The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. The United States is reported tonight to be preparing to pull half its troops out of Grenada. We have reports on the continuing aftermath of the invasion on the island, at the United Nations and in Congress. And more followup to the fighting in Lebanon. We see how the French nation honors its dead, and we have a documentary look at what's at stake for everyone, including the U.S., at the peace talks in Geneva. And we examine how Grenada and Lebanon are affecting U.S. public opinion and politics. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Also tonight we'll watch and listen as President Reagan makes Martin Luther King Day a national holiday, as William Clark, the President's choice for interior secretary, goes through a second day of confirmation hearings, and here in the studio is a U.S. senator and the number-two man at the Pentagon to discuss how in the world a 12" wrench ends up costing the government $9,609.

MacNEIL: Eight days after the Grenada invasion, the United States is reported preparing to pull about half its troops out of the island tomorrow. Reuters news agency quotes a spokesman for the U.S. mission in Grenada saying that some 2,300 troops are preparing to leave to return to their home base at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. That would leave about 3,000 U.S. and 300 Caribbean troops on the island. American military officials reported no contact with enemy forces in the last 24 hours. Earlier today the U.S. evacuated 57 wounded Cuban soldiers to Barbados, where they were handed over to the Red Cross. Here's a report from Brian Barron of the BBC. War Zone Updates

BRIAN BARRON, BBC [voice-over]: They left in defeat from Point Salines airfield which they had struggled for two years to complete. Some had to be carried, and some walked or limped away from their most humiliating international reverse in a decade. Remnants of a Cuban engineering battalion who had received only basic infantry training and faced an American invasion. Dozens of them are still missing in the jungle mountains. This was a departure negotiated by the International Red Cross, and as the vanquished left without ceremony, American paratroopers too were gathering around Point Salines for a massive airlift to take them back to Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. Mission accomplished. Overall, American losses were under 20 dead, politically an acceptable figure back in Washington. So in the next 24 hours, more than half the American troops here will pull out. The brigade that's left, totaling just over 2,000 men, may stay through Christmas. At least they're making hotel bookings for that period.

MacNEIL: In Washington a Pentagon official denied the reports from Grenada, saying there was no plan to pull out half the troops tomorrow. In New York, the United Nations General Assembly voted by an overwhelming margin to condemn the invasion of Grenada and to call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The resolution was adopted before any debate was permitted. United States Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick spoke out against that procedure.

JEANE KIRKPATRICK, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.: If indeed this body finds irresistable a proposal first that debate be stifled, prevented, and second, that an amendment proposing free elections for a liberated people should be rejected, then we have arrived at a moment of truth. Has it come to this, Mr. President? That this organization, founded in the wake of a great war against tyrants, comprising from the moment of its birth nations liberated by force from the troops and quisling governments of tyrants should meet here to deplore the rescue of the people of Grenada from the grip of a small band of murderous men whose clear intention was to secure the permanent subjugation of Grenada and its people, putting this small but strategically located island at the disposal of foreign tyrants?

MacNEIL: After the vote the delegates did express their views on the resolution, which had already been passed. Jim?

LEHRER: A high-ranking State Department official said today the Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea had agreed to provide millions of dollars worth of arms to Grenada. The official, Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth Dam, told a House committee the arms deal was part of secret agreements which were discovered after the U.S. invasion of the island nation. Here's part of his testimony.

KENNETH DAM, Deputy Secretary of State: -- weapons, armored personnel carriers, small arms and abundant ammunition were to be furnished to an island touted by its suppliers as a tourist haven. The signed secret agreements also called for 40 Cuban military advisers, 27 on a "permanent" basis, the others for "short periods." An October, 1980 agreement with the USSR called for the provision gratis of, among other things, 1,500 7.62 carbines, 1,000 7.62 machine guns -- submachine guns, and 18 antiaircraft mounts. The agreement called for Grenadian military personnel to be trained in the USSR at Soviet expense.Moscow tried to keep the arrangement secret by obliging the Grenadians to treat it as secret, routing their supplies through Cuba and delaying the establishment of diplomatic relations with Grenada until 18 months after entering into the military supply relationship.

LEHRER: Also, House Speaker Thomas O'Neill said he still planned to send his House leadership delegation to Grenada Friday despite misgivings about the trip from Mr. Dam's boss, Secretary of State Shultz. Majority Whip Thomas Foley is to lead the delegation. O'Neill said Secretary Shultz called him last night to say he thought the trip wasn't worthwhile, but that he, the Speaker, did not agree. Robin?

MacNEIL: In the other war zone preoccupying Americans, Lebanon, there was intensified fighting today, but U.S. Marines were not involved. Druse militiamen stepped up their recent attacks on Lebanese army positions at the much-fought-over town of Suk al Gharb in the mountains east of Beirut. They were repelled. In Geneva the nine Lebanese political and religious factions continued their conference aimed at bringing an end to the civil war. At the beginning of today's meeting, an incident that started out as a petty dispute about security brought a meaningful gesture of reconciliation between a former president of Lebanon and the current president. Here's a report from Keith Graves of the BBC.

