The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the headlines this Wednesday, the ruling coalition in Italy was in danger of falling over the cruise ship hijacking. Authorities confirmed finding two gunshot wounds in the body of Leon Klinghoffer. Two Americans won the Nobel Prize for chemistry, and 80,000 auto workers went on strike against Chrysler. We'll have the details in a moment. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: To begin our focus stories tonight we examine the hijack crisis in Italy with an Italian journalist. Then, is Reagan crisis policy causing more damage? George McGovern and Arnaud de Borchgrave disagree. Senators Barry Goldwater and Sam Nunn say why they want major reform of the military. Judy Woodruff talks with outgoing HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler, and tonight we introduce a new NewsHour feature, electronic cartoons by Ranon Lurie. News Summary.

MacNEIL: There were two dramatic developments in the hijacking story today. The Achille Lauro crisis threatened to topple the Italian government, and the body of the slain American passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, arrived in Rome from Syria. One of the major parties in the coalition government of Prime Minister Bettino Craxi withdrew from the government to protest the release of PLO leader Mohammed Abbas. The move by the Republican Party, whose leader, Giovanni Spadolini, is also the defense minister, appeared likely to cause the Craxi government to fall.

Meanwhile, a U.S. official said Klinghoffer's body, which washed up on the Syrian coast earlier this week, had two gunshot wounds. An unofficial report from Syria after an informal autopsy there said there were three -- two in the forehead and one in the chest. We have a report from Rod Stevens of Visnews.

ROD STEVENS, Visnews [voice-over]: Mr. Klinghoffer's body was taken inside an unmarked van to Damascus airport. FBI agents followed by car. Draped in the American flag, his body was carried from the van to be loaded on board a flight to Rome. As the procedure was carried out, armed security guards stood by and the FBI agents seemed anxious to keep prying eyes away. Correspondents and cameramen wereforced to stand well back as the coffin was wheeled to the plane. At Rome airport, security was again tight as the plane carrying the body of the dead American touched down, but once again cameramen were ordered to film from a distance. The body of Mr. Klinghoffer has become the single most important element in the case against the Palestinian hijackers. In Rome his body will undergo a full autopsy to determine the exact cause of death.

LEHRER: The official U.S. confirmation of the finding of Leon Klinghoffer's body came from the State Department in Washington. Spokesman Bernard Kalb did the talking.

BERNARD KALB, State Department spokesman: Syrian physicians have made a positive identification of Mr. Klinghoffer's remains. The identification was based on fingerprint and dental comparisons as well as the physical description of Mr. Klinghoffer. As to the question of the cause of death, that cannot be determined without an autopsy, but the body did show indications of two apparent gunshot wounds, one in the head and the other in the back.

REPORTER: Can you draw any conclusions from this regarding the statements made by some Palestinians that Mr. Klinghoffer died of natural causes?

Mr. KALB: Gunshot wounds are not exactly natural causes.

LEHRER: Six U.S. senators urged Secretary Shultz to post a $500,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Palestinian leader Mohammed Abbas. Abbas was set free by Italy and then by Yugoslavia, despite U.S. pleas he was the real mastermind behind the ship hijacking. Attorney General Meese spoke again today about the evidence the U.S. has against Abbas.

EDWIN MEESE III, Attorney General: We do have evidence as to complicity of Mohammed Abu Abbas, which is the basis for the complaint that was filed and the warrant which has been issued. I think there are good reasons not to go public until he is apprehended, and that further judicial proceedings may become necessary. I think that to go forward with the evidence in advance of his apprehension might possibly prejudice the trial, it might be held to prejudice an ultimate trial once he is apprehended. I'm saying that there is sufficient evidence to charge him as a principal in the hijacking of the cruise ship.

LEHRER: Authoritative reports say a major part of that evidence is the transcript of a radio conversation between Abbas and the four hijackers aboard the ship. Israeli intelligence taped the transmission and turned it over to the United States. This afternoon they released this excerpt of Abbas' conversation with one of the hijackers: "Listen to me well. First of all, the passengers should be treated very well. In addition, you must apologize to them and the ship's crew and to the captain and tell them our objective was not to take control of the ship. Tell them what your main objective is. Can you hear me well?" Abbas has denied involvement in the hijacking. In a radio interview broadcast in Rome yesterday, Abbas said he was only trying to free the ship.

MacNEIL: President Reagan ordered action against what he termed unfair trade practices in the European Common Market and South Korea. He ordered his trade representative, Clayton Yeutter, to begin proceedings against the Europeans for subsidizing wheat exports, and Korea for not protecting U.S. authors from pirating.

In other economic news, some 80,000 workers struck Chrysler plants in the U.S. and Canada. Pickets appeared outside 50 Chrysler facilities in 16 states and six in Canada. United Auto Workers president Owen Beeber said he called the strike because the company had failed to give job security and benefits comparable to the packages at Ford and General Motors.

In other economic news, output at U.S. factories fell in September for the second time in three months. The drop was a tenth of a percent, compared to a six-tenths of a percent increase in August. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 17 points to a new all-time high of 1368.50.

