The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. ... Good evening. In the headlines today, President Reagan will send an envoy to Europe next week to discuss sanctions against South Africa. The governor of South Carolina asked that most of his drought-stricken state be declared a disaster area. And 2,000 Muslim radicals stormed the Moroccan embassy in Beirut. We will add the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlene Hunter-Gault is in New York tonight. Charlene. The news hour tonight goes like this. We test the mood of the Senate on South Africa sanctions with Senator Richard Luger. Then a debate over how to dispose of old but still dangerous chemical weapons.

We have a report on the so-called date rape trial and its implications. And a brief report on charges that politicians are making hay off the drought. Funding for the McNeil-era news hour is provided by AT&T. Whether it's telephones, information systems, network systems, long-distance services, or computers. AT&T. Funding also is provided by this station and other public television stations. And the cooperation for public broadcasting. There was more evidence today of a presidential change of heart on South Africa sanctions. White House spokesman Larry Speaks said State Department official Chester Crocker will go to London next week on a special sanctions mission. Crocker is the State Department's number one man on Africa policy. Speaks said he would be talking to European leaders about a coordinated approach to sanctions. President Reagan had expressed strong opposition to such action in a South Africa policy speech Tuesday.

Praise of the speech from the South African government and condemnation from South African blacks and members of the U.S. Congress, as apparently caused, Mr. Reagan's shift in position. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Luger said it proved Mr. Reagan had listened loud and clear to his critics. Charlene. On the drought disaster front, the governors of Alabama, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Virginia called on President Reagan to declare their state's federal disaster areas because of the staggering agricultural losses. Yesterday, the federal government announced plans to provide relief to the region, but there have been complaints of the plan and a foot dragging by the government. North Carolina Agricultural Commissioner Jim Graham said today that he was outraged by the steps announced yesterday and said they fall short of the assistance needed in the area. Meanwhile, as the punishing hot weather continued to take its toll, calls began pouring into the Department of Agriculture's toll free number that began operating this morning. I've taken any number of calls from farmers who say, my waters dried up, my ponds are dry, I have absolutely no pastureage, my pasture has been burned off by the heat.

I can't get, hey, I either can't get or can't use grains that are available, I need help. We've had calls from people whose animals are down and they want to know what can be done about it. That number to call is 1-800-43-0703. It will be staffed on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Meanwhile, the economic effects of the drought are beginning to be felt outside the south as farm officials and growers report that the price of produce and poultry will be going up. Already, chicken prices are up as much as 22 cents a pound from last year, and egg prices are up 10 cents from July 1st of this year. New England produce prices have jumped 15 to 25 percent since mid-June officials in Massachusetts said today. President Reagan formally replied today to the Soviet Union's most recent arms control proposal.

The response came in a private letter from the President, the Soviet Party Leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. The White House refused to release details of the letter. The President told a student group today he would not let a space defense system become a bargaining chip if that meant giving it up entirely. In Geneva today, the U.S. and the Soviet Union met in a new realm of confidential talks on whether to limit or ban nuclear tests, although they were trying to narrow differences before a second summit due later this year. There was apparent disagreement over priorities. Among other things, the Soviets want talks to focus on a total test ban. The U.S. wants to deal mainly with compliance to existing treaties that limit the size of nuclear explosions. Another embassy was attacked and overrun by angry Muslims today, but it was not an American one this time. It was the Moroccan embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Some 2,000 Shiite Muslims ransacked the building and protest of Hassan's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Paris.

They also denounced President Mubarak of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan. We have a report from Margaret Koval of Business. Hassan said after his talks with Israeli leader that he would accept lessons from no one, but the demonstrators clearly had other ideas. Some of them scaled the roles of the deserted mission, venting their anger on portraits of Hassan and chanting slogans like, death to Hassan, death to Mubarak, and death to the King of Jordan. They destroyed everything Moroccan they could later hands on. Posters of their own leaders appeared, including Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. Some religious leaders appealed in vain for restraint, but the young radicals were determined to make their point. Police said there were no injuries, and that the six-person embassy staff had fled to safety before the demonstrators arrived.

In India, four young Sikh extremists reportedly killed 14 passengers on a bus today. Police there said that all but one of those killed were Hindus, and that seven other travelers were seriously wounded. The massacre in Chandigarh brought the death toll to 56 this month in the extremist campaign for an independent Sikh nation in the Punjab. This year's total is more than 450. In New Delhi, the government and the Punjab cabinet urged the state seeks and Hindus to keep calm and avoid any outburst of sectarian violence. Still ahead on the New Zower Senator Richard Luger gives us a reading on the Senate and South Africa sanctions. We have a debate about disposing of old but deadly chemical weapons. Then on to a report on the so-called date rate trial in its implications, and finally a brief report on charges that politicians are making hay off the drought. We go first tonight to the man who has again become the central figure in a wrenching foreign policy situation for the United States and President Reagan.

