The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. President Reagan says he won't surrender in Lebanon. Senator Goldwater again says he should pull out. Heavy fighting again engulfs Beirut. We examine whether this means full-scale civil war. On Central America, President Reagan buys the Kissinger Commission's recommendations while critics protest. We hear both sides. Jim Lehrer is off; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Also tonight the President takes cheer from another drop in the unemployment rate, but the stock market dropped, too, nearly 17 points. The federal government accelerates the crackdown on the pesticide EDB even as it insists it's not an emergency.

WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS, EPA administrator: -- to clam down, and I think that message goes for everbody. We must calm down.

WOODRUFF: And we have a report on a bouncing baby boy who has made medical history. Full-Scale War

MacNEIL: Some of the heaviest fighting in months gripped parts of Beirut, Lebanon, today as President Reagan declared he would not surrender and pull out the Marines. At least 45 people were reported killed in rocket and artillery barrages as fighting spread to several sections of the capital. Here is a report from Brian Stewart of the CBC.

BRIAN STEWART, CBC [voice-over]: Beirut crowds are now lining up to stockpile essential food as the city braces itself for the worst, a passible full offensive by anti-government forces. And, as many equip their basement shelters, others answer the call of radio stations to donate blood as the toll of casualties keeps rising. Hospitals themselves, already handling several dozen serious casualties a day, are preparing to handle hundreds more if the fighting escalates as feared. Shelling eased off during the day, but overall in the past 24 hours it's been bad, the worst since the Shuf war broke out in September. Army units have been in a close battle in the southern suburbs against the Amal Shiite militia. The Shiites captured a Maronite church and adjoining buildings last night along the city's Green Line separating Muslims and Christians. Today the Army claims tohave driven them back, but heavy fighting continues in the area.

[on camera] A new offensive may not be inevitable, but it does seem likely. What sets this round apart is that this time the Druse and the Shiites seem determined to topple the government of Amin Gemayel, to go for the jugular. They claim it's because peace talks are getting nowhere, but they may sense that Gemayel is now politically on the ropes and that one big offensive will bring in a new government easy to influence and, possibly, to control.

MacNEIL: Nevertheless, Prime Minister Shafik Wazzan broadcast an appeal for all warring factions to lay down their arms and join in a national coalition cabinet. Although stray shells landed on Beirut airport, none hit the U.S. Marine base, but the fighting put the Marines on their highest state of alert.

In Washington, the political battle over the U.S. Marines also escalated. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, President Reagan hardened his comments on efforts by congressional Democrats to get him to pull the Marines out. Referring to House Speaker Thomas O'Neill, the President said, "He may be ready to surrender, but I'm not. Withdrawing from Lebanon now," the President added, "means the end of Lebanon and any ability on our part to bring about an overall peace in the Middle East." Speaker O'Neill said in a statement, "He should calm down. The issue of the Marines is not an issue of how tough Ronald Reagan is. It's an issue of how safe the Marines are and what their role is."

Meanwhile, House Democrats postponed until next Tuesday a vote on their resolution calling for the prompt withdrawal of the Marines. The House Foreign Affairs Committee was redrafting the resolution to broaden its appeal. But the new political struggle in Washington was being waged against that background of rising violence in Beirut. This week the Druse leader, Walid Jumblatt, said that another round of full-scale civil war was inescapable. To discuss that probability and whether today's fighting is the beginning of it, we have Paul Jureidini, an expert on Lebanon's various military factions. He's based in Virginia with the firm Abbott Associates. Mr. Jureidini, is Walid Jumblatt right? Is a full-scale civil was now inevitable again?

PAUL JUREIDINI: No, it's a bit early to tell.I think this could be a pre-emptive move by Walid to forestall the Lebanese army move or the much-rumored move into the Shuf. Or it could be the opening move in a Syrian attempt to knock Lebanon into the Syrian orbit. The Syrians seems to need a quick victory at the moment.

MacNEIL: But whichever of those it is, it's the beginning of something serious again?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Yes. No, absolutely.

MacNEIL: Which, presumably, is not good for U.S. policy there?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Well, obviously, if we look at Lebanon per se one could debate the issue, but the linkages and the ripple effect of what happens in Lebanon on a number of developing situations in the Middle East -- the visit of King Hussein to the United States, the visits of President Mubarak to Jordan and to Iraq and, more important I think, the Arab summit in Riyadh for March. If Syria walks into that summit with a victory in Lebanon, it is obviously going to deflate moves to reinstate Egypt and to undermine -- it would undermine the moves to get a Jordanian-Palestinian approach to the Reagan peace plan.

MacNEIL: Is President Reagan right when he says that if the Marines pulled out that it would be handing it to Syria?

Mr. JUREIDINI: There's no question about it. The Syrians have two enemies in the region -- Israel and Iraq -- and in both situations they need Lebanon and Jordan, and they're not about to give Lebanon its independence.

MacNEIL: Now, drawing on your knowledge of these various factions and starting, say, with the Druse -- Walid Jumblatt's faction, why has this new big violence broken out now only a few weeks after it seemed that the disengagement plan was very close to being accepted?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Well, Walid has his own agenda, and obviously he's using his Syrian connections and his Israeli connections. If you look purely at his needs, the enemy for Walid is obviously not Amin Gemayel but demography. The Druse, two centuries ago, ruled Lebanon. Since then they have seen their number shrink. They don't convert people and they don't go for big families, and they've seen their areas -- the areas they control -- also shrink. And that's a question of the survival of the Druse community. Walid is not really interested in power-sharing or reform. He is interested in the welfare of his community, and therefore the Shuf, which he now claims to be his.

