The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the headlines today, the bodies of the two Americans murdered in the Iran skyjacking arrived back in the United States; Senator Robert Byrd was re-elected Senate minority leader; and the cost of a first-class stamp will go up to 22" in February. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Here is your guide to what's on our NewsHour tonight. First, the news of the day in summary form; then a major focus section on the legal and economic fallout from the Bhopal tragedy. We discuss Union Carbide's legal liability and how the incident will affect other multinational operations abroad. We have a newsmaker interview with Robert Byrd, newly re-elected Democratic leader in the Senate; then, with Boston sportswriter Jack Craig, we focus on the new controversy over moving sports franchises. And we close with a documentary report on new theories about dinosaurs. News Summary

LEHRER: The bodies of Charles F. Hegna and William L. Stanford are back home. They are the two officials of the U.S. Agency for International Development killed by the hijackers of a Kuwaiti airliner in Iran. Vice President Bush was with their families at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington this morning when they arrived. The Vice President said this about their deaths.

Vice Pres. GEORGE BUSH: We shall know their murderers with the long memory of those who believe in patient but certain justice. Wanton murder of the innocent is terrorism that no amount of incantation can disguise. So let us renew again our call for all nations to uphold justice before mankind, to condemn terrorism for the brutal cowardice that it is, to resolve that civilized nations can and must resist terror and to demand that governments have the decency to bring to justice terrorists, bring them swiftly and surely to justice.

LEHRER: The two Americans who survived the six-day ordeal at the Teheran airport arrived in Frankfurt, West Germany last night. Today they were at a U.S. military hospital undergoing medical examinations and debriefings by U.S. officials before presumably returning to the United States. They are Charles Kapar, also an AID employee and businessman John Costa. Meanwhile, back in Iran, Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavie said the four hijackers would not be extradited to Kuwait for trial, as the U.S. has demanded. He also said there would be no explanations of Iran's handling of the hijack situation because, "Iran explains nothing to anyone but God."

Robin?

MacNEIL: Another hike in postal rates was announced today by the U.S. Postal Service. On February 17th the cost of mailing a first-class letter will go from 20 to 22 cents, a postcard from 13 to 14 cents. Parcel post rates will rise 11%, and second-class mail for newspapers and magazines 14%. The Postal Service said it needed the increase to continue to break even without a subsidy from Congress.

Also in Washington, Senate Democrats today gave Robert Byrd of West Virginia a strong vote of confidence as they re-elected him their Senate leader. In the Senate Democratic Caucus Senator Byrd held off a challenge by Lawton Chiles of Florida by 32 votes to 10.Afterwards, both the victor and defeated spoke to the press, Senator Byrd responding to suggestions that he was a poor media personality compared to his Republican counterpart.

Sen. ROBERT BYRD, (D) West Virginia: You know, I happen to feel that Mr. Dole is a man who will be a worthy opponent on the floor or on TV, and I'll be glad to meet him in both places. After all, I'm not just another pretty face.

Sen. LAWTON CHILES, (D) Florida: I feel terrific today. I'll tell you, if Robert Byrd feels as happy right now as I do, then he is about the happiest man that there is because I feel so high now, I don't think I could have felt any better, to tell you the truth, if I won. [disbelief from press representatives] Well, it does to me. You know, maybe if I was a guy that made sense, I wouldn't run to start with, you know.This thing was a burden that I felt that I had to do something about, that we needed to take a look at ourselves as a party and we needed to take a look at ourselves as to whether we are going to say to the American people that we're capable of being the majority party, that we're capable of representing middle America, and we know the debacle that has happened to our party. We know the two years that are facing us in the Senate as Democrats, they're years of tremendous opportunity, but years of tremendous risk.

MacNEIL: Later in the program we'll have a newsmaker interview with the rarely interviewed Senator Byrd.

LEHRER: Treasury Secretary Donald Regan said a couple of newsworthy things today. One, the Federal Reserve has been a little penurious in its hold on the money supply and the result has been continued high interest rates and a poor Christmas buying season thus far. He said there have been low-level discussions within the administration about possibly bringing the independent Federal Reserve more under the control of the executive branch. Two, there must be cuts in military spending if the administration's budget cutting plans are to pass the Congress. He said the cuts could be done without hurting the national defense.President Reagan had lunch today with Defense Secretary Weinberger and other officials to discuss trimming defense spending, but afterwards nobody was talking. White House spokesmen did confirm a new non-defense budget-cutting idea now afloat.If Congress fails to cut federal wages by 5% as proposed, then the administration might consider laying off 125,000 federal employees.

MacNEIL: Officials in Bhopal, India, said today the Union Carbide plant will go back into operation for five days to process the remaining poison gas into pesticide, and that might require evacuating 125,000 people.The officials said a group of scientists had decided reprocessing the remaining 15 metric tons of poison gas would be the safest and most practical way to get rid of it. The announcement caused a new flight from Bhopal. As many as 10,000 people left in trains, buses, trucks and cars. And the officials said as many as 125,000 people who live near the plant would be moved, if necessary, before the plant is started up on Sunday.

In New Delhi, Union Carbide employees who survived the gas leak in Bhopal demonstrated at the American Embassy, demanding that the plant be closed. They carried placards saying "Close such factories in the entire world," and shouted slogans like, "Give justice to us victims." They also handed the embassy a letter demanding compensation for the injured and the relatives of the 2,200 people who died.

