The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, Soviet leader Gorbachev accused the U.S. of misrepresenting what happened at the Iceland summit. White House spokesman Speaks labelled the attack propaganda. Eugene Hasenfus said he is working on a deal for early release by Nicaragua. And President Reagan signed a $1.7 billion anti-drug bill into law. We will have the details in the news summary in a moment. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary, correspondent Charles Krause talks to Eugene Hasenfus in a Nicaragua prison and to the man who's trying to defend him, former Attorney General Griffin Bell. We report on the Senate race in Florida and analyze how the election looks a week before voting. In a newsmaker interview, Canada's Prime Minister Brian Mulroney talks about his trade problems with the U.S. And essayist Roger Rosenblatt has some closing thoughts on why the Soviet Union remains such a mystery to the West.News Summary

LEHRER: The high level argument over the Iceland summit played another round today. In Moscow, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev accused the United States of gross misrepresentation. He said President Reagan, despite post-summit denials, did agree to the elimination of all strategic nuclear weapons in ten years. But in Washington, White House spokesman Larry Speaks said that was not so. He said there was some discussion about all strategic weapons, but in the end, it was only ballistic missiles. Gorbachev went on in his speech today to say he felt the U.S. and the Soviet Union could work out their problems. Speaks went on in his statement to say he wised the Soviets would disengage from propaganda tactics and get on to negotiating in Geneva.

And there was another Soviet spy arrest in this country. The FBI charged 33 year old John Davies of San Jose, California, with attempting to deliver U.S. defense information to the Soviets. Davies works for the Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation. He was accused of giving details on an air force reconnaissance program to a person he believed was an employee of the Soviet consulate in San Francisco, but was really an FBI agent. Robin?

MacNEIL: The United States called on Syria to honor its promise to help free American hostages in Lebanon, despite the withdrawal of the American ambassador. Ambassador William Eagleton was pulled out last week, after Britain severed diplomatic relations, charging Syria with complicity in an attempt to blow up an Israeli airliner last April. The State Department said the U.S. is coordinating further actions against Syria with its allies, but spokesman Charles Redman also emphasized Syria's role in the hostage question.

CHARLES REDMAN, State Department spokesman: Syrian officials from President Assad on down have said that there are countries exerting efforts to free the hostages as a humanitarian matter, independent of our other relations. We would expect the Syrians to continue their efforts. As far as we're concerned, everyone should work to free these innocent victims.

MacNEIL: Britain asked fellow members of the European Community for a show of support against Syria today. John Simpson of the BBC has a report.

JOHN SIMPSON [voice-over]: Sir Geoffrey Howe set out with a will today to turn all the declarations the community's been making on terrorism over recent years into some bankable support. But right from the start, in the sleepy atmostphere of Luxembourg, things went against him. The French certainly seem to pose a problem for Sir Geoffrey, with their hopes of a big deal involving arms with Syria.The fact is, no one's very enthusiastic about taking action against a country which is a useful market and a political power of some importance in the Middle East. Behind these windows this afternnon, in secret session, Sir Geoffrey gave the other ministers the full details of the evidence he'd got against Syria, including what seems to have been the transcripts of bugged conversations. The ministers may well have been impressed, but they won't want to do anything in a hurry -- beyond, that is, making the ritual noises of condemnation.

MacNEIL: Greece, Italy and Belgium also appeared reluctant to endorse any real action against Syria. In the Arab world, only Libya officially supported Syria's call for a boycott of Britain. Libya closed its airspace to British flights. Most other Arab nations reacted coolly to the Syrian suggestion.

LEHRER: Eugene Hasenfus may have a deal working. The captured American said the Nicaraguan government was interested in his confession in exchange for his freedom. He said it in an interview with our special correspondent, Charles Krause.

EUGENE HASENFUS: I've been told by the government here, with all the evidence they have plus muself, that I should continue on their grounds that I am guilty. And if I so go along with this, it would be helping their cause, and there would be a very good chance of me being set free over this, yes.

LEHRER: Former U.S. Attorney General Griffin Bell is in Managua to represent Hasenfus. At a news conference today, Bell suggested the Nicaraguans consider swapping him for a Nicaraguan prisoner held in the United States. Bell said there are 19 Nicaraguans in U.S. jails, most of them on drug charges.

MacNEIL: President Reagan signed into law the massive anti-drug bill passed in the dying hours of Congress. The bill will provide $1.7 billion to strengthen law enforcement efforts and launch an educational and medical campaign to discourage drug use and fight what Mr. Reagan called an epidemic.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: And the vaccine that's going to end the epidemic is a combination of tough laws, like the one we signed today, and a dramatic change in public attitude. We must be intolerant of drug use and drug sellers. We must be intolerant of drug use on the campus and at the workplace. We must be intolerant of drugs not because we want to punish drug users, but because we care about them and want to help them. This legislation is not intended as a means of filling our jails with drug users. What we must do as a society is identify those who use drugs, reach out to them, help them quit, and give them the support they need to live right.

LEHRER: NASA officials said today a new rocket engine will be ready for the resumption of shuttle flights in 1988. They held a news conference at the Houston Space Center to make the announcement, saying early tests show the new design will avoid the problems that led to the Challenger tragedy.

In Washington, the Federal Aviation Administration announced new rules that would tighten the control of smaller aircraft around the nation's 23 busiest airports. The measures grew out of the August 31 collision of an Aeromexico jetliner with a private plane near the Los Angeles Airport. Eighty-two people died in that crash.

