The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, Hurricane Gilbert brought death and destruction to Jamaica, the Dominican Republican, and the Cayman Islands. Fires continue to burn out of control in the Sierra, Nevada, foothills of California, and the Administration decided to pay its United Nations bill. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After the News Summary, our first focus is the odorless cancer causing gas radon [Focus - Radon Danger]. We'll find out why the Environmental Protection Agency has caused for nationwide home testing and we'll look into what can be done about it. Then another in our series [Series - '88 - On The Stump] of stump speeches, tonight Gov. Michael Dukakis. Finally, a debate [Focus - Disarming Debate] about new gun control legislation and the issue as a political symbol.NEWS SUMMARY

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Hurricane Gilbert roared past the Cayman Islands with a vengeance today, gathering speeds of more than 140 miles per hour. In its wake, it left Jamaica and the Dominican Republic devastated by fierce rains, flash floods and mud slides. There were seven confirmed deaths in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela, and unconfirmed reports of up to 30 dead in Jamaica. Prime Minister Edward Ciaga called it the worst natural disaster Jamaica has experienced in modern history and called for calm among the island's residents. Although there were no immediate reports of damage to the Cayman Islands, the U.S. Hurricane Center said the strongest part of the storm was buffeting the flat three island chain. Forecasters predicted heavy destruction on the Archepelgo of 20,000 people. As Gilbert swept to the Northeast, forecasters said the storm could enter the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow. Preparations were already underway as far as New Orleans, with residents piling sand bags along the shores in low lying areas. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Wildfires still rage in California's Sierra Nevada foothills. One hundred rural homes have been destroyed. Hundreds of others are threatened. Some 8,000 people have been evacuated. Nearly 3,000 firefighters are involved in the effort to stop the fire. It was started Sunday by a transient who set fire to some toilet paper. He was arrested, charged with burning without a permit and released. Firefighters inthe Yellowstone National Park continued to get some help today. About 550 Marines from Camp Pendleton, California, were airlifted into the area. Eventually 1200 Marines and 1400 Army personnel are expected. Also, cool temperatures made it easier to fight the blaze that has already destroyed more than 1 million acres. Hot, dry weather is expected to return tomorrow. President Reagan was briefed on the Yellowstone fire this afternoon by two of his cabinet members. Interior Secretary Donald Hodel and Agriculture Secretary Richard Lyng just returned from a fact finding trip to the park. While in Yellowstone, Secretary Hodel had questioned a Park Service policy of letting forest lands burn. This morning, Mr. Reagan said he was unaware of that policy. [Clip of Mr. Reagan - Network audio difficulty]

MR. LEHRER: The United States will pay its bill at the United Nations. The announcement was made late this afternoon at the White House. Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said President Reagan has directed the State Department to work out a multiyear plan to pay the U.N. dues that are in arrears. He said the full amount is $520 million. Fitzwater said the U.N. had reformed its operations to the point where President Reagan agreed to release the money. He cited staff cutbacks and improved budget procedures as evidence of the reforms. U.N. officials had pleaded with the United States to pay up in order to finance peacekeeping missions in Southern Africa and the Persian Gulf among other places.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The United States is selling more of its products abroad, but it's also borrowing from foreign investors at a record setting pace. That was the good news/bad news report from the Commerce Department today. The Department said in the second quarter of the year a boom in export sales helped cut the trade deficit by nearly 10 percent, but at the same time, it reported that America's appetite for foreign capital to finance the federal budget deficit is growing. At the end of last year, U.S. foreign debt totaled $368 billion. And it's projected to rise more than 500 billion by year's end.

MR. LEHRER: In the Presidential campaign today, Vice President Bush and Gov. Dukakis were both in Chicago, Bush speaking on the economy, Dukakis on U.S./Soviet relations. Bush renewed his no tax pledge and said Americans were much better off today than eight years ago. He spoke to a group of business executives.

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, GOP Presidential Nominee: Americans at every income level, every level, are certifiably better off than they were in 1981. Real family incomes for each income group of the population fell during Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. They have grown under Ronald Reagan and George Bush. So the next time somebody tells you that America is declining, tell them to put away that 1980 calendar. This is 1988, and America is a rising nation again.

MR. LEHRER: Dukakis spoke to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. He said his opponent was not prepared to deal with what he called the new thinking in the Soviet Union.

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS, Dem. Presidential Nominee: So to deal successfully with Gorbachev and with the Soviet Union, the next President must be tough, he must be realistic, he must have good judgment, and he must be committed to building a strong defense for the United States. As President, I intend to provide that leadership. George Bush has been around in Washington for a long time, but if he couldn't stand up to the Ayatollah or say no to Noriega, how will he measure up to Gorbachev/

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Meanwhile, inthe Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev faced a second day of vigorous complaints from Siberians upset over housing, food shortages and medical care. On a stop at a chemical plant in Kraznoiarz, workers constantly interrupted the Soviet leader who remained calm throughout the unusual public assault. Gorbachev appealed to the crowds to believe in the government's policy and to have faith in the leadership now being formed. In still another unusual departure, the exchanges were reported on Soviet TV. And in Poland today, the government abruptly canceled a meeting between Solidarity Union Leader Lech Walesa and the country's interior minister. No reason was given for the cancellation, but the government spokesman accused Solidarity of making unacceptable demands for future talks.

MR. LEHRER: Three prominent anti-apartheid activists escaped from custody today in South Africa and took refuge in a U.S. Consulate. The three fugitives are members of the outlawed United Democratic Front. We have a report from Kevin Dunn of ITN.

