The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, a U. S. helicopter attacked an Iranian boat laying mines in the Persian Gulf. President Reagan told the United Nations it may have to enforce an Iran/Iraq cease fire. The Administration declined to endorse Federal AIDS discrimination laws, and major league baseball players won a victory on free agency. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary, we go first to our special Bork coverage with extended excerpts from today's hearings. Then, the historic U. S. /Soviet arms accord, a European view from British Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, and two U. S. Senators with opposing views. Finally essayist Bill Barol on why Pogo lives. News Summary LEHRER: A U. S. helicopter attacked an Iranian boat in the Persian Gulf today. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said U. S. forces took defensive action when the Iranian boat was discovered laying mines in international waters. Word of the incidence came after President Reagan served some notice on Iran today. He said Iraq had accepted the U. N. cease fire resolution in its eight year old war with Iran, but Iran had not. He spoke to the U. N. General Assembly in New York this morning. He called on the Iranian President to state his position on Resolution 598 in a speech there.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I know that the President of Iran will be addressing you tomorrow. I take this opportunity to call upon him clearly and unequivocally to state whether Iran accepts 598 or not. If the answer is positive, it would be a welcome step and major breakthrough. If it is negative, the council has no choice but rapidly to adopt enforcement measures. LEHRER: There was other military action in the Gulf today. A British flag tanker was attacked and set on fire near the Iranian held island of Farsi. The island has been used in the past by Iran's revolutionary guards for speed boat attacks on ships. Two crew members are reported missing. Mr. Reagan also had some comments on Nicaragua in his U. N. speech. He did not specifically mention the announced reopening of the opposition newspaper La Prensa in Nicaragua, but he warned against what he called ''phony shows of democratic reform, designed to hide a continuing dictatorship there. '' Charlayne? HUNTER-GAULT: The Reagan Administration today opposed creating a federal law that would protect AIDS victims from discrimination. Instead, Health and Human Services Secretary Otis Bowen urged Congress to allow the states to decide how to handle the problem. At the state level today, Gov. James Thompson of Illinois approved a sweeping package of AIDS legislation. The laws include permitting health officials to trace the sex contacts of AIDS victims, as well as requiring AIDS tests before marriage, and to giving the state limited power to quarantine AIDS victims. LEHRER: Major league baseball players won a big one today. It was a legal victory awarded them by a labor arbitrator. He ruled baseball owners conspire to destroy the game's free agent system by agreeing not to offer contracts to players who became eligible free agents in 1985. The Executive Director of the Players Union had this comment.

DONALD Fehr, Baseball Players Association: Everybody knows what free agency means. Everybody understands that you're not supposed to cook the market, that you're not supposed to fix prices, that you're not supposed to divide players -- that's the opposite of free agency. And they've now been told that what they did violated that promise, that pledge, that covenant, if you will. And they can't do it anymore. LEHRER: The decisions could have a tremendous impact on baseball, depending on what remedies are now mandated. They could range from large sums of money to large numbers of players being allowed to change teams. Also on the professional sports front, the players of the National Football League are due to strike tonight over a similar free agency issue. Depending on how long it lasts, it could mean no more professional football this year. HUNTER-GAULT: The Bork confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee resumed today. Throughout most of the day, the senators heard from leaders of the black community who oppose the nomination. One of the most vocal was Atlanta mayor Andrew Young.

ANDREW YOUNG, Mayor, Atlanta: For us, the Supreme Court has never been just about issues and cases. It never really could be an intellectual feast. It's about people. We come to believe that in the Declaration of Independence that all men and women and children are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. And we see the Supreme Court as the final protector and guarantor of those rights. And with a Supreme Court that is intellectualizing about those rights, or a Supreme Court that doesn't understand the passion and anguish of people whose rights are being denied, is a Supreme Court which really doesn't live up to what I think the American dream is all about. HUNTER-GAULT: Supporters of the Bork nomination are expected to be heard from later today. LEHRER: The Federal Aviation Administration will inspect the makers of airplanes and airplane parts. Forty companies are involved. FAA head Allan McArtor made the announcement today, and said why it was necessary.

