The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, the U. S. and Soviet Union reached tentative agreement on a treaty abolishing medium range missiles. U. S. allies hailed the agreement as raising hopes for a new era in superpower relations. The Soviets apologized for shooting and wounding an American soldier in East Germany. Judge Robert Bork, under continued fire for his record, said he would be disgraced in history if he failed to uphold rights of women and minorities. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary we turn first to the new U. S. /Soviet agreement on medium range missiles. We have a newsmaker interview with a top state department official. Then the Bork hearings, with excerpts and the thoughts of columnists William Buckley and Anthony Lewis. We close with a look at Miss America as seen by essayist Mollie Ivans. News Summary WOODRUFF: U. S. and Soviet negotiators today announced tentative agreement on the treaty to ban medium range missiles in Europe. The accord was hailed as the first ever to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze called it a ''common success for all mankind. '' The agreement followed three days of intensive negotiations between Shevardnadze and Secretary of State George Shultz. President Reagan said he now expects a summit meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev later this fall.At the White House this morning, Mr. Reagan said the treaty was a long time coming. Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I don't know of anything in my life I waited over six years for. I spoke about this INF treaty in pretty much the same basis that's finally been agreed at certainly, four or five years ago. REPORTER: What about the ''evil empire?'' You have opposed it for years. Pres. REAGAN: I don't think it's still lily white. WOODRUFF: Once a treaty is signed, it would face ratification by the Senate. Today on Capitol Hill, reactions to the document and predictions about ratification were mixed. Sen. JOHN GLENN, (D) Ohio: I guess I'd summarize my views as being very optimistic about this. I want to see the fine print on verification. I want to see what implications this has on the conventional weaponry balance in Europe. Sen. MALCOLM WALLOP, (R) Wyoming: There is a great deal yet to be done. So it strikes me before anybody can say, ''Yes, this is fantastic,'' or ''No, this is terrifying,'' we have to see what's there. And I don't know who knows that yet, including the Secretary of State. Sen. CARL LEVIN, (D) Michigan: The INF agreement is a numerically small, but symbolically large, step. I'm very pleased that the Administration's taken it. Rep. LES ASPIN, (D) Wisconsin: I don't think that this thing automatically gets an easy ride to ratification. MacNEIL: The agreement was hailed as U. S. allies in Western Europe, and the Pacific leaders in Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. They all spoke approvingly. Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke told Parliament it was of special significance for countries in Asian and the Pacific because many had feared that Asian based missiles would not be covered. In Brussels, the NATO Alliance said members hoped it will be the beginning of a process in which wecan live at much lower levels of armaments with the same security. Shortly after the missile accord was announced, the Pentagon said it will speed up research in key areas of Star Wars antimissile programs. That remains a major issue in the U. S. /Soviet negotiations. The announcement said the research will remain within the bounds of the 1972 anti ballistic missile treaty. Yesterday, the Senate voted to keep the Administration from breaking that treaty. WOODRUFF: There was a report from East Germany today about a U. S. /Soviet incident in marked contrast to the diplomatic exchanges going on in Washington. A U. S. military liaison vehicle was shot at by a Soviet patrol unit. One American Air Force man was slightly wounded in the attack which took place on Thursday. Secretary of State Shultz called the incident unacceptable behavior, and President Reagan said the U. S. had issued a formal protest. U. S. officials say the vehicle was traveling in an unrestricted area of East Germany. But Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze said the U. S. jeep was very close to a restricted Soviet military facility. However, he told a Washington news conference that his country accepts its share of blame.

EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE, Soviet Foreign Minister [through translator]: We are conveying our apologies on what has happen, and we state that the Soviet side will take necessary steps to rule out, to exclude the possibility of any such incidents in the future. WOODRUFF: Two years ago the Soviets refused to accept blame for the killing of U. S. Army major Arthur Nicholson. He was also a liaison officer, shot in a similar incident. U. S. officials are still seeking compensation and an apology for Nicholson's family. MacNEIL: Judge Robert Bork underwent the fourth day of tough questioning from hostile Democrats of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democratic Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio described Bork as a man with ''frightening views on race and sex discrimination. '' Democrat Howell Heflin of Alabama told Bork, ''If you want to follow the agenda they fear you'll follow, you could do great harm to minorities. '' Bork replied that if he failed to uphold the rights of women and minorities after telling the Senate he would do so, ''I would be disgraced in history. '' WOODRUFF: President Reagan's chief economics advisor today confirmed reports that he is leaving the Administration. Beryl Sprinkel said that he will return to the private sector in November. The 63 year old economist has held the job since April 1985. Sprinkel was reportedly unhappy that he was passed over for the post of Federal Reserve Board Chairman, a job that went to Alan Greenspan. Sprinkel said he was leaving for personal reasons, and not because of sour grapes or irritation. In other economic news, the Commerce Department said the U. S. economy grew at an annual rate of 2. 5% in the second quarter, slightly better than previously thought. MacNEIL: Pope John Paul II, who is winding down his American tour, was confronted with more protests in San Francisco today. The pontiff's two day visit to the City by the Bay has been stormy, but not unexpected. Spencer Michels of Station KQED has a report.