KEITH GRAVES, BBC [voice-over]: It was on the brink of collapse. Seventy-four-year-old Suleiman Franjieh, former Lebanese president, opponent of the government of President Gemayel and a sworn enemy of the Gemayel family, refused to empty his pockets before walking through a metal detector. His enemies were not prepared to risk sitting in a room with a man who has a reputation for terminating arguments with those who oppose him on a permanent basis. So Mr. Franjieh, who may look old and frail but is a feared warlord back home, stalked off and for two hours the conference was threatened. It seemed as though every other person in the Intercontinental Hotel at the moment is carrying a gun. Druse leader Walid Jumblatt, for example, admits to carrying three about his person, so his support for Mr. Franjieh was understandable.

WALID JUMBLATT, Druse leader: I mean, Mr. Amin Gemayel should have -- should be -- I mean, let's say, delicate enough to send somebody downstairs and to accompany Mr. Franjieh upstairs. Up to now it seems we have had this delicacy.

GRAVES [voice-over]: President Gemayel did more than that. He went down personally to welcome back Mr. Franjieh, who did not pass through the metal detector. That may not seem very significant, but the Gemayel family followers killed Mr. Franjieh's son and daughter and granddaughter. Mr. Franjieh's followers killed President Gemayel's niece. It was truly, in Lebanese terms, an historic moment, and an incident that had graphically illustrated the hatreds and divisions that are tearing Lebanon apart ended with the sort of gesture that showed how serious President Gemayel is in his efforts to save his country.

MacNEIL: Back at the Marine compound in Beirut, FBI specialists continued sifting through the rubble of the shattered headquarters building where 230 U.S. servicemen died. They're looking for evidence of the kind of bomb used, which might give clues to the terrorists who made it. Jim?

LEHRER: Another 23 bodies arrived at the Dover, Delaware Air Force Base this morning, the bodies of Marines and other U.S. servicemen killed in the Beirut suicide attack. It was the fifth group to arrive, and it was marked by a fifth memorial service in the large hangar there on the base, a familiar and sad place to everyone who has seen it on television. One hundred and twenty nine more of the 230 total American dead are still to come, and thus there are also several more ceremonies in that Delaware hangar still to come.

[voice-over] The French, who lost 58 paratroopers in a simultaneous explosion at their Beirut headquarters, handled the return of their dead differently. This morning in Paris there was one ceremony for all 58. It was held in the courtyard of the Invalides, the national veterans' shrine and Napoleon's burial place. French President Francois Mitterrand placed a medal on a red velvet cushion on each of the coffins, a Legion of Honor for each of the four officers, and a military medal for each of the enlisted men. The coffins were then returned to the families for private burial. Joining President Mitterrand at today's ceremony was the entire cabinet of the French government; so were Mitterrand's major political opponents. There were no speeches, only words from Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Moslem leaders.

Robin?

MacNEIL: The tragedy for France and the United States underscores how much depends on the reconciliation talks in Geneva. Many parties have a vital stake in success, not only the Gemayel government and its principal rivals in the Shuf Mountains. Success or failure in Geneva will determine when the U.S. Marines and other troops of the multinational force can leave Beirut. It will determine how long the United Nations force stays in southern Lebanon, and the Israelis there. It will determine the fate of the remnants of the PLO centered around Tripoli. In this documentary report, Russ Froese of the CBC indicates the stake everyone has riding in Geneva.

RUSS FROESE, CBC Journal [voice-over]: Digging in. It had an entirely different meaning when French soldiers came to Lebanon to keep the peace. It meant these troops were to establish a presence, not to look numb, stunned and frightened as the search for victims of a fanatical suicide bomber went off. It did not mean plucking the bodies of their comrades one by one from the rubble of their nine-story barracks in Beirut: for France, the largest loss of military life since the Algerian war 22 years ago. The French and the American peacekeepers have become the latest victims of the never-ending cycle of death in Lebanon.

[on camera] It's been 10 days since the American Marine compound, like that of the French, was demolished, and still they are looking for bodies. The U.S. now has a big stake in insuring that this week's talks in Geneva produce some sort of a dialogue toward peace, for if they fail the large scale hostilities in the country could start up again, and the Marines could be drawn even deeper into the conflict. The killings are just another gory chapter in the violent history of Lebanon, a violence that has included the peacekeepers, the invaders and the Lebanese alike. Lebanon is truly an international graveyard.

[voice-over] This pile of rubble, once the four-story American Marine headquarters, became the tomb for 230 U.S. soldiers. The Americans came to Lebanon to provide stability for the Christian-dominated government, but they were resented as partisan by the Druse, the Shiites and the other Muslim forces. They were drawn into the sectarian conflict. The result: the highest U.S. military body count since Vietnam.

The United Nations peacekeeping force has also been caught in Lebanon's web of violence. Deployed in 1978 after the first Israeli invasion of south Lebanon, the Fijians and soldiers from nine other countries were to act as a buffer between the PLO and the Israelis. Their efforts cost the U.N. forces 94 lives; the Fijians suffered the most, with 16 dead. There has been some compensation for the lives lost; people see more stability here in this small part of southern Lebanon than elsewhere. They're starting to move back. After 4 1/2 years of bloodshed, local people are beginning to trust their international policemen. But U.N. forces spokesman Timur Goksel sees Lebanon as a leaky boat with many holes to plug.