MacNEIL: The mountain range which he largely controls now?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Right. He just wants it for the Druse, regardless as to whether the Druse are a majority or minority in that area.

MacNEIL: Now, the Shiite Muslims, who are also fighting the Gemayel government and the ones who are engaged with the Lebanese army on the outskirts of Beirut at the moment, why have they begun fighting strenuously again?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Well, I think it's a mistake to say the Shiites. Part of the Shiites. The Shiite community is by no means opposed to the Amin Gemayel government. Had they been opposed they would have called out of the army all their co-religionists. The Shia members of the Lebanese army are about 60%. Thus their presence in the Lebanese army suggests that the Shia are not behind, as a community, in other words, are not behind what's happening in Lebanon. The Shia have no interest in cantonization. They would like power-sharing because the numbers now suggest that they would be their greatest beneficiary.

MacNEIL: Cantonization means giving regions or cantons of Lebanon to the different factions.

Mr. JUREIDINI: Yes, absolutely. And this is what Walid wants, but I don't think the Shia want that. The Shia see a loss in cantonization.

MacNEIL: Do you see Amin Gemayel's government surviving this situation?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Well, I think it can unless the Syrians, obviously, overpower him. The Lebanese army can deal with Walid Jumblatt and with what's going on. But if the Syrians, through their guns in the upper mountain by shelling Zahle, as they are at the moment --

MacNEIL: Zahle is what?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Is a Christian town in the Bekaa Valley.By broadening and intensifying the scope of the fighting, obviously they may be able to overrun Amin Gemayel and force him into their orbit.

MacNEIL: And, briefly, what can the United States do about this situation right now?

Mr. JUREIDINI: I think the United States is doing exactly what it should be doing, is stand by the government of Amin Gemayel and stand by the Lebanese army and support it.

MacNEIL: Mr. Jureidini, thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Congressional opposition to President Reagan's policy on Lebanon extends even to some of the most conservative Republicans. Senator Barry Goldwater told me in an interview today he absolutely disagrees with the President's remark that a troop pullout would be surrender.

Sen. BARRY GOLDWATER, (R) Arizona: Why should we bring the Marines home? There's no American property over there. Thre's no American lives being threatened. There's no freedom of Americans threatened. We at one time needed that section of the world for oil We have all the oil now we need. We can tell the Arab countries to go to hell if we want to. These aren't the Arab countries necessarily. So I don't see any reason to have a couple of thousand American fighting men sitting over there being shot at for no reason in the world.

WOODRUFF: Well, but the President argues, as you know, that if they pulled out -- if we pulled out, it would mean the collapse of Lebanon, that it would have disastrous repercussions throughout the world because it would say something bad about the United States not standing up for its commitments.

Sen. GOLDWATER: I told the President he's getting down to the old Chinese-Japanese argument of saving face. I'd rather lose a little face than 500,000 or a million American men when they're fighting over nothing. All right, suppose Lebanon falls. That'd be a happy desire for some of our friends sitting over there. And the argument gets down to me, who are we fighting for? The United States or some friendly country over there that we've made promises to.

WOODRUFF: You mean Israel?

Sen. GOLDWATER: Yeah.

WOODRUFF: What do you think we should do? As you know, there is all this talking about a resolution and --

Sen GOLDWATER: Load those boys up on the aircraft carriers and the boats, put them in the airplanes, bring 'em home.

WOODRUFF: Goldwater said he would not, however, support any congressional resolution that calls on the President to bring the troops home. He said such a move should be left entirely up to the President without any congressional interference. That should come as a little bit of good news to the Reagan administration, which finds itself facing growing opposition to its policy. Here to speak for the administration is the deputy secretary of state, Kenneth Dam. Mr. Dam, how do you respond to the kinds of criticisms you're hearing from those such as Senator Goldwater?

KENNETH DAM: Well, I think he's mistaken. I think the United States has a great interest in the Middle East and in Lebanon. Lebanon is a potential flashpoint. Israel and Syria are so close together there and there are 7,000 Soviet troops in Syria. I think that we have to see stability come to that region. Without stability there's real danger there. Beyond that, I think that there's a political security question here. The real sin of Lebanon, of Pierre Gemayel [sic], in the eyes of the Syrians is that he dared -- he dared to enter into an agreement with Israel, an agreement about peace -- although it wasn't a peace treaty. An agreement about bringing about peace in that area. Now, if his punishment for doing so is that his government is destroyed, that he is subject to this kind of intimidation, then I don't think we can expect to see peace in the Middle East. I don't think we can expect to see a comprehensive set of agreements evolve over time, and with that there could be a lot of chaos.

WOODRUFF: Well, is the administration at all influenced by this growing chorus of opposition from the left and from the right?

Sec. DAM: Well, obviously we live in a political system in the United States; that's the nature of democracy. And we're anxious for our point of view to be understood, and we believe it is being understood.Now, right now there is a great deal of activity in the Congress, but I don't dismay on this because I think thatthe logic of the administration's position is being understood by more and more people. I know there's a lot of activity right now. Congress is back in town. But I don't think it's really true that there is growing opposition at this point.

WOODRUFF: Well, just how far are we willing to go militarily? We see now the Lebanese army is facing more serious fighting than it's faced in some time. Are we prepared now to step up and give more direct assistance to the Lebanese?

Sec. DAM: Well, our position is, as it's been before, the Marines are there to provide a breathing space, to contribute to the security situation, by providing a breathing space so that the Gemayel government, which is, after all, the constitutional, democratically supported and elected government of the country, can extend its influence to the Beirut area and bring about some stability. We will defend the Marines if they're attacked, and that is our fundamental principle.

