The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Good evening, economic news, good bad and maybe dominate the headlines this Friday. There were new wholesale price figures which showed inflation still in check, retail sales figures which pointed the other way, and a prediction from a major business group that recession could come again. Also today, Vietnam and Mongolia joined the list of Soviet friends and buddies to boycott the summer Olympics. Robert McNeal is away tonight, Judy Woodruff is in New York. Judy? We'll be devoting special attention tonight to a Soviet expert in his analysis of how big a political splash the Russians will make with their boycott of the Olympics. A discussion with newspaper editors from across the country on the events that have made this week chock full of news from the Olympics to Central America and more.

On the upcoming elections in the Philippines, we take a documentary look at the political forces at work in that country. On the recent flap over whether business executives pay themselves too much money, to guess we'll debate the pros and cons. And finally, we'll tell you about someone who may be the most unusual athlete aiming for Olympic gold. The McNeal-Lera news hour is funded by AT&T, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and this station and other public television stations. Today's numbers and words on the economy. wholesale prices remain unchanged in April, the Labor Department reported, meaning inflation remains under control, according to White House spokesman Larry Speaks. But the Commerce Department reported retail sales for last month were up to 0.9%. That was fine too, said Speaks, but some private economists saw it as a possible signed interest rates would continue their news spurred upward.

Treasury Secretary Donald Regan again jumped on the Federal Reserve Board for contributing to the increase in interest rates, but in a Washington speech he said he was a little bewildered by this week's increase in the bank's prime interest rate to 12.5%. Whatever Wall Street apparently saw something in today's news it did not like, because the Dow Jones Industrial Average felt 10.05 points closing at 1157.14 also in Hot Springs, Virginia. The business council executives of the country's 200 largest corporations put out their annual business forecast, good times to continue through this election year and through 1985, but another dark recession is coming in 1986, if something's not done about the federal budget deficit. The subject of bonuses for corporate executives also reared its head again at that Hot Springs meeting, and we'll rear it here in some detail in a few minutes, Judy. Two more communist countries dropped out of the Los Angeles Summer Olympics today, but the head of the Olympics organization vowed to fight to the last minute to try to get

the Soviets and their allies to change their minds. The Vietnam announced over Vietnam radio that it was pulling out because the United States was undermining the games with political maneuvers, and Mongolia will also be boycotting according to the Soviet News Agency task. There were also reports that other Soviet allies, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Cuba, and Mozambique, would soon be following suit. Meanwhile, the president of the Paris-based Association of National Olympic Committees arrived in Moscow to try to persuade the Soviets to reverse their decision. AIDS of Mario Vasquez-Rana said he had been given assurances that he would meet with the head of the Soviet National Olympic Committee to discuss the situation. There were similar efforts underway by other international Olympic officials meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland. Juan Antonio Somerock, president of the IOC, told a news conference he believed a letter he received from President Reagan met the Soviet Union's objections. And also in this letter is very clear that the President of the United States promise that

the Olympic Charter will be fully respected during Los Angeles Games. We will fight till the last minute, and we will do our best asking the Soviets to go to Los Angeles and take part in the Games. For now, a total of five nations have announced that they are not coming to the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. Besides, the Soviet Union, they are each Germany, Bulgaria, Mongolia, and Vietnam. The obvious question that Olympic organizers, athletes, fans, and diplomats are asking is how many more nations will join the boycott? Well, to answer that and other questions, we turn to Yuri Ronan, chairman of the International Security Studies Program at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Professor Ronan is also a fellow at Harvard's Russian Research Center. He joins us tonight from the studios of public station WGBH in Boston. First of all, Dr. Ronan, why do you think the Soviets did this?

I think it's a mistake to look upon this in isolation as an Olympics question. It is really the third stage on what has been a sustained Soviet campaign that has a great deal to do with the modernization and deployment of our theater nuclear weapons, the Pershing II and the Khuz missiles. The first stage dealt, of course, with protests, peace movement, marches, demonstrations. That didn't really work. The second stage led to the breaking off by the Soviet Union of almost every level of talks that deal with arms control and disarmament in any shape or form. Well, they've pretty well run out of possibilities as far as that second stage is concerned. And so now they have escalated to a third stage which involves sports, cultural events, and to some extent the economic spillover of what they are doing now in connection with the Olympics.

Well, now what are they trying to accomplish? Well, their hope is first of all to stop deployment altogether. And there is a small amount of success that have been two developments in Denmark and in the Netherlands which seem to show that there will be some difficulties in Europe. Well, are you suggesting that the Olympics, their boycotting the Olympics, is related to those developments? Yes, indeed. I'm pretty sure that is the reason. Had they intended this to be a pure tit-for-tat for 1980, they would have made the preparations for the boycott long ago. It would have been a unanimous boycott decision which would have involved their allies and so on. There are all the signs that they reached this decision not terribly long ago. For reasons that really had nothing to do with the conditions of the Olympics at all. But as I say, because they had run out of arms control talks that could be broken off and they wanted to show their displeasure at what is going on and this was the next arena that could be found. So you think that they are already achieving some results? What more do you think they want then?