TIMUR GOKSEL, U.N. spokesman: We pull out our boys and we give time, important time for those who might, who should be trying to seek a political solution. That wasn't done. Now, what I'm saying, I'm just like one hole of one part of this ship, and the rest of the ship is leaking.

FROESE [voice-over]: If Lebanon is a leaky boat, then the PLO are sinking fast. Here on their front lines north of Tripoli, the remnants of Yasir Arafat's once-mighty army makes a final stand against pro-Syrian, anti-Arafat forces. The PLO army had numbered more than 15,000 before last year's Israeli invasion. Now a rag-tag band of a few thousand around Tripoli is facing Syrian guns just two kilometers away.

MOHAMMED SHAKIR, PLO: If you see the white -- like the white walls over on the top of the small hills in front of us, it is what you call the bunkers for heavy machine guns. This is for the Syrians and for the mutineers and the PFLP general command.

FROESE [voice-over]: While viewing the battle lines, our position was shelled, proof, according to the PLO, that Syria is trying to decimate Arafat's refugee fighters.

[interviewing] Is this your last stand?

Mr. SHAKIR: No, it will be never my last stand, because from this stand I am going forward. They will never be able to hear us simper because we are defending ourselves, our revolutions, and the values, things we are fighting for.It is really -- either we win or die. Simple.

FROESE [voice-over]: This small band of PLO loyalists battling it out in the mountains near Tripoli is the last line of defense for the Palestinian refugees in the nearby camp of Al Baddawi. Pro-Arafat guerrillas are now appealing to the Arab world and the Soviet Union to stop what they expect to be a new massacre of Palestinian men, women and children on Lebanese soil.

The Israelis, too, have been bloodied by Lebanon.Last year Israeli tanks drove north to get rid of the Palestinian guerrilla machine once and for all. They may have scattered the PLO, but then the invaders spent 15 months battling Lebanon's feuding factions. They finally withdrew to the south, where they are still facing guerrilla resistance. This weekend, Israeli patrols near Tyre were looking for a mortar nest that claimed the lives of two Israeli soldiers. Palestinian guerrillas were blamed. The cost to Israel, more than 500 dead, 3,000 wounded, and a population at home severely divided on the moral question of whether or not it was right to again enter Lebanon's international battleground.

There has been a shortage of conciliatory talk by the rival factions in Lebanon, but never a shortage of weapons. They come by air, land and by sea. There is profit in war, and in Lebanon customers abound. In addition to the official Lebanese army, there are 40 to 50 organized militia groups, hundreds of smaller armed gangs. There is a jumble of flags and allegiances. And most of their fighters are boys and young men who have grown up with civil war. For them, revenge, death and the gun are the only life they know. They have divided Beirut into dozens of armed enclaves, setting up their own checkpoints. And whether they are Christian or Moslem, the pictures of their so-called martyrs adorn the walls.They all talk of dying for the cause of peace and freedom.

FIGHTER: If someone tried to kill us or to hurt us, we are going to destroy him. We are going to fight and kill the last one from us. If there are no rights for us. We don't want anything from them, only to give us some peace, some of our rights. Not all. Some. We are going to be --

FROESE: And if they don't?

FIGHTER: If they don't give us, we are going to fight until the last one of us.

FROESE: This country's war has created in many a total lack of respect for human dignity. This soldier is a member of the Amal, the militia for the Shiite Moslems. He took us to the bombed-out ruins of a Christian church in Beirut's southern suburbs.He claimed it had been used by right-wing Christian Phalange snipers until the Amal stormed it recently. He wanted to show us where the Phalange hid their weapons. "We found them in the coffins of the dead," he claimed. He took no notice of what they had done to the dead in their attempt to find the guns.

Revenge, hatred and death. It's a cycle that has claimed more than 65,000 lives in eight years. It's the reason the peace talks are so crucial for Lebanon and its many armies.

[on camera] The leaders of the multinational forces have strongly hinted that if there is no serious progress toward peace at this week's meetings in Geneva, there could be a withdrawal of some, if not all, the peacekeepers in Lebanon. Even here in Beirut the critical importance of the meetings is being emphasized. One newspaper dubbed them "the conference of last hope;" another said, "The world is fed up with Lebanon's rulers, leaders and warlords," and it urged those at the conference to settle their feuds among themselves. If they don't, the Lebanese could be left to rest in their own kind of peace.

For the Journal, this is Russ Froese in Beirut, Lebanon.

MacNEIL: In Washington today the House of Representatives defeated an attempt to force the withdrawal of the Marines from Beirut. The move came as an amendment to the $247-billion military spending bill the House is debating. Speaker Thomas O'Neill opposed it saying withdrawing the Marines would undermine the Geneva peace negotiations. The amendment was defeated 274 to 153. Jim?