ALLAN McARTOR, FAA: Today, the air traveler is in effect challenging those of us within the aviation community to prove to them that when we say that the system is the world's safest, it truly is. I firmly believe that this kind of in depth inspection that I've announced today will help answer that question. We're not doing this because we have some fear that there is a problem out there. It's just time, as we inspect ourselves, with regard to the modern aviation environment, that we take a look at how we're doing business in the aviation industry, and are we contemporary in our thinking. And that's why we're doing it. HUNTER-GAULT: A Federal Grand Jury investigating the PTL ministry today heard testimony from Jessica Hahn, the former church secretary whose tryst with PTL leader Jim Bakker, led to his resignation. Ms. Hahn declined to reveal the contents of her testimony, but when questioned by reporters later about payments she received to keep quiet about the relationship, her attorney said that Ms. Hahn always believed the money came from Mr. Bakker, and no from the PTL Ministry. In Boston, jury selection began in the fraud and conspiracy trial of political maverick Lyndon LaRouche, five members of his organization and seven supporters. In addition to being charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice, and burning documents, some of the defendants are charged with raising more than one million dollars through credit card fraud, and securing loans with no intention of repaying them. The case stems from LaRouche's 1984 presidential campaign. That's our news summary. Still ahead on the NewsHour, more debate on the Bork Supreme Court nomination, and pros and cons of the U. S. /Soviet arms agreement. Battling Bork LEHRER: We go first tonight to the Bork confirmation hearings. Today, most of the witnesses were those opposed to Robert Bork's becoming a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Judy Woodruff has our special coverage. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: First up this morning was the former Transportation Secretary in the Ford Administration, William Coleman, who said Bork has not been supportive of landmark Supreme Court decisions on civil rights and personal liberty cases. Coleman's testimony brought sharp exchanges with some of the Republicans on the committee. Sen. Strom Thurmond pressed Coleman on why, when he headed up an American Bar Association review committee six years ago, he had strongly endorsed Bork's appointment to the Federal Appeals Court, but now is opposing him. Sen. STROM THURMOND, (R) South Carolina: His opinions on the circuit court are what counts. And again, I want to remind ya, and I have here, as I stated, the rules of the ABA on this question. And on page 7, ''Evaluation criteria and ratings: The committee's investigation of prospective nominees to the Supreme Court is limited --'' I repeat ''is limited to their professional qualifications. '' Then it tells what -- their professional competence -- have you any trouble with Judge Bork's professional competence? Sen. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) Mass. : I think the senator -- both the senators have responded to the -- Sen. THURMOND: -- judicial temperament, and integrity -- those three things. And I -- Sen. KENNEDY: -- will have an opportunity to question -- [a great deal of simultaneous talking which can't be understood] Sen. THURMOND: We gave y'all so much time, what're you quibbling about? Why, you took over a half an hour. Now you're quibbling over two minutes. Sen. KENNEDY We'll be in order and we'll come back to the questioning from the Senator from Ohio. WILLIAM COLEMAN, former Secretary of Transportation: As a matter of personal privilege, could I ask that the Senator from South Carolina ask me the question, and I'd like to put the answer on the record. If you don't mind, sir. Sen. THURMOND: I just stated that the committee's investigation of prospective nominees to the Supreme Court is limited to their professional qualifications. That means their professional competence, judicial temperament, and integrity. Now, have you had, or do you have any question about his professional competence? Mr. COLEMAN: I have no doubt about his professional competence. Sen. THURMOND: Do you have any question about his judicial temperament. Mr. COLEMAN: I have no question about his judicial temperament. Sen. THURMOND: Do you have any question about his integrity? Mr. COLEMAN: I have none, but I would ask you -- Sen. THURMOND: (interrupting) Well, that's what the -- Mr. COLEMAN: No, I would ask you to -- Sen. THURMOND: (interrupting) I don't care, let me get through. Sen. KENNEDY: The witness will be permitted to answer. Sen. THURMOND: -- have cut me off, and (unintelligible) [a great deal of simultaneous talking which can't be understood] Sen. THURMOND: He's got a right to finish answering. Sen. KENNEDY: That's exactly what he wants to do. Mr. COLEMAN: I would just urge you to read the rest of the paragraph, and you will see that there are other things in the paragraph, sir.

WOODRUFF: Republican senator Alan Simpson, a Bork supporter, asked Coleman about criticism that has been leveled at Bork for changing his views. Sen. ALAN SIMPSON, (R) Wyoming: A politician is allowed to change and grow, but a judge apparently is not. Nor a professor. You cannot be saying that. Mr. COLEMAN: No, I want him to change and grow. But I don't want him in 1971 to do the -- in the (unintelligible) article, to take privacy and liberty out of the Constitution. And then as late as 1982, '87, say the same thing.

WOODRUFF: Republican Senator Gordon Humphrey, another Bork supporter, asked Coleman to define the core of his disagreement with Bork. Sen. GORDON HUMPHREY, (R) New Hampshire: Do I read you correctly, and hear you correctly, that to try to get to the essence of this now -- your bottom line concern about Robert Bork is how broadly, or how narrowly he would read the intent of the framers, is that about right? Mr. COLEMAN: You read the Constitution with a lot of background history, and you make judgments. There's no provision that -- Constitution which is simple, and anybody can read. Sen. HUMPHREY: Right, it doesn't always -- Mr. COLEMAN: It's my -- what I'm trying to say is that despite Judge Bork's scholarship, law school record, successful practice, solicitor general, that there are several fundamental areas of the law where he in his scholarship is completely different from the type of Constitution which I think this nation lives under today.

WOODRUFF: Former Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan of Texas was the next witness to testify against Bork. Jordan said she based her opposition primarily on her experiences as a black American. BARBARA JORDAN, University of Texas: I concede Judge Bork's scholarship and intellect and its quality. And there is no need for us to debate that. But more is required. When you experience the frustrations of being in a minority position and watching the foreclosure of your last appeal and then suddenly you are rescued by the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Chairman, that's tantamount to being born again. I had that experience. He has disagreed with the principle of one person, one vote many times. In his confirmation hearings in 1973, this is what he said: ''I think one man, one vote was too much of a straitjacket. '' And then he continues. ''I do not think there is a theoretical basis for it. '' My word. ''I do not think there is a theoretical basis for it. '' Maybe not, gentlemen, maybe there is no theoretical basis for one person, one vote. But I'll tell you this much -- there is a common sense natural rational basis for all votes counting equally.