LEHRER: Two key U.S. senators today launched a campaign to reform the Pentagon. Senators Barry Goldwater, Republican of Arizona, and Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia, said the security of the United States depends on some fundamental changes being made. They said, among other things, that competition among the services too often overshadows the strategic needs of the country. Goldwater is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Nunn is the committee's ranking Democrat. The Pentagon, in a statement yesterday, challenged the senators' claim reform is needed, and today Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, also an Armed Services Committee member, said he too did not believe the system was broken and needed fixing.

MacNEIL: In other foreign news, British police charged four Asians in Leicester with plotting to assassinate Indian Prime Minister Gandhi during his visit to Britain this week. Gandhi left Britain last night after a two-day visit.

In the Philippines, Senator Paul Laxalt, President Reagan's special envoy, had talks with President Ferdinand Marcos. The administration is reported to be deeply concerned about the deteriorating economic and political situation in the Philippines, where the U.S. has strategic bases. U.S. and Philippine officials refused all comment on the visit.

LEHRER: Blacks and other minority Americans are not as healthy and they die younger than whites. That was the central conclusion of a report issued today by Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler. She said most of the early deaths could be prevented by changes in eating, smoking and drinking habits. She also pointed to the high murder rate among black males.

MARGARET HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services: Homicide is the leading cause of deaths for black males aged 15 to 44. Homicides among native Americans are 70 higher than for the general population. The chance of becoming a homicide victim for white persons is one in 240. For blacks and other non-whites, the lifetime chance is one in 47. Homicide is a public health scourge as unheralded as it is unwelcome.

MacNEIL: Another bomb exploded today in Salt Lake City, critically injuring the driver of the car in which it was planted. Police say the explosive appeared to be similar to the two bombs which killed two people yesterday in separate incidents in Salt Lake. Tuesday's victims were officers of the CFS Financial Corporation, a faltering national investment company.

LEHRER: And finally in the news of this day, two American physicists accomplished the unusual. They won the Nobel Prize for chemistry rather than physics. Herbert Hauptman and Jerome Karle were honored by Sweden's Royal Academy of Sciences for determining a crystal structure that has led to the development of many modern drugs. Hauptman is a research director at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington; Karle is director of research at the Medical Foundation of Buffalo in Buffalo, New York. The Nobel Prize for physics was also awarded today; it went to Klaus von Klitzing of West Germany for an electron discovery related to computers and other high technology developments.

MacNEIL: That's our news summary. Coming up,the political crisis in Italy, with an Italian journalists, two views of President Reagan's handling of the hijack aftermath with George McGovern and journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave. Two senators, Barry Goldwater and Sam Nunn, explain why they're calling for major reform of the military. Judy Woodruff talks to the outgoing HHS secretary, Margaret Heckler, and we introduce a new nightly feature on the NewsHour, electronic editorial cartoons by Ranon Lurie.

LEHRER: And now we see something brand new, a daily editorial cartoon. Our cartoonist is Ranon Lurie, whose cartoons are already published in 57 countries. Every day, beginning today, he will draw one for us using a special technique he developed. It involves what we call an electronic paintbox and a computer plus a few sound effects and a lot of imagination. Here, then, is the debut of Ranon Lurie, the NewsHour's and television's first daily editorial cartoonist. [Ronald Reagan hunting vulture hijacker; bags turkey dinner labeled "national support"] Achille Lauro: Political Fallout

MacNEIL: Tomorrow, Italy's Prime Minister Bettino Craxi plans to go before Parliament in an effort to save his government. Craxi has been sharply criticized by the Reagan administration for his decision to let PLO official Mohammed Abbas leave Italy, even though the U.S. wanted him held for extradition. Italy's defense minister, Giovanni Spadolini, quit today, taking his Republican Party out of the five-party coalition. That raised the possibility that Craxi's government might fall, but he refused to resign before speaking to Parliament tomorrow. We get more now on events in Italy from Anzo Careto, U.S. bureau chief of the newspaper La Stampa. Mr. Careto, is the government going to fall, would you say, this evening?

Mr. CARETO: I think it's probably going to fall. We are not sure yet. What happened is that there was a cooling-off meeting in between Mr. Craxi and the defense minister, who was also prime minister before Craxi, Spadolini. Spadolini refused to come to an accommodation, held the meeting of the Republican Party, and the three ministers from the Republican Party in the Italian government have resigned. Now, there is discussion going on if to go to the Parliament or to have Mr. Craxi just turn in his resignation to the president of the party.

MacNEIL: Which would be the usual thing in this situation?

Mr. CARETO: Which would be the usual thing, yes.

MacNEIL: He couldn't go on governing with just the four parties? He wouldn't have enough support in Parliament to do so?

Mr. CARETO: No, he would. Numerically he would. The four parties, the Christian Democrats, the Socialists, the Social-Democrats and the Liberals, all together have 51 of the vote in Parliament. With the Republicans they get 55, 56. So they could govern on their own. But it is very difficult because at the moment Spadolini has put on the table the question of the Italian policy towards the Middle East.

MacNEIL: Now, what does Spadolini really want? Is he prepared to bring down the government just because he's annoyed that Abbas was let go?

