The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the news today the president of El Salvador talked peace with the leaders of his government's political and military enemies. A major bank lowered its prime lending rate. Walter Mondale accused President Reagan of being soft on toxic waste, and President Reagan accused Walter Mondale of being weak on defense. Robert MacNeil is away tonight; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: The stories we focus special attention on tonight's NewsHour begin with today's breakthrough meeting in El Salvador. A State Department official and an administration critic join us to assess the outlook. Because we don't think those 30-second sound clips tell you all want to hear from the presidential candidates, we will have an extended version of what Ronald Reagan sounds like out on the stump these days. And, for another slice of the campaign we hold one of our issue and debates on the subject of environmental policy. A spokesman for each campaign joins us to thrash it out.

LEHRER: Most stories about and from El Salvador have been about death and war -- 30,000 deaths in a five-year-old civil war. Today in a church in the small mountain village of La Palma a new story was born, a story of talk and peace. President Jose Napoleon Duarte arrived in La Palma in the midst of a crowd and, for the first time since the civil war began five years ago, went to a meeting with rebel leaders. It was arranged through Roman Catholic clergymen, and it held was behind the doors of the local church. A few minutes later a group of rebel leaders arrived to begin a new dialogue that held at least some promise of a new initiative toward peace, but some observers warn that it is still too early to hope for an early end to the war. The meeting was adjourned late this afternoon, and the rebel leaders held a news conference. They said their opinion of the first meeting was positive. They saw it as a first step in a difficult situation, but a first step toward what they called peace with justice and liberty for the people after many years of struggle. The rebel leaders said many steps remain and there are still contradictions and difficulties to overcome, but they emphasized that they and President Duarte have reached an initial agreement with optimism for the future of the country. We will be coming back to the El Salvador story in a special focus segment later in the program.

In other international news today, Israel's already serious economic problems got much, much worse. Government figures show prices in Israel rose 21.4% in September. That rounds out to a yearly and staggering inflation rate of 440%. That official announcement was coupled with an informal statement by an Israeli official about help from Washington. The official said the United States had agreed to delay Israel's required repayment of a $500-million debt. Later in Washington, however, a State Department spokesman said he did not think that was accurate.

Judy?

WOODRUFF: Secretary of State Shultz is going to Toronto to meet Canada's foreign minister, Joe Clark. Canada's new Progressive Conservative government which came to power last month has made it clear it wants improved relations with the U.S. While in Canada, Secretary Shultz will be discussing trade and defense issues as well as the one major burr in the saddle of U.S.-Canadian relations, acid rain.

And, if Walter Mondale has his way, acid rain and other environmental issues will also be a burr for the Reagan campaign. Democratic presidential nominee Mondale called the race for the White House "wide open" today and accused the Reagan administration of making last-minute plans to clean up a toxic waste dump site after Mondale announced he was visiting it. Mondale stopped at a waste dump outside St. Louis, Missouri, saying when the people in the community needed the administration to protect their health, no one came around. Later, he spoke to students at a nearby high school.

WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential nominee: This morning I visited Weldon Springs toxic dump, a half a mile from this school. As you know, toxic chemicals, radioactive wastes are seeping into your ground water and threatening your community. Tom Eagleton, Congressman Volkmer and others have begged the federal government to clean up its mess. But for four years they wouldn't listen at all. Not long ago I announced that I would visit this site, and just by magic, three days before I arrived, they announced they were going to do something. I went to a toxic dump in Los Angeles a few months ago, and three days before I arrived, the bulldozers and everything -- it looked beautiful when I got there. If I only had 761 days to go in this campaign, I'd go to a dump every day and clean them all up.

WOODRUFF: Mondale also ridiculed the President today for what he said were past misstatements: "He may think you can recall nuclear missiles after they are launched," Mondale said, "but it just ain't so." The rhetoric coming from Mr. Reagan was even tougher today. During a three-city tour of the South, the President leveled one blast after another at Mondale, accusing him of having one of the weakest records in Congress on national defense and saying his tax plan would be like Russian roulette with a bullet in every chamber of the gun. But it was some a new apparent misstatements of the President's that also made news today. Mr. Reagan insists, in an interview with U.S. News and World Report published today, that he never called the Soviet Union an evil empire, but a check of one of President Reagan's speeches last year showed that he did use that description.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN [March 8, 1983]: So in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals I urge you to beware of the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourselves from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

WOODRUFF: The President also told U.S. News and World Report that he had not described the Soviets as "liars and cheats." In a January, 1981, press conference the President said "the Soviets reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat." Jim?

LEHRER: On the economic, business and labor front today, the nation's 10th largest bank, the Bankers Trust Company of New York, lowered its prime lending rate a half a percentage point from 12 3/4 to 12 1/4. No other banks followed that lead, so it is too early to assess the importance of it.

In Detroit, rank and file autoworkers ratified the new three-year contract with General Motors and the company was officially notified of that fact this morning. Nearly 250,000 workers voted on the contract, and 57.4% voted to accept. Also in Detroit today, the United Autoworkers and Ford officials reached a tentative agreement on a new contract. Officials said it follows the basic pattern of the GM deal, and it will now go to the Ford membership for a similar ratification vote. One final labor note: in Anaheim, California, tentative agreement was reached between the striking workers and the management of Disneyland.

