The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. These are the news headlines today. The House voted to authorize construction of 21 MX missiles, giving a political victory to President Reagan. The U.S. asked all NATO allies to join the Star Wars research program. A divided Supreme Court said Oklahoma could not fire teachers who advocate homosexuality. The General Electric Company was indicted on charges that it defrauded the government on nuclear weapons contracts. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: The NewsHour tonight is the news of the day, three focus segments and an update. Our and NPR's woman on Capitol Hill, Cokie Roberts, debriefs the House vote on the MX; a key congressman and a chemical industry official debate the new fears about chemicals in the air; and the Republican mayors of two Ohio cities disagree on cutting back federal money for the cities. The update is about an infamous toxic waste dump in California known as Stringfellow.News Summary

LEHRER: President Reagan won the big one on the MX missile late today. The House of Representatives approved going ahead with building 21 of the missiles at a cost of $1.5 billion. It was supposed to be close, and in the final counting it was, ending up with a 6-vote pro-MX edge, 219-213. House Speaker Thomas O'Neill, who opposed the MX funding, had said earlier in the day the pro-MX side was gaining. He said President Reagan helped yesterday by Geneva arms negotiator Max Kampelman, had pulled out of the stops to get the favorable House vote. The Senate voted its approval last week. Just before the vote this evening, the Democratic Majority Leader and the Republican Minority Leader ended the long MX debate with last pleas for support.

Rep. ROBERT MICHEL, (R) Illinois, House Minority Leader: Call it goofy, call it Mickey Mouse, whatever you call it -- a vote against MX today is bad judgment, bad timing and bad policy. And however you may feel about the future of MX, I ask you not to reject what we have implicitly promised in the past. Fight the concept of MX in a few months, if that's your desire; but don't risk undermining the credibility of our foreign policy, don't hurt our chances for arms reduction by casting the wrong vote on the wrong issue at the wrong psychological and historical moment.

Rep. JIM WRIGHT, (D) Texas, House Majority Leader: The time has come for sanity; the time has come to stop leapfrogging one another and trying to show one another how tough we are and how much of our children's money we're willing to spend for ever more costly weapons. The time has come to come together and reason together and make sense together. And in the interests of the future of humanity, meet us halfway, Mr. President, Mr. Gorbachev, and hand in hand let's walk together down the path of peace.

LEHRER: Then came the long-awaited vote; House Speaker Thomas O'Neill announced the final result.

Rep. THOMAS P. O'NEILL, Speaker of the House: Two hundred and nineteen having voted for the resolution; 213 in the negative, the resolution is adopted.

LEHRER: Cokie Roberts of National Public Radio covered today's vote and the debate and the maneuvering that led up to it; she'll tell us all about it right after the news summary. Robin?

MacNEIL: The United States today asked all the NATO allies and three other friendly countries to join President Reagan's Star Wars, or strategic defense program. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger made the appeal publicly after meeting NATO defense ministers in Luxembourg. Beyond NATO, the invitation was extended to Japan, Australia and Israel. The 12 NATO defense ministers expressed full support for the Reagan program, although some of their countries have raised doubts about the feasibility and wisdom of the U.S. plan. Weinberger also told the NATO ministers that the shooting of a U.S. officer by a Soviet sentry in East Germany was being protested to the Soviets in the strongest possible terms. The Sovet news agency Tass said today that the officer's death was regrettable, but that the U.S. bore responsibility, because he was spying. In Washington, State Department spokesman Bernard Kalb replied to the Tass statement.

BERNARD KALB, State Department spokesman: We can only say that our reaction is one of disgust, that the Soviets would compound their inexcusable killing of Major Nicholson with such an obviously tendentious account of the events.

REPORTER: Any official assessment today of the effects of this on the Geneva talks or the MX vote?

Mr. KALB: Obviously, this tragic event will not promote the improvement of U.S.-Soviet relations, but I'm not going to get involved -- I think it would be inappropriate to speculate at this time about which specific areas might be affected.

MacNEIL: But Jeane Kirkpatrick, the retiring American ambassador to the United Nations, expressed a more moderate view. At a news conference in New York, she said the officer's death was not necessarily the result of a Soviet policy.

JEANE KIRKPATRICK, ambassador to the U.N.: It may very well have been an accident, and it may very -- it might have been a misunderstanding. I do not know; I think that the whole matter is under investigation, and I think that we can deplore the death of an American officer under those circumstances and in the line of duty -- his duty -- but I don't think that it's appropriate to attribute motives and policies until we know more than we do.

LEHRER: The one-day wonder of a story about Vernon Walters ended peacefully today. Walters is the retired Air Force general and diplomat selected by President Reagan to replace Ms. Kirkpatrick as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The Washington Times and then other papers reported Walters was incensed at Secretary of State Shultz for blocking Walters' membership on the National Security Council. The story said Kirkpatrick had NSC membership as well as cabinet rank, and Walters wanted both, too. The story said Walters was so upset he might not take the U.N. job after all. Well, not so, said White House spokesman Larry Speakes late this afternoon; he said Walters will be invited to attend NSC meetings just like Kirkpatrick, and the story was over.

MacNEIL: In Philadelphia a federal grand jury indicted the General Electric Company on charges of defrauding the government of $800,000 on contracts for a nuclear warhead system. G.E. said the complaints involved incorrect charges on time cards for about 100 employees of the company's space systems plants in Philadelphia and Valley Forge. G.E. denied any criminal wrongdoing.

Union leaders and employees of the Kennecott Copper Company expressed dismay today at the company's decision to shut down its huge open-pit mine in Bingham, Utah, just outside Salt Lake City. The action followed the failure of the copper industry and the unions to agree on a package of wage and benefit cuts at a time when copper prices have been going down. Here's a report by Dave Thompson of station KSL-jTV, in Salt Lake City.