SPENCER MICHELS: The Church knew that the Pope's visit to San Francisco would provoke demonstrations and dissent. Not only is this city by the Golden Gate a bastion of bay and women's movements, but the Archdiocese itself is regarded as the most activist and liberal in the United States, often at odds with the Pope. Fr. MILES RILEY, San Francisco Archdiocese: I think sometimes he says things that are very difficult for us. But his business is to articulate the Bishop, as Jesus did, as Peter did. And ours is to follow as best we can.

MICHELS: But here at Mission Dolores where the city was founded by priests trying to convert the Indians to Catholicism, Catholic dissidents and others were out in force. On Wednesday, the Pope came down hard on dissent. Here there was anger of John Paul's statement that sexually active homosexuals should not receive the sacraments. Inside the mission, the Pope met with AIDS patients, including a small boy. He spoke of God's love. POPE JOHN PAUL II: He loves those of you who are sick, those who are suffering from AIDS and from AIDS related complex.

MICHELS: Outside the Cathedral, Jews, angered at the Pope's recent meeting with Austrian President Kurt Waldheim, staged a mourning for Holocaust victims. And Catholic women condemned his positions against ordination of women and abortions. And again today, the Pope heard from a Spokane woman asking him to allow dissent and to reach out to gays, the divorced and women. In response, the Pope endorsed fuller church participation for women, and called on them to marry and have children. At Candlestick Park, John Paul held a mass for nearly 60,000 believers, while outside the ballpark, protests continued. MacNEIL: Later tonight, the pontiff travels to Detroit where he will hold a mass at the Pontiac Silver Dome. On Sunday, he'll hold a mass for Indian and Eskimo groups in Ft. Simpson, Canada, and then return to Rome. WOODRUFF: The Federal Aviation Administration has released a study of Delta Airlines pilots. It showed frequent examples of breakdowns in communications, lack of crew coordination and lapses of discipline in the cockpit. The investigation was ordered after a series of near mishaps involving Delta planes last summer. Delta issued a statement today saying the airline has already taken steps to resolve the problems cited by the FAA. That ends the summary of today's top stories. Ahead on the NewsHour, we look at the U. S. /Soviet agreement and a newsmaker interview with a top State Department official. We return to the Bork confirmation hearings with columnists William Buckley and Anthony Lewis. And we get a Mollie Ivans view of Miss America. Disarming Agreement MacNEIL: We begin tonight with the latest turn in superpower diplomacy, a tentative agreement on medium range missiles that paves the way for a Reagan/Gorbachev summit later this fall. After three days of negotiations that ended with a marathon session last night, Secretary of State Shultz and his Soviet counterpart Eduard Shevardnadze brought a deal to President Reagan for his approval. It included an agreement in principle to dismantle all intermediate range missiles, those with ranges between 315 and 3,125 miles. Those include 332 U. S. missiles deployed in Western Europe, and 462 Soviet missiles aimed at Western Europe and another 221 that could hit China and Japan. The agreement would be signed at a Reagan/Gorbachev summit, with a date to be set next month, probably in late November and early December. The two sides still disagree on how long it will take to dismantle the intermediate range missiles. They agreed to negotiate further on reductions in strategic missiles and bombers, on space weapons and other arms control matters. They decided to continue and expand talks on other issues dividing the two countries, such as human rights, and they had their most thorough discussions yet on the future of Soviet occupied Afghanistan. At briefings this morning, Shevardnadze described the mood in the week long negotiations, while Shultz talked of the work ahead.

EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE, Soviet Foreign Minister [through translator]: I know that you need details and facts. Almost all that can be said is contained in our joint statement, and the rest is emotions, which for me are very important. Over these days we have experienced a complex spectrum of emotions, from anxiety to a strong emotional uplift. And this is what we are feeling now, because by joint efforts we have been able to achieve what we have been moving towards for many years. The day before yesterday, I said to Secretary Shultz that it is time for us to bring in the harvest, and he agreed. REPORTER: Do you think the INF Agreement is the beginning of a new period of detente? Mr. SHEVARDNADZE [through translator]: Yes, I believe this is the beginning of a new period. I would call it the material basis, a very substantive, a very good material basis for that new period. And also in a way, it is also a reflection of the beginning of detente. GEORGE SHULTZ, U. S. Secretary of State: Now, there is a great deal of work to do beyond any INF agreement. But it's the beginning, and it's an important beginning. Because we've seen this thing -- maybe we've seen this thing crest and will begin to come down in the number of nuclear weapons that are, and in this case, a class of nuclear weapons is eliminated. So, this doesn't solve all the problems by a long shot. There are many more nuclear weapons left that won't be eliminated by this agreement. But you've got to start, and this does get this going, and I think is very significant in that sense. REPORTER: Is this the beginning of the Reagan Administration's version of detente? Mr. SHULTZ: Well, things have changed tremendously in the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, even going back to this time three years ago when the practice of inviting the Soviet Foreign Minister to Washington at the time of the U. N. General Assembly was reinstituted. And we see very worthwhile discussions and movements in terms of behavior in the human rights area, or discussions on regional issues -- have become increasingly rewarding, although we haven't made any definite progress in those fields. Our bilateral contacts have increased, and we are addressing and making progress on arms control matters. So there is movement. I wouldn't want to put a label on it. And I think that there is a distinct difference between what is going on now and what was taking place ten or fifteen years ago. MacNEIL: For more on the U. S. perspective, we turn to Secretary Shultz's principal deputy for Soviet and summit matters, Assistant Secretary