The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, an Iranian missile set a U. S. --owned tanker ablaze in Kuwaiti waters. The strike by National Football League players ended without a new contract. Chemical, a leading New York bank raised its prime lending rate to 9. 75%. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Jim? JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, two sports writers sort through the decision of the NFL players to return to work. El Salvador president Jose Napoleon Duarte is here for a newsmaker interview. We have excerpts from a congressional hearing on surrogate mothers. And we close with a profile of freed Soviet dissident Vladimir Slepak. News Summary MacNEIL: An Iranian missile hit an American owned oil tanker in Kuwaiti waters today, setting it on fire, andraising speculation that Washington might retaliate. The 275,000 ton tanker, Sungari, owned by a New York company, but flying the Liberian flag, was anchored nine miles off the main Kuwaiti oil port of Mina Al Ahmadi. The missile was reported to be a Silkworm with a half ton warhead, fired from Iraqi captured territory in the Faw Peninsula. It blew a hole 13' x 10' in the tanker, and ignited one half filled oil cargo tank. Because the Sungari was flying the Liberian flag, she is not protected by U. S. warships, which have been escorting Kuwaiti tankers reflagged with the Stars and Stripes.At the White House, President Reagan was asked whether the United States would retaliate for the attack.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: We just learned of that, and I haven't had any conversation as yet with the Chiefs or any (unintelligible) -- our policy is still we're going to defend ourselves if we're attacked. MacNEIL: At an afternoon news conference, Secretary of State Shultz said he didn't believe the Iranians knew they were attacking a U. S. ship.

GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: As far as the Iranian action is concerned, it's really aimed at Kuwait. The ship is not in international waters, wasn't being escorted or anything of the kind. In fact, it wasn't a U. S. flagged vessel. So it seems to me to be a very hostile action toward Kuwait. MacNEIL: In Oman, officials said that on Saturday the U. S. will hand over to Iran four Iranian seamen captured and the bodies of two killed in a fight between American helicopters and Iranian gunboats last week. In Washington, the Navy released a report on the attack by an Iraqi aircraft on the U. S. S. Stark, which killed 37 U. S. sailors in May. As a result of the fire, which sent temperatures to 3500 degrees in crew quarters, the Navy said new ships will be redesigned to make them less flammable. Reports said that after the missile fuel was spent, the fire was fed primarily by the insulation on electrical cables and other combustibles in the living compartment. Jim? LEHRER: A major New York bank raised its prime interest rate today. The hike was from 9. 25 to 9. 75%. Chemical Bank took the action. Other big banks are expected to follow suit. The prime rate is what banks charge their preferred business customers, but it often leads to changes in other interest rates as well. The decision thrust the stock market into another downer. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 2355. 09, off more than 57 points from yesterday, which saw a record 95 point drop. Treasury Secretary James Baker today downplayed the significance of the falling Dow Jones numbers.

JAMES BAKER, Secretary of the Treasury: We of course recognize some market nervousness. It's clear to me, however, that conditions do not warrant apocalypse now worries or scenarios. They've cropped up now and again since this recovery began. I have said before that I thought they were unwarranted. I still think that they are unwarranted. LEHRER: Labor Secretary William Brock resigned from the Reagan cabinet today to run Senator Robert Dole's presidential campaign. Brock is a former Republican senator from Tennessee. He will be general chairman of the Dole campaign. MacNEIL: The 24 day old NFL strike ended today when the players union ordered its members back to work without a contract, and prepared to sue the owners instead. Many players, like these members of the Washington Redskins reported back to work. But the league said it was too late for the strikers to play this weekend, because the deadline it had set passed yesterday. There were confused situations in some camps, with players not sure whether the strike was over, but joyful scenes in others. The union ordered the players back after agreeing to continue the existing 1982 contract. But one of the union's main demands, free agency for players, was still unresolved. Late this afternoon, Union President Gene Upshaw said the players would take their case to court.

