The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. These are today's news headlines. A dormant volcano erupted in Colombia, killing many thousands. President Reagan prepared to address the nation tonight on the Geneva summit. Congress and the President agreed to postpone the debt ceiling crisis for one month. The cabinets of Britain and Ireland today approved a landmark agreement to ease tensions in Northern Ireland. Details of these stories coming up. Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: We have two focus segments and a newsmaker interview on the NewsHour tongiht. First, the Colombian volcano. A reporter whose been in contact with the devastated areas will be here. Then we continue our pre-summit coverage with a look at the arms control issue that will be on the table in Geneva. Next a Democrat's view of the summit: House Speaker Tip O'Neill joins us for a newsmaker interview. And finally an exclusive interview with the United States' foremost composer, Aaron Copland, on his 85th birthday.News Summary

MacNEIL: A volcano dormant for centuries erupted in Columbia today, killing possibly as many as 20,000 people. The peak, Nevada del Ruiz in the Andes northwest of Bogota had be reawakening with small tremors after being quiet for nearly four centuries. Suddenly it exploded before dawn, sending torrents of mud and melting snow to engulf the sleeping town of Armero with 50,000 inhabitants and three villages. The Colombian red Cross said rescue workers were talking about 20,000 dead.

Nevada del Ruiz, which means snow-peaked Ruiz, began belching out steam and ash on September 11th and keep on doing so almost continuously since then. The Colombians were preparing a disaster plan, but it was not ready in time. The heat from the erupting volcano melted the snow cap and sent cascades of water, mud and volcanic ash down into the valleys, burying a prosperous coffee-farming area with mud up to five yards deep. Some of the animals survived, but rescue workers had difficulty reaching the area because the roads were covered with mud and the bridges were washed out. At least 10,000 people were rescued. It was obvious that thousands of others could not have escaped, but it will be days before an accurate estimate of the death toll can be made. The American Embassy in Bogota provided an immediate grant of $25,000 for disaster relief, and 12 helicopters and fixed-wing planes were sent from Panama to help with the search and rescue efforts. It could be the worst volcanic disaster since 1883, when the eruption of Mount Krakatoa in Indonesia took 36,000 lives. Judy?

WOODRUFF: The Reagan administration continued today to play the expectations game on next week's summit meeting with Soviet leader Gorbachev. Aides put out the word that the President would announce in his nationwide TV address tonight that the U.S. and the Soviet Union are close to a new agreement on educational, scientific and cultural exchanges. Mr. Reagan is also expected to outline his hopes for the summit in the speech scheduled for 8:00 Eastern time. But Secretary of State Shultz told reporters today the two sides are still far apart on ways to curb the nuclear arms race.

GEORGE SCHULTZ, Secretary of State: There will be some things that -- of a significant but not major sort that will be agreed on. We know that. On the other hand, the main point of the meetings is to have a good, thorough exchange between the heads of these two great countries, and that will take place. And we can hope, perhaps even expect, that it'll be a fruitful exchange and worthy of continuance.

WOODRUFF: The President will be able to go to Geneva without a government back home in default. Thanks to an agreement finally reached today between the House and the Senate, the U.S. Treasury has congressional permission to borrow enough money to pay its bills between now and December 6th. It's the latest in a series of temporary maneuvers to keep the government financially afloat while both houses continue to try to reach agreement on a measure to force a balanced budget by 1991.

MacNEIL: In other economic and business news today, retail sales dropped a record 3.3 in October, a decline the Commerce Department attributed to a big drop in car sales. Auto sales fell a record 14.6 after manufacturers ended incentive schemes.

The White House said President Reagan is almost certain to veto the bill passed by the Senate yesterday to limit textile imports. The administration has critizcized the bill and a similar one already passed by the House as protectionist.

The Federal Communictions Commission today approved two huge broadcast mergers: the takeover of ABC by Capital Cities Communications and of Metromedia Broadcasting by publisher Rupert Murdoch. The mergers involve the transfer of operating licences of 32 broadcast stations.

WOODRUFF: The government gave its permission today for the first deliberate release into the natural environment of a genetically engineered organism. The substance is a pesticide that when sprayed on plant leaves protects them from frost. It is made out of a form of bacteria that a company in California makes by splicing genes, the building blocks of living matter. The Environmental Protection Agency said it believes the experiment is very unlikely to pose unreasonable hazards to man or the environment.

MacNEIL: The federal government's Public Health Service said today that no new special restrictions are needed to prevent the spread of AIDS disease among food service and other workers having personalcontact with patients. Unveiling new guidelines, Dr. James Mason, the assistant secretary of health and human services, and director of the Centers for Disease Control, also said there was no need for broad screening programs in other work environments.

Dr. JAMES MASON, Department of Health and Human Services: AIDS is not spread by the kind of nonsexual person-to-person contact that occurs among workers, clients and consumers in such settings as offices, schools, factories and construction sites. Workers known to be infected with the AIDS virus should not be restricted from work on this account, nor should they be restricted from using telephones, office equipment, toilets, showers, eating facilities and water fountains. We ask you help in dispelling unwarranted public fears by continuing to emphasize that AIDS is not easy to catch and is not spread by casual contact.