WOODRUFF: Well, how does this, what you just said about we're there to provide a breathing space, square with what the President has said, that we are there to wait for the Israelis and the Syrians to pull out of Lebanon -- that we're waiting for countrywide stability?

Sec. DAM: Our goals for Lebanon have been articluated and have not changed since this question arose. They are that there be a reconciliation in the country so that the government can extend its authority over the entire country and there be withdrawal of all foreign forces. That doesn't mean that the Marines have to do that, but we came to Lebanon in a situation in which the armed force of the country was very weak. We've been working very hard to strengthen that armed force, and it's gotten a lot stronger, and we plan to continue to contribute to its strength so that it can extend its authority.

WOODRUFF: Well, now, this "breathing space" language that you're using is the same language that Under Secretary Lawrence Eagleburger used in congressional testimony yesterday, and some are interpreting that to mean that the administration has somewhat changed the conditions upon which we might decide to pull the troops out or to begin to pull the troops out. Are we reading too much into what you're saying?

Sec. DAM: I think you are. I think that the fact of the matter is that one of the attacks on the administration has been to try to confuse what our position is to say that the Marines are there until all of the foreign forces are out. We've never said that. We've never said that at all, and what we're trying to do is to make it clear that we have certain goals, we are for those goals. A step in that -- we have to achieve those goals, ultimately, diplomatically, but we cannot achieve them in a situation in which the government of the country is being intimidated.

WOODRUFF: Well, do you think we're getting any closer to that goal? I mean, do you think that the events of the last few days or weeks have brought us any closer to the conditions upon which we might decide it was time to begin to pull out?

Sec DAM: Well, I don't know whether I would look at this thing on a day-to-day basis. One of the -- that's actually somewhat dangerous because then you get into a dialogue with yourselves -- ourselves here in the United States which the Syrians are listening to very carefully. As a prominent Syrian political figure said, "The United States is short of breath." I think if you take a space of some months there's been a great deal of progress, not only in Lebanon, but also the way in which the moderate Arab world looks at Syria.

WOODRUFF: And you can say that despite the fighting that is increasing over there right now?

Sec. DAM: Well, the fighting rises and it falls. There have been many breaches of the ceasefire, but it's still better than not having the ceasefire. This is perhaps a kind of peak. It may get worse; it may not. The fighting was at its worst in the Shuf area just before the September ceasefire because the Syrians saw that they were not going to achieve what they were looking for at that point, and they decided they'd be better off with the ceasefire.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you, Mr. Dam, and we'll be back to you in a moment. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now we turn to the other major trouble spot for the country, Central America. In Honduras, four American soldiers died yesterday and six were injured when an Army helicopter crashed in the mountains in bad weather. The U.S. Embassy said there was no indication of hostile fire. The accident occurred 35 miles from the Nicaraguan border, where another U.S. helicopter was shot down on January 11th. The helicopter lost yesterday had been providing support to Honduran forces in a field training exercise.

President Reagan today bought all of the recommendations of the Kissinger Commission report on Central America. He announced he would ask Congress for $8 billion over the next five years for economic and military aid to the troubled region. He also agreed that assistance to El Salvador should be made conditional on human rights progress there and an end to murders by the so-called death squads. But the President wanted to preserve for the executive branch the right to determine the conditions under which aid would be cut off or continued. In remarks to an audience of congressmen and diplomats, Mr. Reagan said the transfusion of funds would not guarantee a cure.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: The legislation does not offer a quick fix to the crisis in Central America. There is none. Our plan offers a comprehensive program to support democratic development, improve human rights and bring peace to this troubled region that's so close to home. And the approach is right. It includes a mix of developmental, political, diplomatic and security initiatives equitably and humanely pursued. We either do them all or we jeopardize the chance for real progress in the region. Our plan is for the long haul. It won't be easy and it won't be cheap, but it can be done. And for strategic and moral reasons, it must be done.

MacNEIL: Even before getting this five-year plan started, the President is asking Congress to give the whole Central American region an additional $659 million in supplementary economic and military aid to bring the fiscal '84 appropriation to more than $1 1/2 billion. The figures for El Salvador: the White House wants $179 million more in military aid for a total of $243 million in fiscal '84. In economic aid to El Salvador the President is asking for $134 million more for a year -end total of $333 million. While critics focus on the military outlay, the White House is stressing that three-quarters of the 1984 outlays are economic. In 1985, they say, economic aid will be seven times the military aid. El Salvador's ambassador to the United States, Ernesto Rivas-Gallont, said the Reagan approach would save democracy in El Salvador.

ERNESTO RIVAS-GALLONT, Salvadoran Ambassador to the U.S.: I think that the President's proposals this morning brings an idea to its time. The time has come for this idea to be materialized. We feel that, provided that the Kissinger reports proposals through the Henry Jackson plan that the President called this morning moves through Congress speedily, and that measure will see peace in Central America also very soon. The security assistance component of the Kissinger report is awfully important if we are going to be able to keep the guerrillas at bay as we continue in our process to bring democracy into the country, to El Salvador.

MacNEIL: A member of Congress who is likely to take issue with the President's plan is Stephen Solarz, Democrat from Brooklyn. Congressman Solarz is a member of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, and has recently returned from a five-week tour of Central America. Congressman, do you agree with the ambassador that it will save democracy in El Salvador to implement the Kissinger plan as the President wants?