of State Rozanne Ridgway. Secretary Ridgway, a career diplomat, has been at her current post for two years. She headed the Arms Control working groups at the Geneva and Iceland summits, and supervised all the working groups at this week's meetings. Ms. Secretary, welcome. This seems to us on the outside almost anticlimactic. People in the Administration have been saying that this agreement was almost ready, almost there for months it seems. What happened this week to push it just far enough so that you can say you've got a tentative agreement? ROXANNE RIDGWAY, Asst. Sec. of State: We had a chance at last to sit down in a serious atmosphere, accompanied by senior advisors brought from everywhere, all of our delegations, with the direct participation of the Secretary of State, the Foreign Minister, to unmask the core issues, to identify the work at hand. I know it sounds also anticlimactic, but in fact, it was an important step in the process. But we're still in process. We're not at the end of the thing yet. MacNEIL: Why was no date for a summit set? Wasn't it expected that a date would be announced and set at this meeting? Sec. RIDGWAY: Well, we had certainly not expected such a date. We have been well aware of the range of work and the complexities of the issues that remain -- even in just one area, the INS area, to which you've referred. And if indeed we are to have a substantive summit, both sides have always said a summit has to be well prepared, has to have substance, can't just be ceremonial. Then the reality of the task that remains sets in, and it shouldn't be surprising at all that no date was set. MacNEIL: Does that mean that the tentative INF agreement, assuming that further details can be satisfactorily solved, that that isn't enough for a summit menu, that you also have to make some more progress on, say, the strategic area before you can hold a summit? Sec. RIDGWAY: I would go beyond that. I would say that arms control for the kind of summit we envisage is not enough for a summit menu. We have worked very hard at an agenda which the president laid down. He referred to it this morning. Some several years ago, we have been saying, let's move that agenda beyond arms control where it's been lodged for so many years, get it into human rights, get it into regional issues, and get it into bilateral relations. We see a summit along the lines of the Geneva summit, the first meeting of the two men, in which that totality of the relationship was discussed, not just an arms control summit. MacNEIL: So that means that holding up the setting of a summit date is some further satisfactory progress on human rights and matters like Afghanistan? Sec. RIDGWAY: No, that doesn't mean that at all. The holding up of a summit date does required, because of the complexity of the issues, another meeting between the ministers. They'll be meeting the middle to late October to review where the negotiators in Geneva have come out. They will also be looking at the full range of issues. There are no conditions set on the setting of the date. It is simply that INF agreement is one that we believe can be ready, and we want to know how close we are to it before we set a date. But the ministers will set a date in October. MacNEIL: I don't know whether you were in the studio and listening when we had our news summary a moment ago, but you may have heard Sen. Wallop say, well, expressing kind of a wait and see attitude. I don't really know what's in it yet, and he said that he doubts if Sec. of State Shultz even knows what's in it yet. Is he right? Does so much yet to be -- do so many ''I's'' remain to be dotted that you don't know what's in the agreement yet? Sec. RIDGWAY: We are still building the verification regime. And if there is any experience we bring from the last decade into this decade, it is the verification experience. Many issues were discussed here. How do you conduct an inspection regime that builds confidence? Where are the inspectors, when do you bring them into the picture? How do you phase down in a way that in our view must maintain the sense of confidence on our part that our security is still intact in this field? Those kinds of questions are going back to Geneva with the negotiators. And how they are resolved will put that final piece in that I think all of us are waiting to see. And I heard in many of the comments today a reluctance to give a fullscale blessing until that last set of key issues and verifications was addressed. MacNEIL: Now, you said the phasing down and verification was one thing, but phasing down is the timetable on when you actually destroy these missiles. And are the two sides very wide apart on this? Sec. RIDGWAY: They seem not to be. One of the accomplishments of this week was to strip away some of the confusion that sets in when the two sides talk to each other -- not at meetings in very austere settings, but through television and speeches, elsewhere, and it wasn't clear to us what some of the issues are. On the question of phasing, should it be one year, or three years, as we say, one for the shorter range systems, three for the longer. Or two and five, as they say. What kinds of issues are involved, what is really behind it? And our experts had hours, and took hours, to talk with the Soviet Union to find out what their concerns were. It would seem now at the end of these three days that many of the concerns are technical and environmental. And we will be adding to our delegation in Geneva, and so will the Soviets, to get to the technical and environmental questions and the answer may come out of that discussion, rather than an argument in principle as to which is the better time. MacNEIL: Mr. Reagan said the other day that when the latest U. S. treaty draft was put on the table in Geneva, it contained -- and I've forgotten his exact words -- something like the most stringent verification requirements ever put in such a treaty. What kinds of verification is the U. S. seeking that the Soviets haven't yet agreed to? Sec. RIDGWAY: We have proposals that address verification from the very beginning point. Let's make sure we know how many missiles we're really dealing with -- opportunities to inspect -- MacNEIL: That means somebody physically -- some American going and looking at the Soviets' destroying missiles -- Sec. RIDGWAY: Exchanges of data and opportunities to confirm the data that's presented, opportunities to go not only for people to say things are, but opportunities to go where we might think things are in addition. We have that kind of a process that we need to develop from the moment the system or program is agreed on for dismantling and destruction