COPPER WORKER: What can you do? You just have to kind of make the best of it, and do what you can.

DAVE THOMPSON, KSL-jTV: Was this expected?

2nd COPPER WORKER: I'm 51 years old, and I'll never get a job anywhere else.

THOMPSON [voice-over]: Kennecott officials call the shutdown temporary; if copper prices come up, if labor costs can be brought down, if the old plant can be modernized, then, say company officials, the mills will grind ore once again. But none of those conditions is likely to change soon. Copper prices have reached record lows over the last few years, to the point where Kennecott reports a loss of 25 cents on every pound of copper it produced. Officials blame foreign copper producers; the argument has been repeated over and over. The argument goes that those foreign mines must produce as much as possible to pay off loans to international banks, many of them American. In effect America is subsidizing its own competition. Copper industry labor costs aren't likely to come down soon, if at all; the nation's copper producers and the 16 international unions representing workers have met repeatedly with both sides proposing wage cuts, to no avail.

ROBERT PETRIS, United Steelworkers: I don't feel that we failed, and we feel that the company has failed.

THOMPSON [voice-over]: Kennecott's condition is little different than the rest of the American mining industry. Experts say their future is also bleak.

HOWARD WELLS, University of Utah: If the status quo remains as it is, we are just going to see a continuation of the situation, where the mines are going to drop out one by one, until there are none left.

LEHRER: There was a new congressional report out today on the amount of poisonous chemicals in the air. It came from a House health subcommittee chaired by congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat of California. The report concluded: "Chemical plants routinely release large amounts of toxins into the air."

Rep. HENRY WAXMAN, (D) California: We asked how much is going into the air of these chemicals. We asked the industry, "What do you think is hazardous?" And they gave us chemicals they thought were hazardous, and just from what the industry said, we came to a list of either suspected or clearly proven chemicals to be hazardous of 204. You know how many EPA has regulated? Five. And I think that's a serious condemnation of the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the public health. The survey is the information that we've gathered; it will help us understand more about the risks that people are being exposed to, and I should say with the gentleman, I think those risks are real.

LEHRER: Congressman Waxman and a representative of the chemical industry will be with us in a focus segment later in the program.

MacNEIL: The Supreme Court in a tied opinion ruled today that Oklahoma public schools cannot fire teachers who advocate homosexuality. By vote a vote of 4-4 with Justice Powell absent, the Court upheld a federal appeals court ruling that an Oklahoma law permitting such firings violated teachers' free speech rights. A spokesman for the National Gay Task Force, which had challenged the law, called the ruling a key victory, but an attorney for the Oklahoma School Board Association said they considered the [TEXT OMITTED FROM SOURCE] moral victory, and they would begin efforts to have the laws tightened.

LEHRER: From Israel today two stories: Prime Minister Shimon Peres said Israeli troops will be withdrawn from southern Lebanon earlier than expected. He declined to say how much sooner than the current target of the Jewish New Year, which falls on September 15. And a CBS News executive said in Tel Aviv the killing of two network camera crewmen last week probably was not deliberate, as his network had originally suggested. CBS News vice president Ernest Leiser met with Peres and other Israeli officials; he said there still some unanswered questions, but "I am certainly convinced it's probable it was not a deliberate attack." The two CBS men, both Lebanese nationals, were killed by fire from an Israeli tank in action in southern Lebanon against Shiite Moslems.

And in the Persian Gulf war today, Iraq claimed air raids against six Iranian cities, including Teheran. Iraq said they were devastating. Teheran radio said nine people died and 14 were wounded in a Teheran suburb; the other cities were not mentioned.

MacNEIL: In Cape Town the South African police arrested more than 230 protesters who were marching toward Parliament after a memorial service for 19 blacks who were killed last week. Among those arrested were four clergymen who are prominent in the campaign against apartheid. All of the protesters were charged with attending an illegal gathering; they were set free until a court hearing tomorrow. MX Vote

MacNEIL: For our lead focus section tonight we look at the House of Representatives vote on the MX missile. As we've just reported, the President's proposal to build 21 more missiles was approved by a vote of 219-213. Democratic Speaker Thomas O'Neill had said earlier that President Reagan was gaining converts to the missile, in part because of the lobbying yesterday by arms control negotiator Max Kampelman. This was apparent in some of the debate, as the House approached a showdown vote.

Rep. DOUGLAS BOSCO, (D) California: Sometimes I wonder if the talks simply provide a loftier lobbying position for some of the more ardent militarists who can now speak from Geneva, instead of roaming the halls here in Washington, although I see that one was sent back from Geneva to do just that recently.

Rep. DUNCAN HUNTER,(R) California: The real thing that Ambassador Kampelman told us that cuts right through this whole MX debate, is that there doesn't -- it makes no sense for Congress to give up something unilaterally that we could get a quid pro quo for.

Rep. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, (R) New York: I'm not a hundred percent absolute, I'm not completely certain, but reluctantly I will give the vote for the MX, because I think it's important as a bargaining chip. My vote will not be for a weapon system I don't like and I don't want; my vote will be for a process underway in Geneva --

Rep. NORMAN DICKS, (D) Washington: Will the gentleman yield?

Rep. BOEHLERT: -- a process that I pray succeeds. Yes, I'm glad to yield.

Rep. DICKS: Will the gentleman yield briefly? I just wanted to make sure that all the members knew that yesterday at the White House, Mr. Kampelman said, and it was in the paper this morning, that everything was on the table in Geneva, including the Peacekeeper, and so it is part of this [crosstalk] process.

Rep. BOEHLERT: The gentleman is entirely correct. They wouldn't have a prayer of getting my vote if I wasn't convinced of their sincerity. This is a bargaining chip.

