The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. After more than a century the Reagan administration today reestablished full diplomatic relations with the Vatican. We'll be examining why and why it makes some Americans so angry. And as China's prime minister, Zhao Ziyang, opens a historic visit and talks with President Reagan, we hear about the issues bothering Washington and Peking. Jim Lehrer is off; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Also tonight we'll take a look at Washington's newest debate -- hunger in America, how serious a problem? We'll update today's activity in the vital automobile industry: GM streamlines while Ford arranges a Mexican marriage with a Japanese partner. And while you may have thought all college football ended with the New Year's bowl games, we have a report on the real competition that went on at an NCAA convention.

WOODRUFF: Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang went to the White House today and said that the growth of relations between his country and the United States is far below what it should be. His blunt words came at a ceremony on the South Lawn, where President Reagan headed the official welcoming party. Mr. Reagan led off stressing the positive.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: For our part we recognize the differences between our two countries, but we stand ready to nurture, develop and build upon the many areas of accord to strengthen the ties between us. We stand on common ground in opposing expansionism and interference in the affairs of independent states. We are united by our commitment for international peace and our desire for economic progress.

ZHAO ZIYANG, Chinese Premier [through interpreter]: But it shall be conceded that the growth of the Sino-U.S. relations is far below the level it should have attained.There have been ups and downs in the course of development, and there still exist difficulties and obstacles.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: As the two leaders spoke, several hundred demonstrators from Taiwan shouted protests from a nearby ellipse. And Taiwan was a topic of discussion for Reagan and Zhao in their hour-and-a-half meeting in the Oval Office, and administration officials said later that the President had reaffirmed his view on the Taiwan question, telling Zhao the U.S takes its commitments to its old friends seriously. The two leaders were also said to have discussed a nuclear power cooperation program which U.S. and Chinese officials are expected to reach agreement on. The Chinese premier later headed to separate meetings with Secreatary of State Shultz and Treasury Secretary Regan. Zhao is the highestranking Chinese government official ever to visit the U.S. -- Chinese Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping paid a visit five years ago, and President Reagan plans to go to China this April. We'll have a more detailed discussion on the state of U.S.-Chinese relations later in this program when we talk with an expert on China from the Brookings Institution here in Washington.

Robin? Vatican Relations

MacNEIL: The Reagan administration today reestablished full diplomatic relations between the United States and the Vatican for the first time in 117 years. If the Senate approves, the first ambassador will be William Wilson, who is 69, a long-time Reagan friend and real estate developer. He's been the President's personal envoy to the Vatican since 1981. The move, announced at the Vatican and in Washington, had been expected for a long time, but that didn't blunt the criticism from Protestant and Jewish groups. One such group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that if the Senate did not block Ambassador Wilson's nomination, they would sue in federal court. Their grounds would be that diplomatic relations violate the constitutional requirement for the separation of church and state. That was denied by State Department spokesman John Hughes.

JOHN HUGHES, State Department: That's not a -- that's not a violation of church and state because for a long time we recogrized the Holy See as having an international personality distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. This relationship will be with the Holy See. The Holy See is distinct from the Catholic Church. There's a long history of representation. I'd just refresh your memory. The United States has had a Presidential personal representative to the Holy See for many years. The tradition was established in 1939 by President Roosevelt when he appointed Myron Taylor as his personal representative. The Holy See is an international focal point of diplomatic contact, and as I say, we're joining 107 other nations, including all our major allies, in establishing diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

MacNEIL: The young United States had relations with the papal states from 1848 until 1967 -- sorry, 1867, when most of those papal states had fallen to the new kingdom of Italy. Franklin Roosevelt started informal relations with the Vatican in 1939, but when President Truman tried to reestablish formal diplomatic ties, a storm of protest forced him to back down.

To take us through the benefits the administration expects from taking this step now and the reasons the critics have for opposing it, we have Steven Pressman, a reporter who has covered the story extensively for the Congressional Quarterly. Mr. Pressman, what was the origin of this move?

STEVEN PRESSMAN: Robin, a Republican senator from Indiana, Richard Lugar, this summer introduced in the Senate an amendment to another bill that would, in effect, repeal the 1867 law that you mentioned that prohibited back then the federal government from spending any money to maintain a diplomatic mission to the Vatican. Senator Lugar apparently had come to feel that it was something of a charade to maintain the informal ties that we have had with the Vatican since Franklin Roosevelt's time, and thought that it was now time to go ahead and establish full diplomatic relations between the United States and the Vatican.

MacNEIL: So it did not originate in the White House with the President?

Mr. PRESSMAN: There are no signs that it did, although Senator Lugar apparently did have some discussions with administration officials to see if it basically would meet with their support, and they had indicated to him that they would not, certainly, oppose this move, even if they were not actively endorsing this move.

MacNEIL: I've seen it reported today that U.S. officials defending the move are saying that this is going to give this government access to a lot of very sophisticated information that the Vatican, through its diplomatic efforts around the world, has. How strong is that argument, do you think?