begins, through its very end. We then need a subsequent regime that allows us to continue to have the confidence that new missiles in this class are not being developed, and somehow made available. MacNEIL: Does the U. S. -- turning to where this leaves the Western security in Europe -- does the administration agree with the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, who said today that this makes it very important to move on quickly with efforts to get a better balance in conventional forces in Europe. Does the U. S. put the same emphasis on that need as the British do? Sec. RIDGWAY: Yes, we do. And we would add another feature to that and that is the need to continue to address the question of conventional modernization in Europe. The conventional stability talks that we're looking forward to in Europe are still in the phase in which we are negotiating what we are going to negotiate about. And that process can go on for some time. The need for conventional modernization is immediate. And that has to continue to be looked at. MacNEIL: If you agree with that British emphasis, does that mean that the Administration in some degrees buys the argument that the NATO commanders have raised, and the NATO Secretary General, and others, that when this agreement is implemented, it runs the risk of putting Western forces in Europe at a greater disadvantage than they may be now? Sec. RIDGWAY: No, I don't accept that, and I am aware of the very many statements that have been made. But I'm confident -- I know we all are -- that we would not enter into an agreement which placed forces at a greater disadvantage. General Galvin said recently after an initial tour of the region and meeting with his commanders when he took over command from Gen. Rogers, that he was confident that he would be able to meet the challenge -- it would be more complicated, we're going to have to do things on the conventional side, but that the change, the balance has not changed in the manner some of those comments suggest. MacNEIL: Turning to strategic weapons discussions for a moment -- the very long range intercontinental and submarine and bomber things -- what is the significance of what Mr. Shultz said today? He announced agreement on a period of nonwithdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty. What's the significance of that? Sec. RIDGWAY: Well, I'm not aware that we were giving it particular significance when it was mentioned. I'm aware of the significance that it reached over the day. That is consistent with the position the two sides took at Reykjavik, that there would be a period of nonwithdrawal from the ABM Treaty. But the issues remain as to what that period of withdrawal might be, and the issue remains as to what happens after such a period expires. It was not resolved at this session. MacNEIL: Does it mean that the Administration is ending its effort to broaden the meaning of that treaty? Sec. RIDGWAY: The Administration continues to believe that the treaty says what it says and permits the development of the SDI program, and all of those documents have been submitted over the week. It is the Soviet position that the treaty ought to be somehow strengthened through a process of lists, or discussions of permitted and prohibited activities. We continue to believe that is not necessary, that the treaty is clear on its face. MacNEIL: Is SDI, the Stragic Defense Initiative, Star Wars, is that now the major obstacle to further progress on trying to reduce the strategic weapons by 50%, which was the aim they adopted some years ago? Sec. RIDGWAY: There are two major issues. We weren't able to address some secondary issues, or issues of secondary priority this past week, and have some confidence that we were making progress, but two tough, central issues remain. We have been talking about the importance of sublimits, and particular sublimits on ballistic missiles warheads. And we still believe that an agreement on an appropriate sublimit, which in our view would be 4800 such warheads, that that is absolutely essential to include in such a treaty. The Soviet Union did not change its view on the linkage of progress, or the conclusion of a start agreement, and something in the area of dealing with the ABM Treaty as they read it. MacNEIL: Was the Pentagon announcement today that it's going to step up research on the Star Wars, or SDI, was that part of the Administration's scenario, coordinated with the other negotiations to turn up the heat on the Soviets a bit? Sec. RIDGWAY: No, it wasn't played that way. There was a new story -- to the extent that I'm familiar with, although the record, it was never even raised in the discussions that were there -- and all of those tests, I think there were six of them, are in an area of the treaty that is not arguable. MacNEIL: Les Aspin, the Chairman of the Arms Services Committee in the House, said that in that same collection of reactions, that he wasn't sure this was going to have an easy path to ratification. In view of Sen. Nunn's desire to require the whole negotiating record on this treaty, is the Administration worried about ratification, which is clearly of concern to the Soviets? Sec. RIDGWAY: I think that we know -- and yes, it is of concern to the Soviets, and they have expressed that concern, and I'm sure will continue to express it -- but I think that what we know we have in front of us is a consideration of the treaty that comes home that reflects past experience, concern about violation, concern about verification. Because we're not concerned -- we don't want to verify the fact that something is going wrong, we want to verify that things are going right. People who follow these issues are experts. They've studied them as much as we have. We want to make as much of the record available as we can. And it's going to be an inquiring and in depth review. I think it's going to be tough in that sense. But I'm confident that the treaty that comes home will gain passage. MacNEIL: Well, Sec. Ridgway, thank you very much for joining us. Sec. RIDGWAY: Thank you. I was very happy to be here tonight. Summing UP WOODRUFF: We focus next on Judge Robert Bork's fourth day of confirmation hearings to become a Supreme Court Justice. Once again, Bork came under stinging criticism from his opponents, and just as vehement defense from his supporters. The day began with one of the few undecided members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alabama's Howell Heflin, giving Bork an opportunity to reflect on why his critics said little when he was up for confirmation to be a Federal Appeals court judge six years ago, but are going all out to defeat him now.

