The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the news this Monday, security at the U. S. Embassy in Moscow was declared fully compromised. Jack Kemp announced for President, and a fourth body was found in the New York bridge disaster. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Robin? ROBERT MacNEIL: After the News Summary, we'll look at the security lapses in the Moscow Embassy with Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State. Then we talk with the newest Republican presidential candidate, Jack Kemp. Next, a documentary from Oregon on a radio tower that's generating a grass roots debate about nuclear warfare. Finally, sports writer, Mike Lupica, talks with a great baseball player who won't be playing this season, pitcher Tom Seaver. News Summary LEHRER: Two visiting members of Congress today declared the U. S. Embassy in Moscow fully compromised. Democrat Dan Mica and Republican Olivia Snowe took an inspection tour of the embassy and said afterwards that everyone agreed it was full of electronic listening devices installed by the KGB. Congressman Mica said ten other U. S. overseas missions are also suspected of being compromised, but he declined to name those ten locations. Back in Washington, Attorney General Edwin Meese conceded at a news conference there were serious security problems to be dealt with.

EDWIN MEESE, Attorney General: A number of precautions need to be taken which would tighten up on the security of the Moscow Embassy, and perhaps they're applicable to other embassies. I think that for one thing, we need to -- as a general rule in the federal government -- decrease the number of documents that are classified, decrease the number of people who have access to classified information, and give a higher priority to the particularly sensitive classified information. LEHRER: Also in Washington, legislation was introduced today to scrub the deal with the Soviets that led to new embassies for both countries that are still unoccupied. Congressional critics say the new $191 million U. S. Embassy in Moscow is full of KGB bugs. They claim the new Soviet Embassy in Washington is on a hill, with great electronic access to Pentagon, State Department and other official communications, while the U. S. facility in Moscow is in a swamp. The agreement that led to the construction of the new buildings was reached in 1972. Robin? MacNEIL: President Reagan ended a two day visit to Canada today, pledging good faith negotiations to eliminate trade restrictions, but no new initiatives on acid rain. After talks with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, the President spoke to the Canadian Parliament. He made no mention of the treaty Mulroney has suggested to commit the two countries to reduce acid rain by half during the 1990s. The President said there were no easy answers on acid rain, but reiterated his recent pledge to seek $2. 5 billion from Congress for pollution control projects. On negotiations for a free trade zone, Mr. Reagan said this:

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: For those who would hunker down behind barriers to fight a destructive and self defeating round of trade battles, Canada and the United States will show the positive way. LEHRER: Congressman Jack Kemp became an official candidate for President of the United States today. The Reublican Congressman from Buffalo, New York, made the announcement in Washington. He endorsed many of the foreign and defense policies of the Reagan administration, including the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars.

Rep. JACK KEMP, (R) NY: The central drama of the 20th century is the struggle between democracy and totalitarianism. But, ladies and gentlemen, the central dilemma of our day is that we lie defenseless against Soviet missiles. I want to be able to tell our children and our grandchildren that we found a way to protect America -- that we found the way to move the world from a doctrine of mutual assured destruction to a far safer world of strategic defense. The Strategic Defense Initiative is the greatest peace initiative of our time, and we can deploy it. MacNEIL: In New York, at least four bodies have been found following the collapse of an interstate highway bridge on the New York Thruway. The span, located 35 miles west of Albany, gave way suddenly yesterday. Witnesses say that at least three cars and a tractor trailer toppled 80 feet into the muddy Schoharie Creek. Altogether, 400 feet of the thruway bridge collapsed into the waterway, including a large section that suddenly gave way shortly after New York's Mario Cuomo arrived on the scene to survey the damage. Late today, searchers had located the tractor trailer, three of the cars, and four bodies, including one found floating in the Mohawk River, four miles from the accident scene. At a news conference today, Cuomo said the reason for the disaster still remains a puzzle.