Mr. PRESSMAN: Well, I'm not sure how strong an argument that is. Certainly the United States has had informal ties with the Vatican for a number of years, and presumably through those channels, informal though they may be, we have had access to that kind of information. In addition I should add that over the years the Vatican has had observers and representatives to a variety of international bodies under the auspices of the United Nations, and they are, as well, parties to a number of international treaties to which the United States is also a part of. So in the course of those channels and various forums, presumably the United States has had over the years access to that kind of information. I'm, quite frankly, not entirely clear of what kind of information the administration may be thinking of in terms of gaining that sort of access to the Vatican.

MacNEIL: Well, through your reporting, what do you think is the real motive behind this? Is it simply to repair an anomaly, to remove an anomaly? Or is it to perhaps have some say in the activities of this very political pope in Poland -- what he does in Poland or in Central America or something like that?

Mr. PRESSMAN: There are --

MacNEIL: Or am I looking for motives that aren't there?

Mr. PRESSMAN: Well, I'm sure you are. I'm sure there are lots of other people here in Washington that will be doing the same thing. There are some observers who suggest that perhaps this administration is making an overture, a political overture, to a pope who has been a very strident anticommunist, has had, as you mentioned -- made trips to Central America, to Poland, areas of the world where there is a clear communist-versus-anticommunist struggle going on. Senator Lugar, when he debated this issue on the floor of the Senate, seemed to be very clear in saying he simply thought that it was somewhat hypocritical all these years to have these intomal ties without going the full diplomatic route. I suppose since this is an election year and since this is a political year, there will be those who will perhaps attempt to read into it a political plus or minus on behalf of the Reagan administration. It might be argued that this will be a political plus because it's an overture to the nation's Catholics. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that there are a number of other religious groups -- the Reverend Jerry Falwell comes to mind, who was a very ardent supporter of Ronald Reagan in 1980, who thinks this is a very dangerous precedent. He and other religious leaders have taken the administration to task over this issue, and there are others as well, within the Catholic community, who think that it may end up stirring anti-Catholic sentiments in this country that we really haven't seen since perhaps the campaign of John Kennedy in 1960.

MacNEIL: Is the opposition to this like anything strong enough to, for instance, prevent the nomination of the ambassador going through the Senate?

Mr. PRESSMAN: I doubt it. I checked with some people in the course of the day today and, quite frankly, spokesmen for a number of these groups doubt that they will muster enough lobbying strength to stop that from happening. Instead, they are interested in using those confirmation proceedings as a forum to express their opposition and their reservations about this move. They did not have that opportunity to do so when Congress very swiftly passed this law last summer because there were no hearings held on this subject, and they are certainly hoping to use the upcoming confirnation proceedings when an appointment is made to raise those arguments.

MacNEIL: So, in other words, that sentiment, which was so virulent when it forced President Truman to retreat is nothing like as strong now. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. PRESSMAN: It does not appear to be. I think the country is in a different posture than it was in the 1950s. At that point there were Catholic groups who were somewhat more supportive publicly of this move, and so that kind of action stirred up arguments between the religious groups themselves. This time the Catholic groups have been very neutral on this issue. I think the other groups have not been, as a result, all that successful in drumming up opposition to this move.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Pressman, thank you very much for joining us.

Mr. PRESSMAN: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Judy?

WOODRUFF: That security plan for Lebanon we kept hearing about last week has apparently fallen apart for the time being. The Syrian, Lebanese and Saudi Arabian officials who were meeting to discuss it broke off their talks yesterday. And, in Lebanon, Druse leader Walid Jumblatt said that disagreements remain on several essential points, including the need for neutral observers and the disengagement of forces in areas south of Beirut where the Druse have strongholds. The foreign minister of Syria said, however, the talks might be reconvened as part of the Geneva conference on Lebanon. For a report on some of the elements in the complicated situation, here is Peter Gould of the BBC.

PETER GOULD, BBC [voice-over]: In the hills Druse militiamen are reluctant to give up their positions, and in the southern suburbs of Beirut, scene of some of the fiercest battles, militant Shiite Moslems are unhappy about the mapping out of disengagement zones, a move aimed at separating rival factions. But without their support, there's no hope of a lasting ceasefire. But if peace can be restored to Lebanon's battered capital, it will be a considerable achievement for Saudi Arabia's mediation behind the scenes.

But the biggest challenge faces the Lebanese army.If the warring factions around Beirut are to be kept apart, the army has to play a greater role by taking control in key areas and, being Christian-dominated, it has to convince suspicious Moslems it can act impartially.

WOODRUFF: Tonight the French Embassy was the target of two rocket-propelled grenades. There were no casualties reported there or at another position nearby where French soldiers were fired on.Meanwhile, a Beirut newspaper reported that France has agreed to provide the Lebanese army with 100 helicopters as part of a plan to upgrade the army's firepower. In this country the two Republican senators who just paid a visit to the Middle East held a news conference this afternoon. Senate Arms Services Committee Chairman John Tower and his colleague, John Warner, defended the role of the U.S. Marines in Lebanon.

JOHN TOWER, (R) Texas: It's absolutely clear that a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Lebanon, particularly a congressionally mandated withdrawal, without substantial evidence of diplomatic success, would have a disastrous effect upon continued U.S. influence throughout the vitally important Middle East and perhaps elsewhere. It is our view that the U.S. MNF contingent does have a mission in Lebanon. Although the mission is not capable of expression in classic military terms, the United States MNF contingent is playing an important role as an instrument of our vital foreign policy interests in this region.