GENE UPSHAW, NFL Players Association: Every effort has been made to reach a fair and equitable collective bargaining agreement. The owners have refused to deal fairly with the players, and have abused their monopoly powers to the extreme detriment of the players. They have refused to consider arbitration with an independent expert, who would review the proposals fairly and objectively. It's unfair to the players to continue making great sacrifices that they have made in the face of blatant display of monopoly powers. The player reps therefore voted today to send the players back to work. The player reps also decided to file an antitrust suit, and we have filed that suit in Minneapolis. LEHRER: In Midland, Texas, there was still hope for the 18 month old baby trapped in a well 20 feet below ground. Rescuers got closer to her yesterday. Jesse McClure fell into the 8'' wide entrance to the well yesterday morning. Since then, workers have drilled a parallel shaft and tried to bore through hard rock to get to the child. But the progress has been slow, and many drill bits have broken. Through it all, Jesse has been heard and seen by microphones and cameras lowered into the well. She has talked with her mother. She has cried, and she has sometimes sung songs. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, six children died in a house fire which was apparently started by an electric space heater. Investigators said the gas had been turned off in the house because of unpaid bills. Five of the six who died were from the same family. It was the second major house fire in Milwaukee within a month. On September 30, ten children and two adults died at a house about a mile from today's fire. MacNEIL: Doctors at Loma Linda University Medical Center in California are preparing to perform an unprecedented heart transplant on a child the instant it is born. A Canadian woman, pregnant with a child with a fatal heart defect, was flown from Vancouver by air ambulance to Loma Linda, after a heart donor was found. Her child will be delivered by caesarian section, and its heart immediately replaced. The child was diagnosed in mid August as having a hypoplastic heart, in which the left side, which pumps blood, is undeveloped. Babies born with that condition usually die within 24 to 48 hours. LEHRER: And that's it for the news summary. Now, the end of the football strike, El Salvador's President Duarte, surrogate mothers, and Soviet dissident Vladimir Slepak. NFL Strike Fumble MacNEIL: As we reported, the NFL strike collapsed today, and that's our first focus. After a 24 day strike weakened by many players crossing the picket lines, the union gave a back to work order under the existing contract, and with major issues unresolved. They said they would take the owners to court instead. This was some of the reaction as players reported back to their teams.

KARL NECKLENBURG, Denver Broncos: It's a tough situation. We've stayed out for something we believed in for a long time, and things don't seem to be getting any better, so as a team, like I said before, as a team, we were out, now as a team we're going back in. IRV EATMAN, Kansas City Chiefs: Well, you know, we decided to put ourselves on the line by coming in here as a team and saying that we would play Sunday if we were allowed to. They had previously set a rule which we basically thought was set for individuals that if they didn't report by noon yesterday that they couldn't play in that week's game. But I think circumstances have changed now. I think that if they're willing to change their policy, then we're sure ready to play. MacNEIL: To sort out today's developments, we have two sports columnists who followed the story. Pete Axthelm, contributing editor for Newsweek Magazine, and Peter King, football reporter for New York Newsday. Pete Axthelm, the players lost, right? Any other way to see it? PETE AXTHELM, Newsweek Magazine: There's no question for the last week the players have been rolling out the white flag, and the owners have been shooting at it. The owners -- as soon as they played successfully the first scab games, I think the Monday when they got the first overnight TV ratings that showed that they would get paid by television almost all of the money they were due, the owners were going to make money, and that's the first rule of the strike, is don't strike unless you're going to cost somebody money. MacNEIL: You agree with that, the players have lost this? PETE KING, New York Newsday: Without any doubt, Robin. I think that the biggest thing to realize is that the players in the last two days have come in to management basically saying, ''We want to play. '' And management has been saying, ''If you don't play by our rules, you will not play. '' That's basically what happened today. MacNEIL: So by agreeing to play, they were saying, ''Yeah, we'll play by your rules. '' Mr. KING: Well, they have done that. But management's rules were restrictive enough to the players -- I'll give you an example on the Giants for instance. Today, the Giants players decided to go back to play in Sunday's game at Buffalo. But when they got there they were met by the general manager of the team, who said, basically, ''We can pay you per diem, but we will not pay you your average salary per week. Football players get 16 game checks. Now, let's take the case of a veteran Brad Benson, on the Giants. His game check is approximately $20,315 per week. Now, per diem for Brad Benson would have been $500 per week. So, to put it bluntly, the players felt like this was a slap in the face, and in not being allowed to come in today, management said to them, ''You can come back next week, but we will play with our replacement players this week. '' MacNEIL: Just back to what the union had to do. The defections were mounting so rapidly. I mean, whole teams were about to leave the strike and go back. They had no other choice, is that right? Mr. AXTHELM: Yes, well, the Redskins I think were the breaking point. The Redskins actually -- I thought they were trying to do, like a remake of the Marx brothers' Day at the Races. You know, the Redskins stay in the strike, they went in, they came out, they went back in. They wanted to get paid, they were told they couldn't get paid. But the behind the scenes -- it's interesting, which in some ways is returning us to the real football reality -- is that Jack Kent Cook petitioned the league office during the -- MacNEIL: The owner of the Redskins -- Mr. AXTHELM: Yes, during the course of the morning to let the Redskins veterans play this Sunday. Well, the committee that rules that, of course a powerful force on that is Tex Shrim, the head of the Dallas Cowboys. Guess who the Redskins are playing Sunday. The Redskins were not allowed to play. So at least we're getting back into old fashioned football. MacNEIL: Allowed to play? The League had a rule that unless the players reported by yesterday, they couldn't play in this weekend's game. Is that going to be strictly enforced? Mr. AXTHELM: Well, they also had a rule that players on injury reserve couldn't play for four weeks or six weeks, depending on their category. And they scrapped that rule, so they obviously could scrap this rule if they wanted to. MacNEIL: Are they going to, do you think? Mr. KING: Robin, I think that if they were to reach an agreement tonight on the back to work order, then they would scrap that rule. But I don't see how they would reach that agreement tonight, because there has been so much ill feeling and so much bad feeling. You don't serve somebody with a lawsuit, or threaten them with a lawsuit, and then go back at 7:00 o'clock at night and say, ''Gee whiz, we'd love to play this Sunday. Let us back in. '' MacNEIL: So the Sunday games could be