Oh, I think they would like to involve as many of the countries with which they have particular specialties as is possible. And the boycott you're referring to? Yes. And these belong to two categories, countries with which they have defense facts, mutual defense facts, of which there are all in all eight, and the others are countries with whom they have special friendship treaties which also have implicit military guarantees and there are about ten of those. When how many of these countries do you think they have to get on board in order for this boycott to be successful or does it matter? Is it enough that it's just the Soviet Union? Well, I think they would like to have as many of these 18 or 20 as they possibly can. I can see several of them that are definitely not going to join the boycott. Which ones? Romania for one, which is very intent on maintaining its relations with the West. It is conceivable that North Korea may not do so either. The North Koreans have had some degree of breakthrough of late in their relations with the United States and South Korea.

And I think they're very intent on maintaining that and having a special link with the United States, if only vis-a-vis the Olympics would be very important for them. What about countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, other countries like that? I think the Cubans will join in and the chances are 50-50, that's all well-designed ministers. I think a country that may not join in that has a special friendship treaty with the Soviet Union is Angola because Angola, again, with our help, has been negotiating an agreement with the South Africans over the actions of freedom fighters within Angola. And I think that the Angolaans would be loath to lose all of these gains because of the Olympics. So there are special cases, there's yet another country in that's India. How much pressure do you think the Soviets are prepared to put on these countries to force them to join? I would think a great deal, but it may not be enough, the North Koreans have been going their own particular way for a long time, they listen to nobody else's drum, they also have

to consider the Chinese, and the Chinese most definitely are participating in the Olympics and I'm sure are not going to consider for one moment joining in the boycott. There is also the question of the Asian Games, which is coming up, in 86, in which the venue will be South Korea, and there have been very convoluted negotiations going on, which also involved the Chinese over participation there. So I have a question. Excuse me, just quickly, Professor Renan, do you think that even if they get all 18 or 20 countries at stake to go ahead and join the boycott, do you think they're going to have the effect ultimately that they want to have? No, I don't think. It doesn't compare with the 54 who joined in the boycott in 1980, and those included major countries, Brazil, the United States, Canada, and so on and so forth. And that was a response to an action by the Soviet Union, the invasion of Afghanistan. The United States hasn't done anything to these countries.

There isn't really anything to boycott over. So I think that the effect will be felt in California for a little while, and I think even then it will be an economic success, and perhaps by ABC, but I don't think that anybody else is going to be very deeply involved. Thank you, Professor Renan, for being with us. Jim? It became more or less official today that Jose Napoleon Dorte has been elected president of El Salvador. Complete returns from 12 of the Central American nation's 14 provinces showed the moderate former president with 54.3% of the vote to 45.7% for Rightist Roberto Dobasson. The remaining votes were not expected to change that result. Dobasson's supporters continue to claim the election was a farce, bought and paid for by the CIA, and Dorte continued to call for unity. And back in Washington today, Secretary of State George Schultz spoke of El Salvador in the Communist threat in Central America to a meeting of U.S. newspaper editors. El Salvador deserves our support, just as Central America deserves our support, and that's the president's program.

It's the program of the bipartisan commission, and that's the program that the House of Representatives voted for yesterday, that we should be in favor of democracy and the rule of law and human rights. Do you have any doubt about what the Soviet Union system is? Do you have any doubt about what is going on in Cuba? Do you have any doubt about the flow of armaments through that complex into Nicaragua? Is there any doubt about what Nicaragua has been up to? All you have to do is read what they say and observe what's going on. And so I think to stick your head in the sand and say there is no security threat in Central America is stupid. Secretary Schultz was only one of a number of big names and politics and government to speak to that convention of newspaper editors, all this week, the editors have been hearing about Central America, the Olympics, the economy, politics, and so on, and three of those listening editors are with us tonight.

For El Osborne, editor of the Dallas Morning News, Robert Maynard, editor and publisher of the Oakland Tribune, and Robert White, editor of the ledger in Mexico, Missouri. Mr. Osborne, Mr. Reagan did win a big victory in the House yesterday on El Salvador AID. How do you and the Dallas Morning News, Judge Mr. Reagan's policy on Central America? Well, we generally tend to agree with it. We think that it's going to be necessary to provide money unless you want to provide soldiers, and I really think that's the choice. I really don't think there is any other choice, ultimately. How about you, Mr. Osborne? I think I agree. I know this, that it is obviously a plan long-range Soviet maneuver beautifully executed using the Cubans far surrogates. I only wish we had surrogates that wouldn't require us to use our own soldiers. But I don't think that's an immediate danger. So you're not one of the stupid one, Secretary Schultz, who's written to us now. I hope not. How would you classify yourself, Mr. Maynard? Well, I don't know that this was an IQ test on a matter of such significant policy.

