The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, six Jesuit priests were tortured and killed as civil war raged in El Salvador, wind storms killed 7 in New York State, 17 in Alabama, the U.S. plans to remove trader barriers after Moscow announced liberalized travel for millions of citizens. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we go to an argument over today's congressional pay raise action. RogerMudd has a backgrounder, consumer activist Ralph Nader and Common Cause Pres. Fred Wertheimer do the arguing. Next congressional hearings on safety at sea and the USS Iowa tragedy, then the question of whether Philip Morris, a tobacco company, should be underwriting a national archives advertising campaign on the Constitution. Congressman Thomas Luken says no, Guy Smith of Philip Morris responds. We close with our Thursday night essay, some Jim Fisher thoughts about breakfast cereals. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Six Jesuit priests were tortured and killed in El Salvador today as fighting raged for the fifth day between guerrillas and government troops. Tens of thousands of residents of San Salvador fled from the city to escape from government attacks on government positions. We have a report narrated by David Simmons of Worldwide Television News.

MR. SIMMONS: Daybreak in San Salvador brought now let up in the fighting now entering its sixth straight day. Machine gun and rocket fire rang out over the city as army aircraft struck rebel held areas of the capital. Scores of buildings were set on fire. More bloodshed at the Central American University in the city's Southwest where six Jesuit priests were found shot dead. Their bullet riddled bodies were discovered in the garden of their home beside the campus. Report said they'd been tortured. The priest's cook and her teen-age daughter were also killed. Right wing death squads are believed responsible. Jesuit leaders, badly shaken by the violent murders, confirmed that the priests had received death threats. Residential areas have been the focus of fighting, forcing thousands of people to flee their homes. The government insists the battle is about to end, but the rebels remain entrenched, and have shown no signs of giving up the fight.

MR. MacNeil: The U.S. announced today that it is speeding the delivery of military aid to the Salvadoran government. The U.S. also said it will ask for an investigation into the killings of the Jesuit priests. This afternoon the Salvadoran government blamed terrorists groups for the murders. But the leader of the Jesuit order in the United States said the killings were part of a pattern of murder carried out by the military in El Salvador. In Rome, Pope John Paul appealed for an immediate end to the fighting. Nearly 700 people have been reported killed since the fighting around San Salvador began with an offensive by the rebels on Saturday. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Major storms and tornadoes hit sections of the United States in the past 24 hours. This afternoon at least seven children died when heavy winds collapsed a wall at an elementary school in Newburgh, New York, 75 miles North of New York City. At least 18 others were injured. Last night 17 people were killed and more than 450 were hurt by a tornado that rampaged through Huntsville, Alabama. Another tornado struck an area 30 miles Southwest of Atlanta. It demolished a mobile home park, injuring at least 19 people. There were numerous other tornadoes spotted throughout the Southeast and Northeast regions. The Bay Bridge between Oakland and San Francisco opened to pedestrians today. Thousands of people participated in the event to mark the completion of bridge repairs. A portion of the bridge collapsed during the earthquake last month. The bridge will be reopened to vehicle traffic Saturday.

MR. MacNeil: The Bush administration plans to ease trade restriction with Moscow following Soviet moves towards freer travel for their citizens. For 15 years the U.S. has denied most favored nation trade status under the Jackson-Vannic Amendment largely because Soviet Jews were prevented from emigrating. On Monday the Supreme Soviet gave preliminary approval to legislation giving Soviet citizens a broad right to travel abroad. The Soviet Ambassador to the U.S. said he hoped Washington would reciprocate. U.S. Commerce Sec. Robert Mosbacher said quick approval of the Soviet legislation would lead to the lifting of trade barriers on a trial basis.

ROBERT MOSBACHER, Sec. of Commerce: But assuming that goes through the end of November, then the President has already said he will recommend to Congress that the Jackson Vannic position be waved on a year to year basis, but not permanently at this stage.

MR. MacNeil: There were more political changes in the Soviet Bloc today. In Bulgaria, 10 top Communist Party officials were fired. They were all linked with the former hard-line Communist leader who was replaced last week. In East Germany there are reports that the Communist leadership there has agreed to give non- Communists nearly 1/2 the seats in the new cabinet.

MR. LEHRER: The House of Representatives voted to raise its own pay today. The vote was 252 to 174 for legislation that would hike members' annual pay from $89,500 to $120,700 within the next 14 months. Federal judges and top executive branch officials would also get raises. The amount House members could receive from honoraria and other outside income would be restricted. The bill passed with both Republican and Democratic support. Pres. Bush has said he would sign it. It now goes to the Senate which is not included in the House bill. A separate pay raise proposal is being considered for Senators. We will have more on this story after the News Summary.

MR. MacNeil: A controversial AIDS art exhibit in New York will get federal funding after all. The exhibit, which opens tonight, portrays the effects of AIDS on the arts community. The federal government's National Endowment For the Arts had withdrawn its $10,000 grant because the exhibit's catalogue criticized a Senator and other public figures for their stands on AIDS. That according to the Endowment made the exhibit too political. But the Endowment reversed itself today and agreed to restore the grant as long as none of the money goes for the catalogue.