WOODRUFF: The New York Times reported today that the secretary of the Navy wants some of the military officers in charge at the time of the Beirut Marine barracks truck bombing to be reprimanded. Navy Secretary John Lehman reportedly is urging his boss, Defense Secretary Weinberger, to issue disciplinary letters, which would have the effect of blocking any further career advancement for the officers involved. A special Pentagon commission that reviewed the Beirut bombing said serious command failures had contributed to inadequate security at the Marine compound. President Reagan has since apparently ruled out courts martial but not disciplinary letters.

Robin?

MacNEIL: There were several important stories from the automobile industry today. General Motors, the largest automaker, announced an ambitious reorganization plan in which its present five divisions will become two, a big car and a small car division. The small car group will include Chevrolet, Pontiac and GM of Canada; the large car division will fold in Buick, Oldsmobile and Cadillac. One automobile analyst quoted by the Associated Press said the new plan showed that the giant automaker is getting serious about selling small cars.

America's number-two automaker, Ford, announced that it's teaming up with a Japanese company, Toyo Kogyo, to make a new subcompact car in Mexico. Ford is investing half a billion dollars in the plant. General Motors and Toyota of Japan are proceeding with a deal to make small cars in the United States, while Chrysler and Mitsubishi say they are considering a similar deal.

Another Japanese automaker, Honda, said today that it's planning to boost its automobile production by 10% this year. Yesterday Honda said it would spend $240 million expanding its plant in Marysville, Ohio.

Judy?

WOODRUFF: The people who run the Getty Oil Company face a challenge in their plans to merge with Texaco. The Pennzoil Company, which had been trying itself to merge with Getty, says that it will take the company to court on the grounds that the merger with Texaco would be anticompetitive. Pennzoil's plans to buy a large share in Getty's stock fell through when Texaco offered Getty more money. If the merger is allowed to stand between Getty and Texaco, it would be at $9.9 billion, the largest in history. And that would make the descendants of J. Paul Getty very happy indeed. Their family fortune would climb from a mere $2 1/2 billion to almost $4 billion.

Interior Secretary William Clark said today that he would change some policies at the Interior Department. Clark, who replaced the controversial James Watt, said that he would reverse the department decision not to buy additional national parklands.Speaking before the National Association of Manufacturers, Clark said that he would ask Congress for $157 million to purchase parks and wildlife refuges. The interior secretary also told his audience of business leaders that industry should not impose what he called "unreasonable environmental burdens on the rest of the country." Clark said while he would not alter Watt's plan to open up coastal waters for oil exploration, he would recommend some changes in the process.

We'll be back in a moment.

[Video Postcard -- Montpelier, Vermont] Hunger in America

MacNEIL: The President's task force on hunger delivered its long-awaited report to the White House today. Its chairman, J. Clayburn La Force, warned that the debate about hunger is far from over, and it's a debate we pick up tonight. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has more. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The task force finished up its work late yesterday with very little debate over its conclusions and recommendations. It said that although hunger is a problem, allegations of widespread hunger could not be substantiated. The report said that national surveys have not uncovered any major problems deriving from undernutrition, and that budget cutbacks initiated by the Reagan administration did not cut food aid to the truly needy.

The task force recommended no new major programs, but did make proposals aimed at preventing budget cuts in food assistance programs. At a White House press conference today commission members spoke of the difficulty in collecting objective evidence of hunger.

MIDGE DECTER, Task Force on Food Assistance: Rampancy of hunger, which is a very strong word, could be defined by epidemiological evidence of the symptoms of famine or prolonged undernutrition, and that we have not found.

JOHN RAISIAN, Task Force director: I think I'd like to just emphasize that the thrust, I think, of the task force's efforts have been to look at what we've called the truly needy and, in particular, those that are below the federal poverty line. And what we tried -- what we have concluded is that the federal and state and local safety nets that are in place, along with that valuable private effort, seems to be working well for that group of individuals. There's no question, though, that many individuals are not participating within that group, but we don't know quite why.

HUNTER-GAULT: The 13-member task force was created by President Reagan four months ago, but it was congressional Democrats who first raised the issue, claiming federal budget cuts were unfairly hurting the poor.

[voice-over] Last winter, allegations of widespread hunger prompted California Congressman Leon Panetta to hold a series of hearings around the nation on the food problems of the poor.

WITNESS [hunger hearing]: We cannot live off of what we already get, and they're talking about cutting some more. What are these people thinking about in Washington?

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: By midsummer the crescendo of news reports on increasing hunger had the Reagan administration on the defensive. Agriculture Secretary John Block conducted a week-long experiment with his own family to prove that a family of four could adequately be fed under the food stamp program. At the end of the week Block called his food stamp experiment a success, and the President also acted.

MacNEIL [August 2, 1983]: President Reagan today ordered the creation of a White House task force on hunger, and gave it 90 days to produce what he called a no-holds-barred report on the causes of hunger in the United States.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: In the fall the task force held regional hearings throughout the country, gathering evidence, but the President's appointees weren't the only ones combing the country. Last November, Senator Edward Kennedy held his own hearings in five cities during a six-day trip.

WITNESS [November 19, 1983]: I will eat popcorn all afternoon so they have more food to eat in the evening.

