The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. For many Americans, the biggest news story today was one 20 years old, the assassination of John F. Kennedy. We'll be hearing the words of the surviving Kennedy brother at a memorial mass.

Sen. EDWARO KENNEDY: On bright summer afternoons at Cape Cod, or in this waning season of the year, how often we still think of him in all his vigor and say to ourselves, "We miss you, Jack, and always will."

MacNEIL: We'll hear from people whose lives were changed by President Kennedy's call to join the Peace Corps and from high school students not yet born when the shots were fired in Dallas. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Also tonight we have the news and the debate over a new government rule on hazardous chemicals in the work place; a report on the small Texas town of Marfa becoming a center for modern art; and updates on two major on-going stories -- the yes vote in the West German parliament on nuclear missiles and a go-or-die ultimatum delivered to Yasir Arafat in Tripoli, Lebanon.

MacNEIL: Despite continued anti-nuclear demonstrations, the West German parliament today reaffirmed its backing for deployment of U.S. missiles on German soil. The majority of the center-to-right coalition headed by Chancellor Helmut Kohl held firm against opposition attempts to reverse the missile decision. The vote, taken after a heated two-day debate, was 286 to 226. Again today, hundreds of demonstrators massed outside the Parliament in Bonn. There were also demonstrations in West Berlin, Frankfurt and Hamburg. Police arrested 102 of the protestors. The first of the Pershing missiles to be deployed in Germany could arrive as early as tomorrow. U.S. missiles are also being deployed in Britain and Italy as part of a NATO decision to counter the buildup of Soviet medium-range missiles aimed at Western Europe. Jim? Remembering JFK

LEHRER: President John F. Kennedy was assassinated 20 years ago today, and there were many events throughout the country to mark that dreadful act and the life it ended. Here in Washington the Kennedy family and close friends made an early morning private visit to the late President's grave at Arlington National Cemetery, laying yellow and white roses at the plaque with the eternal flame, which bears only the words "John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1917-1963." They then attended a nationally televised mass at a Washington church.

[voice-over] The public service was at the Holy Trinity Church, the one Kennedy attended when he was in Washington. Worshipers, important and maybe not so important, were met with a legacy of 20 years ago, a metal detector at the door. Senator Edward Kennedy escorted the family into the church, and President Reagan came and was seated next to House Speaker Thomas O'Neill.

PRIEST, Holy Trinity Church: The events of 20 years ago cut short his time with us, but they cannot take away the hopes he raised, the excitement he felt, and the progress we made under his leadership. We need not romanticize him nor overlook his faults to celebrate his achievements and to express our gratitude for his time among us.

Sen. KENNEDY: Now we, his family and his friends return here on the 20th anniversary of his death to remember him not in sadness but in joy, and to share that joy with a nation and a world that shared our love for him. He came to the presidency by the narrowest of margins, but when he was taken from us our planet was more united in grief than it ever was in the grandest design. Moscow wept with Boston, and with Dallas. In the years that followed, the feeling for him has not dimmed but deepened, and today, far from this church, in lands where hardly anyone speaks his language, they still hear his call. He made us proud to be Americans, and the glow of his life will always light the world. For him, on this day, 20 years ago the journey came to an end, but for us here and others everywhere there are promises to keep and miles to go before we sleep.

LEHRER: Afterwards the Kennedy family went to Hyannisport, Massachusetts for a private service with Rose Kennedy, the dead President's mother, and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, his widow. We'll have more on John F. Kennedy later in the program. Robin?

MacNEIL: The United States today pointed the finger more strongly than ever at Syria for complicity in the Beirut bomb attack which killed 239 U.S. servicemen last month. At a Washington news conference Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger said the suicide bomb truck attack on the Marine command center was carried out by Iranians with the sponsorship, knowledge and authority of Syria. While President Reagan has said the attackers would be punished, Secretary Weinberger refused to discuss any retaliation. Here is an excerpt from his news conference.

CASPAR WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense: Ididn't read the President as saying any promise of retaliation. We had a horrible tragedy to the Marines, one suffered similarly by the French and later by the Israelis. And it's a multinational force and we continue to do all we can to maintain the safety and improve the situation of that force, and we will continue to do that.

REPORTER: Are you still not able to pinpoint the perpetrators of that horrendous act?

Sec. WEINBERGER: We have a pretty good idea of the general group from which they came and, as I said the first day, they are basically Iranians with sponsorship and knowledge and authority of the Syrian government. And that's basically -- that has not changed.

MacNEIL: Retaliation raids may have been discussed today at the White House when President Reagan met Israeli President Chaim Herzog. The visit of Herzog, whose post is largely ceremonial, is a prelude to intense, high-level U.S.-Israeli discussions next week. Both Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Defense Minister Moshe Arens will follow Herzog to Washington. Israel has made three reprisal raids on targets in Lebanon following terrorist bomb attacks on Israeli as well as French and U.S. bases. Washington said it knew of at least one of these attacks in advance. President Herzog said he'd suggested ways to strengthen relations between Israel and the United States, and presidential spokesman Larry Speakes said this was a time of increasing cooperation between the two countries.

In Lebanon today, Syrian-backed rebel Palestinian forces resumed shelling attacks on the last holdout of Yasir Arafat in the city of Tripoli. Breaking a ceasefire they declared yesterday, the rebels bombarded the buildings around Arafat's offices and gave the PLO chairman an ultimatum to get out of the city. Police said at least 30 people were killed in today's attacks. Here's a report from Phillip Haydon of the BBC.