MR. LEHRER: The President of South Africa today announced changes in his country's apartheid laws. F.W. DeKlerk said South Africa's beaches will be ordered open to all races. He also said other recreational facilities would soon be desegregated. The U.S. State Department said the action was worthy of praise. It turns out there may not have been a new hostage taking in Lebanon after all. Yesterday a statement was issued in Beirut claiming an American woman plus a West German man and his son were kidnapped by a previously unknown organization. The woman was identified as 54 year old Deborah Ferand of San Francisco. Today she and the other two turned up at the West German embassy in Beirut. They said there had been no kidnapping. No other information was immediately available.

MR. MacNeil: The Los Angeles times reported today that the CIA has been authorized to spend $3 million for a covert operation to oust Panama's Gen. Manuel Noriega. The paper quoted informed sources as saying the administration plan had the secret approval of Congress. When reporters asked Pres. Bush, he said, "It wouldn't be covert if I even referred to, so there will be no such discussion of anything, which means I am not confirming nor denying." In Washington, a federal judge said former Pres. Reagan must turn over some of his personal notes for evidence in the Iran- Contra case of John Poindexter. The notes involve meetings between Mr. Reagan and his former National Security Adviser. The documents have to be turned over by next Wednesday.

MR. LEHRER: The U.S. trade deficit fell in September to the lowest level in 5 years. The Commerce Department said today falling imports and rising exports caused a 21.4 percent drop, bringing the deficit down to 7.9 billion dollars. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the congressional pay raise [Focus - Pay & Ethics], safety at sea [Focus - Ship Shape?] and the U.S.S. Iowa tragedy, underwriting the Constitution [Focus - Ad Argument] and our Thursday night essay. FOCUS - PAY & ETHICS

MR. LEHRER: The pay raise story is first tonight. The House today voted one for themselves and other federal officials including judges. The amount of the hike is 33 percent over the next 14 months. It is part of a package which also bans honoraria and limits outside income. Common Cause Pres. Wertheimer and Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader have strong and different opinions about what the House did. We will hear from them right after this backgrounder by Roger Mudd.

MR. MUDD: There are still some die hards in Washington who think that Ronald Reagan tried to get even with the Congress last year by proposing a 51 percent pay increase. Whether he tried to or not, the fact is the 51 percent pay bill tore the House of Representatives apart.

REP. ROSTENKOWSKI: My colleagues, you deserve a pay raise.

MR. MUDD: Who can forget Dan Rostenkowski of Chicago trying to defend the increase?

REP. ROSTENKOWSKI: I am proud to be a member of this great institution, proud of my service, and proud to vote in favor of a pay raise, and I hope you join me.

MR. MUDD: Who can forget America's disc jockeys working themselves and their audiences into a pay raise outrage?

SPOKESMAN: Call the Congress. Jam the lines.

MR. MUDD: Or the demonstrators at Washington's Union Station jeering the Democrats as they chartered off to a West Virginia resort to discuss whether to vote themselves the full 51 percent or a mere 30 percent.

REP. WRIGHT: We will have that vote in the House tomorrow. That vote will be up or down.

MR. MUDD: In the end, not only did the pay raise collapse under its own weight, but also Speaker Jim Wright ultimately fell victim to a blow torch of public reaction against the bill and his legislative style. Despite the rancor and bitterness, the new Speaker, Tom Foley, took office with a promise to try again this session to try to pass a pay raise but coupled with ethics reform. Foley appointed a task force headed by Democrat Vic Fazio of California and Republican Lynn Martin of Illinois. And when the task force had finished its work, Foley had nailed down the support of the Republican leadership not only in the House but also in the White House. This morning Democratic Speaker Foley broke precedent by appearing before a caucus of House Republicans for a final briefing and pep talk. The opposition, lo and behold, gave him a standing ovation. The bill known formally as the Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989 -- notice the title carries neither the word pay nor the word raise -- the bill seems to avoid most of the shortcomings that doomed last winter's legislation. One, the pay increase for House members, senior government executives and federal judges would come in two stages, a 7.9 percent cost of living increase by January 1990, and a 25 percent pay increase by January 1991.Two, an election would precede the 25 percent boost, enabling members to argue that they were not voting themselves an increase. Three, all honoraria, which can now total 30 percent of salary, would be abolished in 1991, and there could be no tax credit by assigning it to charity. Four, outside income which is learned, that is income which is not from investments or inheritance, would be limited to 15 percent of salary. Five, all professional fees as doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, directors would be prohibited. And Six, beginning in 1993, members could no longer pocket their unused campaign funds upon retirement. At last reporting, 3 dozen members of the House each had upwards of $350,000 in convertible surplus funds. The details of the legislation were not made public until yesterday. And the debate today was held under a closed rule, meaning there could be no amendments from the floor.

REP. HANK BROWN, [R] Colorado: I come to the conclusion that much more needs to be done, and I think a closed rule in the ethics area does not serve this body or this nation well.

REP. WILLIAM DANNEMEYER, [R] California: I'd planned to come over here after the one minute today and defeat the previous question, but it appears that the process is moving more quickly than some of us may have anticipated on this day.

MR. MUDD: Most members agreed ethics reform was needed, but some argued against a pay increase using the same line of attack they used last winter.

REP. JAMES TRAFICANT, [D] Ohio: There's not a member in this body that's not worth what they're being paid and they deserve an awful lot more. But now is not that time because you're not rewarded for losing, and Congress and the administration are losing. We're on the verge of going bankrupt. We're trustees presiding over the biggest Chapter 11 in world history.