I differ slightly with my colleagues to the degree that I think the militarization of Central America has within its serious consequences for the American public and for the whole of that region. I think there's a danger that through too much militarization and not enough diplomacy, we may end up in a posture that will remind us all too much of a nightmare called Vietnam. And you think the United States and the policy of the Reagan administration is militarizing Central America? Well, I don't think that anybody argues as to whether there is a greater military presence and involvement of the United States and Central America today than there was, say, 36 months or 24 months ago. The only question is whether that is the best solution. I don't think anybody argues, I don't think my colleagues would argue that we haven't become more involved militarily, we certainly have. Is he right? Would either of you argue that? Oh, I would say we've become more involved militarily, but I think the militarization of Central America became with Nicaragua's creation of the largest army, not only in Central

America, but in the history of Central America, several hundred thousand, including its reserves. And we're just reacting to that. I think we're reacting to it. Well, the question is how to react, and I think such countries as Mexico, who are much closer to that situation, are urging us to react with a great deal more restraint and to use much more of the diplomatic muscle and influence that we obviously have. I mean, the question is how to be influential in the region, and the answer so far for the Reagan administration has placed a great deal of emphasis on military aid. I'd like to see it least as much emphasis placed on diplomatic initiatives of the sort the country tour group attempted just a few months ago. How do you read that, Mr. Rogers? Well, I think it's important to remember that there is considerably more economic aid attached to this bill than it is military aid, number one, and it's certainly important that the economic and diplomatic questions be attended to.

On the other hand, I think you have to get to a point where in whether you call it diplomacy or not, the party whom you're trying to persuade has to know that at some point there is a line beyond which you simply won't be pushed and you will have military involvement. I think the preferable course is to avoid it, if possible. Mr. White, do the people in your town, Mexico, Missouri care that much about Central America? Who's it a big deal? I don't think it's a big deal. They're like everybody else in America, small town in America sees the seizure program, sees the seven o'clock news, every not out often, certainly, and sees the six o'clock news in the middle of the West. We read the same wire services reports. So we're well aware of it, but we have other primary issues that are far more important. One on Mr. Farm economy, for example. Where would you put this in Dallas in the United States?

Well, a little differently, I think we were acutely aware long before the President found cause to mention it two or three times that Dallas is a shorter trip to Mexico or Central America than it is here, for example. Now we have a great deal at stake. Our economy is affected by what happens there. When the peso is devalued in Mexico, that's a local story for us. Mr. Mayor, what about an Oakland? When you write, when your paper writes the strong editorial on Central America, you get reaction from the folks? Oh, we get reactions no matter what we had to share. In the Bay Area, you have a vital community where a great deal of the date takes place about just about everything that goes on everywhere else. The difficulty and the difference often is that there is something between here and there that I call the great Rocky Mountain filter and something happens to a certain amount of the intensity of some of these issues. By the time they reach the West Coast, so we tend to react a little less to some of the

intensity that you hear when you come to the East Coast, but certainly among the students that Berkeley, they have already been plenty of reactions to our policy in Africa. Mr. White, what about the presidential speech? Do the people in Mexico watch a presidential speech on Central America like the one that's bringing in the other? Oh, and talk about it the next day. Oh, yes. Very much at the coffee counter, beer taverns, ridge parties, wherever. If the president's presence has keenly felt, and I think that again, his father evidence of his genius with communications, he, to us, has a certain Harry Truman-like approach to having the courage to speak up, and we admired even though most of us are Democrats. Is he selling, is he a good salesman in Texas for his Central America policy? I think so. I think most people in Texas would agree with what happened on the Hill, and I think most people would support what Jim Wright did in helping it to happen.

Many people believe that it was Jim Wright's decision, of course, had won that for him. What, how would you read President Reagan's ability to carry his policy in California? On your part of California? He's, don't forget, he's our former governor. And his ability to carry California is in no serious doubt in anybody's mind. I met on this issue. Well, I think the split in the country is probably about the same as it is in California over the weekend, the polls showed about 49% against further military involvement in Central America, 21% for, I'd say, that'd probably be about writing in our area. Bob White, the question of the Olympics, has been suggested that President Reagan should take that issue more in hand, and maybe get on some telephones and do some negotiating himself in order to stop this boycott that the Russians have started. What's your view of that? Is it a dead issue? Oh, I think probably it is, of course, the Soviets are going to do anything they can to discredit him, to not help him in this, this coming election.

I think that Mr. Mondale went a bit far when he said the president should roll up these sleeves and attack the problem. We said that in the speech to you on. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. I don't think presidents can do that. I think Jesse Jackson was wrong to go to the Soviet embassy, because that's going over the head of the president. But I really think that the Soviets are going to do exactly what's good for the Soviets, and if they can see something good, they're going to do it. I think the president has a role to play, but not to directly and not to deeply involved in it. What's your view of that? Well, I think the president ought to seize the opportunity to see if we can't get beyond the tensions that have gone on between the Kremlin and the White House. I agree with Jesse Jackson on two points, and therefore disagree with Bob White on one. The two points on which I agree with Jesse are that, first of all, the stakes are too large for us to have the leadership of the United States and the leadership of the Soviet Union not talking to each other.

