The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. In the news today, President Reagan hailed House support for contra aid while Nicaragua said he was heading for another Vietnam. Hurricane Bonnie hit the Texas coast, causing tornadoes and flooding. The Manion judgeship almost got through the Senate, but not quite. The Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to execute insane killers. We'll have the details of these stories in our news summary coming up. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, Nicaraguan President Ortega, Assistant Secretary of State Abrams and Congressman Gejdenson react to the contra aid vote. And we have extended excerpts from the Senate debate over the Manion judgeship nomination. News Summary

MacNEIL: Nicaragua reacted defiantly to last night's House vote for $100 million in aid to the contras, or rebels fighting the Sandinista government. President Daniel Ortega said the aid package is part of a terrorist policy that eventually will lead to U.S. military intervention. In a televised news conference, Ortega said his government will never talk to the contras, as demanded by Reagan policy. Ortega said President Reagan was acting worse than Hitler with his terrorist and fascist policy against Nicaragua, imposing it on international opinion and that of the American people. In an interview with the News Hour late this afternoon, Ortega said President Reagan isleading the United States towards another Vietnam.

DANIEL ORTEGA, president, Nicaragua [through interpreter]: Well, Mr. Reagan is assuming the full reins for the conflict of this war, not only by openly financing with the open consent of Congress, but also by injecting American military advisors into the conflicts. And, as you will remember, those were the very same steps that were also taken in Vietnam. And we have to make one point clear -- that those military advisors that are being sent to train the terrorists who attack our people are going to run the very same risks that the terrorists run when they attack us.

MacNEIL: What does that mean? You mean that American advisors could be killed.

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: That simply means that they may die.

MacNEIL: We'll have that full interview later in the program. In the Hague, the World Court will give its verdict tomorrow on Nicaragua's charge that the United States is trying to overthrow the Sandinista government. The court is widely expected to condemn U.S. support for the contras. A U.S. diplomat told the Associated Press a ruling against the United States is a foregoine conclusion. The Reagan administration has boycotted the case, claiming that the court does not have jurisdiction.

LEHRER: The leaders of the contras said the House vote yesterday is a turning point in their struggle against the Sandinista government. They spoke at a Washington news conference today of defections from the Sandinista army and of new momentum for the contras.

ALFONSO ROBELO, contra leader: The military weaponry that we are seeking and that will start September 1 will be one that will balance the present situation where we are suffering from sophisticated weapons that the Soviets have given the Sandinistas. We can anticipate change of conditions inside Nicaragua that we produce -- at least four things: popular insurrections, massive defections, massive enrollment -- even more so than we have had -- and even rebellions from regional commanders within the Sandinista army.

LEHRER: House Speaker Thomas O'Neill saw it differently. He told reporters

LEHRER: House Speaker Thomas O'Neill saw it differently. He told reporters the administration will be back time and time again for more help for the contras and predicted it will eventually lead to the introduction of U.S. troops into the fight.

MacNEIL: The Senate almost confirmed Daniel Manion, President Reagan's controversail nominee to the federal appellate court, but not quite. After a heated debate, the Senate voted 48 to 46 in favor. But opponents demanded a vote to reconsider the nomination. The Senate then moved on the other business, and the matter was left unresolved. In a focus section coming up, we have an extended excerpt from the lively debate.

LEHRER: The House Judiciary Committee today voted to impeach and imprison a federal judge. The committee approved four articles of impeachment against Judge Harry E. Claiborne, a Nevada judge currently serving time for tax evasion. Claiborne had refused to resign, and continues to draw his $78,700 federal salary. It is now up to the full House to vote impeachment. A trial would follow in the Senate. It is the first federal impeachment proceeding since that against Richard Nixon 12 years ago.

In another court story today, the Supreme Court said executing an insane murderer was unconstitutional. The ruling came in a five to four vote on a Florida case. The majority opinion said it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute people who are incapable of understanding why they are being executed.

MacNEIL: The first hurricane of the season hit the coast of Texas this morning, and two people died of accidents during the strom. One man was killed in an automobile accident, and a woman died in a fire at her home.We have a report from San Saucedo of station KHOU, Houston.

SAM SAUCEDO: It's been nearly 50 years since a hurricane struck this early in the season. Bonnie came ashore at 4:35 this morning between Sabine Pass and High Island, lashing at the more populated areas of Beaumont and Port Arthur.It wasn't long after the hurricane hit land that the highway connecting Port Arthur and Sabine Pass was closed. Debris had fallen across the bridge. A roadblock had to be set up. If the high winds weren't enough to stop traffic, the debris was, and no one was allowed passage. Daybreak revealed some of the damage. Bonnie's wind gusts and rain knocked down trees an knocked out windows. Low lying areas had barricades because of high water, but some drivers continued to chance it. Electricity was out in most of Port Arthur, forcing many to leave their homes in favor of emergency shelters.By mid-morning the hurricane warning had been lifted, and Bonnie had been downgraded to a tropical storm.