KEVIN DUNN: The three UDF leaders walked into the U.S. Consulate on the eleventh floor of a Johannesburg skyscraper at lunchtime. Their escape from detention under South Africa's stringent state of emergency was announced by their lawyer.

ATTORNEY: There are three emergency detainees, Mohammad Vali- Musa, Murphy Marobi and Vusi Karnerli have sought refuge and they are still there.

MR. DUNN: Murphy Marobi was one of the most prominent leaders of the UDF, South Africa's biggest non-violent anti-apartheid organization which was virtually outlawed by the government six months ago. He and fellow leader Mohammad Vali, the grouping's National Secretary, had spent 14 months in detention without trial. The third leader had also spent months in jail. Their escape immediately brought to mind the case of the Durbin Six, who four years ago entered the British Consulate in Durbin, and spent three months there seeking refuge from the police. This afternoon, relatives of the escaped detainees tried unsuccessfully to see them.

MR. LEHRER: Late today the U.S. Consulate in Johannesburg issued a statement. It said, "We were in frequent contact with these three men prior to their detention without charge and hold them in high regard. We will not press them to leave against their will." And that's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to the dangers from radon, a Dukakis stump speech, and gun control as a Congressional and political issue. FOCUS - RADON DANGER

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: First tonight we focus on radon contamination. The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday revealed a new study that shows dangerous radon levels in nearly one of three homes in all seven states surveyed. Concentrations of radon were especially high in North Dakota and Minnesota, where radon taints between 40 and 65 percent of the dwellings. The results have prompted the EPA to urge that every house and first or second story apartment in the United States be tested. In a moment, we'll talk to an EPA official and a public health official about the situation, but first some background. Radon is an odorless natural gas formed by granite which can seep in at ground level and accumulate in homes. It's blamed for as many as 20,000 lung cancer deaths a year. Here's another look at a piece on radon we aired earlier. Charles Bennett of WGBH was the correspondent who visited homeowners in Maine.

CHARLES BENNETT, WGBH: Radon is known to cause cancer in hard rock miners and recently the Environmental Protection Agency sounded an alarm about dangerous radon levels in homes. In Maine, where granite abounds, scientists are now paying special attention to that warning. The air and water in about 4,000 Maine homes have been tested and radon has been found in nearly every residence. The highest concentrations are in air tight, energy efficient homes which trap and concentrate the radon in the worst cases to levels 10 times higher than a urnanium miner would face.

DR. PETER RAND, Maine Medical Center: The worry that we have is that radon may be inducing lung cancer. I think the risks are relative and at the best estimate, we might, the best comparison I can make is with, oh, the organic compounds that get in drinking water, for example. EDB is the best recently known one. And there we're concerned with risks of one case of cancer in a million and with radon the risk may be as high as one in ten thousand.

MR. BENNETT: Dan and Marilyn Gowell live with radon every day. The radon in their Deadham, Maine home exceeds the level at which the EPA has warned homeowners to take remedial action, but the Gowells refuse to let it worry them. The radon emanates from granite under the Gowells' house and finds its way inside by a number of routes. The well water has high concentrations of radon. The basement is laden with radon. It seeps through cracks in the walls and foundation.

DAN GOWELL, Homeowner: You never know what's going to happen. I mean, as far as cancer goes or any type of thing, it's just not something that I'm going to get alarmed about. I have enough other things to worry about.

MR. BENNETT: Public health experts from the University of Maine now travel throughout the state educating people about radon and its potential hazards. For most people it's the first time they've heard of radon.

GLEN THOMPSON, Resident: About every five weeks, the pressure coming out of my tap is so great it will just about knock a glass out of your hand. Now am I confronted with an air pressure problem, or does radon gas manifest itself and just form big streams?

SPOKESMAN AT MEETING: No, it wouldn't.

MR. BENNETT: The widespread lack of public knowledge about radon leaves many people wondering how they should react to the warnings.

MARJORIE COSTELLO, Resident: This radon, the danger of it, concerns me because of the area that I live in and it seems to me that there is an unusually high rate of cancer of all kinds in this small village and we're all on pink granite and we're all on well water.

GLEN THOMPSON, Resident: If we happen to have termites in our house, we certainly take care of that. That only hurts the house. If we have radon gas, that hurts us. You can bet for sure I'm going to have mine tested.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Since we last showed you this piece, the Gowell family installed basement insulation after tests showed a dangerous level of radon gas. Now here to tell us more about the latest developments on radon are Rich Guimond, the Director of Radiation Programs for the EPA, and Dr. Vernon Houk, Assistant Surgeon General with the Public Health Service. First, Mr. Guimond, we've just heard Mr. Thompson say that he was going to have his house tested. Who else at this point should be joining with Mr. Thompson in having their houses tested?

RICH GUIMOND, Environmental Protection Agency: Well, we believe that just about all homeowners and all people in most dwellings throughout the United States should have their homes tested. Perhaps the only people that shouldn't are people that live in third floor apartments and higher, because radon comes up from the ground and people living that high are unlikely to have elevated levels.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why, because it dissipates?

MR. GUIMOND: Because they're not in contact with the ground and there generally is not the route for the radon to get up from the ground and get that many floors off the ground. It's a rare event. It's basements. It's structures that have ground contact where the pumping action of a hot dwelling or exhaust fans or various other types, effects of a structure, cause the radon to be sucked in, pumped into the dwelling, and it's those types of effects that we're particularly concerned about, so the higher you go up in a building, the less concern.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: There were higher levels in North Dakota and South Dakota. Are there levels that are higher in one place than another and is there reason for that?