Rep. STEPHEN SOLARZ: I think it would certainly be helpful to the government of El Salvador if we provided this additional military and economic assistance, but if that were all we did, I don't think it would be sufficient. The key to a resolution of the conflict in El Salvador is for the government of El Salvador to eliminate the involvement of its own security forces in the so-called death squads which have been responsible over the last several years for the murder of approximately 40,000 non-combatants in their own country.

MacNEIL: Now, the President's calling for that too.

Rep. SOLARZ: I think that is a very welcome development, but I think the Congress is going to insist that any additional military assistance to El Salvador be made absolutely conditional on the elimination of the death squads by the government of that country.

MacNEIL: What does that mean, absolutely conditional?

Rep. SOLARZ: That without a successful effort on the part of the government of El Salvador to eliminate the participation of its own security forces -- the National Guard, the Treasury Police, the National Police -- in the work of the death squads, that no additional military aid will be made available to them.

MacNEIL: And who would determine whether they'd been successful or not?

Rep. SOLARZ: Well, I think this is determination which is going to have to be made by both the President and the Congress.

MacNEIL: Not the executive branch alone, as the President wishes?

Rep. SOLARZ: In view of the extent to which the President has previously certified to the Congress that the government of El Salvador is making progress toward the elimination of the death squads, when the number of non-combatants murdered by the death squads has continued to increase, I don't think there's much confidence in the Congress that the administration can be relied upon to submit a fair certification.

MacNEIL: Well, as you know, the administration says that since formal certification ended that the human rights position and the death squad record has improved.

Rep. SOLARZ: I think that there has been a reduction in the number of people killed on an annual basis by the death squads, but the fact that the death squads are killing only a few thousand people a year rather than several thousand people a year hardly constitutes an acceptable situation. And the fact of the matter is that Vice President Bush went of El Salvador several weeks ago, he met with the leaders of the government and of the security forces and said to them, in effect, that unless they eliminated the death squads they would not be able to continue to count on any additional military assistance being approved by the Congress. I think we ought to put into law that the Vice President in effect said to the government of El Salvador when he went there, which is that unless they succeed in getting rid of the death squads, not simply try, not simply make additional efforts, but unless they actually eliminate the participation of the security forces and the death squads, they won't get any additional assistance from us. And the reason I think we have to insist on that, Robin, is that unless the death squads are eliminated there will be neither a military victory nor a political settlement in El Salvador.

MacNEIL: But the administration says also that unless there is some additional military aid fast there may be a military defeat of the government forces.

Rep. SOLARZ: Right now, in my view, you have a military stalemate in El Salvador. The government is clearly not in a position to defeat the guerrillas, but neither are the guerrillas in a position to defeat the government. And that is a stalemate which is at the very least likely of last for another few years. The precondition for a successful resolution to this conflict is the elimination of the death squads. I believe the government has the capacity to do it. This is centrally controlled and directed. From the intelligence available to us it appears that key people in the security forces are responsible for the operation of these death squads, which have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Salvadorans, and for every innocent Salvadoran who's killed by the death squads you have at least a dozen people in the family of the slaughtered victim who become hostile to the government and sympathetic to the guerrillas.

MacNEIL: Finally, in general terms, do you applaud the findings of the Kissinger Commission, and will you help the administration to implement them?

Rep. SOLARZ: I think that the recommendation that we provide several billion dollars in economic assistance to the countries of Central America is a very constructive one, but I think it will be absolutely essential for the Congress to adopt legislation making it clear that the provision of this additional assistance is contingent on a political settlement among the countries of the region within the framework of the Contadora process. To provide several billion dollars in economic aid to countries which are mired and enmeshed in internal conflicts with the very real possibility that the wars raging in Salvador and Nicaragua could spill over to the other countries of the region would be putting good money after bad.

MacNEIL: Are you saying that the Congress will make approval of this large aid package conditional on the administration backing and accepting a Contadora peace plan solution?

Rep. SOLARZ: What I'm suggesting, Robin, is that the Congress should make the additional economic resources which the administration has requested contingent on the political settlement among the countries of Central America within the framework of the Contadora process because, unless you have peace in the region, we simply can't utilize productively the billions of dollars in additional economic aid which are being requested and, furthermore and perhaps most importantly, if the Congress makes it clear that these extra resources will be available in the context of a political settlement in the region, it will provide a very powerful incentive for the countries of Central America to resolve their differences so that they can begin to get these additional resources for their own development.

MacNEIL: Congressman, thank you.

Rep. SOLARZ: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Judy?

WOODRUFF: And for the administration's viewpoint we turn once again to Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth Dam. Mr. Dam, before we get to the administration's request for more aid for Central America, is there any light you can shed, more, on the helicopter crash in which four American soldiers were killed in Honduras?

Sec. DAM: No, I really can't. It happened quite some distance from the border, so it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance at all to the prior situation, but I can't shed any light on it.

WOODRUFF: Do you know what mission they were on?

Sec. DAM: I do not.

WOODRUFF: All right, let's talk about this request today by the administration, formal request, based on the Kissinger Commission report. Why is $800 million needed? Is it possible right now, especially in El Salvador, while civil war is being waged, for a country to absorb as much money as we're talking about giving them?

Sec. DAM: Well, we've looked at that question and we think it is, and for several reasons. First of all, just to pass over the military aid very quickly, you can't have economic development in a situation in which the guerrillas are trying to destroy the economic infrastructure of the country to prevent the crops from being harvested and so forth. So that there has to be money for that security. But beyond that, on the economic side, as a result of the violence and, to a certain extent, the international economic situation in which commodities prices have fallen, there has been such a severe contraction of the amount of foreign exchange that the Salvador government and the other governments can earn that they have serious payments imbalances. They've had to cut way back on their imports. The effect of that is to make the social and political situation even worse, and to create a lot of unemployment.

