The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. In the news today, the White House said that the SALT II treaty is dead. South Africa declared a nationwide state of emergency and detained hundreds of anti-apartheid activists. The government said 54,000 people a year will die from AIDS by 1991. We'll have the details of these and other stories in our news summary in a moment. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, arms control official Kenneth Adelman and Senator Albert Gore debate the on again, off again death of SALT II. Cokie Roberts sorts through the latest Congressional hassles on tax reform. Charles Krause reports on the politics of Mexico in part two of his series on our troubled neighbor to the south. And finally, essayist Anne Taylor Fleming talks about the tick tick of the biological clock.News Summary

LEHRER: The SALT II treaty died again today. White House spokesman Larry Speaks announced its death, telling reporters, "The SALT treaty no longer exists. If we take future actions in the area of arms control it will be for reasons other than the SALT agreement." President Reagan said last night at a news conference he had not really made a decision to disregard the nuclear arms limits of the unratified 1979 treaty. He said there was still a chance to work out an arms agreement with the Soviets before SALT limits were breached. Speaks said he did not know why President Reagan said what he said, but he said he was saying this morning -- what he was saying this morning had the President's full approval. And Mr. Reagan himself said later, "I think you can trust what Larry Speaks said." He added this explanation:

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: We'll make the decision with regard to the ballistic missile or the cruise missile when that time comes. But in the interim, we're going to be dealing with the Soviet Union on their most recent proposal to us. The time has come to replace a treaty that was never ratified, that has now gone beyond the length of time for which it was designed, which they have never observed -- have been violating since its inception -- to replace that with a legitimate arms reduction treaty. Now, that's what I was saying last night.

MacNEIL: In South Africa the government declared a nationwide state of emergency in an effort to head off violence on Monday, the tenth anniversary of the riots that took nearly 600 lives in Soweto, a black township near Johannesburg. Today several hundred activists were detained even before the emergency was announced. We have a report from Michael Buerk of the BBC.

MICHAEL BUERK [voice-over]: The police raids on the offices of opposition groups across the country began well before dawn. The state of emergency was already in operation, but no announcement had been made. The crowds of workers singing in the streets didn't know. Neither did the police who were keeping them out of their offices.

Policeman: You can't go in these offices. I am arresting you. Now. Immediately. Thank you.

Man: What's the problem? What law are we breaking here?

Policeman: Under Section 40 we request you to leave immediately now.

BUERK [voice-over]: They sang hymns when the police finally let them in. But the searching went on. It was by far the biggest sweep of its kind the authorities have made here. They took away trolley-loads of documents while the crowds were kept back by dogs. The police were still claiming it was a routine operation, even though word was out that hundreds had been arrested across the country. The workers celebrated when the police finally left. But their celebrations didn't last long. The government was announcing the state of emergency had been brought in at midnight.As dogs swept the streets of demonstrators, more details -- press censorship, curfews, not just in some areas like last time, but everywhere. In Parliament tonight, President Botha talked of the threat of communist revolution.

P. W. BOTHA, president, South Africa: The government is well aware of the fact that stricter security action will elicit strong criticism and even curative measures from the outside world. The implications and the price of these have also been taken into account.

BUERK [voice-over]: Black leaders not arrested queued up to denounce the new measures.

Rt. Rev. DESMOND TUTU, bishop of Johannesburg: All I am -- I would say is that again we have an indication of a government that is aware that it is not in control of things. And, therefore, the first way of pretending that you've got control of things is to be iron-fisted.

MacNEIL: The White House said the emergency decree and the detentions were a serious mistake, but the spokesman said the U.S. remains opposed to economic sanctions against South Africa. But in London a group of leaders of the British Commonwealth who studied South Africa's problems for five months said it would ask the United States, Britainand West Germany to impose sanctions. The Commonwealth leaders said that if that is not done, black radicals will take over South Africa and destroy all Western business interests.

LEHRER: The State Department expressed concern today over reports the military commander of Panama was a crook. The New York Times and NBC News said General Manuel Antonio Noriega had been linked to drug trafficking, selling guns to terrorists, money laundering and murder, among other things. Secretary of State Shultz said such activities are obviously of importance and concern to the United States. State Department spokesman Bernard Kalb said the allegations should be examined, particularly by the Panamanians. The Times report said Noriega's willingness to cooperate with U.S. military and intelligence units had caused U.S. officials to turn a blind eye to his illegal activities.

MacNEIL: The government predicted today that by 1991 more Americans will die of AIDs disease than are now killed annually in traffic accidents. The report also predicted that the disease will spread rapidly outside the areas of New York and San Francisco, where it's concentrated now. Basing their figures on projections by the Centers for Disease Control, the Public Health Service said that by 1991 more than 270,000 people will have been diagnosed with AIDS, and more than 179,000 will have died. In the year 1991 alone, AIDS deaths are predicted to be more than 54,000. By comparison, 46,200 people died in auto accidents in 1984.

LEHRER: President Reagan took delivery on the Packard Commission report today. The commission spent ten months studying the way the Pentagon is managed. They recommended several fundamental changes, including reform of the joint chiefs of staff and the way military hardware is acquired. The group's chairman was former Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard. He told reporters at the White House the real problem was management.