And the Olympic issue is as much a symptom of that level of tension as it exemplifies anything else. And second, sports have always been a good medium of improving communication. And so to permit the games to go down the two, or at least in so far as Warsaw's packed participation is concerned, that would be unfortunate. With respect to Jesse going to the embassy, I think that somebody should try to do something to preserve the spirit of the idea of international competition. It appeared as if there was no one to do it, and he went into a vacuum. The White House supported that effort to the degree that it's sent along to him, a list of assurances to pass along the Soviet Union so it isn't as if he was going over the head of the President. He certainly had the benefit of the assistance of the White House to some extent. I think that we have allowed ourselves to become frozen in a bipolar mode in which we can't seem to figure out how to communicate with each other, given the magnitude of

the threat to the planet. That seems to me that we've got to figure out a way to get beyond that. Is that where were you, Mr. Altman? Well, yes, I'm concerned about it. I am not particularly bothered either way that Jesse Jackson went to the Soviet embassy. I really don't. I'm not troubled by it as, as Bob may be. I think it's very unfortunate that the Olympics are being held hostage again to a political question. And I didn't like the idea much in 1980 when we were doing it, and I don't like it any better now that the Soviets are doing it. But the people in our area, insofar as their action itself is concerned, seem to be saying so what? They don't want to come. Don't come. Don't be doomed. All right. Judy? I want to pursue the Democratic presidential race for a minute. Mr. White, I know Missouri has had its caucus. How much interest is there in your state right now in this contest among Mr. Hart, Mr. Mondale, Mr. Jackson? Not a great deal.

But the caucuses were not well attended. I think everyone, one thing we have in the middle of the West, we like to think is a lot of common sense. Maybe we're short on a lot of things, but we don't think we are in common sense. And common sense in this situation is that I agree with Bob Maynard here. Missouri in the end, I think, is going to go with Mr. Reagan, even though we're a Democratic state. And I think the three Democratic candidates have not turned Missouri on. Do you think there's anything hard or Mondale Jackson could do to do that to turn voters in Missouri on? I don't think they can. I don't think they have whatever that mystique thing is that presidential candidates need to really rally people to their cause. Certainly the Democrats or Democrats in Missouri, and certainly the Republicans or Republicans, but the Democrats have to support the president if he's going to carry Missouri. And I think most of us would agree that he will. Mr. Maynard, you've got a very big primary coming up in California and June, the fifth Gary Hart's running ahead a little bit in the polls.

Does it look like he's going to win that primary? If it were held today, Judy, I think he would. But there are so many things that have always happened to be a surprise in the California primary that it would be a mistake to judge it too soon. I think if we won't know for sure, I don't think the winner of that primary is going to be until maybe five or six days before, and we may not even know for sure them. How much interest is there in the race right now out there? I think it's grown intense. This has been a fast watching what California has gone through in this campaign has been very interesting. Just before New Hampshire, it appeared as if the election, or rather the nomination was already decided, and everybody said, oh, our primary is too late to be interesting, and we should move it up to some place in February or March or whatever. And then as Gary Hart began to untrap mound all in the Northeast, everybody said, well, maybe we'll have a shot at it. And then it looked for a while there as they got into the Midwest, as if it was going to be all settled last Tuesday in Indiana and in Ohio.

And now here we are, it looks as if the horse race will end in our town after all. All right, Mr. Osborne, Texas just had its caucuses. What about the level of interest there? I know the caucuses weren't very well attended. Well, it may have been a little higher last Saturday on election day than it is today. I think people in Texas are waiting for the general election, and I think it's going to be an interesting test then. You think, what do you think about the general election? Do you think it would be the Democratic nominee, whoever he may be, or what do you think are Mr. Reagan? Well, you need to understand that I have a perfect record in predicting, having never been right. Well, tell us who you think will get it and we'll figure it's the other one. I would think Monday will be the nominee, and I would think that President Reagan would carry Texas at this time. All right, a quick last question for all three of you. Are the voters in your states prepared for a woman on the Democratic ticket as a vice presidential nominee, Mr. Maynard? Oh, I think the voters in our state are prepared for it, but I think a lot of the strategists

who would be advising Monday on our state would say a woman doesn't add any heat to the ticket because the people who are going to vote for you are going to vote for you whether or not there's a woman on the ticket, so get somebody who could really add strength to the ticket. Mr. White, what about Missouri? Missouri, I don't think Missouri is ready. We say we are, but I think when the chips are down, we won't come through. I wonder if Mr. Nixon wasn't right the other day though, and he said, if a woman on the ticket would do Mr. Reagan more good, then it would, Mr. Mondale, the same idea, the mob expressed, I must add one other detail. I too have a perfect record of never being right, guessing how politics start. That's right, a lot of us fall in that camp and quickly Mr. Osborne, what about Texas? Well, I would like to think that Texas is ready, I'm not sure that George Bush is ready to be replaced, and I'm not sure what the effect of that kind of an action would have on the result in Texas. All right, thank you all, Mr. Osborne, Mr. White and Mr. Maynard for being with us, Jim. When Reagan today praised his National Commission on Excellence in Education, he said it made history by changing the way Americans look at education, the Commission today formally presented