WOODRUFF: Isn't it unlikely that you're going to get as much money as you're asking for from the Congress? I mean, we've just heard Congressman Solarz say that the money at least ought to be conditional on there being some sort of a peace settlement among the Contadora countries.

Sec. DAM: Well, I think there are some conditions the Congress would want to impose, but that's not the same as saying they don't want to provide the money. I'm sure that there are people who argue about human rights because they don't want to give the money, but I think that we will get that kind of support. After all, these recommendations with regard to the money were unanimous by this commission made up of people of both parties, people who came to this issue with widely divergent points of view. And I think this bipartisan spirit is going to carry over to the Congress.

WOODRUFF: Well, what's wrong with Mr. Solarz's idea, though, that the aid should be conditional on some sort of a peace settlement, political settlement?

Sec. DAM: Well, on that score I agree that a regional peace settlement would be highly desirable. He mentioned the Contadora process. We're fully behind that process and trying to support it. There's only one country that doesn't want to sign up, and that's Nicaragua. Now, to say that you're not going to give any aid to any of the other countries because Nicaragua blocks a settlement is, I think, rather self-defeating in view of what we're trying to accomplish there.

WOODRUFF: How do you justify more than $500 million in aid to a country like El Salvador when we've been pouring military aid in and we see at, you know, worst interpretation, the government troops are losing; best interpretation is that it's a stalemate.

Sec. DAM: Well, I don't think we've been pouring in military assistance. Several years ago we were giving $86 million a year. The Congress has cut that back, been reducing the level of effort.As a result -- you know, things like ammunition cost money. If there's not enough there the Salvadoran army tends to stay in the barracks because they don't want to be in a situation in which they are out in the field and simply run out.There are a lot of examples of this. I can't go into them in detail. I don't think we've been pouring in military assitance at all. If anything, the Congress has been cutting it back. Now we have a bipartisan look at the situation and the conclusion of the commission was that the current situation was the worst possible, and that we had to put more in.

WOODRUFF: What does the large amount of military aid for Honduras mean? What is that money going to be spent for?

Sec. DAM: Again, I don't think it's a large amount, but again it will be spent in order to provide the Honduran armed forces with what they need to have a credible defense posture, to deal with guerrillas that they have had. Thus far they've been able to deal successfully with them, but we don't know how much more will come in from outside to support those guerrillas.

WOODRUFF: Will there also be military aid for Guatemala?

Sec. DAM: The military aid situation with regard to other countries is the subject of consultation with the Congress and, in making the announcement today, we did not go at all beyond the countries that we have just discussed.

WOODRUFF: Why is that?

Sec. DAM: Simply because it's important to consult on that question. It's somewhat more complicated. The commission did not really focus on that question. But I think we're dealing with much, much smaller amounts, even in the consultations.

WOODRUFF: Does the administration accept the idea of linkage of this sort of military aid with progress on human rights?

Sec. DAM: We believe that they must be linked. I agree with Congressman Solarz completely except for his method. Except for his method. I don't think there's any difference between us or between him and the administration on the importance of the adolition of the death squads and the improvement of the human rights situation.The --

WOODRUFF: But he's saying that it should be done in consultation with the Congress, that the administration --

Sec. DAM: Oh, we agree. We're in consultation. But you see, we had a certification process. Almost everybody agreed that it was counterproductive, because over time it became less and less realistic, less effective. What he wants to do is make it more absolute. He wants to have an absolute system whereby, apparently, if there's one death squad death that's the end of all assistance. We don't think that's going to be effective. We dont think it's realistic. There are number of reasons for that. First of all, Uncle Sam telling the local people of El Salvador how many hoops they have to jump through on various subjects is not the way to get their cooperation. It just doesn't work. It's a small country. It's a country composed of people of different backgrounds and so forth. Secondly, if you create a situation where you say if there's one death in the country that's the end of the aid, you create all kinds --

WOODRUFF: But we're a long way away from --

Sec. DAM: -- of incentives --

WOODRUFF: We're a long way away from just one death, aren't we? I mean we're talking about several thousand.

Sec. DAM: Well, apparently Congressman Solarz isn't in what he's demanding. I can't really believe he's as absolutist about it as that.

WOODRUFF: But his point, I think, was that while there were many thousands of deaths now there are still a few thousand -- several thousand.

Sec. DAM: There are too many. There are too many. There are too many, and -- but they have been going down, and they particularly have been going down since the end of formal certification and this new approach that he talked about by the administration.

WOODRUFF: Well, what is wrong with the Congress having a say in whether there's been progress in making a determination whether there's been progress in that area?

Sec. DAM: Absolutely none and, in fact, as they are asked to vote upon this assistance they will have that say. Moreover, we're willing to sit down with the Congress and have been doing so to try to work out a system which gives the Congress a way of having a voice even between the times that they vote aid. But thus far nobody has proposed anything that doesn't get into the difficulties I've just described.

WOODRUFF: Do you think that can be resolved?

Sec. DAM: I hope so.

