The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. In Lebanon, another military setback for President Gemayel creates a new situation for the U.S. France calls for U.N. troops to replace the multinational force, but President Reagan says the Marines could be on the ships off Lebanon for a long time. We examine where all this leaves U.S. policy. And as the American delegation returns from the Andropov funeral, we hear more appraisals of his successor Konstantin Chernenko. Jim Lehrer's off; Judy Woodruff's in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Stories from around the country fill out the NewsHour tonight. The Justice Department says no to a major steel industry merger. School districts across the nation grapple with the hidden problem of asbestos poisoning. We get reports from Minnesota and Tennessee. And finally, we remember a singer that many of us will never forget.

[Ethel Merman singing "Everything's Coming Up Roses"]Lebanon Outlook

MacNEIL: There were a lot of developments in the Lebanon situation today, but they don't make things any clearer for the United States or President Amin Gemayel. His forces have suffered another important defeat. Druse troops drove the Lebanese army's Fourth Brigade out of a vital corridor linking Beirut with the Shuf Mountains. Some army soldiers defected to the Druse and some fled south to Israeli lines at the Port of Sidon. The Druse linked up forces with Shiite Moslem allies, consolidating their positions south of Beirut Airport. That left the U.S. Marines surrounded by hostile militias on all sides except the sea. And today the Moslem rebels celebrated a victory. Here's a report from Phillip Hayton of the BBC.

PHILLIP HAYTON, (BBC) [voice-over]: They'd won a famous victory, and they were making the most of it. The jubilant militias of the Moslem factions of the Druse and Amal had routed the Lebanese army and sent them fleeing in disarray. Five important mountain villages fell to the militias, and hundreds of Lebanese soldiers are now defecting to the winning side. The big smiles indicate that success came a lot faster than most of them had ever hoped for. They used their captured guns to celebrate. These men have devastated the Lebanese army. It's estimated that after this week's fighting only half of it is left intact. But as they read the Koran and say their prayers, they stress that they do not want to drive the Christians from Lebanon.

The American-trained Lebanese army seems to have left its post in a hurry. The big guns of the American Sixth Fleet and air strikes by the Lebanese air force did not save them. This Lebanese soldier tried to flee but he was captured instead. Like the Lebanese government, his future is uncertain.

MacNEIL: Top aides of President Gemayel and the Druse faction met for talks. Druse leader Walid Jumblatt again called for Gemayel's resignation. Gemayel had been widely expected to announce that he was abrogating the May 17th troop withdrawal agreement signed with Israel. The Druse and their Syrian backers have been demanding that as a precondition for cooperating in a new government. But today Jumblatt said revoking the agreement was no longer enough; Gemayel must resign anyway. But there was no announcement from Gemayel about the agreement. Meanwhile, at the United Nations in New York, the French urged the Security Council to move swiftly to replace U.S., French and Italian peacekeeping troops with a U.N. force. France said the troops must be withdrawn along with the accompanying ships. France made the move after learning that the Soviet Union might accept a U.N. force on certain conditions, including the withdrawal of allied warships. The U.S. State Department has said the Soviet terms were unacceptable. In Rome, Italian Prime Minister Craxi backed the U.N. force idea, and said that all 1,400 Italian troops would be withdrawn in two weeks.

Judy?

WOODRUFF: No matter what the other tropps do, American troops will be in the area as long as they would have remain onshore. That's what President Reagan told a group of print reporters today. Mr. Reagan indicated the Marines could stay on ships, offshore, up to another year or more, as they are permitted to do under the current congressional authorization. But the President said he hoped their stay wouldn't be that long. At the same time, Mr. Reagan said, "As long as there is a chance for peace, we are going to stay." Earlier Secretary of State Shultz said the Marines are not in great danger even though they are surrounded at their airport location. But he acknowledged they face risks in being moved to ships offshore. The secretary spoke as he made an unusual visit to the State Department's regular daily press briefing. The main purpose of his appearance, however, was to make still another appeal to Lebanese President Gemayel not to throw out the May 17th troops withdrawal agreement with Israel.

GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: Last year the United States helped Lebanon and Israel negotiate the May 17 agreement, which was and remains the only established formula that ensures Israeli withdrawal while adequately safeguarding both Lebanese sovereignty and Israel's legitimate security interests. We continue to support the May 17 agreement. Those who would dispense with this agreement must bear the responsibility to find alternative formulas for Israeli withdrawal. The United States is working to help end the fighting and advance a political solution. There is activity at the United Nations to agree on a U.N. role in Lebanon. A U.N. presence would be useful throughout Lebanon, particularly for such purposes as protecting the Palestinian refugee camps. Beyond this, a significant U.N. role presupposes a return of stability, a balance of forces, and some measure of political accord. All desirable, though elusive, goals which we have been pursuing.

WOODRUFF: We take a look now at what choices there are for U.S. policy in Lebanon through the analysis of Dean Brown, a former U.S. ambassador to Jordan and former special presidential envoy to Lebanon during the 1976 Lebanese civil war. Mr. Brown is now president of the Washington-based Middle East Institute.

Mr. Brown, do you agree with the administration in continuing to insist that Lebanon not renounce the May 17th agreement?

L. DEAN BROWN: Well, I think, you know, it's sort of like flogging a dead horse. That is to say, the agreement is there, but there is no will on the part of any foreseeable Lebanese government to carry it out in full. The country is divided, Lebanon is divided on the issue. Those who want the agreement to stay are the Maronites, who are part of the backbone of Gemayel's forces. Those who want to dispense with the agreement represent just about everybody else. And I don't think that he could get the Parliament to implement the agreement if he tried.