to Mr. Reagan. It's report on the last 12 months, since America's schools were reported to be engulfed in a rising tide of mediocrity. The results mostly upbeat were made public two weeks ago, Judy. Still to come on the news hour tonight, a documentary look at the political forces that have worked in the Philippines just three days before they hold national elections. A debate over whether corporate executives are paid too much money or not, and we'll close with a surprise, the story of a unique contender for an Olympic medal. Police in the Philippines went on red alert today as tensions grow in the day is preceding next Monday's elections.

Philippine authorities charged that communists are planning to disrupt the vote for seats in the national assembly. On opposition spokesman, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Jaime Sin, said he fears there will be violence if the government engages in unfair election practices, as he said it has in the past. Brian Hanrahan of the BBC has a report on how that might work. The ground is well prepared for electoral fraud. These few shacks are the registered address of 447 adult voters. This group of six houses, according to the new voting register, is home to 37 people, all born on August the 8th, 1962. This a list of 60 different voters who all have identical fingerprints. blatant ballot rigging has always been a part of Philippine elections, and it arouses little comment. The poor, who live in considerable squaller and surprising cheerfulness, have enough to worry about staying alive. The rich worry that any elected alternative to the present regime will open the way to

anarchy and revolution. Despite the increase in public unhappiness with the Marcos government, most observers say the government will win Monday's election, losing less than 60 of the 183 national assembly seats being contested. And Medina, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, filed this report on those who are now challenging the 18-year rule of Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos. August 21st of last year, 2nd, after leaving the plane, Beninio Aquino, known as Ninoi, a shot. He was to have led a new movement against President Marcos, and his death didn't change that. A new chapter in Philippines history did begin. People took to the streets, demonstrations became ugly, and restraint on either side disappeared. Martial law had ended, but what some called the iron-handed rule of Marcos remained.

Today, politics has a new relevance. Andy Midwina and his family live in two tiny rooms. They share a kitchen and bath with others, but he's got a job, and they have enough to eat. So by Philippine standards, he's not poor, and he's also not political. But now, even he is being drawn into the new political times. He works for a consulting firm as a bookkeeper. He's worked here for three years, provided for his family. He's safe, careful, even timid, and until now afraid of the consequences of being political. I don't want to be arrested by those persons, because if I'm arrested in an impression, it's going to win it, open it into the big politics, they're afraid, but thousands of others

are not afraid. At first, only a few joined in, but in the past six months, these demonstrations have grown day by day, always showing the yellow symbol of a keynote. Now with the elections coming up, they've taken on a new urgency. And today, even Andy has screwed up his courage to join in. Is a feeling of freedom of participation, something that's been absent here for a long time? The confetti of Ayala Avenue is bringing out a new challenge to the government, a challenge that's now peaceful, but hits home. This is a strange kind of protest. In fact, it's more like a party that are protest at all.

The anger and militancy that usually go with movements that want to overthrow a government just aren't here. Instead, there's an unusual crowd, the middle class, and this unusual place, the financial district, all having quite a good time. But as strange a protest as it is, it is mid-jope. The yellow banner of a keynote is making a difference here in the Philippines. In this election, a small, minority, and our people, claiming 3% their position, that's saying that they speak for the people. The movement is not one that President Marcos can now ignore. Although he himself is not running for office, his representatives are. And so he is organizing his own crowds and actively campaigning, too much as it's stake. A poor showing in May's elections could affect Marcos' own position, but he may not have to worry.

Although the crowd show up to listen to Aquino's brother, butts, butts, and others are advocating staying away from the police. Butts and others are convinced that Marcos will fix the election results, that there won't be any election in a truly democratic sense, but not all members of the opposition agree. They are divided on the boycott, just as they are divided on a lot of issues. Are united only in their push for economic and social reforms? They are united in their opposition to Marcos himself. For the country he rules is in trouble. There is incredible poverty and overpopulation, and a government that is either unwilling or unable to help. Its people are poor, and the government itself is close to bankruptcy, needing foreign aid to prop it up.