MacNEIL: Striking members of the Communications Workers of America agreed to end their 26 day strike against AT&T. Negotiators reached agreement on a new contract which calls for an 8% wage increase over three years.

And in a new case of white collar crime, a federal grand jury in Philadelphia indicted Shearson Lehman Brothers -- a major Wall Street brokerage house -- and seven individual on charges involving a gambling and money laundering scheme. The operation allegedly yielded over $3 million in illegal profits. In a statement released this afternoon, Shearson Lehman protested that the firm did not benefit in any way from the alleged scheme.

LEHRER: The Geneva arms talks closed for summer recess today. The chief Soviet delegate said no progress had been made, but the U.S. chief delegate, Max Kampelman, said that king of talk was propaganda. He said there had been some movement, and fresh opportunities exist for serious and constructive discussion. President Reagan also said there can be progress in Geneva. In a statement issued from his ranch in California today, Mr. Reagan said he believes a recent Soviet offer could lead to serious negotiations. The talks resume September 18.

MacNEIL: In Madrid at least three people were injured when a bomb exploded at the check in counter for El Al, the Israeli airline. The police said the bomb was in luggage belonging to a man whom they described as Arab-looking, and he was arrested. The bomb exploded just 15 minutes before the weekly El Al flight was scheduled to depart for Tel Aviv. The Spanish news agency said an El Al employee saw smoke pouring from a suitcase on the conveyer belt. He shouted to people standing nearby before the bomb went off. The explosion injured both the El Al employee and the man who was arrested.

LEHRER: That's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to contra aid with the president of Nicaragua, a key State Department official and a Democratic congressman. And to the Senate debate about the Manion judgeship nomination. Views on the Vote: Contra Aid

MacNEIL: Our major focus tonight is reaction to the House vote last night to support President Reagan's request for $100 million in aid to the rebels fighting the Sandinista government of Nicaragua -- $70 million in military aid, $30 million in nonlethal assistance. We begin with an interview with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. He spoke to us late this afternoon from Managua through an interpreter. We'll just -- a little -- a little pause there, and then we'll have the recording of that interview, which was recorded just a few minutes ago. In the interview, the President of Nicaragua said that President Reagan, with the policy he was pursuing right now, and supported by the Congressional vote last night, was leading the United States into another Vietnam. And, as we showed in the news summary, he said that that meant that American advisors, he said, were serving with -- or advising contra forces would be liable to be killed when Nicaraguan troops responded. President Ortega also said, as you'll see when we have the tape coming up here in a moment, that he'd been meeting with all other top Sandinista leaders today, and in a few hours they would be announcing extraordinary measures to defend the revolution. Here is the interview now.

MacNEIL: -- victory for democracy against totalitarian expansionism. How do you see the vote?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: That couldn't be a falser affirmation.If anything, this is a defeat for democracy, a tremendous blow to democracy. Less credibility from any assertion that the U.S. might make that is actually defending democracy. And that's not a -- and that's the credibility that the United States might have in that regard, not only in our eyes, but in the eyes of Latin America and the world.

MacNEIL: Will $70 million in military aid to the contras make them strong enough to threaten your army?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: It's not -- that money's not going to lend the contras any more military capability than which they have now, which is virtually null. What it will mean is more sacrifice, more pain for our people. The grave thing about this vote is that it's marking the avenue -- it's big step forward -- in the road towards Vietnamization of the conflict.

MacNEIL: How? How do you explain that?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: Well, Mr. Reagan is assuming the full reins for the conflict of this war, not only by openly financing with the open consent of Congress, but also by injecting American military advisors into the conflicts. And, as you will remember, those were the very same steps that were also taken in Vietnam. And we have to make one point clear -- that those military advisory that are being sent to train the terrorists who attack our people are going to run the very same risks that the terrorists run when they attack us.

MacNEIL: What does that mean? You mean that American advisors could be killed.

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: That simply means that they may die.

MacNEIL: I see. What -- Mr. Reagan says, as part of his justification for persuading Congress to do -- to take this vote, that Nicaragua is becoming a Soviet base.What is your response to that?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: Again, another outright falsehood. There is no military -- Soviet military presence in Nicaragua. What there is is a huge military presence in Honduras on the part of the United States.

MacNEIL: Mr. Reagan says that Soviet pilots are flying not map making exercises, as you claim, but actual military reconnaissance flights in support of your troops.

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: Mr. Reagan has been known to say a good many lies about Nicaragua, and this simply means one more. He's going to break all records in terms of accumulating lies about a particular situation such as ours.

MacNEIL: He also says that you have recently received four shiploads of new Soviet military aid, including, the Pentagon said today, ten new Soviet helicopters. Is that true?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: I don't think we owe anyone an explanation, least the United States, as to how and what form and what type if at all we are receiving any type of military assistance. This is simply a type of information we will not provide freely. What we can say is we are committing absolutely no crime, absolutely nothing illegal. The crimes and the illegalities are those being perpetuated by the Reagan administration.