And the government released a new statistic today about drunk driving. According to a National Transportation Safety Board study, three-fourths of those involved in drunk driving accidents are repeat offenders. The study analyzed 51 different accidents and found that many drivers in accidents where drinking was considered a cause had previously lost their licenses for driving while intoxicated. National Safety Board chairman James Burnett said he wants the states to make enforcement of current laws tougher.

JAMES BURNETT, chairman, National Transportation Safety Board: We are asking the government to take steps to ensure that states do not allow treatment programs to be used in place of license revocation or suspension, to support training on the problem of drunk driving and repeat offenders for judges who hear drunk driving cases, and to ensure that those judges have records on hand of alcohol-related traffic offenses prior to sentencing, and that the record of such offenses committed by a juvenile offender be carried into adulthood. I think what this suggests is that treatment programs should not be used in lieu of treating drunk driving as a dangerous crime. Treatment programs should be provided. We cannot afford to throw the 10% of the American public that are afflicted with alcohol abuse problems on the rubbish heap. We have to continue to try to save them, but we cannot pursue that strategy alone, especially when they have proven to be a danger to the American public, as have repeat-offender drunk drivers.

LEHRER: And there's an item of news from the Supreme Court. The Court agreed today to resolve another sticky church-state question: whether a community can be forced to provide public land for a nativity scene. It's a case from Scarsdale, New York, where a group of Protestant and Catholic churches sued the city government after it refused to allow such scenes in a public park in the center of Scarsdale. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Scientists in Pasadena, California, have released pictures of a young solar system, one that is 293 trillion light years away from our own solar system. The photograph shows a swarm of particles around the star Beta Pictoris. Scientists say the particles could have been ejected into space as planets formed around the star. One astronomer says the photo supports the view that the process which led to the formation of the earth and our solar system is a common occurrence in the universe.

And, in Stockholm, Sweden, three earth-bound researchers won the Nobel Prize for medicine. Neils Jerne and George Koehler, who work at a Swiss research center, and Caesar Milstein, of England's Cambridge University, received the Nobel Prize for their work in the field of immunology. Their research has been linked to a new treatment for a variety of diseases including cancer.

Jim?

LEHRER: That, in summary, is the major news of this day and brings us to our first major focus segment on La Palma and the potential for peace after five years of death and disarray in El Salvador. It was El Salvador's President Jose Napoleon Duarte who called for the talks and invited the guerrillas to come. His public call came in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly one week ago. That night, Robert MacNeil interviewed Duarte. He explained why he wanted to talk to the military commanders, not just their political leaders. La Palma Peace at Stake

JOSE NAPOLEON DUARTE, President of El Salvador: and this is the reason why I am calling the commandantes in the mountains, because they are the ones who come down to the towns. They are the ones who meet the people when they think that they are going to the towns as liberators and they find differently. They are the ones who have suffered when they find a different truth. They are the ones who understand that the reality of today is different than the reality of 1978.

ROBERT MacNEIL: Is part of the new reality that you would now be prepared to offer rebel leaders some posts in your government, a share of power?

Pres. DUARTE: No, no, that would be against the constitution. There is one way, and the way is elections, and the election is next March. And so there is time for them, if they want to have a poll, they have to win it to win the will of the people.

MacNEIL: U.S. Pentagon officials have been quoted recently as saying that your army now has the upper hand in the war against the rebels. Does your government agree with that?

Pres. DUARTE: Well, I would say that the army has the initiative, there is no question about it, during the last three or four months. But this is only seeing it through a military point of view. My point of view is this is not a military war; this is a political war, and this is the reason why I am presenting political solutions.

MacNEIL: Well, are you offering this meeting now because you think the rebels are in a military position, in which you have the initiative, as you say, which might make them want to come?

Pres. DUARTE: No, no. That'll be again taking in consideration only military objectives. I am seeing this as a political confrontation. I have to present with political positions and political solutions. What I'm trying to do is to make everybody understand that this has -- this war has different dimensions, and one of these dimensions is ideological, political, economical, social and military. Everything has not to be measured in the military dimension. This is the mistake.

LEHRER: Some analytical thoughts on La Palma's prospects now from Ambassador Otto Reich, the State Department's director of public diplomacy on Latin American and Caribbean Affairs, and Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a private policy group that has been critical of Reagan administration policy in Central America. Ambassador Reich, to you first. Is peace at hand in El Salvador?

OTTO REICH: Well, I think a very important step has been taken towards that peace today in La Palma.

LEHRER: Is there anything that you can add through State Department sources about what happened at the meeting and the nature of the agreement that the rebels and President Duarte apparently reached today?

Amb. REICH: No, I do not. As you mentioned, a press conference was just held at 5 o'clock Eastern time in El Salvador by both sides, and there's nothing more that I can add to that.

LEHRER: Do you think, though, that just the fact that they met is enough to be very optimistic about at this point?

Amb. REICH: I think it's very important that both sides have met, and I think it is to the credit of President Duarte that he was willing to risk his life to go to La Palma and take this very large step toward bringing reconciliation to El Salvador, national reconciliation.