REP. JOSEPH EARLY, [D] Massachusetts: I just think it's too bad that where the committee took the high road with regards to reform, where they took the high road with making the big increased perspective, they should have took the high road and not inserted any money in this bill for us, and then each of us would have been back to the electorate and say that we did not vote ourselves one dime.

MR. MUDD: Some of the proponents of the pay raise claimed it wasn't a pay raise at all.

REP. DAVID OBEY, [D] Wisconsin: This package for many members of this House, virtually all of the senior members, this package will not result in a pay increase. It will be at best a wash. And for many people it will be, in fact, a small pay reduction, because in the next Congress you will be eliminating the ability to earn 30 percent by moonlighting, and you will be substituting for that a 25 percent direct compensation.

REP. VIC FAZIO, [D] California: I wanted also to point out that a number of members have been able to take advantage of their outside income for honoraria purposes by setting up separate retirement accounts, some on the amount that they're allowed to earn, some on the total amount that they earn even before charitable deductions are taken. Those are no longer going to be allowed either, so in terms of after tax income, many of the members, the more senior members who've had honoraria, will be actually getting quite a reduction in income.

REP. OBEY: That's correct and I recognize that that is one of the principal reasons why some members of this body are opposed to this package.

MR. MUDD: The debate lasted only 2 hours and toward the end members were lined up to proclaim their support.

REP. J.J. PICKLE,[D] Texas: Over the years I have not voted for these pay raises. I think this is a good balance though between a pay raise and an improvement in the ethics standard. The pay raise is for the office more than for the person. It does not take effect until the next general election. You're voting for the office, not for the individual, and I think that's the best way to go about it.

REP. ROBERT LIVINGTSTON, [R] Louisiana: If you'll listen to the Ralph Naders, we would never pay ourselves a nickel, we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't have jobs, we wouldn't feed our families, we wouldn't live in homes and we wouldn't be normal people, and we wouldn't give the people of this great democracy of ours the government which they truly deserve.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Majority Leader: There is in politics and in government and in public life the matter of perception, the appearance of propriety. And if the American people feel as I believe they do that there is something that is damaging the appearance of propriety here, then we ought to do something about it. And this bill does it by getting rid of honoraria.

REP. ROBERT MICHEL, Majority Leader: We think we're deserving of what we're fronting for to here, stepping up to the plate, and taking the issue on, front on, right out in the open. And I would hope that you'd have a little bit of sympathy and empathy for what we have to go through every 2 years, not once every 6 years and that the other body will kindly upon what we do at the end of this day.

REP. FOLEY: The yays are 252. The nays are 174. One voting present. The bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

MR. MUDD: The bill that passed this afternoon does not apply to the Senate. And it's not clear what the Senate will do tomorrow with its version of the pay bill. The betting is that the Senate where honoraria is almost a way of life will take only a cost of living increase. That could leave the world's greatest deliberative body paying the lowest wages.

MR. LEHRER: Now to Ralph Nader, the Director of the Center for Responsive Law here in Washington. He opposed today's legislation as he did a pay raise effort earlier this year. And to Fred Wertheimer, President of Common Cause which supported today's legislation. Mr. Wertheimer, why do you support what the House did today?

FRED WERTHEIMER, Common Cause: I think what the House did today, it established the basic principle that public officials should be paid only by the public and not by private interests. It did it in two ways. It passed a sweeping ethics reform bill, the most important ethics bill since 1977. And it dealt with the pay issue by increasing salaries in a way that we think is appropriate and will restore the lost purchasing power of those salaries over the last couple of decades. Now on the reform package, this is real reform. Our goal in the reform effort was not just to end honoraria fees, those fees that are paid for speaking by private interests and allow them, in effect, to buy influence with elected officials. Because if you just end honoraria, you will wind up with the money coming in in different ways. You had to close down the other spigots and this does an excellent job of doing it. You can't serve on boards for compensation. You can't sell professional fees. You can't practice law. You can't be a consultant. You can't be an adviser. Basically all of these aspects are attacked by the ethics reform package. So that I think very effectively this proposal will cut down the practice whereby private groups are paying money directly into the pockets of members of Congress. This bill also has new restrictions on gifts. It ends this insidious practice where campaign money can be converted to personal use. Although it ends it at 1993 we would do immediately, it's not a perfect bill. That grandfather close should be earlier on the --

MR. LEHRER: On the campaign money.

MR. WERTHEIMER: On the campaign money. The restrictions on travel reimbursements do not go as far as they should, but frankly I have yet to see a perfect bill come through Congress. What it does do is basically change the way that business will be conducted in the House of Representatives. I think that strengthens the institution, I think it was a great day for the House and for the country.

MR. LEHRER: A great day for the House and the country, Ralph Nader?

RALPH NADER, Consumer Advocate: Well, there's nothing wrong with what Fred said in terms of the reforms. But I think it's unethical for Foley and Michel to push this package through without a public hearing, without giving the American people a chance to react to the pay increase part. Secondly, -- they gave the public 24 hours -- secondly, I think it's unethical.

MR. LEHRER: Let's explain that. The bill was announced yesterday and they voted on it today. That's what you mean.

MR. NADER: Yes. That's correct.

MR. LEHRER: The specifics of the bill.

