The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. These are the top news headlines tonight. Nancy Reagan inspected earthquake damage in Mexico City as the official death toll passed 3,400. President Reagan announced a new policy to assist exports. France told New Zealand it was sorry for the Greenpeace sinking. New Zealand demanded compensation. Details of these stories coming up. Jim Lehrer is away tonight; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: We have three main focuses and a newsmaker interview on the NewsHour tonight. First, the Mexico earthquakes. We have an extended look at how the people of Mexico City are coping. Then the Reagan administration moves on trade. We look at the political background of the issue and hear from our newsmaker, Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige. Next, a French reporter tells about the politics behind the Greenpeace scandal; and finally an essay about the Farm Aid concert and what it means for America's farmers.News Summary

MacNEIL: The official death toll in the Mexico City earthquakes climbed sharply today to 3,461. The U.S. State Department said that figure had come from Mexican authorities who said 6,700 people had been treated for injuries. As relief supplies and rescue volunteers arrived from other countries, world leaders sent condolences and offers of more assistance. About 5 of Mexico City is still without electricity and about 20 has no drinking water. City officials are also concerned about natural gas leaking from pipes buried in the rubble, because of the risk of explosions and fires. The officials are reported to be planning to tear down many buildings that are totally or partially destroyed, to reduce the risk of falling debris. They are also anxious to recover the deteriorating bodies to reduce the risk of an epidemic of disease. Vaccination clinics have been set up to immunize thousands of people. Meanwhile, the army is on hand to guard against looting, and the work of searching the rubble goes on.

The American Red Cross asked people today to send money if they wished to help in the relief effort, not food, clothing or other traditional supplies. The Red Cross said such unneeded items could clog the supply lines.

First Lady Nancy Reagan spent three hours in the stricken city today. She met President Miguel de la Madrid and delivered a $1-million check as the first installment of American aid. Then Mrs. Reagan and Mrs. de la Madrid toured an emergency shelter housing survivors and a hospital. The White House said Mrs. Reagan's visit was intended to express sympathy and solidarity that all Americans feel for Mexico at this difficult time. Judy?

WOODRUFF: President Reagan today unveiled part two of his administration's plan to respond to growing pressure to get tough on trade. Following the Treasury Department's weekend announcement of an international effort to drive down the value of the dollar, Mr. Reagan today spelled out his foreign trade policy, including some new features that focus on opening foreign markets to American goods. But he continued to reject protectionist legislation designed to protect American industries battered by imports. The President promised to move instead aggressively in selected circumstances.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I will not stand by and watch American businesses fail because of unfair trading practices abroad. I will not stand by and watch American workers lose their jobs because other nations do not play by the rules. I am therefore today announcing that I have instructed Ambassador Yeutter to maintain a constant watch and to take action in those instances of unfair trade that will disadvantage American businesses and workers. I have directed the secretary of the treasury to work with the Congress to establish a $300-million fund that will support up to a billion dollars in mixed-credit loans. These funds will counter our loss of business to trading partners who use what in effect are subsidies to deprive U.S. companies of fair access to world markets.

WOODRUFF: The reaction to the President's speech from members of both parties on Capitol Hill was mostly too little, too late. In general, members said, the steps the administration was announcing on trade would not be enough to head off protectionist legislation already working its way through the Congress.

Rep. RICHARD GEPHARDT, (D) Missouri: If I were a trading partner of the United States, I would breathe a sigh of relief, because the President's statement is a lot of talk and little action. It's as if the world trade were a basketball game. The President wants to change the color of the jerseys while our trading partners are stealing the ball. We need less talk and more action, for in the world trade game actions speak louder than words.

WOODRUFF: Members of Congress had nicer things to say about the administration's enlisting the support of four other major Western nations to drive down the value of the dollar. The move had the immediate desired effect today on international money markets. The dollar dropped about 5% against European currencies, its worst one-day loss in 12 years. As a result, the price of gold bullion rose in what was described as chaotic trading. On Wall Street, stocks also surged more than 18 points, as traders said they looked for a boost in profits for U.S.-based multinational firms.

MacNEIL: France said today it was sorry about the sinking of the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior by French agents, but the gesture didn't satisfy New Zealand. French Prime Minister Laurent Fabius sent a message to New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange, saying France was truly sorry for the damage to relations. After weeks of French government denials, Fabius publicly admitted French guilt this weeken, but the apology left Prime Minister Lange unsatisfied. He accused France of "a sordid act of international, state-backed terrorism," demanded millions of dollars in damage and criticized France for refusing to put the agents responsible on trial, because they'd been acting on orders.

DAVID LANGE, Prime Minister of New Zealand: There is now a very strong move on the part of the French to get to the bottom of the issue, and that will, from New Zealand's point of view, involve ultimately an abandonment of the defense of acting under orders. We are not at war with France. And it will involve undoubtedly the payment of compensation to New Zealand, for the physical losses and the affront to the sovereignty of New Zealand.

