron of the weapons is Richard Perle, Caspar Weinberger, General Rowney and Fred Ikle. And if you scratch them you know what they're going to say. "Real men don't control weapons. Real men build them."

LEHRER: President Reagan, as always in an important congressional vote like this, did a lot of personal lobbying of House members, and so did key members of his administration, none of them more key than Ambassador Edward Rowney, the chief negotiator for the nowrecessed U.S.-Soviet talks on strategic nuclear arms control. If we would scratch you, Mr. Ambassador, what would we find? Is the congressman right in describing you and your colleagues in the administration?

EDWARD Amb. ROWNEY: I think if you scratch me you'd find somebody that's trying to get back to the negotiating table and wants an agreement and knows that this vote is quite key to our getting an agreement.

LEHRER: In what way is it so key?

Amb. ROWNEY: It's key because we have not built any missiles for years and years, while the Soviets have continued to build -- and, you know, Hal Brown said this when he was secretary of defense. He said, "You know, when we build, they build. When we fail to build to set the example, they build even more." So we've got 1963 vintage out there; they've got 1984 vintage. Not only that, they've built 800 of these while we're arguing about ours. Eight hundred missiles have already been deployed on the Soviet side, 500 of which are equal in size to the MX; 300 are double the size of the MX. Now, how in the world can anyone say that we're trying to build any more than we really have to to modernize, and even then we're going to have a build-down, you know, to take down two for every one we put up. So some of the arguments elude me.

LEHRER: Well, but how can there be a bargaining chip if there's no bargaining going on? What's the point of that?

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, from way back, you know, we've always said, and we have to remember, this is not a bargaining chip. Anyone who says it's a bargaining chip really doesn't understand, you know, what the nature of the problem is.

LEHRER: Well, your supporters on the floor of the House of Representatives were all saying that today, Mr. Ambassador.

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, they shouldn't. They shouldn't. It's not a bargaining chip.

LEHRER: No, but I mean they're saying that, and if the people vote, that's what they're voting on -- that basis -- are they not?

Amb. ROWNEY: No. It shouldn't be called a bargaining chip. We need the MX because if we're going to continue to have a land-based leg of the triad -- and everyone agrees that we should have a land-based leg of the triad, that one leg, the land leg, needs to be modernized. It's got to be brought up to date. It's obsolescent. It's not accurate, and it has three warheads on it, and we're looking for something that will be equal in quality to the 500 MXs, if you will, the Soviets have already built. We only want to build 100.

LEHRER: Now, you're one of the few people who have actually talked to the Soviets about all of this on a regular basis. Have they said to you that the MX, our MX, is important to them?

Amb. ROWNEY: Yes, yes. They've signaled quite --

LEHRER: What have they said about it?

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, they have said, "Look, if we can get from -- just from pressure with it or your own pressure in the country what we would otherwise get at the negotiating table, then why negotiate?" So they've signaled that they will sit this out if they possibly can. That's why it's so important that we do three things: 1) we take care of our security by modernizing our systems; 2) we have the wherewithal with which to negotiate by showing that we do have the will and the ability to modernize our system; the third thing, we show the Soviets that we mean to stay in the deterrence game, that we mean to deter them and not simply let our systems obsolesce and just fall apart for lack of modernization.

LEHRER: Sounds to me like you just described a bargaining chip.

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, it's not a bargaining chip. A bargaining chip connotes that you put it up and take it out. We have no intention, if we build these MXs, to give them up, you see. They're necessary --

LEHRER: But you would -- I mean, wouldn't you be committed to giving them up if it was negotiated away? I mean, aren't you committed to negotiate?

Amb. ROWNEY: No, no. No, we're not -- no one is talking about negotiating away the MX.

LEHRER: Well, aren't you committed to negotiating away everything?Isn't that the whole principle of American policy --

Amb. ROWNEY: Oh, yes, yes, down the line. In the year 2006, a little after my time. I'm talking about the here and now, when, as I say, the Soviets had deployed 500 MXs already, 300 more twice that size, and we want to modernize 100 of our Minutemen by having MXs.

LEHRER: As you know, late today, or maybe actually it was early today, the White House, on behalf of the President, said he was willing to buy the Aspin compromise plan, which is 15 missiles, rather than the 30 or 40, or the 40, that the President wanted, and also has a fence around them, to use Congressman Aspin's description, which would mean the money wouldn't be spent until there was some action by the Soviet Union back to the bargaining table by October, I believe it is. Is that all right with you, too?I assume if the President thinks it's all right you do too?

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, the President has said he wants 100 MX, and he wanted 40 more this time. Now, you know, we want 40 and we should have 40 and it makes sense to have 40. We've developed these things; we should have -- now, if he accepts some smaller number, you know, we'd make do the best we can. The art of all negotiations is the art of the possible, and we have to negotiate with ourselves, unfortunately, then I guess we have to do that. But it's not very sensible.

LEHRER: On Monday you said that any cutback in that 40 number would send the wrong message to the Soviets. So even if the Aspin plan is passed today or tonight, it would send what kind of message as far as you're concerned?