MR. NADER: Correct. Secondly, I think it's unethical for the majority in the House to say to the American people that they will stop doing some unethical things only on condition that they get a $35,000 annual pay increase and a one-third increase in their already generous pension benefits when they retire. Third, I think it's unethical at a time when the Congress is presiding over massive deficits, bail outs of S&Ls, giveaways, a lot of sleaze and corruption in both branches of government, to turn around and say to the American people, oops, we have to engage in critical program cutbacks in health and education and transportation because of Gramm-Rudman and the budget deficit. But we are excepted from that principle of restraint and sacrifice, we want an $18 an hour pay increase.

MR. LEHRER: $18 an hour. How do you figure that?

MR. NADER: That's right. $35,000 a year, even if you don't take in their pension boosts. These are the same people who said to the minimum wage earners freeze, for $3.35 in 1981 to 1990, when they gave them 8 dimes as a way of an increase per hour. And what's at stake here, Jim, is the quality of political leadership in our country. Are we going to be led by political leaders who rule by example or by hypocrisy and double standards, one for themselves, one for the rest of the country? And what Fred didn't mention, maybe he didn't know, inside this modest ethical reform package which doesn't include campaign finance reform and has various wavers is the abolition of last year's federal procurement ethics standards governing the behavior of government procurement personnel who buy $200 billion of material from the defense industry and from other companies engaged in revolving doors and gifts and gratuities. That was snuck in at the last minute.

MR. WERTHEIMER: I'd like to respond because there are a number of claims that Ralph has made about unethical conduct that I disagree with.

MR. LEHRER: But hold on just a moment. Let me make sure I understand what your position is. You support the reform part.

MR. NADER: Of course. They're very modest thought, Jim, but I support that. But why hold up the taxpayer for a $35,000 annual salary -- what a message to young America. Imagine, imagine saying we'll stop doing some unethical things on condition that we get a $35,000 --

MR. LEHRER: What about that basic point?

MR. WERTHEIMER: Well, I don't think that's what the Congress did. Ralph says that the Speaker and the Minority Leader were unethical in this, the way they conducted this process. I totally disagree with them. I thought we got extraordinary leadership by Speaker Foley and Minority Leader Michel in this process. This ethics task has been going on since February. This process has been going on all year long. The Speaker has made clear that he was bringing this issue back and I believe that it was made quite clear that this legislation was going to come up. Now I do share Ralph's view to one point. It would have been better if this legislation was on the table at an earlier point. But part of the problem there came down I think to the fact that the negotiations with the White House just ended recently.

MR. LEHRER: But what about his --

MR. WERTHEIMER: I'm going to get to that. I'm going to get to that second point. I go back to what I said. There's a basic principle involved here. The public should be paying public officials.

MR. NADER: That's agreed.

MR. WERTHEIMER: Let me finish my answer. And not private interests. That gets you to two questions. How do you get rid of private influence money coming in in payment? I don't think this is a modest reform. I think this is a sweeping reform. I've spent 18 years working on campaign finance reform. That's essential. We've talked about that before. That's to come next. Secondly, the question is what should we pay our public officials, the people who lead and govern this country? I think our system is out of whack when the chief administrator of Santa Clara County in California earns more money than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

MR. LEHRER: All right, let's stop right there and talk about that issue of the pay to the federal official. You would not agree to any raise, is that right, Mr. Nader?

MR. NADER: I do not think in the present circumstances of how badly this government has been managed and how many critical program cutbacks they're going to impose on innocent Americans that they deserve a pay raise. They've already got 48 percent pay increase sine 1981. That's more than keeping up with inflation. They're in the top 1 percent of earners in the American population. The reason why so many Americans are now calling their members of Congress back home and in Washington is because they don't want this kind of hypocrisy, where they're being asked to restrain, to sacrifice, not get needed government services. And the leaders are saying, well, we want more.

MR. WERTHEIMER: I don't believe this is hypocrisy. The four past Presidents of the United States, the present President, President Bush, President Carter, President Ford, and President Reagan all have called for these kinds of increases over the past couple of years for our top federal officials. There's never a good time to do pay increases. There's just never a good time, if I could finish my answer, Ralph.

MR. NADER: You've been talking much more than I, Fred.

MR. WERTHEIMER: That's an exception. That normally doesn't happen.

MR. NADER: Go ahead.

MR. LEHRER: Go ahead.

MR. WERTHEIMER: If I could finish my answer, our view on salaries, there should be modest, regular adjustments. That's the way the process should work. It hasn't worked that way. And what we think these raises will do will take us to the point where the salaries are appropriate and then on an annual basis we can do modest adjustments and we won't have to keep fighting these catch up fights that involve large sums of money.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Nader, what happens now in the Senate? Is this thing over from your point of view as far as the House?

MR. NADER: I think Foley and Michel are dreaming if they think they're going to get away with this. First of all, there's a core of Senators who are intending to engage in extended debate. I don't know --

MR. LEHRER: A filibuster.

MR. NADER: I don't know whether it's yet to the point of a filibuster.

MR. LEHRER: I see.

MR. NADER: Secondly, this is going to be a campaign issue next year. I don't think people are going to take kindly to this kind of lightning bolt one minute to midnight before adjournment legislation on a subject they feel very strongly about. Wait until they find out what some of the fine print is. For example, members of the House under the House bill can still play hookie, go to these resort spas on the company expense, fraternize with lobbyists, and then take money, instead of keeping the honoraria fees, they can develop a new form of patronage by ladling it out to charities in their local district with suitable press releases, increasing the advantage of incumbency. And what would Fred say about this blooper that the White House got in just today eliminating the 1988 federal procurement ethics law?