WOODRUFF: Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger went to Captiol Hill today to do some defending of his own. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee the Pentagon does not need the sort of sweeping overhaul some have suggested. He rejected proposals to revise the organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He told the committee that the advice he gets from the top military officers is "timely," accurate, competent and innovative." The Joint Chiefs have come under increasing criticism from congressmen and former officers who say the current system is unwieldy.

MacNEIL: The first man to receive the new Penn State artificial heart, Anthony Mandia, died this afternoon. After temporarily being kept alive with the mechanical heart, 44-year-old Mandia received a human heart transplant 18 days ago. His death followed overwhelming infection which cause organ systems to fail.

In Malden, West Virginia, 4,000 homes and five schools were evacuated because of a chemical leak. Liquid bromine began leaking from a tank at the J.Q. Dickinson plant yesterday. The people were evacuated today as a precaution while the chemical was transferred to a truck for removal.

WOODRUFF: Britain and the Republic of Ireland today announced that they have reached a political agreement about Northern Ireland, the predominately Protestant province controlled by Britain. The power-sharing agreement, which gives Dublin a say but retains final decision-making power in London, will be formally outlined tomorrow, when British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher meets Irish Prime Minister Garret FitzGerald.

And in the Philippines today, the Marcos government and opposition politicians decided to push the date of the upcoming presidential election back until early February. Opposition forces had complained that the original mid-January date was too soon for them to get organized.

MacNEIL: In Beirut, a British negotiator said he had contacted the captors of four American hostages, but he appealed to the media to keep away from him. Terry Waite, an envoy of the Archbishop of Canterbury, told reporters, "Progress is being made and we are moving forward." But he added, pleasding to the press to stay off his trail, "A wrong move and people could lose their lives."

In Israel, the crisis threatening to bring down the government appeared over tonight, after right-wing cabinet minister Ariel Sharon withdrew accusations against Prime Minister Peres. Peres had threatened to dismiss Sharon if he didn't withdraw, and the dismissal would have destroyed the coalition cabinet.

WOODRUFF: Coming up on the NewsHour, a reporter who's been in contact with the devastated sections of Colombia; a pre-summit peek at the arms controlissues on next week's agenda; House Speaker Tip O'Neill gives his own summit expectations; and an exclusive interview with America's uncommon man of music, Aaron Copland. Colombia: Details of Disaster

MacNEIL: Our first focus tonight is the terrible results of the volcano eruption in Colombia, where authorities are saying as many as 20,000 people may have died. The Washington correspondent of Colombian RadiofiTelevision, Marino Perez Murcia, has been in touch all day by radio and telephone and is here to give us the latest.

Mr. Perez, the interntional wire services are saying that as many as 20,000 may be dea. Are such estimates still credible this evening?

MARINO PEREZ MURCIA: That's true, and we expect that the number will rise very high, even can reach 50,000 dead, according to the last news that I got from Bogota.

MacNEIL: Fifty thousand?

Mr. PEREZ: That can be very possible because Armero, which is the city more affected by the load, have 21,000 people -- the population of that town. and the area that surround Armero also have 24,000 more people. That is over 45,000 just in that town.

MacNEIL: And that's just on one side of the mountain.

Mr. PEREZ: That's on one side. That town is completely disappeared, according to one pilot hat was flying a helicopter this afternoon, abour 4:00 this afternoon, that they can see more clearly the panorama because was heavy rain in the area of Armero. There is another town, which is Chinchina, that have over 2,000 people dead.

MacNEIL: Two thousand dead there.

Mr. PEREZ: Two thousand more. So we expect that the number can reach about 50,000.

MacNEIL: There we see on our map Armero, which is to the east of the volcano, and Chinchina, which is just ot the west of it. Now, I see (audio interruption)

Mr. PEREZ: [TEXT OMITTED FROM SOURCE] but we can see in the afternoon they have some survivors, and most of them have been taken to Bogota. About 50 injuries arrived to Bogota about 10 minutes ago, according to the last report that I received RCN, the Radio Colombia.

MacNEIL: Only 50.

Mr. PEREZ: Just 50 injuries, right, arrived 10 minutes ago to Bogota. That is the laste news that we have from Bogota about this disaster in Colombia.

MacNEIL: So to sum up what you've been saying, it is conceivable because of just the arithmetic of who lived in these towns that have been destroyed or partially destroyed, as many as 50,000 people, the reports are saying, might conceivably be dead.

Mr. PEREZ: That is correct because there are so many village around the town of Armero and the other cities that we mentioned here, like Casabiana, Lerida, Libano, Marilio, Mariquita, Orinocorte, Tierradentro, Fria, San Fernando, Sala Candellema, El Dorado. It's about 13 towns that are on the trail of this tragedy.