He is Senator Richard Luger, Republican of Indiana, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was Senator Luger who guided the president and his administration to a change in policy toward the Philippines. One that helped facilitate the peaceful change from the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos to that of Corazon Aquino. Now it is the issue of South Africa sanctions, where Mr. Reagan's adamant opposition to sanctions apparently runs counter to those of bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress among other places. Senator Luger is with us now for a newsmaker interview. Senator welcome. Is there any question about there being a congressional majority with different views on sanctions than President Reagan's? No doubt there isn't such a congressional majority. There can still be doubt on which sanctions and the parliamenter procedure that would bring them to the president's attention. I just emphasize that because I suspect that there is too much preoccupation with differences with the president.

The president and the Secretary of State in their recent statements have shown certainly a high degree of flexibility. They are listening and working and are listening furthermore to our allies, working with commonwealth nations. They realize a concerted attempt to bring the attention of the South African government to its problems will be more helpful than the unilateral attempt by ourselves. By recent statements though, you mean those census speech on Tuesday, right? You mean it is a result of the reaction to that speech. I'm not certain how to comment about the speech. I've been quoted correctly in the press saying that I offered the president one piece of advice and that is not to mention sanctions in the speech. It was too big difficulty I thought. Now he did mention those sanctions. They quoted Mrs. Thatcher in a pretty hard-line statement. I think in retrospect that may have been a mistake because the president is now directing our attention to the fact that he was talking about comprehensive across the board total punitive sanctions. And those are the ones that he is opposed to.

I'm opposed to those also. I think that may have been a strong man. What we really are down to is the fact that there are some steps we might take that would influence the South African government without hurting the people of South Africa and we want to help. And those steps are what specifically? Well, there are a number that we're going to be discussing. They have been adopted. We'll discuss landing rights for South African aircraft visas for South African government officials. Perhaps our inability to import from state-owned industries, so-called para-state industries, the South African governments heavily involved. And we may take a look at the freezing of bank accounts of certain South African persons. You know, this is not the mass of South Africans. But these are persons who could be influential and who want to be talking to each other at least learning more about their country and certainly getting some talks together with people that are in some cases in prison, but clearly not a part of the political system. Now, those points that you just outlined, are they going to be a part?

They are part of a proposal that you are now circulating among the President. In fact, they're a part of the bill that I've been drafting today and the work will continue over the weekend on Monday. Members of our committee will take a look at a draft on on Tuesday we will meet and start the beginning to act on it. I assume that a draft of this was also gone to Secretary Schultz and the White House. Well, as soon as it's completed, it has not been completed, but they will be looking at it just as soon as members of our committee. Have you gotten any signals from the White House, from the President that he would support what you just outlined? No, I have not nor have I asked for any. For the moment, we're doing the very best that we can as a group of Republicans and Democrats and with the advice of members of the Senate. Now, I'm aware of some of the thoughts of Secretary Schultz because he said that he would like to work with us as he always does. And I think we'll have a good working relationship. But the fact is, this goes counter to what President Reagan, what you want, what you are proposing as counter to what President Reagan said on Tuesday. Well, at least one interpretation of what he said.

I think the President ought to be allowed to interpret what he said and maybe his formulation subsequently will be closer to what we are doing. But don't you think it's a fair question, Senator, that what happened? I mean, the President was very adamant. I mean, we all listened and read what he said. And now, apparently, he, two days later, he's changed his mind. And that is a result of opposition that's been voiced to what he said, correct? I think that's probably a fair inference. All right, now then the question is, why didn't, what causes him to feel this? What caused him to say what he said on Tuesday? You met you and Senator Doles and her cast-in-bomb eyes soon told him everything that you knew about it, which was, Mr. President, we're going to have to do sanctions, etc, etc, etc. But what happened? Why did he not hear the message then? I don't know. The President probably had many staff members who made suggestions about that speech. I know of some paragraphs that did not look like others that I thought were going to be there.

I'm not certain who all contributed to it. But in any event, Secretary Schultz did interpret the President's thoughts in long testimony, four hours the next day, and said he was speaking for the President, not for himself. And he was very helpful. Now, one could say some of the things the Secretary had to say did not appear to be the same emphasis or style or tone as the day before, but so be it. And subsequently, the President himself has said that we're not closing any doors, but to keep talking about this. I agree with that. And as opposed to quilbling over whether the President should or should not have given the Tuesday speech, that's going to move ahead. Well, doesn't it go beyond quilbling, no senator? I mean, isn't the fact the perception rightly or wrongly that the President is citing with the white minority government of P.W. Bowdoin, South Africa? Isn't that the perception that you're trying to overcome and that the President must try to overcome? Yes, of course. When the government of South Africa embraced that speech started running it on the state run television so that everybody knew that it was their speech and black leaders in South Africa almost universally condemned it, some very bitterly. The President, I'm certain, I got the feeling that it had not been an even-handed message.

I think earnestly hoped that it would be perceived that way. Obviously, it was not. Something was wrong in the formulation. But what would you say to those who would say, has the President made any fundamental change in the way he sees this? Apparently not. If it's two days later, it's a result of how the speech was perceived rather than any change and how the President perceives the situation. Well, the President's perceptions are constant to this degree. He believes that economic sanctions, as a rule, are not very effective. I think that is correct. They are not very effective. Secretary Scholf would weigh in with a lot of evidence that they're not. So, we're agreed on that. The President wants somehow to get that government moving. He doesn't want to dig in its heels and become totally object. And the President feels that the government has made some changes. Now, that is correct, although not nearly fast enough, given the pace and given the problems. I think the disagreement came in our perceptions of what is going to happen in South Africa. It hope is lost. By fear, you're on our part in this country or the Commonwealth or the European Community Act.