played by replacement and scab players? Mr. KING: They almost certainly will be played by replacements. MacNEIL: Now, was this lawsuit idea something the union had thought out carefully, or was this just a last minute idea to put a good face on having to collapse --? Mr. AXTHELM: This was in my opinion a last minute idea. And really a ridiculous situation, because the players in all sports to my knowledge -- Pete, you might correct me -- but the players are undefeated in lawsuits looking for free agency. Why didn't they seek this out in court in the first place? Well, part of the reason was they had won this in court in 1974, they gave it back. So they felt it was a collective bargaining -- so now -- MacNEIL: So you're saying they'd have a good chance of winning it again in court -- the free agency -- Mr. AXTHELM: It appears every judge and arbitrator that's ever decided on it has leaned towards the players -- Mr. KING: Robin, I think the players would win. But what you have to realize is the players last spring told Gene Upshaw, they authorized the strike. They gave Gene Upshaw the power to call the strike. A lot of people are calling Gene Upshaw the bad guy in all this. Gene Upshaw's only doing what his players last spring told him to do. MacNEIL: But there's been criticism of tactics, because it's argued that a lot of the players weren't really serious about the free agenting and didn't really want to go to the wall with that -- is that correct? Mr. KING: I agree with that totally. You have players right now in the New York Giants locker room who say, ''Well, pension is the most important thing. Benefits is another very important thing. Free agency is not the most important thing. Yet, a majority of the NFL players told that to Gene Upshaw last year. So what is Upshaw to do? Upshaw tries to go to the wall for free agency, gets struck down, is forced -- they're almost forced into a strike situation, because they're not going to get any kind of free agency. So he has to come back to his players and say, ''Look, I've tried my hardest for you, we didn't win. '' MacNEIL: So do you agree with that, he was forced into a strike situation? Because a lot of people think the strike decision was dumb. Mr. AXTHELM: I think there were several mistakes. And I'm not trying like I'm a great labor expert myself. There was a very good article in the Washington Post this morning which pointed out, quoted several labor experts as saying that Upshaw made a fundamental mistake in beginning the entire process by going public with his position. Because then he was locked into it, and he couldn't negotiate and say, ''I'll give up this if you'll give me this. '' MacNEIL: Let's talk about the future a bit. How are the players who've stayed on strike going to get along with the scabs across the picket line? Mr. KING: Very good question, Robin, because I think that that's one of the reasons why the New York Giants, using them as our laboratory rats, so to speak -- that's one of the reasons why they didn't go out and try to recruit a great team of replacement players. They figured that, well, if we keep the peace within our own organization, we have our own players mollified and know that we didn't try to go out and replace them with so called scabs, they're going to remain happy. MacNEIL: But there are two kinds. I mean, there are replacement players who weren't on the team, and there were players, colleagues of the regular players, who broke the strike. Mr. KING: There you're hitting the crux of the problem. Because the Giants were a team at peace until the four players yesterday broke the line. And now, I don't think Lawrence Taylor and the other three players will ever have the same relationship with their teammates as they had before the strike. Lawrence Taylor in some ways is an island unto himself. He doesn't really care what people think of him, but I do think that when you're out on the field, that does have effect -- MacNEIL: Is this going to affect the morale of teams, the way they play together? Mr. AXTHELM: Well, I feel that the two teams that will definitely profit most from this are the Redskins and the Bears. Because they did both things -- they got good replacement teams, but they also were able to win games and let their veterans stay out en masse and come back en masse. And the Redskins are probably the team I've been closest to -- Pete's been closer to the Giants -- I've been very close to the Redskins situation, and I think they have a tremendous edge now, because they're going back as a unit. They have two extra W's in the column, and -- MacNEIL: I read on the wires that striking players went back into one locker room, shouting, ''Get outa here, scabs, get outa here. '' Mr. KING: It was a situation of utter chaos throughout the league, Robin, from what I've read and heard. I mean, since when do you see Phil Simms sitting out on a hill outside of his own stadium, not allowed in? Asking to go in, not allowed in? Here's a guy who was the Super Bowl's Most Valuable Player, and he's forced into this situation. MacNEIL: One other question about the season ahead. Are the games played with replacement players going to be allowed to count in the season, because the strikers didn't want them to -- how will that work out? Mr. AXTHELM: The owners would look like even bigger frauds than they may appear to a lot of people from having them play these games in the first place if they say now they didn't count. I mean, anyone who bought a ticket would have a class action suit. Mr. KING: Agreed totally, because television has televised these games as real games. They've paid the teams $1. 7 million per team per game. Now, if they come back and say, ''Well, they really didn't count,'' would they want their money to be paid for something that didn't count? MacNEIL: Is this going to have a permanent effect on the game? Gates are down, obviously, television ratings were down, some people found other things to do on Sunday afternoons -- Mr. AXTHELM: There's no question there was a great hangover from the 1982 strike, because people did find -- I think -- I've always believed pro football is a ritual in America. Sunday afternoons and Monday nights, a lot of people have a ritual, whether it's to sit down and plop in front of their television sets or to go to a saloon on Monday night, or whatever. And when they interrupted that ritual, they took several years to come back to it. I think that ritual will be -- interrupted again will be a problem. One other thing I just want to mention, Robin, is the last strike in 1982, the two teams that ended up in the Super Bowl were two of the very strongest organized union teams, Washington and Miami. I suspect you'll see that again -- two strong union teams. MacNEIL: We have to leave it there. Pete King and Pete Axthelm, thank you for joining us. Jose Napoleon Duarte LEHRER: President Duarte is next tonight. Jose Napoleon Duarte is in the United States on an official visit. He talked to President Reagan and other Administration officials yesterday. He made the rounds on Capitol Hill today. He's with us now for a newsmaker interview, which will follow this brief background piece by Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE: El Salvador received nearly $600 million a year worth of economic and military aid from the United States. At the White House yesterday, Jose Napoleon Duarte found a unique and politically effective way to show his deep appreciation. JOSE NAPOLEON DUARTE, President, El Salvador: President Reagan, let me break the protocol. I've seen through my life many times in which people with hate in their hearts have put fire to the American flag. This time, permit me to go to your flag, and in the name of my people to give it a kiss.