And the recent push for reform isn't coming from the slums of Manila, or from those most affected by the country's neglect, instead it's coming from the rich, from the business world, from those who usually want to keep the status quo, not change it. This is the prestigious Polo Club, where people worry about money and national deaths and peso devaluations. This is where today's opposition is building. Each week the anti- Marcos numbers grow, and the protests get more imaginative, when street marches were banned, they turned to joggins without confrontation. There will be no chanting that will provoke the military to do some drastic actions against us. The protests have now become trendy, but there's some doubt as to whether Ninoi's brother

but can lead a successful boycott of the polls. His popularity is linked to his brother's martyrdom, but that may not translate into a real movement that can do anything more than demonstrate. In Manila, puts may be able to lead the middle class in its protests, but that's a far cry from offering an alternative leadership to President Marcos. Manila matters, but it's far away from other parts of the Philippines, where people don't feel free to defy the government, and where people face other dangers. One of those threats is communism. In a country made up of more than 7,000 islands, there are plenty of places for it to grow and nurture. This is devao, a city in the southernmost tip of the Philippines that looks as if it's almost out of the days of the old wild west.

Well, in a sense it is. Devao is a city of guns, of lawlessness, of killings, where man in uniform can be killed at close range in broad daylight, and that's the kind of violence that both the government and the opposition fear could spread. Last year, at 11 in the morning, two policemen were shot in the head on this busy street. No one claimed to have witnessed the assassination. The killings are said to be the work of the NPA, the new people's army, communists who can come and go as they please. The targets are usually government employees, but everyone is affected. There is a guerrilla warfare going around, where Filipinos are beginning to kill Filipinos, and you cannot distinguish one from the other. The NPA can pick off individuals in the cities, but in the countryside its operations

are larger. Today, government troops maintain this guard post overlooking the road, but last summer they didn't, and 15 of their men were killed in an ambush from above. The government had underestimated the communist strength. Today it doesn't. Now they've sent in hundreds of their elite scout rangers to fight and to lead what they call educational operations. This army officer is holding what's called a dialogue. He's basically fighting a propaganda war to try and turn around the suspicion and the distrust that exists there. But it's a problem when the army has to keep watch on every move. The clearest sign of concern comes from the United States, whose F4s and F16s are essentially under the protection of the Philippine government. In contrast to the past, President Reagan has been silent on any support for Marcos, and

members of Congress have been openly critical of the government. The opposition has now grabbed on to the U.S. response, and used it as a legitimizing factor for their campaign. The United States Congress is very, very clear, and the expression of its sentiment, when he says that when the two houses say what they want to see, three and fair elections, that means that elections here have not been free and fair. When the United States says they want to see a free press, that means the press here is not free. When the United States says they want to see a thorough and impartial investigation of the Aquinas assassination, that means the investigation of the Aquinas assassination has not been so far. The investigation into Aquinas murder has been a constant source of frustration and bitterness, and has kept alive the suspicion that somehow the Marcos regime was involved. Military witnesses who were supposed to be protecting Aquino at the airport have been

questioned, but still, after all these months, no one knows for sure who killed Aquino, but his death did begin a process of awakening. For example, in this bank, at noon, little signs start appearing that something out of the ordinary is happening. Officer Lit and prayers for the spirit of Aquino are said, both inside the bank and outside on the street. It's quiet, it's dignified, but it doesn't add up to a cohesive, practical movement that can change a government in its ways in only a few months' time. Perhaps its leaders are aware of the problems they still must solve, but in the meantime

as more people speak out, the muscles are getting less cramped and will be better flex for the future. It began last week as a complaint from U.S. Trade Ambassador Bill Brock. He said it was outrageous for U.S. auto company executives to ask for continued Japanese import quotas on cars, while at the same time paying themselves huge bonuses, and from there it grew into what is now known as the big executive compensation issue.

At that business council meeting in Hot Springs, Virginia today, it came up time after time, and as Robert Beck, chairman of Prudential Life Insurance, put it, bonus is work. But is it right in proper to pay so much money, a million dollars or more a year in some cases, to people at the top in corporate America? Jack Albertine, president of the American Business Council thinks it is. Mark Green, head of a public policy research group called the Democracy Project, thinks not. But Green, is it never, never all right to pay a corporate executive a million dollars or more no matter what happens? No, it is all right if the executive is a founder, an innovator, a Walt Disney, an Enwood land at Polaroid. But the people who are getting a million dollars more a year and there are 46 last year are managers. Even her and Crystal, the conservative, said that they should be paid as managers, not as founders. The problem is that they control the board of directors. They handpicked the board who in turn designs their salary. So there's a system of, it's a rig system of self enrichment.

So while they were labor givebacks when times were bad, they weren't management givebacks when times were bad. Now that times are good, their bonuses for executives are their bonuses for labor also. They wanted both ways. How do you see it, Jack Albertine? Well Jim, with respect to the question of hand picking the board, if I'm on the board of directors of a major corporation, I'm probably there because I'm a major stockholder in that corporation. It's my money that they're managing. It is just simply ridiculous to say that I'm going to allow managers to make mistakes, continue in their job, send the company down the drain, and lose my money without doing anything. It's silly to say that I'm not going to pay very careful attention to the quality of the management and the compensation for the management. The fact of the matter is that managers get fired all the time because they're not doing a good job. The market process works, but a million dollars a year or more is 46 corporate executives get in this country.