WOODRUFF: What about the administration's argument here, though, that this is the only way that we're going to see any sort of troop withdrawal begin to take place?

Mr. BROWN: Well, and that's a good argument, and I suppose if it didn't exist then you would say that the only piece of paper you have is a Security Council agreement. We voted for a Security Council resolution back earlier in this affair calling for the withdrawal of foreign forces. And you can always base your policy on that. Mr. Shultz is very much stuck on this one. He helped negotiate it, he's involved with it, and somehow or another I fear that he's got more proper, it's more -- he has had more at stake here than a realistic appraisal of what can be done in the long run.

WOODRUFF: Are you saying that's the reason we're pushing it so hard, really out of selfish interests?

Mr. BROWN: Well, I think probably in a sense that's what the secretary of state has done. He's stuck with it. He's simply -- he's like the tar baby: he can't get itoff his hands and he keeps coming back to it. He's made half a dozen speeches in the last week talking about it. And yet there isn't anybody in the Middle East who sits back and says, "Well, this is the letter of the law. This is the way it's going to happen."

WOODRUFF: Can President Gemayel survive if he continues -- if this agreement stands, if he doesn't renounce it?

Mr. BROWN: He's torn between two things. I mean he's torn between his basic support, which says that he must stick with it -- that is from his father, for instance -- and what Mr. Walid Jumblatt and Mr. Berri and all the leaders of the various groups in sort of rebellion against his government say. He's torn between the two of them. He can't win this one, one way or another.

WOODRUFF: What should he do?

Mr. BROWN: Well, what I think what he's been trying to do is sort of waffle it all and hope that something else will come along which will help. He sort of thought that was the American presence. Now I'll tell you what he's going to do: he's going to run to Damascus and look for help from the Syrians, because I think he's pretty well decided that he cannot get it from the United States or from Israel.

WOODRUFF: Well, under those circumstances what should the posture of the United States be? I mean if you're saying we shouldn't insist on the agreement.

Mr. BROWN: [unintelligible] -- offshore. And rapidly leaving the shore. That's what the posture should be. You know, let the United Nations take a shot at it. Stay out of the way of France. We don't want to get the Soviets too much involved in this thing, but let them vote for a resolution -- they vote for a lot of resolutions. And if the French can organize something, fine. Mr. Shultz has just said that the purpose of the multinational force is to guard the Palestinian camps. That was one of the statements. There's been no American guarding Palestinian camps since they've been there. You know, it's carrying too far.

WOODRUFF: If Gemayel does all the things that you're suggesting, renounces the agreements, can he survive, can his government last?

Mr. BROWN: He could only survive, I think, if he really moves on to the reconciliation process -- broadens the government, brings some people in, starts to talk about the political future of the country. What he started months ago, after a lot of American pushing, in the first meeting in Geneva, a meeting which has never been repeated, which now Gemayel in his hours of travail -- and he, in fact, his army is disappearing, his government has disappeared -- now he's talking again about a national reconciliation. It could be. It could be one of the miracles that pulls Lebanon together. It's happened before.

WOODRUFF: All right. Thank you, Mr. Brown, and we'll get back to you in a moment. Robin?

MacNEIL: The Israeli government has repeatedly warned that it opposes any effort to undo the May 17th agreement. For the Israeli perspective we turn to Benjamin Netanyahu, deputy chief of the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

Mr. Netanyahu, has your government written Gemayel off?

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Oh, I should certainly hope not. He's the President of Lebanon and we hope that he'll continue to be the president of Lebanon.

MacNEIL: Is he going to turn -- in Israeli eyes, do you think he's likely to turn to Syria for help, as you just heard suggested?

Mr. NETANYAHU: I don't think the question is turning for Syria to help. I think the issue here is really stated in the following way, correctly. I think Syria is making a bid to toppleGemayel. I think they're giving him certain conditions. It used to be, until this afternoon, one of the conditions was the May 17th agreement. We've just heard from one of Syria's proxies, Walid Jumblatt, that even that wouldn't help. They're basically trying to topple that government or at least to puppetize it. Now, if he turns to Syria, it won't be for help, but in order to collapse.

MacNEIL: Does the United States have any leverage left in this situation?

Mr. NETANYAHU: Well, I think we're all faced -- Lebanon and the United States, Israel -- we're faced with a very determined predatory Syrian regime that is applying force. I think President Reagan has made an independent decision on what your country's posture should be, but I don't presume to judge here what the options are for the United States.

MacNEIL: Is Israel still adamant that no part of the May 17th agreement should be abrogated or modified, even if it might help Gemayel negotiate with his opponents for a bit longer life?

Mr. NETANYAHU: Well, again, I think that the issue here is not part of the agreement.People are talking about tearing it apart; they're not talking about modifying it. And I think that from our point of view this was a minimal arrangement that basically would end the state of war between two countries. If you tear that up, what have you got left? So if it happens that the agreement is abrogated, I think it would be a tragedy for Lebanon because it would be the end of any hope for a Lebanon independent of Syrian domination. But from our point of view, we'll simply have to take care of our security in the north, which is in the northern part of Israel, the southern part of Lebanon, which is what we'll have to do.

MacNEIL: You heard Secretary of State Shultz say in that excerpt from his news conference that anybody who wanted to tear up the May 17th agreement would have to find an alternative for Israeli withdrawal. Lots of your government spokesman have been hinting over the last few weeks, hinted repeatedly, that you might well not wait until the Syrians withdraw, as provided for in the agreement, but just withdraw anyway, either in part or in whole. Where does that stand tonight?