MR. WERTHEIMER: Well, I don't support that provision. I don't find everything in this bill perfect, as I said before, but I do think this is fundamental ethics reform and my view is the Senate should match the House and send this on to the President. I think this legislation could be the beginning of the end of the anything goes ethics era that has dominated Washington in the 1980s.

MR. LEHRER: You are more concerned, are you not, Mr. Nader, about the pay than you are the reforms, is that right? In other words, you think the bigger sin is the pay these people get, rather than to correct the honoraria and the other outside income?

MR. NADER: No, Fred and I want even more reform, obviously.

MR. LEHRER: In other words --

MR. NADER: The message is we demand that you, the taxpayer, pay us for being less unethical. What kind of message is that to America? What kind of leadership where responsible members of the Congress can stand and say, although we have to engage in all these sequestration budget cuts in critical areas, we are demanding a $35,000 increase? The other thing is I think the degradation of the Congress can be compared with the 1931 and '32 Congress, Jim, which in the midst of a depression cut their pay in two successive years to set an example for the country.

MR. LEHRER: That's a serious charge.

MR. WERTHEIMER: What is?

MR. LEHRER: What he just said, I mean, comparing --

MR. WERTHEIMER: Again, I think what we've done here today is basically take the salaries of our top officials, three branches, we're not just dealing with Congress, we're talking with the courts, cabinet secretaries. Again, I repeat to you, the Secretary of Health & Human Services should not be paid less money than the Director of Health Services for the State of North Carolina. I think what we're trying to do and what we must do is set appropriate salaries that reflect the importance of these jobs, and then get about the business, if we don't like the people in the jobs, change the people but the salaries are for the positions and those salaries should reflect the importance of these jobs.

MR. LEHRER: And you're going to fight this to its end, whatever it takes, right?

MR. NADER: Well, I think the American people have just begun to fight and next year it's going to be much hotter.

MR. WERTHEIMER: We're going to fight it as well.

MR. LEHRER: Thank you both very much.

MR. WERTHEIMER: For it.

MR. LEHRER: I hear you. Thank you both.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the Newshour, Navy safety, tobacco advertising and our Thursday essay. FOCUS - SHIP SHAPE?

MR. MacNeil: We go next to troubles in the Navy. Those troubles were aired today at a Senate hearing. Judy Woodruff has the story. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Senate Armed Services Committee originally called its hearing to review the Navy's findings on the explosion on the battleship Iowa that killed 47 sailors and officers on April 19th. But the Committee decided to focus first on the Navy decision to stop all operations for 48 hours for a review of safety procedures throughout the fleet. There have been nine serious Navy accidents and seven sailors killed in the past three weeks. The Chief of Naval Operations testified this morning.

ADM. CARLISLE TROST, Chief of Naval Operations: Now this past year has certainly been one of the most publicized in terms of mishaps in our Navy, starting with the tragic explosion aboard USS Iowa back in April. In each case we've conducted exhaustive investigations into the cause with the intention of precluding the possibility of recurrence. To date, those investigations have revealed no central thread or commonality in the causes. The accidents have been unrelated. Some have been machinery failure, some have been acts of God, others have been errors by our personnel. As all of us known, operating war ships and high performance aircraft in the unpredictable and unforgiving environment at sea carries a substantially higher level of risk than most other occupations.

SEN. NUNN: As the chief of Naval Operations, when you started seeing this kind of pattern of mishaps and you take the almost unprecedented step, which I think was warranted here, of standing down for 48 hours for the entire Navy, what kind of common threads would you be looking for, what are the questions that you as CNO are basically posing to the fleet?

ADM. TROST: The questions I posed are the following. Are we knowledgeable of and adhering to established operating procedures throughout the Navy? Are we knowledgeable of and adhering to safety precautions throughout the Navy? Do we become complacent at the end of an exercise and say, okay, the hard stuff's over, this is a piece of cake? Are we really conscious of everything going on around about us that leads to safe operations?

SEN. NUNN: The question comes to mind as to whether you are operating at too high a tempo or are you putting too much stress on the ships or the men on them. Did you ask that question?

ADM. TROST: We did. We asked ourselves that earlier this month, at the beginning of this month. As a matter of fact, when I gathered all of my senior commanders over at Annapolis to discuss this and other operational matters. We satisfied ourselves that the constraints we placed on operational tempo back in 1985 are indeed being adhered to with very few exceptions and that we're not running our people into the ground.

MS. WOODRUFF: When the Committee turned to the Iowa explosion, it was with considerable skepticism about the official Navy inquiry which said the blast was most likely caused by one sailor, Clayton Hartwig, placing an explosive agent in-between bags of gun powder. The official report said Hartwig was trying to commit suicide. Most of the questions were directed to the admiral who conducted the inquiry.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: As the investigating officer, can you think of any other way this explosion could have occurred, or has anybody else made a reasonable suggestion indicating another possible reason for the explosion?

REAR ADM. RICHARD MILLIGAN, Investigating Officer: Sen. McCain, I have to say in all honesty that we looked for another possibility for this accident and we could not find one. And we searched and examined and experimented with every suggestion that came to either my attention or the attention of any member of my team.