DAVID PACKARD, commission on defense management: The losses that are due to fraud and abuse are very small in relation to the losses that we get from inefficient management. We can save billions of dollars by managing the whole process better. What we hope to do is to make it the responsibility of every individual in the industry and every individual in the department to know what good behavior is, what's expected of them, to have the opportunity to report anything they see without danger of any retribution of any kind.

LEHRER: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee today approved an extradition treaty with Britain aimed at preventing Irish terrorists from hiding in the United States. The vote was 15 to 2 in favor. It now goes to the Senate floor where a two thirds vote is required for passing.

MacNEIL: In economic news, the government reported a slight drop in retail sales last month as a sluggish economy reflected a weakness in consumer spending. After rising four tenths of a percent in April, retail sales fell one tenth of a percent in May. The Commerce Department also reported that businesses have cut back on their capital investment plans for the current year, in the face of continued weakness in the economy.

Three Commerce Department employees have been fired for improper leaks of sensitive information.They prematurely released figures of the gross national product last September -- two for personal financial gain, the third to help someone else.

LEHRER: A leading anti-abortion activist was arrested today in Denver. Joseph Scheidler is his name. Police took him into custody as he checked into a Denver hotel. The arrest warrant was issued in Florida, where Scheidler was charged wiith conspiracy to commit a criminal act. The charge grew out of a disturbance at an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Scheidler is director of an organization called the Pro-Life Action League. He lives in Chicago. Florida authorities said they will seek to extradite Scheidler for trial.

MacNEIL: That's it for the news summary tonight. Now Senator Gore and arms control official Kenneth Adelman disagree about SALT II. Cokie Roberts updates the tax story. Charles Krause reports on the political problems of Mexico. And Anne Taylor Fleming talks about women's biological clock. Death of a Treaty

LEHRER: SALT II is not dead. SALT II is dead. No it isn't.Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No, no. Yes, yes. And so it goes. And so it had gone since May 27. That's when White House spokesman Larry Speaks announced the U.S. would no longer feel bound but would remain within the limits of the unratified 1979 treaty. He said the U.S. would scrap a submarine.

LARRY SPEAKS, White House spokesman: In the future, the United States will base decisions regarding its strategic forces on the nature and magnitude of the threat posed by the Soviet Union, rather than on standards contained in the expired SALT agreements unilaterally observed by the United States.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Interpretations on this program and elsewhere that night were: the U.S. was sticking with the treaty. But the next day, Defense Secretary Weinberger said that was not so. A B-52 bomber would break the limits in the fall. Top arms negotiator Paul Nitze came here that night to explain.

PAUL NITZE, arms control advisor: There hasn't been restraint on the part of the U.S.S.R. Therefore, the President has said that he does not think there is a point in continuing unilateral restraint. In other words, restraint only by the United States and not by the U.S.S.R.

LEHRER [voice-over]: A few days later, Secretary of State Shultz said clearly and cleanly, the U.S. is abandoning the treaty.

GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. Secretary of State: The so-called restraints that we already have are obsolete, unratified and being violated.

LEHRER [voice-over]: But Nitze told a Congressional hearing yesterday the U.S. would stay in technical compliance in the fall by scrapping still another submarine. Then came President Reagan at his televised news conference last night to say the administration was still flexible, especially about the B-52.

Pres. REAGAN: Yes, we will have a plane coming up to be armed with a cruise missile that would put us to that extent beyond the constraints of the limitation. Now, we've got several months before we reach that point. We've got several months in which to see if the Soviet Union -- we have taxed them over and over again with regard to their violating the constraints -- now, on that basis, we're going to see if we can not persuade them to join in the things they're talking about -- arms control -- or arms reduction.And if nothing is done, then we'll make the decision with regard to that plane.

LEHRER: Spokesman Speaks clarified that this morning by telling reporters the SALT II treaty no longer existed. He said there should be no confusion about what the policy is, and that nothing had changed since May 27. We pursue the possible confusion in the policy itself now with a top administration official and with a U.S. senator who believes the administration has badly mishandled the whole situation. The official is first. He is Kenneth Adelman, director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Mr. Adelman, are you confused about what the policy is?

KENNETH ADELMAN, Arms Control Agency: I'm not confused, and I don't think the American people are confused. I think it's quite clear. The President wants real restraints and not the illusion of restraints, as we've had under SALT II.

LEHRER: Yes, but what happened since May 20? Why would the White House spokesman say one thing one day and then the Defense Secretary say something the next day and then it goes on and on. Yesterday -- 24 hours ago -- Mr. Nitze went before Congress and said, "Hey look, we're going to put the -- we're going to scrap another submarine." The President said another thing last night. And then now we have -- can you explain it?

Mr. ADELMAN: Well, I can explain it a lot by just a typical Washington press kind of story on this. I think the administration line has been fairly consistent -- that we are no longer constrained by a treaty that was never ratified by the Senate -- and would never be ratified by the Senate -- that the Soviets have been violating year after year, that would have expired on its own terms, and that basically never limited the Soviet build up. It was a license to build.

LEHRER: Now, does that mean then that the administration, whether you feel bound or not, will still try to remain within the limits of the treaty?

Mr. ADELMAN: It means, Jim, that we will tailor our forces to meet the threat that this country faces, rather than to meet an outdated, expired, violated, unratified treaty.

LEHRER: Did Mr. Nitze then misspeak when he told the House committee yesterday that the United States might destroy another submarine in order to remain within the limits of the treaty?