MacNEIL: Describe this area to us. We know that it's a coffee-growing area. Is it a very remote area, or is it one that Colombians know about and go to frequently? Is it a resort area?

Mr. PEREZ: Yes, it's a very popular area. This is north of the Departamento deel Tolima, and is about 170 kilometers south of Bogota, so this is an area that many people are close by or living there.

MacNEIL: And it's a place people could get to for a a long weekend from the capital and things like that?

Mr. PEREZ: That's correct.

MacNEIL: Now, the U.S. Geological Service, which has been assisting the Colombian government ever since the first new tremors began in September, say that there was an evacuation and disaster plan being worked out. Why was it not in effect?

Mr. PEREZ: The weather is one of the major problems that this region is facing right now. It's very heavy rain. Too much ash in the sky, and smog, and there is the only way that can help the survivors by air, because there is no way to go by road -- only one road is going from Ibague, which is the capital city of the Departamento el Tolima, and that is very complicated to follow, because everyone that have families in Armero are willing to go over there , by bicycle, motor bike, and particularly cars, so they are somehow giving more troubles to the emergency group that tried to help them.

MacNEIL: So you're saying that between the bad roads and the heavy rain and the ash in the atmosphere, that rescue efforts from the outside are going to be severely hampered.

Mr. PEREZ: Very much.

MacNEIL: Now, come back to my question about why this plan, disaster plan to evacuate people when the volcano explosion was threatened and known even by the experts -- why had that not been put into effect already?

Mr. PEREZ: I believe that they don't took that very seriously. On the other hand, Colombia has been facing many other problems that was -- and needed to be fixed right away, like the problems with the guerrillas in Bogota, and all these circumstances keep away that situation in Nevada del Ruiz, which many people did complain from two or three months ago that something wrong was going on in that particular area. But the people just believed that something was going on, but they don't expect this much tragedy.

MacNEIL: This mountain, volcano, last exploded, I read today, in 1595, the very early colonial days for South America. Is it part of the folklore of Colombia, that mountain? Is is something that children grow up knowing about?

Mr. PEREZ: Yes, Nevada del Ruiz is a very popular place and is a big attraction for tourists. It's the only place in Colombia where one can ski there -- the only place where we have snow. And there is a great attraction, and many people go to Manizales and they go to the mountains, to the hills, and try to enjoy the snow there.

MacNEIL: Has your government yet been able to ascertain what kind of help from the outside is needed?

Mr. PEREZ: Well, now there are a very heavy need of blood, flashlight, ropes, helicopters, medicines, food, blankets, and other instruments, tools, in order to open the broken roads and try to build the new bridges for a -- go to the places where the people are still without help.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Perez, thank you very much for joining us.

Mr. PEREZ: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Judy?

WOODRUFF: Still ahead on the NewsHour, a look at the arms control issues Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev will be talking about; House Speaker Tip O'Neill shares his summit expectations; and an exclusive interview with Aaron Copeland on his 85th birthday. Road to the Summit: Arms Control

MacNEIL: Tonight we continue our series of special reports leading up to the summit conference in Geneva next week. Jim Lehrer's background report tonight examines the issue that's been considered central to the Reagan-Gorbachev talks, and that is arms control.

LEHRER [voice-over]: The Defense Department activates a unified space command in Colorado, headquarters for American's military programs in space. Three days later the Soviet foreign minister gives President Reagan a new proposal for arms control, and one month later, outlines it at the United Nations.

EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE, Soviet Foreign Minister [through interpreter, October 24, 1985]: The Soviet Union has countred the concept of Star Wars with the concept of Star Peace, an everlasting peace on earth.

LEHRER [voice-over]: The two superpowers are seemingly trying to outdo each other in a war of words proclaiming their desire for peaceful relations.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN [October 24, 1985]: I come before you this morning proccupied with peace, with ensuring that the differences between some of us not be permitted to degenerate into open conflict and I come offering from my own country a new commitment, a fresh start.

WILLIAM HYLAND, Foreign Affairs magazine: Both sides have had to face up to the fact that they cannot evade arms control. In the first few years Reagan was not eager to get back into talks. Then the Russians walked out and came back. I think it's simply become a fact of life for the superpowers that they're expected to address arms control.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Since the Reagan administration came into office, arms control has been a dicey proposition. It's that way because of internal divisions in the Reagan cabinet. Defense Secretary Weinberger and Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle are wary of arms treaties signed with the Soviets. On the other side are Secretary of State George Shultz and chief arms advisor Paul Nitze. They think the U.S. can be tough and still get a deal. Ambassador Seymour Weiss sits on an arms control advisory group for the State Department.

Amb. SEYMOUR WEISS, former Assistant Secretary of State: You know, there was really a big fight in the administration before Reagan made his U.N. speech as to whether he should simply talk about arms control or whether he should talk about the range of issues which separate us from the Soviet Union. He decided to take the latter pick. But what was significiant about that was that there was one group of people who were sort of talking in terms of, well, you know, sort of a technical problem -- if we can just get a better negotiating position, work out these details on this arms or that arms, we can get an agreement. Others were saying, he, you know, what you're really facing is a nation that represents an adversary that has avowed purposes to do us in, and unless we can get some resolution of the fundamental issues that separate the two of us, arms control isn't going to go anywhere.