My own perception is that there will be guerrilla fighting, that there will be atrocities, that there will be a lack of possibility for negotiation, the fall and afterwards. The President may feel that things are much more stable, and that we have a lot of time to sort of move through this. Now, that, I think, is where honest people can differ, and we don't know. But you disagree with that position, do you? I think we really have to act very swiftly, and I think there has to be a perception on the part of the black community, not only in South Africa, but in the neighboring states that we care. There really has to be that perception that they can trust us. In the event, they feel the United States, maybe wrongly. But if they feel that we are clearly on the side of the South African white government reinforcing the part side, we are going to cause difficulty there as opposed to being an instrument of change. There was a report circulating around the White House today that the President has decided on another appointee, another replacement for it to be the U.S. Ambassador in South Africa. A black diplomat named Terrence Toddman, is that true?

I do not know whether it is true or not. I've heard the report. Terrence Toddman, I would simply say whether the report is true or not, is an extraordinarily abled diplomat. He would do a good job wherever he went, even in the most difficult situation. So I would say that's the name that is appealing, but I don't know whether in fact the nomination will be made. When do you plan finally, when do you plan to introduce your bill and get it on the center floor and get it enacted? Well, we hope to take action on Tuesday and we reserve Thursday for a markup of our legislation. I hope to be completed by that time. And then at that stage, it's up to the majority leader. Now in the event that someone should introduce a South African amendment on some other bill prior to that, which Senator Walker and Senator Kennedy have indicated, they want to reserve that option. And I respect that. They don't want to be shut out of the process. But I have told them face to face that if they feel they must do that, then they must know I will proceed to the floor and offer the bill and whatever form we have at that stage as a substitute. And I think that there will be support by partisan support and a pretty good majority support for the product coming out of our committee.

Senator, thank you very much, Jim. Next, we'll be looking at the controversy over disposing of old but deadly chemical weapons. Then on to a report on the so-called date rape trial and its implications. And finally, a brief report on charges that politicians are making hay off the drought. We focus now on chemical weapons, more specifically how to get rid of them once they're no longer useful. Only they're still dangerous, and that's the problem. At issue is whether to move across the country's railways or destroy on the spot tens of thousands of these weapons, some dating back to World War II and stockpiled in eight Army depots around the country. No matter what decision the Pentagon takes, it's going to leave some people upset. Responding to Congress, the Army has announced a tentative plan to destroy the weapons at the Army depots rather than transporting them by rail to regional destruction facilities.

The chemical stockpiles are located in Aberdeen, Maryland, Aniston, Alabama, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Toul, Utah, Pueblo, Colorado, Yuma Tila, Oregon, Newport, Indiana, and Richmond, Kentucky. And many of the neighbors at many of those places are unhappy. That's what a House investigation subcommittee learned in hearings at one of the sites, Richmond, Kentucky. Correspondent Tom Bearden joined the committee there, and here is his report. They graze horses and plant tobacco on the gently rolling hills of Madison County, Kentucky. Betsy Nye thinks it's a great place to raise her children, except for one thing. The Army has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons just down the road at the Lexington Bluegrass ammunition depot. Nearly 70,000 rockets and a classified number of artillery shells filled with nerve gas. The weapons are stored inside a heavily guarded compound in 49 bunkers like this one.

The munitions are 20 years old, and over the years about 100 of the rockets have started to leak inside their shipping containers. The Army states this demonstration to show us how they deal with leakers by placing the military containers. But the Army has a much bigger and more serious problem to deal with. Congress has ordered the Army to destroy the entire stockpile by 1994. The Army studied the alternatives and has announced it believes the best way is to destroy them where they're stored. The Pentagon wants to build an incinerator here and at seven other locations. The depot's deputy commander says they can do it safely. And I think that the parameters that we establish and the requirements that we have to live up to can pretty much assure that we have a very strong safety program. Many checks and balances that would preclude a catastrophe in Madison County. I have never seen anything in my life that people said there's no way anything can go wrong here that it didn't. Betsy and I and a lot of her neighbors simply don't trust the Army because earlier accidents have severely damaged the depot's credibility.

The accident in 79 when they burned some smoke pots and due to a deadline they had to meet, they burned too many one night. And they sent 40 people to the hospital here. The loud noises around here the last couple of years have all come from the Army. And it is not the kind of thing that makes you want to buy a used car from these people. And the point is it's not a used car. It's a nerve gas incinerator that they're saying that these personnel can handle very effectively night and day for years. Opposition groups say the Army doesn't have an open mind that it decided what it wanted to do years ago and then failed to study the situation properly. They want Congress to require the Army to re-study all the options. This thing is not ready to go in its present form anywhere. It's not a question of Richmond, Kentucky. We are the ones that are at the top of the hit parade in the most people that are going to get hurt by their own statistics. However, the point is they are under a time constraint to use their phrase that they cannot meet.