MR. GUIMOND: Yes, throughout the country we see a wide variety in the levels in the various states. For example, the lowest we've seen is in Alabama and some of the coastal states, and that's due to the type of geology along the coastal plain. The highest levels we're now seeing are out in North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and a lot of that is due to the type of geological formations there too. Granites or very porous rocks, rocks containing a substantial amount of uranium, those contribute to it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Just very briefly, some scientists are saying that you're exaggerating your findings, highlighting worst case scenarios partly because you only do these tests in the wintertime, you do them for a short time. Is there any validity to that?

MR. GUIMOND: Our measurements are made during the winter. In fact, we are trying to find what the worst likely situation might be in homes, because we find that by taking these tests and getting what the worst likelihood situations are we are not going to be underestimating the problem and telling somebody you don't have a problem when, in fact, they may very well. What we suggest is that you make that measurement, a screening measurement. If it has elevated levels, get additional measurements made to confirm what your long-term measurement is going to be. If it continues to be high, then take action to reduce it and frankly the fortunate thing is both testing is simple and easy and fixing it is fairly easy also.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I was going to ask you that later, but I might as well ask you real quick now. I mean, how do you test and when do you get scared?

MR. GUIMOND: Well, the way to test is buy one of the inexpensive devices that you can get either by mail order, in many cases you can buy them at the hardware stores and buy them now at food stores, and these devices cost anywhere from 10 to 25 dollars. You follow the directions. Put it in your home from anywhere from a few days to longer, send it in and you'll get an idea of what the radon level is in your structure. EPA has a brochure called "A Citizen's Guide to Radon" which then explains to the citizens and to the people, you know, how much risk is a lot, how much risk is at various levels, where they can go to get additional information, and what their next step should be. We then suggested they contact their state, local, environmental or health agency to get advice for their particular locale. Then if you move to the situation where somebody that does, in fact, have a problem, somebody that has high levels that need to be reduced, they can do a wide variety of things. Typically what you want to do is seal the foundation, remove cracks, openings in the foundation so that you're not going to be able to have good entry routes for the radon to give in. To give you an example, a sump, an open sump in a basement can be an easy way for radon gas to just very much pour into the house or a very open crawl space. Those are things that we would suggest they close up. For more drastic situations, they may then have to put a small fan underneath the foundation and into the gravel and exhaust that air outside the house so that it's going to the path of least resistance, away from the house as opposed to up into the house.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me just get to you, Dr. Houk, on the health consequences of radon in the home. I mean, how much radon should be start to worry about in the home.

DR. VERNON HOUK, Assistant Surgeon General: The outside air level of radon is about .2 pica curies and the action level that EPA set is 4 pica curies.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And a pica curie is?

DR. HOUK: Per liter, it's a millionth -- it's a technical radiation measurement. That is based upon -- that is not saying that that's a safe level, but it's a technologically feasible level to get down to. The radon issue is simple. Radon causes lung cancer. Lung cancer is a very significant public health problem in this country, with about 130,000 deaths per year. Its two major causes, smoking and radon, are both preventable, and as Mr. Guimond said, there are inexpensive devices to measure and the remediation of the house is relatively inexpensive or on average about $1,000 per house.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, if I tested my house and found that I had radon in it does that mean that we've been exposed, that we're in immediate danger?

DR. HOUK: You are not in immediate danger. The risk, very much like the risk of smoking, is a life-time risk of getting lung cancer for you live there. However, if the levels are elevated say at 4 pica curies, or at the lower level of elevation, you should make plans to remediate sometime within the next or few months. If you're at five or ten times that, you might want to remediate a little bit quicker than that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But if you've been living in a house for a long time and this is the first time you've heard about radon, should you go out and have lung tests or what?

DR. HOUK: No. If you've lived there a long time, the chance is that you haven't lived in that house for your entire life, you should not panic. This is not a panic situation, but it's a situation that one should recognize the risk and being responsible take care of those risks. One other thing I would like to mention, Ms. Gault, because it's very important, in addition to don't smoke yourself, if your house has any detectable radon, it would be wise to prohibit smoking in your house, because the radon attaches itself to the cigarette particles and further increases down into the lung.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Guimond, we saw in the tape piece the man talking about insulating his house. Is that one of the things that is effective against this? I mean, if he insulates it, does the radon then dissipate that's in it?

MR. GUIMOND: No, generally, insulation is not going to do much to reduce the radon levels. It may keep the heat in better, but it's not going to reduce radon. What you're going to try to do by reducing radon levels is again prevent gases from being able to get into the house from the foundation. Now certain types of caulking may do that. And if he meant by insulation he caulked it or he blocked the holes from penetrating, then in those cases, that's going to have some benefits. One key point I'd like to make on fixing it though that I think is very useful is that from the health data we have we know that if you reduce your exposure to radon, in time you're going to reduce your lung cancer risk, similar to if you stop smoking in time you will reduce your risk for there. That's one of the important things for people to learn what their exposure is now and if it is high, get it reduced.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I was, just before I came in here, I was looking at a local news program and they were talking about this issue and they talked about ventilation in the house too, is that something, how important is that?

MR. GUIMOND: Well, from a short-term perspective, if you do have elevated levels, then if you open the doors and windows and get more air into the house, that will reduce it immediately. But when you get into the winter months, just keeping the windows open is going to have a big electric bill or a big fuel bill, so that's not going to be a long-term solution. To take care of it in those types of situations, you're going to have to have less expensive solutions and that's the sealing and the ventilation under the foundation, because those are going to be long-term solutions that are not going to cause you the heat costs that the ventilation would. One other thing on the ventilation, sometimes people will ventilate by exhausting air from the house. They put a fan in the basement wall and push the air out of the house. That actually may make the situation worse because that will depressurize or create a vacuum in the basement which will cause more radon to come up from the ground to fill that vacuum. So if anybody is going to ventilate their basement, we suggest they pour air into it, not out of it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Dr. Houk, you said you wouldn't buy a house unless it had been tested for radon. Do you think that should be the standard, the standard procedure for buying a house?