WOODRUFF: Republican Senator Arlen Specter, one of the few undecideds on the committee, returned to the question of how much weight the senate should give to Bork's writings and sayings as a law professor, some of which Bork now says he rejects. Sen. ARLEN SPECTER, (R) PA: And the subject boils down really to the issue as to whether there ought to be some considerable latitude for professorial theorizing. Because there's no question about the fact that Judge Bork as a professor did so. But if you take the 1971 Indiana Law Review, there are views expressed there which are at sharp variance from what Judge Bork testified he would do on the Supreme Court in terms of clear and present danger tests, or equal protection being applicable only to race, not even ethnics, in that article. And I would be interested in your thought as to the latitude that ought to be accorded to professorial theorizing, and whether you think that professors may be somewhat chilled by the kind of reception we gave to that professorial theorizing in this committee. Ms. JORDAN: Senator Specter, professors in my opinion, will not be chilled by the examination you gave professorial theorizing. The reason why I feel that it is disingenuous to try to separate Robert Bork's professorial theorizing to what he may do on the bench is this: Those theories he espoused were not likely held theories, but deeply felt, and a part of a consistent ideology and philosophy, which he was developing. When you have deeply held theories which become incorporated into a philosophy which you are developing with the view to advancing, you do not reject those theories cavalierly, and decide now that I am a judge I can't believe that anymore. Am I saying then that I find some of Judge Bork's recantation incredulous? The answer is yes. Sen. SPECTER: Well, I haven't asked that question yet (laughter) But I will now, but at a slightly different form. Would you give any weight at all -- and I phrase that carefully -- to Judge Bork's statement that he would apply the settled law on speech, clear and present danger tests, and that he would apply the settled law on a more expansive interpretation of equal protection under Justice Steven's standard -- would you give him any credence at all on those statements? Ms. JORDAN: Any credence at all is your question. Sen. SPECTER: Right. Ms. JORDAN: At all? I would say, senator, that because of the statements which are being lately made by Robert Bork, I would feel called upon to consider them carefully, and give them little weight. I believe that you have every right to search him as thoroughly as you are, and I think you have done that, and are continuing to do that, and you've got some days to go. And what you have to, senator -- of course, I'm not going to lecture you on advise and consent, but that is a very powerful task that you have. And when you think about it, half of the task, advice -- you really don't get a chance to do that when it would do the most good. The President does not seek your advice. He sends the nomination up. And then you examine the nominee, because you need to be able to determine whether you're going to consent. So your very thorough searching review of the nominee is in order. There is just no reason that you should not do exactly what you're doing. Sen. SPECTER: Well, we are pursuing the advice and consent function of detail. But it is plain, of course, that if we reject Judge Bork, that our advice may not be sought on his successor nominee. And it is doubtful if anybody who comes into this room following rejection of Judge Bork will undergo the kind of scrutiny we have here. So it is a weighty consideration. Ms. JORDAN: It is, but I hope you don't look past Judge Bork to what may happen in the event of -- I think that is not the way to proceed. Sen. SPECTER: Well, we'll take them one at a time -- Ms. JORDAN: One at a time -- Sen. SPECTER: No doubt about that, congresswoman Jordan. Thank you very much for your testimony.

WOODRUFF: The next witness to testify against Bork's confirmation was the Democratic Mayor of Atlanta, Andrew Young, who alleged that many of the gains blacks have made would never have happened if Bork had been on the Supreme Court. Bork opponents, like Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, gave Young an opportunity to criticize Bork further. Sen. KENNEDY: I think you've made an extraordinary, eloquent statement, and have brought back those times in the early part of the sixties when certainly the First Amendment and the protections of those First Amendment, Dr. King and yourself, and the other courageous -- white and black -- in the south was really being tested. And I'm just wondering, whether you believe, having gone through that period and perhaps looking down the road in terms of the future, in terms of the society's anxieties, whether we should risk placing someone on the court who certainly would appear, both in terms of statements, speeches, to have a more cramped view of the First Amendment than certainly has been accepted by this current Supreme Court -- whether you would be concerned about that as well. Mayor. YOUNG: I think Judge Bork's intellectual threat is that -- it's a kind of a game with him, it seems, to the lay person looking on from outside. It's a game being played with other people's lives. And to think that we would not have been able to give the kind of aggressive nonviolent leadership during that period is to me frightening.