MARIO CUOMO, Governor, New York: We have no reason at this moment to believe that there was a defect. We have no reason to believe that there wasn't a defect. We don't know what caused the tragedy. We know that there were inspections. We know that the bridge appeared to be safe in the last inspection. We know that immediately before the accident, a day or so, it was looked at and inspected and appeared to be safe. That leaves us without an explanation for the accident. MacNEIL: On the weather front, the week began the way last week ended, with rain in the north and snow in the south. Flood warnings were in effect in much of the Northeast, where more rain fell on top of the five inches that soaked the region over the weekend. More than 1,000 people fled waterlogged homes. Bridges were washed away, many roads made impossible. As for the South, it's been more snow than sun lately. Kentucky received flurries and was braced for flooding from the run off, while West Virginia was hardest hit with snow drifts of 15 feet, following the worst April storm on record. LEHRER: The U. S. Supreme Court today ruled against Texaco on an issue raised in its gigantic lawsuit with Pennzoil. The high court voted 9 to 0 to overturn a lower Federal Court decision that excused Texaco from posting an $11 billion bond while the suit is resolved on appeal. Texaco claims such a posting would bankrupt it. The lower court said $1 billion would be enough, but the Supreme Court said today the federal judge should have left the bond question to the state judges. The immediate impact of today's decision was unclear. And finally in the news, Major League baseball season opened today -- which is one very big deal to people who understand and appreciate baseball's poetically gentle pace and rhythm. For them, let it be reported the first pitch of the 1987 season was a curve ball, thrown by Toronto Bluejays' lefthander, Jimmy Key. The batter was Cleveland Indians' second baseman, Tony Bernazard. He took the pitch for a called strike. And six pitches later made the first out of the 1987 season, by grounding out short to first. Six to three if you're keeping your own scorecard. The Bluejays ended up winning the game seven to three. MacNEIL: That's the News Summary. Coming up on the News Hour, Henry Kissinger on embassy security, Jack Kemp on the Presidency, a grassroots fight over defending against a nuclear war, and pitcher, Tom Seaver. Soviet Embassy MacNEIL: We begin with the latest turns in the story about the compromised security at the U. S. Embassy in Moscow. The concern now is about a new embassy building under construction. Yesterday, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said that that site was so riddled with electronic bugging devices that the entire $191 million building should be torn down and built anew. The decision to go ahead with a new embassy, to be constructed with Soviet workmen, was made by the Nixon administration in 1972 and implemented by later administrations. A man who was there when the first decisions were made was Henry Kissinger, the National Security Adviser in 1972, and Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977. Dr. Kissinger, your present associate, Lawrence Eagleburger, says the U. S. in effect got snookered by the Soviets on the new embassy. Do you agree with him? HENRY KISSINGER, former Secretary of State: He hasn't said it to me. I must say -- you have to remember, this happened 15 years ago, and I am having this conversation on the basis of my recollections, not on the basis of documents. I don't think we were snookered in the building of the embassy. Gradually, after the decision was made to build a new embassy, I think there were not adequate security precautions taken. But usually what happens is that the decision to build these embassies is made by technical staffs. I cannot remember a single paper that came to the White House that raised security considerations or asked for the White House's opinion on how the embassy should be built -- or, indeed, I don't even remember a paper approving the embassy. But that must have happened on a technical level. I'm not saying this to escape any responsibility. I just want to make clear the level of priority in which embassy buildings tended to get handled. MacNEIL: The New York Times reports today that actually this was specifically raised because the Nixon administration -- over the strong objections of the then State Department -- that's before you went over to the State Department -- wanted to go ahead with an agreement which would allow Soviet workmen to work on construction of the building. Mr. KISSINGER: That has to be baloney. MacNEIL: Has to be baloney? Mr. KISSINGER: You mean that the White House ordered the State Department to use Soviet workmen when the State Department didn't want to use them? MacNEIL: Well, I'm just quoting what The New York Times -- that over the strong objections of the State Department, the Nixon administration, it says, made this agreement with the Soviets. Mr. KISSINGER: Look, I have not had a chance to review those documents. I have absolutey no recollection of this. It seems extremely unlikely that either the President or I would have an opinion on how an embassy should be constructed. MacNEIL: Even if you and President Nixon were very anxious at the time to promote a good feeling with the Soviet Union, which is part of detente -- Mr. KISSINGER: That couldn't possibly depend on it -- in l972 we were making agreements on strategic arms, we were making a whole series of agreements, principles of international conduct. Building the embassy was not part of the design to improve relations with the Soviet Union in our mind. I'm sure it was a technical issue -- who would build it? It's something in which I cannot believe we got involved. Now, you'll probably find some document in which -- or somebody will find a document on which somebody put an initial, or something. But I do not recall that in the many disputes that occurred between the White House and the State Department at that time that the manner of constructing an embassy would be a matter in which we would get involved. MacNEIL: Would you agree now with a senate staff report made a couple of years ago, after some bugging devices were found in the pre fabricated modules that were made by Soviet workers in a compound without U. S. supervision -- the U. S. was not allowed in -- that that was not a good way to construct an embassy? Mr. KISSINGER: Certainly not. But this embassy has been under construction -- I don't think the construction was started in the Nixon -- or even in the Ford administration. I think the actual construction started later. I think whoever approved the construction by Soviets without American supervision, made a mistake. And if it was the Nixon White House, then the Nixon White House made a mistake. But if it did, it was some technical paper that was -- I cannot conceive that the State Department was ordered to do this. MacNEIL: That same senate staff report was quoted as saying that common sense would tell the average citizen that it would be -- who had no diplomatic training or any Mr. KISSINGER: You won't get any argument out of me. It should have