PHILLIP HAYDON, BBC [voice-over]: There seems to be no letup in the destruction of Tripoli. Last night the anti-Arafat forces unleashed a barrage of shells and rockets on the city, and this morning its people counted the costs. The home of a Tripoli street cleaner, adbul Sharavi[?], was attacked and he was heartbroken. Mr. Sharavi says he has no money for repairs and his insurance doesn't cover war damage. "Why should I suffer?" he pleads. "The fighting was not my fault. It has nothing to do with me." The United Nations offices were devastated by a rocket attack and fire. It was from here that officials looked after the welfare of Palestinian refugees. Other targets included a hospital and a police station. Some Tripoli residents took to the street to protest about the bombardments. They complain of no water, no electricity, and ask the world to help them before it's too late.

[on camera] We're at the front line now with the Arafat forces. The Arafat forces are this side of the green flag, the rebel forces on the other side. There's supposed to be a ceasefire of sorts. As you can hear, there's plenty of small arms fire and the battle in earnest will begin soon.

[voice-over] More and more people are leaving the area to escape further fighting. Yasir Arafat has called on Arab leaders to intervene to stop what he describes as an imminent massacre. The big guns were silent as we ventured into the Beddawi refugee camp, which is now firmly controlled by the rebels. We saw the bodies of several of Arafat's fighters who had died defending the camp, and we met a rebel commander who had this ultimatum for Mr. Arafat.

COMMANDER, PLOrebel forces: If he stays there with his fighters, we will go on with Tripoli.

HAYDON: You will take your fighters and go into Tripoli and get Arafat?

COMMANDER: Yes, yes.

HAYDON: When?

COMMANDER: If he stays. Now we stay four days or three days. After that we will see what will happen.

HAYDON [voice-over]: The anti-Arafat forces are confident. They have Yasir Arafat just where they want him, cornered in a city with his back to the sea. If he is lucky there might be a rescue formula to guarantee him safe passage out of town, but many of his enemies want him killed at all costs.

MacNEIL. So far Arafat has refused to leave, saying he wants guarantees of safety for his fighters and for Palestinian civilians.

The three-year war between Iraq and Iran was reported today to have caused the sinking of a Greek ship in the Persian Gulf. Yesterday, Iraq claimed that its planes had destroyed seven enemy ships, leaving Iran's Kharg Island oil terminal. Today, Greek shipowners said the 12,500-ton vessel Antigone, carrying a load of steel, was sunk by an Iraqi rocket. In London, Lloyds shipping intelligence said the rocket was an Exocet missile. Iraq recently received a number of Exocet missiles and jet fighters from France, and if true, this would be the first time Iraq has used them in the war. Iran has warned that if Iraq used the French weapons to attack vital targets, Iran would close the Hormuz Strait, thus blocking all oil shipments from the Gulf. The United States has indicated it would use force to keep the Strait open. Jim? OSHA Under Fire

LEHRER: The head of OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, should be fired. That's the view of consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Nader wrote President Reagan today demanding the ouster of Assistant Labor Secretary Thorne Auchter. Nader charged that Auchter was undermining the law that set up OSHA. A White House spokesman said the President had full confidence in Auchter and would not fire him. nader's demand comes on a day when OSHA was already in the news. The agency announced a new rule designed to protect American workers from the hazards of dangerous chemicals. Government officials immediately billed it as the most far-reaching government regulation of its kind ever but, also immediately, organized labor was in court saying that was nonsense, that it was a step backwards for worker safety and health. Judy Woodruff has the details. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF. Jim, the rule which was announced by Mr. Auchter would require manufacturers to give their employees specific information about the dangers of the chemicals they work with. OSHA says the rule covers some 14 million factory workers and will cost the manufacturers about $600 million, most of which would be spent to educate the workers. However, under the rule, companies would not normally have to identify dangerous chemicals if they believe doing so would jeopardize trade secrets. The exceptions would be under limited circumstances such as a medical emergency. In addition, even though 14 states have their own so-called right-to-know rules, some of which go further than the proposed federal rule, the OSHA regulation would pre-empt them. Well, provisions like these anger big labor, which sees them as giant loopholes for industry. That's part of the reason several unions filed suit today to stop the new rule from taking effect. One of the parties to the suit is the AFL-CIO, and the associate director of its department of occupational safety, health and Social Security, Margaret Seminario, is with us this evening. Ms. Seminario, OSHA says these rules go farther than anything it's ever done. Don't you see some benefits in these for workers?

MARGARET SEMINARIO: Well, unfortunately the rules just don't go far enough. Organized labor has been fighting for strong national comprehensive right-to-know protections for 10 years, and the rules issued today just don't do the job. First of all, they only cover workers in the manufacturing sector. That leaves out three out of every four workers covered by OSHA.

WOODRUFF: For example?

Ms. SEMINSRIO: Construction workers, painters, health care workers exposed to chemicals, workers in transportation industry. All workers outside the manufacturing sector have no protections under these standards. As you indicated, the standard also has very generous trade secret protections for manufacturers. And no matter how toxic a chemical, there's no obligation on the manufacture to tell the worker the identity of the chemical if the manufacturer thinks that it's a trade secret.