Sen. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) Massachusetts: You mean that so then you don't eat with them at night?

WITNESS: I tell them I'm not hungry so they have more.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: Kennedy's findings were bolstered by medical reports of malnutrition in his home state of Massachusetts.

Gov. MICHAEL DUKAKIS, (D) Massachusetts: It is shocking and a matter of very deep personal concern for me to look at the results of this study and to find that, once again, we have very serious, basic problems, in this case involving malnutrition in children.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: While the hunger studies were underway, presidential adviser Edwin Meese came under heavy fire by the press and anti-hunger groups for his statements on hunger. Meese said that there was information that "people go to soup kitchens because the food is free, and that's easier than paying for it." He added that evidence of hunger was mainly "anecdotal" and the allegations of hunger "purely political." But Senator Kennedy criticized Meese's statements at a press conference in December when he released his findings on hunger.

Sen. KENNEDY [December 22, 1983]: White House Counselor Ed Meese does not believe that there is hunger in America. Let him go where I went -- to the breadlines in Minneapolis, to the hollows of southeastern Kentucky -- and wherever he goes he will find what I found and what every other study has found: the facts about hunger are not anecdotal, but overwhelming. At this Christmas season there is clear, undeniable and authoritative evidence of widespread and increasing hunger in America.

HUNTER-GAULT: The President's task force, as we said, disagrees with Senator Kennedy's findings, and those of anti-hunger groups who claim that hunger is widespread. We'll be hearing from a task force member and a staff director in a moment. But first, a critic of the report. She is Nancy Amidei, the director of the Food Research and Action Center, a privately funded group working on hunger. Ms. Amidei, in Washington, what's your general reaction to the report?

NANCY AMIDEI: I'm terribly disappointed by it, but I'm not surprised by it. I think that the report itself is just a terrible disappointment to hungry people. I've spent the last 2 1/2 years in soup kitchens and food pantries and food stamp offices and with emergency food providers and other people across the country, and we have been compiling reports in our office, and the stack just grows with every passing day and every passing week.

HUNTER-GAULT: But the major conclusion of the report seemed to substantiate what we heard Mr. Meese say, that this evidence is really anecdotal, that there is no concrete, authoritative evidence to substantiate these claims of widespread hunger.

Ms. AMIDEL: You know, I suspect it must be the first time that a Harvard study, a state department of public health study that took a year to conduct and examined 1,400 children could possibly be written off as an anecdote, to say nothing of the fact that we have to start with the basic numbers, the basic government statistics. We have -- in the absence of any fancy or better data, we have a good surrogate for a hunger count, and that's the poverty count. It doesn't tell us who's hungry right this minute, this afternoon or this evening, and it doesn't tell us precisely how many people are malnourished, but it defines for us the number of people at risk of hunger because, by definition, it counts people whose incomes are so low that they are expected not to have enough income even for an emergency short-term diet when funds are low. And those numbers collected by the Commerce Department year after year and published every year, usually in August of every year, show that 1978 the number has been growing steadily and dramatically. It does tell us two things. It tells us whether or not the problem -- the number of people at risk -- is growing or diminishing, and the evidence has been that it has been growing dramatically, and, secondly, it tells us what the general megnitude of the problem is, even if you can't pin it down to the last person.

HUNTET--GAULT But the report also --

Ms. AMIDEL: Excuse me, but that's about 35 million people, roughly.

HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me. Thank you. The report also said, though, that low-income people, that there was sufficient public and private sources of food for low-income people seeking to take advantage of them.

Ms. AMIDEI: Absolutely not. Right now, for example, about 46 1/2 million people are eligible for food stamps. Only about 21 1/2 million people get food stamps, and because of a combination of the deep recession we've been going through and the budget cuts of the last few years, even fewer people are eligible for help now at a time when the need is greater than it has been since the mid-1960s. There's no question that millions of people in this country who need help cannot get it from either public or private sources. They're simply not getting it.

HUNTER-GAULT: What about one of the major and seemingly the most controversial recommendation in the report, that the states be given the option of receiving money from the federal government in a lump sum and setting up their own food programs and doing them however they wish or remaining within the federal program. What's your reaction to that?

Ms. AMIDEI: Well, I think it's significant that the three local elected officials on the task force voted no to that. I think it's significant that no one coming before the task force urged them to do that, and I think it's significant that the administration has sent up similar proposals in slightly different fashion ever since it got into office, and Congress has consistently rejected that, and that in the old days,that's how the food programs worked until Congress saw the evidence that running it that way left people malnourished and hungry, and they deliberately changed it.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, we just have about 20 seconds for this portion.What, in brief, would be the harm of doing it that way? I mean, why wouldn't it work?

Ms. AMIDEI: First, because it would put a cap on the money and it would leave the most hard-pressed states in the worst conditions, but finally, because the problem is national and whether or not somebody needs food and what they need doesn't vary from region to region. That is something that's uniform across the board. So the standards have to be national in order to be effective.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you. We'll come back. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Here to defend the work of the hunger task force are its executive director, John Raisian, who was in charge of putting together the draft report that was approved by the task force yesterday. Mr. Raisian is on leave from the Department of Labor, where he is director of research for the Office of Policy. And Erma Davis, a member of the task force and director of the George Washington Carver Association, a public social services agency in Peoria, Illinois. Mr. Raisian, what about Ms. Amidei's comments? Number one, she says that there are 35 million people at risk in this country right now of being hungry.