LEHRER: There have been 10 days of American public reaction now to the double blows of events in Lebanon and Grenada. Politicians, pollsters and those in the press who report on them have been hard at it trying to read that reaction. Most of them now agree the best place to read may be in the state of Washington next week. There's an election Tuesday for the U.S. Senate that was already seen as a referendum on Reagan policies generally, now is one on his Lebanon and Grenada policies specifically. It's the race to fill the seat of the late Henry Jackson, who died in September, and it's between two opposites: Dan Evans, the mildtempered, three-term Republican governor who was appointed to fill Jackson's seat.

Sen. DAN EVANS, (R) Washington: As a Senator I can support the President of the United States to the maximum degree possible. I am a loyal Republican. In fact, I think I could say without any qualms that I have been a Republican longer than President Reagan.

LEHRER [voice-over]: And this man, Mike Lowry, a two-term liberal Democratic congressman who is described as "feisty."

Rep. MIKE LOWRY, (D) Washington: Dan Evans is awfully hard to beat. That's why the Republicans took the poll and appointed him. He's going to be awfully hard to beat. But it is now possible for the Democrats to win back this seat.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Since the campaign began, Evans has been on the defensive, with Lowry accusing him of being a clone of Ronald Reagan and his policies.

Sen. EVANS: Peace is paramount to all of us, and we cannot reach peace, in my view, through weakness. We have remained -- we have remained free for more than 200 years as a nation because we have been strong.

Rep. LOWRY: That's the same old baloney that Ronald Reagan has talked about. I'm not -- through -- for weakness. I am for this country giving the leadership to stop first-strike weapons systems, which is common sense. That is not weakness. That is -- this peace through weakness is the same Ronald Reagan-type rhetoric that continues to expedite this arms race.

LEHRER [voice-over]: And since the tragedy in Beirut and the invasion in Grenada, Evans has had even more to defend.

Sen. EVANS: Certainly if we were to pull them out, pull our Marines out, the rest of the peacekeeping force would leave too, and we would set in motion unquestionably a bloody civil war.

Rep. LOWRY: But having 1,600 Marines in a crossfire among 100,000 troops of religious economic cross factions that have been warring for years, those 1,600 Marines no way add to a peacekeeping force. They're unfortunately a target.

REPORTER: Senator, do you have any reservations about what the President did in Grenada?

Sen. EVANS: It appears that the President moved to prevent what could have been a very severe crisis, one which could have cost the United States a good deal more, and as such, I think that prompt move was an appropriate one.

Rep. LOWRY: How do we criticize the Russians for their absolutely outrageous act of invading Afghanistan if we take on that horrendous, dangerous military power of 110,000 people and 2,000 troops in Grenada? Boy! Don't we look tough?

LEHRER [voice-over]: No one will know until next Tuesday what effect the recent events in Lebanon and Grenada will have on this election. The two candidates disagree on this, just like they do on almost everything else.

Sen. EVANS: Very difficult to know what effect, if any, the events of the last week will have on this election campaign.

Rep. LOWRY: I think it will make a difference.

LEHRER: There have been no statewide polls on the Evans-Lowry race since the Lebanon tragedy and the Grenada action, but before that Evans was leading Lowry in most of them by some 10 points. Robin? Public Opinion on Wars

MacNEIL: Right after the President's speech last Thursday, many national news organizations took instant polls to find out whether he'd sold his policies to the American people. Overall the polls indicated that he did. The ABC-Washington Post poll had 41% approval rating for his handling of the Lebanon situation before the speech; that went to 52% afterwards. The same poll showed 53% approving his action in Grenada before the speech, and 63% afterwards. The CBS-New York Times poll showed a similar jump. Before the speech, only 16% felt the current mission in Lebanon should be continued; that jumped to 26% after the speech. For Grenada, before the speech 46% supported the invasion; afterwards, 55% did. To examine how meaningful these quickie polls are, we have the nation's third-largest independent pollster, Burns Roper, chairman of the board of the Roper Organization, based in New York. Mr. Roper, how accurate are these quickie, before-after polls on an event like this speech?

BURNS ROPER: I think, Robin, that depends on what you mean by "accurate." In terms of sampling error they're quite accurate, but whether they're measuring real opinions and what opinions they're measuring -- whether they're measuring approval or support is the real question.

MacNEIL: Well, why would there be a doubt about what they're measuring.

Mr. ROPER: Well, for example, the -- after the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy -- I mean, after the Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy had the highest rating he ever had while in office. After the Cuban missile crisis he had a high rating, but it was 10 points lower than after the Bay of Pigs. Now, that really says the American public approves of the Bay of Pigs fiasco more than the Cuban missile success. It is -- it doesn't measure approval in that case. It's measuring "our boys in trouble, we've got to rally 'round."

MacNEIL: How credible are these quick polls as a guide to what Americans are thinking when events are shifting rapidly?

Mr. ROPER: Well, they are not. They're a state of mind at the moment. ABC has run three polls. They did change their question wording a little bit from the first to the second and third, but in the first one they showed 64% approving of the invasion. Then it dropped to 58% in the second poll. They had changed the wording, and that may be due to the wording. The third poll went up to 71%. Now, that was all in the space of four days. They got a 13-point change in approval from Wednesday to Friday.