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, any cutback would show that we're less than willing to go ahead with the limited number of MX we're going to have. So this would not be a good signal. On the other hand, if someone wants to argue that, you know, half a loaf is better than none -- if you're starving, I guess a half a loaf is necessary. But I'd like to have the full loaf, and here the full loaf isn't all that rich.

LEHRER: But what do you say to those that it's really a moot point? I mean, you really are not negotiating with them now. I mean, what effect -- I mean, how do you know that what the House is doing today one way or another is going to have any effect at all on what the Soviet Union does.

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, the Soviets are not negotiating, not through any fault of ours. They walked out of INF and they postponed my negotiations, and now, the way I look at it -- and I'm sure they way they look at it -- we're going to reward them for their intransigence.

LEHRER: Now, how is this a reward?

Amb. ROWNEY: It's a reward by not doing the thing that we have said all along we have to do and must do -- the Scowcroft Commission reinforced -- what the Pentagon and what all agencies and the President said must be done. We have modernize it. Now, the logic -- the other logic escapes me because, you know, we're not negotiating now because the Soviets have willed it that way, and by showing them that we're not going to modernize our forces gives them a further negative -- or gives them a negative signal. Now, we're going to be back to the negotiating table one of these days.

LEHRER: How do you know that? You keep saying that. How do you know that?

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, because it's in the Soviets' interest to come back. They don't want nuclear war anymore than we do, or let's say they don't want it. We don't want it either. I don't know who wants it less or more. But the Soviets and ourselves have one thing in common. You know, to negotiate with anybody, you have to have something in common, whether it's over your car, you know, with your spouse or what not. They don't want a nuclear war. We don't. Therefore they'll be back to the table. Now, when we come back we want to be able to negotiate a good deal. Not only that, we want to have some good forces left in our bag of tricks.

LEHRER: Regardless of what the vote is tonight in the House, it's clearly going to be very, very close. That means clearly that the President, you and all the others involved have not made the case too effectively for the MX missile. What's gone wrong?

Amb. ROWNEY: Well, I think a number of things. I think the fact that the basing modes shifted has something to do with it. I think the fact that other votes were close before had something to do with it. I think the election process has something to do with it. And I think people misread and misunderstand what's going on now. What's going on now is we're not talking because of the Soviets' intransigence, not because of ours. Some people don't know that. They think that this somehow may be our fault. Our bags are packed. We're ready to go.

LEHRER: As a matter of fact, as you know there are some Americans who feel the same way.

Amb. ROWNEY: Yeah, but you and I don't, so we're among the cognoscenti.

LEHRER: Speak for yourself. I have no views. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.Robin?

MacNEIL: In the Persian Gulf five Iranian fighter planes attacked a Saudi Arabian oil tanker within a few miles of Saudi Arabia's principal oil port at Ras Tanura.The 212,000-ton ship caught fire, but that was brought under control and there were no casualties. The ship was the fifth tanker to be attacked since Sunday morning, and shippers are concerned that a new escalation is taking place in the war between Iran and Iraq. The news of today's attack touched off a flurry of trading in oil futures contracts and a new record of contracts for 17 million barrels was set on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices rose by more than 40" a barrel.

Mexico's president, Miguel de la Madrid, today carried his public disagreement with U.S. Central America policy to Congress and took it farther. In a state visit remarkable for its public candeor on both sides, de la Madrid and President Reagan were quite open in expressing their differences yesterday afternoon and evening. Today, in an address to a joint session of Congress, the Mexican president appeared to be rebutting Reagan policies point by point. He spoke in Spanish.

MIGUEL DE LA MADRID, President of Mexico [through interpreter]: We maintain that dialogue and a negotiated solution to the conflicts are possible. We therefore reject without exception all military plans that would seriously endanger the security and development of the region.This continent must not be a scenario for generalized violence that becomes increasingly difficult to control, as has occurred in other parts of the world. For our countries it is obvious that reason and understanding are superior to the illusion of the effectiveness of force.

We are convinced that the Central American conflict is a result of the economic deficiencies, political backwardness and social injustice that have afflicted the countries of the area. We therefore cannot accept its becoming part of the East-West confrontation. Nor can we accept reforms and structural changes being viewed as a threat to the security of the other countries of the hemisphere.

MacNEIL: In El Salvador today, Jose Napoleon Duarte began forming a cabinet after being officially declared the winner of last week's presidential election. The central elections council rejected a challenge by rightist candidate Roberto D'Aubuisson, who claimed the U.S. had rigged the election.

In Panama, after 10 days of wrangling over the vote count, Nicolas Ardito-Barletta was declared the winner of the first direct presidential election in 16 years. He had the backing of Panama's powerful Defense Forces. His margin was less than 2,000 votes of more than 600,000 cast. The opposition had charged the government was buying and juggling votes.

