The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, the parliament of the Soviet republic of Georgia condemned its forced annexation into the Soviet Union. The Pentagon announced a major increase in efforts to stem the flow of drugs, and Oliver North was the lead off witness in the John Poindexter trial. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, Congressman Richard Gephardt [FOCUS - HELPING HAND?] and Sen. Alan Simpson go at it over the Gephardt plan for aiding the Soviet Union. Our regular analysts, David Gergen and Mark Shields, react to that exchange and other matters [FOCUS - GERGEN & SHIELDS], Nina Totenberg reports on the Iran-Contra trial [FOCUS - ON TRIAL] of John Poindexter, and we close with a Roger Rosenblatt essay [ESSAY - DEATH OF A SHOOTING STAR] about a young man's death on a basketball court.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Another Soviet republic started on the road to independence today. The parliament in Soviet Georgia passed a resolution condemning their forced annexation more than 50 years ago. They demanded talks with Soviet officials on independence. Georgia borders Turkey. It follows the three Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, in taking such action. Lithuania's parliament is expected to pass a formal declaration of independence this Sunday. Also today the Soviet Union and Hungary reached an agreement to remove Soviet troops from Hungary by mid 1991. The Hungarian news agency said the withdrawal of the 50,000 troops would begin next Monday. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: The U.S. military will play a much larger role in fighting the nation's drug war. The Pentagon today announced plans to deploy additional ships, aircraft and communications equipment to interdict drug traffickers in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Caribbean. The Pentagon's coordinator for drug enforcement said the plan will cost nearly twice the $450 million appropriated by Congress.

MR. LEHRER: Oliver North took the stand today in the trial of John Poindexter, his boss in the Reagan White House. He testified that he kept Poindexter advised of all his activities related to the Nicaraguan contras. He said he ran their re-supply operation under Poindexter's direction. Prosecutors hope North will substantiate their case that Poindexter was behind the cover-up of the Iran-Contra scandal. There was more today about Pres. Bush's hoax phone call from someone claiming to be the president of Iran. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said Mr. Bush knew the call might be a hoax, but he decided to take it on the off chance it could help release the American hostages in Lebanon. The incident happened last month.

MR. MacNeil: Northwest Airlines said it is investigating whether one of its crews landed a plane while under the influence of alcohol. The three man crew was arrested yesterday after safely landing a 727 jetliner in Minneapolis. Ninety-one passengers were aboard. An anonymous phone call alerted the FAA which then detained the pilots. The crew was released after submitting to blood alcohol tests. Northwest said the crew will remain grounded until the test results are known.

MR. LEHRER: The nation's unemployment rate held steady in February. It remained at 5.3 percent for the ninth month in a row said the Labor Department today. That was despite a sharp increase in the number of jobs created.

MR. MacNeil: The British government is being challenged by another tax revolt, and this one much closer to home. Today marked a fifth straight day of protests against the new poll tax to pay for local services. Under the new system, every adult would pay the tax rather than individual homeowners. In London last night, dozens were injured and arrested when angry crows brawled with police. Protesters looted stores and threw bricks at the police. Today Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher blamed the violence on leftist militants. She had this reaction during a trip to Scotland.

MARGARET THATCHER, Prime Minister, Britain: Anything that's intimidatory or violent is absolutely contradictory to democracy. People can demonstrate, of course they can, they should do so peaceably.

MR. MacNeil: Anger over the new tax has sent the popularity of the Thatcher government to its lowest level in 10 years. Critics say the tax shifts the burden from wealthy homeowners to those less able to pay.

MR. LEHRER: Officials of the two Germanies talked today about becoming one. The talk took place in East Berlin. It covered domestic problems likely to come from unification. Talks about European security are set for next week. The four allied powers will join those discussions.

MR. MacNeil: There was another deadly eruption of violence in South Africa today, and the government warned that it stood ready to invoke emergency measures to stop it. Nineteen people were killed and hundreds injured in factional fighting between blacks in a township near Johannesburg. Kevin Dunn of Independent Television News has a report.

MR. DUNN: In the black township of Katlahon, police recover the latest victims of the worst surge of violence in South Africa for four years, in this case, victims of a so-called "taxi war" between rivals like gangs. The fighting drove hundreds to seek sanctuary in the township hospital. Hundreds more fled to the police station where the local commander guaranteed their safety. In response to the unrest which has spread this week across tribal homelands like Pabuphutaswana, the security forces have launched a crackdown, though the government says that shouldn't stop reform.

ADRIAN VLOK, Law and Order Minister: We are not prepared to allow them to carry on with the things that they have been doing over the past few days. We have started on a program of reform, on a peaceful protest, and we will not allow that to destroy this.

MR. DUNN: But in Katlahon tonight, the gangs were back on the streets and the body of yet another victim was discovered. For some, it was one killing too many and it was time to leave their troubled township.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Simpson versus Gephardt, Gergen & Shields, the Poindexter trial, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - HELPING HAND?