WOODRUFF: Senator Specter displayed some indecision in his own thinking on Bork when he asked Young about the role politics plays in making new appointments to the Supreme Court. Sen. SPECTER: It seems to me that Supreme Court nominations really ought not to turn on election victories -- not that the will of the people is irrelevant. But that the constitutional framework of our government is to protect minorities from the majority. And that there ought to be a more restraining influence in constitutional doctrine -- at least speaking for myself, that's what I have looked for in terms of whether Judge Bork fits within the tradition of U. S. Constitutional jurisprudence, which is a protection of minorities views, and that the critical question does not turn on who won the election and by how much, or the senate election, but really on the tradition of U. S. constitutional tradition, which, as I say, emphasizes protection of minorities. Would you care to comment on that? Mayor YOUNG: The thing that makes this so critical is that in context of 322 appointments, and a transforming appointment on the Supreme Court, to have someone who is at least up until the time of confirmation, extreme in his views, to me, makes it a political event. I think the president made it political. And I think the Senate has a responsibility and an obligation to respond politically.

WOODRUFF: It was late this afternoon before any Bork supporters were called as witnesses. The first to testify was the former Attorney General under President Ford, Edward Levi. EDWARD LEVI, former Attorney General: I suppose the final and all embracing question about Bob Bork is what kind of a person is he? I certainly would not want to fault him for reading philosophy or economics, or being learned. Or being concerned that the inner structure of the law is kept firm as the law develops and changes, as it must. Or that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is recognized so that in times of great stress and need, as during the period of the civil rights movement, its mandates are obeyed. Nor would I really fault him for talking so much. Or changing his mind. Or looking for a better answer. He speaks because he wants an answer. He is trying out his views. He hopes if you don't agree, he will convince you, or you will convince him, or that out of the discussion will arise a new understanding. The law (unintelligible) through that kind of criticism, and through collegiality. And this really has been the strength of our special common law, which is our constitution law. My experience with him, I would say to Judge Bork, is an able person, of honor, kindness and fairness, and I would say with practical wisdom, which he has shown as an outstanding solicitor general, and an outstanding and eloquent judge. And for the sake of our country, I very much hope he will be confirmed.

WOODRUFF: After former Attorney General Levi, three other attorneys general who support Judge Bork were scheduled to testify, William French Smith, William Rogers, and William Saxby. Following them, the committee expected to hear from officials of the American Bar Association. Advice on Arms LEHRER: Next tonight, the coming of the arms deal. President Reagan and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze announced it Friday. President Reagan spoke of it again today in his speech to the U. N.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: It was six years ago, for example, that I proposed zero option for U. S. and Soviet longer range, intermediate range nuclear missiles. I am pleased that we have now agreed in principal to a truly historic treaty that will eliminate an entire class of U. S. and Soviet nuclear weapons. We also agreed to intensify our diplomatic efforts in all areas of mutual interest. We continue to have our differences and probably always will. But that puts a special responsibility on us to find ways, realistic ways to bring greater stability to our competition, and to show the world the constructive example of the value of communication and to the possibility of peaceful solutions to political problems. LEHRER: Barring some unforeseen snag, Mr. Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev will meet at a summit in November, to sign an agreement to eliminate intermediate range nuclear missiles from Europe. We look at that prospect now through several eyes -- European as well as American. Charlayne has more on that. HUNTER-GAULT: We begin first with the European view. It comes from Sir Geoffrey Howe, the British Foreign Secretary. Sir Geoffrey, let me just take a quick detour because of pressing events in the Persian Gulf. A British tanker was attacked today. At this moment, do you know by whom, and what the situation is? Sir GEOFFREY HOWE, British Foreign Secretary: I know nothing beyond what I've seen and heard from the agency reports. Obviously, it's another example of the kind of attack that has caused us so much concern with the interference of freedom of navigation in the Gulf. It's one of the urgent reasons for pressing ahead with action to bring the conflict to an end. HUNTER-GAULT: You have no evidence, or information, whether it was Iran or Iraq? Sir GEOFFREY: I've seen what the news reports say, but you've probably read more of those than I have. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you have any guess about how Britain might react in the situation? Are you going to increase your presence there, or at this point is it too early to say? Sir GEOFFREY: I've indicated already that our reaction will be to maintain our pressure for swift and effective action here in the United Nations. So far as navigation in the Gulf is concerned, we have had our armilla patrol there for seven years, supplying assistance for the British vessels that travel through parts of the region. But that's not enough. We want to see the conflict brought to an end, we want to see freedom of navigation restored. That's why Britain has played a leading role in securing the united action of the five permanent members in getting the resolution passed in July, calling upon Iran and Iraq to cease fire forthwith. That will come back for consideration this week, and we believe that Iran and Iraq should either say yes to that, or we shall have to press ahead to take the measures foreshadowed here at the United Nations. HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you, Sir Geoffrey for indulging in that little detour. To the main issue. You heard President Reagan a moment ago, and probably at the U. N. today, speaking about the prospect of eliminating an entire class of U. S. and Soviet nuclear weapons in Europe. Are you Britain, and you in Europe in general, as enthusiastic as he seems to be about this? Sir GEOFFREY: Oh, we're all immensely pleased by it. It's been a key NATO objective for a number of years. We've had to go through a formidable obstacle course set by the Soviet Union to achieve this. But it's certainly a good thing if this can now be achieved. And I think it's rather remarkable such a large number of western commentators on both sides of the Atlantic tend to weep in their beer about the success we've achieved in fulfilling an objective that NATO's been united on for a long time. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what specifically can you tell us about what you yourself had to say on Friday? You said that -- this was the day the arms control accord was announced -- and you were quoted as saying this makes it very important to move on quickly with efforts to get a balance of conventional forces in Europe. It is my understanding, there's a real concern that this treaty leaves Europe exposed. Can you shed any light on that? Sir GEOFFREY: It's very important to keep that in perspective. We have been working -- Europe has been working, the States have been working, NATO together has been working, to achieve this agreement for a number of years. It's one part of our arms control agenda. By sticking to our guns together, we've been able to persuade the Soviet Union to lay down some of theirs. That's fine. But now we need to tackle other parts of the arms control agenda, conventional weapons certainly. Because we all know that the Soviet Union has got two or three times as many tanks, artillery equipment, tactical aircraft as we've got in Europe. It's very important to begin correcting that imbalance. Chemical weapons as well. The Soviet Union has maintained a chemical capability while NATO and the United States has done no such thing for many years. So we want to get ahead with negotiations on that. HUNTER-GAULT: How soon do you think the U. S. and Soviets should move on this conventional agreement? Should it be a part, in fact, of the condition for approving, say, this treaty? Sir GEOFFREY: Oh, no. Everyone who's been familiar with these things knows that the negotiation on the conventional deal is going to be long and complex and difficult. I think by getting this agreement, if it is tied up, on intermediate weapons, sharpens the cutting edge of the arms control process, but there's still some very hard rock to go through as we move on to the next stages. On the conventional, it'll take a long time to get an agreement on whether there's an imbalance or not, for example. HUNTER-GAULT: You think there is. Sir GEOFFREY: Oh, plainly. And one of the useful things about the INF deal is that we have been able to secure an agreement with asymmetrical surrenders of weapons. The Soviet Union is giving up more weapons, more warheads than the west. That may be a good precedent. What we need to achieve in conventional weapons. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, former U. S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said about this agreement that it's a bad deal because it legitimizes the notion that the West doesn't need nuclear weapons for its defense. Sir GEOFFREY: Well, it doesn't do that. If it did, then it would not be the right thing to do. But what is clearly understood and what NATO has made very, very clear -- and I'm sure that Henry Kissinger understands this -- is that nuclear deterrents remains an essential part of Western defense for the foreseeable future. But by giving up one range of weapons, the intermediate nuclear weapons, which have only been in place for about eight years, in accordance with a longstanding NATO objective, that can't be bad. It's important to emphasize that nuclear deterrents remains an essential part of our defense for the foreseeable future. HUNTER-GAULT: You may have heard during your stay here in the United States, some noises coming out of the U. S. Senate about possible problems with treaty ratification. And one of the things that worries some of the senators, at least, is verification -- how can you tell if the Soviet Union is doing what it's agreed to do. How much of a worry is that in Europe, which, of course, is obviously much closer to the Soviets than we are? Sir GEOFFREY: Well, we have been most emphatic. The verification is a key part of this deal. It's the most important part of any deal. You're quite right on that. But with this particular agreement, the worldwide elimination of one class of intermediate nuclear weapons, it is a little less difficult than with many others. The fact that it's worldwide means that you've got less problems than if you're going to have some remaining weapons. It's very important to get verification right. Just because verification in future arms control deals may be much more difficult than it is with this one, then it's right to emphasize that chemical weapons, for example, it's possible to create chemical weapons for chemical warfare, very simply from a whole range of chemical components. So verification there will be much more difficult. HUNTER-GAULT: Given this -- at least report -- that there's going to be a fight over this treaty in the U. S. Senate, what impact do you think an extended, bitter, prolonged debate will have in Europe? Sir GEOFFREY: I think that Europe is accustomed to the U. S. senate having prolonged, and not always easy to follow debates about many things. And ratification of a treaty of this importance is bound to be a subject that deserves serious consideration. I don't think we should be too dismayed about that prospect. We've all reckoned on a schedule which meant that we should try and get this agreement tied up by the end of this year so the United States Constitutional processes will be completed before the end of the Reagan Administration. So time has been allowed for it. But I hope very much that the United States will take the view that has been part of the common ground in NATO now for years, that a zero deal on intermediate nuclear weapons is the first part, and the most important part of our arms control agenda. It doesn't diminish our ability to defend ourselves. It doesn't significantly diminish the range of flexible response open to us. But it does add to our security, because it paves the way to better understanding and confidence in the Soviet Union. I hope that taking the overall view, the United States Senate will endorse what the 16 member governments of NATO have been endorsing for many years past. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Sir Geoffrey Howe, thank you very much for being with us. LEHRER: And speaking of the United States Senate, after President Reagan and Chairman Gorbachev sign this missile agreement in November, it does go to the Senate for ratification, and we sample its possibilities there with two senators with different views on it. Senator Alan Cranston, Democrat of California and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Dan Quayle, Republican of Indiana, a member of the Senate Arms Services Committee. They join us from the Senate Gallery on Capitol Hill. Senator Quayle, you heard what Mr. Howe just said. Do you support this treaty? Do you think he's right? Sen. DAN QUAYLE, (R) Indiana: Well, it's way too early to say whether you're really for or against the treaty. I personally have a lot of questions. I think Sir Geoffrey Howe pointed out that there are some very positive things. One, that we are getting unequal reduction in warheads. That is a very positive contribution, and will lay the groundwork perhaps for conventional arms reductions. The fact that we were able to go ahead with the dual track approach that once the Soviet Union did not take out these missiles, the United States, along with the Western Alliance, went ahead and deployed it. That is also a very positive development. Another positive development is the United States and this Administration has shown to the world on how to negotiate with the Soviet Union. You have to have patience, you have to be willing to build up your military, you've got to have the political will to do the things that you say you're going to do. But on the negative side, verification is a very important issue. In my judgment, and in the intelligence briefing I had, I think it's going to be very difficult to get any good degree of verification. Furthermore, I do not like the idea that we're going to give up the nonnuclear conventional cruise missile, and limit that to 500 kilometers or less. I think that is a very big mistake. And if in fact this is such a good deal for the United States, it must also be a very good deal for the Soviet Union. And I think it is a good deal for the Soviet Union because militarily it will probably be somewhat of a marginal disadvantage if this treaty goes through. It's a political treaty, and I'm gonna withhold judgment, but I have a lot of concern about it. LEHRER: Is it a concern that you just don't think it's that good a deal for the United States? Sen. QUAYLE: My concern, and we're gonna have to wait and see to what the fine print is -- the unfortunate aspects, Jim, that's developed recently, is many people think that all the ingredients of this treaty have been concluded. We still have a very difficult protocol to go forward with. And we've put the Administration somewhat in a box by saying, well, this treaty's almost up thereon Capitol Hill. It's not. As a matter of fact, it probably won't even be submitted until January. There are a lot of finer points that need to be worked out. LEHRER: But is it that kind of issue? Is it a finer point issue, rather than a general issue of an arms control agreement that would eliminate, as the President, a whole class of nuclear weapons? Sen. QUAYLE: I think it is important that we are eliminating certain classes of nuclear weapons. But let's see what's left. We have another class of nuclear weapons, the SS 21, for example, that the Soviet Union will have, is a ballistic missile, a nuclear ballistic missile that the West has no such category. Therefore, I think from a military point of view, we've got to raise questions and think from a military point of view, not a political point of view, a military point of view, is this in the best interest of the United States? LEHRER: Senator Cranston, is it in the best interest of the United States, as it sits now? Sen. ALAN CRANSTON, (D) California: I believe the treaty is very much in the best interests of the United States, and the best interests of the Soviet Union and the people of all the world. Rather plainly, we can't expect a treaty that is good for us, but bad for the Soviets to be agreed to. And we wouldn't agree to a treaty that was good for them and bad for us. We need to slow down and end this nuclear arms race. This is the beginning of that process. It sort of legitimatizes efforts to negotiate arms reduction agreements for the Soviets, and if this gets done all the way, finished in the negotiations and ratified by the Senate, that will open the doors to more meaningful agreements on strategic weapons of an intercontinental nature, and it will lead the way hopefully to reducing conventional weaponry. But if this should be rejected by the Senate after negotiating by the Reagan Administration and the Russians, that would probably make it impossible for anybody to negotiate a treaty for some time. So I very much hope we get a treaty we can support. All of us reserve judgment until we see the final text, but in general, it is needed. Sen. CRANSTON: Let me say one word on verification. LEHRER: Yeah, I was just gonna ask you. Go ahead, sir. Sen. CRANSTON: We need a treaty that can be adequately verified. And I believe this one will be verifiable, probably in ways that are superior to future treaties. Because we're doing away with a certain class of weapons totally, and that makes it easier to verify. But the United States is holding back more on verification, apparently, than the Soviet Union, because we don't want them looking into our affairs any more than they want us looking into their affairs. But apparently, we're drawing the line more tightly than the Soviets. If there are any difficulties over verification, that will be because of the American negotiating position, presumably. That is not yet certain. It's no cinch the Senate will ratify this treaty. But I hope that it will be a treaty that I can go all out in supporting, and I expect that to be the case, and I think we can finally win. But that is not certain. Sen. QUAYLE: Can I say something on verification? LEHRER: Sure. Sen. QUAYLE: I think it's going to be very, very difficult, and almost impossible to have a great deal of confidence in verification. We are talking about trucks. Those are where the launches are. The Soviet Union has eleven time zones. And those trucks and those launchers are very difficult to find, they're very easy to hide. Furthermore, we don't even know exactly how many