Mr. CARETO: Well, the situation is not as simple as that. Mr. Spadolini was prime minister when Italy was following a Middle East policy very close to the American ones. He is the man who sent the Italian troops into Beirut with the American troops, for instance. And he did dissent from Mr. Craxi when there was the Israeli raid on Tunisia. He thought that Mr. Craxi should not have criticized as sharply as he did the Israeli government. Spadolini at first objected to the waysthat Craxi had followed in taking the decision to let Abbas go. Mr. Craxi consulted with the foreign minister, Mr. Andreotti; he did not consult with Mr. Spadolini. After that, the question became not only of form but of substance, and they feel the United States had a little part in it.

MacNEIL: A little part. Does that mean that Spadolini, the defense minister, wouldn't have mounted this attack if the Reagan administration had not sharply criticized Craxi for the same thing?

Mr. CARRICHIO: Oh, he would have mounted it all the same but he took comfort from --

MacNEIL: He took comfort from the Reagan attack?

Mr. CARETO: I would say so, yes.

MacNEIL: Well, will Italians think that the Reagan administration has therefore indirectly had a part in bringing down their government?

Mr. CARETO: The Italians do think so.

MacNEIL: They do think so?

Mr. CARETO: The Italians do think so. The Italians object to the way that the White House has been objecting to them about the release of Mr. Abbas.

MacNEIL: Is it likely in the Parliament tomorrow, if it goes that far, that a majority in the Parliament would disagree with Spadolini and say that Craxi did the right thing in handling the crisis and give him a vote of confidence?

Mr. CARETO: Well, It's possible, and this is where Italian politics come in, because the Communist Party is having a very ambiguous role in this --

MacNEIL: Just so we understand, the Communist Party is a big lump in the Parliament, a big presence, but not in the government. They're in opposition --

Mr. CARETO: They are in opposition. They are outside the government. But they do have many votes in Parliament. The Communist Party has, all the way along since the raid, the Israeli raid on Tunisia, the Communist Party has been helping Mr. Craxi. Now, this is very unusual because Mr. Craxi took the Socialists away from the Communist alliance. And it's possible, therefore, that if they go to a vote tomorrow, in some way some of the Communists either vote for Mr. Craxi or abstain. But if Mr. Craxi did get a vote of confidence through the Communists, he would have put his line on the same vote because his whole program has been based on anticommunism; he could not stay in power with the Communist vote or with the Communist abstention.

MacNEIL: And so far in postwar Italian politics, although the Communists have always had a very big vote, they have not directly had a part in governing the country.

Mr. CARETO: No. In the '70s where much preoccupation was noted here at the White House, the Communists took a benevolent attitude to a coalition government. They were practically taking part from outside into some of the decisional process. But they never were directly part.

MacNEIL: So a chief victim of this whole Achille Lauro hijacking could be Bettino Craxi?

Mr. CARETO: Well, it could be Bettino Craxi, and Italy is going to lose a lot. The crisis comes at a very bad point. We had a tax law just going through which was --

MacNEIL: And this has been a stable government, this one, for Italy.

Mr. CARETO: This has been -- we have had more governments since the end of the war since you had presidents in more than two centuries, and this was going -- everybody thought was going to establish a new record of perseverance, three years. It's actually going to fall, if it falls tomorrow, after 2 years.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Careto. Jim?

LEHRER: Columnist Meg Greenfield predicted in this week's Newsweek magazine that it won't be long before the American argument over the U.S. response to the ship hijacking will begin, with American liberals saying, among other things, the U.S. unnecessarily hurt relations with too many of its allies and waylaid the peace process in the Middle East; with American conservatives saying, among other things, the United States did too little too late, and will likely have no impact on terrorism or anything else. We test the Greenfield thesis now with prominent liberal, former senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, and prominent conservative Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor in chief of The Washington Times, and a former senior editor of Newsweek.

Senator McGovern, does the government of Italy deserve to fall because of what it did in releasing Mr. Abbas, in your opinion?

GEORGE McGOVERN: No, I don't think so. I want to make clear, though, that I agree with President Reagan's decision to force that plane down, to make a landing and to punish the hijackers. I don't think there's any question about that. If I would fault the administration in any way, it's the fact that they were so harsh in their public rhetoric about both the Egyptian government and the Italian government. I think those things should have been handled a little more diplomatically. These are both friends of the United States; they're both crucial to our own security. And I regret very much that this Italian government appears on the verge of collapse. I think it was unnecessary. I think they made some mistakes. I think they mishandled the situation in releasing Mr. Abbas, but I think we could have been a little more patient and understanding about what was going on.

LEHRER: What's your view of the Italian question, specifically?

ARNAUD de BORCHGRAVE: Well, I heard just before coming on the set from our correspondent in Rome that the Christian Democrats themselves were asking for the withdrawal from the government, so -- and this afternoon I flew down from New York with the Italian ambassador to the United Nations. He did not expect his government to survive this crisis. Where I would disagree with the senator is that I don't think that the Italians had much choice in releasing Abbas, given the fact that we ourselves requested from the Italian government their immediate intercession with the PLO, with whom they have very good contacts, as you know, to make sure that nothing happened to the hostages. Arafat then turns to Abbas, sends him to Cairo; they get the hijackers off the ship; the hostages are released unharmed. Then suddenly Mr. Abbas is taken over in this plane with the hijackers, lands back in Italy. What choice did the Italians have at that point but release Abbas?