In another foreign story, Hungary withdrew from the 1984 summer Olympic Games today, the ninth nation to do so. That leaves Poland and Rumania as the only counnries in the European Communist bloc that have not followed the example set by the Soviet Union on May 8th. Just yesterday Hungarian athletes won the individual and team titles at an international pentathalon meet, and the Hungarians had considerable hopes of winning gold medals in those events in Los Angeles.

[Video postcard -- Ocee River, Tennessee] Hart Interview: Looking Toward San Francisco

LEHRER: If it's Wednesday then there must be a Democratic candidate for president somewhere crowing about a victory in a Tuesday primary. This particular Wednesday that candidate is Senator Gary Hart, the winner yesterday in two primaries in Nebraska and Oregon. In both states Hart won an overwhelming 57% of the vote to 29% for Walter Mondale, with Jesse Jackson running a distant third. Neither Jackson nor Mondale challenged Hart seriously in either state, and the victories did little to change the trend of the delegate count. With 1967 needed for nomination, Mondale has 1,564 to Hart's 941 and Jackson's 291. But Senator Hart maintains it's not a pure numbers game now, and that he will win the nomination, and here he's to maintain it now to us. Senator, welcome.

Sen. GARY HART: Pleasure.

LEHRER: How do you figure you're going to win this thing?

Sen. HART: By continuing to win in the latter part of the primaries, including, hopefully, the very largest in California, and an important primary in New Jersey.

LEHRER: That's on June the 5th.

Sen. HART: June the 5th. And then convincing the 500, 600 uncommitted delegates that they have the best chance to defeat Ronald Reagan with this candidacy.

LEHRER: Even if you were to win New Jersey, California and the other states on June the 5th, you still wouldn't have enough going into the convention.

Sen. HART: No. Mr. Mondale and I agree on one thing, and that is that neither of us will have the nomination majority on June 6th.

LEHRER: All right, what is going to be your pitch? Your pitch is going to be basically that you're the man who can defeat Reagan and Mondale isn't?

Sen. HART: I think the fact that we will probably win almost all, if not virtually all the primaries west of the Mississippi, all the states in New England, the largest state in the South, Florida, almost every primary but one or two in the Midwest,indicates a broad geographic appeal, and the fact that I have swept the independent and moderate Republican votes where they can participate, indicates that I can broaden the base of this party.

LEHRER: What do you say to those that all that you and Mondale have proved is that neither one of you can get the nomination?

Sen. HART: Well, it's premature. The convention hasn't been held yet. One of us will be nominated. I believe I'll be nominated on the first ballot.

LEHRER: Do you see wounds on you that are going to be hard to heal?

Sen. HART: I don't believe so. None that I'm aware of. There have been charges -- and the attacks continue, but none of them is substantial and none of them goes to basic character or qualification for office.

LEHRER: What do you say to those who say that all you've succeeded in doing in these last several primaries is keeping Mondale from getting the nomination and damaging him beyond repair?

Sen. HART: Not at all. That's a good argument for some powerbrokers in Washington to pick the nominee. The voters ought to be heard from, including, as I say, the largest state in the Union -- California, a very important Eastern state -- New Jersey, and other states as well. And I think there is an effort on the part of insiders in the political game to always want to foreclose the voters. We ought to wait and see what the voters say and then look at all the numbrs.

LEHRER: Well, haven't the voters already been speaking now for several weeks and months, and they seem to go first to Mondale and then they go to Hart, don't like him, then we go back to Mondale and we go back to Hart? I mean --

Sen. HART: Well, what they are struggling with --

LEHRER: -- is that indecisiveness?

Sen. HART: No. What they're struggling with state by state is a choice between future leadership and past leadership. The hardest struggle for a political institution, a party, is a generational change of leadership, and that's what this race is all about. I was not well known until the New Hampshire primary. Virtually not know at all. And I have been a public figure, national figure, for less than three months, and we've done very well in that period of time.

LEHRER: But a lot of people say, yes, you did very well while you were a basically unknown, and then once you got better known you started tapering off a little bit.

Sen. HART: No. That discounts Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska, Oregon and so on. No, this is a contest in the party over staying with the past -- a known and predictable past leadership, or venturing in the 1980s with a new generation of leadership and that's always a difficult if not wrenching struggle.

LEHRER: If you were the nominee would you offer the vice presidential nomination to Walter Mondale?

Sen. HART: I might. He's proved to be a very good vice president.

LEHRER: I mean, are you serious about that?

Sen. HART: No, no, no. He would certainly be on any list, short or long. Whether he would want to do it or not is another question. But he has to be considered, obviously.

LEHRER: What about Jesse Jackson? Is he on your list?

Sen. HART: Yes, I would think so, along with a rather large number of other highly qualified people -- women and men of all races.

LEHRER: Would you accept the vice presidential nomination if it was offered to you by Walter Mondale --

Sen. HART: Well, I don't --

LEHRER: -- or Jesse Jackson?

Sen. HART: -- foresee that situation occurring.I think I'll be the nominee of the party. I'm not running for vice president, and I have no desire to be vice president.