REPORTER: How would you expect to get that money from the French?

Prime Min. LANGE: By negotiation.

MacNEIL: Secretary of State George Shultz today accused the Soviets of failing to respond to what he called far-reaching proposals for arms control. Speaking to the United Nations as it opened the 40th anniversary session of the General Assembly, Shultz said, "We have offered tradeoffs and repeatedly expressed our readiness for give and take and to consider alternative proposals." But he said that thus far the Soviets in Geneva have not negotiated with the responsiveness that the talks require.

GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: When the anti-ballistic missile treaty was signed in 1972, it was assumed that tight limits on defensive systems would make possible real reductions in strategic offensive arms. But the Soviet Union has never agreed to any meaningful reductions in offensive nuclear arms. Instead, it has continued an unprecedented military buildup, particularly in heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles with a first-strike capability.

WOODRUFF: President Reagan and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak met today at the White House. There was no indication if they succeeded in coming up with a new approach to Arab-Israeli negotiations. Sitting in the Oval Office to pose for photographers, they agreed that resolving the current impasse in the Middle East was of great concern, but there were no details beyond that. An Egyptian official said the main purpose of the visit was to express to Mr. Reagan the feeling that "things have to keep moving."

Coming up in the NewsHour, digging out in Mexico City. Correspondent Tom Bearden reports on after the earthquake. We look at the political pressures that led to the President's trade moves and have a newsmaker interview with the secretary of commerce. We analyze the fallout of France's involvement in the Greenpeace scandal and, finally, the Farm Aid concert is over. The plight of the farmer continues. We have an essayist's view. Earthquake: Living with Disaster

MacNEIL: And first tonight we go back to the devastation in Mexico City for an extended report on the aftermath to the earthquakes that have killed more than 3,400 people. Our correspondent, Tom Bearden, has been there with a crew all weekend. They were in the street taping when the second earthquake happened.

TOM BEARDEN [voice-over]: Friday night, a residential area known as the Colonia Roma near downtown Mexico City. Workers are laboriously clearing away chunks of concrete from what was once a trade school. They say at least 65 teenage students and their teachers died here. They were having breakfast when the earthquake shook their school into rubble. Thirty-six hours and 20 minutes after the first shock, it happens again. The earth rises and falls in slow waves. Eyes widen in terror as people realize what is happening. Workers rush to the middle of the street, lock arms and pray that the four-story building across the street doesn't fall on them. The people who live in the building are screaming. The tremor lasts about 90 seconds. It seems much longer. People stream out of the apartment building and into the street. There isn't anywhere to go but the street.

Thousands of people are on the move. Many of them will spend the night in any open space they can find, afraid their own homes might become deathtraps. The night is full of the sound of sirens. When the excitement dies down, incredibly, the workmen again mount the ruins of the school and resume the backbreaking task of slowly dismantling the building, extricating the dead from the mass of shattered concrete and twisted steel.

[on camera] There was no apparent pattern to the destruction. On some blocks a single building would be demolished while structures on either side would be virtually undamaged. Brand new, steel-reinforced concrete buildings collapsed. So did centuries-old structures. The most serious damage appears to be concentrated here in the downtown area, the commercial heart of Mexico City.

[voice-over] A 21-story office building simply fell over onto a six-lane highway. A twin tower threatens to do the same. The wreckage has been burning sporadically for a full day. Volunteers have formed bucket brigade lines to pass along debris to allow cranes to lift huge sections of what was once the top floor. Francisco del la Torre is a civil engineer supervising the operation.

[interviewing] Do you know how many people might still be in the building?

FRANCISCO del la TORRES, civil engineer: More or less 100 people. More or less. We're not sure.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Ricardo Jaen has kept watch here since shortly after the first quake, hoping for news of his uncle, a janitor who was working on the 17th floor.

RICARDO JAEN, survivor: He came to work in the morning and we don't know about him. So we are waiting news from him because he is -- I think he's under the building.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: The fabric of government has been badly torn. The papers blowing in the wind are welfare records for thousands of people. They came from the ruins of the local social security office. All services have been stretched to the limit. Several of the city's main hospital buildings also fell victim to the earthquake. Water mains ruptured when the earth shifted. Millions of homes and businesses are without running water. Large areas remain without electricity. In the Zocalo, the historic center of the city, every flag is at half staff. The government has mobilized the army, and troops are being dispatched from its broad plaza to guard against looting. They are being assisted by an army of volunteers, ordinary people who stand ready to help in any way they can, from shoveling debris to passing out food to anybody who wants it.

Thousands flocked to the shrine of the Virgin of Guadelupe, Mexico's most important church, to worship on Sunday morning. Some came on their knees. Onlookers said the crowd was smaller than usual; they speculated many people were finding it impossible to get to the basilica because hundreds of streets were blocked. Others say tens of thousands have fled the city in fear of further tremors. Aurelio Hernandez says he will soon be among them. He plans to move his wife and two children away as soon as he can.