MacNEIL: Mr. Reagan says his aim is to force you to make your government truly democratic, and he lists a long list of ways in which he says your government is not democratic -- various restrictions on freedoms in Nicaragua. What is your response?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: If supporting Samoza national guardsman terrorists is one way of bringing about democracy, that's absolutely unfounded.It's not by financing terrorist acts against the Nicaraguan people that you're going to bring democracy to the Nicaraguan people. If Reagan were truly interested in democracy for Nicaragua, the first thing he should do is allow the Nicaraguan people to freely determine their own future, which is what they are trying to do now.

MacNEIL: As -- President Ortega, as you see your support significantly eroding in the United States Congress and the prospect of more and more costly fighting, are you at all considering changing your policies?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: Well, the course of the Nicaraguan revolution -- its workings do not depend on just how much support it has in the United States. We make decisions not necessarily on what Congress might decide one way or the other. Our policies are defined by the will of the Nicaraguan people, and not anybody else's will. What we should make clear is that the decision of Congress last night to back Mr. Reagan's mercenary war against us opens up a whole new situation. It's very big blow to the Contadora process. It's a blow to international law, and specifically to the international court of justice. It does make the situation more difficult in Nicaragua, and it places new obstacles in the path of further democratization of Nicaragua. And we just may have to resort here internally to extraordinary measures in order to defend ourselves against the war that has been now openly declared on Nicaragua by the United States.

MacNEIL: What do you mean by extraordinary measures?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: We've been in high level meetings all throughout the day. In the next few hours we'll be making some announcements. And as a preview, I can tell you that we are going to give absolutely no possibility to those sectors within the country to -- that allow themselves to be used by Mr. Reagan's policy in order to try to open up an internal front here. What this means is that that very tiny minority here which at present is applauding and rejoicing at the Congressional decision -- at the signal given to us last night by the U.S. Congress -- well, they're going to have to be very careful, and they're going to have to abide strictly by the law. We are not going to allow the CIA to have a free hand here in grouping together elements inorder to try to undermine or destroy the revolution from within.

MacNEIL: That sounds like a new crackdown on the opposition to you inside Nicaragua. Is that what you mean?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: It's not a repression. What we're doing is actively defending ourselves in the face of this new U.S. onslaught against those who are openly instruments -- willing instruments -- of the United States.

MacNEIL: And may I ask one final question? The contras said today they will now set up a government in exile in Nicaragua. Are you going to prevent them from doing that?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: We can't stop that. The contras have had a government in exile for some time. It's called the United States government. And the president of the new government, I'll tell you who it's going to be. It's Ronald Reagan. He's been their president for some time. So any provisional government doesn't make a lot of sense when they've already got their government in place. MacNEIL: In taking further measures to defend your revolution, as you put it, does that include greater militarization -- I mean, a general mobilization of the population, some greater military state of alert or emergency?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: Quite clearly in the face of an American decision to plow forward and the road towards direct military intervention, that we must necessarily respond by placing even more emphasis on assuring that our people -- to be prepared militarily, to confront any -- the eventuality of a direct U.S. intervention.

MacNEIL: President Ortega, do you see any way out of this now?

Pres. ORTEGA [through interpreter]: After last night's decision, the way out has been very much reduced. The possibility of negotiation was severely reduced by the Congress last night. Now it's going to take an extraordinary effort on the part of Latin America and the international community to broaden the possibilities for negotiation.

MacNEIL: Well, President Ortega, thank you for joining us.

LEHRER: Some reaction to those words now from the Reagan administration Central America point man, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Elliott Abrams.

Mr. Secretary, do you agree that the way out has been reduced?

ELLIOTT ABRAMS, assistant secretary of state: No. The way out has really been opened now. The Sandinistas have always refused to negotiate, because there wasn't enough pressure on them to make them do so. As we've indicated, the pressure needed to be increased if we were to get them to change their behavior. So now there's, for the first time, a really serious possibility of getting them to negotiate.

LEHRER: But President Ortega told Robin, as we just heard, that he's going to announce in the next few hours some extraordinary measures to counter this vote that will probably include -- well, you heard what he said -- military things, creackdown on the opposition, etc. How does that open up the possibility of a resolution?

Mr. ABRAMS: First, they're doing all that already. I mean, the process since '79 has been militarization in Nicaragua and further and further repression. So they'll do some more of it now, I'm sure. They'll use this as an excuse. But that doesn't close off the possibility to negotiate when they realize they must. What they probably realize today is they will never get rid of the resistance forces. Congress has now decided that we want as a national police to support the resistance, and we will, and they're there to stay -- with the support of the people. As the pressure increases, I think he will reach a point in which --

LEHRER: Support of which people?

Mr. ABRAMS: As the people of Nicaragua show increasingly their opposition to that communist regime, Ortega's going to have to come to the point one day when he realizes it's negotiate or be thrown out. Now, they're not there yet.He's rattled. He's going to do more repression now to try to eliminate the opposition. But the opposition is the people of Nicaragua. So at a certain point down the road, he's going to have to realize that it is negotiate or be thrown out by the people of Nicaragua.

