The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Lithuania leads the news this Friday. Soviet authorities ordered foreign reporters and diplomats to leave, the president of Lithuania accused the Soviets of sending in more troops, and Pres. Bush warned Moscow that any use of force would backfire. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we discuss Lithuania and developments in Europe in a News Maker interview with the Prime Minister of Poland, Tadeusz Mazowiecki [News Maker], then a preview of the first free elections in Hungary in 45 years [FOCUS - HUNGARY - HISTORIC VOTE], next our regular Friday political analysis team [FOCUS - GERGEN & SHIELDS], and finally we examine the question [FINALLY - OVER PROTECTIVE!] can women of child bearing age be barred from certain kinds of work.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The Soviet Union ordered foreign diplomats and some reporters to leave Lithuania today. Two U.S. diplomats were given only 12 hours to get out. Late this afternoon, White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the United States has protested that action. Lithuania's president today accused Moscow of sending in more troops. He said it was psychological warfare designed to pressure Lithuania to renounce its claim to independence. During the day, Soviet helicopters dropped leaflets over the capital, Vilnius, and other Lithuanian cities. The leaflets were copies of Soviet Pres. Gorbachev's recent order for Lithuanians to turn in their weapons. In Washington, the Senate last night passed a resolution telling Moscow military force would have "severe repercussions" for U.S./Soviet relations. It also called on Pres. Bush to consider recognizing the new independent government of Lithuania. This afternoon, Mr. Bush repeated his call for a peaceful resolution. He said the United States stands with the Lithuanian people. He spoke to a group of regional reporters at the White House.

PRES. BUSH: This is a complex and sensitive time when realistic, level-headed leadership is required on all sides. Lithuanian leaders have consistently demonstrated their capacity in this regard and the United States will do nothing that will make their task more difficult. And we know that the Soviet Union has a longstanding interest in Lithuania, but those interests can only be addressed through dialogue and negotiation. Any attempt to coerce or intimidate or forcibly intervene against the Lithuanian people is bound to backfire. That is inevitable.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Bush also continued to press Congress for action on his Central American aide package. He met today with Panamanian Vice Pres. Guillermo Ford. Ford said the aid would jump start the Panamanian economy. The package provides $500 million for Panama, 300 million for Nicaragua. The money would come from savings in the defense budget. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: In Brussels today, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl tried to ease fears about German reunification. He assured members of the European community a united Germany would be part of a united Germany. He called on the 12 nations of the EEC to speed up their move toward economic and political integration. In Washington, Polish prime minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki repeated his demand for a treaty securing Poland's Western border with a reunified Germany. In an interview with the Newshour, Mazowiecki said Poland's fears on the border question were justified by developments in German politics.

TADEUSZ MAZOWIECKI, Prime Minister, Poland: [Speaking through Interpreter] If, as we've heard over the past few weeks, that Chancellor Kohl was unable to make a statement because he was concerned about his right wing voters in his party and the Republican Party, if the Chancellor fears that, then why shouldn't we fear it? The more so we could be concerned about that.

MS. WOODRUFF: We will have the full interview with the Prime Minister right after this News Summary.

MR. LEHRER: The United States and Japan have worked out a trade agreement that involves the sale of U.S. supercomputers to the Japanese government. No details were released, but U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hill said today it should give U.S. supercomputers full access to the Japanese government, something they have not had before. There is still no agreement on the sale of U.S. satellites and lumber to Japan. The Bush administration threatened to increase trade tariffs against Japan if agreements in all these areas are not worked out by June.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Bush administration's savings & loan bailout plan won a temporary reprieve today. Earlier this week, a federal district court barred the government from taking over an Illinois S&L. It ruled that the government regulators in charge of the program were appointed unconstitutionally. Today an appeals court temporarily blocked the lower court's ruling, allowing the takeover to proceed. It scheduled a full hearing on the case for next month.

MR. LEHRER: Joseph Hazelwood was sentenced today to help clean up the beaches of Alaska's Prince William Sound. He was also fined $50,000. Hazelwood was the captain of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker when it hit a reef and spilled 11 million gallons of oil off Alaska. He was found guilty of one misdemeanor charge but was acquitted of three more serious charges, including operating the ship while intoxicated.

MS. WOODRUFF: That concludes our News Summary. Just ahead on the Newshour, the Prime Minister of Poland, the upcoming elections in Hungary, Gergen & Shields, and a look at a company that bars women of child bearing age from certain jobs. NEWS MAKER