Rep. FRANK HORTON, (R) New York: Over the past few weeks, I've sought the best answer I could get from the most knowledgeable sources about the impact of this decision on the arms control talks, and that, basically, is the most important concern that I have right now. I spoke with President Reagan, as many of you have, who called me from Air Force One on his return from Canada last week. I talked by telephone this morning with our chief negotiator, Max Kampelman. Today I cast the most difficult vote of my 23 years in this Congress, and I know it's difficult for others of you. I will support the production of these 21 missiles, not because I support the program, but because of the importance I place in our nation holding a strong position at the Geneva talks.

MacNEIL: Correspondent Cokie Roberts has been covering the MX debate in Congress for us as well as for National Public Radio. She joins us now live from Capitol Hill. Cokie, what pulled it off for the White House?

COKIE ROBERTS: Well, that lobbying that you heard about from Max Kampelman was terribly, terribly important. Members -- this morning the Speaker said that about a half-dozen of his troops had been swayed to go the other way, and in fact he said that it was about a half-dozen vote difference, which was in fact is exactly what it was. The lobbying by Mr. Kampelman was so strong and so effective -- of course, he was a Democrat, he's lobbying with fellow Democrats -- that a new verb was created here at the Capitol today, saying that members had been "Kampelmanned," that they had been talked into switching their votes to go for the MX.

MacNEIL: Were opponents of the MX campaigning against it and lobbying against it with anything like the enthusiasm of the White House and the supporters of MX?

ROBERTS: Well, you certainly had groups, outside groups lobbying very strongly against the MX. Common Cause, the public affairs lobby, and a whole coalition of peace groups were lobbying against it, running advertisements in members' districts, in fact, telling people to call their member and have him vote against the MX. So that you had a lot of grassroots lobbying kinds of things going on from outside. But the inside lobbying, in the House of Representatives, was far stronger on the side of the supporters of the MX. You had people -- Bill Hughes, a Democrat from New Jersey, saying that he had talked to the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, had had briefings by the Defense Department and the CIA, so that you had people really getting the full-scale attention from the administration. The Speaker of the House did not do the same kind of lobbying by any means on the other side, and that same member, Bill Hughes, in fact said that he never received a phone call from the Speaker.

MacNEIL: Why do you think that was?

ROBERTS: I think that there was a lot of ambivalence on the part of the Democratic leaders about winning this vote. They have talked a lot about the 1984 election; the Speaker's carried around a poll for quite a while now saying that 49% of the Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan say that the Democratic Party is soft on defense. You heard a lot about that in the floor debate today. And I think that the Democratic Party is very concerned about appearing to be soft on defense, and especially right now with these arms control negotiations going on. If anything should happen to those negotiations after the Democrats led a defeat of the MX missile, they would just be blasted for it, and they weren't eager to have that happen.

MacNEIL: Well, did these death-bed conversions happen out of rational conviction or out of a fear of political repercussions?

ROBERTS: Well, I wouldn't want to judge the rationality of any of the things that go on here, but the political repercussions and political favors go sort of hand in hand, and both the Democratic and Republican leaders talked today about how members who were undecided were engaging in the time-honored tradition of asking for something for their votes. Some asked for urban development grants; another said that he wanted to get attention for a tobacco program. So that was going on, political favors -- and of course there's always some fear of political repercussions. You had one member from Kentucky, Carroll Hubbard, who switched his vote from being against the MX to being for it -- the last time he voted against it -- because he said, he said, "92% of my Democratic constituents -- my district's 92% Democratic -- went overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan. They say they liked him on November 6th, they like him on March 26. And I better do what the President wants me to do on this one."

MacNEIL: Something struck me about we just heard one of the congressmen say in that excerpt from the debate, that there'd be no prayer of getting his vote unless he was convinced they were sincere in saying everything was on the table in Geneva. Has the administration now won by the paradox of convincing the House that it's their bargaining chip, even though they'd said all along that it wasn't a bargaining chip?

ROBERTS: Well, that was why Kampelman's role was so important, the arms negotiator, because he did say that everything was on the table, and in his private meetings yesterday that was apparently something that he said over and over again. The President of course has always said that he really does want the MX, and not as a bargaining chip, but the bargaining chip argument we certainly heard over and over again from both sides today and yesterday. And I don't think there's any question but that were it not for Geneva, that the MX would have had a very tough time and probably been killed this time around. So that argument is definitely the argument that won the day.

MacNEIL: Finally, Cokie, is this it? I believe there is at least one more vote scheduled. Because it was so close, only a six-vote margin today, could the opponents still reverse it?

ROBERTS: Very unlikely. Once people have made this step, they're going to probably go ahead and stay the way they are when they take this next vote to actually spend the money for the 21 new missiles. That'll come tomorrow or the next day. But then the MX doesn't die; it stays with us, and we're likely to have another vote and a very big fight, a lot of people warned the administration, on the 1986 defense budget, when there'll be 48 missiles asked for by the administration. A lot of people said here today, "No way."

MacNEIL: Well, Cokie Roberts on Capitol Hill, thank you very much for joining us. Jim?

LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a focus segment on new fears about chemicals in the air, an update report on a toxic waste site in California known as Stringfellow, and a focus debate between two Ohio mayors over federal money for the cities. Urban Aid Cuts

MacNEIL: Next tonight we focus on the cuts President Reagan is proposing in aids to cities and states, and how those cities and states feel about it. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the story. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Robin, today nearly 4,000 mayors and other local officials lobbied in Washington, asking Congress not to cut programs like revenue sharing and urban development action grants. Revenue sharing alone provides local governments with about $5 billion a year from the federal government with virtually no strings attached, and they spend it on just about everything -- policemen and firemen, economic development, road construction, recreation and a lot more. Local officials say that if Congress accepts the cuts proposed in the administration's budget, then local governments will have to reduce their services and raise local taxes. Today's big event was a rally on the steps of the Capitol attended by local officials and public employee union members. Reporter Jeff Goldman has a report.