Sen. McGOVERN: I don't --

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: Since we asked them to help!

Sen. McGOVERN: I don't quarrel with that. The only question I would raise is whether they'd need to do it quite so rapidly. We had indicated that we had some evidence coming that implicated Mr. Abbas. I think it would have been the better part of wisdom on their part to wait and see what that evidence was, but the thrust of what I said initially is right in line with what you've just said, that we need to recognize that the Italians had a different political situation than we did.

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: So did the Egyptians.

Sen. McGOVERN: So did the Egyptians. The Egyptians had promised safe passage to those hostages if they returned the ship and freed the 400 passengers. There's at least some grounds for believing that they didn't know that anybody had been killed at that point. So under those circumstances I think we ought to go easy on Italy and Egypt, and if we're going to harsh on anybody it ought to be the hijackers.

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: Absolutely. Here you see a conservative and a liberal agreeing. I'm sorry to disappoint you.

LEHRER: No, no. That's all right. Someone suggested, though, that the reason that both Italy and Egypt reacted the way they did was out of sheer fear that PLO terrorists would come and get them and cause problems in their country.

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: No question about that and, in fact, as long as they're holding seven Palestianians -- the four and the other three that they have arrested -- they will obviously become increasingly the target for terrorist attacks. All over the world there have been threats, in Beirut and other places, against Italian embassies and Italian ambassadors. Ever since the late '70s the Italian government has had a tacit agreement with the PLO; they would allow Palestinians to move across Italy with impunity, going from country A to country X, provided they never touched anything Italian. They violated that, of course, by taking over an Italian ship -- admittedly by mistake, since the original target, as you well know, was in Israel, in the port of Ashdod.

LEHRER: Where does the PLO -- how does the PLO come out of all this, Senator McGovern?

Sen. McGOVERN: Well, I think the great tragedy is that there was some grounds for belief that the more moderate side of the PLO was moving in conjunction with King Hussein into the peace process. I think that hope was shared even by some elements in the Israeli government. The regrettable thing about this is that it casts a cloud over the capacity of Mr. Arafat either to control the PLO or even some indication that maybe he himself may have been involved in this incident. That we won't know, I guess, for some time. But in either case, it jeopardizes his reputation, his possibility as a reliable negotiator in the peace process. I don't think that's fatal. I think it's still very important that the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Jordanians and others get back into negotiations leading to some kind of a settlement.

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: That's where I probably would disagree with the senator, in that I've been covering the Middle East on and off for 30 years and you remember the Sisco Plan, the Rodgers Plan, the Kissinger Plan, dozens of plans, all centered on the West Bank as a possible solution to the Palestinian problem. I have never believed there will be a solution there. There is an irreversible fact of history, since 1967. One day I think there will be a solution on the East Bank, which is already de facto a Palestinian state today, and King Hussein is primarily -- and I've interviewed him many times -- is primarily interested in the survival of the Hashemite dynasty. Without the Hashemite dynasty that would be a Palestinian state today since it is 60 Palestinian.

LEHRER: Do you think Arafat is just out of it? Do you agree with Senator McGovern there?

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: With Arafat and the PLO, and having followed them for years -- more years than I care to remember -- there is a such a revolutionary dynamic built into that movement that I think it prevents them from accepting the responsibilities of statehood anywhere.

Sen. McGOVERN: Well, I would disagree on that point. I think we've had a terrible setback in the peace process. In my judgment that's the principal casualty of this hijacking incident. It was one of the casualties earlier of the Israeli decision to hit the camp, the headquarters in Tunisia. That led to the breakoff in negotiations between Egypt and Israel. What I regret is that an incident of this kind feeds the forces of extremism, of jingoism on both sides, and it does deal a severe blow to the process of negotiation, to the forces of moderation and reason. I happen to think that the Peres government in Israel is a moderate government that wants a settlement. I think there are elements in the PLO, possibly including Mr. Arafat, that could be brought along towards a settlement. I think this is what King Hussein is trying to negotiate. And, incidentally, he's the one national leader in this whole thing that comes off best, in my judgment, in terms of keeping his head, keeping --

LEHRER: He hasn't said anything thus far, has he?

Sen. McGOVERN: Correct. But I think it would be catastrophic to the peace of the Middle East and hopes for that area for us to write off the negotiating process as hopeless.

LEHRER: But you do that, right?

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: No, I don't write it off. I think obviously one should continue the negotiating process. What I was merely suggesting is that I don't think it's going anywhere.

LEHRER: Don't bet any money on it, right? Now, let's go back to the U.S. action in forcing down that Egyptian plane. There has been tremendous euphoria by, you know, by Americans everywhere. Do you expect that to die down as the days go on? Should it die down? Is it something we should be proud of because of a message that was sent to terrorists, etc.? What's your view of that?