MS. WOODRUFF: A Newsmaker interview with the Prime Minister of Poland Tadeusz Mazowiecki is where we go first tonight. The Prime Minister is visiting Washington this week seeking support for his government in its historic drive for democracy and a free market economy. We begin with a background. The Communists in elections last June, the trade unions leadership including Lech Walesa endorsed 62 year old News Paper Editor Tadeusz Mazowiecki, a long time Solidarity Activist to become Prime MInister. The Parliament then voted for voted for Mazowiecki a soft spoken Roman Catholic intellectual to become Poland's first non communist leader since before World War II. As Prime Minister Mazowiecki shares power with former Communist Leader General Jarazowski. Who one had Mazowiecki jailed for over a year. Mazowiecki inherited all the economic problems that helped force the Polish vote against the communists. Runaway inflation, food and good shortage, poor worker worked productivity and massive industrial pollution. Mazowiecki moved quickly to shift to a free market economy. The tough measures have brought down inflation but unemployment almost unheard of under the communists has risen dramatically but Mazowiecki has managed to deflect much of the concern over these domestic problems to a foreign one. The prospect of a reunified Germany. Poland's Western Region belonged to Germany before World War II. When the Soviets took over they gave it to Poland. Mazowiecki and others fear a unified Germany may reclaim the territory. He has said that as long as the border situation and other questions about Germany remain unanswered he will stick to his decision to allow some 40,000 Soviet Troops to remain in Poland. Lech Walesa on the other hand has called for the troops to leave as soon as possible. Last month leaders of the four victorious World War II nations, U.S. England, France and the Soviet Union met with leaders East and West Germany to talk about the steps for reunification. Mazowiecki promptly demanded that Poland should have a say in any discussions about Germany's future. As a result Poland has been invited to sit in on talks about the Border.

PRESIDENT BUSH: We want to see the nation of Poland achieve its full measure of democracy and independence.

MS. WOODRUFF: On Tuesday President Bush welcomed Mr. Mazowiecki to the White House to discuss American economic aid to Poland and the German question. I spoke to the Prime Minister this morning. Mr. Prime Minister thank you for being with us. On this situation developing between Lithuania and Moscow. Do you think that Mr. Gorbachev is right and do think that using increasing pressures, measures of intimidation to get the Lithuanians to drop their plans for independence.

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECKI: Well I believe that Lithuania and the Soviet Union will come to an agreement as to the future. This is what we believe and we have expressed ourselves publically. It is our hope and we are working to make sure that by our opinions that no extreme moves there are taken. And we have expressed out hope and expressed our sympathy for the Lithuania situation. We expressed hope that Lithuania and the Soviet Union may come to an agreement as to the future.

MS. WOODRUFF: You hope for an agreement. Do you think that the steps taken by the Lithuanians were legal?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECKI: Well first of all they were in keeping with freedom aspirations. And that is the main point.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think that either side will back down as of this point?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECKI: Well I believe that we have to be prepared for certain period of time of mutual strains and frictions but I believe that both sides are interested in making sure that agreement is reached. Lithuania for the reasons of freedom aspirations and the Soviet Union and on the other hand Gorbachev with a view toward peristroika.

MS. WOODRUFF: How can you be so convinced that the Soviets will not use force?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECKI: I guess the use of force would be a dramatic move for the Soviet Union and it would put to question peristroika.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let's talk about your visit to the United States. You said before you came that your major purpose for coming here was to press the U.S. support for your demand that Germany quickly sign a treaty guaranteeing your Western Border with German. Have you received that strong support since you have been here?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECKI: I think that I could say that our conversations and I had at least three major conversations with your President about that. Have resulted in mutual better understanding on these issues and I believe that the President understands and appreciates our intentions. Whether that is going to have an effective impact remains to be seen but I do hope that it will. What we are after, as I have said many times, is a regularization of the issue by a treaty, a treaty which could bring initialed prior to unification. Now why so? Because we do not want to see this issue transferred in to this period after reunification because the who debate might be open all over again. We would like to avoid that. We believe that Europe and Germany are entering a new phase in history and this is a problem that needs to be removed from the agenda and cleared up.

MS. WOODRUFF: Who would be the parties to that Treaty?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECI: It would be initialed the way we see it on the one hand by Poland and on the other hand by both Democratic Governments of the Governments of Eastern Germany and the Federal Republic Government. With the participation on the part of the powers. As far as later is concerned it remains to be discussed. It is up to the powers to say whether they will see themselves as directly involved in that treaty by signing or whether they would just accede that treaty an official notification, thereby including their guarantees.

MS. WOODRUFF: Why is it so important for you to have a treaty. Why isn't it sufficient to have, I think Chancellor Kohl, has offered that their be declarations, resolutions passed by both the Parliaments of East Germany and West Germany. Why do you need something more than that?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECKI: Because declarations can change and treaties are the binding character in terms of international law and any way we see no reason why we couldn't do that. The German's themselves have said repeatedly in the past that they could not make any binding final statements on the issue because no peace treaty has been signed. So now as such an important phase has began and changed the situation of Germany, that Germany is unifying we want to make sure that this issue is settled in an unrevocable way and frankly we see no reason, no major obstacles why that should not happen.