JEFF GOLDMAN [voice-over]: An estimated 2,000 protesters descended on the Capitol this morning to voice their opposition to the proposed Reagan budget cuts. Their particular concern is revenue sharing; that's because these protesters primarily represent city officials and urban labor unions.

ERNEST MORIAL, Mayor of New Orleans: For the cities of America, for the people of America, the proposed budget simply will not work. It will trigger serious disruptive problems in cities throughout this nation. It will shift an enormous financial burden from the national government to the people of the cities. It will force local taxes and fees to grow in the cities where that is even possible, and it will force local public services to shrink, job opportunities will be lost, and so will investment dollars.

EDWARD KOCH, Mayor of New York City: Yes, we believe that the deficit has to be reduced; we believe that every sector of our society has to bear an equal part of that reduction. We do not believe that when the deficit came about because of military expenditures, that you shall now deal with that deficit solely by cutting domestic expenditures even further.

GOLDMAN [voice-over]: While protesters rallied outside of the Capitol, delegations from virtually every state combed the halls of Congress, promoting their views to House and Senate members.

PAM PLUMB, Councilor, Portland, Maine: We are constantly being told by members of Congress that there are no revenues to share any more, and therefore a revenue sharing program is not realistic. There are only deficits to share, and they are now looking to share their deficits with municipalities. I think it's important to understand that the federal government is still the best revenue collector in the world, and the issue is how one chooses to dispense those revenues.

GOLDMAN [voice-over]: Pam Plumb was one of 70 community officials from Maine whose questions to her congressional delegation got a sympathetic response.

Rep. JOHN McKERNAN, (R) Maine: At that, I think that it's going to be very difficult for revenue sharing to escape at least part of the axe that's going to fall on so many programs, and I think that it would be a tragic mistake to eliminate revenue sharing and I think it would even be a tragic mistake to have significant cuts in a one-year period.

Sen. GEORGE MITCHELL, (D) Maine: Well, I will not vote for the immediate elimination of revenue sharing as proposed, but I will not commit myself to support its indefinite continuation.

HUNTER-GAULT: One of the officials leading the lobby against the Republican administration's budget cuts is the president of the National League of Cities, George Voinovich, a Republican and mayor of Cleveland, Ohio. And we get a different view from another Republican mayor, Dana Rinehart of Columbus, Ohio. Mayor Voinovich, starting with you, you heard Ms. Plumb say that the members of Congress, and President Reagan as well, say that the issue of revenue sharing is simple: with a $200 billion deficit, there is no revenue to share. What's wrong with that position?

Mayor GEORGE VOINOVICH: Well, I think the position really has to be looked at in light of what the President said in 1983, when he said the federal government never spent money more wisely than on the revenue sharing program. And I think if you look at revenue sharing, it's $4.6 billion, which hasn't changed for the last eight years, and consider that defense spending has increased 129% since '79, and the President is projecting another $30 million worth of expenses for the defense of this country. It's very difficult for me to understand why he has picked revenue sharing as the program that he wants to cut. I want to know --

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, excuse me, one of the reasons he gives, though, is that the states as well as the localities, many of them have huge budget surpluses and that you could get along on your budget surpluses -- you don't really need that money any more.

Mayor VOINOVICH: No, that's not the case. The census, I think U.S. census, will show you that local revenues have increased over 50% throughout the country since 1979. In Cleveland, Ohio, we've increased taxes over 50% in the last -- since '79. I've gone to the voters six times in five years for tax increases. I've cut city employees 20% since that time. My public-private partnership is the greatest in the country; in other words, we're doing a lot from the private sector, and still we're in deep trouble. Ohio, by the way, has increased taxes 90%.

HUNTER-GAULT: And you're still in trouble. Well, what specifically would be hurting, or what programs would be hurting in Cleveland if these cuts go through?

Mayor VOINOVICH: Well, revenue sharing makes up about 7% of our budget -- $14.3 million -- and we'll do one of two things. We'll go to the voters and ask them to increase local taxes -- and we're fortunate that we do have an income tax that we can ask them to increase. I'm not so optimistic about their doing it. If that doesn't work, then what we'll do is we'll lay off some 500 people.

HUNTER-GAULT: Who, what kind of people?

Mayor VOINOVICH: Well, in our particular case, police and fire fighters make up about 65% of our budget, and those probably will be affected dramatically by that cut. And that's why I'd like -- you know, the President should realize that revenue sharing in many cities throughout this country amounts to providing for the domestic defense of many of our communities. In many places in the United States of America, people are afraid to walk the streets because many cities don't have the dollars to provide the police protection that's necessary.

HUNTER-GAULT: And other cities would hurt in much the same way that Cleveland is if they have to sustain these cuts?

Mayor VOINOVICH: Most of the money going for revenue sharing -- revenue sharing money is going for basic city services. I know in Mayor Rinehart's community, for example, about $2.5 million is going for his health centers, about $3 million for social services, and I think he uses about $3 million for street maintenance.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mayor Rinehart, why aren't you fighting the cuts the way your fellow mayors are?

Mayor DANA RINEHART: Well, one of the reasons, Charlayne, and I suppose the biggest reason, is that I think the greatest burden on the back of the American people is the tremendous interest costs that we're running up with this deficit, and for the first time we've got a president now who's got the courage to take a whack at that deficit. We're mortgaging the future of our young people, and I think that's a terrible legacy to leave.

HUNTER-GAULT: But Mayor Voinovich --

Mayor RINEHART: Beyond that, I think that the cities, at least our city, should be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem.