AURELIO HERNANDEZ, tour guide: I think really if you have a chance to go out of the city I will. I'm really scared. Me and all my family. And I think many people in Mexico, they're thinking to leave the city.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Some complain the affluent districts are getting all the help; that the authorities are ignoring them. This man's wife is inside the collapsed warehouse, but he says he's been unable to get any heavy equipment to come to remove the debris. As night again falls on what was once the prime tourist area, the Zona Rosa, the enormous task of cleaning up goes on. It will continue for months. Hundreds of buildings not destroyed outright will have to be torn down, their internal structure weakened beyond repair. It may be years before Mexico City recovers completely, further adding to the burdens of an already fragile economy staggering under forces it cannot control. But for the majority of the 17 million people who live here, life is already returning to normal. Although the damage is massive. Most of this vast city escaped unharmed.

WOODRUFF: That report by correspondent Tom Bearden. Next on the NewsHour, the trade hot potato, congressional pressure and administration policy, a documentary report and newsmaker interview with the secretary of commerce. Then we look at the surprise announcement in Paris on the Greenpeace affair, and we close tonight with an essay on farmers, Farm Aid and high-visibility entertainers. Trade: New Policies

WOODRUFF: Our next major focus is trade. As we reported earlier, the administration's latest moves to drive up [sic] the value of the dollar and to toughen its posture against unfair foreign competition are being interpreted as efforts to head off protectionist legislation moving through the Congress. These moves come in response to a rising chorus of demands that something be done to help beleaguered U.S. industries, including one popular bill that would limit textile imports. We decided to take a closer look at the political pressures behind this sensitive issue.

Rep. GEPHARDT: We're not getting beaten in trade. We're getting drubbed, and the people are beginning to understand it and feel it.

Sen. JOHN HEINZ, (R) Pennsylvania: There's practically no congressional district in the country where the effects of trade aren't being felt in somebody's pocketbook, even if that person is not yet out of a job.

Rep. TONY COELHO, (D) California: We're talking about the strength of this country to compete with foreign nations, and we're not there. We're not being competitive, and people sense that. They don't like it.

Rep. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, (D) Illinois, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee: I along with most members of this committee am not a protectionist. Nor am I a patsy.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Mention the word trade in Washington these days and emotions run high.

WITNESS in CONGRESS: We're in danger of becoming an international basket case.

BAND: "If it ain't made in America, I wouldn't buy it, my friendfiThe next one laid off just might be your hen."

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Almost as high as in the communities across the country, where foreign competition is helping take a bite out of the way people live.

WALTER MONTGOMERY, chairman, Spartan Mills: I've been in charge of this company here for 60-odd years, you see. This is the first time we've ever had to lay off any people. The first time in our history.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Eighty-six-year-old Walter Montgomery heads a large chain of textile mills in South Carolina and Georgia. One of his mills had to shut down a weaving operation this summer. Spartan Mills has been lucky. Just in the state of South Carolina, 18 entire textile and apparel plants have closed down in this year alone, costing more than 3,500 jobs.

CARROLL WYNN, unemployed textile worker: In February -- in March, when I was first out of work, I thought, well, in about a month, six weeks at most, I'll have something else. Now, six months has passed and I have had a lot of resumes sent out, a lot of applications put in, and I can't really say that I had a substantial offer yet.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Fifty-five-year-old Carroll Wynn had been with J.P. Stevens for 33 years when the plant where he was working closed last March.

Mr. WYNN: Well, I feel like that the imports that keep coming in are so many, so many yards or the quota is so high, that we can't compete with someone in Hong Kong making a dollar an hour.

WILLIAM McCONAGHY, unemployed textile engineer: They're just trying to be competitive, and the mills are, to use the term everyone uses, leaning down. It's not just hourly personnel that are being affected, but the management as well.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Fifty-three-year-old William McConaghy was laid off from his middle-management job with Cone Mills in January. All across the hard-hit southern textile belt a letter-writing campaign is underway to persuade the President not to veto the textile aid bill which Congress is expected to pass sometime in the next few weeks.

O.J. SIMPSON ["Made in USA" TV commercial]: The quality, it sure matters to me.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Across the nation a "Buy American" advertising campaign using big-name stars is underway.

NARRATOR [TV ad]: Look for the emblem of America's pride, because you know it matters.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The message is coming in loud and clear to members of Congress whose districts are feeling the most pain.

Rep. CARROLL CAMPBELL, (R) South Carolina: It is a problem to see people who have never asked for anything in their life. They don't want food stamps, they don't wantwelfare. They've worked all their life. They grew up with the work ethic. They've supported themselves. To see parents that have fourth- and fifth-grade educations sending their kids to college because that's their great dream, and all of a sudden the rug's being pulled from beneath them. That bothers me.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Campbell is a Republican, and Republicans have traditionally opposed putting restrictions on foreign imports, but Campbell says business has changed as it's gone international.