not been constructed by Soviet labor without American supervision. I have not had a chance to review the documents. I have no recollection of any disputes with respect to the building of the Soviet Embassy. And I know for a fact that whether -- the building of the embassy was not part of the White House Design for East/West relations. Whatever else may have -- MacNEIL: What do you think should be done now in such a situation. You've heard what we've quoted -- Patrick Leahy saying -- others have said -- the only thing you can do, because you can't guarantee you can get all the bugs out of the new building -- is to tear it down and start again. What do you think? Mr. KISSINGER: Really, I understand that former Secretary of Defense Schlessinger is looking into this matter, and he would be able to make a much more informed -- form a much more informed judgement than I can. It depends entirely on how badly compromised it is. And above all, whether there is an area inside the building that can be secured against bugging, and where we can store highly classified materials. Given the nature of modern technology, almost any building that has windows is likely to get bugged. So, that would seem to me to be the key question of whether a secured area inside the building can be created. MacNEIL: What does it say to you, as a former Secretary of State yourself, the picture of Secretary of State Shultz going to Moscow next week for important negotiations with his opposite number -- and the reports all say, and the State Department confirms them, apparently having to provide his own mobile home or trailer somewhere where he can have a secure place to -- Mr. KISSINGER: It's sort of humiliating. A certain amount of intelligence against each other's embassy is bound to go on. But to go to these extremes, as the Soviets did, shows a dominance of the KGB over the -- the Secret Police over the -- political process. That tells us something about the nature of the political system. I tell you, my temptation would be to say that the Secretary of State should meet Shevardnadze in Helsinki, and offer to fly to Moscow for a meeting with Gorbachev, or several meetings with Gorbachev if they are needed -- and then return to Helsinki, rather than conduct negotations in an environment in which we have to fly in our communications equipment -- in full view of the fact, demonstrating that the Soviets have totally penetrated our embassy. That would be my preference. But there may be weighty considerations against that. MacNEIL: One of the things that has been said when the Shultz Shevardnadze meeting was first announced was that a possible second Reagan Gorbachev summit might come out of it. Would you say -- and that summit was due to take place in Washington. Would you say that the security -- this latest security flap and discovery -- would be a factor in whether Mr. Reagan would want another summit with Mr. Gorbachev. Mr. KISSINGER: I think it should not affect the decision whether there is a summit. I think the decision on whether there should be a summit depends primarily on what progress is made in other negotiations. Maybe if the summit were in Moscow, one would have to raise the question. But for a summit in Washington, I do not think that the security situation in Moscow is relevant. MacNEIL: Looking, as an observer, at a recent pattern of Soviet tactics and decisions on things like arms control -- in relation with the West generally -- would you say that they show any pattern of the Soviets having extraordinarily good information? You know the speculation that all of the U. S. transmissions out of the Embassy may have been compromised over a certain period. Do you see anything that suggests the Soviets have been acting on much better information than is normal? Mr. KISSINGER: I would not be able to judge this. And I don't think that is the case. In any event, the most important thing access to most classified information does, is to tell you which of the many items in the media is true. Because most classified things are also in the newspapers. But in addition, many things that are not true are also in the newspapers. So if you have some knowledge of classified information, it eases the analytical task of the oposing intelligence system. But I do not think that our negotiations have been compromised. Maybe it was a little easier for the Soviets to develop a position, but it's not obvious to me. MacNEIL: You criticized in print over the weekend, the so called zero option -- that is, approving the proposed deal to remove the medium range missiles from Western Europe. We've talked with a number of people about that -- including the NATO Secretary General Lord Carrington the other day. He said in the interview, when asked about the concerns about this deal, he said, ''This is, after all, what we wanted in the first place -- if they'll get rid of the SS 20s -- in the first place the West would not put the medium range missiles in. Now that it's put them in, I think from our point of view, that's very satisfactory,'' he said. Why do you think differently about it? Mr. KISSINGER: You have to remember, Lord Carrington -- who is a very good friend of mine and a man whom I admire enormously -- Lord Carrington was British born, and Secretary at the time that this proposal first originated. And it originated at a time when the Soviets had 400 SS 20s, and we had none. And we had no medium range missiles in Europe at all. The European nations were faced with incipient riots in the streets -- in fact, actual riots in the streets -- and tried to calm their domestic situation. And therefore they made the proposal that if the Soviets would eliminate their weapons, we might never put ours in. I think deep down, they never believed that the Soviets would accept it -- and, indeed, they never did accept it. It is a dilemma that we are all stuck now with a proposal that was made to ease a short term situation. And, of course, Lord Carrington would say -- what he really said very carefully was ''We're getting what we wanted, so what right do we have to complain about it?'' That's correct. That's our dilemma. I simply -- and it may be that it's too late to do anything about it -- the fact that I want to point out is this: The Soviet Union's capacity to attack Europe with nuclear weapons is not significantly reduced by their eliminating their own medium range weapons. The American capacity to retaliate from Europe is eliminated. And, therefore, since the Soviet Union can threaten Europe as a nation, and we have to defend it as an ally from 4,000 miles away, there exists a psychological and political inequality, which, over time, will feed European neutralism and trends towards denuclearization. That is my deep concern. I'm not opposed to reducing the numbers. But the total elimination of a class of missiles of the United States that can reach the Soviet Union, creates a political inequality. MacNEIL: Dr. Kissinger, thank you very much for joining us. Kemp for President LEHRER: Jack Kemp is next. In our ongoing series of Presidential announcement day newsmaker interviews with the candidates, Kemp's desire to be the next President of the United States became official today.