missiles and reloads that the Soviet Union even has. Our data base is unsubstantiated. So when you start talking about these smaller weapons, I think verification becomes a very difficult proposition. But that doesn't mean that the treaty would be fatally flawed, because this is more of a political treaty than it is a military treaty. But I'd hate to take the verification adequacy that we're going to have on this treaty and apply it to others. LEHRER: Well, now, when you say political treaty, is that a term of disparagement, or -- explain what you mean, the difference between a military treaty and a political treaty. Sen. QUAYLE: The military targets that the Soviet Union presently target with -- the SS20, the SS4s, the SS23 and the SS23, they're going to be eliminated, are gonna be retargeted with other nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union. Therefore, from a military point of view, the Western military targets are still gonna be targeted by nuclear weapons. There's no doubt about it. Therefore, it becomes a political treaty of going along in an arms control process to try to eliminate classes of nuclear weapons. It is far more of a political rationale, and political debate than a military one. LEHRER: Now, Senator Cranston, I take it you would agree with that, right? You would support that for that reason? Sen. CRANSTON: Well, it's a military treaty, because it deals with military weapons, but there's certainly are very significant political aspects. And I mention one of them. If this treaty got rejected by the Senate, it would be a long time before some future president would be able to negotiate a treaty with them. On this verification matter, of course, what applies to this treaty may not apply to any other treaty. We have to look at each treaty and know that we can verify it adequately. No treaty can be verified one hundred percent. But if you can verify with reasonable confidence, the major elements, and if the stakes in terms of slowing down this arms race are so immense that we can run slight risks on verification, it's worth proceeding. LEHRER: Well, Sen. Cranston, you say it's no cinch that this thing will be ratified. Where are the problem areas? We've heard what Sen. Quayle has said. But he's talking about concerns, and he's not an out and out opponent. Where are the problems that you and others who support this treaty are going to have to go to get this thing ratified? Sen. CRANSTON: Well, first of all, it's a problem when Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig, for example, and Jack Kemp, all say they're against the treaty, and Jesse Helms, who's able to lead quite a few senators off in directions he wishes to go. He apparently intends to oppose the treaty. There are some 22 who are quite conservative senators that often vote the same way Jesse does. You only need 12 more to defeat a treaty. There's only one Democrat I know of at the present time who's indicated he expects to oppose it, but there might be a few more -- LEHRER: Who's that? Sen. CRANSTON: So it's just no cinch. I'd rather not name that one. But there is one. LEHRER: But what about the sounds that are coming from Sen. Nunn and others -- other Democrats, and in fact, your Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued a report over the weekend raising the issue of the ABM Treaty, and how that might relate to ratification of this new intermediate range missile. What's that all about? Sen. CRANSTON: That's a very difficult related issue. The Administration has sought to reinterpret the ABM Treaty, which was negotiated and ratified by the Senate in 1972. The Administration wants to revise the interpretation that was given to the Senate by those who negotiated in order to say that we can do things that the Senate understood could not be done when the treaty was ratified. That leads to the question, well, what about other treaties? Is there some secret interpretation, some indications maybe should be interpreted differently from the way it's presented. So Sen. Nunn quite rightly, and the Foreign Relations Committee, quite rightly, have agreed that unless the Reagan Administration abandons that effort to reinterpret the ABM Treaty of 1972, we have to see the negotiating record on that treaty and on the INF Treaty and on any other treaty before we know what we're being told is the case, is the case in terms of what it means. LEHRER: Sen. Quayle, does that make sense to you? Sen. QUAYLE: Well, I have a lot of questions about the treaty. So the more information that we can get is good. If Sen. Nunn and others want to get into the negotiating record, I think that that's perfectly proper. As a matter of fact, I think that that is a proper role for the United States Senate is to make sure that they know what the treaty says when they ratify it. Because once the treaty is approved by the Senate, the interpretation of that treaty is left up to the Executive Branch constitutionally. If the Senate has any reservations or wants to put on any kind of amendment, they can do so at that time. They can't go back and do it after they give their approval. So let's be careful on how we give our approval. Because back in 1972, this interpretation issue that Sen. Cranston brings up now, was hardly even discussed. It was just a minute issue then. Now, it's all of a sudden a major issue. LEHRER: Well, if somebody were counting heads tonight, Sen. Quayle, would you be one of those 22 that Sen. Cranston was naming who would be opposed to the treaty now? Sen. QUAYLE: Jim, I really can't say. There are so many issues and questions that I have. I am skeptical of this agreement. And I do want to see not only the fine print, but I want to see what the Administration's gonna say on some of these issues I raise. And therefore I really cannot say whether I'm going to vote for or against it. LEHRER: All right. What about -- play reporter, as Sen. Cranston just did. What's your assessment of its chances in the Senate? The reason I'm pressing this is that there has been -- and maybe those of us in the news media are responsible for this -- but there's been this general feeling of, my goodness, if the Reagan Administration would just negotiate this treaty, and if the Soviets would just agree, it would be ratified by the U. S. Senate. And what you all are saying tonight is that that may not be the case. Sen. QUAYLE: If I had to give you an answer, which you're really pushing me on, I would guess -- I would guess -- that it would probably -- and let me underscore the word probably -- probably