In Washington a House subcommittee on energy and labor and health and safety held a hearing today on safety at the Union Carbide plant in Institute, West Virginia, which uses the same chemical that leaked in India. Robert Rowland, head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Dick James, a business agent for the Machinists Union local at the plant, testified before the Democratic congressman, Joseph Gaydosof Pennsylvania. Rowland was first.

ROBERT A. ROWLAND, Occupational Safety and Health Administration: I think from what I have seen that the plant is a safe plant.

Rep. JOSEPH GAYDOS, (D) Pennsylvania: You calling it safe for a matter of record right here before this committee?

Mr. ROWLAND: No, sir, I didn't say that, Mr. Chairman.

Rep. GAYDOS: I thought you did. I'm sorry.

Mr. ROWLAND: I said from what I've seen it appears to be a safe plant. Our inspection is still continuing, as I stated in my statement. I have not gotten the results from the total inspection. But the past inspections at the plant, of which we have had, I said, 32 since 1980, have indicated a safe operation.

DICK JAMES, Machinists Union: First of all, you'd have to compare the MIC unit at Institute with the one in Bhopal. I've heard it said that they are identical or very similar. I don't know that to be a fact. I think that first of all you'd have to compare the two to see what the similarities are and the differences. Then I think that we'll have to wait and see what the investigation of Bhopal reveals to be the causes there, and then relate it to the Institute plant and production there before such a judgment could be made. I think personally that such an incident in Institute is most unlikely. I'd hesitate to say it's impossible.

MacNEIL: Our lead focus section tonight is devoted to another aspect of the Bhopal aftermath, legal liability and how that may affect the business of other multinationals, especially in the Third World.

LEHRER: The last story of our news summary brings us back to the defense budget. The Reuters news service has just reported that Secretary of Defense Weinberger has accepted a slightly less than $8-billion cut in the Pentagon budget. Weinberger met with President Reagan today to discuss the budget. Republican congressmen, among others, have urged President Reagan to cut 1985 defense spending. Fallout From Gas Leak

MacNEIL: Our lead focus section tonight takes us into fresh aspects of the fallout from the tragedy in Bhopal, India, with the leakage of poisonous gas from a Union Carbide plant. Tonight we look at both the business and the legal impact. In Washington today a House foreign affairs subcommittee held hearings on whether or not there's a double standard for U.S. corporations doing business overseas -- one set of safety rules for domestic operations, another for their foreign subsidiaries. During today's hearing, Congressman Stephen Solarz, a New York Democrat, asked Robert Peck of the State Department about administration policy towards multinationals.

Rep. STEPHEN SOLARZ, (D) New York: I gather we have no extraterritorial application of American environmental law to the operation of American corporations or subsidiaries doing business abroad.

ROBERT A. PECK, State Department: Generally that is the case, yes, sir.

Rep. SOLARZ: Now, let me ask you as a question of national policy, if we come to the conclusion that an American firm is engaged in a potentially hazardous enterprise abroad, and if we determine that the safety and health and environmental standards and regulations of the country in which that firm is doing business or in which it proposes to do business are substantially less than here in our own country, do you think we have any kind of obligation here to, in any way, restrict the operations of that subsidiary or to require that subsidiary to meet the kind of standards which would provide a more reasonable measure of protection to the residents of the area in which the facility is located, or do we take a kind of laissez-faire attitude and say if the host government doesn't choose to impose the requisite requirements or regulations that's their problem, not ours -- and even if there may be a great tragedy, that's their responsibility, not our responsibility?

Mr. PECK: Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that we do not have a general policy today to notify in such specific cases. The United States has been active in various international forums in developing guidelines which would touch on these areas for implementation by national governments. But in terms of responding to specific cases which might come to our attention, we do not at present have a general policy.

Rep. SOLARZ: Well, I think this tragedy may very well have illumined the need for affirmative action on the part of our own government in order to make sure that we minimize the possibility that anything like this may ever happen again.

MacNEIL: To look further at how the disaster will affect the way multinational corporations do business in underdeveloped countries, we have Thomas Gladwin, an associate professor of management and international business at New York University. He is the co-author of a book called The Multinationals Under Fire, and recently completed a survey of multinationals and the environment for the United Nations.

Mr. Gladwin, as simply as you can put it, how do you think this is going to affect Union Carbide, first of all, in its operations in other countries?

THOMAS GLADWIN: It's quite clear from the evidence we're getting in the news that Carbide is suffering from a range of adverse consequences here. They have become the focus of increased scrutiny both in Western Europe and in the Third World. They have been subjected to restrictions that have impeded its production. For example, yesterday the Environmental Ministry of France blocked the importation of methyl isocyanate into the port of Fos. We have also seen a damage to its public image, naturally, externally in many parts of the world, even to the extent of environmental terrorism in its West Germany plant, gasoline bombs there.So, unfortunately, the company may have to live with the phrase "the global environmental enemy #1" and that'll be a hard image to really shake off.

MacNEIL: Is this going to rub off on other multinational chemical companies?

Mr. GLADWIN: There's a possibility.

MacNEIL: Are they going to be affected too?

Mr. GLADWIN: There is a possibility of that.Indications are that it has been a shock to many American, European and Japaness firms. All of them are increasingly moving to a concern for this kind of a problem. And the multinationals may be the environmental bad guys for quite a long time.