WOODRUFF: Do you think that this human rights -- are you saying that they are just making too much of this human rights issue? Is that --

Sec. DAM: No. I think what is happening is that the desire to do something about the human rights situation, which I understand is leading to -- is leading some people, I don't think a majority, to try to come up with complicated legislative systems like we might have for a regulated industry in the United States, in order to try to fine-tune the situation. These -- obviously there are -- is participation by people who have relationships to the government in the death squad activity, but there's a lot of other death squad activity, too, undoubtedly. What we need to do is to create a situation in which the government of El Salvador takes responsibility for stamping out this practice, and it's not just a question of Uncle Sam telling him what to do.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you, Kenneth Dam, for being with us again. Robin?

MacNEIL: In Managua the government of Nicaragua ordered its ambassadors to the United States and Honduras to come home for consultations following two days of air raids against a Nicaraguan military base. Today the Nicaraguans said five planes coming from Honduras killed five soldiers and wounded at least 10 at the base an Manzanillo. Yesterday the Nicaraguans said three soldiers were killed and three wounded in a similar raid.

[Video postcard -- Loudon Dam, Tennessee]

MacNEIL: There was good and bad economic news today while policy differences within the Reagan administration broke out into the open. The unemployment figures for the month of January showed another drop -- .2% -- to a jobless rate of 8%. That is the lowest level since October, 1981, when the figure stood at 7.9% before the recession took hold. But on Wall Street worries about deficits and interest rates sent the Dow Jones industrial average falling below the 1200 mark for the first time since last August. The indicator fell by 16.85 points in heavy trading to close at 1197.03.

On Capitol Hill the long-reported, often-denied policy strains between Treasury Secretary Donald Regan and the President's chief economic adviser, Martin Feldstein, broke out into the open. Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee, Regan spoke about the 343-page report of the President on the economy, which was prepared by Mr. Feldstein's Council of Economic Advisers. Regan said this: "As far as I'm concerned you can throw it away." He did make an exception of the first eight pages, which the President signed, but he added, "The remainder is carefully labeled as the chairman's report of the Council of Economic Advisers, and you can have it." Later Martin Feldstein, who is the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, appeared before the same committee and shrugged off Regan's remarks with a joke. "I suppose, he said, that was just a throwaway line."

Judy? EDB Banned

WOODRUFF: The federal government today banned the use of the pesticide EDB on grain, and set guidelines for removing contaminated foods from store shelves around the country. The pesticide, which has been linked to cancer in animals, has been turning up in small amounts in some grain products such as flour, cake mixes and muffin mixes. Since December, several states have moved on their own to pull contaminated items off the market. Today for the first time the Environmental Protection Agency recommended national limits on exposure to the pesticide officially known as ethylene dibromide. At a press conference in Washington, EPA chief William Ruckelshaus said his order should affect about 7% of the corn-based products on the market, and only 1% of the wheat-based products, but he said there was no cause for public alarm.

WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS, EPA administrator: If we act carefully, if we act calmly, if we act responsibly, we can work our way through this bleeding-out, in effect, of this material from the American diet. Our job is to protect the public health, and I think we're doing it. For ready-to-eat products such as cold cereals, snack foods, bread, all baked goods, we recommend that residue levels should not exceed 30 parts per billion. I firmly believe that the guidelines we are recommending today are fully protective of the public health. Eating a grapefruit, a cupcake, somethink like that, does not really present much of a risk at all. In fact, we don't think the risk is even findable. But a lifetime of that kind of consumption, that's where the problem is. So that what we're doing is getting this material out of the pipeline as fast as we can, and we really don't believe there is any reason for consumers to be concerned.

WOODRUFF: Food producers across the nation generally supported the new EPA restrictions and stress there is no immediate threat to public health. But in Washington Republican Senator David Durenberger of Minnesota accused the administration of not going far enough. Durenberger said the standards announced by the EPA are too low, and he criticized Ruckelshaus for not including citrus fruit in the ban.

Sen. DAVID DURENBERGER, (R) Minnesota: From the perspective of human health, I still fail to see how EDB residues in grain are that different from EDB residues in fruit. If 40 parts per billion is unsafe in your breakfast muffin, it is also unsafe in a glass of orange juice. Mr. Ruckelshaus has often said since his return to EPA there are two parts to these kinds of regulatory decisions. One part is science, and he called that "risk assessment." The other part is policy, and that's called "risk management." And he has argued since he has been back as administrator that policy or politics should not be allowed to taint the science, and with that I agree. And I hope that that's the case with regard to his numbers.

WOODRUFF: The EPA director had said today that he needed another couple of weeks of study before he decided whether to extend the ban to fruits. For more on the Reagan administration's explanation for its action we have with us Paul Lapsley, chief of the special review branch of pesticides for the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Lapsley, can you just begin by addressing yourself to the criticism that Senator Durenberger made that this ban should have been extended to citrus fruits as well?

PAUL LAPSLEY: Yes, I would mention that we have taken action, actually, in October to ban the use on citrus and, had it not been challenged by affected parties, that ban would be in effect now. However, because of the way our law is structured, there is a hearing process in effect now that can last up to two years. Therefore, we are now collecting data and analyzing the residue levels in citrus to determine whether an emergency suspension as we issued today on the grain uses of EDB is in order for the citrus use. However, I would like to point out that the consumption of citrus in our diet is much less than the consumption of grain-based products. Therefore, the exposures are significantly less.

WOODRUFF: Let me just ask you a basic question. Can you explain what these guidelines mean? How much of a level of EDB in food is safe, in packaged food that we would buy in a grocery store?

Mr. LAPSLEY: I think safe is really a qualitative term. We would not like to see any level of EDB in consumer products, and that's why we took the action today so that in the future there will be no levels of EDB. But the action levels that we set today are guidelines that can be enforced by the states so that there are not excessive residues in products when we believe that they can be below the 30-part-per-billion level, for example, for consumer products that have been baked, such as bread, to eliminate any potential residues above that level that may have occurred from some misuse of the pesticide.

