The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the headlines today, the Soviets said human error was responsible for the Chernobyl nuclear accident. There was good news on prices and inflation. And one of the wounded in the Oklahoma post office massacre remained in critical condition. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: We follow tonight's news summary with an update on how Edmond, Oklahoma, is coping with its tragedy. Then a look at the politics of drugs, a debate aboud ads that networks won't run and a lament about highways. News Summary

LEHRER: Soviet energy officials said today human beings caused the Chernobyl nuclear accident. They said scientists at the plant were involved in a safety experiment that triggered the April explosion. The officials spoke at a Moscow news conference called to discuss a new official report on the accident. They told reporters there was no question the tragedy had severely damaged the Soviet nuclear power program. We have a report from Peter Ruff of the BBC:

PETER RUFF [voice-over]: Today's news conference was told that 31 people died and 203 have radiation sickness because the plant workers kept the reactor cooling system switched off for no less than 12 hours prior to the explosion. This was the last and fatal error, according the inquiry.

Soviet spokesman: In such a sequence of human actions was so unlikely that the engineer did not include into his project such a possible scenario.

RUFF, [voice-over]: A surge of steam and a chemical explosion smashed the roof of the reactor building, followed by a second blast and then a jet of radioactive dust erupted thousands of feet into the air. Complacency, says the report, and lack of discipline led to the disaster, the cost of which is still being counted. Work goes on to neutralize the reactor. Radioactive dust is still there and escaping at intervals, making it hazardous for the engineers on the site trying to clean up after the world's worst nuclear accident, but not dangerous, they say, for the general public who are outside the emergency zone.

LEHRER: In a related story from Norway today, a government official said the Chernobyl tragedy had had disastrous effects on sheep, reindeer, fish and other food sources all over Scandinavia. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: A little good news for a change on the economic front. Consumer prices held steady in July as gasoline prices dropped for the first time since April. The 27.4% plunge in gas prices this year helped push overall consumer costs down to an annual rate of 0.2% for the first seven months of this year -- the best news on retail prices in 37 years. But the bad news, according to the Labor Department, is that a probable OPEC induced rise in gas prices in coming months will likely cause a rise in inflation.

And bad news good news words from Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. He told a Washington audience today that Congress will need to find $9 billion to avoid triggering Gramm-Rudman across the board budget cuts known as sequestering, but Dole said he saw no problem in meeting that goal.

Senator ROBERT DOLE, Majority Leader: We've got to be able to find the $9 billion out of a trillion, so I don't believe we'll have any real problem. We'll can -- there are assets we can sale -- sell. We can go back and take a look at some of the other programs without having any adverse impact on the economy. I just don't believe any member of Congress -- Democrat or Republican -- wants to sequester in October, unless they're retiring. So I don't think that will happen.

HUNTER-GAULT: The Pentagon removed part of a ban on new military contracts with Litton Industries, which paid a $9 million penalty for fraud. The prohibition was removed from Litton's shipbuilding division in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and its advanced electronic systems group, but remains in effect against several other divisions of the company.

LEHRER: This was the day after for the people of Edmond, Oklahoma. Yesterday a post office employee shot and killed 14 of his fellow workers and wounded seven others before taking his own life. Our report is from Bill Mitchell of KOCO-TV, Oklahoma City.

BILL MITCHELL [voice-over]: A small shrine of flowers has been built on the front lawn of the post office. Among those offering condolences, sympathy and prayers was one of the postal workers who survived Wednesday's bloody massacre.

ORSON CORDIS, postal employee: I'm going to go in and see if I can handle it. See how things are. See how many of my fellow workers came back to work today.

MITCHELL: Postal officials said all but one of the survivors was back on the job today. In this close-knit postal community, it was a day of friends helping friends get over the tragedy. For some the emotions of guilt, anger and frustration are tough to handle.

Postal worker: A lot of people are real angry if you discuss it. They say, "Would you shut up and leave me alone?" The bullet holes in the walls don't help any, and there is a couple of little things like bloodstains on the floor that they missed. Just little stuff that you can't avoid, for Pete's sake. It was bad in there. And other people want to talk about it all the time. And we really don't quite know what to do or how we're supposed to act.

MITCHELL: Postal employees are being advised by local psychologists and clergy to talk out their fears and face this tragedy head on. For some, the best aid to recovery is work.

PHIL CRABTREE, postal carrier: I would have done nothing but sit around the house all day. It might have gotten to eating on me. I don't know.

LEHRER: One of the seven wounded remained in critical condition today at an Oklahoma City hospital.