ROBERT BORK, Supreme Court Nominee: They didn't oppose me before, and since I've been on the court, my record has not been one they can object to. We've been over this in the area of minorities and women, in eight cases involved substantive issues, I've voted for the claim of the minority or the women, seven times out of eight. And in labor cases, I have a lot of votes for labor unions and employees. So that nothing that has happened in the past 5 l/2 years, or it seems to me to have -- provide for any basis for opposition now. I would think it was quite the other way around. There should have been more exercised on the basis of theoretical things I said before becoming a judge, than they are on the things I've done as a judge, than they should be on the things I've done as a judge. Sen. HOWELL HEFLIN, (D) Alabama: May I say that the District Court of Appeals at the time wasn't nearly divided as it is now, and that the United States Supreme Court is one where if you were to follow the agenda that they fear you will follow, that you could do terrible harm to the rights of minorities, to racial progress that has occurred. Now, that's their argument. Do you have any response to that? JUDGE BORK: Well, aside from the fact that their argument assumes something about me that is not true, it also assumes that there are four other justices who are equally -- who have sinister views, which is not true. It overlooks my record in this field as a judge. I have expressed my views here, and those views are now widely known -- more widely known that any views of mine before have ever been. It really would be preposterous for me to sit here and say the things I have said to you and then get confirmed and get on the Supreme Court and do the opposite. I would be disgraced in history. Aside from everything else, I'm not going to do that. But believe that or not, the fact is my record as a judge does not justify the opposition of these groups. WOODRUFF: Senator Howard Metzenbaum, one of four leading Democratic opponents, returned to the issue of how Bork would approach protecting the rights of minorities and women.

Sen. HOWARD METZENBAUM, (D) Ohio: I cannot tell you strongly enough that the women of this country are terribly, terribly apprehensive about your appointment. I have traveled throughout Ohio, I've traveled throughout the country. And the women's groups, frankly, are afraid. They're afraid of you. Yesterday, you said women and blacks who know your record on the court need not fear you. But the fact is, Judge Bork, they do fear you. And it's only fair to say that you've made it quite clear in your appearance before this panel that you're not a frightening man, but you are a man with frightening views. You have stated views time and again that would reverse progress for blacks, that would slam the door on women, that would allow government in the bedroom, that would adversely affect the rights of consumers, that would limit free speech, that would undercut the principle of equality under the law. And before we came to these hearings, I had said publicly, and I repeat now, that I think you had the burden of proof on your shoulders to satisfy this committee, and each of us has to speak for himself, that your views are consistent with the Bill of Rights and the previous court decisions, and the Constitution of the United States. It's with some sadness, Judge Bork, that I say I really don't think you've done that. JUDGE BORK: I can't say this enough times. You know, beginning with Brown against Board of Education, I have supported black equality. And I've done that in print long before I got here. I have never said anything, or decided anything, that should be frightening to women. You're undoubtedly correct, senator, that there are women who are apprehensive. I think it can only be because they don't know my record. I have repeatedly showed you the cases I've decided on the Court of Appeals, in which I voted for women. In addition to that, there is no reason for consumers to fear me, because insofar as we're talking about the antitrust law, I am guided entirely by my best understanding of what is good for consumers. And if I'm persuaded that something else is good for consumers, I will go that way, there's no doubt about it. If you now turn to the Constitution and my allegedly narrow views of that, if you will look at my First Amendment decisions, you will see that in cases I have taken a broad view of the First Amendment. In sum, Senator, I think there is no basis for the concern you describe among women and blacks. And I regret to say I think there is no basis for the charges you have leveled at me. WOODRUFF: Another Bork foe, Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, stressed the fears of critics that Bork would overturn many progressive decisions by the Supreme Court, that he would not observe precedent. To bolster his case, Kennedy had an audio tape played of an answer Bork gave in a 1985 session with a group of college students. JUDGE BORK: I don't think precedent is all that important. I think the importance is the original -- is what the framers were driving at and you've got to go back to that.