WOODRUFF: But we're still taking about the companies spending $600 million to educate workers. That's a lot of money. Doesn't that count for something?

Ms. SEMINARIO: Well, again, it's not enough. You have to look at this whole effort historically. The unions have been fighting for these right-to-know protections, as I said, for more than a decade. There are 60 million workers who still won't be covered by these rules. It's time that the federal government acted, not just to protect workers in the manufacturing sector, but to protect all workers exposed to toxic chemicals on the job.

WOODRUFF: Well, what exactly more would you ask that OSHA require of the companies?

Ms. SEMINARIO: Well, we had asked, again, that all workers be covered. It shouldn't be just an arbitrary decision. Just because a worker happens to be employed in a facility that's determined to be a manufacturing facility shouldn't mean that that worker is covered while the worker who is employed on a construction site is not. The determination should be whether or not that worker is exposed to toxic chemicals. All workers exposed to these chemicals should be covered. We wanted to see provisions in the rule which really did provide a balanced approach to trade secrets. For those chemicals which are very toxic, that are known to cause cancer, we know that they've killed thousands of workers, we think the identity of that chemical should be provided right on the label of the drum and known to the worker in that work place. And we also think that federal OSHA should be encouraging state and local governments to go beyond the federal government to protect workers, and indeed, if OSHA was concerned with the protection of worker health, they would be encouraging those kind of activities by the states, not trying to stop them.

WOODRUFF: Well, as we pointed out, there are only 14 states that have their own right-to-know laws. Isn't it better to have a federal law that's uniform, that applies across the board?

Ms. SEMINARIO: It sure is, but what we need is one that protects all workers and does the job. And absent that, the AFL-CIO and the unions have been seeking protection in any way they can. In our view, the only reason the agency has acted, and the only reason the chemical industry is supporting these regulations is because they wanted to pre-empt the stronger state and local initiatives in this area.

WOODRUFF: All right. Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: OSHA declined to be with us tonight, and while labor may be unhappy with the new rule, industry is not. It has the full support of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, which represents the nation's largest chemical companies. Tom Evans, director of regulatory management for the Monsanto Company, headed the association's committee on the right-to-know rule. He is with us tonight from St. Louis. Why is this new rule a good deal for industry, Mr. Evans?

TOM EVANS: Well, I'm not -- wouldn't go so far to say it's a good deal, Mr. Lehrer, but it certainly represents the philosophy that the chemical industry has endorsed for years. We have absolutely no reluctance to communicate the hazards of the chemicals that our employees work with on their jobs; they must know the hazards of these chemicals in order to do their job safely. We have absolutely no concern about communicating that information to them. We have also endorsed for years a uniform federal standard. We're pleased that it's been issued, but I'm sure that there are going to be a number of our members who are going to be concerned about some of the specific features of the regulation that they may be disappointed with. but generally we do favor the uniform federal approach. Relative to, if I may respond to Ms. Seminario's comment on proprietary trade secret information, again, the chemical industry only asks the understanding of our reluctance in a minority of the cases to release the identity, the specific chemical formula, of a proprietary piece of information that may influence the business interests of that particular product group. It might influence the employee's jobs, even, if this information became too widespread. There is absolutely no hesitancy to communicate the hazards of the materials, the toxic effects of the chemicals, or any of that. Our employees will --

LEHRER: But there is -- excuse me.

Mr. EVANS: -- know that, and I frankly can't believe that we would ever prevent them from knowing about a carcinogen, if that were the case.

LEHRER: But there is a reluctance to give some information or there would not be a need for a right-to-know law, correct? Now, there are some things you do not want your employees to know. What is it, and why do you want them not do know it?

Mr. EVANS: Absolutely not. This is one of the most popularly misunderstood features of this entire issue, Mr. Lehrer. The chemical industry has absolutely nothing to hide in terms of the effects of its chemicals. We prepare materials safety data sheets on which everything you need to know or maybe ever wanted to know about a substance is recorded and made available and will be available to our employees and our customers downstream, to whoever we ship to. As I said, though, only in a minority of cases --

LEHRER: What kind of cases?

Mr. EVANS: -- where we may have a proprietary piece of information.

LEHRER: All right, that's what I'm getting at. Give me an example of a minority case where you think it would be important to withhold that kind of information from one of your employees.

Mr. EVANS: The best way I can liken it would be to take a cosmetic company who might have a specific ingredient that imparts a unique fragrance to its product. We have, maybe, a proprietary product for a hydraulic fluid, maybe, that is used in the airline industry and we have a specific ingredient that does not necessarily have to even be grossly toxic. But we don't care to reveal its chemical formula. We'll tell them that it is an acid, base, or what kind of a chemical it is. We just don't want to reveal the chemical identity formula. That is, the specific chemical formula. We'll reveal every other bit of information, but we feel it's in particular -- to protect our jobs, to protect the jobs of our employees, as well as the financial interests of the business group.

LEHRER: The other point, quickly, that was raised, that the reason you all are in favor of this is because it pre-empts some state laws that are in fact more stringent than this federal law that replaces them.