LEHRER [voice over]: Republican Jack Kemp is a 51 year old representative from Buffalo, New York. He is a favorite of Conservative Republicans, many of whom believe he is the rightful heir of the Reagan legacy. It is a notion Kemp does not discourage. Rep. KEMP: Thanks to conservatives like you, we nominated, elected, and overwhelmingly re elected the best President in the 20th century, Ronald Reagan.

LEHRER voice over : Like the President he admires, Kemp came to politics through stardom. Not as an actor, but as a star quarterback. First with the San Diego Chargers, and then with the Buffalo Bills. The family football tradition has been passed on to his sons. Jeff, who quarterbacks for the San Francisco 49ers, and Jimmy, who plays high school football. Jack Kemp's father ran a small trucking firm in Los Angeles. One of four boys, Kemp played football and majored in physical education at Occidental College in California. After graduation in 1957, he married the former Joanne Maine. They have four children and one grandchild. During his time with the Buffalo Bills, Kemp began to work in the off season for then Governor of California Ronald Reagan. In 1970, Jack Kemp gave up football for politics. He was first elected to Congress in 1970, and was re elected for theninth time last November. During 16 years in Washington, Kemp has made his mark as an idea man, and as a party leader. In 1980, he was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference, the third ranking Republican leadership post in the House. Kemp also became the key proponent for Reaganomics, the supply side economics of the Reagan administration. He also was the author of the Kemp Roth tax cut, and a backer of tax reform. Rep. KEMP: By dropping tax rates, by lowering the tax on the family, by giving a $2,000 exemption for each and every dependent of each and every family, by taking six million low income poor off the tax rolls, we're making a contribution to the American people.