LEHRER: Do you think that the troubles, the problems, the scars, the attacks that have flown back and forth between you and Mondale are going to require a very public healing of some kind if either one of you are going to win in November?

Sen. HART: Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "very public." First of all, most of the attacks have flown in one direction -- against me, and they're still going on. I'm not running against Walter Mondale. Every time he wins primaries he talks about unity, and every time he loses he starts attacking me. We haven't heard much about unity since Ohio. He says he's going to have the nomination all wrapped up, but at the same time he's dividing the party by the constant attacks and I think unjustified attacks on me. So I think he will have to resolve that in his own mind one of these days as to whether he wants to unify the party and really is serious about thinking he has it wrapped up or whether he wants to divide the party and possibly destroy our chances by the continued attacks on me. I'm running against Ronald Reagan and for the future of this country.

LEHRER: You mean it's all his fault?

Sen. HART: No, I'm just saying any fair-minded objective person looking at the pattern of both these campaigns I think has to believe, particularly since the New Hampshire primary, that the negatives have been overwhelmingly in one direction, and that's from their campaign to ours.

LEHRER: Well, people are saying this thing already has the smell of 1968 about it, that Humphrey and McCarthy ate each other up so badly they couldn't get it together in November, and that's what you and Mondale --

Sen. HART: No, no, no. I don't believe so at all. There have not been the kind of divisions in this race that we had in '68 and '72 over the Vietnam War. There is no divisive issue like Vietnam or civil rights. Mondale and I and Reverend Jackson, for that matter, agree wholeheartedly on the principles and values of our party. The difference is how we achieve those. I've put forward an agenda for the 1980s -- very specific, very positive. I don't think the others have.

LEHRER: What do you say to the columnists and others who say, "Gary, why don't you go quietly? Why don't you back off and accept the vice president's nomination if Mondale will give it to you, which he probably would if you did it now, and then you're all set for 1988 no matter what happens."

Sen. HART: Well, I don't think it's within my power to deny the voters of Nebraska or Oregon or California or New Jersey their right to be heard, and that's essentially what the insiders and pundits are, I guess those that you're quoting, are suggesting. No, I think the party ought to be heard from. The voters ought to decide this thing, not the insiders in Washington. And ever since I got into this race there have been those who have been trying to end it and say let's get it over with. Indeed, even before the New Hampshire vote was held. But the voters have a kind of a delightful way of saying what's on their mind, and they don't particularly care what people in Washington are saying.

LEHRER: Let me throw one more negative at you. Speaking of the voters, it's also been reported that the real problem you and Mondale and Jackson, too, to some degree, have right now is one of boredom, that the people are tired of hearing you all pick at each other and go at all these long explanations about things that all seem to kind of fritter away? What do you think about that?

Sen. HART: Well, I disagree with that. Voter turnout hasbeen relatively high, moderate to high. The turnout in some of these primary states has been extremely good, and that means there is interest and I think there is particular interest in a new approach and a fresh start for this country, which is what this candidacy represents. So I don't think -- the people in Washington may be bored, or the people who've watched this race a lot, but each state sort of looks at this race freshly and they don't form judgments until they see the candidates perform in their own states.

LEHRER: But, generally speaking, with the exception of the black vote that's been coming out in record mumbers to support Jesse Jackson, aren't the votes generally in most states down from what they've been in contested primaries and caucuses in the past, have they not?

Sen. HART: I'm not sure that's an overwhelming pattern. In some states it's been that way, and in part that's because there is not a kind of a cataclysmic divisive issue like the war where people want to come out not just to vote for a candidate, but also vote on that issue. There is not a single-issue referendum going on here as there was in the late '60s and early '70s. But it is a generational change of leadership, and I think that excites and interests a lot of people. There is momentum and there is excitement about this race. And I think you have seen that in Oregon and Nebraska and Ohio and elsewhere.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Senator, is some kind of cooperation shaping up between you and Reverend Jackson?

Sen. HART: Well, there has been cooperation throughout. We share a goal, and have since this race began, of broadening the base of this party. Reverend Jackson and I have always agreed that we have to open up the process. The other forces -- my principal opponent and his supporters -- have wanted to somehow close the process off and keep it inside kind of closed doors. Reverend Jackson and I want to open those doors up and invite new people in. Non-voters, new voters, frustrated third-party voters and the rest, and I think we've both succeeded at that.

MacNEIL: I meant something in the way of a more tactical alliance before the convention.

Sen. HART: There has been nothing like that discussed between Reverend Jackson and myself. We are good friends; we keep in touch. But I think we have a long way to go. We want to get through these primaries, and then I think all of us have to look at what the situation is at that point.

MacNEIL: Wouldn't it be in both your interests to pool your delegate resources to deny Mr. Mondale a first-ballot nomination?

Sen. HART: Not necessarily.I think I will win the nomination on the first ballot, but not by blocking anyone else, but rather by winning the delegates, particularly the uncommitted delegates, on my own and on a positive basis. I don't think Reverend Jackson and I are in the business of blocking people, and I think frankly that would probably be resented. If Reverend Jackson wants to pitch his tent in one camp or the other -- and he's certainly welcome in mine -- then that's a decision that he will make on his own. But not, I think, as an effort to block anyone else.

