The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news tonight, CIA Director William Caswy underwent surgery for removal of a brain tumor. Eugene Hasenfus, freed by Nicaragua, flew home to the United States. Defense Secretary Weinberger, Chief of Staff Regan and former National Security Advisor McFarlane all gave more testimony in the Iran arms affair. The Soviet Union said it would end its moratorium on nuclear tests next year. We'll have details in our new summary, coming up. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, Senator Durenberger talks about the Senate Intelligence Committee's Iran arms investigation, we look at what asbestos did to the Johns Manville Corporation, and at the latest on the volatile debate about a new abortion pill. News Summary

LEHRER: A cancerous tumor was removed today from the brain of CIA Director William Casey. The operation was performed at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington. A hospital spokesman said the tumor was in the inner side of the left brain. That is where movement and sensation on the right side of the body are controlled. The spokesman said the operation took five hours, but there were no complications, and it is believed that Casey will be able to resume his normal activities. He was reported early this evening to be in stable condition and doing well. Robin?

MacNEIL: Eugene Hasenfus flew home to the United States a day after a sudden pardon wiped out his 30 year Nicaraguan prison sentence for arms smuggling. With his wife Sally, the 45 year old former Marine arrived in Miami after a stopover in Guatemala City last night. Now it's home to Marinette, Wisconsin, where, he told reporters, he planned to settle down and be a father for a while.

EUGENE HASENFUS, freed prisoner: I can't explain to you how much the gratitude in my heart is for seeing you all here and being able to step on American soil again, being able to come home for the holidays, my boy's birthday and many other things. And my great gratitude and appreciations I have to send to many people who have morally helped my family, my wife Sally, my in-laws and myself through cards and letters and phone calls.

MacNEIL: Awaiting Hasenfus are his three children, the youngest of whom, Adam, had his seventh birthday today. People in the Marinette area have tied red, white and blue ribbons around trees to show their support for the downed pilot, and friends planned a little wingding for him. His oldest son, Eugene Jr., told about a phone conversation last night with his father.

EUGENE HASENFUS, Jr.: Well, he said, "I'm crying, son, if that's OK." And I said, "Yeah, that's OK. I understand." 'Cause he heard my voice for the first time in a long time, and he was sort of sad, I guess.

MacNEIL: The White House and State Department welcomed Hasenfus' release but said there was more Nicaragua should do. It included allowing U.S. officials to see another American jailed for six days for alleged spying. Senator Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who arranged Hasenfus' release, confirmed that the jailed American Sam Nesley Hall is the brother of Democratic Congressman Tony Hall of Ohio. Sam Hall was arrested last week and allegedly found with military maps in his sock. Jim?

LEHRER: The Senate Intelligence Committee closed down its investigation of the Iran arms affair today. The final witness was former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane. It was a closed session but, senators told reporters about it afterward. They said McFarlane stuck by his earlier testimony -- that he believed the transfer of Iran arms funds to the Nicaraguan contras was done on higher authority than Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North. The new Senate Select Committee will take up the Senate's end of the investigating after the first of the year. The Intelligence Committee's chairman and vice chairman summarized their work late this afternoon.

Sen. DAVE DURENBERGER (R) Minnesota: Many members of the committee already feel that they have a sense of where the evidence leads and what lessons might be drawn at this stage. Such judgements must, of course, be made with great care, due to the preliminary nature of the investigation so far. As far as responsibility is concerned, the issue is clearly not just the who gave the orders to do what, but who is overall responsible for this policy. That is the present concern and the future concern. And that responsibility, obviously, is in the President of the United States.

Sen. PATRICK LEAHY (D) Vermont: You can't substitute a covert action policy for a foreign policy. It's never worked before. It's not working now. There is a time and there is a place, obviously, for covert action. But if it becomes largely a substitution for foreign policy, doesn't work.

LEHRER: Meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee heard today from Defense Secretary Weinberger and White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan. Told that McFarlane stuck by his version of events, Regan told reporters his recollection was different than McFarlane's over when the President first approved arms shipments to Iran.

DONALD REGAN, White House Chief of Staff: In that particular case -- this is August of 1985 -- to the best of my recollection, the President was against the shipment at that time.

REPORTER: But Mr. McFarlane said the President --

Mr. REGAN: I will go no further than that. I don't know what he testified to. I gave you my recollection.

REPORTER: But did the President ultimately approve that shipment?

Mr. REGAN: When we finally found out about it later, we decided not to comment on it for fear any comment of the like might endanger the lives of our hostages.

LEHRER: The House committee also heard today from businessman Roy Furmark. He was the man CIA Director Casey says first told him of the funds diversion to the contras. There was no word on Furmark's testimony today.

MacNEIL: The Soviet Union said it will end its self-imposed moratorium on nuclear testing next year. The Soviets haven't tested since August, 1985, but Moscow said they can't show unilateral restraint indefinitely and will resume testing unless the U.S. agrees to stop.

In other Soviet news, the official news agency Tass issued an unprecedented report of riots in the republic of Kazakhstan following the appointment of a new communist party chief. Tass said students and nationalist elements burned cars and a food store and fought police in Alma-Ata, capital of the Central Asian Republic, after an ethnic Russian replaced a native Kazakh as party boss.