HUNTER-GAULT: But you just heard what Mayor --

Mayor RINEHART: We've become federal aid junkies, and it's time that we get weaned and get back on track, much as the people, I think, expect us to be on track. So I think the overall approach is right. Now, maybe we're going to have to phase it in for some cities, but in Columbus what we're going to do is to try to reach that goal of not reducing service and not doing any across-the-board tax increases, in spite of the reduction of federal aid. And I think we can meet that challenge.

HUNTER-GAULT: How can you do that? How can you do that?

Mayor RINEHART: Beg pardon?

HUNTER-GAULT: You heard Mayor Voinovich say the terrible shape that cities are in and the things that they'd have to do, how can you do that? And can they do it as well?

Mayor RINEHART: Well, what we did, we did a little experiment in Columbus. Last December, we kind of charted a 45-day period, Charlayne, where I challenged the directors of our government to look for areas where we can streamline, where we can modernize, where we can reduce overhead but not reduce services, to do many of the things that actually we're not forced to do on a day-to-day or even a year-to-year basis. Nothing breeds ingenuity like a tight budget. Well, what happened at the end of the 45 days is we produced a report that showed that we could replace 65% of our $11.4 million that we get in federal aid in Columbus, without raising taxes and without cutting service.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, let me --

Mayor RINEHART: Now we've launched into the second phase of that, and we're going to complete the job. It involves looking primarily at privatization of parts of our government that probably should have been privatized years ago but nobody really wanted to bother; it involves putting us on a pay-as-you-go basis with some of the fees that we charge for, oh, some services like inspection of plans for building and all that; and then the third area is deregulation. You know, we just bury ourselves in paperwork in government, and I think the people are just tired of it, they want us to accept this challenge, this opportunity, if you will, to clean our own houses.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mayor --

Mayor RINEHART: We pay a lot of lip service to --

Mayor VOINOVICH: Charlayne --

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, I just -- yeah, that sounds like a pretty good blueprint. Why couldn't the rest of the cities do that, Mayor?

Mayor VOINOVICH: The fact of the matter is, is that most of us have already done that, Charlayne. I had an operations improvement task force when I became mayor. We had the private sector spend 90 days going over every aspect of our city government. The truth of the matter is, and I think every mayor in this country would have to agree, that you're going to have to increase taxes or cut services or increase fees, and in many instances -- and Mayor Rinehart's city's a little different than mine -- but we've got a lot of elderly and people who are unable to take care of themselves, and as a matter of fact don't have the money to pay the fees, for example, to go to a health center or to a recreation center. And I want to point out one other thing: the cities of the United States of America have been on the forefront of balancing the budget. Our programs have been cut since 1979 over 50%, and we don't think it's fair that just the domestic side of the budget is being picked on in this budget deficit control.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mayor Rinehart --

Mayor VOINOVICH: We believe it ought to be fair across the board, and if we're going to do it, defense ought to take their share, the tax loopholes that we have in the revenue code, the tax expenditure side ought to be looked at, so it's a fair and equal type of budget deficit control, rather than just picking on the domestic side.

HUNTER-GAULT: You don't think you're being picked on, Mayor Rinehart?

Mayor RINEHART: Well, first of all, we have elderly in Columbus, too, and we've got 30,000 people out of work. And I would point out that we've now become the largest city in the state of Ohio, and while I -- and we've got big-city problems in Columbus. While I agree with my good friend and colleague, George Voinovich, that it's going to be tough for some cities, I think we have an opportunity in this time period to be creative, to be ingenious and to be positive about our future.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, let me just --

Mayor RINEHART: People expect that. Now, I remember when --

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, excuse me, let me just ask Mayor Voinovich a quick question, and that is the lobbying that's been going on all day today. You've met with Stockman, you've met with other officials. Do you think you've made any progress in changing their minds at all?

Mayor VOINOVICH: I think that we haven't made any inroad with Dave Stockman, though I think that Dave understands that if this thing is done precipitously, what the administration -- by the way, I agree that more and more of these services ought to be returned to local government, that the best-spent tax dollars for problems are on the local level. On the other hand, if you do this thing the way they're proposing to do right now, you're going to have fiscal crisis in many cities throughout the United States of America. And I want you to know this: I talked with many congresspeople today and most of them, as they're finding out what revenue sharing is being used for, and when they find out, they're finding out the cuts that are going to have to be made in services, and the fact that many cities in this country haven't the capacity to increase taxes because their legislators refuseto give them the resources to do that, that their common sense is going to dictate that it isn't fair to just pick on revenue sharing and other city programs when we've got the enormous increase of defense spending and other tax loopholes that are available that could be turned to to raise the dollars necessary to take care of the budget deficit.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, Well, Mayor Voinovich, we'll be watching that. Thank you for being with us, and Mayor Rinehart, thank you for being with us from Columbus. Toxic Waste Dump Update

MacNEIL: You don't have to live near a chemical plant to know what it's like to worry about being contaminated by chemicals. That's also a constant worry for many of those living near the thousands of chemical dumping grounds scattered throughout the country. Tonight we have an update on one such place, which made headlines just two years ago, when it found itself at the center of an EPA scandal over the handling of the nation's billion-dollar toxic cleanup program. It's known as the Stringfellow Acid Pits. Our report is by Peter Graumann of public station KCET, Los Angeles.

PETER GRAUMANN, KCET Los Angeles [voice-over]: Bath time for little Annette Merha. It's a routine not much different from other households, except the water used for Annette's bath comes out of a bottle. Using purified water is a precaution Annette's mother began taking last May, when state officials informed several hunded neighbors of the Stringfellow Acid Pits that unexpectedly high levels of radiation had been detected in their well water. Radiation is only the latest worry for residents of Glen Avon, the small community 50 miles east of Los Angeles that sits directly below the Stringfellow Acid Pits. As a legally approved Class I disposal site, an estimated 34 million gallons of industrial wastes were dumped at the Stringfellow Acid Pits -- a witch's brew of toxic acids, cancer-causing solvents, pesticides and other chemicals. None of that is visible today. The open pools of toxic wastes have been covered with a layer of clay to prevent the poisons from evaporating or spilling over. That cap may actually be making the situation worse. Unable to escape upward, the chemicals are moving down through the soil into the groundwater that flows beneath the site and into the wells of Glen Avon. The Environmental Protection Agency's Harry Seraydarian is in charge of Stringfellow.