JOHN RAISIAN: Well, the way I would respond to that is the fact that many individuals in this poverty group are getting food assistance. So the, you know, so some of their needs are met. What we have done is to look at participation in food assistance programs, and our evidence indicates that if you look primarily at those at or below the federal poverty line, that those individuals, by and large, are getting a fair bit of services in terms of aid for their problems.

WOODRUFF: Well, she cited 46 1/2 million people being eligible for food stamps and less than half of those are actually getting food stamps. What about that?

Mr. RAISIAN: Well, the 46 1/2 million people, that number is approximately, I think it's around 150 or thereabouts -- 150% of the poverty line.

Ms. AMIDEI: No, that's not correct. It's 125% --

WOODRUFF: Wait just a moment and we'll get back, in just a moment.

Mr. RAISIAN: And so it is a number above the poverty line. For those individuals who can qualify for food stamps if they earn, if their net income is 130% of the poverty line. And so these individuals are able to attend. In terms of talking about the specific, "why don't people participate, given that they're eligible," what we find is that -- two things. One is some individuals appear not to apply for stamps simple because -- well, I can't say causally, but they are very close to the income restraint, which is to say that the amount of aid that they would get is fairly small relative to the hassle, costs associated maybe with getting the stamps. The other group is the elderly -- go ahead.

WOODRUFF: Maybe we can go into that later. Ms. Davis, let me ask you about something else. The report says that hunger is not rampant, but it also says that there's no real accurate way now of measuring how many people don't have enough food. So how can you say one or the other is true?

ERMA DAVIS: Okay, I think from my vantage point you have seen the summary of the report. When the actual report is published it does admit that there is hunger in America.Then we go into the degrees of, you know, how much, how many people are being served. We don't have those answers. I think when the final -- you know, when the report gets out, the full report is published sometime next week, it's going to have --

WOODRUFF: You're saying it's going to show something different from what we've been hearing.

Ms. DAVIS: It's going to have an explanation that yes, hunger does exist in America. That is in there. But then when we get into clinical hurger and hunger as determined medically, that becomes the area that we have not been able to define in the timetable because we did not go into checking with emergency rooms, for instance, to see if that kind of malnutrition existing in America.

WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. Raisian, let me ask you a very basic question. If you -- if there is one undernourished person in this country, do you think the government has a responsibility to do something about it?

Mr. RAISIAN: Well, I think it's a problem, okay? I want to say right up front it's problem, but --

WOODRUFF: But what I'm asking is, does the federal government have a responsibility to do something about it?

Mr. RAISIAN: Well, I would say, you know, I'd have to say more broadly that we as a people have a responsibility to take care of those in need. Now, the thing is, the question is, what kinds of program should we develop to try to find that person, as an example, or, and to get aid for that individual? And what we find is that our basic programs -- we think that are -- are very good programs. We've made some recommendations about how these programs, we think, could be improved. And so that we can help the problem.

WOODRUFF: But you're saying -- basically I hear you saying that it's not up to the federal government.

Mr. RAISIAN: There's a problem. There should -- the federal government should -- or we as a people should take a responsibility. Now the question is how to get to those individuals in need, and that's a problem. It's a real tough problem.

WOODRUFF: All right, Ms. Davis, can you address Ms. Amidei's criticism of the idea of turning this money over to the states for them to administer in block grants?

Ms. DAVIS: I had to, in my own mind, vote for it on the basis that I did not have enough information to vote against it. The word optional, in my mind, left the decision at the state level in terms of whether Illinois, where I happen to be from, would or would not accept. When I touched bases with that office, I didn't get a yes or a no. That office is more concerned about administrative costs, if the administrative costs would be adequate.

WOODRUFF: So you were basing it on what you were being told in Illinois? All right.

Ms. DAVIS: Yes.

WOODRUFF: Thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Ms. Amidei, Ms. Davis says that next week, when the task force report comes out fully blown that it is going to say that hunger exists. Why isn't that enough?

Ms. AMIDEI: Because it isn't enough just to acknowledge it. That's been known to just about anybody who could read or write or see or count for years now, and the problem has been growing. It's a question of magnitude, for one thing, and whether or not, as Judy pointed out, someone is prepared to accept responsibility. I was listening as John Raisian was talking, and it struck me that he would leave in people's minds the notion that anybody who is getting some kind of help from the food programs is taken care of. That begs the question. Somebody who gets food stamps now gets an average benefit of 47" a meal. You're not taken care of if you get 47" a meal.

HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me, what do you say to that, Mr. Raisian?

Mr. RAISIAN: Well,first of all, 47" a meal is a little misleading, but I don't know that we should get into that specific point. It's more like 70-some cents.

Ms. AMIDEI: I beg your pardon. That's the maximum, 70. Forty-seven is the average as calculated by the Food and Nutrition Service at USDA.

Mr. RAISIAN: You're absolutely right, but remember that the food stamp program is meant to be a supplemental program, which is to say that individuals are to contribute some of their own income towards the feeding of themselves.