LEHRER: Mr. Birns, what is your assessment of how large a step this is and how optimistic we should be tonight?

LARRY BIRNS: Well, I think it's a step, certainly. I don't know how large a step it is. I have a built-in skepticism about this, although I'd like to suspend disbelief for a moment and really think that something important has happened here. But the curious thing is that some 50,000 people have been killed in El Salvador since five years ago. This meeting with the guerrillas Duarte could have had anywhere -- at least for the last 2 1/2 years this meeting could have been held. Why did Duarte at this particular time, after Congress had all but rolled over in terms of military and economic aid, given the administration in Washington almost everything it wanted for El Salvador, why, after the Pentagon and the Salvadoran authorities feel that they have the military initiative, why did such a thing occur at this particular moment? Surely Duarte, heavily dependent on U.S. economic and military aid, is not going to act on his own. This thing is cleared with the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador. Why did he choose to do it? Now, my suspicious mind says that this is sure an attractive bonus for the Reagan campaign as the debate approaches. President Reagan will be able to say, certainly, "Look, we have shown our bona fides, we are seeking for a peaceful settlement. In fact, President Duarte in El Salvador is going ahead."

LEHRER: Ambassador Reich, how do you respond to that?

Amb. REICH: I think Mr. Birns asks the right question and comes up with the wrong answer. The reason why now, we believe, is because the policy, as we have been saying for the last 3 1/2 years, the policy is basically correct. Our analysis of the situation in El Salvador has been sound, and I think that what has happened today in La Palma vindicates that analysis and the policy prescriptions. We have agreed, in fact, with the clip that you just showed of President Duarte where he analyzes the situation as very complex and has political, social, economic, military, diplomatic and many other components. And we've had a balanced policy to address all that. It is precisely because finally the Congress of the United States gave us most of what we wanted for in this last session of Congress that the situation is beginning to turn around in El Salvador to the point where President Duarte has the moral authority given to him by the elections, by the vote of 80% of the people of that country to talk to the guerrillas, and it's also because the guerrillas are much weaker today because the interdiction program is working; they are not receiving the outside assistance at the levels that they were getting them before. And the other aspects of the policy, the political and the economic and the diplomatic elements, are working.

LEHRER: Mr. Birns, would you agree that the guerrillas, those on the left, are weaker and they came to these talks in a much weaker position than they would have come, as you say, 2 1/2 years ago or any other time up 'til now?

Mr. BIRNS: Well, I don't really know that much, and I'm sure that neither the Pentagon or the State Department knows that. The guerrillas have been carrying on actions every day. One reads reports and transcripts of the clandestine radio stations of the guerrillas, and they have been inflicting a significant level of casualties on the government forces. In terms of the success of the Salvadoran military, the interdiction argument is pure rubbish. I quote you former Ambassador Dean Hinton to El Salvador when asked how many weapons the Nicaraguan contras have interdicted, his answer was, "Not a pistola, sir. Not one pistola." In fact, there have been to interdictions whatsoever for the past two years.

LEHRER: Well, then let me ask the question another way, Mr. Birns. Clearly the guerrillas decided it was in their interest to go to the talks and their statement afterward today -- in fact, as I understand it, both sides agreed to form a joint commission which would take the next step and to meet again in November. So consequently something's happening, would you not agree, Mr. Birns?

Mr. BIRNS: I think something is happening. I think both sides exposed themselves to some risk and some possible advantages to this negotiation process.

LEHRER: What are the risks to the guerrillas?

Mr. BIRNS: Well, the risks to the guerrillas would be that the guerrillas probably are held together by a slender skein of common-denominator principles. And I think that since they are heavily ideological that they could -- discord could be produced, exactly what will the negotiation position be? Also, of course, the advantage there is that they have received some form of international legitimacy in the whole negotiating process.

LEHRER: Mr. Reich, how would you assess the risks in this whole process to President Duarte?

Amb. REICH: Well, as you have seen from news reports, at least one self-proclaimed right-wing death squad has threatened to kill President Duarte for taking this step. Certainly that is a very large risk that he is taking, one to his personal safety. There are probably elements within the Salvadoran society that feel uncomfortable with talking to people who have been trying for the last several years to overthrow that government militarily. We agree with President Duarte. I believe President Reagan this morning in Alabama said publicly that, again, that we support his taking -- President Duarte's taking those risks because the result may very well be the saving of many, many lives in that country.

LEHRER: Well, let's talk about specifics for a moment. In the interview that Robin did with President Duarte a week ago, which we saw a piece of, the president said that what he wanted from the guerrillas or what he was offering the guerrillas was an amnesty and not a piece of the government, but urged them to participate in these March elections. I assume that the United States, Ambassador Reich, supports that as a premise and as a proposal, correct?

Amb. REICH: Yes, sir, we do. We support President Duarte's proposals.

LEHRER: Can you think of any reason, Mr. Birns, why the guerrillas would not accept that?

Mr. BIRNS: Well, of course, this amnesty is, you know, I don't know what figures one uses, but I think it's safe to say that 90% of the violence in El Salvador has been committed by the security forces and their allied civilians. And, Otto, stop kicking my feet. I'm right.