How do you justify that? Well, the question is, I'm an investor in a major corporation in America. My view is this. If the chief executive officer of that corporation can make me money, if he can protect my investment, I think he ought to be paid whatever is necessary to do that. The fact of the matter is there are lots of people in America that make those kinds of salaries. The key issue is this. Is the chief executive officer being compensated fairly and adequately? That's the job for the board of directors. They watch it carefully. They look at it carefully and they have a vested interest in making sure that that's the case. Now what's wrong with that, Mark Green? Jack is right theoretically, but utterly wrong empirically. A study by Brigham Young University economist showed there is no link between pay and performance. The executives are getting paid more because of their position and their power rather than their performance. Let's talk about examples. Mobile oil in 1982 had their earnings fall 50 percent. The chairman of Mobile Oil had his pay go up, 30 percent, international harvester, near bankruptcy in the late 70s and early 80s.

What did they do? They gave a $600,000 bonus to the departing CEO. Jack, the reason that people are on the board is not because they own shares in the company. It's because they know the management. Congress is the 1930s when William O. Douglas studied boards of directors. It is well known that boards rubber stand with managers want. It's the rare occasion when a deficient manager is fired. There's a system of self enrichment which leads not to a free market, but leads to managers making more than the market would bear if it were free. Our Japanese competitors are beating our pants off and then the international market and cars. They're in one-fifth of what our chief executives do and they were pretty well, don't you think? The fact of the matter is that I've been in Japan a number of times and I think that's a mistake. They aren't a lot more than that when you look at all of the fringe benefits would say yet. But let's go back to the board issue. It is simply irrational to believe that people who own the company, whose net worth goes down when stock prices go down when the company's mismanagement, when the company's mismanaged, don't take that seriously.

The other kind of people who are on boards, Jim that Mr. Green talked about, are generally very eminent Americans, university professors, university presidents. Mr. Green is saying that those people who may not own a large portion of the corporation do not exercise their moral responsibility to ride herd on management. Basically, he's saying those people are corrupt and I don't believe they're corrupt. He's also saying that he made a great list of a couple of examples that pay of corporate executives is not always tied to the corporate performance. The question is, what would have happened in the case of that corporation? I'm not prepared to say, I've got an article here from Business Week Magazine, which talks about turnover at the top. Why executives are losing your job so quickly? Fact of the matter is that firing of top executives is going up. Here are some very eminent former chief executive officers who weren't in the view of the board of directors earning their compensation and they wound up getting fired. It happens every day in American business.

He's right, didn't he, Mark Green? I know he's wrong, Jack is universalizing the aberrational. There are a few who are fired and for him to imply that many people on boards at university professors is totally belied by the facts. Most people on the board are other business people who don't own a predominance of stock in the company that they're because they know the top manager. I really think Jack is exaggerating and in fact, look at the critics of this issue. Bill Brock, the special trade representative, Ronald Reagan, fortune magazine had an article called The Madness of Excessive Executive Compensation, Peter Drucker. The management guru is critical of this excessive compensation. There are a lot of business people who are embarrassed at excessive self enrichment and the system can be corrected. You can have independent boards of directors and you can have, if you're going to share in the gains in a good year, managers should share in the pain in a bad year and not transfer all that cost onto working people. Your position is that's already happening, right? Absolutely. That's exactly how the system now works. What about the embarrassment issue? This bill Brock, a Reagan administration official, did bring this up.

He's the one who got this started. Is this going to be coming in embarrassment to American business? Are they going to have to do something? Well, in that particular case, of course, there's a special circumstance. That industry is being protected by quotas. I think that's a mistake. There should not be quotas. There should not be protection of that industry. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Green is right in one important respect. There are lots of business people who don't understand how markets operate. I agree with that. The fact of the matter is that boards of directors have the responsibility for determining adequate compensation. If they want to pay somebody a million to a million dollars a year, that's their business. Absolutely. They're reflecting the views of the stockholders. They're reflecting the quality of the management and the quality of the company, and they ought to be free to do so. Mr. Green, what would you do about this, Paul? What can be done about it, whether it's saving getting rid of the boards of directors? Well, in the report that the democracy project issued on executive compensation, we propose several remedies, one is I would like to see a curve what Jack Alberteen thinks exists that boards be more independent of management and reflect shareholder interest, so they

should be independent directors that is selected by shareholders rather than handpicked by management. I think that would take care of the problem of compensation. No. I think it would help. Second, I'd like to see extraordinary shareholder approval for extraordinary salaries and bonuses. Right now, shareholders have nothing to say about it. Finally, Peter Drucker offered a ceiling of 25 to 1 top person paid in the company to the bottom. I think that goes a little far. I'd like to see a limit, except the shareholders approve extraordinary compensation. Finally, I'd like to see pay linked to performance. So we have a profit and law system, not a profit and profit system. That's capitalism without risk. I want the market to work. It doesn't work now. Pay is linked to performance. Most of these high salaries were bonuses. Moreover, Mr. Green is for a form of wage control. Where do we stop? We set the ceiling for chief executive officers. How about broadcasters? How about ball players?