MR. MacNeil: We begin tonight with President Bush's foreign policy. This week House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt made a speech criticizing President Bush for a lack of vision for adapting American policy to the rapid changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He proposed a variety of aid programs including food aid to the Soviet Union. Republicans quickly defended the President and criticized Gephardt. We join that debate now a discussion with Congressman Gephardt and Senate Republican Whip Alan Simpson. It was taped yesterday. Mr. Gephardt what is the vision that you say President Bush lacks?

REP. GEPHARDT: Well I think the President simply has first not articulated to the American people, explained to the American people that the meaning the significance of the events of the last 6 months. And therefore I think that we have not been able to put together the kind of consensus that we need in the Country to maximize these opportunities. The question is what is the best way to further the highest interest of the people of the United States. Obviously it is to have the revolutions continue and succeed and while the President has reacted and done some good things and I said that in the speech I think overall lacking the kind of leadership that measures up to the significance of these events. And I went back to 1947 and talked about harry Truman, who in a similar kind of situation against all odds and against very low polls came in and said here are some things America needs to do for the long haul and built a consensus with the Republicans and got it done.

MR. MacNeil: Do you simply want to give general voice to your frustration or do you have a specific program that you would like to see followed and the Congress to act on.

REP. GEPHARDT: Well, Robin, I said that in the speech 10 or 11 things that I thought we should be doing and could do. Some the President has done. Others have not been done and some have been done but not well enough or enough. And so what I was trying to do was ascribe what I hope that the President will do and that is go on the television and interpret for the American people what has happened. Most people think that what has happened has been good but they don't yet understand why it is in our self interest to increase foreign aid to some of these countries. They don't understand why getting rid of the Jackson Vanic Amendment which is has not allowed us to have a full trade relations with some of these countries and so on. But I would like the President to give a vision to the American people about what needs to be done. Again to go back to 47 the American people were exhausted after World War II. We were broke. People had family members lost in the worst war that we had been in and Truman came back to people and said we now have to send foreign aid to the very people that were killing us four months ago and he got the American people to do it against the polls and I guess that is the kind of leadership that I really think that we need in 1990.

MR. MacNeil: Speaking of polls. Senator Simpson Gephardt said in his speech that Mr. Bush is governing by polls and popularity instead of vision and leadership. What is your response to that?

SEN. SIMPSON: Well Richard Gephardt is a frustrated man. He put himself in the race for the President. he was rejected. He is a very bright man, he is very articulate but he just is obsessed right now with downing poor old George Bush who has an 83 percent approval rating and they sit around there and spill coffee on each other and say what are we going to do with thing. What are we going to do with George Bush and it must be very disruptive and disabling type of conduct. Now that is where we are. Now if I remember correctly Dick Gephardt ran for the Presidency and spent a lot of time messing with polls. In fact everything that he came up with was something out of the polls. Bashing Japan that looked good for a while and then that all fell to pieces. Then beating up on this one or that one. All of that. And you know that is what I can't believe. I must say that I am stunned by it.

MR. MacNeil: Well isn't Mr. gephardt saying that the President can be popular but wrong?

SEN. SIMPSON: I don't know what Mr. Gephardt is saying. He is here and I am just as anxious as anyone. You talk about the vision thing with George Bush people really like George Bush and what more could you possibly want out of a leader than what has happened in the last 14 months.

MR. MacNeil: Let's ask Mr. Gephardt what unpopular decision is Mr. Bush failing to make since he is courting popularity in the polls Mr. Gephardt?

REP. GEPHARDT: Well again I think that he is failing to capitalize on probably the greatest opportunity that we have had since World War II and that is to do everything that we possibly can do to see that these revolutions which the Senator is absolutely right we are happy about. The question is will they succeed. Will Poland's revolution still succeed a year from now when the unemployment level in Poland is 10 or 15 or 20 percent. And the same for Czechoslovakia and Hungary and the other countries. What I am saying is the President is 82 percent in the polls the Senator is absolutely right. The question is, is he using that great popular following he has to mobilize, galvanize the American people to do some things that are not particularly popular. All I am saying is in 1947 another President who was sitting at 32 percent in the polls gave the American people a plan, the Marshall Plan, that was approved by 14 percent of the people and got it through the Congress by working with the Republicans in Congress and getting the American people ultimately to see the wisdom of that long term policy.

SEN. SIMPSON: You are pretty interested in polls aren't you Dick?

REP. GEPHARDT: Well Alan aren't you.

SEN. SIMPSON: I don't pay attention, I read my mail and then I have town meetings.

REP. GEPHARDT: I do that too.

SEN. SIMPSON: In the last year in 88 you had an absentee rate, you voted 18 percent of the time in 88 and in 1987 you voted 70 percent of the time. We are here legislating what are you doing?

REP. GEPHARDT: Well Alan I was out running for President.

SEN. SIMPSON: Yes I know and that is what you are doing now.

REP. GEPHARDT: Oh no.

SEN. SIMPSON: That will never sell.