LEHRER: There's a new leader of the communist party in Vietnam. He's Nguyen Van Linh, a 73 year old with a reputation as an economic reformer. The country's sixth party congress in Hanoi selected him today for that top post, following the resignation yesterday of the country's highest leaders. A new premier and other replacements are expected to be announced later.

MacNEIL: Britain announced it was buying six American-made AWACs, airborne early warning planes, from Boeing Aircraft. This means the controversial cancellation of the Nimrod warning system, a British project that has already cost taxpayers nearly a billion dollars.

LEHRER: There were three key economic numbers out today. Personal income went up .3% in November, said the Commerce Department. And personal spending of Americans increased 1.1%. The department also estimated capital spending by U.S. business will show a 2.6% decline in 1986. That is the sharpest drop since the 1981-'82 recession.

Also on the economic front today, AT&T announced a plan to reduce its size. As many as 27,400 of the company's 321,000 jobs would be eliminated. Today's announcement said $3.2 billion would be set aside from this quarter's earnings to pay for the down-sizing, which is aimed at putting the company in better financial and operational shape.

MacNEIL: The aircraft Voyager today is more than half way home in its round the world flight. The experimental plane was flying on one engine to conserve fuel and was scheduled to pass over Africa late today. It's already set a distance record for flight on a single tank of fuel and is due to arrive back in California on Christmas Eve.

LEHRER: And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to a newsmaker interview with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman David Durenberger, to what asbestos did to Johns Manville, and to the story of a new abortion pill. Iran-Contra Scandal

LEHRER: We lead tonight with Donald Regan, the White House Chief of Staff. He testified before a congressional committee for the second time this week. Tuesday it was before the Senate Intelligence Committee, today it was the Intelligence Committee of the House. Once again, Regan talked to reporters about what he said and why he said it, and here is an extended excerpt.

Mr. REGAN: I testified under oath completely, answered every question, didn't duck, didn't go through any executive privilege or anything of that nature. I explained to them, to the best of my knowledge, what had happened from a policy point of view. And I assured them, on the record, that the President of the United States knew nothing about the diversion of funds, that I knew nothing of the diversion of funds. And I complemented them on the fact that they had been able to maintain the secrecy of their committee. And I hope that they would come to a conclusion speedily and get all of the facts out to the American people as quickly as they can.

REPORTER: -- the President and the first arms shipments to Iran. Was that approved by the President before the shipments or after the shipments?

Mr. REGAN: Now, are you talking about a shipment by a third country?

REPORTER: By a third country, yes.

Mr. REGAN: In that particular case -- this is August of 1985 -- to the best of my recollection, the President was against the shipment at that time.

REPORTER: But Mr. McFarlane said the President --

Mr. REGAN: I will go no further than that. I don't know what he testified to. I gave you my recollection.

REPORTER: But did the President ultimately approve that shipment?

Mr. REGAN: When we finally found out about it later, we decided not to comment on it for fear any comment of the like might endanger the lives of our hostages.

REPORTER: But --

Mr. REGAN: Now sir, you've had two questions. Let somebody else.

REPORTER: Was the shipping that went out without his authorization against his wishes, that shipment?

Mr. REGAN: To the best of my knowledge he did not approve of it. You? No, you've had a turn. All right, we'll come back to it. Go ahead.

REPORTER: -- did he condone the shipment at the time?

Mr. REGAN: I would put it this way: that we put up with it. It had happened. It was water over the dam. We didn't want to reopen it at that point. Now you.

REPORTER: The performance of Admiral Poindexter and Colonel North, in retrospect, how would you characterize --

Mr. REGAN: Well, we still don't know what Colonel North did. And what we're most anxious to have happen is for Colonel North and Admiral Poindexter to tell their story of what exactly happened, so that, again, all the facts will be known, out on the table, and the American people can make a judgment who was right, who was wrong, who did something that was possibly wrong. I don't want to use the word illegal, because I don't know that what they did was illegal. I don't know what they did, so I don't want to characterize it.

LEHRER: Next, a newsmaker interview with Senator David Durenberger. He is a Republican from Minnesota, and he is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. That committee all but ended the first phase of the Senate's investigation of the Iran-contra affair today. The final witness was former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane. He was there for a second time in hopes, apparently, he could clear up confusion over who authorized the diversion of funds from the Iran arms sales to the contras. That, apparently, is only one of several unanswered questions that the new select committee will go after when it takes up the investigating baton after the first of the year. Senator Durenberger joins us tonight from Capitol Hill. Senator, first, is there any -- do you have any late word on the condition of Mr. Casey, the head of the CIA who had brain surgery today?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Yes. I'm told that it is a malignant lymphoma. It is characterized as a treatable malignancy. The tumor was on the left brain, which controls motor movement and so forth, as I am told. And the expectation of the surgeons is that there will be further pathology work done next week, but their expectation is optimistic that he should be able to go back to normal activity.

LEHRER: Well, thank you Senator, about that. Now, Mr. McFarlane, as I reported -- you had him back today. And the purpose, as I understand it, was to clear up some confusion. First of all, what was the confusion, and second, did he clear it up?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Well, if I told you all the confusion, we wouldn't be an Intelligence Committee supposedly being complimented for keeping everything secret by people who go out and talk about their testimony. This is the best way to put it, so that we can all understand what's going on. Bud McFarlane came in within 24 to 48 hours of being asked to come in on December 1. He spent six and a half hours going through his testimony at that point. Since then, we've had a couple dozen witnesses, including the Secretary of State, the Chief of Staff to the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General -- others who were present for some of these conversations. Everyone's version of some of the specific events around the President's approval of this arms transfer process -- everyone's version differs somewhat. There are some substantial differences, such as the one that's been talked about. There are some less substantial differences. What we did today for another three or four hours, I think, with Bud is go back over a lot of other people's testimony to determine his particular recollection of the events.