MacNEIL: Pope John Paul II declared a one day war on war today. The Pontiff's call for a truce in fighting was echoed by leaders of at least a dozen world religions, who joined him in a special two hour ceremony in Assisi, Italy. Delegates from more than 60 faiths heard the Pope plead, "Either we learn to walk together in peace and harmony, or we drift apart and ruin ourselves and others."

In some parts of the world, his message fell on deaf ears. Rival factions in Beirut traded machine gun and grenade fire across the green line, killing two and wounding ten. In El Salvador, the government claimed leftist guerrillas broke the cease fire this morning and attacked an army post. And in Northern Iceland, the IRA took responsibility for an explosion that derailed a freight train but caused no injuries.

LEHRER: The International Red Cross also had some bad news about the world today. It issued a new report saying the torture of prisoners and other banned methods of warfare are on the increase. Red Cross President Alexander Hay named six countries that refused Red Cross permission to even see prisoners. They are Iran, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Northern Chad, Angola and Mozambique. The report was released in Geneva, where the Red Cross is holding its world conference.

MacNEIL: Finally in the news, Sherman Adams, the man they called President Eisenhower's assistant president, died today in Hanover, New Hampshire, at the age of 87. The former governor became Ike's most influential assistant in the White House. And when the President was disabled by a heart attack, Adams chaired a committee of high officials that ran the country. His career ended in a scandal over a vicuna coat he accepted as a gift from an industrialist in trouble with federal agencies. Adams maintaned he's done no wrong, but was forced to resign.

That's the news summary. Coming up, interviews with Eugene Hasenfus and Griffin Bell, Senate politics in Florida, Canada's view of its trade war with Washington, and the mystique of Moscow. Nicaragua: Making his Case

LEHRER: We go first tonight to a newsmaker interview with Eugene Hasenfus. He is the 45 year old American who was captured three weeks ago, after he parachuted to safety over Nicaragua. He was a crew member on a plane flying supplies to the U.S.-supported contra guerrillas. Two other Americans on board the plane were killed. Hasenfus has been put on trial by the Nicaraguan government, but he has not been allowed to talk to any American lawyers. But he has been talking to the American press, including our special correspondent, Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: It was last Monday that Eugene Hasenfus was charged with violating Nicaragua's national security, with terrorism, and with illicit association. From the courtroom, he was transferred to the Medello Prison, about 15 miles from Managua, where he's the only American known to be incarcerated. According to Nicaraguan officials, Medello now holds 2,500 prisoners, about 40% of them charged with political offenses, the rest common criminals. Inmates are required to maintain the prison and are encouraged to work in factories, making boots, military uniforms and license plates. On weekends, the prisoners are allowed to meet with their families. Saturday, Eugene Hasenfus, like the others, met with his wife and brother. That meeting ended shortly before our interview began.

[on camera] Where aere things going at the moment? What do you understand to be your situation now?

Mr. HASENFUS: My situation, as it stands right now, I don't exactly know where I'm at. I haven't been given benefit to see my lawyer in the last few days or Mr. Bell or any of his associates. The only persons I have talked to are my family earlier, prior to meeting you here. And we are looking forward to the time where we can sit down together with Mr. Bell and my other lawyers and discuss what is exactly happening. So I do not exactly know what is happening, except my lawyer is contesting this court.

KRAUSE: Has anyone here or any of the government officials that have come to see you ever suggested to you that if you plead guilty and continue to cooperate with them, that you will be freed?

Mr. HASENFUS: I've been told by the government here, with all the evidence they have plus myself, that I should continue on their grounds that I am guilty. And if I so go along with this, it would be helping their cause, and there would be a very good chance of me being set free over this, yes.

KRAUSE: Now, given that, wouldn't it -- mightn't it have been better last Thursday for your lawyer to have simply negotiated with them and for you to have pleaded guilty, instead of what's happening now, which just seems to be delaying the thing?

Mr.HASENFUS: This is true, but you're -- you can be involved in a political game that's bouncing back and forth here, and until I can talk more with Mr. Bell or his other representatives, my lawyer and stuff to find out exactly what I may say, I don't care to comment any more on the plea.

KRAUSE: But you do feel as if you are caught now in a kind of political game that is almost beyond --

Mr. HASENFUS: Anybody can see it. You can read it in the paper every day. It's there, yes.

KRAUSE: Well, who's playing this game? I mean --

Mr. HASENFUS: The Sandinista government and our government. Each of them are trying to save face. Let's face it: I am the first American captive, the first thing that has definitely given them proof that our government is involved with the contras. And they want to make the best they can out of it.

KRAUSE: On the other hand, the United States government is denying any association with you whatsoever.

Mr. HASENFUS: Correct.

KRAUSE: And how do you feel about that?

Mr. HASENFUS: There's a lot of feelings I have, but I don't care to comment on it at the time.

KRAUSE: But in the past, you've sort of said that you felt that someone should come forward to claim you, in effect.

Mr. HASENFUS: Yes, I do. But no one, as time progresses here, no one seems to be sticking their foot forward. So what I have to do is pull back into a shell here until I can put my mind together with my attorneys and family etiquette.

KRAUSE: Do you think Mr. Bell is down here solely to help you, as opposed to being a part of this game that you've described?

Mr. HASENFUS: There again, talking with my family, Mr. Bell has done this solely on his own. And the other people that came with him are doing this solely on their own. I'm trying to ask them if our government's involved in it, and they say positively not.

KRAUSE: Let me ask you this: you have mentioned that in El Salvador Colonel Steele is the military attache in El Salvador. And I gather that you knew him when you were living there. Is that correct?