LEHRER [voice-over]: The President's U.N. speech did emphasize those other issues, but with the first summit in six years approaching, and nuclear arsenals reaching the tens of thousands, arms control kept the attention of both governments. Marshall Shulman was an advisor on Soviet affairs to President Jimmy Carter.

MARSHALL SHULMAN, Columbia University: Both the United States and the Soviet Union are concerned about public opinion in other countries and in their own countries. But it is a mistake, I think, to look at this just as a public relations game. The substantive side of it, the issues that are going to be negotiated, particularly about the future of the military competition, are really the thing to keep your eye on.

DEMONSTRATOR: Freeze it, don't just numb it, end the arms race at the summit.

Gen. RUSSELL DOUGHERTY, USAF (ret): These defense issues are very subject to being rendered the subject of bumper sticker slogans, and they've got just about that much depth.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Russell Dougherty is a retired Air Force general who once headed the Strategic Air Command. He likens the superpower competition to a basketball game.

Gen. DOUGHERTY: If tonight the National Basketball Association, the Phoenix Suns and the Washington Capitals get out there, and one has 109 points and the other has 110 points, they've both got a lot of points; why don't you quit? Well, if you're the Washington Capitals with 110 you're ready to quit; but if you're the Phoenix Suns with 109, you know, you're not interested in quitting at all. So I think that that is not absurd. It's not how many you've got: it's who's got the edge, who controls the balance.

LEHRER [voice-over]: But figuring out who's got the edge is the tricky part in arms control. Ted Warner, a senior defense analyst at the Rand Corporation, explained it all to producer June Cross.

TED WARNER, Rand Corporation: Both sides have really three different elements. They have intercontinental-range ballistic missiles, based on land; they have submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and they have heavy bombers. Now the Soviets have an arsenal that has by my calculations abround 9,700 weapons carried on those three elements. Now, the manner in which they're distributed are as follows. About 6,400 are carried on silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. They have around 2,700 weapons carried on submarines. Finally the remainder of their force, around 700 or so, is carried on their bomber force.

JUNE CROSS: Well, when we look at their total arsenal, is there like one element that we're primarily concerned --

Mr. WARNER: We have most certainly been most concerned with the issue of the capability of their ICBM force. Our arsenal is considerably more balanced among the three elements. In our ICBM force we have around 2,100 weapons, primarily on the Minuteman silo-based ICBM. We have around 5,800 weapons carried on submarines. Our submarines tend to be quieter, and we have our miltiple warheads on more of our submarine-based missiles. So you see, where they only have 2,700 weapons on subs, we have around 5,800. Finally our bomber force. Our bomber of B-52s is around 270 and they carry around 3,300 weapons. In a sense, we are challenging them to maintain the survivability of their force in the face of improvements in all three elements of the so-called triad in strategic attack forces.

LEHRER[voice-over]: Last September the Soviets proposed to cut the number of warheads in half, to 6,000. It was not a proposal recevied happily by the Reagan administration and its advisors.

Amb. WEISS: They left out some of their forces while including some of ours. The effect of the proposal would have left them with very larg warheads on their large missiles, while we would not have a comparable capability. And that means that these large warheads, together with the accuracies that they can achieve, can destroy a large part of our nuclear forces in a first strike.

Mr. WARNER: They also proposed a so-called force concentration rule. No more than 60 of the 6,000 could be carried on a single element. Under this new proposal with its two tiers, 6,000fi3,000, the most reasonable Soviet force structures within such limits will pull their throw weight down to between two and a half and three million kilograms of throw weight. That is, down by a factor of half or a little bit more.

LEHRER [voice-over]: This preoccupation with numbers is what Henry Kissinger thinks is the problem with the arms control process. He says it's complicated things beyond all reason.

HENRY KISSINGER, former Secretary of State: The thing that worries me is, even if you get a 50 cut and even if you take all the hooks out of it, at the end of it we will still have three times as many warheads as Kennedy had at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. You know, in the 19th centruy there was a diplomatic issue called the Schleswig-Holstein crisis, about which Lord Thomas, the British foreign secretary, said, only three people had ever understood it. One was dead, the second was in a lunatic asylum, and he was the third and he had forgotten it. That is the case with these numbers. You can make them prove almost anything. So what I would like to see is a serious examination of the problem of what combination of forces reduces the incentive for nuclear war to the vanishing point or to a minimum?

LEHRER [voice-over]: President Reagan is seeking to reduce the incentive for nuclear war by introducing the concept of space-based defense known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars. And in an effort to garner support for it, supporters of the idea have nicknamed it the Peace Shield and they've been running advertisements for it on national television.