HUNTER-GAULT: In the Philippines, a blackout struck metropolitan Manila just as the country was marking the third anniversary of the assassination of President Corazon Aquino's husband, former Senator Benigno Aquino. Armed forces chief, General Fidel Ramos said he put the military and police on alert as a precaution. But he said there was no evidence of sabotage right now. Technical problems were blamed for the outage.

Meanwhile, the ceremonies went on uninterrupted as President Aquino appealed to her countrymen to keep the faith in her and in each other. At Manila Airport, a large crowd gathered to watch Mrs. Aquino make her first visit to the spot where her husband was killed when he returned from voluntary exile in the United States. For a moment, the widow stood solemnly looking at the stone maker commemorating Senator Aquino and the event. She said on that day tyranny sowed a bullet and reaped a revolution.

LEHRER: And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now we take a second day look at that Oklahoma post office massacre, at the politics of drugs and at a scrap over an unusual television commercial. Edmond, Oklahoma

LEHRER: Edmond, Oklahoma, is first up tonight. It was in that town north of Oklahoma City yesterday that a 44 year old mail carrier, Patrick Sherrill, went on a rampage at the post office. He killed 14 people and wounded seven others before killing himself. We have an update report from Tom Bearden.

TOM BEARDEN [voice-over]: They reopened the Edmond Post Office at seven this morning, just 24 hours after 14 workers were gunned down in a hail of .45 calibre bullets. All but one of the people who survived the massacre yesterday reported for work. They sorted the mail in silence. Early morning customers were subdued. One woman noticed the calendar hadn't been changed to reflect today's date.

Customer: What is today's date?

Postal worker: The 21st. We lost a day.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Outside in the newspaper racks, bold headlines about the third worst mass murder in U.S. history and a lot of speculation about why Patrick Sherrill killed 14 co-workers before shooting himself in the head. Police say their investigation indicates he had been reprimanded on Tuesday and threatened with firing if his performance didn't improve.

Lt. MILE WOOLDRIDGE, Edmond Police Department: From what we know that was still the problem with -- disciplinary problems at work, in fear of losing his job. That's the only motive we've been able to determine.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: But the post office's Oklahoma division manager, Dick Carlson, says one of the two supervisors who reprimanded Sherrill denies that any job threat was made. Ron Blackwell is the Postal Union shop steward. He characterized management's treatment of Sherrill as harassing.

RON BLACKWELL, letter carrier: As a part time flexible, he was to be adapted to several routes, and he was criticised for slower performance, trying to memorize all those different ones and asked to speed up and pushed. We all are asked to perform our maximum, so it wasn't anything out of the ordinary, but it was directed pretty sharply.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Questions have been raised about the one hour and 20 minute delay before the Edmond Police Department's SWAT team entered the building, asking if some victims might have bled to death in the meantime. Blackwell was there, and he thinks some probably did.

Mr. BLACKWELL: Well, if they could have reacted any quicker, they possibly could have saved a life or two, but watching it from the outside, I saw them moving as fast as I could have. The teams were right on top of it. They had to get blueprints for the building and didn't know if he had some actual live hostages, so prudence made them wait.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Randel Shadid was acting mayor of Edmond yesterday. He entered the post office just minutes after the SWAT team had secured the building.

RANDEL SHADID, vice mayor: I think the police did just exactly what they should have done. They knew they had a bad situation. Obviously, they didn't know how bad. The people were dead at ten after seven, I'm convinced. I have not seen the medical examiner's report, but from what I viewed in that building, I feel most, if not all of them, were instantaneous deaths. They were dead by the time they hit the floor.

BEARDEN: While the police investigation continues, the people of Edmond are now beginning to try to deal with the emotional impact of the massacre. That impact is magnified by the fact that this is the third tragedy to strike this community in the past year.June before last, three people died in an execution-style slaying in a grocery store hold-up; and last May, 150 homes were damaged or destroyed when a tornado ripped through a residential development. Many are still being repaired. Ed Livermore is the editor and publisher of the local paper, The Evening Sun.

ED LIVERMORE, Evening Sun: Edmond is really a wonderful place to live. Why something like this happens here, I don't have an answer for it. It just maybe was our turn in the barrel. But looking at the community, you know, I can't see why it would happen, but it did, and we're trying to cope with that.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Livermore characterizes Edmond as a bedroom community, but one where people are close. Acting Mayor Shadid agrees.

Vice Mayor SHADID: Someone asked me yesterday, by virtue of the fact the town's grown -- doubled in size in ten years -- has that kept people from staying acquainted and the close ties. To a degree it has, but I would say 90% of the people of this community were touched by either a death there or knowing a family members of someone that was killed. So, I mean, it touches close to home still.

BEARDEN [voice-over]: Livermore says healing will take time.