Mr. HASENFUS: Colonel Steele I'd seen twice. Once from a distance, and the other time he visited one of our casas.He wanted some information about things that must have been told to him, relayed to him. In his position, he was looking for the senior representative of our company, who was not there or anything. He just wanted to relay a message that he understood -- he didn't like what was happening.

KRAUSE: He did not like what was happening.

Mr. HASENFUS: To the point -- the way things were being controlled, no.

KRAUSE: But that didn't -- that isn't to say that he didn't approve, or -- I mean, that wasn't a judgement on what your mission there was; it was more a judgement on your personal -- I mean, some of the rowdiness. Wasn't that true?

Mr. HASENFUS: This could very well be. I don't know what his main mission was to come there for, except to leave us know that he knew some things that were happening he was not satisfied with. I did not pay that much attention to the meeting myself, because I was -- I had just got on board, and I didn't even know what was happening myself. So I just sort of shrugged it off myself.

KRAUSE: You have said, though, that it was certainly your impression that the government of the United States knew and approved of what you were doing down there. Is that correct?

Mr. HASENFUS: That is very true. Someone in our government someplace should stand up and say, "Yeah." It was definitely -- had to be runby something like that. There was no other way to have the conveniences of being able to enter these bases and do all this stuff by some private organization.

KRAUSE: Did you ever, at Ilapango or elsewhere in El Salvador, were there U.S. army personnel or diplomats or U.S. citizens who were -- other than people in your immediate group -- official U.S. citizens in El Salvador providing logistical help or otherwise aiding in your flights and mission?

Mr. HASENFUS: To the best of my knowledge, our company had no references with any other Americans in El Salvador to carry out any of this stuff.

KRAUSE: But at Ilapango there are lots of American advisers, U.S. personnel there. Didn't you ever talk to them, or didn't they ever -- do you think they were aware of what you were up to?

Mr. HASENFUS: I'm quite sure the knowledge was there. They see these aircraft taxi in and out, take off. They see them being loaded with this aid or this -- these particular cargo with parachutes on. It don't take much to add two and two, and they'll get four. But as far as them coming up and asking questions or doing something, no, we stayed away from each other.

KRAUSE: Do you understand why we're all here asking you questions?

Mr. HASENFUS: Yes, I do.

KRAUSE: I mean, do you understand the larger implications of all of this -- of your particular case?

Mr. HASENFUS: Yes, it's a very large implication.I understand that, definitely.

KRAUSE: And what -- how would you define it? I mean --

Mr. HASENFUS: Oh, I don't want to get into the politics of saying why the U.S. government looked really bad in this. I understand this. And to break it all down, I'm not going to right now.

KRAUSE: To get out of this situation, are you being forced to do some things in a way that you -- that really go against your beliefs? Or, I mean, are you just doing what you feel you have to do, because you're under a certain amount of pressure to do it? Or do you just feel that, well, nobody's standing up for you anyway, so you've just got to get out of it as best you can?

Mr. HASENFUS: I'm not going to comment on that right now. I understand where you're coming from, what you have to try and highlight on and things like that, but for the time being, I just want to wait 'til I can have further negotiations with people other than news people on that.

LEHRER: Right after that interview, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega charged former Attorney General Bell was there as a representative of the Reagan administration, and not as Hasenfus' private lawyer. Krause talked to Bell about that a short while later.

GRIFFIN BELL, former Attorney General: That's, of course, an insult. American lawyer, I'd be disbarred -- subject to disbarment -- if I were to take the case represnting Mr. Hasenfus, and in reality I happen to be representing somebody else. I couldn't -- I could never do that. I have to say that, without becoming upset about it, President Ortega must not understand the American poltical system. He has friends. He ought to ask some of them before he, you know, could go off on that tack.

KRAUSE: Would you say that -- I mean, if the president of the country has taken that position publicly, how would you read that in terms of the future of your effort here?

Mr. BELL: Well, I would read it that he doesn't plan to have any dealings with me. I would say that it may be that he is turning, now, the matter into a political question instead of a legal question. This is the first time he's tried to tie --put me in a position where I'm representing the government.

KRAUSE: You indicated earlier that if they allowed you to see this man and if they let him go, you would be the first one to call that a humanitarian gesture on whatever, and return to the states and --

Mr. BELL: Oh, I still feel that way.

KRAUSE: But now, what happens if the other thing happens -- that they don't let you see this man, and --

Mr. BELL: Then I would just have to say that he's been denied his counsel of his choice. I'm an American lawyer to help explain what they're doing to him. And that it's an inhumane, unjust system not based on due process. And that's just -- it's as simple as that. If they for some reason think that I'm not -- that I'm some sort of an impostor here, then let them say so and say at the same time, "We'll take another American lawyer. We won't take him, but we'll take another one." Then I'll stand aside. I'm interested in this man having an American lawyers to help him. It doesn't mean anything to me to have the case. If they think I'm unworthy in some way, then let them let -- let them just say, "Bring another American lawyer down here, and we'll take him."

MacNEIL: Still to come on the News Hour, Republicans fighting to keep Senate control, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney on trade troubles with the U.S., and essayist Roger Rosenblatt on the Soviet mystery. Senate Sweepstakes

LEHRER: Next, a little politics -- U.S. Senate politics. There is just a week left before the elections, before the fate of Republican control in the Senate is known. President Reagan, the Republicans' main weapon, will be in nine Senate race states between now and then. One of the three he went to last week was Florida, and Judy Woodruff has this report on the race there.