Rep. CAMPBELL: I don't want to build a wall around America. I don't think that'll work. But what I do want to do is to make sure that if we have international rules of trade, that they're adhered to, that we have it as open and free as possible. But that's a two-way street. You have to have access to their markets, just like they have access to yours.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The head of Congressman Campbell's party, however, President Reagan, has repeatedly denounced the idea of protecting American industry from foreign competition.

Pres. REAGAN [September 17, 1985]: A mindless stampede toward protectionism will be a one-way trip to economic disaster. That's the lesson of the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, which helped to trigger a worldwide trade war that spread, deepened and prolonged the worst depression in history.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The names the President invokes, Congressman Willis Hawley and Senator Reid Smoot, originally aimed their legislation at just farm imports. But it was expanded to cover virtually all imports, setting off a wave of retaliation from America's trading partners.

Rep. CAMPBELL:

I can't sit still, and I won't sit still, to watch another country block our products from going there, subsidized products to send in here and break our markets and put our people out of business. I'm not going to let that happen as long as I'm in the Congress of the United States.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: What happened half a century ago doesn't concern Congressman Campbell, though, who says nowadays countries like Japan and China are already keeping American goods out.

Rep. CAMPBELL: How can they talk about retaliation when they're doing this? My idea would be to use this to force open some other markets for our products and to also, at the same time, to stop some of the practices that are taking place. Why shouldn't we be allowed to protect our people from actions of other governments that disrupt our country?

WOODRUFF [voice-over]

Members of Congress from all over the nation have come to agree with Campbell, because import-sensitive industries suffering in the U.S. now go well beyond the steel plants in Pennsylvania and car manufacturers in Michigan and Ohio. They include shoes in Missouri and New England, computer chips in California's Silicon Valley, hogs in the farm belt, timber in the Pacific Northwest, copper in the Southwest and, of course, textiles in the Southeast. Politicians pushing for legislative action like Congressman Richard Gephardt, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, say it's more than cheap wages overseas and a high U.S. dollar that's hurting American workers and business.

Rep. GEPHARDT: A third of our trading problem stems from the fact that the rules in other countries in many cases are not as fair and as open as the rules we have here with regard to goods moving into the United States.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Democrats have been leading the charge on Capitol Hill, pushing hard for bills to penalize other nations if they don't cut down their imports into the U.S. or arrange to take in more American exports.

Rep. GEPHARDT: We're called sometimes Uncle Sam. I think today we're Uncle Sam with the way we are being treated in the world trading system. Democrats understand that and want to redress that problem. We don't want Uncle Sam to be Uncle Sap.

Rep. COELHO: It's not just jobs, and it's not just fairness. It's basically people feeling like we're being had as a country, and that's not right.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Congressman Tony Coelho heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He sees trade as an issue Democrats can exploit in next year's congressional elections.

Rep. COELHO: The Republicans are really frightened by this issue, because all of a sudden it's the type of issue that takes away the flag from them, takes away this thing that they've been talking about -- patriotism -- and all these things that they believe in. All of a sudden the very guts of it all, you know, whether or not we're strong enough as a nation to defend ourselves and our ability to produce and our ability to sell and our ability to do things is being contested today.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: John Heinz, chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, says Republicans are nervous about trade, especially in the Senate, where 22 Republican seats are up next year.

Sen. HEINZ: I think it is probably the single most important area other than the budget deficit that could cost the Republican Party control of the Senate.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Heinz openly acknowledges that Republicans in Congress are not happy with the way the Republican White House has handled trade matters.

Sen. HEINZ: The President and his administration, I think, have to bear some responsibility for ignoring for far too long a lot of these trade issues. I think the administration has been asleep at the switch and they have not seen that Japan has been taking us to the cleaners. They have hoped for the best, and they have received really nothing in return.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Heinz has a simple explanation for why the Reagan administration hasn't been politically sensitive.

Sen. HEINZ: Well, they're not running. The President, I think, has a different set of priorities. He is not up for re-election ever again.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Today's announcements by the President do indicate a new sensitivity, but his newly appointed chief trade representative, Clayton Yeutter, says the administration should have acted sooner.

CLAYTON YEUTTER, Special Trade Representative: It's simply a mater that one has to recognize these problems, maybe a little bit earlier than was done in this case, and begin to respond to them. If I had any criticism it would simply be that I think the administration could have been a bit more anticipatory in this ara.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Some Democrats, however, like Colorado Senator Gary Hart, say their party might have the most to lose if it embraces protectionism.

Sen. GARY HART, (D) Colorado: There are political benefits to be gained on the trade issue in the short term. But we could lose our soul and lose votes in the long term if we pander too much to those short-term interests.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Political consultant Pat Cadell agrees, and says protectionism won't help Democrats win back the voters they must have to recapture the White House.