Sen. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) Mass. : Mr. Bork, in light of what we've just heard, how can anyone have confidence that you'll respect the decisions of the Supreme Court with which you disagree? JUDGE BORK: What I said, senator, it is to be remembered, was in a give and take question and answer session after a speech. It was a quick answer, it was not a prepared statement. Now, you have other speeches and interviews of mine in the past, and I've stated the matter more clearly, and in the same year as that speech, in the district lawyer interview, I said -- it's the same year as the speech which you played -- ''there are some constitutional decisions around which so many other institutions and people have built, that they've become part of the structure of the nation. They ought not to be overturned, even if thought to be wrong. '' Sen. KENNEDY: Mr. Bork asks us to judge him on his record as a judge. But in his own speeches as a judge shows little respect for past decisions of the Supreme Court, again and again in the public record, he suggested that he's prepared to roll back the clock, return to more troubled times, uproot decades of settled law in order to write his own ideology into law. And in these hearings this week, he's asked us to believe that he can make a u turn in these areas of fundamental importance to the kind of America we are and hope to be. The question all of us are asking is who is the real Robert Bork? He's out of step with the Congress, out of step with the country, out of step with the Constitution, or many of the most fundamental issues facing America. Mr. Bork is a walking Constitutional Amendment, and he should not be confirmed by the Senate. JUDGE BORK: Senator, that is -- if those charges were not so serious, the discrepancy between the evidence and what you say would be highly amusing. I have upheld the laws that outlaw racial discrimination, I have consistently supported Brown against Board of Education in my writings long ago. I have never written a word hostile to women. I have never written a word hostile to privacy. I have complained about the reasoning of one Supreme Court case. I have never written a word or made a decision from which you can infer that I am pro big business at the expense of other people. WOODRUFF: Republican Senator Alan Simpson spoke for Bork's supporters on the committee, when he characterized some of the criticisms being leveled against the nominee.

Sen. ALAN SIMPSON, (R) Wyoming: Those on the other side say highly dramatic things. ''You have shocked my sense, you have left me limp. I cannot believe what I've read. You have stunned me. '' Well, I tell you, why wouldn't someone in America be alarmed to see the distortion of your record. How do you feel about it all? JUDGE BORK: Senator, I have not yet had time to gather my thoughts on the entire matter. Let me say that it is not terribly enjoyable. Sen. SIMPSON: No, I think not. But it will -- I think it will be concluded shortly. And it's been a very fair hearing and a good one. And you like it, somewhere down in there, I mean -- JUDGE BORK: Oh, Senator, I love it -- Sen. SIMPSON: That's right (laughter). WOODRUFF: Here now to analyze today's testimony and to put this first week of hearings into some perspective are two journalists with different views about Robert Bork. They are Anthony Lewis, columnist for the New York Times, and William F. Buckley, editor of the National Review. Let me ask you, gentlemen, doesn't Alan Simpson maybe have a point -- Anthony Lewis -- when you have Sen. Metzenbaum leveling charges like the one he did today, saying that Bork's views are positively frightening to women and blacks -- what do you think? ANTHONY LEWIS, New York Times: Yes, it's probably unpleasant, and I thought Sen. Simpson put it very fairly and amusingly. On the other hand, it is a fact that Judge Bork, Professor Bork, over many years has said, I'm sure deliberately provocatively, very strongly worded things about Supreme Court decisions. And I suppose the answer is, ''Those who live by the sword at least have to fight by the sword. '' It's not a great surprise to me. WOODRUFF: Mr. Buckley, what about you? Is some of this hyperbole, some of this rhetoric to be expected? WILLIAM BUCKLEY, editor National Review: I think we've learned a great deal more about the Senate than we have about Mr. Bork during the last two or three days. I would have hoped that in my lifetime I would not have seen such an exhibition of demagoguery. I've lost considerable respect for senators who under the circumstances can make such allegations that make McCarthy look like a scrupulous craftsman. The notion that anything in Bork's record justifies the notion at all blacks, all women and all consumers have to go into hiding, or take out boats and go as from Dunkirk, is evidence only of paranoia in America, which ought not to be given expression in as serious a tribunal as the Senate. WOODRUFF: Anthony Lewis, you came into these hearings very much opposed to the Bork confirmation. Is there anything that he has said over the last four days to change the thinking of you or something like you, do you think? Mr. LEWIS: If I may slightly correct your premise -- I tried very hard in a series of columns to examine Judge Bork's views on particular issues, some of which I agreed with, and others I disagreed with him. WOODRUFF: I stand corrected. Mr. LEWIS: I think that his nomination troubled me on reflection of those issues because he had taken such strong stands. I agree with Sen. Simpson that it's been a fair hearing. I don't at all agree with Mr. Buckley, because a man who says this very important Supreme Court decision is going back 60 years, were unconstitutional, that they should be overruled, that they had no basis, a man who says that can hardly expect not to be examined fully when he's a nominee for the Supreme Court. But you ask me have I been moved by anything in the hearings -- I have. And it's something quite different from what we were talking about. And if I may take another moment, I think it's really important. WOODRUFF: Please do. Mr. LEWIS: What strikes me about these hearings is that everybody concerned, virtually those for Bork, against Bork, and the nominee himself, have agreed on a very important premise. And that is that it is the function of the United States Supreme Court to defend individual liberties in a very broadly based way. And that's what's happened to Judge Bork. He's been saying, ''Well, I