Mr. EVANS: I don't really think this is true. It is true that we would like to see the federal rule pre-empt because we need uniformity. But there is no real substance to the fact that all of these state laws are more stringent than the federal rule. I contend that there is nothing in the federal rule that any state rule provides that can't be obtained through enforcement of the federal rule. The difference is, in some instances, is that the cost of doing the business under the multitude of state rules will cause an absolute nightmare in interstate commerce, as what is considered toxic in New Jersey may not be considered toxic in Missouri or Massachusetts. What is a regulation in the work place for identifying your chemicals is different in another state. It'll just drive us crazy, and we prefer to go by the federal rule, and I contend that this same information, completely, will be available to every employee in the work force.

LEHRER: Thank you, Mr. Evans. Judy?

WOODRUFF: All right, Ms. Seminario, what about Mr. Evans' point that it's just too confusing and chaotic to have to abide by so many state rules, that a federal rule is better?

Ms. SEMINARIO: That may be case, but again, until the federal government acts so that all workers are protected -- and, contrary to what Tom said, they aren't. All these workers outside of the manufacturing sector have no rights to the information provided under this standard. No training will be provided to construction workers and to painters on the job because the standard just doesn't require it.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Evans, how do you respond to that?

Mr. EVANS: Well, our industry is regulated. We are the manufacturers that make these chemicals; we produce them. We're the ones that ship these chemicals to the customers. The material safety data sheet information -- that is, everything that you need to know about the material -- will be available to our customers and almost be a piece of public information once it's shipped to a customer. That information then could be used by any other manufacturing or employment sector in the economy. I can't comment on OSHA's reluctance to do it, short of probably an economic one. But we have certainly no compunction that -- or concern that our information should not be made available to others --

WOODRUFF: So you wouldn't have any problem, then, with this rule applying to the entire -- to all the construction sector and so forth? Is that right?

Mr. EVANS: It would be presumptuous of me to wish that on them, but I would personally have no concern about that. I can say, though, that the rule does require that chemical manufacturers inform the contract employer so that he may inform his employees about the hazards of the substances with which they may be working on a construction job.

WOODRUFF: All right, another point, Ms. Seminario. He -- Mr. Evans raised the -- he says that only in a minority of cases would the trade secrets aspect come into play. That sounds like a reasonable defense on their part.

Ms. SEMINARIO: Well, unfortunately history doesn't support that claim. There probably are only a few chemicals that are legitimate trade secrets. The problem is not those legitimate trade secrets. It's the ability of manufacturers to hide behind very broad trade secret claims, and we've seen case after case after case where employers and chemical manufacturers have claimed every subtance that they make, every substance used in the work place a trade secret, and withheld the chemical identity. This OSHA rule does nothing to prohibit those illegitimate trade secret claims.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Evans?

Mr. EVANS: Well, I'm not sure I really understand that because there are only a few instances where trade secret claims would be made. The information -- the health and safety information for the workers are not withheld. They have all of the information they need to protect themselves, and indeed this is the essence of the reason for a training program, is to provide health and safety information so our workers can be health and safe -- be safe and healthy on their jobs.

Ms. SEMINARIO: Let me just --

Mr. EVANS: For the last three years our industry has been rated number one or two in the -- by the National Safety Council as the safest industry in the United States in the manufacturing community, and that's one of the reasons, because we do train and educate our employees.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Seminario, you had a point.

Ms. SEMINARIO: The point -- well, I've lost the point that I wanted to make initially. As far as the safety of the chemical industry that doesn't reflect health. As far as the point that I wanted to make, to give an example, a major chemical manufacturer, when asked by the union for the identities of chemicals, to workers which were exposed, they claimed 700 chemicals in the plant a trade secret. Subsequent testimony by the company's own engineers and safety specialists revealed that only five chemicals indeed were legitimate trade secrets. But it took the union well over three years to get access to that information. And this rule, again, does nothing to prohibit those kind of claims. In fact, if anything, it encourages overly broad trade secret claims.

WOODRUFF: All right, Mr. Evans, any response again?

Mr. EVANS: The chairman of the CMA executive committee, chairman of the board, however, at a meeting recently in New York, challenged the members of the industry -- Dr. Lou Fernandez of my company, at Monsanto, challenged the members of the industry to examine their trade secret claims, and if they find that there is areas where they can relax and release claim on trade secrets, we will do so. I think all of us could re-examine some of our products. But there are always going to be some that we must protect in order to protect our peoples' jobs and the security of our business. But never will we ever refuse any information to a treating physician or a health professional who needs it to take care of the injury or illness to any employee or person in the United States.

WOODRUFF: The Carter administration, Ms. Seminario, had proposed much more sweeping regulations than these, and the Reagan administration swept those aside. How would you compare them from your point of view, with those that were promulgated by the Carter administration?

Ms. SEMINARIO: The Carter administration rules were broader, and in this area of trade secrets, in our view, they were much better. The Carter administration made a determination that where chemicals were determined to be toxic that the identity had to be revealed to the workers and it had to be revealed, essentially, to the public. They struck the balance in favor of worker health. The Reagan administration, on the other hand, with these final rules, has made a decision that no matter how toxic the chemical, if the manufacturer claims it a trade secret, the manufacturer doesn't have to tell that worker the name of that chemical.

WOODRUFF: All right, but let me, just to get your point clear, you're saying that we're better off with no federal regulations than the one the Reagan administration has proposed? We're better off with just 14 states having a right-to-know rule?