Ms. AMIDEI: In theory. But that's part of the problem that our studies and other people's studies have documented and the hearings that have been conducted have documented. People no longer have the cash to supplement that 47" a meal, and if you take his other figure, the 70", which is the maximum, think about what it means to a family struggling to feed children, growing children, 12-year-old boys who have a hollow leg. They can't do it on 70" a meal, and that implies, incidentally, that they have no net income at all. So they might not even have a working refrigerator or stove or water in the house. That's what we're talking about.

HUNTER-GAULT: Ms. Davis, there seems to be a lot of problem with reconciling these studies and numbers. I mean, the commission, the task force couldn't reach a conclusion because it felt that the numbers weren't authoritative. Ms. Amidei says that there are plenty of studies. I mean, how can you two get together on this matter of how many hungry people there are? Do you see a way?

Ms. DAVIS: I see a way, and I offered a suggestion at the hearing yesterday in that there is a mayor in every city, and there is a U.S. Conference of Mayors office, and in touching bases with that executive director, I'm told that they could -- let me just use my own city, for instance. Mayor Carver could, in a matter of 24 hours, give anybody anyplace statistics on the number of soup kitchens in Peoria, the numbers that are served, the number of individuals served by those soup kitchens, the number of food pantries, the numbers served by the food pantries.

HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me, I --

Ms. DAVIS: So I see that --

HUNTER-GAULT: I think I get the drift of what you're saying. If that's the case, why didn't the task force go that way so that they could be more definitive in their estimates?

Ms. DAVIS: That Mr. Raisian would have to answer.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Raisian?

Mr. RAISIAN: Well, we did, to the best we could. First of all, keep in mind we were in the -- we were servicing or looking at this issue for 90 days. What we did was to try to do as many personal surveys on the part of the task force at private outlets for food assistance to try to understand more about the nature of their programs and things of that nature.

HUNTER-GAULT: But here is a member --

Mr. RAISIAN: But this is not a widespread --

HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me. Here is a member of the task force saying there was a more efficient way of doing it. This was not raised in the course of doing the analysis?

Mr. RAISIAN: Well, I think that the -- what Erma is saying is that we could have gotten a better handle on the situation with probably a little more time in terms of trying to find out a little bit private programs, and we agree. You know, with more time we could have done more to try to understand the nature of this problem.

HUNTER-GAULT: But you are comfortable --

Mr. RAISIAN: But I want to come back by simply saying that, you know, Nancy talked about this business of a U.S. Bureau of the Census having poverty statistics, a very good data base. But there are no data like that, comprehensive across the country, that will get you an idea about the number of hungry people there are in this country.

HUNTER-GAULT: Ms. Amidei, very briefly on the states having the option to run the food programs. You heard what Ms. Davis said, that it was the optional that made her vote in favor of it, and the commission argues that there is more flexibility at the local level. You don't buy that?

Ms. AMIDEI: Well, I look at the evidence. I was around in the days when Congress was examining what happened when the states did have the authority, and the studies at that time found that many people were left out entirely, and those who did get help got so little in many places that they were left malnourished. But bring this forward just a little bit. Bear in mind that the National Govemors Association has rejected the idea, but the Congress has had the proposal in other forms -- slightly different forms -- and has rejected the idea as recently as last year and this year. So -- excuse me, in 1983 and 1982.

HUNTER-GAULT: And Senator Dole said yesterday he didn't think it was going to --

Ms. AMIDEI: Of course not.

HUNTER-GAULT: -- this would make it through.

Ms. AMIDEI: Because it's been examined carefully by Congress. They don't think it's a good idea. But we have to pick up on two things that have been left hanging here.

HUNTER-GAULT: I'm sorry, Ms. Amidei, I wish we had the time, but we really don't. We're out of time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Raisian, and thank you, Ms. Davis.

Robin? NCAA Structure Questioned

MacNEIL: This is the time of year when college sports are at their peak, with football bowl games and basketball in mid-season form. College sports are an increasingly big business, with the network TV contracts for football alone worth more than $60 million annually. Those contracts are negotiated for the colleges by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the NCAA. the major governing body for college sports. Although financially successful, the NCAA has come under increasingly heavy fire for not stressing academic standards for college athletes. Today, at the group's annual convention in Dallas, a group of college presidents made a major push to reform the NCAA and how it's run. Kwame Holman has our report.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: College athletics is no longer just a game. For years is has been big business. The responsibility for running that business belongs to these college faculty representatives and athletic directors who are the NCAA. Each year at their convention they make decisions governing every aspect of college sports.

But this year there was something new -- large numbers of college presidents. They came to plan, to lobby, to exort. They came to make the convention focus on the problems of college athletics. One of them was Edward Foote, whose University of Miami football team won an upset in last week's Orange Bowl.

EDWARD FOOTE, president, University of Miami: The Orange Bowl paid the two competing universities $1,800,000 just for playing that game. There are tremendous temptations to win at any cost, and the system is designed, or should be, to bring out the best of us, not encourage the least of us. When we deal with students who are, after all, according to our Constitution and our fundamental concept, students first and athletes second.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Georgetown University President Father Timothy Healy agreed that the student side of the student athlete is all too often ignored.