DR. HOUK: I certainly do, Ms. Gault. You know, any time we go to the financial market for our houses, mortgages, borrowing money, et cetera, we have to have a termite bond, and that's to protect the financial institution. And I think having a radon, knowing what the radon level is protects our health and that of our children. I would like --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We just have a few seconds left.

DR. HOUK: If I could, I've seen stories today about EPA is overexaggerating this. And now EPA is being very responsible with an important, and equally important message how it can be corrected. The quality of the data upon which we are basing these estimates in my opinion equals the quality of the data about seat belts preventing mortality from traffic deaths.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Dr. Houk, thank you very much for being with us and Mr. Guimond, you as well.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight, a Dukakis stump speech and the politics of gun control. SERIES - '88 - ON THE STUMP

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Next we continue our series of the candidates on the campaign trail. Tonight we hear excerpts from a speech Michael Dukakis delivered this morning to the Council on Foreign Relations. The main theme of the address was U.S./Soviet relations.

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS, Dem. Presidential Candidate: The Republican ticket has no strategy for testing the limits of what is called the new thinking in the Soviet Union. Lloyd Bentsen and I do. We want to challenge those Soviet leaders. We want to test their intentions, and we want to explore the opportunities that may exist to build for our children and all children a more stable and a less dangerous world. They are content to leave the initiative of arms control and regional disputes and the spread of advanced weapons systems around the world to Mr. Gorbachev. We are not. They want to turn back the clock, suggest that nothing has changed, to pretend that Soviet leadership is as tired and as paralyzed and as heavy handed as it was only half a dozen years ago. President Reagan understands the dangers of that course and so do I. So to deal successfully with Gorbachev and with the Soviet Union, the next President must be tough, he must be realistic, he must have good judgment, and he must be committed to building a strong defense for the United States. As President, I intend to provide that leadership. George Bush has been around Washington for a long time, but if he couldn't stand up to the Ayatollah or say no to Noriega, how will he measure up to Gorbachev? And my friends, if he truly believes that J. Danforth Quayle is qualified to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, how can we trust his judgment when America's future is on the line? Three times since 1945, men who served as Vice President have been called to the Presidency, called overnight to the Presidency, called to the leadership of the free world. In each case, these men have had to engage in tough bargaining with a Soviet leader. First it was Harry Truman at Potsdam, then Lyndon Johnson at Glasboro, and Gerald Ford Vladivastar. Dan Quayle is no Gerald Ford. He's, he's no Lyndon Johnson, and he sure ain't Harry Truman. Can we stake our future on the hope that he is a match for Mikhail Gorbachev? Let's challenge them to build in the progress already made by Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev to make deep cuts in the number of nuclear arms and to reduce the risk of nuclear war. I supported the President strongly on the INF Treaty. I hope he will continue to push for further progress on arms control between now and next January. And let us challenge the Soviet leaders to match their new words of peace with new actions that will advance the cause of peace. Let us in the first months of the next Administration seize the initiative in our relationship with the Soviet Union and let us measure the prospects for change by observing the progress towards change, progress towards reducing tension in Europe and in trouble spots all over the world, progress in controlling the spread of dangerous military technologies, progress towards the promise of dignity and respect for all people and all societies in every part of this earth. Today our ally Israel is threatened and stability throughout the Middle East is endangered by the spread of advanced technology that will allow nations as irresponsible and as aggressive as Syria and Iraq and Iran to launch missiles armed with deadly chemical or even nuclear weapons. So far we have heard nothing from Mr. Bush on this subject, but I will tell you as President, I'm going to work as hard as I can with our allies to persuade Mr. Gorbachev that if he wants to join the international economic community, he must first get out of the business of exporting these deadly weapons to volatile regions of the world.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Michael Dukakis addressing the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. We'll continue our series of excerpts from the candidates on the stump later this week. FOCUS - DISARMING DEBATE

MR. LEHRER: Now a major debate about a subject about which there is always major debate, gun control. The House of Representatives is scheduled to do its own debating by the end of the week on a piece of legislation called the Brady Amendment. It is named for Jim Brady and his wife Sara. Jim Brady is the ReaganPress Secretary who was severely wounded in an assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981. Two members of Congress, one from each side of the issue, are here, as are two political activists, again one from each side, to expand the argument over its play in the current Presidential campaign. The Brady Amendment would require a seven day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. On one side, Congressman Edward Feighan, Democrat of Ohio, the Amendment's sponsor and floor manager. He joins us from public station WBIZ Cleveland. On the other, Congressman Bill McCollum, Republican of Florida, a strong opponent of the bill. Congressman Feighan, what's the purpose of the Brady Amendment?

REP. EDWARD FEIGHAN, [D] Ohio: The purpose, Jim, is to provide a seven day waiting period across the country for the purpose of a handgun. Currently there are 22 states in the nation that have some form of waiting period and many instances opportunity to check the background of the applicant for the handgun. What the seven day waiting period. What the seven day waiting period would give us is an opportunity for local law enforcement jurisdictions to determine if the person attempting to purchase that handgun would otherwise be barred because of a criminal record, a record of mental incompetency, if that person may be a minor or an illegal alien, those kind of barriers that exist in the law today to the purchase of a handgun. Under current law in states like Ohio, for example, someone can go into a dealership and fill out a federal form that is put into a file at that gun dealership, no one ever sees it again, and then walk out with the handgun. This would give us an opportunity for a modest period of time in order to verify that the person attempting the purchase of the handgun is not barred because of some legal status.