Ms. SEMINARIO: That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that we are better off with a federal regulation that indeed would give workers, all workers, the right to know. And in the absence of that, we need additional protections from the states that indeed go beyond what federal OSHA has given us and given workers today.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you, Ms. Seminario and Mr. Evans, for being with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: This is a story that isn't related to anything except that we wanted to clear up the record. Last night we reported, solemnly, that postal workers had intercepted a package addressed to President Reagan that was ticking and contained two sticks of dynamite. That's the way the story appeared on the wire services after the Postal Service said X-rays showed two sticks of dynamite. Today the New York police bomb squad actually opened the parcel and found it contained only toilet articles. No explanation for the alleged ticking. The package was mailed in Canada to President and Mrs. Reagan from Santa. We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Lee Vining Canyon, California]

LEHRER: This is the 20th anniversay of John F. Kennedy's death, and it's unlikely we'll ever again see the outpouring of words and pictures, thoughts and analyses this anniversary has prompted these last few days, today in particular. Most of it has been a reliving, either through photos and recordings of Kennedy himself or through the recollections of those who were there -- when he was young, when he was in the White House, when he died, when he spoke, when he worked, when he played. There's one group of Americans whose recollections seem particularly special. They're the ones who answered the Kennedy call to serve in a special way -- as volunteers in something called the Peace Coprs.

Pres. JOHN F. KENNEDY [March 1, 1961]: I have today signed an executive order providing for the establishment of a Peace Corps on a temporary pilot basis. I'm also sending to Congress a message posing authorization of a permanent Peace Corps. We will send Americans abroad who are qualified to do a job. We will send those abroad who are committed to the concept which motivates the Peace Corps. It will not be easy. None of the men and women will be paid a salary. They will live at the same level as the citizens of the country which they're sent to, doing the same work, eating the same foods, speaking the same language. We're going to put particular emphasis on those men and women who have skills in teaching, agriculture and in health.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Congress quickly authorized the creation of the Peace Corps, and by June of 1961 there were 124 in the program. President Kennedy sent them off himself two months later. By the end of '61 there were 750 volunteers in nine countries. Over its 22-year history, 85,000 to 90,000 have served in 90 countries around the world. Today there are 5,500 volunteers in 58 countries. The goals of the Peace Corps have remained the same through the years -- to help developing countries train manpower, to promote better understanding between the developing world and the United States. Volunteers have worked in community health programs as teachers, as agricultural and fishery advisers. They have helped local people build bridges, roads, sewers and community helath centers. Youth, idealism and vigor: qualities associated with the Kennedy years were also associated with the early days of the Peace Corps. In Africa the locals called volunteers "wakina Kennedy" -- followers of Kennedy. In Latin America they were known as "hijos de Kennedy" -- Kennedy's children.

[on camera] Three of those former wakina and hijos of Kennedy are with ou tonight. They're Tom Livingston, the first Peace Corps volunteer to take up a post in a country. He arrived in Dodawa, Ghana, in September, 1961, to teach English. After Ghana he went to Columbia University for his doctorate in history, taught at the University of California, Berkeley, and now owns and operates an antique store there. He joins us tonight from KQED in San Francisco.

And Carol Bellamy. She joined the Peace Corps in 1963 and served in Guatemala for two years. She too went to school after she returned, receiving her law degree from New York University. She entered politics in 1972 when she was elected to the New York state senate. A Democrat, she is now in her second term as president of the New York city council.

And Peter McPherson. He was a volunteer in Peru from 1964 to '66 and worked in a barrio outside of Lima. When he returned he earned his masters in business administration and a law degree. He has worked in private practice as well as for the Ford White House. In 1981 he was appointed by President Reagan to head the Agency for International Development -- AID. It's a job he still has.

First to you, Mr. Livingston, in San Francisco. Did you join the Peace Corps because of John Kennedy or because you were attracted just to the idea of being a Peace Corps volunteer?

TOM LIVINGSTON: Well, I suppose it was a combination of both. I wanted, I suppose, to combine a kind of service to country as well as service to the international community. And I had previously been teaching in a junior high school in a little town in central Illinois west of Chicago, and right after Kennedy announced the Peace Corps, I immediately responded. I think I sent my letter off maybe the next day.

LEHRER: Ms. Bellamy in New York City. What turned you on to the Peace Corps? Was it the times or John Kennedy or what?

CAROL BELLAMY: Well, it was an exciting time, I think a time when you had a sense that you could -- that each individual person could do something, could make a difference, could make a change, and that was exciting. It was challenging. It was a time of hope.

LEHRER: Mr. McPherson, now you are a Republican and, in fact, were -- as I understand it, at the University of Michingan you were president of the Nixon for President Club. What is the connection between John F. Kennedy and your going into the Peace Corps?

M. PETER McPHERSON: We:, it's true, I did disagree with the President Kennedy on a number of policies, but the Peace Corps was really different. It carried through with one of the best of America's traditions -- that an individual can make a difference, that America has something to offer -- a tradition which I think still exists. And I responded to that idealism, if you will. It was an exciting thing. I think I was able to make a difference.

LEHRER: Do you feel like you made a difference, Mr. Livingston, in Ghana?

Mr. LIVINGSTON: Well, I think I made a difference. It certainly made a tremendous difference in my own personal life. It was a kind of watershed. I still keep in touch with some of my students, and still correspond with colleagues of mine at the secondary school. I've been back to Ghana twice now since I left the Peace Corps.