Nice as the Army has yet to provide them with any data on what will come out of the smoke stack of their incinerator. And she's deeply worried about the impact of that on the people who live here and at the other sites. We're dealing with how many lives who can say at this point if you consider all eight sites. We've got to find out once and for all for these people what will be the best thing to do. They'd be running a nerve gas incinerator night and day, nine tenths of a mile away from a school that five hundred of our seventh and eighth graders attend. And we think that's madness. Well, the stockpile is gone. I think there's always going to be some opposition to whatever is done, whether it be movement or whether it be incineration. It's never going to be a silent issue until it's over. This is Richmond, Kentucky. It isn't going to be Chernobyl or both Paul. Kentucky Congressman Larry Hopkins persuaded the House Subcommittee on investigations to convene this hearing this morning in nearby Richmond. Like the citizens' groups, he also thinks the Army needs to take a fresh look at the alternatives.

But he seems already convinced that weapons ought to be removed from this area. I assume that when they were transported in here, no accident occurred. I'm wondering why they can't be transported out with that same type of brilliance that brought them in originally. They certainly can be transported out of here. Our draft programmatic impact statement shows that. It's a question of relative risks over time to relatively different segments of the national population. And it was our assessment that the relative risks came out in favor of our preferred alternative. The Army emphasizes that its on-site incineration proposal is merely tentative, that they intend to seek additional public input in a series of meetings to be held in the coming months. But many opponents don't believe that. They say the Army wouldn't defend the proposal so vehemently if it wasn't what they intended to do all along.

The Secretary of the Army is scheduled to make his final choice in January. But it seems clear that the only decision many people here are prepared to accept is a decision to move the weapons somewhere else. Judy Woodruff picks up the story from here, Judy. To tell us more about the Army's plan for dealing with these weapons, we have joining us, the woman you just saw testifying, the deputy undersecretary of the Army, Amaretta Hober. Ms. Hober, first of all, just how dangerous are these weapons sitting where they're sitting right now? There is some risk of an igloo fire, of an earthquake, of an explosion, even of a terrorist or sabotage activity that could release some nerve agent today. Some of the munitions are leaking, not seriously, and we take all sorts of precautions, and we encase the leakers when we find them. But they will only get worse over time. The ultimate solution is that they have to be demilitarized.

The Army started working on this in 1984, because we at that point felt that a solution had to be found reasonably soon and proceeded with alacrity as much as we could. But these weapons have been there for some time. Why the move now, why in recent years are, as you say, since 84, to do something with them? Of the M-55 rockets, which are the most dangerous of the weapons, in terms of leakage, in terms of handling problems, and the possibility of creating an accident, were declared obsolete in the early 1980s. And so because of that, we started the program to demilitarize them as soon as we could. The expansion of the program to the rest of the stockpile is because of the law that Congress passed last year, which requires us to demilitarize what is called unitary stockpile by 1994. Demilitarized meaning, get rid of them, discover them.

The process is taking them apart, and then putting the different pieces in incinerators, and incinerating the nerve agent, and incinerating the propellant and explosives, and heating the metal parts. Tell us why the Army basically, why the Army has decided it's better to destroy them in their present location, or somewhere close to where they are now. As part of the environmental impact process, we are required to state a preferred alternative. Congress asked us to look at three different alternatives, a national site, and transport everything from the eight sites to the one central site, two regional sites, and transport to those areas, and onsite incinerators. So we looked at those three alternatives. We have not done anything at this point other than discuss what our preferred alternative is. This is not a decision, this is only a tentative, but why is it preferred? It's preferred because the ultimate risk of injury to the environment and the people of this country is less that way. If you transport it in trains across many states, and even though we tried to determine train routes that would avoid large cities,

the exposure of population to a potential accident is much greater. But you still have people in these communities, such as the one we just saw in Kentucky, where the people are very upset and very worried about their own safety. And I understand that, and we've tried to show them all the safety precautions we take. We've tried to show them the different types of analyses that show what the real risks are. We have tried to talk to them about the mitigating measures we would take to prevent an accident from occurring and this sort of thing. And, you know, there is no solution that has no risk. Just how dangerous is the process of destroying these weapons itself? Not at all. Not at all. Not at all. The process is very safe. We have built a prototype facility into LA, Utah. We've tested every possible item that we would be demilitarizing. We've had EPA, HHS, the GAO, the National Academy of Sciences.

We've had all of those people reviewing what we're doing with us, and the process itself is very safe. Ms. Helber, stay with us, please. Charlotte? Next, two representatives to Congress who take different positions on the Army's plan. Congressman Larry Hopkins of Richmond, Kentucky, who is with us from a studio in Richmond, and Congressman Burrell Anthony of Arkansas, who joins us in Washington. Congressman Hopkins, we've just seen you listening to testimony all day on this whole incinerator plan for your district. Have you changed your mind at all on where you come out on the plan? Well, not at all. As a matter of fact, I think we want a great victory today from the Army and as much as when they came in here. They were dead set on a programmatic system of reading ourselves of the chemical weapons in eight sites. I've maintained all along that it should be done by site specific. Each site is unique.