MacNEIL: Friday, of course, being after the President spoke.

Mr. ROPER: Right.

MacNEIL: With the kind of sample they are using, how big is the margin of error statistically within that?

Mr. ROPER: Oh, a difference of about six percentage points would be significant.

MacNEIL: Either way?

Mr. ROPER: Either way. Well, a difference, but from one poll to the other.

MacNEIL: From one poll to the other.

Mr. ROPER: A change of more than six points or six points or more is significant, and that was a change of 13 points in two days.

MacNEIL: Typically, in crises like this, does public opinion gel quickly, or does it remain fluid and fluctuating --

Mr. ROPER: No. No, it -- in an international crisis, support for the President almost always goes up as an initial reaction.Now, if the international crisis turns into a success, it'll hold pretty well. If it turns into a failure, it can plummet.

MacNEIL: There was, as I recall, a very -- they called it a blip at the time, in President Ford's approval rating from before, during and after the Mayaguez incident.

Mr. ROPER: That's right. You did get a --

MacNEIL: How would you interpret that one? Do you remember?

Mr. ROPER: That was, again, the rallying around, I think, the Mayaguez. "We're in an international crisis; we've got to support our team." But I don't think it is necessarily approval of the action that's -- it's support for our side. That's all.

MacNEIL: From your reading of all these polls, what do they say about President Reagan's handling of foreign policy that might be relevant as we move into an election year?

Mr. ROPER: I'm not sure what they say, because I don't know whether they are measuring what they ostensibly are measuring, namely approval, or whether they're measuring this rallying 'round thing. I certainly think that from before to after -- before the speech to after the speech -- demonstrates that the speech had a positive effect on people's attitudes. But I'm not sure that I think the level of support either before or after is significant.

MacNEIL: I noticed that at least one of the polls noticed once again this difference between the way women responded and men responded.

Mr. ROPER: That's right.

MacNEIL: Have you found that in your polls?

Mr. ROPER: Oh, yes. Yes. One thing that I think is quite unfortunate is that ABC has been doing these 900 call-ins where, if you'll pay 50" to -- have 50" added to your phone bill, you can register your opinion. And they're getting entirely different results than the polls are, and very misleading results.

MacNEIL: Why are they misleading? I mean, huge numbers -- I think they had nearly half a million attempt to call.

Mr. ROPER: Yes, but it's not a representative sample. They did a Friday-night call-in and they also did a Friday-night poll. And they got very different results. They got something on the order of 19 points difference between the -- 18 points difference in approval between the poll and the phone-in, with the phone-in being the go-to-it kind of reaction. When Ambassador Lichtenstein said "take the U.N. out and we'll be at the shore waving good-bye," ABC again did both a poll and a phone-in. The phone-in was two-to-one "get the U.N. out of the U.S.," but the poll was nearly three-to-one "stay in the U.S."

MacNEIL: Burns Roper, thank you very much. Jim?

LEHRER: The United States government was accused today of employing unprecedented censorship in refusing to let reporters cover the invasion of Grenada. The accusers were representatives of American television news organizations, and they spoke to a House Judiciary subcommittee. Here is part of what was said at the hearing.

ED JOYCE, CBS News: On October 25th the United States and six Caribbean nations invaded the island of Grenada. On that day the U.S. introduced a new relationship with the press, a relationship virtually unknown in U.S. history. The press restrictions imposed by our government on Grenada news coverage prevented the press from gathering and reporting to the public. By denying access, as the government did in Grenada, it also denied to the public the ability to receive information gathered by an independent press. Instead the American public received only the information the government wanted it to receive. This is not what a free society is all about.

Rep. CARLOS MOORHEAD, (R) California: Mr. Chairman, I think the central issue before us today is whether or not secrecy was needed to insure the safety of American fighting men and protect the lives of the very people we were being sent to rescue. I believe that it was, or at least that a good case can be made for it. This was a rescue mission utilizing commando tactics against an enemy that wore civilian clothes and drove civilian vehicles. There was no clear battle line.By denying access to the press the American commander on Grenada insured the safety of his men and the people he was sent to rescue. We're all aware that the First Amendment to the Constitution recognizes the right of free speech and the right of the press to print anything it wants; however, there seems to be some who fail to recognize that it does not guarantee access to information which would jeopardize the safety of Americans.

DAVID BRINKLEY, ABC News: Security could easily have been maintained by the armed services by controlling, as they do control, all means of communication between Grenada and the United States. Beyond that, reporters could have been taken ashore an hour or so after the operation began and when it was no longer a secret. As for the second point, physical safety of the reporters, everyone in our business has always understood there is risk and danger in covering military operations, and in the past every one of us has been willing to sign a statement relieving the military of any responsibility for us. Everyone understood that in Vietnam where, I believe, more than 100 journalists were killed and many more injured, and no one, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to blame the military. And if military leaders are to have, as they must have, the support of the American people, then they must know what it is they are asked to support. There is nowhere they can learn that but from us, and they can't learn it from us if we are not allowed to go there.