Should we set it across the board? I think it's a mistake. Gentlemen, both. Thank you very much. Judy? A Japanese company Nissan Motor Manufacturing announced today that it will begin manufacturing its Nissan Central Model at its plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, starting next April. The company expects eventually to make 100,000 centers there in addition to the 140,000 light trucks that it builds there now. Once again, today's top stories, the government's index of wholesale prices was unchanged in April. The White House said that means that inflation is under control. But retail sales went up sharply, and some private economists saw that as a sign that interest rates might keep going up. Two more communist countries, Mongolia and Vietnam, withdrew from the summer Olympics. Complete returns from 12 of the 14 provinces in El Salvador showed Jose Napoleon Duarte as the winner of the presidential election, and the remaining votes are not likely to change that result. Jim? And we in the week on an inspirational note with the story of a most unlikely candidate

for a spot in the summer Olympics in Los Angeles, a spot on the U.S. women's team that will run the 26-mile marathon until this year, only amends Olympic event. 250 women runners will compete tomorrow in Seattle for the right to compete in Los Angeles, and Bill skein, a public station KQED San Francisco, tells us now about one of them. By any measure, Marion Irvine is no ordinary athlete. At age 54, she is the fastest woman runner in America over 50. Every time she steps onto the track, she sets a new record in her age class. My warm-ups at 7.10, and we begin our workout at 7.30. Added to that is the fact that Marion Irvine is really sister Marion Irvine, a Dominican nun who, off the track, serves as a principal at a Catholic grade school in San Francisco. It is an extraordinary combination, a nun turned award-winning marathon runner, but the prizes came only after years and years of what she says was a very sedentary life.

I began a memorial day of 1978. My niece had been urging and encouraging me to take up this sport, this jogging business for about four months. I resisted the idea completely because, you know, the people I had seen out in the world weren't pleasant-looking people. You know, they were hot and sweaty and didn't look very friendly to me. And finally, she tried it, ran and walked her way through her first two miles, and she began to use running to release all the pent-up energy and frustration of a day spent teaching. It puts me back together. It helps to integrate my life. When your body is harmonizing pretty much with the environment and you're in a beautiful particularly beautiful area like Golden Gate Park. There's a kind of a prayer of glory or praise to the creator that brought all this beauty into being and put you in this place. For Sister Marion, who now runs 80 to 100 training miles each week, long distance running

comes easy. There's no doubt I'm genetically gifted. There are women who could adopt my training schedule down to the minute, who could get themselves a coach, who could do the interval work, who could have a commitment, who would never have the times. This physiology that you have is gift. And for whatever reason, God gave me this gift. Last month in this race, the Avon 15-kilometer, Sister Marion finished 20-second, but still managed to set a new record for women over 45, chopping 13 minutes off the old mark. And she left women half her age in her wake doing it. I don't think any of us are really out there to beat each other so much as we are to beat the clock. We're out there to better our times. We use each other in a race, of course, as pace, setters. We try to catch each other, you know, and as a result, keep our mind on our race. I mean, look at that, John.

And so many people are idolized herself. I think she's inspired every woman runner in the world. So women in general, but particularly for women over say 30 or 40, we've always been told that there are certain things we can't do because we're female or because we're too old or something. And then a woman comes along who shatters all of that, and that means that all the rest of us realize that we can do it too. 1984 is the year of the Woman Long Distance Runner, for the first time in Olympic history at the Los Angeles Summer Games, women will run their own 26-mile marathon. In December, when she finished a state marathon in two hours, 51 minutes, Sister Marion joined an elite group. By a hair's breath, she qualified for the U.S. Olympic team's trials in the marathon. She also became the oldest American man or woman to ever make it to the trials. She is training harder than ever for this race, but up against a large field of much younger runners, her chances of making the three women U.S. team are small. The trials will be my Olympiad, you know, but I've got a pair of a chance to make the team.

The three women that will represent the United States will run under 230 in the trials. So the way I figure that makes me about 25 or 20 to 25 minutes late for the party. Sometimes on her long runs, Sister Marion wonders how differently might things have gone? What if she had started running earlier? I've been asked that question, you know, if you were 20 years younger, would you be making the team, you know, and the question probably is not that so much as if I had been born, you know, in the 1960s, instead of in the 1920s, what I'd be an Olympian. And I think, genetically, I probably saw, I don't regret the fact that that isn't true a bit, because running has been spectacularly good to me, and I have nothing to gratitude for what I've achieved. Good night, Judy.

Good night, Jim. That's our new Zower for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff, and have a good weekend. The McNeil-Lera news hour is funded by AT&T, reaching out in new directions. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and this station and other public television stations. For a transcript, send $2 to $3.45, New York, New York 10101. Thank you very much.