was only disagreeing with the reasoning. '' In fact, he made head on criticisms of some of the decisions he now says he accepts. But what's happened, I think, is that he can see, and everybody on the committee can see, that people in this country care about having the Supreme Court defend the autonomy of human beings from state intrusion, to defend free speech, to defend women's rights. And there's no challenge to that. That's a very important achievement. Mr. BUCKLEY: I think that the following point ought to be made -- and that is that the Constitution says we are a self governing nation. What has happened really is that certain liberals in the United States Senate have mobilized (unintelligible), the purpose of which is to say unless we have a court to go our way, we stand to jeopardize our particular social agenda by going less fast than we're used to going. Hodding Carter, who said -- President Carter is quoted as saying, ''The Bork nomination requires liberals like me to confront a reality we don't want to confront -- which is we're depending to a large part on the least democratic institution in government to defend what it is we are no longer able to win out there in the electorate. '' He has the honesty to say exactly that. Mr. Bork is a recognized scholar, that Mr. Biden said as recently as a year ago he would vote for. It's too bad he doesn't plagiarize that statement. But he doesn't have the kind of forensic bite I would like to have seen him display during the last two or three days, in which he would toss back at some of these people who are so worried about universal franchise, but then want to be governed by an omnipotent court. WOODRUFF: What do you mean, that he's sticking too close to the legal, technical explanation of his -- Mr. BUCKLEY: What he's simply saying is, ''I need to be guided to the extent that I am faithful to my vow to defend the Constitution, by my understanding of the Constitution. Not by dazzling improvisation on it, made by people who simply have a better idea. '' Now, there isn't any criticism that he's made a Supreme Court (unintelligible), my friend, Tony Lewis, that hasn't been made much more severely by members of the Supreme Court. Read, if you ever have an appetite for robust prose, some of the dissents made in the Warren Court. Read Frankfurter sometimes and see what he says about those decisions. The most popular Supreme Court of this century, required annulling a previous decision. Plessy vs. Ferguson would guarantee perpetual segregation. Brown vs. Board of Education, backed by Bork, overturned that decision. Do we want somebody who would not overturn a future Plessy vs. Ferguson. Mr. LEWIS: No, of course we don't. Shall I say something? WOODRUFF: Go ahead, please. Mr. LEWIS: I want to say a word about the democracy point. I'm not in the least embarrassed by the democracy point. Lord knows, I think it's amazing that any person who calls himself, or herself, a conservative should be embarrassed by that point. It's the conservatives who met in Philadelphia, and finished their work 200 years ago yesterday, who decided they didn't trust majorities, and who put into the Constitution provisions, both structural and protective of individual liberties, that would be protected against majorities. That's a conservative position. What -- when I grew up -- Mr. BUCKLEY: What about (unintelligible), was that conservative? Mr. LEWIS: Certainly it was, it was a protection of democracy in this country that people's votes should count. I think of any more conservative -- Mr. LEWIS: Baker vs. Carr suggests that one man, one vote was the only legitimate way to proceed. The United States Senate would under the circumstances be an undemocratic institution -- WOODRUFF: Excuse me, gentlemen, back to Bob Bork again, Anthony Lewis, when you hear Judge Bork say that he'd be a disgrace in history if he went on to the Supreme Court and wrote opinions that contradicted everything he said in these hearings. What does that say to you, does it say anything? Mr. LEWIS: Well, it says something quite striking. And it's something that makes me -- I have to say, the process a little uneasy. He's made a commitment to the United States Senate, and I suppose to the people of the country. It isn't usual in history when nominees to the Supreme Court to be examined in close detail about their views on particular legal issues and to make the kind of commitments that Judge Bork has made. It's quite striking and unusual, as I say. It would be better, I think, not to probe that deeply and embarrassingly into people, but as I said in the beginning, a man who has spent 20 years staking out very, very strong, antagonistic positions on a host of Supreme Court decisions, it's inevitable that he's going to be questioned about that. WOODRUFF: How do you think -- this is referring back to what William Buckley said just a minute ago, but how good a job do you think his Democratic opponents have done in these hearings? Mr. LEWIS: I think they have done quite a good job. I'm not there scrutinizing it in detail, and I'm not scrutinizing it as a law professor. They're not law professors, it's not their function to be. When you hear Sen. Metzenbaum conveying the feelings of his constituents about women's issues, I think that's a proper function for a senator to be concerned about those feelings. Yes, I think it's all right. Mr. BUCKLEY: Well, this presupposes that the women constituents had to look to Mr. Bork to secure their rights. I don't see why it is that we all assume that Mr. Bork is going to decide whether or not we might continue as free men and women. If our Constitutional security is that frail, then we'd better go back to Philadelphia and do it all over again. But the anthropomorphising of all of our fears on this man is either an evidence of paranoia or else it's evidence of polemical opportunism. I think it's primarily the latter. Don't tell me for a moment that Metzenbaum really thinks that his ladies are endangered by Bork. He simply wants to show off. And that's what he, unfortunately, unhappily, has done. Mr. LEWIS: I think you'd have to say that it doesn't matter who is appointed to a Supreme Court, which is often divided five to four. I think it would be impossible to say that it doesn't matter. It matters greatly. WOODRUFF: What about these hearings, Anthony Lewis? Do they matter? Most of the members of this committee have their minds made up. We know there are a handful of swing votes. But is anybody's mind