Mr. NETANYAHU: I think we have a constant policy of protecting the northern border. Now, our policy is basically to prevent the return of a terrorist infrastructure, PLO or otherwise, to the south. We have, as you know, troops in the south. Until we find a better solution -- that is, a local force that can police that area from terrorist infiltration -- I think we'll have to stay there. And I don't presume to tell you what precise line we'll hold. That is something that is always being considered on the basis of the circumstances.

MacNEIL: Is Israel in favor of a U.N. force replacing the French, Americans and Italians who are still there?

Mr. NETANYAHU: Well, the decision of the multinational force countries to be there is, of course, their own. I would say that we have no objection to the deployment of the United Nations force in the Beirut area. We never raised an objection to that possibility. We have other problems in the U.N. if they were to be deployed in the south. We've had very bad experience with the U.N. not able to protect terrorist infiltration. In the north we don't have a problem.

MacNEIL: Yes. Well, thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. Brown, back to you. You've just heard Mr. Netanyahu say that what we are doing if we tear up, if we see this agreement torn up, if Mr. Gemayel goes to Damascus, that we're letting Syria take over Lebanon. Is that what the United States would just as soon have happen in your view?

Mr. BROWN: Well, the Syrians came into Lebanon in force in 1976 at the invitation of the Lebanese government. And there was a thing called -- another multinational force at that time, it was called the Arab deterrent force. It included a lot of representatives of the Arab countries. So they came in under sort of an Arab League charter. And the United States, waffling back and forth, eventually said that's not a bad idea, it'll bring peace to the country. So, for instance, Syria is, in a sense, there in a different way, or it thinks it is. It's obviously -- it's only just sitting in Lebanon, but where Syria was in 1982 was at the airport; it's not there anymore. Now, is the question, is Syria going to come back to the airport, and what difference does it really make?

WOODRUFF: Are you saying it doesn't make any difference as far as U.S. interests are concerned?

Mr. BROWN: Well, I don't think the United States likes it, I don't think the world will like it very much, but there will be a Syrian influence in Lebanon for a long time to come. Troops perhaps, but certainly there will be no government in Lebanon that doesn't have Syrian approval. It's the way life is out there.

WOODRUFF: Isn't that inevitable? I mean is Israel prepared to accept a Syrian presence in Lebanon as something that's inevitable?

Mr. NETANYAHU: I think there is a difference, Judy, between presence and influence. What we have in the present presence is an occupation. We have 50,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon. They're basically orchestrating this entire drive against Beirut. They're dictating the conditions for the government. If this is the type of arrangement that will be in Lebanon, I would say it would be first a tragedy for Lebanon. As far as we're concerned, I think we'll judge it on the basis -- we wouldn't want this to happen. If it were to happen, we'd have to

WOODRUFF: But you think there's still a realistic chance of holding off any sort of significant Syrian presence in Lebanon for the long term?

Mr. NETANYAHU: Well, the presence is there.Are you saying --

WOODRUFF: I'm saying of turning the situation around and getting the Syrians out.

Mr. NETANYAHU: I think it would require a concerted international pressure. I don't think it's about to happen tomorrow. But I think that our position is not going to be materially changed regardless of what happens in Beirut, because our concern remains the same in the south.

WOODRUFF: By the -- you're agreeing.

Mr. BROWN: I agree. I mean the Israeli position I think is well known and understood. And you can't quarrel with Israel's insistence on protection of its northern frontier, one way or another. That's an accepted thing with everyone.

WOODRUFF: Let me just ask you this. By this increased Syrian presence, influence, whatever you want to call it, have the Soviets now increased their influence -- not just in Lebanon, but in the entire region?

Mr. BROWN: Well, they've certainly increased their influence with Syria. I mean, let's put it that way. Syria is the main importer of arms in the Third World right now, much higher imports of arms than any other country. They have been rebuilt by the Soviets up to a much higher grade than they were in '82. Yes, there's an enormous Soviet influence in the arms field in Syria, but they can't run Syria.

WOODRUFF: But does that mean that they now cannot be ignored as a player in any significant Middle East negotiations?

Mr. BROWN: Well,I think right now we have them playing. I mean what we're doing is we're talking about transferring all of the responsibiliy for Beirut and a central government from a multinational force to a U.N. force. And if that is the case, the Soviets are going to be in on it.

WOODRUFF: How do the Israelis view that?

Mr. NETANYAHU: I think there's no question that Syria and the Soviet Union are in this together; they're in cahoots. I wouldn't say that Syria is a puppet of the Soviet Union; I would just say that they're working for the same aim, and that is the removal and toppling of the pro-Western government in Lebanon. I think it goes beyond that. I think the issue -- we constantly focus on Beirut, but I think right now the game -- if one can call it that -- is really played on a much larger board. I think today President Mubarak is quoted in The Washington Post as saying that it would be disastrous to withdraw the Marines in view of what this would do to embolden Syria, and I guess by extension the Soviet Union. I would not presume to offer recommendations to the administration -- I think they make their own decisions. But I would say that everyone in the Middle East is cognizant of the tremendous influence of the Soviets and the Syrians, who are acting really on a very ambitious, very aggressive design, and I don't think we can delude ourselves that this is merely a little game that is being played in Lebanon. I think the fortunes are much larger.

WOODRUFF: Are you confident of what the administration attitude, policy, is going to be over the next few weeks? I mean do you have a sense of what it is, what it's going to be, or is it a think that changes from day to day or week to week?

Mr. NETANYAHU: Well, you know, I've been in Washington a year and a half and I've learned not to speculate on other people's policies. And if you'll permit me, I won't do so. I think the administration's general line has been consistent, at least in one sense.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Brown, would you agree with that?