Amb. REICH: It may be safe for you to say that, but it's not correct.

Mr. BIRNS: Well, it is very close to being correct. Well, if that is true, and an amnesty is being extended for political crimes, this amnesty is also going to be extended to the military, following a pattern that we saw in Chile and in Argentina where the prime progenitors of the crimes are exculpated by a political waiver that vaguely covers the guerrillas but mainly affects the real culprits. Well, given that fact, I'm not so sure how attractive the amnesty provision is.

LEHRER: Ambassador Reich, why were you kicking Mr. Birns in the shins?

Amb. REICH: First of all, I was not kicking --

LEHRER: Okay, you deny that?

Amb. REICH: I deny that.

Mr. BIRNS: They never tell the truth, these State Department types.

Amb. REICH: And also, he was incorrect about the other things he said.

LEHRER: In what way?

Amb. REICH: In addition to kicking his shins. For example, that 90% of the deaths in El Salvador are attributed to what he calls security forces and people in the -- and the implication is that people in the government. The fact is that nobody really knows. This is one of the tragedies of El Salvador. Nobody really knows who's been committing a lot of the violence. There's no question that right-wing death squads and abuses have been committed -- as I should say, abuses have been committed by right-wing death squads and in the past by elements associated with the military. However, you have to look at the present. I'm afraid that a lot of the critics of the administration are still living in the years 1980 or 1981 or even 1979. The present figures from Tutela Legal, the Catholic Church, for example, the most recent ones we had, indicate that there were two deaths attributed to political violence from the right and 11 deaths attributed to political violence from the left in El Salvador in the month of July. So actually the guerrillas are killing five times more people and those figures also indicate the decline that is taking place in political violence in El Salvador.

LEHRER: He's right, isn't he, Mr. Birns?

Mr. BIRNS: No, of course not. He's totally wrong. Actually the Tutela Legal, in its various assessments, has presented several hundred casualties each month, victims of the security forces. Now, the State Department took them to task on some of their statistics, saying that they were heavily weighted in favor of the guerrillas.

LEHRER: Gentlemen, let me ask you in one word or a few more than one word, in your own opinion, cutting out your own opinions and whatever, just based on the facts as we sit here tonight, are you optimistic that peace may not be at hand but there is a road, a peaceful road is now before us? Ambassador Reich?

Amb. REICH: Yes, I'm more optimistic --

LEHRER: Poorly phrased question, but you get the gist of it.

Amb. REICH: I got it. I am more optimistic than, say, a month ago or six months ago, or certainly more than three or four years ago.

LEHRER: Mr. Birns?

Mr. BIRNS: Well, I find this all to be terribly exotic. Here you had President Duarte in a recent syndicated national magazine being interviewed saying that it's not the right time to negotiate with the guerrillas because we cannot guarantee their security. We cannot ask them to lay down their arms and participate in an election when it would be suicidal -- and in fact he used that word -- when it would be suicidal for them to do so.

LEHRER: So you're not optimistic or you are optimistic?

Mr. BIRNS: I am interested in what's happening, and I hope things work out, although I'm somewhat skeptical about it.

LEHRER: All right, Mr. Birns, Ambassador Reich, thank you both very much. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Still to come on the NewsHour, a special extended version of President Reagan's campaign stump speech and one of our issue and debate segments, this one on the politics of the environment. A spokesman for both the Reagan and the Mondale camps will join us.

[Video postcard -- Dallas, Texas] Stumping with the President

WOODRUFF: By this time in most presidential campaigns each candidate has developed a couple of basic stump speeches. The outline the themes and so-called issues of the campaign, trade on the past, dream of the future and, in the case of an incumbent, sometime defend his record. Last month we broadcast extended excerpts of such a speech by Walter Mondale when he launched a strong attack on President Reagan's policies. Well, tonight we have a similar stump speech by the President. Last week, coming off a lackluster performance in the debate, the President came out with a new toughened version of his stump speech, including a lot of new lines critical of Mondale. It's the speech his advisers say Mr. Reagan will be delivering in one form or another between now and the election. The place he chose to unveil it was on a special whistle-stop tour of Ohio where, aggravating the Democrats, he rode the same train car President Truman campaigned from in 1948. It's been 36 years since the Truman train rolled through western Ohio, starting in the manufacturing hub of Dayton and tracing northward through small industrial towns -- Sidney, Lima, Ottawa, Deshler, and ending in Perrysburg on the outskirts of Toledo. All along the route thousands of cheering, flag-waving Ohioans stopped at grade crossings and crowded into railroad stations, creating that nostalgic Americana flavor the President stresses in his TV commercials. The White House estimated Mr. Reagan's total audience at more than 100,000, and at each stop he gave them the speech, the stump speech.

Pres. REAGAN: We're now 3 1/2 weeks from Election Day, and the American people are getting the full flavor of the very clear choice they're facing. It's a choice between two fundamentally different ways of governing and two distinct ways of looking at America. My opponent, Mr. Mondale, offers a future of pessimism, fear and limits, compared to ours of hope, confidence and growth. Now, I know, I know that his intentions are good, I know that he's sincere in that and in what he believes, but he sees government as an end in itself, and we see government as something belonging to the people and only a junior partner in our lives.