REP. GEPHARDT: That is your opinion.

SEN. SIMPSON: It is my opinion.

REP. GEPHARDT: And you are wrong.

MR. MacNeil: Senator Simpson let me ask you this is it not true that some members of your own party have been i uncomfortable that the richest nation in the World finds itself too broke or too hard up for budgetary reasons to help with the new democracies for instance Poland that Mr. Gephardt just mentioned?

SEN. SIMPSON: I don't know what you are talking about because we passed a bill that took care of that in the last session right at the end. We have done that. We took care of Poland and Hungary. Go look at it, it is right on the books. Where was everybody. The President signed it. This is the dumbest thing I ever heard. I have no idea where it comes from but I will tell you one thing that if you want to go back in history I wonder what George Marshall was carrying around in his pocket. About a week before he gave that speech he told his staff go do something new I don't like this trash any more. I mean it wasn't something that he thought about every day and every night. It was something that came in 10 days and the Marshall Plan came from that and he sold it. I don't know what the polls were back then. Who cares.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Gephardt he is right is he not those Bills to aid Hungary and Poland have been passed and signed by the President? Yet you are saying that is not enough.

REP. GEPHARDT: Well they were but let's remember what happened. The President proposed a 150 million dollars for Poland. The Congress in the Senate and the House changed his proposal and brought more money in to the proposal. The President changed his position three or four times before we got to the final package that was finally passed. I mean that is another indication of a lack of leadership. The President came in with a low ball package that didn't address the real needs that we had in Poland and the Congress got him to change his position to do something that was half way reasonable. The same condition now with Czechoslovakia, and Romania. It is the same thing. We are going through it again.

SEN. SIMPSON: Lech Walesa came in front of us in a joint session and said don't send me money. What in the world are we supposed to do.

REP. GEPHARDT: Alan are you trying to tell me that Lech Walesa didn't want the Poland aid package?

SEN. SIMPSON: He stood there right ion front of us and said money is not what we need.

REP. GEPHARDT: After we had already passed the package and he had the money on the way.

SEN. SIMPSON: The Soviet Union hasn't asked for anything. You are ready to pay it out.

REP. GEPHARDT: They have asked for the Jackson Vanic Amendment to repealed.

SEN. SIMPSON: They have not asked us for money my friend and your formula is to give them money.

REP. GEPHARDT: Now that is a misstatement. You didn't read the speech.

SEN. SIMPSON: I did you said we give them aid. That is what you said.

REP. GEPHARDT: It did not it helps to read the speech.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman I did read the speech today and in it you say we run the risk of condemning new democracies to failure. Now what should we be doing or what are we not doing that runs the risk of condemning them to failure?

REP. GEPHARDT: Well first of all as I said a moment ago we need proper aid packages so that these countries have a chance. We did that with Poland and Hungary. I think that is money well spent. We need to do that now with Czechoslovakia, Romania and Bulgaria. In addition to that we need to normalize trade relations with these countries including the Soviet Union. We need to be able to have most favored nation status with them so that our companies can go there along with the Japanese and others and be able to enter in to their markets. So this is an opportunity for us. In addition we need to get more of our business people over there. We have lots of Romanian Americans and German Americans and others who I think can be inspired to go there. I would like the President to set up a capitalist corp, a free enterprise corp. And as Alan said they don't just need money they need know how. They need our people over there doing things with them. Third we need to broaden the exchange programs that already have been set up but they need to be broader then they have been in the past. We need more Soviet, East German, Hungarian youngsters in the United States and farmers in the United States for a period of time learning how to operate a modern economy and a number of other things as well that I outlined in the speech. I just think that we need a coherent, cohesive program that needs to be put together with the Congress, put before the American people and explained in what is our long term self interest and that is what I think has been lacking in this case.

MR. MacNeil: Senator do you think that President Bush has a comprehensive program?

SEN. SIMPSON: Well sure he does. He is absolutely the sharpest cookie that we have had in foreign policy in this country in 30 years. He knows exactly what he is doing. I hear him speaking about these things and I remember we were debating the Chinese Bill the other day. The same things that he is talking about he voted against. We are closing off cultural exchange with the People's Republic of China. A wholly partisan effort just to ram it in George Bush's face. They said it wasn't partisan and so I said how come nobody in the Democratic Party voted for it.

REP. GEPHARDT: Alan you are making my point. The reason we didn't want to deal with China is because they are killing people in Tienaman Square.

SEN. SIMPSON: Well the Soviets have killed people all over the the Soviet Union. They are doing it internally and we don't even know it.

REP. GEPHARDT: Are you trying to tell me that China is exactly like the Soviet Union, or East Germany or Poland?

SEN. SIMPSON: If you are missing what is happening in the Soviet Union for the last 71 years you are out to lunch.

REP. GEPHARDT: Well it seems that you are missing what has happened in the last two or three years and especially what has happened in the last 6 months.

SEN. SIMPSON: You are the guy who goes to the neighbors door and says you are so screwed up I am going to give you money for it and they haven't asked you for money.