MacNEIL: Now, we don't know what caused the accident in India yet, but in the context of the discussion we just heard in that House subcommittee and elsewhere, do you see a failure of regulation, particularly in the Third World, of industries like this?

Mr. GLADWIN: I think that that's a rather fair statement, that there's been much progress in the developing countries with regard to environmental regulation. Since the old Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment we have 80 new environmental ministries or agencies in the developing countries. All of them, however, are woefully ill-equipped to deal comprehensively and adequately with the environmental and industrial safety challenge; under-resourced, underfunded, and there are weaknesses technologically, scientifically, but most important, institutionally in most of those countries.

MacNEIL: Is an incident like Bhopal, with the liability and suits that are -- just massive suits that are just now being filed, is this likely to frighten U.S. multinationals out of the Third World because the risks of operating there will be so great if they can't get the kind of regulation or supervision or safety monitoring that they can in the Western world?

Mr. GLADWIN: I think we have to step back and look at the evidence here. Our studies of recent flows of foreign direct investment in the chemical and allied industries, in many of the hazardous industries, shows that chemical companies are already pulling out of the Third World nations for reasons of market attractiveness or political risk. The Commerce Department has a reported net disinvestment by American chemical companies in developing countries in recent years. I would not say that the liability risk here will change anything. The general conclusions of most studies, the Conservation Foundation, the World Resources Institute, the U.N., the OECD and our NYU studies is that differences in environmental policy or safety standards have not generally been a motivating force for relocation.

MacNEIL: In other words, to put that more simply, these multinationals have not gone into the Third World because they can be slacker in their concern for the environment than they can be here? That has not been a motive for them?

Mr. GLADWIN: A certain few cases of exceptions in highly toxic chemicals, but predominantly, for 99.9% of all multinationals, we do not find evidence they have gone. That does not eliminate the problem, however, of following double standards once they get there.

MacNEIL: Now, asssuming these companies are still going to want to make and sell pesticides for the Third World, where they're needed, and fertilizers and things -- let's concentrate on pesticides -- where are they goint to put these factories if they're beginning to withdraw from the Third World? Does that bring them back to this country?

Mr. GLADWIN: Well, we have to realize that the large bulk of all chemical investment in recent times has been ending up in the United States. If there is a pollution haven in the world, it is the USA. The bulk of most hazardous industry has been coming here, into this country.

MacNEIL: What does that mean, a pollution haven?

Mr. GLADWIN: The old idea of that was the meaning that environmental law, community concern would be rather lax, so that there could be potential advantages on the cost side to the cost of building that plant.

MacNEIL: Is that still true, relatively, with the last 10 years of environmental concern in this country?

Mr. GLADWIN: Now, we have largely seen that the environmental factor, the health and safety factor has been built in ate the front end on new plant construction. It is less of a large cost elememt. Our conclusion once again is that other forces are largely motivators of plant location and that the environmental one is a very small issue at the margin.

MacNEIL: So, to sum up, what's the net effect, do you think, as far as you can see it right now, on the multinational chemical injustry of this tragedy?

Mr. GLADWIN: Of this tragedy, I would say that it'll probably bring about a radical change of approach to environmental management, to health and safety practices. Our findings have shown that the general practice has been one of some mix of the home country's standards and the local standards, the policy of local accommodation largely fragmented, decentralizing of the operation, relying on the locals. It has not been a function that has been strongly controlled or unified at the headquarters global level. This tragedy will probably induce greater unification, coordination and centralization of this activity among multinationals.It'll be a more important concern at headquarters, and we should see a lot more monitoring, inspections, exchanges of people, exchanges of resources and information among the subsidiaries of these plants.

MacNEIL: Well, Professor Gladwin, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: And there are the lawyers. One was quoted this morning in The Washington Post saying the Bhopal tragedy has triggered the greatest ambulance chase in history, a chase among American lawyers looking for Indian clients to sue Union Carbide or, as the lawyers said, "Get Union Carbide" is the slogan. Two lawsuits have already been filed in United States courts. Hundreds, maybe thousands, will be filed before it's all over. Here to explain and debate the lawyering side of Bhopal are two lawyers who specialize in the kind of law involved. They are Ronald Grayzel, who usually represents people who do the suing, and Victor Schwartz, who usually represents companies who get sued. Mr. Grayzel, what do you think about all these American lawyers swooping down on the people of Bhopal? Is tht seemly?

RONALD GRAYZEL: I think that the activity of American lawyers who have taken the time to go to India is something that should be complimented and not criticized.

LEHRER: Why is that?

Mr. GRAYZEL: And the reason for this is the following. I think that it's important to explain to the citizens of India what their complete legal rights are and every particular option that they might have in order to secure an adequate remedy for what has happened to them. One of those options under our federal statutes is to bring a lawsuit against responsible and culpable American corporations in our courts. Secondly, I think they serve a second important function, and that's of our image in the world. As we've seen from the summary of news events that occurred today, many, many citizens throughout the world, especially in the particular area of the world where these people were injured, are associating what one or two irresponsible corporations have done with our country and our people, and I think that in addition to educating the Indian public about their legal rights, they're also giving the message to the Indian public that American citizens feel very deeply about what's happened to them and that they're outraged by it. And I don't think they any of the rhetoric that we're hearing from industry spokesmen today is doing anything to advance the cause of making sure that these people are adequately compensated. What industry spokesmen want to do is they want to focus away from the tragedy that occurred and focus it in instead on something that has absolutely nothing to do [what] what occurred, and that's the efforts of lawyers to help those people who've been injured.