My opponent and his allies live in the past, celebrating the old and failed policies of an era that has passed them by. And if history had skipped over -- it is as if history had skipped over those Carter-Mondale years.Let us start with the record. The record of the administration in which Mr. Mondale carried a full partnership. In those four years they put -- took the strongest economy in the world and pushed it to the brink of collapse. They created a calamity of such proportions that we are still suffering the consequences of those economic timebombs.

That was no fresh-faced, well-fed baby that they left on our doorstep in January of 1981. It was a snarling economic wolf with sharp teeth. The suffering of America, the deep and painful recession and the outrageous and frightening inflation -- these things didn't start by accidental ignition or spontaneous conbustion. They came about through the concerted mismanagement of the administration of which Mr. Mondale was a part and his liberal friends who controlled the Congress. They gave us five -- in little more than a year they gave us five different anti-inflation programs and then managed with them to give us the worst four-year record of inflation in nearly 40 years. While it took them five plans to nearly triple inflation, it's only taken us one to cut it by two-thirds.

Senior citizens, senior citizens were driven into panic by higher rents, exorbitant fuel costs, dramatically increasing food prices and a federal health care cost which went up a massive 87% in just those four years. And they called that fairness. They punished the poor and the young who struggled as prices of necessities shot up faster than the others. Millions of Americans led a life of daily economic terror fueled by these unrelenting costs. And those disastrous consequences didn't come about by accident. They came through the implementation of the very policies of out of control spending, the very unfair taxation and the worship of big government that my opponent still supports.

His philosophy can be summed up in four sentences. "If it's income, tax it. If it's revenue, spend it. If it's a budget, break it. And if it's a promise, make it."

All this year he has lavished his campaign with promises that staggered even his Democratic opponents, but of course there is a predictable answer by one who makes so many promises. And the answer to his promises is higher taxes. And massive new tax increases are precisely what he proposes. A few weeks back he called his new plan pay as you go. But what it is, of course, is nothing but the old plan. You pay and he goes.

Those tax increases to pay for his promises add up to the equivalent of $1,890 per household in this country. If Harry Truman had to apply a motto to this radical taxing scheme, he would have to say that your buck never stops. When the centerpiece of his economic program is backbreaking tax hikes, you can see why my opponent spends so much time using outrageous scare tactics.Now, that's not my opponent's only tax extravaganza. He came up with still another one in our debate. He said, and I quote, "As soon as we get the economy on a sound ground as well. I would like to see the total repeal of indexing." Now, this tax is even worse, because this would be a dagger at the heart of every low- and middle-income taxpayer in America. It would mean bone-crushing new levies against those who can least afford them.

Indexing was a reform that we passed to protect you from the cruel hidden tax when government uses inflation to force you into higher tax brackets when you get a cost-of-living pay raise. Now, we're told since he said that on Sunday night that he misspoke and that he actually meant to say just the opposite. But on several occasions since 1982 he has expressly proposed the repeal of indexing, and he's done this quite often. In politics you call this a flip-flop. But forgive me. I've decided to call it a Fritz-flop.

[Sidney, Ohio] Indexing is one example, but there are many others. Yesterday he wanted to give a $200 tax break to every family dependent. Today he wants to raise taxes the equivalent of $1,890 per household. You know, he's done a lot of talk lately about that there's a new and an older Reagan. And he doesn't mean my age when he's talking that. He means that the old Reagan said things differently than the new Reagan is saying them. Well, the old Mondale said that tightening the budget and reducing deficits would worsen a recession. And a new Mondale thinks higher taxes lead to a healthy economy. The old Mondale publicly supported Jimmy Carter's wrongheaded grain embargo, and the new Mondale claims he opposed it privately. Awful privately. No one else ever heard him. The old Mondale sponsored National Bible Week in the United States Senate. I think that's fine. The new Walter Mondale says there's too much religion in politics. The old Mondale called the space shuttle a horrible waste, a space extravaganza, and led the fight to kill it in the Senate. The new Mondale praises American technological achievement. But just when you're beginning to lose faith, you find there is some constancy. The old Mondale increased your taxes, and the new Mondale will increase them again.

[Ottawa, Ohio] You know, in our debate I got a little angry all those times that he distorted my record, and on one occasion I was about to say to him very sternly, "Mr. Mondale, you're taxing my patience." And then I caught myself. Why should I give him another idea? That's the only tax he hasn't thought of.

From now until November 6th, we are going to make sure that the American people know about this choice on which their future depends. We have two roads to tomorrow. We have the road of fear and envy that Mr. Mondale proposes. On his road you frighten the elderly with false statements -- and, speaking of that, let me interrupt myself for a moment and say one of the things that I think was most shameful in the line of political demagoguery, we saw it in the congressional campaigns of 1982 and we're seeing it in this campaign. And that is when, for purely political advantage, falsely, their candidates go around telling our senior citizens who are dependent on Social Security that we somehow have a secret plot in which we're either going to reduce their payments or take them away from them entirely. Well, I want you to know that if there was anyone in my administration that even had secretly such an idea, he'd be long gone. We are not going to do anything to doublecross the people dependent on Social Security, or those anticipating Social Security when they come to their non-earning years. Their benefits are going to remain with them.