REP. GEPHARDT: Nobody is talking about money. You misread the speech you just don't get it.

SEN. SIMPSON: Then you have to go get another speech writer and work that stuff over. Some body is jerking you around.

REP. GEPHARDT: The trouble is that wrote this one myself.

SEN. SIMPSON: Then you are in trouble.

REP. GEPHARDT: We have a friendly disagreement.

MR. MacNeil: So I see. Gentleman thank you both for joining us. FOCUS - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MR. LEHRER: Now some Friday night words from Gergen and Shields our regular Friday night analysts. David Gergen is Editor at Large of U.S. News and World Report. Mark Shields is a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. Are you prepared to declare a winner between Gephardt and Simpson David?

MR. GERGEN: Well I am prepared to say that if Mr. Gephardt gave the same speech and dropped about three paragraphs he would have had a fine speech and a lot of people would have saluted it. If he would have stopped and said we need to do more for Eastern Europe and the new democracies there I think that a lot of Democrats would have supported him. Even Richard Nixon's visit to Capital Hill last night he was in support of more aid to democracies there. Where I think the Congressman went over the line was when he called for aid to the Soviet Union. The country is not ready for it and it left Mr. Gephardt wide open for the kind of attack we saw tonight.

MR. LEHRER: Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: I think that Dick Gephardt committed a mortal sin in Washington. He spread the ugly truth he talked about the lack of national leadership in Washington it is something that everybody has talked about. It is something that one of the most prominent Republicans that I know sitting on my immediate left here has written about in major publications. That America must get aggressively back, as David put it, we didn't spend a 150 billion dollars a year to defend Europe only to have Japan reap the rewards of victory. It is a matter of self interest as well as altruism. As far as technology transfers to the Soviet Union I recall Ronald Reagan a great conservative President offering to share SDI Technology with the evil empire when they were still the evil empire. I just think that Gephardt did not hold his finger up in the air and get the breezes.And I think that is a mistake that he made. He is obviously taking on George Bush who is 83 percent in the polls.

MR. GERGEN: I think the substantive part of the argument even Senator Bradly a good Democrat yesterday took on the Gephardt plan about the Soviet Union. Not about Eastern Europe but he said look if you give money to the Soviet Union now it is still a socialist, Marxist Leninist rat hole and it is not a wise thing to do. There are others who are going to make that same argument. After all as conservatives made the argument today if the Soviets would take the 5 billion dollars they are giving to Cuba each year and keep it at home that would be a good way to invest money but until they do that why should America be subsidizing the Soviet Union.

MR. LEHRER: But David what about Mark's point you all and others keep saying the Democrats need to show some leadership need to speak out. That is what Gephardt did.

MR. GERGEN: Jim there are ways to speak out as you well know. I applaud the notion of the Democrats speaking out. I think that this country needs a strong opposition voice. The problem it seems to me is when the Democrats speak out in such a way that you have a loner out there that doesn't get the support of his party. He has been attacked by Senator Bradly.

MR. SHIELDS: Yes but Senator Bradly is not infallible. I mean he really isn't.

MR. GERGEN: Well I would say with the exception of Mark Shields there has been a deafening silence. There have been a very few Democrats that have come out in the last 24 hours and if he had lined up the party behind a plan for Eastern Europe he could have rallied the troops and been a major contribution to the dialogue because I favor a much more aggressive program in Eastern Europe as you know. But on the other hand I think there is a difference between the Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

MR. LEHRER: Mark is Gephardt or any one else simply confronted with the reality that George Bush is so popular in the polls that it wouldn't matter what he said or did that his fellow Democrats would not rally behind him?

MR. SHIELDS: I think there is a certain sense of awe about George Bush politically and I think that Dick Gephardt did swallow the cat. I mean he did do something that most of the people in this party are afraid to do and that is to take on George Bush and he has taken on George Bush at the very level George Bush has been subject to the greatest criticism from the people in the political community. I have affection and respect for Alan Simpson but he is as keenly aware of that as anybody. David Gergen pointed out in his own column that we are now talking about spending in Eastern Europe ,4 of 1 percent of what we spent under the Marshall Plan. The victory is American. The people who are grabbing democracy and grabbing their own freedom Jim are quoting Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy and yet we stand on the sidelines as bystanders.

MR. GERGEN: I agree with that just go back one point. I think the Democrats are still having trouble defining themselves and one of their major leaguers comes out as Mr. Gephardt has and the party is not with him, he hasn't lined up his support I think it is hard for the country to know who he speaks for. Congressman Rostenkowski is coming out this weekend with his thoughts on where the country is going on taxes and so forth and it is clear to me that he has the support of the leadership. Senator Moynihan came out on what we should do with Social Security his party is now split in several different ways. Politically Democrats pay a price unless they can get their act together on these questions.

MR. LEHRER: Isn't that the nature of the Democratic Party?

MR. GERGEN: That may be the nature of the Democratic Party that is why they are still weak nationally.