really going to change because of these hearings? Mr. LEWIS: I think you should put that question to Sen. Specter and Sen. Heflin and Sen. DeConcini. Mr. BUCKLEY: Except they're waiting to hear from you whether their minds will be changed. Mr. LEWIS: No, I have no such illusions. WOODRUFF: Bill Buckley, what do the supporters of Bob Bork, Robert Bork, have to do to win his confirmation? Mr. BUCKLEY: Well, I think that they have to beg people to sober up. To stop talking as if this was the last days of Pompeii. The addition of a man splendidly qualified, none of whose decisions during the past four years has been overturned by the Supreme Court, is something a little bit different from the caricature Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Metzenbaum have created. So I think the dignity of the democratic process requires his confirmation. WOODRUFF: Contrarily, Anthony Lewis, what do the opponents have to do? From your perspective -- to mow this down -- or do you think they've knocked it down with what they've done so far? Mr. LEWIS: I think the question for members of the committee, the undecided ones we've mentioned especially, is a quite surprising one -- not what any of us expected before. It is whether a nominee who in the course of four days of hearings, takes back what he has said over the last 17 years about a host of issues before the court, and says he will be bound by precedent and respect those precedents, whether he is a good nominee. I'm not sure of the answer to that, I'll tell you honestly. I think it is a very interesting question, but I think that has become the question. WOODRUFF: You think this is truly up in the air still? Mr. LEWIS: Oh, I couldn't answer that, but I think that the hearings have left it in a curious and different position. Mr. BUCKLEY: If you can't answer it, then it's up in the air. Mr. LEWIS: I guess so (laughter). WOODRUFF: Bill Buckley, do you think it's up in the air? Mr. BUCKLEY: Oh, yes, I do. I don't think anybody can predict this, nor can anybody predict whether, as Lincoln put it, government by the people, of the people, for the people, can long endure. WOODRUFF: William Buckley and Anthony Lewis, we thank you both for being with us. There She Is--- MacNEIL: Finally tonight, essayist Mollie Ivans reflects on the traditions of tomorrow night's Miss America Contest.

MOLLIE IVANS: For as long as most of us can remember, the Miss American Pageant has been the queen of beauty contests. Every girl who has ever stuck on false eyelashes, put vaseline on her teeth and smiled for the judges, has dreamed of someday gliding down that runway in Atlantic City. And we've all been there in front of our television sets with our beer and soft drinks and popcorn, saying to one another, ''I think Miss North Carolina has fat thighs, I don't care how pretty you think her hair is. '' I realize that the decline of absolutely everything has already been announced and commented on. While I wouldn't go so far as to say there's been a decline in the great pageant, I do feel that there's been a certain slacking off from the rigorous standards set by tradition. For one thing, practically nobody tap dances for her talent anymore. Or twirls batons. It's been years since anybody's played the accordion. The disappearance of the dramatic recitation talent is another blow. My favorite was always the ''Scarlet O'Hara soliloquy. '' [film clip of soliloquy] IVANS: From the point of view of those who like to watch the contest for excruciatingly bad talent, things haven't been the same since the golden years when we used to get great Americana like this. [film clip of various performances] IVANS: The question and answer part of the contest, which is supposed to show off a girl's poise and intelligence, always has good stuff in it. BERT PARKS: Do you think it is important the United States reaches the moon before Russia, and why? UNIDENTIFIED CONTESTANT: No, I do not think it is more important for the United States to reach Russia -- reach the moon before Russia because I don't think we're ever going to reach the moon. UNIDENTIFIED CONTESTANT: An ideal man -- that would be one that was warm, and sincere, gentle, but yet extremely firm with me, because I need someone that's firm. BERT PARKS: This is a presidential election year. If a qualified woman were running for president, how would you feel about voting for her and why? UNIDENTIFIED CONTESTANT: If the men candidates running were qualified, I feel I would vote against her. My reasons being that women are very high strung and emotional people. They aren't reliable enough when it comes to making a decision, a snap decision. IVANS: Unfortunately, though the girls are still asked questions, they have stopped televising the answer. There has been a spate of bad luck lately concerning former Miss Americas, most notably the case of Vanessa Williams, the first black Miss America. Almost everybody felt good about it when the contest finally got past the race barrier. But then Penthouse Magazine printed some nude photographs of her, and the Miss America Pageant took away her crown. That was a shame, especially since she was smashing looking, which is not always the case with Miss America. But the wonderful thing about the pageant is everybody can enjoy it. There are people who watch it in wide eyed sincerity, rooting for their home state queens with all their hearts. There are others who watch it hooting with laughter. They regard it as a fabulous cultural artifact, a camp outcrying of bad taste, all those girls with their bathing suits glued to their bottoms. But, my friends, do you know what the largest single source of college scholarship money for women in this country is today? It is the Miss America Pageant. Recap WOODRUFF: Now, a final look at the major stories of this Friday. The United States and the Soviet Union announced tentative agreement on a treaty to eliminate all intermediate range nuclear missiles. President Reagan said details will now be worked out for a summit meeting with Soviet leader Gorbachev later this fall. The Soviets apologized for shooting and wounding of a U. S. airman in East Germany, and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork said at his confirmation hearing that he would be disgraced in history if he failed to uphold the rights of women and minorities. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Judy. That's the NewsHour tonight, and we will be back on Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.