But he strives to divide Americans against each other, seeking to promote envy and portray greed. Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned that the only thing we have to fear in this country is fear itself. Well, sadly and tragically, I think the only thing my opponent has to offer is fear itself. Well, that's the difference between us.

We see America's best days ahead. We see ourselves in a springtime of hope, ready to fire up our courage and determination to reach high and achieve all the best. We see a life where our children can enjoy at last prosperity without inflation. We see a life where they can enjoy the highest creativity and go for the stars and not have their hopes and dreams crushed or taxed away by greedy governmentalists. The American people are walking into tomorrow unashamed and unafraid.

And, you know, I have to say all over the country in meetings of this kind I have been so thrilled and excited to see the turnout of young people at meetings of this kind. Yes, because -- because, let me just -- let me just say for all of you, or to all of you, you're what this campaign and what this election is all about. People of my generation and of several generations between mine and yours, we grew up in an America where, for the most part, we just grew up automatically knowing that there was no limit to what we could accomplish. There was no ceiling beyond which we couldn't go: that the hope, the opportunity, the golden dreams were there for all of us and depended on us and we could fly as high and far as our energy and our talent and ability would take us. I know that you, the American people, young and old, are ready for this great new era of opportunity, and I know this may gall our opponents, but I think the people, all of you, agree with us when we tell you, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

LEHRER: The Reagan stump speech as delivered last week in Ohio. All candidates have them, but only those relative few Americans who are able to attend campaign events ever get to see and hear them in full. And it balances our books, our having run a major Mondale speech at length three weeks ago. Judy? Issue and Debate: The Environment

WOODRUFF: When Walter Mondale took his campaign to a toxicwaste dump today he once again raised the environment as an issue in this year's presidential race. So far other issues like the economy have clearly dominated the campaign. But both candidates have acknowledged that the environment is a real concern to many voters and both addressed the issue in their debate last week.

Mr. MONDALE [October 7, 1984]: The American people want this environment protected.They know that these toxic waste dumps should have been cleaned up a long time ago, and they know that people's lives and health are being risked because we've had an administration that has been totally insensitive to the law and the demand for the protection of the environment.

Pres. REAGAN: The environment, yes, I feel as strongly as anyone about the preservation of the environment. When we took office we found that the national parks were so dirty nd contained so many hazards, lack of safety features, that we stopped buying additional parkland until we had rectified this with what was to be a five-year program but is just about finished already, a billion dollars, and now we're going back to budgeting for additional lands for our parks. We have added millions of acres to the wilderness lands, to the game refuges. I think that we're out in front of most and I see that the red light is blinking, so I can't continue, but I got more.

WOODRUFF: Tonight we also have more, an issue and debate about the environmental policies of the two candidates and how that's likely to affect the election. From the Reagan camp, Josephine Cooper, an assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. And, from the Mondale side, New Jersey Congressman James Florio. Mr. Florio, let me begin with you. We just heard the President say that he feels as strongly about preserving the environment as anyone. Do you agree with him?

Rep. JAMES FLORIO: You know, the very fact that we're talking about the environment as a campaign issue I think is a commentary on this four-year period at EPA. Traditionally there really is no controversy. There hasn't been a Republican versus a Democratic way of dealing with clean water or clean air. It's only by virtue of this administration's radical departure from the traditional bipartisan consensus on the environment that we're now talking about this. The fact that the President in his comments, when asked about the environment, could talk about litter in the national parks, not acknowledging the fact that toxic waste dump sites, of the failure to enact the Clean Air Act, the Clean Waters Act proposal in his last four years probably is a commentary on the somewhat high degree of insensitivity that exists in this administration toward the environment.

WOODRUFF: Miss Cooper, I assume you don't see it the same way.

JOSEPHINE COOPER: I think our progress at EPA indicates that we do have a strong commitment to the environment. First of all, Bill Ruckleshaus came into the agency as administrator last year and has revitalized the agency. The morale is up among the career people. We are getting standards and regulations out of the agency. Our budget has increased by 53%.Our personnel have increased by 20%. As an example of some of the standards that we're getting out, I think it would be important to note we just recently announced a decision to remove at a more rapid rate lead in gasoline. The reason we want that lead out is because the children in this country are at a great risk of exposure to that lead in gasoline. So we've moved on that front. We've also suspended the use of ethylenedibromide a pesticide which was used to keep bugs out of grain. We've taken that action in response to public health concern and a significant risk to the public health.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Florio, she's painting a very different picture from the one you just painted.

Rep. FLORIO: Well, I think the public is fully aware of the scandal-ridden nature of EPA over the last four years. The fact of the matter is notwithstanding the representations the budget at EPA is down substantially from what it was four years ago. As a matter of fact, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the purchasing power at EPA to deal with environmental problems is the equivalent of what it was in 1974.

WOODRUFF: Let me stop you right there and ask Miss Cooper if that's correct. Is that correct?