PAT CADELL, political consultant: When you talk about younger voters and other voters, the Democrats have got to offer not only a message that says we're going to protect these things; the Democrats have also got to say something about, we're going to build for the future, and they're not folding that into this message at all. They're looking for a quick fix to solve their political problems. They're looking for a silver bullet that is not going to solve the problems of the Democratic Party long term.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Republican political consultant John Sears calls protectionism a political lorelei.

JOHN SEARS, political consultant: It may look very attractive to some people to begin to put restrictions on trade, and it may look very politically advantageous. But in the end what you are doing is mortgaging the good life that everyone else has by a process of getting us into a trade war.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: All the political and economic wisdom of Washington, however, doesn't go far with South Carolinian Carroll Wynn who lost his textile job six months ago.

Mr. WYNN: Why has it taken so long? I ask myself this. Why has it taken so long for someone to do something about it? And there again I don't see a lot of the aspects of the other thing, but I see my life. I feel that maybe just the average man or the little man is kind of forgotten, you know.

MacNEIL: Responding to those pressures, President Reagan announced his new measures today, a $300 million war chest to subsidize U.S. products having difficulty selling abroad, and a federal task force to curb unfair trade practices abroad. But this failed to satisfy the Congress. Here's a sample of the reaction.

Sen. RUSSELL LONG, (D) Lousiana: The President made a good statement, and I think most of us would approve what he said insofar as it went. But I don't think that's going to prove adequate as far as the majority of Congress is concerned. I don't believe you're going to find many senators, for example, who sponsored the textile bill who are going to change their vote. The President had some affirmative suggestions to make, and insofar as he did, that's fine. Keep in mind that this is not a bipartisan proposal. I'm not aware of any of the Democratic leadership or Democratic committee members who were consulted about this move. I think in the main we'll approve of it, but we will have our own suggestions to make.

Sen. ROBERT DOLE, (R) Kansas, Majority Leader: I think what he's doing, he's getting into the trade area, and I believe it's very timely. I hope we can work together. There is a strong sentiment in Congress to vote on the textile bill. This won't head that off. But, again, whether or not that's protectionist legislation depends on your point of view.

Sen. JOHN DANFORTH, (D) Missouri: This sort of approach that was taken today is exactly what is needed on the part of the administration. I think the remaining question is, is the administration going to follow through? Is this the announcement of a new policy which will be pursued on a day-in, day-out basis, or was this just one speech?

Sen. ROBERT BYRD, (D) West Virginia, Minority Leader: I'm glad that the President is -- that we've gotten his attention, although I think it's somewhat by necessity he has felt that something has to be done because they see this train coming down the track in the Congress. Now, just how efficacious the President's proposals will be will depend in large part on how much follow-through there is on the part of the administration.

WOODRUFF: One of the chief architects of the administration's trade package is Malcolm Baldrige, the secretary of commerce. He joins us tonight from Washington.

Mr. Secretary, the reactions you heard are a combinaton of too little, too late; it's good that he made the speech but how much is he going to follow through? What does this speech amount to?

MALCOLM BALDRIGE: Well, Judy, I think there'll be some political huffing and puffing about the speech, but just let me say from one that's been on the leading edges of these trade problems and negotiations for four years, as far as I'm concerned the President hit a homerun today. He really did. With what happened over the weekend on international monetary policy that affects the high dollar and with what he decided to do today on the use of 301, our most powerful trade law, and the rest of his program are the strongest actions that this government could possibly take short of overall quotas, tariffs that would hurt us more than they help us.

WOODRUFF: But we heard several members of the Congress say that this is not going to head off the textile bill, several other pieces of protectionist legislation that are moving through Congress.

Sec. BALDRIGE: Well, that isn't the only reason we've got this policy, of course, simply to head off that legislation. I do think it will do this. The textile bill has enough sponsors so it will probably pass. I guess that's the conventional wisdom. Can they uphold a veto override, though? I mean, will there be enough votes there in case the President vetoes it? I can't speak for the President on that, but I think that's likely. And I think that the announcements today will have -- should have a significant effect on the thinking of a lot of people who aren't too sure about that textile bill in the first place.

WOODRUFF: So you think it may jeopardize the textile bill, is that what you're saying?

Sec. BALDRIGE: Yes. I'd think it would hurt the chances of overriding a veto on the textile bill. In short, I don't think that there would finally be a textile bill passed.

WOODRUFF: We heard a few minutes ago in the tape report the President's special trade representative, Mr. Yeutter, acknowledge that he would have liked to have seen the administration move faster, move quicker on the trade issue. Why didn't the administration move sooner?

Sec. BALDRIGE: Well, trade is one of the most complicated issues that affects government and people that I know of. It's the most difficult one to assess. Everyone is a trade expert that you talk to. People inside business, inside the government -- if you've noticed all the articles on trade by instantaneous trade experts in the last three weeks, you'll know what I mean. I think the idea of having a tough time leading in free trade, when we know it's the right thing to do, when to make the decision to take some of the steps that the President made today don't come easily. So, sure, in hindsight maybe we could have done this earlier. But I think the idea now is to look at where we are and the President's trade package, particularly with his announced intention to use 301, which really gives him all the latitude to do what most of those bills in Congress do, if he thinks it's right.