MR. LEHRER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: I don't think that is why they are weak as a national party. I think the problems are deeper then that but the opposition party always has a problem under our system. George Mitchell is the Majority Leader, Tom Foley is Speaker of the House they both have constitutional responsibilities as Officers of those two legislative branches and leaders of their political parties but there all kinds of other leaders as well. The President speaks with one voice and I just find the whole thing the whole fascination obsession with the Soviet Union interesting Jim when you look at it since Tienaman Square the brutality of Tienaman Square the Bush Administration has been responsible for 78 million dollars of direct aid to the Government of Dung Chow Ping. Now who asked us to help the Soviets. Dick gephardt gets booed and cat called for it and yet two weeks ago these same legislators who were criticizing him today had tears coming down their cheeks as Vasclaw Haval said help the Soviet Union that where democracy must take hold. free markets must be established and that is where stability must be installed.

MR. GERGEN: These same legislators were cheering Mr. Havel when he said consciousness precedes being. And they all stood up and cheered. They did not cheer what he said, they cheered him. We talked about that before.

MR. LEHRER: All right, let's go on to something else. The new administration transportation policy announced yesterday by President Bush and Transportation Sec. Skinner, is that likely to make any difference to the transportation situation in this country, David?

MR. GERGEN: I think that in Sam Skinner, we have one of the strongest players in the administration, a man who is determined to see something happen. Were it a different secretary, I'd have to say I think it's unlikely, but with Sam Skinner there, I think something will happen. What he has proposed right now has to be just a starting point, because it is going to be rejected widely. There is no money in it. As you know, it asks a lot of the states to pick up a lot of the burden, an additional burden, and the Feds have no money. The Republicans call this a shift and the Democrats call it a shaft.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, what do you call it?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I call it the administration of a thousand gestures. I mean, it's a wonderful plan, an idea, we want to improve it for trucks and bridges and roads and transportation of all sorts, but I'm reminded of a marvelous line of Alan Simpson's that one of the few things left on the road that's made in America is the pot holes, and those, we shouldn't get angry at them for that reason. And it just seems that we talk about this, we talk about it, but when it really comes, when the rubber hits the road, there's a reluctance to say we're going to have to belly up to the bar and pay some money for it.

MR. LEHRER: David, let me ask you about that. Is this idea about money, that we can't afford to do anything more, real or imagined, that is what comes out in every new policy statement, is that driven by the President's "read my lips" thing on taxes, or is that a philosophical belief that the federal government should get out of roads and bridges, should get out of transportation in most areas except, Sec. Skinner said, mostly interstate highways and everything else the federal government should kind of bow out of, is that a philosophical thing on behalf of the Bush administration?

MR. GERGEN: It's a good question, Jim, and I think it's both really. The philosophical part is very strong. You know, this administration has the, the Reagan administration wanted to end subsidies for operating expenses of mass transit. The administration, it wants to privatize, sell off Amtrak or the train system, the administration, it wants to sell off the airports. This is, of course, privatization is a growing trend around the world and this is an administration that very much believes in it. At the same time obviously this administration feels strapped on spending and in drugs we've seen now, in education, I think in health-care, and now in transportation, in every instance, the administration sets lofty goals and tells the states and localities, here's what you ought to do, now go out and pay for it.

MR. LEHRER: You know, I interviewed Sec. Skinner last night, and after he left the studio, I realized the key question I did not ask was that very question, if there was, if the country was not strapped, if there was not this federal budget problem, would you want to spend this money on all of this, or what drives you? What's your view of that, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I don't know, I don't know the answer to it. I'd have to say, Jim, that there is pervasively here a "can't do" spirit. I mean, there's a whole bunch of things and we kind of return to that line from Peggy Noonan's inaugural address that President Bush delivered on January 20, 1989, "We have more will than wallet," and it keeps returning to that. And I don't know if there is a philosophical -- you recall, Jim, the national highway system was built as the national defense system, so maybe we do feel somewhere in our intellectual roots, or our philosophical roots, that we need some other larger purpose to justify federal expenditures.

MR. GERGEN: I disagree with the business about can't do and not wanting to do. I think they really want to get somebody else to pain that fence.

MR. LEHRER: You mean pick up the tab?

MR. GERGEN: Absolutely. Read my lips and raise your taxes.

MR. LEHRER: But Sec. Skinner believes, and I guess you agree with him, that it's possible for him to do something, even without the dough, right?

MR. GERGEN: Well, I think there are some things. He's increasing the amount of money for technology research. He believes very much in these new levitated, magnetically levitated trains. He believes very much in investing in new smart cars, and I do think there's going to be a push here in Washington over the next year for a gasoline tax, for a federal gasoline tax, and it seems to me that I think even Sam Skinner, if the states won't do this and he believes that the transportation system is in real trouble and sees no other way to do it, he's against it now, but I would imagine that a year from now he might be opting for the argument if we can't get it done any other way, let's look at the gas tax. Drew Lewis did that in the Republican administration last time.