LEHRER: How far down that road and how long is it going to take to get there?

Mr. ABRAMS: Well, we're speculating. But I think that we are not talking about lengthy periods of years here.This bill, for example, that the House approved, went until October 1, 1987. And I think the pressure on them even in that short period will be very greatly increased. I'm not looking for miracles here, but the pressure on them will be very great.

LEHRER: When he says extraordinary measures, what kinds of things should we expect?

Mr. ABRAMS: I think, first of all, we know that there are still some opposition parties in Nicaragua. Their space --

LEHRER: Political parties.

Mr. ABRAMS: Political parties. Their space -- peaceful, unarmed civilians. Their space to operate has been decreased. It will be deceased further. There will be no doubt that there will be more jailings and expulsions from the country and an end to their ability to meet even privately at night in people's homes. More pressure on the church. Maybe they'll cose La Prensa. They've always threatened to do that.

LEHRER: That's the major newspaper there.

Mr. ABRAMS: That's right. And it's heavily censored now, but it hasn't been closed down because of foreign opinion. These are the kinds of things that they have been dying to do, and maybe this provides them the excuse they want to do it. I hope we'll get to the threat against the United States too, which was --

LEHRER: Yes, that's where we're going next. The major thrust of what the President said to Robin was that this takes the United States down a road toward Vietnamization -- toward Vietnam. Is that true?

Mr. ABRAMS: No. I mean, that's the line. It's not a bad line for him to take, because that is a fear that people in this country have. I mean, it's an intelligent propaganda line for him. That's what we said -- we heard in the Congress about El Salvador. If we support the government of El Salvador -- President Duarte -- we'll have the marines in there. Well, it's been five years now under President Reagan. We have less of a military commitment, because the Salvadorian people are supporting their government more and more. So it didn't happen there, and it's not going to happen here. It's just a -- you know, it's a propaganda line. And it was rejected in the House of Representatives yesterday.

LEHRER: But what he also said was that any U.S. military advisors that are involved with the contras are subject to be killed, just like the contras are.

Mr. ABRAMS: That's a straight out threat, and it's very serious. The House yesterday said that no advisory could be within 20 miles of the Nicaraguan border. He presumably knows that. Either that is a threat that he will invade Honduras again and go more than 20 miles into Honduras to kill Americans with his army, or it is a threat to engage in terrorist action deep in Honduras to kill Americans. Now, we've made clear to him and to the Soviets directly that terrorist actions against Americans are unacceptable. We responded once to an invasion of Honduras. And on this, I think, there really is a great broad consensus on Capitol Hill. If they're going to engage in terrorism to kill Americans or if they're going to invade their neighbors, then the American response is going to be stronger and stronger as time goes by -- greater and greater unity here to support the resistance fighters more and more. And we've always said we would defend Honduras.

LEHRER: Could there be no other interpretation of what the man said?

Mr. ABRAMS: Well, he said American advisors are going to die. Presumably he means that Nicaraguans are going to be killing them. Now, where is this going to take place? The American advisors don't go within 20 miles, under the House bill, of the Nicaraguan border. So he's talking about deep incursions into Honduras. That's very serious.I think it's a bluff, by the way. I don't take it seriously in the sense that he'll do it. Because I think that -- I can say that when I made this statement to the Soviets, for example --

LEHRER: You say direct. How direct was this?

Mr. ABRAMS: How direct was --

LEHRER: Was the word to the Soviets and the Nicaraguans, "Hey, don't do that, fellows, or --"

Mr. ABRAMS: Very, very straightforward. What -- I was in Moscow some time ago and said to the Soviets, as we have said before -- it wasn't the first time -- that certain things, including terrorism by Cubans or Nicaraguans against Americans in that area are just unacceptable to us. And the Russian response isn't, "Oh, don't, you know, push us around." The Russian response is to back off -- to say, "Well, you know, we know you're looking for excuses to be tough down there. We're not going to give you these excuses." So I take this to be -- I think he's rattled, and I think he's threatening us, and he's bluffing.

LEHRER: Okay, but let's, for discussion purposes, let's say that it is not a bluff. And let's say he figures out a way to kill some American advisors through whatever device. Then what happens, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. ABRAMS: Well, I think we're not going to give away plans to the Sandinistas via TV. But the first thing that happens is that the majority that the President now has on both sides of Capitol Hill becomes a very broad consensus. You will recall a number of Democrats have in the past, from Senator Hart to Senator Dodd to Kerry said that there are certain things the Nicaraguans could do, like invading their neighbors or taking big combat jet aircraft which would lead them to want some kind of military action. That was something of a Democrat position. I'm not talking about military strikes at Nicaragua. I'm talking about a broadened consensus here to do more and more and more for the resistance forces.

LEHRER: But doesn't that in fact take us down a road toward a further and fuller involvement of the United States in the military action?