LEHRER: Carol Bellamy, do you believe you're a different person today as a result of having been a Peace Corps volunteer?

Ms. BELLAMY: Yes, I do. It probably was the single most testing period of my life in terms of the ability to continue with something, to carry something through, to test yourself, to stretch yourself, of accomplish something, to fail -- because we all failed with some of our projects -- but at the same time to, you know, get up, wipe off your bloody nose and start over again on another project.

LEHRER: But did you fell, Ms.Bellamy, that you were doing it for Kennedy because Kennedy wanted you to do it and he had called you to a calling, so to speak, or was it much more simple than that?

Ms. BELLAMY: I'm not sure I think it was a calling, but I think we all felt -- hard to talk about others. I felt that there was an enthusiasm, an excitement because he was in charge. We had to produce for somebody. We were producing for him, in part. We all benefited, but we were in part producing for him.

LEHRER: Mr. McPherson, how is that with you? If there had been a Peace Corps but no John Kennedy, would you have been a Peace Corps volunteer anyhow?

Mr. McPHERSON: I think maybe. I think the times were ones where you felt -- where there was more idealism, perhaps. In the Vietnam era that idealism sort of eroded in America, and I think, incidentally, that's coming back. President Reagan talks about volunteerism and so forth, and it's not just the President, though that's very important. I think America is a more -- America has something to offer than it was a few years ago. The Peace Corps certainly changed my life substantially. I am certain that I would not be administrator of our foreign aid program --

LEHRER: You're kind of still in the same racket, aren't you?

Mr. McPHERSON: I'm in the same business, and incidentally, I have 500 former Peace Corps volunteers working at AID. One-seventh of the Americans in the agency are former PCVs. It's made AID, and all those volunteers that are now working there, a very different, grass-root kind of agency.

LEHRER: Mr. Livingston, would you have joined the Peace Corps if there had been no John Kennedy?

Mr. LIVINGSTON: Well, I rather doubt it.

LEHRER: Why not?

Mr. LIVINGSTON: I think it was a real personal kind of connection between myself and the President. I was enthusiastic about his election and the whole spirit of the country seemed to be changing as a result of this election, and when we were in Ghana we were always known as President Kennedy's Peace Corps. It was a very personalized kind of thing, and the Ghanaians themselves responded very warmly to this notion that we were direct emissaries of the President rather than just some anonymous agency.

LEHRER: And you felt that way yourself?

Mr. LIVINGSTON: Yeah, I felt it very keenly.

LEHRER: Well, how did it manifest itself? I mean, did you get up every morning saying, "Okay, this is rough, but for John Kennedy -- he's hanging in there, I'm going to hang in there, too"?

Mr. LIVINGSTON: No, I don't think it was anything quite like that. It was a little bit further back in the recesses of your mind at the time. But there was the whole notion that this was an idea that was articulated by a young, aggressive, imaginative president. We were all young, aggressive and imaginative individuals, I think, in that first Peace Corps group. And there was a kind of close connection between the Peace Corps through Shriver and the President.

LEHRER: That's Sargent Shriver --

Mr. LIVINGSTON: Shriver was the President's brother-in-law, and there was lots of communication.

LEHRER: I see. Well, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes, you've all referred to the spirit of those times, and I noticed the priest at the memorial mass said 20 years cannot take away the hopes that he raised. Do you agree with that? The 20 years that have intervened cannot take away the hopes that he raised.

Ms. BELLAMY: I think everybody is hoping that we find that hope again. These are times in which people seem awfully single-minded, single-purposed, me-oriented.And I think sometimes we search for those hopes. I'd like to think the Peace Corps volunteers running all around this country still embody some of that.

Mr. McPHERSON: I think that hope's pretty important, and I really do feel that we are as a country becoming more hope-oriented, more idealistic, perhaps. That waht we're beginning to get back some of that spirit that America has something to give to the world that we lost for a few years. And I think the country will be better for it.

MacNEIL: How do you feel about it, Mr. Livingston, the question of hope?

Mr. LIVINGSTON: Well, I concur with the other PCVs that it is perhaps a more hopeful time. The whole war in Vietnam transformed, I think, the spirit of the country. We realized then that the war corps was the significant corps and the Peace Corps was just kind of window dressing. You know, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed young Americans around the world just couldn't compare with what was appearing nightly on the television. I'm not sanguine about the international capabilities of this administration, actually. I don't think -- it's nothing like the spirit, the international enthusiasm that characterized the country, say, 20 years ago, or 22 years ago. I'm certainly hopeful that there is more enthusiasm on the part of young people for international relations or whatever.

MacNEIL: Mr. McPherson?

Mr. McPHERSON: Well, it seems to me that there's things happening in the world that we're really contributing to, that we can be proud of. These times are changing, as a couple of us have said here today. And I think this is going to continue to be the case. You can argue -- it's not Republican, Democrat, this administration or that. It's that the country, I believe, is beginning to say, "America has an important role to play in the world, and we as individuals can make a difference." And I hope that continues.

MacNEIL: Well, let me ask each of you, starting with you, Carol Bellamy. Is the Kennedy mystique still alive in some way for you, or is it just something the media all dredge up every anniversary, particularly this one?

Ms. BELLAMY: I think there's been a rather excessive attempt to remind everybody that it's 20 years this time, but I think it still exists.