MR. LEHRER: And, Mark, of course, Congressman Rostenkowski is supposed to push that again very heavily over the weekend in his big statement.

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. That's at least the preview that we got last week, that he's going to come hard.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah, well, we're planning to have Congressman Rostenkowski on Monday night. We will follow up on it then. Gentlemen, you all have a good weekend. We'll see you next week. Thanks a lot.

MR. MacNeil: Still to come on the Newshour tonight, Nina Totenberg on the Poindexter trial and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. But first this is pledge week on public television. We're taking a short break now so that your public television station can ask for your support. That support helps keep programs like this on the air. PLEDGE BREAK SEGMENT - ORGANIC FARMING

MR. MacNeil: For those stations not taking a pledge break, the Newshour continues with a look at a booming business, organic farming. Spencer Michels of public station KQED-San Francisco has our report.

MR. MICHELS: In the Salinas Valley 100 miles south of San Francisco, one of the nation's largest lettuce growers has decided that the market is ripe to go organic. The $700 million a year Nunes Company is a family owned business that devotes nearly 10,000 acres to growing ordinary non-organic lettuce and cauliflower. But family members have decided to set aside 45 acres to grow organic lettuce, that is lettuce produced without using pesticides or synthetic fertilizers. For the organic process, farmers like Nunes start their seedlings in a sterile, highly controlled environment. They mix natural ingredients, including seaweed, into the potting soil, and then plant the seeds. The flats are then taken to a greenhouse within a greenhouse so that no pests will attack them. Here they are thinned and tended for 5 weeks before they are planted in the field. The stringent effort to eliminate pesticides in chemical fertilizers is a response to concerns by health conscious consumers. The Nunes Company is one of hundreds of agricultural firms across the country growing both non-organic and organic produce. The percentage of organic produce is not yet large, but it is growing. A recent Harris Poll found that 49 percent of Americans want to buy organic fruits and vegetables. Until recently, these have been in short supply, found mostly in health food stores and grown by small scale truck farmers. Now because of the demand, large growers are beginning to grow organically. Agricultural economists at the University of California at Davis say public demand has caused a doubling of organic food sales in the last 2 years. Large food chains have begun selling organic produce and advertising the fact. Many stores get their produce from farmers like Stuart Dickson, who specializes in growing tomatoes and exotic greens on his 10 acre farm near Sacramento in California's fertile Central Valley. Dickson controls bugs and weeds by rotating his crops and adding organic minerals and compost to the soil.

MR. DICKSON: We're always putting those things in with the long- term view of building the soil, keeping certain tracement oils in the ground for flavor and also for healthy growth, that healthy soil will help you to keep a strong plant, and a strong plant will fend off certain insects and aphids and things like that.

MR. MICHELS: His farming methods are expensive and labor intensive, yet he's still been able to turn a profit.

STUART DICKSON, Organic Farmer: We've found that our increase has tripled, quadrupled over the last 2 or 3 years, and I think, you know, because of that, the type of things we're growing, the flavors we get, and it is organic, it really has caught people's eye. The biggest problem for organic farmers is the obvious one, keeping the bugs off their plants without using pesticides.

DAVID NUNES, Organic Farmer: The only problem we're having is with the lieges bug and it kind of migrates. What it does, it scars the lettuce, eats away at the head of the lettuce, and it basically scars it. There's really nothing that's organically proved that we can control the lieges.

MR. MICHELS: In the absenceof pesticides, Nunes has turned to new technology to solve his problem. He is using giant vacuums known as bug vacs to control the lieges, but his bug vacs are causing new problems. While moving across his fields, they compress the soil, retarding the growth of his lettuce crop, and producing smaller heads. Until Nunes is able to work out the bugs in his machines, he will make a smaller profit. But the experiment is starting to pay off. This past summer, Nunes delivered the first shipment of organic lettuce to the East Coast, where demand is increasing despite the higher prices. As the industry expands, more and more states are putting regulations into effect defining organic farming, at latest count 16. But currently there are no federal laws which uniformly regulate the organic industry. But whether or not the organic industry is regulated, the public is increasingly willing to pay premium prices for products labeled "naturally grown". FOCUS - ON TRIAL

MR. LEHRER: Now the appearance of Oliver North before the Iran- Contra trial of John Poindexter. Judy Woodruff and Nina Totenberg have that story. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: The first witness to be called by the prosecution, Oliver North, was convicted last year of charges including aiding and abetting the obstruction of Congress. He is appealing that conviction. North was questioned today about Mr. Poindexter's role in the Iran-Contra affair. Poindexter is accused of five criminal charges, including conspiracy, obstruction of Congress, and making false statements to Congress about efforts to fund the Nicaraguan contras at a time when such aid was banned. Poindexter, the former National Security Adviser to Pres. Reagan, claims the President authorized all of his activities, and that none were illegal. If found guilty, he faces a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison and a fine of $1.25 million. Nina Totenberg, legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio, has been covering the trial. Nina, you were there yesterday when the lawyers for each side made their opening arguments, they laid out the case that they expect to make. Tell us first about the prosecution and what they had to say.