WOODRUFF: What is this going to mean in terms of what food is taken off the shelves? I mean, we know Mr. Ruckelshaus was saying 7% of the corn-based products, and I guess 1% of -- what does that mean? I mean, does that mean in many cities there will be food products taken off the grocery shelves as a result of this?

Mr. LAPSLEY: It depends on how the states choose to use the agency's guidelines. Their authority would allow them to enforce the guidelines, and based on the economic estimates that we've made, we believe that for wheat-based products approximately one to two percent of consumer products such as bread could be removed from shelves for exceeding that level.

WOODRUFF: Okay, we're talking about bread, again, cake mixes, muffin mixes and that sort of thing. Flour --

Mr. LAPSLEY: No, the distinction is the consumer products that have already been baked, such as bread, cookies, things that contain wheat that have already been baked, that's the 30-part-per-billion level. There is another higher residue level for things that haven't been baked such as muffin mixes or flour mix --

WOODRUFF: And some of those will be coming off the shelves, right?

Mr. LAPSLEY: There is the potential for that, but that is dependent on the states using the agency's guidelines and enforcing them in their own individual states. The states are free to use more stringent levels than we have set or less stringent.

WOODRUFF: Well, of course Mr. Ruckelshaus stressed that the risk is not an immediate one, that it's something that is a more long-term concern. If that's the case, why leave it up to the states? I mean, shouldn't the government have taken -- the federal government have done something that would have affected the country as a whole?

Mr. LAPSLEY:Normally we would have done that. However, in this situation we don't have currently the authority to set a nationwide tolerance because, back in 1956 when this pesticide was first registered, the analytical techniques that were available were not sensitive enough to show us that there were going to be residues in food.

WOODRUFF: Well, should you -- would you like to have that authority?

Mr. LAPSLEY: Not only would we like to have it, we are seeking it now by initiating the rule-making to revoke the exemption from tolerance that was established at that time. Now, that can take 30 days and perhaps longer if appealed by affected parties.

WOODRUFF: Okay, but we just want to stress again that there's no immediate danger, is that right, in the products --

Mr. LAPSLEY: That's correct. It's the long-term, chronic exposure that we feel is a serious problem and one that we believe that we have ended today.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you, Mr. Lapsley, for being with us. Robin? Ovum Transfers

MacNEIL: A team of doctors in California called an unusual press conference today to announce the birth of a baby. It was a birth that researchers say may usher in a new era in the treatment of infertile couples who want to have children. Correspondent Kwame Holman has this report from Long Beach, California.

DOCTOR: For the past nine months they've been like expectant parents and that's how we all feel here today.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: Doctors here at Long Beach Memorial Medical Center are using words like "astounding" and "amazing" to describe what is believed to be the world's first successful human birth using a process called ovum transfer, a process that is likely to provide another new hope for women who are unable to have children. The procedure involves artifically inseminating a willing woman donor with the sperm of the husband of the infertile couple. Then, instead of allowing the fetus to grow inside the donor woman, it is removed after five days and implanted in the recipient wife, who carries the child to term. The child bears no genetic traits of the wife, only those of her husband and the donor woman. The birth announced today was the result of an implantation that occurred last April. The child was born in November in Los Angeles County to a couple who asked to remain anonymous. Ovum transfers have been successfully tried in 14 species of animals. The procedure has long been a staple of the cattle industry. Doctors say ovum transfers have significant advantages over the so-called test-tube baby procedure where the egg is fertilized outside the womb. Ovum transfers require no surgery or anesthesia and have a higher success rate than test-tube babies. The procedure is expected to help some 3.5 million couples in the U.S. alone.

The nearly $3 million in funding for the ovum transfer research was provided by a private Chicago-based firm, Fertility and Genetics Research, and a patent is being sought for the process and equipment that were used. Dr. Maria Bustillo was a chief participant in the project.

Dr. MARIA BUSTILLO: It's a very unusual kind of thing for medicine. Most medical research, as was previously pointed out, has been tax-supported so it is the property of the public, and then made available to all without a patent. That, however, has not been the case very recently because of all the government overspending, etc., and there's really not much money for research.

HOLMAN: Ovum transfer researchers say that the ethical questions raised by the genetic matching of donor to recipient have been dealt with in discussions of test-tube babies. They say that the important breakthrough here is that of allowing an infertile woman to experience a pregnancy.

Dr. BUSTILLO: The woman herself has input as to what happens to that child inside of her. Like Dr. Buster said, she can control how many Cokes she drinks, how many cigarettes she smokes, how much wine she drinks, and she has total control over the development of that fetus, even though she has not supplied the genetic material behind it. And she has the experience of delivery, which is a very powerful experience for most women, and so we feel that this is much better than both surrogate mothers and adoption.

MacNEIL: And, out in space, the shuttle ship Challenger is back in orbit on an eight-day mission with five astronauts, two communications satellites, three arthritic rats for a student experiment, and two jet backpacks for one-man trips out into space. The shuttle was launched at eight this morning right on time. Here's how it went.

SPACE OFFICIAL: . . . six, five -- we have main engine start . . . three, two, one, zero. We have solid rocket booster ignition and lift-off of Challenger and the 10th space shuttle flight, and the shuttle has cleared the tower.

2nd OFFICIAL: Houston now controlling. Roll maneuver -- roll maneuver confirmed. Fifteen seconds. Good roll conformed by mission control.