[clip from TV ad]

ANNOUNCER: Election year. Rhetoric versus reality. Fotunately, there's a record. October 23, 1985, Paula Hawkins has a chance to fight drugs by voting to fund the Coast Guard, the front line in the war on drugs. Instead, she votes to ground them.The result in Florida: open season for the drug smugglers.

[clip from TV ad]

ANNOUNCER: Bob Graham's house of cards is beginning to fall. He accuses Paula Hawkins of cutting Coast Guard funds. It wasn't true. Is Bob Graham just trying to cover the fact he lets drug pushers out of jail early? That's the joker.

JUDY WOODRUFF [voice-over]: For most of Florida's 11 million residents, ads like these are the primary clue that there's a U.S. Senate seat up for grabs this year. Thirty second TV spots have become the chief form of political dialogue in the nation's sixth largest state, and also its fastest growing. Experts say that growth is what makes Florida unique.

NEIL PEIRCE, author, The Book of America: What's so staggering is that if the current population increase continues, which is about 1,000 people a day, we'll have at least 5 million more people in Florida by the end of this century. It would have 15 million people, it will be fourth in population among the states, and it conceivably could have more people than Texas and be third.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: So many people are moving here so fast that few have had time to put down community roots. That gives the political image makers a unique challenge.

BOB SQUIER, Graham media adviser: I think Florida is almost the frontier in the sense of political media in the United States. And I say that because Florida is a state that is a very disconnected state politically. The people weren't connected to each other politically. And they still aren't. They're basically connected to each other through a medium like television.

[clip from TV ad]

Sen. PAULA HAWKINS (R) Florida: In the Senate, I've helped the Coast Guard catch drug smugglers.

ANNOUNCER: Check the Hawkins record yourself. Hawkins says the government is doing a great job intercepting drugs. Bob Graham thinks the war on drugs has just begun.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Florida has been affected, probably more than any other state, by drug trafficking. But political scientist Paul Beck says that ads like these don't tell the voters much.

PAUL BECK, political scientist: On an issue like drugs, there is really very little, except symbolic kinds of things, that the United States Senate can do about drug problems. Those problems, I think, are probably best resolved more at the local level and at the state level than they are at the national level.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: What the drug ads have done is give these two already popular, well known office holders a means of attacking each other's effectiveness. Graham has also tried to portray Hawkins as a senator with what he calls a miniature agenda -- that her only interests are issues like child abuse and drugs, which no one opposed, to the exclusion of issues like the economy and the environment. It's a charge Hawkins says she can't comprehend.

Sen. HAWKINS: Children are small. I understand that. They come in little, tiny packages, and they're very vulnerable.And they're our most vital resource, and I think we should spend an awful lot of time protecting them, making them safe, not exploitable.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Hawkins says she's proud of legislation she's helped pass on missing children and child abuse, and accuses Graham of being overly ambitious.

Sen. HAWKINS: His political ambitions would be President. And he can't run for governor again, so the next stop's senator.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: For his part, Graham has touted his two terms as Florida's governor. Even as a Democrat, he has appealed to conservatives with his pro death penalty views and tight fiscal policy. Graham contends he's tried to bring a variety of issues up for discussion in the race, but he says Hawkins has repeatedly avoided meeting him face to face.

Gov. BOB GRAHAM, Democratic Senate candidate: We've had TV spots on Medicare reform. We've had TV spots on Social Security. We're going to have spot on the environment, on education, on the U.S. in the world, both in terms of a military and an economic presence in this country. But right now, it's kind of like playing tennis against a void. You keep hitting the ball over the court -- over the net -- and it never comes back. Senator Hawkins' campaign must be the ultimate in terms of a nonhuman content campaign. It has essentially consisted of pay television, direct mail, written and produced by computer, and computerized telephone calls.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Graham points out that during the close of the Congressional session, when Hawkins turned down several opportunities to appear with him in Florida, she spent three days in New York to promote her new book. Hawkins says there was good reason for the trip.

Sen. HAWKINS: We were supposed to be adjourned those days. We were supposed to have been out October 3, and I had a contractual obligation on my book, Children at Risk, and I thought children much more important than coming back to Florida and being a long way away if they needed me to vote. I couldn't have made the votes.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Hawkins' media adviser, Robert Goodman, says face to face campaigning is overrated anyway.

BOB GOODMAN, Hawkins media adviser: I think campaigning sometimes is just something fot the candidate to really do, and they like it. But I don't think it has any effect on what's going to happen in this race at all. Television is the reality, for better or worse, of a local race or a state wide race. I mean, that's what it really is, more than all the other media combined.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Graham's media adviser suggests there is another reason Hawkins' advisers were reluctant to have her do much campaigning in Florida before the Senate adjourned.

Mr. SQUIER: And I think that's part of their strategy. I think it is very clear that what they have tried to do is to hold down Hawkins' contacts with the state, with the voters and with Graham -- in a sense, hide her, so that her television is the only campaign that people see. Because I think they have a candidate that's a bit of a loose cannon. And I just don't think they could afford to have her out there saying the things that come to mind in the course of this campaign, or this campaign would never have gotten to this point.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Squier's assessment turned out to be right on the money last week, when some remarks Hawkins made in a radio interview questioning the patriotism of Mexican immigrants set off a protest in Florida's powerful Hispanic community. Her next day apology tying Mexicans to drug smuggling only inflamed the situation. However much impact that incident has on the election, up until earlier in the week, voters seemed to be making up their minds largely based on what they'd heard on television.