LEHRER: Kemp uses his membership on the Appropriations Foreign Operation Subcommittee, to acquire a platform for his views on foreign policy. He served on the Kissinger Commission on Central America, and was an official observer of the El Salvador elections in 1984. As an advocate of the Reagan doctrine, he pushed for aid to rebels in Angola, Afghanistan, and in Nicaragua. Recently, Kemp diverged from the administration when he attacked Secretary of State Shultz, and called for his resignation over the Iran arms controversy. Rep. KEMP: When the question becomes whether the President will conform to his Secretary of State, or the Secretary of State conforms to the President, it's time for Mr. Shultz to do the only correct thing. In my view, it's time for George Shultz to resign.

LEHRER: Still, as Jack Kemp crisscrosses the country, visiting the crucial states of New Hampshire and Iowa, he explains why the Republican candidacy should logically be his. Rep. KEMP: I'll be the only candidate in 1988 who was a major architect in the platform upon which Ronald Reagan ran for President.

LEHRER: Today, Jack Kemp made it official. He is the first of the candidates to announce in Washington. He then went on to his district in Buffalo, and from there, on to required stops in Iowa and New Hampshire tomorrow. Last Friday, I spoke with Jack Kemp about his run for the Presidency. LEHRER: What would an America under President Jack Kemp be like? Rep. KEMP: Well, it's fun to envision. At least, for me anyway. I believe very strongly in economic growth. I believe that this country is operating at about two thirds of its economic potential. I would really feel very strongly about committing this country to policies that would bring us to full employment without inflation, the full utilization of all our physical and human potential, enterprise zones where there is huge minority unemployment -- in the inner cities and those rural areas -- I believe very strongly in the defense of the West -- of Western Judao Christian values. I think that we should be defended against the threat of nuclear ballistic missile attack. So I am a proponent of the Strategic Defense Initiative. It's President Reagan's vision. And will probably be the next President who can implement it. And I favor that, moving out of research phase into the development and deployment phase. I'm a strong supporter of the cause of freedom around the world, and human rights. I believe very strongly that the Jeffersonian ideal should be the lodestar of all administrations. That the God who gave his life gave us freedom at the same time, and we should preserve and promote and protect, and extend human rights and civil rights, and legal rights, and voting rights to all people, and that we should protect and defend the least unto us, and the least unto Him. That is, make sure that a rising tide lifts all boats, and you don't leave anybody behind. I believe in the pro family, pro life movement very strongly. So, I would like to think that I have a consistent view of American that is positive and progressive, as well as well within the tradition of our founding fathers and those great Presidents who went before us. LEHRER: Congressman Gingrich, who is a colleague of yours in the House, a Conservative, says that Jack Kemp doesn't have an agenda for the 1990s. Was he wrong? Rep. KEMP: Yeah. I think Newt is right about a lot of things, but he's certainly wrong about that. I think I have the most well defined and most positive agenda for the future of America of any of the announced candidates or possible candidates. LEHRER: What distinguishes you from George Bush? Rep. KEMP: Well, without specifically identifying the differences between the Vice President and myself, I'll be the only candidate in the race who was for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I'll be the only one -- LEHRER: Is that a big deal? Rep. KEMP: Well, it will be by the time I finish my answer. I'll be the only one in the race who helped draft and was the architect in large part of the platform upon which Ronald Reagan ran in '80, and ran again in '84. I'll be the only one in the race who has not advocated raising taxes or cutting back on social security in the last six years. And I'll be the only one in the race who specifically wants to move the Strategic Defense Initiative out of the laboratory phase into the development and deployment phase. So I think that what I am for, is what distinguishes me from the other candidates, as opposed to what they're against. LEHRER: Are you a better man than George Bush? Rep. KEMP: Well, that's for the people to determine. He probably thinks he's the best, and I think I'm the best, or I wouldn't be running. But that's really for the people to decide. I'm a democrat -- small 'D' democrat. I'm willing to trust that decision to the people of the country, and my party. LEHRER: Would you be a better President than Robert Dole? Rep. KEMP: Well, again, I would answer it the same way. He, I'm sure, thinks he'd be the best President. I think I'd make the best President. LEHRER: Of all the things that you outlined in the beginning, with a couple of minor exceptions, if I would ask the same question of George Bush, the same question of Robert Dole, they'd give you identical answers. Rep. KEMP: I disagree. I think most of the other candidates view the future with some anxiety, with a sense of pessimism about deficits and trade, and the international ability of America to compete in the world. I think my view is one of optimism, hope, one of -- a sense of confidence that there are no limits to what free enterprise and free men and women can accomplish. I think I have a much more boundless sense of what America is all about than my opponents. But that's for the primary season to bring out. I don't think it's necessarily who says what right now that makes that determination. People are gonna get a sense of who they want to be their leader, who has the best vision of America, and who can best broaden the base of the Republican Party -- to include those people who heretofore have been left outside of our constituency. LEHRER: Speaking of the people of your constituency, you have, more or less, been an unannounced candidate for President for six or seven years, and yet the recent -- well, more or less, everybody says, ''Oh, Jack Kemp's gonna run for President in 1988. '' Rep. KEMP: How would they know what Jack Kemp was saying, [unintelligible] -- for six months. LEHRER: Okay, there's not been a major story written in the last six or seven years about the 1988 election that hasn't always said something about Jack Kemp. And yet, the most recent poll -- at least the ABC Washington Post poll -- shows among Republicans, you are not their preferred candidate, 9%, compared to 42% Bush, and 30% Dole. What's gone wrong? What's the problem? Rep. KEMP: Nothing's gone wrong. I'm further advanced than I ever thought we would be. We have a good organization. I think I've got good ideas. There's a lot of people in the primary states who are excited about our campaign, and our cause. And I am further advanced than was Gary Hart and George Bush in 1980 and '84. So, I think at this point in the race, so to speak, politics is pretty much a blur as to who is -- who, other than just name ID -- I don't have the name ID that Bush and Dole have. With all due respect, I'm in the 20s. They're in the 90s. When people fill out their ABC Washington Post poll, they basically pick people who are on the evening news. I'm not on the Evenings News. I get on MacNeil Lehrer every now and then, but not on the Evening News. I'll be all right -- if I were here after February and March of '88, I'll start to worry about it, but right now, I'm working on organization and activating the grassroots in the primary states across the country. LEHRER: What are you telling the people in the grassroots to activate? Rep. KEMP: Well, a campaign. Keeping the cause alive. Taking the new beginning President Reagan gave us and moving it forward. Building on the strengths, correcting the mistakes, modifying the weaknesses, and bringing the potential out of the American economy, the American idea, and the preservation and promotion of those values, so important to the American people. Trying to motivate, energize, activate, and win over the hearts and minds of -- first of all -- people in the Republican Party, and after the nomination process, the people of the country. LEHRER: Well, why do you think that only you can do that, or that you would be the best one to do this? Rep. KEMP: Well, isn't that what election is all about? I thought I would make the best Congressman for the 31st Congressional District -- no offense to my opponent. And now I think I'm in this, because every single thing that I have fought for for 16 years is up for grabs in 1988. And I think that 1988 will determine what is at the heart and soul of a new Republican Party. If it's ever to be a majority party, I think it needs a majority nominee, someone who thinks majority, and I am -- I think -- I believe -- the one candidate in our party who thinks that our ideas have appeal to the whole majority of the American people -- irrespective of color, creed, or economic or social conditions. LEHRER: Yes, but what drives you, Jack Kemp, to think that you can do it, and that -- I mean, you really want to be President? Rep. KEMP: Well, I'm answering in the affirmative by telling you that every single thing I have fought for for 16 or 17 years is up for grabs in 1988. And it's obligatory upon someone who has strong beliefs and a strong view about things, and a vision of the future, to get out and challenge the system. And do I want to be President? You bet. When I think of my family, and our families, when I think of our future, and the future of the country and the free world, I very definitely want to be President of the United States. LEHRER: If you had to single out one thing that you do not believe would happen if you were not President of the United States, what would it be? Rep. KEMP: Well, I guess, without sounding terribly sanctimonious about it -- I don't think that America will reach its full potential. I think that is the one real place in which I am separate and distinct from my opponents in both political parties. I believe the potential of America is boundless, limitless, and that we're operating at a level far below that potential capacity, and my presidency would try to accentuate how far we've come, and how far we have to go to reach that God given potential in our country and in each and every one of us. LEHRER: I assume you've given a lot of thought to what lies before you in terms of traveling, in terms of heat and scrutiny of you and your family, and all that. Does that scare you? Do you look forward to it? What do you see when you look ahead at these next several months of this campaign? Rep. KEMP: -- take it step by step, once you come to the decision to run -- and you realize that it's worthwhile to make the effort. You take those steps each day at a time, and that's what I'm doing. I've discussed it with my family. I don't plan on giving up my family. I don't believe in giving up my football games. I'm not gonna give up those precious moments with my family. But I think I can do both, and do it the right way. I think I have something to offer my country. And I think I can be a blessing to my country. I think I can be a blessing to my party. And I think I'm a winner in the sense that I can win, even if I lost. And I don't think I'm going into this with an idealism, but I think I can do it the right way. I want to do it for the right reason. And if I keep those uppermost in my mind, I can take the slings and arrows and darts and bullets. LEHRER: You mention football -- are you weary of people always saying, ''Oh, there's Jack Kemp, the ex football player. '' Are you ready to put that behind you? Rep. KEMP: It's behind me, in the sense that I've been in Congress for 17 years, but I played pro football, I was a quarterback, and I'm proud of that. It's part of my life, it's a way of thinking about life and your career. And I'm a competitor. But it really goes into my make up as a competitive human being. But it isn't something I'm running on, nor can I dodge it. There'll be some people who'll vote against me because I was a pro football player. There may be a couple who'll vote for me. I don't think it's gonna matter one way or another. LEHRER: You don't think it's a negative? Rep. KEMP: It may be a negative for some. It may be a positive for some. I think it's me, and it's what makes me want to run for President -- the fact that I am a competitor -- and a quarterback. LEHRER: And a quarterback. Well, good luck to you. Generating a Debate MacNEIL: Next, we focus on an exotic new radio transmitter, called a GWEN Tower. Marilyn Deutsch from Oregon Public Broadcasting explains what a GWEN Tower is, and why it stirs up so much controversy when the Defense Department tries to build one.