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: Well, obviously it's something we should be proud of, since it was carried out flawlessly without a drop of blood being shed, and I hope that similar actions will take place as faultlessly in the future. But obviously it's going to die down. Everything dies down. Everything moves faster and faster. You may remember the KAL 007 when we thought this was the end of any kind of negotiation with the Soviet Union, took us to the brink of war. I suggested on a national show that it would all be over within a month and we'd be back talking to the Russians. Now we're about to meet at the summit with them. So nothing has a lasting impact.

LEHRER: What's the message, though? What impact, if any, will it have on terrorism and potential terrorists?

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: Well, I think that they do get the message that we are now serious about it. Before it was mostly talk and no action, but to think that terrorism is going to end because of one action in the Mediterranean that ended successfully for us, that really would be suffering from terminal naivete to believe that. We are going to be seeing more and more acts of international terrorism. This is low-intensity, low-risk warfare with tremendously high geopolitical payoff when it succeeds. Witness the fact that the Italian government may collapse.

Sen. McGOVERN: I'm not usually in the business of defending President Reagan, but I have to defend him in this recent case in the handling of this airplane situation. I think he was entirely right in ordering that plane to be escorted to Italy and the hijackers turned over for legal action. But I'd like to add to that two things. First of all, I also applaud the President in previous instances where he recognized that he didn't have that option. There were people who were crying out for a bombing raid or some other kind of effort of that kind, and he very correctly pointed out he didn't know who to shoot at. You have to have somebody to go after before you can undertake a reprisal. This time it was clear and he moved quickly. He was equally right in not doing it in previous instances. I hope, further, that this won'tlead to the conclusion that this is going to end terrorism. It's not. The root cause of the hatred and the bitterness in the Middle East is that festering dispute between the state of Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab powers, and that's what has to be addressed. I think time is running out before terrorism explodes into another major conflict.

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: I would have to disagree that Israel is the root cause of the problem.

Sen. McGOVERN: I didn't say Israel. I said the conflict between Israel and the --

Mr. de BORCHGRAVE: I would even have to disagree with that, since the Arabs have been happily slaughtering each other for centuries.

Sen. McGOVERN: Well, the basic problem in the Middle East today, I think you'd agree, is the clash over the Palestinian issue and the underlying quarrel between the Arab powers and the state of Israel.

LEHRER: Gentlemen, on that note of disagreement -- I don't know what we did to Meg Greenfield's thesis, but thank you. Thank you both for being with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: Still to come in tonight's NewsHour, the senators pushing for reform in the military. Barry Goldwater and Sam Nunn, tell why. And we talk with outgoing secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler. Military Reform

MacNEIL: The Pentagon, which has never lacked for critics in Washington, today added two more. The criticism goes beyond that usually heard about too much spending, and the critics are not the usual complainers. They are Senator Barry Goldwater, the Arizona Republican who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and his ranking Democratic colleague, Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. They released a report today calling for massive reforms in the way the military does business. The broad scope of the Goldwater-Nunn staff report was too much for some Pentagon supporters. One of them, Virginia Republican John Warner, also a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, urged his Senate colleagues to slow down.

Sen. JOHN WARNER, (R) Virginia: I disagree with the bluntness and your statement that this system is broke. It's not broke. We're about to take under consideration this morning the incisions to perform open heart surgery on the Department of Defense, and I think we've got to proceed with extreme caution and care. Candor, yes. But we must moderate our bluntness because this defense structure is protecting us today and our allies as much as it was yesterday and will tomorrow.

MacNEIL: The fact that Goldwater and Nunn are considered two of the leading defense experts in the Congress adds weight to their proposals. They join us now for a newsmaker interview from Capitol Hill. Now, Senator Goldwater, your colleague Senator Warner just says it ain't broke. Senator Weinberger has said it ain't broke. How is it broke?

Sen. BARRY GOLDWATER: Well, it's not a matter, is it broke; I happen to think it is. The Congress has not exercised the responsibility of oversight over the military establishment in 30 years, and it's been since 1922 since we did it right. There are many, many things that the Congress has been doing during these years that have added to the organizational problems of the Pentagon that reflect on the organizational and operational problems of the military. We happen to have right now, in uniform, the best men I have ever known in my life. But the other end of it, the operational end of it, the organizational end of it, leaves a lot to be doubted, and in fact this study that we have just released the results of has taken over two years. It's the most consummate, complete studyever made, I believe, in the history of the Republic on the military. We don't have any intentions of hurting anything in the Pentagon, anything in uniform any place. I can understand Senator Warner's concern; he was secretary of the Navy.

MacNEIL: Senator Nunn, could you list for us what you and Senator Goldwater think are the biggest weaknesses in the military structure today?

Sen. SAM NUNN: Well, we believe, first of all, that the people out there fighting are the ones who deserve the organizational support. I think it's very important that we give the commander-in-chief in the field, and these are the ones we call the unified commanders, that we give them authority both in peacetime and in wartime so that they can do the job. So I would list that as number one, giving them the authority. And, by the way, that was the recommendation of President Eisenhower back in the 1950s.

MacNEIL: How do they not have the authority now?