VOTER: She's done a lot for the underdog and for the people that really don't get that much attention in the Senate, as opposed to big, you know, world issues. That's one thing -- that she cares for the little people.

VOTER: I don't think she's done that great of a job. She hasn't been there for a lot of votes. And she comes out big on things like anti-child abuse, anti-drugs. I mean, everybody's for that. I mean, that's not an issue, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, who's for child abuse and who's for drugs?

VOTER: I'm in favor of her for aspects on drugs -- the hard line on drugs. And I think she's done all right so far.

VOTER: I really think that Governor Graham is better qualified. I think he's had more experience with people and with government and with finance. And I'm, frankly, going to vote for Governor Graham.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The one time the candidates did meet for a face to face debate, Hawkins raised eyebrows by escalating the negative tone already a part of her TV campaign.

Sen. HAWKINS: I'm really astounded that a governor who has had in his custody the children -- the protection of the children -- has allowed so many children to die that are in the custody of this state.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Graham ignored that charge and attacked Hawkins' TV ad claim that she got the Chinese to stop exporting drugs to the U.S.

Gov. GRAHAM: If you look back over a six year career in the United States Senate and you have to present as one of the major reasons that justifies your reelection an event that didn't even exist -- a fantasy -- what does that say about the depth of your accomplishments?

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Hawkins has been running behind in the polls for most of the race. But she says much of the criticism of her, such as being called a showboat in a recent newspaper editorial, is easily explained.

Sen. HAWKINS: I'm a woman, and it's a sexist charge, period.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Do you really believe that the fact you're a woman is playing a role?

Sen. HAWKINS: Absolutely.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Meanwhile, Graham continues entertaining audiences with his own folsky brand of campaigning.

Gov. GRAHAM: Bob Graham. He's a cracker. Be a Graham cracker backer.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Hawkins' advisers, however, say the governor lacks a quality that the senator has.

Mr. GOODMAN: I think there's a contrast -- that Bob Graham is like your typical CEO -- chief executive officer. Everything by the numbers. And we're this passionate fighter. And I think passion is going to be the contrast difference between the two when it all blows down.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Not surprisingly, Graham's advisers see it differently.

Mr. SQUIER: One of the things to look for, as we get closer to the election, is whether people think it's a big job or a small job. If they think it's a small job, they might think she's about the right size for it. If they think it's a big job, I think they're going to want Graham to do that job.

WOODRUFF: It's not just the candidates' media consultants who see the race differently. So do their pollsters. Graham's pollster told us today that the governor is still comfortably ahead, as he put it, by well into the double digits. Hawkins' advisers, on the other hand, say the polls are showing her gaining every since President Reagan came to the state to campaign for her last Friday. They say the race is now a dead heat. However, some national Republican officials we spoke with today contradicted that and said at this point they are pessimistic about Hawkins' chances. Jim?

LEHRER: The campaign in Florida and elsewhere from this point on is where we go now with the view of President Reagan's key political strategist, White House special assistant for political affairs Mitch Daniels, and Senator George Mitchell of Maine, chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

Mr. Daniels, the President is going to nine states between now and next Tuesday. What's his message?

MITCH DANIELS, White House aide: His message is that he hopes for two more years of progress and moving forward in America -- progress that stands to give us our first chance to reduce nuclear arms in the world and to extend and complete the economic recovery which we're now enjoying. That to do that, he doesn't need control of the entire Congress, but he needs at least a half a break -- that is to say, to continue Senate majority control.

LEHRER: And he can't do it without the Senate control?

Mr. DANIELS: This President, I think, will find a way regardless of the outcome, but it would be a sad loss of opportunity if he were forced to spend more of his time on the defensive, warding off tax increases much advertised -- well advertised -- by our opposition, warding off the sort of handcuffs that the Democrats in Congress tried to place on him on the very issues that he was going to Iceland to negotiate.

LEHRER: Senator Mitchell, is that message going to take?

Sen. GEORGE MITCHELL (D) Maine: I don't think so. I think that the voters in Florida, for example, will make a decision based on the qualities of those two candidates. And I think the results there are fairly clear now. And I think all over the country you'll see the same thing.

LEHRER: This is not a referendum on the Reagan administration?

Sen. MITCHELL: Well, the President is trying to make it that, but I don't think he'll succeed. And in the areas where it is, I think it will be a negative result. There is deep concern in this country about the economy, widespread unease about the direction we're heading in. The President has said, for example, that his administration is creating jobs. Indeed it is. The problem is, the jobs are in Korea, Japan, places like that.

LEHRER: Is the Democrats' counter message that if you don't like what the Reagan administration has done, vote for the Democrat, no matter who the Republican opponent is?

Sen. MITCHELL: Well, of course, it differs in different parts of the country. No two states are the same. And certainly the message in Pennsylvania is not going to be the same as in North Dakota. Our candidates address their concerns to what is relevant in that state. And I think that's what the voters want to hear and will respond to.

LEHRER: Mr. Daniels, I notice that in Oklahoma and again in Florida on Friday, President Reagan started beating up on Jimmy Carter again. What caused that to happen?

Mr. DANIELS: Well, it was a --

LEHRER: He's been out of office for six years now.

Mr. DANIELS: Well, Herbert Hoover's been out of office five decades, and it didn't prevent the Democrats from invoking his name once in a while.

LEHRER: Okay, I hear you you.