MR. LEHRER: Would it require the checking?

REP. FEIGHAN: It would not require the checking. We give an option to local jurisdictions to conduct that investigation. There were many of us who thought that we should require the investigation but in order to get consensus on the legislation, we determined that we would leave that up to the jurisdictions to determine if they thought it was in their best interest to conduct a background check.

MR. LEHRER: And the purpose beyond that is to do what, is to stop handguns from getting in the hands of whom?

REP. FEIGHAN: The purpose is to stop handguns from primarily getting into the hands of criminals as well as getting into the hands of those who are legally barred from owning a handgun as well as those who might be using a handgun or intending to use it on some passionate impulse, those who may be contemplating suicide, those who may be contemplating using it for some criminal purpose. It's a cooling off period then as well as a barrier to those who have a legal impediment to owning or to acquiring a handgun. We have learned that this waiting period has worked very effectively in the states that have it. In New Jersey, for example, on an average in every year that New Jersey has had a waiting period, which is now 22 years, they have discovered that there are 500 ineligible applicants, convicted felons, those who have records of mental incompetency, that would prevent them from acquiring a handgun. California has had the same experience. Fifteen hundred people last year in California had applied but were denied the opportunity to get a handgun because they had criminal records or records of mental incompetency.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman McCollum, why do you oppose this?

REP. BILL McCOLLUM, [R] Florida: Well, I think everybody realizes the primary purpose is to prevent convicted felons from being able to get ahold of handguns, and I agree with that. The problem is that the waiting period won't do that. And the reason it won't do that is that there is no national check right now, no national identification system of criminals, that can effectively provide the information accurately on who a convicted felon is who comes in to buy a handgun, and the reason for that is the FBI check records are done by a name system which only 20 states fully participate in and anybody who is older than being born in 1956 is not in those records.

MR. LEHRER: Why not?

REP. McCOLLUM: Well, they just have never been put in.

MR. LEHRER: I see.

REP. McCOLLUM: And then the most significant reason that this is not going to work when you put it into law, have a waiting period, is because of the very fact that if you're a felon, who in his right man who's a felon is going to go in with proper identification to buy the gun in the first place. So what we really need and what I'm offering in the way of an amendment as a substitute is an accurate system, such as a fingerprint system. And what I would offer in my amendment that the attorney general set up a system of accurate and immediate identification of any felon who's about to purchase a handgun, make that system available to gun dealers where the guns are going to be purchased, and implement that system within 180 days of the enactment of this bill, and I think that is a much more responsible approach than simply enacting a national seven day waiting period which becomes, in fact, a cooling off period rather than a period during which a felon is going to really be identified.

MR. LEHRER: Under your system, how much time would there be between the fingerprinting and whether or not the person could buy the gun? And I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

REP. McCOLLUM: We don't know yet, because I just suggest a fingerprint might be the system. I don't put that into the law. What I do is demand that the Attorney General develop an immediate and accurate system of identifying felons for the purposes of this. I think that the fingerprint would be the most effective way of being sure it is a felon who is in there buying the handgun.

MR. LEHRER: Meanwhile, what would be the harm of the Brady Amendment?

REP. McCOLLUM: Well, frankly, the thing that we're talking about here is giving up some opportunity for citizens who'd like to go buy the handgun in the interim. Let's say somebody who's really genuinely afraid for their life, afraid somebody is threatening them. The Feighan Brady Amendment would provide an out only in the situation where the police say that they really believe that person should be responsible and reasonably in fear of their life or in fear of something happening to them before they can get a handgun. I don't think a store owner, I don't think a housewife at home should have to wait that time unless there is some reason for it, unless there is an overriding policy reason. If, indeed, the waiting period were effective, then that might be the case, but what I envision is that some day soon, and that's why the immediate word is in there, we'll have this fingerprint check so you can do much like you do when you go to the store using your credit card to buy something and you can just have an immediate check by the gun dealer that occurs within a few minutes of the time you go in to purchase the gun.

MR. LEHRER: What about Congressman Feighan's point though that in states that have had these kinds of things in effect, New Jersey, he mentioned California, it has thwarted, he mentioned, mental incompetents and others from getting guns.

REP. McCOLLUM: Well, in those states I'm sure that in many cases it has and if the states want to do that intrastate, that's one thing, but for the federal government to come in and make it a national system when there's no national system of identification and it won't work that way, I don't think we ought to be doing that. Many places like my own locality in Orlando and that surrounding area have enacted two or three day cooling off periods. There are many others who have these waiting periods. If the states and locals want to do that, that's one thing, but I just don't believe the federal government ought to be doing that unless we have a federal system that really works. And we ought to have a federal system that does work for the identification of fellows. Nobody ought to be able to buy a handgun who is a convicted felon.

MR. LEHRER: What about that, Congressman Feighan, that you've got a system, but you don't really have a system, I mean, you have a federal law but no federal system to check it and to make it work?

REP. FEIGHAN: Well, first of all I think we have to understand the politics surrounding this issue as it comes to the floor of Congress tomorrow afternoon. The McCollum Amendment has become the rallying point now for the National Rifle Association to simply defeat a waiting period pure and simple. Now that may be not withstanding the original intentions of my colleague and the sponsor of that amendment, but that's the purpose of it, to stop any form of waiting period.