Sen. NUNN: Well, they have jurisdiction. For instance, we have an admiral out in the Pacific and we have an Army man in the European theater, and they are in charge not only of their respective services but of the component commands, the Air Force, the Army and the Marine Corps -- all the services. But those component commanders go to the service chiefs back in Washington, in the Pentagon, for their resources, for their promotions, for their materiel, for their logistics. And many times the unified commander simply is not really in a position of commanding his components. Now, that's the case in peacetime; in wartime we hope we don't have that. But we have to, I think, take steps in peacetime to make sure that the wartime readiness is there. So I would list that as number one. The Joint Chiefs -- everything with the word "joint" in it in the Pentagon gets relegated to last place on the list. And that's one of the unfortunate things. I agree with Senator Goldwater. We've got fine men and women in the military now. I think we've made improvements in the last five yers. This is a historic problem. But we have a group of people who are all-stars and they are being pulled together in contingency situations to play on one team, and yet they aren't used to practicing, they aren't used to playing on one team. Senator Goldwater made that point this morning. So we're trying to get the good people out there and make them better by a coordinated team effort. And, as President Eisenhower also said back in the 1950s, anything other than a minor skirmish in today's world is going to require more than one military service. It's going to require a joint-type effort, and that's what we're really striving to improve.

MacNEIL: Senator Goldwater, to what extent is the rivalry or the competition among the individual services getting in the way of effective defense, do you believe?

Sen. GOLDWATER: Well, you've hit pretty close to one of the big problems that we face, the fact that the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually wear two hats. He is the commander of one of our units, the Army, Navy, Air Force or the Marines, and at the same time he has to wear the hat of a Joint Chief, and that in itself is causing friction. They're not able to give their whole attention to the Joint Chiefs' problems because they have to divide part of that attention, even though they don't want to, but it's divided, nevertheless.

MacNEIL: I saw your earpiece fell out there, Senator, while they're putting it back in let me talk to Senator Nunn again for a moment. You want to do away with the Joint Chief system, is that it?

Sen. NUNN: No, we haven't decided that yet. The staff report recommended that, but no senators have accepted these recommendations. We believe that the study points out problems that need legitimate and intense attention, but we also believe there is more than one way to solve a problem. So that's the staff recommendation, that we do away with the Joint Chiefs as they now exist, keep those people as service chiefs, and then create another group of people that would be overlaid on top of them that would be people going out in terms of their career, but they would represent all the services. I'm not sold on that recommendation yet, but I am a firm believer that we have to give a stronger role to the military in the overall scope of things, and the way to do that is to make the joint advice more worthy of civilian attention, and by that civilian leadership, which is part of our constitutional process, I mean the secretary of defense and the commander-in-chief, the president. I think the military will be greatly strengthened in the long run by having joint advice be much more solid and more attuned to what is the real world.

MacNEIL: Senator Goldwater, the Pentagon said yesterday that, for example, the successful intercept of the Palestinian hijackers' plane showed that the military system is really working well. Are there recent examples that show it is not working well?

Sen. GOLDWATER: Well, you could take the example of Grenada. Grenada is a very small island. We sent troops down there to take Grenada, but there were many things that went wrong that, had those things gone wrong in a bigger conflict, it would have been disastrous for us. For example, 52 different messages were sent, highly classified messages, that were never delivered because there was no communications setup in this combined force. I think it took several hours or almost a day before the invaders knew that there were over 200 students in a building quite a distance from the building that they were attacking. This is just one example of the way things can become uncoordinated in the Pentagon when there is no practice of coordination. We could cite many, many examples in World War II. We could recite the examples of Vietnam, of Korea, go on and on and on. We've been lucky. We've lost the last two wars we've fought because of this type of interference.

MacNEIL: Senator Nunn, Senator Goldwater said -- I think you both said today at your press conference that you were going to be unyielding in your determination to get legislation to introduce certain reforms. What kind of support do you think you have in the Congress for this?

Sen. NUNN: Well, I don't remember the word "unyielding" but we are dedicated to trying to correct these problems. We have not decided, though, first of all, what legislation we're going to introduce because a lot of these things, if the President decided he wanted to, and if the secretary of defense decided he wanted to, they could be solved, a lot of them, not all of them, without legislation. So we don't really have firm legislation in mind yet. We're going to have a series of hearings. We're going to listen to constructive critics. We're going to listen to the administration and their views, and then we're going to decide on legislation. And what I hope will happen, I hope that we will be able to get the majority of the Armed Services Committee together on one piece of legislation and introduce that next February. As far as the odds, I think Senator Goldwater said today, and I agree with this assessment, that the odds are against revamping anything that's been going on this long and is this large and has this much power. So the odds are against us, but I think the odds are less against us now than they would have been several years ago.

MacNEIL: Senator Goldwater, Senator Nunn praised you today for not yielding to pressure you were getting to back off this issue. Describe the kind of pressure you were getting and what it indicates about the forces arrayed against you in this.