LEHRER: What do you think about it, Mr. Schwartz?

VICTOR SCHWARTZ: Well, I think the image is hurtful to see at a time of tragedy people coming in with the idea of taking one-third to one-half of an injured person's recovery. We're the only country in the civilized world that has the contingent fee, where a lawyer literally takes half the wheelchair from the victim at the end of the case. That is the image that's conveyed. I didn't see lawyers going to Ethiopia when there was a tragedy there. They're going to India because of one thing, the contingent fee and the fee motivation. And I say this just looking at it. I'm not representing Union Carbide or any defendents in this lawsuit.

LEHRER: What about his education argument?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: I don't know that we have to be tort law educators for the world. The Indian legal system has developed over hundreds of years. They have the British system there. It's the same system that we have, the same origins. There are lawyers, there are courts and it is a good system. The idea of a bunch of American lawyers with business cards coming in to tell them how to do things and what their rights are I think can offend people.

LEHRER: Mr. Grayzel?

Mr. GRAYZEL: I think it's important for people to realize that if it turns out that Union Carbide itself has been a culpable party in what has occurred that it may very well be the best option for either Indian governmental entities or citizens to bring their lawsuits here. That's a choice they have to make.

LEHRER: Now, let's talk about that. Let's move to the legalities of it. Is it your position that this issue should be resolved in the United States courts, that those Indian citizens have a right to sue here and get damages out of U.S. courts?

Mr. GRAYZEL: That's going to depend on how the facts develop.Based on the information available so far, it's unclear whether or not the Union Carbide product itself was involved, whether or not it was Union Carbide's American technology that resulted in the injuries. If this is indeed the case, America might very well be the most appropriate forum because it will be American lawyers and American engineers and the American court system that can best deal with making sure that justice is brought vis-a-vis these particular products.

LEHRER: What's your view of that, Mr. Schwartz?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, just let's look at it from a common-sense point of view. Where did the injury occur? It occurred in India. Who did it occur to? It occurred to Indian citizens. If we start with those factual situations and open our courts to people who are injured all around the world just because there may be some remote connection with an American product, our courts are going to be more flooded than they are today. In fact, we have a legal doctrine called forum nonconvenus. It's a shame we do our doctrines in Latin, but it just means that a forum is not convenient for having a suit here.And the Supreme Court of the United States has indicated in similar cases that this is not the place to come even if, by chance, our remedies may be more favorable to the injured party.

LEHRER: More favorable meaning they's get a lot more money?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: They'd get more money.

LEHRER: And what would be the impact? Let's say, for discussion purposes, gentlemen, let's assume that the U.S. courts do take these cases of the Bhopal victims. What would be the impact on the U.S. court system, Mr. Schwartz?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, I think you set a precedent and anytime around the world where a group of persons happen to be injured -- a plane crash or some other incident -- where an American product in some way is involved, the people who may never have seen the United States, never been here, are going to find some lawyer interested in one-third to one-half of their recovery to take their case.

LEHRER: Mr. Grayzel, how do you see that?

Mr. GRAYZEL: First of all, I think we have to make clear that the contingent fee is an important vehicle for injured victims, because that allows them to take on a large corporation like Union Carbide. Injured victims, whether they be American or whether they be Indian, can't afford to pay $200 an hour to industry spokesmen such as Mr. Schwartz to represent them. They need attorneys who can undertake the effort and initiate the investigation in order to take them on, and that's why the contingent fee is important. Secondly, there are important American interests at stake here, and this is why. Fifteen to 20 years ago American workers and American consumers got fed up with the epidemic of industrial disease that was occurring in this country and the extraordinary high incidence of industrial accidents that occurred. And as a result of their pressures, we had a regulatory scheme brought in by OSHA, we've had environmental statutes.And it was made clear to industry that if they're going to do business in this country they're going to have to do it safely. And what happened was many of the industries, the irresponsible industries that were responsible for causing these problems, rather than undertaking the time and the effort and spending the money to make things safe in America, began exporting their dangerous industrial technologies and their hazardous products to the Third World, who were hungry for jobs and were hungry for money and were not about to make these companies do what they had to do here --

LEHRER: Well, what about the legal question of redress in U.S. courts?

Mr. GRAYZEL: I think what's going to happen is, if these corporations are brought to justice here and they can see that there's going to be the same cost factor that occurs when they injure workers here that they're not going to have the incentive to export American jobs, to export American technology and to injure people overseas without being concerned about the consequences. And I think --

LEHRER: Mr. Schwartz?

Mr. GRAYZEL: -- that's extremely important.

Mr. SCHWARTZ: There's never been a showing that anybody locates their plants because of tort law. An earlier speaker on this program has indicated that. In America people don't locate plants in poor areas because damages would be less. What Mr. Grayzel said is frivolous. And I should say I'm not here on behalf of any industry. Under basic choice of law rules, when an accident occurs in a country and people are injured in that country, it's there the law that will apply. The Supreme Court of the United States has said -- that. And as far as the contingent fee, if lawyers are sympathetic and interested in victims, they can go on a very, very reduced fee instead of taking 40 or 50 percent of a recovery. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'd be interested in hearing whether Mr. Grayzel would announce that lawyers would do this for their own cost and wave their contingent fee if they're really interested in helping victims.