MacNEIL: In one of its first tasks the shuttle brought in a $10 million fee for the government by launching a Westar 6 communications satellite into orbit. Judy? Barry Goldwater Interview

WOODRUFF: Now for a final look at today's top stories. War spreads among the Christian and Moslem factions in Lebanon. Dozens are killed and wounded in fierce fighting. President Reagan digs in his heels, saying Democrats may be ready to surrender by pulling the Marines out of Lebanon, but he is not.

On another trouble spot, Central America, the President buys the Kissinger Commission report proposing $8 billion in economic aid over five years.

Four U.S. servicemen die in a helicopter crash in Honduras, apparently because of bad weather.

Another Washington feud: Treasury Secretary Regan rejects dire warnings on deficits and interest rates in a new report by the President's chief economic adviser.

Urging the public to calm down, the EPA bans farm use of the cancer-causing pesticide EDB and says that states may authorize some food products to be destroyed.

In good news tonight, American astronauts on the space shuttle Columbia [sic] are safely in orbit, beginning the busiest mission yet.

The unemployment rate keeps dropping, now standing at 8% of the civilian labor force, the lowest since October, 1981.

And, in Long Beach, California, doctors announced the first birth ever of a baby born as the result of implanting a fertilized egg in an infertile woman. It's a boy.

Earlier in the program we ran some comments by Senator Barry Goldwater in which he called for U.S. troops to be pulled out of Lebanon. That was part of an interview I did this morning with the 75-year-old Arizonan, who confirmed this week that he is not running for re-election when his term expires in 1986. In the interview Goldwater talked candidly about everything from his political career, including his unsuccessful presidential run in 1964, to President Reagan's new budget proposal, which he said ought to be cut in several ways.

Sen. GOLDWATER: The defense budget is not the big problem. That's 7% of the gross national product, about 23% of the total budget and 43% of that is for the pay and care of the troops. So if you want to really get into where the money goes, you've got to look at the whole welfare program, all the retirement programs. Social Security is bankrupt. I don't give a darn what anybody says. Civil service retirement is bankrupt. Railroad retirement is bankrupt. Now, I think the best thing to do is to go on television and level with the American people.

WOODRUFF: But the President hasn't done that.

Sen. GOLDWATER: No. And I've asked him to do it. I wish they'd just say, "Folks, we're in bad shape. Now, if we want to keep this country going we're going to have to take cuts. We're going to have to, in some cases, even deny funds, then say, well now, let's start over and let's see if we can't work something out. This is how bad it is."

WOODRUFF: What do you think the prospects are that this bipartisan working group on the budget is going to come up with some cuts, some significant cuts, maybe some tax increases.

Sen. GOLDWATER: About as much chance as a snowball in hell.

WOODRUFF: Why do you say that?

Sen. GOLDWATER: Politics. You're not going to get the Democrats to sit down and agree to cuts that are needed in, let's say, the areas of welfare where it's being abused. You're not going to get the Republicans to sit down and agree to overall cuts in, say, defense or any other part of the budget that the Republicans have an interest in.

WOODRUFF: Well, do you think then that that was just a pretty clever political move on the part of the President?

Sen. GOLDWATER: No, I think it's a very honest effort, and let me add, if we can get people to sit down and really talk and really make deals -- say, "Let's cut this, cut that," yes, it will work, but I can't see the present makeup of Congress accomplishing that.

WOODRUFF: I'm going to switch the subject a little bit. Ronald Reagan. Why do you think he's been as successful as he has been, just in terms of public opinion, personal popularity?

Sen. GOLDWATER: Because he's honest. He doesn't play footsie. When he talks to the American people, the American people believe him. Now, people say he's a master of rhetoric. It's not because he had been a movie actor. You can look at a person to know when he's telling the truth, and you can look at Ronald Reagan and know that you're hearing the truth.

WOODRUFF: Well, you know, you came along with a very similar brand of conservatism to his 20 years -- almost 20 years earlier.

Sen. GOLDWATER: Exactly the same.

WOODRUFF: All right, exactly the same.

Sen. GOLDWATER: I taught him.

WOODRUFF: Twenty years earlier. He came along three or four years ago, was successful at it. What happened? Why was he successful and you weren't?

Sen. GOLDWATER: Oh, there's a lot of reasons, not even related to that. Number one, if I had been elected that would have been three presidents in 2 1/2 years. The country is not able or designed to take that kind of a change. I knew I didn't have a chance of beating Johnson; I didn't care. I wanted to accomplish two things: get the Republican Party out of the hands of the Eastern seaboard Republicans and push conservativism.

WOODRUFF: What are you proudest of in your career? Is it what you were saying, able to say to the American people in 1964?

Sen. GOLDWATER: Oh, I don't know what I'm proud of. I'm just proudest of being an American. That's all.

WOODRUFF: Why is that so special?

Sen. GOLDWATER: Is there anything better? I'm a free man. I can say what I want.I can do what I want, as long as the saying or doing doesn't hurt you. There's only 17% of the people in this world that have that freedom. And I'll fight like hell to keep it.Been proud of? I've been a senator nearly 30 years. I was born in Arizona, and I'm proud of that. I've got a wonderful wife, four kids and 10 grandchildren; I'm proud of that.I'm still alive, and I'm proud of that.

WOODRUFF: Goldwater said he was retiring because he wants to go back to his ranch in Arizona while he still had a few years to enjoy it.He's just as charming and irascible as ever, Robin. Good night.

MacNEIL: Good night, Judy. That's all our NewsHour tonight. We will be back on Monday night. Have a nice weekend; we'll see you then. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.