Mr. ABRAMS: No, it takes us down a road of further and further support for the Nicaraguan feedom fighters. It's their fight. They're the ones who are fighting this. And what they requested from us and the House approved yesterday was the wherewithal to do the fighting. That's what we're going to be giving them. And we'll give them more and more. And that will enable them, with the support of the people of Nicaragua, to do better and better.I should add that, obviously, if it is the decision of the government of this communist regime of Nicaragua to start killing Americans or trying to or to start massive invasions of their neighbors, then we'll go back to the Congress and say, "Well now this is a different threat. We probably need to step up, for example, our security assistance to Honduras." If there's an invasion of Honduras, that's something else again.

LEHRER: But where does it stop, Mr. Secretary? I mean, President Ortega says the only reason he would do that is in response to the action of the United States government. In other words, he said he would -- that's -- it's reaction to a reaction, and then there's another reaction, and where does it end?

Mr. ABRAMS: No, it started with the Nicaraguan communist military build up. It ends with democracy in Nicaragua. It ends with creating not another Cuba, but another Costa Rica or El Salvador or Guatemala or Honduras there -- a country which is moving toward democracy. I just want to make sure that the message gets back to Managua that those kinds of threats -- which, again, I take to be bluffs, -- if they're ever carried out, we'll make them very sorry that they did it. And that in responding to those actions, the President's going to have a united people. He should look at the example of Libya.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now we get a different American perspective from a Congressional opponent of contra aid, Representative Sam Gejdenson, a Democrat from Connecticut. He's member of the Western Hemisphere Affairs Subcommitte of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He joins us from a studio on Capitol Hill.

Congressman, how do you -- how do you -- listening to this argument that we've just heard, how do you feel, first of all, on the Vietnamization danger?

Rep. SAM GEJDENSON (D) Connecticut: I think the real danger is that once again the United States has entered into a policy that doesn't have broad based public support and has a very narrow margin in Congress. And what that means is it will be impossible for this or any succeeding administration to follow through on a sensible policy with clearly delineated goals. The President won last night by a handful of votes. He lost several weeks ago. The vast majority of the American people oppose this policy that is certain to create more turmoil, more militarization in Central America. And for that reason, the mistake is a policy mistake that even the administration can not cite clear goals for. The President himself in the last several weeks, and tonight Elliott -- Elliott says he wants to change the government of Nicaragua. The President at one point said the reason we're supporting the contras is to bring the Sandinistas to the bargaining table so we can complete the Contadora process. There is another statement from the administration that's completely different. One, we have no set of goals here -- no clear set of goals. And additionally, what we have for a problem is that there is no end to this demand. Elliott was very vague about when this would be over -- how much more money we'd need. We've got a hundred million dollars this year. Who knows how that's going to be spent? Of course, the $27 million they got recently, half of that was misspent, probably in violation of American law. But the State Department seems unconcerned about how that money was spent. And then what we find is that we've got $100 million this year. Next year do we want $200 million? There is not anybody who has testified before the Intelligence Committee of the Congress, before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Congress, who believes the contras are an effective force or can become an effective force to bring down the government of Nicaragua. What we will do is see at the end of the year more Soviet and Cuban involvement, more danger to all of Central America, and still no clear direction for this policy.

MacNEIL: You don't believe Mr. Abrams that pressure -- this new pressure this represents -- will cause the Sandinistas to change their minds in a year or so, which is what he said.

Rep. GEJDENSON: I think what it's clearly going to do is it's going to bring more military aid from the Soviet Union and other East bloc nations to the Sandinistas. It will bring them and make them more dependent on the Cubans and the Soviet Union. It will end up giving us less options for a peace process to bring some stability to Central America. We are now on a course where there can only be one conclusion, and that is a military conclusion. And the contras will give us the same kind of embarrassment we had at the Bay of Pigs -- the same sort of design and lack of thought that brought us to the embarrassment of failure in the Bay of Pigs and the betrayal of those brave Cubans who thought they were leading the beginning of a revolution will bring us failure here in Central America.

MacNEIL: But Congressman, the administration is getting to your colleagues, isn't it? I mean, they've turned enough around to give them a majority and a victory that pleased Mr. Reagan very much last night. I mean, their arguments are getting through, are they not?

Rep. GEJDENSON: Well, I think if you take a look at the history of this action, the administration over the last five years has been able to win some by five or six votes and lose some by five or six votes. Several months ago, when the administration lost, it lost by about six or eight votes -- a difference of actually twelve votes -- but I think if you look at six, when they flip over it becomes twelve. This time the administration won by about the same number. So what we have here is an administration that, yes, can get a slight majority of the Congress. It doesn't have popular support which will spill over in the political decisions as we come closer to election. And we've engaged in a policy that isn't the American approach to solving problems, but rather mirrors what the Soviets try to do when they find a government they disagree with, and that is to try to bring them down militarily.

MacNEIL: Thank you, Congressman.Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, that's serious charge -- that we're mirroring the tactics of the Soviet Union.