MR. LEHRER: Is that what you're trying to do is just kill the waiting period with your amendment?

REP. McCOLLUM: No, I'm not. As a matter of fact, I created this amendment and the NRA now chooses to support the amendment but it didn't got the other way around. They didn't come to me saying we want to kill this waiting period idea. I've been on the subcommittee that developed this legislation, as Mr. Feighan has been, and I simply think this is a flaw, a fatal flaw in his proposal, until we have a system that will work.

MR. LEHRER: But you think he's trying to kill it, is that right, Congressman Feighan?

REP. FEIGHAN: There's no question -- there's no question that the National Rifle Association is now using the McCollum Amendment to kill any form of waiting period. And even if we were to accept the premise that we need a study, which we don't, and that's what the amendment is calling for, yet another federal study.

REP. McCOLLUM: It's not a study. It demands, it requires the Attorney General to develop the system.

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen, I'll tell you what. Congressman Feighan used the word "politics" and let's talk politics for a few minutes. Don't you all go away and we'll bring you back into the conversation, okay, because we want to take up the politics of the gun control argument most particularly now as seen at the national level between and among the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, GOP Presidential Nominee: And I respect old fashioned common sense and have no great love, and I have no great love for the imaginings of the social planners. You see I like what's been tested and found to be true. For instance, should public school teachers be required to lead our children in the pledge of allegiance? My opponent says no and I say yes. Should free men and women have a right to own a gun to protect their home? My opponent says no, but I say yes.

MR. LEHRER: Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Dukakis has called for "responsible gun control". In a position paper, he said, "Millions of honest, law-abiding Americans enjoy the recreational use of firearms for hunting and target shooting. I think government should respect that right. I also support the right of responsible citizens to own firearms to protect their homes and businesses, subject to the regulation of state and local governments. But there are too many illegally owned handguns across this nation, and we must act strongly to control the use of handguns by criminals. As Governor of Massachusetts, I have acted to curb illegal handgun use -- At the same time, our hunters and sportsmen and women are free to enjoy the responsible and legal use of firearms." Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Lloyd Bentsen speaking in Austin, Texas, last month defended Dukakis's gun control position. He accused the Bush campaign of distorting it, saying, Dukakis is " -- a man who understands the right to have a gun in your home to protect you. He's a man who understands and accepts and supports the right for sportsmen to hunt and to target practice and have guns for that purpose." The Democratic ticket's position drew this comment from Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Dan Quayle last month in Billings, Montana.

SEN. DAN QUAYLE, GOP Vice Presidential Candidate: As usual, our opponent is far outside the Western mainstream, but don't just take my word for it. Let's look at the words of our opponent. Gov. Dukakis has flatly said that " -- with the exception of police and military, I don't believe in people owning guns, I don't believe in people owning guns and I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state. In 1976, even more alarmingly, he supported a ballot referenda that would have, in effect, taken the handguns from the citizens of Massachusetts. It seems very clear to me that the Governor of Massachusetts believes that you should supervise law-abiding citizens who want to constitutionally bear arms but not supervise first degree murderers who roam the countryside on weekend furloughs. Let me say this. America would be much better off if our opponent believed in crime control instead of gun control. Finally, and this says it all, the man at the man at the top of our ticket, George Bush, is a life member of the National Rifle Association, while Mr. Dukakis boasts that he is a car carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

MR. LEHRER: And that brings us to two veteran political players from opposite sides of the field. Ann Lewis was a senior adviser to the Jackson Campaign during the primaries. She's a former official of the National Democratic Party and the Liberal Americans For Democratic Action. She's now a columnist for Ms. Magazine. Richard Viguerie is a longtime conservative leader, commentator and fund-raiser. He is currently Chairman of the United Conservatives of America. Mr. Viguerie, what do you think the political objective is of the Republican attacks on the Dukakis/Bentsen positions on gun control?

RICHARD VIGUERIE, United Conservatives Of America: You may think that what were seeing is an attempt perhaps to use a few pictures to speak a thousand words. I think when you know what a person feels about say gun control, you know their views on furloughing of first degree murderers, you know their view on saying the pledge of allegiance, you know their views on taxes, that you won't rule out a tax increase, you know their position on nuclear freeze, you begin to understand how they will come down on all of these issues, issues that are not even a part of the campaign right now. We don't know really from the campaign so far how these gentlemen are going to make judicial appointments. That hasn't been a significant part of this campaign. That's very very important in the country now so if that isn't discussed in the campaign, we still will understand what type of judges that they would appoint because of his position saying -- Dukakis says, I'm a member of the ACLU, we know what kind of judges they will appoint. We know what kind of judges Bush would generally appoint.

MR. LEHRER: Because he's a member of the NRA?

MR. VIGUERIE: Because he's a member of the NRA, because he takes a conservative position on most of the issues, and because Dukakis takes a liberal position on most of the issues, you know a great deal more than this specific narrow that's being talked about at the time.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Ann Lewis, that there are symbols involved here that go beyond the specific argument of gun control?

ANN LEWIS, Democratic Consultant: We clearly are talking about a campaign of symbols, and I would say there were two characteristics of the clips we just saw. One is the extent to which, especially the Bush/Quayle ticket, is talking about symbols at the expense of substance. We don't see Vice President Bush on television talking about how we're going to become more economically competitive. We don't hear him talking about, in fact, the jobs, the issues that are the business of the President, but instead using a few symbolic issues, highly emotional. And the second and again characteristic this year is the extent to which the Bush/Quayle Campaign has been negative and in which the candidates, themselves, have been willing to deliver that negative message personally rather than leaving it to surrogates. That has been unfortunately much of what the last month's about.