LEHRER: When you use the word substantial, do you use that in a substantial way? I mean, are we talking about people telling stories that are really very different?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Well, it's substantial in the sense that one person says, "We never had a meeting," and the other person says, "We had a meeting," or that "Yes, we had meeting, but the subject never came up," or "The subject came up, but everybody voted yes." One person said everybody voted yes, and someone else said everybody voted no. That's the kind of difference that appears in the apparent conflict between Don Regan's statement and Bud McFarlane's. I don't know that we are going to readily resolve that conflict other than by the weight of the evidence. I have come to a personal conclusion with regard to the weight of evidence on that point, but I think it is only fair for Don Regan to also spend a little more time, perhaps, going back over his own recollection of a lot of these events. And I think in time everybody is going to have that opportunity. So I don't want to make too much of this at this point.

LEHRER: Do you mind telling me what your conclusion is?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Well, my conclusion is that, one way or another, the President provided the approval for the entire arms transfer. I think the President and this administration --

LEHRER: Excuse me, we're talking about the transfer of arms to Iran, right?

Sen. DURENBERGER: That's right.

LEHRER: Okay.

Sen. DURENBERGER: It's part of a long search for an opening to Iran. The President was absolutely correct when he said we didn't head into this to trade arms for hostages. There are some coincidences between the two events, but this administration, for a long, time has been committed to find an opening, and this was part of that process.

LEHRER: And you're saying that the weight of the evidence -- at least the way you read it -- is, that included the approval of the third country transfer -- the early one, in August '85 by Israel. Correct?

Sen. DURENBERGER: That is correct.

LEHRER: And you're suggesting maybe Donald Regan needs to go back and recollect what was said at the meeting?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Well, as you know, Don didn't answer all of the questions that were posed to him in terms of the chain of approval. There were meetings between the National Security Advisor, then Bud McFarlane, and the President over a period of time from mid-July or late-July after the President got out of the hospital through the time the President went to the ranch in mid-August. There were meetings in September at which the subject was also discussed.

LEHRER: Well now, that would qualify, would it not, as a substantial difference as far as whether or not the President of the United States approved that transaction?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Sure. But I think, Jim, this is best answered by the President. Just ask the President did he approve it, and if so, in what form did the approval take and to whom was it communicated.

LEHRER: Moving into another really substantial area, and that, of course, is the diversion of those Iran funds to the contras in Nicaragua. Is there some confusion there that Bud McFarlane was able to clear up today or at least speak to today?

Sen. DURENBERGER: No. Whatever information Bud has on the so-called diversion comes from Ollie North. He knows none of the specifics, and we don't know the specifics. We're quite confident from all the records we've seen and the testimony we've taken that some of the Iranian money went into a fund in a Swiss bank account for the contras. But we can't prove to anybody that the money ever left that account and actually ended up in Nicaragua.

LEHRER: Is it your conclusion, at least at this point, that there is no other source of information, no other investigative way to clear up that question other than to talk to Oliver North and John Poindexter?

Sen. DURENBERGER: No, there are other people, I'm sure, that have information on the account issue. The reason you want to get particularly to Colonel North, but Admiral Poindexter as well, is to get both ends of the equation. Number one, what did they do specifically to authorize someone to open up the bank account and to put the Iranian money into the contra account? Number two, under whose authority were they operating, and how was that authority communicated to them?

LEHRER: All right, Mr. McFarlane said in open testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he believed when he talked to Oliver North, when Oliver North told him about this transfer of funds to the contras in Nicaragua, he believed that it was done by higher authority other than Lieutenant Colonel North. My question to you is, do you agree with him?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Let me clarify Bud McFarlane's position. He said that he did not believe, knowing Colonel North, that Colonel North would have done that without higher authority. But then -- this is important -- but then today, when asked did he believe that the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, would authorize anybody to make that kind of a transfer, his answer was no. So we asked him, isn't that two inconsistent conclusions, and he said yes.

LEHRER: What is your conclusion, Senator?

Sen. DURENBERGER: My conclusion all along has been that, despite how strongly the President feels about the Nicaraguan situation, that he would not mix two policies together and particularly would not do it in a way where one would endanger the other. So I don't think the President authorized it.

LEHRER: Well then, so that means you believe, at least at this point, that it really was the sole work of Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North.

Sen. DURENBERGER: Yes. I think it was. And I think he informed Admiral Poindexter of it after the fact. He informed Colonel McFarlane of it after the fact. And those are the only three people, at least the only three Americans that, up until November 22 approximately, had any knowledge of it.

LEHRER: What happens to the work and the evidence that your committee has gathered now?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Well, the totality of the work, which is enormous, goes to our successor Intelligence Committee and under whatever rules they adopt to the select Senate committee. In the next couple of weeks we're going to be working on those facts that we've gathered that are incontrovertible and release them after they have been security cleared for --

LEHRER: Release them to the public?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Yes, release them to the public. We think that's very important, and I think everyone else agrees to get as much of the facts out as possible.

LEHRER: I understand President Reagan has written you a letter asking for a report as well.