HARRY SERAYDARIAN, Environmental Protection Agency: We've documented that the plume of contaminated groundwater is moving downstream from the site, and we've actually concluded that we found contamination within the community of Glen Avon. We have yet to find any contamination in a public water supply well.

GRAUMANN [voice-over]: Thus far the EPA says radioactive uranium is the only abnormal ingredient turned up by extensive laboratory testing of Glen Avon water. But a report critical of the EPA, prepared for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, raises the specter that chemicals emanating from Stringfellow threaten not only Glen Avon's population, but an underground aquifer supplying drinking water to half a million people.

PENNY NEWMANN, Concerned Neighbors in Action: There are wells that do show chemicals, it's just that they are not acknowledging that it is associated with Stringfellow.

GRAUMANN: Why not?

Ms. NEWMANN: Because it would be their fault.

GRAUMANN [voice-over]: Penny Newmann chairs Concerned Neighbors in Action, a local coalition that's been pressing to get Stringfellow cleaned up.

Ms. NEWMANN: Now we're being faced with, can we drink our water? Is it safe to use our water in gardens? Where can we find an alternative water source?

GRAUMANN [voice-over]: Currently 400 families whose wells have been found to be radioactive are getting bottled water, but in the view of many Stringfellow neighbors, this precaution is too little and too late. They believe years of drinking contaminated water has already done its damage.

SALLY MEWHA, resident: My daughter has very bad stomach pains. She's gone to a specialist, and they can't explain why she's having the pain. My son has had urinary tract infection a lot. He also had upper respiratory problems when he was young, and he had his tonsils removed at a very young age.

GRAUMANN: Do you have any evidence that Stringfellow caused those problems?

Ms. MEWHA: Not in hand, concrete, no. But I feel that it has had an effect.

GRAUMANN [voice-over]: Frank Fionda's complaints are more extreme.

FRANK FIONDA, resident: I have had times when I've passed out out here and been hospitalized for five days. I've been in emergency wards for in between 28 and 32 times over the last five-year period.

GRAUMANN: Are you convinced that it's the water that's doing that to you, the chemicals?

Mr. FIONDA: Well, I'm kind of convinced that it is, because of the reason that I have never been sick in -- not as much as a headache, 'til I came here.

GRAUMANN [voice-over]: Fionda is one of the thousands of Glen Avon residents seeking damages from the companies that dumped at Stringfellow. The lawsuits they have filed also charge that local and state officials failed to protect the citizens from illness, property damage, even wrongful death. With claims totaling more than a billion dollars, an out-of-town law firm has set up a special office in Glen Avon to sign up new plaintiffs. The latest estimates put the ultimate cost of neutralizing the acid pits at more than $150 million. California state health officials who are doing most of the legwork at the dump site, hope to get the bulk of that money from the EPA, but say they found it difficult to get the agency to dip into its $1.6 billion Superfund that was established to pay for such cleanups.

JOEL MOSCOWITZ, California Health Services Department: I have to tell you, when I went to EPA in January of '84 to lobby more money for Californians, they told me at that time that of $1.6 billion that had been available for about three years, they had spent $47 million in cleanup nationwide. That's not a very large percentage.

GRAUMANN: Why didn't they spend more? There is obviously a need out there.

Mr. MOSCOWITZ: A number of reasons. Again, this is actual cleanup money. EPA has always taken, and I think properly, the attitude that you just can't run out and start cleaning up.

ANNE BURFORD GORSUCH [March 9, 1983]: I did submit my resignation to the president of the United States --

GRAUMANN [voice-over]: The EPA's reluctance to release Superfund dollars for Stringfellow provoked a scandal during the Reagan administration's first term, leading to the resignation of EPA director Anne Burford Gorsuch, and the eventual perjury conviction of Superfund chief Rita Lavelle. The scandal did nothing to bolster local residents' confidence in government.

Ms. NEWMANN: During that period, the site got worse. The state was in a position of not being able to do anything, because they didn't have the money, and EPA had the money but would not give it out. So the ones who suffered throughout that whole scandal, you know, it wasn't just the paper shredding in Rita Lavelle's office and that, it was this community who was being exposed to those chemicals for another additional two years.

GRAUMANN [voice-over]: With the EPA under new leadership and numerous studies on the shelf, efforts are finally under way to stabilize the site. Water is being pumped from beneath Stringfellow Canyon and trucked away in the hopes of slowing down the flow of toxic chemicals into the groundwater basin. Such pumping will probably have to continue for decades. But so far, no actual cleanup or removal of the contaminated soil in Stringfellow Canyon has begun. The ultimate solution for the dump site is the subject of yet another study, scheduled to be completed next June.

MacNEIL: That report was by Peter Graumann of station KCET-Los Angeles. Jim? Poisoning the Air

LEHRER: Moving now to our final focus segment. Since more than 2,000 people died in Bhopal, India, last December, attention has been paid to chemicals and to the companies and plants that make them. One of the earliest results of that new attention came today with the release of a congressional report on leaks from chemical plants. The report was the work of the House subcommittee on health and the environment. Its chairman, Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, said it shows disturbing amounts of poisonous chemicals are being routinely emitted into the air. Congressman Waxman joins us now from the studio on Capitol Hill.

Congressman, how serious is this problem?