KRAUSE: Since his election three years ago, Duarte has become a key U. S. ally in Central America, and has visited Washington several times. But this was his first official state visit, with all the ceremonial trappings. It comes at a crucial and potentially historic moment. Only three weeks remain before the Arias Peace Plan is to take effect. Agreed to by all five Central American presidents last August, the Arias plan sets November 7 as the deadline for cease fires between guerillas and government armies in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. Ten days ago, as part of the peace process, Duarte and representatives of El Salvador's leftist guerillas met for more than 48 hours in San Salvador. Although prospects for a cease fire reportedly remained dim, the two sides agreed to form a commission and to keep talking. The meeting was the first since Duarte and the guerillas met in La Palma three years ago. That historic meeting, plus Duarte's willingness to continue talking to his armed opponents, are cited as precedents by the Reagan Administration for direct talks between the Sandinistas and the contras in Nicaragua. Despite Duarte's efforts, El Salvador remains a country at war, with thousands killed every year. But because of massive U. S. military aid since Duarte became president, the Salvadoran army now has the military advantage. The number of guerillas in the field has reportedly declined by half, to about 5,000 since 1983. Duarte's Christian Democrats also face strong opposition from the extreme right. Businessmen, retired military officers, and politicians opposed to land reform and Duarte's efforts to force the army to respect human rights. Duarte's political problems are further compounded by the economy. Unemployment is estimated at 40%, and the per capita income continues to decrease. El Salvador's economic problems were made worse by a devastating earthquake last year, a natural disaster which has led to charges Duarte's government has badly mismanaged the rebuilding effort. There's little question without continued massive aid from the United States, El Salvador's economy would collapse. Today, President Duarte took his case before members of Congress, who must approve it. LEHRER: And now to President Duarte, who's with us for a newsmaker interview. Mr. President, welcome. Pres. DUARTE: Thank you very much. LEHRER: You also today, in addition to going to Capitol Hill, you went to the National Press Club and answered some questions and made a talk, and you said that the United States should not provide any more military aid to the contras in Nicaragua right now. Is that correct? Pres. DUARTE: No, it's not correct. That's a cable that was sent to some newspaper people. I did not specifically make that statement. What I said was that there are two areas that we have to analyze. One is the area that we have the responsibility of -- that the five presidents that we have signed this document which is Escapulis 2 -- LEHRER: That's the Guatemala Peace Document -- Pres. DUARTE: That's the Guatemala Peace Plan, LEHRER: Right, the Arias Plan -- Pres. DUARTE: -- and on this document, it says that we appeal to the governments of the region -- (unintelligible) -- that to stop the aid, to give a chance to this peace plan, to this political solution, instead of just going into a military solution. But there is a second ring -- a second section in which we, the presidents, do not have anything to do -- and that's the influence of other governments, Cuba, Russia or the United States. We cannot tell them what to do. So this is what I said. LEHRER: All right. Let me just ask you directly. Forget what you said or didn't say to the National Press Club. Would it help the peace process or hurt the peace process if the United States provides more military aid to the contras between now and the time this plan has had a chance to work or not work? Pres. DUARTE: What we're asking is give this plan a chance. Give them the opportunity, give them 90 days, give them 120 days. Give them 150 days. According to this plan. Now, if at the end, any country -- can -- want to do whatever they want to do, that's their problem. Now, I don't want to make any positions -- or take any positions on the internal affairs of the United States. I stated clearly I will not make any remarks in favor or against the contra aid, because that's an internal, political affair of the United States. And for us, for the Central American countries, we don't know whether they have to approve or not to approve, according to their budget time, or whatever it is -- that's their problem, that's the United States' problem. For us, we ask in the countries not to give aid to the rebels wherever they are during this period of time. This is what we have asked. LEHRER: As you know -- as I'm sure you know -- President Reagan has asked the U. S. Congress to provide $270 million in aid to the contras, beginning in September, which is well within your 120 or 150 days. I'm assuming -- if I'm adding up correctly -- what those numbers and what you say that you don't support that. Pres. DUARTE: Let me say that there are two points I want to make. First, whatever the United States approves or not approve, now, in September, or October, or November -- that's the United States' problem. Now, the United States will not give the aid to the contras -- this is where we're interested -- until the time that this establishes exactly on the calendar of this program. So there are two different things. If the United States could wait until the calendar dates, that's one thing. But I heard -- I don't know about that -- but I heard that according to the United States budget, they