Mr. BROWN: No, I don't agree it's consistent. I think it's rather confusing for everybody.

Mr. NETANYAHU: Well, perhaps I'll say in what sense it is. I think they've been trying, as we have tried, to hope that Lebanon would be free of foreign forces, that Lebanon would resume its independence. And that is something that they adhered to, and of course we support that goal.

Mr. BROWN: I think you've got two policies going on in Lebanon on the part of the United States. One is peace and security for Lebanon -- that's one policy. And the other policy is support for a strong central government which can -- which is very pro-Western and can work with Israel and maintain the May 17 agreement. And I think these two tend to clash.

WOODRUFF: All right. On that note we will have to say goodnight to both of you. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Brown, Mr. Netanyahu. Robin?

MacNEIL: In Moscow, the new leader of the Soviet Communist Party met the leaders of Cuba and Nicaragua today and joined them in denouncing American policy in Central America. Konstantin Chernenko received Fidel Castro of Cuba and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua in the Kremlin. Later Tass, the Soviet news agency, said all three agreed that Washington is whipping up tension in Central America, meddling in the internal affairs of those countries, and trying to impose its will upon them. This was intepreted as meaning the Soviet Union under Chernenko will carry on the previous policy of support for Castro, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and their protegees in theregion. Nevertheless, Vice President Bush said in Rome today that his meeting with Chernenko yesterday produced a certain sense of optimism on improving East-West relations. The Vice President talked about Chernenko at a news conference after he visited Pope John Paul II at the Vatican. John Hale of Visnews reports.

JOHN HALE, Visnews [voice-over]: Most such papal audiences, even for visiting heads of state, last only 30 minutes. So it was significant that Mr. Bush was with the Pontiff for a full hour. He brought a letter from President Reagan to the Pope, who's known to be deeply anxious about the deteriorating situation in the Lebanon, where the American-backed government of President Gemayel has floundered from one crisis to the next. Mr. Bush said he found the Pope articulate and persuasive on a number of ways to reduce world tension and on nuclear disarmament. At his press conference afterward, Mr. Bush told reporters he'd found the new Soviet leader, Mr. Chernenko, ready to welcome what he called a more constructive approach to future relations between the two countries. Lebanon and nuclear disarmament were almost certainly top of the agenda in Moscow, too.

Vice Pres. GEORGE BUSH: I think we would be naive if we suggested out of this one change that the whole system was going to change. I have seen no evidence, nor do I know of anyone who watches the situation that looks for a dramatic change in how the whole Soviet system works. But he gave me the impression of a man who we all know the background of, but who has the potential to be a strong leader.

WOODRUFF: A few hours after Vice President Bush's party left Rome, gunmen shot and killed the American director of a multinational force that patrols Egypt's Sinai region. He was Leamon R. Hunt, a 56-year-old former diplomat. His car was ambushed while he was being driven home from work. An anonymous caller said a group called the Fighting Communist Party was responsible for the attack. It has been described as linked to the Red Brigade terrorist group.

Iranian military planes bombed three towns in Iraq today, and Iraqi sources said later that 17 people had been killed and more than 50 wounded. Most of the casualties came in the raid on the town of Misan, 250 miles south of the capital of Baghdad, where an Iraqi military communique said that 14 people, including women and children, had been killed. For its part, Iraqi sources claimed that they had not attacked any Iranian towns in more than 24 hours in compliance with a government request. Ironically, today the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a rare public condemnation of both countries for endangering thousands of lives in their three-and-a-half-year-old war. Asbestos in the Schools

[Video postcard -- Irons Fora, Arkansas]

WOODRUFF: The Justice Department announced today that it will file suit, if necessary, to stop a proposed merger that would create the nation's second-largest steelmaking company. The announcement affects plans by the LTV Corportation, which owns Jones & Laughlin Steel, the nation's third-largest steelmaker, to merge with Republic Steel, the nation's fourth largest. U.S. Steel is number one. Assistant Attorney General Paul McGrath explained the government's position at a news conference this morning.

J. PAUL McGRATH, Assistant Attorney General: The combination of these two companies, of LTV and Republic, would result in such concentration in the industry that it would fit within the merger guidelines that the department promulgated two years ago. And the purpose of the merger guideline was to try to isolate those kinds of mergers that would create such additional concentration that they would create a risk of increased prices through collusion. Now, we also, however, recognize, and I certainly recognize, that the steel industry needs help, that it has today a very difficult time competing in the world market, that restructuring of the industry is undoubtedly going to continue and is undoubtedly necessary.

WOODRUFF: The antitrust chief said government opposition to the merger might change if the company submitted a new modified proposal to the Justice Department.

In other economic news, the nation's overall industrial production made a healthy bounce upward in January. The government reported today that production rose 1.1%, the biggest rise since last September, and the 14th monthly increase in a row. Economists at the Federal Reserve said the biggest factors were upsurges in the production of cars and building supplies. Cars were being assembled at a rate of more than eight million a year, and the production of building supplies was up 1 1/2%.

Robin?

MacNEIL: Earlier this month, an official of the Environmental Protection Agency said that his agency had not done enough to protect millions of children from a hazard they face almost every day, asbestos in the schools. Deputy administrator Alvin Alm said an internal report of the EPA's asbestos program showed it was inadequate to deal with the scope of the problem. An estimated three and a half million children and another half a million adults are believed to be exposed in classrooms to the material, which is a known carcinogen. The EPA says the majority of schools in the country have failed to comply with the requirement to inspect for dangerous asbestos, and few have done anything to clean it up. For a look at the scope of the asbestos hazard, we start with a report narrated by Bill Hanley of public television station KTCA in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Dr. CHARLES DRAGE, St. Paul-Ramsey Medical Center: This is a normal chest X-ray and these are the ribs we're seeing here, and the lung fields appear somewhat black.