Sen. DURENBERGER: Both the President and the Majority Leader have asked us for a report. And there, even though all this happened while they were on duty, I think they are very anxious that all of the facts get out. And I intend to press the committee to get out as many of the facts as possible.

LEHRER: Finally, Senator, let me ask you this: based on the work that your committee did, how long do you think it would take the Senate select committee to get to the bottom of this and, once and for all, get to the facts and get it all out?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Well, I think we're at the bottom now. All we need to do is -- there's three things. We need to talk to Colonel North and Admiral Poindexter on the issue of their authority. Did the President authorize it, did he not, or was Colonel North's action authorized by Admiral Poindexter. Secondly, we need to talk to Bill Casey about what he knew about it, what he should have known about it, and so forth. That's an internal matter. And thirdly is the question of did the money actually get to the contras. I don't think that's essential to putting the world back on an even keel, but we need to get at the people that had the bank accounts and determine whether the money ever ended up there.

LEHRER: You don't think that would take very long?

Sen. DURENBERGER: It shouldn't take long at all.

LEHRER: A matter of weeks?

Sen. DURENBERGER: Well, yes. It is a matter of weeks and willingness -- the matter of the willingness of those two witnesses in particular and maybe General Secord to come forward. I suspect it's going to take longer, because a lot more issues are going to get dragged into this.

LEHRER: All right. Senator Durenberger, thank you very much.

Sen. DURENBERGER: Thank you. The New Manville

MacNEIL: After more than four years of intense, bitter debate a federal judge today approved a plan to let the Manville Corporation emerge from bankruptcy and recover from lawsuits brought by victims of its asbestos operations. The company had filed for Chapter 11, bankruptcy, because of an avalanche of such lawsuits. The plan approved today establishes a $2.5 billion trust fund for present and future asbestos victims, the largest such settlement in history. Manville will contribute $75 million annually to the fund over the next 30 years, plus 20% of its profits. Victims will not be able to sue the company for additional damages. Our special business correspondent Paul Solman, who lectures at the Harvard Business School, has been following the Manville story.

PAUL SOLMAN [voice over]: Eleven months ago on this program, a former asbestos worker named Jim Vermeulen blasted the Manville Corporation for having declared bankruptcy. He spoke with Kwame Holman.

JAMES VERMEULEN, asbestos victim: They preserved their corporation is what they did. It is totally inconceivable to me that a proven murderer of thousands and thousands of workers and citizens can file bankruptcy to escape punishment for their crime.

SOLMAN [voice over]: The crime of the Johns Manville Company had to do with the production and sale of asbestos, described here by Manville itself.

[clip from Manville public relations film]

ANNOUNCER: For years, Manville used asbestos as a primary raw material for many products. It was called the miracle fiber because of its fireproof properties. It protected American servicemen on navy ships, and it met consumer demands for fire-safe and energy efficient insulating materials. As the health hazards of excessive exposure to airborne asbestos fibers were discovered, the company began to move out of the asbestos business.

SOLMAN [voice over]: But not before damaging the health of thousands of workers and consumers. In assessing blame, one crucial question is, who knew what when? According to this British documentary, the dangers of asbestos had been common knowledge throughout the industry for decades.

[clip from NOVA]

ANNOUNCER: The manufacturers knew the danger. This factory inspector's report was the first warning sign. That was in 1898, 84 years ago. By 1906, a British worker reported to his doctor that his team of 10 asbestos workers were all dead, average age 30. By 1931, the link with disease was so clear, the British government passed its first asbestos regulations. They ordered that there should be no asbestos dust in the workplace. By 1935, the link between lung cancer and asbestos became recognized. By 1955, Oxford University scientists found that lung cancer among British asbestos workers was ten times the national average. By 1960, doctors had established the lethal and once rare form of cancer, mesothelioma, was also caused by asbestos.

COURT OFFICIAL: The testimony you are about to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

SOLMAN [voice over]: The documentary, including this video deposition, was seen on British television in 1982. At the same time, across the ocean in America, juries were concluding that Johns Manville had long known about and covered up similarly damning evidence. And they were holding Manville accountable for asbestos disease and fatalities in case after case and awarding millions of dollars in damages. In August of 1982, Manville concluded that the claims would wipe it out.

JOHN McKINNEY, chief executive officer, Manville Corporation: Manville Corporation's board of directors has determined that the corporation should file for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act. Though our businesses are in good shape, despite the recession, we are completely overwhelmed by the cost of the asbestos health lawsuits filed against us.

SOLMAN [voice over]: Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act protects a company from all claims against it. Under the supervision of the federal bankruptcy court, the company negotiates with the people to which it owes money and comes up with a plan to pay its obligations. Many felt that Manville's declaration of bankruptcy was cynical.

MICHAEL THORNTON, victims' lawyer: I thinkThe Wall Street Journal said it best. Shortly after they declared bankruptcy in August of '82, that Manville felt it was a quick painless solution to the thousands of lawsuits that at that time were pending against it.

SOLMAN [voice over]: Whatever its motivation, Manville asked for the court's protection, and the court granted it. That meant that Manville didn't have to pay any asbestos victims until a total plan had been worked out. But it also meant that the victims' lawyers sat on a committee overseeing Manville's operations to make sure that Manville's executives didn't waste the company's and their victims' money. Manville's managers were actually reporting to tort lawyers like Mike Thornton.