MacNEIL: To what extent is he welcome in yours?What does that mean?

Sen. HART: Well, just what I've said. We are of the same generation. I think we see the party as a vehicle for involvement and not of exclusion, and we have shared in domestic concerns a lot of the same concerns. I think he understands, as I do, that our party must change its methods and its policies in order to achieve social justice and true equal opportunity.

MacNEIL: How do you answer the Reverend Jackson's point when he is criticized for failing to create a rainbow coalition really beyond the black vote to any great extent, that he has gotten more white votes than you, Senator Hart, have gotten black votes?

Sen. HART: Well, actually I've never had to face that challenge before. I am very proud of my civil rights record over the past 10 years; indeed, throughout my public life or private life as well. And my problem is I'm running against one of the most -- if not the most -- popular black figure in America today, and a candidate who was vice president of the United States, a protege of Hubert Humphrey's and well known in black circles. And so, given the fact that I've only been on the national scene since New Hampshire, my message takes awhile to get across.It's a good message. It's not only a deep and profound personal commitment to civil rights and social justice, but the need to open up the economic system to minority people and women who have not had access to that system to date.

MacNEIL: Yet, Mr. Mondale is also running against the same very popular black leader and he in many states is chalking up 28, 30 percent of the black vote.

Sen. HART: Not in many states.

MacNEIL: In some states, I should correct myself.

Sen. HART: In very few states. I think an argument could be made that given Mr. Mondale's familiarity in the black community over not just four or five years but 10 or 20 years, why isn't he doing better in the black community? He's certainly had a better chance to do that than I have. There is no question in my mind as the nominee of this party that overwhelmingly black American voters will be voting for this candidacy, not just because of their antipathy towards Ronald Reagan but their strong belief that I will be one of the best presidents for civil rights and equal justice that this country's ever had.

MacNEIL: Let's discuss Ronald Reagan. The national polls show you with very marginally more appealing to voters generally against Mr. Reagan than Walter Mondale, well within the margin of error traditionally given to those polls. What better evidence do you have of your greater appeal as an opponent to Mr. Reagan than Mondale?

Sen. HART: Well, Mr. MacNeil, as you know, those polls go up and down depending on who's winning the primaries. I would venture to suggest in June, after the last primaries are held, and we have put together, I think, a very solid and convincing performance in the latter third of this nomination race, the gap will widen out as it did in February and March to show that I run even with or ahead of Mr. Reagan, and 10 to 15 points ahead of Mr. Mondale in contrast against Mr. Reagan. And that was what showed throughout March. Mr. Mondale then won a few primaries. The polls you're citing reflect those victories, and I think they'll swing back to what is, I believe, a more natural and accurate picture, and that is that I will run much more strongly againt Mr. Reagan.

MacNEIL: Well, what kind of argument do you use -- I presume you will use the argument you just used to me when you're courting delegates, wooing uncommitted delegates. What else can you say to them in terms of hard evidence? Have you got -- what have you got to give them?

Sen. HART: Well, they are coming up with the hard evidence themselves. Many of these people are members of the House or Senate or governors or aspirants to those offices, and they are conducting their own polls in their districts and sates, particularlyin the swing states, and I know for a fact that many of them are coming up with the evidence themselves and matchups -- Mondale versus Reagan, Hart versus Reagan -- that I do much, much better in their districts and states than Walter Mondale does. And that's because I can atract not only Democratic voters, but independents, moderate Republicans and new voters as well.

MacNEIL: Does it begin to -- does it give you anxiety that Mr. Reagan might not be beatable this November by either you or Mr. Mondale?

Sen. HART: It gives me anxiety that no one else but myself can defeat him, and therefore I think it's important not just for my own sake, but for our party and our country's sake, that I be the nominee, if I may say so. There's no question in my mind that I can win that election and win that matchup. That would be a classic contest between this country's future and its past -- not only the age difference and the party difference, but also the difference in outlook. What stake does Mr. Reagan have in the future of this country? He's a man in his mid-70s. He will be close to 80 years old if he were to serve another term. He has, if I may say so, less to look forward to than those of us in our 40s who are looking into the '80s and '90s and where this country must be headed. I don't want to just recover some past that probably never existed, as Mr. Reagan is trying to do. I want to move this country into the future, and that is going to take a much different kind of leadership than he represents.

MacNEIL: If Mr. Reagan is so defeatable this year, why is it that so many members of your own party continue to go along with his policies in Congress?For instance, the vote on military aid last week to El Salvador.

Sen. HART: Well, I think that's mixing apples and oranges, if I may say so. It's awfully hard to vote when you vote on a presidential iniative you vote for or against that initiative. In a national contest you have an alternative. You have Reagan and then you have Hart and all that Hart stands for and has put forward in the Congress under this president or any president, you have to vote for or against that president,. And there wasn't another option on the floor of the Congress. So in a national election, when people say Mr. Reagan can't be beat because he's so popular, that's because he's not running against anyone yet. Wait 'til we get a nominee and that nominee is myself, no question in my mind, then people will see that there is a clear, positive alternative.