Mr. DANIELS: We think it's a fair comparison. In Florida there was a direct connection, because Governor Graham had nominated Carter in 1980, spoken very warmly about him and very harshly about President Reagan and about the very policies -- called them simpleminded -- that have brought about eleven and a half million new jobs in this country. So it is not personal, as President Reagan's warm comments about the former President at the library dedication recently would witness. But we think it's very fair. These are the same Democratic policies that the President was elected to replace.

LEHRER: Senator Mitchell, do you find it difficult as a Democrat defending President Carter? I mean, is that a smart political tactic that the Reagan folks are up to?

Sen. MITCHELL: I don't think it has any relevance to this election, and I think the American people see that. It's really kind of a statement that is designed to rev up their own troops. It's sort of like when the President went on national television and said, when Mr. Daniloff was released and the Soviet spy was released, he said there's no relationship between the two. Well, does anybody in America believe that? Do you believe that? Does Mr. Daniels believe that? Does President Reagan believe it? Well, people say, "Well, he's got to do it." They still like him. It's part of the job. But it doesn't have any influence in affecting people. And as far as this jobs business is concerned, President Carter can speak for himself, but the fact is that in four years of President Carter's term, more jobs were created in the United States than have been created in six years of President Reagan's terms in office. In a smaller country, in a smaller economy. The Reagan policies, particularly trade, are creating jobs, but the jobs are in Japan. They're in Korea. That's the problem.

LEHRER: Take that, Daniels.

Mr. DANIELS: Well, the American people rendered a judgement on that twice already, and the Carter economic policies gave us double digit inflation,the highest interest rates since the Civil war, and the seeds of a very serious recession which only Reagan policies cured. We have the highest percentage of Americans at work in this country today -- over 61% -- of any time in our history. That record speaks for itself. The important issue is the future. And how are we going to extend and complete this recovery? The Democrats are in Chapter 11 on that one. They haven't got an answer. They've tried all year for one, and that is why I think they've fallen back on negative campaigning and what I hope will be the futile hope that these races can just be settled on personalities.

Sen. MITCHELL: May I make one response? Because it is simply incredible for anyone to suggest that Democrats fall back on negative campaigning. Negative campaigning was created by Republican candidates in the late '70s and has been carried to a high art form by them. In some instances, Democratic candidates have responded in kind. But that kind of statement simply can not go unchallenged.

LEHRER: Mr. Daniels?

Mr. DANIELS: Well, maybe imitation is the sincerest form, but I would just say that there has been a themeless-ness about this election. The vacuum has been filled in some cases by negative ads, and in some cases by other tactics. But still and all, it's an odd off year election when there is no national unrest, no war, no scandal, no recession of the kind that has typified these elections in the past.

LEHRER: Gentlemen, both of you are professionals. Do you wince a little bit when you see on Judy's report the man or woman in the street interviews -- people spewing back stuff that came -- obviously came right out of a 30 second television commercial and these TV -- these political consultants saying it's television, only television, and all this stuff. They keep the candidates away from the people. Mr. Daniels, what's going on?

Mr. DANIELS: I'll be honest.It bothers me. And I hope that we'll work our way out of that in time. I would say one of the enjoyable --

LEHRER: Who's we? If you all don't do it, who's going to do it?

Mr. DANIELS: We, the American people. I would say that one of the enjoyable aspects of travelling with the President these past few weeks has been that at least when he travels -- and it's sad if it takes a President of the United States to bring together 18,000 people, as we've had, to discuss politics. But at least on some occasions, people can do this face to face. And I hope that that comes back in the vote.

LEHRER: Senator, how do you feel about that?

Sen. MITCHELL: It is a distressing turn of events in American politics. I do not agree with Mr. Goodman that it is now everything. Personal contact still means something. The quality of the individual, the ability, means something. And I think the Florida race will be a good test of that. If, in fact, television is the only thing, then Mrs. Hawkins will win. Because she's bought more of it, and her campaign has been entirely a television campaign -- avoiding the voters, avoiding reporters, not being responsive to any questions. Graham has conducted the opposite kind of campaign. He's gone out and met people. He has opened himself up to questions. Anybody who wants to ask him a question can do so. That's not true of Mrs. Hawkins. And I think that the voters in Florida and elsewhere, although television is a crucial factor, the most significant factor, it still is not the only factor in American politics.

LEHRER: Would you agree, Mr. Daniels, that the Florida race is a good test for the television campaign?

Mr. DANIELS: I'm not sure it's any different than any other. There are different factors that play in every state. Governor Graham has not underutilized television, as I think the senator would attest. But I would certainly concur that it's unfortunate. If it becomes the transcendent factor in our politics, I think we've lost something.

LEHRER: In a word, what is your partisan answer, Senator, as to what's going to happen to control of the Senate?

Sen. MITCHELL: Fifty-three Democrats, forty-seven Republicans next January.

LEHRER: Mr. Daniels?

Mr. DANIELS: I'll be a little more candid and a little less partisan. I think it's going to go right to the wire. It may resemble the game the other night. Go down to the last out.

LEHRER: The World Series game.

Mr. DANIELS: If anybody lets one slip through their legs, it will probably cost them the whole ball game.

LEHRER: Okay. Gentlemen, thank you both very much.

Sen. MITCHELL: Thank you, Jim. Talking Trade

MacNEIL: Next tonight, part two of our newsmaker interview with Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Last Friday, he talked about differences with the U.S. over foreign policy. Tonight, the subject is the mounting trade problems with the United States.