MR. LEHRER: What's negative about what we just heard? What's unfairly negative, let's say, about what they have said about Dukakis and gun control?

MS. LEWIS: Well, let's say first again to the extent to which night after night a campaign chooses to talk about these issues which are again basically not a Presidential agenda, they are taking attention, they are taking away from the public the chance to choose on some other issues. I'd be happy to talk about judicial selection, and perhaps we could get to that one later, in terms of what kind of judges people want. I think the American public have spoken out pretty clearly about judges. That isn't what George Bush talks about. When we heard them talking about gun control and we heard, for example, Sen. Quayle saying that George Bush is a life long member of the NRA, this I think was clearly an effort to associate George Bush with what the NRA as a symbol of traditional values. You know, John Wayne should have been a member of the NRA. I think in this he was a little bit off. Not for the first time, Sen. Quayle was a little bit off, but the image of the NRA has clearly been slipping over the last couple of years in the public mind as concern for drugs has risen, as a concern for a sort of street crime has risen, and as the NRA is now being seen as outside the mainstream of public opinion, it is not nearly so popular a symbol as it once was.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, that the NRA is not the symbol it once was politically?

MR. VIGUERIE: I think it is a very strong and powerful and effective lobby for those who believe that the second amendment means what it says,that you have the right to own guns. It's interesting that the left wants to constantly expand the first amendment. They say that you should be allowed to have women dance nude in a bar because that's a form of free speech, but somehow or another the second amendment, we must constrict that right. Interesting, Jim, to hear Ann talk about negative campaigns. The Republicans, as Congressmen here will testify I'm sure, have been hit about shoulders and head all of our life with we're going to cut Social Security from the senior citizens, we're against poor people, we don't believe in civil rights for minorities. We've just been pounded by this -- [network difficulty] -- talking about Bitburg, and the left was outraged that the President of the United States would go to a German cemetery where there were a handful of SS troopers buried and they were making a point this says volumes about Ronald Reagan's views of the Nazis. That symbolism, Ann liked it very much, I suspect the Democrats did.

MS. LEWIS: But, Richard, the weekend which Fred Malek resigns because he drew up a list of Jews in the Labor Department is no week for you to start talking again about Bitburg. If I were you, I wouldn't raise that issue again. We don't need symbolism.

MR. VIGUERIE: You talk about demagoguery, Ann Lewis, you're accusing Fred Malek and the George Bush Campaign of being anti- Semitic, that's demagoguery of the first order.

MS. LEWIS: No, sir. I am accusing him of drawing up a list and then saying specifically I wasn't responsible for what happened.

MR. VIGUERIE: George Bush --

MS. LEWIS: Consider that friendly advice and we'll get back to the subject.

MR. VIGUERIE: Michael Dukakis, Ann, has a problem with symbolism because he has a problem with the issues. That's what he has a problem with. He's wrong on the issues that the American people feel strongly about and that's why he has a problem with the symbols.

MS. LEWIS: Good. Let's talk about the issues.

MR. LEHRER: What about -- we're going to talk about, we'll talk about that some other time. We're going to talk tonight about the symbols. Let's talk about what we came to talk about. When Sen. Quayle and others use the term "card carrying members of the ACLU", others on this program have complained. Anthony Lewis of the New York Times was on here last week. He complained of the use of that term, that it's a return to a form of McCarthyism. Do you feel that way?

MS. LEWIS: I think that in deliberately using that word, and we are now hearing that from the Bush/Quayle Campaign several times a week, they've taken a phrase that was once used lightly, taken it out of context, and have elevated it to a serious charge, and it has clear echoes of McCarthyism when the days card carrying referred to something very different, not the ACLU, which takes our constitution very seriously, but some, in fact, anti-American organizations that did not and that is not a coincidence.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Viguerie, what about that? When you hear the term card carrying, what does it say to you?

MR. VIGUERIE: The first time I ever thought that it could refer to a Communist card carrying was 30 seconds ago when Ann said it. It never occurred to me. Michael Dukakis has gone on national television and bragged that he is a member of the ACLU and he's proud of that, and now he's running from that and you know, this is hyprocrisy of the highest order. Pat Buchanan had a column that I read just yesterday I guess it was talking about when he was traveling with Nixon in the mid 60s how the press pounded Nixon unmercifully, will you disown any member of the John Birch Society that's running for office this year, you know, and that was fair game. Richard Nixon had nothing to do with the John Birch Society, but he was pillared for not coming out and denouncing all members of the John Birch Society. Now Michael Dukakis says I am a member of the ACLU, and he doesn't want it discussed.

MR. LEHRER: Let's bring the two Congressmen back in. Congressman McCollum, how do you read the politics of this? Is gun control, the side that you're on, is that where the people in your district are also on?

REP. McCOLLUM: Well, I think that varies with them. I think nationwide everybody wants to see felons prohibited from being able to possess guns. I think everybody does. But I think most Americans are basically for law and order, they're for tough stands. I think the symbolism of this kind of cuts both ways for this particular issue and that's why I don't think it's necessarily "the" issue or will be a major issue in this campaign, but I think the symbolism is an interesting point, because Dukakis started out saying in his acceptance speech that we're going to talk about Competitiveness and not the issues. Now he wants to talk about the issues. We'll get to them in the debates, but the problem is that in the interim, when you only have 30 second news bites except for a show like yours, symbolism inevitably is going to be there, and this issue is no different from the others.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Feighan, how do you see this as far as how it plays politically?