Sen. GOLDWATER: Well, pressure comes in various forms. I have many, many close friends that I served with in the Air Force and the Army. I have spent most of my life in that business. And I hear from them. They call me up and say, "What are you trying to do?" And when I get through explaining to them and recalling to them as commanders what they had to put up with, they say, "My God, we should have done that a long time ago." And when we can convince the officials in the Pentagon that we're not after their hides, we're not after their jobs; we merely want to help them do a better job. One example, the secetary of defense has to listen to 41 people -- not 41 people a week, but every half hour if they want to talk to him. Now, that is wrong. I'm convinced that not more than five or six can handle that kind of a job. And then what's the type person that he has to listen to? Usually a man with absolutely no military experience at all. And we're talking about the men who run our armed forces who are supposed to defend us in time of need. I want the experience of trained military people, I don't want to bring in a lot of political hacks.

MacNEIL: Senator Nunn, if what you think you are pushing for took effect, would it have an impact on the budget? Would defense cost less, would it be more efficient in a money sense?

Sen. NUNN: Well, I don't think, Robin, you can put a price tag on what we're trying to accomplish. We aren't calling this an efficiency report, although we hope it will improve efficiency. We would call it more nearly an effectiveness report. We really want to make the military more effective. And if by being more effective we can convince our adversary that we're more effective -- or adversaries; we make that plural in this world -- then the greatest savings in the world is never to have a war because you're prepared. So that's the goal -- to preserve peace through strength.

MacNEIL: Well, I'd like to thank you, Senator Nunn and Senator Goldwater, for joining us this evening.

Sen. GOLDWATER: Thank you.

Sen. NUNN: Thank you. View from the Secretary

LEHRER: There was bleak news today on the health of America's racial minorities. It came from the secretary of Health and Human Services, as we hear in this interview to be conducted by Judy Woodruff. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Today's report showed a wide gap between health conditions of whites and blacks in this country. Among other things, it found blacks and other minority groups die younger than whites, and that many of these deaths and illnesses can be prevented. The report was released this morning by Margaret Heckler, the secretary of health and human services, who will be leaving that post soon to take up another one in the administration. Ms. Heckler, I want to ask you about that in a moment, but first this report. Just how great is the disparity between health conditions for whites and blacks in the United States?

MARGARET HECKLER: Well, there are many indicators of this disparity, but I think one that we would all appreciate especially is the fact that in terms of longevity, the difference in longevity the difference in longevity, expected longevity, for the white population versus the blacks is five years. And, in fact, that disparity is mirrored sometimes at a greater rate of difference in virtually every disease category. So that I have been -- I was prompted to ask why. Since this was not a new piece of information, Judy, what's happened is, throughout our history I've learned that since this department, HHS, has been keeping records as the official health statistician for the country, we've learned that the disparity has always existed. And I ask why and what could be done about it. So that that was the purpose of this whole scientific inquiry.

WOODRUFF: And what did you find? Obviously there are many, many reasons, but can you boil it down?

Sec. HECKLER: Well, this is the first time that we ever convened an in-house task force of programmatic specialists working on just the issues of minority health. Why did this health gap exist, and what can we do about it? They met with over 400 experts. They have ultimately completed over seven volumes, the benchmark in minority health, and among the things that they learned is that there are many myths that are prevalent in minority communities. For example, surveys show that among black people that there was a sense of hopelessness about cancer. Therefore they did not go to a physician early and ask for help. So early detection and the developments that could extend survivability were never the benefits that the black population enjoyed.

WOODRUFF: So the disparities were cancer? Were they specific in their --

Sec. HECKLER: Well, they were in virtually every disease category. But we separated out actually six categories, such as cardiovascular, cancer, homicide -- which is the second-largest -- second leading cause of death for the blacks -- and that's amazing.

WOODRUFF: Let me just stop you. It's curious to some people that you would classify homicide as a health problem. How did you make that decision?

Sec. HECKLER: Well, our specialists, looking at the gamut of causes of mortality, realized that this was a leading cause and that, contrary to the myth that the black offender always attacks a white victim, in fact the statistics show that the offenders tend to conduct their assault on members of their own race -- blacks on blacks, whites on whites. But, for example, for black males aged 15 to 44, the leading cause of death is homicide. For a woman, for example, the rate of lifetime chance for a black woman to be involved in a homocide is one out of 106. For a white woman, one out of 369. Now, these deaths are public health problems, and that's why we chose this category.

WOODRUFF: All right, now what can the government, what can the Department of Health and Human Services do about it? You specifically recommended, I understand, in this report that the government not spend any more money. How can you be so sure that not spending money is the right answer?

Sec. HECKLER: Well, the fact is that since the gap has always existed and the government has always funded programs for minorities as well as for the general population, money alone was not the answer to the problem. In fact, no one had looked at this disparity. We at HHS, which is the largest domestic agency of this government, decided that, internally, with programmatic specialists on the task force, very distinguished people, that we could, within our own department, change the targeting of the programs to avoid and to maximize prevention, which is really what this whole task force report is about.

WOODRUFF: You're talking about public education, is that right?

Sec. HECKLER: Public education that's culturally specific, that is targeted to minorities, that takes into account some of their preferences and lifestyle and diet, and brings to them a message that others in America have already received and are actually living by.