[voice-over] Like Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney is a conservative elected by a huge majority. But in the two years since his landslide election, Mulroney's popularity has suffered from a series of cabinet scandals and a prolonged economic slump in Canada. His poll ratings have dropped to 30%. Ironically for a prime minister who promised warmer relations with the United States, he has experienced mounting differences with Washington over trade, to the point that some Canadians are advising him to abandon his top political priority: negotiating a free trade zone across the border. Exports to the U.S. account for 16% of Canada's total gross national product. In May, in response to U.S. lumber industry complaints, the Reagan administration imposed a 35% duty on shakes and shingles -- material used for roofing. Two weeks ago, the administration imposed a 15% duty on soft lumber. [on camera] And today in Geneva, Canada protested about two other recent U.S. actions: imposing a higher fee on imported oil than domestic to fund toxic waste cleanup, and a customs tariff on all imports. Canada said they violated the rules of Gatt, the 92 national general agreement on tariffs and trade. Last Friday, I asked Prime Minister Mulroney about his difficulties with the U.S.

Mr. Mulroney, you took power two years ago, advocating as an important part of your platform closer relations with the United States. Do you now feel, two years later, a disappointed suitor?

BRIAN MULRONEY, Canadian Prime Minister: No. A realistic partner and friend, but no. Now, I'm disappointed from time to time, surely. We have the most important trade relationship in the world. A lot of Americans seem to think that your biggest trading partner is Japan. Wrong. Or Europe. Wrong again. It's dear, old Canada. By a long shot, we're you're best partner and your biggest partner and your best friend. And from time to time, we're taken aback by actions that are initiated by the Congress which run counter, A, to reasnable relations and friendship, and, B, to the notion of more liberalized trade. And, but you know, we try and respond in a reasonable way. The larger objective is a comprehensive trading arrangement. That will eliminate manyof the problems and irritants between our countries. But in a relationship so important, there are bound to be disappointments and setbacks, and it's the role of leadership to make sure that we rise above those.

MacNEIL: But you have staked the political future of your government, to quote your trade minister, Pat Carne, you've staked your political future, to a large extent, on negotiating a free trade zone with the United States or at least making successful progress in that. How do you feel? It seemed that ever since the negotiations started, there have been a series of American blows to that aim. I mean, specifically, import duties on shakes and shingles, which is a very big deal for Canada, then more recently on soft wood, then a customs duty on all imports from Canada -- additional customs duty on all imports. How do you view those? I mean, are those the rewards of trying for a closer relationship with the United States?

Mr. MULRONEY: Well, it certainly feeds the idea held in some quarters that it renders -- let me give you an understatement -- more difficult the test of friendship with the United States. A lot of Canadians say, "Well, why try?" Sure, we have some difficult moments. But it can't be otherwise in a relationship this complex and this substantial -- $150 billion almost, in Canadian dollars, back and forth across the border. You know, we have an undefended border, we've got cultural problems, we have financial problems. But we -- I ask Canadians and Americans to look to the opportunities. The trade relationship with Canada and our mutual search for a mutually beneficial, comprehensive trade arrangement is a great challenge of leadership. And that involves restratint in our own minds, it involves tolerance, and it involves the accepting of the notion that freeing up trade means greater prosperity for the United States and greater prosperity for Canada. And that is a great challenge for us.

MacNEIL: Well, if it means tolerance and restraint -- and presumably you've delivered that message to the Reagan administration -- what do you make of it when the Commerce Department slaps this, at least for the moment tentative, additional duty on Canadian soft wood imports, which is a very big amount of money for Canada, and your trade minister says that it looks as though people in the -- international trade officials in the United States are contriving justification or rationales for harassment. Why would a partner who's in the process of negotiating a trade agreement with you be harassing? I mean, do you believe that's what's going on?

Mr. MULRONEY: We can only -- because the judgement is so flawed against Canada. We won the case in 1983. And now, on the same basis, we've had a tax or tariff slapped on us. We can only conclude that this is due to the electoral ambiance in the United States. And we hope that when the elections are over very shortly that things will return to normal and that people will understand that this kind of retaliation and this kind of action is vexatious and harmful, and will hurt the United States. This latest thing is -- sure it's going to hurt Canada, obviously. It's going to cost every American jobs and dollars. It's going to cost you more when you buy a house. It's going to cost the American taxpayer. The ordinary American citizen today trying to build a house or purhcase a house is going to pay more for it because of that kind of pernicious action against Canada. The cost is passed on to the American taxpayer, because protectionism ultimately costs you. It has to cost you, and costs me if I retaliate. That's why we want to get rid of protectionism.Liberalize trade and greater prosperity and jobs for both sides.

MacNEIL: You say the judgement's flawed. The judgement is that four Canadian provinces, I think it is, are subsidizing soft wood exports illegally. If the judgement is flawed, why did your trade minister, before the judgement was made, offer a deal whereby all the four provinces involved would raise the price of their soft wood exports by 10%? Now, a senator, Senator Simms of Idaho, one of the interested senators here, a Republican, said that showed -- that was de facto proof that the Canadian was unfairly subsidizing its soft wood exports. Otherwise, you wouldn't have offered to raise the price 10% and make a deal.

Mr. MULRONEY: No, it was de facto proof of mature leadership that we recognize the provicnes involved -- recognized that Canada had been achieving, through productivity and improvements and through the value of our dollar, had been achieving a greater share of the American market. And this was a mature recognition of that reality and was -- the provincial governments involved agreed that this might be helpful to the international bargaining process. It was to prove that Canadians are sensitive to your domestic problems. The good senator should have taken that in that light. This was, I think, an act of some maturity and respect for your electoral process, for your economic realities, and for the kind of relationship we're trying to build. We're not trying to hammer anybody. We know that a trade deal that's not fair for you is not a good deal. And a trade deal that's not fair for us and both sides is a deal that neither of us wants. And if it's not a good deal for you, we don't even want it for you. And so this -- it was in that spirit that we took the action that we did. And we're sorry that some senators misconstrue what was, we thought, a helpful act by Canada. And if it's misconstrued, it's part of the problem.