MacNEIL: Well, Senator Hart, thank you very much for joining us.

Sen. HART: My pleasure.

MacNEIL: Jim?

LEHRER: Speaking of presidential election campaigns, the Justice Department now run by the winner of the 1980 campaign, today appealed the court decision on the Carter briefing papers case. Monday a lower-court judge ordered the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate how Carter campaign documents found their way into the hands of top officials of the Reagan campaign. Mr. Reagan's Justice Department filed a 24-page appeal today of that decision, claiming the judge does not have the right to order the attorney general to do such a thing if he doesn't want to. Robin?

MacNEIL: The American Heart Association says it and two other national health organizations which usually disagree sharply with the Tobacco Institute about smoking and health, finally agreed with the Institute on something today. The Heart Association said that along with the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association it worked out a compromise with the Tobacco Institute on four new warnings to replace the current vague one on cigarette packs and advertisements. Instead of merely saying cigarette smoking is dangerous to health, the new warnings would give specific warnings about the risks of lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and pregnancy problems. The compromise was reached with the intercession of Representative Albert Gore, Jr. of Tennessee, who will introduce a bill tomorrow to make the new warnings mandatory. In almost three-fourths of the states the law now places some restrictions on smoking in public places, but the battle between smokers and non-smokers goes on. In Arizona, which was the first state to impose restrictions, the two sides are still at it in the retirement community of Sun City. Kwame Holman reports. Smokers and Non-Smokers at Odds

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: Sun City is a usually tranquil community of golf courses, churches and banks. Some have called it a paradise for senior citizens. But today it is a city divided.

In Sun City, if you're playing bingo or if you're bowling or attending a social gathering, and if you want to smoke, you have to go outside. You have to go outside because smoking is now illegal in the recreation centers that form the social heart of Sun City. It became illegal last winter during a hard-fought campaign. Most of the residents here voted on it, and 54% agreed to ban smoking inside the recreation center building.

Sidney Goldman and his wife Helen led the fight against smoking.

SIDNEY GOLDMAN, anti-smoking campaign: We're 70 now, and I'd like to live a little longer.If a man wants to smoke no one can stop him, but let him smoke outside or smoke at home, but don't involve the public.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: On the other side is Virginia Fletcher, 64. She has been smoking for 40 years.

VIRGINIA FLETCHER, smoker: There is nothing more relaxing to a smoker than to follow a meal with a cup of coffee and a cigarette. Non-smokers shouldn't expect us to give up our lifestyles just so that they don't have to be around cigarette smoke.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The controversy over smoking has seriously divided this community. It's gotten so bad that Goldman and his wife have been targets of anti-Semitic letters, verbal abuse and hundreds of harassing phone calls.

Mr. GOLDMAN: One time he called me and he said, "You're dead." And I said, "What'd you say?" He says, "You're dead." Well, of course I hung up, and the first thing I could think of is, "Call the police."

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The police monitored the calls, arrested the caller and fined him $100. The emotions are running so high in part because the recreation centers are so important to the daily lives of Sun City residents. It is here that all social activities and sporting events take place. Since the ban, smokers feel they no longer can enjoy full use of the facility.

Ms. FLETCHER: You have to go to the outside because some elderly person says that the smoke bothers him. And here we have to smoke our cigarettes out in the heat when we pay for an air-conditioned, lovely bowling alley inside.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: With such a high level of antagonism, it was no surprise that the smokers didn't want to accept the results of the vote, so they got the people of Sun City to vote again on the same issue. Now the campaign goes on.

Mr. GOLDMAN: This is $10.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The fundraising and the meeting goes on, and the meetings go on and on, some for smokers --

Ms. FLETCHER: Every one of us have to take on -- that are active in this, people, have to really get out and do something about this.

Mr. GOLDMAN: That's why we have to work a little harder and get things done.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: -- and some for anti-smokers.

Mr. GOLDMAN: We mean to win this and to keep the bat where it belongs.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Part of the campaign this time is to persuade voters that healthy people as well as sick people are harmed by passive or secondary smoke, by being near a burning cigarette. The anti-smokers got a panel of doctors together to spread that word.

Dr. BRENDON THOMSON, pulmonary specialist: Basically I've been asked to say when it does passive smoking affect people adversely. I think the answer is when it's present.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: But in this case Dr. Thomson was preaching to the faithful. Almost no smokers attended this meeting. Smokers say they're more convinced by the fact that they and their friends have smoked for 40 years and are still healthy.

Ms. FLETCHER: I do not believe there is such a thing as secondary smoking condition. I think if that were true there'd be a heck of a lot more people who were dead in this world, because there's just smoke every place.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Steve Tritz is the general manager of the recreation centers, and he is a man caught in the middle.