The one in Richmond, Kentucky, is different than the other seven. As an example, we have in Richmond, Kentucky the least amount of chemical weapons of any of the sites. However, on the other side of the coin, we have the most dense population area of any of the other seven sites. That alone makes us different. So rather than the Army saying, well, we're going to go with the programmatic system and we're going to treat everybody alike. We have insisted and the Army has agreed today, and I must say that I appreciate them doing that, that there will be a site specific environmental impact statement done here in Richmond, Kentucky. But for the final decision is made. But you heard Ms. Hoeber say, and the Army's environmental impact study previously has says that any harm is minor and mitigable is the word they use. You don't buy that? No, I really can't say that that's true. Just at a contrary, I'm not saying that in the accidents have occurred, they probably haven't. But the fact is, they have not yet experienced one hour, not even one hour, a full scale operation of incineration.

Now, contrary to that, they have for years, as a matter of fact, and the record will show, and Ms. Hoeber testified today, that for years they have hauled chemical weapons around by rail, and not one single accident has occurred. As a matter of fact, we have agreed with West Germany to transport our chemical weapons out of their by rail. But she, but she said, I believe she said that the risk is much greater if you do it by rail. Aren't you just by promoting that solution, causing your problem to be transported onto somebody else and even more people? No, I think that still is yet to be proven. I'm not saying that at all, and I'm certainly not ready to concede that. Well, let me know that until we get through with the site-specific analysis. Right, Congressman Anthony, you have a chemical weapons depot in your district, but you support on site incineration. Why? I think on site incineration is the only logical safety decision that can be made.

Why take my problem and dump it on a multitude of county judges and mayors and state governors, as I transport out of Pambluff through North Arkansas to a site out in the West, if it's one site, or into North Arkansas, curving back into the east, if it's in Alabama, as the closest regional site. Well, you just heard of Congressman Hopkins objections. I mean, how do you respond to those? Well, number one, incineration is the most proven technology at the moment for not only incinerating our obsolete and aging chemical agents, the unitary agents that are stored now, but also all of our hazardous and toxic waste. incineration is the safest environmental sound weight to do it. If you look at the numbers of accidents, since 1976, we've had 55,000 rail accidents, the railments. If you look at the number of accidents per million train miles, you see about 80.

So you increase the numbers of people that you're going to put at risk. You create, I think, a psychological fear through the country if you start transporting these nerve agents to either regional site or one national site. Congressman Hopkins, that sounds pretty persuasive. Well, Congressman Burl Anthony and I are friends, as a matter of fact, we worked together on this issue last year in as much as that we put in the menmen on the bill saying that when these incinerators are finished, that the army must destroy them. However, there's some nervousness around the community here that the army won't do that. And I'm sure that my friend Burl Anthony would not like to make a garbage dump out of Arkansas any more than I would out of Kentucky. So your concerns are short-term and long-term? Absolutely. Congressman, what about that? Congressman Anthony. I think having the law written very specifically, there's no long-term fear that 10-centration plants will be utilized for any other utilization. What we must do is address a problem that is present.

We have an obsolete, deteriorating, current, unitary, chemical stockpile. I have 12% of it in my area. The people are nervous, but they understand and they trust the army. Congressman Hopkins, isn't that why you proposed the amendment last year that pushed the army into coming up with this plan that you were concerned about? Well, one of the reasons that I worked with Mr. Anthony and I appreciated his help with me last year was to prevent his putting in an amendment saying that they would incinerate on site. And I say to him publicly again that I appreciated him doing that so that we could have these hearings and bring out the testimony that was brought out today so that the army could commit to us a site-specific environmental impact statement. But you do agree that the destruction is necessary. Absolutely. That's been one of the driving forces I've had all along. As a matter of fact, I've been one of the leaders in the area of doing something about these chemical weapons that we've got stored that are old, that are archaic. And I think it's totally irresponsible for us to pass them on to another generation.

Congressman, let me just get Congressman Anthony's response very quickly to the site-specific thing. I mean, why not do it that way? Oh, I have no disagreement with Larry on doing a site-specific. And if you look at the timetable, the army will be required to go back to each one of the sites in February after they make their decision, their final decision in January. They've only made a tentative decision. Personally, I'm pushing the army to my final decision for own site. If that occurs in January, starting in February, each site will undergo an additional intensive environmental impact study. So there will be an opportunity not only for the people in Kentucky, but all of the other sites to have additional input to the final decision. All right. Thank you. Judy? Secretary Hoberl, let me come back to you with Congressman Hopkins' argument that he says that the army has not done as he described it one hour of full-scale incineration to test the technique that you're talking about. Is that true? It's true in the sense that we don't have a production-size facility operating yet. But you don't need a production-size facility to prove the technology.

We have a smaller-scale facility that does every single bit of the work that will be done in the larger-scale facility out in Utah. And we've been running that in generating nerve agent and munitions since 1982. But you're saying it's the same process? It's the same process. It's simply a matter of scale. Well, now we are building a full-scale facility on Johnson Island in the middle of the Pacific right now. But you haven't tested it yet. No, but we will have run that in our full-scale operations for more than a year before we will operate anything here in the continental U.S. Congressman Hopkins, what about that? Well, you know, a couple of years ago, the army came in to Central Kentucky with nails and hammers in their hands saying we're going to put up an incinerator. And the good people in this community said, no, not until we get some more information. And that information just simply is not available. Miss Hobart admitted to it just now.