MARILYN DEUTSCH [voice over]: This spindly 299 foot radio tower, sitting in a farm field north of Spokane, Washington, is part of a network of communications towers the Air Force wants to build across America. It is called a GWEN Tower, and in a handful of communities from Oregon to Maine, GWEN has become one of the most controversial military projects of the 1980s. FRANKLIN MILLER, Department of Defense: The purpose of GWEN is to provide assured communications between warning sites and the President, and between the President and our forces during the period of time that it takes for Soviet weapons to travel on their way to the United States. MARY O'BRIEN, No GWEN Alliance: It's part of an illusion that we can somehow win a protracted nuclear war and come out of it alive.

DEUTSCH voice over : GWEN stands for Ground Wave Emergency Network. It is a $800 million system designed to function before, during, and perhaps even after nuclear attack. Here's how and why. American military planners fear the Soviets might detonate a high altitude nuclear blast over the U. S. Nuclear explosions create a tremendous amount of radio interference. That effectively jams U. S. military communications. So, despite the hundreds of billions we have spent on military hardware, stray radiation, generated by that first blast, might render our defenses impotent. Our troops, planes, missiles, even nuclear submarines, might never get their orders to retaliate. To the Pentagon, this gap in our communications is a wartime Achilles heel. Which is why the GWEN system was designed. It works with very low frequency radio waves, the kinds that are not jammed by high altitude nuclear blasts. There will be 127 separate GWEN towers. No single direct blast would stand a chance of knocking out the whole system. The Pentagon did not design GWEN to bring the issue of nuclear war into America's backyard. But in the tale of two Oregon cities, that's exactly what GWEN has done. First, Eugene, Oregon, where a showdown last year between GWEN critics and the Air Force, resulted in a victory for community activists. Barbara Keller and Mary O'Brien spearheaded the opposition to GWEN. BARBARA KELLER, No GWEN Alliance: Most of the people here in Lane County thought that what we would be doing was simply demonstrating, making our point known, trying to let people know what was going on -- eventually we would lose, they would build the tower, maybe we would demonstrate a few times, a couple of people would get arrested, and the tower would be there.

DEUTSCH voice over : But GWEN's opponents were far more successful than they had dreamed. In a surprise move last fall, the Air Force apparently backed down on its bid to build a GWEN tower on this property near Eugene. [on camera] The Air Force claims it pulled out because of Indian artifacts found on its chosen site, but few people buy that explanation. Everyone agrees the real reason was political pressure put on the U. S. military by Oregon's senator, Mark Hatfield. [voice over]: Hatfield, then Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, slashed the GWEN budget, twisted a few arms, and told the Air Force that there was just too much anti GWEN sentiment in Eugene. Air Force officials have not admitted defeat, and say they're still looking for an alternative site here in Oregon. Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed by GWEN opponents is still pending. The suit demands that the Air Force detail the environmental effects of a nuclear war. Mr. MILLER: Whether or not a nuclear war occurs is something that is completely outside of the Environmental Protection Act. It is not a logical consequence of the construction of the GWEN tower. Ms. KELLER: It is not just a plastic tower that will never function. It is built with a function in mind. It is supposed to send nuclear release signals in the event of a nuclear war. And you have to look at the intended use of this system when you talkabout what the repercussions of it will be. You can't just say that we're going to put all of these weapons systems in place and never use them. DEUTSCH [voice over]: But so far, the courts have not agreed with Barbara Keller. And the Air Force is free to avoid the topic of nuclear war in its Environmental Impact Statement. The case is being appealed. Not everyone in the Eugene area opposed GWEN. Harry Hance is ex Air Force. Now he presides over the Air Force Association of Eugene, the Concerned Citizens for Defense, and the Defense Education Committee. HARRY HANCE, Air Force Association: -- that as long as we're expecting the federal government to provide for our defense, I don't think individual cities or municipalities, or counties, or states even, have the right to object to defense installations. Ms. O'BRIEN: I object to placing a tower in people's communities and telling them that it's a radio tower, and never explaining to citizens that what that emergency communications system means is that if nuclear war breaks out, their community is going to be a priority target.

DEUTSCH: But the Pentagon says it just does not know what the Soviets would do in a nuclear war. Mr. MILLER: We can give no guarantee that no place in this country is or is not targeted.

DEUTSCH voice over : While few in Eugene ever expected to turn back the U. S. Air Force, activists agree that the community was ready for the battle. It's a college town, population 106,000. And last year, voters here declared Eugene and surrounding Lane County nuclear free zones. Ms. O'BRIEN: If a commnity is vocal about their concerns about military actions, they can win against the military.

DEUTSCH [voice over]: The battle Lane County activists won is now being waged again -- 200 miles to the south in Klamath County, where the Air Force wants to build another GWEN tower. [on camera] This area has not declared itself a nuclear free zone. In fact, the county's biggest city, Klamath Falls, is a small working class town, far more hungry for jobs than it is to take on the U. S. military. [voice over]: Since World War II, the military has been a good neighbor here in Klamath Falls. Peasley Field was once an Air Force base. Now it's run by the Air National Guards. BARBER: [unintelligible] DINER: I think it's a good deal myself.