Mr. LIVERMORE: The town will make it through. It's going to be fine.A lot of people are going to be disturbed by what happened -- naturally so. But the healing effort has already started. The ministers in our community are very active. People are, I think -- I think they understand.

LEHRER: That report by Tom Bearden. As Tom said, there is a controversy brewing over exactly what Patrick Sherrill's supervisor said to him on Tuesday. In Washington, the head of the Postal Workers Union, Vincent Sombrotto said, "We can not help but believe that Mr. Sherrill was pushed over the brink by irresponsible coercive management policies by the postal service in the Oklahoma City region." That remark has outraged two of the town's leading citizens: Mayor Carl Reherman and State Representative Gaylon Stacy. Earlier today, I talked with them and asked how the people of Edmond are holding up.

CARL REHERMAN, Mayor, Edmond, Oklahoma: They're still asking themselves, "How could a violent act such as this occur in a community such as ours?" We have a kind of community that, even though it's 48,000, it's still a small town in the sense that we know each other, we go to church together, we belong to the same civic clubs, and it's a feeling that it's an extended family. And for such a violent act to occur in the midst of this kind of society, really, it's a very difficult thing to come to grips with. But I think they are coming to grips with it. I think it's a strong community, and, as we've had some previous violent acts in out state and in our -- this area, this community will pull together, and we'll get through this together.

LEHRER: Mr. Stacy, what do you say to people who say to you, "Hey, Representative Stacy, what's wrong? What's wrong here? What gone wrong here?"

GAYLON STACY, Oklahoma State Representative: I've searched my mind, Jim, and I don't know how you could stop it from happening. If it's going to happen, it will happen. That's part of the frustration that I feel, that I know that my friends and the residents in the City of Edmond right now feel. It has been done. It's over. It's final. We cannot bring those nice, good, beautiful people back to life. And those families are going to be suffering for years and years and years. The psychological effects, in my opinion, on the entire community of Edmond, not to speak of those good people who are still employed by good post office department there, are going to be dealing with these psychological problems for weeks, months, maybe years.

LEHRER: Mayor, what would -- what do you think about the psychological scars that are going to be on this -- come from this?

Mayor REHERMAN: You know, quite candidly, I think, Jim, that in some ways a community like Edmond is the kind of community that possible has been living in a different type of reality. In fact, you know, we see crime on TV, and we see the movies and such that project a kind of violent environment, and I think to some extent a community like Edmond or any community in a major suburban area that's a upward, mobile, residential, suburban area is sort of insulated from that. And the shock of it, that it can happen here, is bound to bring about a change in the personality of the community. I think the change in many ways will be a positive change, because I think the community has pulled together -- close together -- in this tragic event. But it's also in some ways helping us to come to reality that this is a society, it is a nation, it is a country where violent acts can occur. And there's not anything we can do about it unless we're willing to give up a large degree of our freedom. And I'm not one of those people -- and I think Gaylon would be the same way. We're not going to put a police officer on every corner. We have to be prepared to have these kinds of events, if we're going to have, to some extent, the freedom of movement and the freedom of moving about that we truly enjoy in this country.

LEHRER: You talked about -- Mr. Mayor, you talked about your community being a suburban city. Describe it further for me.What are the people like? Where do they come from? What do they do?

Mayor REHERMAN: This community is a community that's a very influential community in our state. It's a community that sets right at the doorstep of Oklahoma City. We're just a few miles from the state capital. We have many of the major corporate leaders in the metropolitan area of Oklahoma City live here. We have the major bank presidents and the major area -- of the major banks in our area live here.It's a community that's involved in every facet of metropolitan life in our area.

Mr. STACY: The thing that I'm distressed most by today is the thought of those mothers and those fathers and those wives, those husbands and those young children of those 14 people whom Sherrill wasted yesterday. Their lives are going to be dramatically and traumatically effected for years to come. But we've already seen a great amount of evidence that the people of Edmond -- typical of the spirit of this state -- are pulling together in great support for those people, 'cause I don't know how many funds right now, Jim, have already been established into which lots of money is being poured right now by people who feel the empathy for this problem, to help those people at least to overcome some of the financial difficulty they're going to be having because of the loss of a precious member of their family.

Mayor REHERMAN: Jim, one example of that this morning: I was at a meeting with the Ministerial Alliance and one businessman walked up and handed me a check for $5,000 to help them to get to a point where they could cope with the economic needs that these families are going to have. And I'd like to echo one other point that I think that Gaylon was leading into, and I'd like to really emphasize it, that is our position today is that we need to take care of those families. And we need to take those victims that were not shot. Those are those approximately 76 other men and women that were in that room, that bullpen back in the back of that post office. Those are the people who for years are going to be faced with an ubelievable amount of trauma, an unbelievable amount of stress. And I think every time that this kind of an incident happens, we have a tendency to sort of forget about those people who were right there but who were not actually a victim in the sense of being shot. That's what we need to take care of.