LEHRER: And we'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Springdale, Utah]

MacNEIL: Here at home there were developments in several continuing stories. Greyhound Lines said it will shut down its bus services nationwide at two o'clock tomorrow morning because it expects a strike at that time. The company and its 12,700 employees, who belong to the Amalgamated Transit Union, have failed to agree on a new labor contract.

In Brooklyn, New York, the Justice Department filed suit in what the press has called the "Baby Doe" case. The parents of a Long Island baby have refused to let her undergo surgery for a birth defect. Without it doctors say she's likely to die within two years, even though with the surgery, they say, she will be severely retarded and will not survive beyond her 20s. Two state courts said the parents have the right to refuse surgery. Today the Justice Department asked for the hospital records to see whether the federal government should intervene to protect the child's civil rights.

William Clark, the man President Reagan chose to replace James Watt as secretary of the interior, faced more Senate questions today, but on the second day of confirmation hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Judge Clark gave only one sign of possible change in Watt's policies. That came in answer to a question about new acquisitions of federal park land.

WILLIAM CLARK, Secretary of Interior Designate: In the upcoming budget which will be submitted in, what? three months -- two months, there may very well be a review leading to a determination, based on need, of additional acquisition. That's an open question at this time.

Sen. JOHN CHAFEE, (R) Rhode Island: I think it behooves us as a nation to acquire these future -- these lands for the future. That's part of stewardship as well as making sure that the restaurants and the sewage systems function. So I would hope that you would do what you could for -- in acquisition as well.

Mr. CLARK: I assure you, Senator, that part of the review is the question already of further acquisition.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Most of Clark's answers made it hard for the senators to pin him down on precisely what his policies would be. That frustrated Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts.

Sen. PAUL TSONGAS, (D) Massachusetts: You have really done a very good job in these hearings about saying nothing controversial. It reminds me of the hearings we had on Secretary Shultz. It was a masterful performance, and I think he has gone on and done a very good job. Nothing he said in those hearings was hardly worth quoting, and for that reason, got by without any difficulty. I think you come a pretty close second in having fended us off rather well.

MacNEIL: The Clark testimony drew a negative comment from environment lobby groups. Mike McCloskey, executive director of the Sierra Club, said, "I think he's stonewalling the Senate and asking them to fly blind. I think it's perfectly clear they do not intend to repudiate Watt's policies." McCloskey predicted that Clark would win Senate confirmation. Jim? Pentagon's $9,609 Wrench

LEHRER: There's a Pentagon issue that sends fiscal conservatives and reduce-defense-spending liberals up the same wall -- the wall of anger and frustration over the little things the Defense Department spends too much money on -- like a wrench used to maintain the Air Force's F-16 aircraft. The plane cost $12.7 million; the wrench needed to repair parts of it is an allen wrench, available at any wholesale hardware store for 12". But for use on the F-16 it is altered. The tip is cut back one-quarter of an inch, and an inch-and-a-half handle is added. The result: the altered 12" wrench costs the Pentagon $9,609 each. Why a trim at the top and a handle at the bottom adds such an incredible amount to the cost of an allen wrench was only one of several questions asked about such items raised today at a Senate hearing.

Sen. WILLIAM ROTH, (R) Delaware: And I've heard all the alibis: "Well, the things that your investigators have uncovered are not typical." Hogwash! The fact is that I sent my investigators out on other matters, and three different plants they found excessive pricing in the area of spare parts and support items. They found a proposed contract for support equipment which -- which, if accepted, would have forced the taxpayer to pay $9,600 -- $9,600 for a 12" -- you can barely see it -- for a 12" hex wrench.

Sen. CHARLES PERCY, (R) Illinois: Here is a steel wire. Your staff, Mr. Chairman, found that a government contractor quoted the Air Force a price of $7,417 for what they called, on the bid, an "antenna motor assembly alignment pin." The Air Force planned to buy two of these. Now, I have two of the steel pins right here in my hand.They're nothing more, as I look at them, than three-inch pieces of 1/16-inch thick steel wire.

Maj. Gen. ALFRED HANSEN, USAF: It's as important that, during the competition advocacy, that we review the specific item so we know what we're talking about so we don't have a long nomenclature about a straight pin or we don't call an allen wrench a hexagonal antenna adjustment wrench that sort of fuzzes up what the real intent of it is and what the real value is. I think the competition advocate program and the staff that he has will be able to prevent many of these horror stories. But, sir, I don't think that the services will ever have the wherewithal to assure you that there's not some sort of horror story is going to happen. As you deal with the multitude of spares, and the Air Force in itself procures 100,000 spares a year -- we're responsible for 2 1/2 million various type spares -- it would be exorbitant as far as manpower requirements.

LEHRER: Senate investigators have come up with 15 items the Pentagon allegedly pays more for than it would on the open market. That investigative work and today's hearing were under the direction of Senator William Roth, Republican of Delaware, chairman of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee. First, Senator, what explanation have you received for the allen wrench deal?

Sen. ROTH: Well, I don't think they even tried to make any explanation of it. But let me put this in the proper context. First of all, I do want to say that the secretary, Mr. Weinberger, and Mr. Thayer, the deputy secretary, have --

LEHRER: Who we're going to be hearing from in a moment. Right?