Mr. THORNTON: It was all they could do to keep their breakfast in their stomachs when they came in the same room with us. And to be perfectly honest, most of us felt the same way about them.

SOLMAN [voice over]: Did people like you just drive them nuts?

Mr. THORNTON: I think we drove them right over the edge.

SOLMAN [voice over]: What about McKinney?

Mr. THORNTON: I think we drove him further over the edge than anyone.

SOLMAN [voice over]: In fact, Chairman McKinney and other top Manville executives are no longer with the company. But no matter how hostile the victims and their victims were towards Manville, they began to realize that they had an enormous stake in the company's profitability. So they found themselves in the curious position of approving promotional campaigns designed to rebuild the corporate image that they themselves had worked so hard to destroy. They even approved TV ads featuring golfer Jack Nicklaus.

JACK NICKLAUS: You've heard about the people of Manville and their goal to be America's best supplier. Best supplier of what? That's a good question.

SOLMAN [voice over]: Well, not asbestos anymore. Management and tort lawyers alike agreed to that.And they agreed that Manville's future depended on selling its other products.

Mr. NICKLAUS: All kinds of wrappers and cartons and carriers. 21,000 people with one goal --

Mr. THORNTON: We thought it was pretty absurd that there was this famous American athlete out promoting the wholesomeness and goodness of this corporation which we all knew was responsible for tens of thousands of people's deaths -- innocent victims' deaths. But generally, I think the feeling was that anything that promoted the eventual health of the corporation would add to the benefits of the victims, because we intended to get every cent we could out of that corporation to go to the victims.

SOLMAN: In fact, under the bankruptcy reorganization plan, the victims get most of the company -- up to 80% of the stock and much of the cash. Small wonder the victims' attorneys voted overwhelmingly in favor of the plan. And what's the new Manville Corporation going to be like? Well, the victims' attorneys and management have been working together to make the company as healthy as possible. They've gotten rid of unprofitable divisions. They've sliced off unnecessary layers of management. They stopped making speculative investments. It's as if a corporate takeover has occurred, with the victims as the beneficiaries of the takeover. And the corporate fat has gotten trimmed in the process. What's emerged, by almost everyone's account, is a more competitive, more focused, more profitable Manville Corporation. No one liked the process, but bankruptcy seems to have forced Manville to manage strictly for profit. And that doesn't seem to have hurt the company a bit. One last time, victims' attorney Mike Thornton.

Mr. <THORNTON: It's certainly emerged as a much better company. This company now will be, finally, paying restitution to thousands of asbestos victims. Much of its profits in the next twenty or thirty or forty years will in fact go to those victims. It will employ tens of thousands of people in meaningful employment in this country. It will pay taxes. Manville will pay taxes. They now are entirely out of the asbestos business. They sold off all of their asbestos assets and now manufacture what I know to be nonhazardous products. So the emerged Manville truly is a much, much better company. That's not what they intended to do when they went in. And to be perfectly candid, I don't think it was a knowing goal of the representatives of the victims either. But the pressure may have, in fact, resulted in that end.

SOLMAN [voice over]: And Manville, still communicating in a typical corporate style, seems to agree.

[clip from ad]

TITLES: A new Manville is emerging. We have completed a long and difficult transition and have successfully entered a new era.

MacNEIL: For more on this unusual story, we have two key players with us. Jim Vermeulen is a member of the court appointed committee representing asbestos victims who once worked for Manville. As we saw on the tape piece, he originally attacked Manville's bankruptcy filing, but now supports the reorganization plan, Earl Parker is an executive vice president with Manville and one of the plans chief architects. Mr. Vermeulen, as we saw you strongly opposed the bankruptcy action. Why do you now support the reorganization plan?

Mr. VERMEULEN: Well, Mr. MacNeil, I can only speak for myself as an asbestos victim. Certainly it would be inconceivable to speak as a representative of all asbestos victims. While vengeance may have seemed like an attractive motive to me originally -- to liquidate the corporation, to destroy it -- there would be only a limited amount of money. And once that was gone paying out the current victims, we would have no money to pay future victims. And frankly, I believe this killer will be in our society for many years into the future.

MacNEIL: 95% of your fellow victims have approved this plan, is that correct?

Mr. VERMEULEN: That's wht I'm led to believe.

MacNEIL: What do you say to those who have not -- who still oppose it and may appeal?

Mr. VERMEULEN: Well, just possibly, I'm wondering when they are going to allow us to be paid. There are many people who have died. There are many survivors. There are many people that are suffering. And it's up to them -- these folks fighting this decision that's been handed down. When will they allow us to be compensated for our injuries?

MacNEIL: Mr. Parker, considering the appeals, when can the first payments be made?

EARL PARKER, Manville Corporation: Robin, we're ready to begin making payments just as soon as the court authorizes us to do so, and I think that's going to be a period of maybe six months or maybe even a little longer. There are constitutional questions raised, and I think that there are some very dedicated people who do intend to appeal. But we went into this case, Robin, four and a half years ago with a determination that Manville would survive and would earn the money necessary to pay all of its debts and to give just compensation to the people that have been injured by our products. And I think this plan that we have today confirmed is going to allow us to do just that.

MacNEIL: What is just compensation? What is the average figure that the company has in mind or has agreed would go to a victim?