Fr. TIMOTHY HEALY, president, Georgetown University: If you look at an organization like the National Basketball Association, all of the members, or almost all of the members, went, through four years of college. Only about one in five actually earned a college degree. Now, for the NBA players that's fine. They're probably all going to die wealthy men. But for -- that's less than 1% of the athletes who play actually, say, basketball, actually make it into the professional ranks. So then how about that other 99%, to quote the scriptures?

HOLMAN: Here at the convention in Dallas we could find little disagreement that college athletics are in trouble, but great disagreement on solutions. One controversial solution was proposed by a group of college presidents. They said the NCAA should create a 44-member board of college presidents with broad powers to legislate issues of academic standards and college finances.The proposal ignited a debate over how much power the president should have.

EDWARD FORT, president, North Carolina A&T State University: The time has come for this association to rally around the flag of the concept of a board of presidents which, by virtue of its race [unintelligible] it can assess sports and regain some semblance of credibility within the eyes of the public and, ultimately, the students whom we suggest we are here to support.

MARVIN JOHNSON, president, University of New Mexico: And I say to you delegates today, I urge you to vote no. This is a small paddle, but it's still your paddle, it's your university's paddle. You can put it up or down the way you want it, and you won't give it to 44 people who will make decisions behind closed doors, shielded from the press, and you'll learn about the decision when they tell you about it, and not before.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Despite early confidence, supporters of a strong presidents board lost, getting 48% of the vote instead of the needed two thirds. But they served notice on the NCAA that the status quo can't continue and that college presidents have to get much more involved if abuses in collegiate sports are to be eliminated.

MacNEIL: In Salt Lake City a review board at the University of Utah today approved guidelines permitting an artificial heart to be implanted in a second human patient. The guidelines require that the patient to be selected be healthier than Dr. Barney Clarke, the Seattle dentist who received the first implant and died 112 days later. The second operation will also allow surgeon William Devrees to use a 10-pound portable unit to drive the heart instead of the 375-pound stationary unit used in the Clark case. Now the Food and Drug administration has 30 days in which to approve or disapprove the guidelines before the second operation can take place.

And we'll be back in a moment.

[video Postcard -- Smithriver, California]

WOODRUFF: Henry Kissinger today began looking for congressional support for the $8-billion aid plan being recommended by his special commission for Central America. The former secretary of state briefed key Republican and Democratic members on the proposal, which is to be formally unveiled tomorrow. Kissinger said he believed the president would back a major recommendation by the panel that military aid for El Salvador be linked to special progress on human rights there, despite a statement by White House spokesmen yesterday that Mr. Reagan would reject the idea. That statement by White House Deputy Press Secretary Larty Speakes was later retracted. After meeting with the House Foreign Affairs Committee today, Kissinger underscored the value of the commission's work.

HENRY KISSINGER, chairman, Central America Commission: It seems to me that the important story of the commission is not a relatively minor disagreement that the press has up to now reported, but the fact that 12 Americans of widely different background could come together and achieve a substantial consensus on an area of such great importance so close to our border and which has in the past evoked such bitter controversy.

WOODRUFF: According to press reports, the commission will recommend $8 billion in aid to Central America over the next five years, including increased military assistance to El Salvador and Honduras.

In Moscow the Soviet news agency Tass reported today that the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies have proposed a worldwide ban on chemical weapons. The proposal was presented to NATO ambassadors in Moscow today, and Western analysts said it appeared to be aimed at setting a more conciliatory tone for the Stockholm disarmament conference opening next week. It was the first such suggestion from the Soviets since they walked out of the Geneva arms talks last November.

Robin? Sino-American Talks

MacNEIL: For our last major segment tonigh we return to one of the top stories of the day, the visit of Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang. To tell us why it's important and what key issues now color U.S. relations with China, we turn to China expert Harry Harding. Mr. Harding is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He recently spent two weeks in China, where he talked with the premier and other government officials. Mr. Harding, we heard that this is the first man, Chinse Communist of this rank to visit the United States. How important is this visit?

HARRY HARDING: Well, it's very important. Of course, Deng Xiaoping, though not technically of equal rank, was of equal importance when he came here five years ago. But the visit is important for both substantive and symbolic reasons. Symbolically it shows that the two countries' relationship is now back on track after a rather stormy period in late '82 and for much of '83. Substantively it will give the leaders an opportunity to talk about issues ranging from Taiwan to economic relations to the two countries to a wide range of global and regional issues.

MacNEIL: Has Taiwan as an issue been neutralized enough that it is not going to jeopardize the development of other relations?

Mr. HARDING: No, I don't think it has been neutralized enough. I think that that, in my mind, is the most important single issue that will be on the table in these negotiations. I think the Taiwan issue can be managed effectively. It can't be resolved here in Washington. It can be managed.

MacNEIL: Sketch in the background for us a moment. I mean, the Chinese want Taiwan as part of mainland China, and the United States is committed not to deliver it to them itself.

Mr. HARDING: That's right. I think that the two countries look at the Taiwan problem in fundamentally different ways. China sees Taiwan as an internal problem, as a runaway province in which it is still engaged in an ongoing civil war. It sees any outside interference in that process as interference in its internal affairs. The United States, in contrast, has a long-standing interest in a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question. And we don't see that as being something that is illegitimate for us.