BILL HANLEY [voice-over]: Dr. Charles Drage is a lung specialist at St. Paul-Ramsey Hospital.

Dr. DRAGE: And I want to compare this to a case of advanced asbestosis, and on this you can see the, what we call an infiltrate, appears white material. This is scarring, or fibrosis, in the lung. This white represents a tumor, mesothelioma.

HANLEY [voice-over]: We've known since the mid-1930s that asbestos workers were suffering lung damage. But it wasn't until the 1970s that cancer was linked conclusively with asbestos exposure.And it wasn't just the workers who were getting cancer: other members of their families were coming down with mesothelioma, presumably from being exposed to the fibers carried home on the workers' clothes. These findings have led to a concern that even very low levels of asbestos can be dangerous.

Dr. DRAGE: As far as I'm concerned as a clinician, there probably is no totally safe level for asbestos exposure, because it's an accumulative effect, and if you're exposed to a low does over 20, 25 years, you still may suffer some of the consequences of exposure. So I think the best tolerable dose level is a zero does level.

HANLEY [voice-over]: But unfortunately asbestos is everywhere. It's a mineral, mined in South Africa, Canada and Finland. It was used widely between World War II and the early 1970s, when it was banned for use in general construction. It was used around pipes and boilers for insulation and fireproofing. It was sprayed on walls and ceilings for soundproofing. And it was even used in consumer products like hair dryers and cosmetics. It is not dangerous unless it is crumbling and exposed, allowing fibers to get into the air.

On Sunday, January 15th, the Andrews Hotel in downtown Minneapolis was demolished. For most of us watching the news that evening, it was just a curiosity. But anybody knowledgeable about asbestos had a different reaction.

Dr. DRAGE: And I was just thinking about that when they showed that on television, this huge cloud of dust sort of swirling toward you -- how much of that contained asbestos particles. If you get a whiff of that, it could be quite a few.

HANLEY [voice-over]: So far, efforts to control asbestos exposure among the general population have focused on the schools. Just this month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited six Twin Cities schools for not complying with regulations requiring them to identify asbestos in their buildings and to notify parents of its presence.And experts say most districts aren't moving aggressively enough.

BRUCE BOMIER, president, Minnesota Institute of Public Health: There are some districts that have responded to it, but most haven't.

HANLEY [voice-over]: Bruce Bomier is president of the Minnesota Institute of Public Health, which has a contract to advise public schools on cleaning up their asbestos problems.

Mr. BOMIER: Those school buildings are sort of entombed. I mean the building that went on the '50s, '60s and '70s, where they loaded the place with asbestos -- those buildings, often the windows don't even open. I mean that environmental is encased. The places -- you go in there with an oxygen reader, you have a hard time getting oxygen at the end of the day. They're just -- they don't have atmosphere exchange. When you let loose a contaminant, something that's toxic, in that atmosphere, it just stays there.

HANLEY [voice-over]: Another cause for concern is that children may be more susceptible than adults.

Dr. JEFF STEVENS, University of Minnesota School of Public Health: An adult usually takes anywhere from 20 to 40 years for the cancer to develop. For some reason in children the disease can develop within five years. And we don't know why there's that time difference.

Mr. BOMIER: The issue relative to asbestos and cancer and public policy, it has -- it is not singularly focused on health. You know, none of it's safe, and the exposure can be toxic. And they argue about that. When EPA, you know, the federal government sits down to puzzle out what you should do for a safe level, they're not talking health. What they're talking about is what's reasonable in terms of cost, because the stuff is -- I mean, it's everywhere.

MacNEIL: So far, of the schools that have found an asbestos problem, only about one in five has a specific plan for doing anything about it. But many local officials say the federal Environmental Protection Agency hasn't given them any money or even much guidance to take corrective action, which some say could cost $1.4 billion nationwide. Clarksville, Tennessee, is one town that, like so many others, is wrestling with this problem. Correspondent Kwame Holman visited there recently.

KWAME HOLMAN: This is Barksdale Elementary School. Since August its doors have been locked, its classrooms empty. Closed not because of age or bad plumbing, but because of asbestos flaking from its ceilings.

[voice-over] In addition to the Barksdale school, where the situation was by far the worst, investigators found sprayed-on asbestos ceilings in six other Clarksville schools. The federal Environmental Protection Agency requires that school systems inform parents once asbestos is discovered in a school. Rachel Cottam[?] and her daughter Susan knew very little about asbestos until they learned of its presence in Susan's school, Barksdale Elementary.

RACHEL COTTAM: My daughter has asked me is asbestos going to do something to hurt me, to make me die. And I have tried to explain to her, that no, we don't think anybody will die, but that we have to be very careful and make certain that that never happens to any child in Clarksville. And I will have to say that perhaps I have many more fears than I expressed to her, but mothers do that.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Dr. Joseph Pedigo, a local pediatrician, also has a daughter who attended Barksdale.

Dr. JOSEPH PEDIGO, pediatrician and father: Our main concern, of course, is the public schools. As long as there's a presence of asbestos particles in the ceiling material in any public school in this community, then we've got a problem. And that's got to be removed.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: While it was clear that Barksdale parents favored immediate removal, the EPA has no provisions requiring schools to remove asbestos. It also provides no funding for removal. In Clarksville, that lack of firm direction and money from the federal government has resulted in conflicting opinions on how to handle the asbestos problem.