Sen. ROTH: -- have set policies to change this situation. They are concerned. I'm persuaded they're genuinely concerned about this problem. Now, I'm chairman of the oversight committee, and what my concern is that we make sure of two things: one, these policies be implemented at the level where the decision-making is; and, secondly, that it be institutionalized. This is not a new problem. This is something that was developed many years ago. Sixteen years ago there was these same complaints, but nothing happened. And I want to say that I think the secretaries, whether it's Mr. Weinberger or Mr. Brown, are all good people. But the problem is, how do we make certain that these policies get implemented by the contracting officer or project? And that means this: the guy who makes the decisions I think today too much -- he says as long as he gets delivery of the items, he doesn't care too much about the cost.

LEHRER: Now, why doesn't he care, Senator?

Sen. ROTH: Well, because that's the way things have worked for too long in the Pentagon -- long before this gentleman came there. The thing is to get the weapons, to get the system on time. Cost is second. But what we're trying to do is change that to make it cost-effective, and the only way you're going to do that is to make the individual recognize that his career depends upon cost-effectiveness.

LEHRER: Well, we just heard a three-star general from the Air Force say there are always going to be horror stories like this. That doesn't sound terribly encouraging.

Sen. ROTH: Well, no, you know, I suppose when you've got 20 million items or whatever the number is, sure, you're always going to find -- but we think this is broader-based than that currently, and what we're trying to do is to eliminate it. And so is the secretary.

LEHRER: But I still want to come back to my first question. What caused a cost of a 12" wrench to go to $9,609? Have you not got an -- nobody's given you an answer on that?

Sen. ROTH: Well, let me say, I listened very carefully but I don't understand it. They did make some very minor modification in the item, but maybe that should bring it up to a cost of, you know, a couple or three dollars, $20. But to bring that up to something like $10,000, there is no explanation. Now, partly what happens is that the -- not only does the subcontractor put overhead, engineering and other expenses on it, but we have found that in many of these cases that when it goes to the prime contractor that he also imposes his overhead, his engineering expenses. The fact is that the contracting officer is not paying enough attention. You know, they're dealing with hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, and this is a $10,000 item. We're trying to make them cost-conscious even on the small things.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: The official with key responsibility in the procurement area is the number-two man at the Pentagon, Paul Thayer, the deputy secretary of defense. Before joining the Reagan administration, Mr. Thayer was president of the LTV Corporation, a major defense contractor. Mr. Thayer, what's your explanation of how the allen wrench thing happens?

PAUL THAYER: We don't have a complete explanation yet and I doubt if there is an explanation that will be forthcoming that will be satisfactory. There is one thing that I would like to clear up that I think is a misconception as stated earlier that leaves the impression that there's some outside agency that is discovering all of these so-called horror stories. And reporting that they are -- that they are not being properly handled then or implying at least by the Pentagon. This is not true. In every one of the 14 or 15 stories that have been publicized in recent months, they have, first of all, been discovered by the military and by the auditors in the Department of Defense.

MacNEIL: But after the contracts had been signed and the materials delivered? Is that the case?

Sec. THAYER: Yes, there has been some very lax rules and regulations that have existed over the years in the procurement of spares. We think we know what they are, and we think we have taken steps to correct them.

MacNEIL: Do you regard these, Mr. Thayer -- from your experience on both sides of the fence, do you regard these as exotic exceptions which make good stories for us in the press, or as symptomatic of an attitude to contracting that civilian contractors can say, "Oh, well, it's the Pentagon; we can charge what we like because they haven't got the personnel to look at it too closely"?

Sec. THAYER: I think in most cases it is a case of the system lulling both the contractor and the Department of Defense into some rather sloppy bookeeping. What is happening in a good many cases, but would not be explainable in this allen wrench case, is that for ease of bookkeeping, overheads have been allocated on a basis of simply dividing the number of items on which the overhead would be allocated into the total amount of the overhead, and then spreading it equally, regardless of the intrinsic value or the cost of the item, so that, for example, if you're talking about 100 items that range from $5 to $5,000, the $5 item might get $50 worth of overhead allocated to it and the $5,000 item would also get $50. So you could say that the customer was paying too much for the $5 item and too little for the $5,000 item. Now, I'll hasten to say that doesn't explain these -- this allen head wrench here for $9,600.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

Sec. THAYER: But we are taking steps which I think will be very successful in taking much of the spare parts procurement away from the process that has allowed this to happen, and breaking it out, and the name of the game, to put it very simply, is to increase competition, and that we will do.

LEHRER: Senator, how much money are we talking about here? Not on the allen wrench thing, but taking that one and all the others, either the spare parts generally or the potential problems here. Have you done any -- put anything on a computer or an adding machine?

Sen. ROTH: Well, it's my understanding that this has jumped from something like -- these spare parts amount totally to something like $18 billion currently. It was $8 or $9 billion; that's a 40% jump. So it's a big amount. Now, I'm not trying to say that all of that is involved in this kind of a problem.

LEHRER: But the potential's there?

Sec. ROTH: But the potential is there. It's a very significant problem.