MacNEIL: I see. Now, when you say it's on the table, what can come of this issue? You say it's manageable.

Mr. HARDING: I think it's manageable if the Reagan administration will agree to exercise greater consistency in its statements and its policy towards Taiwan and if Zhao Ziyang and the Chinese administration for their part realize that demands for further concessions by the United States are likely to be counterproductive.

MacNEIL: I see. Now, what do the Chinese want on this visit, Taiwan apart?

Mr. HARDING: I think, Taiwan apart, it is clear from what Zhao Ziyang said when I was in Peking in December, what his schedule here in the States indicates is that he is going to be placing enormous emphasis on promoting greater American trade with and investment in China. I think that that is a major element of China's attempt to modernize its economy by the end of the century. Beyond that, I think that there may be some discussion of strategic matters, of geopolitical matters. I would be very surprised, however, if Zhao Ziyang takes anything resembling the approach that Deng Xiaoping took five years ago. You remember at that point Deng was talking about a united front of China and the United States against the Soviet Union. He talked of China as, in effect, an honorary member of NATO. Zhao Ziyang I think is going to downplay that aspect of the relationship very, very markedly this time.

MacNEIL: And in fact they've begun talks with the Soviet Union to repair that long breach.

Mr. HARDING: That's correct.

MacNEIL: Now, does that worry Washington that they've done that?

Mr. HARDING: I don't think it worries Washington for two reasons. One is that every indication is that improvement in Sino-Soviet relations is not going to go very far. The Chinese are placing some fairly tough preconditions, including a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, a scale-down of Soviet troops in Siberia, as a precondition for the normalization of Sino-Soviet relations, and no one that I've talked to suggests that the Soviet Union is likely to meet those conditions. Even if there is a gradual improvement, a reduction in tensions, an increase in trade, I think many people in Washington believe that this is good for the United States in that it reduces the possibility of a Sino-Soviet conflict in which we might somehow be drawn.

MacNEIL: I see. Now, you say they want improved trade and development, economic development.How much are they likely to get from the United States? What is this likely to achieve, this visit, in practical terms?

Mr. HARDING: Well, in practical terms we're likely to see a number of agreements signed in the areas of industrial and technological cooperation. We'll see an agreement extended in scientific and technological exchange, perhaps some progress towards agreements in investment on a tax treaty and on a nuclear cooperation agreement. I think that these agreements plus the Reagan administration's decision in the spring to liberalize export controls on advanced technology sales to China are going to mean that the American business community is going to be able to sell larger and larger amounts of advanced technology to China. Surprisingly, much of our trade with China, our exports to China in the recent past, have been agricultural. For a variety of reasons, we have not really been able to tap the Chinese market for advanced technology. That, I think, is going to change and I think that we're projecting now for this current year about a one-quarter to one-third increase in Sino-American trade.

MacNEIL: Does that mean that China is in prospect of becomming this bonanza for American business and industry that was predicted when Nixon pushed the door open again in the '70s?

Mr. HARDING: Well, I take the position that we should always scale down our expectations about China. We have tended, we and other European countries, for a century, to assume that because there are large numbers of Chinese it must be some enormous marketplace. It is a large market, of course, and I think that we'll be able to expand our trade relations. But I don't think it's going to be an enormous bonanza that will dwarf the rest of our trading partners.

MacNEIL: What is the significance of a possible nuclear cooperation agreement betwee -- I mean, the Chinese have an atomic bomb, do they not?

Mr. HARDING: That's correct, and of course this is in the area of civilian nuclear technology for nuclear power generation.

MacNEIL: Why would that be to the U.S. advantage to have such an agreement?

Mr. HARDING: Commercially, because it provides the possibility for the export of American nuclear power generating technology to China. I think that the significance of the agreement -- it's gotten a lot of play in the press. It is significant, but has to be placed in context. It, first of all, represents the attempt to develop more agreements to promote economic relationships between the two countries. That's the first importance. The second significance, though is that in order to have an agreement the Chinese are going to have to agree to some kind of inspection or controls on the re-export of the technology. This will be a major concession for them, and it indicates that the Chinese are beginning to realize that they cannot expect to be an exception to general American trade policies. So I think that is a positive development as well.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Harding, thank you.

Mr. HARDING: Very welcome.

MacNEIL: Judy?

WOODRUFF: Once again, a look at the day's other top stories.

The United States and the Vatican resumed full diplomatic relations after 116 years without an exchange of ambassadors. But some Protestant groups said they will fight it in Congress and in court.

The Lebanese security plan worked out by President Gemayel appears to be falling apart, at least for the moment, and in Beirut there was some fighting and news that the French will send 100 helicopters to shore up the Lebanese government.

A presidential task force on hunger said the states should have the option of running food assistance programs, but a leading Republican senator said the idea will never get through Congress.

Robin?

MacNEIL: In closing tonight we wanted to give you another update on Jim Lehrer's health. As you know, Jim suffered a mild heart attack a month ago. Watching his progress, his doctors decided that a coronary bypass operation was the best way to enhance his recovery. That operation took place yesterday. Jim came through it very well, and is recuperating satisfactorally tonight.

Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. We're all pulling for Jim to be back here soon. That's our NewsHour for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff; thank you and good night.