From the beginning, school superintendent Dr. William Abel and school board chairwoman Mary Nell Wooten[?] said asbestos was a serious problem demanding urgent attention. In August the school board set up an advisory panel to recommend ways of dealing with the problem. The panel concluded that Barksdale and selected areas of three other schools, including Clarksville High, should be closed. The panel also recommended that the asbestos in all seven schools be removed as soon as possible, and that professional contractors be hired to do the job. The total cost of the removal was estimated at more than $2 million, almost a tenth of the school district's annual budget.

Dr. WILLIAM ABEL, school superintendent: We've been very thorough. I think our board of education has actually gone the extra mile in order to try to recognize the problem and do something about the problem. I think people are going to have to own up, be responsible for the fact that, look, we've got a problem, it's going to cost us, but at the same time, if you go to the hospital and you need actually surgery, you don't try to dicker with the doctor and trade off something else in lieu of an operation when you really need it. That's what I really feel about it.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: But all along, the Montgomery County commissioners who fund the Clarksville and county schools said school officials were overreacting to the problems.

RICHARD ALLEN, county commissioner: The feedback I'm getting from my constituents about the asbestos problem is that it's a lot of hogwash. For the most part. A lot of nonsense about nothing. It's been in the school system for years; it hasn't really been a problem.The rank-and-file people don't see going into this kind of indebtedness to remove something which may or may not be real hazardous.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: In September the county commissioners set up their own panel of experts, who came up with a distinctly different set of conclusions. Its chairman was Richard Allen. The commissioner's panel recommended that the asbestos removal take place over a three-to-five-year period. To save money, they suggested it be done in house by school personnel at an estimated cost of less than $800,000.

JOEL PLUMMER, county executive: The board of commissioners are facing the situation realistically and with a common-sense approach. I feel like the school board has received some bad information, frankly. I think they've been sold a bill of goods. The commissioners are not going to give the school board a blank check. They're not going to do that. I feel like that they will appropriate the necessary funds to alleviate the problem.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: But Dr. Abel says the county commissioners' less expensive approach is not in the best interests of school children.

Dr. ABEL: The fact is that the whole purpose of a school system, of course, is to educate children in a healthful environment. But there's to such extent that when you have a known cancer-causing agent in the school and yet you still quarrel about how much does it cost, and foot dragging as a result of maybe you could take it out three to five years from now, and you don't want to pay for it now, because you don't want to have a tax increase or burden the people -- to me this doesn't make -- well, reasonable people don't think this way, I don't think.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: In October, after much debate, the commissioners agreed to allocate an initial $171,000 to the school board. The money was used to remove asbestos ceilings from Barksdale and the three other schools with closed-off areas. The removal took place over the Christmas vacation, but it amounted to only one tenth of the more than 400,000 square feet of asbestos ceilings in the Clarksville schools. And in spite of the commissioners' recommendation, the board hired a professional contractor to do the work.

Mr. ALLEN: But to answer your question as to whether or not they paid very much attention to our recommendation, I'd have to say that I don't believe they really did.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Last month the school board came back to the commissioners and requested $2.2 million to remove the remaining asbestos over the summer. The request was voted down 22 to nothing, with one abstention. Currently the school board and commissioners are seeking to resolve their financial differences, but still remain far apart. While Clarksville struggles with its large asbestos problem, one parent wonders if there might be a better way.

Dr. PEDIGO: There's no nationwide program to educate the entire country on the severity of this problem. And we've got a lot of local communities tackling this major problem head on all by themselves, and I think we do have some help from the EPA, but maybe not as much as we deserve.

MacNEIL: The EPA now says it is considering taking more aggressive action on the asbestos danger. One option would be to require schools outright to remove or seal up the exposed asbestos. A final decision may be months away. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Democratic frontrunner Walter Mondale has more to worry about than just the seven others vying for his party's presidential nomination. The National Conservative Political Action Committee, known as NCPAC, said today that it is launching a $2 million television, radio and newspaper campaign attacking Mondale.The ads are aimed at the former Vice President and at the press. NCPAC charges that journalists have given too much coverage to Mondale's criticisms of the Reagan administration. Meanwhile, another conservative organization, the National Right to Work Committee, announced in Washington that it will start checking up on labor's support for the Mondale campaign. The predominantly antiunion group says that it will hire private detectives to infiltrate organized labor's political operation. They will be checking to see if labor activities in support of Mondale violate federal election law. A spokesman for the AFL-CIO defended union political activities, saying that they are within the spirit and the letter of federal rules.

Robin? Consumer Bank Fees

MacNEIL: Our next major story tonight comes from our economics beat and concerns fees charged by banks to consumers. These include charges on checking and savings accounts, credit cards and other basic customer services. Criticism of these charges has been growing among consumer groups as well as state and federal officials, who claim that bank fees are excessive. They cite examples like these. The San Francisco-based Bank of America, the nation's largest bank, currently charges $10 for a bounced check. For monthly checkbook services Manufacturers Hanover Trust charges $8 a month and 50 cents a check. And Chemical Bank charges its customers $6 if their savings accounts dip below the $500 minimum balance. The debate over bank fees has intensified in recent weeks because of a new ruling by the controller of the currency. It prohibits states from limiting fees charged by national banks. Judy Woodruff has more.

Judy?