have to approve or not approve the issues in a certain limited time. That is an internal, mechanical problem of the United States. We cannot get involved in that. LEHRER: Okay. You want to stay out of that one. Pres. DUARTE: I do. Specifically. LEHRER: All right. Is this plan going to work, Mr. President? Pres. DUARTE: I hope so. Because this plan is not only just a few commitments, it's more than that. It's a philosophy. It's a philosophy of reconciliation. It's a philosophy of pardon. It's a philosophy of non violence. And if we make it work, we'll have peace in Central America. LEHRER: Assistant U. S. Secretary of State Eliot Abrams and others in the Administration, and some also in Congress, have said that this plan is doomed to failure -- I paraphrase here -- but this plan is doomed to failure because the Sandinistas of Nicaragua, a Marxist government, will never agree -- will never negotiate into a democracy. What is your response to that? Pres. DUARTE: I would say that I have signed this document in good faith. But I'm not naive. I understand the difficulties. And we have to understand that a Marxist/Leninist totalitarianism cannot change easily. They have never changed in the world. But we are proposing for the first time that the Communist Marxist totalitarianism of Nicaragua change to a Socialist Democracy. And if that happens, that will make history. So what we're trying to do -- and this is where we make Mr. Ortega to sign this -- because we were telling him, this is the only way that you can survive. If you want to continue trying to produce your model in Nicaragua, you have to understand that the only way is that if you accept democracy as a base. And this is all about what this document means. LEHRER: Well, in the talks in Guatemala City, in anything that you may have heard from anybody else since then, are you convinced that Ortega is sincere about this? That he's bought this, that he did more than just sign it, he accepted it as well? Pres. DUARTE: I'll tell you what I think. I asked all the presidents if they were going to comply with each one of the points here. And when I got to Ortega, I asked him three times. I said first, ''Are you ready to comply with it? This is not a trick? Are you really willing to?'' And he said, ''Yes. '' Then I asked him the second time, and I said, ''Are you ready to comply?'' And he said, ''Yes. '' Then I asked him to shake my hand, and I said, ''I'm accepting your word for it. I'm going to ask you for the third time, are you willing to comply with it?'' And he said, ''Yes. '' ''Alright then,'' I said, ''I accept this in good faith. Because if you do not comply, I'll be the first one to raise a crowd out loud, over your conduct if you don't comply with all it says here. '' LEHRER: Secretary of State Shultz has also said -- the U. S. has also said -- that Ortega and the Sandinistas -- if there's going to be a cease fire, and if this thing's going to work, he's got to sit down, or his government's got to sit down and negotiate directly with the contras, just like you have sat down and negotiated with your rebels, or leftist rebels. Do you agree with that? Pres. DUARTE: I will tell you that I do agree, based on my conceptual interpretation of what this document is. This document is an act of independence of the five presidents of Central America, eliminating all influence from outside. And when we did that, we commit ourselves to try to solve the problems among ourselves inside of our countries and among the Central American countries. And I cannot come about now saying that I do not talk to the guerillas because Cuba is involved, or Russia is involved. No, the guerillas are in my country. They have the rifles there, they're doing damage there. So I have to go out and talk to the Salvadoran guerillas to try to see if I can find peace. So Ortega has no excuse of trying to go outside of the internal concept of this plan, and blame the United States. Because I believe that the Nicaraguan contras are Nicaraguans. So he has to discuss with the Nicaraguans and try to solve the problem. Now, he could do it directly or indirectly. That's something else. But something has to be done. LEHRER: President Arias was on this program earlier this week, and he told Robin -- Robert MacNeil -- he believed that Ortega in the final analysis would agree to mediation with the Catholic Church. In other words, the Catholic Church as a middle -- have you heard that? Do you -- Pres. DUARTE: Yes, Mr. Arias called me up and asked my opinion about it, and I said, ''Yes, I think it's a good idea to start breaking the ice and to see if we can find a way in which Nicaragua could talk with the Nicaraguan rebels on an indirect way. '' I think it's a good first step. So he called Ortega, saying that he and I were in agreement with this. LEHRER: And you think it might lead to something? Pres. DUARTE: It might. And we're hoping for. LEHRER: Do you think President Arias deserved the Nobel Prize for Peace? Pres. DUARTE: I do. I think that he made a very nice, very strong contribution. He presented a first draft of the peace plan. He had no army, had no guerillas, had no war. He was not thinking of himself. He was thinking of the people of Central America. He was thinking of the democracy in Nicaragua. He was thinking of the democracy in El Salvador. He was thinking of ending the killing of the Salvadoran and Nicaraguan people. So I think he deserves it. LEHRER: It's been suggested that the Nobel committee put a lot of pressure on the United States and President Reagan by giving President Arias the Nobel Prize, because it essentially says, ''Back off and see if this process will work. '' Do you agree