CHILD [advertisement]: Then nobody could win a war, and if nobody could win a war, there's no reason to start one.

LEHRER [voice-over]: The ad makes a complex idea look simple, but the whole space-based concept is surrounded in controversy over its technical feasibility and its effect on the outcome of the arms talks. Proponents of the idea, like Seymour Weiss, say the specter of strategic defenses is what's gotten the Soviets back to the table.

Amb. WEISS: After all, they left the arms control negotiations, they walked out, didn't they, a couple ofyears ago. Now, what is it that drove them back? I think it was their concern that we were in fact going to take actions under the Strategic Defense Initative which they didn't like, which would reverse this enormous advantage that they built up by deploying all of those ballastic missiles.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Marshall Shulman says there's another reason the Soviets are afraid of space-based defense.

Prof. SHULMAN: What it is likely to do is produce a lot of very interesting and usable systems that may have offensive capabilities on the way.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Former negotiator Gerard Smith says he fears the administration's insistence on space defense will derail the talks.

Amb. GERARD SMITH, SALT I negotiator: I've never heard another country say, "No, no, no" so hard as the Soviets are saying, and we're saying, "Yes, yes, yes." That seems to me a blueprint for a a jam, not a negotiation.

LEHRER [voice-over]: What worries experts like Smith is not just the difficulty of negotiating the strategic defense concept, but the fact that doing so means rewriting the antiballastic missile treaty, a treaty signed by President Richard Nixon and Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev in 1972, and considered by pros to one of the 10 commandments of arms control.

Amb. SMITH: It says thou shalt not deploy space-based systems, which would have to be exotic systems, so-called -- futuristics. We discussed this at length with the Soviets; they were in favor of defenses, in the late '60's. And we argued with them and said defenses are bad things. And in SALT I they apprently were persuaded that they were not good, they were destabilizing. Now 13 years later, we're saying, "Gosh, we must have been wrong. They're good, they're not bad, and let's go ahead and build a lot of them."

LEHRER [voice-over]: The chief obstacle facing the administration is finding a way to cut the numbers and quality of strategic offensive missiles while gradually phasing in strategic defenses. In an interview with this program last winter, the administration's chief advisor on the issues, Paul Nitze, said he was confident it could be done.

PAUL NITZE, chief arms control advisor: Our thought is that if either side were to develop such systems, they should carry provisions of the ABM treaty and consult with the other side with a view toward working out a mutually agreed program, that this would probably involve phasing both reductions in the offensive forces, particularly the counterforce -- the large MIR Ved ICBM -- reducing them concurrently with introducing defenses in the first instance probably one of the missile fields on both sides. So you would increase the stability of the relationship as you introduced the defenses and as you decreased the offense.

Amb. SMITH: It depends completely on the Soviets cooperating with us. And why we would throw out a weapon system that depended on the Soviets' cooperating, I don't know. There's no evidence that they're going to do it. They say no, no, no, and we say, oh someday they're going to cooperate.

Sec. KISSINGER: Let me say what I think the best thing is that could happen at the summit. What could be achieved is something like the Vladivostok agreement of 1974 in which the two heads of government say we will make an agreement that limits offensive forces to whatever it is they can agree to. Second, that defines how they will conceive the relationship of defensive forces to offensive forces and that gives some guidance to the negotiators on how to handle that. And if they then said we will meet agin in, say, 15 months, preferably after the next American congressional election. And at that time we hope either to sign an agreement or be so close to an agreement that we can give the finishing instructions. That I would take very seriously, and that would be a breakthrough.

LEHRER: That would be a successful summit.

Sec. KISSINGER: That would be a very good summit.

MacNEIL: Our special reports continute tomorrow with a considertion of what experienced observers expect the personal chemistry to be between the two leaders. Next week Jim Lehrer will be reporting live from Geneva. Speaker's View

WOODRUFF: While the Reagan administration gets itself ready for Geneva, the Democrats are pretty much sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what happens. However, the chief Democrat spokesman, House Speaker Tip O'Neill, made a point this week of saying he is supportive of Mr. Reagan as he heads off to meet with Mr. Gorbachev. In an interview at his office at the Capitol, the Speaker reiterated his belief that some sort of an agreement has already been reached by both sides that will ensure a successful outcome.

Rep. THOMAS P. O'NEILL: Gorbachev's the new boy on the block over there. He wants to go home with a victory. The President wants to come home with a victory. I think that there are things that have already been agreed to and decided upon, and so I don't believe that Geneva will be a failure. There are many issues in which there are going to be problems -- on the humanitarian issues there's going to be problems on. With regards to the START talks, there probably would be trouble with the arms control. But I think there'll probably be some give in it. With regards to Angola and Afghanistan and things of that nature, I know that that will be on the agenda. I think relations of trade are opening Russia more to American visitors and cultural programs and we opening to more -- I think they'll probably have some agreement on that. But my viewpoint is, and in view of the fact so far in advance that they have made arrangements for the President of the United States to come back, address the Congress and the people of America, I think that they think that thingsare going to be pretty good. Even though they're saying, "Well, we're going to a tough conference. We don't expect things," I'll be very disappointed if there wasn't -- if it isn't a success.