REP. FEIGHAN: I think there is no question that Mike Dukakis is on the side of the overwhelming majority of Americans on this issue of gun control and particularly on a seven day waiting period. Virtually every nationally conducted poll has stated that 70 to 85 percent of Americans believe in having a moderate modest seven day, or whatever the time frame might be, waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. Frankly, I'm surprised to hear Richard Viguerie put it in the contest of an ideological battle. In fact, when we reported this bill out of the judiciary committee, there wasn't one negative vote. And that judiciary committee spans the entire ideological spectrum of the United States Congress. Some of the most conservative House members sit on the judiciary committee and not one of them not only didn't oppose it, but almost all of them very enthusiastically support the proposal. I think that Ann Lewis is absolutely right when she explained the lost credibility of the National Rifle Association. That's what this battle is tomorrow in the United States Congress. It's to determine whether or not the National Rifle Association which fought us on passing restraints on plastic guns, which fought us in our effort at restricting cop killer bullets, which fought us in our effort at even putting restrictions on the casual sale of machine guns is going to be able to intimidate members of Congress.

MR. LEHRER: Is that an issue, NRA's ability to intimidate Congress?

REP. McCOLLUM: I think it is to some people, but I want to correct something Ed said. The judiciary committee members, many of us did oppose this bill when it came out. It probably wasn't a recorded vote. My recollection is there was in my amendment but not on the final passage, but many members did including some Democrats oppose this particular waiting period bill.

REP. FEIGHAN: In committee, there was not one voice in opposition when the voice was taken.

REP. McCOLLUM: My voice was, Ed, and you know it.

MR. LEHRER: Two questions, Congressman McCollum. First of all, how do you read the power of the NRA? Has it diminished from your perspective?

REP. McCOLLUM: I don't think it's diminished. I think though over the years the NRA, whose membership is quite large, has shot itself in the foot a few times in some of the arguments that they've made. They know that and they've had internal battles like many other organizations have. I'm not for example a member of the NRA. Occasionally they come in like this and support a position I have. But they don't influence my decision making and I doubt they influence too many Congressman, a few, but not too many.

MR. LEHRER: What about an additional point that Congressman Feighan made that from an ideological standpoint, support for his amendment, or the Brady Amendment, that President Reagan, for instance, has come out in favor of this?

REP. McCOLLUM: Now from an ideological standpoint, it is not clear who is where in some of these things. So some conservatives do support it. But I want to make one thing clear, and I've checked with the White House several times on this. President Reagan does not support the Brady Feighan proposal. What he said he supports is for states to have a waiting period and he would support a state-enacted one, but he's a state's writer on the issue, does not believe in the national legislation. I also think it's interesting to know --

MR. LEHRER: It's interesting because the stories that I went over today say just the opposite.

REP. McCOLLUM: But it's not true and I checked with them a number of times. And I think another interesting thing is that only 20 percent of the felons are known by the National Institute's study of a couple of years, the National Institute of Justice, to actually go into a gun store to buy the guns. 80 percent don't ever go there, so the debate is over trying to restrict those 20 percent which I want to see restricted, Reagan wants to see restricted, Bush wants to see restricted. It's a matter of how you go about it. Then you get NRA in on top of it and it kind of muddies the issue frankly, but I don't think that should be the issue. NRA shouldn't be the issue.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think gun control is an ideological issue, Mr. Viguerie, is that correct?

MR. VIGUERIE: Yes, I think so.

MR. LEHRER: I mean, liberals are in favor and conservatives are against it?

MR. VIGUERIE: As a general rule, except liberals from Western states. I have heard of a great number of liberal former members of Congress over the years complain that they were defeated because they were in what Congressman Feighan would say was, they were in the majority, they believed in taking the rights of people to own guns away; they were defeated. I'm not aware of any conservative that has ever lost an election because they were conservative on gun control.

MR. LEHRER: How do you read the record as to the ability of the NRA to control an election or this issue of control?

MS. LEWIS: It is slipping away as we see this issue. That's why it's moving in the Congress. That's why we've had the success we've had so far. Listen, I'm not worried about the NRA shooting itself in the foot. But I am worried about people who get shot in this country every day because of irresponsible acts by the NRA and that's why the symbolism for this year and the attempt to use the NRA as a symbol for law and order is wrong. It doesn't match. The public has caught up with it. We want to see more restraint in guns, not less.

MR. LEHRER: Let's go finally, just a couple of seconds left, vote counting, Congressman Feighan, have yougot the votes to win this?

REP. FEIGHAN: I can't predict that we do. It's going to be a very close vote. We have fortunately the support of virtually every law enforcement organization in the country supporting our effort and working aggressively to pass the bill up against the declared expenditure of some $3 1/2 million by the NRA. It's going to be a very close vote tomorrow.

MR. LEHRER: Close. Do you agree?

REP. McCOLLUM: It's too close to call. I think one thing that hasn't been said should be. It's part of the big drug bill.

MR. LEHRER: It's an amendment to the drug bill.

REP. McCOLLUM: That's right. And my amendment is actually to take out the waiting period and require this actual system to be developed to identify the felons who go to purchase.

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen and Ann Lewis, thank you very much. RECAP

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Again the major stories of this Tuesday, Hurricane Gilbert brought death and destruction to Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and the Cayman Islands, and it could hit the U.S. Gulf Coast in two days. The Sierra Nevada wildfires continue to burn out of control in California. Nearly 100 homes have already been destroyed. Hundreds more are at risk. And the Reagan Administration agreed to pay off the $520 million bill owed to the United Nations. Good night, Jim.

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