MS. WOODRUFF: What is Poland afraid of? After all West Germany is a Democracy and East Germany would be moving toward a Democracy. We assume a democracy with peaceful intentions. What is your country afraid of?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECKI: First of all we must begin from not what we fear but from what we want to build our relationship with Germany on. I agree that Western Germany is a nation that is democratic today and the changes went deep there. We in no way deny that. An important point of us is a reconciliation with the Germans and this is the second point. But such a conciliation can be built only on a solid foundation. We can not build a solid reconciliation with one third of the Polish people because what is at stake is one third of the Polish nation who live in Poland's western territories. We can not perceive any kind of threat today but what we fear is this issue in the future might become a problem. I would also answer your question by saying that if as we have heard over the past few weeks Chancellor Kohl was unable to make a statement because he was concerned about his right wing voters in his party and the Republican Party. If the Chancellor fears them then why should we not fear them. So we should be concerned about that. Another point is and I would add to it that after all at this moment no one can say what political orientation will increase after the unification. In Western Germany there has been indeed democratization processes in place and in Eastern Germany I believe not. So that is also an issue that we must take in consideration.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are you saying you believe the Nazis may become powerful as a group or a German nationalist group may become powerful again in Germany. Is that what you are saying?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECI: Well you know history never repeats itself. History is the teacher of life but it never repeats itself exactly and therefore any examples of the past are not adequate. The point is not necessarily an exactly repetition of history but what is at stake here. But what we need is to rule out the possibility to put the question what is the present status and to put the question what might be the better of reconciliations between the Poles and the Germans. What we want to do is enter the new phase of history in Polish, German relations and the history of Europe as a whole. We want to enter that phase with no ambiguities and we do have the moral right to that.

MS. WOODRUFF: You think that it is possible that some German people might not have changed. Is that what I hear you saying?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECI: I just wanted to say we did not see total disappearance of nationalistic trends and we must remove equivocations so of the basis of such trends the border can never be questioned. And actually the German's themselves a large portion of them a great portion of them are also in favor of a unequivocable recognition of that border. So let us bring the whole thing to completion right now.

MS. WOODRUFF: One other question. Do I understand you to say that you want all of this to be taken care of in an agreement before unification takes and that Poland also wants to have a larger voice in the so called two plus four talks. That just being part of the discussions on the border which they agreed to Poland be is not enough.

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECI: Poland wants to take part and be present in all the issues which effect her security. The security of Germany's neighbors. No others borders is in any discussion in Germany just the Polish borders. There is not so much to settle actually as far as the border is concerned because what we need is the reaffirmation of the existing treaty and a clear statement in the future German constitution that Germany does not have any territorial claims. I think that such a formulation, such a wording would be needed in the future German constitution. That is an internal affair of the Germans but it is an affair which in the unification process must be raised.

MS. WOODRUFF: I think that some people on the outside don't understand or have a difficult time understanding how it is that after 50 years of oppression by the Soviets that your country has in effect, may not have embraced to Soviets but you are continuing to let 40,000 Soviet troops stay in your country, you are maintaining a coalition government with the communists and you are turning your greatest fears toward the Germans. I guess it is difficult to understand why the Soviets are not a greater enemy for you. That is my question.

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECI: I think that you have touched upon a number of questions at the same time. Let me clarify them. First it is clear to us that Soviet forces must leave Poland and we are working to assure that. We publically said that we are going to start talks about Soviet force withdrawal from Poland. We are going to work toward that. At the time when the German issues are being resolved we just need to recall and keep in mind that the forces that are there in Poland from the military point of view are very closely linked to those that are stationed in East Germany. So we just want to see these things resolved together as part of the process. Point number two as you mentioned the participation by the Communists. The Communist Party in Poland no longer exists. Where the arrangement which has been in place until now is one that was formed as the result of the roundtable agreements and agreements should be kept. It is the kind of an agreement that for a period of time must guarantee the stability of changes. In Poland these changes have gone the deepest of all central and East European countries. And what we are after is to make sure that no moves might upset that stability. The changes are determined

MS. WOODRUFF: But you still have the active participation in your government, do you not, of Pres. Jaruzelski?

TADEUSZ MAZOWIECKI, Prime Minister, Poland: [Speaking through Interpreter] I'm a man who spent one year and ten months in internment by the degree of Pres. Jaruzelski. Today I'm working together with Pres. Jaruzelski, and that cooperation is getting along well because on the basis of the agreements which opened up the road to enormous change in Eastern Europe, that cooperation is based on them.

MS. WOODRUFF: You mentioned these deep changes that you're making in your economy. You have rising unemployment. There have been closings of factories and farms. Your production has dropped. I read today the figure was 25 percent. Inflation, even though it has come down is still persistent. Do you think many people in your country think that a mistake was made in embarking on these economic reforms?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECKI: As in any society, there are various opinions, but I'm convinced that the majority, the size of majority, an overwhelming majority, in fact, support these reforms, and this is evidenced by the fact that in spite of enormous hardships, the public has displayed great patience. Now why, why do I support these reforms? Because on the threshold of those reforms, people were aware that the previous economic system was getting us nowhere and everybody agreed about that and remains agreed about that. And everybody, everyone hopes that the change to a free market economy will bring us out of the difficult position. And here I believe the support has been very broad, although of course there are difficulties. You said that inflation has partly declined. No, it's not true. The inflation has been effectively stopped completely. It is a great achievement for just three months. It was stopped within just three months. What we need is to make sure that it does not resurge again.