They have not run a full-scale operation. And until that's done, how do we know what's safe? Well, the thing that we know it's safe for sure is, is transportation. They have not had one accident in the thousands and thousands of tons that they've hauled by rail, not one. That's true. That's true. And we've also had no accidents out at Tuella, Utah in the functioning of our facility out there. Well, then, how do you know that the ons, that that's safer than the transport, isn't that? Because you can calculate the trains, train loads that would go. You can use the statistics on accidents per train mile at certain speeds. You can use the results of tests done on what happens in a train accident to a box car that would be carrying chemical munitions. Those sorts of things that that's very well understood because of lots of transportation work that's been done. And it's true that while we've had no accidents in transportation either, we also did it at night in small batches over many years worth of time. When we stored these things in the 50s in these arsenals to be in with.

And what you're talking about that would be done here in transportation is announced routes. You'd be subject to sabotage and terrorism because we'd have to clear the tracks. We'd have to take a train load of 50 cars full of nerve agent munitions and there are real risks. What about that? Let me just say that I think this would be a great shock to the West Germans to learn that we have just agreed to transport our chemical weapons out of there by rail. And the generation on site is so much better. Why are we going out, why are we doing it by rail in West Germany and why did they accept to do that? I'm not aware that the Germans have accepted anything. And as I understand the situation that's being discussed between the State Department and a foreign country. That is not part of the program that we are required to do here in the continent. You're not denying that's the way they're doing it. I don't know whether they're going to do it that way in West Germany. Those decisions haven't been made. That's the agreement that has been made and what I'm saying to you is that we in America ought to be at least treated equal to the West Germans.

Let me ask you this, Congressman Anthony, you know, we now have this newer generation of chemical weapons coming on stream, the so-called binary chemical weapons. Apparently far more dangerous than the ones we're talking about here. No contrary, much much safer, safer to store, safer to transport. That was the whole purpose. Early on, we worked with the Congress and said, if we're going to go to the safer binary and to modernize our chemical weapon system, then we want to destroy two for every one that we build. And that was the main reason we got into the demilitarization of the existing stockpile. So you're not concerned that at some point in the future, we're going to be faced with this very same problem all over again. No, no, no, no. The new chemical system is safe to transport, it's safe to store. And that is the reason we want to get rid of the unitary system, which is not safe to store. We periodically find leakers in Pine Bluff, we have to transport them to Utah to get rid of them. They're in small numbers, but let me make a strong point here that Mr. Hopkins is overlooking.

Because of the great quantities that are stored, both in the cartridge and also in the bulk form, it would take multitude of carloads over a long period of time to transport them out of each site, either to a national site. That means that on a constant basis, everybody not only is going to be perceived to be fearful for what's coming through, but they're going to have a psychological. You want a quick response to that? Yes, please, I sure would. That's why we have to have a site specific because my good friend, Burl Anthony, is failing to overlook the fact that we only have 1.6% of the total stockpile here in Richmond, Kentucky, was such a small amount. Why should we spend as much money as everybody else does for an incinerator? One quick final question for Secretary Hober, what are the chances the Army would change its mind in overturn this preliminary decision? Oh, there are all sorts of opportunities for the public to raise issues that they may not believe we have adequately addressed for EPA, for HHS, for various other federal agencies to raise issues. We're a long way from completed with the process to a decision.

Well, we thank you all for being with us, Secretary Hober, Congressman Hopkins, thank you, Congressman Anthony. Thank you, Jimmy. We focus next on a growing phenomenon known as date rape or acquaintance rape, forcible intercourse occurring on dates, or following other routine social encounters, where women victims usually know their assailants. It blurs the legal definition of criminal rape because it may not involve the brutality or overt coercion usually associated with rape. Three former University of Minnesota basketball players were acquitted early today by a jury in Madison, Wisconsin of sexually assaulting an 18-year-old woman last January. She claimed they raped her. They claimed she had consented to sexual relations following a party. Fred Sam Lazaro, a public-station KTCA in St. Paul, Minnesota, has been following the case. The verdict of the jury is, we the jury find the defendant, Kevin Singer Smith, not guilty as to not one.

The verdict was not guilty. The defendants acquitted on all 12 charges, but there was really little dispute in this courtroom about what exactly happened the night of January 23, 1986. It was a night to celebrate for the defendants, Mitchell Lee, Kevin Smith, and George Williams Jr. Their University of Minnesota basketball team had just defeated our tribal University of Wisconsin. A victory celebration took the three to a party in this apartment building late that night. It's here that prosecuting attorney Judith Hawley says the complainant in the case first met them. She did some dancing with defending Kevin Smith, talked to him for a while, talked to some other people. Throughout defendant Smith was nice, was polite to her. They were having a conversation of small talk. At some point, the subject came up of there being another party. She decides to go for a while. She gets in the car with Kevin Smith and some other people that had Mitchell Lee also gets in the car.