Mr. ADELMAN: No. The principle is quite clear and laid out by the President. The principle is that we will do what's in our national interest, given the economic boundaries that we have on the defense budget, and given the threat that we face as a country. We have to look outward at the threat and to the future -- what's good for the future of arms control -- rather than keep debating this treaty that's been around for ten years, and it's outdated. And what the President is saying is that he is still intent on getting real restraint. And that means arms control that has real reductions to it. That means arms control that the Soviets start complying with. That's real restraint. That's not the illusion of restraint.

LEHRER: But in the mean time, while the arms control discussions go on in Geneva and elsewhere, will the United States seek to remain within the limits of the treaty?

Mr. ADELMAN: We will not tailor our forces to the treaty provisions, because they're outmoded, they're violated and unratified. We will tailor our forces to the threat. And the President introduced a new formula for mutual restraint in which he said that we will not go above the Soviet numbers in terms of launchers or in terms of ballistic missile warheads. And what he's saying is in that formula it can be more constraining and more restraining than SALT II. Under SALT II the Soviets can keep building, building, building. And the accelerator is already on the floor. They're doing amazing things in the build up.

LEHRER: Well, what does restrain -- if you remove SALT II, what does restrain them?

Mr. ADELMAN: What restrains them are the usual things that restrain 90% of their forces which are unconstrained by arms control. That is restraints of money, restraints of manpower, of plants, of material, of just military planning. That's how they tailor their forces in Central Europe. That's how they tailor their navy. That's how they tailor, you know, 90% of their armed forces. They don't increase it massively year after year, but to think that SALT II has been constraining them over the years, I think, is an illusion.

LEHRER: Mr. Adelman, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Some of the strongest criticism of the administration decision to renounce the SALT II treaty has come from Capitol Hill. One of the critics is Democratic Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee. He's a member of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group that recently visited the arms talks in Geneva. Senator Gore is a cosponsor of a Senate resolution urging the President to reconsider his SALT decision.

Senator Gore, what is your reaction to the sequence of administration statements? I'm right here.

Sen. ALBERT GORE, Jr. (D) Tennessee: Well, I think that the confusion in their statements reflects a very deep confusion within the administration itself about whether or not they really want arms control or think that it's a wise policy for us to follow. The administration's deeply divided. There are some moderates who think arms control is good, but the ultra-hard-liners, who I think have gotten in control now, of this policy at least, don't think arms control of really any kind is in our interest. And they want to put the maximum pressure on the Soviet Union to try to induce some kind of long term transformation.

MacNEIL: Well, are you suggesting the President was influenced by one group of advisors last night and Mr. Speaks by another this morning?

Sen. GORE: Well, I think, the President is of two minds. I really do. I think that he believes there is a chance for cooperation with the Soviets, but I think he is very vulnerable to the hard-liners' argument that you just can't enter into an arms control agreement with them, and the thing to do is to just get rid of arms control and challenge them to an arms race. The fact is, incidentally, that the SALT II treaty has constrained the Soviet Union. They've had to dismantle and destroy more than three times as many weapons as we have, and they've withdrawn another large number in order to keep in compliance with the numbers. And in the absence of the treaty, they're in a much better position to crank up their production lines and put more warheads on their existing missiles. It's in our national security interest to keep this treaty in effect.

MacNEIL: But Mr. Reagan said last night that the Soviets have not complied with the treaty.

Sen. GORE: Well, it's important to address that point. There are two provisions of the treaty which they have not complied with.One of them is the ban on encription above a certain level -- that is, the scrambling of electronic signals that we need to verify the treaty. And they violated that provision, it's true. They've also violated a provision which limits them to one new kind of missile, instead of two which they have depolyed. But what have the complied with? That's important to note. They have scrupulously complied with the numerical sublimits in every single category of weapon, and that's what's caused them to dismantle and destroy weapons in order remain in compliance with the treaty. What we're proposing to do in the fall is to violate those numerical limits which serve as the real core of the treaty.

MacNEIL: You wrote in an article in the New York Times about ten days ago that the decision -- this decision by the President -- could be the most serious mistake of his presidency, in using your words. Why?

Sen. GORE: Well, I think it definitely could be judged that way if he goes through with it when we depoly this bomber in the fall. And I hope he'll change his mind. The reason it would be the most serious mistake is that if we simultaneously scrap the only restraints on the arms race we now have and at the same time send a signal to the Russians that we're going full blast for a defensive system, that sends a powerful, one word message to the Soviet Union. It tells them, "Build. Build offensive missiles and deploy them as quickly as you can." It would lead to an accelerated arms race, and that's dangerous for both nations.

MacNEIL: Do you believe that the President sincerely wants an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union?

Sen. GORE: I don't think the President has really reached a conclusion on that question in his own mind. He has conflicting advice coming from a divided administration, and I think he has conflicting impulses himself. He's met with Mr. Gorbachev. He hopes to meet with him again. And I think he harbors some real hope for progress there. But at the same time, he has very hard-line impulses that tell him the thing to do is to challenge the Soviet Union, and maybe get into an accelerated arms race that we can win by virtue of our massive industrial capacity, overlooking the fact that we have budget limits, Gramm-Rudman and other constraints here in this country.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Adelman, is that true -- that President Reagan has not made a decision on whether he even wants an arms control agreement with the Soviets?