WOODRUFF: Well, how do you explain the fact that they're going around saying we don't expect a whole lot out of this summit?

Speaker O'NEILL: Well, they don't expect a whole lot out of it, but I think -- I think if they were to come back with an agreement, "Well, we appeared to disagree, but the fundamental basics of politics is to be able to sit down and discuss your problems, 7so] we have agreed that there'll be a summit meeting every year and we will discuss it," that's a victory, because politics is the art of compromise. And when I can sit across the table from you, and you can sit across from me, there's a breakthrough that we can come to an agreement. And that would be in my opinion -- that would be an accomplishment. I met with Gorbachev for four hours. He was erudite, he was talented, he was learned, he was smart, he was sharp. He had a duende about him, he had a flair, he had a charisma. He had a sense of humor about him, and he was tough.

WOODRUFF: What do you mean, he was tough?

Speaker O'NEILL: When I mean he was tough, he would say -- I'll never forget one statement he said. "Let me say to you, there'll never be a war, there'll never be war," he said. "War is declared the day you try to change our system. We believe in our system, and the day you try to change it is war." I was happy the other day to see the President said, "We're not trying to change your system and don't you change our system." Another thing he said, "We're an evil empire. We're an agent of the devil and we want to live with the devil; let us live by our -- let us live with the devil. Don't let that bother you." Statements -- but he said it with a smile in his face, and he said, "You look at us as though we're from the Stone Age. Your media," he said. "They like to think," he says, "that we live in caves. I want to open the door, let all the Americans come over here and show them," he says, "down in Leningrad and show them in Moscow the caves that we live in."

WOODRUFF: So what does that say about what this President confronts?

Speaker O'NEILL: What it says to me is this man is going to meet the President of the United States boned up to the ears. He is knowledgeable and he is talented. When he met with the Speaker of the House and minority leader, the Republican leader of the House and Dan Rostenkowski and our delegation, he was boned up like no other leader that I have ever met before. And so he's going to be prepared for the President.

WOODRUFF: Is the President up to this man?

Speaker O'NEILL: Now, listen, the President of the United States, when we go over there he reads his two-by-four cards by three-by-five cards and he refers the questions to Shultz, Vesey, General Vesey, Weinberger, McFarlane -- fine. These are informal meetings in which we're discussing legislation. He's telling us what they're going to do; the legislation, he wants them to explain it. That's okay, we're not advisors; we're only over there to listen. When he -- do I think he's sharp? Yeah, of course I think he's sharp. He was president of the actors' union, one of the most sophisticated, learned, beautiful people, highly educated, highly paid, and he negotiated for them, and he was the head of the union for years. You got to have ability to do that. He was governor of the state of California for eight years.

WOODRUFF: But it sounds to me as if you're saying you're concerned that he's not up to his opponent in terms of the substance.

Speaker O'NEILL: No, I think that he is going to be up to the substance. A man doesn't become President of the United States because the ball bounces that way. He's got to have the ability to be at the spot, to be where the ball is when it bounces his way. This man, I think the press may underrate him. This man is able and he's talented, and he will be boned to the ears and he'll be a match for Mr. Gorbachev, and you make no mistake about that. I think I can read the President pretty well. I know when he's done his homework and when he hasn't done his homework, and there's no question in my mind that he's going over there -- he knows that he's the sole representative of the greatest government in the world. That's what we believe in. The greatest country and the freest country, and he's going to do an excellent job.

WOODRUFF: How do you explain his lack of preparation at some of these other meetings you're describing?

Speaker O'NEILL: Well, I just think that he has too many things along the line, and he delegates them at those meetings. But he can't delegate at this meeting. That's the interesting thing. And when he can't delegate and he knows he can't delegate, he's going to be prepared. But he's meeting a tough adversary, make no mistake about it.

WOODRUFF: Is the President hurt at all, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that while he's over in Geneva talking to Mr. Gorbachev, there's a piece of legislation sitting here in the Congress in Gramm-Rudman that would in effect bring about some pretty severe defense cuts in what this administration has asked for?

Speaker O'NEILL: I absolutely agree with you. It's going to bring about defense cuts. There's no question about that I think the President inadvertently and with bad advice accepted the Gramm-Rudman bill. I think that Don Regan is responsible for that, and I think Don Regan is wrong.

WOODRUFF: My question is, does it hurt the President while he's over there to know that this kind of legislation is about to pass, or could very well pass.

Speaker O'NEILL: No, I don't believe it hurts him, to be perfectly truthful. This started as a political ploy on the Republican side. We've tried to put some teeth in it. I don't think it hurts him. I think sincerely in his heart he believes that, "Listen, they can do whatever they want. I want 3 real growth and I'm going to get 3 real growth," and if it comes over there, that's the way I interpret it. Because he keeps saying, "I interpret it as though I'm not being hurt."