MS. WOODRUFF: The rest of the world is truly looking to this Polish experiment to see if it will work. Certainly, Eastern Europe is looking, the Soviet Union. How confident are you that your experiment in democracy is going to work?

PRIME MINISTER MAZOWIECKI: Well, I'm completely sure that it will succeed. It must succeed simply. We have no other way. You know, when I became Prime Minister, one of my friends called me and said on the phone, we are doomed to your success. The point is not that it would be my personal success, but that's going to be the success of the nation, of the country, and I believe that determination will bring the success throughout the whole Eastern and Central Europe. We are doomed to success. It must succeed, and I believe it will.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Prime Minister, we thank you very much for being with us.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight, the elections in Hungary, Gergen & Shields, and a new debate about job safety. FOCUS - HUNGARY - HISTORIC VOTE

MR. LEHRER: Now a report on another election in the new democratic world of Eastern Europe. They happened Sunday in Hungary. Our preview is by Gaby Rado of Independent Television News.

MR. RADO: Supporters of the alliance of free Democrats leave Budapest this morning in a campaign convoy bound for Northern Hungary, carrying the message that their party is the one to put the country on the road to a full Western style democracy. With 12 parties standing nationwide and many more locally, Hungary's voters are now given a choice after the decades of one party rule, and compared to East Germany's elections, it's a sophisticated media campaign. [CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING]

MR. RADO: Young Democrats have chosen a pop video. The Social Democrats went for Beethoven. [CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING]

MR. RADO: The Free Democrats see themselves as the mouse, Jerry, to the Communists, Tom. TV has also been used to explain the complex voting system, which includes Westminster constituencies, regional lists, and the national list. There'll be run-off elections for a number of their representatives next month. The Democratic Forum, the frontrunner until recently, isled by Yuge Evanthal. He visited Mrs. Thatcher last Monday and he sees himself as a prime minister in waiting. He says the East German elections prove his Center Right Party is what Central Europe wants. There's a strongly nationalistic minority in the Democratic Forum. At a mass protest here this week against the violence in Transylvania, some spoke of the old, greater Hungary, beyond its present borders. The current crisis in Romania may win them extra votes.

IMRE CSEPELLA, Democratic Forum: Hungary is a nation of 16 million and the present Hungary, as state, has only 10 million population, so when we are thinking of a Hungarian nation, we are thinking of 16 million Hungarians. So we feel responsibility for all Hungarians living not only in Hungary, but outside of Freuche.

MR. RADO: The Free Democrats have a more radical, youthful image, though they too call themselves a center party. The leadership consists of dissidents active under the old regime. Perhaps typically they've got three prime ministerial nominees who deny they're radical Thatcherites.

BALINT MAGYAR, Free Democrats: We are arguing for market in Hungary. It's a situation when you are in a desert for three days without any water, your first word will be "water" and not other conditions of life. The most what we need here market, but at the same time, as a social liberal party, we are in favor of strong independent trade unions, we are in favor of good social policy.

MR. RADO: The independent Small Holders were the biggest party in Hungary before the Communists took over. They were allowed to reform last year. They want to give back the land to the people who owned it before 1947. Other parties say the rush to the title deeds is impractical, but the Small Holders may have to be reckoned with as a coalition partner. The pace of reform set by the former Communist Imre Pozsgay has now overtaken him. In some senses, he made this election possible by forcing the party to change its identity with a new name and by passing laws to allow other parties to be set up. But his socialists are not expected to get much more than 10 percent of the vote.

IMRE POZSGAY, Socialist Party: I believe that there is still a future role for me, but for the time being the most important thing is that there should be democracy.

MR. RADO: Yesterday the Socialist Party held its final rally in the national sports center, not quite filling the hole but proving it had far more money than the other parties. It laid on entertainment too and there was the remarkable sight of the successor of the Communist Party trying to associate itself through folk dancing with traditional Hungarian values. There was also a rock laser show in the hope of appealing to a wider audience. Whatever the outward show of optimism on the eve of the elections, many leaders of the main parties admit in private, they wouldn't mind being in opposition for a while. The new government is bound to be fragile and it'll have to tackle Hungary's ever worsening economic problems. The shrewder politicians will be quite happy for other parties to carry the can. It's a particularly relaxed early spring in Budapest, the warm weather heralding in the new possibilities of democracy, but the opening up of political life here as elsewhere in Eastern Europe can't disguise the economic difficulties. Inflation is 25 percent and rising, while Hungary labors under a massive foreign debt. Big business from the West is moving in fast though, seeing a potentially huge market opening up in the new East Europe. What attracts the capitalists is Hungary's central position, its willing work force, and its low labor costs. At present, Budapest is experiencing a minor gold rush as investors vie with each other to set up joint ventures. Michael Shade, a Florida business consultant who's worked in Hungary for two years, recognizes there is now local concern about the West cashing in.