SEN. McCAIN: You've exhausted all possibilities?

REAR ADM. MILLIGAN: Yes, sir.

SEN. ALAN DIXON, [D] Illinois: Now your theory also draws the conclusion that Hartwig, this strange person, committed this act to commit suicide. Yet, isn't it a fact that all of these investigators when they looked into this found that the very night prior to this occurrence, he spent over 3/4 of an hour visiting with a friend about the fact that he looked forward to his next leave in London and discussing all of the good times that he anticipated having in London?

REAR ADM. MILLIGAN: There is information that he had a long discussion with another individual, the surviving gunner's mate from the turret.

SEN. DIXON: The night before.

REAR ADM. MILLIGAN: The night before, concerning, I didn't know it as leave, but the potential reassignment to London and what that would be like. However, my investigation has found no conclusive evidence that Petty Officer Hartwig knew he was going to London. In fact --

SEN. DIXON: Well, I didn't ask you that question. I appreciate your response and I want the answers to my questions.

REAR ADM. MILLIGAN: Yes, sir.

SEN. DIXON: You are certainly a respected investigator and entitled to draw your conclusions, which clearly are contrary to mine. Now, you further conclude that this individual on the next morning having apparently determined the manner of his death put into play this highly complex method by virtue of which he blew up that gun and set fire in there and killed in addition to himself 46 other member of the Iowa crew. But the fact is that that very morning he was not listed to be the gun captain in that place, isn't that true?

REAR ADM. MILLIGAN: It is true that I concluded what you said.

SEN. DIXON: Yes.

REAR ADM. MILLIGAN: Yes, that is true, and it is true that he was not on a watch belt. That is true.

SEN. ALAN DIXON, [D] Illinois: And what a remarkable thing I think that a young man who the night before spent over 3/4 of an hour discussing the good time on his next vacation or leave or whatever you want to characterize it to be, and who the next morning was not listed to be the gun captain in that turret, someone through some extraordinary manipulation of events was able to put into play this terrible tragedy then transpired. I find that difficult, Adm. Milligan, to understand how that could occur.

REAR ADM. MILLIGAN: Mr. Dixon, that's what the facts of this investigation draw you to.

MS. WOODRUFF: At the hearing, top Navy officers acknowledged it was possible that for money reasons, the Navy may again have to mothball the Iowa and three other World War II era battleships it had recommissioned in the early 1980s. FOCUS - AD ARGUMENT

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight we turn to an old issue with a new twist, cigarette advertising on TV. Congress banned it 18 years ago but the Philip Morris name is back on the air. This past August the cigarette and food conglomerate made a donation to the National Archives, which is part of the U.S. Government. The $600,000 from Philip Morris will go mostly toward an exhibit celebrating the Bill of Rights. But the corporation will also spend $30 million on a two year ad campaign that includes current TV commercials like this one. [TV COMMERCIAL]

MR. MacNeil: Critics say broadcasting the Philip Morris name violates the law against advertising tobacco on TV. One of those critics is Democratic Congressman Thomas Luken whose subcommittee on transportation and hazardous materials held hearings on the issue today. Congressman Luken joins us from Capitol Hill. Also with us is Guy Smith, Vice President of Corporate Affairs, Vice President of Corporate Affairs for Philip Morris Companies Incorporated. Congressman what's wrong with what Philip Morris is doing?

REP. THOMAS LUKEN, [D] Ohio: What Philip Morris is doing is trying to buy some respectability. Philip Morris is the biggest tobacco company in the United States. It has about 40 percent of the cigarette production in the United States. And what it's doing here the last seven seconds of that ad showed the logo of Philip Morris cigarettes which is on all of their cigarettes. About 40 percent of the cigarettes sold in this country have that logo, that escutcheon, with the PM on it. So what they have done, they're putting out this ad, wrapping themselves in the Bill of Rights, with this scandalous agreement that they've entered into, they really duped the National Archives into going into a contract which gives them the exclusive right to join with the Archives in this kind of advertisement. So what they're doing is they're trying to clean up their ad and portray themselves as a respectable company, but in the processing they're advertising cigarettes. And that's illegal because it is absolutely illegal to advertise cigarettes on the television. And we had the hearing today, and I think that the National Archives may be having second thoughts as to what they've gotten into.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Smith, let's divide these two charges and go at them one at a time. First of all, is that what you're doing? You're trying to clean up your image with this advertising?

GUY SMITH, Philip Morris Companies Inc.: What we're trying to do is participate in a major way in the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. That's what we're doing that with TV commercials such as the one that you just played. I think it speaks eloquently for itself and for the Bill of Rights and for nothing else. Obviously we hope people will think well of the Bill of Rights and hopefully think well of our company by us doing that. That's what we're doing. The Congressman made an accusation about the logo of our company. He said that the logo is on cigarette packs. He's technically not correct because the logo on cigarette packs is, indeed, different. It is a very old logo. It is the logo of our company, and the company logo is obviously, it's somewhat different. For the sake of argument, let's say it's sort of the same. It is the same logo that is on our building, it's on our stationery, it's on my business card, but it hasn't got a thing to do with cigarettes. I mean, Philip Morris in recent years is so much more. We're now Kraft, General Foods. We own Maxwell House Coffee, Oscar Mayer Wieners, Tang, Jell-O, every shelf of the supermarket has products that we're involved with. And I think that any fair minded American that looks at that ad that you just played will agree that it isn't about anything but celebrating the Bill of Rights.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman, it has nothing to do with cigarettes he says.