LEHRER: Mr. Grayzel?

Mr. GRAYZEL: I think that what's at stake here is, first of all, the Indian people who are affected must make the choice, and if they decide that the American forum is the most appropriate forum in order to get appropriate compensation for what has occurred to them, then I think that the American courts are indeed an appropriate procedural mechanism for them to redress their grievances.

LEHRER: What about waiving the contingency fee?

Mr. GRAYZEL: Well, I think that under appropriate circumstances that if indeed there are enough people and ways can be found to finance the litigation -- in other words, to raise the hundreds of thousands of dollars that it's going to take to fight Union Carbide, who, by the way, is going to spend many times that resisting the claims -- then perhaps that would be possible. But as long as Union Carbide is going to take the kind of attitude that they have in litigation in this country, it's going to take too much money in order to allow attorneys to take on causes for which they're not going to get adequate compensation.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Professor Gladwin, your book was called Multinationals Under Fire. If the multinationals, if this precedent is set and they come under fire under U.S. tort law in U.S. courts, what's it going to do? Is it going to change the effect of locating overseas and so on?

Mr. GLADWIN: I think it would have a dramatic effect. I was working with a group of executives all day on that theme. And it would instill the fear of God. It was a very -- the whole globalization of ambulance chasing, possibly more than any other factor, would really serve to reduce any laxity or any following of double standards overseas. So --

MacNEIL: Well, from the citizens' point of view in whatever country, would that be a good effect?

Mr. GLADWIN: I think it could have a potential beneficial effect.

MacNEIL: What do you say about that, Mr. Schwartz?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, I think that the basic statement that he said, that tort law, liability law really has no motivation on behavior of companies. There are other factors involved.

MacNEIL: Weren't you just changing that with what you said just now? It hasn't up 'til now but that it could have is what you --

Mr. GLADWIN: Let's be clear. My case, and I believe the evidence bears this out, that these variations in tort law, environmental legislation, industrial safety concern have not been a motivating factor for firms to move to other locations. That still does not remove the issue, however, once they are there, what standards do they follow, and we have found local accommodation to the laxity.

MacNEIL: And I think what you're saying now is that if American tort law were extended overseas and heard in U.S. courts, it would put the fear of God into them and they would apply the same U.S. standards of safety and make sure they were applied wherever they were. Is that what you were saying?

Mr. GLADWIN: That is my case, that there would no longer be any place to hide.

MacNEIL: What about that, Mr. Schwartz?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, we haven't really discussed at all what the Indian tort law is, and it's English law. It's the same origins as we have. In fact, in India they apply a rule that if you bring a dangerous substance onto your property and it escapes, you're absolutely liable. So I think maybe before the jump for the contingent fee comes on, maybe people should look at what the Indian tort law is, which is strict liability in this situation.

MacNEIL: What's your comment on Professor Gladwin's observation, Mr. Grayzel?

Mr. GRAYZEL: I think his observation is a good one, and it's an important one because, as pointed out by an author in the International Journal of Health Services, there have been certain specific dirty industries that have located overseas specifically to get the advantage of lax industrial safety and health standards. And what these companies are going to find out, if indeed American standards are applied to Union Carbide, is that that is not acceptable conduct that's going to pay off in the long run. And that not only helps the workers abroad, our image abroad, but ultimately it's going to help American workers who also have to hold onto their jobs and work safely here.

MacNEIL: Well, I'd like to thank you all for joining us this evening, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Grayzel -- Mr. Grayzel, Mr. Schwartz, Professor Gladwin. Jim?

LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a newsmaker interview with freshly re-elected Senate Minority Leader Robert Byrd, a look at the ever-moving sports franchise by Boston sports columnist Jack Craig, and a report about a man who studies dinosaur eggs in Montana. Byrd Retains Roost

LEHRER: Now we're going to talk to Senator Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat who remains tonight the Senate's number-one Democrat. His Democratic colleagues today re-elected him their leader by a comfortable 32-to-10 vote, turning back the argument and the challenge of Senator Lawton Chiles of Florida. Senator Byrd has been in the Senate since 1959, and he's been his party's leader there since 1976.

First, congratulations, Senator.

Sen. ROBERT BYRD: Thank you.

LEHRER: Was your re-election ever in doubt to you?

Sen. BYRD: No.

LEHRER: Why not?

Sen. BYRD: Never.I know where my colleagues stand. I know how the votes have been committed, and I trust my colleagues when they make those commitments.

LEHRER: Was the fact of the challenge from Senator Chiles a huge surprise to you?

Sen. BYRD: Not a surprise. I didn't expect it to be made this time, because I saw no evidence that anything was moving. But I wasn't surprised.

LEHRER: Why not? You heard something or --

Sen. BYRD: Oh, no. No. These challenges come and go. I've been through twice before. And Senator Chiles has a right to run. Any senator, of course, on my side of the aisle has a right to challenge me.

LEHRER: Is he now and forevermore in your doghouse for having done this?