MICHAEL SHADE, Business Consultant: I think there is resentment on the part of the minority of the population relating to the possibility of foreign owners coming in and buying up the properties in Hungary. I think those, however, that are native Hungarians and that are thinking seriously about the economic problems here recognize that those kinds of investment may be exactly what they need.

MR. RADO: The Hungarians know they're on the threshold of a new age. Their view of Sunday's election is the farewell to the old era, pithily summed up in posters with the words, "Comrade, it's over" in Russia, while this one, contrasting Brezhnev's kiss with a young couple's, says, "It's up to you to choose." The people's choice will after these elections fill the parliament building on the Danube with real representatives after 40 years. They'll argue long and hard about the make-up of the coalition government, which is certain to follow, but it will be democracy in action -- at last. FOCUS - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MR. LEHRER: Now it's time for Gergen & Shields, our regular Friday night analyzers. David Gergen is Editor at Large of U.S. News & World Report. Mark Shields is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post. First on Lithuania, gentlemen, Pres. Bush continues to say that the United States should stay out of it, leave it to the Soviets and Lithuanians to work it out, but the Senate last night passes a resolution unanimously which calls on the President to consider recognizing the independence of Lithuania, and condemning the Soviets. What's going on Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think first of all, Jim, the President has resisted any temptation to grandstand or to excessively moralize in public and the Senate recognizes that, but one great thing about being a Senator is you're one of a hundred. There's no direct accountability. I'm not questioning the genuineness of their feelings on this issue, but it allows them to take a strong stand for the little guy, for self-determination against Commies, against tanks, and for ethnic votes in an awful lot of states, and at the same time to put it in terms urging the President rather than drawing any line. I think Pres. Bush thus far has shown real leadership and thoughtful leadership in this crisis.

MR. LEHRER: David, your thoughts, sir.

MR. GERGEN: Well, notably, Jim, the Senate did not pass, in fact, it rejected a previous resolution calling on the President to recognize Lithuania right away. So the Senate's not trying to push him over the brink. What they are trying to do is both stiffen the backbone of the Bush administration in the event that there is bloodshed in Lithuania, and also to send a very strong signal to Gorbachev that if blood flows, there is going to be a crisis in U.S./Soviet relations.

MR. LEHRER: No danger of a double message going to Gorbachev and the Lithuanians, one from the President and one from the United States Senate, or is everybody used to that by now?

MR. SHIELDS: I think that there's always a certain concern for those who don't understand the American system and we're dealing in this case with people who aren't sophisticated in many instances with either our approach or world politics. I do think there is another message in what David has spoken of, and that is letting the right wing of the Soviet leadership or the Soviet power structure, which has been leaning on Gorbachev to let them know that America is watching, that the world is watching and there will be a real price to pay if, in fact, they do use force.

MR. GERGEN: Jim, there's also a good cop, bad cop routine here that's now become fairly standard in American foreign policy, and that is the President, in this case Bush, and it's often been Bush in this situation, is the man, of course, is a little more cautious and more generalized in his comments. The Congress comes in very strong. In the case of China, if you remember, the Congress was much tougher on China than was the President. In the case of Japan, there's much more Japan bashing on Capitol Hill than there is in the White House. Now in the Soviet Union, once again, the Congress is sending a message. Frankly, that can sometimes help a President. It makes it easier for him to go to the other side and say, look, I've got these fellows that I can't contain right behind me so if you fellows don't help us on this, if you don't play ball, you're going to have a very angry Congress.

MR. LEHRER: Okay, look. Let's go to a purer form of American politics for a few minutes. The two of you have been watching how the issues have been developing in a couple of big state primaries, Texas and California. You flagged some commercials which you think are looking at because of the message of the politics that's going on right now. First to Mark from the Democratic race for Governor in Texas. Let's look at those.

ANNOUNCER ON POLITICAL COMMERCIAL: [On Screen: JIM MATTOX Carried out 32 Death Sentences. JIM MATTOX Fought Early Release of Criminals. JIM MATTOX Endorsed by Combined Law Enforcement Assn. JIM MATTOX Tough on Crime and Drugs.] He's carried out 32 death penalties and fought early release of criminals. Seventy-five sheriffs and the combined law enforcement associations of Texas have endorsed Jim Mattox. They know he'll be tough on crime and drugs.

JIM MATTOX: [Political Ad] All the candidates for governor say they want to fight crime, but there's one big difference. I'm for a state lottery to pay for more law enforcement without raising taxes. My opponents won't support a lottery. So the next time Anne Richards or Mark Wyatt say that they're for fighting crime, tell them Jim Mattox has got a question for them, how are they going to pay for it.

GOV. MARK WHITE: [Political Ad] These hardened criminals will never again murder, rape or deal drugs. As governor, I made sure they received the ultimate punishment, death, and Texas is a safer place for it. But tough talk isn't enough. The criminals know how to tangle up the courts and delay executions. To bring them to justice takes strength and dedication, because if the governor flinches, they win. Only a governor can make executions happen. I did and I will.

MR. LEHRER: Mark Shields, what's all that mean?

MR. SHIELDS: I think it means a couple of things, Jim. I'd say drugs and Dukakis.