Mr. ADELMAN: No, that's kind of baloney. What the President wants is an arms control agreement that constrains Soviet forces. Senator Gore is a fine member of the Senate that passes laws all day, which it should. If we go and pass laws, and the person under the laws chooses what provisions to comply with and what provisions to violate, the whole legal system of the United States is going to fall down. We can't let the Soviets pick and choose parts of a treaty where they want to comply, and, as Al Gore says, they are in violation. Secondly, I would say this is a treaty, let's remember, that the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the Democratically controlled Senate voted ten to zero, unanimously, it was not in the interests of the United States. Now, has it gotten better, this treaty, since the Soviets are violating it, as Al Gore says?

Sen. GORE: Well, President Reagan, who criticized it throughout his presidential campaign, has himself complied with it for six years, because the joint chiefs of staff have always said this is in our military best interests. Now, it's true, as Ken Adelman says, that they've violated these two provisions. But there are alternatives to addressing that problem rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water and scrapping the only kind of restraints that we now have. Now, for example, they've deployed two new types of missiles. We have two new types of missiles in development right now.We -- as a proportionate response, we can go forward with our second new type of missile. On the question of encription, we should aggressively pursue that in the standing consultative commission which is set up for this purpose, and we haven't gotten satisfactionthere yet, but there are changes the Soviets could make that are not necessarily totally radical that would address that problem. They should, and I hope they will.

Mr. ADELMAN: Well, they should. And I think we've been trying for five years to get them to comply.But to keep saying that we're trying to get them to comply doesn't make them comply.

LEHRER: What -- but what about his major criticism -- the senator's major concern here is that regardless of the technicalities, that the end result of the President's decision is going to be an escalation of the arms race.

Mr. ADELMAN: Well, I think it's ridiculous. I think it's ridiculous, because the President has said, first of all, we're going to have an interim restraint where we're not going to go over the Soviet limits on launchers or on ballistic missile warheads. We're going to be constrained by the force. Secondly, the Soviets are building constantly under the terms of SALT II. In the future, they will build five to seven percent in real terms in strategic forces. They will have an all new land base system and an all new sea base system of ballistic missiles within ten years. If that is constraint, I don't know what is constraining them.

LEHRER: Senator?

Sen. GORE: It's not -- the point is, without the treaty, they could build up much more rapidly, even leaving aside new systems. They've got 308 of these heavy SS-18s in the ground right now with ten warheads. They're limited to ten warheads by the treaty. They could right away put four more warheads on each one of those systems and quickly expand their forces. And one other point just briefly -- this new interim restraint policy of no more than they have: the problem with that is decisions like this cast a shadow into the future. Because decisions about building and deploying new weapon systems are not made on a day to day basis. They're made years in advance. And if we declare that all the restraints are gone, all bets are off, it's Katy bar the door, we won't know what systems they have in development until we first collect intelligence on them. So we've got to plan against a build up with both sides will be into.

LEHRER: Mr. Adelman, is the senator right in characterizing what's happening in the administration an argument between hard-liners and moderates over this whole thing?

Mr. ADELMAN: I don't believe so, because I don't believe many people in the administration thought SALT II was a good treaty. The President ran on it in 1980 saying it was flawed. George McGovern said it was flawed. Why was it flawed? Because it never constrained the Soviet build up. Since signing SALT II, the Soviets have added 4,500 ballistic missile weapons. They've had three new or modified land base systems, two new or modified submarine base systems, and double the number of their weapons. Is this constraint?

LEHRER: Is Mr. Adelman a hard-liner or a moderate on your definition? Where does he come in?

Sen. GORE: On my chart Mr. Adelman is a hard-liner, and I think it is instructive that the administration has put someone with his views -- which I respect, even though I disagree with them -- put someone with his views in charge of advocating the interests of arms control in the administration.

LEHRER: Because you don't think he really cares for arms control?

Sen. GORE: I don't think that he really believes that arms control as a venture is in the best interests of the United States.

Mr. ADELMAN: I just -- I just totally reject that, Al. I totally reject that. And I would not be in this job if I had --

Sen. GORE: Have you ever seen a treaty that you liked?

Mr. ADELMAN: Yes, I've seen many of them.

Sen. GORE: An arms control treaty?

Mr. ADELMAN: Yes, and our proposals in Geneva, I think, would make the world safer.

Sen. GORE: A treaty; not a proposal from on side.

Mr. ADELMAN: Yes, there are treaties that I think have been very good.

Sen. GORE: SALT I?

Mr. ADELMAN: I think the nonproliferation treaty has been in the interests of the United States. And --

Sen. GORE: Any bilateral treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union?

Mr. ADELMAN: Yes. There have been --

Sen. GORE: Arms control?

Mr. ADELMAN: Yes.

Sen. GORE: Which one?

Mr. ADELMAN: Testing -- the limited test ban treaty I think has been a good one. And let me just say this is really a sham kind of article -- I mean, argument -- to say that somebody is for arms control or against arms control. The real issue here, Jim, is whether arms control is going to constrain the Soviet forces or not constrain the Soviet forces.

Sen. GORE: Well, let me say that I agree with that. And I don't think it should be on the basis of personality.