NINA TOTENBERG, National Public Radio: Well, Prosecutor Dan Webb, who is a rather unemotional, just hear the facts, ma'am, and only the facts kind of prosecutor laid out the case that the prosecution is going to make. He portrayed John Poindexter as the brains behind this plot to cover up both the Iran arms deal and diversion and the secret aid to the Nicaraguan contras at the time that that aid was banned, and he said that he, Poindexter, had used Oliver North to do his dirty work in destroying documents, that Poindexter had, himself, purged his own computer, and that Poindexter was the top man, the No. 1 person. On those fateful days in November of 1986, when the Iran-Contra affair was unraveling, said the prosecutor, John Poindexter and Oliver North decided to rewrite history. They did not like the true facts, they did not like some of the embarrassing documents were in the files, so they literally rewrote history, but they got caught.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is what the prosecutor had to say pretty much consistent with what we've already heard about this case, about the whole affair?

MS. TOTENBERG: I would say there were no new revelations in the prosecutor's account, except for one thing. He for the first time I think made very clear the prosecution's case as to why John Poindexter tore up that November 1985 finding signed by the President in which the President authorized the first U.S. shipment of arms to Iran and authorized not telling Congress, and as the prosecutor outlined it, the reason he tore it up was, the reason that he lied about it to Congress is that if Congress knew that that shipment had happened at that time they would ask for the finding, and if they asked for the finding, the finding showed a straight arms for hostage deal, something the President was denying, so Poindexter lied to Congress, says the prosecution, and then went back to his office and tore up the findings.

MS. WOODRUFF: And that's the first time we heard that particular twist on it.

MS. TOTENBERG: Yes. That's the first time we've had it all sort of put together like that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now what about the defense, what was their --

MS. TOTENBERG: The defense lawyer, Richard Beckler, said that Adm. Poindexter's actions were driven not by a criminal conspiracy but by the President of the United States and it was the President's policies that Adm. Poindexter was carrying out. Mr. Beckler went on to say that sometimes people like John Poindexter have to do things to protect the President. "That's part of the job," said the defense lawyer, "protecting the head man, protecting the President, so clearly the defense strategy is to say this was the President's authorization. Neither he nor Poindexter thought they were doing anything illegal. That's our defense.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right now today first witness, Oliver North, reluctant witness. He clearly doesn't want to be there for the prosecution, did he, what did he have to say, and did he help or not help the prosecution?

MS. TOTENBERG: He wanted very badly not to help the prosecution. And getting answers out of him certainly during the first session today was like pulling teeth. It was a real battle between him and prosecutor Webb, but unfortunately for North, he's testified three other times for a total of almost three weeks, before Congress, at his own trial, and at a pretrial hearing, and every time he would try to wiggle out of the damaging things he said about Poindexter, Prosecutor Webb would plop down on the witness stand a transcript of his previous testimony and it would come back to haunt him. There was one point that I thought sort of symbolized the whole thing when North was explaining that he had lied to the House Intelligence Committee when they had come over to the White House about his role in aiding the contras and that he hadn't wanted to meet with the committee, but Poindexter told him, "You can handle it." But then he went on to say, "Nobody told me to lie to Congress." And Prosecutor Webb then said, "And when you were sitting there, lying to Congress, did you feel like a pawn in a chess game played by giants?" And that of course, is the exact language that he used defending himself at his trial and of course, one of the giants was John Poindexter.

MS. WOODRUFF: The bottom line on North, he comes back for more testimony next week, is that right?

MS. TOTENBERG: Yes, several days I would guess.

MS. WOODRUFF: The prosecution clearly thinks that he's going to be of some help or they wouldn't have called him. What's you reading on that today?

MS. TOTENBERG: He's certainly their tour guide for the prosecution, because he's the lynch pin, he's the guy who carried out Poindexter's orders or kept Poindexter apprised of everything he was doing and over and over again, Webb would say to him, "And you kept Poindexter apprised of what you were doing?". "Yes." "And you did not try to conceal from Adm. Poindexter what you were doing?" Answer, "Yes." So everything that North did, you remember many things he was not convicted of because I think the jury believed that he was the low man on the totem pole. Well, now the high man on the totem pole, except for the President, of course, is sitting in the dock.

MS. WOODRUFF: Speaking of the President, let's bring him back into this, you mentioned a moment ago that he's a very critical part of Poindexter's defense. He testified in a closed courtroom a week or so ago. What's the expectation? Is that going to help or not help the Poindexter side?

MS. TOTENBERG: I'm not sure I can give you a real read on this. In point of fact, if you read the transcript, it doesn't help Poindexter much because Reagan says over and over again that he didn't authorize many of the things that Poindexter is charged with doing, and Poindexter admits that he didn't tell the President many of the things that he is charged with doing, such as tearing up the finding, he was doing that to protect the President, but the President says he doesn't understand why he wasn't told those things. It is possible, however, that the jury will simply look at this man who served as President of the United States for eight years and say it's not feasible to me that he didn't know what was going on, and that Poindexter will then become the low man on the totem pole in this regard, so it's possible in the end it would work to his advantage. My gut tells me no, but I'm not sure.