MR. LEHRER: Drugs and Dukakis?

MR. SHIELDS: I think Dukakis in the sense that all of us in politics fight the last four, and Democrats everywhere are, feel that Dukakis lost in part because of Willie Horton, because of the American Civil Liberties Union, and not being seen as tough on the crime issue. I think Democrats want to inoculate themselves on that issue in particular. It's a way of showing toughness, of preparing themselves for the general election, but I think the drugs thing is reallybigger than crime. Cities all over America have been victimized and terrorized by drive by shootings. We were supposed to be a demographic valley where the crime rate was supposed to decline, demographers told us, because of the decline in the youth population. But in fact, our cities have become shooting galleries and I think that is a real, a real element in this whole issue.

MR. LEHRER: David, anything you want to add to that?

MR. GERGEN: Well, I'm not surprised Mark can't forget Dukakis, but I think he's right on both counts. Jim, drugs and crime right now are at the top of the emotional list in America. Sentiment and favor of the death penalty has reached the highest point in 50 years. Polling is up around 80 percent now across the country, and so what we're getting is a competition in bloodthirsty ads that's starting up around the country in these state races.

MR. LEHRER: David, you chose one from Anne Richards who was the other person in the primary, who is now in a run-off with Mattox in Texas. Let's look at that.

ANNOUNCER IN POLITICAL AD: Mark White and Jim Mattox want the governor's job. White promised not to raise taxes, but he did. Then he took our tax money to line his own pockets. No wonder he could afford his own million dollar mansion when he left the governor's office. Mattox said, "Anytime anybody gives me a dollar, I feel influenced." Danny Faulkner, indicted for racketeering, gave him $200,000. That's a lot of influence. Mattox and White, the worst resumes money can buy.

MR. LEHRER: That's hard ball, David.

MR. GERGEN: It is hard ball and it reflects the work of Bob Squire, a Democratic consultant. What we see in this ad is the shift in Anne Richards' strategy.

MR. LEHRER: Now, that's interesting. You identified the consultant there rather than the candidate. In other words, if you don't like that, you should like Squire, or if you do like it -- in other words, you should blame him or credit him?

MR. GERGEN: Well, that's an interesting point. You know, we've gotten to the point in politics, of course, where the candidates and the consultants become intertwined. You're not quite sure sometimes which one's running for office. In this case, Anne Richards started out as an establishment candidate. Her first ad was much softer, it showed her with some small children, and she started going down, and remember, she was questioned about drugs and whether she was using drugs. They came back on this theme, the Richards campaign, in order to salvage their campaign to put her opponents on the defensive about whether they had been taking money or not, and it worked. She made the run-offs and of course, Mark White, who had one of the earlier ads, is a fellow who dropped out, and now she is up against Mattox, as you say, in a run-off.

MR. LEHRER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: I think it was David's right. It was a very effective way of using the paid television spots to change the terms of the public debate. What was being debated in the campaign all of a sudden changed. She was very much on the defensive, answering questions -- or refusing to answer questions about alleged drug use. I think the other thing is, and David touched on it, the candidate has to be accountable in the final analysis. It isn't Bob Squire or Roger Ailes. It's George Bush or Anne Richards or anybody else. I just don't think that we can pass the buck --

MR. GERGEN: I would agree with that, but I would make the point that I think that we now, there are certain consultants now nationwide who have certain characteristics in the campaign, so Bob Squire is a fellow kind of like Roger Ailes, who can start out soft, but the campaign gets rough, he plays rough, he's willing to play rough.

MR. LEHRER: Here's one from the Republican race in Texas.

CLAYTON WILLIAMS: [Political Ad] If we're really going to win this war on drugs, we've got to attack it on all fronts. I'd start early. Beginning in kindergarten, I'd teach the three D's, Don't Do Drugs. Teenagers smoking marijuana, I'll take away their driver's license, and if they keep doing drugs, I'll put 'em in a boot camp. Military discipline, drug counseling, and I'll introduce 'em to the joys of bustin' rocks. If somebody tells you we can't win this war, you tell them they haven't met Clayton Williams.

MR. LEHRER: And of course Clayton Williams won. He won big and is now the Republican nominee for November. That is more drugs and crime, is it not?

MR. SHIELDS: It is drugs, it is strong. It's Clayton Williams as well. It isn't simply the quality of his commercials, which were very good, but it's the volume. I mean, Clayton Williams was so dominant and he had such a much larger budget that he really could dominate the terms of the debate and I think the quality of that spot was helpful to that, but I don't think you can consider the Williams' candidacy absent the enormous bankroll advantage he had over his opponent.

MR. GERGEN: Good point, Jim, but in the political circles that's now considered one of the two most effective ads of the campaign so far across the country. We'll see another one in just a moment, but that joy of busting rocks line that he came up with has been quoted widely all around Texas.

MR. LEHRER: David, let me ask you this. Texas is faced with several real crises of government. No. 1, its education system, or the way they fund it through real estate taxes has been declared unconstitutional. But it didn't seem to me that that was the dominant discussion point among the people who would be the next governor of Texas.