REP. LUKEN: Well, they had the opportunity when they were negotiating, that is, Philip Morris, and we showed the letters today, they were negotiating with the National Archives, and the National Archives originally did not want to get into this contract, as the letter shows, with a cigarette company and they suggested, that is, National Archives suggested to Philip Morris that they enter into the contract with one of their corporate entities, Kraft Foods. Now the fact that Philip Morris refused to do that and insisted eventually and finally talked the National Archives into it, finally insisted on going with the Philip Morris Companies, which is the cigarette company, indicates clearly that they didn't want to just contribute or just didn't want to get involved with their food companies. They want to advertise cigarettes. They want this National Archives, which comes on and gives them the exclusive. You may have missed it in the commercial but it says that the National Archives with Philip Morris. This gives them a degree of respectability that they could never get any other way. They put up $600,000 and they got it. And they're going to advertise to the tune of $60 million with these various commercials in which they wrap themselves in the Bill of Rights.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH: Well, the Congressman is wrong with respect to the exclusivity.

MR. MacNeil: Leave aside -- just come back to the charge, which is the central charge here, that what you're trying to do in disguise is use the Philip Morris name to advertise cigarettes.

MR. SMITH: Well, first of all there aren't any cigarette brands called Philip Morris. The law says you can't advertise on television cigarette brands that are by their name or any other way.

MR. MacNeil: There was until very recently.

MR. SMITH: Yes. There was. It was the smallest brand that we had. We hadn't promoted it since 1960. We've spent zero money on advertising and promotion since them. But just to make absolutely sure there was no confusion we changed the name of the product to Commanders. It's not called Philip Morris. We haven't shipped it over a month of the old stuff. And as I said, it was the tiniest brand that we had anyway.

MR. MacNeil: Let's go back to the Congressman on that point. They're not advertising because there is no such brand, Congressman.

REP. LUKEN: It's very clear. Everybody knows that Philip Morris, called Philip Morris, is you're old enough for whatever, everybody knows Philip Morris puts out cigarettes. So when they put Philip Morris out there, they're advertising their product. But to make sure that they do that on each one of these bigger than life itself is the logo which is on Marlboros, which is, and the other cigarettes which are Philip Morris products. So the whole production there is for cigarettes. People look at it. You know, Philip Morris has put out a multi-million dollar PR campaign several times in the last two years about smokers' rights, Philip Morris smokers' rights. That's another thing they're doing here. They're identifying the Bill of Rights with their campaign of smokers' rights, but clearly, getting back to the ad, this is an ad. If General Motors puts an ad out like that, or if I did, Congressman Tom Luken, and for 53 seconds, I showed the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and then I said Congressman Tom Luken, or if General Motors put General Motors, that would be an advertisement for Buick and Pontiac and Chevrolet and those and that is the way advertisements work. They're trying to say that they're not advertising cigarettes.

MR. MacNeil: You said it's illegal, Congressman.

REP. LUKEN: Absolutely.

MR. MacNeil: Now can it be illegal if the law says that you can't advertise the name of a brand of cigarettes on television and there is no longer such a brand name?

REP. LUKEN: The law doesn't say you can't advertise the name of a brand of cigarettes. The law says you can't advertise cigarettes. That's the point. And they're advertising cigarettes when the put the logo of the cigarettes, when the put the name of the cigarette company which is a well known tobacco, cigarette company name, the public is getting the perception that they're expecting that the public will buy cigarettes, Philip Morris cigarettes, Philip Morris cigarettes, Marlboros and other brands.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH: What we've discovered in a lot of checking and research that we did is that in spite of what the Congressman says, most people don't know what or who Philip Morris is. Of course inside the beltway, people know. In Wall Street, I think a lot of people know. And there are a lot of older Americans that know, I won't characterize anybody in our group here tonight who might be in that group. But nevertheless, the bulk of the people out there when we did the research, we found some people thought we were a light bulb company, some people thought we were a talent agency. The point is the way people, what we want to do is continue this in the public interest activity that we've been doing and let me tell you, in the first two weeks, 325,000 people have called that 800 number to get a copy of the Bill of Rights, and we're mailing it to them.

MR. MacNeil: Can I ask you a question?

MR. SMITH: Sure.

MR. MacNeil: Did you get rid of the brand name Philip Morris in order to be technically legal with these ads?

MR. SMITH: We were changing the design and updating it, but we also absolutely wanted to make absolutely certain there wasn't even a technical argument that could be made that we were trying in some way to promote cigarettes, and as I said, it was the tiniest brand that we had.

MR. MacNeil: So the answer is yes.

MR. SMITH: Yes.

REP. LUKEN: Can I help answer that?

MR. MacNeil: Yes, Congressman.

REP. LUKEN: This contract was entered into secretly in August.

MR. SMITH: There was no secret about it, Congressman.

REP. LUKEN: No one knew anything about it. We just went through a hearing today. No one knew anything about this contract until the ads appeared on television. And that was in August. And it wasn't until October that they claimed that they have canceled the production of cigarettes, but they're still being sold out there. Now this Philip Morris there's one big thing that's come up here. They expect to get 1 million signatures and names and addresses, many of them young people who want to get the Constitution, and this is going to be a mailing list for Philip Morris, which is the biggest advocate of smokers' rights, and they have had in the past couple of years essay contests for young people, not innocent ones like this ad, but ones that specifically are directed --

MR. MacNeil: Let the Congressman finish and then I'll come to you.