Mr. PARKER: Well, you must remember that there are many companies being sued. Typically, a person with an asbestos related disease worked with products manufactured by maybe a dozen different companies. Manville share that compensation. On the average, we think it's going to be about $26,000 per case. Obviously, those people with greater disabilities, those people who have died, unfortunately, should receive greater compensation. Those with lesser impairment would receive less.

MacNEIL: How does that strike you -- $26,000 average?

Mr. VERMEULEN: Basically, I think it -- bottom line is, when I first created AVA, I didn't create it --

MacNEIL: AVA is?

Mr. VERMEULEN: Asbestos Victims of America. I didn't create it to bankrupt American industry. I created it out of love and concern for information of people like myself with the disease. I don't believe in bankrupting American industry to pay for our compensation. All I was asking and all I was seeking was the right to live and die in dignity and not poverty. And none of our programs provide for that.

MacNEIL: What do you think the lesson is for American industry in this case? I mean, in the report we've just seen, it is a highly unusual case and resolution to a case. What is the lesson for American industry, do you think?

Mr. VERMEULEN: I believe that, indeed, the life of the American worker does have value. When you analyze it, the American work force is America's most precious resource and, as such, had better be protected and cared for -- not callously. So I would think most industries will look at this, take a lesson from Manville's situation, and be very careful before we have any more murder by American industry.

MacNEIL: What do you think the lesson is, Mr. Parker? As we saw in that report, there was information about the health hazards of asbestos years and years and years ago. What do you see as the lesson in it?

Mr. PARKER: Well there's a long history as to who knew what when, Robin. I don't think we have time to go into that. But the experience certainly underscores for me a maxim that I've held for a long time, and that is that no man has the right to harm any other man. And certainly the lesson here is that we must be vigilant to guard against that harm. and we must be prepared to make compensation when harm has been caused, whether intentionally or not. I think that's the lesson. I think Manville has learned and is willing to teach that lesson and go forward to satisfy all of our obligations under this plan and to make just compensation.

MacNEIL: In the taped report we made with you a year ago, you called Manville a murdered -- a murderer of thousands of people. Has the company restored its credibility in your eyes by accepting this plan?

Mr. VERMEULEN: No, unfortunately not. We're at a junction right now, and this one particular barrier of confirmation has been achieved. However, it will take some time before I'm convinced that the money will be flowing constantly to the victims who deserve the income. So it will take a while for me to watch this process and to make sure the victims are truthfully compensated.

MacNEIL: Flowing constantly.

Mr. VERMEULEN: Right.

MacNEIL: Is there any danger in your mind of the company, as management changes, as shareholders change, shareholder's pressures change, of trying to eat into this agreement and that the money would stop flowing?

Mr. VERMEULEN: No, I just hope -- and we won't know this until history proves us right or wrong -- I just hope there's enough money to compensate the thousands of people in the future -- people that we're not even aware of at this particular time.

MacNEIL: What do you tell, Mr. Parker, the shareholders of your company, who've by and large opposed this plan, because they come out very much on the short end of it. What do you say to them? Why is it worth a shareholder's while to invest in a company that has to give, in effect, 80% of itself to thousands and thousands of people who have been harmed by it?

Mr. PARKER: Well, you're asking two questions. As to the shareholders who invested in the past, unfortunately, they took a risk. Common shareholders do invest for risk, and with the hope of appreciation, and they are on the bottom of priority under the bankruptcy code. They were hit very hard in this reorganization -- harder than we wanted, and we regret that very much. As to the future, the investor will make a decision based upon the economics of the company that does emerge. And we anticipate that we are going to be strong. We know we have a good, energetic, capable work force. We have the financial resources to grow, this company. And we have a commitment to the future. So I think we're going to a very strong company -- one that investors will want to look at and one that I think will be an attractive investment in the future.

MacNEIL: Thirty years is a long time. Mr. Vermeulen has expressed his anxiety that there might not be enough money there. What guarantee is there that there will be enough money there to pay these claims that extend thirty years and more?

Mr. PARKER: There's certainly no guarantee, Robin, but we have a structured a plan that is going to provide for an annual infusion of money to the trust for just as long as there are claims left unpaid. And I hope and believe that we're going to be adequate on the target. But whatever the number is, whatever the cost is, Manville will continue to pay 2/% of its profits indefinitely into the future. There is one more point on that, Robin. That is that the federal government also has a very large responsibility for having injured these people, and they so far have denied any compensation, denied any participation in compensation. We'd like to see the United States Navy come in and help us out with it.

MacNEIL: In a word, are you going to go after the United States government now?

Mr. PARKER: No.

MacNEIL: We'll have to leave it there. Mr. Vermeulen, Mr. Parker thank you. Controversial Pill

LEHRER: We look now at a new weapon against unwanted pregnancy. It's known as the abortion pill and is expected to be available soon in Europe. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the story. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, in today's New England Journal of Medicine, French researchers are reporting that the new drug safely and easily induced abortions in 85% of women who took it within ten days of missing a menstrual period. The study paves the way for the drug, technically called RU486, to be marketed by its French manufacturer. One year ago, we aired this documentary by Britain's Thames Television describing early experiments in Europe with RU486. The correspondent is Denis Tuohy.

DENIS TUOHY: What the factory is producing is a pill that can terminate pregnancy -- an abortion pill. The new pill is now going through clinical trials. Twenty-four year old Katina Stavri from Sweden has had two abortions: the first by surgery, the second by the abortion pill.