MR. GERGEN: You're absolutely right, and what we've gotten into of course in our campaigns is candidates now through these short ads try to hit the emotional hot buttons. They try to send out signals about what kind of people they are, what kind of character they have, and they do it through people's emotions. They do not use these ads as a way to discuss issues. And as a result of that, that's why many of feel that politics has degenerated in this country.

MR. LEHRER: All right, let's go to California. Here are some commercials from the Democratic race for governor, including the one that you mentioned a moment ago.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN [POLITICAL AD]: [November 27, 1978] Both Mayor Mosconi and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed.

ANNOUNCER IN POLITICAL AD: Forged from tragedy, her leadership brought San Francisco together. Tough and caring, she pushed for day care, cracked down on toxics, added police and cut crime 20 percent. Name the nation's most effective mayor and always pro choice. She's the only Democrat for governor for the death penalty. She's Dianne Feinstein.

ANNOUNCER IN POLITICAL AD: He took on the gun lobby, won a ban on AK-47s and he's being sued by the National Rifle Association. As District Attorney and Attorney General, he's put or kept 277 murderers on death row. He's fighting to protect the coast, to crack down on oil spills and cancer causing pesticides with an environmental initiative so far reaching it's known as "Big Green". He's taken on politicians with an ethics initiative to limit how long they stay in office. Take a stand. John Van de Kamp.

MR. LEHRER: Now, David, beginning with you,j it's the Feinstein ad that you mentioned as the one that's considered the other good one or the best one on the best list of this camp. Why? Why is that so effective?

MR. GERGEN: Well, she was not a well known candidate when that ad ran. She is in a race with Mr. Van de Kamp, the Attorney General of California, for the Democratic nomination. The primary's coming up in June. That ad started running a few weeks ago. At the time it started running, she was 10 points back. After it was shown extensively through California, especially in Southern California, she went from 10 points back to 19 points ahead of Van de Kamp. She moved 29 points. That's a huge jump. It catapulted her up. The Van de Kamp campaign at that time frankly was sitting. It wasn't active, and now Van de Kamp has come back with that second ad just a couple of nights ago to try to get back in this race.

MR. LEHRER: But, Mark, can an ad be that dramatically effective, cause people to change their minds that dramatically?

MR. SHIELDS: This ad is going to make a lot of consultants very very wealthy people because every candidate in the country is going to say do for me what they did for Feinstein, they being Hank Morris and Bill Carrick who did that. That ad cost $13,000 to produce, which is a shoestring. I mean, compared to the Clayton Williams ads we just saw, which were beautifully produced, with all sorts of technical advances and everything else, and beautiful colors done on film, this is just black and white of stark photos. And it did move her, and that in itself is remarkable.

MR. LEHRER: I was just going to say, summarize what all of this means. You heard what David said, that all of this means that the politics of America right now is not a very high quality. Would you agree with that, things have degenerated?

MR. SHIELDS: The point you raised, Jim, about Texas is absolutely valid. I mean, Texas sits there under court order. They're in a special session of the legislature right now. The governor has announced, the Republican governor who's not running again, Bill Clements, he will veto any tax bill. They're under an order to raise money for the schoolchildren of Texas, and it doesn't even come up in the debate of the campaign, except Jim Mattox benefits from the fact that he talks about a state lottery and that looks like a painless way to raise money.

MR. LEHRER: David, what's wrong?

MR. GERGEN: Well, what's wrong is --

MR. LEHRER: You have 15 seconds.

MR. GERGEN: -- there is too much money because television is so expensive and all of the money of campaigns is now poured into advertising or lots of it, and that's the only message a lot of voters get about the candidates and it's a bumper sticker.

MR. LEHRER: A bumper sticker, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: A wall poster, Jim, I would say, and the thing about Feinstein, the tough and caring, as one conservative Republican said this past week on the Hill, what he fears most as a Democrat as he calls a double death Democrat, a Democrat who is, this is a pro life Republican, he said a Democrat who is for the death penalty and for choice on abortion is a lethal combination. Dianne Feinstein mentions both those points.

MR. GERGEN: Tough but caring, that's her theme and it's working for her.

MR. LEHRER: It's working for everybody.

MR. GERGEN: That's right. It's a good point.

MR. LEHRER: Right. Gentlemen, thank you very much, and we'll see you next week. FINALLY - OVER PROTECTIVE!

MS. WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, we look at a complicated legal casethat is making its way toward the Supreme Court. It involves the female employees of a company that manufactures automobile batteries. Batteries contain lead which is known to cause birth defects in children, so the battery company has a policy that prohibits its fertile employees from working at jobs that would expose them to lead, a policy many call discriminatory. Fred De Sam Lazaro of public station KTCA in Minneapolis-St. Paul reports.

MR. LAZARO: Complaints have been common about employers who fail to adequately protect their workers from lead. This, however, is a story about just the opposite, an employer accused of over protecting some of its workers right out of their jobs.

INTERVIEWER: Did they afford you even the opportunity to wear a respirator and get to the higher paying job?