Mr. ABRAMS: It's silly. It really is silly. And it's a charge that has been rejected now by a majority of the Democratic controlled House. Our purpose there is to establish democracy. Sam says that we don't have a goal, we don't have -- we have a very simple goal. It's the same goal we have in the rest of Latin America -- democracy. That means the Sandinistas have got to change their policies, that they have got to stop this policy of repression, they've got to move away from it and move towards democratization or get out of the way. That's the policy. The policy -- the tactic -- how you do it -- is pressure -- pressure for democracy. You know, the German troops and the American troops in World War II both had rifles. That didn't make them equal. Some were fighting for freedom, and some were fighting for fascism. People in Nicaragua have rifles too, but some are fighting for freedom and some are fighting for communism. That doesn't make them equal. We're supporting the ones who are fighting for freedom. That doesn't mean -- that doesn't put us in a moral class with the Soviets. Far from it. And Sam ought to know better than that.

LEHRER: Congressman?

Rep. GEJDENSON: Well, I think what you have to take a look at is how the contras were created. First, this administration got the Argentineans to create the contra force. It was bungled by them.Then this government took it over and continued to bungle this policy that in five years has not developed any broad based political support, but to the contrary, exactly what Elliott has said tonight -- we have now put all the legitimate opposition, including members of the Catholic church that are in Nicaragua, to appear to be dupes of the Central Intelligence Agency and the United States. We have given Daniel Ortega the protection that he sought against legitimate opposition within his country. Daniel Ortega can now point to anybody that disagrees with the Sandinista government as agents of the United States, instead of being forced to deal with them as legitimate opposition figures within his own country.

LEHRER: All right, Mr. Secretary, what about another point that the congressman's made -- that this is going to lead, instead of to peace, it's going to lead to more military aid for Nicaragua from the Soviets and the Cubans and the Eastern bloc -- that they will have to protect themselves, and they will go to their allies to get that protection.

Mr. ABRAMS: let's remember how this started. In 1979 Sandinistas come in with the help of President Carter. He gives them well over $100 million in economic aid, offers them a peace corps and so forth. They take the money, of course.They reject the peace corps. They start to vote with the Russians in the U.N. and start immediately repression, which leads to people like Arturo Cruz leaving the country --

LEHRER: Arturo Cruz, one of the contra leaders.

Mr. ABRAMS: That's right. Who was at that time part of the government, ambassador to U.S. All the democrats have started to leave the country then. This is under President Carter, when we were aiding the contras -- we were aiding the Sandinistas. And a huge military build up beins by the Soviets and the Cubans in Nicaragua -- this well before any of what the congressman's complaining about began. We have got to stop finding excuses for the Sandinistas behaving like communists. They've behaved this way because that is who they are. We didn't push them into the hands of the Russians. They jumped. That is where they wish to be. The question is, without Soviet military build up from '79, do we sit still and see another Cuba on the mainland of the Americas or do we do something to help the Nicaraguans who want to fight for freedom?

LEHRER: So they were going to go there no matter what the United States Congress did. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. ABRAMS: I think it is clear from the record. You can go back to the Carter presidency. That is where they were heading from day one.

LEHRER: You disagree with that, Congressman?

Rep. GEJDENSON: Well, I think that there are certainly those within the Nicaraguan government and the Sandinistas who had those nondemocratic principles. And I think if you take a look at America's embracing the Samoza regime for over 40 years as a democracy, you can understand how many of them are skeptical about American support. The Carter administration, while pledging that money, delivered very little of it, as I understand it, Elliott. And I think that if you think for a second, you'll remember that as well. But what we had here was a situation where the administration, within its first days, began the contras, first saying they were to interdict arms to El Salvador. The President tried to defend that on television, saying he had no intention of trying to overthrow this government. And it's continued to try to overthrow the Sandinista government, leaving only a military solution to the problems of Central America -- a military solution that none of your people in the CIA, none of the people in military intelligence, say is achievable. Why the contras? If you ask your own people, and every one of whom has come on Capital Hill to testify in front of the Intelligence Committee or Foreign Affairs Committee, we have not had one individual of credibility that says for one moment that the contras can achieve their goal.

Mr. ABRAMS: First of all, I don't --

Rep. GEJDENSON: So what are you accomplishing?

Mr. ABRAMS: First of all, that is not true that there is a unanimity or consensus view that the contras can't accomplish their goal.

Rep. GEJDENSON: Can you tell us here tonight that within a year we're going to see changes? We've heard this for five years.

Mr. ABRAMS: You have not given the President, as a Congress, the support that he wanted for five years. Yes, I can tell you that you'll see changes in the course of time as the Nicaraguan people are able to cope with the regime which is repressing them. I would argue with you, stop looking for excuses for the Sandinistas.

Rep. GEJDENSON: Nobody's --

Mr. ABRAMS: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You said --

Rep. GEJDENSON: Elliott, nobody's looking --

Mr. ABRAMS: You said that the reason they were doing what they were doing was because there was a record of American support for Samoza. That doesn't --

Rep. GEJDENSON: No, no, no --

Mr. ABRAMS: -- make them a communist. You don't turn to the Soviet Union because of that.