pass. I think there's a perception out there that any treaty negotiated by this president would just go lickety split through the United States Senate. LEHRER: Exactly. That's my point. Sen. QUAYLE: And furthermore, I think this Administration's going to be quite surprised by myself and others that are going to ask some very tough questions on what they have done and what they think that they have achieved. I'm not saying how I'm going to vote. I will do that in due course. But I think they really expect for everyone to sort of roll over -- this is a conservative president, he negotiates an arms control agreement, why question it? But I have a lot of questions, and I don't believe in the long run, quite frankly, contrary to the popular perception, that this is going to be a big political plus for this administration. Sen. CRANSTON: Well, I'd like to add a little bit about the matter of the negotiating records. I think it will be unfortunate if we get into the position of having to demand the negotiating record on every treaty that comes before the Senate. That will have a chilling effect on negotiations. There are private conversations that go on that help lead to agreements. And various ideas are tested there. But if all that has to come before the Senate, we have to go through the whole record of everything that was said in and around the negotiations, in this case all the way back to 1972, first of all, that will take a tremendous amount of time, it would delay this treaty, it will probably kill the hopes of a strategic arms reduction treaty on intercontinental weapons being agreed to during the Reagan presidency, and it will make it very tough to negotiate in the future. It will mean that every treaty goes through this new kind of inspection. If we could simply trust the word of those who negotiate a treaty that they have told us what it's supposed to mean and what it does mean, that would be that. But as long as the Reagan Administration says we're going to go back and reexamine and we now have reinterpreted the treaty accomplished way back in 1972, that has a terrible effect on international diplomacy and on relations between the White House and the Senate. LEHRER: In a word, do you agree with that, Sen. Quayle? Sen. QUAYLE: No, I do not. I think that we ought to look at it and furthermore, the interpretation of a treaty once it's passed upon by the United States approves of it, rests with the Executive Branch. The reason that we're now interpreting the ABM Treaty is because we want to do things that are based on other physical principles, new technology that we have, and we ought to go forward. LEHRER: Okay. On that fine note of disagreement, we'll leave it. Gentlemen, thank you both very much for being with us. Perennial Pogo HUNTER-GAULT: Finally tonight, we close with an essay about why Pogo lives. Newsweek writer Bill Barol is the essayist.

BILL BAROL: Watching the news this summer, particularly the Iran contra hearings, I couldn't help thinking of Walt Kelly. Kelly, you'll recall, created the comic strip Pogo in 1948. His death in 1973 robbed the newspapers of one of their sharpest social critics. Even today, the strip enjoys a kind of afterlife. There are 8 Pogo anthologies in print, a fan magazine called the Okie Finokie Star, and millions of people who remember all the words to Kelly's favorite Christmas carol, Deck us all with Boston Charlie. The idea that he was creating something for the ages probably wouldn't have sat well with Kelly. The reason he did the strip, he once said, was that he wanted to have fun and make money at the same time. But fourteen years after Kelly's death, Pogo endures quietly. The reasons are right there on the page. From the start, Pogo was a comic strip of uncommon quality. Take a look at P. T. Bridgeport, the circus bear who is a tribute to Kelly's hometown. That's drawing. Kelly was a terrific writer, too. He had an ear for language that made his dialogue, stylized as it was, sound overheard more than written. There are other deeper reasons for Pogo's continuing popularity. And they have to do with Kelly himself. The strip had his sweet disposition. Pogo, he once said, was a reasonable, patient, softhearted, naive, friendly little person we all think we are. But Kelly had a temper, too. The kind of American temper that's quick to rise to an injustice, or to bristle at a charlatan. The year 1952 made Kelly uneasy. Enter Simple J. Malarkey, a sinister bobcat who looked uncannily like Joe McCarthy. A lot of folks must have liked those strips. When Kelly whimsically decided to run Pogo for President that year, Pogo didn't really want to be President and ran away to hide. A million people wrote in for I Go Pogo buttons. Eisenhower won anyway. By the time Simple J. Malarkey made his last appearance in 1955, he was clearly a threat in decline. So was Joe McCarthy. Kelly helped put him there. In later years, Kelly would draw Nikita Khrushchev as a hog, Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin as a parrot, Spiro Agnew as a hyena. And J. Edgar Hoover as a bulldog. Some people thought Kelly got overpoliticized and a little strident toward the end. His caricatures of Agnew and Hoover in the early '70s were less funny than scary. For those who forgot what the early '70s were like, let's just say that Agnew and Hoover were pretty scary themselves and leave it at that. Besides, Kelly wasn't really political. His targets were stupidity and hypocrisy, not Democrats or Republicans. And his voice was a voice of reason, pointed sometimes, but always courtly, speaking to us from the comics page. The comics page. Seems hard to believe these days, with Doonesbury and Bloom County the only visible heirs to Pogo. Kelly could draw, he could write, and above all, he could think. Pogo ended in 1975. It's missed. Recap LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday. A White House spokesman said a U. S. helicopter fired on an Iranian boat in the Persian Gulf. According to the Associate Press, the Iranian boat was attacked after it was spotted laying mines. President Reagan warned Iran to abide by the U. N. cease fire resolution in its war with Iraq, or face direct U. N. intervention. The administration declined to endorse federal AIDS discrimination legislation, and a labor arbitrator found the major league baseball owners guilty of conspiracy in trying to destroy the baseball players' free agency system. Good night, Charlayne. HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow. I'm Charlayne Hunter Gault. Good night.