WOODRUFF: All right, let's be specific. Taken together, these two separate moves -- the move by the United States and the other four nations to drive down the dollar, and then the measures announced today -- what specifically will these do for some of the American industries that are suffering because of imports?

Sec. BALDRIGE: Well, I would say, at an estimate, that perhaps half of our trade deficit, at least, is due to the high dollar. What happened over the weekend was that the five industrial -- ve largest industrial nations got together under the leadership of the UnitedStates and agreed that the dollar and their currencies should be realigned, because the fundamentals were correct for doing that. That means that everyone will be working toward raising their currencies, which in effect will lower the dollar and help cure that problem. Not overnight; it takes a while to do that. But you've got to start that ship heading in the right direction sooner or later, and that was done. Further, all those countries agreed to go home and figure out ways to stimulate their own GNPs by non-inflationary means, so that the U.S. doesn't have to carry the whole load of the world recovery. They'll pick up their own recovery. That will help strengthen their currencies against the dollar and it will help our exporters, because we will have a stronger market in those countries to export to.

WOODRUFF: All right, but what do you have to say to the man, the textile worker in South Carolina, for example, who has been laid off, or the man or woman who owns a business somewhere that is suffering or about to go out of business? When can they look for some results?

Sec. BALDRIGE: Well, I think in the case of individual industries, the President has said where we can identify unfair trade practices, he will use 301, which means that, effectively, he can decide himself what pressure to put on to stop those practices, including the uses of tariffs, quotas, negotiations and regulations or what have you. I think that the case of the textile worker -- and we are very much aware of that problem -- part of that unemployment has been due to the modernization of a lot of the factories there, and a large part of it, as they point out, has been due to imports. The textile problem, however, can't be solved by putting up barriers around the United States. We should tighten up the present textile agreements we have, yes. We're all in favor of that. But just to put barriers up that would cut back some of the countries by 50 and cause retaliation in other areas like agriculture is not the way to handle the problem. We'd be hurt more than we'd help.

WOODRUFF: So the message to the textile workers and to some in other industries is there's nothing we can do, is that right? I mean, in the short run.

Sec. BALDRIGE: In the case where we find that we can, under the Multi-Fiber Arrangement, which is the only world textile arrangement that there is, and the bilateral agreements under it that we have with many countries, we are -- we have told the industry that we will tighten up on those agreements. But what we can't do is to cut everybody in half around the world, because that will lose more jobs by far in other industries and in agriculture than it could possibly help in textiles. So, yes, we're going to tighten up the MFA; yes, we're going to make tighter agreements; but, no, we can't go for outright protectionism that's going to hurt other workers more than it's going to help the textile people.

WOODRUFF: The President said today he's going to target the unfair trading practices which you just mentioned. How do you define in laymen's terms what's unfair? What can another country get away with and what can't they, or shouldn't they?

Sec. BALDRIGE: Judy, I could paper the wall in this room with examples of unfair trading practices that you could point to. The Japanese, if they have a depressed industry, they just form a cartel and severely limit our exports to them, even though we can sell it much cheaper than they can make it.

WOODRUFF: All right, will we go after that, for example?

Sec. BALDRIDGE: Yes, we would. I can't speak for the President, but I would recommend that. On high technology, for example again in Japan, infant industries as they're growing up are protected, so they can have the advantage of the home market to get big and strong, and then they're turned loose and they call for free trade in that area. In Korea, it's the same question with insurance and some of the services. We see in Brazil computers being held at just six Brazilian companies, and we can't get in there. Those are all examples of unfair trading practices that hurt American workers.

WOODRUFF: But if the administration is willing to go that far, why not take some steps to cut off at the border imports that are clearly -- at a very high rate that are clearly hurting some American industry?

Sec. BALDRIGE: Well, if they're coming from unfair trade, that's what we -- that's what the President said we do. If they're coming from freely traded, fair-trading countries that aren't subsidizing, aren't dumping, are practicing fair trade and free trade, if we cut them off we'd be cut off in return. And we've been down this protectionist road before. I simply don't understand why congressmen don't look at their history books. In Smoot-Hawley they put tariffs up around the United States to a fare-thee-well in 1930. It dried up U.S. trade by 60 , dried up world trade by 50 , and exacerbated the Great Depression. And I might add to the politicians listening that both Messrs. Smoot and Hawley were defeated in their election the next time around after passing this tariff bill.

WOODRUFF: Just one other thing. Business leaders were saying today that this move to intervene in the currency markets to drive up -- or rather, drive down the value of the dollar wasn't really getting at the heart of the problem; that what the administration should have done was to try to bring down the budget deficit.