with that? Pres. DUARTE: No, I don't think so. I think that the Nobel Prize was well given. Mr. Arias deserved it. And I don't think anybody could put any pressure on this decision. LEHRER: Did you express to President Reagan the same things you've expressed here tonight -- that please back off, please let this plan have a chance to either work or fail? Pres. DUARTE: I have talked to all the members of the government, or Congressmen, and I've been talking the same language. I am backing this plan -- wholeheartedly. I am backing this plan on good will. I am going to comply with every single word of this. Because I want to have the moral authority -- if Nicaragua does not comply, I'll have the moral authority to say something. LEHRER: Do you -- based on what you have heard since you've been in Washington in the last 24 hours -- do you believe the United States also is backing this plan? Pres. DUARTE: I think that you can go back for a few days and you will find all the officials of the government -- and even the speech made by President Reagan to the OAS, expressing specifically the backing of this program. LEHRER: And you have no question about that? Pres. DUARTE: I do not. I agree with my friend, President Reagan, and I think that as always he has backed this in good faith, and I accept his word for the backing of this program. LEHRER: President Duarte, thank you for being with us. Good to see you again, sir. Pres. DUARTE: Thank you very much. Surrogate Rules MacNEIL: Reverberations from the Baby M Surrogate Mother case echoed on Capitol Hill today. A House subcommittee held hearings on whether the federal government should regulate what some have called ''parenting for pay. '' Among the witnesses was Mary Beth Whitehead, the surrogate mother who was at the center of the highly publicized Baby M case. Our congressional correspondent Cokie Roberts has more.

COKIE ROBERTS: The idea of surrogate parenting did not attract much attention until Mary Beth Whitehead tried to break her contract. For a fee of $10,000, she had agreed to be artificially inseminated by William Stern so he and his wife Elizabeth could raise a child biologically related to at least one of them. But after the baby, the now famous Baby M, was born, Mary Beth Whitehead fought to keep the child. The Sterns took her to court and won custody of Baby M. The Baby M case kicked off a national debate, and a national debate eventually ends up in the nation's legislature. Congress is considering a law to govern the surrogate practice. Contracts that provide that a woman carry another couple's child have been around for about 10 years in this country, producing thousands of babies. But unlike other nations, Congress has never considered rules to govern, or perhaps even to outlaw, surrogate contracts. Today, a House subcommittee started that process. The subcommittee heard first from women who contracted to give their babies away and now regret it. MARY BETH WHITEHEAD, surrogate mother: No one ever said to me, ''It's your baby, and there's a possibility when she grows up and finds out that you sold her, she might hate your guts. '' Perhaps some people think the baby would be better off with people like the Sterns. Many of the newspaper stories made that point, that I didn't finish high school. The idea people got from that was I couldn't be a good mother -- I couldn't be a good mother if I didn't finish high school, and I was married to a garbage man. What they all ignored, however, was that I was a good mother. Bill and Betsy Stern have money and are educated, and they got to the courthouse first. I didn't think I ever had a chance. I didn't think any of the women you'll hear this morning ever had a chance. The economics of surrogacy in this country are simple. The sperm donors are well off and the women they hire to bear their children generally are not. LAURIE YATES, surrogate mother: My babies and I are one. I love them, Richard loves them. He was there for the children and I when I was sick. He was there at the birth and during the C section. He has cared and loved them since the very beginning of their conception. No matter how much pain and suffering we go through, we are determined to fight for our children. The surrogacy program inflicts pain and suffering on almost everyone associated with it. ELIZABETH KANE, surrogate mother: Some day we're going to have to explain to these babies why they were created to satisfy the obsessive desires of wealthy men, and why their mothers felt they were worth $10,000 in cold, hard cash. We are now caught in the middle between science and human nature. And I think the time has come for all of us to choose between knowledge and understanding or ignorance when it comes to the issues of surrogate motherhood.

ROBERTS: The committee then heard from Joyce and Mark Stevens, a Montana couple who paid a woman $10,000 to have a baby for them. Jennifer Ann arrived at their home only six days ago. JOYCE STEVENS: This surrogate -- who we have no idea who she is -- has given us something that's just unattainable, unbelievable. This little daughter of mine is so important to us, to me, that I cannot thank her. MARK STEVENS: In regard to fees that have been referenced, as far as $1,000, $10,000, $100,000, I don't think you can put a price on my daughter. I know in six days she's so intertwined with my heart it would be very hard for me to let go of her. And in that respect, I'm indebted to a lady I do not know in a way that is very hard for me to explain. And unless we want to bring back polygamy and other social apparatuses for childless couples to obtain children under a marital status, I don't know what other options we have.