Mr. ADELMAN: Well then --

Sen. GORE: Well, he asked me where I would put you on the spectrum, and I responded candidly. But the fact is, the SALT II treaty, like the SALT I treaty, does constrain the Soviet forces and our own compared to what would otherwise be the case.

LEHRER: Let me ask you -- you mentioned Geneva, Mr. Adelman. The Soviets put a new proposal -- the President confirmed last night at his news conference the Soviets put a new proposal on the table. Is there anything there to be optimistic about?

Mr. ADELMAN: There is something there, and what is there is it defied the arguments by Senator Gore and all the critics that the SALT II decision is going to stop arms control in its tracks. What we are saying is that the SALT II --

LEHRER: Any indication -- you think it prompted the Soviets to come up with this proposal?

Mr. ADELMAN: No, I'm saying that they did not hesitate to advance in Geneva because of the SALT II decision. What it is clarifying -- the SALT II decision -- is what arms control should be -- deep reductions and stopping the Soviet build up and compliance by the Soviet Union.

LEHRER: Does that destroy your argument, Senator?

Sen. GORE: No, I don't think it does. I think the Soviets realize, as many of us do, that the period between now and early December, when two events will take place -- the decision by the United States to cross this threshold and also possibly the next summit -- that this next few months is a very critical period, and if we don't get some kind of closure and agreement in these next few months, then the future may look not as bright.

LEHRER: Our future is over, gentlemen. Thank you both very much. Mexico: Troubled Neighbor

MacNEIL: Mexico part two is next -- part two of our look at our look at our troubled neighbor to the south. Tonight the subject is politics. For most of this century, Mexico has been ruled by one political party -- the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, as its initials come out in Spanish. But there are now new voices in opposition. Special correspondent Charles Krause went to one Mexican state to listen and to watch an election very much influenced by ideas and events from the north.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: In many ways Chihuahua is Mexico's last frontier -- wide open, rough, politically independent. Located along the Texas border, Chihuahua is Mexico's largest state. It's here in the countryside and in rural towns that what might have been nothing more than a local campaign for governor has become an event of international significance. The P-A-N, or PAN -- Mexico's most conservative opposition party -- has turned the gubernatorial election into a referendum on the national government and its handling of the economy. The outcome will be viewed as a litmus test for measuring anti-government feeling. Eduardo Baeza, one of Chihuahua's largest cattle ranchers, thinks his party, the PAN, could win.

EDUARDO BAEZA, PAN supporter: Our present system is 60 years old. The star I don't think has many options now. Most of the options are gone. And people are discovering that the system is not working right. If we win here in Chihuahua, then the rest of the country will know that it can be done.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Leading the anti-government forces in Chihuahua: Francisco Barrio, a 35-year-old accountant and citizen politician who hopes to be elected governor next month. His campaign theme: hay es tiempo -- it's time for change -- a clear appeal to the many voters in Chihuahua who've been hurt by Mexico's prolonged economic crisis.

EDUARDO BAEZA: People in Mexico, in the northern part especially, are desperate to tey a new change, to try a new government, to try a different way to approach and resolve the problems.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: If Barrio and the PAN do win the election, their victory would be an unprecedented repudiation of the P-R-I, or PRI -- Mexico's entrenched ruling party. In power for more than half a century, the PRI has never before lost a governorship or a presidential election. But unlike other parts of Mexico, political independence and radical change are traditions in Chihuahua. It was here in 1910 that Poncho Villa and his men launched Mexico's last revolution against an unpopular dictator. It was here, just 15 years ago, that American corporations launched another equally important economic revolution. Lured by cheap labor and proximity to the United States, their factories have transformed Chihuahua's cities and created a large middle class. It's chiefly that middle class that's now threatening a third political revolution because it blames the government for mismanaging Mexico's economy. Jorge Casteneda is one of the country's leading independent political analysts.

JORGE CASTENEDA, political analyst: The PAN is essentially a disgruntled middle class party -- a middle class which is resentful and mad because it has lost an enormous amount of the privileges -- of the enormous privileges -- which it had. It has lost cheap dollars, it has lost access to the U.S., acess to private medicine, access to private schools, one of the highest standards of living for a middle class in the world. It has lost a lost of all of that, and it is extraordinarily and justifiably upset about it.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: In Chihuahua's towns and cities, the impact of four years of economic crisis is not hard to find. Inflation is running at almost 80%. Almost everything, from televisions to tortillas, has become prohibitively expensive. The peso has plummeted against the dollar -- a particular hardship for Chihuahua's consumers, accustomed to buying U.S. goods imported from across the border. On the campaign trail, Barrio says that nothing less than Mexico's economic and political future is at stake in Chihuahua. He attacks the government for destroying the economy, for corruption, and for abusing decades of almost absolute power. It's a message that's popular in Chihuahua, because so many voters here are familiar with political life in the United States -- voters like Carlos Galaviz, a farmer who lived in Idaho for 14 years.

CARLOS GALAVIZ, PAN supporter: In United States the politic is free, completely free. And here it's not completely free.

KRAUSE: That's the kind of corruption that there is?

Mr. GALAVIZ: Yeah, yeah, exactly.

KRAUSE: Whoever has the most money has the power.

Mr. GALAVIZ: Yeah, the most money has the law in Mexico.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: For many Mexicans, the economic crisis has revealed deep flaws in Mexico's political system, undermining confidence in the PRI and the government. Barrio says the system fears a defeat in Chihuahua because its leaders have enjoyed power for so many years and because they really don't believe in democratic change.