STEVE TRITZ, general manager, recreation: And it really comes down to, whose rights are really being violated? Are we, by making the smokers go outside, violating their rights, or is it the secondary smoke, as it's called, violating a person who has emphysema or other lung trouble? Are their rights being violated in that they're not able to use our facilities?

Ms. FLETCHER: A non-smoker doesn't have any more right to tell me what to do to my body than I have to tell them that they have to do to their body.

Mr. GOLDMAN: I believe if this ever got to the Supreme Court, if it ever got that high, that they'd weigh the fact that the smoker is contaminating the air for his fellow man next to him, and that's where it should go. It should go to the Supreme Court for all of the United States.

MacNEIL: Before it goes to the Supreme Court it has to go to another ballot in Sun City. The ballots for the second election went out last week, and the residents of Sun City should know by June 1st whether the smoke-free zones will stay or go. Jim? USIA: Playing Politics?

LEHRER: Yesterday a committee of the Republian-controlled Senate did what had not been done before. It rejected outright a nominee of the current Republican President, Ronald Reagan. The rejection was that of Leslie Lenkowsky, hardly a household name, but as acting deputy director of the United States Information Agency was allegedly involved in blacklisting various people from making USIA-sponsored speeches overseas. Those persons were mostly journalists and Democrats, including one of our previous guests tonight, Senator Gary Hart. In voting against confirming Lenkowsky for permanent status, some of the senators said Lenkowsky had misled or lied about his role in the blacklisting; others said it was for his overall role in politicizing the agency. Of course one man's politicizing is another man's improving, as we're now about to see. Robin?

MacNEIL: To examine this further we have two men with quite different views of USIA activities in the Reagan era. To defend it we have Edward Feulner, chairman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy and the president of the Heritage Foundation. With another viewwe have Olin Robison, president of Middlebury College, who served for six years on the same advisory commission until he resigned in January.

Mr. Robison, you resigned because you didn't like what Charles Wick was doing to the agency. How far, in your view, has it been politicized?

OLIN ROBISON: I think it's been politicized more than most people think, and I think that much of the debate that has gone on here in Washington has focused a bit too much on whether or not we can measure the degree to which that political or politicization process has taken place. My sense is that under this administration and particularly under the administration of Mr. Wick, on whom I called to resign on the occasion of my resignation, is that so many things have happened in the course of the last three years that have impaired the ability of the agency to do its work overseas -- the work which it is enjoined to do by Coingress.

MacNEIL: Can you give us some specifics?

Mr. ROBISON: Well, the occasion which precipitated my resignation had to do with the fact that Mr. Wick was accused by The New York Times, I believe, of having taped surreptitiously a number of telephone conversations, which originally he denied and later said, yes indeed, he had done that, and some transcripts were submitted to the Congress, and then he apologized for having done it. And it seemed to me that at that time the publicity surrounding that -- Mr. Wick's denial and the way it was handled -- simply did not reflect credit on the agency, and the work of the agency overseas is of such a nature that it really must have the appearance of being absolutely impeccable. It, after all, is charged with presenting America's story, as the phrase goes, and if the leadership of that agency is setting a kind of double standard, permitting itself to behave by one standard while expecting its employees and others to behave by another, it simply is not the sort of image it ought to be projecting, and I think that hurts the ability of the agency to do what it's supposed to do.

MacNEIL: Mr. Feulner, you think Mr. Wick's doing a good job at USIA, do you?

EDWARD FEULNER: I think Mr. Wick has done a great number of very positive things for the agency in the three years that he's been director of it. Both my colleagues and I on the advisory commission have admitted and have stated publicly and privately to the director that there have obviously been some management defects in the front office. One of the problems about the Lenkowsky nomination, frankly, is that he had to serve on an interim basis for six months in an kind of an interregnum-type arrangement where he wasn't really either fish nor fowl. That is, he wasn't confirmed, he didn't really have the authority, but he took a great deal of the responsibility. I think it is significant, though, to point out before Olin Robison resigned three or four months ago that our advisory commission unanimously adopted a report that in fact pointed out many of the positive things Charlie Wick and his colleagues had done for the agency in terms of increasing the budget, in terms of improving the VOA capabilities for broadcasting overseas, the Radio Marti development, more funds, more funds for youth exchanges, Fulbright programs, etc. So there's a very positive story, I think, that has to be told that just isn't getting out at all.

MacNEIL: Back to you, Mr. Robison. In what way has the agency been politicized? I mean, we've heard about the blacklist, and that is one clear way. But apart from that, how else do you charge that the Reagan administration has been trying to impose an ideology on the agency?