Sen. BYRD: Oh, no.No, no. Senator Chiles is a valuable member of the Senate. He is able, he works hard. He's done an excellent job as ranking member of the Budget Committee. I have leaned upon him for advice. I have helped him to put the votes together behind packages that we've offered as a minority, and I will continue to lean upon Lawton Chiles for his valuable advice, and I expect him to be the chairman of that Budget Committee two years from now.

LEHRER: That's if your party regains control.

Sen. BYRD: Well, I think we have an excellent chance of regaining control.

LEHRER: One of the points, as you know, that he made in his campaign was that a new face was needed in your job because of 1986. What do you make of the new-face argument?

Sen. BYRD: I don't pay any attention to that. I'm not just a pretty face, but I have experience. I have a record, and my colleagues I think indicated their confidence in me by their vote today. They know that I have the kind of experience that we need in the Senate, how to put packages together, how to put votes together, and, when it becomes necessary for me to speak out, I will do it. When I think I should be visible, I'll be visible. When I think someone else should have the limelight, I'll push him hard.

LEHRER: But generally speaking, you have been -- you've had a rather low profile as Senate -- first as Senate majority leader and now as Senate minority leader. Why have you chosen to go that way?

Sen. BYRD: I haven't had a low profile as majority leader. I used to have conferences every Saturday morning. I was on the morning shows, the Sunday shows. We were in the majority then. When we became a minority I saw my role as being somewhat different.I felt that we had to put our heads together, unite and come up with alternatives where they were necessary. And we worked hard. It was painstaking but we did that. And now we're in a position to build on those efforts that have been made. We had a gain of two seats on our side of the aisle this year. That says something. The people out there must think that we're doing something good in the Senate. So we've picked up in numbers. We will build on the past efforts. And we will come to grips with the problems that confront this country. We have serious problems in this country -- the economy, international problems, trade deficit, and we Democrats have a vision that will take us forward and we'll cooperate with the Republicans when we think we can, and we'll have alternatives to offer when we think they're best.

LEHRER: Senator Chiles said that he didn't feel that the Senate, the current Senate leadership -- meaning you -- spoke enough to middle America.

Sen. BYRD: Well, he has a right to his opinion, but of course he was in a campaign then and I don't blame him for putting the very best face on it, while we're talking about faces and new faces. We speak to middle America in our programs, our middle-American programs. We believe in fairness, equity, opportunity, economic growth, jobs, good education, investments in infrastructure and in people.

LEHRER: Do you get annoyed when people say, oh, but Byrd, you and O'Neill are the old guard and the people of the country have said no to you, they want new ideas, new faces in the Democratic Party?

Sen. BYRD: No. I don't. They've said worse than that from time to time when you get into these campaigns, and they've become a little heated. May I say with respect to Mr. O'Neill, I've served with him a long time, and we in the Democratic Party in the Senate have met leadership to leadership with the House many times. We've met on a regular basis, while we were in the majority, while we were in the minority. And I have a great respect for Mr. O'Neill, and we'll be working together in this coming session.

LEHRER: Another one of the Chiles points was that with Senator Robert Dole as the majority leader, who is a very visible, you know, personality, etc., that the Democrats needed somebody to go in there and match him. And he is suggesting that you weren't up to it. What do you think?

Sen. BYRD: I'm not a Charlie Chaplin. I can't match Mr. Dole in witticisms. And I have a tremendous admiration for him. He has a lot of ability. He's astute politically. He does make a good appearance.But when it's necessary for me to be visible on television and I can get an invitation. I'll be there and I look forward to debating Mr. Dole in the Senate arena and on television when the necessity arises. I can work with anybody on the Republican side of the aisle. And, you know, sometimes when you find two persons, one may be good at witty things and the other one will have some attributes. They get together, they have things in common, and they adjust themselves to one another because we've got to work together. We're working together in the interests of the people of this country. And we've got to work together if we deal with the problems. And I intend to work with Mr. Dole. I'll cooperate with him, but we'll have our own ideas on our side of the aisle, and we're going to be pushing those ideas because they will be middle-American and we're going to take bakc that Senate in two years, and my good friend Mr. Dole will be the minority leader.

LEHRER: Senator Dole -- we interviewed Senator Dole the night he was elected majority leader, and we asked him what his number-one priority was legislatively, and he said reducing the federal deficit. What is yours?

Sen. BYRD: We Democrats are going to meet that budget deficit crisis head on. We feel that that is a number-one priority in this country.

LEHRER: A but not the?

Sen. BYRD: It's a number-one priority. There are other priorities, internationally speaking. Defense, national security. But the budget, we can talk about as the number-one priority. That's fine with me. It's serious. And you'll recall that Mr. Reagan spoke of the national debt when he first became President, and he said $1,000 bills stacked 63 miles high would equal the national debt that has built -- that has accumulated since 1789. In these four years of Mr. Reagan's administration those $1,000 bills would reach 101 miles high. So that's within four years. Now, we have got to deal with that.It affects across the board, the value of the dollar overseas, trade imbalances, jobs, interest rates.It's a serious problem. We're going to have to come to grips with it, and we will have our ideas as a minority and we'll work with the majority as best we can, but we've got to deal with this crisis now and we just can't continue to wait and put it off.

LEHRER: Well, Senator Byrd, thank you very much for being with us, and again congratulations to you on your re-election.