REP. LUKEN: We had these exhibits today, essay contests which are directed to young people with the argument in there that Congress is doing the tobacco company wrong by restricting the advertising.

MR. MacNeil: Let's go to Mr. Smith. And answer the point that the Congressman was raising that what you're really trying to do is further your argument for smokers' rights under the guise of the Bill of Rights.

MR. SMITH: That's not the case and he's speaking of the tobacco unit of our company. This is about the Bill of Rights, but he misspoke with respect to that essay contest which our Philip Morris U.S.A. tobacco unit did indeed run. It said you had to be over 21 years of age to enter and prove it, and the Congressman knew that. It was pointed out today in the committee and he is misrepresenting it tonight here on the news. Secondly, with the exclusivity --

REP. LUKEN: These quotes are --

MR. SMITH: -- of the "contract", the Congressman knows because the deputy archive has said in the hearing today that there is no exclusivity, anybody that wants to can sponsor anything to do with the celebration of the Bill of Rights. Nobody owns the Bill of Rights except the American people, and there is no exclusivity. And I resent that accusation because he knows that is not the case.

REP. LUKEN: Robin, I took him up on this today and I said to them.

MR. MacNeil: Can you make this brief, Congressman?

REP. LUKEN: If you're not going to use this mailing list for this purpose, why don't you just give up the rights to that.

MR. SMITH: I have said repeatedly that we are not going to use it. You are misrepresenting that as well.

REP. LUKEN: I asked them if they would give up the rights to those mailing lists and they have so far refused. Now if they're just, if they want to make a contribution, why do they want to keep these mailing lists? Why don't they give them up, give them to the archives?

MR. MacNeil: Very quickly.

MR. SMITH: It's the exclusive use of the Bill of Rights activity and that's all. The exclusive use of the Bill of Rights activity.

MR. MacNeil: That's our time. Congressman Luken, Mr. Smith, thank you both. ESSAY - BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight our Thursday night essay. It's about eating. Our Essayist is Jim Fisher, Columnist for the Kansas City Times. [COMMERCIAL]

MR. FISHER: First, there's the husband doing what mother told him never to do, telling a fib to his wife. [COMMERCIAL]

MR. FISHER: Then there's Wolford Bremlin, not so long ago everybody's favorite grandpa, shilling for Quaker Oats. And finally there's the guy with the European accent, promoting a cereal that sounds like something lodged in the back of your throat. [COMMERCIAL]

MR. FISHER: Clearly, breakfast cereals aren't just for children anymore, least ways on television. Gone are the days of the secret decoder ring in boxes of Cheerios and Kicks. Breakfast cereals in 1989 means sending in the bar code panel for a rebate towards your next cholesterol test. Consumer Reports Magazine says that something like 97 new cereals have come on the market in the past year. Many contained oats or bran or a combination thereof. Naturally most are aimed at the millions of grown-up Americans who figure dietary estheticism is akin to immortality, a concept that's reinforced by a barrage of TV commercials intimating that instant health and unclogged arteries are now conveniently available on Aisle 12 of the supermarket. Here in the Midwest we've see the commercials too we've seen the commercials too, but there's still a modicum of sanity out here. Like most common sense Americans between the East River and California, we enjoy eating. For breakfast we like bacon and eggs, pancakes, waffles, biscuits and gravy. Sit in any roadside restaurant and you'll likely be on your 4th cup of coffee before you hear anybody order cereal, if then. Later in the day it gets even better. There's skillet fried chicken. Most likely you won't find their motto ["We choke our own chicken"] on the menu of any West 50s restaurant in the Big Apple or one of the tonier eateries on LaCienega in LA. Eating, like just about everywhere else in this country, is a passion out here. There's wonderful family owned Mexican joints, and of course steaks, big ones too. Then there's what this town is really known for, barbecue. This is heaven on earth, the combination beef and ham sandwich from Arthur Bryant's, the mecca of the whole world for barbecue. Lunchtime at Bryant's in Kansas City is somehow strangely reassuring. You know that the tofu and bean sprout eater are somewhere else proudly eating breakfast cereal which brings us back to oats and bran. Grandpa always fed oats to horses and mules and so do I. He didn't much about cholesterol. He was a lot more concerned about polevil and glanders, strangles and colic. Grandpa was on to something. Take a look at this mare. Obviously the oats have been good for her, plus lots of exercise, sunshine, good hay and grass, worming and a whole bunch of foals. The last one was born just two years ago, not bad for a mayor now 28 years old. As for bran, old Missouri farmers, ones who sold their cream to get cash money, will tell you they used to take the leftover milk and mix it with bran, then they'd slop their hogs. Maybe that's the cereal companies' real message. Don't eat the hogs, the bacon, pork, tenderloins, ham, chops, ribs, and all the rest. Instead eat like them. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of the day, six Jesuit priests were tortured and killed in El Salvador as fighting between leftist rebels and government troops raged for the fifth day, wind storms killed 7 in New York State, 17 in Alabama. The U.S. plans to remove trade barriers after Moscow liberalizes travel for millions of citizens. Good night, Jim.

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