Rep. HENRY WAXMAN: We don't know the full extent of the seriousness on public health, but what we do know is that the cancer rates in the communities around the chemical plants is sometimes 50%, sometimes as much as 100% higher than the national average. Our survey indicated that the chemical companies -- and by the way, this survey was from the chemical companies themselves -- are spewing forth a tremendous amount of a whole range, almost a cocktail of pollutants, some of which are carcinogens, some of which are otherwise lethal, and --

LEHRER: Give me an example of the kind of plant and what kind of chemical it is emitting into the air.

Rep. WAXMAN: Well, the most famous chemical emitted into the air right now, because of Bhopal, is the methyl isocyanate. That killed 2,500 people in one fell swoop, when there was an explosion in Bhopal, India, and that pollutant got out of the tank where it was stored. Now, in Institute, West Virginia, there is a plant dealing with MIC, as it's called, and Union Carbide filed with the state of West Virginia a report that they were releasing 12 pounds per hour. They later came back and said, no, that's not quite accurate. But then last week at their South Charleston plant, we found that there was a leak of another chemical, not nearly as serious, but knocked over 12 people in a shopping center. That was just one example of a number of leaks that we're seeing around the country. They amount to thousands of tons, and I think that what we see is the chemical industry regulating itself, rather than the federal government setting up uniform standards to require that these companies reduce the emissions to the lowest possible extent.

LEHRER: What's causing the leaks? I mean, is it just routine to emit them into the air, or is it malfunctioning, or what?

Rep. WAXMAN: Well, we don't know the full extent of it. Some of it -- some of the leaks are called "fugitive" emissions, which seem to come through the pipes and the vents that are not fully adjusted; but some are actually being vented out of the plants. They're not all contained units; sometimes they claim that they're contained units, where there is no leak into the air that's breathed in by the surrounding community, but all of these plants seem to be indicating that they consider many of these chemicals quite dangerous -- and by the way, we made a list of 204 just on what the industry told us --

LEHRER: Two hundred and four chemicals, or 204 plants?

Rep. WAXMAN: Two hundred four chemicals, where the industry said these were either proven or suspected hazards. And EPA has been studying for 14 years over 100 chemicals that they've suspected are dangerous, and out of the 14 years they've been looking at it, they've only come to regulate five. I think that's inexcusable.

LEHRER: How many plants are you talking about here?

Rep. WAXMAN: There are 5,000 chemical plants around the country, and we're talking about a problem for the community surrounding these plants.

LEHRER: Do you see this, Congressman, as an emergency situation, or just a problem that needs to be dealt with in the course of time?

Rep. WAXMAN: I hope we don't find an emergency explosion like we had in Bhopal, although that is certainly a possibility. I think the more frightening problem is the fact that there are these leaks, and the exposures I believe are causing cancer, leukemia, birth defects and some of those diseases don't manifest themselves until 10, 15 or 20 years after the exposures take place.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: One group that doesn't see eye to eye with Congressman Waxman is the chemical industry. For that side of the story, we have Geraldine Cox, a vice president of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, which represents most of the major producers of chemicals in this country. Ms. Cox, do you agree with the congressman's report, first of all, that all these companies are routinely releasing what he just called tremendous amounts of hazardous chemicals?

GERALDINE COX: We're dealing with very small concentrations of hazardous chemicals. There are occasionally some larger releases. But these have to be put in perspective. EPA has not regulated that large number of chemicals simply because their scientists, throught the science advisory board, who are not EPA employees, have not found sufficient data to regulate them on chronic levels. Now, there are regulations on small releases.

MacNEIL: Just a minute, could I stop you there for a moment. What does that mean, to regulate them on chronic levels? What does that mean?

Dr. COX: All right. Under the hazard -- section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA regulates hazardous materials for chronic emissions -- that's low-level emissions.

MacNEIL: That keep happening all the time.

Dr. COX: Yes, these are the low levels. EPA scientists have tried to regulate a whole series of these, but the data don't show that they are causing problems at these low concentrations. Under the resource -- I'm sorry, under the Superfund, the CERCLA Bill, there is a regulation of hazardous materials to the environment, and this deals with the acute levels. There are one-pound reportable quantities and higher levels, depending on the nature of the material, so there are regulations for these acute releases, these spontaneous releases.

MacNEIL: Some industry leaders, the wire services reported Harold Corbett of Monsanto and Warren Anderson of Union Carbide, at Congressman Waxman's hearing today, saying they would welcome more stringent federal controls. Is that a general industry view?

Dr. COX: If the controls are needed. I think we have to be a little rational about this. Let's define the problem and go out and solve the problem. I think far too much rhetoric has been used and not enough real good engineering. I'm a scientist, and I'm handicapped -- I like to define a problem and solve it, and that's what industry wants to do.

MacNEIL: So is the industry as represented by your association saying if you can prove we need them, or demonstrate that we need them, we'd welcome more federal controls, but not until you prove it? Is that the --

Dr. COX: No, what we're saying is let's do risk analysis. For example, in 1978 we went back with the railroads and looked at rail car designs, and said what are the accidents and how do we make rail shipments safer? We went to the federal government, we said please write regulations that require these upgrades. It cost us half a billion dollars to redo rail cars, but because of that, we haven't had a death due to hazardous materials on the railroads since 1980. That's what I'm talking about. That's why we announce the community awareness and emergency response program, to work with the local communities to define the risks and develop emergency response plans, so that if something happens we're prepared to deal with it. Yes, we need to go back into our own plants and do risk assessment there, and that's what Congressman Waxman had in those hearing materials. Those were reports, voluntarily done, to identify risks so we can solve problems before they happen.

MacNEIL: Well, let me ask you in a sort of a common-sense level, does the American public now, from the information that's available to them publicly on the risks, [have] enough information to make a knowledgeable decision how close to live to a chemical plant? Does the public have enough information to decide that sensibly?