Ms. COOPER: I'm not certain in terms of the inflation dollars. All I can respond to is the fact that since Bill Ruckleshaus came to the agency we've increased the budget by 53%. Our programs are continuing. We've doubled the amount of people working in the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. We've tripled the funding for hazardous waste cleanup since he came back to the agency.

WOODRUFF: But that's compared to what it was under Ann Burford, who was the previous administrator.

Ms. COOPER: Exactly.

WOODRUFF: So you're not defending what was done under her leadership, is that correct?

Ms. COOPER: No, I'm talking about the period since Bill Ruckleshaus came back to the agency last year.

Rep. FLORIO: Well, I think -- I mean, it's farily clear that this administration and this administration at EPA has actively worked, and been successful, in killing the opportunity for Superfund reauthorization. That is the bill to clean up toxic waste dump sites. There are six sites that have been cleaned up in the entire four-year period, none under this new administration. And the fact of the matter is we're seeing this administration -- I'm talking about the Ruckleshaus administration, but we're really talking about the Reagan administration -- still opposing efforts to deal with acid rain. The gutting of the agency -- has not even got it back to the point where it was four years ago in terms of absolute dollar amounts.

WOODRUFF: Well, let's go back to the Superfund, the toxic waste dumps. We heard Mr. Mondale say earlier on the program tonight -- he was out campaigning near St. Louis and he visited a toxic dump site and he said, "There was no effort made by the Reagan administration to clean this up until it was announced that I was coming here."

Ms. COOPER: Well, let me say there have been more than 300 emergency cleanup actions at sites around the country. We have activity at virtually all of the 544 sites that are on our priority list for action. We've just announced an additional 200-plus sites going on that priority list for action. The site that was discussed earlier, I believe, was a site at which DOD and DOE are involved, and I don't think there's anything --

WOODRUFF: Department of Defense, Department of Energy.

Ms. COOPER: Yes, Department of Defense, Department of Energy. And I think just the timing of that announcement may have been fortuitous, coincidental, that kind of thing. Clearly these issues are not political, and this administration is not using those announce -- those decisions for political purposes. The more we use the rhetoric and the politics to bring these issues to the public, the more emotional they become. And I don't think either side wins. I think the public loses.

WOODRUFF: Do you think she has a point, Mr. Florio?

Rep. FLORIO: No, I'm afraid not, because the announcements are political. The fact, even the reference to lead standards in gasoline. That's just been done in the very last few weeks. The previous people at EPA had actually opposed increasing that. Over and above that, even this suggestion that's being made will allow lead to stay in gasoline until the 1990s. So we're having a pre-election announcement series of things with no real substance in terms of the change around to get a cleaner environment.

WOODRUFF: It does appear, Miss Cooper, that the administration is moving on a number of fronts right here as we approach the election. I mean, to someone who is watching from the outside, you know, you might guess that there was a connection.

Ms. COOPER: Well, I've been a career employee at EPA since 1968. I had a short stint on the Hill for three years. I came back last year with Bill Ruckleshaus. The problems may be a little different in their format, but we're still dealing with very complicated problems that are very contentious. We are making progress at EPA. We are committed to environmental protection. The name of our agency says it, Environmental Protection Agency. Our job is to protect the public health and the environment in this country, and that is exactly what we're doing. Whether people say we're being political about it or not, I can assure you that we at the agency are doing our jobs, getting the standards on the books, getting the regulations implemented, working with the states who do a large measure of really implementing the laws. We are also enforcing the laws. I think that kind of record will stand on its own.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Florio, let's be a little bit specific. You've been advising the Mondale campaign. What are some things that you believe Walter Mondale would do that are different from what is being done now under this administration?

Rep. FLORIO: Well, you can talk about two or three areas right off the bat. One is Vice President Mondale has pledged to get the funding at EPA up to at least the levels when this administration came into office. Reference is made to the complicated nature of these problems, and that's true. But you can't emasculate the agency that's designed to deal with these problems and then come in and say that you can't perform because you don't have the resources in the agency.

WOODRUFF: You don't even acknowledge that they're making an earnest effort now after having had problems earlier in the administration, is that right?

Rep. FLORIO: Well, this new administration, the Ruckleshaus regime, has really not even got us back to the same levels as when they came into office, that is, the administration came into office. I don't know how you can then, when the Congress and the American people say, "Why don't you publish the regulations to deal with asbestos in the schools standards?" and the administration comes forward and says, "Well, it's complicated. We don't have the ability to do that." Well, I would feel much more sorry for them if they hadn't caused the problem in the first place by laying off many of the people that were inclined to do these things.

WOODRUFF: You want to comment?

Ms. COOPER: Yeah, I want to say one thing. If you look back at the record, the Reagan administration requested a budget of $640 million this year for the Superfund program. On the House side that budget was decreased by $40 million down to $600 million.In conference the amount was bumped back up to $620 million. But the Reagan administration requested more money for that particular program than the Congress provided. So that is not necessarily consistent with our not doing our jos and not asking for the kind of funding that we thought was necessary to carry out that very important program.

WOODRUFF: What about Mr. Florio's other point, that your budget now is not even what it was at the beginning of the Reagan administration, less than four years ago?