LEHRER: You mean the guilt that they might feel for having survived?

Mayor REHERMAN: I think, you know, it's very similar to the Vietnam type guilt where, you know, "Why me? Why wasn't I shot?" And in a sense also seeing -- the traumatic experience of seeing a person that you've worked with for 15 years -- you know all about his family and everything else -- and you're standing there working and you see this guy come in and waste him -- and kill him. That kind of emotional scar is going to be very deep, and it's going to take a lot of love and a lot of understanding on a lot of people. And I think the ministers in our community, the psychologists who have come forward and volunteered their time -- we've got two psychologists called us today from Boston, and they're flying in here from Boston University to give us some help. So, you know, that's the kind of thing. And it is a nation that's pulling together. Not just our city. And I think that's exciting when we see that from a standpoint that people can still care enough to want to do something to help people.

LEHRER: Well, gentlemen, thank you both very much for being with us and good luck to you.

Mr. STACY: Jim, do we have time for me to interject one final thought which I think is very important?

LEHRER: Sure.

Mr. STACY: I don't know who to attribute the statement, but on one of the national news coverages last evening, someone connected with the postal service made a comment that really offended me and for which I think an apology is due. I don't know who that individual is, but that individual, carried by a national news network, stated, and was very critical of management in the postal service of placing too much pressure, too many demands on employees, and that's the reason why this man snapped and went about his destructive action. I'm offended by that, and I think that individual owes the United States Postal Service and particularly those management personnel in Edmond, Oklahoma, an apology for that. For someone 1,500 miles away to make that kind of arrogant, ignorant statement is very offensive. They just don't know our people in Edmond. I can just tell you that one of the postal employees told me, when he heard that, that that man Sherrill was never asked to do anything that the rest of the people were not asked to do, and nobody else has had that kind of trouble. He had been reprimanded more than once and told that if his job performance did not improve, he would be terminated. That must have been the catalyst to create this awful thing that happened. But we in Oklahoma are proud people, and we resent anyone 1,500 miles away making such an irresponsible statement.

LEHRER: Well, again, gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us.

Mayor REHERMAN: Thank you, Jim. My pleasure.

Mr. STACY: Thank you, Jim. Pleasure. Politics of Drugs

HUNTER-GAULT: The war on drugs has escalated, and so has the rhetoric about it. Both a popular and politically safe subject, drugs now command front burner attention from the Senate, the House of Representatives and the President. Today the Justice Department was reported to be considering asking the President to require narcotics testing for more than half of the government's civilian employees. Meanwhile, at least five administration groups are working on programs to combat drug abuse. Cokie Roberts of National Public Radio reports on how drugs became a political issue.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: With joy and celebration, and with a prayer that this lamp shall never be extinguished, I ask that you all join me in this symbolic act of faith, this lighting of Miss Liberty's torch.

COKIE ROBERTS [voice-over]: It was the perfect setting for Ronald and Nancy Reagan -- a weekend filled with flags and fireworks, a time when the national attention was almost entirely focused on feeling proud, feeling strong. Almost, but not entirely, because another story had jumped to the forefront of the news. First the shock of the death of basketball hero Len Bias, followed by football star Don Rogers, both killed by cocaine.

[clip from ABC News]

PETER JENNINGS: For the second time in a week, we learn that a prominent athlete has died because he took cocaine.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: All of a sudden drugs filled the news -- cover stories about the deadly killer crack, continuing reports of vast quantities of drugs coming across the borders. The public started voicing concern.

Protestor: We came down to stop the insanity of drugs that are killing our children.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: And when the people talk, the politicians listen.

Rep. THOMAS P. O'NEILL, Speaker of the House: When the members of Congress came back after the last recess and they said the deficit in the minds of about 45% of the people was the number one issue in the country, and drugs was number two at about 30%, it shocked the people in the back room of the Democratic cloakroom or the Republican cloakroom.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: With Congressional elections coming up, each political party rushed to sign up for the war on drugs. Democrats put their leaders front and center.

Rep. JIM WRIGHT, Majority Leader: There is no one quick, easy, simple solution.This is going to be a problem of prime priority this year and next year and year after next until we begin to make some appreciable progress.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: While Republicans accused the Democrats of not doing enough about drugs.