FRANCISCO BARRIO, PAN candidate [through interpreter]: Until now, the government system has worked under the assumption that they practically have control over everyone. To a certain extent they have subjugated the people. So if suddenly part of this control is lost, the political system is in danger of falling apart.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: According to many political observers, the prospect of losing control in Chihuahua forced the PRI to choose one of its brightest stars to run against Barrio. He's Fernando Baeza, a 45-year-old lawyer who was Mexico's Deputy Attorney General before he resigned to run for governor. Intelligent and photogenic, Baeza has a reputation for personal honesty. On the campaign trail, he admits his party and the government have made mistakes. But he reminds voters that the system has also brought political stability and progress to Mexico. Maximino Aquilar told us he'll vote for Baeza, because the PRI has helped him in the past.

MAXIMINO AQUILAR, PRI supporter [through interpreter] We've seen that on more than one occasion the PRI has served us perfectly well, solving problems we've had with land, with water, electricity; problems -- how can I put it -- problems of this kind. That's why we'll continue being PRIistas.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Part of Baeza's strategy is to duck national economic issues whenever he can. Instead, he emphasizes the opposition's inexperience. He tells a group of doctors that Barrio hasn't done very much since he was elected mayor of Ciudad Juarea, Chihuahua's largest city. Baeza also attacks the PAN for what he says is a negative campaign.

FERNANDO BAEZA, PRI candidate [through interpreter]: The problem with the opposition is that it has no program. All of their propaganda, all of their efforts, are aimed at destroying the PRI and what it represents. They point out the economic crisis. They point out the corruption among bad public servants. But they don't propose any solutions.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: The PRI is clearly going all out for Baeza, and it's a classic example of how Mexico's political system has kept itself in power for so many years. First of all, the Baeza campaign has plenty of money for buses, posters and staff. The candidate it trailed by television crews and given wide coverage on Chihuahua's government regulate stations. The PAN complains it can't even buy time for campaign commercials. Finally, the PRI controls the government. Bureaucrats often receive their regular salaries while working for Baeza and the party -- Jose Valenzula Estrada at the Agrarian Reform Ministry, for example. He was quite candid about his political activities.

JOSE VALENZULA ESTRADA, PRI supporter: Today now I no work in this; I work in the PRI -- this commission -- commission in the PRI. This is the commission, and this is the PRI. I have two months go to the PRI.

KRAUSE: And here the government allows you to spend time working in the PRI?

Mr. ESTRADA: Yeah.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Opposition businessmen also complain that government bureaucrats are corrupt -- that kickbacks and bribes are an integral part of the system.

EDUARDO BAEZA: That's the way the government works in many ways and in many times. I'm not saying it always happens. There are good people in the government that really want to do the right things, but the system is so corrupted from the very bottom that that good guy is getting out of the way.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Baeza the candidate refused to respond when we tried to ask him about the opposition's charges.

FERNANDO BAEZA [through interpreter]: I will not -- I will not continue answering anything which refers to the opposition, because it's a vicious circle. Let them do their work; I'll do mine.

KRAUSE: What's happening now in Chihuahua is like what happened last February in the Philippines. Here one party, corrupt and increasingly unpopular, controls the government, the election machinery, radio and television. What it can't control is the people who appear to be ready to vote for the opposition. The question is whether the PRI, like Ferdinand Marcos, will attempt to steal the election to keep Barrio from becoming governor.

[voice-over] Among those concerned about the PRI's history of election fraud are Chihuahua's Catholic bishops. They've appealed for a clean election. "Vote counting fraud, which we've all witnessed," the bishop said, "can not be tolerated." But Casteneda says that outright fraud is still a possibility.

Mr. CASTENEDA: I think there are clearly a number of sectors in Mexican society who would not want the PRI to lose any gubernatorial election, at any cost, under any circumstances, ever. And clearly these sectors are having their say and are pushing for their point of view to be accepted.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: According to Casteneda, those sectors argue that Baeza's defeat would open the door to a multi-party system in Mexico, which in turn could quickly degenerate into political chaos and possibly violence. But others, including some state department analysts and many independent observers, say a fraudulent election in Chihuahua would lead many Mexicans to conclude that violence is the only alternative for change.

Mr. CASTENEDA: There are few ways of actually gauging who will win an election. But if reasonable people, reasonable observers -- Mexican observers, Mexican analysts -- reach the conclusion that it is likely that the PAN would win or will win, and if it is not allowed to win, and if there is massive discontent and unrest resulting from what would be perceived as a stolen election, perhaps Chihuahua would become a watershed of the system's resistance to change.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Mexico is not yet the Philippines. But clearly it's another country important to the United States where opposition to an entrenched government is growing stronger. For that reason, the outcome of Chihuahua's election next month will be watched closely -- because of Chihuahua's history as an early barometer of economic and political change.

MacNEIL: And tomorrow night, part three is on the U.S. stake in helping solve Mexico's problems. Dollar Politics

LEHRER: All this week, we've been following the Senate's debate on tax reform. Our guide for today's proceedings is National Public Radio correspondent Cokie Roberts. Cokie?