MS. WOODRUFF: Nina, you also covered the North trial obviously. How is this one, how are the dynamics of this one different?

MS. TOTENBERG: This is completely different. First of all the jury is much smarter, largely because none of them had ever heard of Poindexter. He's a gray figure. Most people didn't even recognize him. They'd heard of Oliver North. Most of them knew he'd been convicted of something, but they didn't know anything about Poindexter. So there are several members of this jury who have a college background. These are professionals. Secondly, the North trial was a war between prosecution and defense. It was pitched battle in there every day between those prosecutors and defense lawyers. They hated each other. North was part of the war. He was the sort of commander sitting in the background. I'm not suggesting he was commanding his own defense, but he was, it just was an incredible trial. This is a regular criminal trial. The prosecutor and the defense lawyers talk to each other, there are occasional jokes, the defendant is not sitting there at ramrod attention, he's leaning back, taking an occasional note.

MS. WOODRUFF: What is his demeanor, what's the admiral's demeanor in the courtroom?

MS. TOTENBERG: One can only read in which is very subjective what you might. I read into this a man who knows he may be going down with his ship, an admiral who knows he may be going down with his ship. His defense is a very difficult one. He held a very very high position, and now he's essentially trying to, I hesitate to use the word "escape" but somehow elude responsibility for that, and it's a much trickier proposition than North's was.

MS. WOODRUFF: Nina Totenberg, thank you very much.

MS. TOTENBERG: Thank you, Judy. ESSAY - DEATH OF A SHOOTING STAR

MR. MacNeil: Earlier today 500 students from Maro Dobbins Technical High School in Philadelphia turned out for a memorial service for alumnus Hank Gathers, the college basketball star who died suddenly last Sunday. We close tonight with some thoughts about his death from our regular essayist, Roger Rosenblatt.

MR. ROSENBLATT: The word "sad" is kept deliberately imprecise in the language. We need such words, not only to allow a wide range of applications but to give us a certain emotional privacy. Everyone may agree that something is sad, but you alone know the particular sadness you feel. Yet, look at the death of Hank Gathers and see if we all are not feeling the same exact sadness in response. Certainly, we all felt the same shock when they replayed the tape of Gather's collapse during a game. Watch again as the 23 year old star jams the basket, then heads up court. Observe his falling like a mannequin in the wind. You know that Gathers is already dead or they wouldn't be showing you the tape. Still, the picture is a shock. In the middle of the relentless celebrations of a college basketball game, a great athlete stops living. The first level of our common sadness then is simply the sight of that incongruity. The sudden death of a body in motion always creates a special gasp. In war, a soldier attempts to run from point to point and is suddenly picked off. Gasp. At least in war, death may be anticipated. But in sports, when you run, you are fully expected to make it from point to point. The crowd believes in your momentum. Its eyes are way ahead of you. Nothing, not death, surely, is supposed to stay you from the completion of your appointed rounds. So in a way, death on the athletic field violates our sense of propriety. On the first level of sadness, we're sad because we're disappointed. On a deeper level, we're sad because Gathers was an athlete dying young. A.E. Houseman's much recited poem to an athlete dying young holds that it's a lucky thing for a sports star to go at an early stage, before the glory fades. That's fine for a poem, but not for reality in modern America. Had Gathers' heart held out, ahead of him lay the NBA and a possible 10 years of stardom and best of all, self-realization at what he loved the most. The glory would never have faded. Memory and videotapes would have taken care of that. It was very sad to see that future collapse. But the deepest sadness we shared came in the days after Gathers' death, when his friends and fellow players talked about how strong he was, how lion hearted, how they could rely on him for anything. They called him "Hank the Bank".

SPOKESMAN: Hank, you have touched many lives.

MR. ROSENBLATT: Now the picture was complete. To the observing public, the loss of an athlete became the loss of a young athlete, became the loss of a person. At Loyola Marymount, people came together to tell one another how much Gathers would be missed and we, who never knew him, missed him too. The word "sad" is kept deliberately imprecise, but sometimes it means the same thing for everybody. Say the name "Gathers" to anyone you meet, he'll know what you mean. I'm Roger Rosenblatt.

MR. MacNeil: Funeral services for Hank Gathers will be held on Monday in Philadelphia. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, the parliament and the Soviet republic of Georgia called for its independence from the Soviet Union. The Defense Department announced a plan to impede the flow of drugs into the United States. Oliver North testified in the John Poindexter trial. He told the jury he kept Poindexter fully informed of his work on behalf of the Nicaraguan contras, and the nation's unemployment rate held at 5.3 percent for the ninth month in a row. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the Newshour for tonight. We'll be back on Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.