Rep. GEJDENSON: Elliott, if you're going to quote me, quote me accurately. I said that I think you can understand where they --

Mr. ABRAMS: Why they become pro-Russian? I don't understand why somebody becomes a communist.

Rep. GEJDENSON: I don't understand that either, Elliot.

LEHRER: Let me just raise finally the point that the congressman made, Mr. Secretary, that a divided policy -- a divided -- okay, you won this one. You lost it last time. It's always a handful of votes. And even in the Senate it will win, but you'll never win by a big majority there. How long can a divided policy conquer or triumph or go on?

Mr. ABRAMS: Go back and look how it started. When the President was elected, he had no support on the hill. Every vote in El Salvador was an extremely controversial vote.El Salvador's now not controversial. That issue has been won. The broad outlines of policy have been won. Now finally even the Houe turned around on this issue. What the congressman is trying to obfuscate is that every time we do this, we move a little bit closer. There's more and more support for the President. Almost 60 Democrats from his party supported the President. On final passage it was more than that -- final passage of the bill last night. Every single month there's more support on the hill for the President's view, thanks largely to Mr. Ortega, who is our best lobbyist.

LEHRER: Is that right? Mr. Ortega the best lobbyist for the administration?

Rep. GEJDENSON: Certainly I think he has helped the administration by his actions, both in the Contadora process and other actions that he's taken. But the issue here is what is the best policy for the United States. And Mr. Abrams can't take credit for El Salvador, because it was pressure from the Democratic Congress that helped put an end to the death squads, that brought them under control in El Salvador, that created a bipartisan policy where Chairman Barnes and others in the House worked with the administration to come up with a policy that we agreed upon. That is not the case in Nicaragua. The policy in Nicaragua is one the President can bully through from time to time, but it's a policy that has no end in sight. Nobody believes for one moment that the contras can win militarily. And what we're going to have is a much more militarily capable Nicaragua than we have today, creating even more danger for Central America than we have today.

LEHRER: But to the point, the secretary is right, is he not, Congressman, that the support in Congress is growing for the policy?

Rep. GEJDENSON: I don't think you can say that. I think that if you take a look at the margins on the critical vote, which was whether or not to accept the Michel amendment offered by Edwards and others, it was a small number of votes --

LEHRER: I thought I could get one tiny little piece of agreement, but I couldn't even do that. Thank you both very much.

Mr. ABRAMS: You're welcome.

Rep. GEJDENSON: Thank you. Objection

MacNEIL: President Reagan's nomination of Daniel Manion to be a federal appeals judge has led to one of the stormiest debates in recent Senate history. Judy Woodruff has the story. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: The Senate treatment of the Manion nomination has become the focal point of a wider dispute about whether the President has resorted to, as some have put it, scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to find sufficiently conservative federal judges. Before his nomination ever reached the floor, Manion got a rough going over by Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee. An example was this exchange last April, when Ohio Democrat Howard Metzenbaum zeroed in on Manion sponsorship in 1981 of a bill in the Indiana legislature that would have allowed the Ten Commandments to be posted in the state's public school classrooms. The measure was offered just two months after a similar law had been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sen. HOWARD METZENBAUM (D) Ohio: The question, Mr. Manion, is how could you as a member of the legislature introduce a proposal that you knew had been held unconstitutional just two months before?

DANIEL MANION, judicial nominee: Senator McConnell introduced that legislation, and he asked for cosponsors. I obviously cosponsored it, along with others. And frankly, my opinion probably, if it's nothing else, it's an endorsement of Justice Rehnquist's dissent. As a legislator, I exercise that prerogative.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: In addition to his limited experience and conservative political leanings, Manion has also come under fire for the quality of his legal briefs. In their report to the Senate, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee noted numerous spelling and grammatical errors. In one brief the typographical and spelling mistakes included "comperable," "relevant," "function," "rediculous," and "resonable." In the same brief, grammatical errors included, "opinion testimony were" and "similarity were." The Manion nomination has brought on an intense lobbying campaign by the Reagan administration.The President himself devoted his entire radio address last Saturday to defending Manion.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Some are doing just about everything they can think of to prevent Daniel Manion's confirmation. Believe it or not, they even tried to make a major issue of a few typographical errors in several of his briefs. Let's be honest. The real objection to Dan Manion is that he doesn't conform to the liberal ideology of some senators.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Despite the President's views, 44 of the nation's most prominent law school deans this week released a letter declaring Manion not qualified. Among those signing the letter were deans from Harvard, Yale, Cornell, the University of Virginia, Duke and the University of Michigan. Attorney General Edwin Meese responded by criticizing the deans for not being well informed about Manion's qualifications. That set the stage for some unusually heated debate on the Senate floor, beginning with a charge that Manion made changes in a transcript of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee last April.

Sen. JOSEPH BIDEN (D) Delaware: We have sworn testimony here that's been materially changed. Now look, the only reason I found this out is I asked my staff. I said, "Would you go back and get me the transcript so I'm prepared."