FEMALE EMPLOYEE: No.

INTERVIEWER: It was automatically denied to you?

FEMALE EMPLOYEE: Yes.

MR. LAZARO: These women are employees of the Johnson Controls Company, the nation's biggest maker of car batteries, among its several brand names the Sears Die Hard. They are among hundreds of females the company has classified as fertile, capable of bearing a child, and banned from jobs considered hazardous to a fetus.

INTERVIEWER: And you're losing income?

JUDY SEYMORE, Employee: Yes, about a hundred a week.

MR. LAZARO: These jobs are some of the higher paid positions at Johnson Controls and they are positions these women once held. That was before their employer began its fetal protection policy.

JUDY SEYMORE: I've protected myself for 22 years. That's my youngest child's age. I don't see why Johnson Controls thinks they can do better for me than I can for myself.

MR. LAZARO: Both Judy Seymore and her union lawyers agree with the company's assertion that the same lead exposure levels that are safe for adult men and women may be toxic for a fetus. But Seymore and her co-workers argue women ought to be able to use that information as each sees fit, an argument their union has taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

CATHERINE VOELTNER, Employee: Before I was hired, I was given a sheet of paper by the company and it explained right in this paper that if you're a woman and of child bearing capabilities that the health of the unborn child could be affected. And you had to sign this paper, so they've got proof that they've notified us of the dangers.

MR. LAZARO: Johnson Controls has protected its fetal policy in written publications, but the company will not talk about it on television. Johnson Controls does get guarded sympathy from some industrial safety experts like Chicago attorney James Holzhauer and Joseph Kinney of the National Workplace Safety Institute.

JOSEPH KINNEY, National Workplace Safety Institute: Under worker's compensation laws, the worker cannot sue the employer, however, a child of a worker who is damaged through the exposures of the worker can bring suit against an employer. And if you look at the kind of damage that lead does to a body, we're talking about major damages, and it's pretty clear that a small number of cases coupled with punitive damages could really hurt a company badly financially, as it well should.

JAMES HOLTZHAUER, National Workplace Safety Institute: I think financial protection is an important part of it, but the employer might very well want to avoid the moral liability of causing these kinds of birth defects to the extent it can.

MR. LAZARO: But unions at Johnson Controls ascribe no such virtue its policy. They say the company, already immune to damage lawsuits from workers, is merely trying to ward of similar action by their children. Dr. Frank Myrer is a toxicologist with the United Auto Workers.

DR. MYRER: The short of our position is make it safe for everybody. That's the short of it.

MR. LAZARO: Myrer said if Johnson Controls was concerned about its moral liability, it would install better safeguards for all its employees, male and female. He said fetal damage is just one lead exposure hazard in a typical plant.

DR. FRANK MYRER, Toxicologist: You have to worry about high blood pressure, which has been shown in men and at this kind of body burden of lead, you have to worry about neurological impairment in adults, at this body burden of lead, both nerve conduction and psychological impairment. You have to worry about renal function, kidney function at this kind of exposure. You have to worry about occupational cancer.

JAMES HOLZHAUER, National Workplace Safety Institute: Reducing pollution to that great of degree would be prohibitive. It might very well be technically feasible, although there are experts that say it's not. But if it is, it seems at this point at least it would be prohibitive.

MR. LAZARO: Citing some lead exposure as a "business necessity", the federal courts have sided with Johnson Controls and its fetal protection policies, saying while they may discriminate against women, these policies are medically justified and "facially neutral". Although all concerned support the company's goal, union officials say in practices, its policies discriminate and are too sweeping.

JUDY SEYMORE: I have known them to tell one person that her husband had a vasectomy and they told her that, well, you can still have kids, so it makes no difference.

MR. LAZARO: For its part, Johnson Control says it did for a time try a policy of voluntary pregnancy reporting and job transfer, but the company says this kind of system doesn't work. It often takes months, if not years, for a woman to lower the level of lead in her blood. That makes it difficult to plan a safe pregnancy. Besides, the company notes, many pregnancies are not planned, often undiagnosed for up to two months. That exposes a fetus to danger at a critical phase of its development.

MS. SEYMORE: If I can't go back and apply for a job like a man would apply for because I can have kids, but if I have my tubes tied or I had a hysterectomy or I've gone through the change, I can go and apply for this job, I think it's wrong.

MR. LAZARO: For their part, battery makers blame their problems on the federal government. In cases like this, they find themselves caught in the middle between the equal opportunity employment mandated by one federal agency and the safety of workers policed by a different agency. When the two conflict, they complain, the reconciliation is left to the courts.

MS. WOODRUFF: Today the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether or not to hear the Johnson Controls case. Its answer could come as early as next week. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday all centered on the growing tension in the Soviet republic of Lithuania. Soviet authorities ordered out all foreign diplomats and some reporters. The president of Lithuania accused the Soviets of sending in more troops, and Pres. Bush said the use of force by the Soviets would backfire. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our Newshour for tonight. We'll be back Monday night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a good weekend.