COKIE ROBERTS: All attempts to amend the tax reform bill have so far failed, and supporters of the measure now believe the overhaul of the tax code is likely to emerge from the Senate unencumbered by major amendments. The big fight came last night on amendments to protect benefits for contributors to Individual Retirement Accounts. They failed, as have all other amendments, because of an unlikely but effective coalition working to keep the measure intact. President Reagan and the Republican Senate leadership plus members of the Finance Committee have been joined by Democrats who believe tax reform is a politically popular idea.

Sen. EDWARD KENNEDY (D) Massachusetts: At the beginning of this debate we heard a great deal about the danger of killer amendments. These potential enemies of tax reform were reported to be lurking in the cloak rooms and hiding in the dark corners. It seemed certain that these amendments could not stand the light of day. But last night we learned the truth. Killer amendments are those that force us to make tough choices. The decision of the Senate to reject the IRA amendment is a powerful testament to the excellence of the Finance Committee's work and to the broad support of this body for genuine tax reform.

Sen. ROBERT PACKWOOD (R) Oregon: I want to congratulate my friend from Massachusetts and illustrate again this is an example of the extraordinary coalition that is supporting this bill.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: So far that combination has been able to keep the tax bill from unravelling -- something Majority Leader Robert Dole warned of in his closing arguments against an amendment to restore tax benefits for Individual Retirement Accounts.

Sen. ROBERT DOLE, Majority Leader: I don't quarrel with those who offer the amendment, but I hope it's defeated. We need to defeat this amendment so we don't start unravelling the bill.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: But some sonators are beginning to chafe under the idea that they can have no input into a bill on the Senate floor.

Sen. TOM HARKIN (D) Iowa: Now, I've heard the argument made that there's been a delicate balance that's been struck on this bill and that we can't have any amendments. Well, I say nuts to that. There's been no bill from any committee that's ever come to this floor that can't be amended and made better for the American people by listening to our constituents.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Hoping that discontent will spread, senators are holding back on their amendments, waiting to see if the spell is broken and some amendments start getting passed. This reluctance to come forward with amendments is frustrating managers of the tax bill.

Sen. PACKWOOD: We are prepared to move forward with amendments. I hope that we have a sufficient coalition that we can defeat any major amendments that are offered, but I am prepared to consider the amendments on any subject.

Sen. DOLE: I would urge my colleagues on both sides, we're prepared to do business and we know that these are important amendments, that this is a very important bill. It's historic tax reform, and I think it would demonstrate to the American people not only our interest in that bill but our willingness to try to get it behind us as quickly as possible.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Though senators are not eager to bring forward their amendments to the tax bill, they are eager to talk about it, and to talk some more. The novelty of TV cameras in the chamber has produced lengthy speeches and an array of brightly colored charts never before seen. The cameras have also provided the opportunity for people to witness some spirited debate. Today Connecticut's Lowell Weicker proposed to eliminate the tax advantages for the oil and gas industry.

Sen. LOWELL WEICKER (R) Connecticut: We have a little exception now carved out for the oil and gas industry. Well, I wasn't for an exception being carved out for New England when oil prices were high. And I'm not for an exception for the oil and gas industry now that prices are low.

Sen. RUSSELL LONG (D) Louisiana: As one senator told me one time, that this industry is not just plagued by prejudice; it's plagued by hatred -- just hatred on the part of some people who still want to punish those in the industry for sins that may have been committed 50 or 100 years ago, rather than something that someone is doing today.

Sen. WEICKER: My good friend from Louisiana who says hatred toward the industry exists, you want to see hatred? Be a New England senator -- be a New England senator six years ago standing up for decontrol.

ROBERTS: Despite the heated debate, the amendments to the tax bill are falling to the wayside. Tonight Senator Gordon Humphrey announced he would not introduce his plan to eliminate tax exemptions for medical institutions which perform abortions, because President Reagan said he would not support it. So though the debate in the Senate could continue for several more days, the simple, stripped down tax reform bill is likely to go to conference with the House as a simple, stripped down tax reform bill. Having it All?

MacNEIL: Finally tonight, we have an essay by California writer Anne Taylor Fleming. She calls it "The Biological Clock."

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: When I go to dinner parties now, it is the women, not the men, who tend to migrate towards each other. We women often end up clumped together, talking in such an animated and intimate way that it leaves the men looking on with envy. But we women don't usually notice the men's reactions, because we're too busy swapping war stories -- a war we're fighting not with men, but with ourselves, with our own bodies.

[voice-over] I'm not talking about the war against cellulite and flabby muscles. Many of us have won that war with the same dogged determination we brought to everything else in our lives. I'm talking about getting pregnant. My friends and I are the high achieving cream of the liberated crop -- the women who took the women's movement to heart. We are the spiritual daughters of the movement's mothers -- of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. We were just entering college when they took to their podiums. Impressionable, all of our options still open, it was we more than any other age group of women who thirilled to their words when they warned us not to get stuck in the old roles of wife and mother. Now we find ourselves in our late 30s and early 40s without men in some cases, and without children.

My friend Linda, a school psychologist, speaks for a lot of us. Married for 11 years to the same man, she's held off trying to have children until recently.

LINDA: I have realized that my mother raised seven children. I wasthe oldest. I saw what it was like to raise those seven children and did not really want to follow that role. I know that I identified more with my father -- going to college, getting myself -- pulling myself up by the bootstraps out of that lower middle class. And I just decided that I did not want that to happen to me.