The car goes over to the concourse hotel. They get to room 308. The assault begins almost immediately. She'll tell you about the shock and the pain and the fear that she felt at that time and the eventual numbness as the night progressed. It's here that the key disagreement lay between Hawley and defense attorneys. To Stanley Woodard, the woman was a willing participant. The alleged assault in this hotel nearly the logical conclusion of a night in which she admittedly was looking to have a good time. Not going to call anybody. It says that they heard any harm or any noise on that room coming out of room 308. And there's a security guard going to come in here and say they went down the hallway. What's out? That's his job. Make sure the building is secure. That's why he walks those halls every day. You didn't hear him.

The 12-day trial saw defense lawyers summon several witnesses who supported their contention that the complainant went willingly and without protest into room 308 of the concourse hotel. They claim she reported the incident merely to draw attention to herself. You will not hear that anyone heard anything or saw anything during the three to three-and-a-half hours. The corroborates which she claims occurred. Prosecutor Hawley stuck largely with the first-hand testimony from the complainant, who by law, is shielded from cameras and recorders. The 18-year-old medicine student admitted she was looking for a party with music and drinks that night, but not for sex. While there were other points of contention, the key issue before jurors was whether or not there was consent, and whether the complainant's behavior before and after the incident constituted consent. Veteran observers of trials involving a acquaintance rape, and there were several at this one, say the so-called consent defense is most common. Milwaukee District Attorney E. Michael McCann. Date cases are always difficult, perhaps because they've known each other for some time. In some date cases they've actually had sexual intercourse,

consensually, and now the circumstances have changed, the woman has chosen to end the relationship, and the man presses on and uses force. The man can show that they knew each other, perhaps if they were intimate in the past, and that in fact it was consent was involved. So typically there may not be physical injury on the woman's body. There's no forced entry because perhaps she led him into her apartment, or voluntarily got into his car. As much as it does D.A.'s like McCann, the issue of consent also to her men's complaints. He seemed like a real nice, decent, friendly person. 29-year-old Don of Minneapolis was assaulted one late night two years ago. My man, she first met and danced with at a bar earlier the same evening. He grabbed the back of my head by my hair, and pulled the key out of my hand, and opened the door, and got in the car, and pulled me in using my hair to pull me with behind him, and then drove about ten miles before proceeding the sexual assault. Don says it took her four days, a period in which she began to develop infections from her injuries, to finally see a doctor.

It was three months, and only after she heard her report of another attack by her assailant, before Don finally reported her experience to police. It's disgusting what happens to you. You don't want to admit to yourself it happened, much less admit to someone else, whether they be a friend or a stranger. I consider myself to be a real strong person, yet this event seemed to have traumatized me into a lack of action. What's it going to do to someone who feels insecure about themselves to begin with? Section violence program. Counselors who deal with reports of rape say bringing a case to trial is a tough decision for a complainant as well. This hotline at the University of Minnesota was established soon after the Madison incident,

and True Acts of the University's Women's Center, says it's intended to help students recognize rape. If somebody goes to a party and she gets drunk and she goes upstairs and has intercourse, she's not likely to see that as rape. She's more likely to blame herself and say she shouldn't have done it, but not to see that anyone has taken advantage of her. So first of all, we've got a job of educating women about what date rape and acquaintance rape is, and then we also have the job of educating men about that it's rape if you take advantage of a woman who isn't able to defend herself. In recent years, legislators in several states have made it easier to report rape. Here in Wisconsin, she'll laws now make much of a complainant's personal history in admissible as evidence. Their names and pictures are also concealed, and the definition of coercion changed, so that in the Madison Hotel case, for instance, the woman can claim she was intimidated simply by the circumstances, not necessarily by any overt threat of harm.

She's alone with defendant Lee, approximately six foot seven inches tall. She's alone with defendant Smith, approximately six foot nine inches tall. But even with successful prosecution of well-known date rape cases, observers doubt there'll be a substantial increase in the reporting of rape, that's because complainants are still subjected to reliving an experience they would just assume forget. Further, it's impossible to predict how a jury will choose to define consent or rape. It's important to look at any jury verdict. Technically, if a jury comes back with a not guilty, some citizens mean that take that to mean that it never happened. As a matter of fact, what a not guilty verdict means is that the state has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Your plans now? Getting my life back together? Despite their acquittal, the trial has proven custody to George Williams, Kevin Smith, and Mitchell Lee. All three were expelled from misconduct from the University of Minnesota, and must now start from scratch in new colleges, rebuilding what, until recently at least, were promising basketball careers.

Finally tonight, a four-part update of the Great Haliff story, the movement of hay and other assistance to farmers in the drought-stricken South. Part one, the agriculture department's special drought hotline. It opened for business today in Washington. You guys do not mind. What the hotline is about is to try to put together people who need hay and people who got hay. They've been through state coordinators. What's stating? That's important. Okay. State paper. I don't need to know this. Yes, there is a fantasy coordinator. Let me give you that name and telephone number. This is a hotline that was set up principally to act as a coordinating device between people who have donations to make and people who need hay or feed greens for their livestock. Four states in the drought-stricken South East have requested disaster aid, but the Department of Agriculture says it's existing aid programs are already helping farmers.