Sen. BYRD: Thank you very much. Moving the Home Team

MacNEIL: Our next focus section is the top sports story of the day, but its implications run deeper than the latest box scores. This is the headline that greeted Piladelphians this morning. The city's professional football team, the Eagles, is on the verge of moving to Phoenix, Arizona. Philadelphia's mayor, Wilson Goode, mobilized his administration, even canceled a scheduled meeting with President Reagan today, to fight the move. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter said he would introduce legislation in Congress to stop the Eagles and other professional football teams from moving to other cities. Specter said he intended to keep the Eagles in Philadelphia.

Sen. ARLEN SPECTER, (R) Pennsylvania: It is my judgment as a matter of public policy and as a matter of what ought to be law that the football fans have a form of a proprietary interest in a football team. A football team is not a business like any other business. The fans ought to have a say on when a team is moved. And the legislation that I proposed in 1982 would allow for team moves but not if they were doing well financially or if they had adequate stadium arrangements or there was no real economic reason for them to move. And I think that's a standard which ought to be applied.

MacNEIL: Philadelphia isn't alone. In recent days stories have circulated about possible moves by the football team in New Orleans and baseball teams in Cleveland, San Francisco and Pittsburgh. For more on the story and its significance, we have Jack Craig, sportswriter for the Boston Globe, who joins us from public station WGBH in Boston.

Jack, from your reporting today is this going to happen, or will the city of Philadelphia prevail and keep the Eagles there?

JACK CRAIG: Well, I don't think that Philadelphia on its own, Robert, can keep them there.The eminent domain approach was taken by the Raiders -- by the city of Oakland against the Raiders three years ago. It didn't work. Baltimore pondered that when they were trying to keep the Colts from going to Indianapolis and decided not to go that route.So I think that there's nothing that legally the city of Philadelphia can do. They can't even get a restraining order because the Eagles could argue that with next season beginning in August they have to get out there and start marketing their product.

MacNEIL: What about a financial way of keeping them there?

Mr, CRAIG: Well, probably the best bet in staying in Philadelphia is the very volatility of Leonard Tose, the owner, who is some $40 million in debt, I guess a great deal of it accumulated by gambling.He has been quoted as saying, "Over my dead body they'll move," and "I'll write it in blood that they won't move." Well, maybe he'll get changed back again. Maybe there'll be a great outpouring of either pressure or some sort of wining and dining of him. But I imagine the folks in Phoenix, the lawyers, have set it up in such a way so he would be in trouble legally if he tried to back out at the last second.

MacNEIL: What does a team like the Eagles mean to a city like Philadelphia, apart from the sentiment involved?

Mr. CRAIG: Well, I read where Mayor Goode said today they're worth approximately $15 million in business. But I look at it from a slightly different perspective. Philly is arguably the best sports town in America. I could cite many reasons why that is so, but one is that they have the largest share of television audience for all events, you know, from skiing to the Eagles and everything. For 50 years they've been very loyal to a team that's often been mediocre. So as a result, if there ever was an unworthy instance of transferring a team from a city to another place, this would seem to be it, and I do think --

MacNEIL: Just on the loyalty issue, you mean?

Mr. CRAIG: Well, you might think it's frivolous that the vicarious interest that the sports fans have in a team, but you ask the folks in Washington how much of an impact, how much of a grip the Redskins have. It is somewhat similar in Philadelphia. Now, is it a public institution? That is the great issue at law. And I think that that will be the dividing line on this legislation coming up in January. Is it a private corporation, or do you become so ingrained that you're actually part of the public domain?

MacNEIL: And are you not, isn't one side of the argument that you're not -- you're just another business, really? I know Senator Specter said it isn't just another business, the fans have a proprietary right. But can't it be argued that, like any other entertainment business a football team is just a business, like a ball-bearing factory or something?

Mr. CRAIG: That's true, and it's hard to refute that position, but when in fact a private corporation goes to the public money and says that if you don't give us this and give us that we're going to leave, then perhaps, in view of the fact that the public money would be used to subsidize them, as is already being done with tax breaks and with special situations in stadiums, that maybe in turn the team does have a public presence in a city.

MacNEIL: Let me ask you in conclusion -- sorry to interrupt. We just have a minute left. Let me ask in conclusion a wider question. What are all these teams moving around doing to football, first of all, as an industry, but second, in the affections of the American public for the game? What is it doing to the game?

Mr. CRAIG: Well, I think it's doing a great deal of damage. There has always been a sense of loyalty from the fans to the athlete and to the team. The athletes have broken that loyalty with free agency, and the damage is hard to measure but it's there. Now if in fact ball clubs themselves are going to a form of free agency, then I think that's very destructive to sports in general, and we will feel it down the road, both in the television viewing and in the participation of people going to sports events. I think it's very damaging and a great deal of damage has been done in Philadelphia now, even if Tose remains.

MacNEIL: Jack Craig, thank you for joining us. Jim? New Theory on Old Bones

LEHRER: We move from sports to dinosaurs for our final story tonight. It's a profile of a man who studies dinosaur eggs to see how dinosaurs lived and behaved when they used to roam the American countryside. The man's name is Jack Horner. Louis Massiah of public station WHYY-Philadelphia has his story.