Dr. COX: I'm not sure. It takes technical training to understand these data. That's one of the reasons we're setting up the chemical referral center. This will be in place by the end of this year. We will refer general public questions to the companies who produce the materials, to provide information on the safe handling and safe use and safe disposal of these materials. The public does have a right to understand the risks involved in how to deal with chemicals safely, and we want to help provide this information.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Congressman, is the chemical industry handling this in a responsible way, in your opinion?

Rep. WAXMAN: I don't think so. You know, EPA didn't even have the information as to what chemicals are going into the air. In fact, when we started this survey, we asked them for some information, they didn't even know where the chemical plants were located. The chemical industry in this country is on an honor system. They've fought every attempt to regulate them by the federal government and by the Congress of the United States, and they've basically said, "Trust us." Well, I think we're beyond the point where we should just give them that carte blanche kind of way of making the decision.

LEHRER: Why?

Rep. WAXMAN: This is too important a matter. They're dealing with substances that can be fatal to people, that can be harmful to people. It's not yoghurt, it's not milk, it's not some innocuous substance. We're talking about chemicals, some of which are highly toxic. And when we find out that there are leaks of these chemicals into the air -- they say low levels; well, I don't know what it means to say a low level, when we talk to people in West Virginia who tell us they have to sleep on an incline because they don't want to drown with all the fluids that are in their lungs, because of the junk that they're breathing; and we see the cancer rate so high. And the survey that we took indicated that from one part of the country to another, from one chemical company to another, some are acting quite responsibly, some don't even quite know what is going out of those plants into the air.

Dr. COX: If I might -- that survey was so poorly stated, that I don't know what type of information you got from it. We offered to work with you and your staff, to draft a survey that would give you usable information from one plant to another. And we were refused the permission to do that. We wanted to --

Rep. WAXMAN: Well, we'd be happy to have your cooperation, what we would like --

Dr. COX: Well, it's kind of late now, because we were there, asking you, begging you, to participate in this, to give you the type of information you needed. And let me --

Rep. WAXMAN: Well, let me correct the record, if I might. I don't recall the chemical industry begging with us to give us this information. All I know is that the chemical industry has come in and opposed any opportunity for the public to have the right to know this information.

Dr. COX: That is wrong. We offered to work with you to draft the survey so that you get the information that you want. And you refused it.

Rep. WAXMAN: Well, let's not fight about it. We welcome your help.

LEHRER: Well, what is your position on his basic point, that there are some chemical companies in this country that don't even know what they're doing in terms of emitting into the air?

Dr. COX: You have a whole host of folks, just like we have criminal laws, you have some people that violate the laws and you have people who are good. I think we need laws, we need regulations to make sure that those who aren't abiding by what they should be doing voluntarily, do support the laws. And we need good enforcement, we need strong enforcement. We need well-designed laws that make sense, and I personally have gone over to OSHA and begged that we get the right-to-know regulations out.

LEHRER: That's the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Dr. COX: That's correct. And so to say that we're fighting regulations, that's wrong. I personally have been involved in asking for them.

LEHRER: Okay. Taking Dr. Cox at her word, what is it that you want, Congressman Waxman, that you think should be done right now in terms of regulations or new legislation, and then we'll get your reaction to it.

Rep. WAXMAN: Okay. Well, I welcome this change of attitude. If it's not a change, I welcome it anyway. I think we need strong federal laws that will one, set up an inventory, not a voluntary one by the industry at their discretion, but one that will get the information from them as --

LEHRER: What kind of information are we talking about? Just the kind of chemical and the amount of emission out of every plant?

Rep. WAXMAN: That's right.

LEHRER: Okay. Now, let's stop right there. Would that give you any problem?

Dr. COX: It's a question of hazard. I think what you need to do is focus on those hazardous materials and get that information. The emission rates are going to vary depending on process, but we'll be glad to work with the government in defining what needs to be done. Where we have a problem is just an incredibly long laundry list of materials, because it doesn't make sense. What we need to do is define the problem and then work on a solution.

LEHRER: Do you agree that the problem, Congressman, has to do with defining what is a hazard and what is not a hazard?

Rep. WAXMAN: Well, that's certainly an important part of it. And what we want the Environmental Protection Agency to do, and what would require them to do under legislation, is to set standards for pollutants that they determine to be hazardous. Right now they have the authority to do it, but they've taken the following position. They won't declare a substance a hazard until they're ready to regulate, and they won't regulate until they call it a hazard. And they chase their tail in circles and they've only regulated five of these very dangerous chemicals. Let's require them to set standards, and then to tell the industry to reduce the emissions of those chemicals.

LEHRER: Now, does that bother you?

Dr. COX: What we need are well-defined standards. What is it that we think should be hazardous, and let's abide by that.

LEHRER: Well, he says there's only five chemicals right now. Do you agree there are more than five that should be regulated and carefully watched?

Dr. COX: I think there are more than five that need to be investigated, to see whether or not they should be regulated, at ambi -- you know, at atmospheric conditions. Yes, they are very hazardous in high concentrations, but are they hazardous at the level that is being released? For example, chlorine was a war gas, yet we use it in our water to disinfect. You don't want to outlaw all uses of chlorine, or we'd have disease. What we need to do is find what is a safe level, and then regulate accordingly.

LEHRER: I think, I may be wrong but I think we have a little tiny bit of agreement there, and I think I'm going to leave while -- we're going to quit while we're ahead. Congressman, thank you; Dr. Cox, thank you.

Rep. WAXMAN: Thank you.

Dr. COX: Thank you.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: Again, the major stories of this day. The House of Representatives voted approval of the MX missile. It won by a vote of 219-213. The Senate gave similar approval last week. And Defense Secretary Weinberger invited U.S. allies to join the research effort for the Star Wars strategic defense system. Good night, Jim.

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