DEUTSCH [voice over]: Gabe Gomez heads the No GWEN alliance in Klamath County. GABE GOMEZ, No GWEN Alliance: The idea isn't so much to convince others, as it is to begin dialogue and to begin to get people to look at the issue. We feel that the majority of the people in Klamath County aren't even aware that the tower is being planned for this area. MAN ON STREET: Oh, the GWEN tower, oh. I was thinking of an apartment house.

DEUTSCH [voice over]: A public information meeting in January, sponsored by the newly formed No GWEN Alliance, brought out mostly the believers, but with at least one exception. OPPONENT: I have a question. What do you propose as an alternative, in case the Russians do bomb the United States? You're talking about taking a petition here, for people to sign this. And I'm gonna start another one for another group called Go, GWEN, Go.

DEUTSCH [voice over]: In fact, so far, GWEN has generated little ink down here. PATI O'CONNOR, Reporter: From my perspective, at least, it seems to be a rather small group of people who are opposed to GWEN. EX-MARINE VETERAN: How many people have sacrificed their lives to make sure that wehave what we have today? For us to put up a little tower doesn't seem too much to me.

DEUTSCH [voice over]: That's an ex Marine talking. All these men are. These are the veterans of World War II, Korea and Vietnam. You don't feel that you'll be more of a target perhaps? EX-MARINE VETERAN: No. Absolutely not. No way. EX-MARINE VETERAN: That's not a primary target. We'd never be a primary target. If they're gonna have a military objective, it's gonna be a lot more important than this area here. EX-MARINE VETERAN: Very seldom does a community of our size get the opportunity to be of service to the country in national defense. To not take advantage of that, and not do that, I think, is bordering on being unpatriotic.

DEUTSCH [voice over]: Besides the two GWEN towers the Air Force says are still earmarked for Oregon, there will also be a total of three in the state of Washington. And there are still roughly 100 more GWEN towers the Air Force wants to build throughout the Continental U. S. Sermon on the Mound LEHRER: Finally, a litle something to remember today was the opening day of the Major League baseball season. It's a conversation about baseball between Tom Seaver and Mike Lupica of The New York Daily News.