MacNEIL: How does it exist?

Ms. BELLAMY: Well, there's a camaraderie among people. There is still, to some degree, a looking back about what took place and a hoping we'll see it in the future. I don't think it's solely on international matters.I recall that VISTA followed Peace Corps, at the same time as well. It was a sense that people could help improve the lives of other people. Some of that is still going on, but I do think that we don't spend 365 days a year remembering we were Peace Corps volunteers and deciding to march off behind the banner of John Kennedy.

MacNEIL: Mr. Livingston, is the personal or political mystique of John Kennedy still alive for you, or is it just something revived by all this media attention now?

Mr. LIVINGSTON: Well, it is still alive, although it's a very difficult thing to appraise. I can remember 20 years ago today I had already returned from he Peace Corps. I had begun graduate studies in New York. And the terror of the assassination is still with me. The spirit of the Peace corps, the enthusiasm of JFK I suppose is still alive. As I say, I still keep in touch with these students, many of whom have gone on to do far more important things than I have ever done, and I keep in touch with these colleagues, and I think it is largely because it was mediated on a quite personal level.

MacNEIL: Mr. McPherson, how much is that spirit alive for you, just personally?

Mr. McPHERSON: Oh, very much. The Peace Corps, as I indicated earlier, has made an enormous difference in the way I see the world.

MacNEIL: Not just the Peace Corps, but the sort of -- how much of Kennedy's presence is still around, in your mind?

Mr. McPHERSON: Well, to the extent that Kennedy represented that idealism, that tapping of the best of America, it's still very much there. I see him as having tapped a tradition of individualism, of willingness to contribute with the Peace Corps, and that's certainly very much there.

MacNEIL: What was it in him that was able to tap that? What was the essence of that?

Mr. McPHERSON: Well, he thought, through things like the Peace Corps, that we as individuals could make a difference, and I think is true, and I think that's certainly very much part of the way I see the world, and I think that many of those people at AID where I work now see the world -- those former PCVs.

MacNEIL: What was it about him that could -- what was the essence of that appeal?

Ms. BELLAMY: I agree. I said that earlier. You could make a difference, that you had some responsibility to put some time into making a difference for someone else --

Mr. McPHERSON: I like that word.

Ms. BELLAMY: -- that -- everybody is on a track to get out of business school today. That's not the way it was back in the '60s, and I think that you still have some sense, even a searching, for that time when you could make -- you could make a contribution.

Mr. McPHERSON: I like that word "responsibility," because I think that is a key word. If as individuals we feel we can do something, we have a responsibility to do it, we can change the world, at least in our little way.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you, Mr. McPherson and Mr. Livingston in San Francisco, and Ms. Bellamy in New York. Jim?

LEHRER: There's a thesis which says John Kennedy flashed across the American political and psychic screen like a comet. Unless you were alive and there in the early '60s to see and experience it yourself, as the three people we just talked to did, he means nothing. We decided to explore that thesis with a group of young people who were not there because they weren't born yet. Charlayne Hunter-Gault did the exploring.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: John F. Kennedy High School in Willingboro, New Jersey, is one of about 27 high schools in the country named for the late President. Willingboro is a middle-class suburban community. The student body at the high school is 51% black, 45% white. The students and faculty of John F. Kennedy High School used to commemorate the anniversary of his death by placing a wreath at his bust, but in recent years interest has waned, and the practice was discountinued. This year, with the heightened attention given the 20th anniversary of his death, the school is again planning a simple ceremony.

ANDY FETTER, history teacher: Then we're going to see if you're ready to fight a war.

HUNTER-GAULT [voice-over]: Andy Fetter teaches History II, a course which includes the Kennedy years. He selected a representative group of his students for us to talk with. Mr. Fetter won't get to 20th century history until later in the school year. His students say they learned about Kennedy from television, books and their parents.

[interviewing] How much did you know about what going on when John Kennedy was president?

DOUG HOYT, junior: Oh, you know, some. The Vietnam War was going on then, and there was that missile crisis in Cuba was going on.

HUNTER-CAULT: Lester?

LESTER CHAPMAN, sophomore: He started the space program. He was the one that started the space program, going to the moon. He did a lot of things for blacks and civil rights.

HUNTER-GAULT: How do you answer that?

AISSIA RICHARDSON, senior: Well, he was one of the youngest presidents that we've had, and he wasn't -- like, most of the presidents were WASP, right? but he wasn't. He was Catholic, and that one of the main things that made him stand out. And the Bay of Pigs, that happened during his term in office, when the United States had got together a group of people and they went over to wage war on Cuba.

HUNTER-GAULT: Did any of you ever hear his speeches, remember anything about them?

Ms. RICHARDSON: The one that really sticks out in my mind is when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." And that -- it's a lot of clips you see in the news and everything with him saying that, and during his election.

Mr. HOYT: He gave speeches just like Aissia said, that one, and others. And he gave -- his speeches made people feel good about America and to get behind it and behind him, and that he could help improve the image of America and make people proud to be American and everything.

HUNTER-GAULT: What was Kennedy like as a man?

CELESTE CAMPBELL, freshman: I think he was probably a very caring person. I heard on the news -- on a news clip or something on the news last night that once his secretary came into his office and he was playing with his kids on the floor, and she was thinking, "Oh, that's not exactly the best thing for a president of be doing, playing with his kids on the floor in the Oval Office," and that gave to me the impression that he was a family man and he cared a lot about his family, even though he was the president and he didn't let the presidency go to his head and think, "well, I'm the President now. I don't have time for my family."