WOODRUFF: For more on this issue, we have two distinctly different views. Alan Morrison, a lawyer who heads the Public Citizen Litigation Group, a nonprofit consumer-oriented law firm based in Washington, feels that bank fees are excessive. That point is challenged by Jim Cairns, president-elect of the American Bankers Association, a trade group which represents nearly 13,000 banks nationwide. Mr. Cairns is also president of People's National Bank of Washington, located in Seattle.

Mr. Morrison, what kind of bank fees are you saying are excessive?

ALAN MORRISON: Well, almost the whole range of bank fees runs into this problem. One of the principal areas is the bounced check, charges for each check that's used, charges for all kinds of things that banks have are getting up there, and what I'm really worried about is now that the controller of the currency has given the green light, there'll be no stopping the banks from charging whatever they want, knowing that the states can't do anything about it.

WOODRUFF: Well, what are you saying is excessive? I mean the banks do -- there is a certain amount of cost involved in taking care of a bounced check, right?

Mr. MORRISON: There's a lawsuit going on in California now in which the allegations are that it costs about 30 cents a check for every bounced check, and the banks are charging somewhere in the vicinity of $10 or $12. That seems to us to be excessive.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Cairns?

JIM CAIRNS: Well, I'm not familiar with this charge of 30 cents for a check. But perhaps it would aid in the discussion if we would kind of follow what happens to a check when it first comes into the bank in order to be bounced at some point. There has to be a building for someone to come into, a teller to take the check. Once the check has been cashed, and that means money's been given out, then it has to be encoded, sent through computers, transmitted by couriers to usually the Federal Reserve or some other bank, then sent to the bank where the check was drawn. And then if that check is NSF -- not sufficient funds in that account -- the whole process has to be reversed, which is very expensive. The difference being, of course, that when the checks went out, there were many of them, because they came in and went with batches, and coming back there are one or two or a few at a time. So it's a very expensive process, and I don't think 30 cents even begins to cover the cost.

WOODRUFF: But the price that bank customers are being charged has gone up a good deal, hasn't it, in the last few years?

Mr. CAIRNS: Yes, I think it's true that the charges for checks bouncing as well as other bank charges have gone up, but then so have the banks' cost in doing much of this work. Banks are subject to the same inflationary pressures as everybody else in business is, and in addition to that, in the last few years we've seen deregulation bring a substantial new cost to banks. You know, it was only as recent as 1979 when 48% of the deposits in banks were below money market rates, and now that figure has declined to only 29%, so banks have had a lot of increase in costs.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Morrison?

Mr. MORRISON: One of the other problems that the banks never mention is that the consumer doesn't really have much choice in the matter. Most of the time when banks change their charge, or indeed, the original charges they they impose, the consumer doesn't know anything about it. The next time you'll find out that the charge for a bounced check has gone up is when you get your monthly statement and you see on there, the bank that I bank at in Washington, the check [sic] is now $18 for a bounced check. And the first time I heard about that, from what it was originally, which was $5, was when I got my statement. It seems to me that the banks have got to tell consumers that what they're really trying to do is say, look, let the competition do it. We need disclosure, and we don't have any of that right now; the banks just do it unilaterally.

WOODRUFF: That sounds reasonable, Mr. Cairns, doesn't it?

Mr. CAIRNS: Well, I think banks are trying to disclose, I believe they should disclose what their charges are before people open up accounts or before the charges are assessed. But I think that also you must recognize that there are about 14,700 banks in the country, about 55,000 offices of banks, and so there's plenty of banks out there for consumers to choose from. And all banks, I think, or many banks, are disclosing properly.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Morrison, what would you say is a reasonable fee for a bank to charge?

Mr. MORRISON: Well, I don't think we could really get into that here because it depends on the costs of the bank. What we're saying is that what the federal government is now trying to do -- and ironically it's the Reagan administration which supposedly is against the federal government taking charge and in favor of letting the states take charge -- this administration is now saying we don't care what a reasonable charge is, the bank can charge anything it wants and let competition do it. People don't shop around for banks depending on what their overcharges are. When you bounce a check, it's a surprise, it's not an expected transaction like interest on a loan or something like that. So we don't think that there can be any kind of fairness until we get some of these charges under some kind of control.

WOODRUFF: And how do you propose to do that?

Mr. MORRISON: Well, one of the ways that's going on is that state regulatory authorities can maintain some control. State courts have doctrines such as unconscionability -- that is, when the charges get so far out of line, we think that those are proper means of enforcing it. We don't think the federal government has to enforce it, but we don't think that the federal government should turn the banks loose to do whatever they want.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Cairns, what's wrong with putting some limits on what banks can charge?

Mr. CAIRNS: Well, again, we have many banks out there, and it seems that each bank has a different cost structure, too. I forgot to mention earlier in tracing that check that, let's take, for example, a government check that someone comes in to cash, and let's say it's not a customer. That check, if the person who presented it doesn't happen to be the one who it was made out to -- in other words, it's a forged signature -- the bank later, as much as six years later, can be charged the full amount of that check by the Treasury. So my point is that banks have different costs depending on what their market penetrations are, what kind of customers they're serving, what the needs are of that particular community, and I think to try and have some overall guidelines that are restrictive and impose ceilings on banks would be totally inappropriate.

WOODRUFF: So you don't acknowledge that anywhere that banks are charging excessive fees, is that -- am I understanding you correctly?

Mr. CAIRNS: I think, as I say, that banks have various costs depending on what their markets are, and if a bank is out of line, there are plenty of other choices in the marketplace for a consumer to go to and thus change where they do their business.

WOODRUFF: What about that, Mr. Morrison? You can take your money out of a bank and go to another one.