WOODRUFF: You're sayng that he would just ignore the content of the legislation if it passed?

Speaker O'NEILL: Well, it's not the content of the legislation; it's the interpretation that you put on the content of the legislation. And anybody that talks to him, he still says, "I'm going to get my 3 real growth.

WOODRUFF: The Democrats are now in a position where they've got to go along with this Gramm-Rudman proposal or come up with some alternative to it.

Speaker O'NEILL: You're saying we have to go along. Basically I'm opposed to the whole Gramm-Rudman bill. I know the votes are out there and there's no way that I can stop it. And when you have a bad piece of legislation that's coming over that slices the safety net of the poor, hurts middle America, and you know that you can't stop it -- and I'm the leader in the House, I know that I can't stop it -- and so what do you do? You then take the piece of legislation, and Bob Dole said, "You know, the problem with this legislation is that if somebody reads it, we could be in trouble." Basically that's what he said. Well, somebody's read it in the House side, and we've found all the inequities and all the things that are wrong with the legislation. And my part is, as you know, I have ultraliberals, I got liberals, I got progressives, moderates, conservatives and ultraconservatives -- all these different philosophies under one tent in the Democratic Party. In the Republican Party all you have is ultraconservatives, conservatives, moderates and no liberals out there. And so we have a wide divergency of philosophies in my party, and I would have to say that the majority of the party, of the Democratic Party today is almost 60 -- would be progressive, moderate and conservative. And that's the controlling factor. I'm in the other wing. So there's no was that we can stop this, but we can work together, all of us -- even though I am opposed to the bill, we can make it a better bill, we can make it a better bill than the bill that came over, and that's what we're trying to do.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Speaker, thank you for being with us.

Speaker O'NEILL: Delighted. Aaron Copeland: Master of Music

MacNEIL: Finally tonight, this is the 85th birthday of America's foremost composer, Aaron Copland. It's being marked by many special concerts notably an all-Copland program being carried by public television live from New York's Lincoln Center. We mark Copland's birthday with the only interview he's given, but first we have a a brief look at what made him the dean of American composers.

[voice-over] There was no internationally recognized American music until aaron Copland born with the century in Brooklyn, New York, wanted to write music that would reflect his own country, his own environment. But Copland had to go to Europe and study with the legendary Nadia Boulanger in Paris to realize his American musical identity. His first symphony, premiered in New York when Copland was only 25, propelled him to instant celebrity. Anxious to reach the widest possible audience for contemporary music, Copland wrote Oscar-winning movie scores, background music for radio, two operas, and most popular of all, music for the ballet. During World War II he wrote Rodeo for an unknown dancer-choreographer, Agnes DeMille.

AGNES DeMILLE, choreographer: Somebody suggested it would be not only novel, but it would be very patariotic and timely to have an American ballet done by an American instead of by a Russian. They thought that was a very risky idea, but they thought they'd better take it because there was a war. So they sent for me, and Sergi Ivanovitch Denham said, "Who do you want to have do the music?" and I said, "The best, Aaron Copland." He had never heard of him, naturally, very unlike Tchaikowsky. And so I said, "Please get him," and so he said, "All right, we'll try."

MacNEIL [voice-over]: When Copland finished the score, he came to play it for DeMille and brought a helper.

Ms. DeMILLE: And he had a young boy helping him, turning pages and so forth, and this boy would say, "Aaron, that's not bery good. You better redo that," and I thought, "Well, of all the impudence, the absolute gall and chutzpah." And once a page fell on the floor, it was the sleazy music they use, you know -- composers do that -- and Aaron said "Pick that up," and so he did. But Aaron went right on playing without it, and they were joking that way together. and his name was Leonard Bernstein, by the way.

LEONARD BERNSTEIN, composer: I remember that we came there and began playing it, and there was one part I was particularly proud of because I think it's about 18 bars that I wrote. You've forgotten that, I'll bet.

AARON COPLAND, composer: Pardon me? You wrote 18 bars?

Mr. BERNSTEIN: I wrote 18 bars of Rodeo.

Mr. COPLAND: Do you mind suppressing that little piece of information?

Mr. BERNSTEIN: No, I say I wrote in quotes, because --

MacNEIL: How in quotes?

Mr. BERNSTEIN: -- he had written a part for barroom piano. Right. And then he wanted to write a repeat of it, because Agnes needed twice as much music. And he said, "Well, I can't just write that all over again. It's so boring to have it twice," because he meant it to be sort of ricky-ticky and not -- and he said to me, "Lenny, do you think you could fix it up, jazz it up in some way so that the repeat could be a little more interesting than just that?" And I did, and she loved it. So I have the repeat of that barroom section.

Mr. COPLAND: How do you like that? I've completely blocked that incident out of my mind.