Rep. DUNCAN HUNTER, (R) California: In this session of Congress in the last two years, the Judiciary Committee has not passed out any substantive anti-drug legislation.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: And in no time at all, the chief Republican joined the battle. President Reagan announced his plan to combat drugs.

Pres. REAGAN: Drugs, in one way or the other, are victimizing all of us. And that's why I'm hear to day to announce six major goals of what we hope will be the final stage in our national strategy to eradicate drug abuse.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: The President also used the powers of his office to send troops to the drug producing country of Bolivia and sign a pact with the drug smuggling country of Mexico.

EDWIN MEESE, Attorney General: Today we are announcing a major new program to increase our lawful enforcement capabilities along the southwest border of the United States.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: An announcement somewhat marred by revelations that the Mexicans had arrested and abused a U.S. drug agent.

Pres. REAGAN: If this battle is to be won, and it must, each and every one of us has to take a stand and get involved.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Republicans rejoiced in the President's decision to highlight the drug issue. Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich argues that drugs are the perfect issue for Ronald Reagan.

Rep. NEWT GINGRICH, (R) Georgia: No one has stolen a scene from Ronald Reagan in 50 years. And no one is going to steal an issue from him if he's serious about it.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Congressman Gingrich says Mr. Reagan is not the first member of the family to get serious about the drug problem. Mrs. Reagan has crusaded against drugs all around the country -- in personal appearances and in nationally broadcast advertisements.

Mrs. REAGAN: Hello, this is Nancy Reagan. If you just say no to drugs, you'll be saying yes to a whole lot more.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: And, though President Reagan wants to get out front on drugs, he's not about to upstage Mrs. Reagan.

Reporter: Now that your staff is working on this issue, you're not going to take this away from Mrs. Reagan are you?

Pres. REAGAN: Do I look like an idiot?

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Republicans in Congress are finding ways to share the scene in the drug wars as well by staging a series of votes on the House floor purporting to take money away from other programs and tack it on to drug enforcement, then use those votes in Congressional campaigns, like that of Democratic leader Jim Wright in Texas.

DON McNEIL, GOP Congressional Candidate: My name's Don McNiel. I'm running for Congress against Jim Wright. I'd appreciate your vote in November.

The President introduced a new crime bill in 1980 or '81, and it went through the Senate in record time. When it got to the House, it was pigeon-holed and put in committee for nearly a year and a half, I believe. When it came out of committee, Jim Wright voted against a strong crime bill and voted for a weak crime bill. This is all a matter of record, and it's ridiculous. And aside from that, even in the last three or four weeks, he's voted on three or four occasions notto put money into fighting drugs and keep it in what I call in a lot of respect pork barrel programs.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Republican Gingrich claims the attacks are having some effect.

Rep. GINGRICH: Jim Wright got hit particularly hard in the Dallas papers by his opponent for a year and a half of participating in bottling up legislation. About 24 hours after that headline story came out, there was a bipartisan effort in the House to pass drug bills.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Though the majority leader has not answered the challenges of a little known opponent, Wright has compiled documents supporting his votes for legislation fighting drugs, and, once the attacks in Texas began, Democrats in Congress quickly made Wright their point man on drugs.

Rep. JIM WRIGHT, Majority Leader: The war against drugs is not a Democratic war and it is not a Republican war. It's an American war. There's a place for all of us on the battlefield.

ROBERTS: The more drugs get talked about, the hotter a political issue they become, and both parties are trying to figure a way to take the issue into the coming elections. Since this is a question where no one disagrees, it seems difficult to use the drug issue to partisan advantage. Even so, both parties think they can use concern about drugs to play to their own particular strengths. Republicans have used law and order as a good theme for them in past elections. Newt Gingrich of the Republican Campaign Committee says that's the approach his party will use on the drug issue.

Rep. GINGRICH: They are going to be much tougher on changing laws to punish people. They're going to be for building more jails. They're going to be for taking money away from somewhere else in the budget and reshaping priorities, rather than just adding money. And they are going to be vehemently opposed, I think, to buying off left wing activist groups by giving them more room at the public trough.

ROBERTS: Democrats argue that the drug issue plays into a campaign theme they're taking into 1986 -- spending priorities. Tony Coehlo chairs the Democratic Campaign Committee.

Rep. TONY COEHLO, (D) California: We sense very, very strongly that the American people think that controlling drugs in the United States is much more important than fighting the war in Nicaragua; that if you take that $100 million that they're dumping over there and spend it on fighting drugs here in the United States, that that's a better priority for them.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: The House is crafting what the Democratic leadership is describing as a bipartisan omnibus bill to provide funds for drug enforcement and anti-drug education. Republicans aren't sure they're ready to embrace that measure.