Mr. MORRISON: Sure you can. But you've already got the checks, which the bank was kindly enough to print it up for you, at a charge; you've been doing business with that bank for a while. People don't make a big change like that unless the charges are totally out of line, and the banks know that. They nickel, dime and dollar you to death, and that adds up. And most people don't worry about it. It takes too much trouble to fight, to call up and protest. In fact, the educated person, the person with a sizable account who makes a mistake, that person can go to the bank and the bank will generally take off the charges. It's the lowerincome people, who don't understand that, who don't know how to deal with bankers, those are the ones who get hit and they can afford it the least.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Cairns, would you argue back that it really is up to the consumer to look out after his own interests, and if he doesn't like one bank he should move to another one?

Mr. CAIRNS: I certainly would.

Mr. MORRISON: Of course, most of them are all charging about the same thing. You don't shift banks because one charges $9 and the other charges $10 on an NSF account.That's just not realistic.

WOODRUFF: How much has it affected -- this federal regulation that states can't put a limit. How much has that worsened the situation in your view? You've referred to it, but --

Mr. MORRISON: Well, it hasn't really had much effect yet, for two reasons. It just went into effect in December, and there is considerable ferment, not only on the part of consumer groups but on the part of state banking officials, who are probably going to go into court and challenge the legality of it. I think that for the time being, the banks are going to be a little cautious. But if they get the green light, I think the sky's going to be the limit, and then we're in real trouble.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Cairns, wouldyou say bank fees are going to continue to increase, that we're just really seeing the beginning of a trend here?

Mr. CAIRNS: Well, I think the bank service charges have gone up in many areas as a result of the deregulation and the costs that banks have faced. But I also am aware, at least in my own marketplace in Seattle, Washington, there are many different pricing schedules available in the market, and I think the consumer has a wide choice of the charges and the services that they want to receive from a financial institution, available to them today.

Mr. MORRISON: And if you have a computer you can figure out which one is the cheapest.

WOODRUFF: All right. All right, thank you both. We'll be hearing more about this, I know. Mr. Morrison, Mr. Cairns, thank you for being with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again the main stories of the day. After another defeat for the Lebanese army, President Amin Gemayel is expected to revoke the withdrawal agreement that Lebanon made with Israel on May 17th. At the U.N., France called for the creation of an international force to replace American, French and Italian troops in Beirut.

Vice President Bush met the Pope, and it is believed they talked about the problems of peace in Lebanon.

An American official of the Sinai peacekeeping force was assassinated in Rome.

And in Washington, the Justice Department said no to a proposal to merge LTV Corporation with Republic Steel.

Ethel Merman, one of the legendary figures of American show business, died today at the age of 75. Ms. Merman, whose brassy voice made her a Broadway institution for more than four decades, was found dead of natural causes in her Manhattan apartment. Ms. Merman was born in Queens, New York, and became a secretary after high school, but got local singing jobs to supplement her income. That led to a small movie part, nightclub acts, a spot at the Paramount Theater, and then her first Broadway role in the Gershwin musical Girl Crazy. She stopped the show with the number I've Got Rhythm. Her later hits included some of Broadway's great musicals, including Panama Hattie in 1940, Annie Get Your Gun in 1946, Call Me Madam in 1950, and the Sondheim musical Gypsy in 1959. In 1979 on the PBS special The Great Singers, Ethel Merman described how she got her big break with George Gershwin.

ETHEL MERMAN: I was working in a theater in Brooklyn, New York, called the Brooklyn Paramount Theater. It was a -- [applause] Brooklynites! Well, it was a stage presentation house. By that I mean that the feature film was shown about six or seven times a day, and in between the showings of the feature film there was a stage show. And I was a young gal singer in that stage show. And I thought I was pretty good. Well, anyhow, at that time they were casting for a show called Girl Crazy. Miss Ginger Rogers had already been signed as the star of the show. A man by the name of Vinton Freedley was producing it. Mr. George Gershwin was writing the music, his brother Ira writing the lyrics. Well, the talk about this gal singer got around, and one day, unbeknownst to me, Mr. Freedley came over to the Brooklyn Paramount, and as we say in our profession, he caught my act. Well, I guess he thought I was pretty good too, because the next thing I knew he had contacted my agent; my agent and I and Mr. Freedley went up to see Mr. Gershwin. Mr. Gershwin lived at Riverside Drive and 74th Street, overlooking the Hudson River. And not only was I in awe of meeting the great George Gershwin, I was in awe of the apartment building, because I had never seen anything as tall as that, 'cause I was a young gal living in Astoria, Long Island, with my parents, where I was born. Anyhow, up we go to this beautiful roof garden. George Gershwin had one side of it and his brother Ira had the other side. They had the whole thing all sewed up, all to themselves. And we're ushered into this beautiful living room, and after a little conversation with Mr. Gershwin, he sat down at the piano and he played three songs which I eventually wound up singing in the show because fortunately I got the part. But the point I'm trying to make is this, ladies and gentlemen, that here was this great man, this great genius, humble man, and me a complete unknown at the time. He said something to me which I will never forget as long as I live. He said, "Miss Merman, if there's anything about these songs that you don't like, I'll be most happy to change them." And you know, you never change a note in a Gershwin tune. Well, anyhow, this next song I'm going to sing for you is one of the songs that he played. And this is the song that really put me on the map.

[Ethel Merman singing "I've Got Rhythm"]

MacNEIL: Composer Irving Berlin once said this about Ethel Merman: "You can give her a bad song and she'll make it sound good. Give her a good song and she'll make it sound great.And you'd better write her a good lyric. The guy in the last row of the second balcony is going to hear every syllable."

Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: She's one of a kind. Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight.I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.