ROBERTS: In sorting through these stories, Congressman Thomas Luken, Ohio Democrat, has introduced a bill which would outlaw any commercial arrangements for surrogate parenting, eliminating all exchanges of money. The bill would also prohibit any advertising for surrogate mothers. Rep. THOMAS LUKEN, (D) Ohio: We must consider the desirability of removing the profit motive from these otherwise sacrosanct areas of human activity. Surrogacy is a nice, gentle word, that is unfortunately used here for sugarcoating a practice in which the baby peddlers are involved in the business of selling children. The money changers have entered the temple of our most sacred human relationship. We have no jurisdiction over the temple. But we do over the money changers.

ROBERTS: But even members who agree with Luken has problems with the legislation. Rep. BOB WHITTAKER, (R) Kansas: I think it's going to be very difficult for the Congress to legislate morality, because that is the issue with this law on the books. Do you all think that the mother that's actively -- or that's involved in the surrogacy should go to prison? And when should she go to prison, upon birth? Should she go to prison after the birth, immediately after the birth of the child? Rep. LUKEN: This is a long way from being a mandatory penalty. This isn't a mandatory penalty at all. So I would leave it to the imagination of those -- of everyone -- to consider how often such a penalty of imprisonment would be imposed against -- who -- I agree with those who have suggested, the mother, who is primarily the victim in such a situation.

ROBERTS: Despite the problems any legislation of this kind produces, Congressman Callahan emphasized the concerns of Congress, even when presented with a surrogate success story. Rep. SONNY CALLAHAN, (R) Alabama: All of them don't work as perfectly as yours has. And as a result, we're having these hearings to find if we can find some solution to those that might not receive the same smooth sailing that you received in your case. MacNEIL: There are two bills to ban surrogate parenting now in the congressional (unintelligible), but with the possibility of more hearings on the issue, Congress is not expected to move on either proposal quickly. Defying the Kremlin LEHRER: Finally tonight, the story of Vladimir Slepak and the Soviet refuseniks. Late tonight, another prominent Soviet dissident, 52 year old Ada Nudel arrived in Tel Aviv, Israel, ending her 16 year old battle to emigrate. She received permission to leave the Soviet Union just 11 days ago. And yesterday, more than 17 years after he first asked permission to leave the Soviet Union. Vladimir Slepak and his wife were told they would be allowed to emigrate. We have a biography of Vladimir Slepak that was recently produced by Public Station WHYY in Philadelphia. It contains videotapes smuggled out of the Soviet Union.

LEONID SLEPAK [voice over]: In 1976, an American tourist took this photograph of my family. It is the last photo taken of the four of us together. My parents are Masha and Vladimir Slepak. They've been trying to leave Russia to go to Israel for 17 years, but their application is always refused. This photo is from an interview that was recently smuggled out of Moscow. My older brother Sanya just graduated from medical school. He lives in Philadelphia with his wife Anonyn and their two kids. He hasn't seen our parents for 10 years. My name is Leonid. I live in New York City and have three sons. I got out of Russia two years after Sanya. So I haven't seen my mother and father for eight years now. We are Soviet Jewish refuseniks, and this is our story. My great grandfather was a rabbi. [on camera] The family lived in Shtadel. My grandfather was going to shul, to yeshiva, and was supposed to become a rabbi. Nevertheless, he ran away from home, ran away from family, ran away from the yeshiva, and got involved with the revolutionaries. When the tsar's secret police started to arrest his colleagues -- comrades -- to avoid the arrest, he ran to the United States. SANYA SLEPAK: My grandfather, he actually lived in the United States. The whole family left in the early '90s, and there were 12 children, and he was the only rebel in the family. He decided to go back to Russia when the revolution took place. He felt that now there will be equality and freedom for everybody. So he went back to Russia to the revolution. He became a very, very prominent member of the Soviet government. LEONID SLEPAK: Being the son of an atheist, my father had no Jewish education whatsoever. When the family returned to Moscow, they lived a privileged life in an apartment on Gorky Street. In 1951, Vladimir met Masha Rosgorsky, and they lived with my grandfather after their marriage. As a young doctor, my mother witnessed Stalin's anti semitic campaign against doctors. One day she'd seen enough. [on camera] She came home, she was all shaking from anger. And she turned immediately to my grandfather for the answers, knowing he a party member he must know the answers. And she said, ''Well, how can they do it to people, to innocent people?'' And he said, ''When they chop wood, the chips fly, and it's better to persecute 100 innocent, rather than let one traitor get away. '' And when my father heard that, he said, ''You know, dad, I will never join your party. '' VLADIMIR SLEPAK in smuggled piece of film: And the final break was when I said to my father that I don't want to live in this country, I want to live in my country -- Israel -- in Jewish country, and I want to leave. He said that, ''I never thought that my son is a traitor, that my son is an enemy of the people. '' SANYA SLEPAK: Then he announced officially that he doesn't have a son anymore. He didn't allow my father to call him, or