Ms. COOPER: Well, I think in some areas there may have been a shift in emphasis, but clearly on the issues that the agency feels have top priority we have moved the resources to appropriate programs, we are moving on taking the steps necessary to make sure that the public health of this country is protected.

WOODRUFF: Anything else?

Rep. FLORIO: Yes, the bottom-line answer is what it is that's been done. My state, New Jersey, has more toxic waste dump sites than any other state in the Union. In four years not a single one has been cleaned up. You can't go to the American people and say you're doing something when in fact the results are nothing.

WOODRUFF: What about acid rain? You started to talk about

Rep. FLORIO: Acid rain. Every other industrialized nation in the world acknowledges the fact that it's a problem and is starting to do something about it. This administration and Mr. Ruckleshaus in his confirmation hearings said that yes, it was, we have to start going forward. Since he's been in he's reversed himself and now says no, we have to study it more. Vice President Mondale says no, that's not the case. We have to join every other nation in the world and start the effort to reduce the emissions that cause acid rain.

WOODRUFF: But hasn't Mr. Mondale himself been criticized by some environmentalists for not being more specific about what he would do?

Rep. FLORIO: I think that's interesting. When you have on the one hand the administration not even acknowledging that there's a problem and saying we should study it from now to whenever, and then someone comes forward with a proposal talking about reducing by 50% the emissions, there would be criticism for not having a higher degree of specificity in the face of the other side not even acknowledging the existence of the problem.

WOODRUFF: Are you familiar with Mr. Mondale's proposal? I gather it's fairly wide --

Ms. COOPER: Just in very general terms. What I'd like to say is that EPA, the administration have doubled their budget for acid rain research. We are embarking on a lake survey. We're looking at 3,000 lakes around the country to determine what the real nature of the problem is, what the status of those lakes are. We are looking at what kinds of activities on the part of the states and our current regulations would allow for reductions in some of the pollutants that might be contributing to the acid rain problem. We also have forest damage studies that are coming in. The problem -- we all acknowledge that there is a problem, the acid rain is a problem. But as to what the real solution to the problem is, whether it's sulfur dioxide emission reductions, ozone reductions, heavy metals, we don't know.

WOODRUFF: And it's your view that it's better to wait than do anything now?

Ms. COOPER: Well, it's not that we're not doing anything. We are doing a lot in terms of studying, getting more information and trying to put together the kind of program that would lead us to the proper solution. But we might end up going on one path to solve the problem and find with our scientific studies that we may need to shift, we may need to focus in a different area.

WOODRUFF:Is that plausible?

Rep. FLORIO: No. Mr. Ruckleshaus took the exact opposite position in his confirmation hearings, saying the time for study is gone and it's time now to address the problem. You can go to New England and see the lakes that have vivid examples of what the problem is. This administration has induced Mr. Ruckleshaus to reverse himself and he now advocates more study.

WOODRUFF: What are the President's priorities if he's re-elected for a second term as far as the environment goes?

Ms. COOPER: In terms of the environment? I would have to say that the priorities would be, first and foremost, hazardous waste, cleaning up the hazardous waste sites around the country, taking the steps necessary to implement the new hazardous waste law that was recently reauthorized by the Congress, looking at the panoply of other environmental issues we're dealing with and making the kinds of standards and regulatory decisions that need to be made. But basically maintaining our commitment to environmental protection and public health protection.

WOODRUFF: How much of an issue do you think the environment is? I realize you're an employee of the government and you're not working for the campaign. How important an issue do you think this should be in the President's re-election campaign?

Ms. COOPER: Well, I think as Mr. Florio said earlier, environment has never been a partisan issue and in terms of its importance in the campaign, I think environmental issues are important to each and every one of us. We all care about clean air and clean water, and we certainly want the dumps cleaned up. But I don't think it has the same importance as, say, defense or the economy.

WOODRUFF: Do you agree?

Rep. FLORIO: If you're living next to one of the toxic waste dump sites, it's an extremely important area. Fifty-five percent of the American people get their drinking water from ground water. Ground water is literally across the nation being jeopardized, the integrity of the ground water system is being jeopardized by these toxic waste sites.

WOODRUFF: We'll know in 21 days how much of an issue it was. Josephine Cooper with EPA, thank you, and Congressman Jim Florio.Jim?

LEHRER: Again the major stories of this day. No question, number one story happened at La Palma, a small mountain village in El Salvador. There this afternoon President Duarte and leftist guerrilla leaders talked of peace. Later they announced that they had agreed to set up a joint commission to study the issues and the commission will be made up of four members from each side and another meeting of the leaders was agreed upon for late next month.

Before a crowd of about 20,000 workers and peasants, Duarte said a democratic process has begun within a scheme of pluralism, liberty and a profound respect for human rights. He said that although the war has not ended, he hopes today's meeting will unite the people of El Salvador to reach what he called a miracle of peace. He also called upon the rebels to take part in the national election next March.

The rebel leaders said they had a positive impression of the meeting, but they cautioned that it was only a first step and many difficulties remain to be resolved.

Also in the news today, a leading New York bank lowered its prime lending rate, which may mean interest rates elsewhere and otherwise may be coming down, but it's too early to say for sure.

Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.