Rep. GINGRICH: The Democrats have all their natural instincts -- first of all, not to talk about budget priorities, just add money. I mean, their first instinct is, as Wright has been quoted three times as saying, "What's an extra couple billion dollars when it matters?"

Rep. COEHLO: They're going to have to belly up to the bar when we have the drug bill in mid-September. That's going to be the critical vote. That's what the people are going to really pay attention to. It's going to be a tough bill, and we want to see if these right-wingers are going to support that or if they're going to continue to play partisan politics.

ROBERTS: Partisan politics is the name of the game in even numbered years. The question is whether drugs will work as a partisan political issue in 1986.

LEHRER: Still to come on the News Hour tonight, an argument over an unusual television commercial and an essay on the American roadside. But first, this is Pledge Week on Public Television, and so we are taking a short break now so your local public television station can ask for your support. That support helps keep programs like this on the air.

[Pledge Break] Ads at Issue

HUNTER-GAULT: Our next focus tonight is the debate about who decides what kind of commercials appear on network television. The controversy was sparked by an ad about the federal deficit produced by the W. R. Grace Co. Grace wants the ads on network television. The networks have said no because, among other things, the ad takes a stand on an issue that would require them to provide equal time to opposing views. We'll get to the debate in a moment. But first, the source of it: The Deficit Trials.

Older actor, defendant: I already told you. It's all going to work out somehow. There was even talk of an amendment, but no one was willing to make the sacrifices. I'm afraid you're much too young to understand.

Younger actor, prosecutor: Maybe so. But I'm afraid the numbers speak for themselves. By 1986, for example, the national debt had reached $2 trillion. Didn't that frighten you?

Announcer [voice-over]: No one really knows what another generation of unchecked federal deficits will bring.

Older actor: It does frighten me.

Younger actor: No more questions.

Older actor: I have a question. Are you ever going to forgive us?

Announcer: But we know this much. You can change the fiture. You have to. At W. R. Grae, we want all of us to stay one step ahead of a changing world.

HUNTER-GAULT: Here with us now is the person the Grace company hired to make its case to the network, Washington attorney Joseph Califano, a former official in the Johnson and Carter administrations. And, for the television industry's point of view, Roy Danish, director of the Television Information Office, a non-profit, New York-based center supported by the networks, affiliates and independent television stations.

First, to you in Washington, Mr. Califano. Tonight Deficit Trials will be on over 120 stations, and it's already played on some independent networks. Why does it have to be in prime time, on the networks?

JOSEPH CALIFANO, attorney: Well, the networks control and have 74%, 75% of the viewing audience on prime time. That's where America is watching; that's where we want to place the commercial. And CBS has now agreed to run the commercial on its network with one minor change, eliminating the line about the amendment, which you just showed. That's why we want it there. We believe the networks have an obligation to inform the people and that they should be running commercials on issues of public importance, just the way they run commercials on issues to sell products.

HUNTER-GAULT: What's wrong with that, Mr. Danish?

ROY DANISH, TV Information Office: Well, Mr. Califano seems to feel that the only way networks or broadcasters can inform people about issues is by carrying ads. Broadcasters, just like newspapers and others, carry a great deal of information about issues. They carry news reports and other kinds of material, and they don't require paid spots to bring information of this sort to their audience.

HUNTER-GAULT: But what's specifically is wrong with it?

Mr. DANISH: With this spot?

HUNTER-GAULT: Yeah, with putting it on -- on television, as long as its paid for?

Mr.DANISH: There's something -- there is something called the fairness doctrine. Broadcasters aren't quite so sure it's fair. But what it means is that if a station carries -- and stations have the responsibility for what's on the air. Networks don't; stations do. Each individual station is responsible for what it broadcasts. And it can't past that responsibility off to anyone else. If a station broadcasts a program, a spot, anything else, that takes a position on a controversial issue of public importance, it must be prepared to give an opportunity to others who have unlike views to express themselves on that. What Mr. Califano is suggesting is that the network become the surrogate for all those stations and say, "We will accept this spot," and let the stations worry about fairness doctrine complications later.

HUNTER-GAULT: Is that right, Mr. Califano?