LOUIS MESSIAH [voice-over]: For years Hollywood has depicted dinosaurs as stupid and solitary beasts, determined to kill each other off. And, for the most part, scientists tended to agree that dinosaurs were, well, just plain disagreeable. But that perception is beginning to change, pushed along by some of the important discoveries made by this man, Jack Horner. Each year Horner, a dinosaur expert with Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies, spends his summer digging for the fossile remains of these extinct beasts. His efforts are focused on a remote corner of western Montana, an area he sees through the trained eyes of a dinosaur scholar.

JACK HORNER, Museum of the Rockies: Eight million years ago this area was a dinosaur nesting ground, and what we can envision is that we had an area that was literally covered with thousands of square meters of a nest of duckbill dinosaurs.

MASSIAH [voice-over]: Working on a hill they've dubbed Egg Mountain, Horner and his team have found what few others have, fossilized dinosaur eggs. They have also discovered the only known fossils of baby dinosaurs still in their nest. The discoveries have become the basis for a radical theory Horner developed, that dinosaurs, unlike most modern reptiles, actually took care of their young.

Mr. HORNER: What we've found is groups of nests all together in colonies, attesting that they at least stayed all together and that they laid their eggs in their nests and took care of them while they were incubating, and once the dinosaurs were out -- hatched out they stayed in their nest. Mother looked after them. When Mother would go out to get food for them, we can even tell by looking at babies' teeth that the babies probably were fed berries.

MISSIAH [vice-over]: Further, Horner postulates that once the babies grew to about four feet they were thrown out of the nest.

Mr. HORNER: Then the babies stayed with the parent and probably all of the parents stayed in a herding situation, that wherever they moved to feed, all of them stayed together.

MASSIAH [voice-over]: Because of their tendency to care for their young, Horner believes that dinosaurs were more like today's mammals or birds than reptiles. Many of Horner's colleagues are skeptical of his theories. Peter Dodson, a fellow paleontologist, was once a non-believer but is now a Horner convert.

PETER DODSON, Academy of Natural Sciences: I myself have seen his evidence, I've been to the site. And he has succeeded in convincing me and I've argued in favor of his conclusions that these dinosaurs were indeed being cared for by their mothers.

MASSIAH [voice-over]: Besides trying to convert fellow paleontologists to his theories. Horner is also devoted to changing the public's attitude towards these long-maligned beasts.

Mr. HORNER: Dinosaurs have bad press and they're thought of as stupid, cruel loners, probably because that's the way we think of reptiles. All reptiles. And it's an idea that has just stayed with us since the 1800s or early 1900s.

MASSIAH [voice-over]: To change that image from the ground up, Horner has written his own children's book about a dinosaur named Maya. In fact, it is Horner's childlike fascination with dinosaurs that fuels his quest for finding out how these strange creatures lived.

Mr. HORNER: I think people that never grow out of liking dinosaurs are people with a lot of imagination. Kids have a lot of imagination, and I think as long as you have a really good imagination you can kind of imagine what these things were really like, and it makes them sort of magic. Whereas if you start losing your imagination, you just lose all the magic to them.

LEHRER: That report by Louis Massiah of WHYY, Philadelphia. There was actually some news on the dinosaur egg front yesterday, by the way. A nest of them has been found in the Soviet Union, the Soviet news agency reported. They were remarkably well preserved, and were the first ever found in the Soviet Union.

Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again, the main stories of the day. The bodies of two Americans murdered in the Teheran airport hijacking arrived in the United States. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was re-elected minority leader of the Senate. The Post Office raised the price of a first-class stamp to 22", starting in February.

And finally tonight, we close with some more words from William Schroeder, the man with the artificial heart. In his Louisville hospital bed he had a conversation by phone with President Reagan in the White House, and this is how it went.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Mr. Schroeder!

WILLIAM SCHROEDER, artificial heart recipient: Yes, sir.

Pres. REAGAN: I just wanted to call to say hello and to wish you the best. You certainly have impressed us all with your remarkable recovery, and we admire your strength and courage. And Nancy and I have just been two of a great many people who have been keeping score on you and saying a prayer.

Mr. SCHROEDER: Well, I sure appreciate that and I thank you for it.

Pres. REAGAN: I know they've got you on a tight schedule, and I don't want to tire you out, but I am delighted that your new heart is pumping away and that you're getting into dhape to be able to hike the hospital. And Nancy and I join your family and friends in wishing you the very best in the days to come.

Mr. SCHROEDER: I just wish that more people could take advantage of this. It's working terrific and just super. I'm up walking around, and riding all over the place, and it's really grand. But I got one question that I'd like to ask you. I've got a Social Security problem. I filed March of 1984 with Social Security, and I'm just getting a runaround. I'm not getting anything at all, and I just call on people today and just keep on calling and keep on calling, and I don't get anywhere.

Pres. REAGAN: Bill, I will get into it and find out what this situation is.

Mr. SCHROEDER: Okay.

Pres. REAGAN: All right.

Mr. SCHROEDER: I sure appreciate it.

Pres. REAGAN: Well, I'll get on it right away.

Mr. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. President.

Pres. REAGAN: All right.

Mr. SCHROEDER: All right, bye.

Pres. REAGAN: Bless you and good health.

Mr. SCHROEDER: Yes, thank you.

Pres. REAGAN: All right.

Mr. SCHROEDER: Bye.

Pres. REAGAN: Bye.

Mr. SCHROEDER: He always says, "The buck stops here," and that's exactly where it's going to stop.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim.

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