We already have a number of programs, which are in place, which don't require this designation. And we are implementing them now to help allowing farmers to graze their animals, for example, on set-aside acreage, or to allow them to plant the fast-growing grasses and grains for pastage for grazing purposes on set-aside acre conservation reserve acreage. Those programs are already in effect. The Secretary announced them yesterday. There are hundreds of calls from farmers outside the area offering aid. No farmers in the South, but you're appreciated. The major stumbling block is getting the aid to the South East. Our biggest problem, quite honestly, is transportation. It is a marvelous thing that these people are donating hay and other product. But getting it from point A to point B is proving to be the real challenge here.

And part two of our hay-lift update is from the Midwest, back where much of the hay comes from, and where charges of politics have been raised. The report is from Art Hackett, a public station, WHA, and Madison, Wisconsin. Spring and Wisconsin was early and wet this year. There's plenty of hay in the nation's leading hay-producing state to share. You know, we wanted to get involved and help the people down in the South. So, Perrette Gordon and her friends, piled bails of hay next to the Reedsburg, Wisconsin Airport one way. Air Force Reserve C-130s were supposed to have been there on Tuesday to pick it up. They didn't come on Tuesday or on Wednesday. It got tied up in government red tape, the whole thing. Wisconsin Governor Anthony Earl, a Democrat, asked Democratic U.S. Senator from Wisconsin William Proxmire to call the White House an expedite things on the federal end. The White House said no.

Initially, we were turned down, but through the intervention of both Senator Proxmire and Senator Castan, the White House reconsidered. While it was a joint effort, it was the call from Senator Robert Castan, a Republican who is up for reelection in November that made the White House change its mind. Was politics involved in a humanitarian hay-lift? Perish the thought. The hay had to be trucked to a nearby military base where it finally got off the ground on Thursday. At about the time the plains took off, President Reagan was overseeing the arrival of some other Midwestern bails of hay in South Carolina. That's something that irritates Perrette Gordon. They're all there when things are looking good, but nobody seemed to be too willing to give us a straight answer on why we couldn't get this out of here. It's a whole lot of money and work and effort that everybody's put into this, only to help. And we can't wait around anymore for promises. There will be more hay shipped from Wisconsin to the southeast, but it will go in private trucks running on donated gas.

The politics charge was also sounded about the arrival of the hay in South Carolina yesterday with President Reagan on hand to witness it. Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings made the charge Thursday in the Senate gallery. I call over to the White House to have our hay flown in from Massachusetts. And they told me to get me a truck. And I knew full well that we've been getting hay delivered by plain in the South Carolina. And I can tell you right here and now we've got not democratic cows or republican cows. We've got hungry cows and they want hay and not politics. But agriculture secretary Richard Ling denied politics. Is that anything to do with the distribution of hay? Is denial came on NBC's today show this morning? Well, I don't believe that's the case at all. As a matter of fact, the president was in South Carolina yesterday.

Perhaps that had something to do with Senator Hollings comments, but there was hay delivered into South Carolina yesterday. And there will be hay moved by truck and I think by rail. And of course, you can't move large tonnages by air in a practical way. The politics charges and denials aside, some more hay did arrive in the South today. And we have a report from John Sherrick of WXIA Atlanta. The air smells now as if it blew from a far away meadow. They have been making hay somewhere. A line from Melville to describe the latest stack of fresh cut hay from far away midwestern farmers. They continue to send it free to Georgia farmers who have none in this drought to feed their starving cattle. This stack came from Wisconsin and while Georgia farmers waited in line for their ration, Henry Sewell was showing everyone he could, the note that some Wisconsin farmers had signed and packed in the hay. Fellow farmer hoped this helps.

Sewell immediately collected 55 signatures for a thank you note from Georgia. And make sure thank people still here. So, the cows in Henry Sewell's County are so famished they chase the fresh hay as it arrives across dry pastures, picked clean of everything but the bitter weeds. If it rains now, come on, but see we don't miss too good. So, we're going to have to have more hay than what we can raise this year. But the hay from far away meadows is at least stalling bankruptcy and slaughter. And the hay keeps arriving from across the country, each delivery filling Georgia hay bins with a few days supply. And the notes that donors are tucking into the bales are filling hearts. Let's go feed it to the cattle and see what they do with it. Once again, the main stories of the day.

President Reagan will send an envoy to Europe next week to talk about sanctions against South Africa. And the president sent a formal response to Soviet leader Gorbachev's latest arms proposal. No details were given. Four southern governors have asked that their states be declared disaster areas because of the drought. 2,000 Muslim radicals storm the Moroccan embassy in Beirut. Good night, Jim. Good night, Charlene. We'll see you on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night. Funding for the McNeil-era news hour is provided by AT&T. Whether it's telephones, information systems, network systems, long-distance services, or computers. AT&T. Funding also is provided by this station and other public television stations. And the corporation for public broadcasting. For a transcript, send $2 to $3.45 New York, New York 10101.

Thank you.