FLEMING: That wasn't going to happen to me, to us, no indeed. We wanted to try things and to matter and to make our own money so that if and when we had children we could raise them alone if and when their fathers evaporated, as so many fathers seem to do.

[voice-over] The result is an all time low birth rate in the country -- 1.8 births per woman. That might seem a bit odd when there suddenly seem to be a lot of babies around again, but they don't belong to the professional women of Linda's and my generation. Over 50% of us have no children. And the question we're asking ourselves now is, did we in fact wait too long?

Judy is another one of the dozens of women I know who, like linda and me, is dealing with this problem. At 39, she's a successful television producer and has been married for two years to a man who already has grown children. He's not sure he wants to start over. She's not sure she wants to start at all.

JUDY: You know, I think the way we grew up it seemed that you made your mark in the world first, and then you worried about having children later. And all of the sudden it's too late. It's like a bus passing you by.

FLEMING [voice-over]: At least Judy has a husband. A lot of women her age do not. And they have only about a five percent chance now of ever marrying at all. Winship, an actress, recently moved to Los Angeles from New York -- just left a five year relationship because marriage and children were not in the picture, and she's ready now for both if there's still time.

WINSHIP: Well, I came from a very large family -- there are five kids -- and my mother got married quite young at 19 and started having children at 20. And while we were growing up and she was devoting all of her time to being a mother and a wife and also earning a living, I though that perhaps she was missing out on something. So I decided that during my 20s I wanted to give myself a life so that I wouldn't feel that I was missing out on something.

FLEMING [voice-over]: Winship still doesn't want to miss anything, and is actively looking for marriage and family. But she does not want to be a single mother. My friend Patty, on the other hand, will do it alone if she has to.

PATTY: I've always wanted to have a baby. And I think from the time I was 23 my mother was expecting me to have a baby.I started off with my husband when I was 23, and we were living together at the time, and then we got married. And all through my 20s I guess I just expected that I would.By the time I turned 30, it became fairly clear that I wasn't. I have now been divorced for four years. I am now 37.And I still want to have a baby. Unfortunately, I don't have a husband.

FLEMING [voice-over]: But Patty's not ready to give up yet. At 37, she oversees multimillion dollar redevelopment projects and is now actively looking for someone to have a child with.

PATTY: Now, I would not do artificial insemination. I think I've always thought about having a child, and I did when I was married. Just you are, in fact, creating this what you hope will be a wonderful human being, and it's all tied in with how you feel about the person who you are with and the whole -- the whole physical nature of it. And so I -- it would have to be in just the natural act of making love. Now, what that does is it tells you you have to, obviously, be with the right person. And it may not be in wedlock, but it still has to be somebody very important to you, and it has to be somebody who you think would be a good father. That's something I haven't quite figured out yet. It's funny, I was telling a friend that when you start looking around at men as potential fathers, you see them very differently, and you think much more carefully about them as potential fathers than you do as potential husbands.And it's a very ironic thing.

FLEMING [voice-over]: If Patty finds a willing father, she could still face the other major problem of women our age, and that's infertility. Past 35, it becomes much harder for a woman to get pregnant. And I know so many women now who are wrestling with temperature charts and ovulation kits and visiting fertility doctors and test tube clinics.

LINDA: When I finally did make the decision and I went to the fertility specialist, afterwards I took myself out to lunch, and at first I was really elated and it was exciting. And then all the sudden I sort of felt a sadness at the same time, and I thought to myself I had crossed over. I had joined the group.

FLEMING [voice-over]: The group, as she sees it, is the new select sisterhood of the infertile -- the superwomen who can do it all but get pregnant. But knowing what she knows now -- knowing what we all know -- would we do it differently if we had the chance? Would we rewrite our scripts?

LINDA: I myself, I did what I did because that's what I had to do. And I don't look back and say, "Gee, gosh, I wish I had done this differently."

JUDY: I don't have any angry feelings against the women's movement. I think what I really resent is just the biological limitations that we have as women. I mean, our husbands can have kids when they're 60 or 70 or 80 years old if they want to. But all of the sudden it stops for us. I mean, you hit a certain point and the choice isn't there anymore.

PATTY: My friends are -- and my sisters -- are all about my age, and everybody is now at the point where they're having their first. And so when somebody tells you she is having a baby or, even better, when you're the first one at the hospital to see the newborn, you feel all of these tremendously conflicting emotions. I mean, on the one hand, you are so happy, you know, that she does have a baby. And on the other hand, you're standing there at the window, and you feel a tremendous amount of pain.

FLEMING: Perhaps in a sense we are the sacrificial generation of women -- women who tried to control our destinies only to run up against something we couldn't control -- our own biology. Now we're beginning to reckon with the knowledge that we just might never have children or grandchildren. And for all of our achievements, we're anticipating a particular kind of loneliness which is becoming more and more probable.

HEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday. The White House issued a statement saying the SALT II treaty was dead. The South African government declared a country-wide state of emergency and detained hundreds of anti-apartheid activists. The Senate leadership continued to successfully fend off efforts to amend the tax reform bill. And the Public Health Service projected that more than 179,000 people will die from the disease AIDS by 1991. The agency said AIDS cases will increase outside the cities of New York and San Francisco, where the majority of cases are now reported. Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our News Hour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.