Sec. BALDRIGE: Well, it's all part. I would say they're right, it isn't the whole answer. But it's a very welcome answer to most business leaders, and I've talked to a lot of them since this came out. If we realigned currencies around the world, get other nations to pick up their GNP and the third part of that program is for the United States to reduce its own budget deficit, thereby getting interest rates down, That's the total part of the program, and we simply have to do the last if the first are going to be as effective as they should be.

WOODRUFF: And it's all going to happen overnight, right?

Sec. BALDRIGE: No, it's not going to happen overnight, Judy, and we have to be mature enough to recognize that. There is no one switch or no magic wand to wave.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Baldrige, thank you for being with us, the Secretary of Commerce.

Sec. BALDRIGE: You bet. Guilty: L' Affair Greenpeace

MacNEIL: In Paris this weekend a political bombshell rocked the Mitterrand government. Prime Minister Laurent Fabius admitted, after a summer of denials, that French intelligence agents acting on orders had sunk the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior. The ship was blown up while in port in New Zealand, killing one crew member. The Greenpeace vessel was scheduled to lead a flotilla of ships to disrupt a planned French nuclear test in the South Pacific. The French government admitted its guilt after the newspaper Le Monde published a detailed investigative report linking government officials with the sinking. On Friday, Defense Minister Charles Hernu resigned. Yesterday the official about face. For more on the repercussions of l'affaire Greenpeace we have Jacque Hasday of Agence-France Presse, the French news agency.

Mr.Hasday, do you think this is the end of the story?

JACQUES HASDAY: No, I don't think so. I think the press is going to continue its investigations and make more revelations about it, so the government will have to continue also to try to make the whole truth about it.

MacNEIL: Why do you think it took so long to get this much out?

Mr. HASDAY: I think, you know, in France we don't have this tradition of investigative journalism as you have here in the USA, and for the first time maybe the press realized that it was its duty to investigate, and they managed to find out a lot of revelations about the whole story. And I think they needed time. But they managed to find out a lot of things, and the government in the end was obliged to admit the truth.

MacNEIL: Let me ask you as a journalist, is it conceivable to you, given that the French intelligence service acts very much more independently of the government than the CIA does here -- most of the time -- is it conceivable to you that not only President Mitterrand but Prime Minister Fabius and the defense minister, Hernu, who just resigned, that all three of them could have been ignorant of something like this?

Mr. HASDAY: I think it's likely that the defense minister knew more or less what was going to happen. And that's the reason why, in fact, he resigned.

MacNEIL: He resigned.

Mr. HASDAY: But for --

MacNEIL: But that he would have known and not told the prime minister and the prime minister would not have told the president? Is that conceivable?

Mr. HASDAY: I think it's possible that he knew and he didn't inform -- maybe waiting to have more details about what was the result of the operation. But up to now there is no newspaper which reported that President Mitterrand knew about it. In fact, everybody says he was informed only one week after the bombing of the boat. And --

MacNEIL: But he has known then. The press is speculating that Mitterrand has known for a long time, you mean? I mean, known since the event that it actually was ordered by somebody in the government?

Mr. HASDAY: I don't think he had the real clear picture of what happened. It's only after Le Monde reported, in fact, that there was a certain team of French secret service who were involved in the bombing of the boat that Mitterrand really, I think, got excited and really asked for the truth about it.

MacNEIL: Now, Mitterrand, of course, is a socialist. There is a lot of opposition from the political right to his government, and the political right is closer in spirit to the intelligence agencies and the French armed forces. Is there any likelihood that somebody set up Mitterrand, that this was deliberately done to embarrass Mitterrand?

Mr. HASDAY: This was reported at the beginning, but I don't think now people believe that it happened. Of course, there is a big tradition in the army and the secret service of being right-wing people, but I don't think it affected, really, the story.

MacNEIL: Now, how could this damage Mitterrand? He has two more years to serve on his term as president.

Mr. HASDAY: Next March we have elections for the Parliament, and I think of course as it is one of the worst crises of the left-wing regime, it will have repercussions because of public opinion is very dissatisfied I think about what's going on.

MacNEIL: There were already predictions even before this happened that a more conservative majority, even a right-wing majority, was likely to emerge in the National Assembly, and Mitterrand being a socialist president, was going to have a strained relationship if that happened. Will this make it impossible for him to work with such a majority in the National Assembly?

Mr. HASDAY: Mitterrand always said that even if the left was defeated he always said that he wanted to remain as a President because, as you know, our president has big powers. But I think this Greenpeace affair is going to make it much more difficult, because the relationship between Mitterrand, and the right-wing majority which could win could be of course more difficult.

MacNEIL: What is it -- you say that French public opinion is negative about what's happened. What are they negative about? Are they negative about the fact that the secret service, the intelligence, did attack the Greenpeace or that they bungled the attack?

Mr. HASDAY: No, the first reaction was to laugh a little bit about the failure because apparently the secret agents left a lot of clues and -- but afterwards people realized that the very operation by itself was very stupid, because you can't put a bomb against Robin Hood, you know. These Greenpeace people are very popular and they are considered as modern-time heros --

MacNEIL: In France are they, too?