MacNEIL: Some of your political opposition in Canada made the same misconstruction, if that's what it was, because they accused your administration of a big blunder in having made this offer before the Commerce Department had even moved yet.

Mr. MULRONEY: Well, we're accused of that every day by the opposition. And if the sun -- when the sun shines, the Canadian opposition will say that it doesn't shine brightly enough because of us. And if it rains, it rains too hard because of us. So we're used to that in the House of Commons.

MacNEIL: Well, they've been saying that with particular vehemence two years after you've been in power. And so, if you believe the opinion polls, are a lot of the Canadian public. Your approval rating has gone down by -- down to around 30%. Something like that. There is a perception that your administration in two years has not achieved very much. At least, that's a perception that one reads very often in the Canadian press. What do you think it's going to do to -- take to turn that perception around?

Mr. MULRONEY: I don't think you have to worry. I think things will all turn out. We're following some difficult policies, we think of an historic nature. Particularly those in trade with the United States that are not without their aspects of controversy. And we'll be judged by the Canadian people in a couple of years, and we think we'll be judged on a record of some pretty solid accomplishment. Russian Riddle

LEHRER: Finally tonight, an essay by our regular essayist, Roger Rosenblatt of Time magazine. His subject: the new style of Soviet diplomacy.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: We seem to see a lot of the Soviet Union these days -- more than we can remember seeing before, as if the roof had just blown off the bird cage in a giant, secret zoo. And suddenly, for the first time, there were wings and colors in the air, messengers from a mystery. In recent days, the Soviets have opened their cages for dissidents Yuri Orlov and David Goldfarb, the latest flights in a streak that includes the granting of a visit to the West to Yelena Bonner, Andrei Sakharov's wife, and the release last March of Anatoly Shcharansky. There was much openness in the Soviet press briefings at the summit in Reykjavik -- openness about the summit itself, Gorbachev fielding questions from all over.

Openness is Gorbachev's byword -- glasnost -- thanks to which, we seem to be getting to know Gorbachev quite well.His anti-vodka campaign, his economic woes, his headaches with the Politburo, his attractive, learned wife. Open, the Soviet jpoet Andrei Voznesensky is allowed to publish a poem critical of Soviet anti-Semitism. Open, the post-summit discussions of compromise that yet may be realized, conducted by a whole new brand of Soviet official: young, smooth and open.

SOVIET OFFICIAL: The negotiations will continue, and we'll try to look for possible ways to untie the knots which has been tied -- which have been tied in Reykjavik.

ROSENBLATT: With such visible evidence of our global enemy out in front of us this way, we ought to be getting a much tighter grasp on who and what the enemey is. Yet, the Soviet Union remains as secret a place as ever. One reason is that for each of the recent openings, there has been a corresponding closing.

The arrest of Nicholas Daniloff. Before that and worse, the initial cover up of the disaster at Chernobyl. Even at their open press briefings in Iceland, one was reminded constantly that the Soviets were being open about a closed society -- openly discussing the existence of political prisoners. As for the prisoners themselves, their emergence into the light serves to remind us of the darkness they came from.

But the deeper reason we do not see the Soviet Union any more clearly than before is grounded in history -- in the very odd fact that no one has ever seen the Russians clearly. For all its Westward looking tendencies, Russia has always been isolated from the West. Unlike every other European country, Russia was never part of the Roman Empire.Except for technology and certain appearances, she was never deeply connected to Western cultural and spiritual heritage. At heart, she is as she has been for 500 years, from the Czars through the October, 1917, upheaval -- essentially dominated, inward looking, inward approving entity.

"In Russia, fear replaces -- that is, paralyzes -- thought," wrote the Marquis de Custine in 1839. In 1486, exactly 500 years ago, a German knight, Nicholas Poppel, wandered by accident into Muscovy and returned to report to the German emperor about an incomprehensible and caged kingdom to the east. To a degree, of course, all countries remain mysteries to everyone but themselves. Americans often are told how baffling their freewheeling society is to outsiders. The Japanese are scolded for their tribalism. But no civilization seems actually to have worked at self-concealment the way the Russians have. And none has been as successful. How they manage to keep hidden from the world is astonishing, given their vast size and influence. Why they keep hidden goes deep into a national mind that both identifies with the state that oppresses it and regards the rest of the world warily as a threat and a stranger. It is why when the Soviets proffer openness we see so little, no matter how much there is to look at.

The Soviets do not wish to be seen; only to appear to wish to be seen. A smile, some words, a slight of hand. Bewildering magic at a time when one is tempted to read a potential arms agreement as a mutual understanding. But no country has ever had a mutual understanding with that kingdom to the east. Now you see her, now you don't.

MacNEIL: A final look at the top stories this Monday. Soviet leader Gorbachev accused the U.S. of misrepresenting what happened at the Iceland summit. White House spokesman Larry Speaks labelled that attack propaganda. Eugene Hasenfus said he is working on a deal for early release by Nicaragua. President Reagan signed a $1.7 billion anti-drug bill into law. And the FBI arrested a 33 year old ex-air force man on charges that he tried to sell air reconnaisance secrets to the Soviet Union. Good night, Jim.

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