ever mention his name. VLADIMIR SLEPAK: Once when I heard that he's in hospital with a heart attack, I took some fruit with me, and I came to see him. First, his words were, ''Did you change your mind?'' I said, ''No. '' He said, ''Thank you for your visit. Thank you for fruit. Now go away. '' LEONID SLEPAK: And when my father was arrested and sent to Siberia, my grandfather was away out of Moscow. When he got back and learned what happened to my father, the strong Bolshevik, who went to yeshiva, Hebrew school when he was a boy, started to pray in Hebrew for the sake of my father. And the emotional stress was so strong that he died, praying for the sake of my father. So he died as a Jew, more than a party member. VLADIMIR SLEPAK: In 1968, we asked for an invitation from Israel. In 1969, I got it, and immediately I lost my job. At that time, I was head of laboratory in the TV research institute of Moscow. We made the new equipment for TV, new equipment for TV (unintelligible), and so on. After about two months, we were refused. They said I'd know state secrets. LEONID SLEPAK: My father said, ''You do not keep me because I know some secrets. I've worked in the television research industry and whatever I was doing there was even then outdated. And we are at least 10 years behind, for example, the United States in our technology in television. ''[ And the answer was, ''Maybe that's exactly the secret that you know. '' VLADIMIR SLEPAK: During these years, day after day, it was, of course, very difficult. But we had no other way. Like the rider on the bicycle on the wire, you cannot go back, you cannot go to one side or the other, you have to go further. It's all the way. SANYA SLEPAK: It isn't that our parents aren't allowed to leave. It's basically because my father, considered by the Soviets as well as by other countries and governments, as a symbol of the Soviet Jews. And very soon, KGB realized that that's where the heart of the movement is. And as long as they have the heart in their fists, they have control over the Soviet Jews. LEONID SLEPAK: In 1977, my family's case was to be presented at the Belgrade Conference as a dramatic example of human rights violation in the Soviet Union. So to keep the conference happy, so to speak, they let my brother go -- sort of like flashing the name -- they let Slepak go -- to keep everybody quiet. But the authorities never do anything for nothing. The same night my brother was leaving the country, in which he was given permission to leave, three days before he left the country, I had to leave home, because I received a draft notice. SANYA SLEPAK: The thing is that when I left, Scharansky was already arrested. He was arrested at our apartment. And I knew that the grip is getting stronger. My father was again, as always, very under control. And my mother, she was crying. And she came up to me, she took my face in her hands, she looked in my eyes, and tears were running down her cheeks, and she said, ''It might be the moment when we see each other for the last time. But I want you to know that if that's the mission of my life, to bring my children to freedom, I completed my mission. '' In '78, June 1, it was an International Day of Child -- and my parents wanted to go to the street to demonstrate the separation with their children. I was in Jerusalem at that time. And the Soviet authorities decided to prevent them, and they barricaded the door from the outside. VLADIMIR SLEPAK: We were arrested because we went up to the (unintelligible) apartment where the banner was written, ''Let us out to our son in Israel. '' And during 40 minutes we stood there with this banner, from the next floor, they put on us from a kettle, boiling water, through a window. They broke two doors, then we were arrested. And then were sentenced for the military hooliganism for five years of exile in Siberia, and my wife was sentenced four years of prison camp, but her sentence was suspended. LEONID SLEPAK: In Siberia, they made him a stoker, he had to work in the boiler room 24 hours on, 24 hours off. It was a hundred degrees inside, so he could wear only a tee shirt or something like that, with no lavatory. So during those 24 hours sometimes he had to run outside, and it's minus 40 with the wind. OLGA SLEPAK: I gave birth to my first son, and Masha came to Moscow, because all the time she was in Siberia with her husband. She came to Moscow, I would say maybe a week before I gave birth. And a week after I gave birth, we got a permission to leave. So Masha was very, she was really sad, because, you know, she saw her first grandson for about a week. LEONID SLEPAK: I travelled to Siberia to say goodbye to my parents. Seeing them there and leaving them behind was the worst thing that one can imagine. You know, we hugged, we kissed, and just told them, you know, ''Hang in there, I'll see you,'' and really meant that what I said. I said, ''Yes, I will see you. '' That was goodbye, and then she walked away. LEHRER: When he was told yesterday that he and his wife could leave the Soviet Union, Vladimir Slepak said it was ''like a dream -- I thought it was happening to someone else. '' The Slepaks plan to settle in Israel. Recap MacNEIL: Now another look at the main stories of the day. An Iranian missile hit a U. S. owned but Liberian flagged tanker in Kuwaiti waters, setting it ablaze. The National Football League strike collapsed as the players' union ordered strikers back to work without a new contract. A leading New York bank raised its prime lending rate to 9. 75%. And on the NewsHour, El Salvador's President Duarte said he received a personal vow from Nicaragua's President Ortega that he would abide by the Central American Peace Plan. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night.