Mr. HASDAY: Yeah, I think so because what they do, for instance, about protecting the environment, whales, is very popular. So even if they had succeeded without mistakes to sink the boat, the effect would have been very, very bad.

MacNEIL: Is there popular opposition to the continuation of the French independent nuclear force and the nuclear tests in the Pacific? Is that a source of opposition?

Mr. HASDAY: No, not at all, because in France we have a kind of consensus. Everybody agrees -- I mean, the right wing, the left wing, the center, everybody knows, agrees on the importance to have an independent nuclear deterrent, and I think this has nothing to do with it. I think more or less you could say that most of the French people agree with the importance of the nuclear force.

MacNEIL: But you think we haven't heard the end of it yet?

Mr. HASDAY: No, I don't think so. I think it's going to continue and that the press is going to continue and we'll have more revelations about it.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Hasday, thank you. Farm Aid: Banding Together

WOODRUFF: The problems of farmers were on center stage yesterday when musicians staged a nationally televised, 14-hour fundraising concert. So far, Farm Aid organizers estimate they have raised about $9 million, considerably less than what was anticipated. But according to essayist Douglas Unger, author of Leaving the Land, the success of yesterday's concert should be judged by more than dollar signs.

MUSICIAN: "He's the American farmer, and he's damn hard to beat.fiYou better wake up, America, wake up, America, because if the man don't work then the people don't eat."

DOUGLAS UNGER [voice-over]: Our grandfathers would find this hard to believe: a benefit concert for American farmers. Among the most productive workers in the world, our farmers are now in such bad straits they've become a national charity.

[on camera] This Farm Aid concert is the most public expression to date that the crisis in our farm belt is much more serious than most people cared to believe. Recall only a few months ago, when President Reagan was making light of the problem as he vetoed farm legislation.

Pres. REAGAN [March 16, 1985]: In need of immediate help are less than 4 , or around 4 at best, of all the farmers in the United States. Ninety-six percent do not have any liquidity problems.

UNGER [voice-over]: Without an effective farm bill, farmers planted as many acres as they could, resulting in serious overproduction, what looks like our largest harvest ever. Farm prices have dropped to their lowest in 15 years, and time is running short. When the harvest is in, the bank payments must be made, and one out of every five farms in our rich grain belt stands to go out of business. In the past, farmers stood alone on the Capitol steps trying in frustration to explain the complex notions of parity and price supports, but over the past year and a half their cause has been steadily popularized by prize-winning books, broadcasts and farm movies. This movement seems to be just beginning. Now, with Farm Aid, more than 50 of our most popular cultural spokesmen, many of them far removed from farming, are standing with them in the intermittent rain, representing farmers in speeches and in songs.

MUSICIAN: "Cause I just want to get ten if the farmer isn't here the ample waves of grain have disappeared."

UNGER [voice-over]: Farm Aid's performers are talking to everyone, not just farmers, but blue-collar workers, university students, politicians and, through the media, tens of millions of home viewers both here and in fourteen countries. Like other causes that have moved our music stars to action in the past -- civil rights, peace and world hunger -- the preservation of family farms is being raised here as a question of national conscience.

WILLIE NELSON:

When the family farm goes, so goes the service station down the street and the grocery store down the street, the used car lot.

TIMOTHY HUTTON: To the American people and the President of the United States, we all say here today, save the American family farm. God bless you all.

UNGER [voice-over]: As for the money donated to the cause, Farm Aid organizers have been hard at work on the question of what to do with it. They know the problem is staggering -- $10 million raised so far and still pouring in, and that it's just a drip in the rain barrel.

The problems in farming have grown so gigantic that they could threaten the health of our whole economy. The amount of loans out to farmers now is about equal to the size of this year's federal deficit, around $800 for every woman, man and child in the land. The Farm Credit System, in effect our nation's largest federally monitored bank, is all but bankrupt for the first time in its history. It may need $9 billion this year to bail out its loans to farms in trouble. All the well-meaning performers on the planet can't raise that much do re mi.

[on camera] But more importantly, the good will here as well as the music are reminders to us all that our farmers give rise to a culture that enriches us in something more than the food on our tables. Looking beyond this one concert, saving family farmers is going to take the continuing involvement of the non-farming public, a grassroots movement committed to preserving them. New legislation comes up before Congress and the President starting this week. Hopes are that the message in these songs has gotten through.

NEIL YOUNG & MUSICIANS: "This whole house of ours is built on dreams, and a businessman don't know what that means.fiThere's a garden outside she works in every day, but tomorrow morning a man from the bank's going to come and take it all away."

MacNEIL: Once again, the main stories of the day. Nancy Reagan visited stricken Mexico City as the official death toll from the earthquakes passed 3,400. President Reagan announced a new policy to assist exports. France told New Zealand it was sorry for the Greenpeace sinking; New Zealanddemanded compensation. Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good evening.