EARL GRANT, senior: He was kind, nice. He was a very kind man.

HUNTER-GAULT: Lester, what kind of man do you think personally?

Mr. CHAPMAN: I think he was nice and he was kind, and he went out listening to people and getting their ideas instead of just making up his own and doing his own stuff. Even before he was president he went out listening to people.

HUNTER-GAULT: What about his flaws, his weak spots? Did you ever hear anything like that?

Mr. HOYT: I believe they discovered some tapes that he took of councils, like Nixon did, in his Oval Office. They're starting to find some of the faults with him now, many years after he was in office. So that there was faults. That shows you. He was just like anybody else.

Ms. CAMPBELL: I don't think people want to know about the negative parts of Kennedy because they saw him as a great president and a person that really cared and helped them out. So they don't want to hear about the negative parts. They only want to hear about the positive things.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think there's myth being here that may not be accurate?

Ms. RICHARDSON: I think that he was a good person, and I think that he was really special, but not as special as everybody's saying. I think that he would like to hear it, but that he would say, "Wait a minute, you know. I know I'm good, but I'm not that good."

MacNEIL: Many people observed the anniversary today by visiting the Kennedy gravesite at Arlington on the hillside overlooking Washington. D.C. Among those who paid tribute were members of the Green Berets, the special forces President Kennedy created.

LEHRER: Again, the other top stories of this day besides remembering the lost life of John F. Kennedy. West Germany's parliament voted to deploy nuclear missiles next month. The government announced a new right-to-know rule for employees working around hazardous chemicals, and the rule was immediately attacked by the AFL-CIO. Defense Secretary Weinberger pointed a stronger finger at Syria for complicity in the Beirut bombing that killed 239 U.S. servicemen. And Yasir Arafat has been given three days to get out of Tripoli, Lebanon, or face annihilation. Robin? Art in Marfa, Texas

MacNEIL: As regular viewers know, we like to give you little pauses now and then in our programs for moving postcards, views of the American landscape that remain there, whatever horrors or confusions the day's news brings. Tonight we close by taking you to a place that might easily have made a postcard, but the scenery in this place is worth a visit for a different reason. It's become a gallery of modern art. Kwame Holman has a report.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: The journey to what might be the most remote museum of modern art begins with a flight to El Paso, Texas. Then it's a four-hour drive through arid countryside where few animals and even fewer people live. Finally, you're in Marfa, a ranching community of 2,466 residents. But alongside the expected corrals and pastures is the unexpected -- massive sculptures spread across an open field. There are also 100 aluminum sculptures housed in the buildings of an abandoned Army post. Marfa has become the home for an important collection of modern art. So far, four prominent artists are represented in this museum. One of them, Donald Judd, is the sculpture who first brought modern art to Marfa.

DONALD JUDD, sculptor: For many years I had been looking for empty land that had not been damaged or destroyed, didn't have too many people. And I finally realized that there was a large space in West Texas from looking at the Texas map.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Judd started as a painter in the 1950s, but later turned to sculpture. In the last 20 years his work has been shown in major museums throughout the world. But it is here that he decided to open a center that has put Marfa on the art world map. Combining the work of well-known artists John Chamberlain, Dan Flavin and the late Barnett Newman, Judd plans to assemble a diverse, permanent display of abstract art. But how have the citizens of Marfa reacted to all this? Pat Ryan is editor of Marfa's weekly newspaper.

PAT RYAN, newspaper editor: It's gone all the way from the unexpected to the, I guess you'd say appreciation.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Rancher Bill Shirley has lived in Marfa all of his life.

BILL SHIRLEY, rancher: It's rather abstract, and people, I don't really believe, know how to appreciate it out here, to start off with. But then, as more things happen, then now I believe they've come to appreciate it.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The most noticeable part of the collection is this concrete sculpture. Still incomplete, it will have 15 components when the on-going construction ends sometime next year.

Mr. SHIRLEY: We could see one, then we could see two, three, four, and they just kept getting larger and larger and different angles. And it became general knowledge around town that it was a permanent position of concrete slabs to create shadows, create art in a way that a rancher wouldn't -- he wouldn't believe.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Marfa resident Jack Brunson.

JACK BRUNSON, Marfa resident: Well, first it was amazement and wonderment of what it would be. When I did see it it didn't come out to be art as art, I was expecting it to be art in the way of paintings and things, but I have since looked at it considerable, and sometimes it does it and sometimes it doesn't.

Mr. RYAN: One thing I really enjoyed about Don, I asked him, you know, what is all this? What does it mean? And he very simply came back to me and says, "well, what do you see in it?"

Mr. JUDD: I had no way of making art for other people. It could only be my own judgment. The point of this is the art itself. It's the installation of the art. And whatever comes afterwards is a byproduct. You can't consider an audience. You don't know who the audience is. I assumed that if it made sense to me it would make sense to other people.

Mr. SHIRLEY: It has added quite a little bit to the city. People have begun to accept it and say, "Well, look, we have an art foundation in Marfa, and it's from a worldwide source." And famous people show up here, and any time you can get different people into an area then it becomes well-known and we have a lot of pride.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim.

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