MIKE LUPICA voice over : If I were to make a highlight film of Tom Seaver's career, the real trick would be deciding which of his extraordinary accomplishments to leave out. In Seaver's two decades on the mound, he won more than 300 games, three Sy Young Awards, and the World Series. But what distinguishes Seaver is not his impressive statistics, but his knowledge of the game, and his appreciation of pitching as both an art and science. As his famed fast ball lost its speed, Seaver became a finesse pitcher, relying on his brain to get batters out. In all, Seaver played for four teams, the New York Mets, Cincinnati Reds, Chicago White Sox, and Boston Red Sox. Last season, he just missed playing his third World Series when a September knee injury kept him on the Red Sox bench. Now, instead of playing his 21st season, Seaver has opted to tend to his family and home, rather than deal with whether or not to pitch a batter high and inside or low and on the corner. LUPICA: When you're young and you can throw the ball by everybody, don't you think that you're gonna be able to do it forever, and when was the first time you had to start making adjustments? That you just have lost a little something off the -- TOM SEAVER, Baseball player: There's never an area of black and white. This is not an area where you say, where you wake up one morning and say, ''Gee, now I've gotta change. I've lost my fast ball, and I gotta do something different. '' It's a very long period of very subtle shades of gray. And that's what pitching is. And that's why I was effective for 20 years. Some years, more effective than others. You have a year -- like 1969 when I was 25 and 7 -- you don't have careers like that. You go through anybody's record -- right? -- they have high moments, you know, but they will settle in to an average. And I don't think as a young player that you understand that. Going in. I think you understand it after you've gotten in there and taken your lumps and knocks and been shoved around, and all of a sudden realize that you're a mere mortal and that you can lose. And that you're never as good as somebody in the press will write you up to be. And you're never as bad, either. LUPICA: What's the best day you ever had? Mr. SEAVER: I had a whole bunch of them. (laughter) No, the best day I had from pure enjoyment was winning 300. I mean, I never wanted to show a whole bunch of emotion on the field as far as pitching was going, but, I mean, after -- when I won 300, that was a really joyous moment. LUPICA: You took a lot of nice walks in baseball. Did you ever take a nicer one from the mound to your wife and daughter that day after 300? Mr. SEAVER: No, that was a beautiful moment. That was terrific, yeah. LUPICA: Give me some snapshots from your 300 -- game situations, memories -- obviously, they're still vivid for you. Mr. SEAVER: The biggest part of the day was Winfield in the 8th inning, two outs, two men on, how're you gonna get 'em out? [film clip] ANNOUNCER: And here is Dave Winfield. Mr. SEAVER: You get outta this, you're in great shape. Of course, 4 to 1, man on 1st, man on 3rd, and Winfield to plate. And I'm gonna go fast ball inside. And [unintelligible] puts down curve ball. Farthest thing from my mind, you know. But in that split second, I said, ''He's right,'' and went right into my motion. I didn't question it, didn't do it. Went right into it. Boom. Curve ball, strike one. That was the last thing that he was expecting was curve ball. It was the last thing I wanted to throw. So Carl said, ''Put it down. '' I get down to three and two. My whole objective is to get the count to three and two, and use his aggressiveness against him. ANNOUNCER: Three balls, two strikes, two outs, two on. White Sox on tap for one. We're at the bottom of the 8th inning. Mr. SEAVER: So, I came to my stretch like this. I mean, this wasn't something that I had planned, but it was one of those things that kicked in through experience like this -- came around and checked the runner at first base. Now, Dave Winfield is at home plate, with all the anticipation of 50,000 people praying, too, bottom of the 8th inning, 2 out, 4 to l, he's the [unintelligible] he wants to hit the ball out of the ball park. And what does the pitcher do? He steps off, checks the runner at first. Who was absolutely meaningless. I mean, I could've pitched from the wind up, didn't make any difference. And so what does that do to the hitter? If, in fact, I'm trying to make him more aggressive. Does that -- it has exactly that. That's exactly what it does. One more ounce in my favor. [voice over]: The pitch that I wanted to throw -- I throw it. Change speeds on him, get him out, strike him out. LUPICA: So, who called the game, you or the catcher? Did you? Mr. SEAVER: I take you back to 1967. Jerry Grody who was a real rough and gruff catcher. And I was pitching my first game at Shea Stadium, and I shook him off, you know, and he came out to the mound and said, 'What do you think you're doing?'' And I knew this was gonna happen, because one of the old timers told me he was a rough and tumble catcher, and a real hardnosed guy. And so, I knew what I was gonna say. I was determined what I was gonna say, it's like trying to pitch, you know. I knew it was gonna happen [untelligible] come out and chew my rear end off, so what am I gonna say? And I said, ''I'm the last one to touch the ball,'' and I said, ''I'll call the pitches. '' Right? [Unintelligible] left and we had a working relationship for 10 years, which is outstanding. But, no. You begin to develop relationship with the catcher, where you begin to think as one. And sometimes a catcher knows exactly what I wanna do. And other times they would put down a signal for a pitch that they knew I did not want to throw, simply to make me make a movement to get to another pitch, because that would go into the hitter's machine, and computer, and say, ''What in the world, he shouldn't be shaking off in this 2 2 count -- I should know exactly what he's doing -- '' and confusion, you know. That's part of the mental aspect of the game. LUPICA: Has there ever been a manager who's really helped you as a pitcher? Mr. SEAVER: Oh, yeah, Gil Hodges, no question. Oh, yeah. Gil Hodges saw me and helped me be a professional. Helped me in my approach to the game. It was on my second year. I mean, when Gill came over in '68. I was young and impressionable, and he was the strength for all -- we were basically in -- that New York Mets team, the first few years of my career -- basically we were all very young. And he was the pillar of strength. No matter what happened, it's like going into combat, you know -- you knew you had Gil. You knew Gil was standing there. You knew he wouldn't fall. It was like being a Marine -- just like charging the beach -- you knew you could go, because Gil was there. You had to fight your own battles, but the support system -- he was always behind you. LUPICA: Real life things happen in sports -- guys get traded, guys get hurt, guys have slumps, guys have to retire early. But what was it like when Gil Hodges up and died on you? I mean, he was 46 years old, or whatever he was -- Mr. SEAVER: That was real tough, yeah. He was a very young man. LUPICA: You were where when you found out, do you remember? Mr. SEAVER: I know exactly where I was. That was the year -- there was a strike, and we had gone -- had returned home to Connecticut. And I was sitting at my desk in my office, and I was paying bills. And Buddy Hillson called me. And he said, ''Did you hear the news?'' And I said, ''Great, the strike's over. Terrific. '' He said, ''No, Gil died. '' I went, ''What?'' It gives me chills today. I was sitting there, and just said it was impossible. It was impossible. Too young, too big and too strong. Couldn't do it. And he was gone. I mean, that gives you an idea of how sensitive life is, and maybe that's one of the reasons why -- certainly one of the reasons why -- I've had 20 years, you know. I devoted to travel and being away. And maybe it's now, you know -- you don't live forever. And the daughter's 16, and a daughter's 11. Maybe it's more time for them. LUPICA: How much of the romance of baseball and the clubhouse and so forth is a way for guys to hold onto their youth? Mr. SEAVER: I never thought of it that way. I never thought of it as holding on to youth. Holding on to your youth means that you're afraid of middle age and maturity, and there are not other things that are gonna be exciting to do. Certainly, your point is well taken, and there are people who don't want to let that go. But one's appreciation for the game, one's involvement in the game, changes over the span of 20 years. I'm 42 years old. I'm a very young man. I feel like I have 25 productive years left. Whatever I choose -- wherever that might fall. I mean, I don't know if I would relish doing what I have done for the last 20 years, and looking to say, ''Well, I have to do this for 20 more years. I can do this for 20 more years. '' I really don't want to. I don't want to do it for 20 more years. LUPICA: Tom Seaver not in a baseball summer? Mr. SEAVER: I had 20 of them (laughter). MacNEIL: Once again, a look at the top stories today. A Congressman said the Soviets have fully compromised security at the Moscow Embassy. And former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, said on the News Hour that Secretary of State Shultz should consider not meeting in Moscow next week with Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, but instead should hold the meetings in Helsinki. Congressman Jack Kemp became a formal contender for the Republican Presidential nomination. The death toll in the collapse of a bridge on the New York Thruway rose to four. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and goodnight.