WOODRUFF: Well, as we just said, that did set the stage for some unusually heated debate last night when, as you just saw, Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden was virtually alone on the Senate floor with Utah Republican Orrin Hatch. At that point, Biden seized on what he said were changes that Manion had made in a transcript of his April testimony before the Judiciary Committee.

Sen. BIDEN: We have sworn testimony here that's been materially changed. Now look, the only reason I found this out is I asked my staff. I said, "Would you go back and get me the transcript so I'm prepared?" He goes back and gets the transcript, and I said, "Wait a minute. I don't remember this. Go get the original transcript." And I get the original transcript. And I look at the original transcript, and I look at the official transcript. And they are different. If, in fact, Mr. Manion felt he had been misled, he is to ask for another day of hearings. Ask for an opportunity to come back under oath once again and in fact change his testimony.

Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R) Utah: Senator, you --

Sen. BIDEN: But not in an ex post facto way go back and change the testimony.

Sen. HATCH: Will the senator yield on that point? Now look let's be fair. We have --

Sen. BIDEN: Let's just try to be honest while we're being fair.

Sen. HATCH: Yeah, you be honest too. Now look, I'm being honest. Now, let's give the man a chance. I think the fact of the matter is is that he was being honest when he realized that there was a mistake there.

Sen. BIDEN: I would suggest that changing a sentence under oath from "I would say it would have been overturned, no question about it" to read, "Yes, I would say it probably would have been overturned" is a material change in a transcript.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But what held center stage were charges that Manion is unqualified and accusations by Republicans that Democrats oppose Manion mainly because he's a conservative.

Sen. HATCH: The attacks upon Dan are clearly ideologically motivated. All pretense of objectivity has been dropped by, I think, the liberals in their assaults upon this distinguished lawyer. President Reagan won 49 -- won 49 out of 50 states. This is his nominee.

Sen. BIDEN: Mr. President, somehow guys like Joe Biden who rise on the floor of the Senate for only the second time in 14 years are political -- and we are somehow partisan Democrats who just want to stop the Reagan agenda from moving forward. But let's go through the logic of the argument my colleague makes. He says Ronald Reagan won 49 states. Therefore, since Ronald Reagan, I say to my friend from Illinois -- he says, "Ronald Reagan won 49 states; he's entitled to put incompetence on the bench." Because he's won 49 states, that means there's been a referendum on the ideological fervor that is being moved forward here.

Sen. HATCH: Will the senator yield on that point?

Sen. BIDEN: I'd be delighted to.

Sen. HATCH: Well, of course that's not what I said. Because --

Sen. BIDEN: I beg pardon.

Sen. HATCH: I don't believe anybody -- President or otherwise -- has the right to put incompetence on the bench.

Sen. BIDEN: Since the senator from Delaware has the floor, would you be willing to answer the question of why you raised the issue of winning 49 states? I --

Sen. HATCH: Well, the reason I raised that issue is because the President who wins that overwhelmingly, having the right to nominate, having the right to put people into the federal judiciary should be given, I think, great weight in those nominations as long as -- as long as those candidates meet certain minimum requisites to serve on the bench. And those candidates shall not be shot down merely for ideological reasons, as this candidate is being attacked and has been attacked in the committee and on the floor. Now, the real question is, is the man a man of integrity? Does he have ability?Does he have conscientiousness? Would he be fair? Of the lawyers who worked with him and against him, do they respect and like him? The answer to all those is yes. Does he have the intellect and the capability? The answer's yes.

Sen. BIDEN: What we are looking for in the circuit court of appeals are fine minds schooled in the law, able to articulate their views and opinions in concise, precise, analytical manner. To be able to be understood clearly, not only by the other six members of that court, not only by the proponents or opponents in the law suit, but by every federal court judge in the land for as long as that decision stands.

WOODRUFF: That was last night. Emotions were still high late this morning when senators resumed the Manion debate and unexpectedly moved to a vote. When it looked like Manion might lose, his home state friend, Indiana Republican Dan Quayle had tears in his eyes as he pleaded with Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum to withdraw her no vote. Than as it appeared there would be a tie, Vice President Bush rushed to the Capitol to be prepared to break it. Instead, Democratic leader Robert Byrd suddenly switched his vote from no to yes, making the final tally 48 to 46 in favor of Manion. By putting himself in the majority, Byrd was in the position to call immediately for the vote to be reconsidered. As of late this afternoon, it wasn't clear when that second vote would take place, and Manion's status remained in limbo. Senator Biden, however, told reporters that "Manion isn't a judge today."

MacNEIL: We planned to continue our series on immigrants tonight, but did no because of our interview with Daniel Ortega and the debate over the nomination of Daniel Manion. We'll resume tomorrow with the story of a new immigrant from Cuba.

Once again, the major stories of the day. President Reagan hailed House support for contra aid. And on the News Hour tonight, President Ortega of Nicaragua said his government would now take strong measures against its internal opposition. Hurricane Bonnie hit the Texas coast, causing tornadoes and flooding. The Manion judgeship almost got through the Senate, but not quite. The Sureme Court said it was unconstitutional to execute insane killers. Good night, Jim.

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