Mr. BERNSTEIN: The barroom section, is by me, and he didn't even have the grace to put a footnote in the score giving me credit.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Rodeo, starring Agnes DeMille, was a great success. That and Appalachian Spring and "Fanfare for the Common Man" are the Copland works most people know. For serious musicians there is another Copland, austere and avant garde. The Copland of his piano variations, played here by Michael Tilsen-Thomas Composer William Schuman.

WILLIAM SCHUMAN, composer: When you look to the future, anyone who tries to turn prophet is mad, because the history of music is filled with false premises and false prophets. No one can say what anyone else's music is going to be in the future. Having said that, I believe his music will go down through the ages as one of the glories of American art.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: But there is still another Copland: the self-appointed sort of managing director of American music. Concerned that although his music was bring played, other contemporary composers were not, he organized festivals, concerts and publishing houses. He was a founder member of a trade union for composers, and helped every talented young artist he could find. He became a powerful figure in American arts and letters. While continuing to compose some of his most important music, he wrote five books, he was the nation's leading composition teacher, and traveled all over the world representing the United States.

Now, still in good health at 85, Copland talked with us at his home in Peeksill, New York.

Mr. COPLAND: You know, there is no reason in the world why I should have been a musician. I come from a family of just ordinary shopkeepers and people who liked music occassionally, but nothing in the way of a professional musician. When I told my father I wanted to be a composer of serious music, he looked at me as if to say -- and he said, "Where did you get such a strange idea?" But on the other hand, I was the youngest of five children, and as long as it appeared that I would not be making a financial bother of myself, the attitude my parents took to it, "He knows what he wants to do, let him do it."

MacNEIL: When people call you the father of American music of things like that, what does it make you feel?

Mr. COPLAND: It's sort of nice that somebody or other thinks you deserve a situation like that. If you take it too seriously, you're liable to get into trouble with yourself.

MacNEIL: In what way?

Mr. COPLAND: Well, I mean, after all, it's very difficult to know what the music lovers 50 years from now will think about the music I've written. They may think it's fascinating, they my think it's old hat -- heaven only knows what they might think about it.

MacNEIL: Do you have a hunch whether 50 years from now you will be remembered for the more popular works like Billy the Kid or Appachlain Spring, or the perhaps more progressive things, like your piano variations?

Mr. COPLAND: There's no way of telling how 50 years from now the listening public is going to be either passionately interested or not interested at all. You're taking a big chance, and there's no other way of doing it. You have to write the music -- you have to write. You can't write the msuic that you only hope somebody's going to love. You yourself have to be convinced that your writing is so good that they won't be able to ignore it 50 years from now.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Once firmly established as a composer, Copland took up conducting, which soon became one of his favorite activities.

Mr. COPLAND: It's real fund to conduct a good orchestra. I recommend it to you. Generally the fee is good, and the men, if they're interested in what they're doing and the music seems fresh to them, that's a big help in your conducting activities, too. They're not easy to convince, those professional musicians in the classical field, and they tend to be severe. Maybe that's a good idea from the standpoint of the composer, but it doesn't make for life to be easir.

MacNEIL: Is there a resistance in American orchestras and conductors to modern music which is holding music back, which is discouraging?

Mr. COPLAND: They're not very sympathetic as a group of musicians. They tend to be toughies, and they're hard to convince that this stuff, especially if it's in a contemporary idiom and rather advanced contemporary idiom, they are slow to pick it up as something that really, this is great stuff, we ought to keep working this kind of thing. They tend to be a little slow to admit that it's really worthwhile.

MacNEIL: Of course, they're the keepers of the classical flame, aren't they?

Mr. COPLAND: Yes, but they get paid for what they're doing, so they can't protest too much.

MacNEIL: When you look back at all the music you've written, are you pretty pleased with what you've accomplished.

Mr. COPLAND: Well, think one of the main accomplishments would be trying to write a music of your own time, and that's part of the fun, of course, that's part of the great interest, is trying to find musical idioms that are fresh, new different, more exciting for us because they haven't been done before, than to just sit back and write music in the style of Beethoven and Bach.

MacNEIL: How does it feel to be turning 85?

Mr. COPLAND: Well, I feel very lucky, as a matter of fact. Mostly because I don't feel 85. I guess that's one of the best parts about it. And let's hope it just goes on and on.

WOODRUFF: Now we take a look at our nightly editorial cartoon by Ranon Lurie. Tonight the subject is preparations for next week's Geneva summit meeting.

[Ranon Lurie cartoon -- Reagan and Gorbachev as maids on hill labeled "pre-summit preparations." Both keep sweeping at "summit hopes" with brooms until they sweep everything away and dig themselves a hole in the ground]

zWOODRUFF: Turning now to a recap of today's top stories. Thousands are reported dead in the South American country of Colombia after a previously dormant volcano erupted. The President and Congress agreed to put off settling the debt crisis until after the Geneva summit meeting. Britain and the Republic of Ireland have accepted a political agreement whichgives Dublin a voice in the politics of Northern Ireland. And retail sales fell by a record of 3.3 in October, mostly because of a drop in auto sales.

Good night. Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Judy. That's our Newshour tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.