Mr. ROBISON: Robin, I think that the blacklist, if I could use that as an example, is indicative of the kind of thing this administration has sought to do with the USIA. There is a good deal of talk in and around USIA by those who came in with this administration in 1981 that previous programs of the agency had not been sufficiently reflective of the American political spectrum.And that was code for the fact that there had been too many liberals going overseas and not enough conservatives, and the word was put out through the agency that that simply had to be corrected. And it was corrected. Now, it was corrected from their point of view. I think it's terribly difficult to measure whether the programs of the agency were hurt overseas by that, but the truth is that it is an agency which is meant to reflect the people of America, what the country stands for, a sense of fairness and all of those kinds of things which most people believe to be the American way, a phrase which recurs a great deal in our political system. And there is no question but that the blacklisting, as it's called, took place, and it seems to me that that is an index of the attitude which was brought by this group, and particularly by Mr. Wick, to these responsibilities. And I do want to say that he has indeed done a number of very good things, but I think the image which has been projected -- and, after all, USIA is in the business of projecting images -- has not been one which has been as beneficial to our country as it might have been.

MacNEIL: What do you think of the blacklisting, Mr. Robison? I beg your pardon, Mr. Feulner?

Mr. FEULNER: Robin, I think that, as I stated publicly yesterday to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, everyone finds a blacklist, the idea that someone would permanently be banned, a repugnant concept. The fact is that in the last 2 1/2 years 5,000 names came forward for possible AMPART -- that is, American Participants Abroad speakers program. Of those about 500 were selected. So if you want to look at it in that kind of a context, you had about 4,500 names that were on a reject list. I think one of the problems that is -- points that is lost in this whole discussion is that the agency very specifically has two charges. One that Olin referred to earlier is education -- the broad reflective viewpoint of the United States in all of its many facets. The other is advocacy; that is, telling the story of an incumbent administration. And Senator Pell, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just two weeks ago said, for example, that he thought it would brather foolish for the Reagan administration to send him out to defend Reagan's foreign policy, because he disagreed so fundamentally with it. He went on to say that every administration ought to have the right to send its own people around to do it.So we have both roles.

MacNEIL: Isn't that true, Mr. Robison?

Mr. ROBISON: I think it's probably true, but I doubt very seriously that the Reagan administration would call on Senator Pell to go tell its story. On the other hand, perhaps Senator Pell would go overseas to reprsent the American people, to talk about education, to talk about government, to talk about the activities of the Senate would be highly appropriate. And so I do differ with my good friend Ed a bit.I think it begs the question. The focus of the question is whether Senator Pell or those of his political persuasion would have been invited to go abroad to discussany aspect of what the American people believe or want to stand for.

MacNEIL: Well, to make your charge more concrete, are you saying that under Mr. Wick's direction that the USIA has only been reflecting Reagan administration point of view and not opposition point of view in this country?

Mr. ROBISON: No, I don't want to say that because I don't know if it's true. I rather doubt that it is. After all, the agency has been in business for a long time. It is staffed by a great many dedicated and professional Americans, and even in the situation with Mr. Wick, of whom I have been openly rather critical, I certainly don't question Mr. Wick's good intentions. I simply question his judgment. And I don't think that there is any intent on anyone's part to do damage. My argument is that it could have been done a better way.

MacNEIL: What do you say to that, Mr. Feulner?

Mr. FEULNER: I think the botton line is, what impact has it had on USIA's mission overseas? And to quote from the report of the inspector general. "No discernible impact on the quality of the speaker programs overseas has been detected." In addition I might point out that of the 95 individuals on the alleged blacklist or cold list, if you will, the inspector general found that 38 of them were rejected for political reasons. Included among those 38, interestingly enough, were several Republicans. Other people were rejected for other reasons. The list is kind of a hodge-podge of different things. It took on a life of its own in this rather strange environment we live in here in Washington.

MacNEIL: Well, gentlemen, thank you both for joining us, Mr. Robison, Mr. Feulner. Jim?

LEHRER: An update and a clarification on two stories. Monday we heard a debate on the safety of allowing genetically engineered organisms out into the environment. It was about a plan the University of California experiment to spray altered bacteria on plants to reduce frost and a lawsuit to stop it. Well, today a federal judge here in Washington did stop it, granting a preliminary injunction on grounds proper government approval was not granted.

The clarification is on a point made last night in our story about the younger Elmo Zumwalt.He has lymphoma, or cancer of the lymph nodes. There is more than one type, and the rare one he has is usually fatal, as we said. But there are other types that are not. Several people, including a man who has had it for years and is very much alive, called this to our attention.

Robin?

MacNEIL: An unusual cold snap for the middle of May broke low temperature records today in a dozen places from northern Michigan to North Carolina.But in the West the cooler weather slowed the melting of snow that has caused widespread flooding. Still, mudslides from the melting snow trapped the residents in about 40 condominiums in the mountain resort of Vail, Colorado. In Idaho the Portneuf River climbed a record six feet above the flood stage. And in Wyoming the dam burst at a reservoir, sending a four-foot wall of water into the Little Snake River. Three small communities were evacuated. Jim?

LEHRER: A last look at today's main stories. The Senate approved the administration's plan to cut the federal deficit. Gary Hart savored primary wins in Nebraska and Oregon and says he's in the fight to the end. The president of Mexico told Congress diplomacy not military action is the way to solve the problems of Central America. The Justice Department filed an appeal, claiming a federal judge does not have the right to order the appointment of a special prosecutor in the Carter briefing papers case. Good night, Robin.

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