KATINA STAVRI: Well, you do it in privacy, and it's a lot easier than doing an operation. You don't have to see a lot of doctors. You just see the one who is giving you the pills.

TUOHY: There is no doubt that the new pill, known as RU486, brings a new dimension to the already sensitive and controversial subject of abortion. Socially as well as medically, it could make for fundamental change. Because RU486 is a chemical compound that can put an end to a pregnancy; that can cause a woman to abort. And that makes it dramatically, crucially different from existing contraceptives and existing morning after pills.

The contraceptive pill works by inhibiting ovulation. The egg which is created each month and holds the potential for human life is not allowed out of the ovary and so can not be fertilized. The morning after pill works after the egg has left the ovary and has been fertilized. If taken within 72 hours after intercourse, it affects the lining of the womb so that the egg fails to implant.

But the problem that hadn't been solved was what to do when the fertilized egg has implanted in the womb and pregnancy has started. Veset Hospital in Paris, where the man who made that next step possible works. Etienne Emile Beaulieu, a biochemistry professor, realized that there was a way of preventing the implanted egg from growing in the womb.

Prof. ETIENNE BEAULIEU, Researcher: Pregnancy is necessarily supported by one single hormone called progesterone. That is, you need progesterone to start pregnancy, to continue pregnancy -- all over. So the simple idea is, if you suppress progesterone action, there is no pregnancy.

Mr. TUOHY: The importance of progesterone was not Professor Beaulieu's discovery. Others were well aware of that. What he came up with was an understanding of just how progesterone is received into a woman's cells -- how it comes to be locked in.

This is how the pill RU486 works in the body of a pregnant woman. The fertilized egg, the embryo implanted in the wall of the womb, needs the progesterone hormone if it's to continue to grow. But the effect of the pill is to block the progesterone. Without that, the life of the embryo can not be sustained. It decays and is evacuated through menstrual bleeding. Katina Stavri describes how it worked for her.

Ms. STAVRI: Well, I have to take four pills -- half the pill in the morning and half in the evening for four days. And on the fourth day, I got an injection just to make the whole procedure go quicker, I suppose.

Mr. TUOHY: And what happened then?

Ms. STAVRI: Then it meant to start bleeding, and it was bleeding for about four weeks, actually. It was quite a long time. It was very much, though. But she said it could bleed maybe two weeks, but I kept on for four weeks, so --

Mr. TUOHY: And after four weeks?

Ms. STAVRI: After four weeks, it seemed like the whole thing actually came out, so it was a bit later than they expected, I think. Or they said maybe it goes like that sometimes. But I was surprised it came out that late.

Mr. TUOHY: But while termination of pregnancy is the purpose of the current British and other trials, Professor Etienne Beaulieu, the man who devised the idea of the abortion pill, has an even more revolutionary concept in mind. He believes that RU486 need not be limited to dealing with known pregnancy, but could cross the line into contraceptive territory. Used once a month, he feels that the new compound could effectively replace the much criticized daily contraceptive or sequential pill.

Prof. BEAULIEU: The prospect is the following: for once a month, a couple of pills at the end of the month, even before the period, the woman not knowing whether or not she is pregnant. In principle, it should work. When I say in principle, it means that scientifically and practically we know it will work.

Dr. GEORGE TEUTSCH, researcher: If you compare this compound with the classicial sequential pill, it must be much safer. Indeed, the classical sequential pill, a woman has to take it nearly every day for her whole sexual life. And so she is completely soaked up with hormones and with all the side effects which are related with it.

Prof. BEAULIEU: Abortion, in my opinion, should more or less disappear as a concept, as a fact, as a word, in the future. It's not just wishful thinking. I think it may be very significant.

HUNTER-GAULT: At the time we aired that report, the RU486 pill had already sparked new debate between pro- and anti-abortion forces. The issue was whether it should ever be made available in this country. Here's an excerpt from that argument on our own program. The adversaries were John Wilke, President of the National Right to Life Committee and Sharon Camp, Vice President of the Population Crisis Committee, a private group promoting family planning worldwide.

MacNEIL: Dr. Wilke, will the Right to Life movement oppose this pill?

Dr. JOHN WILKE, National Right to Life Committee: Absolutely, Robert. This is not a contraceptive. It never can be. That is a tiny, living human boy or girl, complete and total, alive, human, distinct from the mother at the end of that first cell stage. They were incorrect in saying the fertilized ovum implants -- that phase lasts only a few hours. The stage that implants is called a blastocyst, but then, you know, you and I were once little boys, and now were men, and some day we'll be senior citizens. I don't know. Those are names for different stages of growth and development of a living human. This has already implanted in the nutrient lining of the mothers womb -- this little boy or girl -- and this drug, in effect, cuts off, like withering on a vine, and it kills this tiny human. There is no question about this. It is a micro-abortion. We would oppose it such as we can.

MacNEIL: Okay. Ms. Camp, do you think the advent of this pill we've just heard described changes the abortion debate?

SHARON CAMP, Population Crisis Committee: Absolutely. I think it knocks the heart out of it. The way this product and others like it -- and there are some even better leads in terms of an effective product than this -- the way this is likely to be used is to bring down a missed menstrual period or, as the doctor described, as a once a month pill. This means that we're talking about abortions -- if, in fact, they can even be considered abortions -- at a very, very early stage after conception. Now, there are certainly very committed people who are part of the anti-abortion movement who believe very literally that life begins the moment the sperm and egg unite, but that isn't what most people believe.