LEHRER: Let's get to the question about the procedure. You've mentioned the new procedures and the Senator's already said, Mr. Thayer, that he acknowledges that you all are trying to do something about this, but are you firing anybody? Are you demoting anybody? Are you telling contractors to buzz off, "we're not going to do business with you anymore if you're going to charge us $9,000 for a 12" wrench"?

Sec. THAYER: Yes, we've done all the above and will do more. We are setting up procedures to reward good performance and to penalize bad performance, whether it be within the military or within the Department of Defense or with the contractors.

LEHRER: Are they doing enough along that line, Senator?

Sen. ROTH: Well, let me point out the new program announced by the secretary was begun, I think, 30 days ago --

Sec. THAYER: One hundred days ago.

Sen. ROTH: A hundred days ago. I think it's too soon to say. I think this is something we're going to be watching very carefully. As a matter of fact, I've asked that they report back to my committee in six months. Today I can't say the evidence is overwhelming. In fact, I think it raises some questions.

LEHRER: About whether or not they're doing it?

Sen. ROTH: About whether they're doing it. I know of no major contractor that has been penalized. There has been, apparently, some that have. But be that as it may, that is something we're going to be watching because I think it's critically important that we see this kind of action both with respect to the private contractors and the individuals.

LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, when a --

Sec. THAYER: Might I say, we did not pay $9,600 for this item. What we said was, "That's ridiculous that you'd expect us to pay $9,600 for this item. Go back and come to us not only with this one but with the other 24 that were with it for a brand new approach to negotiating a final price."

LEHRER: Do you agree with the Air Force general that there are -- you're not going to be able to eliminate these horror stories altogether?

Sec. THAYER: We're going to make it very difficult for them to happen, but when we're dealing every year with something like four million items, if someone wants to take the trouble to go through those four million or 33,800,000, they're going to find -- they're probably going to find something and say, "This is way too much to pay for that."

LEHRER: You agree with that, Senator? They're not going to eliminate it?

Sen. ROTH: Oh, absolutely. But let me say that even the Defense Department is admitting today that it's a problem.That's the reason the secretary came out with his new policy so that this is not just an occasional horror story. I think there's a general agreement that there's a real problem here.

LEHRER: Senator, Mr. Secretary, thank you both very much. Robin?

MacNEIL: There's been a lot of speculation that President Reagan would lift economic sanctions on Poland when martial law was imposed in December in 1981. Today, Mr. Reagan made a gesture in response to the recent technical lifting of martial law, but did not lift the sanctions. The White House said the U.S. will join other Western countries in talking about rescheduling Poland's large foreign debt. Poland will also be permitted to talk to American fishing companies about the arrangements that might be made if the restriction on Polish fishing in American waters were to be lifted. Jim?

LEHRER: President Reagan made Martin Luther King Day official at a Rose Garden ceremony today. Mr. Reagan had expressed early reservations about honoring the slain civil rights leader with a national holiday, but he signed the bill that had passed both the House and Senate by large margins. Members of the King family as well as civil rights and congressional leaders were at the billl-signing ceremony, which included singing as well as speeches by President Reagan and others.

AUDIENCE: [singing "We Shall Overcome"]

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Traces of bigotry still mar America, so each year on Martin Luther King Day, let us not only recall Dr. King, but rededicate ourselves to the commandments he believed in and sought to live every day. Thou shalt love thy God with all they heart, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. And I just have to believe that all of us -- if all of us, young and old, Republicans and Democrats, do all we can to live up to those commandments, then we will see the day when Dr. King's dream comes true. And in his words, "All of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning, Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrims' pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

CORETTA SCOTT KING: All right-thinking people, all right-thinking Americans are joined in spirit with us this day as the highest recognition which this nation gives is bestowed upon Martin Luther King, Jr., one who also was the recipient of the highest recognition which the world bestows, the Nobel Peace Prize. In his own life example, he symbolized what was right about America, what was noblest and best, what human beings have pursued since the beginning of history. He loved unconditionally. He was in constant pursuit of truth.

LEHRER [voice-over]: After the official ceremony the Reverend Jesse Jackson, a King protege who will announce his candidacy for presidency tomorrow, was asked what this day means.

Rev. JESSE JACKSON: -- expressed his genius by writing the Constitution, Dr. King expressed his genius by fulfilling it. In many ways, he took the hypocrisy out of democracy and he made America more real for more people, and the fact that we have not institutionalized a commitment to civil rights is a foundation to be built upon year after year.

REPORTER: Do you think the President meant what he said in his words here?

Rev. JACKSON: I would not question his motives. I simply deal with the impact and the effect, and the effect was very good. This is one of the high moments in American history.

LEHRER: The law makes the third Monday in January a national holiday beginning in 1986. King, whose birthday was January 15th, is the only American besides George Washington to have a national holiday in his name. Robin?

MacNEIL: Before we go, another look at what made news today.Eight days after the Grenada invasion the U.S. ships out wounded Cubans and starts planning to pull out half the American troops. The House of Representatives defeats a move to force President Reagan to bring the Marines home from Lebanon. There is more fighting outside Beirut as the peace talks proceed in Geneva. Good night, Jim.

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