Mr. CALIFANO: No it's not, and let me just state, the networks have an obligation to -- and then the stations have an obligation -- to cover issues fairly and with balance. They can do it in their news broadcasts, in their opinion broadcasts, and the FCC has deferred to them. Ninety percent of the stations will carry this ad and ads on -- I shouldn't say this ad -- but ads on controversial issues of public importance. Ninety percent of the individual stations who, as the gentleman representing the television industry indicated, have the licenses. The networks don't. CBS itself, for example, carried an ad that Grace did on the need for long term investment in this country in 1984. It rejected an ad in 1983. ABC will run The Deficit Trials ad on its network between midnight and 1:00 a.m., but it won't run it in prime time. What we seek -- and what I think CBS has given -- is simply a policy clearly and consistently applied. All three networks have run ads saying -- advertising things, buy things made in the USA. They've run ads promoting nuclear power. Why not run this ad? We want simple rules that people can understand. We recognize the television networks' First Amendment rights, their journalistic independence. We applaud that; we support that. We simply ask them to recognize ours. And the fact that it's only a minute doesn't make any difference because virtually every local station and local licensee in America runs one-minute editorials.

HUNTER-GAULT: So the bottom line of what you're saying is that the networks aren't consistent in what they accept and what they reject?

Mr. CALIFANO: They have not been.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, what about that Mr. Danish?

Mr. DANISH: It simply isn't so. The networks have not, to my knowledge at least, accepted ads pushing nuclear power. They have accepted ads which said we are at risk -- we are at greater risk in relying on foreign oil than ew would be in relying on coal and other forms of power. True. But there's nothing in the ad that you folks are proposing that has anything to do with truth; it's an imaginary notion of what might happen down the line if a point of view which Mr. Grace espouses is not espoused by everyone else. Networks and broadcasters independently have dealt with the issue of the deficit over and over again. We have heard spokesmen from every possible point of view and the notion that only the Grace statement is going to bring this all to a head so Americans can understand it is kind of silly, it seems to me.

Mr. CALIFANO: But -- but, well.That's not the notion though. I mean, and we made it clear to CBS, and in CBS's letter back to us they complimented us,I might note, on our thoughtful analysis. After you took the notion --

Mr. DANISH: And the --

Mr. CALIFANO: Wait. The notion is not simply that the Grace ad is the only point of view. We believe all kinds of points of view should be run on these subjects, and we believe that people should be able to speak through the most powerful medium there is. And that the only corporation whose views should be expressed should not be the corporation that owns the network. And have no doubt about the fact that they are corporations, just like W. R. Grace is a corporation. All you have to do is read the papers about the fights over who's going to own CBS, whose going to own ABC, and whose going to own NBC, now taken over by General Electric and about to be run by a financial --

Mr. DANISH: Mr. Califano, I don't know in which country you've been watching television, but it's certainly not this one. The views that are heard on television in this country come from legislators, from the individuals, all kinds -- every stripe of opinion. They are not the views of corporations necessarily or in any -- in any limited way. You have heard endless debate on issues of all kinds. And the notion that only the voices of owning corporations are heard is kind of a silly one. You know better than that. And I'm -- the audience isn't naive enough to think that either.

Mr. CALIFANO: No, no, again that's not what I said. What I said is that they're doing the only selecting of what's heard. And let --

Mr. DANISH: Only an editor can edit, Mr. Califano.

Mr. CALIFANO: Let me also say again, you are arguing for a position -- you are really arguing ABC's position, except between midnight and 1:00 a.m. --

Mr. DANISH: Mr. Califano, you're suggesting -- you're suggesting that The New York Times --

Mr. CALIFANO: You are not arguing for CBS, because they've agreed to run the ad, and you are arguing NBC's position, which in their letter to me says, "We will only present commercials which present unanimous" -- their word not mine -- "unanimous views of --"

Mr. DANISH: Mr. Califano, you're arguing all over the lot. Let's stick to one of your points at a time. You would like to replace the editor of The New York Times or the editor of The NBC Evening News for your purposes at the time that you want to make a statement, otherwise, as you said a little while ago, it's their medium, and you wouldn't dream of treading on their First Amendment rights.

Mr. CALIFANO: Let's deal with that one. The editor of The New York Times -- The New York Times and every newspaper in this country runs ads by individuals expressing their views. The editorial page of The New York Times runs a paid advertisement from Mobile, for example, every week. So they don't have any trouble running these ads. We do not want to replace them. We recognize their journalistic independence.We hold it precious to our values. All we say is that the people have a right to speak too.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Danish, you've raised the First Amendment -- I'm sorry, the fairness question. Has the fairness doctrine issue been raised in any of these ads, or any of the previous ones?

Mr. DANISH: They haven't run the ads that contain elements that would trigger the fairness doctrine.

Mr. CALIFANO: We --

Mr. DANISH: May I finish, please?

Mr. CALIFANO: Surely.