WOODRUFF: But, for example, what do you say -- we know that some health professionals who deal with minorities say, for example, if we could spend another dollar for prenatal care we could save eight to 10 dollars later in terms of babies who are born with problems.

Sec. HECKLER: Yes. Well, I think prenatal care is really very, very important. If you look at the total spectrum of health issues, the analysis will differ from that which a single physician, even the most caring and competent person, would have. As you look across the board, looking at infant mortality, which is related to lack of prenatal care, the issues involved, of terribly high, for example, teenage pregnancy rate, smoking by pregnant women greatly increases the risk of low birth rate and so forth. So that money alone, if simply pursued along the usual channels of programmatic investment, will not change the gap because the gap has existed since the beginning of recorded time.

WOODRUFF: You say, you stress that prenatal care is important and yet we know that the administration 1986 budget called for eliminating, doing away with, the family planning program, which incorporates some of that. How does that square with what you recommend --

Sec. HECKLER: That's a much broader issue. Family planning is an umbrella issue that encompasses many different specific programs. But in terms of prenatal care --

WOODRUFF: But isn't that part of it? Isn't prenatal care part of the program?

Sec. HECKLER: It is potentially one of the factors, but we were very specific. We looked at 40 disease categories, and then we settled on eight that were specifically important and six that comprised the 80 of the difference in health gains and the excess deaths. Thse six factors can be modified by behavior, by greater research, by health professional developments, by lifestyle changes, by education that is specific, and we felt that these approaches could be advanced fruitfully today without spending an extra dime, by simply re-allocating resources within our department.

WOODRUFF: Bottom line, though. How much responsibility in all this does the government have?

Sec. HECKLER: The government has a role to play, the federal government, state government and local and, truly, the community. We feel very strongly -- we brought in community leaders and, today, the black physicians' organization committed to carrying out and implementing the directions that this report has actually set out for the American people.

WOODRUFF: And you feel confident that it's --

Sec. HECKLER: I think it's going to work, and I think that we have really a dynamic document which will be implemented in the department in the future and changed, I think, many times, but sets out an agenda for action for the minority population that really has never been identified before.

WOODRUFF: All right, the point we mentioned a few minutes ago, that you were recently asked by the President to leave the Department of Health and Human Services and become ambassador to Ireland. He called it a promotion, but a lot of people in Washington are saying it really wasn't a promotion. How do you view it?

Sec. HECKLER: Oh, I think it's a very exciting opportunity. I feel that the opportunity to develop an international experience, to represent the President in the country of my forebears is a very unique one. I consider it a very special challenge in public service, and one that complements all the other things that I've done.

WOODRUFF: But is it a promotion?

Sec. HECKLER: I think that you're comparing apples and oranges. Frankly, if I were to wish to have a contribution in my litany of involvements politically and in terms of public service, as one of Irish background, if I could in any way assist in the resolution of the terrible problem that has plagued Ireland for so many generations, the Northern Irish question, that to me would be the crowning glory of my whole career. So I consider this a very special opportunity, and I'm very honored that the President had confidence in me.

WOODRUFF: I understand that. At the same time, it's been widely reported that the chief of staff at the White House, Mr. Don Regan, was not happy with your performance and made it a point to, you know, move you out of that job. Is that what happened?

Sec. HECKLER: Well, the fact is that I've had a very good relationship with Don Regan, and, frankly speaking, I think the President's choice of his new ambassador in Ireland was one that serves my interests and my heritage well and is a very exciting one.

WOODRUFF: Do you think the fact that you're a woman had anything to do with the decision?

Sec. HECKLER: Well, I will be the first woman ambassador to Ireland, and the press in Ireland indicates that the Irish women are looking forward to this and that their society supports having a woman in this post. I think being a woman is always a factor in everything. And I think that there are very few women who are ambassadors, and therefore I will have the opportunity to again become a role model in a very unusual situation.

WOODRUFF: Without beating a dead horse, you were quoted in an interview the other day as saying that you felt there was somebody in the White House who had a vendetta against you, who was just out to get you. Who was that person?

Sec. HECKLER: Well, I think that the issues of the past have to be part of the past. I am concluding my work at HHS with enormous enthusiasm and pride, especially in the black health task force report of the specialists of the department that I think has made a contribution to history. I'm proud of my record there. I look forward to serving in a new capacity and new role with great enthusiasm. I frankly think it's foolish to look back.

WOODRUFF: And we'll be keeping an eye on you in Dublin.

Sec. HECKLER: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: Secretary Heckler, thank you for being with us.

Sec. HECKLER: My pleasure.

MacNEIL: Once again today's top stories. Italy's coalition government may fall over its handling of the Achille Lauro crisis. The State Department said gunshot wounds have been found on the body of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly American slain aboard the hijacked cruise liner. Two Americans have been awarded this year's Nobel Prize for chemistry. Auto workers in the U.S. and Canada have struck Chrysler. And the St. Louis Cardinals have won the National League pennant, beating the Los Angeles Dodgers 7 to 5 today in the sixth game of the playoffs.

Finally, another look at today's Lurie cartoon.

[Ranon Lurie editorial cartoon]

Good night, Jim.

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