Dr. WILKE: Oh, please now. It is a simple biologic fact taught in every textbook in every medical school for the last 50 years that it's human at conception. This isn't a carrot; this is living, it's growing, it is already sexed. Biologically speaking, human life is complete at the first cell stage.

HUNTER-GAULT: Now for an update on the latest research on the abortion pill and the prospects for its use in the United States, we have Dr. William Crowley. He's chief of fertility research at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and author of an editorial in today'sNew England Journal of Medicine about the French experiments with RU486. He joins us from public station WGBH in Boston.

Dr. Crowley, listening to that debate we just reprised, how soon, if at all, do you think this abortion pill will be available in the United States?

Dr. WILLIAM CROWLEY, Massachusetts General Hospital: Well, studies haven't been initiated, to my knowledge, in the United States, but I know that they're planned in the very near future. Assuming those studies continue to show the positive results that are reported in the New England Journal today, I believe that this pill could be ready to be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval in a period of two to three years, with resulting approval in the framework of three to five years before it was available for the public.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Let's talk for a moment about -- we want to do a risk-benefit analysis -- but starting with the benefits, could you briefly outline those, based on what you know about the French research?

Dr. CROWLEY: In the French study, the alternative was a surgical abortion for which all 100 women in the study were scheduled. Having taken this pill, 85 of those women need not have undergone that surgical procedure and did not. 15% failed on the basis of this hormone administration and consequently had to have the surgical abortion for which all 100 women had been previously scheduled. So its immediate impact medically is that it proves to be a safe and effective alternative to surgical abortion, which certainly has risks of its own. From another medical viewpoint, and perhaps important also from a sociologic viewpoint or a societal viewpoint, it really changes the context entirely of the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. It takes it from the realm of an abortion clinic to where many people feel it ought to be, which is between a woman and her physician. It renders it an outpatient medical decision and consequently reduces dramatically the need for surgical abortions.

HUNTER-GAULT: Those are the principle health benefits, then?

Dr. CROWLEY: Correct.

HUNTER-GAULT: Health and psychological benefits as you just outlined them. What about the risks involved here?

Dr. CROWLEY: In this study and in previous studies with RU486, the risks seem relatively minimal and are those risks which are attendant upon a miscarriage at any time, which is prolonged bleeding, as your patient outlined. Actually, her bleeding was much longer than is usually occurring with this agent. And cramps. Both of those things occur with excessively heavy menstrual periods and early miscarriages.

HUNTER-GAULT: How different is this pill, say, from the IUD or the morning after pill?

Dr. CROWLEY: The morning after pill, as was outlined in that little excerpt you showed, is usually administered -- which is high dose estrogens, by the way -- following coital exposure. And during that period, you're not sure whether a person is pregnant or not, but you're inducing an abrupt termination of that menstrual cycle, sloughing of the lining of the uterus, without the certain knowledge that someone is pregnant. So in many settings that is very useful. For example, after a rape, that is a very useful way of inducing a menstrual period and circumventing the issue about fertility and pregnancy. IUDs are complex in their actions, but one theory is that they interfere with the ability of a fertilized ovum to implant on the lining of the uterus. So in many ways they cause a very, very early miscarriage. The RU486 occurs even later in the French study -- that is, after the first missed period, within ten days of that period; i.e., the time that most women have to consider whether or not they wish to continue with the pregnancy or not. And so in that sense, it's very clinically relevant. And it's administered for four days and then there is an ensuing menstrual period, sloughing of the lining of the uterus, and 85% of the time -- according to this study -- a completed miscarriage. So they act at different stages and timing, and they have really a different sort of thrust behind their site of action. I might add that RU486 is by far the most selective of these, in that the point of interception here is solely with the one hormone -- progesterone, so critical for continuation of gestation.

HUNTER-GAULT: Are there other uses for this pill than inducing abortions?

Dr. CROWLEY: Well, the other uses for this, of course, and terribly important side of this which is being somewhat cast aside in these discussions because of the rather heated climate regarding abortion, is that this is a very important probe -- therapeutic probe for a variety of other causes of medical difficulty, such as infertility. There are certain types of infertility that appear to be related to progesterone and its action on the lining of the uterus, and there are even some adrenal diseases that, in theory, this agent may be useful in treating. So it's terribly important that the therapeutic ability of this agent in other settings not be forgotten about in the current societal discussion. The final point I would make --

HUNTER-GAULT: Very briefly, Doctor. We have to go.

Dr. CROWLEY: Sure.The context of this is that medicine provides technologies which are available and effective. Society really makes these choices in a larger context than a medical one -- that is, a psychological one, a religious one and a sociologic one.

HUNTER-GAULT: And I think that's probably where the debate will go next. We do have to leave, but thank you very much for being with us, Dr. Crowley.

Dr. CROWLEY: Good night.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night.

LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this day. A cancerous brain tumor was removed from CIA Director William Casey. Doctors said the operation was without complication and Casey was doing well. Eugene Hasenfus arrived back in the United States after being freed by the Nicaraguans. He was captured in October after parachuting to safety during a contra supply mission. And former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane told the Senate Intelligence Committee he stuck by his story. He still believes a higher authority than Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North approved the transfer of Iran arms funds to the Nicaraguan contras. Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the News Hour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.