Mr. DANISH: And as I understand it, the present Grace ad -- the one that we just saw a few moments ago -- has, in the views of NBC and CBS, an element in it -- in the case of CBS, the element has been identified: the mention of the amendment. I don't know what NBC's particular views are, but they feel that the ad would trigger the fairness doctrine, and therefore they backed off from it. They have not backed off from an earlier Grace ad dealing with -- dealing with the deficit. The one that involved the baby. They took it. Okay?

Mr. CALIFANO: Charlayne, in response to the question you asked, the Grace ad as you showed it has been shown on scores and scores of local television stations all over this country, and there has not been one single request for --

Mr. DANISH: That's fine. People who are -- the people who are supposed to decide, the individual stations who are supposed to decide whether or not a spot with a controversial message is to be aired made that decision.

Mr. CALIFANO: Okay --

Mr. DANISH: Grace has not been denied access to the air. You yourself said that 90% of stations are prepared to carry the spot. Buy the spot on their time.

Mr. CALIFANO: Because you know as well as I how much more expensive it is to try --

Mr. DANISH: Ah, we're getting into something else now --

Mr. CALIFANO: -- and time consuming to put station and station together. And secondly, the networks control seven and a half of the nine minutes of prime time advertising. If the networks are willing to give up more of that seven and a half minutes of prime time advertising to the local stations, fine. I think it would be a wonderful thing. And mabye that's what you're advocating, and I think that's a healthy thing if the local stations --

Mr. DANISH: Stations have time all over the lot to sell.

Mr. CALIFANO: Prime time is what we're talking about.

Mr. DANISH: And I'm sure if you want to buy it, you'll get perfectly satisfactory time from them. Please do buy it.

Mr. CALIFANO: Do you think that the networks should give up some of their seven and a half minutes of prime time, more of it to the networks? They have -- they control 70% of the prime time. Would you agree with that?

Mr. DANISH: You want access, Mr. Califano? It's available to you. Buy it.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. With that we're going to have to leave it. Thank you very much for being with us, Mr. Danish and Mr. Califano.

Mr. CALIFANO: Thank you. Roadside America

LEHRER: Finally tonight, an essay on what remains along the great American roadside. The essayist is Bill Barol of Newsweek Magazine.

BILL BAROL: The U.S. Travel Data Center estimates that American drivers will take some 14 million more person-trips this summer than last. They define a person-trip as one person traveling 100 miles from home. How much driving is this, really? Well, just to give you an idea, it's equivalent to the entire population of Denver, Colorado, gassing up and driving to Jackson, Mississippi. Or a 14 piece dance band motoring cross-country 36,000 times. Or one person with a lot of free time and a really good car driving from Texas to Mars. Any way you figure it, this is a lot of driving.

I wish the drivers good trips, of course. But it seems a shame that with so many folks on the road these days, there's so little for them to look at as they drive. Fast food joints and gas stations, mostly. Each one looking like every other one. It wasn't always that way along American roadside.Take a look at these: the Big Fish Drive-in in Erie, Pennsylvania; The Tepees, near Denver; Wadham's Service Station in Milwaukee. They were products of another time and another way of thinking about the American road.

It's a commonplace that in the early decades of this century, Americans fell in love with the motorcar. I don't think that's entirely true. What really caught our imagination was the road. It was open, free and limitless. And what we saw when we looked at it was possibility. We saw romance. And so we shaped the American roadside to reflect our excitement in the new automotive age. We built diners and drive-ins, service stations, motels and motor courts. They were weird and fanciful and blatantly commercial. The whole point was to get you to stop your car and come inside. In this sense, they were a pure meeting of form and function. They were lovely.

Sometimes they didn't even look like what they were: a diner that looked like a zeppelin; a cocktail lounge that looked like a ship. Sometimes they looked exactly like what they were, only bigger. Sometimes they were little gems of design, the mundane made beautiful for no practical reason at all. And sometimes they were just, well, there. Whimsy for its own sake. Each one seemed to say that while getting there was the goal, it wasn't the point. There were wonderful things to be seen along the way.

Today roadside America exists mostly in memory and in picture books. A new paperback, Roadside America, provides a travel guide to the very few such attractions left. Dinosaurs, big tires and, my personal favorite, the Mitchell Corn Palace in Mitchell, South Dakota.

But looking at these pictures makes me a little sad for what we've come to. A time when we speed faster and faster down the highway and America is a place to be driven through on the way to somewhere else. In the precious few places where it still exists, the old roadside sends a message from another day: Slow down; take the next exit; turn off while there's still time. Happy motoring.

HUNTER-GAULT: Again, the major stories of the day. The Soviet Union said human error caused the Chernobyl nuclear accident that killed 31. Consumer prices remained steady in July. And people in Edmond, Oklahoma, mourned the dead in the aftermath of yesterday's post office attack that left 15 dead. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.